British Labour Congratulates Its American Cousins
LONDON, England — British economists are observing America's latest political revolution with considerable amusement after voters, determined to punish Donald Trump, began embracing progressive politicians who believe prosperity can be achieved by taxing the people who produce it.
The development has delighted Westminster, where successive generations of politicians have spent decades demonstrating that government spending is considerably easier than government arithmetic.
American voters appear to have discovered a revolutionary economic proposition: if capitalism makes everything expensive, perhaps socialism will make everything free.
Britain has been exploring this possibility for years.
Unfortunately, the free things keep arriving with tax bills attached.
The Promise of Free Housing, Cheap Groceries and Government Assistance
The newly fashionable American progressive promises affordable housing, inexpensive groceries, universal prosperity and sufficient government assistance to eliminate practically every unpleasant aspect of adulthood.
Details concerning payment are traditionally postponed until after the election.
This is rather like offering everyone a complimentary holiday and subsequently explaining that the passengers must purchase the aircraft.
"We have watched this performance in Britain for the better part of fifty years," said Dr. Hugh Pemberton-Lyle, a senior fellow at the Hartley Institute for Fiscal Observation. "The audience is always delighted until the interval, when the bill is passed along the rows."
Socialism, naturally, possesses an attractive vocabulary.
Taxes become contributions. Spending becomes investment. Subsidies become social justice. Economic losses become evidence that the programme requires additional funding.
Bankruptcy is merely an unfortunate communications problem.
Labour, Westminster and the British Experience of Big Government
Across the Atlantic, British observers recognise the language immediately.
Prime Minister Andy Burnham's Labour government could scarcely have asked for a more enthusiastic American audience for the proposition that every social difficulty requires a minister, a budget and an expensive public consultation.
The only remarkable difference is that Americans still possess the charming belief that government bureaucracy can accomplish something quickly.
British citizens know better.
A British council can spend eighteen months considering whether a pothole should be classified as a pothole, an environmental feature or a protected habitat for cyclists. The minutes of one such meeting record the matter being deferred "pending a further scoping exercise," after a councillor asked whether the pothole had been consulted. The pothole was not present. The item was carried over to the next meeting, where it was carried over again.
The Americans, meanwhile, appear determined to accelerate towards the same destination.
Progressive candidates promise to punish billionaires while insisting that ordinary citizens will somehow become wealthier.
The exact mechanism remains elusive, although it apparently involves several committees and an enormous number of press releases.
Energy Bills, Taxes and the Economic Circle of Life
British shoppers understand the problem, and the Office for National Statistics records it every month.
When energy costs rise, the government announces assistance. When assistance costs money, taxes increase. When taxes increase, businesses raise prices. When prices rise, the government announces another assistance programme.
This is known as the economic circle of life, except everything eventually dies.
The Office for Budget Responsibility has published forecasts on this subject for years. A poll of five hundred British commuters on the platform at one London terminus found that 74 percent had read none of them, 19 percent believed the OBR was a regional railway operator, and 7 percent said they were "too busy being taxed."
The central political irony is that many Americans voted against Trump because they were unhappy with living costs.
They may soon discover that changing politicians does not automatically change the price of milk.
Nor does a passionate denunciation of capitalism provide a workable energy policy.
A supermarket cannot accept revolutionary solidarity instead of payment, although several British universities would probably award it academic credit.
The lesson for America's victorious progressives is straightforward.
Hatred can remove an unpopular politician. It cannot manufacture cheap electricity, construct houses or increase productivity.
Britain learned long ago that promising prosperity is the easy part.
Delivering it is considerably harder, particularly when the government has already spent the prosperity before anybody earns it.
Still, Westminster remains optimistic.
If America continues importing British economic ideas, perhaps Britain can finally record a successful export.
Five Observations From Across the Atlantic
- A "free" holiday where you've got to buy the aeroplane. You know who does that? Every government that's ever existed. Except the government's the one selling you the aeroplane, and it's already been recalled.
- Eighteen months on a pothole. Eighteen months. I've had relationships shorter than that, and at least those had an outcome. Somebody cried.
- "Bankruptcy is a communications problem." No, mate. A communications problem is when you can't find the phone. Bankruptcy is when someone's taken the phone, the house and the dog.
- Seven per cent said they were too busy being taxed. That's the most honest answer anybody gave. That's a man who has done the reading, and the reading is his payslip.
- The government has already spent the prosperity before anybody earns it. That's not an economic policy. That's a teenager with a parent's credit card, and the parent is you, and you're not even home. https://prat.uk/?p=54893
Comments
Post a Comment