Webbo Posted 4 June 2018 Posted 4 June 2018 9 minutes ago, toddybad said: Is the word practically invisible in my post? But you'd struggle to find much of an argument for austerity amongst economists. And we're doing terribly mate. Wages less than they are 10 years ago. For you as long as we aren't all eating gruel it's all hunky dory. I want a bit more than that for my fellow countrymen. Since the fall in the pound means we're getting less cheap labour from the EU, wages are now rising above inflation . You're going to have to come up with another excuse for your faux outrage. We've not had a recession , caused by austerity or brexit. The economists you choose the believe are looking a bit stupid.
Guest Posted 4 June 2018 Posted 4 June 2018 18 minutes ago, Webbo said: Since the fall in the pound means we're getting less cheap labour from the EU, wages are now rising above inflation . You're going to have to come up with another excuse for your faux outrage. We've not had a recession , caused by austerity or brexit. The economists you choose the believe are looking a bit stupid. Outrage? Recession? I don't appear to have actually been outraged, not mentioned recession. However, living standards have been falling for a decade because we haven't done anything to get growth going properly. Much of the rest of the world turned away from austerity years ago. Yet you still parrot Teresa May's soundbites. We might have different politics but at least I do some research.
Webbo Posted 4 June 2018 Posted 4 June 2018 9 minutes ago, toddybad said: Outrage? Recession? I don't appear to have actually been outraged, not mentioned recession. However, living standards have been falling for a decade because we haven't done anything to get growth going properly. Much of the rest of the world turned away from austerity years ago. Yet you still parrot Teresa May's soundbites. We might have different politics but at least I do some research. We had the fastest growth in the G7 during austerity.
Guest Kopfkino Posted 4 June 2018 Posted 4 June 2018 1 minute ago, toddybad said: Outrage? Recession? I don't appear to have actually been outraged, not mentioned recession. However, living standards have been falling for a decade because we haven't done anything to get growth going properly. Much of the rest of the world turned away from austerity years ago. Yet you still parrot Teresa May's soundbites. We might have different politics but at least I do some research. I'm not particularly interested in some nonsense inane party political debate cos I simply don't care anymore, but that's just wrong and in my opinion shows the problem of looking at just the numbers. It completely ignores the deflationary effect of technology for which the last 10 years has been particularly notable. Just looking at the figures doesn't show that the phone I have in my pocket, the laptop I type this on, the headphones that sit on my head, the TV that sits in front of me or pretty much any tech that people own nowadays was completely out of their reach just 10 years ago whereas now a lot of it is taken for granted by a lot of people. Stats don't take account of this improvement in living standards (I wish I could be Simon Cowell and not use my phone). And that recorded happiness is at record levels suggests actually people's living standards aren't bad, and I would have thought happiness is far more important than some economic stats. Just saying
Sharpe's Fox Posted 4 June 2018 Posted 4 June 2018 27 minutes ago, Kopfkino said: I'm not particularly interested in some nonsense inane party political debate cos I simply don't care anymore, but that's just wrong and in my opinion shows the problem of looking at just the numbers. It completely ignores the deflationary effect of technology for which the last 10 years has been particularly notable. Just looking at the figures doesn't show that the phone I have in my pocket, the laptop I type this on, the headphones that sit on my head, the TV that sits in front of me or pretty much any tech that people own nowadays was completely out of their reach just 10 years ago whereas now a lot of it is taken for granted by a lot of people. Stats don't take account of this improvement in living standards (I wish I could be Simon Cowell and not use my phone). And that recorded happiness is at record levels suggests actually people's living standards aren't bad, and I would have thought happiness is far more important than some economic stats. Just saying Yes boss Dr Dre headphones and minion memes make those 50 hour weeks well ****ing worth it. Meanwhile on the depression thread 2 1
Guest Posted 4 June 2018 Posted 4 June 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, Kopfkino said: I'm not particularly interested in some nonsense inane party political debate cos I simply don't care anymore, but that's just wrong and in my opinion shows the problem of looking at just the numbers. It completely ignores the deflationary effect of technology for which the last 10 years has been particularly notable. Just looking at the figures doesn't show that the phone I have in my pocket, the laptop I type this on, the headphones that sit on my head, the TV that sits in front of me or pretty much any tech that people own nowadays was completely out of their reach just 10 years ago whereas now a lot of it is taken for granted by a lot of people. Stats don't take account of this improvement in living standards (I wish I could be Simon Cowell and not use my phone). And that recorded happiness is at record levels suggests actually people's living standards aren't bad, and I would have thought happiness is far more important than some economic stats. Just saying How old were you ten years ago? People had all the up to date tech then. It was just different tech. In the same way as it will be different tech in ten years from now. The last labour government increased spending power more than any other government in history. Edited 4 June 2018 by Guest
Guest Kopfkino Posted 4 June 2018 Posted 4 June 2018 2 minutes ago, toddybad said: How old were you ten years ago? People had all the up to date tech then. It was just different tech. In the same way as it will be different tech in ten years from now. The last labour government increased spending power more than any other government in history. Predictably you've completely missed the point and decided to use some inane stat to make any difference. And 10 years younger than I am now, but the point of age was pretty irrelevant, it didn't even have to be me. Make it my father instead. The latest tech then was nowhere near the latest tech now. In reality, the iPhone X, the Galaxy S9, or the P20 Pro whatever was not possible back then but if you think theoretically at how much it would have cost, many many times more than it costs today. That's an improvement, tech is deflationary and therefore can't be captured in inflation figures. It starts out being only available to the rich (idk think 1980s super computer) so isn't included in the basket of goods and now its available to everyone and is included but it completely ignores the deflation that has occurred to end up in the everyday consumers pocket such that it is far better than anything 10 years, not 'just different'. TVs are one of the most visible examples (albeit less exclusive to the current period, but still illustrative). The huge screen sizes, the 4K, the 3D, the curved screens or whatever the latest TV thing is at any given point is usually only available to the wealthy. At this point it isn't in the basket of goods but this is the point when its price falls the most. By the time it gets to the masses and enters the basket of goods its relatively cheap and that deflation isn't ever counted. Then most of its pCPI is thought to overestimate inflation by 1-1.5% for pretty much exactly that reason so if you factored that in it would show real wages and therefore living standards haven't really fallen (which is not me saying it couldn't have been better). In fact using the Personal Consumption Expenditures Index shows exactly that. The same thing with the internet, its output cannot be accurately represented in GDP because GDP doesn't deal with 'free' stuff well. Which also means that music streaming, according the GDP, has made us poorer, because we now spend less on music. Yet I think it would take some mammoth bullshitting to convince anybody we are poorer and worse off for it. WhatsApp has effectively made communication free whereas previously you had to pay for texts so it makes us look poorer and makes productivity look lower. Now I don't know its effects on productivity but again it'd take a lot to suggest WhatsApp has made us poorer. By all means, continue to propagate your miserablism but it seems all rather simplistic to me to really believe living standards are lower than they were 10 years ago. And as I say reported happiness is probably a good indicator that isn't really how people feel.
Guest Posted 5 June 2018 Posted 5 June 2018 (edited) 8 hours ago, Kopfkino said: Predictably you've completely missed the point and decided to use some inane stat to make any difference. And 10 years younger than I am now, but the point of age was pretty irrelevant, it didn't even have to be me. Make it my father instead. The latest tech then was nowhere near the latest tech now. In reality, the iPhone X, the Galaxy S9, or the P20 Pro whatever was not possible back then but if you think theoretically at how much it would have cost, many many times more than it costs today. That's an improvement, tech is deflationary and therefore can't be captured in inflation figures. It starts out being only available to the rich (idk think 1980s super computer) so isn't included in the basket of goods and now its available to everyone and is included but it completely ignores the deflation that has occurred to end up in the everyday consumers pocket such that it is far better than anything 10 years, not 'just different'. TVs are one of the most visible examples (albeit less exclusive to the current period, but still illustrative). The huge screen sizes, the 4K, the 3D, the curved screens or whatever the latest TV thing is at any given point is usually only available to the wealthy. At this point it isn't in the basket of goods but this is the point when its price falls the most. By the time it gets to the masses and enters the basket of goods its relatively cheap and that deflation isn't ever counted. Then most of its pCPI is thought to overestimate inflation by 1-1.5% for pretty much exactly that reason so if you factored that in it would show real wages and therefore living standards haven't really fallen (which is not me saying it couldn't have been better). In fact using the Personal Consumption Expenditures Index shows exactly that. The same thing with the internet, its output cannot be accurately represented in GDP because GDP doesn't deal with 'free' stuff well. Which also means that music streaming, according the GDP, has made us poorer, because we now spend less on music. Yet I think it would take some mammoth bullshitting to convince anybody we are poorer and worse off for it. WhatsApp has effectively made communication free whereas previously you had to pay for texts so it makes us look poorer and makes productivity look lower. Now I don't know its effects on productivity but again it'd take a lot to suggest WhatsApp has made us poorer. By all means, continue to propagate your miserablism but it seems all rather simplistic to me to really believe living standards are lower than they were 10 years ago. And as I say reported happiness is probably a good indicator that isn't really how people feel. Yet people can afford less food than they could a decade ago because wages are still lagging behind where they were then in real terms. The poorest in society have been hit disproportionately by austerity, and tax changes in their favor are worth less than reductions in in-work benefits. And food bank usage is up by about a million percent (I've made this number up). If having a later model of mobile phone but having your child's school close early because it can't afford the teachers, or having patients die waiting in ambulances is a sign of better living standards then I'd suggest we're measuring the wrong things. Edited 5 June 2018 by Guest
Webbo Posted 5 June 2018 Posted 5 June 2018 1 hour ago, toddybad said: Yet people can afford less food than they could a decade ago because wages are still lagging behind where they were then in real terms. The poorest in society have been hit disproportionately by austerity, and tax changes in their favor are worth less than reductions in in-work benefits. And food bank usage is up by about a million percent (I've made this number up). If having a later model of mobile phone but having your child's school close early because it can't afford the teachers, or having patients die waiting in ambulances is a sign of better living standards then I'd suggest we're measuring the wrong things. Is that's why we have an obesity epidemic? 1
Guest MattP Posted 5 June 2018 Posted 5 June 2018 2 hours ago, toddybad said: Yet people can afford less food than they could a decade ago because wages are still lagging behind where they were then in real terms. The poorest in society have been hit disproportionately by austerity, and tax changes in their favor are worth less than reductions in in-work benefits. And food bank usage is up by about a million percent (I've made this number up). If having a later model of mobile phone but having your child's school close early because it can't afford the teachers, or having patients die waiting in ambulances is a sign of better living standards then I'd suggest we're measuring the wrong things. Do you not remember mid-staffs? That happened right in the middle of the economic boom at a time Labour were investing huge spending into the NHS. Incompetence in the public sector is rarely related to finance. Trust me I'm seeing an absolute shambles in front of my eyes trying to deal with them and my Grandad at the minute and none of it is financial, it's complete incompetence. The way you blame government spending for every problem going is laughable and we all know if Labour were in charge you'll completely change your tune and then find a different reason for it.
Guest MattP Posted 5 June 2018 Posted 5 June 2018 Just look at these ratings now https://order-order.com/2018/06/05/mays-approval-ratings-plummet-tory-voters/ Rees-Mogg, Gove, Javid - make your move whenever you want.
Alf Bentley Posted 5 June 2018 Posted 5 June 2018 41 minutes ago, Webbo said: Is that's why we have an obesity epidemic? I'm sure there's a range of different reasons or combinations of reasons for obesity: poor parenting, busy/chaotic lives, desk jobs, sedentary lifestyles, too much junk food, too much booze, depression/loneliness causing comfort eating, lack of cooking skills etc. But there is a known correlation between poverty and obesity in the West. Not due to a lack of food, as I understand it. More that the cheapest food also tends to be the unhealthiest (high-fat pre-prepared foods)....unless you have the knowledge, ability & inclination to buy cheap fresh fruit/veg, bulk dried pulses/rice etc. For various reasons (some quoted above), people on benefits or in low-paid, low-qualified jobs sometimes don't do that. I'm not making some universal generalisation. There are obese people who are wealthy and highly educated - and people on low incomes who parent well and eat healthily etc. For the record, I'm officially overweight (not obese). Not due to poverty, lack of education or bad eating habits. Mainly due to desk job, lack of regular exercise & a past history of excess boozing, plus occasional wrong eating. 2
Guest MattP Posted 5 June 2018 Posted 5 June 2018 I'm obese (3 stone over according to the NHS website) and that's because I drink loads, eat loads and do little exercise, basically I'm lazy but actually quite comfortable with it.
Buce Posted 5 June 2018 Posted 5 June 2018 17 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said: I'm sure there's a range of different reasons or combinations of reasons for obesity: poor parenting, busy/chaotic lives, desk jobs, sedentary lifestyles, too much junk food, too much booze, depression/loneliness causing comfort eating, lack of cooking skills etc. But there is a known correlation between poverty and obesity in the West. Not due to a lack of food, as I understand it. More that the cheapest food also tends to be the unhealthiest (high-fat pre-prepared foods)....unless you have the knowledge, ability & inclination to buy cheap fresh fruit/veg, bulk dried pulses/rice etc. For various reasons (some quoted above), people on benefits or in low-paid, low-qualified jobs sometimes don't do that. I'm not making some universal generalisation. There are obese people who are wealthy and highly educated - and people on low incomes who parent well and eat healthily etc. For the record, I'm officially overweight (not obese). Not due to poverty, lack of education or bad eating habits. Mainly due to desk job, lack of regular exercise & a past history of excess boozing, plus occasional wrong eating. Absolutely spot on, Alf. Cheap food (like mass-produced white bread for example) are high calorie, low nutrient food, which your body stores as fat.
Alf Bentley Posted 5 June 2018 Posted 5 June 2018 (edited) 50 minutes ago, MattP said: Do you not remember mid-staffs? That happened right in the middle of the economic boom at a time Labour were investing huge spending into the NHS. Incompetence in the public sector is rarely related to finance. Trust me I'm seeing an absolute shambles in front of my eyes trying to deal with them and my Grandad at the minute and none of it is financial, it's complete incompetence. The way you blame government spending for every problem going is laughable and we all know if Labour were in charge you'll completely change your tune and then find a different reason for it. Sorry to hear about the stresses that you're having getting proper care for your Granddad, Matt. I can relate to your comments from when I was coordinating care for my Dad. I got the impression that the incompetence related mainly to systems, bureaucracy and a lack of coordination between different professionals/teams. I encountered the odd individual who was personally incompetent, as you do in any field, but the problem seemed to be more organisational. I saw some signs of problems caused by under-funding, mainly council social services rather than the NHS (though my Dad's designated social worker was also useless, which didn't help). The NHS people, GP and others seemed to be stretched to the max, but just about coping....but often hamstrung by overlapping systems, bureaucratic procedures, lack of coordination etc. That was 2 years ago, funding issues may have got worse - even though NHS funding has increased, its still falling behind needs. At one point, I was liaising with 16 different health/care professionals (I counted), including 2 teams whose remits overlapped to a large extent. It will be a complex job, but some govt must try to combine and rationalise the health and social care systems soon. My best tip would be to focus on those professionals who seem the most prepared to liaise with or coordinate other professionals. In my case, that was my Dad's GP, his Parkinson's specialist and the carers (interestingly, the people at the top and the bottom - with lots of middle-ranked professionals running around like headless chickens trying to comply with often overlapping systems and procedures). Good luck! Edited 5 June 2018 by Alf Bentley
Buce Posted 5 June 2018 Posted 5 June 2018 27 minutes ago, MattP said: I'm obese (3 stone over according to the NHS website) and that's because I drink loads, eat loads and do little exercise, basically I'm lazy but actually quite comfortable with it. 1 That will make a wonderful epitaph, Matt.
Alf Bentley Posted 5 June 2018 Posted 5 June 2018 23 minutes ago, MattP said: I'm obese (3 stone over according to the NHS website) and that's because I drink loads, eat loads and do little exercise, basically I'm lazy but actually quite comfortable with it. I know that its several years since I've bumped into you, but that surprises me. Overweight, yes, but I'm surprised to see you categorised as obese and 3 stone overweight. Have you been on a steak, cake and Guinness diet since I met you? Mind you, I think those BMI ratings are a very rough measurement, based only on height v. weight. Some of us are genuinely broader-boned than others....and I have a massive head to take into consideration, too. I was categorised as obese when I was drinking but have dipped back into "overweight" territory now that I'm a sober and responsible member of the community.
Guest Posted 5 June 2018 Posted 5 June 2018 1 hour ago, Webbo said: Is that's why we have an obesity epidemic? Yes. Because food is the reverse of tech. Prices have been kept as they are by reducing the quality of ingredients at the low end of the market. Hence them being full of salt, sugar and fat and us having problems with obesity and diabetes.
breadandcheese Posted 5 June 2018 Posted 5 June 2018 53 minutes ago, MattP said: Just look at these ratings now https://order-order.com/2018/06/05/mays-approval-ratings-plummet-tory-voters/ Rees-Mogg, Gove, Javid - make your move whenever you want. Would it not bring about another general election, were they to do this?
Guest Foxin_mad Posted 5 June 2018 Posted 5 June 2018 6 minutes ago, toddybad said: Yes. Because food is the reverse of tech. Prices have been kept as they are by reducing the quality of ingredients at the low end of the market. Hence them being full of salt, sugar and fat and us having problems with obesity and diabetes. Absolute crap. A lot of 'consistent stating opinion as fact' going on here. You can go into Aldi and buy a basket of fruit and veg for less than a fiver. That is an absolute fact. Eg. A weeks worth of carrots 49p Broccoli 49p Onions 70p Potatoes £1 Apples 99p Cauli 49p Eating ready made cheap food is a choice, often a more expensive one when you consider the likes of Iceland/Farmfoods are making a profit on the Pizzas, chips and other ready meals they sell. If you make food from your own ingredients it absolutely will be cheaper. Whether people can be bother or decide to do with that has nothing to do with austerity, social justice or any of that absolute horseshit soundbite bollocks that you buy into. Sorry. People aren't making the correct choices in life, maybe that is down to lack of education on diet or maybe they just don't give a fvck who knows?
Guest MattP Posted 5 June 2018 Posted 5 June 2018 26 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said: At one point, I was liaising with 16 different health/care professionals (I counted), including 2 teams whose remits overlapped to a large extent. It will be a complex job, but some govt must try to combine and rationalise the health and social care systems soon. My best tip would be to focus on those professionals who seem the most prepared to liaise with or coordinate other professionals. In my case, that was my Dad's GP, his Parkinson's specialist and the carers (interestingly, the people at the top and the bottom - with lots of middle-ranked professionals running around like headless chickens trying to comply with often overlapping systems and procedures). Good luck! 17 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said: I know that its several years since I've bumped into you, but that surprises me. Overweight, yes, but I'm surprised to see you categorised as obese and 3 stone overweight. Have you been on a steak, cake and Guinness diet since I met you? I was categorised as obese when I was drinking but have dipped back into "overweight" territory now that I'm a sober and responsible member of the community. I don't actually look as obese as I should look I presume, I'm actually now a stone lighter than when we last met, being broad shouldered certainly helps as the weight stretches across you. Thanks for the kind words and the advice, from what you tell me there I've not even got anywhere near where you are, we've been liasing with about three and that's been a nightmare, I can't imagine the issues getting this information across as many people as sixteen! 1 minute ago, breadandcheese said: Would it not bring about another general election, were they to do this? Not at all unless a lot of Conservative MP's voted for it, although I'm starting to think with a competent leader it wouldn't be a bad idea. Corbyn isn't going to win and overall majority now and surely the Tory campaign can't be any worse than the one in 2016. 30 minutes ago, Buce said: Cheap food (like mass-produced white bread for example) are high calorie, low nutrient food, which your body stores as fat. You mean when I have my white bread chip shop baguette it's unhealthy? You'll be telling me the black pudding I shove in it is bad for me next.
Buce Posted 5 June 2018 Posted 5 June 2018 4 minutes ago, MattP said: You mean when I have my white bread chip shop baguette it's unhealthy? In a word - yes. 4 minutes ago, MattP said: You'll be telling me the black pudding I shove in it is bad for me next. Actually, it isn't nearly as bad for you as you might think. I was reading a report on it not long ago that argued that due to its high iron content, and useful amounts of zinc, potassium, calcium, magnesium and protein, it could be labelled as 'healthy'. That does ignore the fact, though, that processed red meats are known to be carcinogenic to humans.
Guest Kopfkino Posted 5 June 2018 Posted 5 June 2018 4 hours ago, toddybad said: Yet people can afford less food than they could a decade ago because wages are still lagging behind where they were then in real terms. The poorest in society have been hit disproportionately by austerity, and tax changes in their favor are worth less than reductions in in-work benefits. And food bank usage is up by about a million percent (I've made this number up). If having a later model of mobile phone but having your child's school close early because it can't afford the teachers, or having patients die waiting in ambulances is a sign of better living standards then I'd suggest we're measuring the wrong things. You've either failed to read what I said or just can't grasp it. 10 hours ago, Kopfkino said: CPI is thought to overestimate inflation by 1-1.5% for pretty much exactly that reason so if you factored that in it would show real wages and therefore living standards haven't really fallen (which is not me saying it couldn't have been better). In fact using the Personal Consumption Expenditures Index shows exactly that. Once you factor in the fact that CPI is thought to overstate actual inflation then you find that much of the last 10 years have seen reals wages rise (again I don't pretend it couldn't be better) and what you say about affording less food is not true in the way you look at real wages. And it can be shown with other measures of inflation. But your very last statement was kind of my point but instead of measuring the wrong things, these aren't necessarily useful measures. Economic statistics should not be treated as matter of fact because they're so difficult to measure and so you should look at other things. I've made the point about median wages before, not arsed if you wish not to believe it could be the case, it's not invalid. Inflation is great as a rough barometer, maybe to show a direction of travel, but it's ultimately flawed. Flawed because it struggles to account for the deflationary affect of technology, flawed because it is unable to deal with people substituting for different goods (they adjust for this for it's impossible to be accurate), and its difficult to get a representative basket of goods. The inflation rate is different across the country and everyone's personal inflation rate is completely different, its just not as generalisable as is freely made out. With food inflation recently being higher (after a period of deflation) it may well be, poor people in particular, that people can afford less food and are worse off as a result. But really the point is to know exactly what's going on, you have to analyse people's consumption rather than what the monthly CPI figure is compared to wages. Again GDP, useful to give a rough estimate of the country, but ultimately flawed and impossible to measure. And all this is why I said happiness and life satisfaction is the important measure. Despite your miserablism and telling everyone everything has gone to shit, recorded happiness and life satisfaction are at record highs since comparable measures began in 1991.
Guest Posted 5 June 2018 Posted 5 June 2018 1 minute ago, Kopfkino said: You've either failed to read what I said or just can't grasp it. Once you factor in the fact that CPI is thought to overstate actual inflation then you find that much of the last 10 years have seen reals wages rise (again I don't pretend it couldn't be better) and what you say about affording less food is not true in the way you look at real wages. And it can be shown with other measures of inflation. But your very last statement was kind of my point but instead of measuring the wrong things, these aren't necessarily useful measures. Economic statistics should not be treated as matter of fact because they're so difficult to measure and so you should look at other things. I've made the point about median wages before, not arsed if you wish not to believe it could be the case, it's not invalid. Inflation is great as a rough barometer, maybe to show a direction of travel, but it's ultimately flawed. Flawed because it struggles to account for the deflationary affect of technology, flawed because it is unable to deal with people substituting for different goods (they adjust for this for it's impossible to be accurate), and its difficult to get a representative basket of goods. The inflation rate is different across the country and everyone's personal inflation rate is completely different, its just not as generalisable as is freely made out. With food inflation recently being higher (after a period of deflation) it may well be, poor people in particular, that people can afford less food and are worse off as a result. But really the point is to know exactly what's going on, you have to analyse people's consumption rather than what the monthly CPI figure is compared to wages. Again GDP, useful to give a rough estimate of the country, but ultimately flawed and impossible to measure. And all this is why I said happiness and life satisfaction is the important measure. Despite your miserablism and telling everyone everything has gone to shit, recorded happiness and life satisfaction are at record highs since comparable measures began in 1991. I do take your point but it would be interesting to understand the happiness figures you're quoting - is it the same questions to a comparable population in the same area at the same time of year etc etc. And whilst we all have our own inflation rates and pay rises, surely the average has it's uses when looking at expected effects on a population? Effectively you're saying that it's impossible to measure adequately the objective effects of austerity (or whatever you choose to call it) upon lifestyle so instead we'll defer to a subjective survey. That isn't scientific. And I suppose there's an additional question here also which is should it matter if the rich get disproportionately richer compared to the rest of us? Should it matter that we are effectively propping up the stock markets with QE at the same time as subjecting the general populace to pay caps and public service disruption? You could try to argue that this is an entirely separate thing bit I'm not convinced it is. Given the economic situation over the last decade (which as a would-be economist I presume you'd admit has been woeful) there an almost war-like mentality around accepting hard times. But would people be answering surveys to say they are less happy if hard times hadn't happened? Impossible to answer, isn't it? So surely seeking a subjective answer isn't the way at all. Surely the answer is to seek objective information and data. So, for example, how many deaths are caused by issues linked to poverty? Is this going up or down? What can we measure that relates to social mobility? Objectivity still has to be the way to an answer.
leicsmac Posted 5 June 2018 Posted 5 June 2018 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-36130006 Sobering stuff. You'd have thought most of Europe would know where that kind of nationalism leads given at least reasonably recent history. Seems like history likes to repeat itself whether people remember it or not.
Recommended Posts