A Nation of Thieves

[ICantSpellDawg]

I like this article. It is from a black author from George Mason who brings up some interesting points. Short read. What do you think?


A Nation of Thieves
Walter E. Williams
Wednesday, August 06, 2008
Link (http://townhall.com/columnists/WalterEWilliams/2008/08/06/a_nation_of_thieves)

Edgar K. Browning, professor of economics at Texas A&M University, has a new book aptly titled "Stealing from Each Other." Its subtitle, "How the Welfare State Robs Americans of Money and Spirit," goes to the heart of what the book is about. The rise of egalitarian ideology has driven Americans to steal from one another. Browning explains that certain kinds of equality have been a cherished value in America. Equality under the law and, within reason, equality of opportunity is consistent with a free society. Equality of results is an anathema to a free society and within it lie the seeds of tyranny.

Browning entertains a discussion about when inequalities are just or unjust. For example, college graduates earn income higher than high-school dropouts. Some people prefer to work many hours and earn more than others who prefer to work fewer. Students who spend 25 or more hours a week on classroom preparation earn higher grades than students who spend five hours. Most would agree that these inequalities are just. There are other sources of inequalities that are unjust, such as: when incomes result from fraud, corruption, stealing, exploitation, oppression and the like. Such sources of inequality play an insignificant role in producing income inequality in America. Most economists agree that income is closely related to productivity.

Much of the justification for the welfare state is to reduce income inequality by making income transfers to the poor. Browning provides some statistics that might help us to evaluate the sincerity and truthfulness of this claim. In 2005, total federal, state and local government expenditures on 85 welfare programs were $620 billion. That's larger than national defense ($495 billion) or public education ($472 billion). The 2005 official poverty count was 37 million persons. That means welfare expenditures per poor person were $16,750, or $67,000 for a poor family of four.

Those figures understate poverty expenditures because poor people are recipients of non-welfare programs such as Social Security, Medicare, private charity and uncompensated medical care. The question that naturally arises is if we're spending enough to lift everyone out of poverty, why is there still poverty? The obvious answer is poor people are not receiving all the money being spent in their name. Non-poor people are getting the bulk of it.

Browning's concluding chapter tells us what the welfare state costs us. He acknowledges the non-economic costs such as infringements on liberty and strains on the political process, but focuses on the quantitative economic costs. The disincentive effects of Social Security have reduced the GDP by 10 percent, the federal income tax (as opposed to a proportional tax) by 9 percent and past deficits by 3.5 percent for a total of 22.5 percent. He guesses that welfare programs have reduced GDP by 2.5 percent. The overall effect of redistributionist policies has created incentives that have reduced GDP by a total of 25 percent. Without those, our GDP would be close to $18 trillion instead of $14 trillion.

So what's Browning's solution? First, he reminds us of the biblical admonition "Thou shalt not steal." Government income redistribution programs produce the same result as theft. In fact, that's what a thief does; he redistributes income. The difference between government and thievery is mostly a matter of legality. Browning's solution is captured in the title of his last chapter, "Just Say No," where he proposes, "The federal government shall not adopt any policies that transfer income (resources) from some Americans to other Americans." He agrees with James Madison, the father of our Constitution, who said, "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."

For years I've used Professor Browning's and his colleague Mark A. Zupan's excellent textbook "Microeconomics: Price Theory and Applications" in my intermediate microeconomics class. "Stealing from Each Other" is a continuation of his academic excellence.



Copyright © 2008 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.

[Marshal Murat]

I agree with it. I hope the United States doesn't become a welfare state where I can sit on my butt all day and still get steak for dinner!

[Louis VI the Fat]

So what's Browning's solution? First, he reminds us of the biblical admonition "Thou shalt not steal." Government income redistribution programs produce the same result as theft. In fact, that's what a thief does; he redistributes income. The Bible says: "Thou shalt not eat the fruit from the Tree of Wisdom". Writing articles produces the same result as eating fruit from the Tree of Wisdom. In fact, that's what Browning does; he distributes sin by writing articles.

Being the Godfearing person I am, I shall hence ignore our sinning professor Browning's writings.

[Tribesman]

Wow its just like having Gawain back , his favourite website with an article by his favourite Rush Limburgh stand in .

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Wow its just like having Gawain back , his favourite website with an article by his favourite Rush Limburgh stand in .


Now, now, Tribes, be fair. Limbaugh stand-in or not, Dr. Williams is an award-winning economist with a clear perspective and his article keeps pretty closely to the ecomics of things. Feel free to contradict his views on things economic, but Dr. Williams is published in numerous fora (many refereed journals and the like) -- not just townhall.com --and far more credentialed then the chap he sits in for on a radio talks show 4-5 times a year.

Besides, I'd be willing to make a wager that TSM smokes far less marijauna then our too-long absent friend Gawain.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Now, now, Tribes, be fair. Limbaugh stand-in or not, Dr. Williams is an award-winning economist with a clear perspective and his article keeps pretty closely to the ecomics of things. Feel free to contradict his views on things economic, but Dr. Williams is published in numerous fora (many refereed journals and the like) -- not just townhall.com --and far more credentialed then the chap he sits in for on a radio talks show 4-5 times a year.

Seamus, no need to respond. Tribesman is a shock jock. Let him vent at conservatives to his hearts content.



Besides, I'd be willing to make a wager that TSM smokes far less marijauna then our too-long absent friend Gawain.

I haven't smoked in years.:2thumbsup:

[lars573]

What a load of :daisy:

[Ice]

I like this article. It is from a black author from George Mason who brings up some interesting points. Short read. What do you think?

I think my father actually had this professor when he attended George Mason. Awesome.



Those figures understate poverty expenditures because poor people are recipients of non-welfare programs such as Social Security, Medicare, private charity and uncompensated medical care. The question that naturally arises is if we're spending enough to lift everyone out of poverty, why is there still poverty? The obvious answer is poor people are not receiving all the money being spent in their name. Non-poor people are getting the bulk of it.

Agreed.


So what's Browning's solution? First, he reminds us of the biblical admonition "Thou shalt not steal." Government income redistribution programs produce the same result as theft. In fact, that's what a thief does; he redistributes income. The difference between government and thievery is mostly a matter of legality. Browning's solution is captured in the title of his last chapter, "Just Say No," where he proposes, "The federal government shall not adopt any policies that transfer income (resources) from some Americans to other Americans." He agrees with James Madison, the father of our Constitution, who said, "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."

Eh, disagree. We should find a few to fix the system rather than simply scrap it and deny it to those who truly need/deserve it.


Besides, I'd be willing to make a wager that TSM smokes far less marijauna then our too-long absent friend Gawain.

I didn't know Gawain smoked cannabis.

Awesome.

[PanzerJaeger]

Excellent points. If we cut all welfare payments tommorow, the number of lackies who would get up off the couch and get a job (...out of necessity) would astound. For years our politicians have sacrificed fundemental American ideals in search of votes by promising the lower classes all sorts of assisstence; and in peddling such populist tripe they have created dependency among huge swathes of the populace.

People don't understand the costs, they just hear "I'm going to pay for your healthcare", "I'm going to pay for your tuition", "I'm going to bail you out of your bad mortgage".... Who needs self reliance?

I'm not sure what the point of attacking Williams is as the piece is pretty much just a book review. :inquisitive:

[Tribesman]

Now, now, Tribes, be fair. Limbaugh stand-in or not, Dr. Williams is an award-winning economist with a clear perspective and his article keeps pretty closely to the ecomics of things.

Really ?:dizzy2:


So what's Browning's solution? First, he reminds us of the biblical admonition "Thou shalt not steal."
The system of tithes involved a redistribution of wealth didn't it , what publication does that come from ?
What was it that it says when people moan about the tax system ?
Put plaster on the dictator isn't it :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

In 2005, total federal, state and local government expenditures on 85 welfare programs were $620 billion.
Wow 85 programs , would those welfare programs include things like disabled veterans benefits would they include things like education supplements. Now surely those should be taken out and put in the other two budgets he mentioned because its amazing what you can do by quoting different statistics to completely change the perpective you want to present .

But here take this ...
"Stealing from Each Other" is a continuation of his academic excellence.
amd then.....
He guesses that welfare programs have reduced GDP by 2.5 percent.
hmmmm...guesswork and academic excellence all in one book , thats a definitive study isn't it .
Given that its a "definitive" study by someone pushing one viewpoint being lauded by someone with the same viewpoint it wouldn't be sorta partisan in any sense would it ?

But you gotta admit the OP with the line
It is from a black author
is exactly what Gawain wrote several times when using pieces by Williams , what the hell has his skin pigmentation got to do with anything ?
Wow a dark skinned fellow who floats between libertarian dreamer and ranting republican , how novel .

[CountArach]

I lol'ed at the first paragraph. Have you got more comedy pieces by this guy?

[Ironside]

Excellent points. If we cut all welfare payments tommorow, the number of lackies who would get up off the couch and get a job (...out of necessity) would astound. For years our politicians have sacrificed fundemental American ideals in search of votes by promising the lower classes all sorts of assisstence; and in peddling such populist tripe they have created dependency among huge swathes of the populace.


I take it that the depression was relapse of lazyness, as lack of employment is always due to lazyness?


The overall effect of redistributionist policies has created incentives that have reduced GDP by a total of 25 percent. Without those, our GDP would be close to $18 trillion instead of $14 trillion.


That is very doubtful: The only nations on that level are small and got banks or oil to drive it up, and the the GDP/capita top ten is very dominated by nations known for thier welfare systems, aka nations that would've been losing even more.

That's not to say that there's probably a considerble room for improvements.

[Rhyfelwyr]

If you are going to do something, do it well. Welfare payments just about keep people on the poverty line, stuck in a rut. Maybe if some Americans stopped living in obscene luxury and coughed up a bit more in taxes this would help to actually free people from poverty and allow them to improve their situation further themselves. :idea2:

[Sigurd]

Back to your tower, prince John. And take that lackey of yours, the Sheriff of Nottingham, with you. :smartass2:

[Tribesman]

That is very doubtful: The only nations on that level are small and got banks or oil to drive it up, and the the GDP/capita top ten is very dominated by nations known for thier welfare systems, aka nations that would've been losing even more.

No what he means is that unlike the other top nations with big welfare schemes america has a unique problem in that too many of its inhabitants are lazy , apparently this can be put down to the fact that Americans are actually French .

[Seamus Fermanagh]

But you gotta admit the OP with the line

"written by a black man" {paraphrasing, the nested quote did not come forward}.

is exactly what Gawain wrote several times when using pieces by Williams, what the hell has his skin pigmentation got to do with anything?
Wow a dark skinned fellow who floats between libertarian dreamer and ranting republican, how novel .

Tribes, on this point you get full marks. Williams' melanin content is and should be utterly irrelevant to the economic discussion he sets out. To highlight his background in this way could even be construed as a racist remark.

In TSM's defense, however, I don't believe his OP was inclined toward racism, but rather is reflective of the surprise many in the USA express when persons of African descent (blacks) hold/espouse conservative (USA definition) views. This is because the African-descent/black subgroup of this company typically polls 93%+ in favor of the (usually) more liberal Democrat candidates in national elections.

[Husar]

There is one question I still have about all those slackies and couch potatoes who love their welfare so much. Would you have a job for them? If they would ring at your door right now and you had a company, would you give those uneducated people this simple job or would you rather look for someone with experience or a better education if available?
Didn't you americans always say you have a healthy 4% unemployment rate? How high would that be if all those lazy couch potatoes got up and found work? Would it still be a healthy rate? Would you just create work out of nowhere?

I'm especially interested because Essen has some 13% unemployment and when I went to look for a job I got the feeling that some bosses were asking quite a lot for what some would consider simple work, another boss told me he already had a long list of people to ask and it wouldn't make any sense to put me onto it as well, another offered me 5EUR per hour(that's less than the minimum wage in commie-USA by the way) and now I got a job making 6.50EUR per hour(I can buy less from that than I could from the minimum wage in the commie-US) and I mainly got it because my boss is a good guy who likes people and knows that almost anyone can do the job and was mainly looking for someone honest who doesn't steal and a friend of mine who worked there before said I am such a person.

Well, considering I had not been lucky to get such a recommendation and find such a nice boss, would you consider me a dispicable lazy student? Is it that much easier to find a job in the US? Where do I apply for a visum?

[Tribesman]

Tribes, on this point you get full marks.
Ah but what about the other comments, like that this is just a typical townhall.com piece of tripe ?
Though it must be said its not as crap as coulters latest contribution to that gem of journalism .
Then again Coulter thinks he/she/it is funny but is just dumb whereas Williams thinks he is clever but is just funny .

[CrossLOPER]

I thought this thread was going to be about political corruption. Nope, it's about welfare checks again.

[rory_20_uk]

There was in the Times a few days ago an article regarding pensions, and of course how pitiful they are. One pensioner complained that state pensions are less than those on the minimum wage get! She rarely gets to use her car any more, or go to restaurants or cinemas.

Hang on...

Yes, it seems she felt that she deserved to get more for doing nothing that someone else got for a 40 hour week, and that she expects to be paid to go on a jolly for an average of 10 years or so at the taxpayers expense.

Welfare frankly doesn't work as it reduces efficiency and raises expectations. The money has to come from somewhere which in turn helps with such phenomena as the Brain Drain. Another side is that when resources are "free" - be it schools, housing or hospitals, they are valued less. You don't need to strive to go to school as the state has to give you a place; if you drop out the state will pick you up; if you're unfit and decide to drink yourself to a stupor don't worry - ambulances are "free".

My "solution" would be that most enterprises are mutual organisations, where the workers are also shareholders, and so have a stake in the well being of the company. This also can help stabilise share prices as there is a greater base of ownership that are not interested in "shorting" the company.

In the UK we are "lucky" in that we can afford (barely) this indolence. Other less "developed" countries where money for nothing is not an option are very different. One example is Trinidad and Tobago. The savings are immediate and obvious: no complicated tax breaks for having children, being single parents, or whatever. There is nothing, so no bureaucracy to oversee it. No invalid benefits for the long term unemployed. Again, no army of people to review, update and check the system. Instead, a family structure where people help each other. Most can then find work to help the family, rather than getting off the state.

~:smoking:

[Tribesman]

One example is Trinidad and Tobago. The savings are immediate and obvious: no complicated tax breaks for having children, being single parents, or whatever. There is nothing, so no bureaucracy to oversee it. No invalid benefits for the long term unemployed. Again, no army of people to review, update and check the system. Instead, a family structure where people help each other. Most can then find work to help the family, rather than getting off the state.


Well it would be so easy to mention that Trinidad and Tobago is one of them nations like Ironside mentioned that are awash with petro-dollars .
But instead why not just call bollox on the whole example used by Rory since Trinidad and tobago has a welfare state , it has old age pensions , it has state run and funded hospitals and schools....yet it still has unemployment of nearly 6% and poverty of nearly 20% and it has an army of people to review all the associated crap that goes with it ...but I think that may be because they are French and as such just lazy.
BTW what are these complicated tax breaks you are on about ?
Is that the simple thing that if you are eligible you get a simply worked out number and add it to your personal tax allowance ?
Yeah I suppose that is really comlex for some people .
Not as complex as trinidads pension scheme though , they have 4 different criteria to see if you get paid the State pension at rate 1,2,3 or 4 .:dizzy2:crazy tobogans :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

Try again Rory:2thumbsup:

[Sasaki Kojiro]

So what's Browning's solution? First, he reminds us of the biblical admonition "Thou shalt not steal." Government income redistribution programs produce the same result as theft. In fact, that's what a thief does; he redistributes income. The difference between government and thievery is mostly a matter of legality.

That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever read. What kind of thieves steal money and give it away to poor people? What kind of dastardly villains would steal from the rich and give to the poor?

Also, doesn't he realize we live in a country where we've agreed to welfare? It's called democracy, mister award winning economist.

Believe it or not, the majority of unemployed people do want a job.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Believe it or not, the majority of unemployed people do want a job.

No they don't, they just want to steal all your middle-class dollars. This is partly due to them being French, and partly due to their communist ideology.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Ah but what about the other comments, like that this is just a typical townhall.com piece of tripe ?
Though it must be said its not as crap as coulters latest contribution to that gem of journalism .
Then again Coulter thinks he/she/it is funny but is just dumb whereas Williams thinks he is clever but is just funny .

You guys write "tripe" about policies that you deem failed by us, and we return the favor.

The article was good, the author was black. If the article was written by a Unitarian Universalist I would have mentioned that as a point as well. Demographic groups who statistically tend to be in one ideological tanks surprise me when members break the mold. I could either mention it or pretend that the difference did not exist. Since I don't play that game - I've decided to mention
it.


That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever read. What kind of thieves steal money and give it away to poor people? What kind of dastardly villains would steal from the rich and give to the poor?

Poor theives steal money and give it to themselves.



Also, doesn't he realize we live in a country where we've agreed to welfare? It's called democracy, mister award winning economist.

The people who voted for it 80 years ago didn't fully understand what was happening and were under duress. I think we have a right to question programs enacted 80 yeas ago by other people when they seem not to work by today's standard. The left does it all the time.



Believe it or not, the majority of unemployed people do want a job.

I've been recently laid off. I've worked at on the books jobs for over 10 years full time and Unemployment is not forthcoming. I applied for it, received one check and the payments stopped. They said that they are "reviewing" my record and that payments may resume after 4 weeks. It has been 6 weeks and I can't get in touch with anyone at all because all of the phones are looped. It will probably take 3 months to resume payments for no good reason. I'll have a job by then! I've spoken to a number of people who this has happened to. The reality is that businesses pay into the insurance instead of giving you a pay raise. When I can't use the insurance even when under the perfect conditions, all I view unemployment insurance as is a money pit that would otherwise be going to me as a wage increase.

I have never seen a government program actually work in my lifetime aside from libraries and the military (when it isn't screwing up). Roads would probably be more efficient if the government had nothing to do with it and if the government regulated private industry instead. Schools are failing miserably and I've always thought private schools had much better educational records. I believe government fails and that people should get their money as far away from it as they can in general.

[LittleGrizzly]

The people who voted for it 80 years ago didn't fully understand what was happening and were under duress.

Or... the people know don't fully understand it and are under duress....

I've been recently laid off. I've worked at on the books jobs for over 10 years full time and Unemployment is not forthcoming. I applied for it, received one check and the payments stopped. They said that they are "reviewing" my record and that payments may resume after 4 weeks. It has been 6 weeks and I can't get in touch with anyone at all because all of the phones are looped. It will probably take 3 months to resume payments for no good reason.

Could this be a problem because of all the people in america who have a problem with the welfare state, im assuming you have extra regulations on it because of conservatives, don't have this problem here in the UK...

have never seen a government program actually work in my lifetime aside from libraries and the military (when it isn't screwing up). Roads would probably be more efficient if the government had nothing to do with it and if the government regulated private industry instead.

Over here in the UK when we privatise something it tends to get drastically worse and the goverment end up bailing out the companies anyway, the railways in the UK are a good example of this... plenty of rail disastiers and the goverment handing out money to private companies.... these companies make a profit why the hell should the goverment be helping them make a profit.... as far as im concerned we should let the railroads go to rack and ruin so that the state can afford to buy them back and then we can run a decent rail service, especially with the issue of global warming we should make railroads one of the top prioritys, anyway enough about the incompetence of privatisation im getting off topic here...

a few quotes from wiki about british rail privatisation
The Labour government always had an unhappy and uncomfortable relationship with the privatised railway industry, never really accepting that the assets and businesses had been sold to the private sector, frequently complaining that as the public subsidy which went into the industry was so large and likely to continue in perpetuity, the government was its principal paymaster and should make or substantially influence all major decisions. The intensity of political intervention came to a head immediately after the Hatfield rail crash (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatfield_rail_crash) in 2000

As an interesting postscript to the privatisation, in July 2006 the Conservative Party's shadow transport spokesman, Chris Grayling (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Grayling), admitted that the 1996 split of the rail industry into track and train components was a mistake which had increased costs: "We think, with hindsight, that the complete separation of track and train into separate businesses at the time of privatisation was not right for our railways. We think that the separation has helped push up the cost of running the railways - and hence fares - and is now slowing decisions about capacity improvements. Too many people and organisations are now involved in getting things done - so nothing happens. As a result, the industry lacks clarity about who is in charge and accountable for decisions." .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privatisation_of_British_Rail

and thats where i got the info if your intrested....

Schools are failing miserably and I've always thought private schools had much better educational records.

Private schools have more money and usually recieve brighter pupils, they're usually happier to get rid of more troublesome pupils whereas a state school will try and turn that pupil into a succsess, all this means they should be much more successful...

[ICantSpellDawg]

That is interesting that you view private industry as less efficient than state-owned industry. I won't pass any judgments because you live in the U.K. and I live here. I can tell you that if you lived here I don't believe you'd be singing the same tune. Maybe I would be singing a different tune if I lived there.

Here, government fails and it would be suicide for us to put more money in its stupid projects.

[Tribesman]

I have never seen a government program actually work in my lifetime aside from libraries and the military (when it isn't screwing up). Roads would probably be more efficient if the government had nothing to do with it and if the government regulated private industry instead.
Well you could look at the example Rory used where the government flush with money thought privatisation of many aspects of its services was a good idea , then for example had a big panic because the private contractor that was running the sewage had screwed up big time and they were facing the real possibility of a massive cholera outbreak , it appears the private company thought it could do better at making money by having less drivers and trucks to shift :daisy: and then reduce the outlay on maintainance of those trucks .


That is interesting that you view private industry as less efficient than state-owned industry. I won't pass any judgments because you live in the U.K. and I live here. I can tell you that if you lived here I don't believe you'd be singing the same tune. Maybe I would be singing a different tune if I lived there.

A very good observation , people in the UK have plenty of experience of this , they had lots of state owned compnies and services , they moaned that they were rubbish and bad value for money .
Then came privatisation , and now they moan that many of the companies and services are even worse and that they get even bigger handouts from the tax payer than the State owned companies did .
So perhaps the reason why you are not singing the same tune is because they know the score well while you just have a blank hymn sheet and a vague notion of a tune .

[ICantSpellDawg]

I just can't imagine that. Private industry does well here and makes very nice things. Our State run stuff is crazy and overwhelmingly expensive. State institutions here remind me of a cow lying in the road.

I am impressed with State run things in the U.K. You guys lucked out. You are also a much smaller country, but I am not sure why it seems to work there and is so fundamentally broken here. I'm also not sure why private industry is broken there and seems to work so well here. Our best and brightest must go into private industry and yours must go into government?

Overall we do well in the States which is why so many of us firmly don't understand what all of the Euro fuss is about. Our health care could be re-vamped, even as simply as having the government pool-buy private plans for a bigger discount. The government could serve as a corporation of sorts and buy into a number of plans tiered for individuals based on the plan they'd like and the tax rate bump they chose. I am just afraid of a one size fits all health-care solution that relies too heavily on rich taxpayers.

The State has a role, but I don't think the U.S. or anybody else has figured it out just yet.

When I went to France I was not impressed with the State at all.

[Tribesman]

When I went to France I was not impressed with the State at all.

So you missed the State owned train network that is excellent and which expands the business into other countries , the train network that is mainly powered by the state owned electricity generator which expands its business into other countries .
Peraps you noticed the roads , strange mix there , ordinary state owned and run roads and then the privately owned and run roads , the perfect combination which works very well .... very well when you compare it to Irelands attempt at having a mix of state and private roads which is turning out to be very expensive and bad , though it may improve over time with a lot more expense as the government buys up private projects for vastly inflated figures just to make them work better .

[ICantSpellDawg]

So you missed the State owned train network that is excellent and which expands the business into other countries , the train network that is mainly powered by the state owned electricity generator which expands its business into other countries .
Peraps you noticed the roads , strange mix there , ordinary state owned and run roads and then the privately owned and run roads , the perfect combination which works very well .... very well when you compare it to Irelands attempt at having a mix of state and private roads which is turning out to be very expensive and bad , though it may improve over time with a lot more expense as the government buys up private projects for vastly inflated figures just to make them work better .

I couldn't generalize France's roads, but Ireland is a scary place to drive. I'll most likely never rent a car.

It's like the roads are made windier and scarier on purpose.

I like the idea of the government as a safety net. The LCD.
I live on Long Island - we have to be careful with having one system as it could turn into a catastrophe. If some roads were privatized while others were state run it might be a great thing. The State roads could act as insurance from bad company run roads and vice versa. Some people say that competition isn't possible when the State runs anything. I don't buy that. One way or the other can be very bad for competition.

Look at the USPS, FedEx and UPS. I think those systems work very well as there is competition and it takes the burden off of the taxpayer. That is a successful model in my humble opinion.

[Tribesman]

I couldn't generalize France's roads, but Ireland is a scary place to drive. I'll most likely never rent a car.

It's like the roads are made windier and scarier on purpose.

Come on Ireland is a fun place to drive, you just have to take into account that there is a fair chance that the driver of the next car doesn't have a licence and shouldn't be let anywhere near a motor vehicle ...oh and in certain parts of the country add in the factor that they may be very drunk as well .
As for the windy roads , that is normal , you couldn't expact an ass and cart to go up and down all the little hills so you build roads that go around every little bump in the landscape . Imagine the lunacy of changing the nature of roads just because of a passing modern fashion like automobiles:2thumbsup:

[drone]

Certain important infrastructure should not be privatized, or go beyond a heavily regulated monopoly. British Rail was an example. Infrastructure is not something that leads itself to competition, privatizing it just leads to a company sucking as much profit as possible while delivering the worst service. The duty of a company is to make profit for it's shareholders, so they will cut what they consider waste and unnecessary upgrades unless forced by their competition (which is non-existent). So in the end you have a vital service supplied to the people by a company beholden only to their shareholders, with no accountability to people they supposedly serve. Not a knock on the free market, it's just that certain infrastructure services do not fit free market concepts. The key is finding out which services lend themselves to open competition.

I prefer the regulated monopoly myself. You have to pay a little more, but central planning and oversight allows the infrastructure to accommodate times of peak use better.

[LittleGrizzly]

Another problem with privatisation for the railways and the post office, is that they can simply cut less used routes/post offices in rural places where they are usually needed more, what the customer may need in a certian area is simply unimportant to a company unless theres profit to be made... but the goverment will weigh peoples needs much more heavily than the profit...

[ICantSpellDawg]

Another problem with privatisation for the railways and the post office, is that they can simply cut less used routes/post offices in rural places where they are usually needed more, what the customer may need in a certian area is simply unimportant to a company unless theres profit to be made... but the goverment will weigh peoples needs much more heavily than the profit...

Right. Our postal system is another example of a good government balance. Everybody is in the loop, but there are viable faster alternatives for a bit more money through partial privatization of the industry. Health care could go something like that.

[rory_20_uk]

Another problem with privatisation for the railways and the post office, is that they can simply cut less used routes/post offices in rural places where they are usually needed more, what the customer may need in a certian area is simply unimportant to a company unless theres profit to be made... but the goverment will weigh peoples needs much more heavily than the profit...

If post offices were so used, then they'd be profitable and would not be cut. That they are not profitable is because no one is using them.

If locals want one, they should come up with a plan: add a small one in another store, or pay the company to keep one open for them, or run a franchise store.

~:smoking:

[Tribesman]

If post offices were so used, then they'd be profitable and would not be cut. That they are not profitable is because no one is using them.

If ambulances were so used then they'd be profitable and would not be cut , That they are not profitable is because no one is using them .

[rory_20_uk]

If ambulances were so used then they'd be profitable and would not be cut , That they are not profitable is because no one is using them .

Erm... if the people using the ambulances paid this would be the case. I have no idea what you are on about. :inquisitive:

They cost £750 per use (according to Unison - who might not be the most accurate source), so if the users would pay £800 a time you would be right. The usage would help decrease costs, allowing for a reduction in fees.

~:smoking:

[Tribesman]

Erm... if the people using the ambulances paid this would be the case. I have no idea what you are on about.

Oh I see you don't understand , provision of a post office service is something that is designated as essential , given that the old sick and infirm have their allowances delivered through this local medium .
You could however go down another route that leaves the system more open to fraud , but I am sure a good citizen like yourself would be up in arms about pension fraud .
I could add that the fact that these old codgers spent their lives paying into something that they expect to recieve does indeed mean that they have paid for it and should expect to recieve ...or did you neglect to think that the very people you are in favour of denying a service to are the same peoplewho paid for you to have it .
And hey if you want to get to ambulances and payng for them then perhaps you would be wise to try and find someone else to because over here we do pay for ambulances , plus we subsidise private ambulances and the service is absolute shite(not knocking ambulance men or paramedics at all as they do find it hard to deliver a service when the stations are closed and the vehicles are stripped of essential apperatus in the name of rationalisation)

[LittleGrizzly]

If post offices were so used, then they'd be profitable and would not be cut. That they are not profitable is because no one is using them.

I agree with Tribesman here, usually in the places they are being cut is rural communities where they are need most, i would be happy for the goverment to subsidise local rural post offices within reason, i imagine as they where only recently cut that they weren't too unprofitable, some local stores can diversify to try and make more money but some of those that where cut probably just needed to be propped up with a small yearly subsidie...

[rory_20_uk]

The costs of pensions have gone up exponentially. The "old codgers" never dreamt of living as long as they do now, and never paid to do so.

People don't have to get their pension in person. If you really think that a pension book slashes fraud you're in la la land. Paying such "essential services" into a designated account would be just as secure.

If a post office is not possible: volunteers to help work in it / place in another shop / have a "mobile post office" that goes around several areas...

Ambulance services are stretched to the limit by idiots calling for them. Possibly if there were a cost to using the, people might think before calling one as they felt dizzy / had a migraine / injured their foot and the hundreds of other lame excuses I've heard working in A&E.

Live elsewhere? I finish training in 1 year's time. I'm already looking for expat jobs. The UK is a nice place to visit, but frankly it's not somewhere I'd want to reside or bring up a family.

~:smoking:

[Adrian II]

The difference between government and thievery is mostly a matter of legality.Exactly. And the difference between Mr Browning and a ranting drunk is mostly a matter of tenure.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Exactly. And the difference between Mr Browning and a ranting drunk is mostly a matter of tenure.


:laugh4:

[Tribesman]

People don't have to get their pension in person. If you really think that a pension book slashes fraud you're in la la land. Paying such "essential services" into a designated account would be just as secure.

What you mean like a post office account ?
Great idea , but what good is that if there is no post office ?
Oh I get it , the old buggers can get on the bus and go somewhere where there is a facility, unless of course there is no bus because some bright spark decided that the public service wasn't making enough profit and was being susidised so had to be axed .


Live elsewhere? I finish training in 1 year's time. I'm already looking for expat jobs.
Ah how nice of you , you take all the subsidised training the government gives you at the expense of the taxpayer and see no problem with that at all .

[rory_20_uk]

There's this thing that's been around for a few years. They're called phone accounts and internet accounts. They mean that there's no need for a building at all! Imagine it! And possibly if people helped their elders, then the few that can't do it themselves might be able to learn.

I'm would be quite happy to stay. The government merely has to make it worth my while... But instead:

They've undermined the GMC which is no longer independent - unlike lawyers, or accountants.
Doctors now face civil rather than criminal courts on proving evidence.
No-win, no fee lawyers not helping with the above.
They've buggered with junior training - write a 200 word essay to prove your ability.
No longer any job security - London 6 months, then Bristol, then who knows where for the next decade or so.
The colleges treat paperwork as more important than clinical ability - and act like the inquisition where you're guilty unless you prove innocence when they then loose interest.

I'm in essence being driven out. Treat me with respect, let me have a life outside my job and I'll stay. If you continue not doing so, I'll find someone who will. I don't have to look that far; oh, and I'm far from the only doctor feeling this way.

~:smoking:

[LittleGrizzly]

From what i have heard on tv old people don't want/need the post offices for thier pensions, though that is quite useful, most people who were complaining about a post office closure were saying it killed off what little socail lifes they had, they said alot of them would slowly make thier way to the post office and meet up with thier other friends collecting thier pensions, they basically made it out as thier equivelent of a youth centre or something, but since the post office has closed there is nothing for them to leave the house for and they have started to feel lonely, this is why i think rural postys should be subsidised for the sake off the older people in the village/town....

[Tribesman]

Doctors now face civil rather than criminal courts on proving evidence.

thats because its cheaper for the government , I thought you was infavour of the government saving money .

No longer any job security - London 6 months, then Bristol, then who knows where for the next decade or so.

Oh so you want job for life guarantees and not a flexibe workplace , hey I thought you was against such stringent restrictions on the freemarket .
So lets see , you like the government saving money , unless it affects you .
You want people to be flexible with their working conditions , as long as its not you .
You really don't like government subsidies , unless it is you that is getting them .

That says a lot about your views Rory , and they are best summed up by saying your views are bollox.
So tell me Rory , did you get your oath slightly wrong ?
Did you take the hypocritical one instead of the hippocratic ?

[ICantSpellDawg]

I don't know why we'd be calling a doctor's opinions on the subject bollox. You may not agree, but Rory is experiencing these things from a professional perspective first hand while you are just reading about them from a separate country in amateur way. To dismiss his opinions as BS is really rather irritating.

[rory_20_uk]

I am for a free marketplace - I'm flexibly moving careers in response to market dynamics. I was merely listing the reasons for doing so. You're the one whining that I'm leaving. Did you forget that? The City offers more money for the same lack of stability.

The courts hadn't changed, the standard of evidence has. Any evidence for the saving of money?

The Hippocratic oath isn't compulsory. It also states nothing about where or if I practice medicine. And the relevance of a 2,000 year old practitioner who believed in 4 humours? Not much.

So, anything more than half hashed accusations? So far it appears you're not even bothering to address what I say.

~:smoking:

[Tribesman]

You're the one whining that I'm leaving. Did you forget that?
I am not whining that you are leaving , I am just saying that you moan about other people getting subsides but like to get them yourself , you moan that other people want secure terms of employment but want them for yourself .

The Hippocratic oath isn't compulsory. It also states nothing about where or if I practice medicine. And the relevance of a 2,000 year old practitioner who believed in 4 humours? Not much.

Ah I see that wordplay was beyond your comprehension , it must be all that subsided education you had .


To dismiss his opinions as BS is really rather irritating.
I didn't call them BS , I called them bollox due to the blatant hypocricy of them .

[rory_20_uk]

Everyone gets subsidised education. Does everyone work for the state? No. So stop complaining that I don't want to. I happen to have a job that pays a lot of tax. Be happy - I'm giving the state loads of cash.

What subsidies are you on about? A salary?
Everyone wants secure employment. I do not believe I or anyone else has the right to it.

Clear?

I fail to see where the hypocrisy comes from. Apparently clearly stating that I will change career in an open job market is. I personally feel you've got some issues to resolve, or frankly refuse to acknowledge the glaring errors in your rant, yet refuse to back down.

~:smoking:

[LittleGrizzly]

Everyone gets subsidised education. Does everyone work for the state? No. So stop complaining that I don't want to. I happen to have a job that pays a lot of tax. Be happy - I'm giving the state loads of cash.

Not so much arguing here... call it an enquiry...

I thought the goverment had started putting more financial incentives in for people to train to be doctors, as in exta subsidies because we need more doctors in Britian...