George Osborne's definition of "intergenerational fairness" has been questioned by leading economists. They say, "risk should be shared out across generations".
George Osborne’s declaration that his first Budget was “fair” because it attempted to prevent debt being carried over from one generation to the next has been called into question by a group of leading economists brought together by the Bank of England.
Facing criticism about the distributional impact of the June Budget, George Osborne sought last week to include “intergenerational fairness” into his definition of “progressiveness and fairness”. In a speech to the City, the Chancellor said:
“And fairness extends across the generations, for what is fair about forcing the next generation to pay for the debts of our generation?”
But the summary of the Bank of England’s recent Monetary Policy Roundtable included a line which stated that:
“risk should be shared out across generations: a single generation should not be expected to bear all the costs of having the bad luck to experience a war or a financial crisis directly.”
Most of the increase in Government spending in recent years has been caused by financial interventions or automatic stabilisers such as increased unemployment benefits. Total spending was around 41 per cent until the financial crash. It stood at 47.5 per cent in 2009-10. (see Chart C5 of the June Budget)
The minutes of the meeting are reported in today’s Financial Times and cast doubt over the Bank of England’s stance on spending cuts. The paper reports that:
“Economists present at the event said there was less room for the Bank to offset public spending cuts with lower interest rates, because the accelerator pedal of monetary policy had already been pushed to the floor. Meanwhile, they said, leading economies worldwide were planning to take an axe to public spending simultaneously, potentially amplifying the pain…
“The average forecast for growth next year is 2 per cent among independent economists, but the Bank believes growth will be 2.8 per cent.”
29 Responses to “Leading economists question Osborne’s definition of “intergenerational fairness””
Chris
@Mental Mouse
Your endless astroturfing is growing tiresome, one minute your a LibDem next a trade unionist Labour man then using attack lines straight from central office.
“Which ones are good value for money Chris? And please note I use the present tense for a reason. I expect things to be very good value for money or they shouldn’t be done btw.”
You have a long way to go before you could be considered naive in your characterisation of PFI as all a waste of money, see http://bit.ly/cGjD9r
Things are a lot more nuanced than your simple brain could understand, best you go for the lobotomy instead – far better quality of life for yourself and those around you.
“Good lord I sound like a socialist…”
Interesting, I thought you were a trade unionist Labour man with a whole family of Labour supporters – yet more inconsistency in your arguments reveals your an astroturfing troll.
“Anyway just take a second and think about what you’re typing before you press RETURN Chris and remember: Labour lost the election for a reason…”
Only if you go get a psychiatric assessment before you start posting your Labour hating drivel. Its interesting that you don’t actually address most of my points, and *most* tellingly you don’t even attempt to address the points raised by the original post!!! Instead you try and turn the debate away from them. Resorting merely to spit out endless tory attack lines, it makes me very suspicious of your motives.
Go on mouse start foaming at the mouth and give numerous examples of dead relatives and blokes you met in pubs that support your inconsistent arguments. Hopefully, doctor will cosh you for the rest of the week.
Anon E Mouse
Chris – You’re still doing it – making rude comments about things you claim I’ve said when I haven’t.
It is quite obvious that the compulsive and obsessive side to your nature means you are unable to act or respond with reason and consequently this is a cyclic waste of time.
The sympathetic looks people give you mean something Chris.
Remember Labour lost the election for a reason and you need to understand why childish and delusional tribalism is a most unattractive trait and one to which all Labour leadership candidates seem to be avoiding. Take note Chris…
Anon E Mouse
Chris – And just to answer your post regarding PFI, where as usual you are comprehensively wrong – your link: http://bit.ly/cGjD9r
Has three other links in the comments. Did you actually bother to read what you posted? Although you obviously believe that opinion is more important than fact I choose this time to do the same from your very linked page:
Sam Semoff: http://www.liverpooldailypost.co.uk/liverpool-news/regional-news/2010/08/11/royal-liverpool-hospital-rebuild-plans-face-second-judicial-review-threat-from-campaigner-sam-semoff-92534-27038866/
The Guardian Newspaper (used to support Labour Chris): http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/aug/16/editorial-pfi-economic-policy
Allyson Pollock: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/sep/23/pfi-construction-bid-rigging
Those three are just from your link of someone’s opinion Chris. Personally I prefer these three opinions than the one you posted to from “Alien from Zog”…
Now I’m off Chris – kindly move along please there’s nothing to see here… Never forget though. Labour lost the election Chris…
Anon E Mouse
Will Straw – Thanks for moderating MY comments when I am responding to his post with links from his own link and without the nasty vitriol and bad language this individual keeps posting.
My language is moderate and at no time am I being impolite.
Thanks a bunch Will – Just because I don’t share his “group think” I get punished – how fair is that?
Shamik Das
Anon, the comment at 3:20 didn’t get through automatically because it contained too many links, as sometimes happens because of our spam filter. It has now appeared.
As I said before, can we please keep things civil!