Topic: renting out a house is armed robbery! (Read 5325 times)

Tennant doesn't pay.

Lock him in the basement.

'ello guv'ner.

You are correct.  I apologised to him.

"Trots" is an insult, "socialist" is a political viewpoint.  Saying "socialist" is an insult because there is a derogatory word for it is like saying "Italian" is an insult because some people call Italians "Degos"[1].

So, no he did not use an ad hominem, and yes, you did.  Then you falsely accused him of such.  This is also known as slander and is illegal in most jurisdictions.  Good thing we're just screwing around on this internet thingy, not having a real public discussion in reality.

1. http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=dego

They are.  BAA is a Spanish company.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BAA_Limited  Its ownerhip of Heathrow is causing competition issues and it may be forced to sell other airports.

Why on earth would you argue about that?

Um, no.  The airlines are private (mostly), but airports most certainly are not.  Not even in Britain.

Um no.  The airport is private.  They charged her £64 for being late and rebooking the flight.  Nice money if you can make it...

There's another lesson to be learned here.  Both the US Marines & UK NHS are government run systems.  If the systems is private, they lose some measure of funding whenever mistakes are made.  Government agencies do not.

Hold on, let me move the goalposts for you.

SWP members are known as Trots.  Trots is also a synonym for diarrhoea,  Its not a compliment.

Your "one of the best in the world" was correct - I misread you.  My bad. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_Sweden

Sweden 's eduaction is state funded.  Like the NHS.  So my education as an example of where state provision makes more sense if its close to 100% of the population stands.

What?  In the UK.  Never heard of the "Socialist Worker's Party", they probably don't think they are insulting themselves?  It's neither a compliment nor an insult.  It's a political view point.


You're being pretty fast and loose with the "facts" here.  By "well-down" you presumably mean "in the top 15"; and the US having a higher rank you mean "one place higher than in the reading scores only".  Sweden is considerably higher than the US in maths, and the US is higher than Sweden in science.  I'd call it a wash to be honest.

I stand by my "one of the best in the world" I didn't say (despite your claim that I did) that it was the best.  Since you asserted that public sector education is better (while I didn't, I simply claim that private sector is better value for money), your chart disproves the very thing you claim.

That chart is pretty meaningless anyway; you only need to glance at the lines to see that the centre countries are all just jostling around the mean over a spread of about 10 points.


Yet again, you are insulting.  I've manifestly not made anything up.  This really is the end now; I've got the distinct feeling I'm being trolled into oblivion.

Seriously, where do you live?  I know of no group where calling a person a socialist is a compliment or where not wanting to overspend is considered evidence of socialism.

Lets move on to your suggestion that the Swedish education system is private and best in the world.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/dec/07/world-education-rankings-maths-science-reading

You will note that Sweden is well down the list.  The US system, which is largely state based, has a higher rank.

Once again, you really ought not make stuff up.  It undermines your whole argument if the "facts" behind it are convenient fictions.

(Can't believe I'm still carrying on with this)


Socialist isn't an insult.  You did call me childish.  Your views are manifestly socialist.


Cheaper doesn't mean better value.  And the idea that state schools get better results than private schools is nonsense.  Those private schools would go bust instantly.

The swedish school system is widely recognised as one of the best in the world.  It runs on a voucher system and for profit educators.

Private sector schools in the UK consistently get better results than public sector schools.  It's difficult to determine what "value for money" means in this case -- we can certainly assume that those spending their money with them think they get better value in the private sector.  So much so that they are willing to give up their state-education entitlement and pay extra on top.

Policing and prison comparisons are very difficult to make, and certainly aren't primarily about price -- no developed country has yet found itself comfortable with the idea of private judiciary, police force or military.

realnowhereman - don't get all touchy saying I am insulting you.  You made stuff and got called out on it.  And then you resorted to ad hominem attacks calling me a socialist.

You asked for another example where state spending is better value than private: try education.  State systems always are cheaper and where they are close to 100% they get better results than mixed state/private systems.

You can add policing.  Prisons.  There are plenty of situations where collective purchases prevent price gouging.  If you have cancer, or a thief is chasing you with a knife, you are not in a good negotiating position and a private company can charge whatever it wants.  A state organisation where the boss gets fired for going over budget and where there is an ethos of service works better.

As I said when you first raised this comparison: the USA is not a good comparison.  It's a long long way from being a free enterprise health care system.  It's a great deal more complex than just USA = privatised NHS.  The USA is, in fact, the worst of both worlds -- government controlled inefficiency plus the greed of a private sector.  That leads to rent seeking from the medical industry, which is always bad for the consumer.

http://www.forbes.com/2009/07/28/health-care-reform-obama-opinions-columnists-shikha-dalmia.html

http://mises.org/daily/3727

http://www.ncpa.org/healthcare/interstate-competition-in-the-individual-health-insurance-marketplace

For goodness sake: the USA are now legislating for contraception to be included in health benefits.  Care to guess what the price of a condom provided by an insurance company will be versus one provided by you walking into a chemist?

In those few areas were there is more free market competition, things like cosmetic surgery and lasik eye surgery prices have been dropping consistently for years.


Find me a single fair comparison (not USA healthcare versus UK) where government's procure more cheaply than the private sector.  I accept entirely that it's perfectly possible -- supermarkets run on that very principle.  It does not happen though.  Governments waste money because they are spending other people's money on other people.

Regardless.  I'm not interested any more.  You've resorted to name calling; you consistently refuse to acknowledge any counter I make to your "making up ratios" accusation; and you simply repeat the same point again and again; so what's the point in debating further with you?

Here is a set of numbers: http://liberalconspiracy.org/2009/08/14/uk-v-usa-the-basic-healthcare-facts/

Here are more numbers: http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/mar/22/us-healthcare-bill-rest-of-world-obama

Compare health spending in the UK with health spending in the US.  The US pays 40% more yet it gets worse clinical results.  The difference is that the UK uses a state budget nationwide to drive a hard bargain and the US has 100s of buyers competing against one another.

There are some situations where state spending is cheaper than private spending.  Health care is one of them.  Inventing ratios to pretend otherwise is childish.  Its not like you don't have access to Google.

What?  Shareholders losing money doesn't concern me.  That's their private loss.  It matters when government loses/wastes money because the only source of government funds is from taxpayers.


Firstly: I accept that 1.5 wasn't from any source that I can find but I have provided you ample evidence for why it's not an unreasonable average in government finances.  It certainly wasn't made up.

Secondly: if you read my argument wasn't "based" on that number at all; that was merely an example to illustrate my argument -- which was that it's perfectly possible to be a private company and dependent on the state.  The literal number is utterly irrelevant to that, and yet you keep banging on about it as if it's fundamental.  Use whatever number you like from whatever source you like -- you won't find a source that has a factor less than 1, which is all that matters.

realnowhereman - I can make lists of private organisations that get stuff wrong in a huge way.  Will that be evidence that all private organisations are bad?  Can I say that if one company has lost half of its shareholders funds, then all companies are going to lose 50% of the money you invest in their shares?

You can't just make up facts.  If you are making an argument based on a factual ratio, then have a factual source for the ratio.  Don't make it up.

Fair enough.


Eh, "remotely close"?  2.2 jobs destroyed for every one created;  3.7 jobs for every one;  1.1 (10%) over pricing in construction; 0.8 Keynsian multiplier = 1.25; 24 times too many flu jabs; 1.078 overspend in the NHS...

Whatever.  I use 1.5 as a rule of thumb... the links showed that isn't unreasonable.

As I said, I didn't expect any provision of evidence to affect you in any way.  You've got your ideas about the world, and I've got mine.  I would happily leave you to yours.  (The mark of the socialists though is that they aren't happy to leave me to mine). 

Didn't you say you were ex Marines?  I think you will find that like the Marines, every large organisation has huge errors.  For example, I have an elderly wheelchair bound aunt who was travelling through Heathrow airport yesterday.  At some point, Omniserv, the American customer care company that helps disabled people in the airport, lost her.  Seriously, they could not find where she was left waiting and she was unable to attract anyone's attention so she missed her follow on flight.

The lesson?  None.  If you are shoving 50,000 people a day through any organisation, mistakes get made.  Only a lunatic would argue that all private customer care companies should be closed down on that basis.

Way to use an abstract reference no one has heard of.