Daniel Quinn wrote:I suspect you gest somewhat lyndsey , but it is of course not quiet as simple as that .
health services inflation is something like 10x higher over the same period .
technological advancements mean it costs more to do the same thing - cancer drugs , triple heart bypass , police the nation , arm our services .
demographic changes mean it costs more to do the same - pensions, schools
societal expectations mean it costs more per se .
the declining rate of profit and capitalism's logic of wealth concentration means the government as to step in to subsidize low wages and keep the economy growing ,
No, no gesting here. Just a simple statement of fact.
Between 1978 and 2014 we had 36 years of technological improvement.
The private manufacturing sector managed to make very significant reductions in cost whilst increasing output over that period.
Any non-socialistic government would have sought to do the same in that period. Better goods and services for lower cost in real terms.
Why is it that technological advancement in the private sector has always equalled producing more or better goods or services for less money, whilst in the public sector it's acceptable - for some people - to equate technological advancement with greater cost for the same overall levels of service?
Do you have the demographic figures to back up your statement about pensions and schools? In 1978, how many people over the age of 65 lived in the UK? In 2014 what was that figure? And what were the corresponding figures for 5 to 18 year olds? I've done a quick Google and couldn't find these figures.
Why should something cost more because of societal expectations? Or do you mean that you think that society expects the Government to increase its socialistic spending and therefore that's what the Government does? Yes, there may be some truth in that. Which underlines my statement about Cameron's Government being more socialistic than Callaghan's.
And again, if you feel that the Government of today has to step in subsidize low wages and to keep the economy growing - more so than in Callaghan's day - then again that reinforces my point that Cameron's Government is more Socialistic.
How about judging how socialistic a government is by looking at the spending in real terms, instead of judging it by the rhetoric of the politicians and the press?
And here's another question. How many people do you know that are fully aware of the long term trends in Government spending, and how many people do you know that are pretty much ignorant of this information?
