Bob8

Dear Retard, The point is they have a vote. Hence the entire point. Be less stupid.

It does really come down to a judgement call as to which is more likely; 1. A new disease, which emerges occasionally, has affected us this time. It is about ten times deadlier than the flu and is not fully understood will affect mortality. 2. A new virus, egineered in a lab, that does not exist, has been leaked. And had no effect as it does not exist and is just a cold. And, the vaccines to the virus is the cause for the increase in mortality. The experts and people working at the coal face go for (2), but many people have their own YouTube channel and favour (2). Which one we favour is a judgement call

There is a distinct difference in the UK and Denmark here. Most men and women in Denmark prefer a female boss if they have a preference. Most men and women in the UK prefer a male boss if they have a preference (from a survey I read about ages ago).

Of course, this is speculation and estimate. That said, can you imagine the attention if brexit can been estimated to make us 5.5% richer.

No. Jobs are largely designed so that people can do them. That is obvious perhaps, but that reflects how fundemental it is. That we start in the morning and typically stop at the end of the day shows that.

All of my (very limited number of) employees are women in an engineering field. It is working out well. I think there are verious reasons why men get along better in the modern workforce. There is more pressure on men to earn money and get ahead. I was not a particularly ambitious man and (excuse me) rather good looking. As it is, I have worked hard to develop a career, earn money etc. Clearly, if I wanted a family and respect, it was necessary. Had I been a woman it would have been less necessary. The workplace has traditionally been built around men. Had women been the work force and manegerial field, even as men entered teh workforce, they would be expected to fit in with the traditions of the work force that were designed for women. In the UK, I think there is a large amount of benevolent sexism, which still treats women as damsels in distress. It is not a healthy mindset for a workplace, and I think is also linked to the extraordinary divroce rate for UK lesbian marriages. This would be as opposed to Belgium and France, where if a couple is both working full time, the housework is the woman's responsibility. This is all idle speculation.

Yes, there are whole departments set up employing lots of people to work on it. Which, people who often demand value for money, would want sacked. People eat far better in Spain and being able to cook from scratch is normal.

The issue is shown in the post below. Looking into assessing these efficiency savings above takes people to do that. Having people to negotiate the savings from suppliers will be considered red tape by Sackboii and there is a point at which a certain amount of waste is not worth the effort in chasing up.

"Value for money" is completely subjective. We pay very little for healthcare in this nation (including taxes) and do not get what we would like. That is still value for money. If it was all private, it would not improve without more money. "proper management to reduce waste and improve efficiency" ius unpopular. It meas putting in red tape and managers, whereas people typically want fewer of them.

That is simply funding. I do not believe the NHS is teh model of efficiency that some surveys suggest, underfunding gives great efficiency at forst until the wheels fall off. But, often we seem to think healthcare shoudl be cheap, rather than a cost to compare with transport and accommodation.

...and to get back to health... I think it is mixed. It is not as clear cut as many in the UK see it. My experience in the USA was far better than what I have known in Europe. But, I was very heavily insured. The European systems tend to concentrate on overall population outcomes, and do come out very well in such surveys. But, in terms of individual care, the USA is frequently better. Another thing that warps it is that as the NHS has a close on monopoly in the UK on sophsiticated care, the private systems are rubbish. If you are really ill, the private hospital will send you to a public one as they are better at that. So, private care is limited to queue jumping and a nice telly. The idea of going bankrupt for such care seems horrific. In the USA, the basic public health care is terrible compared to the private system, and having free care is a special privilage that just giving to everyone seems daft. I am very much on the UK side of the argument here. I am a big earner in part as I do not have to care for my brother, that is done by the system. Having me pay tax having built a career works better. But, that is a one of case.

Thanks for the thoughtful reply and Paul Weyrich. I think it is that land transport is best nationalised. Car transport has far more direct Government control, with the exception of the actual car. But the car is your immediate environment and so it "feels" like private transport. But, the control before you are allowed to use the road, drive your car on them and how you drive the car is very controlled. And, the roads and infastructure are under direct Government ownership.

The net benefits to society is indeed the key and thoughtful question. We have the rentier capitalism (which Marx would just have called capitalism) and working, entrepreneur capitalism. For the first, good quality social housing is a disaster. It allows the work force the ability to move to where the wages are, for businesses to have their workers housed well and easily, and for hte general working population to keep more of their wages for other purchases. This is also why it is wonderful for entrepreneur capitalism. Where it is a net benefit becomes ideological, as it does not keep people in their place. Of course mnay of these things can be considered benefits in themselves, without the net economic benefits.

Some things are generally better nationalised, health, police and (oddly) trains. Steel and cars are better private.

They really are thick. Their logic relies on the Chinese Government not pushing the western vaccines as they are not as controlling, and hence not having the same problems with disease. There are two sources of evidence we should take seriously, expert and first hand. The expert says the virus is bad and the vaccines are better. Those working in ICU saw the virus is bad and the vaccine is better. The alternative is YouTube videos.