I suppose it becomes an debate about how much regulation or interference you allow in market forces. Thatcher was absolutely right in pure economic terms about shutting unviable pits for instance where coal cost more to produce than it was worth, buts it any more viable to put an entire community on the dole and create an underclass rather than a working class?I am getting a blue rinse this morning. ;))
But the comparison you make is an interesting one. The Thatcher government was quite happy to see those businesses go bust but now small businesses have to be saved. A true capitalist would say that any business that is not viable should be allowed to go bust as that is natural selection and the survival of the fittest.
You can of course do both as part of an overall budgetary realignment. It probably would not be feasible to just introduce those two measures alone.
An argument could be made that any business who cannot pay the minimum wage is not a viable business and should be allowed to go bankrupt just as any company not paying there fair share of corporation tax is not a viable company and should also be allowed to go bankrupt. Why should the public subsidise business that is not viable?
When the minimum wage was introduced, it faced huge opposition yet proved to have none of the negative connotations associated with it. Business actually thrived although I do accept the economy was doing well at the time. There were no large scale job losses as predicted for the simple reason their was money in the system and those on the minimum wage have the highest propensity to spend so it actually provided an economic boost to the country. Business grew because people spent more money.
That is inevitable I believe, which makes the mind blowing increase in the pension age even more unpalatable.Re the job losses, as you say the economy isn’t what it was but also technology has improved so maybe companies, that answer to shareholders, may find more value in technology(AI, bots etc.) than people?
I suppose it becomes an debate about how much regulation or interference you allow in market forces. Thatcher was absolutely right in pure economic terms about shutting unviable pits for instance where coal cost more to produce than it was worth, buts it any more viable to put an entire community on the dole and create an underclass rather than a working class?
Which all help alleviate poverty in one way or another.
Even flowers on roundabouts help because they soothe the mind and make the world a brighter happier place to live in, that is of course if you like flowers. I couldn't care less, but to think of the poverty of the slums where nothing like that would exist, flowers on roundabouts have to help.
I like the idea of trickle down economics, but do date haven't managed to get trickled on.It does come down to that. I believe an underclass has been created and the working class have borne the brunt of austerity. The rise in inequality and growth of wealth of the 1% would indicate that to be true.
The biggest worry I have about BREXIT is that it could allow the conditions to further erode regulation and we become a capitalist haven that would increase inequality. Some would see that as a good thing especially if they support the notion of trickle down economics.
It does come down to that. I believe an underclass has been created and the working class have borne the brunt of austerity. The rise in inequality and growth of wealth of the 1% would indicate that to be true.
The biggest worry I have about BREXIT is that it could allow the conditions to further erode regulation and we become a capitalist haven that would increase inequality. Some would see that as a good thing especially if they support the notion of trickle down economics.
I like the idea of trickle down economics, but do date haven't managed to get trickled on.
First is my personal experiences of public services, which with one or two exceptions, I have found to be pretty dire. Paying more tax, for me, has usually resulted in the single change that I am worse off. If there have been benefits, then they have seemed like very poor value for money. If when I paid more, I actually saw significantly better services, then it might be a bit more appealing.
The problem is that as the head/owner of a company you are permanently motivated to maximise efficiency and profit as you end up with more money at the end of the month. A public sector manager gets the same salary no matter what, which makes the organisation as a whole less concerned with efficiency /value /profitability.
There's been some really good debate here I think with some surprising contributions - none more so that Rascal's which certainly have surprised me.
No, but I feel able to express a personal opinion. It is just one voice in millions and has correspondingly low impact on policy-making. If I were Chancellor then I'd think taking personal experiences as the yardstick and setting policies accordingly would be foolish.Two quick points here because I'm supposed to working on a project and I only popped on for a minute and got sucked in.
1. Do you feel that you are able to take a representative view on the quality of public services in the entire country, then another representative view on the value for money?
2. This is the old perfection logical fallacy. Let me give you your own thought but slightly rephrased:
"Look at the money we're putting into the public services and look how they underperform. Imagine how bad things would get if they had even less money to work with?"
Only if your only motivation is money.The problem is that as the head/owner of a company you are permanently motivated to maximise efficiency and profit as you end up with more money at the end of the month. A public sector manager gets the same salary no matter what, which makes the organisation as a whole less concerned with efficiency /value /profitability. We do need to accept though that public services are just that - services, and not profit making organisations.
That's why we have bonus structures mate.The problem is that as the head/owner of a company you are permanently motivated to maximise efficiency and profit as you end up with more money at the end of the month. A public sector manager gets the same salary no matter what, which makes the organisation as a whole less concerned with efficiency /value /profitability. We do need to accept though that public services are just that - services, and not profit making organisations.
..... My concern with our public services as a whole is how inefficient the whole system is. The more money that is poured in, the more which is wasted. If not that well off and you are cold outside, putting a coat on might be a better strategy than turning up the heat on the patio heater.
Mine certainly isn't, but we have to accept that the taxpaying public who fund public services includes the voice of people who's motivation is money. They of course need to accept that health, education and other vital public services can't be run on a profitable basis.Only if your only motivation is money.
Why do you have to cite the worst possible examples to try to make state run, underperforming alternatives seem more attractive?What's efficient about competing railway companies having to employ an army of lawyers and accountants to divvy up fare income, and apportion blame for delays?
What's efficient about the American health care system?
Why do most people want their road to be adopted rather than join with their neighbours to get repairs done? See any "efficient" private road for the answer.
The problem is that as the head/owner of a company you are permanently motivated to maximise efficiency and profit as you end up with more money at the end of the month. A public sector manager gets the same salary no matter what, which makes the organisation as a whole less concerned with efficiency /value /profitability. We do need to accept though that public services are just that - services, and not profit making organisations.