And I believe that we need now to learn a fundamental, long-term lesson: an economy built on debt puts economic stability at risk.
For fuck's sake, credit is what allows our econony to grow, as Timmy points out.
But before everyone says, gosh, how wise he is, think about what an economy that wasn't built on debt would be like. No mortgages: so very few indeed would own their housing. No trade credit, so companies would have to pay cash for everything. No money markets, so no movement of savings to those who would use them. No interest, therefore, on such savings. A little bit of economic instability seems pretty cheap for all those things, doesn't it?
Spam also muses about who should be lent to.
We have called for greater transparency, and for lenders to be allowed to talk to each other about a borrowers' credit history.
Has he never heard of Credit Rating Agencies which do, effectively, just that?* Yes, he has, because he acknowledges their existance earlier in the article.
The rating agencies play a key role in assessing risk - yet there are pressing questions rightly being asked about their objectivity.
One might ask when, precisely, Cameron has ever tried to borrow any fucking money—it's really pretty difficult. After the last few years, I cannot borrow fuck all. On fact, I would love to know who is doing all of this borrowing: as someone whose maximum credit card borrowing limit was £300—even when I was in full-time work—I do wonder where, precisely, people get all this credit from.
And then Cameron justs leaves this fucking planet and goes off into la-la land.
As I said last week, the same spirit of innovation that makes the City of London a global financial centre can create the type of problems we are witnessing now. That doesn't mean we should fight shy of innovation: but as the Financial Services Authority recognises, innovative markets need innovative regulators.
What the living fuck is this about? Since when has any government agency ever been innovative? Or flexible? Some might claim that the FSA is already a toothless dinosaur as it is constantly outclassed by more flexible businesses. And is Cameron suggesting that the state get into more regulation?
He's an idiot. The state always stifles innovation; in many cases we accept a certain amount of regulation in order to keep some stability but we have to recognise that stability is achieved precisely by making it harder to innovate, i.e. take risks.
The thing is, where he attacks the Labour Party—and the fucking cunt Gobblin' King—Cameron is largely correct, but then he undermines his own points.
Over the past decade, the level of personal debt has trebled, to £1.3 trillion. We owe more than our entire national income. So now when interest rates go up, the impact on homeowners escalates. Mortgage payments are at their highest for 15 years. Add in Gordon Brown's stealth tax rises, and real take-home pay for the average family is falling. No wonder insolvencies have quadrupled in the past 10 years, and are now at record levels. Someone goes bust in the UK every seven minutes.
Yes, that is all very well, Dave, but what are you going to do about it? Are you going to cut taxes? No, you aren't; you have said that you are not going to cut taxes and that you are going to stick to NuLabour's spending plans so, whilst you might whinge about Brown's debt levels, you are not actually going to do anything about it, are you? So why don't you shut the fuck up?
There are no quick fixes to these problems.
Well, quite. Although cutting fucking taxes might be a good start. After all, if you really want to "share the proceeds of growth", then might I suggest that you actually stimulate growth by cutting taxes?
Lower business taxes are good for growth. That's the message of this new paper (pdf) from Patrick Minford and colleagues.
Using data from 76 countries between 1970 and 2000, they estimate that a 10 percentage point cut in tax rates would raise GDP growth by 0.2 percentage points a year.
And the think is, Dave, that I know you are paranoid about people thinking that you will cut services but, as the recent Taxpayer's Alliance Survey showed, people don't think that you politico fucks are spending that money in a worthwhile manner anyway. They are ready for the low tax argument.
So how about you stop spouting this contradictory crap and start looking at decent policies using decent economists, rather than half-arsed fuckwit failures like Gummer and Goldsmith? Or kill yourself. I'm not fussed.
* UPDATE: as a commenter so politely points out, Spam is talking about two different types of rating agency. One type rates banks, etc. and the other rates grunts such as you and I. Might I venture to point out that maybe, just maybe, Spam might have made that a little clearer in the article?
It also doesn't alter the fact that the grunt credit rating agencies already talk to each other and the banks: otherwise, what would be the point of them?