Public vs Private...

D_Tully Tunnelrat

Experimental Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2004
Posts
1,166
Media
0
Likes
3
Points
258
Don't patronise me. Governments know that their work force need general well-being so therefore give them few benefits so they can continue their hand to mouth life. That isn't socialism. They are still being exploited by their bosses and the ruling classes.

You are right. There are many forms of Socialism, but all of them speak of giving power to the Proletariat.

You view on Socialism is very Fox news. Maybe it is you that needs to do some schooling.

Don't toss off unthoughtful pronouncements, or name calling, and you won't get patronized. And don't think for a minute that socialism doesn't involve exploitation. That is naive. Read a history of socialist states, like Russia, which started as the grand socialist experiment, only to go tragically awry. Do you think the 15M who died under Stalin felt they had been 'given power'? What about the 3M Ukrainians who were deliberately starved to death by "collective farm crop redistribution"? Or the untold millions who died under Mao, or were "re-educated, and relocated"? It is human nature, not merely political systems which causes exploitation.

And as for Fox News, their views share nothing in common with my own, as for one, they espouse a huge military, where most of the money goes for massive weapons systems that create large profits for corporations that would otherwise be unsustainable, and I do not. And that was really my main point. Were US gov. money used for education, or some other socially useful purpose: building roads, etc., with a sustainable public pension system, I would not have a problem with it, which was the question posed in the initial post.
 

B_crackoff

Experimental Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2010
Posts
1,726
Media
0
Likes
3
Points
73
Dandelion

You've got to make the clear distinction between politicians selling off a monopoly to their mates, & entrepreneurs taking risks & innovating.

If a private business is run poorly - it fails.
Shit public service continues unabated - no accountability, a monopoly, & perpetual finance.

There is no motivation to excel.

The bailout of banks shows that there is no market economy capitalism. They should all have failed, & peopleshould have been jailed, as they would have done for such massive.

We have a complete merger of a corporate elite & the state. I.e fascism - as Gerald Celente quotes Mussolini.

It doesn't change a thing about the bloated public sector.

We need to build a creative culture - that never happens in the public sector.
 

dandelion

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Posts
13,297
Media
21
Likes
2,705
Points
358
Location
UK
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
So you are also arguing there is no real difference between public and private as the two are normally defined?

The UK has a very large number of 'unemployed' who do nothing much. It is highly perverse that anyone argue they need to import labour in these circumstances. This should be prevented, particularly from outside the eu as this tends to have long term immigration implications. However that still leaves us with an oversupply of labour twiddling their thumbs. The argument for a bloated public state is that it is better they be paid to do something than paid to do nothing. This is indeed an argument advanced by the current government, though they do not quite seem to have grasped this logical conclusion.

Now 'bloated' has a connotation that a lot of people are employed to do something which could be done by far fewer. I am not in favour of that, but what evidence exists that it is true?
 
7

798686

Guest
Why do people believe private sector companies whose imperative it is to sell a product at lowest cost to themselves and highest possible cost to the consumer will make excellent replacements for government agencies and public sector provision of public services?
I'm reading Blair's autobiography at the mo, and one of the issues i have with it, is his obsession with marketising public services. I don't fully understand all the ramifications - but it's something that sits uneasily with me, and I'd take a lot more convincing of the potential benefits.

I'm not convinced introducing competition or private providers in public services actually helps the public much. It's obviously about which system, or mixture of systems will provide the best service and also be affordable - but does introduding private health care providers, for example, really help matters? My experience so far, is that ATOS healthcare conducting Incap Benefit assessments, basically amounts to them employing a lot of mercenary-seeming doctors (many Eastern European) who will secure the desired result, and not particularly bother about the effect on the individual. Also - veering towards a two-tier system may ultimately lead us to a pre-Obama US style system, where revenue is placed ahead of actual service to ppl who need it (rich ppl can pay for good care, the poor get shafted). BUPA does well, I admit - but I'm suspicious of introducing private companies into the mainstream NHS.

On a similar note - I'm not sure privatisation and/or EU-forced competition helped in terms of BT, British Gas or the Post Office. Introducing competition to Royal Mail has fucked their revenues, and also stuffed the service we get as customers. Same with British Gas (in terms of ending monopolies) - there's much less security of supply to the UK (as seen by the price spike in 05/06 when our surplus basically ran out) and I'm not convinced the service is better. Maybe a slightly separate issue tho...

We need a new morality. I'm close to saying we need some sort of religious revival, though I suspect many UK entrepreneurs would consider this unthinkable and irrelevant. We need entrepreneurs to contemplate their own mortality. Do they want their cosmic legacy to be shady business deals?

Yes the private sector can step into more and more roles traditionally the provenance of the public sector, and can do these tasks as well or better. But it needs a moral code.
I agree - I think the government is less moralising these days - but since church attendance has reduced greatly, where do ppl get their moral compass from? I'm not advocating a resurgence of religion exactly, since I'm not sure enforcing something which may or may not be true, would help. But I do wonder about how to instill personal resonsibility and decency these days.

If the private sector needs to be involved in public services (for example, if we cease to be able to afford them, or they're failing somewhat), how could partial involvement be introduced, whilst still ensuring dedication to service over profits?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

B_crackoff

Experimental Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2010
Posts
1,726
Media
0
Likes
3
Points
73
So you are also arguing there is no real difference between public and private as the two are normally defined?

The UK has a very large number of 'unemployed' who do nothing much. It is highly perverse that anyone argue they need to import labour in these circumstances. This should be prevented, particularly from outside the eu as this tends to have long term immigration implications. However that still leaves us with an oversupply of labour twiddling their thumbs. The argument for a bloated public state is that it is better they be paid to do something than paid to do nothing. This is indeed an argument advanced by the current government, though they do not quite seem to have grasped this logical conclusion.

Now 'bloated' has a connotation that a lot of people are employed to do something which could be done by far fewer. I am not in favour of that, but what evidence exists that it is true?

It's axiomatic we don't need immigrants when we're on the way to 4 million unemployed, & 2.5 million on the sick!:smile:

This creates an environment where economic pressures can turn into racial tensions.

How about employing more people to seek out & deport illegals? It'll never be done, but at least would create jobs, create new job vacancies (though of course immigration creates its own employment), & reduce the UK carbon footprint!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1325013/Migrants-took-9-10-jobs-created-Labour.html

That would keep people in work for 5+ years.

The other option - protectionist led investment would never be done either.

The public sector doesn't like the pay cuts & loss of benefits, which the private sector is FORCED to take, because of COMPETITION - so that's why they're laid off instead.

Take the police & fire services. There are complete inefficiencies regarding staffing & overtime, & in the case of fire services, the number of actual fires has halved in the last 20-30 years, but we still have the same number of firemen, basically sitting on their arse all day, & having enough time for second jobs. Why not go the French route, & combine a fire/ambulance/paramedic service (which is exactly what they don't want)?

I think the fact that even one of the fire service chiefs called most of his employees workshy, halved his force, & increased productivity, is a telling example.

Many quangos duplicate services & reports already being provided elsewhere.

I recommend you read the book "Squandered" for a thorough analysis!

The idiot Gordon Brown did not help by raising benefits, in the good times to buy votes, to levels which could never be sustained in the bad times, & similarly employed more people in the public sector, whilst cheerfully waving goodbye to over a million service sector jobs offshored.

Perhaps an EU insistence that all service sector employees offshored are paid the EU equivalent might bring back some of those roles.

The only time that you can keep people in roles, & it's not technically cost effective, is where the contribution is still providing value for money - i.e take away the fixed & committed costs from any financial consideration, less any value of potential redeployment.

There is no doubt that the destruction of the manufacturing sector by the Tories, continued by Labour (who added the service sector outsourcement of jobs), & still being carried out by the Coalition will result in a longer period of mass unemployment, as no country/civilisation in history has ever succesfully moved out of an economic slump without exporting more than it imports.

It's been cloud cuckooland for years. We have a massive trade deficit - we are now reliant on imports - we've lost the skill & knowledge base - & are wholly reliant on an artificially strong currency to import what are effectively hugely subsidised goods in order to maintain are standard of living.

Ally this to £60Bn/ann interest alone, or over £2,000/ann for every worker, student debts which effectively mean 40% of the over 20s will be paying 10% of their net income on debt, rising to 15% soon, & I really can't see any increase in net domestic demand, house price rises, or increase in personal wealth/living standards at all.

In fact, it will & must decline.

So therefore, keeping penpushers, or whoever, working in public services, other than the general basic maintenance of the country, is simply an unaffordable luxury.

We need to make & create. That's where funds should be targeted - that's where longer term employment will come from, because if the economy declines further we won't be able to afford as many public services anyway.

The best analagy is having a cleaner - if you can't afford it any more, unless you're an idiot -you get rid of them, & try to manage yourself.
 
Last edited:

B_crackoff

Experimental Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2010
Posts
1,726
Media
0
Likes
3
Points
73
Don't patronise me. Governments know that their work force need general well-being so therefore give them few benefits so they can continue their hand to mouth life. That isn't socialism. They are still being exploited by their bosses and the ruling classes.

You are right. There are many forms of Socialism, but all of them speak of giving power to the Proletariat.

You view on Socialism is very Fox news. Maybe it is you that needs to do some schooling.

However, that's exactly what happened in Russia, China, Cuba ...:smile:

An elite minority ruling the majority - the destruction of the bourgeoise - err that's what 's happening today, it's not just Marxian

Tony Blair, Obama, Cameron et al. all talked of giving people power - it's hardly a Socialist issue.

Every single political ideology puts its own major player adherents at the top of the tree. They're worse than religious nuts, & do the same evangelizing.

Each & every successful one has been financed by an international bank along the line.
 
7

798686

Guest
The public sector doesn't like the pay cuts & loss of benefits, which the private sector is FORCED to take, because of COMPETITION - so that's why they're laid off instead.
That's a valid point in favour of introducing pvt sector dynamics to the public sector, I guess.

We have a massive trade deficit - we are now reliant on imports - we've lost the skill & knowledge base...

We need to make & create. That's where funds should be targeted - that's where longer term employment will come from, because if the economy declines further we won't be able to afford as many public services anyway.
I agree, that's something that needs to be addressed.
 

dandelion

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Posts
13,297
Media
21
Likes
2,705
Points
358
Location
UK
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
It's axiomatic we don't need immigrants when we're on the way to 4 million unemployed, & 2.5 million on the sick!:smile:
Might be axiomatic but that doesnt seem to stop companies bleating about skill and labour shortages.


The public sector doesn't like the pay cuts & loss of benefits, which the private sector is FORCED to take, because of COMPETITION - so that's why they're laid off instead.
Not to forget that MPs feel they are deserving of very high wages and others public servants judge their own worth accordingly.

we still have the same number of firemen, basically sitting on their arse all day, & having enough time for second jobs.
I can see a problem here. There may be only half as many fires, but presumably it still takes just as many firement to put out each of them. Do you want half a crew to turn to your house?


Why not go the French route, & combine a fire/ambulance/paramedic service (which is exactly what they don't want)?
I agree, seems very sensible.


Many quangos duplicate services & reports already being provided elsewhere.
Dont doubt it for a minute. I dont say there isnt room for improvements, but I am not convinced bringing in the private sector has ever done more than increase the numbers on the payroll.


The idiot Gordon Brown did not help by raising benefits, in the good times to buy votes, to levels which could never be sustained in the bad times, & similarly employed more people in the public sector, whilst cheerfully waving goodbye to over a million service sector jobs offshored.
So you argue it would be better that those public sector people be on the unemployment register geting benefits? What are the true costs of employing someone as compared to giving him benefits? I doubt there is much difference if we are simply talking a basic low level job and you take into account tax coming back to the treasury from the new employee. That is the real beauty of public sector employment. Half the money comes straight back.


It's been cloud cuckooland for years. We have a massive trade deficit - we are now reliant on imports - we've lost the skill & knowledge base - & are wholly reliant on an artificially strong currency to import what are effectively hugely subsidised goods in order to maintain are standard of living.
Yes, but no one seems to want to stop playing this game.

Ally this to £60Bn/ann interest alone, or over £2,000/ann for every worker, student debts which effectively mean 40% of the over 20s will be paying 10% of their net income on debt, rising to 15% soon, & I really can't see any increase in net domestic demand, house price rises, or increase in personal wealth/living standards at all. In fact, it will & must decline.
I agree, this is not wholly encouraging.

So therefore, keeping penpushers, or whoever, working in public services, other than the general basic maintenance of the country, is simply an unaffordable luxury.
Ah, no. The keynsian lesson is that you get out of this disaster by borrowing and spending as much as you possibly can so as to get the economy moving. I agree, improving efficiency of how that money is spent is very important and this may mean cutting spending on existing services while maintaining whatever it is they provide, but it also means transferring that money elsewhere to get more people working. It also means keeping up taxes to soak more money into government hands where it can be recycled back into activity rather than just banked.

We need to make & create. That's where funds should be targeted - that's where longer term employment will come from, because if the economy declines further we won't be able to afford as many public services anyway.
agreed, but how?

The best analagy is having a cleaner - if you can't afford it any more, unless you're an idiot -you get rid of them, & try to manage yourself.
But now there is an unemployed cleaner not paying taxes to the government. You are better off but the country is worse off. Thats the nub of the problem. Your interest and the national interest are in conflict.
 

Jason

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Aug 26, 2004
Posts
15,639
Media
62
Likes
5,013
Points
433
Location
London (Greater London, England)
Verification
View
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
So you argue it would be better that those public sector people be on the unemployment register geting benefits? What are the true costs of employing someone as compared to giving him benefits? I doubt there is much difference if we are simply talking a basic low level job and you take into account tax coming back to the treasury from the new employee. That is the real beauty of public sector employment. Half the money comes straight back.

Up to a point this is right - but only up to a point.

The problem is that it is not sustainable, and we are at that point. Labour costs are the big bit of the total public sector bill, so reducing public sector costs means cutting jobs. When a country reaches that stage where the total tax take doesn't cover public sector costs the choice is either cut the public sector or walk the primrose path to national bankruptcy.

And the rub is that solving the problem of a bloated public sector (where bloated means costs more than the total tax take) at first actually makes the problem worse. We are indeed looking at half a million unemployed, and perhaps another half a million in knock on job losses. But there is no alternative. This is the ultimate condemnation of Labour's policies - they have taken us into a position where the best case scenario is still dire.

The challenge is to create these jobs (and more) in the private sector. The goal is two million, which would be a super outcome. The approach has to be on several fronts:

* Reduce economic migration into the UK. I know migrants contribute a lot and many migrants we should seek to attract, but when we have a big unemployment problem it seems hard to defend some of the migration.
* Reduce costs of employment to employers. Much of this is cutting down the legislative burden.
* Reduce wage costs in some industries. Particular targets include railway workers whose astronomic salaries make our rail network one of Europe's most expensive. Or firemen - there are enormous numbers of applicants for every job.
* Stimulate the economy so that the private sector creates wealth. Hug a banker (they are our best single hope for wealth). Boost knowledge economy. Develop brand UK. The best news on this front is the forthcoming Olympics.
 

D_Andreas Sukov

Account Disabled
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Posts
2,861
Media
0
Likes
10
Points
123
However, that's exactly what happened in Russia, China, Cuba ...:smile:

An elite minority ruling the majority - the destruction of the bourgeoise - err that's what 's happening today, it's not just Marxian

Tony Blair, Obama, Cameron et al. all talked of giving people power - it's hardly a Socialist issue.

Every single political ideology puts its own major player adherents at the top of the tree. They're worse than religious nuts, & do the same evangelizing.

Each & every successful one has been financed by an international bank along the line.
If i call myself a car, does that make me a car?

Just because something calls itself Socialist, doesn't make it so.

Russia was State capitalist with Stalin, China was never Communist, and Cuba was a Nationalist revolution. It was never meant to be Communist, and any proclamation to be communist was idealy to win support of the USSR who was the only viable ally at the time.

Im not a supporter of any of those regimes so i wont defend them.
 

D_Andreas Sukov

Account Disabled
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Posts
2,861
Media
0
Likes
10
Points
123
I'm reading Blair's autobiography at the mo, and one of the issues i have with it, is his obsession with marketising public services. I don't fully understand all the ramifications - but it's something that sits uneasily with me, and I'd take a lot more convincing of the potential benefits.

I'm not convinced introducing competition or private providers in public services actually helps the public much. It's obviously about which system, or mixture of systems will provide the best service and also be affordable - but does introduding private health care providers, for example, really help matters? My experience so far, is that ATOS healthcare conducting Incap Benefit assessments, basically amounts to them employing a lot of mercenary-seeming doctors (many Eastern European) who will secure the desired result, and not particularly bother about the effect on the individual. Also - veering towards a two-tier system may ultimately lead us to a pre-Obama US style system, where revenue is placed ahead of actual service to ppl who need it (rich ppl can pay for good care, the poor get shafted). BUPA does well, I admit - but I'm suspicious of introducing private companies into the mainstream NHS.

On a similar note - I'm not sure privatisation and/or EU-forced competition helped in terms of BT, British Gas or the Post Office. Introducing competition to Royal Mail has fucked their revenues, and also stuffed the service we get as customers. Same with British Gas (in terms of ending monopolies) - there's much less security of supply to the UK (as seen by the price spike in 05/06 when our surplus basically ran out) and I'm not convinced the service is better. Maybe a slightly separate issue tho...


I agree - I think the government is less moralising these days - but since church attendance has reduced greatly, where do ppl get their moral compass from? I'm not advocating a resurgence of religion exactly, since I'm not sure enforcing something which may or may not be true, would help. But I do wonder about how to instill personal resonsibility and decency these days.

If the private sector needs to be involved in public services (for example, if we cease to be able to afford them, or they're failing somewhat), how could partial involvement be introduced, whilst still ensuring dedication to service over profits?
They can't. Private sector businesses only want profit. Imagine a privatised NHS. They will look at your wallet before your ailment. Is that fair? Sure, they may be more effective in treating people, but when a large percentage of people are excluded from the service is it really worth it?
 

dandelion

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Posts
13,297
Media
21
Likes
2,705
Points
358
Location
UK
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
When a country reaches that stage where the total tax take doesn't cover public sector costs the choice is either cut the public sector or walk the primrose path to national bankruptcy.
I read the budget statement. It said the government intends to carry on borrowing until growth of the economy is sufficient to eliminate the deficit. Yes, there are some expenditure cuts and tax rises, but the largest chunk is cross your fingers and wait for growth. This is the identical policy to labour: borrow as much as you reckon you can get away with. Their numbers are pretty much identical too. The conservatives choose to sack a few more and tax a bit less.

And the rub is that solving the problem of a bloated public sector (where bloated means costs more than the total tax take)
ah the wonders of creative accounting. All national figures are quoted as debt as a percentage of gdp. Thus as gdp rises, which it tends to, you can borrow more and more money while claiming your debt is the same. Brilliant. Just watch: if all goes to plan Cameron will claim he has the debt under control when it edges down as a percentage rather than as a total.

This is the ultimate condemnation of Labour's policies - they have taken us into a position where the best case scenario is still dire.
Look in the mirror? That would be the conservative policies which labour carried out. Both sides agreed on the right policy which you now said is wrong. I'm not quite sure what labour now says about its previous policy, but the conservatives claim it was nothing to do with them is sheerest hypocrisy.

* Reduce economic migration into the UK. I know migrants contribute a lot and many migrants we should seek to attract, but when we have a big unemployment problem it seems hard to defend some of the migration.
No they dont: for the most part these people go home again taking the money they have earned away with them. Even the ones that stay represent a long term drain on the state. On the whole their effect is generally neutral, except , of course, the place gets more and more crowded.


* Reduce wage costs in some industries. Particular targets include railway workers whose astronomic salaries make our rail network one of Europe's most expensive. Or firemen - there are enormous numbers of applicants for every job.
There is truth in this but there are a couple of difficulties. One is bankers earning a fortune for bankrupting the country. Other workers naturally want to follow their example. The other big problem is the utterly out of control housing situation which has completely screwed up personal finances of everyone. Ask a railwayman what wage he would take if his job comes with a free house for life.

* Stimulate the economy so that the private sector creates wealth. Hug a banker (they are our best single hope for wealth).
how exactly?

Boost knowledge economy. Develop brand UK.
How exactly? the last lot cut back on university research and encouraged mediocre students to get degrees. Is that back to front?

The best news on this front is the forthcoming Olympics.
um. The traditional roman thing of laying on a show at public expense to keep the people happy? Throw some lions to the christians?
 

Jason

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Aug 26, 2004
Posts
15,639
Media
62
Likes
5,013
Points
433
Location
London (Greater London, England)
Verification
View
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
Private sector businesses only want profit.

Some private sector businesses only want profit. But don't tar them all with the same brush. Some are led by decent people who want to do what is right. Sure that includes making a profit - but it also includes making sure they act rightly towards customers, employees and the wider society. And it might include charity donations, including from the boss's pocket. This is the sort of private sector business we should be encouraging.

Communities in the UK and doubtless elsewhere are full of businesses that are acting properly. I've just heard of a builder who has done two days work for a pensioner at a sum so low it won't do more than cover his petrol. He's self employed. Apparently he's short of work (and would otherwise have been doing nothing) and has done this to help her out. Many private businesses do some non-profit work - I know of a large publisher that has a selection of worthwhile but non-commercial publications they support as a service.

Businesses are run by people who want more than just a profit. I don't think anyone wants on their gravestone "he made a profit". Maybe "he made a difference". He provided jobs, did good things for customers, helped the community and yes in addition made a profit for reinvestment and reward.
 

D_Tim McGnaw

Account Disabled
Joined
Aug 30, 2009
Posts
5,420
Media
0
Likes
110
Points
133
Some private sector businesses only want profit. But don't tar them all with the same brush. Some are led by decent people who want to do what is right. Sure that includes making a profit - but it also includes making sure they act rightly towards customers, employees and the wider society. And it might include charity donations, including from the boss's pocket. This is the sort of private sector business we should be encouraging.


Most private sector companies however are in fact purely in the business of making their owners or shareholders as much money as possible. Indeed in the case of publicly quoted corporations it is a legal requirement (for which they are legally responsible) to pay dividends to their shareholders in exponential relation to the required increase in profits these companies must generate.

Besides are you seriously suggesting that the tiny minority of small time companies you're talking about could, should or would take over responsibility for supplying government services to tens perhaps hundreds of millions of people? How on earth would that be practical?



Communities in the UK and doubtless elsewhere are full of businesses that are acting properly. I've just heard of a builder who has done two days work for a pensioner at a sum so low it won't do more than cover his petrol. He's self employed. Apparently he's short of work (and would otherwise have been doing nothing) and has done this to help her out. Many private businesses do some non-profit work - I know of a large publisher that has a selection of worthwhile but non-commercial publications they support as a service.
And the world is beset with a plethora of companies which exploit and which commit any kind of appalling chicanery in order to squeeze more profit out of consumers. The tiny minority of companies you're referring to might be worth encouraging, but that would have to be done at cost to businesses which do not act in a socially responsible way or else the system is unworkable.

Businesses are run by people who want more than just a profit. I don't think anyone wants on their gravestone "he made a profit". Maybe "he made a difference". He provided jobs, did good things for customers, helped the community and yes in addition made a profit for reinvestment and reward.

Plenty of people would be delighted to be epitomised by their wealth and business success and would be relatively unconcerned by the opinions others held of the means they had put to use to achieve that end. This is abundantly a fact. Rose tinted views of the world of business aside ultimately people are in business to make money, absent regulation this means that profit is prioritised over all else. Even small businesses who do act in seemingly socially responsible ways only do so so long as they are profitable, if they do not then they soon go out of business or remain unable to expand or develop themselves.

I was faced with this kind of dilemma some years ago, I could either continue penniless and able to consider my conscience entirely clear or I could make a profit and be successful but do so in the knowledge that I would have to make ruthless decisions some times. I continue to try to be as socially responsible as possible but the very nature of what I do is polluted with complicated moral decisions which often require me to turn a blind eye to things which though I am not directly responsible for them are nonetheless a part of the price of my personal business success. It is almost impossible to be in business and not have to do this all the time.

And that's the point, government agencies and ministries do not have to make a profit, this makes it possible for them to behave in ways which are completely socially responsible (and for that matter accountable). They can do this, businesses ultimately cannot when faced with the choice between being socially responsible and being profitable (and that is frequently the choice they face) the requirement of profit supersedes any moral imperative.
 
Last edited:

B_crackoff

Experimental Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2010
Posts
1,726
Media
0
Likes
3
Points
73
Bleeding Hell:eek: stop knocking private businesses.

Most businesses RISK all to set up, & are scrabbling around at the moment.

If you don't work, you don't get paid, you can be saddled with unfeasible debt obligations, an inability to obtain loans for temporary working capital, & revenue demands!

You have NO guaranteed income. You have no legislative right to continue to exist. 99% of private businesses are like this!

The public sector has no or little risk, guaranteed funds, & a legal right to exert a monoploy, in an environment where its hard to get sacked.

Another example of obscene waste was MOD spending (they cocked up helicopters computers etc), an innumerable IT projects in the NHS, CSA etc etc etc.

How about education? The Labour government perpetually(so it seemed) kept on knocking down, waiting a year, constructing a prefab, knocking that down, then building a solid structure school at BOTH ends of my road during the last 6 years!

Was anyone fired or held accountable for any of this ludicrous expense?. Nah!

Unfortunately, I think protectionist measures would benefit the economy more, as the only way we can get rid of 500,000 public sector workers, but employ them in a more useful endeavour - is to subsidise industry!

It's not like we haven't massively subsidised the banks to the tune of £100s of Billions.

The problem is - our membership of the EU doesn't allow it.:frown1:

BTW, the NHS is about the 3rd largest employer in the world - after the Chinese & Indian armies.

One wonders how any other country in the world manages to have greater life expectancy, if not for inefficient resource allocation!
 

vince

Legendary Member
Joined
May 13, 2007
Posts
8,271
Media
1
Likes
1,677
Points
333
Location
Canada
Sexuality
69% Straight, 31% Gay
Gender
Male
IMO there is a "profit" motive in the public service. The profits just come in a different form. Lifetime tenure of workers, teachers, administrators and other regardless of job performance. Pension plans that most in the private sector can only dream of. Make work projects who's main purpose is to perpetuate the system and justify the continued existence and budgets of the ministries. These are all costs to taxpayers as well and are sometimes a type of corruption.

It use to be that public employees accepted a lower wage or salary in exchange for a guaranteed job, insurance and a good pension in old age. That seems to have gone by the wayside. Now the civil service expects high wages as well as their benefits and the private sector expects to make profit without risk when doing work for governments.

I don't have an opinion on the question of which is more cost effective. I think that it is probably a mixed bag based on the type of work, local conditions and available expertise. Sometimes a service may be performed completely by the public sector. Other may be best done by a mix the public and private. It is necessary to analyse the situation case by case and to do so without corruption.