The urgent need to reduce the cost of labour in Ireland.

realitykeeper · 10-03-2017 09:07PM

Wanderer78 wrote: »

i suspect you have been deluded along with many of our politicians about the (not so) free market. its a scam, well debunked at this stage, theres nothing natural about it at all. neoclassical theory is a train wreck of an economic theory, and we re slowly watching it along with things such as the free market and neoliberalism all failing, which will probably have catastrophic effects on all our economies.

While I am not a fan of labels, I agree the markets are heading for catastrophe but that is because of political interference in natural market forces. The credit crunch of 2008 should have been allowed to happen without bailouts of any kind. Political interference guarantees a repeat crisis but on a far larger scale.

relax carry on · 10-03-2017 09:09PM

realitykeeper wrote: »

Politicians have been known to take bribes under the guise of professional or consultancy services. So corruption is one possible answer, I am sure there are others.

So you assert that Public Sector workers had no value and provide a reason for public sector workers moving into the private sector is because politicians take bribes? What a truly strange world exists in your mind.

Jawgap · 10-03-2017 09:11PM

realitykeeper wrote: »

The full quote was:

... but you cut out the last sentence.

Sorry, but I did not. I note however the post was edited. When I quoted it, it was quoted as is, without the ninja edit.

Jawgap · 10-03-2017 09:15PM

realitykeeper wrote: »

Are you seriously suggesting such things have not happened and will not happen in the future?

No, I'm suggesting you haven't got the first clue when it comes to discussing the revolving door phenomenon when it comes to pricing decisions about the value of public service work to the private and ngo sectors.....as evidenced by your Pavlovian response to my raising it.

realitykeeper · 10-03-2017 09:18PM

Jawgap wrote: »

Ah go on with yourself, on the one hand you're saying.....

But before you said......

....and you made no mention of Hayek until I made a passing reference to him in my rebuttal to yet another of your facile statements......you are, what my Dad would describe, quite the character

What about the boy who cried "wolf?" He knew the wolf was about to attack the sheep so the wolf attack was known. But did the villagers believe him? No. The flock was slaughtered despite the fact that the pending attack was a known certainty. Why? Because the villagers did not know. Therefore the lack of knowledge caused the flock to be killed.

realitykeeper · 10-03-2017 09:22PM

Jawgap wrote: »

Sorry, but I did not. I note however the post was edited. When I quoted it, it was quoted as is, without the ninja edit.

Excuses are unbecoming.

realitykeeper · 10-03-2017 09:26PM

Jawgap wrote: »

No, I'm suggesting you haven't got the first clue when it comes to discussing the revolving door phenomenon when it comes to pricing decisions about the value of public service work to the private and ngo sectors.....as evidenced by your Pavlovian response to my raising it.

I have discussed the medical profession in other threads. I certainly do not want to open that can of worms here.

Jawgap · 10-03-2017 09:28PM

realitykeeper wrote: »

Excuses are unbecoming.

Did you not edit it? Because the footer on the post suggests otherwise..

And still it doesn't take away from the fact you only brought Hayek into your argument after I mentioned him......and said he was right after you said no one understood economics then or now.

You're like the guy at the end of the bar who says he knew Barcelona were going to win all along

Jawgap · 10-03-2017 09:40PM

realitykeeper wrote: »

You are making excuses so button your lip and we`ll say no more about it.

No, not at all. I think everyone who reads the thread will see the truth if the matter......how you said economics was not understood (at a time when 2 of the great heavyweights were active).....then when that was pointed out......you suddenly deputised Hayek into your argument (after I mentioned him)......and now you seem to have reversed yourself......that economics can, in fact be understood......how else can you conclusively state Hayek was right??

You are, as they would say, a gas man

realitykeeper · 10-03-2017 09:40PM

Jawgap wrote: »

And still it doesn't take away from the fact you only brought Hayek into your argument after I mentioned him......and said he was right after you said no one understood economics then or now.

If you did not want Hayek mentioned, why did you bring him up in the first place?

I did not say "no one" understood. I said it was generally not understood.

Wanderer78 · 10-03-2017 09:41PM

realitykeeper wrote: »

While I am not a fan of labels, I agree the markets are heading for catastrophe but that is because of political interference in natural market forces. The credit crunch of 2008 should have been allowed to happen without bailouts of any kind. Political interference guarantees a repeat crisis but on a far larger scale.

again, you re deluded that the market is some sort of natural thing and/or is governed by natural forces, its not, its heavily manipulated and modeled on fundamentally flawed theories such as neoclassical theory. i will agree that our governments have created a right mess of things but they have been indoctrinated with all this bull**** economic theory for decades, i dont think they truly understand whats going on within these complex systems, but in saying that, im not sure anybody really does. i think we may have outsmarted ourselves by creating extremely complex economic systems, in which we truly dont understand whats going on within them.

i personally believe the market is a utopian view of reality or how our economies work which if left to its own devices, will actually lead to the demise of our planet and species. the only problem is, nobody really knows what to do next. sadly i suspect we ll end up back in a major war which could very well be the end of our species.

Jawgap · 10-03-2017 09:43PM

realitykeeper wrote: »

If you did not want Hayek mentioned, why did you bring him up in the first place?

I did not say "no one" understood. I said it was not understood generally.

Again, you're gas.

I've no problem with Hayek, if I thought you were up to discussing him, I'd discuss him with you.....

.....and again with the semantic revisionism

realitykeeper · 10-03-2017 09:48PM

Jawgap wrote: »

No, not at all. I think everyone who reads the thread will see the truth if the matter......how you said economics was not understood (at a time when 2 of the great heavyweights were active).....then when that was pointed out......you suddenly deputised Hayek into your argument (after I mentioned him)......and now you seem to have reversed yourself......that economics can, in fact be understood......how else can you conclusively state Hayek was right??

You are, as they would say, a gas man

If you read the thread again you will see every point raised has been answered by me and ignored by you.

blanch152 · 10-03-2017 09:48PM

realitykeeper wrote: »

Fairness has nothing to do with it. If you lifted weights in the gym all day, that is hard work but nobody is going to pay you to do that. Your work must be worth something to the buyer. Private sector employers who pay above the minimum wage, do so because they prize the value of the employees work higher than the minimum price they are required to pay.

Public sector people are not living in the real world where market competition dictates the value of work. It should therefore be assumed their work is worthless, after all, why else would they be afraid of competition.

How do you explain the shortage of nurses then?

If their work is essentially worthless, then they could be paid minimum wage, yet at their current wages, far above minimum wage, there is a shortage.

Jawgap · 10-03-2017 09:53PM

realitykeeper wrote: »

If you read the thread again you will see every point raised has been answered by me and ignored by you.

Well to be honest, it's difficult to rebut nonsense......especially of the type where you claim anything not mentioned as proof positive that you were correct.....

.....as I said you're like the guy at the end of the bar who says he was right about Barcelona winning the other night because he never said they were going to lose

realitykeeper · 10-03-2017 09:55PM

Jawgap wrote: »

Again, you're gas.

I've no problem with Hayek, if I thought you were up to discussing him, I'd discuss him with you.....

.....and again with the semantic revisionism

I suspect you are being deliberately obtuse.

realitykeeper · 10-03-2017 09:58PM

Wanderer78 wrote: »

again, you re deluded that the market is some sort of natural thing and/or is governed by natural forces, its not, its heavily manipulated ...

Without the manipulation market forces are as natural as the wind and tides. The markets are indeed manipulated but that is not the markets fault, it is the fault of the manipulators.

Jawgap · 10-03-2017 09:58PM

realitykeeper wrote: »

I suspect you are being deliberately obtuse.

Well now, it wouldn't be the first time you were wrong.

blanch152 · 10-03-2017 10:02PM

realitykeeper wrote: »

Without the manipulation market forces are as natural as the wind and tides. The markets are indeed manipulated but that is not the markets fault, it is the fault of the manipulators.

A good analogy that market forces are as natural as the wind and tides, however, the ordinary person needs protection from the wind and tides, when they are wild. Similarly, we need government intervention to protect us from the excesses of market forces. The level of that intervention will depend on the extent that the wind and tides are out of control.

Wanderer78 · 10-03-2017 10:03PM

realitykeeper wrote: »

Without the manipulation market forces are as natural as the wind and tides.

crock of ****, free market economics is a bust. left to its own devices, it creates predatory, parasitic and destructive systems and industries such as a large portion of the financial sector. total train wreck. you need to walk away from neoclassical theory and take up some other hobbies

realitykeeper · 10-03-2017 10:03PM

blanch152 wrote: »

How do you explain the shortage of nurses then?

If their work is essentially worthless, then they could be paid minimum wage, yet at their current wages, far above minimum wage, there is a shortage.

If the health service were entirely private, there would be too many nurses because the nurses would a) work and b) be used intelligently

realitykeeper · 10-03-2017 10:05PM

Jawgap wrote: »

Well to be honest, it's difficult to rebut nonsense......especially of the type where you claim anything not mentioned as proof positive that you were correct.....

.....as I said you're like the guy at the end of the bar who says he was right about Barcelona winning the other night because he never said they were going to lose

Insults are also unbecoming.

Wanderer78 · 10-03-2017 10:05PM

realitykeeper wrote: »

If the health service were entirely private, there would be too many nurses because the nurses would a) work and b) be used intelligently

oh ffs, again, neoliberalism is also a bust! this is very well researched and documented

Donal55 · 10-03-2017 10:05PM

realitykeeper wrote: »

If the health service were entirely private, there would be too many nurses because the nurses would a) work and b) be used intelligently

If me aunt had balls she'd be me uncle.

realitykeeper · 10-03-2017 10:26PM

Wanderer78 wrote: »

oh ffs, again, neoliberalism is also a bust! this is very well researched and documented

As mentioned already, I am not a fan of labels. Common sense is my forte.

Wanderer78 · 10-03-2017 10:28PM

realitykeeper wrote: »

As mentioned already, I am not a fan of labels. Common sense is my forte.

what are you on about? common sense? what?

oscarBravo · 10-03-2017 10:32PM

realitykeeper wrote: »

Public sector people are not living in the real world where market competition dictates the value of work. It should therefore be assumed their work is worthless, after all, why else would they be afraid of competition.

Oh, come on. Even by your impressive standards, this is incredibly specious reasoning. There are at least three logical fallacies in that short paragraph, and probably more.

realitykeeper · 10-03-2017 10:43PM

Wanderer78 wrote: »

crock of ****, free market economics is a bust. left to its own devices, it creates predatory, parasitic and destructive systems and industries such as a large portion of the financial sector. total train wreck. you need to walk away from neoclassical theory and take up some other hobbies

Of course, market economics is bust but that is because it is no longer free. If the markets were free to solve the problems in the economy the "predatory, parasitic and destructive systems" you mention would have been cleansed by not bailing out anyone back in 2008, i.e. by market forces.

The consequences of government interference guarantees the "predatory, parasitic and destructive systems" continue until they kill the host.

Jawgap · 10-03-2017 10:46PM

realitykeeper wrote: »

Of course, market economics is bust but that is because it is no longer free. If the markets were free to solve the problems in the economy the "predatory, parasitic and destructive systems" you mention would have been cleansed by not bailing out anyone back in 2008.

The consequences of government interference guarantees the "predatory, parasitic and destructive systems" continue until they kill the host.

No longer free?

When/where was the market ever free?

Wanderer78 · 10-03-2017 10:47PM

realitykeeper wrote: »

Of course, market economics is bust but that is because it is no longer free. If the markets were free to solve the problems in the economy the "predatory, parasitic and destructive systems" you mention would have been cleansed by not bailing out anyone back in 2008.

The consequences of government interference guarantees the "predatory, parasitic and destructive systems" continue until they kill the host.

so who kills the host and/or how do we do that?

this isnt as clear cut as you think, these questions are baffling the finest minds of today

The urgent need to reduce the cost of labour in Ireland.

Comments