[Closed] Capitalism

do you not think that 40% of ones total output (on average) in life is a bit steep?

Look at it as "cost".........you get to keep 60% as "profit", whilst you pay 40% to society as cost. Doesn't seem like a bad deal to me. Specially as the alternative is you op out of society and have nothing. Well apart from maybe a shelter made of branches and a few berries to eat.

Torminalis - you seem to be very confused.

anticapitalist backlash

erm, dude, I think you got the wrong end of the stick here, I am arguing in favour of capitalism and less government intervention into the free markets unless there is actual criminal behaviour.

rather naive, trading beads and shells version of capitalism that you describe

It was meant to be simplistic to prove a point. I am aware of some of the the complexities beyond the berry trading, though do not presume that I am not at the very least slightly naive.

tried to live in a tent and it was a bit cold

Bit cold?!? Not half...

less government intervention into the free markets unless there is actual criminal behaviour.

And how do you define what is criminal behaviour?

Torminalis - you seem to be very confused.

It's all pretty clear from where I am sat.

Capitalism gets blamed for a whole lot of the worlds ills. I am trying to argue that government intervention is as bad, if not a whole lot worse for society and the wellbeing of individuals. I have used war, protectionism, the criminalisation of the innocent and the unreasonable tax burden to try and make my case. You may not agree, but to suggest I am confiused is both patronising and wrong. I have my opinions and I am happy to subject them to scrutiny, which I hope you agree is a vital part in refining ones beliefs and passing them on where appropriate.

So cough up, pay your taxes, and stop whingeing.

[b]"Because everything is perfect, our money does not pay for the death and suppression of millions across the globe and we should all be grateful."[/b]

You very definitely didn't give the impression that were perfectly happy paying your taxes and that your only objection was how it was being spent.

unreasonable tax burden? That is a construct not an absolute.

I think our tax burden is too low. I would prefer higher taxers to provide better services.

Heres one for you. Without benefits paid for by taxes crime would increase ( as people stole to get a bite to eat) So paying benefits makes your cosy little middleclass life safer

erm, dude, I think you got the wrong end of the stick here

Don't think he did - I assume he was referring to your backlash against anticapitalists.

What you seem to be failing to grasp is that just because capitalism works well [i]for you[/i] doesn't mean it works well for everyone - in order for you to do well it means lots of people round the world are getting screwed instead.

You also seem to be forgetting that capitalism drives protectionism, war etc. Criminalising people, well yes I agree I suppose. And as for the unreasonable tax burden, well boo hoo. Again, the vast majority of the world's population would kill to swap places with you.

I am arguing in favour of capitalism and less government intervention into the free markets unless there is actual criminal behaviour.

But on the other hand you're saying that governments let business interests (be it weapons manufacturers, alcohol, etc) ride rough-shod over the proles. Which is it? Would the arms manufacturers stop selling weapons to countries that perpetrate atrocities if they were less heavily regulated? Looking back through history, have the people with the money always acted responsibly? (Clue: the answer's no.)

This is just a limp anti-New Labour rant a decade too late.

You very definitely didn't give the impression that were perfectly happy paying your taxes and that your only objection was how it was being spent.

I do accept that as a civilised society we have to provide safety nets for the weakest and most vulnerable as I have stated all along.I also believe we would have to pay a lot less if we didn't have to sponsor the various governments' misadventures and attempts to manipulate the free market to the advantage of their most vested interests.

[img] [/img]

But on the other hand you're saying that governments let business interests (be it weapons manufacturers, alcohol, etc) ride rough-shod over the proles. Which is it?

Exactly. Like I said, confused.

I also believe we would have to pay a lot less if we didn't have to sponsor the various governments' misadventures and attempts to manipulate the free market to the advantage of their most vested interests.

Yes, damn those intervening Governments from preventing those controlling the Free markets to the advantage of their own vested interests.

I do accept that as a civilised society we have to provide safety nets for the weakest and most vulnerable.......

Why, ffs, do people always keep on about taxes being necessary provide for the weakest and most vulnerable ?

Our taxes are used to pay for our infrastructures and universal welfare provisions.

If you are [i]really[/i] concerned about "the weakest and most vulnerable" then empower them and provide them with jobs and living wages .......not tax handouts.

WE are a low tax low spending county compared to comparable nations such as Germany and France - to say nothing of the Netherlands and Scandinavia

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

This is just a limp anti-New Labour rant a decade too late

Its actually ani statist argument which will be relevent all the while that we still live in a heavily statist world.

capitalism works well for you doesn't mean it works well for everyone

I don't see big government working that well either.

I would prefer higher taxers to provide better services

That has not historically been the case though. I think that communities and individuals can provide for the needs of society much better than centralised government.

I have to go and watch This Is England and pay some attention to MrsT, back in the morning to continue...

That has not historically been the case though. I think that communities and individuals can provide for the needs of society much better than centralised government.

What? Show an example please. Thats just nonsense.

What? Show an example please. Thats just nonsense

RNLI

RNLI

PMSL! 😀

RNLI - they provide food and housing for the poor do they?

Go on Ernie!....

139,000 lives saved without a [i]single penny[/i] of government money!

The statment made was

provide for the needs of society much better than centralised government.

I take it by your exclusion of emergency services from the [i]needs of community[/i] you're agreeing with me that there is no need for the Fire and Ambulance service to be funded by general taxation run from central or local government

Yes of course ratty, the "needs of society" can be provided in exactly the same way as the RNLI operates........we can abolish taxation !!!

LOL ! 😀

C'mon Ernie - make your point,

whats the difference between the Fire brigade (tax funded) and the RNLI (entirely independent charity)?

Which of the two provides what is described as the exemplar, best rescue service of its type in the world?

Isn't giving money to charity pretty socialist anyway? Surely according to capitalism if something is worth doing there should be a profit in it no?

without a single penny of government money!

Gift Aid?

If you want an example of what happens when emergency services get run by private enterprise, look at how the fire services of New York used to run. If you didn't have insurance, they weren't putting out your house.

Gift Aid?

Oh no you've been done [i]again[/i], Labby! 😆

Carry on though, it's funny.

Zulu-Eleven - Member

C'mon Ernie - make your point,

whats the difference between the Fire brigade (tax funded) and the RNLI (entirely independent charity)?

Size, complexity, number of callouts, coists involved.

~quite a lot really

Erm, TJ.....if the Fire Brigade was funded by voluntary contributions, I [i]think[/i] there might still be a need for taxation.

As the "needs of society" go a little beyond just sea and fire rescue.

Although I look forward to ratty explaining how we are all going to "muck in together" and therefore taxation won't be necessary........I had no idea ratty was a communist 😀

size, complexity, number of callouts, coists involved

Bollocks, thats simply a matter of scale - RNLI is by definition concentrated on coastal communities, the local [b]community[/b] clubs together to provide a service to all - absolute proof that communities and individuals [b]can[/b] provide for the needs of society much better than centralised government.

therefore taxation won't be necessary..

TJ - you asked for an example of communities providing for the needs of society, and you've been given a proven, established successful one!

the community clubs together to provide a service to all

Sounds very socialist to me...

So tell me ratty, since the RNLI is mostly staffed by volunteers, will most public sectors workers suddenly become volunteers ?

Will [i]you[/i] be giving up a few days every week to teach in a school or go on the beat as a policeman or maybe repair a road ?

Don't forget, you'll still need time to go fund raising to pay for school buildings, materials, electricity, etc.

[img] [/img]

The fire brigade is already [b]mostly[/b] staffed by volunteers who have full time jobs Ernie.

WWill you be giving up a few days every week to teach in a school or go on the beat as a policeman

Already done it luvvie!

what have you done for your society ?

TJ - you asked for an example of communities providing for the needs of society, and you've been given a proven, established successful one!

So the RNLI provide food and shelter for the needy do they?

totally differnt to fire service anyway.

A few more wily sea dogs and we can get rid of the coastguard.

- however there's no doubt that the role of the state can be reigned in substantially and replaced with "big society".

Really - I think you will find there is lots of doubt - infact there is good experience to say it wont and can't

hahahahahahahah TJ

you asked for an example - you got one

totally differnt to fire service anyway.

Yeah TJ - a fast response emergency service that saves peoples lives is [i]totally[/i] different from the fire service! I suppose mountain rescue is [i]totally different[/i] too, and cave rescue...

Ratty - you are weird.

How does a teh RNLI show your point

I think that communities and individuals can provide for the needs of society much better than centralised government.

So becaues the RNLI can provide its very limited service communities and individuals can proved hospitals, services for the disabled, food and clothing and that sort of thing?

How about mental health services? Child protection, care for the elderly

Ridiculous even by your standards

very limited service

I presume that by very limited, you mean limited to the sea?

I guess a bit like how mountain rescue offers a [i]very limited [/i] service, in that they only deal with people who need rescuing?

Who mentioned hospitals and care services? you asked for [u]an example[/u]

what have you done for your society ?

Hey.......you're making it sound as if not everyone would rush to help to volunteer in your brave new world 😕

........you don't feel very confident about your idea after all ?

Yeah I'd be up for it........I've always fancied being a doctor. And I guess there'll be plenty of vacancies when no one is getting paid anymore. Maybe brain surgeon........wad ju reckon eh ?

[img] [/img]

Yup - you got it. So how are you going to provide mental health services on your model?

I suppose mountain rescue is totally different too

Would that be the mountain rescue that relies fairly heavily on support from RAF helicopters, gets quite a bit of equipment bought by the police and this year is recieving £300,000 from the scottish government?

In fairness to Labby, he has come up with one example, and it's quite a good one. Shame he can't quite get all his facts right though. THe RNLI isn't the only aquartic rescue service; the Coastguard does that job too. It's nice to have the RNLI as support though, and it's good that peoples' benevolence helps make it happen. As Grum mentions, Socialism in action!

Trouble with your 'big society' idea though, is that it's far too dangerous to let public opinion dictate what services should be provided. For example, many drug and alcohol support and rehabilitation services wouldn't get much public support, as they're not 'worthy' enough causes for many. And countless other 'unfashionable' but vital services and support organisations would simply cease to exist if it was left to the Public Will in such a selfish and greedy society. Hence the necessity for State Intervention.

Personally, I'd like to see the State increased to include things like transport and utilities (like they used to be), but no way is the State too big, as the greedy bastard selfish Tories would have people believe.

As for taxation; Society benefiting as a whole V a tiny minority with manipulative power and influence getting even wealthier and more powerful? No contest.

Tax the bastards to their knees!

A vote for Elfin is a vote for [i]Humanity[/i].

TJ - you asked for [u]an example[/u]

Now, is the RNLI an example of communities and individuals providing for the needs of society much better than centralised government, or is it not?

Ernie - where ddi I say or suggest that [b]all[/b] services could be replaced by voluntary ones? oh, no, I didnt did I!

Ernie - you should be a orthopaedic surgeon - you would find the toolkit very familiar. Hammers, drills . screws I bet you would be good as well

Now, is the RNLI an example of communities and individuals providing for the needs of society much better than centralised government, or is it not?

Nope - because there is no comparator. We don't know if centralised government organising it would be better.

its also a rubbish example.

Its a very small scale, specialised and limited service. How about mental health services? How will you rRNLI model deal with them?

Sorry TJ, you're falling apart on this one

There are extensive comparators, since most of the rest of the developed world provide their coastal rescue from government funding and none, none, have the extensive, reliable and efficient service that we offer in the UK, best in the world!

I never suggested replacing mental health - you're relying on reductio ad absurdum again!

its a very small scale, specialised and limited service

covering the entire UK coastline to 50 miles offshore and rescuing an average of 22 people per day, yeah, ****ing tiny!

Now Raynet is a very small scale, specialised and limited service - the RNLI isnt!

Zulu-Eleven - Member

Who mentioned hospitals and care services?

The "needs of society" is what was mentioned.

As in Torminalis comment : [i]"I think that communities and individuals can provide for the needs of society much better than centralised government"[/i].

You don't think hospitals and care services satisfy a need in society ? 😀

Ernie - TJ asked for [u]an example[/u]!

I dint claim the solution to all, I offered the example he asked for - and you clearly just don't like it when I'm right 😉

Or are you suggesting that emergency rescue services are [b]not[/b] one of the needs of society?

Are you suggesting that emergency rescue services are not one of the needs of society?

Of course they are.......and ? so ? what ?

I have already made the point : [i]"Erm, TJ.....if the Fire Brigade was funded by voluntary contributions, I think there might still be a need for taxation"[/i].

Communities and individuals [i]cannot[/i] provide for the needs of society much better than centralised government".

Communities and individuals cannot provide for the needs of society much better than centralised government

Agreed, not in current circumstances. Cameron is cynically borrowing and corrupting language from Robert Putnam's work on 'social capital' and using it to justify cutbacks in government expenditure and hoping that the voluntary sector will patch up the mess. Sadly, it is not going to happen.

 

Stop poking the lefties. 😆

Almost every economist who's ever written anything worth reading addresses efficiency and welfare. It's a fairly recent thing for people to be saying "This bloke is really rich. That's dead good for you poor folk that is."

The broad socialist planned economy VS capitalism arguments are dead and buried. It's only really sensible arguing about how we manage the capitalist system, until someone has some radical new ideas.

For what it's worth, free trade and globalisation would probably be denounced by a lot of people on here, because it's generally supported by the evil right, but to me it looks to me very much like a system that's making us poorer in order to make the very poor in the developing world richer.

you clearly just don't like it when I'm right

The broad socialist planned economy VS capitalism arguments are dead and buried. It's only really sensible arguing about how we manage the capitalist system, until someone has some radical new ideas.

Erm, it's not so much about having new ideas, but developing a system that suits our society more effectively, using elements of Socialism and Capitalism etc where appropriate.

[b]Elfinism[/b] FTW! 😀

Which is kind of what LabZulu is trying to say, but he can't bring himself to mention Socialism for fear it will shatter his fragile right-wing persona.

.....he can't bring himself to mention Socialism for fear it will shatter his fragile right-wing persona.

😕 There absolutely nothing "fragile" about ratty's right-wing persona. HTF did you come to that conclusion ?

He is utterly and passionately committed to an ideology which is very firmly and solidly rooted on the far right of the political spectrum.

He is the only person that I know of on this forum, who makes Margaret Thatcher appear left-wing. He is certainly to the right of National Socialism (although I have never witnessed the slightest hint of racism, social Darwinism, homophobia, or eugenism from him)

To suggest to an extreme libertarian such as ratty that he might have even slightly socialist tendencies, is I reckon fairly insulting. Ratty is as pure an anti-socialist as you're ever likely to get. He is probably best described as an Anarcho-Capitalist (despite the ironic and rather contradictory fact that traditional anarchism is on the extreme left of the political spectrum)

And for reasons which I don't completely understand, and despite the fact that his views couldn't be more diametrically opposed to mine, I really quite like the guy. Maybe it's that I find his childlike naivety and enthusiasm for his fairytale capitalism enchanting ? 💡

Very few on here are arguing for a state planned economy from what I have seen. I think most of us lefties would prefer a Scandanovian model [or german] of higher taxes and better public services. Most of us think it is unlikely that vast swathes of society will volunteer to do ALL the things a society needs. RNLI is an interesting one as it certainly demonstartes that it is notimpossible. However, I find it hard to believe a similiar model [volunteers only] will work in general delivery of assistance. The samaritans do some great work as does MIND but I doubt either think they can widen their base to support all people with mental health from volunteers. There would need to be some delivery from the government unless we want private mental health care which would be more costly despite being more efficient. It is like the need to make profit adds a cost to delivery charges 😯 [you will bite there wont you?]
I am also not aware of any country reducing the public service and replacing it with a ground swell of popular positive action. It could happen in deeply cynical UK but I am not overly optomistic.

I suspect what "Big Society" actually means is expansion of the "Third Sector" as an arm's length operation of the state. But that sounds suspiciously like something Labour would do, so it's got another name. 😉

Aw, shucks Ernie 😳

Love you too honey...

Most of us think it is unlikely that vast swathes of society will volunteer to do ALL the things a society needs. RNLI is an interesting one as it certainly demonstartes that it is notimpossible. However, I find it hard to believe a similiar model [volunteers only] will work in general delivery of assistance.

But we've never even tried - however practically I think that a partnership could work very effectively, part volunteer labour and partial resources from taxation - its a step in another direction that we [b]could[/b] take easily... Thing is, If somoene said "right, we need a national network of marine rescue services" the [i]conventional thinking[/i] of the left is that the [b]only[/b] solution comes from government rather than from the people... its changing that convention thats difficult!

[i]...its changing that convention thats difficult![/i]

Meanwhile, in the siren name of efficiency, all manner of public sector assets and infrastructure are being handed over to the private sector - effectively a [i]massive[/i] transfer of wealth, if you count all the utterly sh1te lease-back deals now infesting MOD, DoH, the Inland Rev etc. Some people are doing [i]very[/i] well out of what is being trumpeted as an ideological shift - but which has more in common with a smash n' grab raid.

This country makes me laugh - we are failed Anglo-Saxons [i]and[/i] failed Scandinavians. One the other hand, we pretty much invented pop music. 8)

Actually it would appear we are quite good at volunteering and giving.

[img] [/img]. Here is the link as it is difficult to read - [url= http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/sep/08/charitable-giving-country# ]here[/url]
We are also have pretty similar levels of taxation as a percentage of GDP as the Netherlands and Germany. See [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_revenue_as_percentage_of_GDP ]here[/url]

And to suggest charitable giving is a sign of socialism I find quite difficult - I had not realised that Warren Buffett (spl?), Bill Gates, Tom Hunter, George (?) Peabody, Andrew Carnegie etc etc were socialists.

Ignoring the cuts, which is obviously difficult. The idea behind behind the Big Society is not as far as I can tell to simply shift all public sector effort to the voluntary sector, it is to shift those areas where the voluntary sector think they can do a better job on a case by case basis. It is a recognition that government can not have all the answers, which is obviously right - they don't have a monopoly on innovation, whether this will be better I have not got a clue but I think it is worth experimenting with.

The rnli works because there are a lot of people who enjoy sailing, and are pretty much qualified to do the job without too much training, plus it is a satisfying thing to do, so volunteers stay with it for a long time.

Other public services don't have massive numbers of hobbyists playing at what they do every weekend, and aren't as exciting, so aren't likely to be able to keep volunteers for do long. Because of this it is naive to think that charities will be able to provide services for less money. It's well known in the charity sector that for a lot of jobs it is far cheaper to pay people to do them than to repeatedly train unreliable volunteers.

The other obvious flaw in the big society idea is that even the most successful charities like the rnli, nch etc rely on large amounts of government support and funding, for example by providing services to local councils, or work for the police. Massively cut public funding for social stuff and you massively cut the amounts of funding charities have to provide the services where they are being expected to pick up the slack.

Other public services don't have massive numbers of hobbyists playing at what they do every weekend, and aren't as exciting, so aren't likely to be able to keep volunteers for do long

Police Specials
Retained fire crews
Territorial Army

even the most successful charities like the rnli, nch etc rely on large amounts of government support and funding

Well regardless of the argument over whether grant aid is government funding (the government opt to forego the tax that would otherwise have been paid on the earnings donated to charity, so its still really the donators money) - RNLI claim 80p in every pound donated goes to the front line (17p on fundraising, 3p on administration) - be honest, can you imagine if the public sector was able to reduce its administration cost to 3%?

The fact is that the police claim that about 85% of their overall costs are on wages, the fire brigade are a little behind - just imagine the potential liberating factor of reducing that wages bill by what, 30%?

Re Firefighting, from Wiki:

In Germany, volunteer fire departments, called the "Freiwillige Feuerwehr", are established in every town: even the biggest German city, Berlin, with more than 3.6 million inhabitants, has volunteer firefighters besides a career fire service. In fact, only 100 German cities (most of them are towns with more than 100,000 inhabitants) have a career fire service, called the "Berufsfeuerwehr", but in every one of these cities a volunteer fire service exists, too. In cities with a career fire service, volunteer fire brigades support the career fire service at big fires, accidents and disasters. Many of the so-called volunteer departments (usually in towns with 35,000 to 150,000 inhabitants), except in very small towns and villages, are a mixed service of a core of career firemen who are supported by true volunteer firefighters should the need arise. However, the official title of those departments is nevertheless "volunteer fire service".

TA is a poor example they are paid to serve at the same rate as the regulars, plus a bonus if the contracted weekends and exercises are attended.

But we've never even tried [big society]...its a step in another direction that we could take easily... ... its changing that convention thats difficult!

be honest, can you imagine if the public sector was able to reduce its administration cost to 3%?

I am not saying charities are rubbish and do no good work.Is anyone? However to believe/hope/wish for this is optomistic in the extreme. I would have thought that you as a free market person would have thoughr that humans were motivated mainly out of self interest rather than community good. It is excellent that you think the needy will be helped ,freely,by those with the most to give and that they will do this for the greater good.. from each according to their ability to each according to their need? It might just work.

humans were motivated mainly out of self interest rather than community good

But thats where you fall down, you forget to factor in the relationship between charity/altruism and self interest - best explored through game theory and an understanding of reciprocity!

But we've never even tried - however practically I think that a partnership could work very effectively, part volunteer labour and partial resources from taxation - its a step in another direction that we could take easily... Thing is, If somoene said "right, we need a national network of marine rescue services" the conventional thinking of the left is that the only solution comes from government rather than from the people

"The conventional thinking of the left" ?

So it's all the fault of "the Left" is it ?

How come ratty, that according to you, everything is always the fault of the Left ?
Even when capitalism fails ........it's always the fault of the left !

The left does not dictate government policy all the time and in every country. In Britain we have had plenty of "non-left" governments, as indeed have many other countries had throughout history.

So if [i]"we've never even tried"[/i] as you claim, then don't blame the left for that.

The truth is ratty, that nowhere in world, apart from in the fantasy land of Rattistania of course, have your absurd ideas ever worked. When governments cut back on taxation and spending, services don't suddenly become better and more efficient as communities and individuals rush to provide volunteer alternatives.

What always happens is that services and provisions either get worst or, disappear altogether.

And just take for example the United States, a country big on low taxation and leaving things to individuals - rather than government. How did the US respond when faced with the huge natural disaster caused by Hurricane Katrina ........did a highly effective rescue operation kick in which was far more efficient than any government operation might have been ?

No, the reality is that unsurprisingly, when faced with such a situation, the US was unable to provide either an effective government backed response, nor a volunteer community based alternative. It shocked and horrified millions across the world. Was [i]that[/i] the fault of "the left".... eh ?

But then of course ratty, for someone who has such extreme far right views that they make George Bush and Margaret Thatcher look positively left-wing, I suppose you probably [b][i]do[/i][/b] see it as all the fault of the left......I guess just about every politician in the world appears left-wing to an anarcho-capitalist like you 😀

And hey, you could perhaps be right about George Bush. After all he was elected as an neo-conservative president in 2001, but left 8 years later in 2009 as a neo-socialist.......having implemented some of the greatest examples of state intervention in US history. IIRC most mortgages in the US were owned by the state by the time George Bush left office.

Seems to me that George Bush finally lost all faith in Rattistania, and it's language of economic gobbledygook.

And didn't he do it with such unseemly haste, eh ? ........perhaps he wasn't so stupid after all .......or more probable, never actually believed in it in the first place.

I really quite like the guy.

No you don't; you just like arguing with him. And the fact that he's one of the only people who will continue arguing with you on and on and on and on and on....

LabZulu doesn't have the strength of character to ever concede that his way of thinking might benefit from taking on board the ideas of others. Whilst he makes the odd good point, his arguments are flimsy and full of holes. He fails to research things properly, and ends up looking foolish. Yet he doesn't have the good grace to accept it's time to back off. Which is why I can't be bothered with him. Because it just ends up descending into who can make themselves appear the cleverest. Sod that shit, life's too short. If he wants to think he's cleverer than anyone else, let him. If he thinks I'm a thick ****, so what? I don't need his approval. All he ever does on here is drone on about how right-wing he is. Yeah, whatever Labby, good on yer, well done. Have a medal.

Seriously, it's almost painful watching this. You should know better, Ernie. Aren't you all bored with this yet?

And these arguments; all done in a couple of pages. The rest is just fighting over scraps.

Time for a nice picture:

[img] [/img]

LabZulu doesn't have the strength of character to ever concede that his way of thinking might benefit from taking on board the ideas of others.

Because of course you do.

[img] [/img]

Wahey -Bursting into the room, pulling off his disguise, shitting on the carpet and trying to hump the dog - the old Fred's back!

You gonna call start calling people Nonces again now Fred?

Wibble Hatstand - Nyark, fgarck, haroogah haroogah blrart

And this :

..... he doesn't have the good grace to accept it's time to back off.

[img] [/img]

And just take for example the United States, a country big on low taxation and leaving things to individuals - rather than government. How did the US respond when faced with the huge natural disaster caused by Hurricane Katrina ........did a highly effective rescue operation kick in which was far more efficient than any government operation might have been ?

No, the reality is that unsurprisingly, when faced with such a situation, the US was unable to provide either an effective government backed response, nor a volunteer community based alternative. It shocked and horrified millions across the world. Was that the fault of "the left".... eh ?

Good point.

Actually, being completely honest Ernie - I genuinely think the (lack of) formal response to Katrina had more to do with the colour of the main victims rather than an inability of the government or indeed the public sector to act! which is far more of a comment on America as a nation than on economic policies 🙁

Because of course you do.

Yes. Whereas you don't either. You're just as bad tbh.

You gonna call start calling people Nonces again now Fred?

The fact that this still narks you is a good thing. Funny how you changed your name when the new forum started, eh?

Wibble Hatstand - Nyark, fgarck, haroogah haroogah blrart

Steady now, you'll do yourself a mischief. Is that seriously the best you can do? Dear oh dear.

Ernie; when I've got bored or had enough fun, I don't bother any more.

See, I've managed to stop you two arguing for at least a few minutes. Good eh? 😉

I genuinely think the (lack of) formal response to Katrina had more to do with the colour of the main victims

It had nothing to do with the colour of the victims........the deciding factor was their [i]class[/i] ie, they were "poor".

I have no doubt at all that had poor whites living in Kentucky been the victims of a catastrophic natural disaster, they likewise, would have been left to their own devices.

Of course it is fair to say that the US government has limited resources to deal such eventualities. But had the problem occurred in an affluent corner of the United States, then I'm sure the government would have used those limited resources for the benefit of the people affected.

And certainly in the case of New Orleans, the government would have been spent money on the much needed improved sea defences.

The US government rations it's limited resources. It rations them in favour of the wealthy and economically/politically powerful.

[i]Actually, being completely honest Ernie - I genuinely think the (lack of) formal response to Katrina had more to do with the colour of the main victims rather than an inability of the government or indeed the public sector to act! which is far more of a comment on America as a nation than on economic policies [/i]

And there's the rub for me.

Replacing centralised services with voluntary (both in terms of direct intervention and financial donations) means donators of time/money can choose who they consider 'worthy' of their help.

As we see in America the needy groups who get the financial/direct help tend to be the ones it is fashionable to help and, to a great extent, the citeria of worthy may change year to year.

Police Specials

Retained fire crews

Territorial Army

Retained crews are paid. TA are paid. I don't know much about specials, but I do know that they are going to cost money to run and train, and can never take the place of more than a small percentage of the police.

RNLI claim 80p in every pound donated goes to the front line (17p on fundraising, 3p on administration) - be honest, can you imagine if the public sector was able to reduce its administration cost to 3%?

That's not 3% administration, that is 20% administration - 80% of the money they get goes to providing services, whatever you call the rest it is administration, money that is being used solely to keep money coming in.

Having worked on stuff for all 3 of the main services, I'd say that the ambulance guys are by far the most efficient and value for money service, they absolutely run the thing on a shoe string compared to the others, I don't think taking on volunteers is ever going to make anywhere near as much difference as changing other things, and in many cases I think volunteers would actually cost more to run than staff.

Seriously interesting programme on R4 yesterday on just this subject - with people who actually know what they're talking about, where's the fun in that!

[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00tt60h/Thinking_Allowed_Secrets_of_Capitalism_Religion_and_Science/ ]Secrets of Capitalism - The washing machine has changed the world more than the internet [/url]

But thats where you fall down, you forget to factor in the relationship between charity/altruism and self interest - best explored through game theory and an understanding of reciprocity!

I don't know much about specials

Have not been able to comment on this over the last few days as I have had actual work to do but I am pleased to see that this has descended into personality attacks and bickering, that's why I love this place.

The problem with this whole debate is that there is such a massive difference between the reality and the ideal. I reckon we are all part pragmatist and part idealist and the reconciling of the two is where the problem lies and probably the source of what grum thought to be my 'confusion'.

Ideally we would not have had generations of folk taking away a serious chunk of our productivity and instisting they know how to use it better than us. Had this been the case and had communities not been forced to hand over their output things may be very different. I know that I for one (and of course I only speak for myself but consider myself to be a pretty normal chap) would spend a lot more time dedicated to the collective good rather than working every hour god sends to earn a crust.

I would also not have the excuse of being able to defer to the government and complaining that frankly, I do enough already.

I can't remember who said it but I am inclided to agree that 'Governments do not gain power by taking away our freedoms, they do it by assuming our responsibilities.'

Ideally we would not have had generations of folk taking away a serious chunk of our productivity and instisting they know how to use it better than us