If you were a dictator, what would YOU do?

[the_lyniezian]

Never quite got that. I understand people might be less inclined to go into work if, say it means spending less time with their families or suchlike, and the minimum wage isn't really much better than whatthey'd get in benefits anyway, so it might not seem worth it- is that it?

Thats probably it in some cases, the financial case I find easier to swallow, it people who earn £100, and then lose £97 in benefits. So they work 37.5 hours, for £3.

It would probably be a lot easier if I saw a breakdown of it, but I get your basic point.

Why cut those in particular?

The four biggest items of expenditure are Healthcare, Pensions, Welfare and Education, at £120bn, £120bn, £102bn and £84bn
Next is defence at £43bn, and Interest, at £42bn

You cant NOT cut those. Anyone who claims they can save the economy by binning trident is a fool or a liar.

I'm sure there are certain cuts which could be made to military expenditure, though most of the ones I can think of involve things like "pulling out of Afghanistan". No, I am not suggesting we cut the military entirely, and to do so would be supid and dangerous (whether we need a nuclear deterrant is debatable, but it's useful in doing what it says o the tin, I guess).

What I was after is more cutting expenditure across the board, not cutting out whole sectors en masse.

"Waste" would be self eliminating, because people would be free to choose which ever provider offered them the best deal. If managers arent a net gain for a hospital, its prices will go up, patients will choose to go elsewhere and the hospital will either change, or go bankrupt, be bought up and changed.

I wasn't just talking about healthcare, but again, waste across the board. But anyway, you're basically talking about a mostly-private healthcare arrangement, and from what I gather of the most obvious go-to case, the US, it isn't all that amazing (it often ends up costing more than those of us with socialised medicine, IIRC according to the WHO, and there have been cases- perhaps only a few- where people have died for not being able to afford costs or insurance, but not qualifying for Medicaid. I understand emergency care is free, and there is a fair amount of charity provision otherwise, but would you want to rely on it? And how is someone on £107 per week (or even £247 per week) going to afford all the costs, if they suffer something major? Unless you provide some sort of additional healthcare benefit, which to make this scheme work you probably couldn't afford.

A possible alternative might be to keep the NHS but it only provides basic service and is only free in real serious emergiencies.

And cut out education? Even most Yanks wouldn't dream of that, except maybe the libertarians and homschooling advcates.

You cant disperse power from the centre.

Meaning?

I don't envisage things being automatically any worse than before, but one would imagine a lot of inertia in the current system. Granted I've probably watched too much Yes Minister and things have changed even since Thatcher (who I recall reading when faced with a civil service which told her why something relating to the oil industry wouldn;t work, actually fired some of the senior civil servants and things soon changed!) Plus, I suppose, in an authoritarian state there's none of the democratic wrangling to get through- no need for long drawn-out Parliamentary debates and scrutiny, but then, things become less accountable and more open to corruption (if you mean, the alleged dictator can't work without the bureaucracy there to work through, and probably ends up being corrupted himself, then true.)

Or are you simply referring to the NHS as it exists- lots more centralised administration?

and probably don't need exemptions from NHS charges either

There wouldnt be an NHS to be exempt from....

See above.

Frankly if you're going to have some sort of Citizen's Income, I'd think it better to have some sort of incentive to be a productive member of society

But there is.
The citizens wage is £106.99 per week.
The citizens wage and a 35hr a week job paying £4 per hour is £246.99 per week.

The real advantage to this would most likely be that businesses would be more able to afford to create jobs at the basic/menial level, or keep existing jobs.

And people wouldnt be penalised for making a small contribution to society.
The current system is bonkers, those who cant contribute a lot are denied the chance to contribute AT ALL and exist entirely as parasites.

In retrospect it will probably help those who want to work but are trapped by thedis-incentives of the current system (I myself have been to some extent put off doing jobs of only a few hours per week for this very reason, though I'm not in real dire straits) and/or those who are really hard up. Trouble is, people like me (the sort who are still living with, and to some extent off, parents and aren't naturally inclined to do much) will be dis-incentivised if you have a guaranteed income over £100 per week with no strings attached.

Mind you, balance that against cutting the NHS, and such people had bettter hope they don't get ill...

[DominicJ]

I'm sure there are certain cuts which could be made to military expenditure

But even if we cut the entire the military, we'd still be borrowing £80bn per year.

What I was after is more cutting expenditure across the board, not cutting out whole sectors en masse.

Well the original plan wasnt so much "cutting", it was replacing hazy service provision, with direct cash payments.
I then expanded, to point out that we could reduce that payment, from 25% to 15% of GDP and that would close the borrowing gap.

But anyway, you're basically talking about a mostly-private healthcare arrangement, and from what I gather of the most obvious go-to case, the US,

Nar, Singapore I stole from.
The US system has exactly the same problems we suffer from, just magnified several times over, in that someone else, government/insurer, pays the bill.

And cut out education? Even most Yanks wouldn't dream of that, except maybe the libertarians and homschooling advcates.

I think you've missed the point somewhere.

Ok, here goes.
Currently, or a couple of years anyway, the government spends £120bn on providing healthcare for the populace.
That works out at roughly £2000 per person per year.

My suggestion is, instead of providing healthcare, the government instead gives the money to the individual. So everyone receives £2000 per year, to pay for healthcare. If they decide their health is best cared for by buying Meth, a Sportscar, a Running Machine, Health Insurance or saving to pay health costs, that is their choice.
Some people will make worse choices than the NHS, but most people will make better choices.


Heart disease, is the single biggest expense the NHS faces.
The NHS ignores heart disease,
until patients almost die, and then spends a fortune on surgery and drugs to treat.
If the patients themselves had the money, they could buy a running machine, and then avoid the heart attack, and save a vast expense in the long run.

The NHS spends £300 per person treating heart disease, or £1320 for a family of 4.4 (2 adults 2.4 children).
You can buy a high quality running machine for £1,000 that will last a family for a decade.

How any old people spend a few days in hospital, for conditions that are basicaly posh words for malnutrition and cold? Its much cheaper to turn on the central heating than spend time in hospital, but our (and americas) broken systems do not recognise that fact.

Yes, if you spent your medical budget on porn, and then had a heart attack, you would not be able to afford surgery, and so would die.
But if I spent my food budget on porn, I'd not be able to afford food, and would die.

The same goes for pensions.
The pensions budget is £38 per week per person.
But the actual state pension is what, £90?
Is one third of the populace retired? So where does the rest of the money go?
What if want to retire early? What if I dont want to retire? Should I be allowed to take a reduced pension early? Or take my "contributions" as I "earn" them if I plan to work till I die anyway?

Much the same applies to welfare.
If I lost my job, JSA would delay bankruptcy and homelessness by an hour or two. The system is entirely unsuitable for me, and millions of other people.

And education. In place of the current educational budget, which sees millions consigned to failing schools, and effectivly maps their lives based on their post code at age 5, my system would give everyone aged 0-21 £5500 per year for their educational needs. They can put that towards to Eton fees, Fees at their local comprehensive, or they can learn to read, write and add up in a couple of years, and spend the rest buying a stake in a trade business.

[RenewableCandy]

That almost sounds reasonable. If everyone knew enough about all the aspects mentioned (health, education, likely number of years working AND likely future wages) it might almost work...

The problem lies in predicting in advance how most people would fare under such a scheme. At present, to take 3 examples, we have a free market in food, in newspapers, and in land. This has resulted, over the years, in far too many badly-fed, ill-informed people and a scramble for the bits of land which aren't owned by obscenely-wealthy people/organisations.

[cubes]

The problem with giving people money and then letting them buy their own provision is that the young, who generally have little healthcare needs, opt out of the health system entirely - without them subsidising everyone else your £2,000 per year per person ends up being a lot more.

Then when they get older and need more care the whole cycle will repeat itself.

Making everyone pay equally ends up being cheaper for all in general.

[RenewableCandy]

There should also be economies-of-scale if there's just the one provider, plus all the savings from their not having to devote a lot of time and expertise to the various forms of marketing and advertising.

Of course, with the NHS "internal market", as far as I can tell, we are losing some of that advantage.

[the_lyniezian]

Nar, Singapore I stole from.

This fact alone, plus the relevant article on Wikipedia concerning it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Singapore), is starting to make a lot more sense out of what you are proposing...

[emordnilap]

There should also be economies-of-scale if there's just the one provider, plus all the savings from their not having to devote a lot of time and expertise to the various forms of marketing and advertising.

Of course, with the NHS "internal market", as far as I can tell, we are losing some of that advantage.

I agree. The Irish system is a mess (too many vested interests, particularly the church), with perhaps up to ten different health-related revenue streams leaving peoples' pockets.

A simplistic solution (bearing in mind, of course, that simplicity is in direct opposition to good governance) is to add it all up, remove the profit, strips out the related (mainly advertising) paraphernalia and take out the duplicated jobs; then divide the cost of the health service equally between citizens. The liable citizenry, in theory, should include children as it is unfair to expect childless people to support others' offspring.

Whatever; keeping it all transparent would show how cheap a system, for what you get, it should be.

[eatyourveg]

Oh dear. I don't think there is anymore to be done at this point, the disjointed dysfunctional civilization we are a part of is just going to have to crash and burn, and for our childrens childrens sake, the faster the better. Not a scenario to be relished but there you go. Consequences.
All else up to that point is tinkering.

[RenewableCandy]

A laissez-faire dictator, now there's a novelty!

[eatyourveg]

A laissez-faire dictator, now there's a novelty!

Oh ok then, my other idea is if it moves shoot it., If it doesn't move, shoot it. Then tax it. Then blame everything on AQ.

[Little John]

If I were a dictator and assuming my power was unassailable and global then I would implement a free market of money creation with absolutely no state protections in place for either users or creators, would tax the control/ownership/control of the primary means of production (land and other natural resources) and distribute this tax as a non means tested benefit to everyone else and, finally, would implement a global population reduction programme based on a one child policy. This policy would be continued until the global population was reduced to 1/2 a billion.

Of all of the above measures, getting the human population back down to a sustainable level is the most important. Until our population is drastically reduced everything else is irrelevant.

[Ludwig]

Oh dear. I don't think there is anymore to be done at this point, the disjointed dysfunctional civilization we are a part of is just going to have to crash and burn, and for our childrens childrens sake, the faster the better. Not a scenario to be relished but there you go. Consequences.
All else up to that point is tinkering.

Agree. We've committed the crime and must do the time.

[madibe]

1/ Choose a global elite that carries forward generation by generation

2/ Ensure that the global elite are loyal to the cause. Ruination and/or death to be administered to those who step out of line

3/ Enslave the general population, use as required

4/ Rape the planet to ensure points 1 and 3

5/ Equip the world with confrontational religions for the benefit of point 3

6/ Ensure that point 5 and 3 are maintained; use diversionary tactics if needed. i.e. media, freindly flag, mindwashing, revolution, smoke.

7/ Encourage elites in point 1 to compete for power. This will ensure sucess of point 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6

8/ Sit back, relax and enjoy the bun fight. Produce offspring to continue the adminstration.



Ah...shit...it's been done.