I feel like a Jew in Weimar Germany

[Si1]

1 hour ago, nothernsoul said:

You can blame them for taking advantage of the sittuation. Even if you might have done exactly the same in their position. Easy to blame the system, but all systems rely on the complicity of people. The whole point of  buying off one section of society is to allow consent to take from another, or more accurately out of the whole of society. 

At work recently some colleagues were complaining about hopeless out of touch managers and their pointless make work initiatives. Somebody defended them by saying" you cant blame them, they are under pressure too" I remember thinking, there is a reason they are employed on at least twice our wages(none of them stand out as great minds of our age) , part of which is their bureau cratic ability to comply and unquestionably follow dictat from above. So fair enough, take the cash, but playing innocent and expecting a pat on the back from the losers is a bit rich. 

Their jobs have probably been protected by Zirp too, preventing creative destruction in the economy.

[Arpeggio]

20 hours ago, Lurkerbelow said:

Yep, indeed, that is exactly the sort of thing I'm talking about.  People who know the reality (tobacco companies/brexiteers) trying to insert doubt into a subject (smoking/brexit), by rubbishing the evidence coming out about their product.  

For those that don't know the history on this, the whole point of those tobacco adverts (there were loads of them at the time) was to try and discredit the growing body of evidence coming out from health care professionals about the damage smoking caused.   Note that your average doctor wasn't the one producing that evidence but the academic types relying on statistical data. 

So you had the merchants of doubt deliberately trying to conflate proper expert opinion with the misleading erroneous rubbish they were coming out with, which is EXACTLY what the brexit talking shops (IEA, legatum institute, policy exchange, etc) are doing.

So its EXACTLY like brexit, so thanks for the back up!

I see you've take the liberty of assuming who the smoking doctors of the 50's are the modern day equivalent of. My point was with regards to your trust in experts per se, hence why I didn't do that.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing but if you believe that you would have seen through it in the 1950s, that's a very tall order for someone who believes democracy is simply to do what the experts say, lest we all still drive around in leaded petrol cars on the advice of the National Research Council (NRC) panel on atmospheric lead contamination and other actual scientists.

As I mentioned elsewhere, this website uses facts that are mostly from the EU itself https://facts4eu.org/news

Edited November 30, 2019 by Arpeggio

[Lurkerbelow]

9 hours ago, zilly said:

All boomers did was take advantage of the situation presented to them, exactly the same as any human being - including everyone reading this thread - would do.

The people who architected the economic systems that were implemented in the '70s and have led us here were and are NOT boomers...they are older than that.

You genuinely can't blame people for mostly nothing more than buying a house, and accepting a job with a nice final salary pension!

...although it seems you can!!

Would I have taken advantage of the opportunities offered?  Yes.

Would I be willing to make personally sacrifices to my living standards to see the system rebalanced, given what we know now?  Without a doubt, yes.

That's the difference between me and vast majority of boomers.   This is where their actions are inexcusable.   I don't blame them for taking advantage of life's opportunities.   I certainly do blame them for doing everything they possibly can to make sure that that drawbridge damn well stays up and closed, now that its become extremely obvious that what they are doing is having an extremely detrimental effect on the next generation.

[Lurkerbelow]

10 minutes ago, Arpeggio said:

I see you've take the liberty of assuming who the smoking doctors of the 50's are the modern day equivalent of. My point was with regards to your trust in experts per se, hence why I didn't do that.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing but if you believe that you would have seen through it in the 1950s, that's a very tall order for someone who believes democracy is simply to do what the experts say, lest we all still drive around in leaded petrol cars on the advice of the National Research Council (NRC) panel on atmospheric lead contamination and other actual scientists.

As I mentioned elsewhere, this website uses facts that are mostly from the EU itself https://facts4eu.org/news

I'm not assuming anything.   On one side you have the world bank, IMF, our own OBR, the OECD, etc.   Then on the other you have hard right paid for propagandist organizations who don't disclose their dodgy funding.

Its extremely obvious who the merchants of doubt who are selling lies are in this case.

You just don't want to admit it because it suits what you want, just like it suited addicted smokers to disbelieve the evidence on tobacco smoking.   To almost his dying day my father rejected my arguments that he should stop smoking because it caused cancer, killed people, and was damaging his health - until he found out he had advanced lung cancer by which point it was far far too late.

[mrpleasant]

11 hours ago, zilly said:

All boomers did was take advantage of the situation presented to them, exactly the same as any human being - including everyone reading this thread - would do.

The people who architected the economic systems that were implemented in the '70s and have led us here were and are NOT boomers...they are older than that.

You genuinely can't blame people for mostly nothing more than buying a house, and accepting a job with a nice final salary pension!

...although it seems you can!!

I'd go further - purely based on my own obviously limited experience - that it never crossed my mind I was 'taking advantage' of anything. Nor did I intend my potted autobiography to read as a hard luck story. It was what it was and when I started work I did what everyone was expected to do: get a job, pay bills, live within means. I'm not even sure it was drummed into me to live that way, it seemed to be the existence of every responsible person I knew. I had no foreign holidays, no flash new cars, I didn't even own a dishwasher until I was in my forties. This isn't a hard luck story, it's just how my personal maths worked out. The wider economic climate and the cost of putting a roof over your head at that time made it possible to take the steps I and millions like me took. I certainly have no guilt that I have somehow used the intervening years to shore up my position at the expense of the young  - how?  My kids are young. It is a source of sadness to me that they lack the opportunities to live relatively simply and put a roof over their heads in their twenties like I did.

I'd also like to respond to the poster who commented on my thread title as crass. I apologise if it caused offence. I rather regretted it when I saw it in black and white. For clarity, the point I was making was that, without anyone around me knowing the first thing about my circumstances or values, I was made to feel responsible for all the social  and economic woes many of them appear to believe will be solved by Corbyn, simply by being of a certain age. Pointing the finger at a sector of society and saying, "It's your fault" is obviously a temptation for any society experiencing pain.

[DonJop12]

9 minutes ago, mrpleasant said:

I'd also like to respond to the poster who commented on my thread title as crass. I apologise if it caused offence. 

I’m a Millennial. I’m offended by EVERYTHING. ?

[The Spaniard]

16 minutes ago, DonJop12 said:

I’m a Millennial. I’m offended by EVERYTHING. ?

Join GUACAMOLE.

(the Global Union of Activists and Campaigners Against More Or Less Everything)

[mrpleasant]

In a bookshop yesterday and happened to see the cover of this year's Private Eye annual with spoof headline "Fury, as fury erupts!". There's comedy potential even the feedback loop from hell.

[Arpeggio]

17 hours ago, Lurkerbelow said:

I'm not assuming anything.   On one side you have the world bank, IMF, our own OBR, the OECD, etc.   Then on the other you have hard right paid for propagandist organizations who don't disclose their dodgy funding.

Its extremely obvious who the merchants of doubt who are selling lies are in this case.

Head of IMF has been convicted for fraud. The OBR and OECD are partisan. All cases of funding or lie accusations against the leave side brought to court have been cleared. The Remain side massively outspent the leave side and haven't been questioned to the same extent, if at all.

 

17 hours ago, Lurkerbelow said:

You just don't want to admit it because it suits what you want

No, the head of the IMF has actually been convicted of fraud and etc. as above.

 

17 hours ago, Lurkerbelow said:

just like it suited addicted smokers to disbelieve the evidence on tobacco smoking.   To almost his dying day my father rejected my arguments that he should stop smoking because it caused cancer, killed people, and was damaging his health - until he found out he had advanced lung cancer by which point it was far far too late.

So it's 2019 and you know that smoking is bad for you, well done. As if it isn't obvious, in the context of smoking I was talking about the 1950s, what people believed and who they listened to at the time. Similar to how we used to drive around in leaded petrol cars on the advice of the National Research Council (NRC) panel on atmospheric lead contamination.

[Habeas Domus]

On 29/11/2019 at 21:43, Arpeggio said:

 

 

Here I fixed it for you:

 

 

Edited December 1, 2019 by Habeas Domus

[Lurkerbelow]

4 hours ago, Arpeggio said:

Head of IMF has been convicted for fraud. The OBR and OECD are partisan. All cases of funding or lie accusations against the leave side brought to court have been cleared. The Remain side massively outspent the leave side and haven't been questioned to the same extent, if at all.

"Everyone who doesn't believe what I believe is lying to you, despite it being the overwhelming consensus of serious professional institutions that deal with macro-economics".

Jesus Christ, you really have lost the plot.

[Mikhail Liebenstein]

Now this was predictable, but is very scary:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7743087/China-introduces-mandatory-face-scans-phone-users.html

[iamnumerate]

5 hours ago, Arpeggio said:

Head of IMF has been convicted for fraud. The OBR and OECD are partisan. All cases of funding or lie accusations against the leave side brought to court have been cleared. The Remain side massively outspent the leave side and haven't been questioned to the same extent, if at all.

 

No, the head of the IMF has actually been convicted of fraud and etc. as above.

 

So it's 2019 and you know that smoking is bad for you, well done. As if it isn't obvious, in the context of smoking I was talking about the 1950s, what people believed and who they listened to at the time. Similar to how we used to drive around in leaded petrol cars on the advice of the National Research Council (NRC) panel on atmospheric lead contamination.

Don't forget all those who said that leave would be a bad idea - also said the ERM would be wonderful

[Ah-so]

20 minutes ago, iamnumerate said:

Don't forget all those who said that leave would be a bad idea - also said the ERM would be wonderful

I think you got your events the wrong way round. But even if those who thought ERM would have been a good idea are against Brexit, it doesn't make them wrong about Brexit. 

[Lurkerbelow]

14 minutes ago, iamnumerate said:

Don't forget all those who said that leave would be a bad idea - also said the ERM would be wonderful

No they didn't.   At the time there was a big argument over it with some institutions saying it would be beneficial to the UK if we joined while others said it would be a bad idea.  The government of the day however pushed an exclusively positive message and ignored those saying otherwise.

There was no overwhelming consensus on the ERM like there is over brexit.

[Arpeggio]

1 hour ago, Lurkerbelow said:

"Everyone who doesn't believe what I believe is lying to you, despite it being the overwhelming consensus of serious professional institutions that deal with macro-economics".

Jesus Christ, you really have lost the plot.

We have different opinions based on our views of credibility or lack of, of various sources of information. That is a ground that could potentially move a debate forwards, for instance in the direction of discussing credibility or lack of, of various sources. For instance we could talk about Goldman sachs et al and tax avoiding celebs like Bono who like telling taxpayers how their money should be spent. Your version as above, starts on the grounds of there being no debate with only your side being right.

 

5 hours ago, Habeas Domus said:

 

Here I fixed it for you:

 

 

So in other words your argument here is basically "Brexit is fascist".

Edited December 1, 2019 by Arpeggio

[Lurkerbelow]

1 hour ago, Arpeggio said:

We have different opinions based on our views of credibility or lack of, of various sources of information. That is a ground that could potentially move a debate forwards, for instance in the direction of discussing credibility or lack of, of various sources. For instance we could talk about Goldman sachs et al and tax avoiding celebs like Bono who like telling taxpayers how their money should be spent. Your version as above, starts on the grounds of there being no debate with only your side being right.

 

No, you disbelieve every credible major institution that has a role in economics.   From credit ratings agencies, to the IMF, to the OECD, to investment banks, to our own OBR and central bank.

Instead you throw your lot in with a bunch of Aryn Rand followers, and a handful of hard right think tanks based at 52 tufton street.

This is batshit insane.   Its like saying the people who think the earth is flat are right.

Thus me engaging with you on that basis is like the BBC inviting on a scientist and a flat earther, to debate the issue of a flat earth as if there is a geniune case to be made that the earth is flat.   News flash, there simply isn't.

There's no credible argument to be had here, and I'm not going to help you legitimize your batshit level of insanity.  So count me out on that.  You'll have to find someone else to help you do that.

[Si1]

42 minutes ago, Lurkerbelow said:

.

This is batshit insane.   Its like saying the people who think the earth is flat are right.

 

That's a terrible comparison. Scientific evidence does not depend on the opinion of a committee. It can be proved right or wrong only requiring a single piece of evidence. Nazi Germany invoked the opinion of a committee to 'prove' Einstein was wrong.

And economics has nowhere near the evidence base of the physical sciences, so its mainstream can end up being even more wrong-headed than institutionalised science.

[Mikhail Liebenstein]

46 minutes ago, Lurkerbelow said:

No, you disbelieve every credible major institution that has a role in economics.   From credit ratings agencies, to the IMF, to the OECD, to investment banks, to our own OBR and central bank.

Instead you throw your lot in with a bunch of Aryn Rand followers, and a handful of hard right think tanks based at 52 tufton street.

This is batshit insane.   Its like saying the people who think the earth is flat are right.

Thus me engaging with you on that basis is like the BBC inviting on a scientist and a flat earther, to debate the issue of a flat earth as if there is a geniune case to be made that the earth is flat.   News flash, there simply isn't.

There's no credible argument to be had here, and I'm not going to help you legitimize your batshit level of insanity.  So count me out on that.  You'll have to find someone else to help you do that.

I know someone who used to a Tufton Street for one of those organisations. Basically they were a useless, rhetoric reciting parrot. No original thought and a failure anywhere else. Probably in past generations they'd have been sent to a monastic order. I can see it now, "Yes, Brother John is a bit as slow of wit, but he is the most zealous of our order."

 

[Si1]

29 minutes ago, Mikhail Liebenstein said:

 

 

Edited December 2, 2019 by Si1

[Odakyu-sen]

I checked the fertility rate for the UK (for 2019).  http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/total-fertility-rate/

129

United Kingdom

1.871

 

This means that if the UK government put the brakes on immigration and changed the tax laws to discourage people from owning more than two houses per household, there would be an ample (and an increasing and devaluing) supply of housing for the native population. As a side effect of abundant and cheaper housing, one worker could support a stay-at-home spouse and 3 children, which would help the native UK population to recover from 1.87 back up to a sustainable 2.1 children per woman.

Food for thought. 

Vested interests won't like this plan, though. 

[iamnumerate]

10 hours ago, Lurkerbelow said:

No they didn't.   At the time there was a big argument over it with some institutions saying it would be beneficial to the UK if we joined while others said it would be a bad idea.  The government of the day however pushed an exclusively positive message and ignored those saying otherwise.

There was no overwhelming consensus on the ERM like there is over brexit.

What institutions said that the ERM would be a bad idea?  Of course there is no overwhelming consensus over Brexit.  People like Patrick Minford, Roger Bootle,Tim Cogline etc - all of whom were right over the ERM are in favour of Brexit.

 

10 hours ago, Ah-so said:

I think you got your events the wrong way round. But even if those who thought ERM would have been a good idea are against Brexit, it doesn't make them wrong about Brexit. 

True - but it does mean that their opinions are not always right. 

[iamnumerate]

7 minutes ago, Odakyu-sen said:

I checked the fertility rate for the UK (for 2019).  http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/total-fertility-rate/

129

United Kingdom

1.871

 

This means that if the UK government put the brakes on immigration and changed the tax laws to discourage people from owning more than two houses per household, there would be an ample (and an increasing and devaluing) supply of housing for the native population. As a side effect of abundant and cheaper housing, one worker could support a stay-at-home spouse and 3 children, which would help the native UK population to recover from 1.87 back up to a sustainable 2.1 children per woman.

Food for thought. 

Vested interests won't like this plan, though. 

That is why we have mass immigration - to make housing expensive.

[scottbeard]

8 minutes ago, Odakyu-sen said:

This means that if the UK government put the brakes on immigration and changed the tax laws to discourage people from owning more than two houses per household, there would be an ample (and an increasing and devaluing) supply of housing for the native population. As a side effect of abundant and cheaper housing, one worker could support a stay-at-home spouse and 3 children, which would help the native UK population to recover from 1.87 back up to a sustainable 2.1 children per woman.

Food for thought. 

Vested interests won't like this plan, though. 

I'm happy with your housing and immigration plans, but I don't think we need to get fertility up to 2.1 any time soon.  There are 60 million people in the UK, and I'm sure we would be fine with 30 million.  We could let it run at 1.87 for centuries, really.  The last thing the planet needs is more people.

[iamnumerate]

1 minute ago, scottbeard said:

I'm happy with your housing and immigration plans, but I don't think we need to get fertility up to 2.1 any time soon.  There are 60 million people in the UK, and I'm sure we would be fine with 30 million.  We could let it run at 1.87 for centuries, really.  The last thing the planet needs is more people.

Can you imagine the benefits for bio diversity?  We could see many species increase in number, maybe reintroduce the wolf.