[Closed] Capitalism

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!

Very best of luck to you and Dave hope your optism livesup to expectations.

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

Yes we just need unpaid volunteer administrators from the big society to make this dream come true.

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!

Tell me more about this mathematically theoretical nirvanic state it sounds interesting. Seriously all I am aware of is the prisoner's dilemma which has few examples of the best strategy being adopted in the real world. I agree cooperation and altruism is the best course of action for the common good but need some proof [not theory that is contentious at best]that this will occur in the real world. In other countries , societies communities. Without this it is just ideological wishful thinking ignoring the fact that basically people are selfish and work in self interest. I know you believe this but can you offer actually society wide examples? Loving the ultra right wing arguing that cooperation and common good is the driving force of people rather than selfish self interest. If it were true we would be would have no need for the state as we would have bneen doing it anyway and the state would not have had to grow to service this need. We had private everything before the public service and it was largely non existent/haphazard.

I don't know much about specials

Mainly staffed by people who want to join the plods as it is nigh on impossible to become a copper without doing this and all forces recommend you do this to improve your chances of being recruited. Not a great example as it more coercion/necessity that actual volunteering

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

The problem is that we had your version first [ and laissez faire]. We had no state , we had no market regulation, we had charity and it did not work very well for the common good. The rich got very rich and the poor stayed very poor. Charity could not serve all the needs. See the 19thC for examples of this. You naively think that if we un did all this work that something different and noble would appear WHY? Perhaps we should ask the Red Cross to deliver health care for us in this brave new world of yours.

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

The problem is that we had your version first [ and laissez faire]. We had no state , we had no market regulation, we had charity and it did not work very well for the common good. The rich got very rich and the poor stayed very poor. Charity could not serve all the needs. See the 19thC for examples of this. You naively think that if we un did all this work that something different and noble would appear WHY? Perhaps we should ask the Red Cross to deliver health care for us in this brave new world of yours.

Idealism and naivety are often confused and I fully accept (and lament) that there have always been and always will be greedy individuals who are willing to take advantage of those who are less able to stick up for themselves. The thing is in real terms there are far fewer at the top now, power is concentrated into the hands of a miniscule minority at the top of the pile by virtue of the collaboration of government and big business.

By the 19C we had already had thousands of years of people being oppressed (tithings anyone?) and I do accept it is an element of human nature. The problem though is that the powerful have now created a system for themselves (and we to a certain extent have helped them, through our weakness) where they can apply the the feudal system on a global scale and have become far less assailable because of it. In the 19C a well placed arrow could put a cat amongst the pigeons, now you can't even begin to get close.

I am not trying to propose a solution, I have no idea what we should do about it, I am just whining! I have witnessed the STW massive solve some very obscure points in the past and I wondered what their take on this particular issue was, as well as to make the point that big business would not be half so powerful if it were not for corrupt governments.