3 more years of 0.5% interest rates

CLAPTON

ILW wrote: »

I would suggest that is debatable for the many businesses whose sole source of revenue is public money. As opposed to money from the public).

firstly what proportion of care home funding is the state sector?
(the only one I know of personally has very little state funding but that may well not be typical)

secondly, if the state can do it better and cheaper overall it would seem a no brainer for us to do it.

grizzly1911

CLAPTON wrote: »

successful businesses produce the wealth


in the specific example of Southern Cross, I don't know the whether the banks made an overall lose or profit from the company over the time frame of their involvement


the other creditors probably made a lose but again I don't know the overall balance

Indeed sucessful businesses do produce apparent wealth. They transfer funds from one sector, add value hopefully in greater or lesser degrees and move profit to another sector and the wheel turns. All things being equal everyone benefits in society.

The issues arise when distortions are applied and the business isn't really adding value or only adding limited value but still charging a full rate. Where the bill is being picked up largely by the taxpayer, either directly or underwritten by then their is a moral issue.

Not sure whether you bothered to read this link:

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2012/nov/11/lloyds-care-homes-ownership

This suggests that substantial write offs have been made through care homes falling out of the back of the original problems. I don't know whether Lloyds are still reluctant landlords. If the figures suggested are correct (100s millions) then will the banks have made big profits or losses on their involvement.

Where did the monies from the sale and leasebacks go?

Key functions that are necessary for basics of life are rarely better for all in private hands especially when they have to be heavily regulated to make them fit for purpose and where the pieces need to be picked up by the state when elements fail or where a heavy proportion of their revenue comes form the taxpayer purse.

There is no reason why those key elements can't be run by the state as effectively as the private sector if there was the desire to do so.

I am quite happy for non essential services to be run at the free will of the private sector where dog eat dog competition can run riot if people grow tired of buying overpriced luxuries or poor quality goods and services cheaply, they can at least choose whether to consume or not.

There are of course many small businesses that do provide goods and services at fair value and quality providing a welcome balance.

You are right most people are not crooks regardless of where they operate.


Large corporations need to generate profit in order to succeed unfortunately drives behaviours, in their management, that may not be in the long term interests of the shareholders or the customer.

Removing capital from a business model, loading up debt and committing to long term obligations seems a short sighted business model although it would be one way of maximising shareholder valuer in the short term.

I read somewhere that GM spent US$20bn on share buy backs between the mid 80s and 2000 but needed US$35bn to escape bankruptcy towards the end of that decade. If they had simply have put that 20bn on deposit they would probably have been well in the black, if they had invested in the business and their employees who knows they may even have been flying high.

As we get more and more driven by free market economics should growth rates not improve?
http://www.multpl.com/us-real-income-per-capita-growth

grizzly1911

CLAPTON wrote: »

firstly what proportion of care home funding is the state sector?
(the only one I know of personally has very little state funding but that may well not be typical)

Before it was floated in 2006, Southern Cross was owned by US private equity group Blackstone, and over the last decade enjoyed a period of heady growth. But its failure to meet a huge rent bill from freeholds that were offloaded to raise cash during the boom years (known as sale and leaseback), together with declining fees from local authorities – which paid for most of the 750 care homes' 31,000 residents – pushed it under

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2011/nov/01/private-equity-social-care-debt

Not sure if that proportion has changed in the intervening period.

CLAPTON

grizzly1911 wrote: »

Indeed sucessful businesses do produce apparent wealth. They transfer funds from one sector, add value hopefully in greater or lesser degrees and move profit to another sector and the wheel turns. All things being equal everyone benefits in society.

The issues arise when distortions are applied and the business isn't really adding value or only adding limited value but still charging a full rate. Where the bill is being picked up largely by the taxpayer, either directly or underwritten by then their is a moral issue.

Not sure whether you bothered to read this link:

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2012/nov/11/lloyds-care-homes-ownership

This suggests that substantial write offs have been made through care homes falling out of the back of the original problems. I don't know whether Lloyds are still reluctant landlords. If the figures suggested are correct (100s millions) then will the banks have made big profits or losses on their involvement.

Where did the monies from the sale and leasebacks go?

Key functions that are necessary for basics of life are rarely better for all in private hands especially when they have to be heavily regulated to make them fit for purpose and where the pieces need to be picked up by the state when elements fail or where a heavy proportion of their revenue comes form the taxpayer purse.

There is no reason why those key elements can't be run by the state as effectively as the private sector if there was the desire to do so.

I am quite happy for non essential services to be run at the free will of the private sector where dog eat dog competition can run riot if people grow tired of buying overpriced luxuries or poor quality goods and services cheaply, they can at least choose whether to consume or not.

There are of course many small businesses that do provide goods and services at fair value and quality providing a welcome balance.

You are right most people are not crooks regardless of where they operate.


Large corporations need to generate profit in order to succeed unfortunately drives behaviours, in their management, that may not be in the long term interests of the shareholders or the customer.

Removing capital from a business model, loading up debt and committing to long term obligations seems a short sighted business model although it would be one way of maximising shareholder valuer in the short term.

I read somewhere that GM spent US$20bn on share buy backs between the mid 80s and 2000 but needed US$35bn to escape bankruptcy towards the end of that decade. If they had simply have put that 20bn on deposit they would probably have been well in the black, if they had invested in the business and their employees who knows they may even have been flying high.

As we get more and more driven by free market economics should growth rates not improve?
http://www.multpl.com/us-real-income-per-capita-growth

every time I read that a company has introduced a new more efficient engine that reduces fuel consumption and C02 emissions, I don't share your outrage that their dog eat dog attitude is forcing vulnerable consumers to buy their products and putting their competitors at a disadvantage.


and no, personally I don't want life's essentials being supplied by a monopoly state supplier; food, clothing , housing, distribution services, fuel, education, health etc are far too important to be left the the mid-staffs culture.

grizzly1911

CLAPTON wrote: »

every time I read that a company has introduced a new more efficient engine that reduces fuel consumption and C02 emissions, I don't share your outrage that their dog eat dog attitude is forcing vulnerable consumers to buy their products and putting their competitors at a disadvantage.


and no, personally I don't want life's essentials being supplied by a monopoly state supplier; food, clothing , housing, distribution services, fuel, education, health etc are far too important to be left the the mid-staffs culture.

Do manufacturers choose to make more efficient engines or do government /European regulations make them do it? They no doubt chose to add pedestrian safety bumpers and bonnets to their cars too.

Mid staffs culture as you term it was largely driven by target achievement rather than need of the consumer. With profit at is core I am not so sure the care for low end private health care would be much difference for those unable to afford the gold and platinum service - the majority.

As you think all these services such as health and education are so badly run you know doubt purchase them privately. Private results in these areas will always appear better because they cherry pick what they want to do and who they want to educate part of that decision being determined by what people are willing to pay. It doesn't mean the actual result will be any different at the end of the day -chronic and acutely sick people will die., if you don't actually touch many of them it helps your statistics.

I am not sure why you think food and clothing need or should be provided by the state.

Still haven't given me any clues as to where the monies form the sale and leasebacks went or why greater free market capitalism doesn't seem to be improving growth rates.

CLAPTON

grizzly1911 wrote: »

Do manufacturers choose to make more efficient engines or do government /European regulations make them do it? They no doubt chose to add pedestrian safety bumpers and bonnets to their cars too.

in this case the 'customers' is both the actually buyers and the regulators (EU).

the issue is whether it would have been more effective if the engines were made by one state/EU monopoly or by competition in the market place (yes profit driven with all their wasteful practices)

Mid staffs culture as you term it was largely driven by target achievement rather than need of the consumer. With profit at is core I am not so sure the care for low end private health care would be much difference for those unable to afford the gold and platinum service - the majority.

no idea what this means

As you think all these services such as health and education are so badly run you know doubt purchase them privately. Private results in these areas will always appear better because they cherry pick what they want to do and who they want to educate part of that decision being determined by what people are willing to pay. It doesn't mean the actual result will be any different at the end of the day -chronic and acutely sick people will die., if you don't actually touch many of them it helps your statistics.

chronic and sick people are dying un-necesarily this weekend in almost ALL hospitals because of the staff centered (mid-staffs) culture that refuses to staff weekends in an appropriate manner.

I am not sure why you think food and clothing need or should be provided by the state.

I understand your position to be that all essential services should be state run.
In my view food and clothing are essentials of life.

Key functions that are necessary for basics of life are rarely better for all in private hands especially when they have to be heavily regulated to make them fit for purpose and where the pieces need to be picked up by the state when elements fail or where a heavy proportion of their revenue comes form the taxpayer purse.

Still haven't given me any clues as to where the monies form the sale and leasebacks went or why greater free market capitalism doesn't seem to be improving growth rates.

profits were taken in the normal way and recycled in the usual way too.
just like other sale and lease back arrangement that you have chosen to highlight.
Unless there were criminal fraudulent activities I don't see any reason to be concerned. As I've already said poor business practices being rapidly punished is an excellent process especially as no public money was involved and as far as I understand the vast majority of the old people continued to be well looked after.
I don't cry for the shareholders who lost out or the banks that lost some risk money.


As I see it, the private sector are producing a lot of jobs to compensate for the reduction in the state sector.

I am optimistic that if the government can reduce the ever increasing burden of regulation and free up the planning system (in a sensible way that preserves what is best in the current system) then we will see stead growth over the next few years.

grizzly1911

CLAPTON wrote: »

i





chronic and sick people are dying un-necesarily this weekend in almost ALL hospitals because of the staff centered (mid-staffs) culture that refuses to staff weekends in an appropriate manner.

It isn't a mid staffs culture it finite resources.

The majority of clinical staff do operate 24/7, 365 shift patterns. There will be others on call if necessary. You can only get resources to stretch so far. If you target those finite resource badly then I accept that problems can occur. Stafford appears to have been particularly badly managed but no doubt efficiency targets were being achieved.

Similar increased mortality effects have been noted in the USA and Australia by the BMJ.

CLAPTON wrote: »

i


I understand your position to be that all essential services should be state run.
In my view food and clothing are essentials of life.

They are indeed essential to life but widely available from a number of sources with wide competition. . They are easily transported and and do not require the level of infrastructure and capital investment associated with energy, water, health and education.

CLAPTON wrote: »

i

profits were taken in the normal way and recycled in the usual way too.
just like other sale and lease back arrangement that you have chosen to highlight.
Unless there were criminal fraudulent activities I don't see any reason to be concerned. As I've already said poor business practices being rapidly punished is an excellent process especially as no public money was involved and as far as I understand the vast majority of the old people continued to be well looked after.
I don't cry for the shareholders who lost out or the banks that lost some risk money.

In the case of care homes who foots the bill in the majority of cases?

If any business where assets are stripped and business loaded with debt and inflated rental charges then the cost to the consumer/taxpayer rises.

In many cases the shareholders (including those of the banks who take the hits) are not only individuals but pension funds so you consider it OK to "plunder" those too?

Never mind another fund might get lucky as it is a zero sum game.

Do you consider PFI a good use of scarce finance too?

I noticed a recent article where 11 fires stations were being rebuilt at a cost of £30 million which will cost the taxpayer £127 million over 25 years seemed like a bargain.

CLAPTON wrote: »

i



As I see it, the private sector are producing a lot of jobs to compensate for the reduction in the state sector.

I am optimistic that if the government can reduce the ever increasing burden of regulation and free up the planning system (in a sensible way that preserves what is best in the current system) then we will see stead growth over the next few years.

I am sure that jobs are being created in many ways especially in the zero hours arena and part time work at or near NMW. I am sure a number have been created picking up the work from the the public sector that still needs to be done and paid for by the taxpayer. No doubt many of those jobs will require state tops up to make the wages liveable.

No doubt this constant volatility is all very effective in the long run. If we all take on more debt even greater profits can made.

purch

bump.......................

CLAPTON

grizzly1911 wrote: »

It isn't a mid staffs culture it finite resources.

The majority of clinical staff do operate 24/7, 365 shift patterns. There will be others on call if necessary. You can only get resources to stretch so far. If you target those finite resource badly then I accept that problems can occur. Stafford appears to have been particularly badly managed but no doubt efficiency targets were being achieved.

Similar increased mortality effects have been noted in the USA and Australia by the BMJ.

so there is no possibility of doing better?
just avoid being seriously ill at weekends ... I'll certainly try.

They are indeed essential to life but widely available from a number of sources with wide competition. . They are easily transported and and do not require the level of infrastructure and capital investment associated with energy, water, health and education.

I thought it was you that felt that all the essential of life must be a state monopoly.

I would think to re-organise a hospital to provide 24/7 emergency medical service in one small location would be as easier to organise as a food supply chain that stretches across the entire world.
The capital required to build and run a hospital is small beer.
The capital to build and run a school is small beer.

Some services like water, gas, electricity, road, rail are by their nature semi natural monopolies and clearly need a considerable centralised planning and control/regulation and there is a considerable case that they should be state owned.

There is however no need for a hospital in Newcastle to be owned or manged by the same organisation (the state) as a hospital in Bristol. Similarly with schools, care homes and other services.

In the case of care homes who foots the bill in the majority of cases?

If the state is being ripped off and can do it cheaper then let them do so.
What's the problem - a no brainer.

If any business where assets are stripped and business loaded with debt and inflated rental charges then the cost to the consumer/taxpayer rises.

I see no reason to make illegal businesses run from rented/leased property.

Lots of companies have sold off their property portfolio and then leased it back.

It's no business of mine.

In the case of Southern Cross my understanding is there was no cost to the taxpayer. Indeed one reason they went bankrupt was because the state reduced the amount they were willing to pay.

In many cases the shareholders (including those of the banks who take the hits) are not only individuals but pension funds so you consider it OK to "plunder" those too?

Never mind another fund might get lucky as it is a zero sum game.

You will be amased to learn here that INVESTING in businesses carry a RISK. You win some and lose others.
Obviously if you only ever mention the loses it gives a rather false sense of business enterprise and invention.

The Southern Cross business model was WELL KNOWN to banks, pension funds and investors. It was in the financial columns of the newspapers; nothing secret.
Do you really and truely believe that the director DELIBERATELY planned to fail and go bankrupt?

And NO is isn't a zero sum game otherwise we would all still be working as serfs on the land without machinery.

You can eliminate that risk by nationalising all companies and activities.

Madness economically in my view.

Do you consider PFI a good use of scarce finance too?

I noticed a recent article where 11 fires stations were being rebuilt at a cost of £30 million which will cost the taxpayer £127 million over 25 years seemed like a bargain.

PFI was a centrally directed fiddle designed by morons with no business skills in central government.
I leave to to guess whether I support PFI

However it is interesting that it still continues because we have too such state control of things that should be run by commercial organisations.

I am sure that jobs are being created in many ways especially in the zero hours arena and part time work at or near NMW. I am sure a number have been created picking up the work from the the public sector that still needs to be done and paid for by the taxpayer. No doubt many of those jobs will require state tops up to make the wages liveable.

No doubt this constant volatility is all very effective in the long run. If we all take on more debt even greater profits can made.

OK have it your way

sack half of them and let the other have work longer hours
and for the lowest paid job just sack them and let them claim JSA

then you can feel good about it.

nicko33

CLAPTON wrote: »

I, for example, see nothing ethical about being forced to fund the BBC when I don't watch it.

You are not forced to fund the BBC. You choose to.