The Age of Austerity?

Of course, the economy is struggling at the moment and people are angry about it. Those financial institutions which are at the centre of the media narrative about the economic crisis are probably bearing the brunt of the vocal criticisms from protesters the world over. But when things calm down and the protesters go home, and the finance ministers of the world step back from the void and find some other plaster to slap over the utter mess that is the global economy, we should remember that the media narrative about the big bad banks only tells part of the story. The banks were aided and abetted by complicit government regimes who often backed, if not demanded, some of the more extravagant lending decisions that have now created such headaches. Furthermore, those governments were the ones who rushed to the aid of said banks when they began to flounder with fistfuls of the taxpayer's cash. But the banks and the government were only responding to the demands of millions of people who wished to live beyond their means. You want to know why banks offered 110% mortgages? Because people were willing to take them on. And yeah, you can argue for government regulation to stop people from doing so and yeah, you can argue that banks should not have offered anything so ludicrous from a business point of view. But it was just the government and the banks that brought us here; it is we the people as well. Substantial numbers of the 99% that the occupy protests (falsely) claim to represent.

The reality is that people, government and banks were all irresponsible, and now it has reached a point where they are going to be forced to take responsibility for the implications of that lack of responsibility. And yeah, it is unfair that we all have to pay for it, and that our children (well, your children if you already have them/are planning to have them) will also have to pay for their/our mistakes. Yeah, to some extent the falsely created, inflated and maintained boom of the past two decades or so has changed things for the worse not just for us, but for the next generation as well. But there is something positive that can be passed on to the next generation well as being heeded by this one. And it all boils down to that one word: responsibility.

We need to make governments responsible for their actions. If they create unreasonable expectations with the services they claim to be able to provide, then they should be punished at the ballot box. If they spend billions part nationalising failed banks, then they should be punished at the ballot box. And if they studiously refuse to accept responsibility or learn from their mistakes then - you guessed it - they should be punished at the ballot box.

Then we have business - financial institutions or otherwise. Again, they need to be responsible for the outcomes of their own choices and decisions. To some extent all business is a gamble - sometimes taking a risk will really pay off, other times it will be a disaster. And businesses of all shapes and sizes need to realise this. But crucially, they need to understand that if they take a gamble and it doesn't pay off (and they don't have the funds to cover that gamble) they need to understand that the government - or, more properly, the taxpayer - will not be there to bail them out. If your business fails, then it fails; there is no recourse to the public purse.

And finally we the people - we have to understand that, collectively, we cannot always get what we want. That money, those homes, those mortgages are not rights - rather, they have to be earned. And when all this is understood, we need to get out heads around the idea that the state does not exist to make up for any shortfalls between what is in our wallets and what makes up our expectations. Yeah, the government is going to have spend less on public services. A whole host of things that people had started to take for granted will no longer be there unless they have the cash to go out and get them for themselves. Which will be deeply disappointing for some, but a true return to reality for all.

It will be interesting to see how the history books end up describing the era we are now entering. So often, I hear it referred to as another age of austerity. Yet I can't help but wonder whether it will one day be seen as the return to reality; that, far from being an aberration, it was actually the return to normality after a rather ludicrous era when all sorts of outrageous claims, such as the supposed yet largely impossible end to boom and bust, were not only made, but also widely believed.  That the myths of a comprehensive and ever more extensive welfare state were exposed, and the idea of people, businesses and governments being responsible became acknowledged as common sense once again.

Whether or not this happens is largely dependent on the people; on you and me. It is about whether we allow ourselves to be deceived by business and government on an ongoing basis, and whether we allow self-aggrandising politicians to again sell us the most improbable myths in return for votes they blatantly do not deserve. But above all it is about whether we are going to invest so much time and energy again in allowing ourselves to be deceived by ourselves, or whether we face up to a reality where the future isn't always better, and where we can't always have more and more. It's about, in short, whether we are going to face up to reality.

The coming age - of austerity, or reality, or whatever you want to call it - is going to hurt, and its going to hurt some more than others. But we can avoid a repetition of that pain in the future by keeping our feet on the ground and by making ourselves and those people and institutions around actually responsible for what they say, promise and actually do.

We can make the age of austerity into a return to reality - and in doing so, witness the ressurrection of the idea of responsibility in all of our lives.

Quote of the Day

"Morality is personal. There is no such thing as a collective conscience, collective kindness, collective gentleness, collective freedom.

"To talk of social justice, social responsibility, a new world order, may be easy and make us feel good, but it does not absolve each of us from personal responsibility."

Margaret Thatcher, espousing the sort of views that

the Tory party of today would do well to heed, if only

because it might actually make them worth voting for.

Too Fat to be a Foster Father

A gent has been told he cannot adopt because, frankly, he’s just too fat. The council said:

"I am writing to confirm that we are unable to progress an application from you at this time. This is due to the concerns that the medical advisers have expressed regarding Mr Hall's weight. I have discussed this with our medical adviser... who considers that it is important to alter lifestyle, diet and exercise in a sustainable way so that any weight reduction can be maintained in the long term.”

It may seem a tad arbitrary that the same state that left Baby P with his mother and let Fred and Rose West be foster parents to several children would also dismiss a man from being a foster parent for being fat. That said, both Central and Local government are not well known for the thoughtful implementation of policy, and their decisions do tend to be arbitrary choices made around draconian yet flawed procedures.

Plus, this guy isn’t just fat. He is huge. I believe the official term is morbidly obese. Now, I’m not doctor, as regular readers of this blog will know. However, terms such as morbid and obese are never good. And this fella isn’t just carrying round a couple of extra pounds – he literally ate all the pies. And pasties. And pizzas.

Now, I’m not going to turn this post into a stream of fat jokes. So I’m not going to say this guy should be known as Fatty Mc Fat Fat Fat Fat, or call him Chunks O’Lard. Likewise, I’m not going to ask “whatever happened to his chin?” Nor am I going to say that, given how fat he is, he could intimidate whales and probably eat the Isle of Wight in one sitting. No, such comments just aren’t helpful.

What I would say is that, from a Libertarian perspective, it is tempting to rally behind this Fatmeister General – sorry, sorry, man – because it could be a case of a one man being browbeaten by the insensitive, bureaucratic state. Then again, we also need to take into account another central tenet of Libertarianism – the potent doctrine of personal responsibility. So I’d say this guy that if he really, really wants to adopt a child and give that child a loving home, he should take some responsibility for himself and shed some of his weight. Because it won’t just be to for his benefit, but also for the child he wants to adopt. And for his wife, who could be left a widow because of his size. We could shout about the state over this issue; equally, we could tell this guy to get off his huge arse and do something about the situation he finds himself in.

"Puzzling and perplexing"

Having a pop at Paris Hilton is a bit like having a pop at a Liberal Democrat - pointless, but a lot of fun nonetheless. So here we go.

Paris is out of prison and banging on about it. Let's have a look at some of what she says. Apparently it was a "traumatic" experience for her. Quite what she thought prison was going to be like is beyond me, but it was never going to be a walk in the park, was it? And whilst I dare say it wasn't very pleasant, I'm guessing that, as a socialite celebrity, she wasn't kept in the female equivalent of Oz.

The BBC also reports that she "said she had panic attacks and nightmares that someone would break into her cell and do harm to her, and that her small cell had exacerbated her claustrophobia." I may be wrong here, but the point of a prison cell should be that you can't break out of it. So, logically, it must also be very difficult to break into. And you can't have it both ways. You can either have a small cell where you are protected, or greater exposure to the prison population. Prisons don't tend to palatial cells.

She also comments:

"I think the crime did not fit the punishment. I don't feel like I deserved to go to jail."

Making her unique amongst criminals (and yes, she is now a convicted criminal) - I mean no-one has ever felt before that their punishment did not fit the crime and that they should not have gone to prison. It seems like an obvious point, but it is actually for the courts to decide what is an appropriate punishment. Not the criminal.

But, fair play, she has learnt from her traumatic experience and says:

"I feel like God does make everything happen for a reason."

Yeah, uh-huh, God didn't make this happen, Paris. The real giveaway should be the fact that God doesn't exist, and didn't exist in your little world until you were forced to go back to prison and serve time for your asinine crime. The person who made this happen is you, Paris. For continually breaking the law. If you haven't figured that our yet then you haven't learnt anything from prison.

It is too easy to call Hilton stupid - I don't think she is as dumb as she is made out to be, and Larry King's comment (that is also the title of this post) that she is "puzzling and perplexing" is probably accurate. She doesn't understand that she caused her time in prison because she committed a crime. Her problem is not a lack of intelligence, but rather she has been brought up and lives in a world without consequences. And by being caught pissed up behind the steering wheel she should have faced up to some of the consequences of her actions. But it says something about her worldview that even a spell in prison hasn't persuaded her that she is the architect of her own misfortune.

Petition to Save Paris!

The pseudo-celebrity, that is, rather than the historic city.

Sky News reports that there is a petition to pardon Paris Hilton to save her from serving time in prison. Needless to say, Paris backing said petition.

Apparently Paris "provides hope for young people all over the US and the world... She provides beauty and excitement to (most of) our otherwise mundane lives." Perhaps the inevitable response from me is those young people need to get out more, and I don't really think that providing hope to people is something that can save you from prison. It certainly didn't save the far more worthy Nelson Mandela from a long stint inside.

Fortunately Paris's supporters have a further reason for petitioning to prevent a criminal from being punished for their crime:

"We, the American public who support Paris, are shocked, dismayed and appalled by how Paris has been the person to be used as an example that Drunk Driving is wrong."

Well, drink driving is wrong and I would imagine that Paris is very aware of that - after all, she has been in court before now for driving offences. And if she is this icon to America's youth* then surely she is the best person to show that drink driving is wrong, and if you are caught you will be punished.

Hopefully the Governator will have the good sense to tell the supporters of Paris where to put this petition - where the sun don't shine.

*I concede that the fact that I don't rate her doesn't mean that others won't rate her