Politics, politics, politics (so long and thanks for all the fish)

[Batspur]

Great work and doesn't mess about.

Poverty levels have risen to over 50% Thats worse than the majority of Africa. Well done Javier! He’s really owning those libtards. Mainly by starving them to death but a wins a win hey?

A year into Javier Milei’s presidency, Argentina’s poverty hits a new high

In Argentina, the poverty rate has surpassed 50 percent in the wake of wide-ranging austerity measures and deregulation.

www.aljazeera.com

For nearly 40 years, Argentina’s poverty level had consistently hovered above 25 percent. But since the far-right Milei took office on December 10, 2023, that figure has skyrocketed.

Over the last year, the poverty rate reached nearly 53 percent.

 

[Rorschach]

I'm not sure you can blame the guy who is reducing inflation for that.

He's doing all the right things, but there's a lot of brick to correct.

Is he? I think the jury is very much out on this. Higher unemployment, soaring poverty levels and austerity measures that would make a tory wince seems to be the approach (no wonder you approve). Making it so no one can buy stuff might help reduce inflation but whether it is a long term fix for the country's ills remains to be seen.

 

[scaramanga]

Is he? I think the jury is very much out on this. Higher unemployment, soaring poverty levels and austerity measures that would make a tory wince seems to be the approach (no wonder you approve). Making it so no one can buy stuff might help reduce inflation but whether it is a long term fix for the country's ills remains to be seen.

Unemployment and poverty were already soaring before he started. I'm not sure there's much that can be done in the short term to turn that around.

He might have directly increased unemployment in pointless civil service jobs, but that's to be commended.

 

[Rorschach]

Unemployment and poverty were already soaring before he started. I'm not sure there's much that can be done in the short term to turn that around.

He might have directly increased unemployment in pointless civil service jobs, but that's to be

He's made all of these significantly worse though. This slash-and-burn approach may work out longer term, I have no idea if it will really, and I don't think anyone else does either. However, I'm impressed you know off the top of your head all the jobs in the Argentinian government that were no longer needed. You truly do know your stuff.

 

[scaramanga]

He's made all of these significantly worse though. This slash-and-burn approach may work out longer term, I have no idea if it will really, and I don't think anyone else does either. However, I'm impressed you know off the top of your head all the jobs in the Argentinian government that were no longer needed. You truly do know your stuff.

All govt jobs are not needed!

Realistically it's impossible to get to zero govt jobs. But best to aim for that and get as close as one can.

 

[thfcsteff]

All govt jobs are not needed!

Realistically it's impossible to get to zero govt jobs. But best to aim for that and get as close as one can.

A pathetic comment.

 

[Silly McSilly Face]

I think a mixed market economy is healthy. Public sector jobs tend to offer greater security and potentially anchor the economy. However, I think the current size of the British state is bloated following the pandemic and isn't currently offering value for money. Increases in investment are currently being eaten up in pay deals and not being spent on innovation, efficiency or improving services.

 

[scaramanga]

A pathetic comment.

How else can one know that all excess has been culled?

Aim to cull it all and gently wind back on the parts the private sector can't provide. I bet you'd be surprised at how much the private sector can and would do.

 

[Grays_1890]

How else can one know that all excess has been culled?

Aim to cull it all and gently wind back on the parts the private sector can't provide. I bet you'd be surprised at how much the private sector can and would do.

There has to be a balance to that, I would much prefer to have a public sector run like the private sector than offloading it or contracting it out for triple the cost when it can be improved by culling the deadweight and improving the quality by raising wages in the public sector.

There are some great people in the public sector, I have comes across many in my time working on government projects, the issue is they are being pulled down by bad workers and ironically private sector interference and poor contracts.

 

[LutonSpurs]

Public sector employment as a share of total employment

Workers employed in central and sub-national government and public enterprises as a percentage of all workers.

ourworldindata.org

 

[Gutter Boy]

I think a mixed market economy is healthy. Public sector jobs tend to offer greater security and potentially anchor the economy. However, I think the current size of the British state is bloated following the pandemic and isn't currently offering value for money. Increases in investment are currently being eaten up in pay deals and not being spent on innovation, efficiency or improving services.

We are the only country in the world that has privatised water. Half our schools are now privatised (academies). A lot of health care is now. In terms of balance, we are probably the most over-privatised country in the world after Singapore and America.

We need to bring the core things - health, education, transport, energy and water all back public. The fact that American pension firms own our rain is just ridiculous.

A public sector isn't about costs. It's about assets too. Thatcher gave them all away, that's why the public sector feels expensive. But take them back and cut out the eye-bleeding profit that is being taken out, and everything suddenly becomes affordable.

 

[LutonSpurs]

Public sector employment as a share of total employment

Workers employed in central and sub-national government and public enterprises as a percentage of all workers.

ourworldindata.org

I think we can ascertain that we are not heavily laden with public ownership. To look at the countries above us in public ownership it is clearly not an indicator of successful economies. It is always more about competent people at the top which we lacked for the last 14 years.

 

[Silly McSilly Face]

We are the only country in the world that has privatised water. Half our schools are now privatised (academies). A lot of health care is now. In terms of balance, we are probably the most over-privatised country in the world after Singapore and America.

We need to bring the core things - health, education, transport, energy and water all back public. The fact that American pension firms own our rain is just ridiculous.

A public sector isn't about costs. It's about assets too. Thatcher gave them all away, that's why the public sector feels expensive. But take them back and cut out the eye-bleeding profit that is being taken out, and everything suddenly becomes affordable.

What are these assets that are privatised? I think you're confused as to what privatisation actually meant for these industries. Take rail for example. The infrastructure is publically owned and operated. The trains are leased and operated by some private companies. Trains are like cars: depreciating assets that require replacement every few years to keep the network modern and in the meantime require constant maintenance. I.e. they're an expensive cost sink. When the railways were public, and rail investment was competing for funding with the NHS etc. what we ended up with is lots of 1950s and 60s built cattle trains being kept going into the 80s and 90s as "they'll have to do". Privatisation was a way of giving the job of maintaining, operating and modernising the fleet to private companies and it was largely very successful in modernising Britain's ancient and decrepid rolling stock. I'm unfortunately old enough to remember just how utterly sh** British rail was....

 

[monkeybarry]

How else can one know that all excess has been culled?

Aim to cull it all and gently wind back on the parts the private sector can't provide. I bet you'd be surprised at how much the private sector can and would do.

I dunno, using intelligent management is probably a better approach than a disaster strategy.

 

[ricky2tricky4city]

What are these assets that are privatised? I think you're confused as to what privatisation actually meant for these industries. Take rail for example. The infrastructure is publically owned and operated. The trains are leased and operated by some private companies. Trains are like cars: depreciating assets that require replacement every few years to keep the network modern and in the meantime require constant maintenance. I.e. they're an expensive cost sink. When the railways were public, and rail investment was competing for funding with the NHS etc. what we ended up with is lots of 1950s and 60s built cattle trains being kept going into the 80s and 90s as "they'll have to do". Privatisation was a way of giving the job of maintaining, operating and modernising the fleet to private companies and it was largely very successful in modernising Britain's ancient and decrepid rolling stock. I'm unfortunately old enough to remember just how utterly sh** British rail was....

It's all a spreadsheet....no matter who is running it. Get that right, it can work. The advantage a public run system has it can plough everything back in and run at break even. Perhaps British rail weren't charging enough? or of course, wastage was bad?

 

[ricky2tricky4city]

How else can one know that all excess has been culled?

Aim to cull it all and gently wind back on the parts the private sector can't provide. I bet you'd be surprised at how much the private sector can and would do.

The private sector can and will do anything you ask of it, for the right price.

It appears Trumpy is gonna give your strategy a good go.....so we can all watch with interest.

 

[monkeybarry]

It's all a spreadsheet....no matter who is running it. Get that right, it can work. The advantage a public run system has it can plough everything back in and run at break even. Perhaps British rail weren't charging enough? or of course, wastage was bad?

It's more nuanced than that.
We are talking about a country that only decided to consider and implement a healthcare system accessible to all (and I don't mean "free to all", I mean accessible to all - pre war healthcare was fragmented and the preserve of the upper and middle classes) in the 40/50s.

A UK that had an IMF bailout in the late 70s.

Politically and financially the UK couldn't run anything decent post war.

Out rail infrastructure also suffered (maybe still does in rural areas) of not being destroyed and rebuilt by the Nazi's.
We often ask why are many "European" railways better than ours. When we say that we mean Belgium, France, Germany, Netherlands.
We don't mean Bulgaria, Romania etc.

The examples we cite all had the benefit of being rebuilt by one of the most efficient industrial machines humanity has ever created.

Can a nationalised railway work now? I think so. The private move did fix many issues, but it isn't a competitive market so has no place being run for profit. I'm happy to accept that the profits made this far are for services rendered outside of just rail operations, but it's time to regain it as a public service.

 

[scaramanga]

I dunno, using intelligent management is probably a better approach than a disaster strategy.

At that kind of scale, no cabinet can be on top of all of the roles - they have to rely on advice from the civil service.

Unfortunately, the civil service is stuffed full of job creating lefties. So they can't be trusted.

 

[monkeybarry]

At that kind of scale, no cabinet can be on top of all of the roles - they have to rely on advice from the civil service.

Unfortunately, the civil service is stuffed full of job creating lefties. So they can't be trusted.

The thing is - and I know this is an inconvenient truth for you - it really isn't.
The justify any new role creation is very difficult. The bar for the business case is high, and finding the budget even harder.

Oddly enough, I actually agree with you that we should have a smaller and more efficient civil service - do you know why we don't? (Clue - I do. I've also told you before.)

 

[P.D.]

It's more nuanced than that.
We are talking about a country that only decided to consider and implement a healthcare system accessible to all (and I don't mean "free to all", I mean accessible to all - pre war healthcare was fragmented and the preserve of the upper and middle classes) in the 40/50s.

A UK that had an IMF bailout in the late 70s.

Politically and financially the UK couldn't run anything decent post war.

Out rail infrastructure also suffered (maybe still does in rural areas) of not being destroyed and rebuilt by the Nazi's.
We often ask why are many "European" railways better than ours. When we say that we mean Belgium, France, Germany, Netherlands.
We don't mean Bulgaria, Romania etc.

The examples we cite all had the benefit of being rebuilt by one of the most efficient industrial machines humanity has ever created.

Can a nationalised railway work now? I think so. The private move did fix many issues, but it isn't a competitive market so has no place being run for profit. I'm happy to accept that the profits made this far are for services rendered outside of just rail operations, but it's time to regain it as a public service.

Any government can easily do this by taking them back into public ownership when the franchise expires, that's actually a success giving us this option if we want to do so. It's a bit broken in other ways, I think some companies failed and bailed out without having to provide compensation and the ability to get compensation for delays is poor, that type of thing should really be automated by now.