So the left thinks the world will come to an end because the Nats are looking to trim small numbers of people that taxpayers are forced to pay for.
It is most bizarre that the left talk of economic illiteracy from the likes of Roger Kerr, when they seem to think it's ok to keep plundering taxpayers in a recession so that large numbers of effectively unproductive people can remain employed.
Let's make it clear, there are three types of people working for the state:
1. Those undertaking productive activity in enterprises or institutions that could be operated privately. e.g. electricity SOEs, roads, schools, hospitals.
2. Those undertaking core state activities that are necessary for a functioning liberal capitalist economy. e.g. Police, courts, prisons, defence, justice.
3. Everyone else. Who range from regulators to advisors to inspectors.
The first lot could probably do with an efficiency drive, which really only comes most effectively through privatisation, although the SOEs aren't a bad stepping stone to that.
The second lot definitely need a reallocation and focus on protecting citizens, rather than telling them what to do. However, given dissatisfaction over crime, there is more scope to move those people around rather than cut them.
The third lot would mostly be looking for something else to do under a Libertarianz government. There may be a tiny handful of advisors to handle the likes of diplomatic relations with other countries and treaties, and advice on law, justice reform and the like, but the rest? Either sit in the private sector advising private entities or become productive.
The trimming of the Nats will be minor compared to the bloating of the state sector under Labour - something that all taxpayers should be concerned about. I suspect more than few on the left worry because no one else is likely to employ them!
Imagine if, for example, a cost benefit analysis was done for every state sector employee as to whether they generated more net benefits than taxpayers would if you gave them the money back. That is the type of thinking ACT likes.
I just think theft is theft, and you are either honest that you believe in large scale legalised theft or you're not or you disagree with it.
It is most bizarre that the left talk of economic illiteracy from the likes of Roger Kerr, when they seem to think it's ok to keep plundering taxpayers in a recession so that large numbers of effectively unproductive people can remain employed.
Let's make it clear, there are three types of people working for the state:
1. Those undertaking productive activity in enterprises or institutions that could be operated privately. e.g. electricity SOEs, roads, schools, hospitals.
2. Those undertaking core state activities that are necessary for a functioning liberal capitalist economy. e.g. Police, courts, prisons, defence, justice.
3. Everyone else. Who range from regulators to advisors to inspectors.
The first lot could probably do with an efficiency drive, which really only comes most effectively through privatisation, although the SOEs aren't a bad stepping stone to that.
The second lot definitely need a reallocation and focus on protecting citizens, rather than telling them what to do. However, given dissatisfaction over crime, there is more scope to move those people around rather than cut them.
The third lot would mostly be looking for something else to do under a Libertarianz government. There may be a tiny handful of advisors to handle the likes of diplomatic relations with other countries and treaties, and advice on law, justice reform and the like, but the rest? Either sit in the private sector advising private entities or become productive.
The trimming of the Nats will be minor compared to the bloating of the state sector under Labour - something that all taxpayers should be concerned about. I suspect more than few on the left worry because no one else is likely to employ them!
Imagine if, for example, a cost benefit analysis was done for every state sector employee as to whether they generated more net benefits than taxpayers would if you gave them the money back. That is the type of thinking ACT likes.
I just think theft is theft, and you are either honest that you believe in large scale legalised theft or you're not or you disagree with it.
No comments:
Post a Comment