Guest Kopfkino Posted 7 June 2018 Posted 7 June 2018 20 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said: Someone has it right in the comments section. This isn't just a UK problem, neither left or right can solve it. http://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2017/09/world/germany-food-bank-cnnphotos/ http://blogs.worldbank.org/developmenttalk/increasingly-inequality-within-not-across-countries-rising Again Corbyn is making this a UK problem, its a global problem. I'm sure there are some equal problems in some of the Socialist countries he would like us to emulate. Definitely, food bank use is higher in both Germany and France despite the famous fix all policy of government spending being higher in those country. In fact, the Scandinavians with their supposedly wonderful welfare states actually support the use of food banks, albeit they prioritise redistributing food waste. And of course, we have to ask what did those in food poverty do before the rise of food banks. Whilst they're not ideal and I don't want to see their use increase, they do solve an important problem that is not a new problem (though possibly an expanding problem).
Guest Foxin_mad Posted 7 June 2018 Posted 7 June 2018 12 minutes ago, toddybad said: There is a global element to the issue, that is true, as financial systems/ stocks etc cross borders and need international reform. But changes to benefit rules (which impacts working people more negatively than the positive effects of tax changes), reductions in workers rights and the systematic dismantling of terms and conditions which had left millions in insecure employment are all UK produced problems with UK based solutions. Food Bank usage has multiplied by a very large factor because of austerity politics. There's no getting away from that. This is what the right have voted for. Globalisation and the movement of people also causes its own problems. The very fact that much of the left support mass immigration from poor nations and the 'refugees welcome' mentality is not exactly conducive to higher living standards in the UK (west), there is a limit to what we can provide and sustain as a population, much of that was busted by the immigration policy of the last Labour government. Now again to clarify immigration is not bad, TOO MUCH immigration is bad. Germany is often seen as a great example so to see articles like the one above about Europe's richest country and biggest economy tell us a lot. Equally Food Bank usage could have increased in a bankrupt socialist country where everyone is poor, sadly there will probably be no food banks so instead there would be riots and unrest instead. This is what the left are voting for.
Guest Posted 7 June 2018 Posted 7 June 2018 (edited) 7 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said: Globalisation and the movement of people also causes its own problems. The very fact that much of the left support mass immigration from poor nations and the 'refugees welcome' mentality is not exactly conducive to higher living standards in the UK (west), there is a limit to what we can provide and sustain as a population, much of that was busted by the immigration policy of the last Labour government. Now again to clarify immigration is not bad, TOO MUCH immigration is bad. Germany is often seen as a great example so to see articles like the one above about Europe's richest country and biggest economy tell us a lot. Equally Food Bank usage could have increased in a bankrupt socialist country where everyone is poor, sadly there will probably be no food banks so instead there would be riots and unrest instead. This is what the left are voting for. Your second paragraph is just bizarre. Re the first. Explain why prior to the global financial crisis, living standards (accepting kopf's criticism of the term based on averages) had increased extremely quickly under labour. Whilst immigration sped away, those immigrants did provide the labour for our economy to surge. Post crisis and post austerity politics our economy has never recovered for real people. Immigration is the right wing straw man used to explain every ill but the problem is austerity politics itself. Economists worldwide are virtually as one in saying that austerity politics was and is bad politics. What we are seeing is the outcome of bad politics and bad policies. Stop making crap excuses for it. Edited 7 June 2018 by Guest
Alf Bentley Posted 7 June 2018 Posted 7 June 2018 3 minutes ago, Kopfkino said: Definitely, food bank use is higher in both Germany and France despite the famous fix all policy of government spending being higher in those country. In fact, the Scandinavians with their supposedly wonderful welfare states actually support the use of food banks, albeit they prioritise redistributing food waste. And of course, we have to ask what did those in food poverty do before the rise of food banks. Whilst they're not ideal and I don't want to see their use increase, they do solve an important problem that is not a new problem (though possibly an expanding problem). I can't be arsed to get into extended debate about it, but what a lot of people did before the rise of food banks was to reliably receive benefits on which they could just about get by. Recent years have seen a massive increase in people facing benefits sanctions: i.e. no benefits, reduced benefits, periods without benefits. There has also been a big increase in "flexible labour" and short-term contracts: i.e. people out of work and entitled to benefits for short periods or with varying entitlements due to varying hours, P/T or zero-hours contracts etc. Because there are such massive delays, bureaucracy and hassle involved in claiming any benefits now, some people who are in and out of work frequently no longer see it as worthwhile to deal with the benefits system. My brother is in that situation - in and out of construction labouring work. He never signs on when not working because it's too much hassle. He gets by from sums set aside or family support, but I presume some others go to food banks rather than claim. I'm not saying that explains everything, but it certainly explains a good chunk of the increased use of food banks. 1
Guest Foxin_mad Posted 7 June 2018 Posted 7 June 2018 1 minute ago, toddybad said: Your second paragraph is just bizarre. Re the first. Explain why prior to the global financial crisis, living standards (accepting kopf's criticism of the term based on averages) had increased extremely quickly under labour. Whilst immigration sped away, those immigrants did provide the labour for our economy to surge. Post crisis and post austerity politics our economy has never recovered for real people. Immigration is the right wing straw man used to explain every ill but the problem is austerity politics itself. Economists worldwide are virtually as one in saying that austerity politics was and is bad politics. What we are saying is the outcome of bad politics. Stop making crap excuses for it. They increased because we were spending money we didn't have on things (some things we didn't need). Hence the 'supposed global financial crisis' deficit and debt. That failed before it will fail again. We can not keep living in a world where we keep saying we will buy that now and pay for it later, particularly when some of the things we are buying have no real term value. Its ok we can borrow cheap now etc etc. Just don't borrow! I am not seeing the 'economists world wide' saying that apart from 'left wing academics' . We have the IFS saying labours spending plans don't add up......because well basically.....they don't add up! Yes we are still living in the outcome of the 'bad politics' of the last Labour government, we are finally getting to a point of sorting the mess, then we have Brexit. Again if you think a Labour government, particularly a far left extremist one led by a decrepit old loon are the solutions to any of the countries problems, you are unfortunately deluded. Your second paragraph is bizarre. Again logic re immigration. If we allow 10 million unskilled, jobless people into the country tomorrow? Who pays for them? where do they live? what happens to housing costs? what happens to jobs? How do they eat? Where do they get medical care, education etc. etc. etc.? Its not and I hate the stupid term 'strawman' it is a logical question the need to be dealt with?! The left always shout racist or some other term and run away, never really solving the problem that began in the early 2000's labour never built enough homes/schools/hospitals for the population boom they oversaw! We saw housing costs rise over 400% between 1997 and 2010, it was a ticking time bomb. Of course everyone was happy then because Gord told us no more boom and bust.
Guest Foxin_mad Posted 7 June 2018 Posted 7 June 2018 7 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said: I can't be arsed to get into extended debate about it, but what a lot of people did before the rise of food banks was to reliably receive benefits on which they could just about get by. Recent years have seen a massive increase in people facing benefits sanctions: i.e. no benefits, reduced benefits, periods without benefits. There has also been a big increase in "flexible labour" and short-term contracts: i.e. people out of work and entitled to benefits for short periods or with varying entitlements due to varying hours, P/T or zero-hours contracts etc. Because there are such massive delays, bureaucracy and hassle involved in claiming any benefits now, some people who are in and out of work frequently no longer see it as worthwhile to deal with the benefits system. My brother is in that situation - in and out of construction labouring work. He never signs on when not working because it's too much hassle. He gets by from sums set aside or family support, but I presume some others go to food banks rather than claim. I'm not saying that explains everything, but it certainly explains a good chunk of the increased use of food banks. How does it explain the increased use across Europe? Even the globe of similar services? Is this the fault of the Tory Scum and austerity in countries that haven't even had so called 'austerity' implemented? I would say odds on there is a bigger issue, one that no one dares to admit.
Guest Posted 7 June 2018 Posted 7 June 2018 3 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said: They increased because we were spending money we didn't have on things (some things we didn't need). Hence the 'supposed global financial crisis' deficit and debt. That failed before it will fail again. We can not keep living in a world where we keep saying we will buy that now and pay for it later, particularly when some of the things we are buying have no real term value. Its ok we can borrow cheap now etc etc. Just don't borrow! I am not seeing the 'economists world wide' saying that apart from 'left wing academics' . We have the IFS saying labours spending plans don't add up......because well basically.....they don't add up! Yes we are still living in the outcome of the 'bad politics' of the last Labour government, we are finally getting to a point of sorting the mess, then we have Brexit. Again if you think a Labour government, particularly a far left extremist one led by a decrepit old loon are the solutions to any of the countries problems, you are unfortunately deluded. Your second paragraph is bizarre. Again logic re immigration. If we allow 10 million unskilled, jobless people into the country tomorrow? Who pays for them? where do they live? what happens to housing costs? what happens to jobs? How do they eat? Where do they get medical care, education etc. etc. etc.? Its not and I hate the stupid term 'strawman' it is a logical question the need to be dealt with?! The left always shout racist or some other term and run away, never really solving the problem that began in the early 2000's labour never built enough homes/schools/hospitals for the population boom they oversaw! We saw housing costs rise over 400% between 1997 and 2010, it was a ticking time bomb. Of course everyone was happy then because Gord told us no more boom and bust. Under EU rules if an EU immigrant doesn't have a job in 3 months they can be asked to leave. We just need to use the laws we already have. The financial crisis didn't happen because of national debt - it happened because of personal debt. Banks lent money unwisely to people that wouldn't be able to repay. Nothing to do with labour policy. We had a manageable (and historically relatively low) deficit pre crisis but tax revenues dropped off a cliff by over £100b/annum. What we needed to do with implement policies to raise taxes coupled with relatively gentle spending reductions in non-essential areas. Instead, we have taken huge sums out of the real economy through austerity which had left the economy moribund. Them, we've continued borrowing to fund QE and keep stocks growing to help the rich people. And, one month aside, we still aren't are the point of balancing the books because the more money we take out of the economy in cuts the less there is to invite growth. And so we see growth hovering just above 0. And it isn't just left wing economists that believe austerity is bad politics. They did before and they did now. That is the absolute mainstream view of economists worldwide. It is only a handful on the right who would argue for austerity. The majority talk of it openly as a failed experiment.
leicsmac Posted 7 June 2018 Posted 7 June 2018 8 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said: How does it explain the increased use across Europe? Even the globe of similar services? Is this the fault of the Tory Scum and austerity in countries that haven't even had so called 'austerity' implemented? I would say odds on there is a bigger issue, one that no one dares to admit. 1 I'd be interested to know what you think that issue is. Overpopulation in general?
Guest Kopfkino Posted 7 June 2018 Posted 7 June 2018 24 minutes ago, toddybad said: Your second paragraph is just bizarre. Re the first. Explain why prior to the global financial crisis, living standards (accepting kopf's criticism of the term based on averages) had increased extremely quickly under labour. Whilst immigration sped away, those immigrants did provide the labour for our economy to surge. Post crisis and post austerity politics our economy has never recovered for real people. Immigration is the right wing straw man used to explain every ill but the problem is austerity politics itself. Economists worldwide are virtually as one in saying that austerity politics was and is bad politics. What we are seeing is the outcome of bad politics and bad policies. Stop making crap excuses for it. I find that strange that you're always so keen to absolve Labour from any blame in the crisis (for which I've agreed) you seem willing to put all the good stuff that happened before in them. Maybe it's just unfortunate wording and not what you meant but in the same way the crisis was 'global' so was the period before when everyone was drunk on cheap credit. The crisis was to some extent a check on those global excesses. The UK performed well comparatively after 1990, after 1980 too actually but it's a bit much to seemingly throw huge amounts of credit for a 'global' phenomenon. 14 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said: I can't be arsed to get into extended debate about it, but what a lot of people did before the rise of food banks was to reliably receive benefits on which they could just about get by. Recent years have seen a massive increase in people facing benefits sanctions: i.e. no benefits, reduced benefits, periods without benefits. There has also been a big increase in "flexible labour" and short-term contracts: i.e. people out of work and entitled to benefits for short periods or with varying entitlements due to varying hours, P/T or zero-hours contracts etc. Because there are such massive delays, bureaucracy and hassle involved in claiming any benefits now, some people who are in and out of work frequently no longer see it as worthwhile to deal with the benefits system. My brother is in that situation - in and out of construction labouring work. He never signs on when not working because it's too much hassle. He gets by from sums set aside or family support, but I presume some others go to food banks rather than claim. I'm not saying that explains everything, but it certainly explains a good chunk of the increased use of food banks. I wouldn't dispute that a lot of problems are frictional not as I say is it ideal. It was just a point that they do solve a problem that existed long before 2010. I just find it frustrating that their existence is only ever portrayed negatively and big numbers are often used that don't analyse the issue properly.
Guest Foxin_mad Posted 7 June 2018 Posted 7 June 2018 (edited) 11 minutes ago, toddybad said: Under EU rules if an EU immigrant doesn't have a job in 3 months they can be asked to leave. We just need to use the laws we already have. The financial crisis didn't happen because of national debt - it happened because of personal debt. Banks lent money unwisely to people that wouldn't be able to repay. Nothing to do with labour policy. We had a manageable (and historically relatively low) deficit pre crisis but tax revenues dropped off a cliff by over £100b/annum. What we needed to do with implement policies to raise taxes coupled with relatively gentle spending reductions in non-essential areas. Instead, we have taken huge sums out of the real economy through austerity which had left the economy moribund. Them, we've continued borrowing to fund QE and keep stocks growing to help the rich people. And, one month aside, we still aren't are the point of balancing the books because the more money we take out of the economy in cuts the less there is to invite growth. And so we see growth hovering just above 0. And it isn't just left wing economists that believe austerity is bad politics. They did before and they did now. That is the absolute mainstream view of economists worldwide. It is only a handful on the right who would argue for austerity. The majority talk of it openly as a failed experiment. Its not just EU immigration that is the problem here, its global immigration, refugees welcome type events. Obviously we will never agree on debt/borrowing etc. In my view government debt was still a huge factor. Banks lent unwisely on mortgages on houses that were over priced due to their being not enough houses and too many people, particularly in the south east! Part of the problem leading to the bail out. Perosnally I would have let the banks fail and instead guaranteed individual savers deposits, not bail out the whole institution. So we needed to raise taxes in an already dead economy back in 2010 sounds a daft idea to me? I predict that tax receipts would have started to drop anyway as companies were leaving the UK due to corp tax being 28%. We were growing the fastest in the western world under Cameron, is really only since Brexit things have slowed down. I don't here all the economists saying Britain has got it so wrong. Edited 7 June 2018 by Foxin_mad
Guest Foxin_mad Posted 7 June 2018 Posted 7 June 2018 12 minutes ago, leicsmac said: I'd be interested to know what you think that issue is. Overpopulation in general? My personal view is yes. We have an ever increasing ability to make people live longer, saving premature babies, all the tremendous advances in technology/healthcare etc. that help us to live longer and survive previously deadly situations. Unfortunately the world has a finite resource, in terms of space, resources and capital. I think now we are at tipping point. I am not sure there really is a solution to any of the problems we have, I would suggest that most of the potential options we are exploring are likely to make things many times worse. I give the example for the UK. Say Corbyn gets in, by some miracle he manages to raise enough tax to pay for everything for the 68million currently in the country. Say there is a refugee Crisis in Egypt in 10 years and Corbyn signs a deal to allow in 500000 refugees per year into the county, who is going to pay for that policy? Its not sustainable, there has to be a point where you have to say we can not do anymore. Eventually we will probably just end up so resentful of others that we will all fight to the death.
Alf Bentley Posted 7 June 2018 Posted 7 June 2018 26 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said: How does it explain the increased use across Europe? Even the globe of similar services? Is this the fault of the Tory Scum and austerity in countries that haven't even had so called 'austerity' implemented? I would say odds on there is a bigger issue, one that no one dares to admit. I know nothing about the use of food banks in Europe or worldwide. Perhaps you or Kopf could post some figures, as you say you have knowledge of trends in food bank use in other countries? Most countries in Europe have experienced austerity policies to differing degrees, whether implemented by the EU, national governments or "the Tory Scum" (note: that's your description, not mine). Yes, I think there are bigger issues: the advanced stage of capitalism in the West, whereby much unskilled work is now done in the developing world or pay is under downward pressure in the UK. Also, the excessive power of capital over labour (compared to the 1970s, when claims of irresponsible, over-powerful unions had some justification). Plus the global trend associated with this for much greater inequality and residual poverty. And, of course, much greater mobility and migration for all sorts of reasons ("easier" transport - including people smugglers, more information in developing countries via internet, impact of war/climate change in certain locations). When you talk of "a bigger issue that no one dares to admit", I presume you mainly want to blame excessive immigration? If so, that's for you to make that argument. I won't get involved in that today (other stuff to do) but have done in the past and no doubt will do again. But, as Germany recently took 1m+ migrants from developing countries and we took very few, I presume food bank must be massively greater in Germany than in the UK, if excessive migration is the main cause?
Guest Posted 7 June 2018 Posted 7 June 2018 Funnily enough Marx foresaw capitalism ending in this way.
Buce Posted 7 June 2018 Posted 7 June 2018 6 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said: My personal view is yes. We have an ever increasing ability to make people live longer, saving premature babies, all the tremendous advances in technology/healthcare etc. that help us to live longer and survive previously deadly situations. Unfortunately the world has a finite resource, in terms of space, resources and capital. I think now we are at tipping point. I am not sure there really is a solution to any of the problems we have, I would suggest that most of the potential options we are exploring are likely to make things many times worse. I give the example for the UK. Say Corbyn gets in, by some miracle he manages to raise enough tax to pay for everything for the 68million currently in the country. Say there is a refugee Crisis in Egypt in 10 years and Corbyn signs a deal to allow in 500000 refugees per year into the county, who is going to pay for that policy? Its not sustainable, there has to be a point where you have to say we can not do anymore. Eventually we will probably just end up so resentful of others that we will all fight to the death. This is the hardest thing I've ever said: I agree with every word of that. Now I'm going to lie down.
Guest Foxin_mad Posted 7 June 2018 Posted 7 June 2018 3 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said: I know nothing about the use of food banks in Europe or worldwide. Perhaps you or Kopf could post some figures, as you say you have knowledge of trends in food bank use in other countries? Most countries in Europe have experienced austerity policies to differing degrees, whether implemented by the EU, national governments or "the Tory Scum" (note: that's your description, not mine). Yes, I think there are bigger issues: the advanced stage of capitalism in the West, whereby much unskilled work is now done in the developing world or pay is under downward pressure in the UK. Also, the excessive power of capital over labour (compared to the 1970s, when claims of irresponsible, over-powerful unions had some justification). Plus the global trend associated with this for much greater inequality and residual poverty. And, of course, much greater mobility and migration for all sorts of reasons ("easier" transport - including people smugglers, more information in developing countries via internet, impact of war/climate change in certain locations). When you talk of "a bigger issue that no one dares to admit", I presume you mainly want to blame excessive immigration? If so, that's for you to make that argument. I won't get involved in that today (other stuff to do) but have done in the past and no doubt will do again. But, as Germany recently took 1m+ migrants from developing countries and we took very few, I presume food bank must be massively greater in Germany than in the UK, if excessive migration is the main cause? Here is an article on Germany posted earlier, it does give some figures from last year: http://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2017/09/world/germany-food-bank-cnnphotos/ The bigger issue in my feeling is over population of the planet. We have made so many great advances in healthcare, safety etc. that have led to many living longer, potentially the birth of babies that might not have been born. You have to wonder to an extent have we outdone ourselves? The Earth has finite resources and nature dictates that some (Animals/people) will be more successful than others. It really is complex, Its hard to imagine a solution that will genuinely work.
Webbo Posted 7 June 2018 Posted 7 June 2018 10 minutes ago, toddybad said: Funnily enough Marx foresaw capitalism ending in this way. How long did he think Marxism would last?
Guest Posted 7 June 2018 Posted 7 June 2018 2 minutes ago, Webbo said: How long did he think Marxism would last? No idea but looks like it might outperform capitalism at this rate.
Webbo Posted 7 June 2018 Posted 7 June 2018 1 minute ago, toddybad said: No idea but looks like it might outperform capitalism at this rate. Only in murder, poverty and oppression.
Guest Foxin_mad Posted 7 June 2018 Posted 7 June 2018 3 minutes ago, Buce said: This is the hardest thing I've ever said: I agree with every word of that. Now I'm going to lie down. I am genuinely not a heartless Tory bastard. I believe 'most' people on earth of good people who want the best first and foremost for themselves and their families and friends, most people do not want others to suffer at any point. I will always encourage those around me to do the best they can. I think most people out there genuinely believe they are doing the best things they can, including politicians. We all have different views of how we reach utopia, but is suppose the real issue is can it ever exist?
Izzy Posted 7 June 2018 Posted 7 June 2018 19 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said: My personal view is yes. We have an ever increasing ability to make people live longer, saving premature babies, all the tremendous advances in technology/healthcare etc. that help us to live longer and survive previously deadly situations. Unfortunately the world has a finite resource, in terms of space, resources and capital. I think now we are at tipping point. I am not sure there really is a solution to any of the problems we have, I would suggest that most of the potential options we are exploring are likely to make things many times worse. I give the example for the UK. Say Corbyn gets in, by some miracle he manages to raise enough tax to pay for everything for the 68million currently in the country. Say there is a refugee Crisis in Egypt in 10 years and Corbyn signs a deal to allow in 500000 refugees per year into the county, who is going to pay for that policy? Its not sustainable, there has to be a point where you have to say we can not do anymore. Eventually we will probably just end up so resentful of others that we will all fight to the death. Survival of the fittest. Sadly we haven't changed that much as a species in 100,000 years...
leicsmac Posted 7 June 2018 Posted 7 June 2018 8 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said: My personal view is yes. We have an ever increasing ability to make people live longer, saving premature babies, all the tremendous advances in technology/healthcare etc. that help us to live longer and survive previously deadly situations. Unfortunately the world has a finite resource, in terms of space, resources and capital. I think now we are at tipping point. I am not sure there really is a solution to any of the problems we have, I would suggest that most of the potential options we are exploring are likely to make things many times worse. I give the example for the UK. Say Corbyn gets in, by some miracle he manages to raise enough tax to pay for everything for the 68million currently in the country. Say there is a refugee Crisis in Egypt in 10 years and Corbyn signs a deal to allow in 500000 refugees per year into the county, who is going to pay for that policy? Its not sustainable, there has to be a point where you have to say we can not do anymore. Eventually we will probably just end up so resentful of others that we will all fight to the death. It's an incontrovertible fact that the Earth's resources are limited. However, right now I'm not buying the Malthusian line and saying that we've reached a tipping point in terms of space, resources and capital (the last is, after all, an entirely human construct anyway) - not yet, not with a world population much bigger than this, I don't think. I think the issue is with logistics, rather than resources themselves. Think, for instance, how much food is transported across the world and then wasted because it isn't bought and isn't permitted to be then given away? How much oil, gas and coal is spent generating energy either for entirely unnecessary purposes or when a renewable alternative exists that costs less in terms of resources in the long run? How much space is available in the heartlands of the US and in other places for people to live, and how much living space does a human really need, in any case? And those are just three examples. Honestly, for me, the problem lies not with the amount of resources, but access to them and logistics for delivery of them - and that is a purely human, greed-based, self-interested problem. Those barriers are entirely artificial. Humanity quite frankly, needs to become more ingenious (not that there isn't a lot of that already), more efficient, and maybe, just maybe...a little less self-interested. But it can. 1
Guest Foxin_mad Posted 7 June 2018 Posted 7 June 2018 16 minutes ago, toddybad said: Funnily enough Marx foresaw capitalism ending in this way. Is there genuinely a country in the world, or is there every likely to be where every single person is completely equal with no variation? Maybe North Korea is a bout as close as we get?
leicsmac Posted 7 June 2018 Posted 7 June 2018 (edited) 2 minutes ago, Izzy Muzzett said: Survival of the fittest. Sadly we haven't changed that much as a species in 100,000 years... At a base level, no - evolution is a pain in the arse when the changes in the planet often happen much quicker than it does to complex organisms (though look at antibiotic-resistant bacteria for a an organism that's much, much faster and therefore much, much more successful as a whole than humans). But the good thing is that we're aware of this problem, and awareness implies at least the possibility of choice to change. Edited 7 June 2018 by leicsmac
Guest MattP Posted 7 June 2018 Posted 7 June 2018 20 minutes ago, toddybad said: Funnily enough Marx foresaw capitalism ending in this way. The workshy bastard never foresaw people having to pay to see his grave.
Alf Bentley Posted 7 June 2018 Posted 7 June 2018 3 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said: Here is an article on Germany posted earlier, it does give some figures from last year: http://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2017/09/world/germany-food-bank-cnnphotos/ The bigger issue in my feeling is over population of the planet. We have made so many great advances in healthcare, safety etc. that have led to many living longer, potentially the birth of babies that might not have been born. You have to wonder to an extent have we outdone ourselves? The Earth has finite resources and nature dictates that some (Animals/people) will be more successful than others. It really is complex, Its hard to imagine a solution that will genuinely work. Thanks for the article on Germany. I'd read elsewhere that German incomes hadn't progressed much, despite their national economy doing fairly well. That article tends to confirm it. I've no idea how the figure of 1.5m+ Germans using food banks compares to this country, but it's higher than many would expect, I'm sure. There are certainly complex reasons for all this. Slower growth in the West (partly due to global price competition), aging populations and higher dependency ratios certainly explains some of it. The political decisions we make are also part of the explanation: if we have more old people, fewer of working age and stagnant real incomes for a lot of people, there are a range of choices we can make: less social provision, higher tax, lower expectations, higher productivity (not always easy to achieve), more redistribution etc. The whole thing about limited resources v. overpopulation is too big an issue for me to get into now - and one about which I have limited knowledge....though my sense is that with better organisation and more redistribution, it is not beyond us. Also, don't forecasts suggest that global population will start falling back within about 100 years? Pretty sure that I saw that.... Must go!
Recommended Posts