26 1 min 12 yrs

 

 

First, consider what Charles Dickens reckoned to it all.

Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen nineteen six, result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery.

Now, let us review the UK economic situation;

The Government has spent £5 for every £4 gathered so far this year because of falling tax receipts and rising expenditure, pushing public debt to a record £823 billion

Do you see the problem? Can you have a word with Red Ed please? Socialists seem to struggle with the essential Dickensian proposition.

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]

26 thoughts on “CHARLES DICKENS AND THE BRITISH EXCHEQUER…

  1. shoot only one pound more than they take in, they need to take lessons from our government. They spend 5 for every 1 they take in

  2. Actually Dickens' life work probably strikes hardest at unregulated capitalism. You may wish to reconsider your invocation of him.

  3. >>Actually Dickens' life work probably strikes hardest at unregulated capitalism. You may wish to reconsider your invocation of him.<<

    I read somewhere that during the "Cultural Revolution" in China in 1966, when all libraries in the country were purged of everything except the purely orthodox and all foreign books (incl. Chinese translations) were burned as a matter of course; the only English books spared the flames were the works of Shakespeare and Dickens.

    Which is strange because, while Dickens does attack capitalism, as mahons says, and presents the situation of the workers in a way that elicits our sympathy and anger, he is anything but a revolutionary and is even critical of practical solutions to the workers' problems, like the trades unions in Hard Times.

  4. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen nineteen six, result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery.

    I had not heard this comment, but agree with the principle, strongly. i heard today of a former work colleague who is in terrible financial difficulty, who may lose his house – the major cause of which was the propensity of he and his wife to live larger than the one paycheck would permit.

    Happens all the time. Yes, to governments too.

  5. The problem isn't Red Ed or 'socialism', which is owned by others anyway. The problem is the gigantic criminality taking place on Wall Street and in the City of London. For example, the richest 400 people in the US own more than the poorest 155 million and nobody can say that the free-market did that. It is criminality and treason, and it has absolutely nothing to do with Red Ed, or at least, not yet.

    http://daviddegraw.org/2010/09/the-global-banking-cartel/

  6. Noel,

    Laughably enough, at the same time certain of their North American counterparts were proscribing Steinbeck, Jack London, Theodor Dreiser and Frank Norris…

    For all I know they failed to ban 'Moby Dick' – after the Bible and Marx, the pre-eminent anti-capitalist text – only because it was an adventure story for boys.

    But wait a minute! Wasn't 'Huckleberry Finn' banned in living memory because it seemed to advocate (i mean, Twain wasn't trying to make it COMPULSORY or nuthin' commie the like a' that) a more 'relaxed' relationship among the races?

  7. Phantom –

    They're words Dickens put into the mouth of Micawber, a character in David Copperfield. Micawber was based on Dickens' father who was put into a debtor's jail.

    If teenagers should learn one lesson while growing up it's that fine piece of conservative wisdom.

    Of course, the tax n spend crowd ought to argue against it and I'll hold open the door for them to tell us why spending more than you earn (or loot, if you're a government) is a Good Thing.

  8. We agree –

    A proper financial education to all elementary and secondary school students would be one of the most cost effective anti poverty programs ever.

    Kids don't know much because their parents and teachers don't know anything about this subject either

    fyi

    My elementary school, Our Lady of Angels in Brooklyn, had a student savings plan whereby a bank would come in once a week to collect savings in cash for deposit in our small accounts. Even coins were cheerfully taken in. Even this was a kind of education -how to save and how small sums can become big sums over time.

  9. Fine advice for individuals, many businesses could do with following it too, but our whole financial and economic system is based on something else.

  10. Pete,

    You're still asking us to apply assumptions that are relevant only to the system as you wish it were, rather than as it is. Among other things we have a fractional reserve system, fiat currency, welfare provisions and taxation, and even if you think we shouldn't have any of those, it'd still be nuts for us to simply pretend we don't and act accordingly.

    It's a bit like standing up in the age of steam and announcing that diesel is more efficient than coal, so let's stick diesel in the steam engine and see what happens.

  11. I claim no great expertise in the area of monetary policy, but It is noted that the USA, Canada, EU, Japan, Korea, Australia, New Zealand etc have all achieved and maintained great prosperity under the system of fiat currency. China is racing forward in the world and they don't have a gold standard either,

    This does not mean that governments have not been irresponsible spenders / actors – but when properly used, fiat currency seems to work just fine over quite long periods of time.

  12. Frank O'Dwyer –

    Nice analogies, but rather off target, I think.

    It sounds more like you expect me to see one engine on fire, another fall off the wing, see the ground closing up rapidly yet not point out that we might like to address this alarming loss of altitude.

    Rather than ask for diesel to go into a new-fangled steam engine, I simply state that if you spend more than you earn things will end badly. What possible objection can you have to this?

    For years I've said governments spend too much, for years I've said it's unsustainable and it will end badly. Well it's ended badly. Fractional reserve banking, fiat currencies, welfare states and mega-taxes are all man-made and so they can all be undone. Not only is this perfectly possible, it's necessary for any meaningful recovery.

  13. Phantom –

    Where's the perspective?

    … but when properly used, fiat currency seems to work just fine over long periods of time

    Precious metal has been real money for thousands of years.

    Fiat money has been a monetary instrument for a few decades and our economies are in a catastrophic state, directly as a result of fiat money inflation.

  14. 77 years is a long, long time. The US left gold standard in 1933, and the great trend of that time was one of increasing prosperity

    There were depressions and recessions during the time of gold too

    It is no panacea.

  15. Phantom –

    Nixon broke the link between the dollar and gold in 1971. Look what's happened since then – chronic inflation, an incredible explosion of both welfare and the national debt and recession after recession culminating in today's catastrophic endgame.

    In citing 1933 are you thinking of FDR's fascist and tyrannical confiscation of gold from private ownership?

  16. Pete,

    It sounds more like you expect me to see one engine on fire, another fall off the wing, see the ground closing up rapidly yet not point out that we might like to address this alarming loss of altitude.

    Not to stretch the analogy too far but when I picture that I still envision you looking through a toyota user manual to figure out how to fix the plane, or pointing out that we wouldn't have this problem if we'd got the bus as you suggested. Fact is, we're on a plane.

    I simply state that if you spend more than you earn things will end badly. What possible objection can you have to this?

    Well apart from the fact that nations aren't the same as individuals or corporations, that seems to be an argument against any lending or borrowing at all. Never spending more than you earn means never getting a mortgage and never raising capital for a business. Are we supposed to buy houses only after we've saved up enough (gold bullion or flocks of chickens or whatever the Mises institute would have us use instead of all this infrastructure we already have)?

    How exactly would we get to this ideal system you propose from here anyhow? I still remember the transition to the Euro in Ireland (indeed god help me I still vaguely remember decimalisation). That wasn't simple. Most of us have mortages and bank accounts etc at the moment, there are also tons of ltd companies, so how on earth would you transition from that situation to what you propose? I mean at any time, never mind when the whole place is on fire?

  17. Frank O'Dwyer –

    Well, nations are the same as individuals or corporations in that none can defy the iron laws of economics. I think we can now see that.

    Are we supposed to buy houses only after we've saved up enough (gold bullion or flocks of chickens or whatever the Mises institute would have us use …

    Glad to see you've been doing some useful reading even if it hasn't sunk in. Which brings us to –

    How exactly would we get to this ideal system you propose from here anyhow?

    Who knows?

    Leave it to civil society. Outlaw obviously fraudulent and wicked deceptions on the people such as fractional reserve banking, fiat money, the ability of the State to put the people into debt etc and we'll figure out the rest as we see fit. It's the central state planners who come armed with plans, not free marketeers.

  18. Pete,

    Leave it to civil society. Outlaw obviously fraudulent and wicked deceptions on the people such as fractional reserve banking,

    No, you need to elaborate. OK so let's say you get that law passed today. What then happens to people's money in Natwest and will their debit cards still work?

    What I would be using to buy lunch tomorrow, the gold in my mobile phone?

  19. Frank O'Dwyer –

    Who knows what happens to deposits in Natwest? Probably they go to the first people in line to withdraw and the bank is bust by lunchtime.

    Hey, sh1t happens and you lend at risk. Tell you what, let's repeal limited liability advantages first and then lift the fractional reserve indulgence. Free it up, remove the State's indulgence of the banksters and let a sound money system develop in its place.

    Frank, the fraudulent system is in meltdown. There's nothing that can be done to prevent this. People will lose their jobs and there'll be pain if we allow sanity to reign but these things will happen anyway. This can happen in two, maybe three years (as I said two, maybe three years ago) or we can fight this drastic crrection and stretch it out over twenty. Either way, it's happening.

  20. I'm pregnant and just about to give birth…..

    Where is the cheapest Wive to do it or must I bite my own umbilical cord?

  21. No Brian – but the money that the lenders have available to lend must be real money i.e. money in the lenders' coffers. That way, without the bubbles created by fractional reserve banking, there would be no house price inflations then collapses, and no more negative equity.
    Fractional reserve banking is like having a room to let and letting it out to 7, 8….20 different people simultaneously, and charging them all simultaneously.

  22. So what constitutes "real money"? Is it only the money invested by shareholders? Or can the bank also lend out depositors money? Or what about money raised through, say, a 10 year loan from the financial markets?

  23. Pete,

    Frank, the fraudulent system is in meltdown. There's nothing that can be done to prevent this. People will lose their jobs and there'll be pain if we allow sanity to reign but these things will happen anyway. This can happen in two, maybe three years (as I said two, maybe three years ago) or we can fight this drastic crrection and stretch it out over twenty. Either way, it's happening.

    How then do you account for the history after WW2, when the USA and the UK were in hock up their eyeballs, and prosperity ensued? At the time the US was in worse hock than it is now, worse even than projections out to 2020, and the UK was (understandably) almost bankrupt and indeed only recently paid off its debts to the US. Whatever we did then, why can't we do it now?

    As for public debt, since it is even now a % of GDP it seems positively prudent compared to private debt which is a multiple of GDP and has been for decades. Even at that, if this were a person we were talking about and they had borrowed 3 times their income to buy a house, we'd probably say their finances were fine.

Comments are closed.