The Politics Thread

[Worthy4England]

It's not the same market dictates what people get paid as the one that ditates freedom of trade. For the sake of the conversation, I'll assume we're talking about the labour market rather than the market that impacts the bureaucracy of the NHS.

Quite frankly, how the feck does it impact you or I, if the CEO is paid 75 times what you or I earn? If we happen to work for the company concerned then we get a vote - go move to a different one where the CEO only gets 50 times what you or I earn. What's the real beef here? That someone earns shitloads more than you or I?

There's plenty of people on 10 grand a year and no bonuses that are shit at what they do.

I have no doubt in my mind (back to the other market for a second) that the FSA should have been closer to what was going on - as seems to be backed up by the report produced by errrr the FSA. And that some of the rules governing the operation of the market needed tightening. That's still difficult to achieve on a unilateral basis and getting global concensus on the time of day is tricky.

The second point is completely divorced from the first. They're not really connected and I'm not sure why people would want to connect them.

We could set a national maximum wage (theoretically) but what level would it be set at? If we did it unilaterally, would people over that figure bail out?

We could set a differential that the total remuneration of the highest paid employee could only be "x" time that of the lowest paid employee. No problems - we just hive off the top 10% of earners into a different company and outsource the lower paid jobs. etc. etc. etc.

Someone give us some ideas of a) what we're suggesting happens on pay, b) how we're going to enforce it and c) if we could come up with something workable for a) and b) how we'll structure it on a multilateral basis so that people don't just up sticks to a different part of the globe...

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

You'll not catch me talking in the rhetoric of 'ruling classes' and 'revolutions', not anymore, anyway. I was a member of the Revolutionary Socialist Club at uni. It was interesting, but also awkwardly detatched from reality. I don't foresee any major shift away from capitalism it our lifetime, but I don't think the idea of limits on the markets running 'free' has, or will die. As I understand it, the idea behind a 'free' market is a giant bazaar where human self-interest from all parties competes to give things a value appropriate to their worth. Bad products die out, and new innovative products win through. They begin highly priced, then supply starts to meet demand as competitor products force the price down to what it is 'worth', everybody has an iPad, and everybody is happy.

This works when we are talking about parties of equal or equivalent levels of power and resources. It means everybody can afford cheap telies, but ones which don't break cost a bit more. As such everybody is encouraged to work harder, to earn more moeny, to get that better telly. Yay for society. However, the banking crisis demonstrated perfectly well what happens when one party has dissproportionately more power than others, in this case human greed, a synonym for 'markets' means they take advantage, unchecked, and make short term profits leaving everybody else fooked. Then, whilst everybody else 'tightens their belt' (ghastly phrase) they go back to their old ways of awarding themselves massive bonuses. That's what the markets have left us, and the argument is 'well, the markets dictate we have to pay them huge salaries, plus gigantic bonuses or they'd....' *threatening silence*. Well, are we really saying the markets dictate you have to pay the top dogs 75 times the average wage of a company to get them to not go and move to, I don't know, France, or Germany? 50 times the average salary wouldn't be enough? 10? What we said was the markets would set it, left them unchecked, and then were surprised when they awarded themselves massive pay. My problem is the concept that the unconscious markets, with no ethics or morals, ought to be left to decide everything. In a wide range of circumstances, with proper supervision to prevent power imbalances being exploited, that may be the best scenario. I have no problem in principle with the bureucracy side of the NHS being subject to market forces, whose purpose is to drive down costs. I'd be appalled at their introduction to the healthcare side, where cost-cutting should never be a primary factor.

I have no problem with the concept of markets, I just fail to see why they have to be 'free', why regulation is so awful.

I don't see why you've become obsessed with 'free markets'... very few people advocate that in the strict technical sense of that term. I'd say those who use it generally just take it to mean an economy in which the means of production are privately rather than state owned.

No, what I want is perfect markets and regulation that gets us as close to that as possible.

And why is cost-cutting in healthcare delivery so appalling? The fact is we could spend absolutely everything on healthcare and still not be providing all the healthcare that is possible with modern science. Some would say that driving down costs in healthcare is a moral duty. I, of course, just think it's a good idea.

[Lord Kangana]

By what means would you drive costs down in healthcare though? If, for example, you were referring to the tax/NHS equation, may I point out that private healthcare in America takes up a far greater proportion of that country's money than does ours, and doesn't even pretend to want to serve all the population. If that is what you're advocating, ie cost reduction through privatisation, I would call that line of thought primitive. A country that can't see to all its citizen's basic healthcare needs belongs in the third world, not the first, no matter how many guns it has or flag waving it does. In that sense we once again enter the fray of morals, because, and I've said it before, in some markets there simply are no markets.

Southern Cross springs readily to mind how bending to the will of the market utterly defeats the purpose of the enterprise you've entered upon. I can't think anyone on here would advocate turfing all the old people out on to the streets, so does that mean we allow unscrupulous business types to run these businesses for their own gain, irrespective of the consequences, because they know that ultimately the taxpayer will pick up the tab? In that sense, an executive earning 75X the average wage would probably see the income as potential danger money for future public vilification and censure. So, serious question, why not just cut out the middle man and state run some enterprises? Is it a philosophical argument, or an economic one?

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

By what means would you drive costs down in healthcare though? If, for example, you were referring to the tax/NHS equation, may I point out that private healthcare in America takes up a far greater proportion of that country's money than does ours, and doesn't even pretend to want to serve all the population. If that is what you're advocating, ie cost reduction through privatisation, I would call that line of thought primitive. A country that can't see to all its citizen's basic healthcare needs belongs in the third world, not the first, no matter how many guns it has or flag waving it does. In that sense we once again enter the fray of morals, because, and I've said it before, in some markets there simply are no markets.

Southern Cross springs readily to mind how bending to the will of the market utterly defeats the purpose of the enterprise you've entered upon. I can't think anyone on here would advocate turfing all the old people out on to the streets, so does that mean we allow unscrupulous business types to run these businesses for their own gain, irrespective of the consequences, because they know that ultimately the taxpayer will pick up the tab? In that sense, an executive earning 75X the average wage would probably see the income as potential danger money for future public vilification and censure. So, serious question, why not just cut out the middle man and state run some enterprises? Is it a philosophical argument, or an economic one?

I know all of that - the tragedy of American healthcare is actually that the state spends more per head on healthcare than we do, and we have the NHS - go figure, as they say.

No, I was just taking Pru up on the relatively narrow point that looking to cut costs in healthcare is appalling. I don't think we had reached the point of discussing the various methods and their efficacy.

[Lord Kangana]

Fair enough. From that perspective, its surely a (sorry) moral duty to try to produce the most efficient way of running anything? Ie, most output for least input? Naturally, not efficiency at the cost of lives (if such an equation is even possible, but I think you take the point).

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Fair enough. From that perspective, its surely a (sorry) moral duty to try to produce the most efficient way of running anything? Ie, most output for least input? Naturally, not efficiency at the cost of lives (if such an equation is even possible, but I think you take the point).

That equation is not only possible but also necessary.

The fact is, some lives are just too expensive to save to make it worth it.

The less squeamish we are about this obvious, if regrettable truth, the more rational we can be in our decision-making.

[Lord Kangana]

That may well be true, and indeed necessary, but are you putting yourself forward for that role? I can't imagine that any (halfway serios about their career prospects) politician in the land would advance that point of view, or similar, openly.

Which is why we get the drip, drip of constant tinkering with what is, and I firmly hold this to be true, one of the most enlightened and philosophically progressive institutions on earth, who save people's lives because its what their raison d'etre is, not to make money from it.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

That may well be true, and indeed necessary, but are you putting yourself forward for that role? I can't imagine that any (halfway serios about their career prospects) politician in the land would advance that point of view, or similar, openly.

Which is why we get the drip, drip of constant tinkering with what is, and I firmly hold this to be true, one of the most enlightened and philosophically progressive institutions on earth, who save people's lives because its what their raison d'etre is, not to make money from it.

No, sadly politicians can't say that sort of thing because we have become a society of emotionally molly-coddled morons who cannot deal with obvious, unpalatable truths.

And no, I'm not putting myself forward for that role - we give it to professionals who do a tough, grown-up job as best they can. It's called the National Institute of Clinical Excellence and they do have an equation for deciding which lives can be saved and which can't - the quality adjusted life years measurement (QALY) - http://www.nice.org.uk/newsroom/feature ... heqaly.jsp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;.

Saving people's lives is obviously a very noble aim, but what if you could save more lives simply by charging those who could easily afford it for their healthcare, or by lowering costs by introducing a profit incentive? (The philosophy at stake remains the same even if you don't think the economics is possible in practice.)

[BWFC_Insane]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-16861672" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Oh dear....how embarrassing!

It follows a similar call by the British Medical Association, Royal College of Nursing and Royal College of Midwives.

But all three of these are unions, which prompted the government to suggest they were motivated by the dispute over pay and pensions - whereas the RCGP is part of the professional arm of the health service which sets standards.

What are they going to blame this on? Lazy greedy GPs? Good plan....oh perhaps not!

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... acist.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Brilliant.

[thebish]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... acist.html

Brilliant.

[Worthy4England]

That may well be true, and indeed necessary, but are you putting yourself forward for that role? I can't imagine that any (halfway serios about their career prospects) politician in the land would advance that point of view, or similar, openly.

Which is why we get the drip, drip of constant tinkering with what is, and I firmly hold this to be true, one of the most enlightened and philosophically progressive institutions on earth, who save people's lives because its what their raison d'etre is, not to make money from it.

No, sadly politicians can't say that sort of thing because we have become a society of emotionally molly-coddled morons who cannot deal with obvious, unpalatable truths.

And no, I'm not putting myself forward for that role - we give it to professionals who do a tough, grown-up job as best they can. It's called the National Institute of Clinical Excellence and they do have an equation for deciding which lives can be saved and which can't - the quality adjusted life years measurement (QALY) - http://www.nice.org.uk/newsroom/feature ... heqaly.jsp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;.

Saving people's lives is obviously a very noble aim, but what if you could save more lives simply by charging those who could easily afford it for their healthcare, or by lowering costs by introducing a profit incentive? (The philosophy at stake remains the same even if you don't think the economics is possible in practice.)

Well, when the NHS reforms drive all these efficiencies, there'll obviously be more left in the pot to save lives with.

Unless of course the NHS reforms are actually about having a smaller pot. In which case when they don't make the efficiencies they were predicting, there'll be less lives saved.

Wonder which one will pop out the other end with the benefit of hindsight.

Oh and if people "who can afford to" buy their own have to, I guess there'll be a 25% reduction in tax to compensate? (About 25% of our total spending is healthcare)

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Well, when the NHS reforms drive all these efficiencies, there'll obviously be more left in the pot to save lives with.

Unless of course the NHS reforms are actually about having a smaller pot. In which case when they don't make the efficiencies they were predicting, there'll be less lives saved.

Wonder which one will pop out the other end with the benefit of hindsight.

Oh and if people "who can afford to" buy their own have to, I guess there'll be a 25% reduction in tax to compensate? (About 25% of our total spending is healthcare)

We're told that the pot is increasingly very slightly in real terms... we can't moan about a smaller pot unless and until it happens (whether the pot has to go further and further is, of course, another matter...).

And as for income tax cuts replaced by payment for actual consumption of services - yep, I think that's something I can get behind.

[Worthy4England]

Well, when the NHS reforms drive all these efficiencies, there'll obviously be more left in the pot to save lives with.

Unless of course the NHS reforms are actually about having a smaller pot. In which case when they don't make the efficiencies they were predicting, there'll be less lives saved.

Wonder which one will pop out the other end with the benefit of hindsight.

Oh and if people "who can afford to" buy their own have to, I guess there'll be a 25% reduction in tax to compensate? (About 25% of our total spending is healthcare)

We're told that the pot is increasingly very slightly in real terms... we can't moan about a smaller pot unless and until it happens (whether the pot has to go further and further is, of course, another matter...).

And as for income tax cuts replaced by payment for actual consumption of services - yep, I think that's something I can get behind.

Of course. Not moaning, I think it sounds great!

The pot will increase slightly.

It'll all be more efficient (so the pot will work further).

Can't understand why I'd buy my own health insurance - obviously don't need it.

Unless of course I was incentivised by more than it actually cost me to go private...in which case, the pot getting larger starts to become an interesting mathematical conundrum.

[Lord Kangana]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... acist.html

Brilliant.

Would this be the right place to gloat about the results of my cognitive ability test taken at age 4?

[Hoboh]

One day someone will decide the "pot" needs to shrink you'll see. The world is getting more and more dangerous yet someone decides the defence "pot" has to shrink, nowt is safe!

[Lord Kangana]

And when theres nothing left worth defending?

[lovethesmellofnapalm]

This for me sums it up. There is no alternative???
In the same way there was no alternative to the Divine Right of Kings, feudalism, "aristocratic privilege",20century Liberal economics or if you lived in Eastern Europe before 1989 state control and dictatorship.
There is always an alternative which is why so many people are outraged by the whole rotten edifice that is free market capitalism and why the "occupy" movement and other groups are gaining support. An alternative is however not being articulated by any of the ruling class which is why, folks, revolution is just around the corner.

As I say, I would argue that a failure to protect the principles underpinning properly functioning competitive markets is a big part of what has gone wrong.

Nevermind though - articulate your alternative and show us where the 'ruling class', whatever that is, is going wrong. You too, Pru. At least The Axman has stepped up and has said he is happy personally to take on the remuneration of everybody in the country!

Socialism- just because the Soviet Union fecked it up doesn't make it a worse model for the common good within society than what we have at the moment.
there - i've "articulated" it

You were the one who started the talk of 'articulating' alternatives!

So that's it is it - you just want someone from a group you call the 'ruling class' to stick their hand up and say 'let's have a crack at socialism'?

not exactly - though it would be nice if a new Honore de Mirabeau emerged to take us into a new Enlightenment.
However, in the unlikely event of such a figure from the ruling classes emerging ,a seizure of the ownership of the means of production by the revolutionary vanguard of the masses would do just dandy.
Revolution is back in fashion you know

[Worthy4England]

This for me sums it up. There is no alternative???
In the same way there was no alternative to the Divine Right of Kings, feudalism, "aristocratic privilege",20century Liberal economics or if you lived in Eastern Europe before 1989 state control and dictatorship.
There is always an alternative which is why so many people are outraged by the whole rotten edifice that is free market capitalism and why the "occupy" movement and other groups are gaining support. An alternative is however not being articulated by any of the ruling class which is why, folks, revolution is just around the corner.

As I say, I would argue that a failure to protect the principles underpinning properly functioning competitive markets is a big part of what has gone wrong.

Nevermind though - articulate your alternative and show us where the 'ruling class', whatever that is, is going wrong. You too, Pru. At least The Axman has stepped up and has said he is happy personally to take on the remuneration of everybody in the country!

Socialism- just because the Soviet Union fecked it up doesn't make it a worse model for the common good within society than what we have at the moment.
there - i've "articulated" it

You were the one who started the talk of 'articulating' alternatives!

So that's it is it - you just want someone from a group you call the 'ruling class' to stick their hand up and say 'let's have a crack at socialism'?

not exactly - though it would be nice if a new Honore de Mirabeau emerged to take us into a new Enlightenment.
However, in the unlikely event of such a figure from the ruling classes emerging ,a seizure of the ownership of the means of production by the revolutionary vanguard of the masses would do just dandy.
Revolution is back in fashion you know

That's all fine and dandy.

Except half the "means of productions" are in China.

I'm sure you'll get a balanced hearing if you get caught.

Right on brother!

[Hoboh]

http://news.uk.msn.com/uk/navy-sends-su ... lklands-71" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Remember where you heard it first