Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

If The Public Sector Went On Strike...


Recommended Posts

Sure, that's why you elect representatives to do it for you. But if they're not doing what tou elected them yo, you have the chance to wade in.

No I don't, if this were the case then the economy would be running very differently. What happens is I vote somebody in and then they get free reign to make any decisions they want - parliament is sovereign - until their time is up. Then we get to go through the whole process again. They lack the effective feedback mechanisms that in the private sector would end in insolvency, they protect themselves from their own economic mismanagement.

But again you're equating value with cost. People can opt to have schemes in place to eg protect dormice that have very little overt economic value.

The value is subjective, the cost isn't. If a local authority wanted to spend all their money on doormouse protection then they should be limited by the economic decisons that they make. In other words their tax renenue should fall because they've offered services with very little economic benefits. Under the current arrangements they can spend all their money on whatever they want and when they run out they just put up taxes! This is destructive because you have to take on the financial burden of their policy failures.

You want good quality services, I want decent services also. It make sense then if we only paid more in taxation when the services we received were of a higher quality, this incentivises the public sector into using their resources more efficiently.

But again decisions of that magnitude are made at societal level. if there were votes in it, there's be a party advocating it you could vote for. There isn't. What does that tell you ?

It tells me the major parties in this country have a VI in protecting home owners at the expense of renters. It also tells me that they're political cowards because they're unable to offer anything other than the status quo, which has led to massive imbalances in the economy.

Edited by chefdave
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 142
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

But again you're equating value with cost. People can opt to have schemes in place to eg protect dormice that have very little overt economic value.

If they fund such schemes, then obviously the schemes have overt economic value to them. but if someone else is forced to fund the schemes, then they do not have to judge themselves whether the extra value they get is worth the price because someone else experiences the price.

Edited by Stars
Link to post
Share on other sites
No I don't, if this were the case then the economy would be running very differently. What happens is I vote somebody in and then they get free reign to make any decisions they want - parliament is sovereign - until their time is up.

You vote for an MP and Parliament makes decisions. It;s pretty representative. It's a far more effective feedback mechanism than anything in the private sector.

Then we get to go through the whole process again. They lack the effective feedback mechanisms that in the private sector would end in insolvency, they protect themsleves from their own economic mismanagement,

So the only feedback mechanism you propose is them going out of business or not ? Its not exactly fine control. You could for example go to your local council meetings and have your direct say on the way that council contracts are run, what the level of council tax is and how many people are employed.

The value is subjective, the cost isn't. If a local authority wanted to spend all their money on doormouse protection then they should be limited by the economic decisons that they make, in other words their tax renenue should fall because they've offered services with very little economic benefits.

Why, if that were for some reason what the electors wanted ? You're saying that they should only be able to do stuff you approve of ?

It tells me the major parties in this country have a VI in protecting home owners at the expense of renters. It also tells me that they're political cowards because they're unable to offer anything other than the status quo, which has led to massive imbalances in the economy.

Nah, that's a lazy answer. if there were votes in it, there'd be a party canvassing them. The main parties have broadly similar agendas because that's where the votes are.

Edited by Mal Volio
Link to post
Share on other sites
If they fund such schemes, then obviously the schemes have overt economic value to them.

Why ? why can't they have aesthetic or social or moral value ?

but if someone else is forced to fund the schemes, then they do not have to judge themselves whether the extra value they get is worth the price because someone else experiences the price.

The cost is borne at community level, for sure. That's the point. Just like the cost of Vodafone's network is borne across its customer base rather than in totality by each subscriber. That's what allows good stuff to be available to people.

Edited by Mal Volio
Link to post
Share on other sites
So the only feedback mechanism you propose is them going out of business or not ? Its not exactly fine control. You could for example go to your local council meetings and have your direct say on the way that council contracts are run, what the level of council tax is and how many people are employed.

Better still, simply buy the services you want from government. That way you don't have to sit through laborious verbal masturbation sessions in order to get your say

Bad government would be paid little for its services because nobody wants them while good government would find the price people would pay would rise

Why, if that were for some reason what the electors wanted ? You're saying that they should only be able to do stuff you approve of ?

If the price is low, then obviously it isn't what people want

Link to post
Share on other sites
You vote for an MP and Parliament makes decisions. It;s pretty representative. It's a far more effective feedback mechanism than anything in the private sector.

The private sector beats the public sector every time on this measure because private businesses aren't able to use either coercion or monopoly. Private industry is only able to stay operational for as long as they're profitable, the goods and services that they offer have to be of value to their customers. They cannot point a gun to your head and demand more payment.

Government however benefit from a monopoly on violence, if you don't pay your council tax despite a cut in your refuse collection service you're liable for a fine and/or imprisonment. Because they choose to ignore the economic feedback they're blindly spending money without direction. You wouldn't accept this in the private sphere because you would opt out of using their services.

Edited by chefdave
Link to post
Share on other sites
Why ? why can't they have aesthetic or social or moral value ?

Whatever you want to call it - value is just value

If you want something, then you would give up something to have it. If what you would give up isn't more than the cost of doing it, then doing it isn't worth it to you.

The cost is borne at community level, for sure. That's the point. Just like the cost of Vodafone's network is borne across its customer base rather than in totality by each subscriber. That's what allows good stuff to be available to people.

You just seem to want to slide past the obvious - you can't, this is simple logic.

Because all the subscribers to vodaphone subscribe freely, the benefits vodaphone offers it's customer must be greater than the price it charges them for its services - this is not true of government

Link to post
Share on other sites
Better still, simply buy the services you want from government. That way you don't have to sit through laborious verbal masturbation sessions in order to get your say

That's the argument of someone with little time for the workings of democracy.

I think thats what the argument boils down to - if you're an individualist with no time for the emergent properties of community then you're ideologically opposed to the public sector.

That's fair enough, but there's no mileage in dressing that naked ideology up in arguments of economics or efficiency or moral purity.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Why, if that were for some reason what the electors wanted ? You're saying that they should only be able to do stuff you approve of ?

I'm saying there's a price that people are willing to pay in order to gain access to public infrastructure. When we add valuable infrastructure the price goes up, and the reverse happens when there's unneccesary waste and poor service. These gains can be priced by looking at the housing market, the local markets always reflect local utilities.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The private sector beats the public sector every time on this measure because private businesses aren't able to use either coercion or monopoly. Private industry is only able to stay operational for as long as they're profitable, the goods and services that they offer have to be of value to their customers. They cannot point a gun to your head and demand more payment.

Of course they can. Student Loans Company ? Rentokil Prison Services ? etc etc etc

But that's missing the point. The point is that in n o privayte company can you affect or determine the day-to-day running or the policy as you can with the public sector. You can buy their services, or not. I can take a train from Bristol to London or, erm, walk. I can't go to a FirstGreatWestern meeting and take part in a vote on the nature and frequency of train services.

Government however benefit from a monopoly on violence

Now you sound like Injinn. Always a sign that the argument has been lost. You'll be denying the existence of countries next ;)

more seriously, what do you think happens if you try to escape from a Group 4 Security van or from HMP Ashfield, as run by Serco ?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Because all the subscribers to vodaphone subscribe freely, the benefits vodaphone offers it's customer must be greater than the price it charges them for its services - this is not true of government

Of course it must, because people can take part directly and change what governments do far more directly than they can with Vodafone. If you really want, you can get deeply involved at the fine detailed level in your local council.

Link to post
Share on other sites
But that's missing the point. The point is that in no private company can you affect or determine the day-to-day running or the policy as you can with the public sector. You can buy their services, or not. I can take a train from Bristol to London or, erm, walk. I can't go to a FirstGreatWestern meeting and take part in a vote on the nature and frequency of train services.

Well I disagree with this, you can affect the day to day running of the private sector because they'll tend to cater towards your demands. If they wasted lots of money developing a product that nobody wanted to buy then their the feedback mechanism would be very clear on this, because their sales would be zero. If however they were getting the product right then it would reflect in their profits and it would potentially change the direction of the business.

This is the most effective way to give feedback. If you want something then you will freely pay for it.

With gov't they just levy taxation at an arbitrary rate i.e 20% income tax and then back up their demands with force. (Sorry if you don't like this but its an 'inconvenient truth', if you don't believe me then try to refuse paying some of your taxes) The results are that they're shut off from the consequences of their actions becuase they refuse to acknowledge the price signals in the housing market that are influenced by their spending plans.

Link to post
Share on other sites

more seriously, what do you think happens if you try to escape from a Group 4 Security van or from HMP Ashfield, as run by Serco ?

You are presenting a totally illogical argument here. These organisations are expressing violence through rights confered on them by the state. If I set up "Super Ted's Justice Squad" and started locking up people who I saw littering in the street I would be in court before you could blink.

Have a think again about what you are saying, you can't mean it if you examine it logically.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Of course it must, because people can take part directly and change what governments do far more directly than they can with Vodafone.

No that's crap - one part of the electorate can vote costs on another because the others can't unsubscribe (we just went over this)

Edited by Stars
Link to post
Share on other sites
But that's missing the point. The point is that in n o privayte company can you affect or determine the day-to-day running or the policy as you can with the public sector. You can buy their services, or not. I can take a train from Bristol to London or, erm, walk. I can't go to a FirstGreatWestern meeting and take part in a vote on the nature and frequency of train services.

Of course you can, what do you think being a consumer of their services means? If they don't put on enough trains at the right time of day they lose income. Everytime you do or don't buy from them you affect their decisions.

You've muddied the waters slightly by choosing a semi-monopolistic service but in most cases there is strong competition for your custom and businesses must adapt quickly to respond to the changing requirements of their customers.

The other point you are overlooking is that in the public sector I have no need to "detemine the day to running" of most companies as I am not forced to pay for nor consume their services at gun point. If the ballet shoe shop down the street isnt getting in enough plus size tutus then their customer base will decide their fate. I don't have to vote in a "Town stock keeper" who I may agree with on the number of gardening magazines in the newsagent but disagree about the number of pork balls in one portion from the chinese. Who if I am lucky I am allowed to beg with once a month or so.

Your argument is a nonsense, have you just backed yourself into this ludicrous position and are just trying to save face?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.