Corbynomics: A Dystopia

economic

ukcarper wrote: »

I don't believe it's primarily genetics although they play a part. I think parenting has a big effect but that seems to be a bigger problem now than in the past so you have to ask yourself why. I also think you underestimate peer pressure. Things have been allowed to get like this by many governments and the solutions are getting more difficult the longer the situation persists.

i do think the uk has some serious problems in the future, mainly around unfunded liabilities / pensions. the younger generation are working to pay for the state pensions of the older generation and it looks very much like a ponzi scheme.

US as well: http://www.hoover.org/sites/default/files/research/docs/rauh_debtdeficits_36pp_final_digital_v2revised4-11.pdf

whilst today we have a standard of living as good as ever i do think that without some serious economic growth, the future does look worrying.

question is where will this growth come from. the markets seem to be pricing in growth - growth stocks are outperforming defensives. however where will it come from? is it in tech? isnt tech meant to replace jobs? what new industries and therefore growth/job will there be in the near term? are we about to go through a technological revolution?

GreatApe

ukcarper wrote: »

I don't think you have any idea of the pressures poorer people face now, we were poorer when I grew as were my friends we had a poor school education but we all managed to have a reasonable life. Most of my friends lived in council accommodation and had poorer parents the house I lived would be glassed as a slum now. Something has change and people don't become bad parents over night.

maybe things have not changed the way you think but you have selective/narrow experience? That you made good does not mean everyone in your 'slum' did the same

I too grew up in a poor inner London council estate, I know a handful who went to oxbridge and other top universities and did well. Likewise I know of some of the families who are still poor and dysfunctional

economic

GreatApe wrote: »

maybe things have not changed the way you think but you have selective/narrow experience? That you made good does not mean everyone in your 'slum' did the same

I too grew up in a poor inner London council estate, I know a handful who went to oxbridge and other top universities and did well. Likewise I know of some of the families who are still poor and dysfunctional

exactly. most of the time poor are poor because of themselevs, not because of society/government.

GreatApe

The councils concentrated council estates in certain areas and if the rule is only the most deprived and poorest are put in council estates then those areas will be slums. People in those areas who do well often move out to better areas leaving the stock free to be reallocated to another poorest most deprived family on the council waiting lotto

Where I grew up was 60% council housing, it still is (inner east London). Of course parts of it were 100% council housing for many blocks. And it was very undesirable. To some extent it has improved but primarily because the average age of the occupants have shot up as the kids moved out and the parents become pensioners. I feel this is a primary reason why London has gentrified. Notorious estates like the kingsmede estate in hackney, the tenant profile of the huge estate have aged so much and the average occupancy fallen (kids moving out) that its now much more quiet peaceful and safe than it was 30 years ago.

GreatApe

chucknorris wrote: »

Jesus man, think again, yes that will be part of it, and even then that part is possibly a social problem where families exist in an environment without hope and that cycle needs to be broken.

But there are also people out there who can't cope through no fault of their own. My wife has a mentally disabled brother, her father has dementia and her mother (who died last year was also mentally ill now and again), if it wasn't for our (mainly hers) financial help, they would have really suffered.

what if any policy change would have meant they would have had decent fulfilling lives without your wife support?

for the avoidance of doubt its a genuine question, the left have the narrative that they are the kind party that any and all problems will be fixed by them. While it sounds good is it true?

GreatApe

economic wrote: »

so thugs becoming mild mannered pensioners essentially.

I think the parents were decent enough but a large proportion of the kids in my inner east London primary and secondary school were degenerates. It was almost normal to do degenerate things like break car windows. I recall quite clearly one of my 'friends' showing me the emergency hammer he stole from the bus that morning. While walking to the art department which was 1 street away from the main building he showed me how effective it was at breaking glass by breaking one of the windows on a car parked in the road......no fear no shame no acknowledgement of risk or wrong doing it was just 'normal'.

The kids started moving out of their parents homes as they become adults and thus an estate of 1,000 flats almost all with families with young kids is now maybe 700 flats with pensioners and 300 flats with families who have kids but often fewer kids. The estate would have gone from maybe 3000 kids to 600 kids. kids also have more opportunity indoors now with the internet and computer games

GreatApe

ukcarper wrote: »

I don't believe it's primarily genetics although they play a part. I think parenting has a big effect but that seems to be a bigger problem now than in the past so you have to ask yourself why. I also think you underestimate peer pressure. Things have been allowed to get like this by many governments and the solutions are getting more difficult the longer the situation persists.

I dont buy your premise that things are worse today, I think things are pretty good today in the UK

We live in a developed country with lots and lots of opportunity for those able and willing. Surely you do not dispute that?

The next question is how good is life and opportunity for those not able or not willing?
Even on that metric I think things are reasonable and perhaps even good. These people will never be kings so the question should be can a poor but functional family live a decent worthwhile life in the uk? I think the answer is yes

So who exactly has great problems you think need fixing and that a left wing government can fix them? Like I keep saying I know lots of people with big problems but most of them are not related to government policy or action. Alcoholism gambling and family feuding problems would be at the top of the list of things I would get rid of if i could. More money to write off student loans wouldn't come close to any of those problems.

economic

GreatApe wrote: »

I think the parents were decent enough but a large proportion of the kids in my inner east London primary and secondary school were degenerates. It was almost normal to do degenerate things like break car windows. I recall quite clearly one of my 'friends' showing me the emergency hammer he stole from the bus that morning. While walking to the art department which was 1 street away from the main building he showed me how effective it was at breaking glass by breaking one of the windows on a car parked in the road......no fear no shame no acknowledgement of risk or wrong doing it was just 'normal'.

The kids started moving out of their parents homes as they become adults and thus an estate of 1,000 flats almost all with families with young kids is now maybe 700 flats with pensioners and 300 flats with families who have kids but often fewer kids. The estate would have gone from maybe 3000 kids to 600 kids. kids also have more opportunity indoors now with the internet and computer games

It looks like you turned out fine. Did you go to oxbridge?

GreatApe

economic wrote: »

exactly. most of the time poor are poor because of themselevs, not because of society/government.

I dont think we are exactly on the same page

While I agree its themselves not society, I believe a lot of the things that make up 'themselves' is not in their control.

So for example IQ probably plays a big part in how successful someone life will be. But we do not have much (any) control in the way our minds are wired. So a dim person on average wont do well in life I accept that as true and that there is not a lot society can do to change him to not be dim. Hence I am accepting that there are transfers of wealth from higher IQ people to lower IQ especially because I accept neither choose or were able to choose their IQ

We all know and accept this with all parts of the human philology but not the brain.
We would all (society) accept supporting a person who is born blind or death or disfigured or someone who later becomes blind/death/disfigured. We also to some extent do this with obvious mental problems.

Almost all our traits are in the brain and are decided at birth or the formative years.
So while I may be glad I am smart and not lazy, I can no more claim these my successes than someone born tall and beautiful can claim their height and beauty their success. I think accepting that lazy people or dim people are predominantly lazy/dim due to their genetics and early formative years makes me not judge them negatively. Just like it would be silly to judge someone born blind for not being able to see would be silly.

GreatApe

economic wrote: »

It looks like you turned out fine. Did you go to oxbridge?

I had an offer to read physics at St Catherine's College, Oxford.
But I did not go there I went to a London university instead.