The Last One
Comments
-
So answer the question above that I put to lookyhere - would you make it a criminal offence to make bad business decisions? Yes or no.On your point about curbing excesses of public bodies, couldnt agree more. Thats our money.
On the second point, you are misinterpreting what I said. You know or at least should know fine well that business is all about taking some degree of risk. Its far too simplistic to say that should or should not take risks, it is a question of degree and of risk management. I refer you back to my original link on the BoE stress tests which sets out the risk profiles of the banks and how they are reducing their risk profiles in some detail. Try reading it.
As for your claim that 'this is what got us into this mess', I already showed you how tbe net overall cost will be clsoe to nil, but yet again, you are just ignoring the evidence and carrying on with the same tired old mantra that it is all the banks fault. I said before, this is just lazy leftie banker bashing.
Yes steve0 i ve deliberately done that because you ve misinterpreted about what i ve said about goodwin and calvalier business decisions, not nice is it
But i can read, its that i ve drawn a different conclusion from you.
You seem to think that the GFC has had little or no effect on the world and hence our economies and that we ll even make profit from it all.... eh?
the 2007/8 crash will go down as perhaps one of the biggest financial disasters that has befallen world economies, it led to a collapse in tax take and private/public investment and exposed us all to trillions in bank debt, reduced our credit rating (rising interest rates on borrowing) and has led directly or indirectly to austerity, we ve also been in one of the longest recessions in history! and as i ve said before, they all pretty much escaped any sanction let alone criminal charges.
so yes it is the fault of the bankers but it was also regulators/politicians, who became so beguiled by the financial industry and their demands for a light touch regulatory system, world wide.
If you hadnt noticed, the GFC coincided with the end of the upward part of the economic cycle. It was also driven to a fair extent by the financial incontinence of the last Labour administration, at the risk of repeating myself. The GFC was a good way for lefties to try and ignore those last two points and blame the banks for everything, but its wearing very thin now."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Is it that the government are so reliant on the corporations and the people who hold the real power and the key to financial stability, not only are they complicit but are powerless and unwilling to actually do something? Osborne's hard talk about punishment and regulation was just lip service.
All governments rely on business because this is ultimately where the money comes from. And here lies the great leftie conundrum. They dislike business but the more intelligent ones realise that business is the goose that lays the golden egg. The hard left treat business as an enemy and try to punish it. Now that really is stupid because it is biting the hand that feeds you.
A complete presumption. I do not dislike business, I dislike hypocrisy. I dislike the fact that corporations have grown so big and so powerful, they often override, rule or even dictate terms.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
So answer the question above that I put to lookyhere - would you make it a criminal offence to make bad business decisions? Yes or no.
If you hadnt noticed, the GFC coincided with the end of the upward part of the economic cycle. It was also driven to a fair extent by the financial incontinence of the last Labour administration, at the risk of repeating myself. The GFC was a good way for lefties to try and ignore those last two points and blame the banks for everything, but its wearing very thin now.
Steve0, so the labour government presided over a UK economy SO strong, SO big and SO influential that when Brown c0cked up, it helped cause the GFC... really? :roll:
even me with my so called (by you) lack of financial understanding, realsies thats a load of rightyb0ll0x
So, nothing to do with sub prime then?
you should write a book on this theory, you could make a fortune overturning conventional wisdom, have a read esp paragraphs 2 and 3.....
http://www.economist.com/news/schoolsbrief/21584534-effects-financial-crisis-are-still-being-felt-five-years-article0 -
That last bit sounds like a presumption to meIs it that the government are so reliant on the corporations and the people who hold the real power and the key to financial stability, not only are they complicit but are powerless and unwilling to actually do something? Osborne's hard talk about punishment and regulation was just lip service.
All governments rely on business because this is ultimately where the money comes from. And here lies the great leftie conundrum. They dislike business but the more intelligent ones realise that business is the goose that lays the golden egg. The hard left treat business as an enemy and try to punish it. Now that really is stupid because it is biting the hand that feeds you.
A complete presumption. I do not dislike business, I dislike hypocrisy. I dislike the fact that corporations have grown so big and so powerful, they often override, rule or even dictate terms.
As for tour statement about not disliking business, I'll take that at face value but I can't ever recall you making a pro-business statement on this forum. Can you post a link to one?
My presumption is not unreasonable if you look at statements by left wing politicians and their union backers. In the end, when the state relies on business (of all sizes btw) to generate wealth and tax revenues, it has to take some heed of business needs and priorities. This is where the Corbynite Labour party would fail miserably of they ever got the chance to be in charge."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
I agree with Pinno, corporations have gotten to large and endevour to call the shots, and indeed do. Look at the current "trade agreement" between the US and europe whereby corporations will be able to challenge/overule governments on the grounds of it being anti trade, if it goes through.
To address the other point there has to be a balance between state and private enterprise. For example there is a state run steel mill that is supported by any number of private sub-contractors and the wages the steel workers are paid are then spent in all manor of private enterprises, be they clothes shops,cob shops, flourists....whatever. All earning money and generating wealth. Shut the mill all those private enterprises go to the wall and their propriators along with the mill workers all end up having a hand out.
Me personally, would sooner pay taxes to keep people in work, rather than out of it.Tail end Charlie
The above post may contain traces of sarcasm or/and bullsh*t.0 -
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/supermarkets-closing-down-fail-50-5961155
Tesco announced plans to shut 43 stores, Frank. Would you use tax payers money to keep these stores open or does your benevolence with tax payers money only stretch to certain industries?0 -
I read that as confirmation that we are already well up the creek, and the paddle long gone.http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/supermarkets-closing-down-fail-50-5961155
Tesco announced plans to shut 43 stores, Frank. Would you use tax payers money to keep these stores open or does your benevolence with tax payers money only stretch to certain industries?
Never mind. DC etc say everything is rosy.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/supermarkets-closing-down-fail-50-5961155
Tesco announced plans to shut 43 stores, Frank. Would you use tax payers money to keep these stores open or does your benevolence with tax payers money only stretch to certain industries?
Once a mine or steel works is capped/flooded, foundries shut down, thats it, start up costs are way too much, skills built up over decades gone and whole communities thrown on the scrap heap, once we need more steel or import costs of coal go up, we no longer have the capacity.
i dont really know how anyone can equate the two tbh.0 -
Bally was only quoting an example to make a point. But now we're getting somewhere on which unviable businesses are deserving of state support.http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/supermarkets-closing-down-fail-50-5961155
Tesco announced plans to shut 43 stores, Frank. Would you use tax payers money to keep these stores open or does your benevolence with tax payers money only stretch to certain industries?
Once a mine or steel works is capped/flooded, foundries shut down, thats it, start up costs are way too much, skills built up over decades gone and whole communities thrown on the scrap heap, once we need more steel or import costs of coal go up, we no longer have the capacity.
i dont really know how anyone can equate the two tbh.
Mamba, there appear to be certain criteria in your mind which determine whether an unviable business deserves state support. These appear to relate to restart costs, transferability of skills and relative impact on a community. Can you elaborate on where you would draw the line? What level of restart costs/what level of subjective non-transferability of skills/and % of the population in a given radius made redundant?
You appreciate that to make any sort of sensible policy out of this, rules would be needed.
As for costs of alternative sources, we have already explained the economics of keeping a materially loss making operation going. The potential impact of that on the price is obvious.
Although I would still like to hear Frank's view "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
So answer the question above that I put to lookyhere - would you make it a criminal offence to make bad business decisions? Yes or no.
If you hadnt noticed, the GFC coincided with the end of the upward part of the economic cycle. It was also driven to a fair extent by the financial incontinence of the last Labour administration, at the risk of repeating myself. The GFC was a good way for lefties to try and ignore those last two points and blame the banks for everything, but its wearing very thin now.
Steve0, so the labour government presided over a UK economy SO strong, SO big and SO influential that when Brown c0cked up, it helped cause the GFC... really? :roll:
even me with my so called (by you) lack of financial understanding, realsies thats a load of rightyb0ll0x
So, nothing to do with sub prime then?
you should write a book on this theory, you could make a fortune overturning conventional wisdom, have a read esp paragraphs 2 and 3.....
http://www.economist.com/news/schoolsbrief/21584534-effects-financial-crisis-are-still-being-felt-five-years-article
Care to answer the above and then we ll move on...... 0 -
The economic cycle, not the GFC :roll:So answer the question above that I put to lookyhere - would you make it a criminal offence to make bad business decisions? Yes or no.
If you hadnt noticed, the GFC coincided with the end of the upward part of the economic cycle. It was also driven to a fair extent by the financial incontinence of the last Labour administration, at the risk of repeating myself. The GFC was a good way for lefties to try and ignore those last two points and blame the banks for everything, but its wearing very thin now.
Steve0, so the labour government presided over a UK economy SO strong, SO big and SO influential that when Brown c0cked up, it helped cause the GFC... really? :roll:
even me with my so called (by you) lack of financial understanding, realsies thats a load of rightyb0ll0x
So, nothing to do with sub prime then?
you should write a book on this theory, you could make a fortune overturning conventional wisdom, have a read esp paragraphs 2 and 3.....
http://www.economist.com/news/schoolsbrief/21584534-effects-financial-crisis-are-still-being-felt-five-years-article
Care to answer the above and then we ll move on......
Now stop trying to change the subject and answer the questions "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/supermarkets-closing-down-fail-50-5961155
Tesco announced plans to shut 43 stores, Frank. Would you use tax payers money to keep these stores open or does your benevolence with tax payers money only stretch to certain industries?
The trade has moved to Lidl and other supermarkets. In small towns, the trade may have moved back to local shops. That displaced trade will have a direct link with employment opportunities at these outlets and other supermarkets. It's not a fair comparison.
The local Tesco was dead before Christmas and the local Lidl had 6 lanes open on new years eve.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
Same question then - where would you draw the line and on what basis?http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/supermarkets-closing-down-fail-50-5961155
Tesco announced plans to shut 43 stores, Frank. Would you use tax payers money to keep these stores open or does your benevolence with tax payers money only stretch to certain industries?
The trade has moved to Lidl and other supermarkets. In small towns, the trade may have moved back to local shops. That displaced trade will have a direct link with employment opportunities at these outlets and other supermarkets. It's not a fair comparison.
The local Tesco was dead before Christmas and the local Lidl had 6 lanes open on new years eve."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Same question then - where would you draw the line and on what basis?http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/supermarkets-closing-down-fail-50-5961155
Tesco announced plans to shut 43 stores, Frank. Would you use tax payers money to keep these stores open or does your benevolence with tax payers money only stretch to certain industries?
The trade has moved to Lidl and other supermarkets. In small towns, the trade may have moved back to local shops. That displaced trade will have a direct link with employment opportunities at these outlets and other supermarkets. It's not a fair comparison.
The local Tesco was dead before Christmas and the local Lidl had 6 lanes open on new years eve.
Draw what line? I was simply countering Bally's post.
Tesco is a bad example. I know local farmers who were let down by them at the 11th hour. At one point, 1 in every £7 spent in the UK was spent in Tesco and 44p in every pound spent at Tesco was profit. Nothing worng with that but we have already discussed how companies exactly like them are being propped up by WTC's and benefits because they have deliberately employed people on short or temporary contracts, with no proper pensions and who do not get enough hours to earn a decent living wage. I do not know the employment characteristics of the competition but I couldn't give a flying farq if Tesco goes to the wall. It's not a failing industry and the employment will go elsewhere.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
All governments rely on business because this is ultimately where the money comes from. And here lies the great leftie conundrum. They dislike business but the more intelligent ones realise that business is the goose that lays the golden egg. The hard left treat business as an enemy and try to punish it. Now that really is stupid because it is biting the hand that feeds you.Is it that the government are so reliant on the corporations and the people who hold the real power and the key to financial stability, not only are they complicit but are powerless and unwilling to actually do something? Osborne's hard talk about punishment and regulation was just lip service.
OK, I'll bite here (and there goes one of my New Year resolutions on the 4th January). You seem to think that this is a one-way street, that private businesses are the only vehicles of wealth creation. This is where I disagree with you. You're employed in a private business as a tax account. I'm self-employed as a translator, proof reader and editor, so also in the private sector. There are many, many people working in the public sector whose work is of far greater economic value than that created by either of us. Just a quick example that is relevant at the moment - meteorologists. Their work is of massive value. Improved forecasting can help to reduce damage from extreme weather events, can aid farmers in deciding when to harvest and thus avoid loss of crops, the value to the fishing industry doesn't need any elaboration, it can also help planning for civil engineering, construction, aviation and shipping etc. How much is meteorology worth to our economy every year? Hundreds of millions? Billions? I couldn't put a figure on it, but these public sector workers are contributing far more to the economy than I ever will.
You could go through a whole list of professions in the public sector and make a similar case for the economic value of their work, rather than just the social or human value.
It's a symbiotic relationship, not a parasitic one. Without production, there would be no public services, but without public services, private enterprise would be more or less impossible. There is no easy dividing line between public sector work and wealth-creating private sector work. Both sectors create value - economic and otherwise - it's just that some types of economic activity could/should only be carried out by the public sector.0 -
Top post finchy. I work in the public sector, fwiw. The relentless trumpeting of petty mercantilism as having greater merit than being a nurse or librarian or whatever is a bit tedious, to say the least. It's not always about "winners" and "losers", sometimes life is a little more complex than that.Ecrasez l’infame0
-
I used Tesco as an extreme example. Frank suggested that public money be used to prop up private businesses that sub contracted to a public company. If you are to do that, as Stevo asks, where do you draw the line? Which private concerns get to be given a public subsidy?0
-
The issue regarding the public/private sector is complex. Both are vital elements to the country. You could argue that the private sector makes money and the public sector/government hopefully provides the best conditions to facilitate that.
As has been said, not all elements of the public sector have an immediate monetary value, but non the less are indispensable.0 -
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/supermarkets-closing-down-fail-50-5961155
Tesco announced plans to shut 43 stores, Frank. Would you use tax payers money to keep these stores open or does your benevolence with tax payers money only stretch to certain industries?
The trade has moved to Lidl and other supermarkets. In small towns, the trade may have moved back to local shops. That displaced trade will have a direct link with employment opportunities at these outlets and other supermarkets. It's not a fair comparison.
The local Tesco was dead before Christmas and the local Lidl had 6 lanes open on new years eve.
A large Tesco will employ hundreds of people, albeit not all on full time contracts.Do you think that Lidl, whose stores tend to be much smaller would take up the slack?
3 or 4 years ago Tesco opened a reasonable sized store near me. Recruiters gave preference to long term unemployed. Strangely, these people had not been absorbed by the local economies and neither had the other 300 or so Tesco subsequently employed. Worthy of a Frank subsidy?0 -
You could argue that the private sector makes money and the public sector/government hopefully provides the best conditions to facilitate that.
As I have already argued, I don't believe that this distinction is valid in many, many cases in which the public sector creates economic value (i.e. wealth). I think that the vast majority of people would recognise the social value of much work which is carried out by the public sector or funded by general taxation, but the wealth-generating aspect of it gets ignored.0 -
In a word NO!http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/supermarkets-closing-down-fail-50-5961155
Tesco announced plans to shut 43 stores, Frank. Would you use tax payers money to keep these stores open or does your benevolence with tax payers money only stretch to certain industries?
Tesco/asda/sainsburys etc are only ever anywhere to provide provisions and generate a profit for the retailer where a population already exists. That population will be there because they will be working in other industries.
Build a factory in the middle of nowhere and people will seek employment there. Open a Tesco in the middle of nowhere while people would seek employment but they would not make a 50mile round trip to shop there.
I'm sure you would love to see a state run supermarket Bally.
Supermarkets provide a service I bet where those 43 Tescos are closing there are other supermarkets nearby.Tail end Charlie
The above post may contain traces of sarcasm or/and bullsh*t.0 -
There are essential organisations up and down the country that deliver essential services from the local organisations to Marie Curie, MacMillan Nurses/fund, Red Cross, RNLI that should be run by the state.
Run by people who are over worked and under paid.
In my 11 year tenure at my project, we have taken many Alcoholics, drug addicts and people with mental health problems. It costs the state for example £47k per annum for one person on a methadone programme. How much money have we saved the state by keeping certain individuals on the straight and narrow, never mind the social damage to families that addictions cause*? This area is where you see the 'loosers' of the system, the casualties of under investment, poor education and health and individuals who cannot cope with the rigours of our form of capitalism. Why don't I get paid extra for the work we do?
*Let alone the huge carbon emission saving by all the recycling we have done. Why don't I get money for that?
If you have time, read Capitalism and Freedom by Milton Friedman and then pick up the critiques of his works and you will see the flaws in the so called 'trickle down effect'. When I see this sort of thing, it pi$$es me off:
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/state-owned-rbs-pays-millions-bonuses-5288382
Is it any wonder I don't bang the corporate drum? Fat cat executives who do f*ck all really (sit on a committee, make a few decisions and play golf all afternoon) getting 6 and 7 figure salaries as opposed to a Marie Curie nurse who has to help someone prepare for death.
Believe it or not, I spent 4 years at Eagle Star insurance, Lincoln Financial Management, Norwich Union and Chelsea Building Society. Aside from Eagle Star, that world is so far removed and detached from the real world that I expect that those in the City of London are even more detached to the extent it just becomes figures and over time, becomes little to do with reality in their eyes.
From my degree in HRM, I could bang a different corporate drum. Companies who treat their employees well and have internal training like Nissan Sunderland, Honda (Swindon). Ethical companies such as The John Lewis Partnership, The Co-Op group (dare I say it), Anderson Consulting (a great company to work for). Public organisations like the Leonard Cheshire foundation, to name a few.
Eagle Star was a great company to work for. Such a pity it got taken over by Zurich Life Services.
So I have seen both sides of the coin and I can make a fair comparison.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
Just imagine the state of the "State" bank if it couldn't recruit the "cream"? :roll:....you will see the flaws in the so called 'trickle down effect'. When I see this sort of thing:
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/state-owned-rbs-pays-millions-bonuses-5288382...
And all for half of what we paid into it.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
There are essential organisations up and down the country that deliver essential services from the local organisations to Marie Curie, MacMillan Nurses/fund, Red Cross, RNLI that should be run by the state.
Run by people who are over worked and under paid.
In my 11 year tenure at my project, we have taken many Alcoholics, drug addicts and people with mental health problems. It costs the state for example £47k per annum for one person on a methadone programme. How much money have we saved the state by keeping certain individuals on the straight and narrow, never mind the social damage to families that addictions cause*? This area is where you see the 'loosers' of the system, the casualties of under investment, poor education and health and individuals who cannot cope with the rigours of our form of capitalism. Why don't I get paid extra for the work we do?
*Let alone the huge carbon emission saving by all the recycling we have done. Why don't I get money for that?
If you have time, read Capitalism and Freedom by Milton Friedman and then pick up the critiques of his works and you will see the flaws in the so called 'trickle down effect'. When I see this sort of thing, it pi$$es me off:
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/state-owned-rbs-pays-millions-bonuses-5288382
Is it any wonder I don't bang the corporate drum? Fat cat executives who do f*ck all really (sit on a committee, make a few decisions and play golf all afternoon) getting 6 and 7 figure salaries as opposed to a Marie Curie nurse who has to help someone prepare for death.
Believe it or not, I spent 4 years at Eagle Star insurance, Lincoln Financial Management, Norwich Union and Chelsea Building Society. Aside from Eagle Star, that world is so far removed and detached from the real world that I expect that those in the City of London are even more detached to the extent it just becomes figures and over time, becomes little to do with reality in their eyes.
From my degree in HRM, I could bang a different corporate drum. Companies who treat their employees well and have internal training like Nissan Sunderland, Honda (Swindon). Ethical companies such as The John Lewis Partnership, The Co-Op group (dare I say it), Anderson Consulting (a great company to work for). Public organisations like the Leonard Cheshire foundation, to name a few.
Eagle Star was a great company to work for. Such a pity it got taken over by Zurich Life Services.
So I have seen both sides of the coin and I can make a fair comparison.
My initial glib response was pay me £40k a year and I promise not to be an addict. But I'm above posting such. :roll:
On a serious note, does the methadone programme work? I have read that it is more addictive than the heroin it replaces but the green gunk is hated by addicts. Subutex? Is that a better alternative. Not arguing here, just asking.
BTW I would suggest you have a closer look at the CoOp. You may change your view.0 -
He'll definitely reconsider when he finds out that I used to work for Andersen Consulting :PThere are essential organisations up and down the country that deliver essential services from the local organisations to Marie Curie, MacMillan Nurses/fund, Red Cross, RNLI that should be run by the state.
Run by people who are over worked and under paid.
In my 11 year tenure at my project, we have taken many Alcoholics, drug addicts and people with mental health problems. It costs the state for example £47k per annum for one person on a methadone programme. How much money have we saved the state by keeping certain individuals on the straight and narrow, never mind the social damage to families that addictions cause*? This area is where you see the 'loosers' of the system, the casualties of under investment, poor education and health and individuals who cannot cope with the rigours of our form of capitalism. Why don't I get paid extra for the work we do?
*Let alone the huge carbon emission saving by all the recycling we have done. Why don't I get money for that?
If you have time, read Capitalism and Freedom by Milton Friedman and then pick up the critiques of his works and you will see the flaws in the so called 'trickle down effect'. When I see this sort of thing, it pi$$es me off:
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/state-owned-rbs-pays-millions-bonuses-5288382
Is it any wonder I don't bang the corporate drum? Fat cat executives who do f*ck all really (sit on a committee, make a few decisions and play golf all afternoon) getting 6 and 7 figure salaries as opposed to a Marie Curie nurse who has to help someone prepare for death.
Believe it or not, I spent 4 years at Eagle Star insurance, Lincoln Financial Management, Norwich Union and Chelsea Building Society. Aside from Eagle Star, that world is so far removed and detached from the real world that I expect that those in the City of London are even more detached to the extent it just becomes figures and over time, becomes little to do with reality in their eyes.
From my degree in HRM, I could bang a different corporate drum. Companies who treat their employees well and have internal training like Nissan Sunderland, Honda (Swindon). Ethical companies such as The John Lewis Partnership, The Co-Op group (dare I say it), Anderson Consulting (a great company to work for). Public organisations like the Leonard Cheshire foundation, to name a few.
Eagle Star was a great company to work for. Such a pity it got taken over by Zurich Life Services.
So I have seen both sides of the coin and I can make a fair comparison.
My initial glib response was pay me £40k a year and I promise not to be an addict. But I'm above posting such. :roll:
On a serious note, does the methadone programme work? I have read that it is more addictive than the heroin it replaces but the green gunk is hated by addicts. Subutex? Is that a better alternative. Not arguing here, just asking.
BTW I would suggest you have a closer look at the CoOp. You may change your view."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
In a word NO!http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/supermarkets-closing-down-fail-50-5961155
Tesco announced plans to shut 43 stores, Frank. Would you use tax payers money to keep these stores open or does your benevolence with tax payers money only stretch to certain industries?
Tesco/asda/sainsburys etc are only ever anywhere to provide provisions and generate a profit for the retailer where a population already exists. That population will be there because they will be working in other industries.
Build a factory in the middle of nowhere and people will seek employment there. Open a Tesco in the middle of nowhere while people would seek employment but they would not make a 50mile round trip to shop there.
I'm sure you would love to see a state run supermarket Bally.
Supermarkets provide a service I bet where those 43 Tescos are closing there are other supermarkets nearby.
Yes Frank, they provide a service, but my point wasn't about providing a service. It was about job subsidy. See my post 3 or4 up the page about their recently opened store.
Are you saying that the jobs at these 43 stores are not as important as the jobs in your state run steel mill? 12,000 families may disagree.0 -
There is no doubt that part of the state performs valuable services - valuable in the non financial sense. But the point I am making is the state cannot fund itself - it need the private sector for that. The existence of the tax system is proof of that.
All governments rely on business because this is ultimately where the money comes from. And here lies the great leftie conundrum. They dislike business but the more intelligent ones realise that business is the goose that lays the golden egg. The hard left treat business as an enemy and try to punish it. Now that really is stupid because it is biting the hand that feeds you.Is it that the government are so reliant on the corporations and the people who hold the real power and the key to financial stability, not only are they complicit but are powerless and unwilling to actually do something? Osborne's hard talk about punishment and regulation was just lip service.
OK, I'll bite here (and there goes one of my New Year resolutions on the 4th January). You seem to think that this is a one-way street, that private businesses are the only vehicles of wealth creation. This is where I disagree with you. You're employed in a private business as a tax account. I'm self-employed as a translator, proof reader and editor, so also in the private sector. There are many, many people working in the public sector whose work is of far greater economic value than that created by either of us. Just a quick example that is relevant at the moment - meteorologists. Their work is of massive value. Improved forecasting can help to reduce damage from extreme weather events, can aid farmers in deciding when to harvest and thus avoid loss of crops, the value to the fishing industry doesn't need any elaboration, it can also help planning for civil engineering, construction, aviation and shipping etc. How much is meteorology worth to our economy every year? Hundreds of millions? Billions? I couldn't put a figure on it, but these public sector workers are contributing far more to the economy than I ever will.
You could go through a whole list of professions in the public sector and make a similar case for the economic value of their work, rather than just the social or human value.
It's a symbiotic relationship, not a parasitic one. Without production, there would be no public services, but without public services, private enterprise would be more or less impossible. There is no easy dividing line between public sector work and wealth-creating private sector work. Both sectors create value - economic and otherwise - it's just that some types of economic activity could/should only be carried out by the public sector.
The state does have some financial wealth producing parts, sure. But these are small compared to the private sector and in any case sometimes result from formerly private businesses that have been nationalised - purchased with tax revenues from the private sector. The general rule is that the private sector funds the public sector."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Frank, see my question above. Where would you draw the line and on what basis?
In a word NO!http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/supermarkets-closing-down-fail-50-5961155
Tesco announced plans to shut 43 stores, Frank. Would you use tax payers money to keep these stores open or does your benevolence with tax payers money only stretch to certain industries?
Tesco/asda/sainsburys etc are only ever anywhere to provide provisions and generate a profit for the retailer where a population already exists. That population will be there because they will be working in other industries.
Build a factory in the middle of nowhere and people will seek employment there. Open a Tesco in the middle of nowhere while people would seek employment but they would not make a 50mile round trip to shop there.
I'm sure you would love to see a state run supermarket Bally.
Supermarkets provide a service I bet where those 43 Tescos are closing there are other supermarkets nearby.
You have said that steel works and mines would clearly be deserving cases but Supermarket stores would not be. These appear to be at opposite end of your 'deserving case' moral spectrum, but there must be hundreds of companies going out of business every month and each set of circumstances will be different.
I've tried asking mamba and Pinno and the silence has been deafening. If this is to have any credibility you need to be clear on what would and what would not receive state support. Otherwise its a just pie in the sky wishful thinking (a bit like Labour policies ) "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
you choose the Q's you are willing to answer so will i though tbh it is fairly obvious.
back to your private funds public statement.......More of a merry go round isnt it?
private sector pay is lower so employees more likely to claim WTC HB etc etc paid for out of general taxation, public pensions higher, paid for by the greater contribution of private sector, which in turn, is more likely to get means tested retirement benefits and so on!
Private companies of course contribute greatly to the public purse BUT they couldnt do this without the public sector, roads for example enable private companies to carry goods from a to b or their workers get to work even!, healthcare for them and their workers or schools so they have a reasonably well educated workforce to pick from.0 -
Is...you.
OK...will.
You... sector.
There is no doubt that part of the state performs valuable services - valuable in the non financial sense. But the point I am making is the state cannot fund itself - it need the private sector for that. The existence of the tax system is proof of that.
Than there has to be recognition of the fact that:
A. Some parts of the public sector are essential and they need government support/finance/legislative powers.
B. The trickle down effect has to be tangible and has to reach the 'ground floor'.
C. Road sweepers, refuse disposal, sewerage, water, hospitals, education services etc etc are fundamental to business and corporate activity - it cannot function without these services and visa versa.
The state does have some financial wealth producing parts, sure. But these are small compared to the private sector and in any case sometimes result from formerly private businesses that have been nationalised - purchased with tax revenues from the private sector. The general rule is that the private sector funds the public sector.
So, you worked for Andersen consulting Stevo - was it a good company to work for?
@Bally, no Methadone does not work but that is a thread all of it's own.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0
