Public Sector Expediture In The Private Sector

[fflump]

so no fund, no found.

Yes. Again, what's your point? The revelatory observation that government expenditure is funded by taxation?

In case you forgot, your intervention was in a discussion as to whether a large state is universally a bad thing. In case you don't know, large state means higher tax, higher spend. So your point is already entrenched in the very definition of what we were discussing.

[Bloo Loo]

Yes. Again, what's your point? The revelatory observation that government expenditure is funded by taxation?

In case you forgot, your intervention was in a discussion as to whether a large state is universally a bad thing. In case you don't know, large state means higher tax, higher spend. So your point is already entrenched in the very definition of what we were discussing.

more tax is good....sorry, forgive me....where would you like me to send my extra taxm rather than spending it where I wish into the economy?

[Bloo Loo]

You reminded me of this....

LOL...20 seconds with a dubious graph proving the evil of deflation, then the rest with example after example of amazing wealth because of inflation.

and of course, once normality was restored, oddly, inflation disappeared.

[fflump]

more tax is good....sorry, forgive me....where would you like me to send my extra taxm rather than spending it where I wish into the economy?

Some government expenditure is wise and for the common good, some is foolish and profligate. Just to try once more to get you to understand the issue at hand, to label state expansion as entirely good or entirely bad is facile.

Why try to attack straw man arguments like "more tax is good" when no one is arguing that this is the case?

[Authoritarian]

Some government expenditure is wise and for the common good, some is foolish and profligate. Just to try once more to get you to understand the issue at hand, to label state expansion as entirely good or entirely bad is facile.

Why try to attack straw man arguments like "more tax is good" when no one is arguing that this is the case?

Which portions of state expenditure are for the "common good"?

Surely it's all just robbing Peter to pay Paul

[South Lorne]

The office manager had been told to burn some end of year cash so he bought everyone new chairs at the cost of thousands, throwing the old ones away.

...this is corruption ...would like to know the 'advantages' for the individual ordering .....

[needsleep]

Which portions of state expenditure are for the "common good"?

Surely it's all just robbing Peter to pay Paul

Anything where it makes sense for the state to have a natural monopoly. For example, in terms of external and internal security arguably the presence of multiple competing providers of the same service (army, police) will reduce security, not increase it - like in Somalia.

[Authoritarian]

Anything where it makes sense for the state to have a natural monopoly. For example, in terms of external and internal security arguably the presence of multiple competing providers of the same service (army, police) will reduce security, not increase it - like in Somalia.

Some people benefit more from this arrangement then others though, which is why I take issue with the term "common good".

It could be used to justify anything.

[needsleep]

Some people benefit more from this arrangement then others though, which is why I take issue with the term "common good".

It could be used to justify anything.

It's a perfectly reasonable arrangement that the vast majority of countries in the World use, whatever the flavour of government. If you don't like it move to Somalia.

[Authoritarian]

It's a perfectly reasonable arrangement that the vast majority of countries in the World use, whatever the flavour of government. If you don't like it move to Somalia.

Who says it's "reasonable"?

The vast majority of countries in the world are also in the sh!t, so if it's all the same with you I'll question how we do things and consider alternatives.

[bogbrush]

It's a perfectly reasonable arrangement that the vast majority of countries in the World use, whatever the flavour of government. If you don't like it move to Somalia.

Has this become the HPC answer to Godwins?

Edited March 13, 2011 by bogbrush

[needsleep]

Who says it's "reasonable"?

The vast majority of countries in the world are also in the sh!t, so if it's all the same with you I'll question how we do things and consider alternatives.

Certainly an interesting thing to consider but every serious discussion I ever seen of this comes back to the same starting point - that state-provided internal and external security makes sense as does a state-provided legal system. The real argument starts from there, that having provided for security and the law how much further does the state take responsibility for protecting the population - that is a big part of what democratic politics in this country is about.

[shipbuilder]

I do larf at the line that gets spun (and is popular on this forum) that the private sector needs the public. I recognise that some firms depends on public sector budgets for their income and I regard them as little more than public sector organisations but the real private sector is indifferent whether the public sector is there or not. If it wasn't then they'd buy the stuff they need using the funds they wouldn't have had taken off them in tax.

Enforcement of private property?

[Authoritarian]

Certainly an interesting thing to consider but every serious discussion I ever seen of this comes back to the same starting point - that state-provided internal and external security makes sense as does a state-provided legal system. The real argument starts from there, that having provided for security and the law how much further does the state take responsibility for protecting the population - that is a big part of what democratic politics in this country is about.

Indeed, but the implementation costs burden some more heavily than others.

The common good argument deliberately obscures this thorny issue though, the creation and distribution of free food could be considered a common good, but if some people are doing most of the donkey-work whilst others are receiving generous subsidies the system clearly doesn't work for the equal benefit of all.

Edited March 13, 2011 by Chef

[needsleep]

Indeed, but the implementation costs burden some more heavily than others.

The common good argument deliberately obscures this thorny issue though, the creation and distribution of free food could be considered a common good, but if some people are doing most of the donkey-work whilst others are receiving generous subsidies the system clearly doesn't work for the equal benefit of all.

How taxes are raised to pay for armies and how armies are raised has been a thorny issue throughout history in many a state. There's no easy answer to it but the vast majority of states do recognise it as a core state responsibility. It is not something the Tories are considering privatising.

[Bloo Loo]

Some government expenditure is wise and for the common good, some is foolish and profligate. Just to try once more to get you to understand the issue at hand, to label state expansion as entirely good or entirely bad is facile.

Why try to attack straw man arguments like "more tax is good" when no one is arguing that this is the case?

Ive NEVER said all Government is bad.

I do say ALL Government is from tax.

However, the thread is asking the question, IF public sector stopped spending, how much of the private sector would disappear..

the answer is...some...however, if you reverse the question, then the answer is ALL.

[Buccaneer]

My own views on this are that we should have no royalty or aristocracy, that Church and State should be separate and sadly, from a historical perspective, we should perhaps decommmission Westminster and move a much smaller rump to Birmingham say - with equal level of responsibility being devolved to the various regions. Then we would know where we all stood, with equal democratic voices.

Agreed.

But it will never happen.

Too many with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo

[bogbrush]

Enforcement of private property?

How does the State supply that service? If it was really necessary I'm sure a private alternative would be available.

Edited March 13, 2011 by bogbrush

[ken_ichikawa]

How does the State supply that service? If it was really necessary I'm sure a private alternative would be available.

Via extortion and communist principles.

I.e. the state seizes ALL of the land of a realm. It then hands out bits of paper in exchange for bits of paper which say you own the land....

Every so often they will send you a bill, if you do not pay they will break your legs.

As a side benefit the theory is if you pay up and somebody attempts to claim the land for themselves they will break their legs on your behalf.

[tahoma]

How does the State supply that service? If it was really necessary I'm sure a private alternative would be available.

It is.

I'm not saying it's pretty, but the idea we need the State to protect private property is ridiculous. Policing is paid for from a monthly tribute extracted under threat of being taken by force from your private property and imprisoned. They call it 'council tax' and it has doubled in the past decade, while the things people are actually willing to pay for - like rubbish collection - are scaled back.

Edit: Just realised that holidays aside, council tax is my biggest monthly expenditure. It's ridiculous.

Edited March 13, 2011 by tahoma

[shipbuilder]

How does the State supply that service? If it was really necessary I'm sure a private alternative would be available.

Oh come on, the state provides the mechanism by which you can say that you own land and enforces that, via the legal system. Of course that's not to say there could be a private alternative. But let's imagine that your company now pays directly for the services it receives - security, roads, water, hospitals, schools etc. Could you actually afford what you use? The state acts as a mechanism for spreading cost around the nation - chances are many small companies are effectively subsidised in terms of their direct costs via this sharing. Again, this is not to say that a private alternative can't exist - pooling costs between businesses in a local area, insurance etc. However, and this is my point - how would these local groupings or large insurance schemes then be any different from local government? Wouldn't we eventually see similar rent-seeking, cronyism and corruption?

[shipbuilder]

I'm not saying that the state is better, just that there is always something of the utopian dream about people's personal visions - I don't like the state, so getting rid of it must automatically be better for all. It's simplistic and relies on the idea that one large organisation (the public sector), is somehow staffed by a different type of human that an other (private sector). They are both run by people - large corporations look and feel very much like mini totalitarian states and do everything in their power to monopolise, so what ends up being the difference? Could an anarchy of competing small businesses really work peacefully and without monopolies forming?

I doubt it, but actually I'm happy enough to go with it as an alternative to see if it works - although I very much doubt it would be the dream that many think it will be.

Again, though, it all comes down to the land issue - if property rights are not needed and people can access the land freely to house and feed themselves, how does that affect the wage negotiation between potential employer and employee?

Edited March 13, 2011 by shipbuilder

[bogbrush]

Oh come on, the state provides the mechanism by which you can say that you own land and enforces that, via the legal system. Of course that's not to say there could be a private alternative. But let's imagine that your company now pays directly for the services it receives - security, roads, water, hospitals, schools etc. Could you actually afford what you use? The state acts as a mechanism for spreading cost around the nation - chances are many small companies are effectively subsidised in terms of their direct costs via this sharing. Again, this is not to say that a private alternative can't exist - pooling costs between businesses in a local area, insurance etc. However, and this is my point - how would these local groupings or large insurance schemes then be any different from local government? Wouldn't we eventually see similar rent-seeking, cronyism and corruption?

Affordability would be no issue at all since we'd not be paying for stuff we don't want.

The difference from local government would be choice.

[shipbuilder]

Affordability would be no issue at all since we'd not be paying for stuff we don't want.

The difference from local government would be choice.

Do you think the amount that your company pays in taxes would pay for all the services that it uses? The national infrastructure used to move goods around? Hospitals and schools for your employees?

[shipbuilder]

It is.

I'm not saying it's pretty, but the idea we need the State to protect private property is ridiculous. Policing is paid for from a monthly tribute extracted under threat of being taken by force from your private property and imprisoned. They call it 'council tax' and it has doubled in the past decade, while the things people are actually willing to pay for - like rubbish collection - are scaled back.

Edit: Just realised that holidays aside, council tax is my biggest monthly expenditure. It's ridiculous.

Of course we don't need the state, just that the alternative you illustrate could be less civilised - do you think it would be one people would be happy to return to? What if the majority wanted the state to provide their protection? What would you see as a private alternative that might be similar to what we have now?