My Countrymen Don’T Understand The Theory On Which Our National Prosperity Is Founded: Capitalism

[ingermany]

I assume the sink or swim free market priinciples wouldn't be extended to include Mathhew Parris' banking chums, or the builders and home owners who benefit from huge government subsidies. After all when banking jobs and 7 figure salaries are threatened the taxpayer needs to supply an extremely generous safety net.

Capitalism in the UK ceased to have any meaning at the end of 2007 when Northern Rock was nationalised. Since then there has been massive government intervention in everything connected with debt, banking, loans and housing. They have taken the principles of of old Labour circa 1947 and applied them to protect the spivs and pyramid scammers. I would love to see the free market arrive in UK.but I expect Parris would be the first to whine about how unfair it is.

[Injin]

Sometimes the ends justify the means.

There are no ends, causality does not...stop.

[John The Pessimist]

Nixy,

Yes I can buy my services directly, and possibly more cost effectively than the state. However I pay my taxes because I believe that the equality of opportunity provided through the state is a greater good. Hopefully the medicines and technologies developed by "poor boys done good" will help me in my dotage. Thus I support the state provision of education, healthcare etc.

[erranta]

Every Masonic run Govt put in place for the last 40+ years has tinkered and fecked around with things unnecessarily to agitate the UK population in areas whish greatly affect us (skooling, PFi, Housing, NHS, Welfare, Union smashing CCTV Traffic Cameras 1,000's of new crass laws etc etc) from the Conservatives to Fabian run Labour (Motto For the Defence of Capitalism against the working Class - hint)

This is done for their bent 'Common Purpose' to keep prole eyes off what our elites are up to.

Meanwhile in the hive of the City the scum were deregulated further in order to create one-way casino betting to enrich themselves at the expense of the UK population and others around the World. This bent, manipulated form of 'Capitalism' is at present just a form of mass, biased, theft by those in charge.

e.g. As Leicester Square found out - even before Thatcher Lloyds Insurance 'names' (our beloved elite Gar-ter knights etc) were thieving Billions £££'s from the Nation

(They kept the profits from Insurance deals and off-loaded all the losses onto the taxpayer for decades)

[Britney's Piers]

There are no ends, causality does not...stop.

If a child wandered onto the train tracks would you give them a push if a speeding train was coming?

[John The Pessimist]

There is no guarantee that MPs will do anything other than try to get re-elected. Ideally the election process should provide a balanced and informed debate on the key issue. In practice it doesn't, but it's still better than simply letting everyone with a smartphone vote.

[Injin]

If a child wandered onto the train tracks would you give them a push if a speeding train was coming?

If there was no other alternative, sure.

If an adult, not so much.

[mdman]

IIRC the UK health budget/GDP is at EU average now.

Sorry, but that is really hard to believe. What report?? Link please?

BBC article on their report. Just a bit of googling will bring up the actual report itself. Few points:

link

- only 7 countries surveyed

- pt/ dr survey (not hard data)

- around 27000 asked questions

My point still stands. Given the UK has the most efficient healthcare system in the developed world, efforts should be focussed on improving quality, not efficiency. A drive for greater efficiency may actually harm quality if running at full capacity

Edited June 12, 2011 by mdman

[Injin]

Nixy,

Yes I can buy my services directly, and possibly more cost effectively than the state. However I pay my taxes because I believe that the equality of opportunity provided through the state is a greater good. Hopefully the medicines and technologies developed by "poor boys done good" will help me in my dotage. Thus I support the state provision of education, healthcare etc.

Your support isn't relevent, your pinions meaningless.

You pay or they take. how you feel doesn't matter at all.

[Britney's Piers]

If there was no other alternative, sure.

If an adult, not so much.

but pushing is violence

[Dorkins]

I don't think you could really call the UK a capitalist country, or even a capitalist country with a welfare state. Even the supposedly 'private' sector is heavily manipulated by the biggest central planner of all, the Bank of England. I'm not sure how you would classify the UK economy these days, crony capitalism run by a plutocratic elite I guess.

[Injin]

but pushing is violence

Yes, and it's wrong.

In this case understandable, but still wrong.

[John The Pessimist]

Your support isn't relevent, your pinions meaningless.

You pay or they take. how you feel doesn't matter at all.

On the contrary, I've chosen where I live. I didn't like where I was, so I shipped out.

How about you? Where's the strength of your convictions?

You may not find an exact match for your views, but you'll surely find somewhere more closely aligned.

[John The Pessimist]

So if you cant trust the voter on a day to day matters can they be trusted to vote at all?

Do you believe you are incapable of making the right decision?

To believe the public of which all of us on here are part of, are incapable of voting correctly suggests an element of social conditioning with a hint of Milgram wouldnt you say?

Maybe I'm very disappointed with my fellow citizens.

Unfortunately I don't know any better alternatives. That doesn't mean I don't aspire for better. It just means I reject X factor democracy.

[Tired of Waiting]

BBC article on their report. Just a bit of googling will bring up the actual report itself. Few points:

link

- only 7 countries surveyed

- pt/ dr survey (not hard data)

- around 27000 asked questions

Thanks.

(...) patients and doctors' ratings of their experiences in their own health care systems. More than 27,000 patients and primary care doctors were surveyed across all seven countries (...)

Considering that in Britain the NHS is a "national institution", this comparison is not valid. And in other countries the cultural bias can go in the opposite direction, like for instance American consumers being very demanding and over-critic.

My point still stands. Given the UK has the most efficient healthcare system in the developed world, (...)

Sorry, but where are you basis for saying that??

Efficiency does not means cheap. It means value for money. Besides, IIRC our health spending/GDP is now around EU average, no?

EDIT: But the worst aspect of our NHS is, by far, the criminal unbalance between:

(1) Grossly overpaid GPs and Consultants, highest paid in the EU (is it double the French doctors?), and ...

(2) The primitive underutilisation of modern equipment and lab tests - no money left, you see?

And these two things are not unrelated. Absolutely unethical. "Do no harm", eh??

Edited June 12, 2011 by Tired of Waiting

[leicestersq]

You are perfectly correct. Remove those three things and we would have a functional, affordable housing market.

You forgot selling off all council houses to the highest bidder.

[mdman]

Thanks.

Considering that in Britain the NHS is a "national institution", this comparison is not valid. And in other countries the cultural bias can go in the opposite direction, like for instance American consumers being very demanding and over-critic.

Sorry, but where are you basis for saying that??

Efficiency does not means cheap. It means value for money. Besides, IIRC our health spending/GDP is now around EU average, no?

EDIT: But the worst aspect of our NHS is, by far, the criminal unbalance between:

(1) Grossly overpaid GPs and Consultants, highest paid in the EU (is it double the French doctors?), and ...

(2) The primitive underutilisation of modern equipment and lab tests - no money left, you see?

And these two things are not unrelated. Absolutely unethical. "Do no harm", eh??

It's the most efficient on the basis that it provides the most comprehensive coverage and lowest cost with reasonable quality outcomes. The focus should not be on improving efficiency, it should be on improving quality

[John The Pessimist]

So I guess you dont shop in any of the big four supermarkets then, becuase choosing where to shop is also exercising choice which is all this boils down to.

You are perhaps like your avatar suggests, pessimistic, but if you dont give people responsibiitiy how will you ever know if the public can step up to the plate? With out taking a risk, affording someone the benefit of doubt, innocent till proved guilty, trusting in them until proved otherwise, one will never know but thats not to say there cant be some things in place like a backup system where the MP's could still override the public.

Statistically there have been more convicted criminals in Govt per capita than there in wider society. Does that alter your perception of Representative Governance? Do you like being ruled by some criminals? Have you ever moaned about the govt? Instead of wasting energy moaning I'd say put your effort into getting a proper say on how this country is run.

BTW The Queen exercised one of her backups at the general election by helping the Tories and Lib Dems sort out the details of the coalition. It wasnt a case of will there or wont there be a coalition, the palace had instructed the two C's to sort it out.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/liberaldemocrats/8131825/Buckingham-Palace-helped-keep-Brown-in-Number-10-to-seal-coalition.html

Edit: I'll also add, a country that cant evolve on the political landscape cant move forward and improve which in itself becomes a limiting factor. Sure theres a few newspapers where you can vote on topical subjects and have the odd debate but theres nothing inplace which could be used to harness the unique points of discussion, in which to make it efficient to put points across to potentially 60million people all having their say. The most efficient way if the media were not to align themselves with a poltical org is for the media to relay the info and report back the findings from the online votes and discussions but even this doesnt really happen. Polticis needs to move forward into this century at the very least and I'm not just talkiing about electronic voting systems, I'm talking a continous voting system with the ability to exhange pov's.

Which is all very aspirational. But when you look at the confusion which was put forth as the chief flaw of AV. Apparently people were confused by being asked to rank their preferences. In the absence of party politics, there would be a fragmentation of views and there would be a plethora of choice. If we can't rank our preferences we would need either a ranking system or some arbitrary system that would periodically force marginal and extreme policies on us.

The rejection of AV was in itself an indictment of the electorate.

[erranta]

<br />Both great. Both more expensive than the UK. In a Commonwealth fund report, UK scored second behind the Dutch for quality, top for efficiency and second for access. <br /><br />The trouble with the current rhetoric is HMG keep saying efficiency must be improved. That can only happen by cutting the number of frontline staff per head of population. But the UK is already near the bottom when it comes to staff:patient ratio. Any more cuts and quality will suffer more.<br /><br />The focus should be on quality, not efficiency. We should restrict efficiency measures to cancelling PFI and IT White elephant contracts, and purging the service of management consultants<br />

Your NHS management are the 'Common Purpose' Trojans put in place to bring about chaos in NHS funds in conjunction with loony Govt mandates and fund destroying PFi buildings to bring about NHS privatisation.

The NHS workers won't say anything cos they will benefit by a monopoly and higher wages whilst the UK poor will get no medical help like hundreds of millions in the USA.

(just like shopkeepers never mention the xtra 'hidden' bank tax they place on everything we buy up to 8% to cover credit card charges that we may or may not use at the till - they get to keep the extra 8% if we pay by cash)

That's why you have NHS paying out on loony contracts of £200 to change a plug or change a lightbulb, paying thousands of percent higher charges for face masks etc from 'preferred' contracors, only dealing with a massive Globalist monopoliser called Serco which massively overcharges the taxpayer left right and centre

All okayed and signed off by your bent elite 'trojan' management.

You NHS staff all know what i'm talking about.

[Timak]

It's the most efficient on the basis that it provides the most comprehensive coverage and lowest cost with reasonable quality outcomes. The focus should not be on improving efficiency, it should be on improving quality

You won't change some people on this forums mind with actual evidence.

The private sector must be better than the vast monolith that is the NHS. If not they might have to consider that the state is not always bad and that some things can be done better without a profit motive.

[John The Pessimist]

Not neccesarily becuase there were a number of factors at play. Firstly the message that Labour would have got in with AV was overriding and when about 12months before hand the majority of the country turned against Labour in the GE would easily sway those to a no vote becuase humans tend to be short sighted when planning for the future so that human behaviour was played as an advantage.

Secondly some would have seen it as another cost which we couldnt afford so would have voted no. Its too easy to blame the no vote for AV as being a sign of voter confusion. Plus the media also play a huge role in shaping peoples thinking like I have mentioned in Off-Topic about Google serving the information they want you to see shaping your thought processes. Its machevallian the media and google.

There needs to be a system which can pull out all the unique points made in discussions for people new to the topic to appraise themselves of the situation, likewise people change their mind over time when new data comes to light, so the system would need to cater for that but also be wary of popularism and other knee jerk reactions.

And who will decide what are the unique points we should be appraised of? It's the populace's refusal to educate and inform themselves that is the greatest flaw of our current system. Self interest being a close second.

[erranta]

<br />Sorry but this is rubbish<br /><br />the reasons one two and three happen is specifically because depositors dont care about risk because the govt has mandated their savings safe in whatever scenario so depositors dont care about risky lending of their money, remove that guarantee and depositors have to start thinking about who they deposit money with.  It is the removal of the free market that has caused this.   Its noticeable that in the crisis hardly any private banks were touched  probably because the amounts on deposit are way in excess of the guarantee so the bank has to act prudently to obtain deposits.  If you want a healthy banking system you cant have govt protection on deposits because as has happened no one cares about the risk so thats exactly what you get, maximum risk<br />

That's why you had from memory Bob Diamond? spouting last week that the splitting of retail and casino side of banking would be extremely risky (only for the casino banksters) as they know the game would be up and it would expose the City as the fraud it is to the general public as one after another they go down like swatted flies.

Edited June 12, 2011 by erranta

[Tired of Waiting]

It's the most efficient on the basis that it provides the most comprehensive coverage and lowest cost with reasonable quality outcomes. The focus should not be on improving efficiency, it should be on improving quality

But that is precisely the focus of the proposed reforms! Since the budget will remain stable in real terms, improving efficiency = improving quality! No? What other outcome could you have??

[Tired of Waiting]

You won't change some people on this forums mind with actual evidence.

The private sector must be better than the vast monolith that is the NHS. If not they might have to consider that the state is not always bad and that some things can be done better without a profit motive.

I did ask for evidence, but didn't get any. Do you have some, about the NHS being better than the EU average? We spend about the same now, /GDP, EU average.

The quote below is perfect for your argument. See if you can find a mistake in it:

Now picture a special conference called by the farmers’ trade union to debate the proposals. Here is an extract from a union leader’s speech to the conference. He is railing against a duty, in the proposed legislation, to promote localised competition . . .

“I want proper controls nationally considered, not locals trying to sort things out . . . I want politicians of every stripe to understand that we do not need competition to run Britain’s food production. It creates duplication that is wasteful — and why give state agriculture’s money to private shareholders? What Britain’s food production needs to improve quality and efficiency is collaboration and co-operation across [all] sectors, [not] different materials being delivered by different providers in order to try to get a cheaper deal — fertilisers in one place, feedstock in another, veterinary services in another and follow-up somewhere else.

“Which brings me to one particularly unacceptable idea in the Bill: performance-related bonuses ... otherwise known as the ‘quality premium’. The idea is that farmers’ groups that ‘purchase well’ — ie, save money — will be given some money to hand out to their members . . . this idea stinks.”

Absurd? Maybe. But you will recognise behind these arguments a distinct theory of economics and the public interest. The theory states that free-market competition is wasteful because it:

• fragments provision;

• duplicates services;

• forgoes the economies of scale offered by monoliths;

• creates uneven provision across the country;

• wastes resources by pitting one against another;

• creates an invidious incentive to outperform comrades;

• siphons money off to profiteers, and fails to harness co-operative instincts for the general good.

“Co-ordination, not competition.” You will sense a certain juvenile potency in this critique. Why, what could be more practical than a system that identified national objectives and made a plan for realising them? What could be sillier than, for instance, two schools in the same locality, each trying to steal the best teachers (and attract the best pupils) from the other? Better to combine, providing the best education for all.

What could be more inefficient than two shipyards each competing for the same contract, trying to undercut each other, paying their workers less, and cutting corners on quality of construction? Better to combine, set a fair price, a fair wage, and an agreed standard for quality.

What could be more ridiculous than two stores, selling similar products, one right across the high street from the other, but being restocked by different lorries and battling to nab each other’s customers while the directors grew fat on profit margins that only increased the cost of citizens’ supplies? Better, surely, to have one big store, twice the number of customers, and no profit.

What indeed? But we tried it. Or the Soviet Government did. It was called GUM, an abbreviation from the Russian for “main universal store”. It was a joke. So was Soviet agriculture. So was manufacturing. The whole Soviet economic model failed, basically for two reasons: first, it was less efficient than a market economy in predicting and matching demand and supply; and second, it failed to incentivise its management or workforce to work hard, keep on their toes and satisfy their customers.

RIP Marxist economics — except, it appears, in Britain’s National Health Service. That “farmers’ union” speech I’ve just quoted is not imaginary. It is the keynote speech delivered by a doctors’ leader to a British Medical Association local medical conference in London on Thursday. The only change I made to Dr Laurence Buckman’s speech was to substitute the vocabulary of food production for that of healthcare; otherwise, I quoted him word for word. He was applauded to the rafters.

Edited June 12, 2011 by Tired of Waiting

[interestrateripoff]

Sorry IRRO but it looks like you didn't actually read Parris' column entirely. He wrote:

Good theories explain reality.

Sorry but this article is tosh, if he want's to talk about what our national prosperity is built on it's nothing to do with Adam Smith. Our prosperity was built on the empire, piracy and a good dose of unfair trade where we profited. It's easy to be profitable in a rigged market especially when you are the ones rigging the market.