Marple Community Forum & Noticeboard
August 01, 2014, 02:52:50 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Visit the Main Site

News: Banner Adverts on this site raise £1,000 for Skatepark Project
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  

Murillo's Special Offer

Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9]
  Print  
Author Topic: Local election results  (Read 7313 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Dave
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1947



« Reply #120 on: June 07, 2012, 08:25:44 PM »

you  have learnt something new and now more enlightened.
Not much, although this bit did puzzle me for a while: 

"the price of everything and the value of nothing" argumet is just like your silly Daily Mail comment,
What 'Daily Mail comment', I thought.  I went back through this thread, but I failed to find any reference to the Daily Mail.  So I took the dog for a walk, and while I was plodding round Brabyns in the rain, I suddenly had a thought - maybe the reference to the Mail was in another thread?

So I did a search, and I found it:   
I'm just hoping that having shown him how to do it, Duke will do some research for himself in future, instead of believing evrything he reads in the Daily Mail.   Grin 
Duke, that's ages ago.  I know it's embarrassing if people think you're a Mail reader, but do try not to be so sensitive - it can't be good for you!   Wink
Logged
Victor M
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 287


« Reply #121 on: June 07, 2012, 08:50:50 PM »

Duke,
At least when BT was state owned I could at least talk to someone I could understand, not a call centre in India.
Logged
wheels
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 837


« Reply #122 on: June 07, 2012, 09:41:05 PM »

No he's right Duke you lost the argument. In fact the arguments you make were lost in the mid 80s

But the two things that strick me is if nationalised transport systems dont work how come they are so sucessful elsewhere. Hop  across the channel and have a look.

It must be the case that a strategic industry like the railways which is to my minds every bit as important as the road netword should be inpublic hands.Actually I expect you to argue for road pricing on all roads even to your front door.

Nor can the current private system be seen to be serving Marple particularly well.

I also fail to understand why the market is king until business are strugling at which point you want the CT payer to bail them out and ease their CT burden. Those who live by the market have to die by the market as well.
Logged
Duke Fame
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1311



« Reply #123 on: June 07, 2012, 10:21:21 PM »

Duke,
At least when BT was state owned I could at least talk to someone I could understand, not a call centre in India.

I think that's the way so many businesses have gone, British workforce has priced itself out of the Market with minimum wage & in some cases, a poor work ethic. India, China etc are cheaper, have fewer days off and reliable.
Logged
Duke Fame
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1311



« Reply #124 on: June 07, 2012, 10:31:47 PM »

you  have learnt something new and now more enlightened.
Not much, although this bit did puzzle me for a while: 

"the price of everything and the value of nothing" argumet is just like your silly Daily Mail comment,
What 'Daily Mail comment', I thought.  I went back through this thread, but I failed to find any reference to the Daily Mail.  So I took the dog for a walk, and while I was plodding round Brabyns in the rain, I suddenly had a thought - maybe the reference to the Mail was in another thread?

So I did a search, and I found it:   
I'm just hoping that having shown him how to do it, Duke will do some research for himself in future, instead of believing evrything he reads in the Daily Mail.   Grin 
Duke, that's ages ago.  I know it's embarrassing if people think you're a Mail reader, but do try not to be so sensitive - it can't be good for you!   Wink

You know Dave, if I'd thought it would trouble you for so long, I'd have milked it a little more.

I'm not really a mail reader, much more of a Razzle chap meeself.
Logged
Duke Fame
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1311



« Reply #125 on: June 07, 2012, 10:46:34 PM »

No he's right Duke you lost the argument. In fact the arguments you make were lost in the mid 80s

That's not really addressing any of the points I raised Alloy, it's just name calling. not that I'm particually insulted, the 80's was when the nation dragged itself to it's feet, got rid of the idea that the world owes us a living and got on with it.

But the two things that strick me is if nationalised transport systems dont work how come they are so sucessful elsewhere. Hop  across the channel and have a look.

It must be the case that a strategic industry like the railways which is to my minds every bit as important as the road netword should be inpublic hands.Actually I expect you to argue for road pricing on all roads even to your front door.

Nor can the current private system be seen to be serving Marple particularly well.

I'm not sure that I said the privatisation of rail was a good thing. I do see an argument for public provision of public transport. However, privatisation has improved transport to a degree, there are more trains running than nationalised days, in fact there are more people travelling by rail than at any time during the nationalised British Railways. The quality of train and service on the train itself and at stations has improved. I do think privatisation was half-cocked, the rail companies should have had control of the rails it ran on, that was a mistake. 7 year franchises were too short to encourage investment.  The comparison with France may seem obvious but in fairness they don't ponce about with builting infrastructure, whilst they had finished a line from the channel to Paris, we were still contending with NIMBY's bemoaning about something or nothing. HS2 seems a great idea but the recession will be over by the time the UK have had all the inquiries and worrying about the beautiful countryside of the midlands - yes the ruddy Midlands - no wonder the French laugh at us.


I also fail to understand why the market is king until business are strugling at which point you want the CT payer to bail them out and ease their CT burden. Those who live by the market have to die by the market as well.

I totally agree, I don't want the taxpayer to bail anyone out, not sure when I suggested I did.
Logged
Duke Fame
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1311



« Reply #126 on: June 07, 2012, 11:02:46 PM »

No he's right Duke you lost the argument. In fact the arguments you make were lost in the mid 80s

To be honest, my arguments date back to 1776, it's fairly established economics
Logged
Dave
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1947



« Reply #127 on: June 09, 2012, 03:28:05 PM »

However, privatisation has improved transport to a degree,
It has, but at what cost!   See http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2012/01/04/the-lesson-of-the-railways-private-is-not-always-best/ ...for the figures, which are eye-watering.  Privatising the railways increased the cost of UK railways to the taxpayer from around £1.2 billion in the days of British Rail, to about £4.2 billion in 2009/01!

Duke also writes:
no wonder the French laugh at us.
..but it's not just the French who are laughing.  It's also the Germans and the Dutch.  Because over the 18 years since privatisation, a number of railway companies have quietly crept back in to public ownership.  The biggest freight carrier, English Welsh and Scottish Rail, is now DB Schenker Rail, owned by Deutsche Bahn, which also owns Arriva.   Our own dear Northern Rail is now owned by NS, the Dutch state railway company.  Thus we UK taxpayers, through our high levels of subsidy to our rail system, are in effect also subsidising the lower fares on state-owned railways in mainland Europe.  You couldn't make it up........

But then Duke, your man Adam Smith knew these things, when he argued that it was the role of the government to provide goods "of such a nature that the profit could never repay the expense to any individual" such as roads, bridges, canals, and harbours.  If railways had existed in 1776, no doubt they would also have been in that list.

Logged
Duke Fame
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1311



« Reply #128 on: June 10, 2012, 10:46:56 AM »

However, privatisation has improved transport to a degree,
It has, but at what cost!   See http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2012/01/04/the-lesson-of-the-railways-private-is-not-always-best/ ...for the figures, which are eye-watering.  Privatising the railways increased the cost of UK railways to the taxpayer from around £1.2 billion in the days of British Rail, to about £4.2 billion in 2009/01!

Duke also writes:
no wonder the French laugh at us.
..but it's not just the French who are laughing.  It's also the Germans and the Dutch.  Because over the 18 years since privatisation, a number of railway companies have quietly crept back in to public ownership.  The biggest freight carrier, English Welsh and Scottish Rail, is now DB Schenker Rail, owned by Deutsche Bahn, which also owns Arriva.   Our own dear Northern Rail is now owned by NS, the Dutch state railway company.  Thus we UK taxpayers, through our high levels of subsidy to our rail system, are in effect also subsidising the lower fares on state-owned railways in mainland Europe.  You couldn't make it up........

But then Duke, your man Adam Smith knew these things, when he argued that it was the role of the government to provide goods "of such a nature that the profit could never repay the expense to any individual" such as roads, bridges, canals, and harbours.  If railways had existed in 1776, no doubt they would also have been in that list.

Dave Dave Dave, you are only reading half of my post and you’re pushing against an open door. I made my view quite clear:
The State (be that local or National) should only get involved where the market fails to allocate resources in a manner that is good for society. To that end, yes it should provide education, defence, a legal framework, streetlighting etc but it shouldn’t be running a road haulage company, a travel agent or telly company – a free democratic nation doesn’t really need a state broadcasting propaganda machine, especially when it crowds out private investment.
And again reiterated my concerns about rail privatisation:
I'm not sure that I said the privatisation of rail was a good thing. I do see an argument for public provision of public transport. .

I am however, open minded about the issue and prepared to admit there have been successes. You friend’s little blog misses a major point. The point of having a rail network is not to minimise subsidy, it is to transport people (& freight) to minimise pollution & congestion costs and do so at as little a cost to the public purse as possible. Now, the value of the subsidy has gone up in absolute terms but the cost per passenger mile is an indicator that combines the aims of a public transport system and it’s cost, this indicator has fallen since privatisation because the TOCS have been successful in getting passenger numbers up.

Your blog quotes Roy McNulty’s paper on improving the value of our railways. The headline point is we are paying 30% more that in Europe. McNulty’s major argument is there is a major cause of inefficiency in the fact the TOCS do not operate the track. This is exactly my critique of privatisation in that the privatisation divorced the TOCS with the rail.  
I do think privatisation was half-cocked, the rail companies should have had control of the rails it ran on, that was a mistake.
 You will note (your blogger failed in this regard) McNulty does not argue for nationalisation but suggests we reunite the operators with the track. McNulty is clear, he blames the Labour government for meddling too much, government doesn’t allow autonomy for the TOCS,  only now will government allow the TOCS to run less carriages off peak which I’d have thought was basic logic.
Another big worry for me is Privatisation has not fully destroyed the power of Fat Bob Crow & his idiotic union. OK, when one set of workers strike, it no longer takes out the whole service but the TOCS have not addressed this and perhaps as a nationalised industry we could have had a strong Thatcher style stand against this fool & his Lemmings.

In any case, the BBC has none of the characteristics that require state ownership & state funding. Your little blog man actually makes the case for privatisation of the BBC in that state broadcasters cost the state more money than private broadcasters.
Logged
Duke Fame
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1311



« Reply #129 on: June 10, 2012, 11:46:44 PM »

state broadcasters cost the state more money than private broadcasters.

So there you have it - from someone who evidently knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.   

You know Dave, rather than make a few reasonable points to counter your blogger mate, I was tempted to just post "So there you have it - from someone who evidently knows the price of everything and the value of nothing" as a reply. Then I realised it would have made me look clueless ;-)
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Tweets by @marplewebsite
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!