chem1st Posted August 6, 2011 Share Posted August 6, 2011 The public sector is currently shrinking as the UK struggles to cope with its debt. We must sacrifice jobs etc. in the public sector just to balance the books. We have been living beyond our means. If we improved our means we could afford to employ more people to do socially useful jobs (expand the public sector). Rather than have people languishing on the dole. If the economy improves and we can deal with the debt, then we can expand the public sector. The size of the public sector as a measure of economic success? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matsalleh Posted August 6, 2011 Share Posted August 6, 2011 The Roman Legions had the answer.Decimation! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Hardie Posted August 6, 2011 Share Posted August 6, 2011 The Roman Legions had the answer.Decimation! Wonderful! Someone who uses the word correctly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnvqsos Posted August 6, 2011 Share Posted August 6, 2011 The largest public sector ever was found in the Soviet Union accounting for 90% economic activity,but was probably not deemed a success in economic terms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted August 6, 2011 Share Posted August 6, 2011 Every country needs a mix of public and private enterprise. It's about each country getting the correct balance between the two sectors. The ideal situation is to achieve strong economic growth (avoiding overheating) while achieving budget surplus at the same time. We have minimal economic growth. We have budget deficit. Cutting the public sector now with nothing to replace it will choke off demand and send the economy into reverse. We could be left with negative growth, more (and more expensive) debt caused by increasing unemployment etc... In that scenario a reduced public sector is not a success indicator but indicative of appalling economic misjudgement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted August 6, 2011 Share Posted August 6, 2011 Every country needs a mix of public and private enterprise. It's about each country getting the correct balance between the two sectors. The ideal situation is to achieve strong economic growth (avoiding overheating) while achieving budget surplus at the same time. We have minimal economic growth. We have budget deficit. Cutting the public sector now with nothing to replace it will choke off demand and send the economy into reverse. We could be left with negative growth, more (and more expensive) debt caused by increasing unemployment etc... In that scenario a reduced public sector is not a success indicator but indicative of appalling economic misjudgement. So you feel it's a better option to go to the markets and ask to borrow more money on top of what we're borrowing to spend our way out of recession? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted August 6, 2011 Share Posted August 6, 2011 So you feel it's a better option to go to the markets and ask to borrow more money on top of what we're borrowing to spend our way out of recession? Maybe. The choices are pretty stark: 1. Increase public debt by throwing public sector workers on the dole. Risking that tipping point (8% unemployment) where the inherent welfare costs make ongoing structural deficit inevitable. The only way out of that is strong private sector growth which if we're honest simply is not happening. 2. Increase spending on public services, preferably public infrastructure, to try and spark the necessary growth. But as you say that involves more borrowing. We really are in a hole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mj.scuba Posted August 6, 2011 Share Posted August 6, 2011 The public sector is currently shrinking as the UK struggles to cope with its debt. We must sacrifice jobs etc. in the public sector just to balance the books. We have been living beyond our means. If we improved our means we could afford to employ more people to do socially useful jobs (expand the public sector). Rather than have people languishing on the dole. If the economy improves and we can deal with the debt, then we can expand the public sector. The size of the public sector as a measure of economic success? Absolutely not. Isn't this what Labour did? They saw the revenues rolling in during an economic boom, but they matched it (and then some) with expanding the public sector. The state should always remain only as small as we need it imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matsalleh Posted August 7, 2011 Share Posted August 7, 2011 Wonderful! Someone who uses the word correctly. Thank you,kind sir. Psst whats it mean ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mecky Posted August 7, 2011 Share Posted August 7, 2011 It's been said and proved that the size of the public sector does not affect the economy of a nation and that the cuts will not change the UK's current situation. Already people have began to moan that they can't get the services they want because Civil Servants are being axed, meaning SLAa are being stretched. A good example is the report from the other week about how MPs moaning about how the fact that the HMRC can't deal with the workload, despite the fact that they are the very people who have made the cuts in the first place and that there are more to follow. The Civil Service has a lot of low paid workers that the private sector just can't compete against and because of the low wages it also has a high rate of union membership. It is class warfare, plain and simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.