Corbynomics: A Dystopia

GreatApe

Moby wrote: »

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.

It isn't an accounting spreadsheet its a physical spreadsheet

Give me an army of a million men I could do a lot with that power create a lot build a lot but even with that I am limited. You can think of the UK as an army of 32 million workers. Of our army about 90% of the workers are assigned tasks which keep the 65 milliom fed clothed housed educated and medicated and about 10% of that workforce is used to build additional infrastructure

If you want to do something, general Moby needs to move some of his army from their current task to the new task. If you want to make the UK much safer in fire accidents you need to move 300,000 of your worker bees from their current roles to a continuous industry of installing and maintaining fire prevention devices. You may indeed be able to do that but would it be worthwhile? Could you not deploy 300,000 workers more efficiently to do more good elsewhere?

GreatApe

Moby wrote: »

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

TV and radio programs are not what I would use to collect or analyze data

What I would like to see is a plot of income vs life expectancy at age 25 using persons with the same habits addictions education BMI IQ etc etc

If you did that I would wager that the gap is very narrow. I would still expect there to be a small advantage for those who are richer to live longer but it would be small

Fella

GreatApe wrote: »

If you want to do something, general Moby needs to move some of his army from their current task to the new task.

Alas General Moby would promise to move his army to every task. When stuff started failing all over the place he'd tax everybody (not just the rich, that wouldn't raise much) to do it. When THAT didn't work he'd blame outside influences (a la Brown and the Global crash). Then finally we'd be Venezuela.

steampowered

Fella wrote: »

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

Which is why net migration reached the highest figure it has ever reached under the Conservatives?

Fella

steampowered wrote: »

Which is why net migration reached the highest figure it has ever reached under the Conservatives?

Are you saying Labour are racist?

steampowered

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.

This may have been true in the 80s.

What we have in fact seen during the past few years is the majority on the population have stayed on £2, while the wealth of the bloke with £10 has gone up to £100.

See for example https://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/davos-richest-100-britain-saw-wealth-increase-%C2%A3555bn-2010 - you will note that Britain's 100 richest families increased their wealth by £55bn since the financial crisis, more than doubling it in just a few years. By contrast average wages have barely moved.

The assumption in your post is that increased wealth at the top end leads to more wealth for everyone - trickle down economics. One does wonder at what point you would be prepared to look at the real world evidence and accept that this is not happening.

steampowered

Fella wrote: »

Are you saying Labour are racist?

No, and I don't understand your response.

You were suggesting that Labour kept migration high to win votes. I've pointed out to you that immigration reached higher levels under the Conservatives than it ever did under Labour.

That seems to defeat the suggestion in your post that immigration is only high to get votes for Labour - unless you are suggesting that Theresa May is a secret Labour agent.

Fella

steampowered wrote: »

No, and I don't understand your response.

You were suggesting that Labour kept migration high to win votes. I've pointed out to you that immigration reached higher levels under the Conservatives than it ever did under Labour.

That seems to defeat the suggestion in your post that immigration is only high to get votes for Labour - unless you are suggesting that Theresa May is a secret Labour agent.

It was irony. Everytime somebody says the Conservatives are ANTI-immigration it's accompanied or followed quickly by the suggestion that's because they're racist.

My response was an attempt to illustrate how f*cking puerile that level of thinking is.

westernpromise

steampowered wrote: »

The assumption in your post is that increased wealth at the top end leads to more wealth for everyone - trickle down economics.

I made no such assumption. I simply invited Labour voters to consider whether they would rather everyone were equally poor than everyone being twice as well off with some being even more well off than that.

Anyone who'd be genuinely happier to be poor as long as everyone else is just as poor has a mental problem.

So have at it. Would you rather have £1 like everyone else or £2 like most people except the bloke who has £100?

Moby

GreatApe wrote: »

It isn't an accounting spreadsheet its a physical spreadsheet

Give me an army of a million men I could do a lot with that power create a lot build a lot but even with that I am limited. You can think of the UK as an army of 32 million workers. Of our army about 90% of the workers are assigned tasks which keep the 65 milliom fed clothed housed educated and medicated and about 10% of that workforce is used to build additional infrastructure

If you want to do something, general Moby needs to move some of his army from their current task to the new task. If you want to make the UK much safer in fire accidents you need to move 300,000 of your worker bees from their current roles to a continuous industry of installing and maintaining fire prevention devices. You may indeed be able to do that but would it be worthwhile? Could you not deploy 300,000 workers more efficiently to do more good elsewhere?

As I said reductionist nonsense. All you are saying is ...if people were different to what they are the world would be different to what it is. Luckily the world isn't ruled by accountants and people generally are not just worker drones!