4 ms·

You mean what they enacted in the last week? I don't think a few days of slightly-reduced taxes is going to move the needle

fzeroracer 4y ago
No, what they've been enacting over the past few decades with the continued move towards privatization and destruction of public services. Like they've been doing what you've suggested for decades now. The 'downward spiral' you call out is because they're following your plans to a T. Cutting taxes and regulation, privatizing industries etc. So to reiterate my question: At what point would you have to call that off and write off the privatization as a failure? Or would you keep going until you hit absolute rock bottom, then call any upward momentum a success?
- seibelj 4y ago
  The NHS is a disaster and the reason isn't because of "privatization" - it's because on average people don't want to work a job where they need to be a saint. Highly skilled doctors and nurses get paid more, get respected more, and have more agency working outside of government-run agencies. Average people who enjoy cushy, do-nothing government jobs love it when government expands, but unfortunately the work product produced is shoddy, net-negative to the economy, and lights money on fire. The solution is more privatization, not less. The UK needs to do everything it possibly can to help entrepreneurs - let all the Hong Kong exiles in to start new businesses and move their capital in. Free trade agreements with the US but ultimately as many countries as possible. You can look to Venezuela and Argentina for the alternative.
  - fzeroracer 4y ago
    Right so we've established then that there will never be a point where too much privatization becomes an issue in your argument. If something fails then it's because it wasn't private enough. At least that's what I assume since you continue to fail to answer my question. And you saying the NHS is a failure because it's not private enough is absurd, because there are plenty of private health institutions throughout the world that don't have this issue. It's almost like the NHS has been slowly being strangled through the way classical privatization works: Remove funding, make it worse over time so that the populace things privatization works better and then gut it and replace.
  - DanBC 4y ago
    > The NHS is a disaster and the reason isn't because of "privatization" You're in luck. Current UK government believes in privatisation of public services, massive tax cuts, and funding those tax cuts by massive cuts in public spending. They've released one mini-budget, and that was so bad they crashed the UK economy. The pound is at the lowest it's been in decades; the Bank of England is taking emergency measures to try to stabilise the economy Almost everyone describes this as a disaster, and even traditionally right wing fiscal sources are saying we need to adequately fund public services and those need to be paid for by some kind of taxation. There's a reason you don't hear much about purely private healthcare: where ever it's tried it fails. In England we have private provision of private services, and these serve a very narrow niche where people are either treated for minor things, or treatment is begun and then they're discharged back to the NHS when their money runs out; we also have private provision of NHS services and that fails because they can't provide the service for the money available or because they're just terrible (see countless CQC reports).

fzeroracer 4y ago

No, what they've been enacting over the past few decades with the continued move towards privatization and destruction of public services. Like they've been doing what you've suggested for decades now. The 'downward spiral' you call out is because they're following your plans to a T. Cutting taxes and regulation, privatizing industries etc. So to reiterate my question: At what point would you have to call that off and write off the privatization as a failure? Or would you keep going until you hit absolute rock bottom, then call any upward momentum a success?

seibelj 4y ago
The NHS is a disaster and the reason isn't because of "privatization" - it's because on average people don't want to work a job where they need to be a saint. Highly skilled doctors and nurses get paid more, get respected more, and have more agency working outside of government-run agencies. Average people who enjoy cushy, do-nothing government jobs love it when government expands, but unfortunately the work product produced is shoddy, net-negative to the economy, and lights money on fire. The solution is more privatization, not less. The UK needs to do everything it possibly can to help entrepreneurs - let all the Hong Kong exiles in to start new businesses and move their capital in. Free trade agreements with the US but ultimately as many countries as possible. You can look to Venezuela and Argentina for the alternative.
- fzeroracer 4y ago
  Right so we've established then that there will never be a point where too much privatization becomes an issue in your argument. If something fails then it's because it wasn't private enough. At least that's what I assume since you continue to fail to answer my question. And you saying the NHS is a failure because it's not private enough is absurd, because there are plenty of private health institutions throughout the world that don't have this issue. It's almost like the NHS has been slowly being strangled through the way classical privatization works: Remove funding, make it worse over time so that the populace things privatization works better and then gut it and replace.
- DanBC 4y ago
  > The NHS is a disaster and the reason isn't because of "privatization" You're in luck. Current UK government believes in privatisation of public services, massive tax cuts, and funding those tax cuts by massive cuts in public spending. They've released one mini-budget, and that was so bad they crashed the UK economy. The pound is at the lowest it's been in decades; the Bank of England is taking emergency measures to try to stabilise the economy Almost everyone describes this as a disaster, and even traditionally right wing fiscal sources are saying we need to adequately fund public services and those need to be paid for by some kind of taxation. There's a reason you don't hear much about purely private healthcare: where ever it's tried it fails. In England we have private provision of private services, and these serve a very narrow niche where people are either treated for minor things, or treatment is begun and then they're discharged back to the NHS when their money runs out; we also have private provision of NHS services and that fails because they can't provide the service for the money available or because they're just terrible (see countless CQC reports).