A Machiavellian agenda

I have started to read a book Andrew sent me called "The Banquet of Consequences" by Satyajit Das. It foretells the collapse of the financial world as we know it because of the gigantic imbalances that have been allowed to flourish as an alternative to the positive uncompromising political action needed. It is predicated on the need for us all to take a reality check and question a society based almost wholly on consumerism.
The preface lays down the image that most of us are living beyond our means with 'expectations' feeding the frenzy of buying the "next thing" without considering its utility. It paints a picture of the disintegration of our Public Services for being too expensive, unless we are willing through taxation to set aside the money to pay for them. For too long we have been in thrall to our politicians who fearing bad news and its effect on their electability would rather we are fed sophistry and lies.
Of course being a socialist I believe in taxation. I believe in the importance of society.
I reject the beggar thy neighbour attitude and the selfish importance which Mrs Thatchers policy of individual success brought, because to my mind, individual success always comes as a cost to someone else since in that system there can only be one winner.
I reject the idea that the market is more efficient in finding the right price because the price is contaminated by 'middlemen' and the 'place men' who Hoover up the contracts to disperse through a subcontractor who should have been able to quote for the work in the first place.
Our needs as a society haven't change much but the services to the society have morphed from democratically elected councils where political forces keep the members somewhat in line to unelected Quangos or large organisations such as SERCO the "outsourcing company who's sole purpose is to win the tender and then sub contract the work.
Not only do you loose accountability but being that crucial, one step away from actuality not only is the finished product more expensive it lacks the quality of a directly accountable pathway to the client with all the pitfalls that that can bring.

 Why are our care homes so unaffordable and are being closed down all over the place. 

Why do the companies say that they can't make them profitable enough when one learns of the massive fees charged to the families of people spending their last years there. Labour within the home used to be one of the most expensive elements in care and yet, under general taxation we afforded it. Today the unit cost of often imported labour is the minimum wage which pro rata is worth less than it was when the care homes were part of local government. And yet the homes are allowed to close with a prerequisite that the home is first put out to tender and only after it is in private hands and away from the political limelight is it closed and the land then sold to a real estate developer so he can build homes on the ground that the ordinary citizen in the borough can't afford.
Why is it that municipalities can't or won't build affordable housing. Why does it have to go to a private developer /contractor, why can't we take back the building of houses into the realm of Public control.
Why why why.
The books premise is that we will all have to take a very stiff dose of nasty tasting medicine to become economically viable again. My prescription is a dose of, de-"private enterprise".
Of realising the needs of a society are not an iPhone but a secure affordable home where society can once more coalesce and get to know each other and possibly recreate the social substructure to care for our elderly within the community as we used to.
I suppose the political masters are wishing for the time when we oldies, with our memories of a time when we all had very different values, would die off and leave them to get on with their twisted Machiavellian agenda.