J30 strike: NUT, PCS, UCU, ATL call for a general strike on June 30th

[Blagsta]

What's your definition of Wealth?

Answer my question.

 

[PaulAtherton]

I just did. You ignored it.

You just stated something. That's not making an argument. If the Public Sector was privatised and abolished then there would still be profit. Why do think the absence of the Public Sector would suggest there would no Private Sector. There is nothing it does that cannot be done for profit.

 

[Blagsta]

You could do with reading a little history.

 

[PaulAtherton]

Answer my question.

Pretty pointless unless we have agreed definition of what Wealth is. I use it in the standard economic definition of the term.

 

[Blagsta]

Pretty pointless unless we have agreed definition of what Wealth is. I use it in the standard economic definition of the term.

you'll be able to answer my question, with references then

 

[weltweit]

if a private coal mine extracts and sells £1,000 of coal for a cost of £750 it makes £250 profit for its owners.

if a state coal mine extracts and sells £1,000 of coal for a cost of £750 it ALSO makes £250 profit for its owners.

 

[sihhi]

you talk about the supply of 'good graduates'.

have you given any consideration to what happens when the supply of new graduates dwindles as is predicted to happen over the next 20 years as numbers of 18 year olds decline?

importing foreign ones poles, czechs, turks, indians, russians all sorts

 

[PaulAtherton]

if a private coal mine extracts and sells £1,000 of coal for a cost of £750 it makes £250 profit for its owners.

if a state coal mine extracts and sells £1,000 of coal for a cost of £750 it ALSO makes £250 profit for its owners.

Not actually true, the owners of the a Nationalised industry are the tax payers but they do not necessarily see this. The state absorbs it. This equation also suggests liabilities, debts etc. are the same. Which clearly they are not.

Nationalised Mines were allowed to trade at tremendous losses for decades to keep employment figures. Which means the burden of debts rests with us, the tax payer, whether it was profitable or not, unlike in the Private Sector where it would just cease to trade.

And don't forget the banks were bailed out to protect the publics finances and not the banks (I was a strong supporter of letting the banks go under, but that of course would require all the Millions of people in Britain who'd hand their salaries to them, to lose them too).

 

[SpineyNorman]

Wealth is about resources and services - you're talking about profit/surplus value. And if you weren't such a proudly ignorant cunt there'd be no need for name calling.

 

[Blagsta]

La la land

 

[SpineyNorman]

Not actually true, the owners of the a Nationalised industry are the tax payers but they do not necessarily see this. The state absorbs it. This equation also suggests liabilities, debts etc. are the same. Which clearly they are not.

Nationalised Mines were allowed to trade at tremendous losses for decades to keep employment figures. Which means the burden of debts rests with us, the tax payer, whether it was profitable or not, unlike in the Private Sector where it would just cease to trade.

And don't forget the banks were bailed out to protect the publics finances and not the banks (I was a strong supporter of letting the banks go under, but that of course would require all the Millions of people in Britain who'd hand their salaries to them, to lose them too).

 

[Blagsta]

This is someone who thinks prostitution is a force for good BTW.

 

[SpineyNorman]

PaulAtherton and his chums, yesterday:

 

[ViolentPanda]

Simple - Private makes Profit - Public Doesn't.

That's only the case if you ignore the role the public sector has always played in facilitating the private sector.

 

[ViolentPanda]

The private sector wouldn't exist without the public sector.

There's certainly a symbiotic relationship.

 

[ViolentPanda]

You could do with reading a little history.

More than a little.

 

[ViolentPanda]

if a private coal mine extracts and sells £1,000 of coal for a cost of £750 it makes £250 profit for its owners.

if a state coal mine extracts and sells £1,000 of coal for a cost of £750 it ALSO makes £250 profit for its owners.

The difference residing in where the profit is directed.

 

[PaulAtherton]

Wealth is about resources and services - you're talking about profit/surplus value. And if you weren't such a proudly ignorant cunt there'd be no need for name calling.

"Defining wealth can be a normative process with various ethical implications, since often wealth maximization is seen as a goal or is thought to be a normative principle of its own." Anthony T. Kronman, "Wealth Maximization as a Normative Principle", The Journal of Legal Studies, vol. 9 (March 1980)

Wealth is about the accumulation of Value in its most basic sense. But hey, I appreciate you have a world view that you need to hold onto. So I'll leave our engagement there.

 

[weltweit]

Not actually true, the owners of the a Nationalised industry are the tax payers but they do not necessarily see this. The state absorbs it. This equation also suggests liabilities, debts etc. are the same. Which clearly they are not.

Profit is simply a function of income minus costs, ownership is irrelevant. There can be private and or state owned enterprises and each can make profit or they can make loss.

Nationalised Mines were allowed to trade at tremendous losses for decades to keep employment figures. Which means the burden of debts rests with us, the tax payer, whether it was profitable or not, unlike in the Private Sector where it would just cease to trade.

I am not sure of the relevance of this. State enterprises can make profits for the taxpayer, I believe the post office made good profits for many years, I have no idea what its current status is.

In some states, all enterprises are state owned, the state takes all profits and or losses.

In some instances a state may decide to maintain a loss making enterprise for other reasons. States do things for more that just the profit motive.

And don't forget the banks were bailed out to protect the publics finances and not the banks (I was a strong supporter of letting the banks go under, but that of course would require all the Millions of people in Britain who'd hand their salaries to them, to lose them too).

Relevance to the issue?

 

[Blagsta]

Value does not necessarily equal profit.

 

[SpineyNorman]

11938982Wealth is about the accumulation of Value in its most basic sense. But hey, I appreciate you have a world view that you need to hold onto. So I'll leave our engagement there.

In other words not the same as profit, which is merely surplus value. Yours is the world view with no basis in material reality, not mine.

The public sector produces goods and services - it therefore produces wealth. It can therefore also earn us money - money from exports, same as private business. Your world view posits that there is some separation between the two, you're abstracting everything away from the actual material world.

You're the dogmatist, not me.

Go back to reading Ayn Rand, Mr. sweaty palms.

 

[SpineyNorman]

Profit is always a manifestation of value, but not all value is profit. Just dogs always have four legs, but not all four legged animals are dogs. I'm surprised you find this difficult to grasp Paul.

 

[PaulAtherton]

More than a little.

VP Perhaps you could suggest some light reading that would aid these folks argument. You're one of the few that can normally back up what you say with written evidence.

Of most interest would be, what industries have ever been instigated by the Public sector rather than acquired by them, perhaps some research showing the comparison of Private & State ownership of mines over the past 50 years and especially on the history of the Public Sector after the Romans left?

 

[ViolentPanda]

Not actually true, the owners of the a Nationalised industry are the tax payers but they do not necessarily see this. The state absorbs it. This equation also suggests liabilities, debts etc. are the same. Which clearly they are not.

Nationalised Mines were allowed to trade at tremendous losses for decades to keep employment figures.

Please back up this claim.

After all, it's hardly consonant with the reality of a constantly-shrinking "estate" of mines and body of miners from nationalisation right through to re-privatisation, or with the balance sheets for British Coal during the nationalised period. There were periods where British Coal ran a loss, but as with most companies that borrow on their future earnings to tide them over in hard times, they recouped those losses, and came out, at the time of Heseltine's final massacre, ahead of the game.

I have the suspicion that you're retailing some hoary old folk-lore from the right, without having examined whether it has basis in fact or fantasy

Which means the burden of debts rests with us, the tax payer, whether it was profitable or not, unlike in the Private Sector where it would just cease to trade.

So businesses with temporary solvency issues don't borrow?

And don't forget the banks were bailed out to protect the publics finances and not the banks (I was a strong supporter of letting the banks go under, but that of course would require all the Millions of people in Britain who'd hand their salaries to them, to lose them too).

Now you're being stupid. The banks were bailed out to stop a run occurring. As such, it was the use of public money to bail out private business. The small benefits to the public finances were very much secondary to that. It helped prevent a chain of events that could have destroyed the UK economy, not just broken a few of its' ribs.

 

[stethoscope]

I can just feel the trickle down right now.

 

[SpineyNorman]

Just coming back to this:

"Defining wealth can be a normative process with various ethical implications, since often wealth maximization is seen as a goal or is thought to be a normative principle of its own." Anthony T. Kronman, "Wealth Maximization as a Normative Principle", The Journal of Legal Studies, vol. 9 (March 1980)

How does this back up your assertion that profit = wealth by the way? Yes, wealth is about value. But not just surplus value, or profit.

Care to find a link or quotation that backs up your argument rather than mine?

 

[ViolentPanda]

VP Perhaps you could suggest some light reading that would aid these folks argument. You're one of the few that can normally back up what you say with written evidence.

Of most interest would be, what industries have ever been instigated by the Public sector rather than acquired by them, perhaps some research showing the comparison of Private & State ownership of mines over the past 50 years and especially on the history of the Public Sector after the Romans left?

Why does who instigated the industry matter, unless you're advancing the hoary claim that the public sector is non-innovative?

My point is that the state, whether in it's primitive or modern form, always acts to facilitate the work of the private sector/private capital, whether that has been as land grant, mineral rights, military assistance or bureaucratic service. Our history books show at least 13 centuries of this, even in GCSE-level texts.

As for the mines, a look at the tables in Richards' "Miners On Strike" is always good for disproving the myths around nationalised mine ownership.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I can just feel the trickle down right now.

Here you go, steph.

 

[stethoscope]

Capital - pissing on me for years

 

[Blagsta]

The internet wouldn't exist without public sector.