General election 2010: which party is best for your finances? - Telegraph.
A chartered accountant (one who happens to be of my acquaintance) has written in the Telegraph:
In the end, all the parties badly need to demonstrate that they can balance the books and repair the country’s balance sheet, so the next five years are likely to be painful for taxpayers.
But he does not say why.
And I know that not all his clients will be balancing their books - many of them will borrow, for years at a time. And as he offers no justification for his claim it's reasonable to presume it falls into category Paul Krugman recently described (edited):
These claims generally aren’t stated as opinions, as views held by some analysts but disputed by others. Instead, they’re reported as if they were facts, plain and simple.
Yet they aren’t facts. Many economists take a much calmer view of budget deficits than anything you’ll see on TV.
Why, then, all the hysteria? The answer is politics.
Poor politics at that as well.
I'd have hoped for better. But I didn't get it.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
I borrow quite heavily. Are you suggesting I can’t balance my books? Please clarify.
Richard,
Imagine you had a client whose:
(i) current expenses are twice as high as its current revenues
(ii) next year’s and many years after next’s expenses will also be twice as high as revenues
(iii) 80% of expenses are rising fast and fixed in perpetuity
(iv) revenue-growth ability is limited at best
(v) credit cards and other financing lines are maxed out.
Please tell me, as an accountant, would you issue a going-concern opinion for this particular client? Seriously.
Meet the Federal Government:
(i) spends $2 for every $1 it raises this year and next
(ii) has no intention of ever balancing its books
(iii) fixed expenses like national security, Medicare, Merdicaid, Social Security and other entitlements are rising
(iv) any government that proposes tax increases will be incinerated at the polls
(v) the Chinese are becoming nervous about the servicing capacity, and the Fed cannot print money forever.
And that is before it bails out California.
What do Paul Krugman, you and others on the far-left believe is somehow unreasonable about this analysis?
Since you are unable to identify the far left let’s stop there
Your analytical ability is obviously seriously impaired
Debate would therefore be pointless