Thank you Kelvin

[pjclarke]

The problem is that we all think (most of us) that paying rip off prices and fares is virtuous as a principle and we ignore the appalling greed and incompetence that goes on in the private sector. I cannot think of any private organisation that prospers without exploiting its suppliers, customers or the environment. It is because the right have no real interest in anyone but themselves and they see the opportunity to take money from others as an entitlement to increasing their own wealth. This state of dogma is further compromised by the affluent right who blindly support capitalist principles (whilst practising extreme socialism - for example banks going cap in hand to the taxpayer for a bailout when their greed and incompetence takes them to the brink of failure, privatise the gains, socialise the losses) who feel pleased with themselves for being "right wing".

ftfy

PS

"Government is a self-seeking flea on the backs of the more productive people of this world … governments do not run countries, they parasitise them"

Matt Ridley, Daily Telegraph 1996. The same Matt Ridley who as chairman of Northern Rock had to apply to the 'parasitic' state for £27bn of 'stolen' taxpayer money after the bank pursued what the Treasury select committee later described as a “high-risk, reckless business strategy”.

Kelvin would no doubt have approved.

[DodgyAgent]

Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Netherlands, Germany, Japan, Canada all seem more "socialist" than the UK, and all quite prosperous-looking to me.

What they all have, and ISTM England does not have any more, is a feeling on the part of the people in general, not just left-wing politicians, that their countries' economic "fairness" is an essential part of what their nation is. Indeed, a feeling that there is such a thing as society.

Of course it is no coincidence that the poorest areas of the country are run by socialists, but that it because the poverty intensifies the desire for fairness, not because socialism causes poverty. That's pretty elementary.

The countries you mention work (to an extent) because they redistribute their wealth better than we do. I am deeply suspicious of anyone who uses the catch all manipulative word "fairness" - what does it mean?

Socialism sure as hell does'nt pull people out of poverty. It keeps them in it and broadens its reach. People pull out of poverty when they are able and willing to undertake capitalist activities in the same way that IT contractors do..

[DodgyAgent]

The problem is that we all think (most of us) that paying rip off prices and fares is virtuous as a principle and we ignore the appalling greed and incompetence that goes on in the private sector. I cannot think of any private organisation that prospers without exploiting its suppliers, customers or the environment. It is because the right have no real interest in anyone but themselves and they see the opportunity to take money from others as an entitlement to increasing their own wealth. This state of dogma is further compromised by the affluent right who blindly support capitalist principles (whilst practising extreme socialism - for example banks going cap in hand to the taxpayer for a bailout when their greed and incompetence takes them to the brink of failure, privatise the gains, socialise the losses) who feel pleased with themselves for being "right wing".

ftfy

PS



Matt Ridley, Daily Telegraph 1996. The same Matt Ridley who as chairman of Northern Rock had to apply to the 'parasitic' state for £27bn of 'stolen' taxpayer money after the bank pursued what the Treasury select committee later described as a “high-risk, reckless business strategy”.

Kelvin would no doubt have approved.

You fail to acknowledge that consumers (and suppliers) have choice in the private sector whereas they do not in the public sector. Businesses that operate within competitive markets are far more efficient than those that do not and are even more efficient than public services.
Your cliche about people thinking paying rip off fares and prices as virtuous is ridiculous -they do not. I have never heard of anyone who is pleased with themselves for paying rip off prices.Affluent lefties on the other hand refuse to question or challenge public services. The only way public services will ever be efficient is if people challenge them.

[Ignis Fatuus]

The countries you mention work (to an extent) because they redistribute their wealth better than we do. I am deeply suspicious of anyone who uses the catch all manipulative word "fairness" - what does it mean?

I'm not sure, but I know the concept exists, albeit possibly different for different people. That's why I carefully put it in quotes when I used the word myself, but did not when I used it to refer to other people's desire for it. In the first case the truth of my point does depend on my understanding of "fairness"; in the second, what matters is whether people have a desire for fairness, whatever their conception of it might be.

I am not trying to sneak in value-laden judgements, quite the opposite.

[pjclarke]

Businesses that operate within competitive markets are far more efficient than those that do not and are even more efficient than public services.

A sweeping generalisation, and once again wrong, the NHS is amongst the most efficient health care services in the developed world, the largely private US is one of the least.

http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-file...erPritWall.pdf

Of course the comparison is skewed; public services by definition are available to all, GPs and public hospitals have to treat all patients, private health companies are only available to the relatively weathly and pick and choose the more 'profitable' illnesses, state schools have an obligation to educate all childen (even so there is some competition, school budgets are dependent on the number of pupils; schools that attract more pupils get more money), private schools select pupils and so forth.

[DodgyAgent]

A sweeping generalisation, and once again wrong, the NHS is amongst the most efficient health care services in the developed world, the largely private US is one of the least.

http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-file...erPritWall.pdf

Of course the comparison is skewed; public services by definition are available to all, GPs and public hospitals have to treat all patients, private health companies are only available to the relatively weathly and pick and choose the more 'profitable' illnesses, state schools have an obligation to educate all childen (even so there is some competition, school budgets are dependent on the number of pupils; schools that attract more pupils get more money), private schools select pupils and so forth.

Well you define efficiency then. If the US one does not provide top quality healthcare for all then by that definition it is probably inefficient. If you think the NHS is efficient then you must live in a different world to me. If you are saying that the NHS is the most efficient provider of healthcare to an entire country then maybe - but that is no endorsement of it as a monopolistic provider.

[Mich the Tester]

Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Netherlands, Germany, Japan, Canada all seem more "socialist" than the UK, and all quite prosperous-looking to me.

NL these days is no more socialist than the UK these days. It can't afford it because it isn't all that prosperous any more.

[pjclarke]

You could try reading the study - to paraphrase efficiency was defined as clinical outcomes divided by economic input; the NHS has one of the lowest mortality rates per pound (or dollar), and for patients surely its the outcomes that matter? The private health companies all operate exclusion lists of conditions they simply will not treat; so the NHS does indeed have a monopoly on those - I speculate that those unlucky enough to contract such conditions might just end up grateful for all those 'stolen' taxes.

[sasguru]

If there was no advertising then how would we know what products suit us?.

Is there no end to your cretinism?

[DodgyAgent]

You could try reading the study - to paraphrase efficiency was defined as clinical outcomes divided by economic input; the NHS has one of the lowest mortality rates per pound (or dollar), and for patients surely its the outcomes that matter? The private health companies all operate exclusion lists of conditions they simply will not treat; so the NHS does indeed have a monopoly on those - I speculate that those unlucky enough to contract such conditions might just end up grateful for all those 'stolen' taxes.

So thats alright then? we slavishly pay our taxes and be grateful in return for the NHS?