ChatterBank0 min ago
A 'one track' economy?
I hear that David Cameron has pledged to invest in the NHS etc etc etc. Which led me to thinking about just how big and expensive it could get, with both parties vying to be the biggest investor.
A bit of web research reveals that already the NHS claims to be the largest employer in Europe and the 3rd largest in the world. Grown a lot recently, but currently seems to be contracting slightly.
However, the NHS seems to have strong competition for the title 'largest'. Local government claims to be the largest employer in the UK. This is still a growing 'industry'.
So, my question is, do you think it would be workable to have the majority of the UK economy being solely 'government services' IE health, government, education, defence etc. Plus all the associated service industries hanging off them. Would that model keep the economy going, or would it just explode (or implode)? If not, how big could the government sector become before it unbalances the whole economy?
A bit of web research reveals that already the NHS claims to be the largest employer in Europe and the 3rd largest in the world. Grown a lot recently, but currently seems to be contracting slightly.
However, the NHS seems to have strong competition for the title 'largest'. Local government claims to be the largest employer in the UK. This is still a growing 'industry'.
So, my question is, do you think it would be workable to have the majority of the UK economy being solely 'government services' IE health, government, education, defence etc. Plus all the associated service industries hanging off them. Would that model keep the economy going, or would it just explode (or implode)? If not, how big could the government sector become before it unbalances the whole economy?
Answers
1 to 8 of 8
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Catso. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
This is what they had in the USSR during the comunist period. Everyone works for the state, nobody is unemployed.
The trouble is it stifles competition, creativity, pride in your job or company, and a desire to cut costs or do a better job.
The hotels and restaurants in the USSR were awful because there was no need to provide better quality because they were all as bad as each other.
It is the competition between companies (Holiday Inn, Hilton etc) that drives them on to provide better quality at chaper prices.
The NHS does not need more money, what it needs is someone to spend the money more wisely.
My wifes mother has heart problems and takes about 15 tablets a day. She has a repeat prescription for loads of different tablets, but does not take half of them.
The GP never check if all the tablets are needed so loads of tablets go to waste.
The NHS must waste MILLIONS every year from people getting tablets they dont need.
The trouble is it stifles competition, creativity, pride in your job or company, and a desire to cut costs or do a better job.
The hotels and restaurants in the USSR were awful because there was no need to provide better quality because they were all as bad as each other.
It is the competition between companies (Holiday Inn, Hilton etc) that drives them on to provide better quality at chaper prices.
The NHS does not need more money, what it needs is someone to spend the money more wisely.
My wifes mother has heart problems and takes about 15 tablets a day. She has a repeat prescription for loads of different tablets, but does not take half of them.
The GP never check if all the tablets are needed so loads of tablets go to waste.
The NHS must waste MILLIONS every year from people getting tablets they dont need.
No it would not be workable, in the same way it became unworkable in Russia.
Money does not just come out of thin air, it has to be earned, generated.
The only reason we can have a health service and all these government departments is because people earn money and pay a lot of tax.
If you take a poor country, where there is a low wage (in Africa for example) then the people earn such low wages they could not afford to pay much tax, and therefore the services provided by the state are very low.
Even in the USA, which is a RICH country, but a LOW TAX country, the state provides far less services than in the UK and other European countries.
This is why so many immigrants and asylum seekers some here. We are very easy going with handing out our benefits (like using the NHS) so people see us as a each touch.
But it all has to be paid for, and with an ageing population who dont work, and many well off people moving abroad (and hence not buying anything in the UK) we are mostly left with chavs, and people who are scounging.
It will all come down on us soon, when our personal debt gets out of control and all our jobs go to India and China.
Money does not just come out of thin air, it has to be earned, generated.
The only reason we can have a health service and all these government departments is because people earn money and pay a lot of tax.
If you take a poor country, where there is a low wage (in Africa for example) then the people earn such low wages they could not afford to pay much tax, and therefore the services provided by the state are very low.
Even in the USA, which is a RICH country, but a LOW TAX country, the state provides far less services than in the UK and other European countries.
This is why so many immigrants and asylum seekers some here. We are very easy going with handing out our benefits (like using the NHS) so people see us as a each touch.
But it all has to be paid for, and with an ageing population who dont work, and many well off people moving abroad (and hence not buying anything in the UK) we are mostly left with chavs, and people who are scounging.
It will all come down on us soon, when our personal debt gets out of control and all our jobs go to India and China.
Millions of people would be in full employment, but none of them in wealth generating jobs.
As an example, suppose you had 4 people living in a house.
One does all the decorating, one does the garden, one does all the cooking, and one does all the washing.
All of them are in "employement", but none of them are actually bringing any money into the house. Who would pay the bills?
If one of them left the house and did a job to bring money in then they could perhaps pay all the bills (although they may be a bit annoyed about being the only one who paid.)
If TWO went out to work then that is a bit fairer. Two bringing in money while the other two do work around the house.
But you have to have SOME people out generating wealth or the whole thing collapses.
As an example, suppose you had 4 people living in a house.
One does all the decorating, one does the garden, one does all the cooking, and one does all the washing.
All of them are in "employement", but none of them are actually bringing any money into the house. Who would pay the bills?
If one of them left the house and did a job to bring money in then they could perhaps pay all the bills (although they may be a bit annoyed about being the only one who paid.)
If TWO went out to work then that is a bit fairer. Two bringing in money while the other two do work around the house.
But you have to have SOME people out generating wealth or the whole thing collapses.
Catso The trouble with public sector jobs is they do not generate any real money. The taxes people pay already belong to the governement so it's not new money, it's the old "Give me a tenner and I'll give that fiver I owe you" situation. The private sector generates wealth the public sector spends it. That's why fundementally socialism/comunism cannot work and always collapses.
As already stated the NHS does not need more money it needs more efficiency. I'm not saying it should be privatised but it should be run with the efficiency of a private enterprise.
As a general point the public sector should be a small as is possible, all public sector jobs are a drain on the wealth of the nation. Some of the jobs are necessary but quite a lot are not.
As already stated the NHS does not need more money it needs more efficiency. I'm not saying it should be privatised but it should be run with the efficiency of a private enterprise.
As a general point the public sector should be a small as is possible, all public sector jobs are a drain on the wealth of the nation. Some of the jobs are necessary but quite a lot are not.
That may all be so, but my question was more of a hypothetical one. Would it be economically workable?
Are you all saying no?
Why is there a need to 'generate wealth'? If the UK was economically isolated (let's just pretend it could keep itself going, and had sufficient resources) then all the money in the UK would just go round and round in a closed loop.
The basic point of money is just an aid to bartering, a 'middle-man' that everyone accepts. So, if everyone were doing a job, and being paid for it, be it a government-run job or private, why wouldn't the economy keep working without 'generating wealth'.
Most of today's 'generating wealth' seems to making money out of thin air (savings interest, house prices, share prices). This new 'wealth' doesn't really exist in reality.
Are you all saying no?
Why is there a need to 'generate wealth'? If the UK was economically isolated (let's just pretend it could keep itself going, and had sufficient resources) then all the money in the UK would just go round and round in a closed loop.
The basic point of money is just an aid to bartering, a 'middle-man' that everyone accepts. So, if everyone were doing a job, and being paid for it, be it a government-run job or private, why wouldn't the economy keep working without 'generating wealth'.
Most of today's 'generating wealth' seems to making money out of thin air (savings interest, house prices, share prices). This new 'wealth' doesn't really exist in reality.
1 to 8 of 8
