Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[Guest]

42 minutes ago, Webbo said:

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

 

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

The previous era made no progress? It rebuilt a country devastates by war. It saw technological and social revolution. It built the NHS. It gave women rights. Society existed and owned the pillars of energy, rail and telecoms. Local shops existed and thrived. Huge post war growth cleared the biggest best the country has ever had and gave us extra.

 

Yes you had less c***ts selling society down the river to make a quick buck but then you get to pray in thanks to Thatcher for that. But inequality dropped between the war and the Thatcher government that worked with Reagan to form the new western order ideology wise. Suddenly the rich got richer again taking us back to victoriana. 

 

[Webbo]

We were talking about poverty across the world.

[Webbo]

2 minutes ago, toddybad said:

The previous era made no progress? It rebuilt a country devastates by war. It saw technological and social revolution. It built the NHS. It gave women rights. Society existed and owned the pillars of energy, rail and telecoms. Local shops existed and thrived. Huge post war growth cleared the biggest best the country has ever had and gave us extra.

 

Yes you had less c***ts selling society down the river to make a quick buck but then you get to pray in thanks to Thatcher for that. But inequality dropped between the war and the Thatcher government that worked with Reagan to form the new western order ideology wise. Suddenly the rich got richer again taking us back to victoriana. 

 

We all got richer. So what if some people did better than others? Would you prefer it if we were all equally poor?

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, Webbo said:

We all got richer. So what if some people did better than others? Would you prefer it if we were all equally poor?

1% seeing 20% of income is plain wrong webbo. Of course it matters.

[Webbo]

2 minutes ago, toddybad said:

1% seeing 20% of income is plain wrong webbo. Of course it matters.

So you'd rather rich people were poorer than poor people were better off?

[Buce]

14 minutes ago, Webbo said:

We all got richer. So what if some people did better than others? Would you prefer it if we were all equally poor?

 

How about us being equally comfortable?

[Guest]

Just now, Webbo said:

So you'd rather rich people were poorer than poor people were better off?

I don't have a problem with there being rich or poor but we all work hard. There is a lot of luck involved in reaching the 1%. What's wrong with sharing the proceeds of the efforts we all make to push our country forward? Aren't we all in it together? What was wrong with the top 1% earning 5% of the income? They were still rich.

[Izzy]

I don’t see how any of this differs from the old Pareto Principle (80/20 law) from 130 years ago. It’s always roughly been the top 20% own 80% of the land/wealth etc. It’s just how it is isn’t it?

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Izzy Muzzett said:

I don’t see how any of this differs from the old Pareto Principle (80/20 law) from 130 years ago. It’s always roughly been the top 20% own 80% of the land/wealth etc. It’s just how it is isn’t it?

I had this vague idea we were going to progress from the days of slaves and servants.

[Webbo]

3 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

How about us being equally comfortable?

I'd guess I'm in the bottom 5% and I'm reasonably comfortable.

 

You say you're a similar age to me, you must remember the 70s. Do you remember all this equality making us happier? It was pretty grim to my recollection, constant strikes and piss poor services.

[Webbo]

8 minutes ago, toddybad said:

I don't have a problem with there being rich or poor but we all work hard. There is a lot of luck involved in reaching the 1%. What's wrong with sharing the proceeds of the efforts we all make to push our country forward? Aren't we all in it together? What was wrong with the top 1% earning 5% of the income? They were still rich.

Why is it luck?

[Izzy]

4 minutes ago, toddybad said:

I don't have a problem with there being rich or poor but we all work hard. There is a lot of luck involved in reaching the 1%. What's wrong with sharing the proceeds of the efforts we all make to push our country forward? Aren't we all in it together? What was wrong with the top 1% earning 5% of the income? They were still rich.

You do sound a little bitter. Many of the top 1% do share their wealth as philanthropists anyway. I admire your “we’re all in it together” attitude but greed has and always will be one of the seven deadly sins. Just accept it dude...

 

1 minute ago, toddybad said:

I had this vague idea we were going to progress from the days of slaves and servants.

Nah, not in our lifetime. There will always be hierarchy and order in the world. Survival of the fittest and all that. Why do you think you can change human nature all of a sudden?

[Buce]

 

6 minutes ago, Webbo said:

I'd guess I'm in the bottom 5% and I'm reasonably comfortable.

 

You say you're a similar age to me, you must remember the 70s. Do you remember all this equality making us happier? It was pretty grim to my recollection, constant strikes and piss poor services.

 

I remember the Seventies as a teenager (you are a year or two younger I think?), so memories of politics is vague, but I certainly don't recall the equality you speak of.

 

There has never been anything approaching equality in my lifetime, and to the best of my knowledge, ever.

Edited 15 October 2017 by Buce

[Webbo]

1 minute ago, Buce said:

 

 

 

 

There has never been anything approaching equality in my lifetime, and to the best of my knowledge, ever.

Tell toddybad will you? According to him everything was wonderful before Thatcher.

[Sampson]

58 minutes ago, toddybad said:

I don't have a problem with there being rich or poor but we all work hard. There is a lot of luck involved in reaching the 1%. What's wrong with sharing the proceeds of the efforts we all make to push our country forward? Aren't we all in it together? What was wrong with the top 1% earning 5% of the income? They were still rich.

Why are you assuming they don't?

 

Why are you assuming they don't give money to charities, invest money in small businesses, invest money in their own businesses creating jobs or store money in banks which allows banks to give loans and mortgages to less well off people?

 

And why does it matter? The reductions of levels in poverty in tg is country and all of the West since WWII have been insane and the reduction of poverty in many other parts of the world like Eastern Europe, China and India have been insane since globalisation in the 1980s - like completely unprecedented in human history.

 

If there's one thing travelling and studying history have taught me it's how incredibly lucky we are! Very few people starve in Britain today - in fact suicide and obesity are both fat bigger killers than dying of famine or dehydration - and it's only in Western countries in the past few decades that that's ever been the case - in all of human history!

 

Of course it can be better, but seriously, go travelling to parts of Asia, South America, Africa and even parts of Eastern Europe and it will make you appreciate just how lucky we are in this country at this stage in history!

 

Of course it could be better, but you always remember how lucky we all are - you're literally reading this on a computer screen or phone which most people in history could never afford.

 

I can literally go into a pub or restaurant and have a meal whuch a professional chef who's trained specifically to cook and make great food withour having yo grow it, without having to hunt animals, skin them or cook them, withour having to build an oven and I can get that for abour 1 and a  half hours worth of work at minimum wage.

 

I can rent a room for a month in an urbanized cities which cost thousands of labour hours to create a safe inside shelter with man made heating, man made security, man made electricity and water for about a week and a half labour. I can get electricity and light in my house for a pennies a day when candlelight cost hours of labour just 4 generations a go. I can afford a device in my hand which communicates across vast distances and allows me nearly all of human knowledge and history at my fingertips for about 15 hours labour. And this is all while the standard working day has even managed to go down from approximately 45 hours a week to 38 hours a week in that time.

 

Absolutely everyone in history and the majority of people who live today would look at what is affordable in Britain today and be in awe at how we live. Communist states wanted equality over prosperity and it ended up just keeping everyone poor because they didn't allow the innovations which make all our lives better a chance to get through.

 

Yes our system allows a lot of people to get rich by luck but it also allows freedom for innovations which make everyone's lives better to get through - which has as a result pulled way more people out of poverty over the long term.

 

It isn't perfect but it's taken thousands of years to get to this point and thr rapid increase in thè quality of lives just in the past 3 generations has been entirely unprecedented in human history.

 

Everyone gets what you're saying - we all want to live in such a world where no one is poor and everyone can but what they want and afford to own their own property, but I think you've got to look at the bigger picture in the world and history - and I'm constantly amazed I was lucky to live in such a time where food is plentiful, man made wonders like the internet, electricity and clean water and available to all for such tiny amounts, I can rent a room with central heating, whuch is protected from the elements and I still have money to spend in leisure time like football tickets, computer games, going for a drink with friends, going to the cinema, going travelling etc. where I can take advantage of other people's thousands of labour hours and trained skills and expertise. This has literally only been an option for the past 2 or 3 generations in the 200,000 odd years in which homo sapiens have existed.

 

The comfort we have in this country at this point in history is ridiculous compared to pretty much any other time or country - and no that shouldn't allow us to get complacent - but it also shouldn't allow us to get complacent with a system which allows the innovations which get through and make profits by selling them to the masses.

 

Edited 15 October 2017 by Sampson

[Guest]

51 minutes ago, Webbo said:

Why is it luck?

Don't get me wrong there has to be talent too. But there are far less top jobs than there are people worthy of them.

[Guest]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

50 minutes ago, Izzy Muzzett said:

You do sound a little bitter. Many of the top 1% do share their wealth as philanthropists anyway. I admire your “we’re all in it together” attitude but greed has and always will be one of the seven deadly sins. Just accept it dude...

 

Nah, not in our lifetime. There will always be hierarchy and order in the world. Survival of the fittest and all that. Why do you think you can change human nature all of a sudden?

Not bitter. Just not accepting that there is an elite that deserves to grab the spoils of everybody's efforts.

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, Sampson said:

Why are you assuming they don't?

 

Why are you assuming they don't give money to charities, invest money in small businesses, invest money in their own businesses creating jobs or store money in banks which allows banks to give loans and mortgages to less well off people?

 

And why does it matter? The reductions of levels in poverty in tg is country and all of the West since WWII have been insane and the reduction of poverty in many other parts of the world like Eastern Europe, China and India have been insane since globalisation in the 1980s - like completely unprecedented in human history.

 

If there's one thing travelling and studying history have taught me it's how incredibly lucky we are! Very few people starve in Britain today - in fact suicide and obesity are both fat bigger killers than dying of famine or dehydration - and it's only in Western countries in the past few decades that that's ever been the case - in all of human history!

 

Of course it can be better, but seriously, go travelling to parts of Asia, South America, Africa and even parts of Eastern Europe and it will make you appreciate just how lucky we are in this country at this stage in history!

 

Of course it could be better, but you always remember how lucky we all are - you're literally reading this on a computer screen or phone which most people in history could never afford.

 

I can literally go into a pub or restaurant and have a meal whuch a professional chef who's trained specifically to cook and make great food withour having yo grow it, without having to hunt animals, skin them or cook them, withour having to build an oven and I can get that for abour 1 and a  half hours worth of work at minimum wage.

 

I can rent a room for a month in an urbanized cities which cost thousands of labour hours to create a safe inside shelter with man made heating, man made security, man made electricity and water for about a week and a half labour. I can get electricity and light in my house for a pennies a day when candlelight cost hours of labour just 4 generations a go. I can afford a device in my hand which communicates across vast distances and allows me nearly all of human knowledge and history at my fingertips for about 15 hours labour. And this is all while the standard working day has even managed to go down from approximately 45 hours a week to 38 hours a week in that time.

 

Absolutely everyone in history and the majority of people who live today would look at what is affordable in Britain today and be in awe at how we live. Communist states wanted equality over prosperity and it ended up just keeping everyone poor because they didn't allow the innovations which make all our lives better a chance to get through.

 

Yes our system allows a lot of people to get rich by luck but it also allows freedom for innovations which make everyone's lives better to get through - which has as a result pulled way more people out of poverty over the long term.

 

It isn't perfect but it's taken thousands of years to get to this point and thr rapid increase in thè quality of lives just in the past 3 generations has been entirely unprecedented in human history.

 

Everyone gets what you're saying - we all want to live in such a world where no one is poor and everyone can but what they want and afford to own their own property, but I think you've got to look at the bigger picture in the world and history - and I'm constantly amazed I was lucky to live in such a time where food is plentiful, man made wonders like the internet, electricity and clean water and available to all for such tiny amounts, I can rent a room with central heating, whuch is protected from the elements and I still have money to spend in leisure time like football tickets, computer games, going for a drink with friends, going to the cinema, going travelling etc. where I can take advantage of other people's thousands of labour hours and trained skills and expertise. This has literally only been an option for the past 2 or 3 generations in the 200,000 odd years in which homo sapiens have existed!

But I don't understand why you can't take the best of both systems, or multiple systems. Why accept the good and bad. Why not try to improve it further. Have the growth AND the interest in society.

[Sampson]

54 minutes ago, toddybad said:

But I don't understand why you can't take the best of both systems, or multiple systems. Why accept the good and bad. Why not try to improve it further. Have the growth AND the interest in society.

We already do and we already have as have other countries. And we constantly try and improve it further but what is better? Taking tax from billionaires to give to the NHS, teachers, the police, the firefighters etc. who make all our lives better or allowing them to invest in businesses which may or may not create jobs or create products and services which make people's lives better or allow for investmènt in equipment to push prices down or keep their money in the bank so banks can give loans out or risking them leaving the country and going elsewhere? An which one allows for the better interest in society? It's not an easy question to answer and never has been but there's no perfect system.

 

There's no such thing as not accepting the good and bad - every decision which is made by a government will have a negative affect especially when it's just trying to affect the hundreds of thousands of decisions which 70 million seperate people (we'll ultimately 7 billion people) make everyday (which is all the Economy is). Every system will have massive flaws and bad sides and affect millions of lives negatively! The only way it wouldn't is if the government tried to treat everyone as the same and wanting the same goals and wanting the same things and to spend on the same things (which is what Communist countries tried to do).

 

You can't have both to a perfect level. You have to find the balance which allows both to a certain degree and we've found a system which works over the long-term over the past century or so - it's not perfect and it has short or medium term blips but it works - and putting innovation and the freedom for goods and services which people want and which there is demand for to through before equality has pulled people out of poverty in a way Socialist and Communist countries which put equality before innovation never managed - and for me pulling people out of poverty and making people's lives better should be the aim - not equality - and the incredible comfort we live in compared to other countries and eras is testament to that working. Yes it can be evolved as new ideas come into play but it absolutely isn't a broken system.

Edited 15 October 2017 by Sampson

[leicsmac]

4 hours ago, Webbo said:

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.

I think there are other models that might be used to power progress in the future than competitive ones.

 

I'm not sure I agree with that second paragraph either...if bringing a group of people out of poverty doesn't lead to tangible short term gains for the people doing it, why would it happen under such a system? That's rather my point about the flaw in the whole thing, really - it is a system designed for quick and tangible gains through competition and occasional cooperation - and while clearly it's a massive driver of progress, it doesn't help all of the people all of the time and relying on it overmuch in the future might not be the best idea - when thinking beyond the end of ones lifetime might be needed.

 

2 hours ago, Izzy Muzzett said:

 

Nah, not in our lifetime. There will always be hierarchy and order in the world. Survival of the fittest and all that. Why do you think you can change human nature all of a sudden?

I hope that we can change it, because as history shows "human nature" and going by the competitive evolutionary model as humans will only lead to one logical outcome.

Edited 15 October 2017 by leicsmac

[Webbo]

6 hours ago, leicsmac said:

I think there are other models that might be used to power progress in the future than competitive ones.

 

I'm not sure I agree with that second paragraph either...if bringing a group of people out of poverty doesn't lead to tangible short term gains for the people doing it, why would it happen under such a system? That's rather my point about the flaw in the whole thing, really - it is a system designed for quick and tangible gains through competition and occasional cooperation - and while clearly it's a massive driver of progress, it doesn't help all of the people all of the time and relying on it overmuch in the future might not be the best idea - when thinking beyond the end of ones lifetime might be needed.

 

I hope that we can change it, because as history shows "human nature" and going by the competitive evolutionary model as humans will only lead to one logical outcome.

S. Korea has come on massively since the war and the whole world is better off because. It would be so much better for us if we were sending countries like Bangladesh Rolls Royce's and Burberry handbags instead of aid.

[Fox Ulike]

11 hours ago, toddybad said:

1% seeing 20% of income is plain wrong webbo. Of course it matters.

But don't they pay around 30% of income tax? If so, shouldn't that balance out wealth inequalities in income?

 

[Strokes]

5 minutes ago, Fox Ulike said:

But don't they pay around 30% of income tax? If so, shouldn't that balance out wealth inequalities in income?

 

The trouble is with the higher rate of income tax, is that its a lot easier to hide when you are wealthy. If you can afford to pay an accountant to file your returns for you, the chances are they are saving you more money than they cost you. 

I do agree it can be quite murky at the high end of the income bracket.

[Fox Ulike]

3 minutes ago, Strokes said:

The trouble is with the higher rate of income tax, is that its a lot easier to hide when you are wealthy. If you can afford to pay an accountant to file your returns for you, the chances are they are saving you more money than they cost you. 

I do agree it can be quite murky at the high end of the income bracket.

True. But that suggests that the problem is one of Tax Law, rather than a deep-seated issue of wealth inequality.

 

If we fix Tax Law, will we fix wealth inequality?

[Strokes]

34 minutes ago, Fox Ulike said:

True. But that suggests that the problem is one of Tax Law, rather than a deep-seated issue of wealth inequality.

 

If we fix Tax Law, will we fix wealth inequality?

I think following last nights conversation, I’d be more inclined to say, how can we make the poor better off, than how do we stop the rich getting richer. Even if the two are linked.

Whats your opinion on universal basic income? I have to say I’m starting to warm to the idea.