Guest Posted 28 June 2017 Posted 28 June 2017 Just now, Webbo said: Only for people who want it to look bad. Nobody was seriously expecting it to happen. In the words of the great Nigel Pearson, "are you an ostrich?"
Webbo Posted 28 June 2017 Posted 28 June 2017 Just now, toddybad said: In the words of the great Nigel Pearson, "are you an ostrich?" You thought Corbyn was going to win that vote?
Guest Posted 28 June 2017 Posted 28 June 2017 (edited) 1 minute ago, Webbo said: You thought Corbyn was going to win that vote? Don't be silly. There are more than enough Tories who want an end to the pay cap but they aren't going to cross the lobby on the Queen's speech given the dire state the party is in! My comment was about you really believing nobody is going to think bad of the Tories when they u-turn again in a few months. Edited 28 June 2017 by Guest
Webbo Posted 28 June 2017 Posted 28 June 2017 2 minutes ago, toddybad said: Don't be silly. There are more than enough Tories who want an end to the pay cap but they aren't going to cross the lobby on the Queen's speech given the dire state the party is in! My comment was about you really believing nobody is going to think bad of the Tories when they u-turn again in a few months. The people who want to be offended will be offended.
Guest MattP Posted 28 June 2017 Posted 28 June 2017 6 minutes ago, toddybad said: It's the way the system has worked for hundreds of years. It is often said that our economic system is based on debt-it is. The interest is worth less than what we can buy with the money -that's why all economies continue to run on debt. Negative deficits (i.e. saving) is not something that is healthy for a country with the worldwide economic model being what it is. So again, how is it socialist for working tax payers to fill the pockets of billionaires? 4 minutes ago, toddybad said: He's backed the Tories into a corner. He gave them a vote on it - knowing they couldn't vote with him - but if they now u-turn (yet again) it looks bad for them. They are absolutely terrified mate, if they give a public sector pay freeze in the autumn all the people will be talking about is this pointless amendment. So called austerity might be about to end, if it does good luck bribing the electorate next time. (I'll go on record btw as saying spending more money in our current state, highest deficit in the G7 is a disaster; but the kids have voted for it so **** it) I'm glad I've got an Irish passport for numerous purposes.
Guest Posted 28 June 2017 Posted 28 June 2017 Just now, Webbo said: The people who want to be offended will be offended. I think in this case it's the people that don't want to be offended who are struggling to see the only possible outcome.
Guest Posted 28 June 2017 Posted 28 June 2017 1 minute ago, MattP said: So again, how is it socialist for working tax payers to fill the pockets of billionaires? They are absolutely terrified mate, if they give a public sector pay freeze in the autumn all the people will be talking about is this pointless amendment. So called austerity might be about to end, if it does good luck bribing the electorate next time. (I'll go on record btw as saying spending more money in our current state, highest deficit in the G7 is a disaster; but the kids have voted for it so **** it) I'm glad I've got an Irish passport for numerous purposes. Point 1 it isn't - sounds like classic tory policy doesn't it? So why are you concerned? Austerity will end and people will realise that they've given up 7 years of decent lives and public services for a sham excuse. I don't see the Tories profiting fro lossening the purse strings at all tbh.
Webbo Posted 28 June 2017 Posted 28 June 2017 6 minutes ago, toddybad said: I think in this case it's the people that don't want to be offended who are struggling to see the only possible outcome. I voted conservative,I didn't vote Labour. Why would I be offended that they aren't doing what Labour tell them to do?
Guest MattP Posted 28 June 2017 Posted 28 June 2017 (edited) 5 minutes ago, toddybad said: Point 1 it isn't - sounds like classic tory policy doesn't it? So why are you concerned? Austerity will end and people will realise that they've given up 7 years of decent lives and public services for a sham excuse. I don't see the Tories profiting fro lossening the purse strings at all tbh. Just so I'm being clear, you still realise we are running a deficit of about 58 billion? You seem oblivious to it. Edited 28 June 2017 by MattP
Guest Posted 28 June 2017 Posted 28 June 2017 3 minutes ago, MattP said: Just so I'm being clear, you still realise we are running a deficit of about 58 billion? You seem oblivious to it. Matty, we've been arguing abut this for months.Neither of us are shifting positions. To be clear, we need to put MORE money in to bring about the growth that will wipe out the deficit. We can't cut - take money OUT of the economy - and expect to get rid of the deficit.
Izzy Posted 28 June 2017 Posted 28 June 2017 2 minutes ago, toddybad said: Matty, we've been arguing abut this for months.Neither of us are shifting positions. To be clear, we need to put MORE money in to bring about the growth that will wipe out the deficit. We can't cut - take money OUT of the economy - and expect to get rid of the deficit. Put MORE money in from where?
Guest Posted 28 June 2017 Posted 28 June 2017 1 minute ago, Izzy Muzzett said: Put MORE money in from where? The magic money tree.
Alf Bentley Posted 28 June 2017 Posted 28 June 2017 1 hour ago, MattP said: I'm glad I've got an Irish passport for numerous purposes. So that you can remain an EU citizen? That's why I'm getting one, too.
Guest Kopfkino Posted 28 June 2017 Posted 28 June 2017 45 minutes ago, leicsmac said: You clearly have a lot of knowledge about the topic, and first off thanks for bringing it to the fore here. However, based on your post I do have a couple of questions that someone more well-versed in the science of economics like yourself might be able to answer. Firstly, though the Nordic economic model does most likely have certain flaws as you point out, they consistently score highest in quality of life and other social surveys across the board. How much do you think this is to do with economic effects or other factors? And should it be considered at all, in your view? Secondly, do you believe a totally free market ideal to be more likened to simple mutual cooperation or a reflection of natural selection in the monetary field (eg. 'survival of the fittest')? I personally believe the latter to be far more true than the former which is why I think it might lead to big trouble somewhere down the road - perhaps you can convince otherwise? Your first question is certainly an interesting one. For a start, and not really answering your question but maybe you'll get my gist and how I feel it fits to your question. I think we have a problem with overvaluing the economic effects of everything and ultimately, as you said yesterday, we are obsessed with money but I don't believe we should be. The phrase time is money is dangerous in this respect. In economics, there's the backward bending supply curve of labour, which says that up to a certain wage rate I am willing to substitute leisure (non-working time) for consumption (we work to earn to consume) and therefore keep supplying more hours of labour. At a high enough wage rate, the income effect takes over whereby my wage rate is high enough that I now want to begin working less hours and I have an income level which I don't want to now substitute leisure time for more consumption. I feel that some respects, our obsession with money loses sight of that. I have spent the last two years at uni surrounded by kids desperate to get into investment banking, despite regular 80-100 hour weeks because base pay is 50k first year and total comp around 75-80k. Now to me, I don't see the point because you severely hamper your social life at the time in life where you really should make the most of it. I think the reason for this obsession is because, probably by nature, we always want more of anything and crucially we want to have more compared to others, it's a self preservation kind of thing. Economic effects/money are much easier for us to personally quantify and much easier to compare. At the end of the day, I can't easily compare my life satisfaction or internal happiness with you but I can compare my wealth relatively easily. Maybe not an ideal example but people seem to use cameras to record media to share with others on social media to show them what we're doing and we follow people to see what's going on with them; we immediately compare I believe. It used to be the case that we used cameras to record memories for our own purposes, now it seems a secondary purpose. The point is, we like things that capture a way for us to compare ourselves and so maybe a system, like the free market, that encourages competition exacerbates this. Of course economic effects have a bearing on the happiness scores. However, I think the things that might underpin the success of Nordic countries economically, also underpin it's happiness. It's pretty much impossible to determine absolute causality for happiness in my opinion though. An economist called Easterlin claimed to show that increases in GDP per capita didn't correlate to increases in happiness (Easterlin paradox), many have discussed this and suggested otherwise by showing that happiness scores increase with an increase in GDP per capita, albeit at a slower rate. I don't believe there isn't a link but maybe people expected stronger. At the end of the day, all the Nordic countries perform pretty strongly on GDP per capita, Finland the only one outside of the top 20. I personally think inequality might dampen happiness effects from increases in GDP per capita. Equality doesn't necessarily make people happy, hence why none Slovenia, Slovakia and Czech aren't high in happiness ratings, but inequality makes people less happy because they don't like feeling worse off than someone else and also can't necessarily understand why they are worse off than their neighbour, it's resentment, it's anxiety, it's insecurity etc. Nordic countries are rich and equal, it doesn't matter that in a different system they might be better off as I suggested before, they're happy as they are which suggests there is more to it than economic effects. Wealth does have diminishing returns to scale so maybe they've somehow stumbled on an optimum point which the rest of us haven't yet realised. What I will also say, I don't think you can underestimate the effect of a homogenous population and the Nordic culture, particularly trust. On the homogenous population point, Sweden in 2013 was 2nd in the World Happiness Report, it is now down to 10th. Okay it may not seem the biggest slide but it's the only Nordic country that has dropped off and it's also the one that has had big problems with immigration in the last few years. This isn't an attack on immigration, the normally pro-immigration NYT wrote about this in a piece called Sweden's self inflicted nightmare. Going back to my first paragraph, maybe Nordic people have less of this obsession because they're all the same and therefore what is there to compare. Unlikely but possible. With respect to culture and particularly trust, it's simple really. In a relationship, if you and your partner trust each other, it makes for a much happier, blossoming relationship than if you don't trust each other. Nordic countries have some of the lowest scores for perceived corruption, suggesting trust and inevitably leading to a happier feeling. On culture, maybe the Nordic culture leads them to expect less, making it easier to be happier. Leicester fans were far happier winning the league than a Chelsea fan would have been this year and similarly we were far more disappointed with this season, compared to had we not won the league, because expectations were raised. Toddybad regularly takes issue with us being the 5th richest country in the world so why aren't we better able to help those less fortunate. Would he be happier if we were the 50th richest country in the world because his expectations might be lower? Or maybe they have just found a recipe that makes them happy but wouldn't necessarily make the Spanish happier for example. Australia always seems to score well on these things, but I dare say an Australian might not enjoy living in Gothenberg so much as Melbourne. Maybe there is something to say for their social security system which relieves pressure and stress for people. But again Australia and more so Switzerland have a much smaller level of social security but still score well in these indexes. What would be interesting would be to find some stats on America's Scandinavian immigrants and see their happiness levels. Maybe it is the system. I don't actually know. Economics will always play a role because I get utility from consumption which is contributing to my happiness. I do also think these indexes or reports are a western model of happiness or based on some perception of happiness that we think is right. Anyway, I actually think we are too obsessed with 'growth' and possibly amounts of money and instead should be focussed on efficient use of what we have to make ourselves to improve our happiness and quality of life. But the joy about the free market is we are able to choose that point more readily. I don't think that the free market is a reflection of natural selection in the monetary field. I may be misunderstanding what you're saying there but I will put it like this. Even the 'weakest' or least productive benefit in a free market economy. First, Bill Gates is a rich man but he has created benefits to all of us which far outweigh the benefits to himself. I don't know the figures but consider what the use of Microsoft has generated worldwide. Also, the incentive to earn from capital accumulation means that people accumulate capital, high capital per worker makes a worker more productive (diminishing returns again admittedly), a more productive worker offers more value and as I said earlier it is a system that rewards value. In truly theoretical terms you would be paid your marginal product of labour, basically the extra that you create. But then I have a problem with the notion that there are people that are fitter or weaker and this is why I refute Alf's claim that the free market doesn't have faith in humanity. In the Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith states those that do well are those that figure out what they can do well that someone else is willing to pay for. The point of the market is that I don't care anything about you as long as you produce something I want, nothing else matters. I firmly believe everyone has this capability, it just isn't nurtured properly, but there is no inherent reason, in a free market system, why someone can't move away from being the weakest. I read a book called Peak recently and it basically suggests that with the right kind of practice, pretty much anyone can do anything and that innate abilities aren't as important as we seem to think. We can all find a competitive advantage because not one person has the same experiences as someone else. It's of course a system of mutual co-operation because (in a super simplistic what is the meaning of life) you as a human are there to provide something of value to me and I reward you for that. Of course there's the survival of the fittest element of competition between firms but firms won't survive if they are not providing something of value for the people it serves which must mean that what it is doing is not optimal for society and is a waste of resource. I'd be interested why you might say that it is a reflection of survival of the fittest and why that will cause a problem further down the line. It would be easier for me to respond to that question then.
Foxxed Posted 29 June 2017 Posted 29 June 2017 The Office of National Statistic is asking you - via interactive charts - what has happened to the economy since Brexit. It tells you how right you are. https://visual.ons.gov.uk/whats-changed-in-the-year-since-the-brexit-vote/ It talks about inflation, wage growth, GDP growth, pound value, overseas visit and unemployment. 1
Foxxed Posted 29 June 2017 Posted 29 June 2017 1 hour ago, Webbo said: The people who want to be offended will be offended. I love a bit of offence, me. Love it. Nowt better than a bit of offence.
Vardinio'sCat Posted 29 June 2017 Posted 29 June 2017 16 hours ago, Webbo said: So Black Wednesday , when the ERM collapsed, was domestically driven, but Brown's massive boom and bust wasn't? It doesn't matter what Mrs Thatcher said, Labour chose to do what they did, anything that happened on their watch is their responsibility. It didn't collapse, but yes, because we didn't have to sign up to the ERM. It had been in existence since 1979, 11 years before we joined. The reasons it wasn't all Brown's fault in 2008 were well detailed by Alf a few pages back. 1
Guest Kopfkino Posted 29 June 2017 Posted 29 June 2017 2 hours ago, toddybad said: You don't really pay back the national debt. Bonds get reissued (effectively carrying over the debt) but over time the value decreases due to inflation. This is why the £ level of debt goes up over a long period but the % of GDP doesn't have to. What about index-linked gilts? You know the ones that are indexed to inflation to hedge against an investor's inflation risk. All of these in the UK are linked to RPI, normally a higher measure of inflation.
Vardinio'sCat Posted 29 June 2017 Posted 29 June 2017 12 hours ago, Foxin_mad said: I would argue that Norway is more of a Social Democracy that a Socialist state, in his speeches I do not think I have ever head Corbyn praise a Scandinavian country, They also have high VAT which for some reason Labour are against. I think they don't want to raise VAT because it is a regressive tax.
Rincewind Posted 29 June 2017 Posted 29 June 2017 (edited) Once upon a time Queen Theresa May told a nurse on a rare meeting with her subjects that there wasn't a Magic Money tree. Lo and behold a little while later she found one growing in the backyard of Number 10 with over a billion quid growing on it. She promptly plucked it and handed it over to her new friends DUP who had promised to help her out if the price was right. So they signed the marriage papers and all her courtiers said how happy they were for them and rejoiced. Queen May and DUP lived happily ever after. Or did they? Edited 29 June 2017 by Rincewind
Vardinio'sCat Posted 29 June 2017 Posted 29 June 2017 11 hours ago, Realist Guy In The Room said: I didnt think either were particularly good to be honest. Trying to associate the Blair government with anything whilst Corbyn is in charge makes no sense and leaves herself open to massive criticism (although I dont suppose she gives a shit anymore!). You're right about Corbyn though. His questions are always pretty good but the inept way he delivers them combined with the heckling means they're forgotten before May even opens her mouth. Easy to see why they love Bercow so much. It's basically a free reign. Speaking as someone who voted for Jezza, his inability to find a ruthless streak in the HoC can be painful. I just don't think he has that killer instinct. He has improved over time though, I suppose it helps that isn't getting stabbed from behind any more. But then Cameron was a confident performer at the despatch box, but that didn't stop him making .a terrible mess of being PM.
Vardinio'sCat Posted 29 June 2017 Posted 29 June 2017 3 hours ago, toddybad said: For comparison. Notice how their debt increases hugely during the Bush years - when they were probably at their strongest ever and when the equivalent of right wing Tories were in charge. Strangely, their debt hasn't turned them into Venuezuela: Have you got an equivalent for the 3 hours ago, Strokes said: Yeah but Bush had the global financial crash so avoids all criticism remember Ah no, that was a domestically driven crash in the US!
leicsmac Posted 29 June 2017 Posted 29 June 2017 Again, thanks for the depth of your reply - it's good to see. I'm going to take this one paragraph by paragraph, I think. 2 hours ago, KingGTF said: Your first question is certainly an interesting one. For a start, and not really answering your question but maybe you'll get my gist and how I feel it fits to your question. I think we have a problem with overvaluing the economic effects of everything and ultimately, as you said yesterday, we are obsessed with money but I don't believe we should be. The phrase time is money is dangerous in this respect. In economics, there's the backward bending supply curve of labour, which says that up to a certain wage rate I am willing to substitute leisure (non-working time) for consumption (we work to earn to consume) and therefore keep supplying more hours of labour. At a high enough wage rate, the income effect takes over whereby my wage rate is high enough that I now want to begin working less hours and I have an income level which I don't want to now substitute leisure time for more consumption. I feel that some respects, our obsession with money loses sight of that. I have spent the last two years at uni surrounded by kids desperate to get into investment banking, despite regular 80-100 hour weeks because base pay is 50k first year and total comp around 75-80k. Now to me, I don't see the point because you severely hamper your social life at the time in life where you really should make the most of it. I think the reason for this obsession is because, probably by nature, we always want more of anything and crucially we want to have more compared to others, it's a self preservation kind of thing. Economic effects/money are much easier for us to personally quantify and much easier to compare. At the end of the day, I can't easily compare my life satisfaction or internal happiness with you but I can compare my wealth relatively easily. Maybe not an ideal example but people seem to use cameras to record media to share with others on social media to show them what we're doing and we follow people to see what's going on with them; we immediately compare I believe. It used to be the case that we used cameras to record memories for our own purposes, now it seems a secondary purpose. The point is, we like things that capture a way for us to compare ourselves and so maybe a system, like the free market, that encourages competition exacerbates this. 5 Glad to see that you agree that people often overvalue economic effects and often take money a bit too seriously. It's interesting that you consider it a natural thing to want more, that material gain is an ideal tool for quantifying "life" as opposed to internal happiness and that this is encouraged by a competitive system - I agree with all of those things but I also have problems with them, which I'll elaborate on further down this post. I certainly also think that at some point enough is surely enough, especially when your work-life balance gets so skewed. 2 hours ago, KingGTF said: Of course economic effects have a bearing on the happiness scores. However, I think the things that might underpin the success of Nordic countries economically, also underpin it's happiness. It's pretty much impossible to determine absolute causality for happiness in my opinion though. An economist called Easterlin claimed to show that increases in GDP per capita didn't correlate to increases in happiness (Easterlin paradox), many have discussed this and suggested otherwise by showing that happiness scores increase with an increase in GDP per capita, albeit at a slower rate. I don't believe there isn't a link but maybe people expected stronger. At the end of the day, all the Nordic countries perform pretty strongly on GDP per capita, Finland the only one outside of the top 20. I personally think inequality might dampen happiness effects from increases in GDP per capita. Equality doesn't necessarily make people happy, hence why none Slovenia, Slovakia and Czech aren't high in happiness ratings, but inequality makes people less happy because they don't like feeling worse off than someone else and also can't necessarily understand why they are worse off than their neighbour, it's resentment, it's anxiety, it's insecurity etc. Nordic countries are rich and equal, it doesn't matter that in a different system they might be better off as I suggested before, they're happy as they are which suggests there is more to it than economic effects. Wealth does have diminishing returns to scale so maybe they've somehow stumbled on an optimum point which the rest of us haven't yet realised. 2 Yeah, happiness and 'quality of life' is a rather nebulous concept that is difficult to measure and assess causality. I'd likely agree with Easterlin on that argument, but again all I'd have to go on is my own anecdotal evidence so who knows? It's interesting that there isn't a correlation between equality and happiness everywhere, though that should perhaps be expected. As you say inequality makes people less happy, the opposite should also be true pretty much universally, but... It's also interesting that the Nordic countries might, just might have stumbled onto a combination of economic and social factors which makes a large proportion of them feel good about their lives in a way that few other places do (for a significant proportion of the population, anyway). There's undoubtedly more to it than just the economics, so it would be very nice to find out what secret they have (if indeed there is one). 2 hours ago, KingGTF said: What I will also say, I don't think you can underestimate the effect of a homogenous population and the Nordic culture, particularly trust. On the homogenous population point, Sweden in 2013 was 2nd in the World Happiness Report, it is now down to 10th. Okay it may not seem the biggest slide but it's the only Nordic country that has dropped off and it's also the one that has had big problems with immigration in the last few years. This isn't an attack on immigration, the normally pro-immigration NYT wrote about this in a piece called Sweden's self inflicted nightmare. Going back to my first paragraph, maybe Nordic people have less of this obsession because they're all the same and therefore what is there to compare. Unlikely but possible. With respect to culture and particularly trust, it's simple really. In a relationship, if you and your partner trust each other, it makes for a much happier, blossoming relationship than if you don't trust each other. Nordic countries have some of the lowest scores for perceived corruption, suggesting trust and inevitably leading to a happier feeling. On culture, maybe the Nordic culture leads them to expect less, making it easier to be happier. Leicester fans were far happier winning the league than a Chelsea fan would have been this year and similarly we were far more disappointed with this season, compared to had we not won the league, because expectations were raised. Toddybad regularly takes issue with us being the 5th richest country in the world so why aren't we better able to help those less fortunate. Would he be happier if we were the 50th richest country in the world because his expectations might be lower? Or maybe they have just found a recipe that makes them happy but wouldn't necessarily make the Spanish happier for example. Australia always seems to score well on these things, but I dare say an Australian might not enjoy living in Gothenberg so much as Melbourne. Maybe there is something to say for their social security system which relieves pressure and stress for people. But again Australia and more so Switzerland have a much smaller level of social security but still score well in these indexes. What would be interesting would be to find some stats on America's Scandinavian immigrants and see their happiness levels. Maybe it is the system. I don't actually know. Economics will always play a role because I get utility from consumption which is contributing to my happiness. I do also think these indexes or reports are a western model of happiness or based on some perception of happiness that we think is right. Anyway, I actually think we are too obsessed with 'growth' and possibly amounts of money and instead should be focussed on efficient use of what we have to make ourselves to improve our happiness and quality of life. But the joy about the free market is we are able to choose that point more readily. 8 I've heard people linking the Nordic success with their homogeneity before. It's certainly possible that that might have an effect, but as always with such things it's difficult to tell: it's certain that they have the success and they are pretty homogenous, but I've yet to see truly compelling evidence of correlation equalling causation there. The trust is a very interesting point: I would certainly say that's a possible factor. For me peoples attitude towards other folks and their own beliefs plays a huge factor - like you said, if you're more likely to trust the person next to you, there is going to be a better chance of mutual cooperation. I think there's a difference there between Scandinavia and somewhere like the US - in Norway you know the guy next to you and trust him to do the right thing, in the US you think he could be out to screw you because that's what you'd do in his position and it's only the possibility of a continual mutual agreement that keeps things going well. Amounts of trust are pretty huge, I reckon. I'd be interested in seeing the stats on the Nordic diaspora too - it would make for a good comparison. You also could well have a point in that our measure of happiness is based on the Western ideal of it - such a thing is always going to be subjective, after all. I'm definitely in agreement about people overvaluing growth over sustainability and efficient use of precious resources, too...even if we have the free choice to not do so. Money might not be a zero-sum game but what the Earth has certainly is - which rather neatly brings me to the next paragraph. 2 hours ago, KingGTF said: I don't think that the free market is a reflection of natural selection in the monetary field. I may be misunderstanding what you're saying there but I will put it like this. Even the 'weakest' or least productive benefit in a free market economy. First, Bill Gates is a rich man but he has created benefits to all of us which far outweigh the benefits to himself. I don't know the figures but consider what the use of Microsoft has generated worldwide. Also, the incentive to earn from capital accumulation means that people accumulate capital, high capital per worker makes a worker more productive (diminishing returns again admittedly), a more productive worker offers more value and as I said earlier it is a system that rewards value. In truly theoretical terms you would be paid your marginal product of labour, basically the extra that you create. But then I have a problem with the notion that there are people that are fitter or weaker and this is why I refute Alf's claim that the free market doesn't have faith in humanity. In the Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith states those that do well are those that figure out what they can do well that someone else is willing to pay for. The point of the market is that I don't care anything about you as long as you produce something I want, nothing else matters. I firmly believe everyone has this capability, it just isn't nurtured properly, but there is no inherent reason, in a free market system, why someone can't move away from being the weakest. I read a book called Peak recently and it basically suggests that with the right kind of practice, pretty much anyone can do anything and that innate abilities aren't as important as we seem to think. We can all find a competitive advantage because not one person has the same experiences as someone else. It's of course a system of mutual co-operation because (in a super simplistic what is the meaning of life) you as a human are there to provide something of value to me and I reward you for that. Of course there's the survival of the fittest element of competition between firms but firms won't survive if they are not providing something of value for the people it serves which must mean that what it is doing is not optimal for society and is a waste of resource. I'd be interested why you might say that it is a reflection of survival of the fittest and why that will cause a problem further down the line. It would be easier for me to respond to that question then. 3 You make some interesting points here, especially about innate abilities. However...I think you've missed a trick here; when you say that folks can find a competitive advantage because everyone has a different life experience, that's likely true - however, in a free market, people can also use the same experience to maintain their position at the top and inhibit others. A person might have as much creative talent and come up with as valuable idea as they like, but it is still possible for someone who has the necessary power they have already acquired to somehow stop them from extracting the value from that idea - by stealing it, cronyism to legislate against it, or silencing the creator in another way. Because everyone doesn't always start on the same 'score', the fight isn't always fair. Perhaps you might point out that is to do with other factors rather than the market, but that doesn't change that it still allows it to happen. Of course there are those who have taken advantage of the market to give charity, as Mr Gates and others have done, but that doesn't negate that those being offered that charity often had much less chance of success within the system in the first place. So...I would disagree with the assertion that anyone can move away from being the weakest, because the nature of other humans to maintain the status quo (and the power to apply it) simply doesn't allow it at times. The last line of the post is what I really wanted to focus on. I think that the free market is a reflection of survival of the fittest because it does rely on competition: fit businesses that provide a need survive, whilst weak businesses that do not...don't. There is of course a mutually beneficial agreement with the consumer (most of the time) but then that consumer also has to compete (either individually or part of a business) with others in order to receive the material gain needed to afford the products and services that business sells in the first place. So it is all based on competition. Now, I'm not saying that competition is a bad thing - with the right drivers and circumstances, it can be a great driver of progress. However, I think that societal systems based on competition have the potential to be a very bad thing in the future, because a simple look at evolutionary history proves that a multitude of different species (most complex species that have ever existed, come to that) have ended up extinct after doing exactly that - either by fighting amongst each other to the end, not being able to deal with a change in the Earth collaboratively, or a combination of both (like fighting over a suddenly scarce resource until next to no individuals are left). Humans are not exempt from this. I worry that there will come a time when the need is there to act collaboratively in order to deal with a global problem, but instead of doing so, humans, driven by the desire to compete and win in the name of evolutionary self-interest and encouraged by a multitude of social structures that reinforce it, will instead think that they can (as an individual or small demographic group) out-compete everyone else and survive, and so end up passing out piece by piece, people by people as it turns out that...they can't. A dreadful, final error. A fictional example for you: a change in the world means that a large portion of the Northern Hemisphere will shortly become uninhabitable. Do you think that the powerful countries there right now would not, rather than coming to a settlement regarding relocation, instead begin a war to fight over what precious inhabitable land there was left further south, and that war would likely end up devastating? That's a rather drastic example, but it fits. There's real examples of it already, too: think, for instance, how many people do not care or view as trivial the global effects of future pollution and climate change, as they don't want to deal with the consequences and that it doesn't affect them and never will? There's not even close to a unified response on that despite the scientific data - and that's just one example. So...my point is that while competitive social models (like the free market) are a good thing in the short term...in the long term, holding to them could prove to be a fatal mistake, for that reason. And that's why I tend to be against the wholesale application of such models in any circumstances. I really hope that I'm wrong, though.
Guest Posted 29 June 2017 Posted 29 June 2017 Good news for our brexiteer friends' arguments i guess. Brexit could blow €20bn hole in EU budget, warns European commissioner https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jun/29/brexit-blow-20bn-hole-eu-budget-european-commissioner
Guest Foxin_mad Posted 29 June 2017 Posted 29 June 2017 7 hours ago, Vardinio'sCat said: I think they don't want to raise VAT because it is a regressive tax. So regressive that the countries championed by the left as the most progressive in the world generally have a higher rate than us?! Bizarre. Increasing it would probably bring in huge amounts of revenue as its a tax few can avoid as collected at POS. To be honest as cold food does not have VAT and energy is a lower rate, really you are taxing non essential luxury items like the latest 65 inch TV, that seems pretty fair to me. Again as annoying as VAT on petrol is, having a car is a luxury item and if we can afford to pay for the superb nationalised rail system surely that would be worth it.
Recommended Posts