Brown stands over a VAT of waste...oh borrow borrow toil and trouble!

The Ghost of Reagan should haunt the hallway of Number 10 and the corridors of Parliament in a parody of the Scrooges' visitation in the hope Gordon is to be shocked out of his fatally damaging head strong charge of borrowing his way out of a recession.

I therefore strongly advocate a return to Reaganomics and a tight embrace of the Luffer Curve. Without going into a huge theoretical explanation I will briefly touch upon a general understanding of such terms. Reaganomincs was the notion that you could actually raise the tax revenue by cutting taxes. This appears at first glance paradoxical.

What doesn't however, is Luffer's Curve that posits that there is a certain point at which the incentive to work is destroyed as a result of too high a tax policy. The result of this mentality means people stop working as hard, produce less, innovate less, have less income to spend on goods and services and generally become miserable.

So by cutting tax, the incentive to earn more when people climb the pay ladder remains high; thus more taxes means a great disincentive to work more. Also if people feel taxes are fair they are less likely of finding ways of avoiding it, thus more inclined to pay it.

However, the biggest positive that Reaganomics has to offer is that it stimulates economics growth. For instance, if individuals are allowed to keep more of their cash then they are more likely to spend it on goods and products, which will increase the economic livelihood of other people who produce these goods that will in-turn buy a different set of goods.

People wanting more goods, thanks to more money in their pocket, will results in businesses needing to hire more people to cope with demand. This demand may even lead to desiring after more goods to accompany their purchases. For example, a TV will require a DVD recorder, Sky TV, a games console etc.

Staying with Businesses, a cut in corporation tax would make generating even greater wealth more appealing. To do this you would need to design new products (as the demand for new goods is now there), thus requiring more innovative workers, or constructing more offices, therefore keeping the construction/plumbing/electrical etc. business alive.

In short – this is a prosperous circle and will help the British economy and her people get back on their feet again.

Therefore, how does cutting VAT do anything? This doesn't put money in people's pocket as Gordon Brown exclaims. People still have the same amount of money, i.e. not that much of it because we are too highly taxed. Morally, people need to see their bank balance at a higher figure each month to start spending, not be lured in by a price drop on the selves, when they can ill-afford to spend.

What needs to happen first is an Income Tax cut of biblical proportions. This does, literally, put more money back into peoples' pockets, this physical manifestation of cash in hand will make people mentally feel like they have money to spend and thus more likely to do so.

Secondly, by also cutting National Insurance – a tax on work in all but name, businesses can keep on workers or even expand their enterprise. This will keep tax revenue up to its current levels, despite my advocation of tax cuts.

With more people in work than before or by maintaining current workers who do pay tax in a job and off the dole, the actual amount of money generated will be higher, as more people are paying tax, rather than living on benefits, slurping up the Government's money on layabouts.

The public may even receive a culture shift and start to save more in these times. Thus thirdly, higher interest rates might also increase people to save and therefore put money back into banks, giving these banks greater funds to act as a stimulus and trade with one another again.

The confidence will be re-established via this culture of saving.

Instead of the Government giving banks money that they don't have, which will make us all in even more debt and weakening our purchasing power via the fall in sterling... (owing to our higher tariff to imported goods that we all enjoy.)

...We should therefore give more freely to banks our the extra money that has been granted to us by lower taxes, rather of always asking banks for loan after loan after loan.

Banks can then get back to the business of competing with one another by offering more seductive savers rates, thus accumulating wealth that they can then give to small and big business alike in the form of cheaper business loans to expand their enterprise, via hiring new workers or building new empires.

In light of this, how can Brown ask the banks to tighten their belts and not be reckless, in essence not lend to people who are unable to pay them back, then in the same near instance hold a gun to bankers heads and ask them to start lending again in a wanton fashion, which is exactly what got everyone into this mess.

Why should tax-payers lend their money to a government that can't tighten its own purse strings and has been exposed as a nation who isn't trusted by any other power to make good on their loans?

An individual wouldn't lend to someone who has a history of non-repayments or who is spend-thrift with their surplus, or for that matter their gold reserves at a wrong time. Individuals shouldn't do it so neither should Governments, especially one that has such a poor command of economic prudence.

If only Cameron had the gumption to say these things. We need a change of direction fast, if we are to avoid what the German Finance minster called 'Lemmings falling off a cliff mentality' duping ourselves into thinking Brown's fiscal stimulus is the right course to weather the economic tsunami.

Brown topples Masters of the Universe and tries to create the 5th International

The world is dubbing Gordon Brown the 'Economic Saviour', as his strategy for bail-out turned to buy-out has been copied by almost every Western power. The mass media knee-jerk reaction to this was to send out plaudits and acclaim to dour old Gord, but I couldn't help think wider problems are afoot.

I couldn't help be reminded of a specific part of Marx's assertion of historical teleos, whereby Marx sees Capitalism as a necessary evil on the road to the end of History i.e. Total communism. As the story goes, Capitalism is needed as a necessary marker, or turning point in History, just like Feudalism shifted to Capitalism, so too will Capitalism morph into Communism.

Marx believed Capitalism would destroy itself from within, which with the current Credit-Crisis fiasco burned in the minds of most, the Left have been ideologically resuscitated, after years of paralysis courtesy of Maggie's iron handbag dealing a supposed knock-out blow for Socialism.

What Marx wanted to achieve was an International Labour movement to overthrow Capitalism's monopoly on the mode of production, with the composition of the forces and means of production significantly altered. The international movements failed spectacularly on numerous occasions because world Capitalism wasn't truly global, and perhaps still isn't even global yet.

The current elixir archaic Socialists are sipping on is, that with Capitalism's financial reach widening it has entered a form of overstretch; when Capitalism turns to Globalisation the hope is Socialists will have the ripe conditions to form a successful International Labour movement doing away with nation states to forge a new international order.

So it comes as little surprise that the Old Labour Party behmouth has clunked back into action. Gordon has ditched New Labour rhetoric and plunged deep into the BIG Government playbook to scare the public into the arms of the State: a Comforter that gives with one hand and takes away with the other.

The omission that frightens anyone who is on the Right or Libertarian in outlook is this...

“We need globally accepted and supervised standards of regulation applied equally in all countries. We need stronger arrangements for cross-border supervision of global firms…We now have global financial markets, global corporations, global financial flows. But what we do not have is anything other than national and regional regulation and supervision. We need a global way of supervising our financial system.”

Brown's monstrous New World Order of global regulation through his omniscient leadership resembles the all powerful all controlling, Inner Party of Orwell, pulling all the strings while mere mortals stand around and watch the carnage, stupefied by spin and double-speak.

Marx believed it was all about Power and Brown fully agrees. What worries, is that instead of the workers of the world uniting in an international coalition as Marx envisaged, it is rather a minute number of powerful men manipulating world affairs acting as World Controllers, much like the bureaucratic EU as unelected 'super-officials.'

It appears we have Gorden Brown returning to the poisonous Socialist roots of his youth trying to forge a 5th International, while less myopic men remember the horrors of real-life Socialism, which instead of breeding the theoretical belief of egalitarianism, merely hyper-centralises Power into the hands of the few and shackles mankind into the chains of economic and social bondage witnessed in USSR and China.

Brown's speaks to save not just his skin, but his Party

A nifty blow struck with a duel-edged sword from Gordon when he mentioned he's all for apprenticeships, but not up for a novice ruling the country, said in relation firstly to George Osborne supposed lack of experience in the economy, then secondly attacking David Miliband for any presumptive challenge to his tenure as PM.

I liked his speech centring around Fairness, which is a sharp distinction from each of the Obama and McCain platforms of the whimsical word of Change. People can more easily identify quickly with fairness than they can with change.

However, the problems may start coming thick and fast when the actual figures of funding such bold pledges such as free cancer drugs; free subscriptions for long term illnesses; free child care extended to two-year olds; and a free health assessment for everyone over 40. With borrowing set to double this year from £38billion to some speculating an almost £100 Billion sum, our country's debt deficit will plunge us onto bankruptcy.

The old-age solutions are either you raise more taxes, which are already too high and won't kick start the economy, or you cut public spending in a big way. Coupled with this is the problem of Britain's aging population overtaking births. With the demographic in the dependency ratio of workers-to non workers becoming a heavy burden it will most likely lead to a huge hike in taxes to pay for all the above.

Another problem is ideological on the ground of institutional care given to two-year olds, when from a conservative stand-point the family, private or religious groups should be provided better play, educational and social provisions.

One aspect I did find worrying but extremely valid, is the mention that laissez-faire and unregulated markets have been severely challenged after last week's global turbulence. Brown's position was certainly that of the centre ground, as he stated on a few occasions that he and his Labour party to be pro-market, although the poignant exclamation is that we may be witnessing a shift in how economy ideological foundations are run.

This will cause the Tory party, Mr. Cameron in particular, to look at what legacy Maggie Thatcher left on the party and re-think the arguments on all-out neo-liberal policies, but all the while clinging to the pillar that a free market makes a freer society, much like Gordon has tried to do today. All in all a rather impressive speech in rhetoric, but future policy may be diluted due to financial predicaments and our precarious state of borrowing – 8/10.