Wanderer78 wrote: » 60 billion interest on our(?) National debt is hardly causing issues, is it?
fliball123 wrote: » Its not currently its like a vegetarian waking into a steakhouse looking at the menu and realising that its all meat. There is always at least 30% people who dont bother voting due to this and a lot of the people voting will tell you they are picking the best from a bad bunch. Why dont the cowards have the balls to put a none of the above option on the ballet and see how they go
kippy wrote: » If there actually were a "DEMAND" within the electorate for actual change, surely people would run to meet this demand. The demand simply isn't there from what I can see outside of a minority of people.
fliball123 wrote: » the 60 billion was paid over the last 10 years ..You should research where and when that debt was built up a lot was pre crash and pre bankers bailout and even after bailing them out we were still borrowing.
Sinn Féin's David Cullinane asked: "Before the crash came it was about €40bn and it is now €205bn. So the vast majority of it is crash or austerity-related, either through bank recapitalisation or through servicing state expenditure." Mr O'Kelly said that this is correct.https://www.rte.ie/news/politics/2019/0704/1060035-national-debt/
Matt Barrett wrote: » People become jaded. Kenny offered 'real' change, 'change the way we do business' etc. A lot wanted that and voted for it. So the will is there, but as mentioned greed in many forms takes over.
markodaly wrote: » This is hilarious!! When asked the following question: We get this So far so good.... Then, we get this when an idea on how to save some money, while delivering a service improvement, we get this. A reversal of opinion within a few posts. To be honest, this ties in with the OP. Why do we get crappy services with our tax money? Well, the answer is above, as exhibited by MattBarrett. ....
kippy wrote: » (I am not sure Kenny is a good example) But is it greed or is it a dose of reality? There's plenty people with plenty ideas, but none with the will or support to put them in place. I think once you do get into a position where you might want to try change things you get to see the bigger picture of how difficult and how much of a knock on effect that change is going to have.
kippy wrote: » If only politics we are black and white as that analogy.
Matt Barrett wrote: » He's the perfect example because he had the biggest opportunity to do something for the Irish, but decided not to. Changing the way we do business would mean less money to private concerns so they chose to continue as is. Greed comes into 'looking after our own' and inappropriate behaviour and sweet deals and the like.
kippy wrote: » Did he decide not to or did he realise that certain things were simply not feasible/possible based on the actual set of circumstances he encountered? (And again, I don't think Kenny is a good example here)
Matt Barrett wrote: » You either don't understand or are choosing not to. If we are subsidising private industry, which seeks private profit, we are better off running it our selves as our goal is not to profit but to provide services in as cheap and an efficient manner as possible. Ergo, if we are losing money to provide a service it is preferable, IMO, to spending money so a private enterprise can provide the service and make a profit on top. It's very basic finance. You can disagree, but it's not a reversal as you put it. It's about value for money for the tax payer, but also providing services.
markodaly wrote: Some services provided by the state are not run efficiently. Public Transport is one example of this. If an opportunity arose which meant that the Irish Taxpayer saved money but retained the same level of service, surely you would back and support this?
Wanderer78 wrote: » Strangely enough, there's been plenty of work done on the 'inefficiency of the market' also, so....
markodaly wrote: Can you elaborate on this point?
markodaly wrote: » I understand perfectly. You are a typical Irish voter. On one hand, you want ' a purely accountancy driven cost assessment' when assesing the provision of services. However, on the other hand, you state that 'we are better off running it our selves as our goal is not to profit' These are two ideas are separate and contradict each other. Cognitive dissonance if you will. Some services provided by the state are not run efficiently. Public Transport is one example of this. If an opportunity arose which meant that the Irish Taxpayer saved money but retained the same level of service, surely you would back and support this?
Matt Barrett wrote: » No. If a private company can be efficient so can a public one. A system with problems needs the problems addressed. We can tackle costs for services or subsidise private concerns and their profits. In that scenario we are better off with public. I honestly can't see what your issue is, efficiency based on cost can and does happen everyday except with the public model value is a goal above gouging for profit. Public: Cost to carry out service Private: Cost to carry out service + profit If we are subsidising private concerns it's possibly cheaper to remain public.
Matt Barrett wrote: » No. If a private company can be efficient so can a public one.
Geuze wrote: » This could also be written as: Public: lower productivity / excessive wages / trade union power / no profit = costs per unit still higher then the private sector Private: higher productivity / high wages more earned/deserved + yes, profits = lower costs than public sector My local for-profit hosp does twice the procedures per session than my local public hosp. This is due to trade union power and the profit motive.
Geuze wrote: » Decades upon decades have shown this to be unlikely. A public company could be productive and efficient, yes............ But in reality, trade unions prevent that. Examples: Two porters in Galway hosp watch Steptoe and Sons videos after 4:30, after their boss has left. Consultants refuse to take more patients. Would this happen in a non-public hosp?
A system with problems needs the problems addressed. We can tackle costs for services or subsidise private concerns and their profits. In that scenario we are better off with public. I honestly can't see what your issue is, efficiency based on cost can and does happen everyday except with the public model value is a goal above gouging for profit.
Public: Cost to carry out service Private: Cost to carry out service + profit If we are subsidising private concerns it's possibly cheaper to remain public.
Wanderer78 wrote: » The age old debate, particularly by advocates of free market economics, would tell you the market is our savior, all knowing, and flawless, but reality tells us, this isn't exactly true, I'm just wondering, at what stage will we realise this, and how much damage will be done to humanity and our planet by the time that occurs. There's clearly something wrong with the neoliberal/neoclassical approach to life on this planet, but we re not reacting to it at all
markodaly wrote: Possibly but rarely it ever happens like that. The fact is usually the case is that a private company can provide a service cheaper and make a profit, shows us the amount of waste and gross inefficiency endemic in the public sector.
Wanderer78 wrote: » I've only ever worked in the private sector, mainly factories, plenty of inefficiencies there, plenty of lads standing around doing nothing, playing with their phones, watching tv, smoking joints etc etc, and still these companies, large multi nationals, make astonishing profits. Its not just the public sector filled with inefficiencies! Ul economist Stephen kinsella has shown how productivity has risen dramatically over the last couple of decades, but wealth inequality has also, him believing this is largely due to the demise of the union movement, I do suspect he's right.
markodaly wrote: » I am sure there are lots of inefficiencies in private businesses, I have seen them for myself. The crucial difference though, there is a constant drive to try and remove these inefficiencies otherwise bankruptcy looms, eventually. In the public system, so long as the taxpayer pays the wages and the pension then the system can keep on going. As per the last part, that would have more to do with Globalisation than anything. Wages in the west have stagnated since the late '70s and it has coincided with large numbers of women entering the workforce and globalisation. Wages in places like Poland, Vietnam, South Korea have increased hugely. Ireland can be included in this camp by the way.
awec wrote: » It would certainly be interesting to know how much money is spent by the public sector every year contracting in private sector companies to do the work.
theguzman wrote: » We waste €18bn per year on the HSE which is good not nothing. We need to abolish the HSE and privatise it and let Healthcare be provided by the private sector like in America.
kippy wrote: » Yeah, that's an absolutely great idea........ healthcare costs much less to the individual citizen over there than it does here....... That's the model we should be focused on mirroring......https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_the_United_States
