Jill Kirby on Radio people with sums on deposit losing 10% recently due to fall in €

[Complainer]

but when the threat of actually losing your job because you and/or your organisation are not being productive enough, as measured by the customers willingness to part with his/her money, then you take away the only way to measure successful employment of scarce resources.
Efficiency or competitiveness of performance cannot be measured at an organisational level in the public service, thus doing so at individual level is futile. Yes, you can measure costs per transaction, or per customer served in the public sector, but this is completely meaningless as it is impossible to say whether this is efficient or not due to the lack of ability for comparison.

Strangely enough, I partially agree with you about the difficulties in measuring efficiency in parts (though not all) of the public sector. But this is no reason to conclude that the public sector is too big.

Oscar Wilde's comments about the man who knows the cost of everything and the value of nothing spring to mind.

 

[Chris]

Strangely enough, I partially agree with you about the difficulties in measuring efficiency in parts (though not all) of the public sector. But this is no reason to conclude that the public sector is too big.

50% of the national spend comes from government, that is more than "communist" China. That is far far too big. And apart from that, of 400000+ publicly employed people only about 130000 are front line staff, i.e. guards, nurses, teachers, doctors, firefighters. Those are ridiculous numbers. I don't want to go further off topic here, so I've created another thread: http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showthread.php?t=147613

Oscar Wilde's comments about the man who knows the cost of everything and the value of nothing spring to mind.

Value is entirely subjective, and when it comes to public services it is impossible for customers to express their valuations without the service providing organisation to fear being put out of business. Thus Wilde's comment is completely irrelevant when it comes to public services.

 

[Complainer]

Value is entirely subjective, and when it comes to public services it is impossible for customers to express their valuations without the service providing organisation to fear being put out of business.

This is just nonsense. Customers express their 'valuations' every day to many public sector bodies. Most of time, these 'valuations' are foolish rants, like the classic 'shut down NERA' rant we had on this site, because somebody didn't answer the phone quick enough. Some of the time, these 'valuations' are intelligent, serious contributions, made with an understanding of the relevant area, the relevant legislation and the service needs.

Your 'impossible' is happening every day, out here in the real world.

 

[Chris]

This is just nonsense. Customers express their 'valuations' every day to many public sector bodies. Most of time, these 'valuations' are foolish rants, like the classic 'shut down NERA' rant we had on this site, because somebody didn't answer the phone quick enough. Some of the time, these 'valuations' are intelligent, serious contributions, made with an understanding of the relevant area, the relevant legislation and the service needs.

Your 'impossible' is happening every day, out here in the real world.

You're not serious are you? Profit and loss is the only way to account for efficient use of scarce resources, and this feedback simply does not exist in the public sector. People can complain about public services until the cows come home, but their money will still be spent on the service whether they like it or not.
When is the last time that a public service had its budget cut because people complained about the service or the service was running inefficiently?

 

[Complainer]

You're not serious are you? Profit and loss is the only way to account for efficient use of scarce resources, and this feedback simply does not exist in the public sector.

Yes, I'm deadly serious. The absence of a P&L is not a sign of an inherent fault or problem with the public sector. It's just a sign that the public sector is not a business, it's the public sector.

People can complain about public services until the cows come home, but their money will still be spent on the service whether they like it or not.
When is the last time that a public service had its budget cut because people complained about the service or the service was running inefficiently?

The Equality Authority had the budget cut by 43% when some people started complaining about their effectiveness. In this case, they were being too effective for some people's liking.

But the public do indeed have a say about how public services are running - they get their say every five years in the ballot box, and they overwhelmingly vote to support decent public services.

 

[Chris]

Yes, I'm deadly serious. The absence of a P&L is not a sign of an inherent fault or problem with the public sector. It's just a sign that the public sector is not a business, it's the public sector.

Of course it is not the fault of the public sector that the profit and loss system does not apply to them. But this should justify keeping the public sector as small as is possible in order to ensure that the services provided make the most efficient use of scarce resources.

The Equality Authority had the budget cut by 43% when some people started complaining about their effectiveness. In this case, they were being too effective for some people's liking.

So it wasn't actually the "customers" that caused the decline in budget, is it? This is a perfect example of how defunct the government services are in ensuring efficient use of resources.

But the public do indeed have a say about how public services are running - they get their say every five years in the ballot box, and they overwhelmingly vote to support decent public services.

Please don't pull the democracy card, as people's votes have a pretty much misiscule impact on services. Given the amount of things that government interferes in it is impossible for a voter to know what each candidates' opinion or objective is for everything government does. This also makes it impossible to vote for someone that comes remotely close to what the voter would want government to actually do.
There is also no mechanism to stop government from doing something that the public don't want it to do, or if government does the opposite of what it promised during election.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

Getting slightly back on topic. There was a guy on Frontline last night who stated that a return to the gold standard would answer all our problems. Chris there surely can't be two of you

 

[Complainer]

But this should justify keeping the public sector as small as is possible in order to ensure that the services provided make the most efficient use of scarce resources.

You can keep quoting this meaningless line as often as you like, Chris - but it has no basis in reality.

So it wasn't actually the "customers" that caused the decline in budget, is it? This is a perfect example of how defunct the government services are in ensuring efficient use of resources.

It actually shows what a dumb idea it is to suggest that the budget of public bodies should be related to the number of complaints. So if I don't like a particular public body, all I have to do is orchestrate a campaign of complaints and they get their budget cut. It's just silly stuff altogether.

Please don't pull the democracy card, as people's votes have a pretty much misiscule impact on services. Given the amount of things that government interferes in it is impossible for a voter to know what each candidates' opinion or objective is for everything government does. This also makes it impossible to vote for someone that comes remotely close to what the voter would want government to actually do.
There is also no mechanism to stop government from doing something that the public don't want it to do, or if government does the opposite of what it promised during election.

Democracy isn't a card Chris - it is our fundamental human right, and people have died to achieve it. People are still dying in other countries looking for democracy.

You're right of course, in that each individual vote doesn't count for a whole lot - just as each individual customer choosing to buy (or not buy) from Microsoft or AIB or Tesco doesn't count a whole lot.

 

[Chris]

You can keep quoting this meaningless line as often as you like, Chris - but it has no basis in reality.

Maybe you could make more than claim that my statement is meaningless. I have stated that public services are not subject to the same forces that ensure organisations make best use of scarce resources, i.e. the profit and loss system. All you have stated is that this is somehow meaningless without giving any premise for such a conclusion.

It actually shows what a dumb idea it is to suggest that the budget of public bodies should be related to the number of complaints. So if I don't like a particular public body, all I have to do is orchestrate a campaign of complaints and they get their budget cut. It's just silly stuff altogether.

No, that is not the case. It simply shows that when you have choice in service, and have full control over whether your money is spent on it, then the best service stays in business, while the worst fall to the wayside. And the judgement is made by the customers not politicians. As I have said before, I am not an anarchist, there is a role for government providing services, but those should be limited.

Democracy isn't a card Chris - it is our fundamental human right, and people have died to achieve it. People are still dying in other countries looking for democracy.

You're right of course, in that each individual vote doesn't count for a whole lot - just as each individual customer choosing to buy (or not buy) from Microsoft or AIB or Tesco doesn't count a whole lot.

I agree that democracy is a fundamental right, but the systems that are in pace in most western countries does not mean that the people actually rule. We hand over our individual power to rule every election day, and in most representative democracies there is absolutely no mechanism in place to stop governments. Do you think that the majority of FF voters would have voted for the bail out given the chance? Do you think Labour voters in the UK voted for Blair to go to war? Or Bush voters in the US for that matter? Or that SPD voters in Germany voted for Schroeder to underwrite loans to Russia in the dying days of his reign, to then immediately be appointed to the board of Russia's Gazprom? Democracy is the best political system that exists, but the adaptations used in most countries do not remotely resemble "rule of the people".
And yes, someone not shopping at Tesco will not bring down the organisation, but their money will not find its way directly into their tills. And unless Tesco can get enough customers to willingly part with their money, they will not stay in existence for long, therein lies the difference.

Getting slightly back on topic. There was a guy on Frontline last night who stated that a return to the gold standard would answer all our problems. Chris there surely can't be two of you

Thanks for bringing this back on track. There must be a hidden movement going on ;-) I didn't see the program, but will look it up on RTE player, thanks.

 

[Complainer]

Maybe you could make more than claim that my statement is meaningless. I have stated that public services are not subject to the same forces that ensure organisations make best use of scarce resources, i.e. the profit and loss system. All you have stated is that this is somehow meaningless without giving any premise for such a conclusion.

Just to be clear, I fully agree with your statement that "public services are not subject to the same forces that ensure organisations make best use of scarce resources, i.e. the profit and loss system". That is indeed a matter of fact. My problem is that you draw some conclusion that public services should be less/smaller from this.

Of course public services are not measured by a P&L. The purpose of public services is not to make profit - the purpose is to provide a public service. Measuring public services by P&L is a bit like measuring the success of the Irish soccer team by the suduko completion rates of the players. It is an irrelevant measure.

No, that is not the case. It simply shows that when you have choice in service, and have full control over whether your money is spent on it, then the best service stays in business, while the worst fall to the wayside.

Unfortunately, this is fiction - probably for the same reason that you criticise democracy. Terrible businesses, large and small, survive and expand all the time. We see evidence of it every day.

For every complaint you come up with about Govt, I'll come up with a complaint about Eircom/NTL/my plumber/the local pub etc.

I agree that democracy is a fundamental right, but the systems that are in pace in most western countries does not mean that the people actually rule. We hand over our individual power to rule every election day, and in most representative democracies there is absolutely no mechanism in place to stop governments. Do you think that the majority of FF voters would have voted for the bail out given the chance? Do you think Labour voters in the UK voted for Blair to go to war? Or Bush voters in the US for that matter? Or that SPD voters in Germany voted for Schroeder to underwrite loans to Russia in the dying days of his reign, to then immediately be appointed to the board of Russia's Gazprom? Democracy is the best political system that exists, but the adaptations used in most countries do not remotely resemble "rule of the people".

You're correct, insofar as the people don't get to vote on every decision. Are you really suggesting that that would be a better system? Do you reckon that voters will be able to educate themselves on the options around every decision that is made very week about health/education/environment/defence/welfare/agriculture etc etc.

I know the US have some level of local voting on local propositions such as school policy - I haven't seen any evidence that this produces better outcomes.

So what's your alternative to the current policital system then?

 

[Chris]

Just to be clear, I fully agree with your statement that "public services are not subject to the same forces that ensure organisations make best use of scarce resources, i.e. the profit and loss system". That is indeed a matter of fact. My problem is that you draw some conclusion that public services should be less/smaller from this.

Of course public services are not measured by a P&L. The purpose of public services is not to make profit - the purpose is to provide a public service. Measuring public services by P&L is a bit like measuring the success of the Irish soccer team by the suduko completion rates of the players. It is an irrelevant measure.

I agree that the purpose of public services is not to make a profit. But the problem is that you cannot measure whether they are making efficient use of scarce resources. That is why providing publicly funded services constantly increases in price, when the exact opposite happens in the private sector. That is why publicly funded services should be reduced as much as is possible. Free market health and education systems work far better than state monopolised ones, and at a lower cost to the consumer. Take freedom to choose out of the hands of those using the service, and you will not get an efficient service.

Unfortunately, this is fiction - probably for the same reason that you criticise democracy. Terrible businesses, large and small, survive and expand all the time. We see evidence of it every day.

For every complaint you come up with about Govt, I'll come up with a complaint about Eircom/NTL/my plumber/the local pub etc.

Yes, I agree with you that there are lots of private companies in lots of different sectors that do not provide a good service. But that is only my subjective opinion. The only way those companies, including the ones you mention, can stay in business is if they can convince enough customers to willingly separate with their cash, or if they are subsidised by government. Private businesses constantly go bankrupt because either their products cost too much or the quality is not good enough. This is not the case with government services. Whether I do or don't like a service, I am paying for the running of it.
There is not a single private company that can reach into your pocket a take even one cent. The only organisation that can do that is government.

You're correct, insofar as the people don't get to vote on every decision. Are you really suggesting that that would be a better system? Do you reckon that voters will be able to educate themselves on the options around every decision that is made very week about health/education/environment/defence/welfare/agriculture etc etc.

I know the US have some level of local voting on local propositions such as school policy - I haven't seen any evidence that this produces better outcomes.

So what's your alternative to the current policital system then?

I am not suggesting that people should be voting on every decision made by government. What I am suggesting is that people have the ability to call a referendum on government decisions or on suggestions of their own, and this would definitely be a better system.
The US is not a very good example. Technically the individual states are the sovereign, not the Federal government. That means that individual state legislature cannot be overwritten by the people or local councils, so people do not have much more control than we do here.
Take a look at some of the suggestions of the practicalities of direct democracy here: [broken link removed]
It's a very simple solution, and would put a huge restraint on politicians. Would you not have loved an ability to restrain some of the FF actions of the last decade?

 

[Complainer]

I agree that the purpose of public services is not to make a profit. But the problem is that you cannot measure whether they are making efficient use of scarce resources. That is why providing publicly funded services constantly increases in price, when the exact opposite happens in the private sector. That is why publicly funded services should be reduced as much as is possible. Free market health and education systems work far better than state monopolised ones, and at a lower cost to the consumer. Take freedom to choose out of the hands of those using the service, and you will not get an efficient service.

Again, you can keep repeating it, Chris - but that doesn't make it true. Where is your evidence that public is always better than private? Are you comparing the full picture, and not just price? Are you comparing like-with-like, or are you comparing full-cover public hospitals with cherry-picking private hospitals?

Yes, I agree with you that there are lots of private companies in lots of different sectors that do not provide a good service. But that is only my subjective opinion.

So you don't believe your own subjective opinion, then?

This is not the case with government services. Whether I do or don't like a service, I am paying for the running of it.
There is not a single private company that can reach into your pocket a take even one cent. The only organisation that can do that is government.

That's quite true, and it's quite right too. The Govt provides these services because most people in Ireland want/need/expect Govt to provide these services. If you don't want this, you are in a minority.

There is not a single private company that can reach into your pocket a take even one cent. The only organisation that can do that is government.

Let me introduce you to my bank - Chris, meet NIB. NIB, meet Chris. NIB reach into my pocket and take my money regularly. And in other cases, 'choice' is just a myth, and the perfect free market is just a myth. See

I am not suggesting that people should be voting on every decision made by government. What I am suggesting is that people have the ability to call a referendum on government decisions or on suggestions of their own, and this would definitely be a better system.
The US is not a very good example. Technically the individual states are the sovereign, not the Federal government. That means that individual state legislature cannot be overwritten by the people or local councils, so people do not have much more control than we do here.
Take a look at some of the suggestions of the practicalities of direct democracy here: [broken link removed]
It's a very simple solution, and would put a huge restraint on politicians. Would you not have loved an ability to restrain some of the FF actions of the last decade?

It's certainly worth exploring these options, but based on what I've seen so far, it's not going to work. First of all, there are very simple practical problems - like how do you validate a set of 1,000 or 5,000 signatures? How do you know if they came from 5,000 people, or just 50 people?

The more principled problems are that it will encourage the worst kind of clientilism - their website boasts that they will be able to reverse closures of hospitals and schools. It's easy to have a referendum in Nenagh not to close Nenagh hospital. That doesn't make it the right thing to do for the country as a whole. It's easy to vote to keep open Nenagh hospital if you don't have to foot the bill, or if you don't have to be responsible for maintaining quality.

I can't see regular referenda working for the same reason. It's easy to object to NAMA or IMF, when you don't have to come up with the alternative.

 

[Chris]

Again, you can keep repeating it, Chris - but that doesn't make it true. Where is your evidence that public is always better than private? Are you comparing the full picture, and not just price? Are you comparing like-with-like, or are you comparing full-cover public hospitals with cherry-picking private hospitals?

Firstly, please give your reason why my statement is not true, rather than just claiming it is not true. I have repeatedly asked you for your reasons, but you have as of yet failed to give them.
Secondly, I think you got your words mixed up there. What I am saying is that a private free market system is always better than a government monopolised system. And I have provided endless examples of this, but here are the most relevant to remind you.
My evidence is in the Swiss health care system and the Swedish education system. Not perfect free markets, but a lot freer than the Irish monopolised versions.
Switzerland has both public and private acute hospitals that have to compete for the same patients (where everyone is private) and you can be damn sure that even the public hospitals are in a totally different league to Irish public hospitals. And it is not down to better funding, as the Swiss system costs less per person than the Irish one.
Sweden has an educational voucher system, where parents are free to choose whether they send their children to a public or private school, and have choice based on pedagogical approach and curriculum. The system also allows for anyone to open a school and offer their services and make a profit, resulting in a large increase in private schools and a decrease in public schools, and most importantly choice for parents.

So you don't believe your own subjective opinion, then?

Of course I believe my own subjective opinion, but I do not force it upon anyone else. And this is exactly what happens in your socialist world. Some higher political elite decide what is best for me, my family and fellow citizens, and then I have to pay for it whether I like it or not. You mentioned people fighting for democracy in an earlier post. What people actually fight for is freedom from oppression and liberty. Allowing elected governments to reign free in deciding what is best for people is not even remotely what people perceive to be liberty.
I think Ryan Air are not a good airline, and Eircom do not provide a good phone service. But millions of people disagree with me. And even if 10 million people agreed with me on Ryan Air, the company will stay in business if millions of other disagree. But my money will not fall into the pockets of Ryan Air. If others want to spend their money on what I perceive to be bad service then so be it. Far be it from me to tell people what they should spend their money on.

That's quite true, and it's quite right too. The Govt provides these services because most people in Ireland want/need/expect Govt to provide these services. If you don't want this, you are in a minority.

Now there is quite a leap you are making to say that the majority of people want all the services provided by government. People do not get to vote on what services government provides and they cannot even vote with their wallet, as the money has already been taken away. I also do not believe that I am in a minority, as people from all walks of life that I have talked to say that there is too much money wasted on government services that are not needed. But neither of us has proof of this and never will unless people got to vote for the existence of services.

Let me introduce you to my bank - Chris, meet NIB. NIB, meet Chris. NIB reach into my pocket and take my money regularly. And in other cases, 'choice' is just a myth, and the perfect free market is just a myth. See

NIB cannot take money out of your account unless you agree to it. If they charge for current account banking, then you have option to go to another bank that doesn't charge for this. If they charge you interest on a loan or mortgage, then it is because you agreed to the terms. It is simply a lie to say that any private company can take your money unless you have previously agreed to it happening. If they are doing so, then maybe you should go to the guards and report a theft.
As for the link to the other thread, NAMA paying over the odds for accountants is hardly argument against free markets. NAMA is a state body, and if they are paying over the odds then that is because they are not choosing a cheaper alternative.
Please explain how choice is a myth? Or the perfect free market? The only reason we do not have free markets and freedom of choice is because of government intervention in pretty much everything we do. But lets look at some areas of the economy where government interferes least, and I am dead serious with these examples.
1) Clothing: there are no regulations on what constitutes clothing, or what they should or shouldn't be made of, or how or where or by whom they are produced, shipped or sold. There is no regulation that states that clothing should not be poisonous or in other ways harm the user. Yet there is clothing for every budget and taste. How is this possible without government guidance?
2) Electronics: there is very little regulation on consumer electronics like computers, iPods, TVs, etc. There is nothing that states that certain materials may not be used, or what level of quality should be provided, or where and how the devices are made. And yet there is ubiquitous choice for every budget and preference, with prices constantly going down and quality constantly improving. How is this possible without government guidance?
3) Software and internet content: This is probably the freest area of the economy. There is nothing stopping anyone from creating software or web content of any quality and try and sell it. While there are quality standards available these are optional and governments do not force people to adhere to them. This has resulted in an endless supply of not only cheap, but often free, software and web content. How is this possible without government guidance?
4) Furniture: I'm not aware of any furniture regulations that command a certain quality or manufacturing process? Germany does have industrial tests that allow manufacturers do add a stamp on their products to show that it has passed, but they are completely optional. Again there is furniture for every budget and taste. How is this possible without government guidance?

Of course the standard argument will be that helath and education and social welfare cannot be compared to the above. But why would it suddenly be any different for health, education and social welfare if they were provided on a free market? There is no logical reason to argue that the free market would not provide as good a service in health care as it does in clothing or software. Quite the opposite is true, as there is evidence, as mentioned above, that free market forces achieve much better results than government monopolies, everywhere free markets are allowed to develop. I have failed to find examples of failed free/freer market education and health systems, but maybe you can provide some, since you are so opposed.

It's certainly worth exploring these options, but based on what I've seen so far, it's not going to work. First of all, there are very simple practical problems - like how do you validate a set of 1,000 or 5,000 signatures? How do you know if they came from 5,000 people, or just 50 people?

I don't know how the verification process works, but I'm sure Switzerland would be very obliging to give advice on how they have managed this dilemma.

The more principled problems are that it will encourage the worst kind of clientilism - their website boasts that they will be able to reverse closures of hospitals and schools. It's easy to have a referendum in Nenagh not to close Nenagh hospital. That doesn't make it the right thing to do for the country as a whole. It's easy to vote to keep open Nenagh hospital if you don't have to foot the bill, or if you don't have to be responsible for maintaining quality.

How do you think that it would result in clientelism? A relatively small group of people (1% of voters) would have the ability to call a referendum, but that doesn't mean that the majority of all people will actually vote the same way as those that proposed the referendum. And who other than the people should decide what is right for the country? Look where that kind of FF attitude has got the country, with especially the Brian's claiming they have always acted in the country's best interest. The only people that should decide what is best are the people themselves.

I can't see regular referenda working for the same reason. It's easy to object to NAMA or IMF, when you don't have to come up with the alternative.

How then has this system worked so well in Switzerland for the last 100 or 200 years? It doesn't result in a referendum on every decision made by government. The biggest advantage is that government have to make decisions that are most likely to not attract opposition by the people, and therefore forces them to act more in the interest of the people.

 

[Complainer]

Firstly, please give your reason why my statement is not true, rather than just claiming it is not true. I have repeatedly asked you for your reasons, but you have as of yet failed to give them.
Secondly, I think you got your words mixed up there. What I am saying is that a private free market system is always better than a government monopolised system. And I have provided endless examples of this, but here are the most relevant to remind you.
My evidence is in the Swiss health care system and the Swedish education system. Not perfect free markets, but a lot freer than the Irish monopolised versions.
Switzerland has both public and private acute hospitals that have to compete for the same patients (where everyone is private) and you can be damn sure that even the public hospitals are in a totally different league to Irish public hospitals. And it is not down to better funding, as the Swiss system costs less per person than the Irish one.
Sweden has an educational voucher system, where parents are free to choose whether they send their children to a public or private school, and have choice based on pedagogical approach and curriculum. The system also allows for anyone to open a school and offer their services and make a profit, resulting in a large increase in private schools and a decrease in public schools, and most importantly choice for parents.

We’re getting tied up in fairly pedantic nonsense here, Chris. You just keep repeating the same claims, with no substantial evidence. One or two anecdotal examples are not ‘evidence’. We don’t build public policy around ‘what my mate in Switzerland told me’. Evidence is thorough, is substantive, is broad and looks at overall costs and benefits. Your claim that “free market system is always better than a government monopolised system” is fairly laughable. I’m always suspicious of any claim that anything is ‘always better’. If you have any serious evidence, please do feel free to post it.

Of course I believe my own subjective opinion, but I do not force it upon anyone else. And this is exactly what happens in your socialist world. Some higher political elite decide what is best for me, my family and fellow citizens, and then I have to pay for it whether I like it or not. You mentioned people fighting for democracy in an earlier post. What people actually fight for is freedom from oppression and liberty. Allowing elected governments to reign free in deciding what is best for people is not even remotely what people perceive to be liberty.
I think Ryan Air are not a good airline, and Eircom do not provide a good phone service. But millions of people disagree with me. And even if 10 million people agreed with me on Ryan Air, the company will stay in business if millions of other disagree. But my money will not fall into the pockets of Ryan Air. If others want to spend their money on what I perceive to be bad service then so be it. Far be it from me to tell people what they should spend their money on.


Now there is quite a leap you are making to say that the majority of people want all the services provided by government. People do not get to vote on what services government provides and they cannot even vote with their wallet, as the money has already been taken away. I also do not believe that I am in a minority, as people from all walks of life that I have talked to say that there is too much money wasted on government services that are not needed. But neither of us has proof of this and never will unless people got to vote for the existence of services
.

Climb down off that high horse there, Chris. You are absolutely seeking to impose your own idealogical position on a country that has shown absolutely no appetite for your idealogical position. The closest political party to your view was the PDs, and we all know what happened to them. The fact that no other party has emerged with anything close to your view is a fairly clear indication that few people support your view. If you think otherwise, off you go and start up Chris’s party ot the ‘Freedom’ party. You could even hook up with those lovely UKIP folk, and hold your annual conferences in a (privatised) phone box somewhere.

NIB cannot take money out of your account unless you agree to it. If they charge for current account banking, then you have option to go to another bank that doesn't charge for this. If they charge you interest on a loan or mortgage, then it is because you agreed to the terms. It is simply a lie to say that any private company can take your money unless you have previously agreed to it happening. If they are doing so, then maybe you should go to the guards and report a theft.
As for the link to the other thread, NAMA paying over the odds for accountants is hardly argument against free markets. NAMA is a state body, and if they are paying over the odds then that is because they are not choosing a cheaper alternative.

Perhaps you missed the news of banking scandals from all the major banks over the past decade or so, from my friends in NIB loading illegal charges, to AIB’s illegal FX rate calculations etc etc. They guys can and do dip their hands in customers pockets.

Your simplistic analysis of the NAMA issue is not supported by others on the thread. Those close to the industry know that it is effectively a cartel of a small number of large organisations.

. But lets look at some areas of the economy where government interferes least, and I am dead serious with these examples.
1) Clothing: there are no regulations on what constitutes clothing, or what they should or shouldn't be made of, or how or where or by whom they are produced, shipped or sold. There is no regulation that states that clothing should not be poisonous or in other ways harm the user. Yet there is clothing for every budget and taste. How is this possible without government guidance?
2) Electronics: there is very little regulation on consumer electronics like computers, iPods, TVs, etc. There is nothing that states that certain materials may not be used, or what level of quality should be provided, or where and how the devices are made. And yet there is ubiquitous choice for every budget and preference, with prices constantly going down and quality constantly improving. How is this possible without government guidance?
3) Software and internet content: This is probably the freest area of the economy. There is nothing stopping anyone from creating software or web content of any quality and try and sell it. While there are quality standards available these are optional and governments do not force people to adhere to them. This has resulted in an endless supply of not only cheap, but often free, software and web content. How is this possible without government guidance?
4) Furniture: I'm not aware of any furniture regulations that command a certain quality or manufacturing process? Germany does have industrial tests that allow manufacturers do add a stamp on their products to show that it has passed, but they are completely optional. Again there is furniture for every budget and taste. How is this possible without government guidance?

Chris, this post demonstrates tremendous ignorance of the real world. Have you ever heard of fire safety regulations re clothing and furniture? Have you ever heard of consumer law about ‘fit for purpose’? Have you ever heard about Equality law that prevents discrimination of web services against people with disabilities? There is a whole raft of Government services that work to protect consumers? How many children were burnt with flammable clothing? How many houses and families were burnt with flammable furniture?

Of course the standard argument will be that helath and education and social welfare cannot be compared to the above. But why would it suddenly be any different for health, education and social welfare if they were provided on a free market? There is no logical reason to argue that the free market would not provide as good a service in health care as it does in clothing or software. Quite the opposite is true, as there is evidence, as mentioned above, that free market forces achieve much better results than government monopolies, everywhere free markets are allowed to develop. I have failed to find examples of failed free/freer market education and health systems, but maybe you can provide some, since you are so opposed.

Yet again, it might help if you stop spouting theoretical, idealogical nonsense and start showing some real, thorough, comprehensive evidence that supports your view, if you can find some.

I don't know how the verification process works, but I'm sure Switzerland would be very obliging to give advice on how they have managed this dilemma.


How do you think that it would result in clientelism? A relatively small group of people (1% of voters) would have the ability to call a referendum, but that doesn't mean that the majority of all people will actually vote the same way as those that proposed the referendum. And who other than the people should decide what is right for the country? Look where that kind of FF attitude has got the country, with especially the Brian's claiming they have always acted in the country's best interest. The only people that should decide what is best are the people themselves.


How then has this system worked so well in Switzerland for the last 100 or 200 years? It doesn't result in a referendum on every decision made by government. The biggest advantage is that government have to make decisions that are most likely to not attract opposition by the people, and therefore forces them to act more in the interest of the people.

This is exactly the kind of nonsense we got with the eVoting debacle – other countries do it, so it must be right, and we’re the fools for not doing it. That debacle cost us €60m. If you can’t explain;
1)[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]how to protect against fraud in gathering signatures?
2)[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]how to protect against nimbyism and clientelism?

Then really you should just stop talking. The FF argument is not an argument for throwing out our political system. It is a great argument for throwing out FF. If a staff member screws up, you don’t have reorganise the entire organisation. You move/fire/promote/demote that staff member, and replace him with someone that can do the job.

 

[Chris]

We’re getting tied up in fairly pedantic nonsense here, Chris. You just keep repeating the same claims, with no substantial evidence. One or two anecdotal examples are not ‘evidence’. We don’t build public policy around ‘what my mate in Switzerland told me’. Evidence is thorough, is substantive, is broad and looks at overall costs and benefits. Your claim that “free market system is always better than a government monopolised system” is fairly laughable. I’m always suspicious of any claim that anything is ‘always better’. If you have any serious evidence, please do feel free to post it.

How is it being pedantic? On endless occasions I have provided proof that the Swiss pay less for a better health system, based on private health insurance, than people in Ireland do. But you choose to ignore this and belittle it as lacking in evidence or thoroughness.
I repeat my question again: If you believe my opinion to be wrong then you must have some logical explanation for it. What is that explanation?

Climb down off that high horse there, Chris. You are absolutely seeking to impose your own idealogical position on a country that has shown absolutely no appetite for your idealogical position. The closest political party to your view was the PDs, and we all know what happened to them. The fact that no other party has emerged with anything close to your view is a fairly clear indication that few people support your view. If you think otherwise, off you go and start up Chris’s party ot the ‘Freedom’ party. You could even hook up with those lovely UKIP folk, and hold your annual conferences in a (privatised) phone box somewhere.

High horse?!? You are the one claiming that free markets are a myth and have failed us, when we haven't had anything even remotely resembling free markets. And you do not provide any explanation for this claim. How does that put me on a high horse?
You also have nothing to support your claim that people in this country want all the public services that are being forced upon us. Take a look at last week's polls in the Examiner, where the majority of respondents wanted government spending cuts over taxation. That does not exactly support your claim that people are willing to fork out all the taxes they pay for the services you claim they so desperately want.
And you really need to educate yourself on even the most basic ideas behind libertarianism before you start attacking my views. The PDs were as much aligned with libertarians as the Labour part is.

Perhaps you missed the news of banking scandals from all the major banks over the past decade or so, from my friends in NIB loading illegal charges, to AIB’s illegal FX rate calculations etc etc. They guys can and do dip their hands in customers pockets.

Your simplistic analysis of the NAMA issue is not supported by others on the thread. Those close to the industry know that it is effectively a cartel of a small number of large organisations.

Yes banks have over charged customers in the past, but have they not had to pay it back? And if they weren't prosecuted for doing so then it is because of government cronyism and not the failure of free markets.
I agree with you on NAMA in that it is a cartel. But the only reason it exists in the first place is because it was created by politicians. What NAMA pays for services and what it will end up costing the taxpayer has absolutely nothing to do with free markets.

Chris, this post demonstrates tremendous ignorance of the real world. Have you ever heard of fire safety regulations re clothing and furniture? Have you ever heard of consumer law about ‘fit for purpose’? Have you ever heard about Equality law that prevents discrimination of web services against people with disabilities?

Maybe you could provide some links to those clothing and furniture regulations. I have not been able to find any such regulations, which of course doesn't mean they don't exist.
You claim that there is a law that actually prevents discrimination of web services? There are some guidelines in existence, but these are very rarely applied or even enforced. But even when companies decide to apply these guidelines, the cost of doing so is not prohibitive.
This makes my examples still examples of little or no government interference. So my point still stands, that the less government interference there is, i.e. the freer the market environment, the better the results for the consumer.

There is a whole raft of Government services that work to protect consumers?

Yes, I never said there wasn't. What I said was that in the examples mentioned there is very little, if any, government intervention or regulation.

How many children were burnt with flammable clothing? How many houses and families were burnt with flammable furniture?

You tell me, but I imagine the number is extremely low to none, where the cause of injury or death was the clothing or furniture itself.

Yet again, it might help if you stop spouting theoretical, idealogical nonsense and start showing some real, thorough, comprehensive evidence that supports your view, if you can find some.

Education: http://www.civitas.org.uk/pdf/SwedishLessons.pdf
Health care: Take a look at the German and Swiss health care system for concrete evidence of how successful private health insurance systems are.
But again you completely ignore the point being made. Private and almost free markets provide a huge number of products for every budget and taste. Why would this suddenly not be the case for health care, education and social welfare? What would suddenly make the private economy turn on its heel and not do the same thing as it does for clothing, electronics, furniture and even food?

This is exactly the kind of nonsense we got with the eVoting debacle – other countries do it, so it must be right, and we’re the fools for not doing it. That debacle cost us €60m. If you can’t explain;
1)[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]how to protect against fraud in gathering signatures?
2)[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]how to protect against nimbyism and clientelism?

It just so happens that someone has put together an entire book with essays about the topic:
[broken link removed]
As for the e-voting machines, I agree that it was total shambles and a perfect example of political incompetence. But that does not make e-voting per se a bad idea.

Then really you should just stop talking. The FF argument is not an argument for throwing out our political system. It is a great argument for throwing out FF. If a staff member screws up, you don’t have reorganise the entire organisation. You move/fire/promote/demote that staff member, and replace him with someone that can do the job.

This country's political system is rotten to the core, not just the politicians that have been in power. But you seem to be content with politicians running the country as best suits them and not the people. Do you not think that mechanisms should be in place to control politician's actions after they have been elected? The move/fire/promote/demote idea is all well and good, but when it comes to politicians in power, there is nothing stopping their actions between elections.
And before you shoot down a system like direct democracy, maybe you should spend just a little time researching it and its viability.

 

[Complainer]

How is it being pedantic? On endless occasions I have provided proof that the Swiss pay less for a better health system, based on private health insurance, than people in Ireland do. But you choose to ignore this and belittle it as lacking in evidence or thoroughness.
I repeat my question again: If you believe my opinion to be wrong then you must have some logical explanation for it. What is that explanation?

Chris, your ‘proof’ is one story about one procedure for one friend. I really don’t think we should be setting national policy based on the flimsiest of anecdotal evidence.

You also have nothing to support your claim that people in this country want all the public services that are being forced upon us. Take a look at last week's polls in the Examiner, where the majority of respondents wanted government spending cuts over taxation. That does not exactly support your claim that people are willing to fork out all the taxes they pay for the services you claim they so desperately want.
And you really need to educate yourself on even the most basic ideas behind libertarianism before you start attacking my views. The PDs were as much aligned with libertarians as the Labour part is.

What I said about the PDs is that they were the closest political party to your line – are you really disputing this?

Nothing to support my claim that people want basic public services? Come on, Chris. Have you looked at Irish electoral results over the past 50 years? The fact that no party exists that follows your theoretical nonsense about the perfect free market economy is a pretty good indication that people just don’t swallow it. In fact, doesn’t your ‘free market economy’ theory actually prove that no-one is interested – because if they were, the party to provide this approach would exist and be in power?

Yes banks have over charged customers in the past, but have they not had to pay it back? And if they weren't prosecuted for doing so then it is because of government cronyism and not the failure of free markets.
I agree with you on NAMA in that it is a cartel. But the only reason it exists in the first place is because it was created by politicians. What NAMA pays for services and what it will end up costing the taxpayer has absolutely nothing to do with free markets.

The problem isn’t with NAMA, Chris – the problem is with the cartel in the market for legal and financial services to NAMA – Where is your perfect free market there?

Maybe you could provide some links to those clothing and furniture regulations. I have not been able to find any such regulations, which of course doesn't mean they don't exist.
You claim that there is a law that actually prevents discrimination of web services? There are some guidelines in existence, but these are very rarely applied or even enforced. But even when companies decide to apply these guidelines, the cost of doing so is not prohibitive.
This makes my examples still examples of little or no government interference. So my point still stands, that the less government interference there is, i.e. the freer the market environment, the better the results for the consumer.


Yes, I never said there wasn't. What I said was that in the examples mentioned there is very little, if any, government intervention or regulation.


You tell me, but I imagine the number is extremely low to none, where the cause of injury or death was the clothing or furniture itself.

No Chris, life’s just a bit too short for me to go digging out clothing and furniture regulations for you.

Education: http://www.civitas.org.uk/pdf/SwedishLessons.pdf
Health care: Take a look at the German and Swiss health care system for concrete evidence of how successful private health insurance systems are.
But again you completely ignore the point being made. Private and almost free markets provide a huge number of products for every budget and taste. Why would this suddenly not be the case for health care, education and social welfare? What would suddenly make the private economy turn on its heel and not do the same thing as it does for clothing, electronics, furniture and even food?

Chris, I’m sure you’re an intelligent guy – so I’m sure that when you think about it, you can see that health care is just a bit different to food/furniture/clothing. When you need health care, you really, really need it. It’s often not a ‘nice to have’ option. When you need health care, the costs of any individual’s health care will often greatly exceed the resources of that person – that’s why basic health care services for all are a fundamental requirement of any civilised society. Insurance does not solve this problem either – look at the USA where (before Obama) decent healthcare was the preserve of the middle/upper classes. The market isn’t providing healthcare for the nannies, and the cleaners and the waitresses and the Walmart greeters.

I’m sure that when you think about it, you will also see that education is just a bit different to food/furniture/clothing. If you don’t get decent education, you won’t have access to food/furniture/clothing, and you won’t be able to provide decent education for your children. It’s a vicious circle.

It just so happens that someone has put together an entire book with essays about the topic:
[broken link removed]
As for the e-voting machines, I agree that it was total shambles and a perfect example of political incompetence. But that does not make e-voting per se a bad idea.

.

That’s nice – a book of essays. Just what I wanted for Xmas. What a pity they used the absolutely dreadful, painful issuu.com facility to create a barrier between me and the information I need, but that’s a side issue. Really, I wasn’t looking for a book of essays. I was looking for you, the proposer of the idea to answer a few basic questions. It seems that you really don’t know enough about this idea to stand over it at all.

It’s not that I don’t see any possible benefits or improvements through ‘direct democracy’ Chris, but I really don’t think you’re doing a great job at selling this idea. You’ll need to up your game a bit if you want to progress this.

 

[Chris]

Chris, your ‘proof’ is one story about one procedure for one friend. I really don’t think we should be setting national policy based on the flimsiest of anecdotal evidence.

No it is not. I have posted many times comparing the cost of the Irish system with the Swiss system. The Swiss private health care system costs less to the public while providing a lot more to patients. I merely backed this up by the experience of a friend, but you seem to be selectively making reference to my posts. Bottom line is that physically and mentally ill people in Switzerland get a better service at a lower cost than people in Ireland.

What I said about the PDs is that they were the closest political party to your line – are you really disputing this?

Yes, I understand what you said, but it is still not correct. The PDs used political power to benefit their selected group of people. This is as much government interventionism as socialist policies are, with the only difference being who benefits at the expense of another group of people. Any form of government interventionism is diametrically opposite to libertarianism, which means the PDs did not even come close to my opinions.

Nothing to support my claim that people want basic public services? Come on, Chris. Have you looked at Irish electoral results over the past 50 years? The fact that no party exists that follows your theoretical nonsense about the perfect free market economy is a pretty good indication that people just don’t swallow it. In fact, doesn’t your ‘free market economy’ theory actually prove that no-one is interested – because if they were, the party to provide this approach would exist and be in power?

Calling my economic beliefs theoretical nonsense is merely exposing your total and utter lack of economic knowledge. Despite this lack of knowledge I am sure you have heard of the industrial revolution. Free markets and hard currencies with little to no government interference propelled the western world out of almost universal poverty. And the economic growth went on for about 150 years at a very sustainable and constant level. Bar the civil war years, the USA didn't even have income tax on any income until 1913. But economic growth from the late 1800s to the start of the 1900s was constant and sustainable.
After WW2 Germany's Ludwig Erhard put an immediate end to price and wage control and made endless changes to German policy that made markets extremely free. At the same time the SPD said that this would never work, would lead to poverty and a crippling of the economy. The very opposite happened and Germany became an economic "miracle", until it was ended by Helmut Schmidt's socialist reign in the 70s.
Hong Kong in the 50s was a shanty town. Free market capitalism with almost no taxation created one of the wealthiest places on earth. To this day it has no VAT, no capital gains tax and no inheritance tax.
If you want I can put together a list of failed attempts at socialism and economic planning and control?
Free market capitalism, with little interference from government, has always succeeded. At the same time the more planning and control of economic activity has been attempted under socialist policies the bigger the failure has been.

So please do not call my economic beliefs theoretical nonsense when you so obviously know nothing about free market capitalism and economics.

The problem isn’t with NAMA, Chris – the problem is with the cartel in the market for legal and financial services to NAMA – Where is your perfect free market there?

I absolutely agree that the entire financial market is a cartel. It is the worst example of cronyism, and has absolutely nothing in common with free market capitalism. But as you can see with the examples I provided, the less government interference exists in an industry, i.e. the freer the market, the more competition, the lower prices are driven, the more freedom of choice to the consumer and the higher the availability of the products.

No Chris, life’s just a bit too short for me to go digging out clothing and furniture regulations for you.

Now you are really being a hypocrite. Within the same post you fail to provide evidence of your own claim, while at the same time accusing me of not making a good point because I linked to a collection of essays. But I have found this hypocrisy in your posts on a regular basis, so I shouldn't really be surprised.
But anyway, I did some google searching and found precisely nothing. Anticipating that you wouldn't come up with evidence of these mythical regulations I decided to ask a tailor yesterday evening when I collected a suit that needed alteration. He looked at me as if I had two heads when I asked him if there was regulation stating what, where, how, and with what material he could make clothes. Not to make a final decision on that, I was stuck in a high street clothes shop waiting for my wife, and decided to ask the manager about clothing regulations. In 20 years of clothing retail she had never heard of such regulations.
So rather than make statements like "this post demonstrates tremendous ignorance of the real world" you should maybe make a serious assessment of your own ignorance before making such sweeping statements.

Chris, I’m sure you’re an intelligent guy – so I’m sure that when you think about it, you can see that health care is just a bit different to food/furniture/clothing. When you need health care, you really, really need it. It’s often not a ‘nice to have’ option. When you need health care, the costs of any individual’s health care will often greatly exceed the resources of that person – that’s why basic health care services for all are a fundamental requirement of any civilised society. Insurance does not solve this problem either – look at the USA where (before Obama) decent healthcare was the preserve of the middle/upper classes. The market isn’t providing healthcare for the nannies, and the cleaners and the waitresses and the Walmart greeters.

I do not disagree with health care being important. But the fact of the matter is that the freer a market the lower prices are driven which is to the benefit of the patient. At the same time, government monopolised services' prices only go in one direction and that is up. When something constantly costs the state more, it means that more taxes have to be raised which come out of the pockets of everyone including those that can least afford it.
The USA health service is also a perfect example of government interference, and not of a free market system.

I’m sure that when you think about it, you will also see that education is just a bit different to food/furniture/clothing. If you don’t get decent education, you won’t have access to food/furniture/clothing, and you won’t be able to provide decent education for your children. It’s a vicious circle.

Different yes, but not in a way that warrants government monopoly. How do you jump to the conclusion that the free market would not provide education at a price affordable to everyone? Where is the logical premise for this, when everything else provided by relatively free markets is available in abundance and at a price for every budget? Why would this suddenly be different with education and health care? If there was a logical reason to assume this to be the case, then Sweden would not have had such success when it changed its education system.

That’s nice – a book of essays. Just what I wanted for Xmas. What a pity they used the absolutely dreadful, painful issuu.com facility to create a barrier between me and the information I need, but that’s a side issue. Really, I wasn’t looking for a book of essays. I was looking for you, the proposer of the idea to answer a few basic questions. It seems that you really don’t know enough about this idea to stand over it at all.

It’s not that I don’t see any possible benefits or improvements through ‘direct democracy’ Chris, but I really don’t think you’re doing a great job at selling this idea. You’ll need to up your game a bit if you want to progress this.

As I already mention, your hypocrisy is truly staggering. Did you ever heed your own advise in the thread where you pointed at a book on income inequality, which wasn't even available for free download? If memory serves me right you ignored lots of calls from different people to even make one point from the book.

 

[Complainer]

You win, Chris - I give up. Life's just far too precious to carry out this nonsense superficial debate. You are convinced there are no clothing safety regulations in existence, because you asked a girl in a shop. (Hint: Try [broken link removed] or [broken link removed] or http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/safety/prod_legis/index_en.htm or http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:019:0029:0048:EN:PDF). You are convinced that the Swiss system is perfect, because your mate had a good experience, and yet you fail to look at outcomes, or quality, or patient satisfaction, or total systemic costs. You are convinced that everything any Govt does is terrible/wasteful and everything the private sector does is beautiful/valuable. You pick and choose selective bits of economic history to 'prove' your point, while ignoring the bits you don't like (such as the US 'golden period of economic boom in the post-war era where income tax rates were 80%-90%+ for high earners). You propose Swiss 'direct democracy', yet you can't answer a simple question like how do they prevent fraudulent signatures.

Sorry Chris, but this isn't a sensible debate. I'll leave you to it.

 

[frankmac]

Are you off again today Complainer?

 

[Chris]

You win, Chris - I give up. Life's just far too precious to carry out this nonsense superficial debate. You are convinced there are no clothing safety regulations in existence, because you asked a girl in a shop. (Hint: Try [broken link removed] or [broken link removed] or http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/safety/prod_legis/index_en.htm or http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:019:0029:0048:EN:PDF).

You should read some those links you post. The first two and fourth are voluntary directives, not regulations, and the third is a general consumer product safety directive. Not one mandatory regulation or regulatory body that runs around creating red tape and a bureaucratic nightmare for businesses.
And the woman in the shop was not just some girl, but had been a clothing retail manager for 20 years, but of course you selectively ignore this point.

You are convinced that the Swiss system is perfect, because your mate had a good experience, and yet you fail to look at outcomes, or quality, or patient satisfaction, or total systemic costs.

Yes I am, and as I have state repeatedly, my friends experience was merely a personal confirmation of all the articles available that confirm that the Swiss system provides more at a lower cost. I really do not know how many more times I have to say this for you to actually acknowledge it: I am not basing my opinion on the experience of one person.

You are convinced that everything any Govt does is terrible/wasteful and everything the private sector does is beautiful/valuable.

Again you are misrepresenting my opinion. You constantly make the mistake of equating private free markets with those markets heavily interfered with by government. I have demonstrated over and over that those markets that are the most free from government intervention are those that produce the best products with abundant availability for every budget.

You pick and choose selective bits of economic history to 'prove' your point, while ignoring the bits you don't like (such as the US 'golden period of economic boom in the post-war era where income tax rates were 80%-90%+ for high earners).

You should do yourself a very big favour and educate yourself on economic history. I did not pick and choose, and I certainly did not ignore bits I didn't like. Here is a quick run down of what actually happened.
The post war boom years in the US were the result of abandoning Keynesian socialist policies of the New Deal. The Federal budget was cut by over 50%, federal debts were reduced and the marginal tax rate fell as well as the amount of income affected by the marginal rate. The federal budget did increase again in the early 50s, but this was a result of higher economic activity while at the same time balancing budgets.
So it is safe to say that it is you who is looking at tax rates after WW2 in isolation of what they were before to somehow bend economic history to fit into the idea that socialist policies can actually work. The post war, post Marshall Plan era in the US and Germany are perfect examples of how less government results in economic boom and increased wealth for everyone.

You propose Swiss 'direct democracy', yet you can't answer a simple question like how do they prevent fraudulent signatures.

Interesting short article here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11791272
It doesn't state how in detail the process works in Holland, other than stating a spot check, but the problem of fraudulent signatures does seem to be addressed enough for the Dutch to be happy with the system.
More info here:
http://aceproject.org/ace-en/topics/es/ese/ese08/onePage

And just to clarify, laws are not passed based on signatures, signatures can merely lead to the proposal of a referendum; a regular vote is held on the referendum.

Sorry Chris, but this isn't a sensible debate. I'll leave you to it.

I agree that this is not a sensible debate because you repeatedly cherry pick content from my posts and completely ignore any questions raised.
The one you have repeatedly ignored most is my question why, when those markets that are freest, like clothing and electronics, work so well, it would suddenly not work for education and healthcare? I don't expect an answer, as it is one that I have not been able to get an answer for from any socialists I have discussed this with.