Britain's decline was inevitable.

[900T-R]

bosscerbera said:

Two nations: those who work, those who won't
"Blaming immigrants for our unemployment levels misses the point: the problem is people who are bone idle"

Exactly. You're not being owed a job, a house, a 37" telly and a virtually unlimited supply of Stella just because you were born in a country with a high GDP. If someone comes from outside the country and 'takes your job', the job wasn't yours to begin with. You are welcome to try and build an existance in another part of the world, too.

Strange how the principles of supply and demand suddendly don't apply anymore if people's 'born rights' are in question...

[JagLover]

AJS- said:

JagLover said:

If you take out the tax havens and petro states then the UK's position is not as bad.

Why would you take out "tax havens"? Every time we have attracted a bit of inward investment through having lower taxes and social security contributions than other EU countries we are being a tax haven ourselves.

Just because Switzerland, Andorra and Luxembourg are better at this it does not invalidate their wealth, or make our high taxes a good idea, or excuse our underpoerformance.

Switzerland is a large country. But many on these list are tiny places of a few tens of thousands inhabitants who look good on GDP per head comparisons due to the large amounts of investments due to their tax haven status. Comparing them to the UK is an entirely pointless exercise.

[JagLover]

bosscerbera said:

Two nations: those who work, those who won't
"Blaming immigrants for our unemployment levels misses the point: the problem is people who are bone idle"

"The Government's response has been to blame the immigrants who helped Britain for so long. Only this week Phil Woolas, the Immigration Minister, brought up Sangatte again. Yesterday, as the unemployment figures were released, Hazel Blears, the Secretary of State for Communities, suddenly announced a new migrant tax of £50 on overseas workers coming from outside the EU to pay for their public services."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnist...

This caught my attention in the comments section

"not sure how this can be true: I am single and always worked in Information Technology, about 3 years ago I couldn't find work for several months and went to the JobCentre, they gave me just over 50 pound a week (in London) to live on.

RM, London NW1, UK"

The reason why Labour has been able to get away with this is much of the general population is unaware of the vast gulf that exists between contribution based benefits and means tested ones (particularly if you have children).

[AJS-]

JagLover said:

AJS- said:

JagLover said:

If you take out the tax havens and petro states then the UK's position is not as bad.

Why would you take out "tax havens"? Every time we have attracted a bit of inward investment through having lower taxes and social security contributions than other EU countries we are being a tax haven ourselves.

Just because Switzerland, Andorra and Luxembourg are better at this it does not invalidate their wealth, or make our high taxes a good idea, or excuse our underpoerformance.

Switzerland is a large country. But many on these list are tiny places of a few tens of thousands inhabitants who look good on GDP per head comparisons due to the large amounts of investments due to their tax haven status. Comparing them to the UK is an entirely pointless exercise.

They tend to look fairly good when you go there too. There's no reason that money couldn't be put to work in the UK and other large industrialised countries, other than the overtaxing ways of our governments.

[cardigankid]

minerva said:

Very interesting posts, especially from the OP, so thank you for putting time and effort in. I really appreciate it and is food fro thought...

However, how are you judging Britain's decline? From where I am sitting (pretty), it all looks good. I am a state paid worker. I have a well paid job and have (compared to generations past and to other nations) a fabulous lifestyle. I want for nearly nothing (except that Aston, but then I could buy one if I really wanted).

This country is the 4th (?) richest nation on earth. We don't realise how good we have it. We don't half whine a lot though!

You are in a very fortunate position, and I am not blaming you, nor detracting in any way form the job you are doing. I held the Queen's Commission myself once upon a time, and if I blame myself for anything it is not going 'Regular' when I had the chance, having a guaranteed salary and pension and also doing a rewarding job. You are particularly fortunate in that as a doctor you will be able to carry on beyond the retirement age which would apply to most.

The problem is not unemployed loafers, though there are a few of those I am sure. If you go out and try to get a job, particularly if you are in your 40's or 50's you will struggle to find anything. That is because the public sector is literally stuffed with people drawing salaries and doing very little that you could honestly describe as productive. I am not attacking public servants per se, there are some very able people and there are people performing important services. But I could if asked give numerous very specific examples of utter waste. The private sector on the other hand is utterly bombshelled.

So while you personally are ok for the present, there are an awful lot of people who are at risk of losing their jobs and are, to be blunt, st scared. Me included. I can hardly sleep at night for what may financially happen. Yet the nation's finances appear to be dependent on people like me keeping on paying big tax bills. I can tell you from the 'front line'. It isn't going to happen.

At the same time the national finances are in a shocking condition. Our whole lifestyle has been funded on the basis of borrowing and speculation, and is in the popular word, unsustainable. I expect that the league tables to which you refer are probably based on these figures, so the real position is actually worse. The crows are coming home to roost now, and the only way out for the Government is to keep paying the tabs, however immense they may be, and the consequence of that is likely to be Third World style inflation. Now if your salary suddenly buys half or one third of what it currently does, and is not increased in proportion, where does that leave you? That is the scenario you should be preparing for.

There are just not enough productive people out there. The big bet was on the financial sector, and it did not come off.

[Gulzar]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

I agree, good post.

[900T-R]

cardigankid said:

There are just not enough productive people out there. The big bet was on the financial sector, and it did not come off.

Seeing as the only reasonable purpose of the financial sector is to facilitate value creation in the 'real' economy (as it doesn't create value to the end consumer or citizen in itself), you know you're heading for trouble when its proportion of GDP explodes compared to a largely stagnant overall economy that remained dependant on finite ressources all along...

[yli]

s2art said:

yli said:

s2art said:

fido said:

s2art said:

Japan is a democratic society, so just as vulnerable to the whims of popular demand. But the point was that having an education system that emphasised facts and rote learning didnt stop Japan, and therefore will not stop China.

I have to disagree on both points. On the first point, and it is a subtle one, if 'New Labour' were to stay in power for over 50 years [god forbid] would you so easily describe this as a democratic society? Note that Japan has had the same party in power for a similar period. Secondly, I don't think their education system is as rigid as you describe - in fact they have produced many innovations or at least adapted new technologies from the turn of the 20th century .. it's that old myth that Japan simply copies .. though of course it makes sense to 'copy' to start of with, especially if you aren't the first country to industrialise (as with GB or Germany).

Japans education system was rigid during the time they were building their economy at huge speed. Maybe in recent times it may have changed, but that is beside the point.
The debate was whether China, having an equally rigid education system, would fail to compete well. I argue not, and used the example of Japan.

1, What do you mean by saying a rigid education system? Is it really the case that being rigid is incompatible with innovation thinking? Japan, especially post war Japan, has produced quite a few Nobel prize winners in physics, chemistry, medicine and literature. They also gave us walkman, Just In Time logisitics ideas. China, on the other hand, failed to produce anything on that level.

2,A good education system (how to define what a good systerm is may be open to interpretation) is crucial for a sustained economic development. But having a good education system cannot guarantee the economic prosperity. You need other things, like capital, the correct market mechanics, the political situation etc, all those things combined with the education system to realise the development of the economy. China face huge challenges on all those frontiers. No doubt that China has great potential. But to convert the potential into real concrete growth is not that easy. Personally I think China is now in a very critical point. On the one hand it could build the economy like Japan did provided China tackle those challenges well. On the other hand it may end up in trouble if those challenges cannot be resolved.

Now back to original question. My impression of UK is that UK seems to have lost their great ambition that have helped them to be the No. 1 in the past. The nation is not dynamic anymore. No goal to pursue. During the post war period UK missed the opportunity to make the full use of the new industries on which the new economy structure depends: the electronics industry, the telecom industry and the IT industry etc. UK missed the opportunity again and agiain. All you have is financial industry and argubaly the biotech industry. The once leading nation at the industrial revolutionary age disappeared and was replaced by countries that did well in those new industries. To make things worse the traditional industry also failed.

But UK is still way ahead of CHina and India. We still need to work extremely hard to catch you. I think China needs at least fifty years to reach the current position that UK stands provided China can tackle its numerous challenges well.

Actually a lot of the ideas Japan apprently pioneered, such as continuous improvement, JIT etc were developments of Western practices. Ford in particular, although the Japanese (Toyota mainly) improved on them.

You seem to have misunderstood my point. I am saying if Japan could succeed hugely with a fact and rote based education system then so can China. Perhaps a different system could encourage more innovation, but I doubt China will lack innovators anyway.

China has enormous capital it can bring to bear. I am not sure what your point is. Its not going to take 50 years, its happening now.

I was not aware of JIT being developed by western companies. All the book I have read including books from UAS suggested it was developed by Toyota.

I do not think I misunderstood your points. I will explain the Japan&China issue by the following logic. First I would like to challenge the pre-conception of China and Japan having a fundamentally similar education system. Second I would demonstrate that even if China and Japan do have a fundamentally similar education system China is still not guaranteed for producing innovations.

The first point. I actually do not know how Japanese education system works(That is why I asked you what a rigid education system was). But I challenge the idea of China and Japan having a similar knowledge learning route due to the following fact:Japan have produced quite a few Nobel prize winners. China, on the other hand, have produced nearly none. There are a few Chinese in Nobel winner list. But only two of them grew up in China ,completed their first one or two years in university before they left for USA in 1940s(their Nobel winning work was completely done in USA).If China and Japn do have a similar system then how can you explain that China failed to produce a Nobel prize winner? It has been nearly sixty years since the two above mentioned Chinese got Nobel prize who were actually academically remote to China. Another example which is probably not proper but is worthing mentioning. We are required to study the so-called political theory in schools and univerities which is the Marxism theory. We were taught that Marxism was the ultimately truth of all philosophies. Every other philosophy is either wrong or inferior. In a word we are told to just believe one thing and that is Marxism. This kind of education confines or restrains or controlls people's mind which is everything opposite to the innovative thinking. Japan probably does not do that.

The second point. Suppose China does have a similar education system with Japan and that means China has the academic potential, China still lacks the necessary mechanism to convert the potential into real concrete innovation progress. What is this mechanism? They are many things. the respect for the original intellectual rights, the R&D fund allocation procedures that is efficient and transparent, the proper incentive stimulus mechanism, the absolute free thinking academic research environment, the determination of academics to continuous work hard etc. All those things just do not exist here. To give you one example. Chen Jin, a professor in a top Chinese university, managed to get up to one hundred million money from the government to inject into his own company in the name of making the domestic manufactured chips. How did he manage to do this? He bought some chips from Americans. Then he employed several people to scrub off the trademark of the USA company from the chips and submitted them into assessment procedures conducted by the highest standard committee. How he managed to pass the assessment is still a myth. The result was he got huge amount of money from the government by claiming that he had orinigal developed a domestic chip. This example may be rare in terms of the huge amount of moeny was involved. But it is a public secret that the majority of the academics try to get money by various reasons and then put the money into their own pocket without making any R&D achievement.

As for the catch up of western countries I agree that in terms of GDP China is doing well. But that is just on an aggregate basis. What's more whether or not GDP is the best measurement for economy growth is questionable. I make the statement on the basis of a micro-economic activities level. Chinese companies still lack a lot things that the western companies have been doing for many years. For instance, the efficient mechanism to organize manufacturing, the mature skills owned by workers, the R&D systems etc. Western countries including UK are still leading way ahead of China. That is why I said China probably needs another fifty years to really catch up. China's success is predominately relied on huge amount of various resource（both natural resource and capital resource)input and low paid workers. Put it simple: UK probably needs to input one quantity of resource to produce one quantity of wealth. China, however probably needs to input four to get one. Chinese economy, like its products in global market, looking great but lacking the quality, still has a long way to go to catch up its western competitors.

[s2art]

yli said:

I was not aware of JIT being developed by western companies. All the book I have read including books from UAS suggested it was developed by Toyota.

I do not think I misunderstood your points. I will explain the Japan&China issue by the following logic. First I would like to challenge the pre-conception of China and Japan having a fundamentally similar education system. Second I would demonstrate that even if China and Japan do have a fundamentally similar education system China is still not guaranteed for producing innovations.

The first point. I actually do not know how Japanese education system works(That is why I asked you what a rigid education system was). But I challenge the idea of China and Japan having a similar knowledge learning route due to the following fact:Japan have produced quite a few Nobel prize winners. China, on the other hand, have produced nearly none. There are a few Chinese in Nobel winner list. But only two of them grew up in China ,completed their first one or two years in university before they left for USA in 1940s(their Nobel winning work was completely done in USA).If China and Japn do have a similar system then how can you explain that China failed to produce a Nobel prize winner? It has been nearly sixty years since the two above mentioned Chinese got Nobel prize who were actually academically remote to China. Another example which is probably not proper but is worthing mentioning. We are required to study the so-called political theory in schools and univerities which is the Marxism theory. We were taught that Marxism was the ultimately truth of all philosophies. Every other philosophy is either wrong or inferior. In a word we are told to just believe one thing and that is Marxism. This kind of education confines or restrains or controlls people's mind which is everything opposite to the innovative thinking. Japan probably does not do that.

The second point. Suppose China does have a similar education system with Japan and that means China has the academic potential, China still lacks the necessary mechanism to convert the potential into real concrete innovation progress. What is this mechanism? They are many things. the respect for the original intellectual rights, the R&D fund allocation procedures that is efficient and transparent, the proper incentive stimulus mechanism, the absolute free thinking academic research environment, the determination of academics to continuous work hard etc. All those things just do not exist here. To give you one example. Chen Jin, a professor in a top Chinese university, managed to get up to one hundred million money from the government to inject into his own company in the name of making the domestic manufactured chips. How did he manage to do this? He bought some chips from Americans. Then he employed several people to scrub off the trademark of the USA company from the chips and submitted them into assessment procedures conducted by the highest standard committee. How he managed to pass the assessment is still a myth. The result was he got huge amount of money from the government by claiming that he had orinigal developed a domestic chip. This example may be rare in terms of the huge amount of moeny was involved. But it is a public secret that the majority of the academics try to get money by various reasons and then put the money into their own pocket without making any R&D achievement.

As for the catch up of western countries I agree that in terms of GDP China is doing well. But that is just on an aggregate basis. What's more whether or not GDP is the best measurement for economy growth is questionable. I make the statement on the basis of a micro-economic activities level. Chinese companies still lack a lot things that the western companies have been doing for many years. For instance, the efficient mechanism to organize manufacturing, the mature skills owned by workers, the R&D systems etc. Western countries including UK are still leading way ahead of China. That is why I said China probably needs another fifty years to really catch up. China's success is predominately relied on huge amount of various resource（both natural resource and capital resource)input and low paid workers. Put it simple: UK probably needs to input one quantity of resource to produce one quantity of wealth. China, however probably needs to input four to get one. Chinese economy, like its products in global market, looking great but lacking the quality, still has a long way to go to catch up its western competitors.

RE JIT. Take a look at http://www.strategosinc.com/just_in_time.htm
Its considered that Ford was the first to attempt so called 'lean manufacturing' although Toyota developed the ideas.

Re Education. I take your point, but I do not think innovation is as valuable as getting production and development very efficient at this stage of China's industrial progress. Innovation comes next. Regarding Marxism, it didnt stop the Soviets being innovative, for that matter Frank Whittle (father of the jet engine) was a fervent socialist too. (and consider all those highly religious types in preceding centuries, their beliefs didnt prevent innovation, though I have to say protestants seemed more innovative than catholics).
Given the large numbers of scientists and engineers that have come into being in China in the past 20 years I would expect Nobel prizes to start arriving very soon.
The big advantage China has, and the reason it will not take as long as 50 years, is that it can draw upon all the work that the West and Japan has already done. It does not have to re-invent the wheel. Where China needs specific skills it can buy them in.

[minerva]

cardigankid said:

lots

Thank you for your response. Feel a lot less cocky all of a sudden.....

[turbobloke]

s2art said:

yli said:

I was not aware of JIT being developed by western companies. All the book I have read including books from UAS suggested it was developed by Toyota...

RE JIT. Take a look at http://www.strategosinc.com/just_in_time.htm
Its considered that Ford was the first to attempt so called 'lean manufacturing' although Toyota developed the ideas.

Not forgetting Dr W Edwards Deming who gets a brief mention in the linked web pages. USA handed Japan quite a coup by not listening to prophets in their own country. Have they realised - just in time?

[bosscerbera]

Britain is fubar, there's no question about it. Our predicament is the worst in the world in my opinion but, by varying degrees, our major trading partners are in similar boats. Those not in substantial debt need those who are to be their customers. It doesn't work.

This is where economics starts to wander into the realms of philosophy. Really, what the hell are we playing at?

For all its faults, the monetary system provided the stimulus to drive quite extraordinary innovations that, in the main, have enriched human life. It's allowed an awful lot of us to get away with doing nothing too. We now consume for consumption's sake and those that don't yet aspire to do so one day. China's African asset grab is preparation for them having a low-cost area ready and waiting for when their 1.3 billion people reach the consumptive lifestyle. I don't think they'll make it to that though.

They certainly won't aspire to "what comes next": a post-consumptive era. Or maybe they will - it depends what defines that era. It could be good, there is scope for optimism, but I think it's a philosophical rather than an economic question.

Economics is based on scarcity. All the most valuable things are scarce (and typically ultra-desirable/aspirational); all the most valuable businesses succeed through making scarce things cheaper - the trickle down effect of technology, for instance, or intensive farming of salmon or prawns. This process has become manic and many former luxuries are hugely debased. That is unsustainable. And, philosophically perhaps, I think making the aspirational widely achievable is a bad thing - lower aspiration means lower achievement. Take Bentley and Aston Martin as examples, sure they made a fast buck when they ramped up production of the "baby" models but both companies are in dire straits now, regardless of "the crunch". They sold their cachet, soul and future down the river with every cheap car they made. On the way they inflicted a bit of damage on Mercedes-Benz and Porsche (and pleased some WAGs) but that was about it. Frankly, I still believe a proper Bentley costs at least 200 large and anything less than that is what the used market is for.

One of the more interesting things on the horizon is abundant energy from sources that are not scarce. Energy consumption plays a huge part in the industrialized world and custodians of finite energy resources wield an awful lot of power, in the markets and in governments. That could change. If we "went electric" with renewable generation, things would be very different. There would be a lot less friction with the Middle East too. We have the technical bit licked now, political will is the only stumbling block.

The monetary system has collapsed, the debt figures not only "might as well just be numbers", in reality THEY ARE just numbers, that's what fiat money is. Years of fiat money and the acceleration of expansion in the past decade have caused "the numbers" to separate from reality. Numbers and reality will never meet again in this system. The world's top 20 regions (85% of global economic activity) are holding numbers against each other that cannot be supported - whether that be the UK's debt or China's capacity. A sum equivalent to 40% of China's GDP was invested in its industrial capacity last year - it's not even started being sweated. China was generating $7 trillion before that capacity was extended. Lord knows what its potential is now, from within its own borders, let alone its quiet colonization of Africa.

I think that in removing labour/hard work from so many lives in the name of enrichment that the opposite is true. It is so insidiously ingrained in us now that "effort is bad". That ranges from "miracle" cleaning chemicals that mean you don't need to move your arm much to farm machinery that means one bloke sat on his arse can deal with hundreds of acres. Supermarket advertising removes "hard work" from selecting and preparing food. Once upon a time there was pleasure, skill and satisfaction in people doing things. Now we'd all like to subcontract cleaning to a cheap immigrant, buy our meals ready prepared and find work (if we can be bothered at all) that means we can sit on our arses all day. Ironically, lots of arse-sitters do "hard work" for a hobby like DIY/gardening - or synthetic hard work in a gym. Worse still, arse-sitters feel themselves to be superior to manual grafters which is a psychological as well as an economic disincentive to mow the municipal lawns (so let an immigrant do it).

You'd think some of this would be discussed at G20 summits. Can they really just all be stood there with their cocks in their hands bullstting one another?

[turbobloke]

bosscerbera said:

You'd think some of this would be discussed at G20 summits. Can they really just all be stood there with their cocks in their hands bullstting one another?

I'd say the answer is yes.

bosscerbera said:

One of the more interesting things on the horizon is abundant energy from sources that are not scarce. Energy consumption plays a huge part in the industrialized world and custodians of finite energy resources wield an awful lot of power, in the markets and in governments. That could change. If we "went electric" with renewable generation, things would be very different. There would be a lot less friction with the Middle East too. We have the technical bit licked now, political will is the only stumbling block.

Renewable electrical energy isn't cheap, or rather it's cheaper than it would be due to taxpayer subsidies to the tune of £25 billion up to 2027 for renewables obligation certificates. Windymills carry the bulk of expectation in this area of our forthcoming energy crunch. Other costs of the government's planned programme are £66 billion for 33 gigawatts of capacity planned (Carbon Trust) and £10 billion purely to connect windymills to the grid (parliamentary written answer). Oh and our emissions trading deficit at approx £7 billion / year which gives £126 billion to 2027. Add in biofuel policy (may change soon as it's being seen to be less favourable than previously thought) at £50 billion to 2020.

[AJS-]

I think you can go too far with blaming the work ethic and attitudes of public sector employees. These are pretty much the same world over, and there are plenty of people in the private sector with similar attitudes. In fact most people are capable of slacking when they are in a job with multiple or ambiguous objectives and a lack of measurable outcomes. All of these go nearly hand in hand with public sector roles.

The problem is the sheer size and scope of the public sector. For example £6.6 billion goes to the Department of Culture, Media and Sports. Does anyone believe all these things would stop if we simply closed that department? And in doing so, literally hundreds of people who work there would suddenly have to do something else. Something that pays taxes rather than consumes public money.

In the scheme of things £6.6 billion sounds like peanuts, but that's £110 per year for every man woman and child in the country by my farmer's maths. If you cut that back to actual tax payers working in the productive economy, it's probably more like, well £6.6 billion per productive UK tax payer...

There's nothing wrong with the public sector that complete and permanent closure wouldn't fix.

[s2art]

turbobloke said:

bosscerbera said:

You'd think some of this would be discussed at G20 summits. Can they really just all be stood there with their cocks in their hands bullstting one another?

I'd say the answer is yes.

bosscerbera said:

One of the more interesting things on the horizon is abundant energy from sources that are not scarce. Energy consumption plays a huge part in the industrialized world and custodians of finite energy resources wield an awful lot of power, in the markets and in governments. That could change. If we "went electric" with renewable generation, things would be very different. There would be a lot less friction with the Middle East too. We have the technical bit licked now, political will is the only stumbling block.

Renewable electrical energy isn't cheap, or rather it's cheaper than it would be due to taxpayer subsidies to the tune of £25 billion up to 2027 for renewables obligation certificates. Windymills carry the bulk of expectation in this area of our forthcoming energy crunch. Other costs of the government's planned programme are £66 billion for 33 gigawatts of capacity planned (Carbon Trust) and £10 billion purely to connect windymills to the grid (parliamentary written answer). Oh and our emissions trading deficit at approx £7 billion / year which gives £126 billion to 2027. Add in biofuel policy (may change soon as it's being seen to be less favourable than previously thought) at £50 billion to 2020.

Quite. Nuclear power is a no-brainer.
WRT to the UK being fubared, I cant see it being much worse than last time Labour screwed up. Its just that we will have to go through all the pain of the early Thatcher period all over again.

Edited by s2art on Friday 20th March 18:33

[cardigankid]

bosscerbera said:

Frankly, I still believe a proper Bentley costs at least 200 large and anything less than that is what the used market is for.

At last - a profound philosophical comment.

The difficulty we face is that the alternative to the fiat currencies is subsistence, and though comfort and luxury are indeed relative - how do you measure happiness? - we are really not well adjusted to the peasant lifestyle whixch we are facing. I totally agree that technology offers us the answers - but you need to mobilise labour to create them and how do you do that? Offer to feed and house them, but where is the food going to come from? What can we offer farmers at home and abroad in return for food? Risk Assessments, Change Management Services or Risk Assessments? They are too fking smart to buy insurance policies, ISA's or Unit Trusts. It could be grim in the UK for quite a time.

What Brown has created by a roundabout route is an Eastern Bloc type of Gulag society in which freedom is illusory.

Edited by cardigankid on Friday 20th March 18:33

[bosscerbera]

turbobloke said:

Renewable electrical energy isn't cheap, or rather it's cheaper than it would be due to taxpayer subsidies to the tune of £25 billion up to 2027 for renewables obligation certificates. Windymills carry the bulk of expectation in this area of our forthcoming energy crunch. Other costs of the government's planned programme are £66 billion for 33 gigawatts of capacity planned (Carbon Trust) and £10 billion purely to connect windymills to the grid (parliamentary written answer). Oh and our emissions trading deficit at approx £7 billion / year which gives £126 billion to 2027. Add in biofuel policy (may change soon as it's being seen to be less favourable than previously thought) at £50 billion to 2020.

Oil/gas exploration isn't cheap either but you can control people with a finite resource. The Chinese have got solar panels very close to grid parity.

[cardigankid]

AJS- said:

I think you can go too far with blaming the work ethic and attitudes of public sector employees. These are pretty much the same world over, and there are plenty of people in the private sector with similar attitudes. In fact most people are capable of slacking when they are in a job with multiple or ambiguous objectives and a lack of measurable outcomes. All of these go nearly hand in hand with public sector roles.

The problem is the sheer size and scope of the public sector. For example £6.6 billion goes to the Department of Culture, Media and Sports. Does anyone believe all these things would stop if we simply closed that department? And in doing so, literally hundreds of people who work there would suddenly have to do something else. Something that pays taxes rather than consumes public money.

In the scheme of things £6.6 billion sounds like peanuts, but that's £110 per year for every man woman and child in the country by my farmer's maths. If you cut that back to actual tax payers working in the productive economy, it's probably more like, well £6.6 billion per productive UK tax payer...

There's nothing wrong with the public sector that complete and permanent closure wouldn't fix.

I am certainly not blaming everything on the attitude of public sector workers - the whole situation is too complex for that - but it has been expanded as a means of creating jobs, it grows by the empire building principle, and the idea of comparability with the private sector is totally misguided. It is not in any way the same animal, and most importantly the figures do not HAVE to balance because they will never go bust as such. That is not the same as saying there are no financial constraints.

[s2art]

bosscerbera said:

turbobloke said:

Renewable electrical energy isn't cheap, or rather it's cheaper than it would be due to taxpayer subsidies to the tune of £25 billion up to 2027 for renewables obligation certificates. Windymills carry the bulk of expectation in this area of our forthcoming energy crunch. Other costs of the government's planned programme are £66 billion for 33 gigawatts of capacity planned (Carbon Trust) and £10 billion purely to connect windymills to the grid (parliamentary written answer). Oh and our emissions trading deficit at approx £7 billion / year which gives £126 billion to 2027. Add in biofuel policy (may change soon as it's being seen to be less favourable than previously thought) at £50 billion to 2020.

Oil/gas exploration isn't cheap either but you can control people with a finite resource. The Chinese have got solar panels very close to grid parity.

Solar panels not much use in northern climes. There is no shortage of oil or gas, nor for that matter, fissionable material.

[turbobloke]

bosscerbera said:

turbobloke said:

Renewable electrical energy isn't cheap, or rather it's cheaper than it would be due to taxpayer subsidies to the tune of £25 billion up to 2027 for renewables obligation certificates. Windymills carry the bulk of expectation in this area of our forthcoming energy crunch. Other costs of the government's planned programme are £66 billion for 33 gigawatts of capacity planned (Carbon Trust) and £10 billion purely to connect windymills to the grid (parliamentary written answer). Oh and our emissions trading deficit at approx £7 billion / year which gives £126 billion to 2027. Add in biofuel policy (may change soon as it's being seen to be less favourable than previously thought) at £50 billion to 2020.

Oil/gas exploration isn't cheap either but you can control people with a finite resource. The Chinese have got solar panels very close to grid parity.

Nukes are the way to go, fusion research not withstanding but political will seems to want an energy shortage so they can continue to milk tax gas. As a result fusion is under-funded compared to the potential benefits. The idea of clean almost limitless energy must scare the current generation of politicomuppets witless.

As to China, a law was passed in Feb 2005 committing to 10% energy from total renewables by 2020.