8 ms·

"Democratic control over economics" looks like people voting for more services and lower taxes. Austerity occurs when the cost of government borrowing becomes

"Democratic control over economics" looks like people voting for more services and lower taxes. Austerity occurs when the cost of government borrowing becomes so high governments are would be functionally unable to operate in the medium term without brining it down. After the finance crash the UK was increasing it's debt load at something like 200bn GBP/yr, iirc. A rate that credit-nervous markets wouldnt sustain cheaply. Austerity is the way the ideologues talk about the consequences of economic collapse without having to learn anything. What you never hear from them is alternative policies that address the specific economic problems periods of austerity are solving. You hear instead about ever more elaborate abstractions that ever less map on to any observed reality.

iamflimflam1 3y ago
Austerity was an absolute disaster for the UK. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_government_austerity_programme https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_government_aust... > Most macroeconomists now agree that the austerity programme pursued by the Coalition Government in its first two years was both too severe and unnecessary and set back the economic recovery which was underway in the first half of 2010. The Office of Budget Responsibility confirmed that the austerity programme reduced GDP, while the Oxford economist Simon Wren-Lewis has calculated that the Coalition Government's austerity programme cost the average household £4000 over the lifetime of the Parliament and severely damaged those public services which were not ring-fenced.
- disgruntledphd2 3y ago
  > set back the economic recovery which was underway in the first half of 2010 This was really obvious at the time. The economy was recovering slowly, and then the Tories got elected and induced a recession. It kinda amazes me that this wasn't obvious in advance of their actions, but whatevs.
  - iamflimflam1 3y ago
    It was very much an ideological driven cost cutting exercise.
    - midasuni 3y ago
      It was also what all three parties proposed. I remember an IFS report showing actual cuts were less than both Tory and labour plans and slightly more than Lib Dem plans, but if you go back to 2010 you had a labour chancellor promising to cut more than thatcher. It’s common in hindsight to say “if only labour were elected” Also worth remembering that in 2015 the country said “we want more Tory”. The coalition wasn’t Tory enough. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2010/mar/25/alistair-darling-cut-deeper-margaret-thatcher https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2010/mar/25/alistair-da...
  - zozbot234 3y ago
    There was also that whole Brexit and "let's give those billions to the NHS" kerfuffle. Maybe that had something more to do with the recession.
    - disgruntledphd2 3y ago
      That was six years later, so seems unlikely.
- mjburgess 3y ago
  That wikipedia article is outrageous, just look at its sources list -- it's almost entirely a rewriting of guardian articles. I have never seen something so revisionary on wikipedia. This is just left-wing propaganda. There is zero analysis of the macroeconomic context, zero analysis of austery as an economic policy. Just an endless series of newspapers attacking the government in power for the economic consequences of a economic crisis. One of the most egregious misrepresentations of an issue i've ever seen. Its just writing up what newspapers said; i can't believe it. Reading that article can you answer: (1) what the economic policies called 'austerity' were? (2) what the economic aims of these polices were? (3) whether these aims were successful? (4) why were these the aims? (5) what were alternative policies?
  - gadders 3y ago
    I think the time has long past when you could rely on wikipedia for a disinterested viewpoint on anything political or subjects that are part of the "culture wars".
  - iamflimflam1 3y ago
    There are 184 references.
    - mjburgess 3y ago
      An encyclopedia is a place where secondary research on a topic by disinterested professionals is summarised. You could not submit to an academic journal with most of your controversial claims referenced to newspapers. An enclopedia operates at a higher standard of research than academic journal articles -- it should summarise books/etc. about those articles. This article is essentially poor-quality primary research which quotes MPs and newspapers to argue a case about austerity. That's fine for a BA sociology degree -- it's bad for a MSc, it's disqualifying at PhD level, and has zero plac e in an encylcopedia
  - midasuni 3y ago
    FT is hardly a left wing rag https://www.ft.com/content/1670a3d2-880f-11e2-8e3c-00144feabdc0 https://www.ft.com/content/1670a3d2-880f-11e2-8e3c-00144feab... https://archive.is/t1wU0 https://archive.is/t1wU0 Hindsight is wonderful, in 2010 the choice was austerity, austerity or austerity, there was no alternate voice, but that doesn’t mean it was the right move
badcppdev 3y ago
Just focusing on this statement: > "Democratic control over economics" looks like people voting for more services and lower taxes. The services part seems clear but "lower taxes" makes me ask what kind of taxes are we talking, income tax, sales tax, corporate tax, capital gains tax, corporate tax credits, import duties, national insurance (UK government health service levy), wealth tax, etc, etc, etc There are so many taxes and 100 more exceptions and loopholes and so many vested influences pushing for changes that benefit themselves. The current political processes aren't capable of a systematic review and revamp of all of the taxes.
bryanrasmussen 3y ago
>"Democratic control over economics" looks like people voting for more services and lower taxes. contra - Denmark, Germany, Sweden... there are countries that vote for the taxes that allow for supporting the services they want. And I say this as someone who feels totally screwed over by the Danish tax system, but really your intro blanket statement was just not true.
- HPsquared 3y ago
  Different countries vote for different things.
  - bryanrasmussen 3y ago
    agree, thus there is no reason to make a blanket statement about what democratic control means to an economy in the way that was made.
zozbot234 3y ago
"Austerity is antidemocratic", indeed because a democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury.
- aredox 3y ago
  Thank god for the enlightened elite taking charge of things, then! (Who vote themselves largesse from the public treasury.)
- avgcorrection 3y ago
  Insert any other group and you realize how stupid that statement is. > Indeed, because an oligarchy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the billionaires realize that they can bribe themselves largesse from the public treasury There is always an equilibrium point. The oligarchs won’t suck the state’s teat to the point where the state collapses.
neilwilson 3y ago
"Austerity occurs when the cost of government borrowing becomes so high governments are would be functionally unable to operate in the medium term without brining it down." Given that the 'cost of government borrowing' is a policy setting, there can therefore never be a case for 'austerity'. See Japan for details. There is no traditional market in government bonds. The only aggregate alternative to the fixed rate is the expected path of the floating rate and the floating rate is set by the central bank. Which we can easily set permanently to zero once we reject the failed 'twin star' economic hypothesis and accept the 'price anchor' hypothesis.
- pjc50 3y ago
  Eh, that didn't work out so well for Greece. Admittedly not borrowing in their own currency, but it's still possible for government bond auctions to fail to clear. Or Argentina.
jdksmdbtbdnmsm 3y ago
Nonsense. Privatization has resulted in the coverage, quality, and liability of services to plummet while the price of those services has skyrocketed.
aredox 3y ago
> "Democratic control over economics" looks like people voting for more services and lower taxes. Yes. And then they see the consequences. Coddling the people is not going to make our governance better. Do you prefer that an elite nanny the people?
throw0101d 3y ago
> Austerity occurs when the cost of government borrowing becomes so high governments are would be functionally unable to operate in the medium term without brining it down. That is not why austerity happens, at least in recent history: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austerity:_The_History_of_a_Dangerous_Idea https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austerity:_The_History_of_a_Da... During the 2010s, when rates were at an all-time low, Very Serious People were going on and on about "expansionary austerity" to boost the economy: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expansionary_fiscal_contraction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expansionary_fiscal_contractio...
waveofthehand 3y ago
Austerity is a policy choice, it has nothing to do with the cost of borrowing. States that control their own currency, like the US, the UK, Japan etc. do not borrow money at all. The term is simply not applicable. During the COVID crisis deficits grew rapidly and the cost of borrowing did not change. This only happened after the crisis was over, and as a policy choice, not necessity. Japan never increased interest rates and its deficit has continued to widen. The credit markets do not sustain the UK. It is the other way around. Without the UK state there would be no credit markets, at least not in GBP. I think the core problem is that it is your thinking that does not map to any observed reality.
rwmj 3y ago
This is the ONS graph of debt to GDP (which is not absolute debt level, but it's the measure that usually matters for markets): https://www.ons.gov.uk/chartimage?uri=/economy/governmentpublicsectorandtaxes/publicspending/bulletins/ukgovernmentdebtanddeficitforeurostatmaast/september2021/ae52a16b https://www.ons.gov.uk/chartimage?uri=/economy/governmentpub... (source: Figure 1 here: https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/governmentpublicsectorandtaxes/publicspending/bulletins/ukgovernmentdebtanddeficitforeurostatmaast/september2021 https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/governmentpublicsectorandtaxe...) You can see that it was indeed increasing through 2008/2009, although that was largely a one-off thing because of the financial crisis. The problem is austerity didn't work, and the reason is that it also reduces economic growth (slowing growth of the demoninator - GDP). Without austerity, if we'd spent money on infrastructure, we'd likely have had higher growth, reducing debt to GDP that way. Plus the fact is the markets were lending the UK money at 1% for very long terms all through the 2010s, so funding a large debt to spend on infrastructure would not have been difficult.
- mjburgess 3y ago
  The markets were lending money at that rate because of austerity. Austerity isnt about reducing debt, it's about reducing borrowing costs. UK debt went from 50% GDP to 75% in two years by your own graph -- you'll notice that rate basically flatlined when austerity was introduced. Increasing your debt load by 12.5% *GDP* YoY is an insane situation to be in; austerity was part of the policy response which enabled the UK to continue to borrow. Ideologues on the left havent address this, as far as i'm aware. Preferring to blame austerity for one of the worst economic crises in modern history.
  - teamonkey 3y ago
    I think even people against Austerity agree that governments may have to temporarily rein in some spending following a crash or time of economic hardship. In the UK, however, austerity has been a persistent policy for over 13 years. Low taxation, low spending, persistent erosion of workers rights. No spending even when times were better, leaving it all the more fragile the next time. Compare to the US, Canada and elsewhere, which performed strong austerity measures immediately following the 2009 crash, then dialled them back - as per economists recommendations - and recovered much faster than the UK.
rusk 3y ago
> What you never hear from them is alternative policies You’re not familiar with Keynes I guess. There are many many well thought out alternatives to austerity that have been shown to work. The problem with them is it’s harder to cushion particular classes from having to bear some of the cost.
- fallingknife 3y ago
  Neither are you, I guess. Keynes also suggested running surpluses in times of growth to counteract it, but it seems policy makers didn't really get that half of it. That the results of "Keynesian" economic policy as practiced by politicians and actual Keynesian policy differ in outcome is about as obvious as the fact that alternating the gas and brakes in your car will have a different result than smashing the accelerator and never letting go.
  - rusk 3y ago
    > Neither are you, I guess Not sure why you’re being so thick about this. There’s plenty of criticism of Keynes and how his practices are implemented (or whether they should even) but that’s quite a different thing to saying that nobody has any alternatives.
wongarsu 3y ago
Somehow we went from "the state should be financed from taxes" to "in hard times the state should spend more than it has to quickly get back to the good times where it can pay back its debts" to "the state should spend to stimulate the economy in both good times and bad times, and as long as the economy grows fast enough it doesn't matter that this spending isn't covered by taxes". This is in effect an infinite-money glitch, until you overplay your hand and a market upset bankrupts the state (or the state triggers hyper-inflation in an attempt to prevent bankruptcy). Austerity is just a roundabout way of saying "let's get more breathing room by abusing this infinite-money glitch less". In an ideal world any country would go through periods of austerity to get rid of wasteful spending, before increasing spending again. But of course this is not how politics works: it's hard to sell to voters, and the things that get cut in "austerity" are often not the most wasteful things.
- lambda_garden 3y ago
  An important factor is which country we are talking about. Only the US really has access to this "glitch" by being the world's reserve currency. UK austerity was so brutal because there's no real demand for GBP, outside of trading with the UK.
  - ben_w 3y ago
    I met someone in Berlin who told me that he was a member of the UK Conservative party, and that he was on-course to become a Conservative party councillor before also leaving the country. He made at least four testable false statements in that discussion (I made notes, one was for how long Cameron had been prime minister), so take this with a pinch of salt: He openly admitted that the Conservative party manifesto of 2010 was a lie. That it was totally impossible to do what they promised about the deficit. Now, I'm not sure I remembered the manifesto pledge correctly, but even with that caveat, he still insisted that lying was absolutely acceptable. He refused to accept that normalising lies in this fashion is a problem (I wish I'd asked him about the Boy Who Cried Wolf, but I didn't) and then promptly changed the topic.
  - BoxOfRain 3y ago
    I think a lot of the problem with the UK is that the housing market eats the wind out of everything else's sails too. This has both the economic effect of reducing the amount people have to spend on non-housing things and also it creates the psychological malaise of 'why should I work harder just so I can pay off some random baby boomer's mortgage instead of my own?'. If we can fix housing we can fix a lot of what's wrong the UK I think.

iamflimflam1 3y ago

Austerity was an absolute disaster for the UK. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_government_austerity_programme https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_government_aust... > Most macroeconomists now agree that the austerity programme pursued by the Coalition Government in its first two years was both too severe and unnecessary and set back the economic recovery which was underway in the first half of 2010. The Office of Budget Responsibility confirmed that the austerity programme reduced GDP, while the Oxford economist Simon Wren-Lewis has calculated that the Coalition Government's austerity programme cost the average household £4000 over the lifetime of the Parliament and severely damaged those public services which were not ring-fenced.

disgruntledphd2 3y ago
> set back the economic recovery which was underway in the first half of 2010 This was really obvious at the time. The economy was recovering slowly, and then the Tories got elected and induced a recession. It kinda amazes me that this wasn't obvious in advance of their actions, but whatevs.
- iamflimflam1 3y ago
  It was very much an ideological driven cost cutting exercise.
  - midasuni 3y ago
    It was also what all three parties proposed. I remember an IFS report showing actual cuts were less than both Tory and labour plans and slightly more than Lib Dem plans, but if you go back to 2010 you had a labour chancellor promising to cut more than thatcher. It’s common in hindsight to say “if only labour were elected” Also worth remembering that in 2015 the country said “we want more Tory”. The coalition wasn’t Tory enough. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2010/mar/25/alistair-darling-cut-deeper-margaret-thatcher https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2010/mar/25/alistair-da...
- zozbot234 3y ago
  There was also that whole Brexit and "let's give those billions to the NHS" kerfuffle. Maybe that had something more to do with the recession.
  - disgruntledphd2 3y ago
    That was six years later, so seems unlikely.
mjburgess 3y ago
That wikipedia article is outrageous, just look at its sources list -- it's almost entirely a rewriting of guardian articles. I have never seen something so revisionary on wikipedia. This is just left-wing propaganda. There is zero analysis of the macroeconomic context, zero analysis of austery as an economic policy. Just an endless series of newspapers attacking the government in power for the economic consequences of a economic crisis. One of the most egregious misrepresentations of an issue i've ever seen. Its just writing up what newspapers said; i can't believe it. Reading that article can you answer: (1) what the economic policies called 'austerity' were? (2) what the economic aims of these polices were? (3) whether these aims were successful? (4) why were these the aims? (5) what were alternative policies?
- gadders 3y ago
  I think the time has long past when you could rely on wikipedia for a disinterested viewpoint on anything political or subjects that are part of the "culture wars".
- iamflimflam1 3y ago
  There are 184 references.
  - mjburgess 3y ago
    An encyclopedia is a place where secondary research on a topic by disinterested professionals is summarised. You could not submit to an academic journal with most of your controversial claims referenced to newspapers. An enclopedia operates at a higher standard of research than academic journal articles -- it should summarise books/etc. about those articles. This article is essentially poor-quality primary research which quotes MPs and newspapers to argue a case about austerity. That's fine for a BA sociology degree -- it's bad for a MSc, it's disqualifying at PhD level, and has zero plac e in an encylcopedia
- midasuni 3y ago
  FT is hardly a left wing rag https://www.ft.com/content/1670a3d2-880f-11e2-8e3c-00144feabdc0 https://www.ft.com/content/1670a3d2-880f-11e2-8e3c-00144feab... https://archive.is/t1wU0 https://archive.is/t1wU0 Hindsight is wonderful, in 2010 the choice was austerity, austerity or austerity, there was no alternate voice, but that doesn’t mean it was the right move

badcppdev 3y ago

Just focusing on this statement: > "Democratic control over economics" looks like people voting for more services and lower taxes. The services part seems clear but "lower taxes" makes me ask what kind of taxes are we talking, income tax, sales tax, corporate tax, capital gains tax, corporate tax credits, import duties, national insurance (UK government health service levy), wealth tax, etc, etc, etc There are so many taxes and 100 more exceptions and loopholes and so many vested influences pushing for changes that benefit themselves. The current political processes aren't capable of a systematic review and revamp of all of the taxes.

bryanrasmussen 3y ago

>"Democratic control over economics" looks like people voting for more services and lower taxes. contra - Denmark, Germany, Sweden... there are countries that vote for the taxes that allow for supporting the services they want. And I say this as someone who feels totally screwed over by the Danish tax system, but really your intro blanket statement was just not true.

HPsquared 3y ago
Different countries vote for different things.
- bryanrasmussen 3y ago
  agree, thus there is no reason to make a blanket statement about what democratic control means to an economy in the way that was made.

zozbot234 3y ago

"Austerity is antidemocratic", indeed because a democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury.

aredox 3y ago
Thank god for the enlightened elite taking charge of things, then! (Who vote themselves largesse from the public treasury.)
avgcorrection 3y ago
Insert any other group and you realize how stupid that statement is. > Indeed, because an oligarchy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the billionaires realize that they can bribe themselves largesse from the public treasury There is always an equilibrium point. The oligarchs won’t suck the state’s teat to the point where the state collapses.

neilwilson 3y ago

"Austerity occurs when the cost of government borrowing becomes so high governments are would be functionally unable to operate in the medium term without brining it down." Given that the 'cost of government borrowing' is a policy setting, there can therefore never be a case for 'austerity'. See Japan for details. There is no traditional market in government bonds. The only aggregate alternative to the fixed rate is the expected path of the floating rate and the floating rate is set by the central bank. Which we can easily set permanently to zero once we reject the failed 'twin star' economic hypothesis and accept the 'price anchor' hypothesis.

pjc50 3y ago
Eh, that didn't work out so well for Greece. Admittedly not borrowing in their own currency, but it's still possible for government bond auctions to fail to clear. Or Argentina.

jdksmdbtbdnmsm 3y ago

Nonsense. Privatization has resulted in the coverage, quality, and liability of services to plummet while the price of those services has skyrocketed.

aredox 3y ago

> "Democratic control over economics" looks like people voting for more services and lower taxes. Yes. And then they see the consequences. Coddling the people is not going to make our governance better. Do you prefer that an elite nanny the people?

throw0101d 3y ago

> Austerity occurs when the cost of government borrowing becomes so high governments are would be functionally unable to operate in the medium term without brining it down. That is not why austerity happens, at least in recent history: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austerity:_The_History_of_a_Dangerous_Idea https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austerity:_The_History_of_a_Da... During the 2010s, when rates were at an all-time low, Very Serious People were going on and on about "expansionary austerity" to boost the economy: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expansionary_fiscal_contraction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expansionary_fiscal_contractio...

waveofthehand 3y ago

Austerity is a policy choice, it has nothing to do with the cost of borrowing. States that control their own currency, like the US, the UK, Japan etc. do not borrow money at all. The term is simply not applicable. During the COVID crisis deficits grew rapidly and the cost of borrowing did not change. This only happened after the crisis was over, and as a policy choice, not necessity. Japan never increased interest rates and its deficit has continued to widen. The credit markets do not sustain the UK. It is the other way around. Without the UK state there would be no credit markets, at least not in GBP. I think the core problem is that it is your thinking that does not map to any observed reality.

rwmj 3y ago

This is the ONS graph of debt to GDP (which is not absolute debt level, but it's the measure that usually matters for markets): https://www.ons.gov.uk/chartimage?uri=/economy/governmentpublicsectorandtaxes/publicspending/bulletins/ukgovernmentdebtanddeficitforeurostatmaast/september2021/ae52a16b https://www.ons.gov.uk/chartimage?uri=/economy/governmentpub... (source: Figure 1 here: https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/governmentpublicsectorandtaxes/publicspending/bulletins/ukgovernmentdebtanddeficitforeurostatmaast/september2021 https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/governmentpublicsectorandtaxe...) You can see that it was indeed increasing through 2008/2009, although that was largely a one-off thing because of the financial crisis. The problem is austerity didn't work, and the reason is that it also reduces economic growth (slowing growth of the demoninator - GDP). Without austerity, if we'd spent money on infrastructure, we'd likely have had higher growth, reducing debt to GDP that way. Plus the fact is the markets were lending the UK money at 1% for very long terms all through the 2010s, so funding a large debt to spend on infrastructure would not have been difficult.

mjburgess 3y ago
The markets were lending money at that rate because of austerity. Austerity isnt about reducing debt, it's about reducing borrowing costs. UK debt went from 50% GDP to 75% in two years by your own graph -- you'll notice that rate basically flatlined when austerity was introduced. Increasing your debt load by 12.5% *GDP* YoY is an insane situation to be in; austerity was part of the policy response which enabled the UK to continue to borrow. Ideologues on the left havent address this, as far as i'm aware. Preferring to blame austerity for one of the worst economic crises in modern history.
- teamonkey 3y ago
  I think even people against Austerity agree that governments may have to temporarily rein in some spending following a crash or time of economic hardship. In the UK, however, austerity has been a persistent policy for over 13 years. Low taxation, low spending, persistent erosion of workers rights. No spending even when times were better, leaving it all the more fragile the next time. Compare to the US, Canada and elsewhere, which performed strong austerity measures immediately following the 2009 crash, then dialled them back - as per economists recommendations - and recovered much faster than the UK.

rusk 3y ago

> What you never hear from them is alternative policies You’re not familiar with Keynes I guess. There are many many well thought out alternatives to austerity that have been shown to work. The problem with them is it’s harder to cushion particular classes from having to bear some of the cost.

fallingknife 3y ago
Neither are you, I guess. Keynes also suggested running surpluses in times of growth to counteract it, but it seems policy makers didn't really get that half of it. That the results of "Keynesian" economic policy as practiced by politicians and actual Keynesian policy differ in outcome is about as obvious as the fact that alternating the gas and brakes in your car will have a different result than smashing the accelerator and never letting go.
- rusk 3y ago
  > Neither are you, I guess Not sure why you’re being so thick about this. There’s plenty of criticism of Keynes and how his practices are implemented (or whether they should even) but that’s quite a different thing to saying that nobody has any alternatives.

wongarsu 3y ago

Somehow we went from "the state should be financed from taxes" to "in hard times the state should spend more than it has to quickly get back to the good times where it can pay back its debts" to "the state should spend to stimulate the economy in both good times and bad times, and as long as the economy grows fast enough it doesn't matter that this spending isn't covered by taxes". This is in effect an infinite-money glitch, until you overplay your hand and a market upset bankrupts the state (or the state triggers hyper-inflation in an attempt to prevent bankruptcy). Austerity is just a roundabout way of saying "let's get more breathing room by abusing this infinite-money glitch less". In an ideal world any country would go through periods of austerity to get rid of wasteful spending, before increasing spending again. But of course this is not how politics works: it's hard to sell to voters, and the things that get cut in "austerity" are often not the most wasteful things.

lambda_garden 3y ago
An important factor is which country we are talking about. Only the US really has access to this "glitch" by being the world's reserve currency. UK austerity was so brutal because there's no real demand for GBP, outside of trading with the UK.
- ben_w 3y ago
  I met someone in Berlin who told me that he was a member of the UK Conservative party, and that he was on-course to become a Conservative party councillor before also leaving the country. He made at least four testable false statements in that discussion (I made notes, one was for how long Cameron had been prime minister), so take this with a pinch of salt: He openly admitted that the Conservative party manifesto of 2010 was a lie. That it was totally impossible to do what they promised about the deficit. Now, I'm not sure I remembered the manifesto pledge correctly, but even with that caveat, he still insisted that lying was absolutely acceptable. He refused to accept that normalising lies in this fashion is a problem (I wish I'd asked him about the Boy Who Cried Wolf, but I didn't) and then promptly changed the topic.
- BoxOfRain 3y ago
  I think a lot of the problem with the UK is that the housing market eats the wind out of everything else's sails too. This has both the economic effect of reducing the amount people have to spend on non-housing things and also it creates the psychological malaise of 'why should I work harder just so I can pay off some random baby boomer's mortgage instead of my own?'. If we can fix housing we can fix a lot of what's wrong the UK I think.