Print money and create inflation?

Generali

Ok, Sir H. One simple question as I've provided links for all my assertions and you for none.

How will you pay for the new Socialist Wonderland? The Government hasn't got any money of it's own so it must print it, borrow it or tax for it.

Taxpayers haven't got any money left, that's a reason why they've borrowed so heavily and work so many hours in the UK.

Government debt is extremely high and growing at an alarming rate.

It only leaves printing (yet) more of the stuff. That doesn't produce any extra wealth it just destroys the wealth of holders of cash in favour of holders of land.

soupdragon52

as to printing money, come to Lewes, we now have our own pound notes, don't know about causing inflation, so far it has been very successful - second printing was needed!! it is helping keep money in Lewes and so help the beleagured shopkeepers.

Generali

kennyboy66 wrote: »

British Airways
BP
BAE
British Gas
The electricity companies
The water companies
a host of others.
TSB (quasi public I suppose)

All made profits in the years before they were privatised.
This is not to say that those companies should not have been privatised.

Even the Royal Mail has made a profit in some years (not a great example I know!).

Maybe the correct question is which public bodies deliver a service cheaper than that which could be done by the private sector. Impossible to give an answer really when it comes to health or education.

My belief is that most of the corporations only made a profit in the run up to privatisation. Prior to that they used marginal cost pricing which in most cases ensured that they would make a loss.

A piece in the Sunday Times a few months back claimed that private health insurance in Beverly Hills cost less than the average cost of the NHS in the UK. I have no idea if that is true or not.

tomstickland

kennyboy66 wrote: »

Where do you start.

Are you referring the linked article rather than the comment I posted in the first post here?

kennyboy66_2

Generali wrote: »

My belief is that most of the corporations only made a profit in the run up to privatisation. Prior to that they used marginal cost pricing which in most cases ensured that they would make a loss.

A piece in the Sunday Times a few months back claimed that private health insurance in Beverly Hills cost less than the average cost of the NHS in the UK. I have no idea if that is true or not.

It would seem unlikely, however I am sure that a young healthy person can get a cheap quote in many parts of the world. Sadly it is the old, the obese, the sick (try getting a quote in the USA if you had say diabetes) and the poor who cost health services the most.

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs319/en/index.html

The USA spends most per capita on health (2007 figures), I am sure if you have the money the service you get is better than the UK.

You are of course right about those companies prior to privatisation, and as some were monopolies then there pricing was easily adjusted to make them profitable - but you did ask. The more recent example would be that defence company that was shamefully flogged off on the cheap (Quantica ???),

kennyboy66_2

Generali wrote: »

Ok, Sir H. One simple question as I've provided links for all my assertions and you for none.

How will you pay for the new Socialist Wonderland? The Government hasn't got any money of it's own so it must print it, borrow it or tax for it.

Taxpayers haven't got any money left, that's a reason why they've borrowed so heavily and work so many hours in the UK.

Government debt is extremely high and growing at an alarming rate.

It only leaves printing (yet) more of the stuff. That doesn't produce any extra wealth it just destroys the wealth of holders of cash in favour of holders of land.

In as far as no-one would have started from here, what would you have suggested the government do in the current circumstances.

I haven't really seen a sensible alternative.

kennyboy66_2

tomstickland wrote: »

Are you referring the linked article rather than the comment I posted in the first post here?

I meant the linked article. The most spurious line was this;

"because the banks wouldn't say no to absurd loans, because they were under a great deal of political pressure."

That is just absurd - what political pressure were Northern Rock under to offer 125% LTV loans.

ALIBOBSY

Last time I looked customs and excise and the old inland revenue managed to rake some money in,lol.

ali x

Sir_Humphrey

*Sigh* I claim support for moderate mixed economy policies, and I am then supposed to a wild-eyed socialist.

Since Ken Clarke has been supporting the government intervention in the banks, I suppose he is also a socialist brother too then? Or other past captains of industry who favour the mixed economy such as the late Sir John Harvey-Jones. Or George Soros perhaps?

Leave the playground Generali.

WTF?_2

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

*Sigh* I claim support for moderate mixed economy policies, and I am then supposed to a wild-eyed socialist.

Since Ken Clarke has been supporting the government intervention in the banks, I suppose he is also a socialist brother too then? Or other past captains of industry who favour the mixed economy such as the late Sir John Harvey-Jones. Or George Soros perhaps?

Leave the playground Generali.

Actually, reading a few of your posts in the last month or two I got the impression that you are more than a bit of a keen socialist too. You definitely seem to be of the impression that the state can simply waltz in and organise everything.

Maybe 'interventionist' would be a better description.