Euro Area

[gaelic cowboy]

Someone googled the ESM yet. Gentlemem it's unacountable

It's a pipe dream and it's implementation could sink not just tte PIIGS but potentially even the core.

[Kagemusha]

Furunculus, You are simply toting the same Thatcherian principles i mentioned before in earlier post. You are bringing up ideas of certain click as some sort of "truth".

If your line of thought was without faults.Your equation would actually work, but it does not. If you look at the list of most competitive countries in the world.You see it dominated by countries that base their economies in mixed economy.Take a look:

http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GCR...ts_2011-12.pdf

The mantra about public spending in all its forms being bad and drive of privatization of as much of public spending as possible, is not a new thing. Some like to sing it, some dont. To me the future of Western economies is not lowering its standards in the level of other parts of world in order to compete in basic production and low profit manufacturing. It will do nothing but initiate a downward spiral for majority while creating a larger surplus for few.

To me the key to success in future is social mobility, so all the human resources available will be used as well as possible. For this we need good education chances for both youths and adults in terms of adult education, healthcare and good safety network against unemployment, so we will not alienate possible work force from the market. For all this we need public spending, as profit making companies are not able to ever fill this place, as it is against their very nature to divert resources from avenues creating immediate profit. Nor such should be ever even demanded from them.

[fret]

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

Nothing to do with % GDP to Govt. spending ratio, but the Swedes did destroy their ecomony in the early 90's, pretty badly.

Dodgy speculative bank and stock practices and a housing bubble if I recall correct.

Hmmm, Im starting to see a pattern emerge here, I wonder if there could be a connection... :D

[Furunculus]

Nothing to do with % GDP to Govt. spending ratio, but the Swedes did destroy their ecomony in the early 90's, pretty badly.

Dodgy speculative bank and stock practices and a housing bubble if I recall correct.

Hmmm, Im starting to see a pattern emerge here, I wonder if there could be a connection... :D

not to mention that the swedish economy is greatly liberalised compared to where it was before the crash, and that they now spend around 45% of GDP (and declining) rather than the 55% of GDP in the pre-crash days.

http://www.spectator.co.uk/essays/77...t-recipe.thtml

[Furunculus]

Furunculus, You are simply toting the same Thatcherian principles i mentioned before in earlier post. You are bringing up ideas of certain click as some sort of "truth".

If your line of thought was without faults.Your equation would actually work, but it does not. If you look at the list of most competitive countries in the world.You see it dominated by countries that base their economies in mixed economy.Take a look:

kaga, i have seen nothing to persuade that the statement below is not true:

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.

plus, the points about demographics are definately a post thatcher phenomamen, and only serve to compound our growth problem.

[Kagemusha]

Double post.

[Vladimir]

In that case.Shouldnt the governments spending that magic 25% be the ones with most competitive economies? But they arent? How do you explain this oxymoron?

That's not a serious question, is it?

[Kagemusha]

kaga, i have seen nothing to persuade that the statement below is not true:


plus, the points about demographics are definately a post thatcher phenomamen, and only serve to compound our growth problem.

In that case.Shouldnt the governments spending that magic 25% be the ones with most competitive economies? But they arent? How do you explain this oxymoron? Lets look at countries with public spending in range of 25% of GDP:

Nicaragua,Fiji,Equatorial Guinea, Tanzania and Suriname.

That's not a serious question, is it?

Well if there is a ideal size of Public spending, why such percentage does not benefit the countries having such percentage?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

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

Europeans express their nationalism by comparing how progressive their social institutions are.

[Vladimir]

Well if there is a ideal size of Public spending, why such percentage does not benefit the countries having such percentage?

Actually my question wasn't a serious question. You obviously know that economies are incredibly complex and affected by a number of factors. You're also constructing a, strawman, is it? He stated that is the rough percentage for *best* growth (or least damage?), not that spending at that level equals prosperity.

Governments don't make money, they take it and spend it. The more it takes the more is lost through normal inefficiency. Even if a company or profit-making venture is wholly owned and controlled by a government it is still a business, and runs best under the private sector you despise.

Europeans express their nationalism by comparing how progressive their social institutions are.

I know, right? I don't like upsetting people but also don't understand how someone can be so interested in preserving their culture, or feel so entitled that they think it's right for someone to take so much by force, and give it to others based merely on citizenship.

[Furunculus]

In that case.Shouldnt the governments spending that magic 25% be the ones with most competitive economies? But they arent? How do you explain this oxymoron? Lets look at countries with public spending in range of 25% of GDP:

Nicaragua,Fiji,Equatorial Guinea, Tanzania and Suriname.

you do realise that competitiveness (however we choose to define it) and GDP growth are not in fact the same thing?

25% might create optimal growth, but it comes with many social downsides that most modern representative democracies will not accept, however, there is a recommended ceiling for a modern western economy linked in the pdf above. It said 40%. I haven't seen any evidence from you to persuade me that it is essentially wrong............................

if you wish to pick silly examples unrepresentative of aging and declining western nations then i shall pick one too; singapore.

there are four different projections of gdp out to 2050 linked above, let me know how well the high-spending contiental countries are faring forty years hence.

[Kagemusha]

Sasaki, thanks for pointing that out. I guess we have come a long way from medieval times. It could be that those two great butchers of 20th century have also helped a bit.

Actually my question wasn't a serious question. You obviously know that economies are incredibly complex and affected by a number of factors. You're also constructing a, strawman, is it? He stated that is the rough percentage for *best* growth (or least damage?), not that spending at that level equals prosperity.

I have to plead guilty as charged. To me giving an abstract percentage and making it somehow "perfect" without further details.Is just too abstract to let pass. Im unlucky in that sense that i believe such percentage does not exist as there are several aspects to consider with public spending and the cultural aspects are one of the decisive ones.

Governments don't make money, they take it and spend it. The more it takes the more is lost through normal inefficiency. Even if a company or profit-making venture is wholly owned and controlled by a government it is still a business, and runs best under the private sector you despise.

With this line of thought for example Nordic countries would be among the poorest among the World. Or in matter of fact any countries with Social Market economies. Which means majority of "Western" Nations. Is this the case? And why it isnt? The government is what it is created for. In a sense i agree with you.In other sense i do not agree with you at all.
The Public government, both in national and local level is good for providing essential services. Like for example: Military, Police and firemen. Now i hope in this we can agree?

Why? In my opinion, because these services are not based on idea of profit, but decided by quality of service. As im an Euro Weenie and you are Yankee devil, we dont agree upon education, healthcare and quite likely unemployment benefits plus the other social political aspects of government. To me this is a cultural difference. The same applies with the UK conservatives in lesser sense.

So we are deadlocked in these issues. Other side claims that limiting the government spending to absolute minimum is guarantee for better efficiency. Other side doesnt. Let me ask you this question:

With a private service provider. From where does the profit stem from? If we say that profit constructs from the better efficiency of private firm compared to less efficient public provider. Do you in the end get the same service then i do? The only difference being that in my case the government with its lack of cost efficiency looses some of my money along the way, while in your case the difference goes to firm as a profit.

I can accept such scenario generally, but the nuances are what matter the world. Can government be just bit less wasteful in order to provide a superior service, can the need for profit in order to make the business profitable jeopardize the quality of service?

Interesting questions indeed, but unlike Furunculus i dont have a black and white "truth" to give about the issue. Btw i really dont hate private firms that much. Im after all a project manager for one myself. So i get paid for maximizing profits.

[Furunculus]

Interesting questions indeed, but unlike Furunculus i dont have a black and white "truth" to give about the issue.

i stick with facts and figures. ;)

[Kagemusha]

you do realise that competitiveness (however we choose to define it) and GDP growth are not in fact the same thing?

25% might create optimal growth, but it comes with many social downsides that most modern representative democracies will not accept, however, there is a recommended ceiling for a modern western economy linked in the pdf above. It said 40%. I haven't seen any evidence from you to persuade me that it is essentially wrong............................

if you wish to pick silly examples unrepresentative of aging and declining western nations then i shall pick one too; singapore.

there are four different projections of gdp out to 2050 linked above, let me know how well the high-spending contiental countries are faring forty years hence.

I do understand that they are not. But do you understand that while you claim 25% spending allows optimal growth.The statistics say otherwise.It doesnt. Countries with such public spending are not growing optimally, as growth is build from large number of factors.

Now you give Singapore as example.Lets have a look:

percentage of public spending of GDP: 17.1%

percentage of debt of GDP: 118.2%

If anyone is interested similar figures with percentage of debt compared to GDP are sporting Ireland, Greece,Iceland and Portugal. So essentially Singapore is an Asian trade hub created with debt,just like some of the fore mentioned countries of Europe tried to become. And this is something we all should thrive for?

About 50 years.If we are still both alive then lets talk about it then.

[Vladimir]

SasakiSo we are deadlocked in these issues. Other side claims that limiting the government spending to absolute minimum is guarantee for better efficiency. Other side doesnt. Let me ask you this question:

With a private service provider. From where does the profit stem from? If we say that profit constructs from the better efficiency of private firm compared to less efficient public provider. Do you in the end get the same service then i do? The only difference being that in my case the government with its lack of cost efficiency looses some of my money along the way, while in your case the difference goes to firm as a profit.

I can accept such scenario generally, but the nuances are what matter the world. Can government be just bit less wasteful in order to provide a superior service, can the need for profit in order to make the business profitable jeopardize the quality of service?

Interesting questions indeed, but unlike Furunculus i dont have a black and white "truth" to give about the issue. Btw i really dont hate private firms that much. Im after all a project manager for one myself. So i get paid for maximizing profits.

I was going to let you have the last word because your reply was so beautiful. However, because you asked... Plus, keep in mind that I wholly support the people of each country being able to decide how their country is run; so long as they let people leave (Cold War, I'm old). I write from the basis that I want a thriving, not comfortable, Europe because we generally share the ideals I believe are right. Europe will never thrive with the culture you advocate.

Like you said, it comes down to cultural differences. Profit-making ventures are not there to solely provide a service. I don't want to get into the weeds about the role of the private sector vs government. What I want is for you people to start making history again. Flying cars would be nice but Europe, Scandinavia, whatever, should be more than a comfortable vacation spot.

[Kagemusha]

Vlad, If you want to contact the "thrive or die department" of Euro´s.You need to go and talk to the federalist loonies.With their Europa uber alles visions. Maybe im getting old, but my interest towards larger then life goals is fading.There is quite enough interesting things in normal life as it is.

[Brenus]

“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.”
See, when you want. It is not difficult. These are facts.

“To recap - anything that doesn't follow your views are wrong” Most of the time. Err, do you defend a position you know as wrong? If yes, it may explain things.

“Your example gave less drivers than trucks.” All right, I should have put more drivers and fewer trucks…
But you still don’t explain why this simple example is not efficient in showing that number of staff has an impact on operational decision. I could have taken from the Army (as not enough Troopers in Iraq or Afghanistan was one of the reasons of the spread of the insurgency). To me, it is obvious that if you have less nurses they won’t be able to talk and care of the patients. But you can dismiss this as it is my sister (being a nurse for 30 years) who told me and she is not statistic.

[Sarmatian]

i stick with facts and figures. ;)

Not meaning to derail, but what are you by trade?

[rory_20_uk]

“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.”
See, when you want. It is not difficult. These are facts.

“To recap - anything that doesn't follow your views are wrong” Most of the time. Err, do you defend a position you know as wrong? If yes, it may explain things.

“Your example gave less drivers than trucks.” All right, I should have put more drivers and fewer trucks…
But you still don’t explain why this simple example is not efficient in showing that number of staff has an impact on operational decision. I could have taken from the Army (as not enough Troopers in Iraq or Afghanistan was one of the reasons of the spread of the insurgency). To me, it is obvious that if you have less nurses they won’t be able to talk and care of the patients. But you can dismiss this as it is my sister (being a nurse for 30 years) who told me and she is not statistic.

I never said clinical staff.

And even with clinical staff, it is possible having nurses and doctor running around in circles completing pointless paperwork rather than patient contact. In cases such as this, sorting out the administrative mess might result in less staff - BUT those that are left can concentrate on patients rather than fighting the contortions of the system.

I would also say that a lot of what nurses do can be done by healthcare assistants - providing the human face to medicine - whilst the nurses can do what requires training, such as medication, wound treatment etc. Thus patient experience could be improved whilst costing less, as one can probably have two healthcare assistants instead of a nurse and still have a saving.

[Brenus]

“Thus patient experience could be improved whilst costing less, as one can probably have two healthcare assistants instead of a nurse and still have a saving.” There, I agree. It not the cutting that makes the difference, it is the allocation of the workforce to the task they are trained for. The problem of course if the Conservative cut in the administrative staff, so the clinical staff is obliged to do the necessary paperwork. And you still need to have a dialogue from the surgeon with his patient time to time. However, in most of the cases, you don’t need a qualified nurse to bath a patient. But sometimes it is necessary, as in patients under heavy drugs…

[Sir Moody]

Actually my question wasn't a serious question. You obviously know that economies are incredibly complex and affected by a number of factors. You're also constructing a, strawman, is it? He stated that is the rough percentage for *best* growth (or least damage?), not that spending at that level equals prosperity.

Governments don't make money, they take it and spend it. The more it takes the more is lost through normal inefficiency. Even if a company or profit-making venture is wholly owned and controlled by a government it is still a business, and runs best under the private sector you despise.

except the UK is proof this isn't the case - we privatised most of our essentials (Water and Power) and while profits are high the service is WORSE and more expensive than prior to privatisation - even more telling the Water companies making the most profit are also the water companies who lose the most water through leaking pipes (and funnily enough the same companies currently looking at a hose pipe ban...)

and then there's the Rail system which has gone from being one of the best in Western Europe to one of the worst - funnily enough since Privatisation.

I know, right? I don't like upsetting people but also don't understand how someone can be so interested in preserving their culture, or feel so entitled that they think it's right for someone to take so much by force, and give it to others based merely on citizenship.

Call me odd but I'm happy to pay taxes in order to provide universal Healthcare to all citizens, even those who certainly couldn't afford it.

[rory_20_uk]

The problem with the rail system has more to do with the insane manner of privitisation than anything else. The companies prior to being nationalised worked very well - but don't let that stop you - and were divided into areas of the UK where one company controlled everything. Now they have a system where different companies control different systems and is a mess.

The private companies don't own these areas, they purchase the rights to run for a period, so there is no way to plan for the future as it might be a different company who is running it. What type of idiot invented this system? You might as well incentivise a system of government where it is sensible to spend a fortune of money on credit to create an artificial credit-fuelled boom to ensure that the next government has nothing and hence looks bad... Oh, we do...

The best? You do realise that we in the UK stuck to messy steam trains for decades after it was ditched for cleaner, more efficient electricity by most of Europe. When was that? When nationalised.

Sir Moody, correlation isn't causation. London's network is the oldest and hence most likely to leak. And all these leaks in a Victorian system didn't suddenly happen since privatisation, they were being ignored for decades before that as well.

[Papewaio]

You could have less drivers then trucks if the idea is to have a percentage of the trucks in a maintenance pool.

[Sir Moody]

Sir Moody, correlation isn't causation. London's network is the oldest and hence most likely to leak. And all these leaks in a Victorian system didn't suddenly happen since privatisation, they were being ignored for decades before that as well.

yes but the fact the companies that make the most money also leak the most boggles the mind - they would rather make more profits by charging more while enforcing a hosepipe caused by the lack of water - you would think at least one for these companies would start the process of fixing the leaks at the cost of short term profit loss and increased long term profits...

and FYI London isn't the worst leaker - its East Anglia

I'm not going to comment on the rail system... members of my family were Train Drivers and were forced into retirement when the Rail network was privatised - it may bias me a little...

[Furunculus]

Not meaning to derail, but what are you by trade?

Business development manager for a 3D animation company producing the marketing for engineering multinationals.

[gaelic cowboy]

Business development manager for a 3D animation company producing the marketing for engineering multinationals.

How did you swing that gig I thought you were a geologist or something

[InsaneApache]

The more I hear of Nige, the more I think he's talking sense.

[Fragony]

He's my hero, it is rare to find a politician who understands something. Why can't I vote for him. And who is that Flemish ferret who always looks like an owl that just dropped from his tree. Who are you, who elected you, by what mechanism.

Farrage always +infinite

The nation state + infinite

EU misunderstood Keynes. Just because there will be a lot of broken windows doesn't mean it's good for the economy

[Furunculus]

How did you swing that gig I thought you were a geologist or something

lol, never used my geology degree professionally.

after uni helped start up a engineering R&D firm creating electric recycling vehicles

did an e-business masters

then shifted to newly created 3D animation company, helped them find and grow a sales strategy.

i like technology and the culture of business start-ups, so if it seems a little random it works for me. :)

[Fragony]

Lol. If thet 7% raise for the EUSR can't be realised holding on to the 3% isn't all that important anymore. Dear eurocrats, I will come for you one day, and there will be no reason, I will kill you if if I have the chance.