Brown is an historian (of Scottish Socialism) and not an economist. As economists go, he was an egotistical, over-promoted, Labour Party machine appointee, schooled in 'economics' by the even more vain and electorally-unappetising Ed Balls and by those who had taught him his economics. You know, Gordon's American East Coast 'expert' friends who, when they were running the Fed, brought down the almighty US dollar and are now repenting of their errors. Well, except Goldman Sachs, obviously. The skills necessary to sound economic governance and those needed for straightforward money-making ought not to be confused, Mr President.
Whatever Brown said on the subject of economics was all the sort of Balls by which the two of them have impoverished the nation, enforcing their will by systematic amoral political thuggery born of their mutual devotion and shared, Marxoid thirst for control. The aim of their joint political project was not to build the economy. It was to control the economy.
Talking of wrecking this country's economy on just about every front (credit, debt, pensions, banking, taxation, PSBR, gold, competitiveness, population numbers, de-skilled workforce...), Balls is far more guilty than Brown. Balls knew exactly what he was doing. Brown only thought he did.
Balls wants to carry on doing it to us, too, so he is doggedly repeating to the culpably and invincibly ignorant Labour Party electoral 'colleges' and their media lackeys, the Righteous-sounding economic Balls which got him/Brown/Labour/the country into trouble in the first place and finally lost Labour the election. Wouldn't you think...? But, no, you wouldn't.
Well, you go for it, Ed. The whole Tory party is rooting for you. 'Labour Leader Balls' just sounds so... appropriate, somehow.
More like Mugabian economics I'd say.
ReplyDelete