This does require explaining

I believe that there are some things where the state can deliver more cost effectively than markets. Where there is only room for one supplier if everyone is to have access to a service, whether paid for (such as water, energy and railways) or supplied for free (such as the NHS and education), then I think that it is the state’s job to supply such services so that access is universal and either abuse or denial of service does not arise. Who would want anything else?

Why does universal provision require state monopoly provision?

Everyone in the country eats, everyone wears clothes, we have universal provision of both and yet no government monopoly there. So, how can this be?

Snigger:

I believe in the state as the mechanism for delivering much of this, because there is nothing else. So I think those arguing for a small state do not want them. Why else would they argue as they do?

Possibly because they disagree with you as to the best way to achieve desirable things?

27 thoughts on “This does require explaining”

  1. sigh

    Education is provided free by the State, because it is compulsory. Before 1870 free schooling was provided by charities or for the very lucky by scholarships to public schools.

    I read that the success of Grammar Schools was putting a lot of minor public schools out of business. It is one of those perversities of socialism that by abolishing them, it saved the private education market.

  2. “I think that it is the state’s job to supply such services so that access is universal and either abuse or denial of service does not arise. “. So no striking in the public sector eh? That’ll go down well………

  3. The state has a monopoly on the murderous practises of the NHS because any private entity that killed so many would have been sued out of existence (and customers would have left in droves).

    See also the wilful ignoring of the rapey RoPers which would have resulted in many lynchings if the state wasn’t ensuring that the perpetrators got away with their crimes.

  4. More gems than a De Beers roadshow:

    I believe in a mixed economy. I very firmly support the right of people to create and own businesses. But I also expect them to be accountable and to pay their taxes. I also expect regulation to prevent market abuse to be upheld, because only if these things happen can we have fair markets, and who wouldn’t want them? I could not be more pro-fair markets in many ways.

    Quite how that’s compatible with monopoly provision of so many items is a mystery…

    I believe people are equal as well as different. I have lived this experience since I was very young, having a gay twin brother who I realised, when really quite young, was different to me and as valuable. I cannot abide prejudice as a result. Why does anyone disagree?

    Unless you’re a neoliberal, ‘fascist’ or otherwise ‘trolling’ the great and the good – in which case you deserve to be oppressed.

    I believe in equality within our democracy. So I am opposed to private control of much of the media and the access the wealthy secure to politicians and the influence they secure as a result. Unless you are a eugenicist why would you disagree?

    So state run media guarantee equality? Please can I have some of whatever he is smoking? Opposing state control of the media is the equivalent of eugenics?

    I believe instead we all have the right to govern – and so I believe in the widest representation of people in society within politics – even when I disagree with those saying something. But there have to be limits on the promulgation of hate. Ethics requires it. Why would you disagree?

    Who defines what ‘hate’ is? Quis custodiet custodes as the saying goes? Murphy preaches unbridled hatred of freedom and self-agency – why should he therefore be tolerated?

    I believe in progressive taxation that is properly enforced because I see tax as a way to deliver social, economic and fiscal policy within a state for the well-being of all. This is not what we have now. Why would you want the tax system to be biased in favour of the rich, as it is at present?

    Tax burden is at a seventy year high overall and 1% of taxpayers account for 47% of the government’s total income. One wonders what percentage he would be satisfied by?

    The level of projection in the post as a whole is awesome to behold. I don’t have the energy to read his posting around the Moggster saying that his intepretation of QE is correct but does anyone else have any idea what he is babbling about?

  5. I’ve started to wonder if Spud posts his nonsense in order to glean facts from this site & others – a kind of ‘self education through error’.
    If so, how would he cope if no comments were posted for a few days – he might implode into his vacuous and vacant insides, without replacement substances for his hot air!

  6. @van patten “I believe people are equal as well as different. I have lived this experience since I was very young, having a gay twin brother who I realised, when really quite young, was different to me and as valuable. I cannot abide prejudice as a result.”- the twin who in one of his posts was basically “what do you do when your twin is thick (or at least not as clever as me)” The twin who in the 2 years i knew him never mentioned he had a brother ? I doubt a day went past when the potato didn’t remind his twin that he passed the 11+ and his twin didn’t.

  7. Van_Patten – I hope his gay twin brother isn’t an identical twin, because candidly, I think the homosexual community has enough unpleasantness to deal with at the moment.

  8. Dennis, Just Guessing...

    I doubt a day went past when the potato didn’t remind his twin that he passed the 11+ and his twin didn’t.

    Which brings us to the frightening possibility that there’s a member of the Murphy family who’s less intelligent than Richard.

    Nah.

    After a bit of thought it become obvious the such a possibility cannot exist. For one thing, his brother doesn’t blog about politics, economics and accounting. Proof positive he’s the brighter of the two.

  9. His argument for State monopoly begins with there being only room for one supplier, which is an unusual justification we don’t hear often from him:

    “Where there is only room for one supplier if everyone is to have access to a service, whether paid for… or supplied for free…”

    But that doesn’t follow at all. Why would the need for universal provision mean there there was only room for one supplier? And surely if the economics of supplying to the impecunious leads to that need being met by the state supplier stepping in where commercial suppliers will not, then there is no lack of room for suppliers;there is too much room.

    Is this another of his Economics 101 fails such as that glorious job advert that didn’t attract applicants. His analysis: demand for the job is too low, so reduce the price for that job, i.e. the salary on offer.

  10. Did he just unilaterally out his brother?

    ” think that it is the state’s job to supply such services so that access is universal and either abuse or denial of service does not arise.”

    So all of you desperate for a GP’s appointment or waiting years for an operation on the NHS can thank your lucky stars you aren’t being denied treatment by a neoliberal fascist privately run health service, like what they have in France, Germany, Spain etc etc………

  11. Can you troll me now?

    What about just having government universally provide a basic income (non-tax-funded, and inflation-proofed), and encouraging self-provisioning (access to commons again à la Lockean Proviso), 3d printers?) to hedge against market failures?

  12. Steve/ Moqifen

    I think we’ve established beyond any doubt that it was the twin that passed Murphy’s accountancy exams for him based on his understanding of a set of accounts – agree completely that it’s inappropriate to ‘out him’ and also hope if he is identical he has kept himself in better shape…

  13. Bloke in North Dorset

    “ After a bit of thought it become obvious the such a possibility cannot exist. For one thing, his brother doesn’t blog about politics, economics and accounting.”

    Neither does Spud. Or as Bones might have said, it’s : it’s politics, economics and accounting Captain, but not as we know it.

  14. I believe in free air. But air is a scarce resource so for the common good access must be restricted by face masks.

    Under my benign direction the path is clear. Free food, free fuel, free basing, Freetown (Sierra Leone). Liberia for all, comrades!

  15. abuse or denial of service does not arise.

    Unless, like with the NHS, you are deemed ‘racist’, in which case no service for you.

    Abuse of such state monopolies was standard practice in communist countries. Anyone could find themselves unemployable if they spoke out against the government.

  16. So an entity absent of access to price signals and any meaningful metric of efficiency is somehow superior to its market counterpart? Is this guy literally retarded?

  17. You need the state to enact and enforce legislation as this monopoly is the necessary foundation for business to provide everything else

  18. “You need the state to enact and enforce legislation as this monopoly is the necessary foundation for business to provide everything else”

    Not necessarily true, Andy. Contracts entered into without the state can be honoured or dishonoured. If the latter, either no more trade, or the men with baseball bats.
    The drug trade operates rather successfully without legislation. See also the difference between one time and repeated prisoners’ dilemma game theory.

  19. Mr Tim Worstall

    Why no post on Liz Truss wanting to end national public sector pay?

    imo she should not have backed down. Those “Tory” MPs attacking her with ‘will lose red wall seats’ are deluded. Public sector don’t vote Conservative

  20. Can you trespass me now?

    《So an entity absent of access to price signals and any meaningful metric of efficiency is somehow superior to its market counterpart?》

    Why is the market so fucking inefficient for me that I would rather go it alone on commons but the market’s “might makes right” philosophy prevents me?

    What is efficient about blatant coercion?

  21. Pcar, the thought crossed my mind when I first heard the usual suspects moaning about the idea, was ‘OK, all those peeps working in call centres in Middlesborough or similar should get the same rate of pay as those working in Mumbai’. Same principle surely?

  22. Addolff,

    It might also act as a disincentive to get more government jobs north. If you have to pay the same for people in Surrey as Sunderland, why put a team up in Sunderland? Those call centres up north were all about the people who ran them making savings. Why do I employ an accountant in Swindon and not London? Partly it’s nearby, and that he’s really good, but it’s also that it’s about 25% cheaper.

  23. The problem with national pay levels runs the other way as well. You can’t attract people to shortage areas by paying them more, as they have to be paid exactly the same regardless of where they work, so they choose not to work where they don’t want to work.

  24. @ Philip

    The trouble of enforcing contracts with baseball bats is that the contract becomes irrelevant. The winner is always the most powerful. It’s the enforcement by the state that makes the contract binding, hence useful.

    Whilst the drug trade runs fine without legislation, that’s only from the traders perspective. From a consumer perspective they are buying something expensive with no assurance of what it is and with no guarantee. If you could buy drugs like you buy booze it would be a lot better for the customer. Could you imagine what it would be like if the drug dealers market model was applied to cars?

  25. @Susan Michie – “The state has a monopoly on the murderous practises of the NHS”

    There’s nothing stopping you from going elsewhere – you just have to pay for it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *