Tolls 'could pay for new roads'...

grizzly1911

A._Badger wrote: »

Did I suggest that private enterprise is perfect? No. It is,. however, more efficient. If regulators fail in their duties to control monopolies and near-monopolies (a hallmark of regulation since Major) then that is a political failure.



You will soon be finding out..The post-war cradle to grave medical system and over-generous pensions are collapsing under the weight of costs, expectations and demographics. Whatever the Left wishes were true, reality is ganging-up against it.

Ironically, your last sentence holds the key. The state system will have to revert to.its role as a last chance for those unable to fend for themselves. The rest of us will have to realise there is no money tree and that we have to look after ourselves and our own.

So this theory holds no water?

But the Greenwald-Stiglitz theorem posits market failure as the norm, establishing "that government could potentially almost always improve upon the market's resource allocation." And the Sappington-Stiglitz theorem "establishes that an ideal government could do better running an enterprise itself than it could through privatization"[37] (Stiglitz 1994, 179).[36]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stiglitz


Unfortunately whilst the state always carries the ultimate can I we will always pay more "tax".

A._Badger

grizzly1911 wrote: »

So this theory holds no water?

Stiglitz? Versus human history? No contest.

Strangely, I came across the following quote from Hayek today ( a real economist, as I'm sure the General would concur):

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."

michaels

I think there may be two game changing paradigms when it comes to the roads so all the assumptions that increasing gdp will require higher increases in road capacity may be wrong:

1) Self driving cars
2) The internet allowing even more social and commercial activities to take place without travelling

May be in the lifetime of any new roads built now they will become as archaic as canals?!

grizzly1911

michaels wrote: »

I think there may be two game changing paradigms when it comes to the roads so all the assumptions that increasing gdp will require higher increases in road capacity may be wrong:

1) Self driving cars
2) The internet allowing even more social and commercial activities to take place without travelling

May be in the lifetime of any new roads built now they will become as archaic as canals?!

The same good be said about airports for 2.) & 3.).

You forgot 3.) it will become to expensive to travel on the roads for the great unwashed.

coastline

A couple of links to guage what is spent but its well known we don't spend anywhere near the revenue on our roads...

This is the Transport spend and projected spend...which I'm guessing could include some Rail spending.



This link gives an idea of the revenue from 2009...Vehicle duty comes in at £5bn...fuel duty at £25bn..

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmselect/cmtran/103/10304.htm

GeorgeHowell

grizzly1911 wrote: »

And the private sector is squeaky clean, judicious and honest always making sure we get the very best deal? Looking out for all with fair priced products and services to meet every ones needs, honouring their obligations to use of their own free will?

No financial irregularities, no trying to make a fast buck and pass you off with a lemon?

We can leave it to the individual to choose but 1.) they won't look after themselves, in the majority of cases. 2.) The majority couldn't afford to protect themselves adequately against all eventualities.3.) What happens to those that simply aren't covered through some gap in the system?

The private sector most certainly is not squeaky clean, but the key difference is that you a degree of choice. If you don't like Tesco then go to Morrisons or Lidl, if you don't like M&S go to John Lewis, if you don't like Starbucks go to Costa Coffee. Where private corporation are allowed to have a stranglehold over us --utilities, banks, railways -- then I object just as strongly. But examples of excesses in the private sector is no excuse for politicians and public servants not protecting public funds diligently, honestly, and prudently.

MacMickster

GeorgeHowell wrote: »

You won't get anywhere with this tack I'm afraid. Those who advocate 45%, or whatever, as the "right" level of public spending are too blinkered and ignorant to realise that no set percentage means anything. It's how it's spent, on what, how efficiently, and what value for money is delivered that matters. Having said that, government's track record on effective use of public money is so abject that a reduction from whatever the current level is can be advocated on those grounds alone. But the "big government for it's own sake" merchants are frankly just thick, tub-thumping lefties.

As either a thick, tub thumping lefty, or a raving right wing nutter (it depends on whose opinion you listen to) my concern is that we stop spending more money than we raise through taxation as a matter of urgency.

Gideon is completely out of his depth and has, in almost 3 years, shown no ability to cut public expenditure at all, other than through the use of a few accountancy tricks.

There is no point at all in cutting public expenditure by 1% per year whilst not increasing taxes. The national debt will reach £2 trillion if we go on as we are. Due to Gideon's incompetence we therefore need to raise taxes considerably.

I hope that public expenditure will fall back to around 35% of GDP, but we should then keep taxation at 45% of GDP until we make significant inroads into the national debt. We should not expect our children and grandchildren to have to pay off our debts.

Anyone who thinks otherwise is obviously a complete loony moron aren't they?

grizzly1911

GeorgeHowell wrote: »

The private sector most certainly is not squeaky clean, but the key difference is that you a degree of choice. If you don't like Tesco then go to Morrisons or Lidl, if you don't like M&S go to John Lewis, if you don't like Starbucks go to Costa Coffee. Where private corporation are allowed to have a stranglehold over us --utilities, banks, railways -- then I object just as strongly. But examples of excesses in the private sector is no excuse for politicians and public servants not protecting public funds diligently, honestly, and prudently.

I don't disagree. Private sector is fine for discretionary spend where you do have "real" choice and if they fail so what. I love the "ipod" debate versus Windows/Android/mp3, ithink the competion is great -but incredibly expensive for what they sell, why else would apple be sitting on the best part of $100bn otherwise (IIRC).

Paying privately for health care, education, energy, transport, bin collections etc doesn't make it any cheaper it probably makes it more expensive. Collective "insurance"/payment, run efficiently should be cheaper as the risks are spread and economies of scale are achieved. The private sector often falls down on meeting its obligations and wriggling out of insured risks. You may happily pay your premiums for years but once you claim, sharp intake of breath....

I also agree that public funds should be spent efficiently and wisely. The front end of these services is often run efficiently, some elements already in private hands, it is the back end navel gazing management and political decision making structures that waste the money in buckets.

Privatising bits of the front end may save money in the short term, otherwise why do it, but in the long term the savings will be come less likely and even become more costly as "missing" bits are added back into the contract at penal rates. Add on the need for the companies to make a profit, which I accept they need to, otherwise why do it and the net cost to the tax payer probably isn't worth talking about.

Above all of this we will still have the navel gazing and political toing and throwing that will still have to be paid for whichever route we go down. IIRC Israel has something like 450 procurement personnel for its military whereas we have 20000+. Who knows whether the recent NHS reforms will really save money, all we do know is that they have cost a couple of billion to implement again.

spacey2012

Our Government is funding new roads out of our taxes.
In Africa !

BertieUK

As quoted...Gideon is completely out of his depth and has, in almost 3 years, shown no ability to cut public expenditure at all, other than through the use of a few accountancy tricks...

To be sarcastic for a moment, here we have a man made up to being a Chancellor with no work experience that I know of other than folding towels or the likes, so what can we expect?

Being reasonable for a moment, his medicine has been very bitter to take and the general public do not their taste buds distroyed, if he had been a little less severe then we might take the medicine more willingly.

Lets hope that he learns from his mistakes before his time in office is really up and that would not help his party or our country.