Or is it? Could it actually be that the answer is something else altogether? Could that answer be that the state needs the private sector – because there are very obviously some things that the state cannot do – whilst the private sector needs the state for exactly the reverse reason?
In other words, might it be that to have a truly functioning modern economy we should not idolise one part of the economy and condemn the other? The question is not, in other words, which is more important – the state or private sector – but is it that both are fundamental?
Listen to almost any debate on politics or economics and that suggestion will usually be absent. But, I suggest, it is the universal truth that we’re missing. By adopting dogmatic positions, most of which are now anti-state and pro-private sector, we’re killing the economy.
This is, of course, the standard classical liberal, even neoliberal, idea. There are things that must be done and that only the state can do. Therefore we must have a state to do those things which must be done and which only the state can do.
For everything else there is the market, or private sector. Simples.
Of course, the Provisinal wing, to which I belong, then goes on to insist that we shoot anyone who suggest the state should ever do any more than this. But even so, the basic principle does indeed work. Yes, here’s the state stuff, there’s the private sector stuff. Both do have to be done and everything needs to be ddone by one or the other.
And now we get to the difficult bit. Well, which bits?
Spud is going to insist that the State must ration toilet paper otherwise how could bums get wiped? But what’s the actually sensible division here?
BTW, the true joy of this is that Spud thinks he’s just come up with something new. When, if he’d ever bothered to read anyone else, he’d have found out that the idea is at least several centuries old. Certainly there in a book published in 1776 for example.
dogmatic positions, most of which are now anti-state and pro-private sector
Good grief. Ely is only 17 miles north of here and yet round here most dogmatic positions are pro-state and anti-business.
(That’s still better than Totnes which I had reasons to visit a few years ago, where most dogmatic positions are anti-reality.)
We could then go on to do empiric observations of what works better when in the private or public sector and we would find out that very things should be in the public sector. At which point we would have a real stopped clock moment.
whilst the private sector needs the state for exactly the reverse reason
Bet he can’t name one.
Hacked, obv.
“Bet he can’t name one.” People used to name lighthouses but historical investigation showed it to be untrue.
I take it that the big one in Alexandria was state-owned. Fell down, didn’t it? Mind you it took three earthquakes and it had lasted more than a thousand years.
The oldest company in Britain hasn’t lasted a thousand years yet.
@dearieme
2nd May 1670
The Hudson’s Bay Company has diversified somewhat from beaver pelts and whale oil.
Wrong one, Philip.
@ TMB
The reverse reason is that there are some things that the state can do.
The *actual* reason that the private sector needs the state is that we need an impartial arbitrator in cases of dispute [and if that is not, initially, the state it will become one]
The oldest company registered at Companies House is The Ashford Cattle Market Company Ltd. 25 September 1856. Company number 118.
@ Andrew C
Unfortunately, every time a company reorganisation is put through by the creation of a new holding company – usually for tax purposes – the reorganised company is categorised as a newborn by Companies House
I can offer you the Worshipful Company of Fishmongers founded in 1272.
The Ashford Cattle Market Company Ltd. 25 September 1856. Company number 118.
I wonder if they get joggers running up to reception and asking if Dave Bedford works there.
The Worshipful Company of Bakers 1155, The Worshipful Company of Weavers 1130.
The Mercer’s Company is even older, but its date of foundation is no longer known
“john77
@ Andrew C
Unfortunately, every time a company reorganisation is put through by the creation of a new holding company – usually for tax purposes – the reorganised company is categorised as a newborn by Companies House”
Not sure that ‘every time’ true. Taking one from my past rather than the present. Bilaman Ltd was formed in May 1989. Bilaman H Limited became the holding company in 2011. Bilaman Ltd is still Bilaman Ltd, the same company with the same number and formation date.
Same has been the case virtually every time I’ve inserted a holding company.
You may be thinking of a so-called s110 liquidation reconstruction which tend to be less common.
Just to keep in mind:
Set up a private sector, but absolutely no state sector. Things will be very . . . rowdy and noisy at times, but most will eat.
Set up a state sector, but no private sector. Mass starvation.
@ Andrew C
The newly-created holding company is treated as a newborn: the original/previous company may live on as a subsidiary (it may remain active with the the holding company just a holding company, or it may be dormant) or it may be wound up.
The original company is not *always* wound up but it may be, so the date of formation of the company registered at Companies House is not a *reliable* guide to the age of the business (and how many people search through to check out the date of formation of dormant subsidiaries).
Sure, I could (maybe should) have gone into a lot of detail but I try to avoid jargon and talk simply as jargon often confuses rather than enlightening.
According to Leftiepedia “Aberdeen Harbour was the first publicly limited company in the United Kingdom”.
(Link from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oldest_companies)
An odd phrasing but there you are. On the other hand, you might like to consider others including The Royal Mint, Otterton Mill, The Olde Bell, The Angel and Royal, …
I must say that whenever the claim is made for a pub I assume it’s just the beer talking. And I wouldn’t incline to accept the Royal Mint since it was probably viewed as the personal property of the King for ages. I can see that Otterton Mill might be ancient but can it be viewed as a company? Who knows?
They explicitly exclude things such as schools and churches.
@ dearieme
According to Leftiepedia the Royal Mint operated in the Tower of London before William built the Tower …
dearieme: That is Wikipedia, of course. It may be right, but I wonder if there’s confusion with The Shore Porters’ Society of Aberdeen (which, growing up, I was always told is the oldest company in Britain). It dates from 1498. Amazingly, given it’s survived so long, it’s a partnership with, I assume, unlimited liability. Although its origins are similar to trade guilds like the Worshipful Companies, you can see from the website that it’s still a perfectly ordinary active commercial business. If you live up there and want to move house, you can hire the Shore Porters to do it.