State of the parties as 2015 General Election looms.

[P. G. Tipps]

But I'm not a socialist and I dont forget it; my concern here is nevertheless that if a large proportion of such wealth creation helps but little towards the training and engagement of more of those people whom society needs, the "need" for those welath creators in that context is thereby undermined and compromised.

The State's job is to collect sufficient taxes for public services, that is not the concern of private industry.

However, the State should also ensure that it gives private industry the freedom to "breathe" to make profit and therefore create further wealth for itself and therefore ultimately the State and public services.

Wealth creation has to be the first priority. Borrowing by the State is another route but we all know where too much of that can lead!

[MrGongGong]

However, the State should also ensure that it gives private industry the freedom to "breathe"

You aren't a Fenland Gangmaster by any chance ?
All these ridiculous child labour laws getting in the way of people making honest profits

Wealth creation has to be the first priority

At all costs?

[Beef Oven!]

The free market will never develop sustainable energy while you can make more money selling oil.
Many of the things we really value would be destroyed by your wonderful "entrepreneurs" trying to make a quick profit.

Talk the the EU, not me. It's their policy.

[MrGongGong]

Talk the the EU, not me. It's their policy.

Of course I had forgotten that the source of all evil in the world is the EU "getting in the way"

[Serial_Apologist]

And anyway, entrepreneurs don't create wealth.

[P. G. Tipps]

You aren't a Fenland Gangmaster by any chance ?

No, I'm not, actually, sorry to disappoint. :-)

All these ridiculous child labour laws getting in the way of people making honest profits

These don't get in the way at all when it comes to people making 'honest profits'. In fact these sorts of laws are essential to ensure the 'profits' are 'honest'.

In any case such employment laws apply equally to both private and public sectors ...

At all costs?

No, that's why we have the laws you mention in the first place!

[ahinton]

The State's job is to collect sufficient taxes for public services, that is not the concern of private industry.

Really? I thought that private industry including all individuals who are paid for working in it (as well as all those employed in the public sector, of course) are the ones that pay it, yet you say that it is not their concern? Extraordinary! Put up, pay up and shut up; is that what you're implying here?

However, the State should also ensure that it gives private industry the freedom to "breathe" to make profit and therefore create further wealth for itself and therefore ultimately the State and public services.

But it already does this; what it does not do, however, is directly enable the best possible carrying out some of those public services, especially in times when some of these are in any case being cut back by the very government that's collecting their taxes!

Wealth creation has to be the first priority

I have no problem in principle with wealth creation; if little or none of it ends up benefiting society, however, I do have a problem with it.

[P. G. Tipps]

Really? I thought that private industry including all individuals who are paid for working in it (as well as all those wo workin in the public sector, of course) are the ones that pay it, yet you say that it is not their concern? Extraordinary!" Put up, pay up and shut up; is that what you're implying here?

Yes really, though in not quite the eccentric way you put it!

It's not private industry's job to work out how much we need for public services and therefore nurses and firemen. That's clearly the State's job, isn't it?

The more wealth that is created by entrepreneurs and private industry the more the State can collect in taxes and provide essential public services for all and to assist the less fortunate in society.

I'd have thought that was fairly obvious?

But it already does this; what it does not do, however, is directly enable the best possible carrying out some of those public services, especially in times when some of these are in any case being cut back by the very government that's collecting their taxes!

I have no problem in principle with wealth creation; if little or none of it ends up benefiting society, however, I do have a problem with it.

Well you've just confirmed the point!! If the Government borrows too much for short-term advantage instead of encouraging enough wealth creation there will be less for public services in the long-term due to larger debt repayments, and it will also mean sluggish growth resulting in lower tax receipts.

Furthermore, private industry is the major part of society not something separate from it!

[ahinton]

Yes really, though in not quite the eccentric way you put it!

What exactly do you consider "eccentric" about it?

It's not private industry's job to work out how much we need for public services and therefore nurses and firemen. That's clearly the State's job, isn't it?

Correct on both counts; however, that doesn't of itself guarantee either that private industry pays all the taxes that it should or that those taxes are all fair, equitable, correctly assessed and accurately collected or indeed that government allocates them fairly and wisely to provide the public services on some of which it has recently been cutting back and looks set to continue to do so.

The more wealth that is created by entrepreneurs and private industry the more the State can collect in taxes and provide essential public services for all and to assist the less fortunate in society.

All very fine and noble in theory but far less likely in practice, for various reasons including but not limited to those provided above; furthermore, sending armed forces to countries that haven't invaded Britain and maintaining Trident somehow don't register with me as "essential public services"...

I'd have thought that was fairly obvious?

You might think that; I have already commented above.

Well you've just confirmed the point!!

What point?

If the Government borrows too much for short-term advantage instead of encouraging enough wealth creation there will be less for public services in the long-term due to larger debt repayments, and it will also mean sluggish growth resulting in lower tax receipts.

I don't disagree with that in principle although I did not in any case refer to government borrowing; however, you may have noticed that unemployment figures have lately been decreasing and employment figures rising (at least to the extent that published statistics on such matters can be relied upon), yet HM Treasury is claiming that tax receipts are down and it has been widely noted that this is in part due to low pay, zero hours contracts, increases in part-time work and other like factors, so it's not as simple as you appear to imply.

Furthermore, private industry is the major part of society not something separate from it!

Really? Try reminding yourself of that next time you make use of any facilities provided to you by an outfit calling itself NHS but, in the interim, have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...United_Kingdom and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...gdom_employers where you will see that NHS employs almost 1.5m people; UK's largest corporate employer, Tesco, employs less than half the number of people that NHS does! That said, I also did not suggest that private industry is "separate from society" and it would be patently absurd to do so since it employs members of society just as state departments do.

[teamsaint]

the insistence that only the capitalist system can deliver meaningful economic growth seems to be another piece of received wisdom.

In the USSR, according to the orthodoxy that is Wiki, in ten years from 1971, real money wages rose 45% for industrial workers, and other " social wage " benefits grew more.

[MrGongGong]

the insistence that only the capitalist system can deliver meaningful economic growth seems to be another piece of received wisdom.
.

Indeed
BUT is "economic growth" always desirable?

This children's book is a rather good analysis

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Gertie-Gus-Lisl-Weil/dp/0819309117/ref=la_B001HOCFE2_1_7?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1417024815&sr=1-7

[ahinton]

the insistence that only the capitalist system can deliver meaningful economic growth seems to be another piece of received wisdom.

It might be, but until we have seen a complete alternative in practice for at least a decade, the jury's probably out on that.

In the USSR, according to the orthodoxy that is Wiki, in ten years from 1971, real money wages rose 45% for industrial workers, and other " social wage " benefits grew more.

But even if true, is that necessarily indicative of economic growth per se? From what source might the funds have come in order to ensure that those "real money wages" increased by that much for "industrial workers" (and why only them and what exactly are they? - were they deemed to include Shostakovich, for example?) or that other "social wage" benefits (whatever they may have been) grew by a higher percentage? - and what effect did that have on USSR's GDP at the time?

By the way, just out of incidental interest, does anyone have any views on the state of the parties as 2015 General Election looms, or is it impudent of me to ask?...

[Richard Barrett]

is "economic growth" always desirable?

In the long term it isn't even physically possible I would think.

[MrGongGong]

In the long term it isn't even physically possible I would think.

I'm inclined to agree
So why does almost every political party claim that it is both possible and desirable?
There's only so much cheese in the fridge.

I'm not an economist but this seems like what they all advocate

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

[teamsaint]

I'm inclined to agree
So why does almost every political party claim that it is both possible and desirable?
There's only so much cheese in the fridge.

I'm not an economist but this seems like what they all advocate

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

Economic growth via technological improvement is surely possible? does an iphone use more resources than an Amstrad word processor from 1988 ( the first computer I owned).