Ayn Rand and Objectivism

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

Does it have to? By supporting the nation's health, perhaps its supporting all the private businesses to make money?
Perhaps because of the NHS, small businesses don't have to give their employees BUPA?
Do you give your employees paid-for private health care, Lisa?

But it is not adding to the economy; it cannot make money. That in itself is not so bad but we are now in a position in the UK where, in the region of, 50% of the population are employed by the public sector and therefore not adding to the country's wealth - this cannot be sustainable.

Yes I do actually

[sasguru]

But it is not adding to the economy; it cannot make money. That in itself is not so bad but we are now in a position in the UK where, in the region of, 50% of the population are employed by the public sector and therefore not adding to the country's wealth - this cannot be sustainable.

Yes I do actually

Money is not the sole indicator of added value in an economy.
(otherwise Wayne Rooney would be on minimum wage and a head teacher who changed round a failing school and so affected thousands of lives would be on millions).
It reminds me of that old adage "She knows the cost of everything but the value of nothing"
As an accountant you must know about intangible assets and how hard they are to value?

Incidentally I happen to agree the NHS (and public sector generally) is too large and bloated - I've said that several times.
I never said it doesn't add value though.

Another point is that the coalition is actually tackling the problem but only at the expense of having a permanently larger unemployment rate, I fear.

[GreenLabel]

The efficiency of the public sector is a another issue.

Perhaps, but not entirely. Firstly, the inherent inefficiency within the public sector, along with the frustration and waste that it creates, are a part of the reason why some are attracted to shrink-the-state capitalism.

Secondly, you argued that the economic benefits of the public sector can be seen in the work performed by a subset of that sector. I pointed out that there are other subsets/departments within the public sector that accomplish little more than the flushing away of vast sums of public money. I don't think that you can argue that the public sector as a whole is of significant economic benefit based on the output of a few, when other departments are simply bottomless pits into which buckets of cash are thrown daily.

[sasguru]

Perhaps, but not entirely. Firstly, the inherent inefficiency within the public sector, along with the frustration and waste that it creates, are a part of the reason why some are attracted to shrink-the-state capitalism.

Secondly, you argued that the economic benefits of the public sector can be seen in the work performed by a subset of that sector. I pointed out that there are other subsets/departments within the public sector that accomplish little more than the flushing away of vast sums of public money. I don't think that you can argue that the public sector as a whole is of significant economic benefit based on the output of a few, when other departments are simply bottomless pits into which buckets of cash are thrown daily.

Hyperbolic.

And we were talking about the public sector as a whole.We could always argue about it size, and no one argues it should not be shrunk.

I've got an example of a public sector body that I think does a sterling job and provides me personally with great value for money: The Borough of Wandsworth.

[GreenLabel]

Another point is that the coalition is actually tackling the problem but only at the expense of having a permanently larger unemployment rate, I fear.

Absolutely. All well and good to slash the public sector, but without adequate policies to stimulate private sector growth, all you're doing is lengthening the dole queue. Only the private sector can get the economy moving again and create real jobs - so far I've seen little in the way of policy to encourage this.

[sasguru]

Only the private sector can get the economy moving again and create real jobs - so far I've seen little in the way of policy to encourage this.

Government policy to encourage the private sector?
Lisa will have a fit and Ayn Rand will be spinning in her grave.

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

Government policy to encourage the private sector?
Lisa will have a fit and Ayn Rand will be spinning in her grave.

But that's the point - I think we can all agree that we need the private sector to stimulate the economy - the Government are doing nothing to encourage this, IMHO they are doing quite a lot to discourage it. The question is why

[sasguru]

But that's the point - I think we can all agree that we need the private sector to stimulate the economy - the Government are doing nothing to encourage this, IMHO they are doing quite a lot to discourage it. The question is why

How exactly?

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

Money is not the sole indicator of added value in an economy.
(otherwise Wayne Rooney would be on minimum wage and a head teacher who changed round a failing school and so affected thousands of lives would be on millions).
It reminds me of that old adage "She knows the cost of everything but the value of nothing"
As an accountant you must know about intangible assets and how hard they are to value?

Incidentally I happen to agree the NHS (and public sector generally) is too large and bloated - I've said that several times.
I never said it doesn't add value though.

Another point is that the coalition is actually tackling the problem but only at the expense of having a permanently larger unemployment rate, I fear.

I now understand why you have a reputation for being insulting.

My point, which you have ignored (again) was that 50% of the population do not add wealth to the UK because they work for the public sector and that this is unsustainable.

[GreenLabel]

Hyperbolic.

Not something that you would ever resort to, of course.

And we were talking about the public sector as a whole.

No you weren't; you deliberately singled out those elements of the public sector that can be seen to be delivering something. Much like those who protest against budget cuts on the grounds that it will reduce numbers of nurses, firefighters, and cops, without admitting that there are armies of paper shufflers that could be purged without anyone noticing. "Vital services" I think is the phrase they like to use.

The distinction you need to make is that some of the public sector delivers economic value; suggesting that it delivers value as a whole isn't true.

I've got an example of a public sector body that I think does a sterling job and provides me personally with great value for money: The Borough of Wandsworth.

I live in Wandsworth as well and, while I'm not intimately familiar with their internal organisation, on the surface their operation appears to be well run.