Public vs Private...

[dandelion]

hilaire, nice response. Id add that this is why there must be regulations about responsibility and standards placed on private industry. (and public, of course) If standards are legally binding then every company in the field has to follow them. They are not permitted to succumb to the temptation to cut corners and save money, competitively pushing down standards. Which pointedly brings us back to the example of that remarkable british success story, BP, which shaved a few corners too many. I repeat what I posted in the thread about that. The US authorities failed to regulate the industry properly or that disaster might have been prevented. The US alternative of suing a company to death after the event is not good enough. It is too late. The UK government needs to consider this carefully before abolishing too many regulations.

 

[dandelion]

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.

I remember going on an IT course where I was told about the government IT department, all in-house, which did all the programming for the government. It had a very good reputation. What happened? It was privatised! everything went out to tender to private companies. Private companies which are the ones now cocking up contract after contract after contract. Government computer contracts are all done by PRIVATE INDUSTRY!

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!

We have some very good private schools in this country. I bet they have beautiful buildings. Very good results. They also cost twice as much to educate each child.

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

The root cause of the educational failures is never discussed. Politicians do not like to admit that they could get better educational results but it would cost a lot lot more. Now, the PFI, private finance initiative, whereby private companies are given contracts to build and run state buildings such as schools, is a staggering waste of money which will eventually cost way more than had the state built and maintained those buildings itself. Just, the bill is passed on the next or later governments. Private industry is responsible for a big chunk of current government debt and some of those terrible buildings we have now. (Oh, and it was a CONSERVATIVE invention!) Incidentally, the EU has just introduced regulations to compel governments in europe to admit how high their liabilities on PFI are. Watch and wait.

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!

Massive state subsidies to industry nearly bankrupted this country in the 70's. Not simply the unsustainable cost, but that since industry did not need to become comptetitive to keep going, well, it didnt. Incidentally, this is not new. Winston Churchill complained about the poor quality of british steam trains compared to US ones in 1900 when both sorts were used in Egypt. (they only used US ones because british companies were unable to supply this side of doomesday, and then the US ones turned out to be much better)

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

which on historical precedent suggest they are long overdue for cutting down to size.

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

Panto time is coming. Oh yes it does!

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

shows we would rather spend our money on doctors than soldiers. Thats bad???

 

[D_Sir Fitzwilly Wankheimer III]

...public service provision that is.

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? Private companies will lie, beg, murder and steal and will sell the cheapest crap at the highest prices they can get away with.


Why do people believe that private companies can be held accountable by markets which have just now created one of the worst recessions in history by behaving in totally socially irresponsible ways while governments seduced by the argument that the market polices itself for this kind of malpractice just stood by and allowed businesses to cause untold economic destruction in the reckless pursuit of grotesque and seemingly exponential profit?

Why do people believe that to encourage the entrepreneur is a social good and the best tonic for all that currently ails a substantial portion of the world economy? Wasn't it the inherently selfish nature of this mode of economic activity which fed the recent decades of rampant greed and naked avarice which have brought about the situation we're in now?

Surely its iniquitous to undermine the public sector which when the chips were down was the only part of most economies which was in good standing with the bank while thousands of private businesses went to wall because of their unregulated and insatiable hunger for profits regardless of the dangers of over extension, or even taking in to account negligence and the possibility of the good times running out.

Why should public sector jobs be slashed and public service incomes cut across the world forcing millions below the poverty line or at least in to financial turmoil just to try to kick-start a private sector which not only caused the recession we're in now but in causing that recession proved without a shadow of a doubt that it is incapable of regulating itself let alone taking up the slack for a massive public sector shrinkage?

How could anyone be expected to believe that captains of industry so recently gone down with their ships, ships sunk by incompetence, could fail to make the same balls up of public service provision?

So why do governments, like that of the UK, around the developed world still think the private sector is anything other than a caged drunk chimera only waiting for the key to be turned in the lock keeping it at bay allowing it to destroy the public sector just as surely as it befouled its own nest?

you are so far off i don't even know where to begin commie dumbass

 

[D_Sir Fitzwilly Wankheimer III]

...public service provision that is.

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? Private companies will lie, beg, murder and steal and will sell the cheapest crap at the highest prices they can get away with.


Why do people believe that private companies can be held accountable by markets which have just now created one of the worst recessions in history by behaving in totally socially irresponsible ways while governments seduced by the argument that the market polices itself for this kind of malpractice just stood by and allowed businesses to cause untold economic destruction in the reckless pursuit of grotesque and seemingly exponential profit?

Why do people believe that to encourage the entrepreneur is a social good and the best tonic for all that currently ails a substantial portion of the world economy? Wasn't it the inherently selfish nature of this mode of economic activity which fed the recent decades of rampant greed and naked avarice which have brought about the situation we're in now?

Surely its iniquitous to undermine the public sector which when the chips were down was the only part of most economies which was in good standing with the bank while thousands of private businesses went to wall because of their unregulated and insatiable hunger for profits regardless of the dangers of over extension, or even taking in to account negligence and the possibility of the good times running out.

Why should public sector jobs be slashed and public service incomes cut across the world forcing millions below the poverty line or at least in to financial turmoil just to try to kick-start a private sector which not only caused the recession we're in now but in causing that recession proved without a shadow of a doubt that it is incapable of regulating itself let alone taking up the slack for a massive public sector shrinkage?

How could anyone be expected to believe that captains of industry so recently gone down with their ships, ships sunk by incompetence, could fail to make the same balls up of public service provision?

So why do governments, like that of the UK, around the developed world still think the private sector is anything other than a caged drunk chimera only waiting for the key to be turned in the lock keeping it at bay allowing it to destroy the public sector just as surely as it befouled its own nest?

give me one example of a nation currently practicing what you preach that is sucessful?

 

[dandelion]

There was an interesting program the other month comparing the US now and maybe 50 years ago. Taxes were higher, income was more even, people happier and felt more affluent. Since then there have been huge cuts in taxes, especially on the rich, the debt has run completely out of control and the US world position is in sharp decline. not adopting the sort of government intervention Hilaire is talking about is destroying the US.

 

[D_Tim McGnaw]

you are so far off i don't even know where to begin commie dumbass

Ah OK so your reaction to opinions you don't agree with is to call those who hold them a "commie dumbass"? Really? You seriously want that on your record? I mean how backward and 1950's do you want people to presume you are?

Please

give me one example of a nation currently practicing what you preach that is sucessful?

I haven't preached anything, I've asked questions and offered opinions for discussion, the fact that you have failed to engage in constructive or intelligent refutation or discussion suggests you may be incapable of doing so.

Frankly these two posts of yours are within a hair's breadth of being outright trolling, and are not in keeping with the spirit or the word of the rules which this forum operates under. In future have a care for how your words appear, and consider engaging intelligently with ideas you disagree with rather than resorting to name calling and pointless one liners.

In other words, act your age not your shoe size.

 

[Jason]

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.

Super! It sounds as if you are acting as a morally responsible entrepreneur. Profit is one goal among many. Morality plays a part in your business life as in all your life. And the private sector allows you to express that morality. Your employees will understand the sort of ethical business you are running and will decide to stay or leave in part on their agreement (or otherwise) with your ethics.

 

[D_Tim McGnaw]

Super! It sounds as if you are acting as a morally responsible entrepreneur. Profit is one goal among many. Morality plays a part in your business life as in all your life. And the private sector allows you to express that morality. Your employees will understand the sort of ethical business you are running and will decide to stay or leave in part on their agreement (or otherwise) with your ethics.

I can't pretend that I'm happy about every decision I take though. Frequently the necessity of keeping my business going causes me to make decisions I am not comfortable with ethically.

I'm also aware that if I wished to become extremely rich and extremely successful I would have to make a lot of extremely morally questionable decisions which placed the pursuit of profit well above ethical concerns.

 

[Jason]

I can't pretend that I'm happy about every decision I take though. Frequently the necessity of keeping my business going causes me to make decisions I am not comfortable with ethically.

I'm also aware that if I wished to become extremely rich and extremely successful I would have to make a lot of extremely morally questionable decisions which placed the pursuit of profit well above ethical concerns.

But that's life. We take moral decisions all the time. Some keep us awake at night. Business is just a part of life.

I'm only half self-employed so only a toe in the business world (the day job stops the risk of me starving!) But I don't want to be extremely rich. When we really stop and think about it, who does? I'm self employed to do things that are interesting, worthwhile, create opportunities for people and yes bring me an income and return a profit.

 

[D_Tim McGnaw]

But that's life. We take moral decisions all the time. Some keep us awake at night. Business is just a part of life.

I'm only half self-employed so only a toe in the business world (the day job stops the risk of me starving!) But I don't want to be extremely rich. When we really stop and think about it, who does? I'm self employed to do things that are interesting, worthwhile, create opportunities for people and yes bring me an income and return a profit.

Well no, there are lots and lots and lots of people who do want to be rich and have no qualms about how they become rich.

That there happen to be some entrepreneurs who have a social conscience doesn't change that, and nor does it mean that the world of business is an easy place to operate ethically. In fact quite the opposite. It means that modern business practice requires people to make unethical decisions to make a living.

That's exactly why the private sector is not a viable surrogate public service provider.

 

[Speculator]

If more state is the answer to our economic problems then the USSR would powering ahead as we speak!

It's a shame that debate generally focusses on the negatives of capitalism, the positives are almost always glossed over or ignored entirely.

 

[D_Tim McGnaw]

If more state is the answer to our economic problems then the USSR would powering ahead as we speak!

It's a shame that debate generally focusses on the negatives of capitalism, the positives are almost always glossed over or ignored entirely.

I don't think anyone, least of all me, is suggesting that we should live in a command economy controled by the state a la the USSR.

The problem is that all too often doctrinaire politicians view things in very black and white terms this in turn creates extreme swings in the way public services are organised whenever countries change the colour of their government. The chaos and social upheaval these swings create are part of what keeps us from developing better societies.

What you're saying about the ills of capitalism being focused on too often could just as easily be said of how little focus is given to the positive aspects of the public sector.

 

[B_crackoff]

I remember going on an IT course where I was told about the government IT department, all in-house, which did all the programming for the government. It had a very good reputation. What happened? It was privatised! everything went out to tender to private companies. Private companies which are the ones now cocking up contract after contract after contract. Government computer contracts are all done by PRIVATE INDUSTRY!

Ah no! The Labour(!) government decided that there wasn't enough skill or innovation to build the f*cking absurd systems they wanted.

Therefore they outsourced to IBM (who then their sold off department to Fujitsu), I think Accura, & others.

The problem wasn't skills, or whoever did it - THE PROBLEM WAS THE SERVICE LEVEL CONTRACTS THE PUBLIC SECTOR NEGOTIATED(sorry to shout!)

I think the ones who f*cked up the court system went tits up after receiving £billions, & Fujitsu succesfully contested, that as no one had ever done what they wanted, they weren't responsible for its timescale or cost!

The no. of Government IT workers hasn't gone down at all, I'm sure - just a lot of people jumped ship for more cash in projects that were never completed.

The problems in the IT systems in the military (how many billions did those helicopters cost?), the sale of Qiniteq, the Treasury sale of gold AT THE LOWEST BID PRICE, let alone at its lowest level for decades, educational, Health, police etc ineffectual harmonisation of purchasing, all cost billions in overexpenditure, & ALL those decisions are made by public servants WHO DON'T GET SACKED!

We have some very good private schools in this country. I bet they have beautiful buildings. Very good results. They also cost twice as much to educate each child.

But not us - 600,000 kids privately educated/year saves us £3.5Bn!

http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/rsgateway/DB/TIM/m002012/NSRStatsJuneGDP140809.pdf
BBC NEWS | UK | Education | More children in private schools

The root cause of the educational failures is never discussed. Polit
icians do not like to admit that they could get better educational results but it would cost a lot lot more. Now, the PFI, private finance initiative, whereby private companies are given contracts to build and run state buildings such as schools, is a staggering waste of money which will eventually cost way more than had the state built and maintained those buildings itself. Just, the bill is passed on the next or later governments. Private industry is responsible for a big chunk of current government debt and some of those terrible buildings we have now. (Oh, and it was a CONSERVATIVE invention!) Incidentally, the EU has just introduced regulations to compel governments in europe to admit how high their liabilities on PFI are. Watch and wait.

This was New Labour's window dressing. An Off balance sheet con trick. Instead of using current tax revenue, or borrowing, they securitised - i.e forced future generations to pay for their contemporaneous gain.

It's worse than you think. We're forced to pay for, & occupy bulidings for schools, hopitals, & most of the entire Government departments - and at the end of that - We're HOMELESS! We don't own a brick of it. What a con. What a New Labour rip off(I bet the Tories wish they could have gotten away with it though:smile to pay for obscene rises in social provision

In 20 years time, most Government departments will have to stump up for new accomodation.

Or was it always the plan that at this point they would be in private hands eh?

I briefly worked for a company looking to take over the Millenium Dome.

6 HOURS into it, we recommended - no f*cking way! I mean, that's got to be a record!

There was no proper documentation of ownership, intellectual property, responsibility. One cannot continue without those, yet this is f*cking typical of the public sector. It's vague, the people are incompetent, or have been appointed having no clue about how the entity should work - bottom to up.

It gets like that in FTSE 100 companies too, I agree - I saw shocking practices - continued simply because the top brass had their own time scale, & f8ck the future - a complete muddle though.

The difference is, in the long term, those companies go tits up/ get fined ( & technically directors charged), but there is no equivalent sanction in the public sector.

Massive state subsidies to industry nearly bankrupted this country in the 70's. Not simply the unsustainable cost, but that since industry did not need to become comptetitive to keep going, well, it didnt. Incidentally, this is not new. Winston Churchill complained about the poor quality of british steam trains compared to US ones in 1900 when both sorts were used in Egypt. (they only used US ones because british companies were unable to supply this side of doomesday, and then the US ones turned out to be much better)

Well that's an argument for private enterprise! That said, in 1900 -the trains were bloody faster than they are now(station to station)! And more punctual.:smile:

which on historical precedent suggest the banks are long overdue for cutting down to size.

Too true - but every Government is wholly in their pockets! It was the greatest transfer of wealth from the poor & middle income earners in history - theft on a massive scale, politically agreed to by all major parties! They don't represent us, they represent the bank's interests.


shows we would rather spend our money on doctors than soldiers. Thats bad???

I know a dentist who runs a 7 day a week surgery, & he can't even get a weekend dentist for £2000.

That's 2 days a week. £2 Grand.

A soldier risks his life & gets £15-20K/ann.

Gordon Brown raised GP/dentist/ judicial salaries so much,that where the average GP earned £63k in 2001, they now earn £107k.

I don't call that VFM. Especially when you consider that many doctors & judges on the verge of retiring, opted to work one extra year, & got a £60K pension instead of £40K.

It cost per GP/Judge/dentist AN EXTRA £500K in pension benefits alone.

Now that's f*cking up the future generations & mismanagement for ya!

I'd bring in a recessive tax like a shot to tax that unearned income. It just shows how horrific & unfair State final salary pension schemes are.

Only an average salary, & funded one at that, would be equitable.

Think of all these kids going to uni, & from next year facing debts at 21/22 of £50-60K(at market rate interest!), whilst others are retiring in comparative splendour, their lifestyles funded by young adults in massive debt.

It's repellent. We'll have massive disturbances, it's only a question of when.

Won't somebody think of the children. LOL!:smile:

 

[Speculator]

I don't think anyone, least of all me, is suggesting that we should live in a command economy controled by the state a la the USSR.

The problem is that all too often doctrinaire politicians view things in very black and white terms this in turn creates extreme swings in the way public services are organised whenever countries change the colour of their government. The chaos and social upheaval these swings create are part of what keeps us from developing better societies.

What you're saying about the ills of capitalism being focused on too often could just as easily be said of how little focus is given to the positive aspects of the public sector.

Well maybe that's the case in Ireland but it's quite different here in the UK. Our major problem stems from the complete opposite, the 3 main parties are so similar that it's almost impossible to tell them apart. The reason we have a coalition right now is because the Tories were promising to keep Labour's crazy system of governance largely intact, as a result nobody turned out to vote for them.

I would like to see a few more "doctinaire politicians", ideology has become a dirty so the bulk of our politicians gather in the centre where it's safe, but the quality of political discourse has suffered because of this.

 

[D_Tim McGnaw]

Well maybe that's the case in Ireland but it's quite different here in the UK. Our major problem stems from the complete opposite, the 3 main parties are so similar that it's almost impossible to tell them apart. The reason we have a coalition right now is because the Tories were promising to keep Labour's crazy system of governance largely intact, as a result nobody turned out to vote for them.

I would like to see a few more "doctinaire politicians", ideology has become a dirty so the bulk of our politicians gather in the centre where it's safe, but the quality of political discourse has suffered because of this.

Yeah maybe that's the case in the UK you imagine you live in but if you really believe the current economic program being introduced by the Tory/LibDem coalition in the UK (and btw I'm a UK citizen, and lived in the UK until I was in my teens, I still take an active interest in the politics of my country) is a centrist one then you're very mistaken. Don't be seduced by the absurd pantomime of elections in which politicians out do one another to say as little as possible and rock the boat even less. Politicians affect to be centrist in order to get elected, what they do once they have a mandate for government is an entirely separate thing.

The current program of the coalition in the UK is an aggressively anti-social program aimed at prioritising the ability of businesses to exploit their workers, enforce wage deflation and undermine employee rights. It proposes to decimate the public sector (putting hundreds of thousands out of jobs if at all possible, because it's simply cheaper in the short term to pay them dole rather than proper wages) while allowing the private sector to parasitise the British tax payer in becoming a cheap and not-so-cheerful public service provider which will extort from and exploit those whom it should be serving. It's a libertarian rightwing political program which is as doctrinaire as they come.

 

[Speculator]

Yeah maybe that's the case in the UK you imagine you live in but if you really believe the current economic program being introduced by the Tory/LibDem coalition in the UK (and btw I'm a UK citizen, and lived in the UK until I was in my teens, I still take an active interest in the politics of my country) is a centrist one then you're very mistaken. Don't be seduced by the absurd pantomime of elections in which politicians out do one another to say as little as possible and rock the boat even less. Politicians affect to be centrist in order to get elected, what they do once they have a mandate for government is an entirely separate thing.

I don't think that there's some sort of sinister alterior motive attached to the coalition, they appear to have staked out the centre ground because it's a safe place to be when you don't know what you believe. There's been a concerted effort by the British left wing to try and undermine Cameron et al with taunts of his alleged Thatcherite sympathies, but that's really not the case. Just look and listen to the three leaders Cameron, Clegg and Milliband, they're like interchangeable political clones. All bereft of decent coherent policy which they try and make up for with spin and decent PR. These guys are managers not conviction politicians, and it shows with their rather dull take on politics.

The current program of the coalition in the UK is an aggressively anti-social program aimed at prioritising the ability of businesses to exploit their workers, enforce wage deflation and undermine employee rights. It proposes to decimate the public sector (putting hundreds of thousands out of jobs if at all possible, because it's simply cheaper in the short term to pay them dole rather than proper wages) while allowing the private sector to parasitise the British tax payer in becoming a cheap and not-so-cheerful public service provider which will extort from and exploit those whom it should be serving. It's a libertarian rightwing political program which is as doctrinaire as they come.

If the coalition implement wage deflation it would only be the continuation of a New Labour policy. They ruined wages with high housing prices, high taxes and unlimited immigration from the EU.

If you look at the stats you'll notice that the government are actually increasing spending year on year, they're making changes but that is their democratic right. Labour had their chance and they've led us toward the brink of disaster.

 

[D_Tim McGnaw]

I don't think that there's some sort of sinister alterior motive attached to the coalition, they appear to have staked out the centre ground because it's a safe place to be when you don't know what you believe. There's been a concerted effort by the British left wing to try and undermine Cameron et al with taunts of his alleged Thatcherite sympathies, but that's really not the case. Just look and listen to the three leaders Cameron, Clegg and Milliband, they're like interchangeable political clones. All bereft of decent coherent policy which they try and make up for with spin and decent PR. These guys are managers not conviction politicians, and it shows with their rather dull take on politics.




If the coalition implement wage deflation it would only be the continuation of a New Labour policy. They ruined wages with high housing prices, high taxes and unlimited immigration from the EU.

If you look at the stats you'll notice that the government are actually increasing spending year on year, they're making changes but that is their democratic right. Labour had their chance and they've led us toward the brink of disaster.

Oh please spare me the Conservative party conference spiel, I think Labour is equally to blame for becoming seduced by rightwing economic policies which pretend that markets have morals.

I seriously worry about a world in which the three main political parties of the UK could be described as centrist in anything other than a purely local sense. Comparitively all three are significantly right of centre (in terms of the economics they espouse) and it's a mark of how economically right wing Britain has become over the course of the last 20 or 30 years that this is the case.

Unfortunately this tendency is what has brought about the current crisis in Britain and in many other countries.

 

[Speculator]

Oh please spare me the Conservative party conference spiel, I think Labour is equally to blame for becoming seduced by rightwing economic policies which pretend that markets have morals.

I seriously worry about a world in which the three main political parties of the UK could be described as centrist in anything other than a purely local sense. Comparitively all three are significantly right of centre (in terms of the economics they espouse) and it's a mark of how economically right wing Britain has become over the course of the last 20 or 30 years that this is the case.

Unfortunately this tendency is what has brought about the current crisis in Britain and in many other countries.

I don't know how all three parties could be described as "right of centre" in an economic sense when they advocate the state spending 50% of GDP. That is not a right wing policy, Communist China doesn't even go to such lengths because they know it ends up strangling business.

Labour messed it up because they're incompetent, not because they're right wing.

 

[D_Tim McGnaw]

I don't know how all three parties could be described as "right of centre" in an economic sense when they advocate the state spending 50% of GDP. That is not a right wing policy, Communist China doesn't even go to such lengths because they know it ends up strangling business.

Labour messed it up because they're incompetent, not because they're right wing.

You know as well as I do that it's not how much is spent by government but how it spends its money which defines its political alignment.

Comparisons with China are spurious and specious. China has never been communist so calling it "communist China" just sounds quaint frankly, especially when you point out that it's pro-private wealth creation in the same sentence.

 

[Speculator]

You know as well as I do that it's not how much is spent by government but how it spends its money which defines its political alignment.

Not really, in general the right prefer to see lower taxation with less state interference and the left tend to suport the opposite.

Are you saying that the £120bn the coalition is spending on health differs from the £120bn that Labour were spending? I didn't even know you could money in a right/left wing fashion.

Comparisons with China are spurious and specious. China has never been communist so calling it "communist China" just sounds quaint frankly, especially when you point out that it's pro-private wealth creation in the same sentence.

No country on earth has ever been 100% communist but that doesn't prevent us from labelling countries such as the USSR, Cuba or China as being so. Yes China allows private wealth creation, but it's still a Communist regime, one than knows better than to allow gov't to dictate the economy to that degree.

Incidentally the success of the Chinese economy has been due to the introduction of capitalism, before it was permitted living standards were truly abysmal. This is where we're going wrong, instead of rolling back the state (to borrow a old conservative line) we're hell bent on increasing it's scope. This has never worked in any country in the past so I don't see why it's going to help now.

So in effect I'm arguing the complete opposite to you, the economy has gone tits up because we allowed the public sector to run riot. The private sector are now expected to clear up the mess by paying taxes and creating jobs.