Corbynomics: A Dystopia

ukcarper

westernpromise wrote: »

People who vote Labour need to ask themselves whether they'd rather live in a country where everyone has £1, or in one where everyone has £2 apart from one bloke who has £10.

Trouble is its now everybody has 50p and one £50 what we really need is for it to be nearer every body has £2 and one has £10.

Moby

GreatApe wrote: »

What do you think is happening that some rich capitalist overlord is sitting down with god and saying well these poor people dont give them equal lifespan they dont deserve it give them 15 years less!!! HAHAHAHAAAA ??


why would you not expect the rich to have higher life expectancy?
would you expect poor people to live longer than rich people? Of course not, so the question is how much of the gap is reasonable? I would suggest all of the gap is probably reasonable here are some reasons why there is a gap between poor and rich people in life expectancy

drug addicts are poor and die much sooner
alcohol addicts are poor and die much sooner
poor people often eat very unhealthy foods and the obesity rate is higher among the poor and obesity kills.
poor people can afford less safe goods (cheaper small second hand cars vs 4x4s for the rich)

and hundreds of other reasons.

its not a conspiracy by the rich to steel lifespan from the poor
If you took into account all the other variables and compared a stable healthy poor family to a stable healthy rich family the gap would narrow considerably

All you are doing here is listing some of the reasons the poor die earlier and say these are 'reasonable'. Its clear we've listened to the same programme and come to totally different conclusions.

Moby

westernpromise wrote: »

People who vote Labour need to ask themselves whether they'd rather live in a country where everyone has £1, or in one where everyone has £2 apart from one bloke who has £10.

Yep everything is assessed by its financial value. Sad!

economic

ukcarper wrote: »

Trouble is its now everybody has 50p and one £50 what we really need is for it to be nearer every body has £2 and one has £10.

not if a lot of those who have 50p now are immigrants with low skills and not adding any value to the economy. because in this case inequality rise is expected and should not be fixed at the expense of those who have £50.

GreatApe

Moby wrote: »

All you are doing here is listing some of the reasons the poor die earlier and say these are 'reasonable'. Its clear we've listened to the same programme and come to totally different conclusions.

that is not correct at all

What my post said was that if you try to account for the other variables and only look at wealth (or income) then the difference in life expectancy will narrow and maybe even totally disappear

But of course if you look at a very broad set whereby you include drug dealers in the poor, alcoholics in the poor, mentally disabled in the poor, people who dont take care of themselves in the poor, people who have been jailed in the poor, people who smoke tabaco or canabis or other drugs in the poor etc etc then 'the poor' do badly. not necessarily because they have low incomes but because you have grouped all these other problem people with them

What you have to do when trying to look at how one variable impacts another is to try and keep every other variable as constant as possible. So if you indeed wanted to prove a link between income and life expectancy you should have two very large groups and have the same proportion of alcoholics in each group, the same proportion of smokers in each group, the same amount of obese people in each group....etc etc then when you compare the two you are not comparing smoking/alcholoism/obesity or one of the hundred other variables but are looking at income vs life expectancy. If you did all of that I think you probably would find a link that shows more wealth equals higher life expectancy but not by much.

GreatApe

Moby wrote: »

Yep everything is assessed by its financial value. Sad!

Your view is childish,

Please try to understand the following

You should think of money as just a means we use to trade human labor.
If I say for example, I haven't got the money to / I can't afford to buy a car. What I am saying is that I physically can not produce more goods than I consume such that I can then exchange this excess production for a car.

When I say for example that the country could not afford £170 billion to fit each home with sprinklers, what I mean is that we as a nation do not have the spare capacity (human/labor/materials/etc) to fit 28 million sprinkler systems this year.

Or to be even more accurate what I am saying/meaning by 'we can not afford £170 billion to fit each home with sprinklers' is that we as a nation would have to divert 500,000 people from whatever it is they are currently doing over a 10 year period into a whole new sprinkler industry for the uk and that 1: We probably do not have this spare capacity and 2: If we did these 500,000 people over 10 years would be better deployed making/building/producing things that would bring us more safety/comfort rather than fitting out the nation with sprinklers


So money to you and many on the left is just a number
Money to me is the system we use to trade human labor between our selves.
To you someone saying there isnt enough money to do X is a greedy !!!!!!
To me someone saying there isnt enough money to do X is saying there isnt enough spare human labor to do what it is you are planning and/or to do X requires us to divert human labor currently doing something to doing X and that something they are currently doing is better for us than X

ukcarper

economic wrote: »

not if a lot of those who have 50p now are immigrants with low skills and not adding any value to the economy. because in this case inequality rise is expected and should not be fixed at the expense of those who have £50.

If they are working they are adding value to economy.

Fella

ukcarper wrote: »

If they are working they are adding value to economy.

Of course we have people who could do those low-skilled jobs but we pay them benefits instead.

In a country with a chronic housing shortage though, why on earth would any party want to user taxpayer's money to pay generous benefits to the low-skilled indigenous population for doing nothing, meaning that we need to import an extra low-skilled population we can't house to do menial jobs?

Ah hang on a minute. Both groups are more likely to vote Labour.

Moby

GreatApe wrote: »

Your view is childish,

Please try to understand the following

You should think of money as just a means we use to trade human labor.
If I say for example, I haven't got the money to / I can't afford to buy a car. What I am saying is that I physically can not produce more goods than I consume such that I can then exchange this excess production for a car.

When I say for example that the country could not afford £170 billion to fit each home with sprinklers, what I mean is that we as a nation do not have the spare capacity (human/labor/materials/etc) to fit 28 million sprinkler systems this year.

Or to be even more accurate what I am saying/meaning by 'we can not afford £170 billion to fit each home with sprinklers' is that we as a nation would have to divert 500,000 people from whatever it is they are currently doing over a 10 year period into a whole new sprinkler industry for the uk and that 1: We probably do not have this spare capacity and 2: If we did these 500,000 people over 10 years would be better deployed making/building/producing things that would bring us more safety/comfort rather than fitting out the nation with sprinklers


So money to you and many on the left is just a number
Money to me is the system we use to trade human labor between our selves.
To you someone saying there isnt enough money to do X is a greedy !!!!!!
To me someone saying there isnt enough money to do X is saying there isnt enough spare human labor to do what it is you are planning and/or to do X requires us to divert human labor currently doing something to doing X and that something they are currently doing is better for us than X

Patronising and reductionist nonsense. You can't simply decide human endeavour, political ideas, social movements etc are quantifiable on an accountants spreadsheet. That's cold hearted and says nothing about whole aspects of human experience and actual history. Your posts are limited by your own interests and discipline. Ive explained this to you before and gave you the example of Atlees govmt. We are just going around in circles and live in different worlds.

Moby

GreatApe wrote: »

that is not correct at all

What my post said was that if you try to account for the other variables and only look at wealth (or income) then the difference in life expectancy will narrow and maybe even totally disappear

But of course if you look at a very broad set whereby you include drug dealers in the poor, alcoholics in the poor, mentally disabled in the poor, people who dont take care of themselves in the poor, people who have been jailed in the poor, people who smoke tabaco or canabis or other drugs in the poor etc etc then 'the poor' do badly. not necessarily because they have low incomes but because you have grouped all these other problem people with them

What you have to do when trying to look at how one variable impacts another is to try and keep every other variable as constant as possible. So if you indeed wanted to prove a link between income and life expectancy you should have two very large groups and have the same proportion of alcoholics in each group, the same proportion of smokers in each group, the same amount of obese people in each group....etc etc then when you compare the two you are not comparing smoking/alcholoism/obesity or one of the hundred other variables but are looking at income vs life expectancy. If you did all of that I think you probably would find a link that shows more wealth equals higher life expectancy but not by much.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b08tvj71