Borrowing for whoring, drug-taking and fighting – how to be a successful economy nowadays

A couple of days ago, I used the following analogy to try to explain Osborne’s great negotiating “triumph” over the £1.7bn demanded by the corrupt, wasteful bureaucrats in Brussels:

I owe you £40.

You get a pay rise because you are working hard, whereas I get a pay cut for being lazy.

I tell you that it’s not fair you should get a pay rise for working hard while I got a pay cut for being lazy. So you should give me £80.

You complain, so I agree to offset the £40 I owe you against my demand for £80, so you only have to pay me £40. Thus you were due £40 from me, but now you are going to pay me £40.

You explain this to your wife as a triumph of hard-talking negotiation on your part and assure her that your relationship with me is essential for her future well-being. Does she:

a) regard you as a heroic defender of her standard of living?
b) call you a useless idiot and leave you for Nigel down the road?

But this analogy isn’t really accurate. Here’s why:

The main reasons the figures for Britain’s GDP have been so high and were revised upwards leading to an extra £1.7bn payment to the socialist komissars at the EU were the inclusion of three things in GDP that weren’t previously included in the UK’s figures – prostitution, drugs and research/development of new weaponry. Plus, of course, Britain spends much more on defence than any other EU country as our useless, grandstanding politicians still think we are responsible for all the world’s problems.

As a country, we are going bankrupt. Our national debt has rocketed up from £700bn at the last election to over £1.4trn now. We are borrowing and spending around £100bn a year, which adds £100bn a year to our supposed GDP. But according to EU rules, that extra £100bn a year of borrowing and spending makes us ‘more successful’ and so we should pay more to EU countries that are not borrowing and spending so much.

This situation is beyond being absurd.

So what should the analogy be?

I owe you £40.

You borrow money you don’t have and spend this money whoring, taking drugs and fighting, whereas I don’t earn any money because I sit at home as I can’t be bothered to work and nobody will lend me any money so I can’t afford any fun.

I tell you that it’s not fair you should borrow money and use it having fun, while I can’t afford any happy happy. So you should give me £80 from the money you’ve borrowed.

You complain, so I agree to offset the £40 I owe you against my demand for £80, so you only have to pay me £40. Thus you were due £40 from me, but now you are going to pay me £40.

You explain this to your wife as a triumph of hard-talking negotiation on your part and assure her that your relationship with me is essential for her future well-being. Does she:

a) regard you as a heroic defender of her standard of living?
b) call you a useless idiot and leave you for Nigel down the road?