Euro Area

[Kagemusha]

I have to say that sometimes i dont get you Brits, to be more precise the conservative ones. How can you even compare French public spending or in matter of fact any spending on the continent to British spending? What does your government give back in return to the tax payer compared to any of the continental European governments?
While continental tax payers pay taxes to get free education, decent welfare and pensions. All i hear from you is howling of Thatcherism: Privatize everything!Run taxes to the ground!Anything for the market! Anything!

[rory_20_uk]

In UK, Cameron is doing it for NHS. You cut the staff, then the system can't work, so you claim that privatisation is the only solution... Clever...
About Greece, create more taxes, obliged the Church to pay taxes, and the Rich to do so as well. The poor pay their like in UK, when they are paid. In fact, Greece is the exemple of the Liberal?Conservative economic model failure. They didn't paid taxes, the system collapse.

I hate to provide evidence, but... Link Annualised increase in NHS work force of 2.9% over the course of a decade. Cutting staff? Don't let facts slow you down. The numbers in the Civil Service increased over the time Thatcher was in office.

Labour managed to waste vast sums of money by dear old PFI which managed to get the worst of both worlds - saddling trusts with debts for decades in agreements that can not be broken. If that was clever it was so clever I can't even see the plan. I have interviewed the boards of directors of several Foundation trusts and there was no correlation between service provision and staff numbers. Some of the best trusts had cut staff numbers in a given patient pathway yet improved performance. I am not claiming privatisation is the only answer as all the Foundation Trusts were not privatised.

The poor in Greece get paid off the books in cash, as they will do everywhere else. Only those in jobs where you can't get paid in this method will people undertake work where they can't hide earnings, or the risks of hiding earnings is too great.

Kagemusha, I am impressed that you are so knowledgeable about all European countries services. That you have generalised to such an extent rather makes me think otherwise.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I have to say that sometimes i dont get you Brits, to be more precise the conservative ones. How can you even compare French public spending or in matter of fact any spending on the continent to British spending? What does your government give back in return to the tax payer compared to any of the continental European governments?
While continental tax payers pay taxes to get free education, decent welfare and pensions. All i hear from you is howling of Thatcherism: Privatize everything!Run taxes to the ground!Anything for the market! Anything!

NHS: Check

Welfare: Check

Pension: Check (tamage done here by removal of tax relief and Brown's pension raids to fund spending).

Free Education: Check (just because you pay a higher rate of tax after you graduate doesn't make it not "Free" to actually get).

All in all, we have a fairly progressive state and a very progressive tax system, something like 10% of all tax is payed by the richest 300 people in the country.

What this is about is balancing the budget - goverment outgoings being less than tax reciepts, not cutting spending to nothing

Of course, people look at the headlines like "cut in top rate of tax" and ignore the fact that this Conservative Government is the first to secure a return of lost taxes from places like Switzerland.

I mean, it'snot like our incomes taxes are as low as Norway, or our VAT as high, is it?

[Kagemusha]

NHS: Check

Welfare: Check

Pension: Check (tamage done here by removal of tax relief and Brown's pension raids to fund spending).

Free Education: Check (just because you pay a higher rate of tax after you graduate doesn't make it not "Free" to actually get).

All in all, we have a fairly progressive state and a very progressive tax system, something like 10% of all tax is payed by the richest 300 people in the country.

What this is about is balancing the budget - goverment outgoings being less than tax reciepts, not cutting spending to nothing

Of course, people look at the headlines like "cut in top rate of tax" and ignore the fact that this Conservative Government is the first to secure a return of lost taxes from places like Switzerland.

I mean, it'snot like our incomes taxes are as low as Norway, or our VAT as high, is it?

Now there is a slight difference if an institution exists and if it is actually covering something. For example how are your university studies? Free for everyone? Can you show me some statistics?

[rory_20_uk]

Now there is a slight difference if an institution exists and if it is actually covering something. For example how are your university studies? Free for everyone? Can you show me some statistics?

Would you do the same? Or are you alone in being able to make unsubstantiated claims?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Now there is a slight difference if an institution exists and if it is actually covering something. For example how are your university studies? Free for everyone? Can you show me some statistics?

Fees are free for 100% of students studying at undergraduate level, then they get a non-means tested grant and a top up depending on parent's income.

You have to pay for your Master's degree, PhD students have to bid for funding, or self-fund.

[Brenus]

“Don't let facts slow you down. The numbers in the Civil Service increased over the time Thatcher was in office.” I won’t. 2.9 %. In a decade. Wow. Impressive!
I don’t know if the facts reported by the BBC are wrong (or ITV) but I was watching a lot of news about how bad the Pensioners are treated, or how some patients in hospitals were left with even water. Was it last week? Or perhaps two weeks ago? The claim was they had shortage of staff. But don’t let talks from the staff to slow your reading of official papers as a good URSS officials would have said.
Hum, let me think about my own experience. Ah, yes, when my step-daughter (15 years old) had to wait 4 hours to get a 2 months old baby with fever to be seen. Or perhaps when few years after the same daughter fall on a piece of glass and had a cut on neck. Hum, how long it took? Oh, wait 3 hours… Well, it was an improvement.

“I have interviewed the boards of directors of several Foundation trusts and there was no correlation between service provision and staff numbers”: And all the targets of the fifth Plan were reached.
I have interviewed a lot of people: There are the one who told what you want to eard or ready to listen, and the ones who told you what they want you to know/believe. What categories were yours? The Foundations want to cut the staff. So they will find no correlation what so ever between the number of staff and service.
It defies logic. And Math. But not finances where work is considered as a cost instead of an input.
My experience in the field of emergency tends to prove that there is a correlation. I just organised the logistic of 2 vaccination campaigns and few convoys for the UNHCR, UNICEF and UNWFP. Not enough people, you failed. Too much can harm an operation in slowing it down, but it more due to a bad planning than to an excess of personnel. To have 3 drivers for two lorries is better than 1 driver for two lorries. As simple. Nyap! (err, for the noise see the advert with the meerkats).

[rory_20_uk]

“Don't let facts slow you down. The numbers in the Civil Service increased over the time Thatcher was in office.” I won’t. 2.9 %. In a decade. Wow. Impressive!
I don’t know if the facts reported by the BBC are wrong (or ITV) but I was watching a lot of news about how bad the Pensioners are treated, or how some patients in hospitals were left with even water. Was it last week? Or perhaps two weeks ago? The claim was they had shortage of staff. But don’t let talks from the staff to slow your reading of official papers as a good URSS officials would have said.
Hum, let me think about my own experience. Ah, yes, when my step-daughter (15 years old) had to wait 4 hours to get a 2 months old baby with fever to be seen. Or perhaps when few years after the same daughter fall on a piece of glass and had a cut on neck. Hum, how long it took? Oh, wait 3 hours… Well, it was an improvement.

“I have interviewed the boards of directors of several Foundation trusts and there was no correlation between service provision and staff numbers”: And all the targets of the fifth Plan were reached.
I have interviewed a lot of people: There are the one who told what you want to eard or ready to listen, and the ones who told you what they want you to know/believe. What categories were yours? The Foundations want to cut the staff. So they will find no correlation what so ever between the number of staff and service.
It defies logic. And Math. But not finances were work is considered as a cost instead of an input.
My experience in the field of emergency tends to prove that there is a correlation. I just organised the logistic of 2 vaccination campaigns and few convoys for the UNHCR, UNICEF and UNWFP. Not enough people, you failed. Too much can harm an operation in slowing it down, but it more due to a bad planning than to an excess of personnel. To have 3 drivers for two lorries is better than 1 driver for two lorries. As simple. Nyap! (err, for the noise see the advert with the meerkats).

Oh good a case study. Why don't we base all policies on case studies... Because they are statistically worthless. Foundations want to increase their funds and reduce costs. Patient bed days is a far greater determinant of both of these than staff numbers.

Your experience in the field... Again boils down to limited experience in a completely different field.

As you said simple... So simplistic to be irrelevant. Clearly nothing as base as facts are going to alter you. Best you stick to what you've heard in the Mail and a mate at the pub said. Everything that doesn't agree with you is clearly wrong.

[Fragony]

Someone googled the ESM yet. Gentlemem it's unacountable

[Kagemusha]

Would you do the same? Or are you alone in being able to make unsubstantiated claims?

I am not quite sure what are you asking, but if it is about university education.Yes it is free. Any education over here is. What i am trying to say that Britain is not exactly offering similar welfare state services, like for example Scandinavian countries,Germany,Benelux countries and France are. Or are you trying to argue that it is?

I think your universal healthcare and basic education is comparable and that´s about it.

[Papewaio]

That universal care has to be sustainable. Otherwise you are creating massive debts for future generations... I don't think stealing from ones kids or grand kids is a great social model.

[InsaneApache]

That universal care has to be sustainable. Otherwise you are creating massive debts for future generations... I don't think stealing from ones kids or grand kids is a great social model.

But....but...it's 'progressive' politics to loot from our grandchildren. Doncha know?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I am not quite sure what are you asking, but if it is about university education.Yes it is free. Any education over here is. What i am trying to say that Britain is not exactly offering similar welfare state services, like for example Scandinavian countries,Germany,Benelux countries and France are. Or are you trying to argue that it is?

I think your universal healthcare and basic education is comparable and that´s about it.

Scandanavia also has a less "progressive" tax system, higher VAT and lower income taxes, over here incomes taxes have (mostly) risen whilst other taxes have been kept down and provision has been rolled back.

We also have large areas of the country that are "sick", lacking productive private employment large numbers of people are employed by the state in jobs which, frankly, we don't need and this leeches money from social services etc.

[Fragony]

Scandanavia also has a less "progressive" tax system, higher VAT and lower income taxes, over here incomes taxes have (mostly) risen whilst other taxes have been kept down and provision has been rolled back.

We also have large areas of the country that are "sick", lacking productive private employment large numbers of people are employed by the state in jobs which, frankly, we don't need and this leeches money from social services etc.

Finland isn't Scandinavia. What you have is exactly what Hollande has in mind by the way, over 60.000 people to do cool stuff with brooms on the red square to hide the real unemployment. Socialism is parasitism, always has and always will be.

[Sir Moody]

Fees are free for 100% of students studying at undergraduate level, then they get a non-means tested grant and a top up depending on parent's income.

You have to pay for your Master's degree, PhD students have to bid for funding, or self-fund.

sorry are you living in the UK?

Grants haven't existed since the first Labour term - we have LOANS now which you pay back once you start earning over £15,000 a year

all degrees come with a fee attached and loans are available to all applicants

After a 4 year degree back in the early Labour days I had ~£15,000 in student loans to pay back - thankfully the degree paid off and I have paid back a few K

My Brother (9 years younger than me) is just finishing his first year of a University by our estimate he will be in excess of £20,000 in debt once he is done

luckily he's of the last "group" to pay the Labour Fee's - the first thing the Conservatives did was raise the fees and the interest on the student loans

our University system is anything but Free... unless your a Scott - they get Free Universities paid for by the English tax payers...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

sorry are you living in the UK?

Grants haven't existed since the first Labour term - we have LOANS now which you pay back once you start earning over £15,000 a year

all degrees come with a fee attached and loans are available to all applicants

After a 4 year degree back in the early Labour days I had ~£15,000 in student loans to pay back - thankfully the degree paid off and I have paid back a few K

My Brother (9 years younger than me) is just finishing his first year of a University by our estimate he will be in excess of £20,000 in debt once he is done

luckily he's of the last "group" to pay the Labour Fee's - the first thing the Conservatives did was raise the fees and the interest on the student loans

our University system is anything but Free... unless your a Scott - they get Free Universities paid for by the English tax payers...

No, there are still means-tested grants and the "loans" are nothing of the sort, because there is not collateral, and you only may it back once you are earning over a certain threshold, which will be 21,000 for your brother.

The government underwrites the loan, and they don't take away your degree if you default. The current student-loans system is a mathematical trick which shifts more of the burdan from general taxpayers to graduates, nothing more and nothing less.

[Vladimir]

Is this a competition about how much you can get other people to pay for your education?

[Sir Moody]

maybe so but it isn't Free and claiming so is simply muddying the water - you pay your fees with a loan and then you pay back the loan - my Fathers University days were free - ours are not

and as to grants - its ~£2000 and only for the poorest of students - they will still need the loan to pay the fees themselves since the grant is just maintenance (i.e. living costs) and I don't know if you noticed £2000 doesn't go far these days - that would probably pay my Brothers rent for a year leaving him the maintenance loan to "live" off

one side note - how are you expected to default on the loan? the only way that could happen is if you never earn over the threshold - the loan doesn't go anywhere - if you don't earn over the threshold it simply gets bigger every year thanks to the interest - I know some countries with student loans have an end date (any remaining debts after that date are cancelled) but im pretty sure ours don't

[Sir Moody]

Is this a competition about how much you can get other people to pay for your education?

no I am just taking offence to his claim our Higher Education is free - it isn't

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

maybe so but it isn't Free and claiming so is simply muddying the water - you pay your fees with a loan and then you pay back the loan - my Fathers University days were free - ours are not

and as to grants - its ~£2000 and only for the poorest of students - they will still need the loan to pay the fees themselves since the grant is just maintenance (i.e. living costs) and I don't know if you noticed £2000 doesn't go far these days - that would probably pay my Brothers rent for a year leaving him the maintenance loan to "live" off

one side note - how are you expected to default on the loan? the only way that could happen is if you never earn over the threshold - the loan doesn't go anywhere - if you don't earn over the threshold it simply gets bigger every year thanks to the interest - I know some countries with student loans have an end date (any remaining debts after that date are cancelled) but im pretty sure ours don't

Just declare bankruptcy - no loan, or wait 25 years to earn actual money. That's not so hard in this degree-drenched economy.

Sure, you're bankrupt but most graduates have abysmal credit histories anyway.

Lets be clear about this, nothing is "free", the NHS is paid for by taxes.

The only question is how you are taxed - the UK system offsets the cost and you pay it back to the government after you are earning.

I am insulted by your fixation of the arithmatic - your parents had to pay a larger proportion of your education than they will your brother's because he will pay back more of what he is given.

[Sir Moody]

make your mind up - you declared the NHS free not so long ago

look lets define it as it was probably intended when Kagemusha originally asked the question and you declared "everything" free

yes the NHS is paid for by taxes - but to the individual it is free - you don't pay directly for the care you recieve unless you chose to opt for private care - society pays via tax which is very indirect and pays for more than just the NHS

this is not true of the higher education system - the individual (and their parents) directly pay for the services rendered as well as indirectly via tax

whether they pay that back or not isn't the point - they are required to take out a loan to pay it

it isn't free

you would have been better saying free up until Higher Education

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

make your mind up - you declared the NHS free not so long ago

look lets define it as it was probably intended when Kagemusha originally asked the question and you declared "everything" free

yes the NHS is paid for by taxes - but to the individual it is free - you don't pay directly for the care you recieve unless you chose to opt for private care - society pays via tax which is very indirect and pays for more than just the NHS

this is not true of the higher education system - the individual (and their parents) directly pay for the services rendered as well as indirectly via tax

whether they pay that back or not isn't the point - they are required to take out a loan to pay it

it isn't free

you would have been better saying free up until Higher Education

To all intents and purposes it is as "free" as it ever was. There is no practical difference between the loan and the old grant, except that the graduate is the only one paying higher taxes.

For the NHS you pay National Insurrence, it is not "indirect", it comes out of your paycheck before even income tax. The Student loan works exactly the same way, but you only pay it if you actually go to university.

[Sir Moody]

we seem to be fundamentally disagreeing on what Free is when it comes to Government services - nothing is free and I do realise that

Free means the Government pays the "tab" for any individual service - for example if I were to develop cancer the NHS would foot the bill and society as a whole pays the bill back via taxes - while yes I would contribute to the payment via my own taxes I would have paid those regardless of the illness - this means the NHS is socially funded and thus is free

The University system of my parents age worked the same way - they received a grant which didn't have to be paid back - society would pay back the cost of their education via taxes (which of course they went on to pay themselves)

The new system doesn't work like that at all - you pay upfront for your education in the form of fees - in order to pay the fees you (unless you are independently wealthy enough) are required to take out a loan which will be paid back directly out of you pay packet once you reach a set income threshold - until that point the loan (because it is a loan) builds interest. While the Government still foots some of the bill the individual pays for his own education in some respect - i.e. it isn't entirely society funded - it isn't free

now I am going to stop now I hope I got my point across...

on a side note I don't disagree with the idea University students should pay the money back themselves (while I disagree with the loan system in place I am not against fees) I am fundamentally disagreeing with your statement to Kagemusha

[Furunculus]

I have to say that sometimes i dont get you Brits, to be more precise the conservative ones. How can you even compare French public spending or in matter of fact any spending on the continent to British spending? What does your government give back in return to the tax payer compared to any of the continental European governments?
While continental tax payers pay taxes to get free education, decent welfare and pensions. All i hear from you is howling of Thatcherism: Privatize everything!Run taxes to the ground!Anything for the market! Anything!

it is quite elementary:

An advanced western economy, facing relative technological and demographic decline, should not be spending more than 40% of GDP lest it do serious damage to the long-term growth rate that will preserve the standard of living we enjoy for our children too:

http://ime.bg/uploads/OptimalSizeOfGovernment.pdf

If we accept that spending can fluctuate around 7%must look to spend just 33% of GDP at its peak, with a median value of no more than 36%.............. like we achieved in the nineties.

So to a degree we are going to have to get used to the idea of government doing less for us because having a public debt equivalent to 400% of GDP by 2040, and using 15% of GDP each year to service debt interest, is clearly not a happy future:

http://www.bis.org/publ/work300.pdf

so, if you cannot achieve everything you might like the state to do within a 'mere' 36% of GDP accept that it will do less, otherwise we will destroy the long-term growth that will preserve the standard of living we enjoy today for our children tomorrow.

[Vladimir]

so, if you cannot achieve everything you might like the state to do within a 'mere' 36% of GDP accept that it will do less, otherwise we will destroy the long-term growth that will preserve the standard of living we enjoy today for our children tomorrow.

Why does it seem that so many want to preserve the standard of living? Why not improve it? Preservation is stagnation is decline. Who's going to lead into the future?

[Kagemusha]

it is quite elementary:

An advanced western economy, facing relative technological and demographic decline, should not be spending more than 40% of GDP lest it do serious damage to the long-term growth rate that will preserve the standard of living we enjoy for our children too:

http://ime.bg/uploads/OptimalSizeOfGovernment.pdf

If we accept that spending can fluctuate around 7%must look to spend just 33% of GDP at its peak, with a median value of no more than 36%.............. like we achieved in the nineties.

So to a degree we are going to have to get used to the idea of government doing less for us because having a public debt equivalent to 400% of GDP by 2040, and using 15% of GDP each year to service debt interest, is clearly not a happy future:

http://www.bis.org/publ/work300.pdf

so, if you cannot achieve everything you might like the state to do within a 'mere' 36% of GDP accept that it will do less, otherwise we will destroy the long-term growth that will preserve the standard of living we enjoy today for our children tomorrow.

And why should i take the word of some Bulgarian economists as final word on the issue, or a research made by an investment bank? How do you create the correlation between percentage of GDP created by government spending and public debt percentage of GDP?

For example US is a country with very low government spending, akin to 38.9% of GDP, meanwhile their debt in comparison is 102.94% of their annual GDP. Another example is Sweden with Governmental expenditure of 52.5% of GDP, while their debt in comparison is 37.44% of their GDP.

So are you suggesting that Swedes are destroying their economy compared to US?

[Brenus]

“Why don't we base all policies on case studies... Because they are statistically worthless.” Yeap, statistic, good idea… I prefer human beings, sorry… Not worth that a 20 years old try to save a 2 months old baby, it is not rational.
And you probably know that statistics are in fact, manipulation (again see USSR, chapter GOSPLAN)

“Foundations want to increase their funds and reduce costs” What I said. So they will find that cutting staff has no effect what so ever on efficiency… They lie.
“As you said simple... So simplistic to be irrelevant.” Good use of vocabulary: Simple = simplistic. That was the subject of my research, use of vocabulary to twist and manipulate concept. Try again.

“Clearly nothing as base as facts are going to alter you”: Facts? You provide no fact. You mix facts and Statistic produced by those who have interest in the bargain… Well done. You and I have obviously a different definition of facts.

“Best you stick to what you've heard in the Mail and a mate at the pub said.” Ah, you are losing your temper: I can’t heard the Mail (again, use of vocabulary, not that good this time, even if using mate is quite good even if I don’t go to pub. Sorry.)
I could be as much insulting that you are but I won’t because insults dishonoured only the ones who use them (Confucius).
Sorry, I hate to be patronized.

“Everything that doesn't agree with you is clearly wrong.” Everything? No. If you come with real facts (you could have come with the improvement of technology that makes the need for staff less important) or even a good intellectual demonstration I will agree.As for facts, I was one who didn’t believe mobile phones would take off. I was clearly wrong. But coming with scorn and disdain don’t work with me.

[rory_20_uk]

To recap - anything that doesn't follow your views are wrong. All you have - or need is things that back up what you think.

Your example gave less drivers than trucks. If that's not simplistic, what is - given the previous topic was the running of a Foundation trust.

"Real" facts? what, exactly? Clearly none that are compiled by the DoH, the NHS or probably anyone who compiles them are sufficient.

Real facts?
Sorting out staff rotas so theatres that are in fact closed for the last 2 hours of shifts do not have a full compliment of nursing staff doing nothing.
Giving consultants electronic dictaphones in outpatient clinics and shedding the dictation pool - faster letters and more staff for general admin
Drugs that can be given faster - as opposed to an 8 hour stay, same dose in 15 minutes. Even allowing for set up time vastly increased patient throughput. staffing the same, as the first patient needs constant monitoring.

Oh, but I made these all up, right?

[Furunculus]

And why should i take the word of some Bulgarian economists as final word on the issue, or a research made by an investment bank? How do you create the correlation between percentage of GDP created by government spending and public debt percentage of GDP?

For example US is a country with very low government spending, akin to 38.9% of GDP, meanwhile their debt in comparison is 102.94% of their annual GDP. Another example is Sweden with Governmental expenditure of 52.5% of GDP, while their debt in comparison is 37.44% of their GDP.

So are you suggesting that Swedes are destroying their economy compared to US?

it is simple, and related only casually to the same bad politics that results in enormous debt from running persistant deficits:

high spending, as a proportion of GDP, results in low GDP growth. it is that simple:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance...faster-growth/

I've said this quite often in the past, and when I do people sometimes ask why I believe economies grow faster if government consumption spending is less. After all, government consumption spending is one component of GDP, so on the face of it one might think that if the government consumes less, GDP will be less. There have been numerous studies conducted since the 1970s on the relationship between government spending and GDP and the finding is overwhelming* and clear**: once government spending rises above about 25 per cent of GDP, for each additional percentage point of GDP the government spends, growth is around 0.1-0.15 per cent lower per year.

* http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/ima...20nov%2009.pdf
** http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/ima...20apr%2010.pdf

europe has got away with it for the last fifty years because of healthy demographics and a technological superiority that preserves high-margin return on business.

britain and france still have healthy demographic profiles................... but they are not what they were and we still have an increasing number of dependents to workers, but most of the rest of europe is shafted, germany, italy and spain included!

likewise, our technological advantage has similarly eroded, as evidenced by the fact that manufacturing makes up just 12% of GDP for both Britain and France. british IP is still cited in 13% of high-level research worldwide, can belgium say the same?

any other european nation deserves a BIG HEARTY "LOL" if it thinks it can continue with high gov't spending into the middle of teh 21st century........... unless it is intentionally trying to return the standard of living to sumething similar to bulgaria 'enjoys' today.

Britain will return to circa 38% of GDP in the next ten years, and stay there, and the result vis-a-vis our continental neighbours will be stark:
http://www.carnegieendowment.org/fil...er_in_2050.pdf
http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&sou...ad=rja&cad=rja
http://www.nber.org/~wbuiter/3G.pdf
http://www.arbuthnotgroup.com/uploads/9.1.12.pdf

[gaelic cowboy]

Kidding me, why don't you google the ESM.

Not ratified here and already broken in Spain the ESM is a busted flush.