There is a price for telling it like it is

Janet Daley of The Telegraph hits it out of the park:

Was 2012 the year when the democratic world lost its grip on reality? Must we assume now that no party that speaks the truth about the economic future has a chance of winning power in a national election? With the results of presidential contests in the United States and France as evidence, this would seem to be the only possible conclusion. Any political leader prepared to deceive the electorate into believing that government spending, and the vast system of services that it provides, can go on as before - or that they will be able to resume as soon as this momentary emergency is over - was propelled into office virtually by acclamation.

So universal has this rule turned out to be that parties and leaders who know better - whose economic literacy is beyond question - are now afraid even to hint at the fact which must eventually be faced. The promises that governments are making to their electorates are not just misleading: they are unforgivably dishonest. It will not be possible to go on as we are, or to return to the expectations that we once had. The immediate emergency created by the crash of 2008 was not some temporary blip in the infinitely expanding growth of the beneficent state. It was, in fact, almost irrelevant to the larger truth which it happened, by coincidence, to bring into view. Government on the scale established in most modern western countries is simply unaffordable. In Britain, the disagreement between Labour and the Conservatives over how to reduce the deficit (cut spending or increase borrowing?) is ridiculously insignificant and out of touch with the actual proportions of the problem. In the UK, the US, and (above all) the countries of the EU, democratic politics is being conducted on false premises. (emphasis mine)

There comes a tipping point where collecting more revenue depresses economic activity which, in turn, ends up eventually reducing revenue. Even Paul Krugman recognizes this basic fact of economics. Most European countries have hit the wall already. America is fast approaching it. To ignore reality and advocate for more and more spending flies in the face of reality. But it is so much easier and politically popular to push for more goodies than facing the hard truths about the sustainability of government finances. Ergo, politicians like Obama and President Hollande are elected because their opponents made the mistake of thinking that voters want to hear the truth and once informed, will make intelligent choices. Such is not the case - and won't be until the collapse is too close to ignore.

We are all Greeks. The only difference is that some are farther along the path to insolvency than others.



Janet Daley of The Telegraph hits it out of the park:

Was 2012 the year when the democratic world lost its grip on reality? Must we assume now that no party that speaks the truth about the economic future has a chance of winning power in a national election? With the results of presidential contests in the United States and France as evidence, this would seem to be the only possible conclusion. Any political leader prepared to deceive the electorate into believing that government spending, and the vast system of services that it provides, can go on as before - or that they will be able to resume as soon as this momentary emergency is over - was propelled into office virtually by acclamation.

So universal has this rule turned out to be that parties and leaders who know better - whose economic literacy is beyond question - are now afraid even to hint at the fact which must eventually be faced. The promises that governments are making to their electorates are not just misleading: they are unforgivably dishonest. It will not be possible to go on as we are, or to return to the expectations that we once had. The immediate emergency created by the crash of 2008 was not some temporary blip in the infinitely expanding growth of the beneficent state. It was, in fact, almost irrelevant to the larger truth which it happened, by coincidence, to bring into view. Government on the scale established in most modern western countries is simply unaffordable. In Britain, the disagreement between Labour and the Conservatives over how to reduce the deficit (cut spending or increase borrowing?) is ridiculously insignificant and out of touch with the actual proportions of the problem. In the UK, the US, and (above all) the countries of the EU, democratic politics is being conducted on false premises. (emphasis mine)

There comes a tipping point where collecting more revenue depresses economic activity which, in turn, ends up eventually reducing revenue. Even Paul Krugman recognizes this basic fact of economics. Most European countries have hit the wall already. America is fast approaching it. To ignore reality and advocate for more and more spending flies in the face of reality. But it is so much easier and politically popular to push for more goodies than facing the hard truths about the sustainability of government finances. Ergo, politicians like Obama and President Hollande are elected because their opponents made the mistake of thinking that voters want to hear the truth and once informed, will make intelligent choices. Such is not the case - and won't be until the collapse is too close to ignore.

We are all Greeks. The only difference is that some are farther along the path to insolvency than others.



RECENT VIDEOS