How much longer will this bear market go on for?

Altior

Nebulous2, that's another post full of hyperbole. Can you provide actual evidence for the quote below for example:

literally millions of them who are struggling to get enough to eat

And I don't mean how many people are getting freebies at 'food banks'. 

The number of people who have died due to malnutrition in the UK would be a starting point, assuming there are millions not eating enough, many of them must be dying, presumably. 

Nebulous2

Altior said:

Nebulous2, that's another post full of hyperbole. Can you provide actual evidence for the quote below for example:

literally millions of them who are struggling to get enough to eat

And I don't mean how many people are getting freebies at 'food banks'. 

The number of people who have died due to malnutrition in the UK would be a starting point, assuming there are millions not eating enough, many of them must be dying, presumably. 

There is a difference between not having enough to eat and dying of it. 

Schools in England warn of crisis of ‘heartbreaking’ rise in hungry children | UK cost of living crisis | The Guardian

Don't like the Guardian? What about GB news? 

Sunday roast in decline with nearly a fifth of people not using oven as cost of living crisis bites (gbnews.uk)

I work two jobs but can’t afford to eat and live off chip shop scraps - I’ve lost half a stone in six weeks | The Sun

Food poverty in the UK: The causes, figures and solutions (bigissue.com)

University staff who can’t afford to eat ask for campus food banks | UK cost of living crisis | The Guardian

Altior

I have no problem with any of the measures announced in the fiscal event. I would like to have seen more done around vat for example, and the lower income tax threshold, but we can't have everything. Politics will always play a part of course and maybe they are holding back on those changes until they are politically expedient. For the overall mission to work (actual growth), they need more than 2 years. 

It must be only part of an overall strategy though.

The country has spent way beyond its means for many years, and we have been cultivated into thinking that the 'government' is always a solution to all of our problems. It reached its nirvana when we decided that we could afford to pay millions of people to stay at home. Including the public sector on full pay. 

The desperate need to tackle the massive overspend on peripheral luxuries, virtue signalling and vanity projects. International aid (ie borrowing to hand over to corrupt NGOs and foreign governments). The tax credit absurdity. The millions of people who could actually work, but are deemed economically inactive. The NHS money pit. I could go on. 

I have no huge faith that the culture of 'free things' will be tackled by this administration, I do however have a little more hope than the Cameron, May, Johnson administrations. Or of course if Starmer ever reached the levers of power. 

It's not party political for me. I would happily support a Labour administration with this approach. This however is the first leadership team we have experienced for a very long time that aren't making decisions based on the hope of instant positive headlines in the BBC/Guardian, or the impact on snap polling. 

We ought to all hope that they are successful.

sevenhills

Nebulous2 said:

We have people - literally millions of them who are struggling to get enough to eat. People who cannot afford to run their ovens. People who even with the energy intervention are staring down the barrel of their electric and gas costing twice as much this winter as it did last. 

Many of them are working - and are looking at a tightening of the rules and benefit regime for part-time workers.

It's September, I haven't turned my heating on yet.
I earn less than £20k very much below average. When I was a single working parent, I was getting more than I am now. My daughter went on foreign holidays.
Poverty is subjective, I would gladly donate a week's income to a good cause if some of the rich on here would match it. There are people that need help, but I am not sure giving them money for there energy bills is the right thing to do.
Pensioners on a low income are the only ones that 'need' heating, but there is the minimum pension guarantee.

sevenhills

Altior said:

Nebulous2, that's another post full of hyperbole. Can you provide actual evidence for the quote below for example:

My ex wife lives alone and hasn't worked for around 20 years, her income is effectively similar to my own, taking into account that she pays no rent.

Altior

Nebulous2 said:

Altior said:

Nebulous2, that's another post full of hyperbole. Can you provide actual evidence for the quote below for example:

literally millions of them who are struggling to get enough to eat

And I don't mean how many people are getting freebies at 'food banks'. 

The number of people who have died due to malnutrition in the UK would be a starting point, assuming there are millions not eating enough, many of them must be dying, presumably. 

There is a difference between not having enough to eat and dying of it. 

Schools in England warn of crisis of ‘heartbreaking’ rise in hungry children | UK cost of living crisis | The Guardian

Don't like the Guardian? What about GB news? 

Sunday roast in decline with nearly a fifth of people not using oven as cost of living crisis bites (gbnews.uk)

I work two jobs but can’t afford to eat and live off chip shop scraps - I’ve lost half a stone in six weeks | The Sun

Food poverty in the UK: The causes, figures and solutions (bigissue.com)

University staff who can’t afford to eat ask for campus food banks | UK cost of living crisis | The Guardian

There is a difference between not having enough to eat and dying of it. 

Of course not, but if millions are not eating enough, it stands to reason that a proportion of them will end up dying.

I was hoping for actual evidence, not links to articles in the media. In the era of click bait. Everything is overwrought and exaggerated, twisted or simply fiction.  

Unfortunately, Nebulous2, there are many people who would view spending money on their latest iPhone monthly payments as being more essential than getting their grocery shops in. It is of course impossible to delve into the personal finances of people who claim they can't afford to eat properly. If they work full time however, I'd bet my life savings that they are wasting their income on other things. And can't afford to eat can be translated as the Spoons meals or lack of Deliveroo options. Not rice and potatoes. 

DoublePolaroid

You’re entitled to your opinion but your evidential bar is set so high it can never be cleared. The reason being that the consequences of poor nutrition in a country where nobody can realistically starve to death are felt over years and decades and will never show up in contemporaneous mortality statistics. 

sevenhills

DoublePolaroid said:

You’re entitled to your opinion but your evidential bar is set so high it can never be cleared. The reason being that the consequences of poor nutrition in a country where nobody can realistically starve to death are felt over years and decades and will never show up in contemporaneous mortality statistics. 

Heart and circulatory deaths attributed to excess weight and obesity total around 31,000 every year in the UK, our new analysis reveals. This is equivalent to around 85 deaths each day from heart and circulatory diseases which are attributable to a BMI (body mass index) of 25 or more, such as a heart attack or stroke.16 Apr 2021

How many deaths are attributed to malnutrition?

grumiofoundation

Altior said:

Nebulous2 said:

Altior said:

Nebulous2, that's another post full of hyperbole. Can you provide actual evidence for the quote below for example:

literally millions of them who are struggling to get enough to eat

And I don't mean how many people are getting freebies at 'food banks'. 

The number of people who have died due to malnutrition in the UK would be a starting point, assuming there are millions not eating enough, many of them must be dying, presumably. 

There is a difference between not having enough to eat and dying of it. 

Schools in England warn of crisis of ‘heartbreaking’ rise in hungry children | UK cost of living crisis | The Guardian

Don't like the Guardian? What about GB news? 

Sunday roast in decline with nearly a fifth of people not using oven as cost of living crisis bites (gbnews.uk)

I work two jobs but can’t afford to eat and live off chip shop scraps - I’ve lost half a stone in six weeks | The Sun

Food poverty in the UK: The causes, figures and solutions (bigissue.com)

University staff who can’t afford to eat ask for campus food banks | UK cost of living crisis | The Guardian

There is a difference between not having enough to eat and dying of it. 

Of course not, but if millions are not eating enough, it stands to reason that a proportion of them will end up dying.

I was hoping for actual evidence, not links to articles in the media. In the era of click bait. Everything is overwrought and exaggerated, twisted or simply fiction.  

Unfortunately, Nebulous2, there are many people who would view spending money on their latest iPhone monthly payments as being more essential than getting their grocery shops in. It is of course impossible to delve into the personal finances of people who claim they can't afford to eat properly. If they work full time however, I'd bet my life savings that they are wasting their income on other things. And can't afford to eat can be translated as the Spoons meals or lack of Deliveroo options. Not rice and potatoes. 

Do you have any actual evidence, not clickbait articles, on someone who spends money on their iPhone payments than on food rather than on food for themselves/their children.

You need to hold yourself to the same high standards as you are holding Nebulous2 to. 


Of course not, but if millions are not eating enough, it stands to reason that a proportion of them will end up dying.

Not sure what point you think you are making here? 




Have a read of the sensible post quoted below.

DoublePolaroid said:

You’re entitled to your opinion but your evidential bar is set so high it can never be cleared. The reason being that the consequences of poor nutrition in a country where nobody can realistically starve to death are felt over years and decades and will never show up in contemporaneous mortality statistics. 

Altior

literally millions of them who are struggling to get enough to eat

This was the actual quote. 'enough to eat' is a nebulous phrase in itself. I would consider it to be avoiding malnutrition, and eventually death or serious illness. Although, we apparently have an 'obesity epidemic' running parallel to literally millions of them who are struggling to get enough to eat. Somewhat of a dichotomy, on the face of it. 

It may be semantics, but it does get rather tiresome seeing these types of tropes being repeated. If there are literally millions of people struggling to get enough to eat in the UK, their ought to be some tangible evidence in order to make that assertion.