We're All In This Together .....

[ahinton]

eerm I think this idea that somehow everything is a "business" in the same way is the big mistake.

True, of course - but then I wasn't referring to "everything" but to organisations that manufacture things and/or provide services; they have to run as efficient businesses and even those who aren't in it first and foremost to make and distribute fat profits still need to make fat profits just in order to keep going and develop. NHS is just one of these, simply because it wll always require more money by 9.00 a.m. then it did at 8.30 a.m.

The purpose of a water distribution organisation isn't necessarily to make as much money as possible for it's owners but to distribute water

Indeed - but I order to do that efficiently, all the leaks have to be repaired and better piping installed throughout the region for which teach one is responsible so that it does not deteriorate and eventually perish, leaving a zillion pound debt legacy for future generations. It therefore has to make a thumping profit and reinvest it wisely in order to stay in business at all and, since water is the most essential thing in life, your citing of water distribution companies here is especially apposite.

the idea that somehow "Business" is the right way to do EVERYTHING is a huge mistake

That depends on what's meant by "business"; to me, one fundamental aspect of it is the organising of affairs and activities in the most steamlined way possible so that their investors' funds can reap the most possible benefit from them - that's in terms of cash value in the case of those businesses for whom making a profit is one priority and in terms of continued development and improvement in others (such as NHS).

Making money is a good idea if you are running a shop
but not really the primary driving motivation if you are a string quartet

Sure - but then the primary purpose of a string quartet is not a commercial one and the financial demands upon it are not going constantly to increase as with other businesses - but even a string quartet has to be run like a business, otherwise how will the players, their instruments and their libraries be funded and how will they get performance dates, recordings, broadcasts et al?

[scottycelt]

Making money is a good idea if you are running a shop
but not really the primary driving motivation if you are a string quartet

Indeed, but even members of string quartets need water to survive.

If they are not prepared (or unable) to provide their own they need others to find and supply it for them.

It is surely unrealistic to expect the 'others' to do this out of pure love for string quartets, or anything/anybody else, so financial profit is the necessary motivation.

Competition in such matters is 'consumer-friendly' as it encourages efficiency and a competitive price culture and is certainly preferable to inefficient excess-profit monopolies.

[scottycelt]

...a logic that, whilst logical, simply doesn't and won't apply. Which of us unwilling investors in RBS would get our money back + profit on the investment if the Government sold of RBS at a fat profit? Answer - none. That was the point that I was making.

Well, as the personal 'you' presumably never invested any of your own money in RBS anyway, I fail completely to see your point.

However, if the Great Bonanza Day ever arrives and the Government makes a fat profit on RBS shares it will be the other 'you' that will surely gain by way of reduced taxes, higher public spending or even just paying off much of the national debt which still includes the other 'you'!

[ahinton]

Well, as the personal 'you' presumably never invested any of your own money in RBS anyway, I fail completely to see your point.

Evidently you do. You are corect, of course, to observe that I didn't directly invest any of my money by purchasing RBS shares in my own name, but since the government has taken money off me in order to purchase them in its name, it's still my money that's been invested and without my consent.

However, if the Great Bonanza Day ever arrives and the Government makes a fat profit on RBS shares it will be the other 'you' that will surely gain by way of reduced taxes, higher public spending or even just paying off much of the national debt which still includes the other 'you'!

You'd hope so, wouldn't you?! - but, since all the cuts that have so far been implemented by the present Government for the purpose of reducing the national deficit have had the effect of increasing it (or at least allowing it to continue to increase), such hopes would clearly be most forlorn!

[ahinton]

Indeed, but even members of string quartets need water to survive.

If they are not prepared (or unable) to provide their own they need others to find and supply it for them.

It is surely unrealistic to expect the 'others' to do this out of pure love for string quartets, or anything/anybody else, so financial profit is the necessary motivation.

"A" necessary motivation, surely, not "the" necessary motivation?

Competition in such matters is 'consumer-friendly' as it encourages efficiency and a competitive price culture and is certainly preferable to inefficient excess-profit monopolies.

That's broadly true and history tends to show the latter to be more prevalent among state monopolies than among private ones, although some of those have a lot for which to answer.

That said, "competition" has indeed gotten way out of hand in present-day society, I believe; you can't do much these days without having to win (or not) awards or become embroiled in some competitive manifestation of what it is that you're trying to do; as I responded recently to a piece elsewhere about some "**** of the year" type awards in the world of music,

Strictly Come X Factor,
Great British Menu,
Oscar for Best Actor,
Masterchef, then you

Have Great British Bake-off,
The Apprentice, Big Brother;
I wish they’d just take off
The lot, so that other

More thoughtful (and less dance-
Ful) shows take the places
Of tiresome contestants
Being put through their paces.

Awards, trophies, gongs
Come in all shapes and sizes
And, righting all wrongs,
ISIHAC's "points" mean "prizes".

It seems that no more may we sing, dance, play, eat,
Bake, compose, act, paint, sculpt, write – lest first we COMPETE!

It seems to me to have become a matter of obsession and disproportionality. Competition where it's due, yes - but please not everywhere one turns one's eyes and ears!

A lot of people (including me) did not realise until recently that taxation is a competitive international market; the Amazon / Starbucks et al cases have certainly helped to bring this to the forefront of public attention, just as did Dave's recent invitation (even if in reality it might have been more bravado and braggadocio than the genuine extension of a commercial olive branch) to French companies to come to UK where they can pay lower taxes than they do in France, thereby helping to swell HM Treasury's woefully underfilled coffers at the expense of the French equivalent thereof (I mean, who needs détente these days?!). A government wants to increase its tax revenues (don't they all, always!); there's a limit to the extent that they can effectively do this by tax rate increases and tax threshold and allowance decreases alone, so why not nick some of next door's tax?

[MrGongGong]

Indeed, but even members of string quartets need water to survive.

If they are not prepared (or unable) to provide their own they need others to find and supply it for them.

It is surely unrealistic to expect the 'others' to do this out of pure love for string quartets, or anything/anybody else, so financial profit is the necessary motivation.

Competition in such matters is 'consumer-friendly' as it encourages efficiency and a competitive price culture and is certainly preferable to inefficient excess-profit monopolies.

I think you miss the point
I'm not suggesting that we don't have businesses or we don't have things run as effectively as possible
BUT the Competition business model is not universally applicable

If music was run on the same basis that supermarkets were then we would have no Kronos Quartet and certainly no OAE etc etc

Look what the misapplication of the wrong sort of business methodology has done to the NHS and Education
which is NOT the same as saying that value for money or efficiency are bad things BUT there's a huge difference between running a branch of Tescos and running the London Sinfonietta .......

[ahinton]

If music was run on the same basis that supermarkets were then we would have no Kronos Quartet

Er - oh, no, I'm really not going to answer that, especially I can see that you have a point!

Look what the misapplication of the wrong sort of business methodology has done to the NHS and Education which is NOT the same as saying that value for money or efficiency are bad things BUT there's a huge difference between running a branch of Tescos and running the London Sinfonietta .......

Absolutely right; they do both need to be run as efficiently as possible so the the maximum cash gets to be available for the proper intended use, but yes - you're right, of course!...

[MrGongGong]

Actually running the water supply NOT as a profit making company but as a necessary service would be much better than pretending that somehow we can "choose" who to "buy" it from.

[ahinton]

Actually running the water supply NOT as a profit making company but as a necessary service would be much better than pretending that somehow we can "choose" who to "buy" it from.

Whether or not that may be the case, it remains a fact that water and sewerage piping and gas piping are all deteriorating badly across the country and it all needs to be replaced at a cost of zillions of pounds; the relevant companies must surely therefore make thumping profits somehow in order to be able to seize even a small fraction of the funds necessary to invest in putting all of this right and, if this doesn't happen, our domestic and commercial water supply will be in danger of falling apart in time. Of course what the water / sewerage companies do is, as you say "a necessary service" - and very necessary one at that - but the money has to come from somewhere in order to enable them to do it, to plug all the massive and widespread leaks and all the rest. We still have to "buy" their services, however, because we have to pay money in order to secure them.

[MrGongGong]

Whether or not that may be the case, it remains a fact that water and sewerage piping and gas piping are all deteriorating badly across the country and it all needs to be replaced at a cost of zillions of pounds; the relevant companies must surely therefore make thumping profits somehow in order to be able to seize even a small fraction of the funds necessary to invest in putting all of this right and, if this doesn't happen, our domestic and commercial water supply will be in danger of falling apart in time.

Indeed
but would YOU trust this vital infrastructure to a company that is primarily answerable to its shareholders or a collection of finance companies more interested in making a quick profit than building anything significant and long term ?

[ahinton]

Indeed
but would YOU trust this vital infrastructure to a company that is primarily answerable to its shareholders or a collection of finance companies more interested in making a quick profit than building anything significant and long term ?

I would do so as much and no more and no less than I would trust anyone else to do it, not least because, as their obligation is to put right the structural deteriorations that have come about over many decades, the poor old shareholders won't get that much of a look in in terms of advantaging themselves of fat profits because if those water / sewerage companies don't get their respective acts together fairly soon to sort out this national mess there won't be any water and sewerage companies soon. Would you instead trust it all to Dave & Co.?...

[MrGongGong]

I would do so as much and no more and no less than I would trust anyone else to do it, not least because, as their obligation is to put right the structural deteriorations that have come about over many decades, the poor old shareholders won't get that much of a look in in terms of advantaging themselves of fat profits because if those water / sewerage companies don't get their respective acts together fairly soon to sort out this national mess there won;t be any water and sewerage companies soon.

So , I guess we are stuffed
as I would expect them to "take" their profits and run away
who cares about the long term anyway ?

[Bryn]

... who cares about the long term anyway ?

Certainly not the market. That deals only with the living (including a hint of the living's consideration for its offspring).

[MrGongGong]

Vote for La Monte :smiley:

[ahinton]

So , I guess we are stuffed
as I would expect them to "take" their profits and run away
who cares about the long term anyway ?

No, not necessarily; we're all in this for what we can each get out of it, but only because those in charge whom some of us put there force us to have little option to do otherwise if we want to ensure the survival of those about whom we care (and also ourselves, come to that).