Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[Carl the Llama]

1 minute ago, Webbo said:

Carl, how many times? It's after inflation is taken into account.

 

As for your second and third line, I don't know what you're talking about.

Yeah fair enough I am a bit guilty of glossing over that but the point about relativity to the rest of society stands.  If you start earning £5 more a week but everyone else earns £10 more are you better or worse off as a member of that society?

[Webbo]

4 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

Yeah fair enough I am a bit guilty of glossing over that but the point about relativity to the rest of society stands.  If you start earning £5 more a week but everyone else earns £10 more are you better or worse off as a member of that society?

Better off is better off, if someone else is even more better off that doesn't make you poorer/less well off.

[Carl the Llama]

Just now, Webbo said:

Better off is better off, if someone else is even more better off that doesn't make you poorer.

Yeah we're leading the way on wage growth.

 

Plus I happen to believe that widening the gap between rich and poor or - as the graph I posted on the last page showed - old and young is bad for society.

 

Do we accept the independent's articles?  I forget which the approved publications are.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/uk-economy-world-worst-performing-advanced-countries-state-g7-european-union-a7817046.html

[Webbo]

1 minute ago, Carl the Llama said:

Yeah we're leading the way on wage growth.

 

Plus I happen to believe that widening the gap between rich and poor or - as the graph I posted on the last page showed - old and young is bad for society.

 

Do we accept the independent's articles?  I forget which the approved publications are.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/uk-economy-world-worst-performing-advanced-countries-state-g7-european-union-a7817046.html

You're changing the subject Carl, I never said we were leading the world in wage growth.

 

 You believe that inequality (If you look at the graph and the summary the gap isn't widening.) is bad for society, I couldn't care less. That's just differing opinions, there's no right or wrong answer.

[Carl the Llama]

1 minute ago, Webbo said:

You're changing the subject Carl, I never said we were leading the world in wage growth.

 

 You believe that inequality (If you look at the graph and the summary the gap isn't widening.) is bad for society, I couldn't care less. That's just differing opinions, there's no right or wrong answer.

Fair enough I guess our performance compared to others doesn't matter if you have no interest in relative performances within our own country.  I find it a bit unusual to hear that from an advocate of unregulated free market economics but never mind.

[Buce]

49 minutes ago, Webbo said:

You're changing the subject Carl, I never said we were leading the world in wage growth.

 

 You believe that inequality (If you look at the graph and the summary the gap isn't widening.) is bad for society, I couldn't care less. That's just differing opinions, there's no right or wrong answer.

 

Spoken like a true Tory.

[Webbo]

Just now, Buce said:

 

Spoken like a true Tory.

Yep, never had any interest in envy.

[leicsmac]

Just now, Webbo said:

Yep, never had any interest in envy.

Fair enough. Is that the driving factor behind any drive for equality, then?

 

I find the assumption here that base purposes are always the motivator rather interesting.

[Strokes]

Changing the subject back to wage/wealth inequality, what do people think a fair disparity is from the countries top earners/highest skilled, to the very lowest earners/unskilled or even those on benifits?

Is there a multiplier formula that we are all working too or is it case by case that needs looking at?

[Webbo]

10 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Fair enough. Is that the driving factor behind any drive for equality, then?

 

I find the assumption here that base purposes are always the motivator rather interesting.

If I can afford to live, pay my bills and have a little left at the end of the week what does it matter to me if someone else has more?

[leicsmac]

6 minutes ago, Webbo said:

If I can afford to live, pay my bills and have a little left at the end of the week what does it matter to me if someone else has more?

It doesn't matter - what matters is the people who have less. Both in the UK and around the world. I might posit that at least some drives for equality are based on concern for them rather than envy of those who have more...but your mileage may vary, of course.

 

Of course, this is all operating on the assumption that folks seem to be happy to go along with that economics as a whole is a zero-sum game where there has to be winners and losers in the first place - which I'm hoping humanity will get over one day.

[Webbo]

Just now, leicsmac said:

It doesn't matter - what matters is the people who have less. Both in the UK and around the world. I might posit that at least some drives for equality are based on concern for them rather than envy of those who have more...but your mileage may vary, of course.

 

Of course, this is all operating on the assumption that folks seem to be happy to go along with that economics as a whole is a zero-sum game where there has to be winners and losers in the first place - which I'm hoping humanity will get over one day.

It's not a zero sum game, there isn't a finite amount of money in the world. If Richard Branson gets a bit more richer this year it doesn't mean that somebody else must have got poorer.

[Buce]

59 minutes ago, Strokes said:

Changing the subject back to wage/wealth inequality, what do people think a fair disparity is from the countries top earners/highest skilled, to the very lowest earners/unskilled or even those on benifits?

Is there a multiplier formula that we are all working too or is it case by case that needs looking at?

 

For me, I would be less concerned with people having more than they can possibly need, as long as everybody has enough for their needs.

 

38 minutes ago, Webbo said:

It's not a zero sum game, there isn't a finite amount of money in the world. If Richard Branson gets a bit more richer this year it doesn't mean that somebody else must have got poorer.

 

But you are viewing the world in monetary terms; when the super-rich get wealthier, it is often at the expense of poorer people's lifestyles and well-being. Take, for example, the palm oil industry: Western corporations pay third world countries to grow it instead of sustainable crops, leaving a situation where instead of growing their own, these countries exist on imported food which is costly. And even if the economics work out (I doubt that they do), the destruction of the varied landscape caused by growing a mono-culture, denudes the natural world around them and creates a poverty of a different kind.

[leicsmac]

1 hour ago, Webbo said:

It's not a zero sum game, there isn't a finite amount of money in the world. If Richard Branson gets a bit more richer this year it doesn't mean that somebody else must have got poorer.

If that's the case, then you have to wonder why there is such a thing as absolute poverty still existing in the world at all.

[Webbo]

30 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

If that's the case, then you have to wonder why there is such a thing as absolute poverty still existing in the world at all.

But absolute poverty has massively reduced in the 30 years, while living standards in the first world have doubled also.

[leicsmac]

Just now, Webbo said:

But absolute poverty has massively reduced in the 30 years, while living standards in the first world have doubled also.

I think that we're moving in the right direction too in worldwide general terms. However, there's still a fair amount to be done on that score and I think therefore concern is justified.

[Strokes]

1 hour ago, Buce said:

 

For me, I would be less concerned with people having more than they can possibly need, as long as everybody has enough for their needs.

 

 

But you are viewing the world in monetary terms; when the super-rich get wealthier, it is often at the expense of poorer people's lifestyles and well-being. Take, for example, the palm oil industry: Western corporations pay third world countries to grow it instead of sustainable crops, leaving a situation where instead of growing their own, these countries exist on imported food which is costly. And even if the economics work out (I doubt that they do), the destruction of the varied landscape caused by growing a mono-culture, denudes the natural world around them and creates a poverty of a different kind.

So would the universal basic income be something you would support (touted by the Green Party), with a much higher tax take on earnings?

[Webbo]

29 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I think that we're moving in the right direction too in worldwide general terms. However, there's still a fair amount to be done on that score and I think therefore concern is justified.

If things are improving we should stick to what's working.

[Buce]

12 minutes ago, Strokes said:

So would the universal basic income be something you would support (touted by the Green Party), with a much higher tax take on earnings?

 

I'm not sure of the details of the Green's proposal, tbh, but in principle it has to be the way forward, particularly if the job-loss projections due to robotics are realised.

 

 

[Guest]

Your graph doesn't actually show the bottom 5% if you look carefully.

[Webbo]

Just now, toddybad said:

Your graph doesn't actually show the bottom 5% if you look carefully.

I can't be certain of this but to me 5 = the first 5%

[leicsmac]

18 minutes ago, Webbo said:

If things are improving we should stick to what's working.

Depends if you're happy with the rate of improvement and also with the idea that it will eventually remove absolute poverty for all, I guess. Think that's open to debate.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Webbo said:

I can't be certain of this but to me 5 = the first 5%

It has a space for 0-5% but if you look really carefully the line only begins at 5. It doesn't show the bottom 5%.

[Webbo]

50 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Depends if you're happy with the rate of improvement and also with the idea that it will eventually remove absolute poverty for all, I guess. Think that's open to debate.

But the previous era made no progress at all. The rise in living standards is down to globalisation and the abandonment of communism/socialism.

 

It's in everyone's interest to end poverty, these previously poor countries can become good customers, trade is the best incentive for peace.

[Webbo]

1 minute ago, toddybad said:

It has a space for 0-5% but if you look really carefully the line only begins at 5. It doesn't show the bottom 5%.

It's not very clear I'll admit, I'm not going to say you're wrong as I'm not sure.