Venezuela

[Section_31]

The cost of running things properly would reduce other costs over time.

 

Council services are a good example. When the credit crunch hit the Tories saw this as an opportunity to eviscerate local authorities IMO, which they see as the antithesis of everything they stand for- I.e a public sector body with 'bloated bureaucracy doing everything for everyone'. Which the government would prefer to just see as administration centres rather than the owners and providers of services.

 

To save cash they outsourced loads of their work. The council where my mum works outsourced care and now there's cases of bed blocking in hospital because they're so shit. They dismantled a lot of their mental health intervention services and replaced them with agencies that hire unskilled staff that don't work after 6pm, so the police get called to mental health crises.

 

The money is going down the bog and people are suffering.  I'd take the short term hit for the long term stability. 

[Boss]

39 minutes ago, Section_31 said:

Boss, aspects of our economy are state run, just not by our state. Arriva is owned by the German government. 

 

We spend huge sums on outsourced services to clowns like carrilian and G4S, they're not more efficient- they're less efficient - and a lot of the money YOU give them goes into shareholders' and/or CEO pockets.

 

Look at all the academy and free schools which get money lashed at them no matter how shit they are because the government ideologically won't let them fail, while state schools are taking pen and paper donations from parents.

 

The money is there, it's already being spent, it's just going to the wrong people.

 

You’re totally right about most of our private sector being foreign state run, and yes we do spend money to subsidise companies that have made a pigs ear of government contracts. I’d even concede the service isn’t as good, but it’s not economically less efficient.

 

It’s much worse to incur all the cost and pay all the employees a salary at the taxpayers expense. Then you’ve got the issue of zero accountability for keeping the books in order because the debt defaults on the taxpayer. The Unions are much stronger, which inevitably leads to strikes driving the whole thing to a halt. it’s a nightmare to get rid of anyone - even if they’ve been off for years claiming pay. For me, personally, that’s inefficient. 

[Numero Veinticinco]

Erm, the fares will pay wages. Like they do now. 

[moof]

[Captain Howdy]

It’s all moot imo about what Corbyn will or won’t do because he’ll never win, I honestly think that this is (unfortunately ) a Tory country and when this includes a mostly Conservative supporting media it makes his task incredibly difficult. 1974 is the last time a Labour PM not called Tony Blair was elected......1974

[Boss]

3 minutes ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

Erm, the fares will pay wages. Like they do now. 

The government have to pay the wages, regardless of what's taken in fares.

[Numero Veinticinco]

2 minutes ago, Boss said:

The government have to pay the wages, regardless of what's taken in fares.

Yes. Considering profit is taken out of the equation, they’ll be able to pay them and lower fares. That leaves more money to spend in shops.

 

Horrendous. 

[Boss]

Just now, Numero Veinticinco said:

Yes. Considering profit is taken out of the equation, they’ll be able to pay them and lower fares. That leaves more money to spend in shops.

 

Horrendous. 

They'll be operating at a loss.

[TheHowieLama]

1 hour ago, Jairzinho said:

Being healthy and having a means of getting to work is probably quite good for the economy.

Especially if the job you are going to pays a livable wage.

[Numero Veinticinco]

7 minutes ago, Boss said:

They'll be operating at a loss.

Why’s that then? Why will they wipe out the profits it’s currently making? Why can’t the government claw back £3 for ever £1 it puts in? Why can’t the government make billions in profit, putting that profit back into the economy? Because you typed it? 

[TheHowieLama]

12 minutes ago, moof said:

This is your chance to chime in on how socialism has improved every single country in the world.

[Boss]

1 minute ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

Why’s that then? 

Because the last time it was nationalised it was hemorrhaging money.

[cloggypop]

48 minutes ago, Boss said:

The government have to pay the wages, regardless of what's taken in fares.

No change there then. 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/jan/05/richard-branson-defends-government-bailout-of-virgins-east-coast-rail

 

Except for any future profits being for the country. 

[SasaS]

Imaging the weight of expectations when you have to walk around as Lord Adonis.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

1 hour ago, Boss said:

 

You’re totally right about most of our private sector being foreign state run, and yes we do spend money to subsidise companies that have made a pigs ear of government contracts. I’d even concede the service isn’t as good, but it’s not economically less efficient.

 

It’s much worse to incur all the cost and pay all the employees a salary at the taxpayers expense. Then you’ve got the issue of zero accountability for keeping the books in order because the debt defaults on the taxpayer. The Unions are much stronger, which inevitably leads to strikes driving the whole thing to a halt. it’s a nightmare to get rid of anyone - even if they’ve been off for years claiming pay. For me, personally, that’s inefficient. 

Absolutely fictional account of public services.  In the real world, it's nothing like that.

[TheHowieLama]

7 minutes ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

Absolutely fictional account of public services.  In the real world, it's nothing like that.

Which part -- certainly in the US federal employees have more protection in terms of being fired than in the private sector. The debt part is correct as well - unless you assume any nationalized service will always be in the black. Which we did with the USPS. And it wasn't.

 

What is it like in the real world?

[Rico1304]

14 minutes ago, TheHowieLama said:

Which part -- certainly in the US federal employees have more protection in terms of being fired than in the private sector. The debt part is correct as well - unless you assume any nationalized service will always be in the black. Which we did with the USPS. And it wasn't.

 

What is it like in the real world?

Ask anyone who’s ever had to deal with Royal Mail or the Post Office.  Fucking nightmare. 

[TheHowieLama]

Try going to the DMV here -- not even the Feds - it is state run - difficult.

[Rico1304]

40 minutes ago, TheHowieLama said:

Try going to the DMV here -- not even the Feds - it is state run - difficult.

The Simpsons doesn’t paint a good picture. 

 

Ive dealt with RM and PO in my old job and they were horrendous.  Some great people but totally and utterly hamstrung by red tape, inefficiency and lack of investment.  Although their offices in central London were nice.  And they did a good buffet. 

[AngryOfTuebrook]

2 hours ago, Boss said:

The government have to pay the wages, regardless of what's taken in fares.

And they don't have to pay any shareholder dividends; any surplus gets reinvested. Also, if you consider the UK's private rail network and our increasingly fragmented and privatised NHS, nationalisation means you cut out loads of wasteful competition, transfer payments, legal fees, consultant's fees, duplication, etc. Our privatised rail services actually cost the taxpayers  - let alone the passengers - far more per passenger mile than nationalised rail would.  Similarly, the "internal market" in the NHS has wasted billions in public money. 

[polymerpunkah]

Speaking of private-sector efficiency, where was this criticism of socialism when the banks were being bailed out?

 

How many billions was it that they walked away with?

 

 

 

 

[AngryOfTuebrook]

1 hour ago, TheHowieLama said:

Which part -- certainly in the US federal employees have more protection in terms of being fired than in the private sector. The debt part is correct as well - unless you assume any nationalized service will always be in the black. Which we did with the USPS. And it wasn't.

 

What is it like in the real world?

"Zero accountability" is a complete fiction. 

 

The notion of "private sector efficient/public sector inefficient" is a fairy story from the Chicago School.

 

Private companies often operate on huge levels of debt. If their debt gets too great, they can increase prices or retrench: stop trying to reach customers who are too expensive to profitably reach. Neither of these are options for public services, because, y'know, they're public services: if they're not reaching the people who need them, they're not fulfilling their purpose. So, the whole idea that public services incur debts is a logical fallacy. Trying to judge public services against the success criteria of of the private sector will always give unfavourable results; and vice versa.

 

In the public sector, the costs are borne by the taxpayers, but all the surpluses and all the benefits also accrue to the taxpayers.  Nothing leeches out into private pockets. 

 

Stronger unions does not "inevitably" lead to more strikes. Bad management leads to more strikes. Stronger unions, especially if they are represented in the boardroom, help to resolve potential disputes before it comes to the nuclear option of a strike.

 

Decent levels of job security is not a bad thing.  If you're concerned about sacking inefficient individuals, I've yet to see evidence that the private sector does this better than the public sector. 

[polymerpunkah]

What would have happened to your economy if those banks were allowed to fail?

 

Would that crisis have been blamed on capitalism?

 

 

 

[TheHowieLama]

15 minutes ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

"Zero accountability" is a complete fiction. 

 

The notion of "private sector efficient/public sector inefficient" is a fairy story from the Chicago School.

 

Private companies often operate on huge levels of debt. If their debt gets too great, they can increase prices or retrench: stop trying to reach customers who are too expensive to profitably reach. Neither of these are options for public services, because, y'know, they're public services: if they're not reaching the people who need them, they're not fulfilling their purpose. So, the whole idea that public services incur debts is a logical fallacy. Trying to judge public services against the success criteria of of the private sector will always give unfavourable results; and vice versa.

 

In the public sector, the costs are borne by the taxpayers, but all the surpluses and all the benefits also accrue to the taxpayers.  Nothing leeches out into private pockets. 

 

Stronger unions does not "inevitably" lead to more strikes. Bad management leads to more strikes. Stronger unions, especially if they are represented in the boardroom, help to resolve potential disputes before it comes to the nuclear option of a strike.

 

Decent levels of job security is not a bad thing.  If you're concerned about sacking inefficient individuals, I've yet to see evidence that the private sector does this better than the public sector. 

Zero accountability -- agreed, if anything today,government would probably need to be more accountable

 

Re: private sector/public sector efficiency - neither can be assumed. In fact it is probably a wash which makes it easy to identify just how much revenue is involved.

 

Private companies also do not enjoy monopolies. Difficult to get around.

 

Unless you consider the countless paid consultants and  outside resources not leeches.

 

He didn't say "more" strikes. You said that. Difficult to say that stronger unions make them less secure in any event.

 

Agree - my mom and my wife were both public school teachers.

 

In any case, I agree with the notion that some services should be provided at the Federal level - it just makes sense. Some of these do not have to be judged against against the private sector -- in fact if they could just all break even it would be great. Providing of course they are stuff I like --

 

otherwise, privatize!!

[TheHowieLama]

3 minutes ago, polymerpunkah said:

What would have happened to your economy if those banks were allowed to fail?

 

 

 

 

You mean the US?