CPSU membership reject Croke Park Deal

[Westerly Wind]

Of course it doesn't - the government are too busy stuffing it into the pockets or the spivs and speculators (and those all-powerful 'markets').

Whatever you say. Clearly there's little point in debating with you the rights or wrongs of NAMA and the injections into the banks. Whatever the result, it still wouldn't magically mean we could borrow upwards of 20 billion a year to pay (among other things) social welfare and public sector pay. Pay cuts still have to happen.

[change_comin_on]

Question. Which sector of workers actually make product, hence money/profit? Private or Public?

Hint, the private sector could survive without a public sector. Twould be even more toothy than now, but it could survive.
The Public sector is totally dependant on the tax take on the private sector. No private sector, no tax, no PS wage money.

I know that this point has already been challenged but I think it needs to be revisited.

The private sector could NOT survive without the public sector, at least not a modern capitalist economy. How can capitalist private companies conduct there business in a state with no publicly run court system, to enforce private property and the fair payment of due loans? How can enterprise survive in a state with no police force to keep rape, pillage and violence at bay? The system which holds the very fabric which needs capitalism to flourish in requires a public sector.

Can you imagine how different free enterprise would be if there was no redistributive function of government (as there would be no body to collect taxes not to mind redistribute them). Prices would be much lower for most goods (especially the lower end of the luxury market) and all non essential items. Poor people would litterally not have money to pay for more than their subsistance needs, thus markets would shrink.

I know that an obvious response is that the private sector can theoretically take over many of these functions, yet this is a flawed logic. While it makes sense that certain ethoses and controls which are characteristic of the private sector should be progressively adapted by the public sector, in order to improve efficiency, the replacement of public sector bodies with for-profit bodies is failed. A brief illustration of this can be seen in Michael Moore's 'Capitalism' film when he explores what happens when a private company is contracted to run a prison service for minor offenders. The result: The profit motive leads to many juveniles receiving ridiculously excessive sentences for their actions. Private companies cannot run a fair and legitimate society. Public sector institutions run for profit would lead to mass corruption.

While Ireland is beset with corruption at present the situation would be much worse if we simply 'privatised the public sector' or whatever you seem to be implying.



It would appear to me that your comment was not thought through and is merely the voice of INM ideology which you've uncritically adopted: the public sector is bad, a scourge on our society. I know that your point was just trying to imply something, rather than be substantive, but what was it you were trying to imply? Without actualy trying to make a logical substantive point you're merely adding to the discourse set by powerful vested interests in getting their opinions disseminated, thus reinforcing the agenda of INM et al., merely being one of the many 'clever m[e]n who cries the catch-cries of the clown.'

[Pabilito]

I know that this point has already been challenged but I think it needs to be revisited.

The private sector could NOT survive without the public sector, at least not a modern capitalist economy. How can capitalist private companies conduct there business in a state with no publicly run court system, to enforce private property and the fair payment of due loans? How can enterprise survive in a state with no police force to keep rape, pillage and violence at bay? The system which holds the very fabric which needs capitalism to flourish in requires a public sector.

Can you imagine how different free enterprise would be if there was no redistributive function of government (as there would be no body to collect taxes not to mind redistribute them). Prices would be much lower for most goods (especially the lower end of the luxury market) and all non essential items. Poor people would litterally not have money to pay for more than their subsistance needs, thus markets would shrink.

I know that an obvious response is that the private sector can theoretically take over many of these functions, yet this is a flawed logic. While it makes sense that certain ethoses and controls which are characteristic of the private sector should be progressively adapted by the public sector, in order to improve efficiency, the replacement of public sector bodies with for-profit bodies is failed. A brief illustration of this can be seen in Michael Moore's 'Capitalism' film when he explores what happens when a private company is contracted to run a prison service for minor offenders. The result: The profit motive leads to many juveniles receiving ridiculously excessive sentences for their actions. Private companies cannot run a fair and legitimate society. Public sector institutions run for profit would lead to mass corruption.

While Ireland is beset with corruption at present the situation would be much worse if we simply 'privatised the public sector' or whatever you seem to be implying.



It would appear to me that your comment was not thought through and is merely the voice of INM ideology which you've uncritically adopted: the public sector is bad, a scourge on our society. I know that your point was just trying to imply something, rather than be substantive, but what was it you were trying to imply? Without actualy trying to make a logical substantive point you're merely adding to the discourse set by powerful vested interests in getting their opinions disseminated, thus reinforcing the agenda of INM et al., merely being one of the many 'clever m[e]n who cries the catch-cries of the clown.'

Agree that public sector services such as prisons could lead to corruption in the control of the private sector however we already have equitable corruption where you have employees milking the system like prison wardens etc claiming massive overtime and gold plated pensions etc because they are public sector employees who appear to have jobs for life and no incentive to perform other than to maximise their personal take home pay and pension etc.

Also in the public sector you have mass lethargy leading to very low productivity and a focus on benefits and employment conditions etc at the expense of job performance, what’s the difference when it comes to corruption?

Your reference to public sector institutions exposes the fact that in the private sector employers are not “institutions”.. they are simply employers! .. if you want to be in an institution that’s an entirely different matter.

[Baron von Biffo]

I know that this point has already been challenged but I think it needs to be revisited.

The private sector could NOT survive without the public sector, at least not a modern capitalist economy. How can capitalist private companies conduct there business in a state with no publicly run court system, to enforce private property and the fair payment of due loans? How can enterprise survive in a state with no police force to keep rape, pillage and violence at bay? The system which holds the very fabric which needs capitalism to flourish in requires a public sector.

Can you imagine how different free enterprise would be if there was no redistributive function of government (as there would be no body to collect taxes not to mind redistribute them). Prices would be much lower for most goods (especially the lower end of the luxury market) and all non essential items. Poor people would litterally not have money to pay for more than their subsistance needs, thus markets would shrink.

I know that an obvious response is that the private sector can theoretically take over many of these functions, yet this is a flawed logic. While it makes sense that certain ethoses and controls which are characteristic of the private sector should be progressively adapted by the public sector, in order to improve efficiency, the replacement of public sector bodies with for-profit bodies is failed. A brief illustration of this can be seen in Michael Moore's 'Capitalism' film when he explores what happens when a private company is contracted to run a prison service for minor offenders. The result: The profit motive leads to many juveniles receiving ridiculously excessive sentences for their actions. Private companies cannot run a fair and legitimate society. Public sector institutions run for profit would lead to mass corruption.

While Ireland is beset with corruption at present the situation would be much worse if we simply 'privatised the public sector' or whatever you seem to be implying.



It would appear to me that your comment was not thought through and is merely the voice of INM ideology which you've uncritically adopted: the public sector is bad, a scourge on our society. I know that your point was just trying to imply something, rather than be substantive, but what was it you were trying to imply? Without actualy trying to make a logical substantive point you're merely adding to the discourse set by powerful vested interests in getting their opinions disseminated, thus reinforcing the agenda of INM et al., merely being one of the many 'clever m[e]n who cries the catch-cries of the clown.'

Good post to begin your run here.