Banks

[Flosshilde]

That is why the German engineering company who won the contract to supply us with trains recently had to build a special track that was bumpoy. lumpy, broken and uneven so that they could test out their rolling stock on a comparable track to what they would find over here.

Can you provide evidence for this assertion?

[amateur51]

As I've said before, that was a deliberate policy of the Tory governments; and the Inter-City section was profitable. The point is that the taxpayer is still paying for railways, except that now some of the money goes into shareholders pockets.

Exactly, Flossie!

[Flosshilde]

Please can you tell me where I can buy some of those rose-tinted spectacles that you are using.

Probably the same place that you get yours.

[PhilipT]

Can you provide evidence for this assertion?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2002/apr/25/transport.world

[ahinton]

Well if ahinton had his way, I'm sure private medicine would have been the sole-provider of healthcare after 1945.

That's the very opposite of what I think or would ever advocate; indeed, it is the ongoing successes of the NHS that have, to my mind, done more than any other single thing to enhance the healthcare expectations of the populace and, if one of the outcomes of that is that a few of them then feel obliged to go after private healthcare, so be it.

[ahinton]

AH..the banks bought the political parties, not the voters.

Yes - they bought the parties but mostly with the money that they'd screwed from the voters!

We, as a population have been utterly hoodwinked into thinking that only big private monopoly/oligopolies can run our world...... perhaps not...its never too late..

This is true and it is not too late. The power of big private monopolies and ogliopolies, just like that of state ones, is heavily marketed the world over - "you can't do with us" and all that. It's difficult, to be sure, but those who create and use their own energy from alternative sources are no longer beholden to the big power supply corporations and less so to governments; it's only one example and I don't want to push it too far, but this is one way in which the once much-vaunted "personal responsibility and self-sufficiency" as plugged by Thatcher & Co. can help people to loosen the reins of the big boys' control and it can't come soon enough.

[amateur51]

That's the very opposite of what I think or would ever advocate; indeed, it is the ongoing successes of the NHS that have, to my mind, done more than any other single thing to enhance the healthcare expectations of the populace and, if one of the outcomes of that is that a few of them then feel obliged to go after private healthcare, so be it.

I've misjudged you then, ahinton and I apologise

So why not the same for social housing?

[PhilipT]

Philip, construction of new power generation (which is the issue, not supply) infrastructure is subsidised ...

I really did mean paid for, not subsidised. Any subsidy from public funds will only cover a fraction of the cost. Where is the rest of the money going to come from? Goods and services can only be paid for by goods and services. Some consumption will have to be foregone, and that means taxes or charges.

Whether or not the purchase of anything should be subsidised from public funds is a large and interesting question in its own right, but is a different question. There is a fairly simple piece of economic analysis that shows that any intervention in a market, tax or subsidy, destroys value overall. It may well re-apportion where some value goes, but it certainly destroys some.

[Dave2002]

Whether or not the purchase of anything should be subsidised from public funds is a large and interesting question in its own right, but is a different question. There is a fairly simple piece of economic analysis that shows that any intervention in a market, tax or subsidy, destroys value overall. It may well re-apportion where some value goes, but it certainly destroys some.

Citations? It's not so simple that it's obvious.

[PhilipT]

Citations? It's not so simple that it's obvious.

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

[ahinton]

I've misjudged you then, ahinton and I apologise

So why not the same for social housing?

Quite simply because both the circumstances and the long-term outcomes are entirely different; I stated my belief that the successes of NHS have helped to enhance people's healthcare expectations to the point at which some who can afford private treatment directly or via insurance for conditions that NHS either cannot treat or for which lengthy waiting lists might apply will go for it; what has social housing ever done to elevate the housing expectations of those who have had personal experience of it? Furthermore, social housing is supposed to be there for those who need it because they might not otherwise be able to house themselves, whereas NHS treatment, products and services are supposed to be there for everyone whenever they might need them and irrespective of their levels of income or asset values.

[amateur51]

I really did mean paid for, not subsidised. Any subsidy from public funds will only cover a fraction of the cost. Where is the rest of the money going to come from? Goods and services can only be paid for by goods and services. Some consumption will have to be foregone, and that means taxes or charges.

Whether or not the purchase of anything should be subsidised from public funds is a large and interesting question in its own right, but is a different question. There is a fairly simple piece of economic analysis that shows that any intervention in a market, tax or subsidy, destroys value overall. It may well re-apportion where some value goes, but it certainly destroys some.

What effect does that have on the electricity produced?

[PhilipT]

What effect does that have on the electricity produced?

To what does 'that' refer? The need for the money, or the effect of a subsidy? If the money isn't forthcoming (or, rather, if resources that would otherwise go to consumption are not allocated to increasing generating capacity) then the electricity won't be produced. In practice, I imagine that most governments would prefer to break their promises on CO2 emissions, and keep the coal-fired stations running, rather than risk power cuts.

The effect of a subsidy on generating capacity? There'll be more generating capacity constructed, and (ultimately) more electricity produced and consumed than would otherwise be the case. In practice, I imagine that some additional capacity would eventually get built anyway, but by subsidising it from public funds rather than raising electricity bills the result is that the electrcity consumer gets the wrong price signal and uses too much because it's too cheap, and everyone else suffers because of the increased taxes needed to pay for the subsidy.

[amateur51]

To what does 'that' refer? The need for the money, or the effect of a subsidy? If the money isn't forthcoming (or, rather, if resources that would otherwise go to consumption are not allocated to increasing generating capacity) then the electricity won't be produced. In practice, I imagine that most governments would prefer to break their promises on CO2 emissions, and keep the coal-fired stations running, rather than risk power cuts.

The effect of a subsidy on generating capacity? There'll be more generating capacity constructed, and (ultimately) more electricity produced and consumed than would otherwise be the case. In practice, I imagine that some additional capacity would eventually get built anyway, but by subsidising it from public funds rather than raising electricity bills the result is that the electrcity consumer gets the wrong price signal and uses too much because it's too cheap, and everyone else suffers because of the increased taxes needed to pay for the subsidy.

i'm sorry PhilipT I was being flippant because I do find these sorts of discussion pretty mind-numbing.

There wasn't a single council that was not built using some money from the private sector (banks or other investots) plus money from central government (tax-payers) via the local authority. Why was it possible in the 1930s and then in the 1960s and later, but no longer?

[Flosshilde]

i'm sorry PhilipT I was being flippant because I do find these sorts of discussion pretty mind-numbing.

There wasn't a single council that was not built using some money from the private sector (banks or other investots) plus money from central government (tax-payers) via the local authority. Why was it possible in the 1930s and then in the 1960s and later, but no longer?

Quite. The 'private sector at all costs' (& those costs tend to be pretty high) gang seem to think that it's the 'natural' means of providing infrastructure, public services, etc., just as some believe that the Tories are the 'natural' party of government.