We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Oil and Milk
Comments
-
Thrugelmir wrote: »As with all media reporting the story lacks factual accuracy. There's probably 25% of dairy farmers who are highly profitable, 50% make a living, the remaining 25% are on the borderline. Same as most other industries. There's a myriad of reasons behind each individual tale.
The media can report what it likes.
My comments are not based on media reports but rather on simple economic principles.
The 'free market' is a man made conception which has tons of flaws - it takes human intervention to keep it ticking along.
When the Great Depression was at its peak do you think the millions of people on the breadline thought the free market was working efficiently and that the new deal was uncessary government intervention?0 -
Thrugelmir wrote: »Think you are behind the curve with that statement.
Well that was intentional ignorance on my part, just so that I could get the point across :cool:0 -
I didn't say anything to the contrary.
And you must be stupid for quoting something I never said.
Look at the wider trend - technology has killed off millions of manufacturing jobs and it will eventually go after middle class jobs.
How is anyone going to afford to pay for goods and services if 70% of the current labour market has been taken over by robots?
If you don't believe that AT LEAST 70% of the labour market is at risk in the next 50-100 years then go look up what artificial intelligence is can do.
you think that the continuous improvement is productivity over the last 3-4,000 years are welcome but are fearful that any further advances will be damaging
don't you think that the people that smashed weaving machines or resisted changes in the car industry etc thought the same?
maybe think why they were wrong
more people are employed today that ever in the entire history of the world
all least you have no concerns about the demographic changes that will reduce the ratio of productive to unproductive people in the UK0 -
you think that the continuous improvement is productivity over the last 3-4,000 years are welcome but are fearful that any further advances will be damaging
don't you think that the people that smashed weaving machines or resisted changes in the car industry etc thought the same?
maybe think why they were wrong
more people are employed today that ever in the entire history of the world
all least you have no concerns about the demographic changes that will reduce the ratio of productive to unproductive people in the UK
You're covering vast periods of human history with little knowledge about the history of 'technology'.
What is technology in your book?
What productivity has kept improving for the past 4000 years?
Only one thing has kept continuously improving in the timeframe you are talking about: farming.
Do you think they were flying planes or digging oil out of the ground 4000 years ago?
'Industry' and therefore technology is only 300 years old. This is just a blip in human history. Statistcally insiginificant in the grand scheme of things.
What is significant is the potential for technology to have a devastating effect on the labour market going forward. This isn't some unfounded concern, it is what has been slowly happening for decades.
But it does not mean I fear technology, it means that I fear our politicians don't know how to deal with it.0 -
You're covering vast periods of human history with little knowledge about the history of 'technology'.
What is technology in your book?
What productivity has kept improving for the past 4000 years?
Only one thing has kept continuously improving in the timeframe you are talking about: farming.
Do you think they were flying planes or digging oil out of the ground 4000 years ago?
'Industry' and therefore technology is only 300 years old. This is just a blip in human history. Statistcally insiginificant in the grand scheme of things.
What is significant is the potential for technology to have a devastating effect on the labour market going forward. This isn't some unfounded concern, it is what has been slowly happening for decades.
But it does not mean I fear technology, it means that I fear our politicians don't know how to deal with it.
lets forget
-stone age axes
-organised hunting
-organised agriculture
-food storage
-bronze age improvement
-irrigation
-building technology
-water wheel
-archimedes screw
-windmills
-mathematics
-writing
-law and order
-roads
-water ways
-ships
-democracy
In what way has technology been slowly been having a devastating effect on the labour market for many decades?
you mean that people are poorer now than in the past and there are fewer people are in work than previously?0 -
lets forget
-stone age axes
-organised hunting
-organised agriculture
-food storage
-bronze age improvement
-irrigation
-building technology
-water wheel
-archimedes screw
-windmills
-mathematics
-writing
-law and order
-roads
-water ways
-ships
-democracy
Half of these are related to farming and the other half are not exactly techonologies. Democracy a technology eh? Never heard that one before.
In what way has technology been slowly been having a devastating effect on the labour market for many decades?
:wall:
Honestly I cannot reply to that because it cannot be a serious question.lets forget
you mean that people are poorer now than in the past and there are fewer people are in work than previously?
You keep missing my point entirely. What is happening now and what happened in the past 300 years is a BLIP - it is insiginificant in the context of human evolution. Take the 300 years of industrial might and consider the million years of human history prior to it and the million years of human history after it. Does it really matter that in the middle 300 years loads of people were emmployed and loads of people got rich? NO.
What matters is the trend - long term consequences. In the last 300 years we have seen unthinkable leaps in technological advances, never mind the axe or the water wheel - we are talking about the ability of a non biological entity to predict what diseases you are likely to develop over your liftetime.
Such technologies are fantastically exciting and I look forward to them, but they also have massive implications for the labour market going forward. You cannot extrapolate past technological advances (especially those related to agriculture) as technology is moving at such a fast exponential rate.
If you still don't see the point then I can't really say more.0 -
Half of these are related to farming and the other half are not exactly techonologies. Democracy a technology eh? Never heard that one before.
:wall:
Honestly I cannot reply to that because it cannot be a serious question.
You keep missing my point entirely. What is happening now and what happened in the past 300 years is a BLIP - it is insiginificant in the context of human evolution. Take the 300 years of industrial might and consider the million years of human history prior to it and the million years of human history after it. Does it really matter that in the middle 300 years loads of people were emmployed and loads of people got rich? NO.
What matters is the trend - long term consequences. In the last 300 years we have seen unthinkable leaps in technological advances, never mind the axe or the water wheel - we are talking about the ability of a non biological entity to predict what diseases you are likely to develop over your liftetime.
Such technologies are fantastically exciting and I look forward to them, but they also have massive implications for the labour market going forward. You cannot extrapolate past technological advances (especially those related to agriculture) as technology is moving at such a fast exponential rate.
If you still don't see the point then I can't really say more.
why exactly are you concerned about the ability of a non biological entity to predict what diseases that one might suffer from over one's lifetime?
would you be less concerned if it were a biological entity?0 -
why exactly are you concerned about the ability of a non biological entity to predict what diseases that one might suffer from over one's lifetime?
would you be less concerned if it were a biological entity?
lol
I said such technologies are 'fantastically exciting'.
How you managed to translate that into me being concerned about such technologies is beyond me.
I think we both know you are intentionally dodging the real point about technology
0 -
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.3K Spending & Discounts
- 245.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards