No, no, no they don't. that is such a simplistic way of thinking things. the company i work for (a very large one) is incredibly inefficient. they could cut a third of the workforce in my area and cut management and be fine. It's the fact that it is a monopoly that allows it to continue.
All regulation is seen as stupid by some, if it wasn't then it'd be common practice. Regulation isn't done for fun.Most of the regulation we have put on us pours out from the EU, none of it needed - thus you get ridiculous legislation (fruit and tractor seats).
Steel making companies, brickmakers, engineering firms, paper suppliers, IT services are not 'nationalised-in-all-but-name' companies, yet they rely on some of their trade from government contracts. Cut government spending and they won't go bust but they'll cut their workforce moving them onto welfare.The fact that the government is taxing/raising revenue through business which does not require government orders hurts the real economy, not the nationalised-in-all-but-name companies which you keep mentioning. These companies which rely on government money would go bust yes, but it would allow for the real economy (those productive companies which do not need government orders) to expand, rather than contract under the burden of taxation and regulation which is what they face now.
It's not about nationalisation though is it?I said before, if nationalisation worked so well - every major economy would be at it.
Tried it, and it failed.
But you understand that a lot of private sector businesses (which rely at least in part on state employees to function at their current output level). If you then extend these businesses as not being in the 'real economy' then i think you're too blinded by ideology.In a way yes, as he isn't working for a productive company - the state sector, although some parts are of course needed (teaching, managers, councillors and so forth) are run at a loss - there is no such thing as 'state money'. The money your Dad earns is taxed from the productive parts.
This is surprising that this is your view actually as i'm undecided about public private partnerships. My initial thoughts were that they are a waste of money as i don't buy into the ideology that private companies are totally efficient and would try to run their services as efficiently as possible - yet these partnerships often have bonuses that less money has to come from the government up front.Which is what I have said, some parts of the state are needed of course as some things will not ever run at a profit (the Royal Navy) and are needed.
I'm talking about the layers of management we have working for the state and the public sector 'private companies' which rely on the government - all of them need to be cut. The NHS is another example; http://www.metro.co.uk/news/819186-s...ding-to-report; article states that the number of managers in the NHS has risen by 84% in the last decade - in the real economy, this would not happen otherwise the company would face going bust.
..but because it is run by the state (like many other things), it simply goes on sucking the money out of the real economy.
But i don't think your example of the NHS is a good one, in the USA where most of the 'medical industry' (not that it should be seen an industry in my eyes) is private, costs escalate and service is as good/bad as here. Profit is at a cost to the consumer.