My thanks to all of you who debated at some length the Fantasy Land Economics article of 27th April. With the article having been launched at 8am on Friday I went away for a pre-planned long weekend at Warners.
There were about 35 comments on the article and its ramifications and I feel that often many of the points and issues of debate get lost on later readers because of too much information.
I have gone through all the comments and have drawn out most of the important points, which are collated here.
Mike Newland, RichardW, and Jack T all argue that the large influx of immigrants are financial liabilities and not tax assets to support pensions. Jason Loh does agree with me that the mass immigration attitude of main parties is to bolster the tax coffers.
Brian Weaver suggests that the article should have a wider audience. I agree with that sentiment because putting an article on UKIP Daily releases pent up anger on a political issue, but it is like wetting your pants while wearing a dark suit, it gives a warm feeling but hardly anyone notices.
This is not quite true though because in the Comment section of the Sunday Telegraph, Dia Chakravarty, the Political Director of the Taxpayers Alliance produced a column that could very easily have been built around the skeleton of my article including the proposed taxation of self employed, a single proportional rate of income tax, the importance of understanding that the public services are paid by the taxpayer and there is a limit to how much that can be, about wasting money on HS2, about ignoring the Laffer Curve and risking the economy.
This is the second time I have noticed the main themes of an article of mine being published in the following Sunday Telegraph.
I am delighted that Dee found the article accessible as that was the intention. All too often authors are more concerned about impressing the readers than communicating the subject in an understandable manner.
Quercus as usual goes ballistic claiming the free market economy isn’t working. Actually it would work extremely well except that Western Governments have all gone left-of-centre in outbidding the opposition to gain power. Then spending ever more on public services until they are unaffordable, then blame the higher paid earners for not paying enough tax.
With the unionisation of the public services, the wages, workers benefits, pensions, and service cost just keep escalating until it becomes a Greek Tragedy and the government cannot even borrow enough to support it. Quercus claims his financial model outlined in great detail in January & February not only cures the problem but earns loads of Labour votes.
Of course it does because it is the usual left-wing tax and spend formula dressed up as something new and shiny. Unfortunately it doesn’t address the problem of controlling public spending sufficiently to allow the small but steady growth of the tax base to catch up to fund it.
The main stream media and main political parties have been turned to ‘The Dark side’ and don’t necessarily realise they are aiding and abetting the socialists and communists to destroy capitalism by justifying eye watering expenditure on public services. Mike Newland also supports this view in his comment of 28 April at 15.58.
Ppight1931 enlightens us that John Bradbury had a better economic model in 1914 and which was brought before The House on its centenary in August 2014 but as usual not enough MPs were inspired to act on this, either originally or a hundred years later.
Michael Keal picks up on my energy theme from the list of what we cannot afford not to do – basically revert to the use of fossil fuels. And before anyone such as Quercus goes ballistic again, consider that Germany is at the core of the European Onion and has now made the burning of coal and lignite the principal sources of energy – because it is the cheapest. How can it be right for them and wrong for us?
Quercus throws the dead cat on the table inferring that NASA is the authority on climate change. Even Professor Brian Cox has now gone over to the Dark Side and is supporting the graphs produced from climate models and saying how could NASA that put man on the Moon be in error. Lets get this straight, NASA Space flight Center has no interest nor information on the Climate Change Dogma!
The branch of NASA at the Goddard Institute of Space Science (GISS) has a huge department spawned under James Hanson, which includes computer models with built-in algorithms that take the supposed miniscule absorption and emission of CO2 energy to stimulate increased water vapour that in turn has a positive feedback effect on temperature. This is the opposite of what happens – and they know it – but are using it to promote a globalist environmentalist political agenda.
The result of applying increased water vapour to create more heating as a positive feedback will always lead a climate model having an exponential curve, creating a Hockey Stick shape.
The National Oceanographic & Aerospace Agency (NOAA) colludes with GISS by doctoring results from satellites, from ocean buoys, and land based temperature sensors to create a World average temperature. The rules of the game are that the Earth’s surface is divided into equal size squares and in a region where there are no ocean or land-based sensors it must be assigned an average of the surrounding temperatures.
What NOAA does is to assign higher temperatures to these regions until they reach a suitable increase in average World temperature. Michael Keal in his comment of 30 April at 06.08 supports this view with further description of the effects of the variation of Solar emissions of long periods. This is to no avail though as for the likes of Quercus and many of the younger generation, they have been thoroughly indoctrinated at school and by the main stream media.
You will never solve the funding problem of the public services by throwing more money at them. There will never be enough tax revenue because they are insatiable. That just leads to a repeat of what happened in Greece and is a cancer affecting many Western nations. The only solution to avoid this really is to get an iron grip on public spending.