Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, toddybad said:

None of those things are creating money or increasing gdp. 

War is profitable - to the right people (pushes up GDP through more governmental spending and people making and selling the weapons make a bunch).

 

Strip-mining the Earth for resources is again profitable - to the right people (if you have more access to a resource that other people want, money is going to be created to buy it, which again increases the total money in circulation).

 

The increased GDP in both of those circumstances just doesn't reach everyone.

[Rogstanley]

54 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

 

If you're on about this thread, then there isn't anyone who said it explicitly (like the bus really). However, life exists beyond this thread and it very much exists. Corbyn's whole video is a rant of envy with untruths like Morgan Stanley's CEO pays himself 21.5m. An attack on his pay phrased such that he decides it himself. Just like there's an attack on anyone that makes more than about £2.50.

 

Nope you're quite correct, I forget I must spell things out exactly. "For the record, I believe". You're quite right, if Corbyn, or May for that matter, has much to do with it, Brexit will not be better for the industry. 

The CEO to worker pay ratio has increased massively with no identifiable correlation with any sort of performance or increase in responsibilities. It isn’t just dangerous socialists describing it as a problem either:

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/robert-colvile/11158607/Yes-CEOs-are-ludicrously-overpaid.-And-yes-its-getting-worse.html

 

When a small number of privileged people get huge pay rises while everybody else’s wages fall, it’s natural for people to question whether the system is distributing wealth fairly. 

[Guest]

22 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

War is profitable - to the right people (pushes up GDP through more governmental spending and people making and selling the weapons make a bunch).

 

Strip-mining the Earth for resources is again profitable - to the right people (if you have more access to a resource that other people want, money is going to be created to buy it, which again increases the total money in circulation).

 

The increased GDP in both of those circumstances just doesn't reach everyone.

There is a difference between making a profit and increasing gdp.

 

I get your point though, we want growth through the right things. And that's my point. Let's spend on a nationwide green energy infrastructure. This would create hundreds of thousands of jobs and get rid of dirty energy. Spend on retraining those working on the old industries so they can move to the new. Spend on nationwide fibre able to take Gbps (tbf they are doing something like this). This would improve productivity and again lead to more jobs. Invest in r&d, something we lag well behind in spending. Let's then take our research and expertise in the energy and technology of the future and export it to the world. This is how the grow across our nation, how to put money into people's pockets, how to increase GDP and bring down the % of debt to GDP even if we have to borrow to fund this. We need fundamental change in how we think about investments and how we approach the biggest issues of our time.

[Guest Kopfkino]

7 minutes ago, toddybad said:

Let's spend on a nationwide green energy infrastructure. This would create hundreds of thousands of jobs and get rid of dirty energy. 

 

I am bewildered by ban on building onshore wind farms and the lack of action to remove it. Genuinely ludicrous.

[Guest]

29 minutes ago, Rogstanley said:

The CEO to worker pay ratio has increased massively with no identifiable correlation with any sort of performance or increase in responsibilities. It isn’t just dangerous socialists describing it as a problem either:

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/robert-colvile/11158607/Yes-CEOs-are-ludicrously-overpaid.-And-yes-its-getting-worse.html

 

When a small number of privileged people get huge pay rises while everybody else’s wages fall, it’s natural for people to question whether the system is distributing wealth fairly. 

How anybody can't see this is beyond me

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

 

I am bewildered by ban on building onshore wind farms and the lack of action to remove it. Genuinely ludicrous.

And the fact fracking is being allowed 

[leicsmac]

14 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

 

I am bewildered by ban on building onshore wind farms and the lack of action to remove it. Genuinely ludicrous.

NIMBYs not looking beyond their own lives, largely. Keeping the countryside aesthetic exactly as it is is more important than energy and environmental future, after all.

 

11 minutes ago, toddybad said:

And the fact fracking is being allowed 

Money in the right places, though thankfully fracking isn't so much an issue in the UK as in the US.

[Guest Kopfkino]

16 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

NIMBYs not looking beyond their own lives, largely. Keeping the countryside aesthetic exactly as it is is more important than energy and environmental future, after all.

 

I can accept that NIMBYs might resist exact proposals to put a wind farm next to their house but it's not a reason for the blanket policy. Only 9% of people oppose onshore wind farms which hardly suggests people are too concerned about keeping current aesthetics. It's nonsensical politically too, so few oppose it and once you tell people how cheap it is, it is most likely a vote winner. 

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

I can accept that NIMBYs might resist exact proposals to put a wind farm next to their house but it's not a reason for the blanket policy. Only 9% of people oppose onshore wind farms which hardly suggests people are too concerned about keeping current aesthetics. It's nonsensical politically too, so few oppose it and once you tell people how cheap it is, it is most likely a vote winner. 

Tory landowners is the answer

[Guest Kopfkino]

4 minutes ago, toddybad said:

Tory landowners is the answer

 

Of course it always is. Not that I know what its the answer to considering there was no question.

[leicsmac]

14 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

I can accept that NIMBYs might resist exact proposals to put a wind farm next to their house but it's not a reason for the blanket policy. Only 9% of people oppose onshore wind farms which hardly suggests people are too concerned about keeping current aesthetics. It's nonsensical politically too, so few oppose it and once you tell people how cheap it is, it is most likely a vote winner. 

In that case I frankly have no idea why that legislation is still in place.

 

Economically and in terms of the future it makes good sense, so if it's not the NIMBYs blocking it then who is? Someone has to be.

[Rogstanley]

20 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

I can accept that NIMBYs might resist exact proposals to put a wind farm next to their house but it's not a reason for the blanket policy. Only 9% of people oppose onshore wind farms which hardly suggests people are too concerned about keeping current aesthetics. It's nonsensical politically too, so few oppose it and once you tell people how cheap it is, it is most likely a vote winner. 

They're not banned though are they? They just took away the subsidy. If thry were really that cheap they wouldn't need a subsidy. 

[Guest]

27 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

 

Of course it always is. Not that I know what its the answer to considering there was no question.

You don't understand why onshore wind farms aren't being permitted by the tory government. Tory landowners is the answer.

I don't know why you should disbelieve that when there is no sensible reason.

[Guest]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/onshore-wind-farms-uk-subsidy-ban-energy-bills-rise-1-billion-a8018561.html

 

[leicsmac]

29 minutes ago, Rogstanley said:

They're not banned though are they? They just took away the subsidy. If thry were really that cheap they wouldn't need a subsidy. 

TBH even if it isn't economically viable right now I would keep supporting it until it is because this is a case of either paying a little bit now or paying a lot later - with more than just money (of course, that encompasses more than just wind farms but you get the meaning.)

Edited 3 December 2017 by leicsmac

[Guest Kopfkino]

31 minutes ago, Rogstanley said:

They're not banned though are they? They just took away the subsidy. If thry were really that cheap they wouldn't need a subsidy. 

And tougher planning. But the point is, onshore wind can't compete other forms of subsidised energy, when if it was subsidised it would be cheaper than those forms and become self-sufficient sooner. Energy subsidies exist still and are more expensive because we subsidise more expensive energy. Look at what Germany is doing with it. 

 

14 minutes ago, toddybad said:

You don't understand why onshore wind farms aren't being permitted by the tory government. Tory landowners is the answer.

I don't know why you should disbelieve that when there is no sensible reason.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/feb/28/windfarms-risk-free-millions-for-landowners

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/9887574/Landowners-1-billion-wind-farm-boom.html

 

Yes, so the people that could make a fortune from it with absolutely no effort are the ones opposing it. You can still blame the Tories (as anything else is beyond your scope of critical thinking), it was just another pledge to ward off the UKIP threat. 

Edited 3 December 2017 by Kopfkino

[The Doctor]

2 hours ago, toddybad said:

None of those things are creating money or increasing gdp. 

So, just to establish - if we were to go and massively ramp up oil extraction from the North Sea (as an example), causing more and more environmental damage (both from the extraction and the use of it), that wouldn't be increasing GDP? If bookies starting bringing in more from fixed odds terminals, that wouldn't increase GDP? If we went to war and increased spending on arms and equipment from contractors, that wouldn't increase GDP?

 

I suppose there's only one further question - do you actually know what GDP is?

[Izzy]

2 hours ago, Rogstanley said:

The CEO to worker pay ratio has increased massively with no identifiable correlation with any sort of performance or increase in responsibilities. It isn’t just dangerous socialists describing it as a problem either:

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/robert-colvile/11158607/Yes-CEOs-are-ludicrously-overpaid.-And-yes-its-getting-worse.html

 

When a small number of privileged people get huge pay rises while everybody else’s wages fall, it’s natural for people to question whether the system is distributing wealth fairly. 

What’s the difference between CEO wage increases and PL footballer wage increases?

 

If you want to attract the top talent, you have to pay the market rate. 

 

People argue they’re ‘privileged’ but would quite happily swap places with them if they could. 

 

Problem is most people aren’t prepared to work hard, grow their network and take risks like these high achievers are.

 

Its mainly jealousy and resentment really..

[Strokes]

27 minutes ago, The Doctor said:

So, just to establish - if we were to go and massively ramp up oil extraction from the North Sea (as an example), causing more and more environmental damage (both from the extraction and the use of it), that wouldn't be increasing GDP? If bookies starting bringing in more from fixed odds terminals, that wouldn't increase GDP? If we went to war and increased spending on arms and equipment from contractors, that wouldn't increase GDP?

 

I suppose there's only one further question - do you actually know what GDP is?

Gays, Dykes and Paedos?

[Guest]

30 minutes ago, The Doctor said:

So, just to establish - if we were to go and massively ramp up oil extraction from the North Sea (as an example), causing more and more environmental damage (both from the extraction and the use of it), that wouldn't be increasing GDP? If bookies starting bringing in more from fixed odds terminals, that wouldn't increase GDP? If we went to war and increased spending on arms and equipment from contractors, that wouldn't increase GDP?

 

I suppose there's only one further question - do you actually know what GDP is?

GDP is effectively a measure of the total money in the economy. 

 

If a bookies ramps up profits that money is coming from within the economy - a profit for them is a loss to somebody else. It doesn't create any money.

 

North Sea oil would only increase GDP if it was sold overseas and profits from those sales brought in new money to our economy.

 

Profits are not the same thing as gdp.

Edited 3 December 2017 by Guest

[Guest Kopfkino]

2 minutes ago, toddybad said:

GDP is effectively a measure of the total money in the economy. 

 

If a bookies ramps up profits that money is coming from within the economy - a profit for them is a loss to somebody else. It doesn't create any money.

 

North Sea oil would only increase GDP if it was sold overseas and profits from those sales brought in new money to our economy.

 

Profits are not the same thing as gdp.

 

Are you taking the piss?

[Strokes]

1 minute ago, Kopfkino said:

 

Are you taking the piss?

Surely, I’m lost for words

 

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

 

Are you taking the piss?

[Jimothy]

4 minutes ago, toddybad said:

GDP is effectively a measure of the total money in the economy. 

 

If a bookies ramps up profits that money is coming from within the economy - a profit for them is a loss to somebody else. It doesn't create any money.

 

North Sea oil would only increase GDP if it was sold overseas and profits from those sales brought in new money to our economy.

 

Profits are not the same thing as gdp.

GDP is the monetary measure of the market value of all the produce and services a country produces in a particular time period. Bugger all to do with where we sell it to. You seem to be talking simply about exporting and bringing money into the economy from abroad.

[leicsmac]

13 minutes ago, Izzy Muzzett said:

What’s the difference between CEO wage increases and PL footballer wage increases?

 

If you want to attract the top talent, you have to pay the market rate. 

 

People argue they’re ‘privileged’ but would quite happily swap places with them if they could. 

 

Problem is most people aren’t prepared to work hard, grow their network and take risks like these high achievers are.

 

Its mainly jealousy and resentment really..

Can't speak for everyone else, but I wouldn't. Don't envy them either.

 

They're just people and no matter what money, power, whatever they have they end up the same as every other human.

 

If people need that to derive meaning from their lives...well, that's a bit sad but that's up to them, I guess.

 

And regarding hard work...for every rags to riches CEO there are a dozen who inherited their wealth and power through the old boys network and a million folks who worked just as hard for much less reward.

 

But hey, life didn't say fair on the box, did it?