More with less – or else (UK style)

59 comments on “More with less – or else (UK style) ”

• Comments are now closed

1. RobM 1

   6 July 2011 at 3:35 pm

   Yes disgraceful and reminiscent of our defence force’s “You are now a civvy” shenanigans.
   Sideshow Parker will be inspired.

   (You doubled the http on the link so in my browser it fails to open)
2. Rusty Shackleford 2

   6 July 2011 at 4:03 pm

   “…that monumental greed-made disaster caused by bankers and financial institutions”, aided and abetted by our democratically elected govts. It’s funny how statists always seem to be blind to that particular piece of the puzzle.
   • The Voice of Reason 2.1

     6 July 2011 at 4:20 pm

     You really are dull, Rusty and not just in the wits.
   • Draco T Bastard 2.2

     6 July 2011 at 6:16 pm

     Correct, they believed the banksters about the the effect no regulation would have on the economy. You “libertarians” tend to forget that bit.
   • Colonial Viper 2.3

     6 July 2011 at 6:21 pm

     It’s funny how statists always seem to be blind to that particular piece of the puzzle.

     You wouldn’t know a real statist if you were put into solitary confinement with one.
     • The Voice of Reason 2.3.1

       6 July 2011 at 6:28 pm

       Double bunkum?
   • KJT 2.4

     6 July 2011 at 6:50 pm

     What democratic Governments?

     Do you mean the revolving dictatorships we are graciously allowed to re-arrange a bit every three years.
     • Rusty Shackleford 2.4.1

       6 July 2011 at 7:36 pm

       I don’t disagree with your sentiment KJT.
3. Colonial Viper 3

   6 July 2011 at 6:23 pm

   FIGHT BACK FIGHT HARD

   Don’t they know, a lot can go wrong in a town when council work isn’t done properly.

   
   • Luxated 3.1

     6 July 2011 at 6:35 pm

     I hope this backfires and no one accepts the offer. It would be interesting to see just how long they can find ‘productivity improvements’ when they’re 6500 people short.
     • Rusty Shackleford 3.1.1

       6 July 2011 at 6:39 pm

       Private businesses would fill the gap. If there is a buck to be made, the problem usually gets solved.
       • Colonial Viper 3.1.1.1

         6 July 2011 at 6:38 pm

         If there is a buck to be made, the problem usually gets solved.

         Wrong.
         • Rusty Shackleford 3.1.1.1.1

           6 July 2011 at 6:45 pm

           Nah! Not even!

           What is the point of your existence. I don’t think I have ever heard you back up a premise. Whether it was right or wrong. Even if it your premise was wrong, but you backed it up with something approaching logic, at least you could get a gold star for effort.

           Let me pre-empt your response. “I know you are but what am I?”
           • Colonial Viper 3.1.1.1.1.1

             6 July 2011 at 6:50 pm

             ? Problems frequently make more money by not being solved. Or at the very least, not being solved quickly and efficiently.

             Your average graduate lawyer knows this. I thought it was obvious that no one wants to do themselves out of a job so did not explain, my bad.
           • KJT 3.1.1.1.1.2

             6 July 2011 at 6:54 pm

             Who are you. You come here with the same old RWNJ crap that has been thoroughly debunked and proved wrong many times in history. Not to mention your own strange alternative view of history. Another paid astro-turfer. Perhaps!

             Or have you dropped in from another universe where unregulated capitalism and unfettered greed results in no poverty and prosperity for all.

             [lprent: Nope he isn’t a astroturfer. Some kind of libertarian, but he fulfills the sites minimal requirements of being human of being opinionated, capable of argument, pretty thick skinned, and responsive to stimulia from other commentators. ]
           • Ianupnorth 3.1.1.1.1.3

             6 July 2011 at 7:57 pm

             Rusty, you clearly do not have a clue! When the Teesside Regional Council was dissolved about 12 years ago (under the encouragement of the Tories who wanted to get rid of all the Labour mega councils) the following happened.
             Firstly instead of have one office, one CEO, one manager for each service, etc (e.g. about 100 senior staff), they then needs three of each; and because each of the roles was a new role, and as each new district (Stockton, Middlesbrough and Hartlepool) all wanted the best employees the salaries were MORE than the roles that were dissolved -so more than three times the salary bill, but still the same rates revenue.
             So to get over this they decided they would tender out the services; so some of the managers decided to set up businesses for each of these; they were contracted out, and guess what, they paid MORE then the council had provided these – and of course the quality was not as good.
             The public complained, but their rates went up; but that was all good, because the tories thought the people would blame the councillors – they didn’t, and the Tories were kicked into touch.
              
             Private is NEVER cheaper.
             • Rusty Shackleford …

               6 July 2011 at 8:05 pm

               Yup, central planning sucks. I’ve been saying that all along.
               • Draco T Bastard …

                 6 July 2011 at 8:19 pm

                 So, an example of going from a single successful, cost effective council to the private free-market that shows that costs go up now becomes, in Rusty’s delusional world, an example that showing that “central planning sucks”.

                 Yeah, this one’s not connected to reality at all.
       • rosy 3.1.1.2

         6 July 2011 at 7:40 pm

         If there is a buck to be made, the problem usually gets solved.

         And therein lies the problem. For many societal needs, and for development to occur there is not a buck to be made, at least not in the short-term of investor interest in a project.
         • Rusty Shackleford 3.1.1.2.1

           6 July 2011 at 7:46 pm

           Taking cash from one group and giving it to another doesn’t make society as a whole better off.

           Usually, problems that persist are the result of previous policy, or of ill defined property rights. People don’t live in poverty by choice. Someone is usually imposing it on them.
           • rosy 3.1.1.2.1.1

             6 July 2011 at 7:54 pm

             It certainly does – at least if that cash is used to provide services that the market cannot/will not. And look at who is not paying a fair living wage if you want to find the source of poverty. There are hundreds of years of data in socialist and capitalist societies to trawl through if you’re really interested in the real world of the poor and disenfranchised, but you’re not really, you’d rather go on about a selfish, brutal ideology that supports the survival of the richest at the expense of the majority.
             • Rusty Shackleford …

               6 July 2011 at 8:14 pm

               Can you give an example of some goods and services the market refuses to provide?

               Shrieking about poor people is well and good. It may seem funny to you, but I’m not actually in favor of poverty. Business owners don’t pay low wages because they are meanies they pay what will give themselves a return. If they don’t they go out of business and then nobody has a job.

               We do, in fact, live in a societal/economic model that favors a few at the expense of the majority. It’s called corporatism. Large businesses wrangle the massive power we have invested in the govt for their own ends at the expense of small businesses and free citizens. Read a few pages of Rothbard or Mises and you will see this theme come up time and again.
               • KJT …

                 6 July 2011 at 8:15 pm

                 I agree about corporatism, but that is the natural consequence of unregulated market capitalism.

                 The cheats prosper.
               • rosy …

                 6 July 2011 at 8:15 pm

                 For goodness sake Rusty go and read a bit of history and geography not ideology and you might just find out for yourself.

                 Or assuming you’re an white male maybe check up on land clearances and the like that may suggest why your forefathers thought it was a good idea to start afresh here and plan not to implement the same sort of society here (even though they failed in that regard).
           • The Voice of Reason 3.1.1.2.1.2

             6 July 2011 at 8:04 pm

             “Taking cash from one group and giving it to another doesn’t make society as a whole better off.”
              
             Yes, it does. If the sum taken is from a wealthy minority, then it makes the poorer majority better off. Society, as a whole, is better off.

             That’s the reverse of the current arrangement, by the way.
       • Draco T Bastard 3.1.1.3

         6 July 2011 at 8:05 pm

         The problem that you’re over looking is that there usually isn’t a lot of money to be made from government services. As the services are usually necessary we tax people and ensure that it’s done anyway.
         • Rusty Shackleford 3.1.1.3.1

           6 July 2011 at 8:16 pm

           Examples?
           • rosy 3.1.1.3.1.1

             6 July 2011 at 8:23 pm

             Public health would be a good example, it’s not in capitalist interests to prevent smoking, alcohol and over-consumption and the like otherwise they can’t make producing and fixing the problem.
             • Rusty Shackleford …

               6 July 2011 at 8:45 pm

               People smoke, drink and eat too much because they know they will get fixed up for free. There is a moral hazard and commons problem inherent in public health issues.
               • Draco T Bastard …

                 6 July 2011 at 8:45 pm

                 People smoke, drink and eat too much because they know they will get fixed up for free.

                 And that would be why so many people have given up smoking and less people are starting…

                 Oh, wait…
                 • Colonial Viper …

                   6 July 2011 at 8:48 pm

                   Rusty’s a mixed up kid.

                   He was complaining a day ago about post hoc ergo propter hoc and here does the same. Just awful.
           • Draco T Bastard 3.1.1.3.1.2

             6 July 2011 at 8:33 pm

             Parks
             Roads
             Telecommunications (If the government didn’t provide it in the first place it we still wouldn’t have it)
             Universal electricity
             Laws and the entire justice system (Which is still tilted in favour of the rich anyway)
             Cleaning the roads and parks
             Buses (Yeah, the modern ones are privately owned but are still massively subsidised through the rating system)
             Rail
             The entire Space Program
             The armed forces
             Police (Yeah, just imagine what it’d be like if “police services” were only available to the highest bidder)

             None of these would exist if we didn’t use a tax system.
             • Colonial Viper …

               6 July 2011 at 8:49 pm

               But if we weren’t taxed and govt didn’t do it, the Private Sector would magically step in and get it all done! Better too! And cheaper!

               Plus the roads would be paved with gold, at least the main ones.
             • Rusty Shackleford …

               6 July 2011 at 9:06 pm

               Parks- This is purely subjective. How many parks are the right amount? Maybe I don’t like parks (actually I don’t. Public parks are too crowded) If people want parks, there is nothing stopping them from building one and charging admission. Charities could provide them. Anderson’s Park in my home town is a private park that is free for anyone to use.

               Roads- There were roads before govt built them. The first ones were built to convey troops. Frankly, I’d rather not have roads than have conveyances of destruction pass by my front door.

               Telecoms- are malinvested in my opinion. Laying cables under the ground is inefficient for a reason. Especially in places with low population density. There is a giant demand for communications though. That means a lot of money to the person who can solve the problem the best.

               Electricity- massive malinvestment in this area. The Tennessee Valley Authority was a hilariously bad (and typical) case of govt malinvestment. http://mises.org/books/tvaidea.pdf
               Yes, those people got electricity (which was actually unconstitutional, they had to do it under other pretexts), but all those resources would have been used elsewhere.

               Just a side note; the constitutional pretext was saving flood damage. It was estimated that the govt could save 2million dollars a year in flood damage and stop a once in 500 year flood that would deluge 350,000 acres of land. Well the interest on the debt for that work amounted to 5milllion a year and they permanently flooded 500,000 acres of land in order to save 350,000 acres (of which there was a 1 in 500 year chance of happening). You can’t make this stuff up.

               Laws/Justice- Going to agree on this. My ideas here aren’t fully formed.

               Cleaning roads- The people who own them can clean them.

               Buses- Make it easier for new firms to enter the market. Abolish licensing and such.

               Rail- How has that worked out in the past?

               Space program- Giant waste of money in my opinion.

               Armed forces- Crucial. Although countries who trade don’t usually fight each other. How do you feel about trade protection?

               Police- Many of the functions of the police could be better served by private security companies. Walter Block and Hans Herman Hoppe write the best stuff in this area. I can dig it up if you are interested.

               All of these have in the past, and could easily exist in the future, without taking cash from people to give to the firms that produce these goods and services.
               • The Voice of Reason …

                 6 July 2011 at 9:29 pm

                 “Space program- Giant waste of money in my opinion.”
                  
                 And yet five minutes ago you reckoned we’d be exploiting the unlimited resources of the universe to keep ourselves going.
               • Colonial Viper …

                 6 July 2011 at 9:45 pm

                 If people want parks, there is nothing stopping them from building one and charging admission.

                 Time in your counterfactual parallel universe is starting to get wearying.

                 And there are no parks there to take a breath of fresh air in. Well there are but it costs $5 to get in.

                 All of these have in the past, and could easily exist in the future, without taking cash from people to give to the firms that produce these goods and services.

                 Bet you want to be CEO of this world, a world with only private goods and nothing in the common good.
               • Draco T Bastard …

                 6 July 2011 at 10:53 pm

                 There were roads before govt built them.

                 Really, got proof?

                 There were mud tracks as most people went the same way resulting in the grass being worn away. These, of course, turned to mud when it rained resulting in impassivity. At that time I’d say that the people got together and decided to do something about it. This would be a government decision.

                 Laying cables under the ground is inefficient for a reason…There is a giant demand for communications though.

                 I suspect by the former you refer to wireless connection but what you don’t realise is that you’ve managed to contract that in the latter. Wireless doesn’t have the capacity that fixed lines have making the fixed lines actually capable of supplying that giant demand that wireless isn’t.

                 Electricity…

                 Oh, wow, a single anecdote proving that people are fallible. Considering that everywhere else seems to have done it well I suspect your anecdote is about as useful as tits on a bull. And if it was against the constitution that also proves that people are fallible and write stupid constitutions.

                 Just a side note;…

                 Yep, people tend to justify themselves and what they do but, in a case like that, I’d suggest following the money. Chances are there was a bunch of well off private people transferring public money into their own pockets.

                 Cleaning roads- The people who own them can clean them.

                 hahahaha
                 What, and push the tolls up causing less people to use them resulting in a drop in profits (if there were any profits of course – I can’t recall any modern toll roads making any)…

                 Buses- Make it easier for new firms to enter the market. Abolish licensing and such.

                 So you want to make travelling in buses more expensive (competition increases costs) and more dangerous…Okaaay

                 Did you see the bit where I said that bus companies are massively subsidised? Yeah, people aren’t queueing up to start bus companies because it’s too hard but because it’s not a paying proposition. It also happens to be an essential service and, as Peak Oil affects fuel prices, will become even more essential.

                 Rail- How has that worked out in the past?

                 Quite well actually. We did actually get it which we wouldn’t have if we’d left it to the “free-market”. Could have been done better but, hey, live and learn (which is something you continuously fail to do) or, to put it another way, we have learned and can now do it better. Failures in the past are not proof of failures in the future.

                 Space program- Giant waste of money in my opinion.

                 So you don’t like the PC that you’re using? Or the microwave you heat lunch up in or… there are, quite literally, thousands of everyday use items that came out of the Space Program that probably wouldn’t have come about at all.

                 Armed forces- Crucial. Although countries who trade don’t usually fight each other.

                 BS. The US has been invading countries that were quite happy to trade with them for well over a century so as to secure that trade for their corporations. It’s called colonialism and it’s been happening for a very long time.

                 Have NFI what you’re asking in that question.

                 All of these have in the past, and could easily exist in the future, without taking cash from people to give to the firms that produce these goods and services.

                 No they didn’t and no they couldn’t. Taxes is not “taking cash” from anyone but paying for services rendered.
               • Vicky32 …

                 7 July 2011 at 3:42 pm

                 You are in the USA, right Rusty? Given that, can you really comment on anything here in NZ?
                 • Rusty Shackleford …

                   7 July 2011 at 3:48 pm

                   I’m in South Korea. Does that make me unqualified to comment on events in Australia?
                   • Vicky32 …

                     7 July 2011 at 7:03 pm

                     I didn’t say you were wholly unqualified, just that you were less qualified than you were making out…
   • Vicky32 3.2

     6 July 2011 at 6:37 pm

     Don’t they know, a lot can go wrong in a town when council work isn’t done properly.

     True! 🙂
     • Colonial Viper 3.2.1

       6 July 2011 at 6:39 pm

       It’d be a shame if water and power were accidentally turned off to random households in certain well to do neighbourhoods. Damn ‘administrative errors’!
4. The Voice of Reason 4

   6 July 2011 at 7:51 pm

   Jaysus, you really are out of your depth. I take you don’t realise just how far away the rest of the universe is? We have the ability to use energy from the sun and the resources of planet earth and, er, that’s it.
   • Rusty Shackleford 4.1

     6 July 2011 at 8:07 pm

     We take plenty of stuff for granted today that would have seemed indistinguishable from magic 100 years ago.
     • The Voice of Reason 4.1.1

       6 July 2011 at 8:13 pm

       Rusty, if we ever get a resource from outside our planetary system, it won’t be magic, it’ll be the end of everything Einstein has taught us. We are simply too far away.
        
       What’s your personal policy on education? Should it be user pays? If so, you owe me and everyone else here a fucken fortune.
       • lprent 4.1.1.1

         6 July 2011 at 8:17 pm

         Not really too far away. Just we have far too little energy to move even small amounts of mass very far or fast enough. We sure as hell cannot play with the required energy level in our biosphere. No unless we wanted to find out what heat pollution really looks like.

         The required energy levels would cause me to get worried about the back effects in local space as well. It would be simpler to just make ourselves live longer and embark on slow one way journeys.

         But this all seems quite off topic.
       • Rusty Shackleford 4.1.1.2

         6 July 2011 at 8:29 pm

         It’s impossible to predict technology in the future. The is a buck to be made from creating more resources. Someone will come up with a way.

         Ideologically? Yes, user pays for education. As I’ve said, we enjoy plenty of other goods that didn’t exist 50 years ago for peanuts (all free market-ish). Why are we spending so much cash on education.

         Pragmatically? Get govt out of the education business. We can still fund education out of the public purse, just let people who know what they are doing sort out the actual producing education part. Considering the fact I wouldn’t leave govt bureaucrats in charge of producing my underpants, I don’t know why people are so gung-ho about letting them do important stuff like educating kids.

         I don’t see how I owe you any cash. Were my parents supposed to home school me? How could they if they were working for the govt January to mid May to pay taxes? (fyi, accusing someone of being a hypocrite doesn’t actually make that person wrong.)
         http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque
         • The Voice of Reason 4.1.1.2.1

           6 July 2011 at 8:33 pm

           Nah, you don’t owe me any cash; I couldn’t take it in good conscience, because you haven’t learned a thing.
         • Colonial Viper 4.1.1.2.2

           6 July 2011 at 8:37 pm

           The is a buck to be made from creating more resources.

           This doesn’t work. Unless you are God or similar.

           How could they if they were working for the govt January to mid May to pay taxes?

           And mid May to end Jul to pay for your shitty little nappies and other sundries. What was the ROI on that I wonder?
         • lprent 4.1.1.2.3

           6 July 2011 at 8:39 pm

           Nope. It is impossible to predict future technology accurately.

           However technology is dependent on basic science, and that allows you to predict limits to technology based on known science. At present we are in one of those slow periods in science where new fields are not opening despite the enormous resources being put into it. We have been stuck in it for most of the last century. We are getting steady refinements of what is already known. Historicaly such periods have lasted centuries or thousands of years.

           You can be an optimist, and I am. But don’t think that wishing something is true is the same as it actually being true.
           • Colonial Viper 4.1.1.2.3.1

             6 July 2011 at 8:45 pm

             Human civilisation has about 25 years (being generous) to make a breakthrough or three; it will become too costly and energy intensive to do so after that point.
5. Ianupnorth 5

   6 July 2011 at 7:58 pm

   Rusty, Troll of the week – best ignored.
   • Rusty Shackleford 5.1

     6 July 2011 at 8:08 pm

     Uh oh, someone with an opposing view. Quick! Shut down the debate!
     • The Voice of Reason 5.1.1

       6 July 2011 at 8:22 pm

       Come see the violence inherent in the statist!
     • Draco T Bastard 5.1.2

       6 July 2011 at 8:38 pm

       That’s just it Rusty – you don’t have an opposing view but a delusional one.
     • Colonial Viper 5.1.3

       6 July 2011 at 8:38 pm

       Uh oh, someone with an opposing view. Quick! Shut down the debate!

       View cannot be opposing if it is based on a fictional, counterfactual parallel universe.

       Damn DTB, slid in ahead of me 🙂
6. Ianupnorth 6

   6 July 2011 at 9:37 pm

   The best thing Rusty has said all week

   Laws/Justice- Going to agree on this. My ideas here aren’t fully formed.

   Not the whole sentence, just the last six words! Mate, you have not got a clue; you spout ideology around a capitalist doctrine, but have no concept of what the world would actually be like if people had not actually created mechanisms to promote systems of government (big and small), laws, safety nets, health protections, labour laws, etc.
    
   Many people have influenced this; maybe you should gen up on the likes of Robert Owen (http://www.infed.org/thinkers/et-owen.htm) he was a capitalist, but also conducted a great social experiment which proved the value of investing people. Sadly the doctrine of ‘look after number one’ only serves to destruct society and create a culture of greed, resentment and anger.
7. Ten Miles Over 7

   7 July 2011 at 11:40 am

   The decision to sack everyone after failing to gain concessions from unions reminds me of game theory.

   Given the choice of all workers keeping their jobs with reduced remuneration, or some workers losing their jobs while the rest maintain their levels of remuneration, what choice would you make?
   What if you were guaranteed that you wouldn’t be one of those to lose their job? Would that influence your decision (i.e. would you act for the greater good or would you act in your own self-interest)?

   Of course the sacking of everyone was probably not an anticipated move, otherwise the decisions might have been different.
   • Colonial Viper 7.1

     7 July 2011 at 11:50 am

     A high level of worker solidarity and a high willingness to take disruptive action are also factors to be taken into account in any game theory simulation 🙂

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS