Sorry but we've already spent all the money

Robert Colville picks up on a point we’ve made more than once over the years. We can’t ask government to do anything more for us. Because we’ve already spent all the money:

“The UK’s ageing population will effectively confront policymakers with a choice in coming decades,” wrote the authors. “Increase levels of tax substantially to fund higher spending or substantially reduce the scope of the public services that the British state provides.”

We’ve already promised ourselves that the State will support us as we dodder to the grave. Therefore we simply cannot have anything else from said State - all the money’s already been promised to pay for that doddering.

So what can we actually do about it? Well, part of the problem is that most previous attempts to restrain spending have been fiscal rather than philosophical — that is, they have started with the amount we need to save rather than asking the question: should government actually really be doing this?

That’s true. If we were to bin many of the things currently done then we could free the resources for that social state we’ve promised ourselves. Strip government back to the FCO - J Foreigner’s still going to be there whatever - and the MoD - J Foreigner etc - and the chequebook to pay for the social. Simply stop doing everything else.

We have to admit that we’d not be averse to such an outcome. We might be argued into police and courts as well. But culture, energy, communities, education, planning and on and on as central powers they’re to go.

Quite joyous actually.

However, there is an alternative to stripping back to a dotagewatch state. Which is to get richer and so be able to afford all these things - if that is indeed what we desire. The trick there will be to stop government actively preventing us from getting richer. Sam Dumitriu’s recent finding that the paperwork application for a tunnel was one page of bureaucratese for every 2.5 inches of tunnel (yes, we have checked the orders of magnitude there, that is correct) is a useful example here.

That is, let’s have that Singapore on Thames that so horrifies all too many. At the 3 and 5% growth per annum possible when we’ve not got the State deliberately killing off initiative then we can have nice things. We could even point out to Polly that this is the way Sweden does it. More free market, more capitalist, than even the US let alone the UK - but with a swinging slice of those riches taken for said nice things.

Now, we would prefer that minimal state simply because we insist that leaves more room for liberty and human flourishing - the two things we think important in this world. But the important insistence is that even for those who don’t want that, who want that larger state which can deliver more pressies, we still must have that free market vibrancy. Because that’s the only way to produce the growth which will pay for it.

Get the State out of the economy and it might be possible to produce the money to pay for the rest of the State.

There are three viable choices. We go bust trying to pay for what we’ve already promised ourselves. We strip the State back to only paying for those promises. We strip the State of power and influence over the economy - go wildly free market and capitalist - and thereby generate the wealth to pay for it all.

There are alternatives, indeed there are, but the status quo isn’t one of them.