Who says there is a recession on?

[churchward]

I'm just a simple engineer. I don't know what a "pretty stellar margin" is but if a service is sold abroad then it is surely "creating wealth" by the measure that you are using, unlike the majority of the private sector.

 

The fact that "The public sector does not create wealth" myth is used repeatedly to criticise said sector can only lead one to assume that the private sector is held in somewhat higher esteem.

Indeed a myth. for a start the Public sector as a minimum level enables wealth creation by providing essential services and infrastructure like roads for instance.

[cotswoldsman]

Well if Southern cross care Homes is an example of this shinning Private Sector in the Health Service then I am not impressed. The government has had to step in today to guarantee all the residents that if the worse happens (and that looks likely) they will step in and run the care homes. Can you just imagine the stress being felt by there elderly customers while all this uncertainty goes on.

 

[carlt]

Well if Southern cross care Homes is an example of this shinning Private Sector in the Health Service then I am not impressed.

I imagine, when the state steps in to bale them out, there will sure to be some wealth created, in somebody's wallet, somewhere.

[Guest]

Well if Southern cross care Homes is an example of this shinning Private Sector in the Health Service then I am not impressed. The government has had to step in today to guarantee all the residents that if the worse happens (and that looks likely) they will step in and run the care homes. Can you just imagine the stress being felt by there elderly customers while all this uncertainty goes on.

 

Whilst it is dreadful what id happening it should be remembered that serious failings occur in the public sector as well eg Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells. They are not immune.

[ymu]

I think you're confusing cause with effect. Skoolboy economics says private sector creates wealth and the public sector spends it, basically.

 

I'd ask the question the other way around. How does the public sector create wealth?

You're kidding, right?

 

An educated, healthy workforce, roads and transport infrastructure, thriving university sector, and a welfare system which subsidises wages and employment and makes profits possible in areas where no business would otherwise be viable ... doesn't create wealth? How so?

 

L,ndon could not exist without the benefits system, Retail, security, hospitality, cleaning ... few of these workers earn enough to pay their own rent, let alone wat and keep warm. How would London exist if employers had to pay what it cost people to live close enough to work for them?

 

You cannot avoid the possible ecological fallacy when there is no way to do an experiment. But that doesn't, on its own, cut it. Big tobacco tried that one too. It's a facile approach unless you can show how the hypothesis is implausible. There's a whole history of welfare states you need to draw on here, not just hand-waving.

 

This is actual economics and based on three centuries of economic development under capitalism.. There's a reason the Indian census is focused on getting their benefits system sorted. They need a middle- class now and there's no such thing without functioning welfare.

 

Here ya go.

 

Why the claim that government cannot create wealth is provably wrong, from Business Insider. http://www.businessinsider.com/if-you-think-government-cant-create-wealth-youre-wrong-2011-2

[MtB]

During the 'boom' years our local authority replaced virtually everyone of it's secondary schools and the health Trust I worked for commissioned a fantastic state of the art Primary Care hospital.

 

Now Private finance schemes have their faults BUT all those buildings created loads of jobs on site and in the supply chain.

 

I wonder were all those engineers, sparkies, brickies and joiners are now?? and how much disposable income will they have now that they will be collecting job seekers allowance or have gone abroad to seek work. Ditto for those that supplied all the mateials.

 

 

All those 'engineers, sparkies, brickies and joiners' were not paid from current revenue, they were paid with borrowed money which will have to be paid back by future generation(s). Not wealth creation in my book even though many people earned a lving out of it, it's the same as buying stuff on your credit card because you have no money in the bank.

 

But as Carl says, it depends what you mean by wealth creation. The harder I think about it the less sure I am about what I think it is. Good thing I'm not running the country.

 

Mike

[ymu]

Can anyone tell me how replacing a public sector mandarin on mebbe £80k with the CEO of an outsourcing company on millions saves us money? Or does privatising something just automatically make it wealth-creating? As far as I can tell it creates wealth only for a few wealthy people, and makes me poorer.

 

Well, not me. Capita have to pay me three times as much as the NHS when they buy in my advice. Quite cushy for me as a accidental beneficiary of this massive asset grab that the tax-payer is paying through the nose for. But it's bonkers. And it is not wealth creation.

Edited June 1, 2011 by ymu

[ymu]

Here's a good article on multipliers, which could never take values greater than 1 if the public sector were not productive. There's no credible argument here - government spending typically grows the economy by more than it takes out n taxes.

 

http://falseeconomy.org.uk/blog/spending-cuts-harm-the-economy-more-than-tax-rises

 

Which public sector jobs exist for no reason? Where are these unnecessary jobs we're wasting money on for no reason?

[weeble]

My job is to help the NHS assess the harms and benefits done by different treatments so they can use the best possible treatments and avoid those that are not worthwhile. No drug company is going to pay me to do that unless I agree to distort the evidence in their favour and to the detriment of peoples' health. I'd be financially better off, for sure - but not everything's about the money. I'd never be able to publish anything credible ever again, for a start.

 

 

Well, not me. Capita have to pay me three times as much as the NHS when they buy in my advice. Quite cushy for me as a accidental beneficiary of this massive asset grab that the tax-payer is paying through the nose for. But it's bonkers. And it is not wealth creation.

 

Welcome to the real world

[Guest]

All those 'engineers, sparkies, brickies and joiners' were not paid from current revenue, they were paid with borrowed money which will have to be paid back by future generation(s). Not wealth creation in my book even though many people earned a lving out of it, it's the same as buying stuff on your credit card because you have no money in the bank.

 

But as Carl says, it depends what you mean by wealth creation. The harder I think about it the less sure I am about what I think it is. Good thing I'm not running the country.

 

Mike

 

That's the flaw in the current way of doing it though. They still would have been spending money then that ain't been spent now.

[ymu]

Welcome to the real world

Since when was Capita a drug company?

[Morat]

There seems to be a reaction in this thread as if I am saying that the private sector is a good thing and the public sector is a bad thing. That is not true, and it is not my opinion. All this talk of the "shining private sector" and the implication that "the public sector does not create wealth" is used as a criticism is NOT MINE.I value what the public sector does, and I don't think you'll find more esteemed members of society than health professionals, the armed forces and the emergency services.

 

My position is simple. The public sector is bound to shrink because the economy can't support the current cost. All the other emotive crap in this thread does nothing to further the argument.

 

anyway, I'm out.

[carlt]

 

My position is simple. The public sector is bound to shrink because the economy can't support the current cost. All the other emotive crap in this thread does nothing to further the argument.

 

"All the emotive crap" as you put it is, I assume, the stuff that suggests that a healthy economy is a complete lie, if it only benefits the richest few and allows the poorest many to suffer.

 

Perhaps you could explain how France is now experiencing growth, without having to take the "austerity measures" that our condem govt has forced on us, whilst we are still stagnating?

 

The condem policies have failed and it remains to be seen whether they have the guts to admit it and reverse the damage.

[ymu]

There seems to be a reaction in this thread as if I am saying that the private sector is a good thing and the public sector is a bad thing. That is not true, and it is not my opinion. All this talk of the "shining private sector" and the implication that "the public sector does not create wealth" is used as a criticism is NOT MINE.I value what the public sector does, and I don't think you'll find more esteemed members of society than health professionals, the armed forces and the emergency services.

 

My position is simple. The public sector is bound to shrink because the economy can't support the current cost. All the other emotive crap in this thread does nothing to further the argument.

 

anyway, I'm out.

You're not the only person being responded to!

 

You say it has to shrink. But which functions of the public sector are unnecessary? What are we just not going to do at all any more? The private sector pays itself more, so privatising it is just as stupid as the US healthcare system, where they pay the highest % of GDP in the developed world on healthcare in return for the lowest life expectancy.

 

So no easing essentials off the books. What are we just not going to do any more, and how will it make us richer?

 

 

This is what Osborne's plan does to household debt (this is the difference between OBR projections before his first budget and after his latest). The OBR is his baby, they run the numbers for him,

 

 

http://falseeconomy.org.uk/blog/household-debt-up

 

He's relying on the banks to lend us 7 times as much more as he is saving, just to keep the economy afloat. But we pay massive interest rates compared to the government. Bonkers. Bonkers. Bonkers.

 

How can this work? The deficit is the difference between taxes and spending. Someone explain how cutting us into recession can cut the deficit? Who is going to be spending money so that tax is paid on incomes and profits? And where will it come from?

 

Why are we insane enough to try this when our debt is lower than Germany's?

Edited June 2, 2011 by ymu

[grahoom]

You're not the only person being responded to!

 

You say it has to shrink.

 

It will shrink down purely to ideological reasons. The Conservatives have a hankering for smaller state. As such this will mean the shrinkage of the public sector and state run operations.

[nb Innisfree]

"All the emotive crap" as you put it is, I assume, the stuff that suggests that a healthy economy is a complete lie, if it only benefits the richest few and allows the poorest many to suffer.

 

Perhaps you could explain how France is now experiencing growth, without having to take the "austerity measures" that our condem govt has forced on us, whilst we are still stagnating?

 

The condem policies have failed and it remains to be seen whether they have the guts to admit it and reverse the damage.

 

Oh I don't know, it's probably going to plan and working out just right for them.

 

Their plan I should add, whatever that may be.

[ymu]

It will shrink down purely to ideological reasons. The Conservatives have a hankering for smaller state. As such this will mean the shrinkage of the public sector and state run operations.

Yes. And it is that ideology which will drag us under. You can't afford to shrink the state in a recession. Even Maggie grew it year on year, and she still tipped us into some unnecessary dips.

 

It's not up to them. This is supposed to be a democracy and they have no mandate for this. If the Lib Dems dob't crumble soon, there'll be strikes and riots until they're out. They're going too far too fast, and the majority know it, judging from the opinion polls and -20 to 30 approval ratings.

 

They can't survive this incompetence. One way or another, they'll fall unless there is a very radical shift. They're hurting their base, which is stupid. They are too out of touch to play this one well enough, I think. Their base isn't stupid enough to keep falling for this.

[grahoom]

It's not up to them. This is supposed to be a democracy and they have no mandate for this.

 

Their mandate is the fact that under the political system that is present in this country those who are in power make up the policies.

 

It's a democracy - to some degree, not that I really recognise it as such. It's more akin to Crony Capitalism.

[ymu]

Their mandate is the fact that under the political system that is present in this country those who are in power make up the policies.

 

It's a democracy - to some degree, not that I really recognise it as such. It's more akin to Crony Capitalism.

That doesn't mean we have no means to influence policy. The poll tax, and Maggie, fell because of a mass campaign of non-payment and Tory realisation that she had become a liability.

 

We'll only ever get as much democracy as we demand. And people will be demanding it. I'm making a prediction, not stating an ideological position. Although I will be joining the strikes and protests because I agree that this vandalism has to be stopped before it is too late. Rebuilding what we lose now will take generations.

[Minos]

It's not up to them. This is supposed to be a democracy and they have no mandate for this.

Where is it written that our country is supposed to be a democracy? We have a democratically elected legislature, but that doesn't use democratic methods to appoint the government.

 

Anyway, as far as this discussion is concerned, the validity of a government's mandate depends more upon the political inclination of the commentator than any methods used to achieve power.

 

The poll tax, and Maggie, fell because of a mass campaign of non-payment and Tory realisation that she had become a liability.

Again, it depends who you ask. Other commentators say that Maggie fell because she isolated herself from her own supporters in Cabinet and the Parliamentary Party and then alienated and disenfranchised them.

 

There is a difference between objectively discussing an issue and using the issue to declare loyalty to a tribe and take potshots at supporters of other tribes.

[nb Innisfree]

Their mandate is the fact that under the political system that is present in this country those who are in power make up the policies.

 

It's a democracy - to some degree, not that I really recognise it as such. It's more akin to Crony Capitalism.

 

I can't see how we can have a real full democracy, that would be like trying to drive a car by consensus, all we can really have is democracy to some degree which we already have, it's run partly by consensus which means it's never going to be very efficient and will never please everyone all of the time, there will always be arguments which can serve the purpose of diverting peoples focus while other tactics can be discussed off stage without any disturbance. I don't see any essential difference between the parties other than they are the mushroom growers (dark and shit spring to mind) it's just arguing over different shades of grey. I can't see any as yet realistic alternatives personally.

[ymu]

Where is it written that our country is supposed to be a democracy? We have a democratically elected legislature, but that doesn't use democratic methods to appoint the government.

 

Anyway, as far as this discussion is concerned, the validity of a government's mandate depends more upon the political inclination of the commentator than any methods used to achieve power.

 

 

Again, it depends who you ask. Other commentators say that Maggie fell because she isolated herself from her own supporters in Cabinet and the Parliamentary Party and then alienated and disenfranchised them.

 

There is a difference between objectively discussing an issue and using the issue to declare loyalty to a tribe and take potshots at supporters of other tribes.

You assume I support Labour?

 

I don't do tribalism. If your starting point in politics is that one set of politicians is talking sense, you are doomed to fail.

 

I can't see how we can have a real full democracy, that would be like trying to drive a car by consensus, all we can really have is democracy to some degree which we already have, it's run partly by consensus which means it's never going to be very efficient and will never please everyone all of the time, there will always be arguments which can serve the purpose of diverting peoples focus while other tactics can be discussed off stage without any disturbance. I don't see any essential difference between the parties other than they are the mushroom growers (dark and shit spring to mind) it's just arguing over different shades of grey. I can't see any as yet realistic alternatives personally.

The problem is that no party offers a manifesto that the majority want to vote for. We only get to choose the least worst option, and they can renege on everything they said to get elected once in power.

 

We need to break the link between money and political power. I'd abolish political parties and send local delegates to bash out policies much like the committees do now. It's patronage that allows corruption, and the parties are the primary vehicle for patronage in our system.

Edited June 2, 2011 by ymu

[Minos]

I assume nothing. And I certainly don't assume that one set of politicians is talking sense. I've never heard an ounce of sense from any of them.

 

However, if a comment sounds like a cheap potshot, I'll beg your indulgence to permit me to treat it like a cheap potshot.

[ymu]

I assume nothing. And I certainly don't assume that one set of politicians is talking sense. I've never heard an ounce of sense from any of them.

 

However, if a comment sounds like a cheap potshot, I'll beg your indulgence to permit me to treat it like a cheap potshot.

It might have been a cheap potshot, I have no idea which comment you're referring to so I can't check. But you did make the assumption that I was doing so out of loyalty to some sort of party line. You said so.

 

I'm quite capable of despising elected pokiticians for their despicable ignorance and self-serving actions, regardless of the ideological heritage they claim. I'm critiquing neo-liberalism. I'm not going to be doing so from a position of support for a neo-liberal party. Really.

[muddywaters]

Whew what a day.

 

At Aqueduct Marina we've just taken deposits on three boats in one afternoon. Nearly £200,000 worth.

 

Is there really a shortage of buyers out there with money to spend?

I do wonder how much the so-called recession is driven by gloom & doom merchants. Is it all being driven by the government as an excuse to tax us more?

Or maybe some have taken payoffs from jobs and either have another job to go to or are taking early retirement and using extra money to buy a boat