Privatisation

EKIMIKE

My favourtie bit of this thread has to be the bit where VTech attributes his reasoning to what some bloke (that's right, one bloke) said to him. Compare that with the excerpt here theorising how neo-liberal's have co-opted the general public's impressionability with dogmatic rhetoric and you have a quite amusing example right there with our very own VTech.

I mean regardless of what I think of Milton Friedman, he was incredibly compelling when he spoke. That doesn't mean I agree with him though, in fact I find his reasoning quite scary. A great example is here. Fine if you want to agree with him (on the basis of his compelling style and a few 'logical' steps made in your own mind), but i find that clip demonstrates the scary conclusions you can come to if you rationalise everything by numbers and anecdote (the smoking anecdote was absurd in the context of the question).

Logic is another thing that should be used sparingly or at least cautiously in relation to 'economics'. (That's just my feeble opinion, i'll freely admit I can't make head nor tail of the field as it is presented in the present times)

Garry H

People will always pick and choose the bits that seem to back up their own views and attitudes,without taking into account the effects of the theory as a whole.

I wouldn't worry about grasping the economic concepts of the day, i gave up a long time ago, even with a degree in the 'subject'.

Edit: you were right about the clip.Hadn't come across it previously, but that is f*cking scary.

tiredofwhiners

Garry H wrote:

Don't you mean "how bad nationalisation was"?

Spot on - corrected.

Thanks

Garry H

tiredofwhiners wrote:

Garry H wrote:

Don't you mean "how bad nationalisation was"?

Spot on - corrected.

Thanks

phew. i was beginning to think you were some kind of schizoid

d87francis

EKIMIKE wrote:

My favourtie bit of this thread has to be the bit where VTech attributes his reasoning to what some bloke (that's right, one bloke) said to him. Compare that with the excerpt here theorising how neo-liberal's have co-opted the general public's impressionability with dogmatic rhetoric and you have a quite amusing example right there with our very own VTech.

I mean regardless of what I think of Milton Friedman, he was incredibly compelling when he spoke. That doesn't mean I agree with him though, in fact I find his reasoning quite scary. A great example is here. Fine if you want to agree with him (on the basis of his compelling style and a few 'logical' steps made in your own mind), but i find that clip demonstrates the scary conclusions you can come to if you rationalise everything by numbers and anecdote (the smoking anecdote was absurd in the context of the question).

Logic is another thing that should be used sparingly or at least cautiously in relation to 'economics'. (That's just my feeble opinion, i'll freely admit I can't make head nor tail of the field as it is presented in the present times)

The Gramscian theory of cultural hegemony is really what opened my eyes to the ruling elites power to spread its dogmatic economic models and bolstering "logical" assumptions. I say models because that is what the current orthodox use to analyse markets and make predictions whilst purporting these models to be rigid fact.

I think what some have alluded to in more recent posts that "economics is not a science" and that we shouldn't "worry about grasping the economic concepts of the day" is that we should take a broader approach or more interdisciplinary approach to economics, what some refer to as political economy. By releasing ourselves from supposed "rules" of orthodox economics it is possible to stop and question assumptions that the right don't, like should we be pursuing economic growth and is GDP and effective means of measuring growth? Accordingly we should be questioning policies based on "logic" and instead adopt policy based on empirical data.

Garry H

Not sure about that last sentence there.

VTech

@EKIMIKE, your post os very odd, very very odd as I didnt make an argument, I made a point that can not be argued with, I was told something that is almost certainly true (not sure if anyone would disagree in principle) and also mentioned about Brown and the gold issue which is fact, if anyone of us were CEO and did this we would be in jail.
Im just not grasping where that comment turns into an attack on me, unless you didnt understand my post ?

d87francis

VTech wrote:

@EKIMIKE, your post os very odd, very very odd as I didnt make an argument, I made a point that can not be argued with, I was told something that is almost certainly true (not sure if anyone would disagree in principle) and also mentioned about Brown and the gold issue which is fact, if anyone of us were CEO and did this we would be in jail.
Im just not grasping where that comment turns into an attack on me, unless you didnt understand my post ?

Oh VTech!

Irony can be hard to pick up on forums, but you are being ironic right?

d87francis

Garry H wrote:

Not sure about that last sentence there.

That rather than blindly following "logical" ideology irrespective of its results we should be measuring what effects policies have upon society and tailoring them accordingly?

Garry H

d87francis wrote:

Garry H wrote:

Not sure about that last sentence there.

That rather than blindly following "logical" ideology irrespective of its results we should be measuring what effects policies have upon society and tailoring them accordingly?

I just mis-read it. It makes perfect sense.

Garry H

d87francis wrote:

VTech wrote:

@EKIMIKE, your post os very odd, very very odd as I didnt make an argument, I made a point that can not be argued with, I was told something that is almost certainly true (not sure if anyone would disagree in principle) and also mentioned about Brown and the gold issue which is fact, if anyone of us were CEO and did this we would be in jail.
Im just not grasping where that comment turns into an attack on me, unless you didnt understand my post ?

Oh VTech!

Irony can be hard to pick up on forums, but you are being ironic right?

Unfortunately,I'm beginning to think not.

mamba80

Disaster - has just made a the top 1% even richer - destroyed social housing stock so my taxes go to wealthy private landlords - who can charge the xxxx they like and we are stil heading for energy supply problems - not to mention 1000s stil die through lack of heating.
Trains - highest fares in europe anyone?
I work in telecoms and its a mess.
The problem is that Nationalisation is by no means perfect either - some sort of joint management solution is prob the best way but as usual , we always go from one extreme to another.

tiredofwhiners

This is fun. Knocking down arguments like these is like shooting fish in a barrel

mamba80 wrote:

Disaster - has just made a the top 1% even richer - destroyed social housing stock so my taxes go to wealthy private landlords - who can charge the xxxx they like

You mean just like the old councils did, except the people who were not living in council houses paid most of the costs in their rates rather than the actual occupant ? Did you actually know how sh*te the council housing stock was when run by the public sector ? I agree completely that more houses need to be built but the private sector isn't going to do that until the public sector actually allows construction at a volume necessary to make money. Which the public sector will not do, not r do taxpayers want the public sector building houses to give to people who cannot afford to buy them - thats hardly fair is it ?

mamba80 wrote:

and we are stil heading for energy supply problems

Maybe the public sector should get off its ar*e and allow the private sector to build some new power stations, rather than object to them at every turn? I am amazed that anyone thinks that privatising distribution of energy will help when most of the cost is in the raw material and we all know how good the public sector is at buying things and running projects.

mamba80 wrote:

not to mention 1000s stil die through lack of heating.

More old folks died in earlier decades because their council houses barely had running water, let alone central heating. You know, those great council owned and maintained homes you wish for ? People die not because of who owns the house, but the lack of heating and thats not even the governments fault.

mamba80 wrote:

Trains - highest fares in europe anyone?

Thats because the rail user pays most of the cost of the rail journey in the UK unlike in Europe where non-users of trains subsidise other travellers. And the legacy of British rail and its refusal to use European standards, thereby losing any economies of scale and having their own bespoke everything, at huge cost. I worked on BR1602 and BR1655 system in the 90's and they were hugely expensive but hey, BR wanted to pay for them

mamba80 wrote:

I work in telecoms and its a mess.

No it isn't - its hugely competitive and we have some of the best, fastest per unit cost and cheapest communications in the world. I worked for the GPO's single largest supplier before it became BT and can assure you that the GPO was as bad as it could be before privatisation. Telecoms is not a mess from the consumers viewpoint.

DesB3rd

That rather than blindly following "logical" ideology irrespective of its results we should be measuring what effects policies have upon society and tailoring them accordingly?

Unfortunately - the economic, social and political landscape,domestic and international, of any given time and place (and indeed the shadow of history that lies upon that point in time) is unique. National governance doesn't provide "controls" and gives no genuinely repeatable circumstances on which to test the infinite possible policy alternatives.

The past can at best partially inform one's policy choices - more obviously pointing away from history's more disastrous policies routes - but how we interpret the more subtle lessons of the past and thus decide the "best way" to proceed is inescapably linked to the possession of an ideology.

Oddly enough it was this idea that was at the heart of New Labour's mid-1990s repositioning "we don't do ideology, we do what works" - the idea that ideology stops you taking the obvious, rationally considered next step - which is boll0cks, ideology informs how you understand past success/failure and thus what you conclude is the obvious, rationally considered next step...

d87francis

Harsh regulation would be a step in the right direction. With the advent of neo-liberalism not only did we get privatisation of national assets/industries but the markets were de-regulated. Instead of legislating against poor practice we created tertiary regulatory bodies like Ofcomm, The Charity Commission, ASA etc. that don't do a great deal of regulating. The halt of further privatisation would be another step, I dread to think of what will happen to state education once Gove has had his way.

We could start to increase government spending as the poorer in society tend to spend when they have it, as opposed to the wealthy who when given tax breaks don't spend much more. Plus inter-government lending is lower than inflation currently, and despite Osborne's cuts we are still borrowing more. Even the IMF, that bastion of right wing neo-liberal policy, has criticised Osborne for being too harsh in his cuts. Democratically we're f**ked however, not only do labour support austerity but even if those that don't support the cuts had representation there is too much corporate interest in government. There is no way re-nationalisation would work given our democratic deficit.

d87francis

tiredofwhiners wrote:

This is fun. Knocking down arguments like these is like shooting fish in a barrel

Perhaps the left fails sometimes for not possessing the arrogance of the right?

tiredofwhiners wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Disaster - has just made a the top 1% even richer - destroyed social housing stock so my taxes go to wealthy private landlords - who can charge the xxxx they like

You mean just like the old councils did, except the people who were not living in council houses paid most of the costs in their rates rather than the actual occupant ? Did you actually know how sh*te the council housing stock was when run by the public sector ? I agree completely that more houses need to be built but the private sector isn't going to do that until the public sector actually allows construction at a volume necessary to make money. Which the public sector will not do, not r do taxpayers want the public sector building houses to give to people who cannot afford to buy them - thats hardly fair is it ?

I think you're misinformed my friend, housing makes up about 10% of welfare spending and the other over exaggerated jobseeker's allowence makes up about 3%, with pensions and care for the elderly taking the most by far. It's not quite "just like the old councils did" when the housing was publicly owned, so councils spending was not going to private landlords, but instead to either maintenance or construction of new social housing, both of which provided jobs. Do you understand what social housing is for or why someone who needs it may not be able to pay as much towards it as those who don't need it? Plus much of the housing stock then is the same today, as most neo-liberal governments are averse to building more, those same houses which cost £100 a week when publicly owned now cost £400 a week, which goes into a private landlords back pocket.

tiredofwhiners wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

and we are stil heading for energy supply problems

Maybe the public sector should get off its ar*e and allow the private sector to build some new power stations, rather than object to them at every turn? I am amazed that anyone thinks that privatising distribution of energy will help when most of the cost is in the raw material and we all know how good the public sector is at buying things and running projects.

In fact the public sector hasn't objected to new power stations, the government are so keen for the creation of many new private gas powered stations that they will see us abandon our carbon reduction commitment. Presumably another ill effect of corporate interest in government and an aversion to spending. State spending on green energy could create thousands of jobs whilst not further destroying the planet. Private companies have proven to be no better at "buying things and running projects" when they fail to reduce prices long after their energy supply prices have dropped, furthermore with deregulated markets the government cannot hold them accountable to return some of their profits when they don't pass on their savings.

tiredofwhiners wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

not to mention 1000s stil die through lack of heating.

More old folks died in earlier decades because their council houses barely had running water, let alone central heating. You know, those great council owned and maintained homes you wish for ? People die not because of who owns the house, but the lack of heating and thats not even the governments fault.

This is a poor argument, 1000s have died in the past for all sorts of reasons, and 1000s more would have died were it not for those social housing roofs over their heads, however, we are talking about the here and now so should disregard that flawed type of argument. If there were tighter regulation around energy markets suppliers would not be able to let the elderly or unwell freeze to death in the winter. I fail to see how you can let people freezing to death for corporate profits stand as a good example of privatisation?

tiredofwhiners wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Trains - highest fares in europe anyone?

Thats because the rail user pays most of the cost of the rail journey in the UK unlike in Europe where non-users of trains subsidise other travellers. And the legacy of British rail and its refusal to use European standards, thereby losing any economies of scale and having their own bespoke everything, at huge cost. I worked on BR1602 and BR1655 system in the 90's and they were hugely expensive but hey, BR wanted to pay for them

You don't state your problem with non-users of trains subsidising other travellers, presumably because it's hard to find a problem with this when it benefits the environment and keeps the roads less congested for those non-users. You then let us know how you've bennefitted from employment through state spending, but somehow still have a problem with it?

tiredofwhiners wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

I work in telecoms and its a mess.

No it isn't - its hugely competitive and we have some of the best, fastest per unit cost and cheapest communications in the world. I worked for the GPO's single largest supplier before it became BT and can assure you that the GPO was as bad as it could be before privatisation. Telecoms is not a mess from the consumers viewpoint.

I think you're massively deluded here "Telecoms is not a mess from the consumers viewpoint", ok we understand that state run bureaucracies of the 70s were largely ineffecient, and the consumer experience was rubbish, but privatisation has only brought efficiency in terms of profits for shareholders. Meaning streamlining or cutting of jobs, which doesn't benefit the consumer. Would it not be better for social goods to be run at a loss, where it is cheaper for the consumer and there are more staff to deal with faults? In reality privatisation has not brought us a "hugely competitive" telecoms market but an oligopoly, much like many other markets of former state entities.

Lastly I'd advise everyone to watch the video link below, especially those that oppose increased state spending. Neo-liberal pro-privatisation, less state and pro de-regulation mantra has massively exacerbated income inequality in society, and whilst this is extremely damaging to the poorer in society, it also harms the wealthy, so they should take notice too.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFOEe6M2VT4

Frank the tank

@d87francis. You're wasting your time fella.

markos1963

mamba80 wrote:

Trains - highest fares in europe anyone?

Thats because the rail user pays most of the cost of the rail journey in the UK unlike in Europe where non-users of trains subsidise other travellers. And the legacy of British rail and its refusal to use European standards, thereby losing any economies of scale and having their own bespoke everything, at huge cost. I worked on BR1602 and BR1655 system in the 90's and they were hugely expensive but hey, BR wanted to pay for them


Bollox, if you worked for BR then you'd know the reason for high fares now on our network is all the fat cats who take a profit out of the system. In BR days they could gain revenue from lots of profitable sources that they owned. Land rents, retail rents, ferry crossings all provided income. They had their own in-house manufacturers and suppliers as well as design teams. BR didn't have to pay the government for the right to use it's own track or to pay Banks for the right to use it's own trains or itself fines for late running and delays. There was always spare stock in yards that could be pressed into service so cancellations were a rarity, drivers were trained to drive through engineering blocks so they didn't have to run bus replacement services at the weekend.

VTech

markos1963 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Trains - highest fares in europe anyone?

Thats because the rail user pays most of the cost of the rail journey in the UK unlike in Europe where non-users of trains subsidise other travellers. And the legacy of British rail and its refusal to use European standards, thereby losing any economies of scale and having their own bespoke everything, at huge cost. I worked on BR1602 and BR1655 system in the 90's and they were hugely expensive but hey, BR wanted to pay for them


Bollox, if you worked for BR then you'd know the reason for high fares now on our network is all the fat cats who take a profit out of the system. In BR days they could gain revenue from lots of profitable sources that they owned. Land rents, retail rents, ferry crossings all provided income. They had their own in-house manufacturers and suppliers as well as design teams. BR didn't have to pay the government for the right to use it's own track or to pay Banks for the right to use it's own trains or itself fines for late running and delays. There was always spare stock in yards that could be pressed into service so cancellations were a rarity, drivers were trained to drive through engineering blocks so they didn't have to run bus replacement services at the weekend.

I didnt realise this, is there a fix for the current rail system ?
I dont use the rail network at all as its not a viable option based on cost, I can often fly cheaper which is crazy.
My son went the cup final at wembley a few years back as I got comped some tickets at the last minute yet the train tickets were £200 each !!! Thats 200 earth pounds for a trip from New Street Birmingham to London !!!

markos1963

Unfortunately Vtech I can't see fares dropping, McNulty's report is only designed to reduce the subsidy the Government pays the railways, currently five times the amount BR got! His solution is a Beaching style cull of personnel on the network. A typical user will never see a railway employee under his plans. He wants to do away with ticket offices, platform staff, and guards. The money saved will reduce the subsidy but the TOCs will carry on making profits from what is in effect a private monopoly.

VTech

Well, as long as prices are so high im afraid for medium length trips it will have to be a flight. Its just so hard to accept that flights are the cheaper option, it cant be morally right in these days !
Ive just checked my company travel options site and I can fly from Edinburgh to Heathrow tomorrow for £36 yet to get the train is £152 !

tiredofwhiners

VTech wrote:

Its just so hard to accept that flights are the cheaper option, it cant be morally right in these days

A number of reasons;

For London to Edinburgh, the only bits of infrastructure to be paid for are at each end - the bit in the middle is free.
There are no 'extra' taxes for using the train
When defining a safety case, the numbers used for the cost-benefit saving of a human life are such that the railways will spend orders of magnitudes more than the airlines are legally required to do, because its practically impossible to fly and remove the major safety risks.
Aircraft are 'customised' whereas trains tend not to be these days.
Aircraft are very cheap compared to trains
Airline are permitted to reduce their capacity so they only fly when profitable - trains are required to run to a schedule even if nobody is on them, and so the losses have to paid for by the other routes.
There are a dozen airports in the UK which require staffing and infrastructure whereas railways ...........
The unions on railways still have a lot of sway and so salary no longer links to abilities, whereas in airports, most unions are under control (not all though). You can however fly any aircraft type once licenced, not so with trains which are driver licensed 'per route'.

Basically its economies of scale - few small hub network which is cheap, vs a system which covers everywhere, even the bits with one man and a chicken using it (the dog having flown Easyjet)

VTech

Yes. From your points it is easy to understand but in
Modern society it shouldn't be right.
I left the UK Saturday for New York and then onto Charleston and the cost of the return ticket as £207 plus tax. That's for a premium seat ticket too. Imagine the cost if there were a train line !

mamba80

tiredofwhiners wrote:

This is fun. Knocking down arguments like these is like shooting fish in a barrel

You can ridicule the facts all you like but you cant change them.

Time after time, economic collapse is caused by the private sector, running amock - were the banks a public enterprise? it was pandering to market forces that caused the latest mess and it is market forces that has led to our collapse as a manufacturing economy - take the m/c industry, in todays money, they were making billions of £ profit - in their hey day, did the managemnt invest in new technologies? no, it all went in their back pockets and it has nothing to do with their workforce (the strikes came later) same with cycle industry.
its us that then pay the price for this this total mis management.

the richest 1% in the uk have seen their share of gdp grow from 10% to 14% in the last 20 or so years - thats not a 4% pay rise, its an additional 4% from each and everyone of us going to the top - but dont worry, we are all in it together.

Private business is only ever interested in the short term (like our politicians) and they ll always charge the max they can get away with, regardless of any social concern - great that they can pay for Bupa health care - not so good when they need emergency care but the local AE is closed down.

But as i said before - that you ignored - the best way is, in most cases - a state/private partnership

VTech

mamba80 wrote:

tiredofwhiners wrote:

This is fun. Knocking down arguments like these is like shooting fish in a barrel

You can ridicule the facts all you like but you cant change them.

Time after time, economic collapse is caused by the private sector, running amock - were the banks a public enterprise? it was pandering to market forces that caused the latest mess and it is market forces that has led to our collapse as a manufacturing economy - take the m/c industry, in todays money, they were making billions of £ profit - in their hey day, did the managemnt invest in new technologies? no, it all went in their back pockets and it has nothing to do with their workforce (the strikes came later) same with cycle industry.
its us that then pay the price for this this total mis management.

the richest 1% in the uk have seen their share of gdp grow from 10% to 14% in the last 20 or so years - thats not a 4% pay rise, its an additional 4% from each and everyone of us going to the top - but dont worry, we are all in it together.

Private business is only ever interested in the short term (like our politicians) and they ll always charge the max they can get away with, regardless of any social concern - great that they can pay for Bupa health care - not so good when they need emergency care but the local AE is closed down.

But as i said before - that you ignored - the best way is, in most cases - a state/private partnership

But isn't that what I said way back at the stry when I mentioned Singapore and was quickly ridiculed by some people on here ?
He government hold the control over contract effectively managing competence and time scheduling whilst the private companies do the work and make sure it's up to scratch and on time.
This system works there which is why I suggested that we would be better off using a similar system ?

tiredofwhiners

mamba80 wrote:

You can ridicule the facts all you like but you cant change them.

You appear to have rewritten 'the facts' to suit your argument

mamba80 wrote:

Time after time, economic collapse is caused by the private sector, running amock - were the banks a public enterprise?

Firstly, one crash is not 'time after time'. Secondly, banks only work within the rules et by the public sector. The public sector relaxed the rules and surprise, surprise, they didn't like the outcome. I have no love of banks, but trying to pretend that it was all thr banks fault is childish. The Broon government spent more than they should on the public sector, bloated it with non-jobs paid for by debt, and removed all our 'rainy day' money for hard times.

mamba80 wrote:

it was pandering to market forces that caused the latest mess and it is market forces that has led to our collapse as a manufacturing economy - take the m/c industry, in todays money, they were making billions of £ profit - in their hey day, did the managemnt invest in new technologies? no, it all went in their back pockets and it has nothing to do with their workforce (the strikes came later) same with cycle industry.

You don't 'pander to market forces', you react or die. the UK 170's manufacturing industrial base was destroyed by competition from outside, and by the unions within, who refused to modernise. In the 70's any attempt to modernise automatically resulted in a strike. Eventually the industry was dead because modernisation was rejected for so long that the foreign competition had an insurmountable advantage.

You really ought to have a look at the levels of manufacturing in the UK - we have a huge base that is often ignored. The difference these days is that it requires education and skills to work in manufacturing, which many don;t have.

mamba80 wrote:

the richest 1% in the uk have seen their share of gdp grow from 10% to 14% in the last 20 or so years - thats not a 4% pay rise, its an additional 4% from each and everyone of us going to the top - but dont worry, we are all in it together.

Yes, and when you are paying the same percentage of your earnings as those in the 1%, then you're entitled to complain. The 1% pay 30% of all UK taxes. Just engage your little grey cells and think about that.

mamba80 wrote:

Private business is only ever interested in the short term (like our politicians) and they ll always charge the max they can get away with, regardless of any social concern - great that they can pay for Bupa health care - not so good when they need emergency care but the local AE is closed down.

But as i said before - that you ignored - the best way is, in most cases - a state/private partnership

What the public sector means by a Partnership, is something for nothing. the private takes all the risks and the public gets the benefit. Fortunately we in the private sector are a lot smarter than that and are quite happy to keep paying our shareholders. How else would you expect a private sector company to behave ? Its not a charity is it ?

Here's a little story about the dangers of complaining about the 1%. This is what will happen in the UK unless folks stop trying to drag high earners down, simply to spend more on those that don't earn it.

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20."

Drinks for the ten now cost just $80

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?'

They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay! And so...

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

"I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got $10!"

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!"

"That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!" The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

Cleat Eastwood

tiredofwhiners wrote:

jokey stuff

The moral could just as easily be don't trust the rich, sooner or later they'll leave you in the pooh.

tiredofwhiners

Cleat Eastwood wrote:

tiredofwhiners wrote:

jokey stuff

The moral could just as easily be don't trust the rich, sooner or later they'll leave you in the pooh.

Not at all.

The moral is don't expect a free ride as it doesn't last forever as there is always bill at the end. And smart folks are rich, because they are smarter than you are, and know when to leave

mamba80

TOW - unfortunately, like a lot of threads on forums, you just have to display your arrogant and condesending attitude - without actually waking up to the reality of your argument.

Whether you like it or not, you need a public sector, that will undoubtedly run at a loss, you ll always have the poor and the rich.
Deplete one over the other and you ll get trouble, whether that is violence against the "haves" or a public sector which leaves people dying at the scene of road accidents or schools/hospitals run by charities - you seem to want to return to some sort of Victorian society.

Equally, the tax system needs to be fair and not penalise the wealthy but from the IMF/OECD down that is patently not the case.

Britains industry was destroyed long before the 70s by managemnts inabilty to invest, whilst they had the money, like you, they displayed colosal arrogance and believed their own bullshxt, that they were the best and jonny foreigner cant make a car/m.c or cycle or play football
By the time the 70s came along, it was way too late, they had no money, so all they could offer was job losses and pxss poor products based on 1950s designs - hence the strikes which only hassened the nivitable

However, as i said, its waste of time debating this any further with you.....

tiredofwhiners

mamba80 wrote:

However, as i said, its waste of time debating this any further with you.....

You're not debating, you're just writing down factually inaccurate statements.

Sure, we obviously need public sector services, but not at a cost which exceeds the ability of the economy to support it. Those who generate wealth should get paid more than those who either support it without taking risk, or actually just do the admin, much of which is unnecessary a lot of the time. I don't expect the public sector to run a profit, but I do expect value for money, and good performance, particularly if I have no other option than to use them. I do object to paying 75% of a public sector workers pension - why should I or anyone else pay for them to live in a style for which they have not paid enough?

Before 1970, most industries were public sector owned and controlled, as a consequence of the war. The roots started off badly, and got worse, with a few notable bright spots in the middle. Sure, its not all black or white, but the public sector never has, nor ever will be the best at anything because it never has to compete and improve to survive. If it fails, it always gets bailed out by the public purse, nobody loses their jobs and the public pays more for the job to be re-done. There are no consequences for the public sector employee and thats why it will always be poor and second best. And why it should not attract high pay or benefits.

I don't want a Victorian society but having one where incompetence in any part of the economy has consequences. It does it the privare sector, but rarely does in the public side.

You just have to look at the Greek economy to understand how bed a public sector can be if left unchecked. This doesn't happen in the private sector as companies go bust.

You are debating a bit though