The 2024 POTUS election will be the first election that, potentially, will be won by AI deciding the outcome. The ways it can be used to sway voters are so manifold and powerful
I see AI is already destroying publishing.
Reminds me of this Spectator article - possibly written under a fake name by a bot - which predicted this. Many scoffed at the time
But bravo to them for trying. I’ve heard rumours the strike might last til January - or beyond. That’s huge
If AI spreads and takes jobs without replacement then we will be back to the 1970s in terms of strikes too, workers aren't go to accept most jobs being taken over by AI, certainly without a big UBI funded by a massive robot/AI tax on corporations
Strikes aren't going to stop AI, any more than loom-smashing stopped the industrial revolution
Then capitalism is dead, at least in its purest form.
If AI leads to mass unemployment and few full time and permanent jobs, most voters ie the non rich and non corporate executives will only vote for parties promising massive robot taxes on corporations to fund big universal basic income and welfare payments.
We will end up with the main western parties effectively offering social democracy just in slightly different forms
AI will kill capitalism as we have known in. What happens then is impossible to say. Revolutions? Civil strife?
A gentle slide into universal basic income and ubiquitous social democracy is right at the optimal end of the Outcome Spectrum
If AI is such a bad thing, why are we allowing it to happen?
Because there's no stopping it. If the West did the Chinese wouldn't, and the US would enter into an awful lot of research partnerships with the comp sci departments of universities in places like Wuhan. Plus Musk is in the mix, and there seems to be something in the US constitution to say he can do what he likes.
The acceleration of AI is much like the acceleration of the internet. It will change things, and in many ways that we have not yet anticipated. I personally believe it is a massive opportunity for good. Pessimistic luddites like Leon will always believe it is the end of the world as we know it. It isn't.
Optimistic. The Internet looked like a massive opportunity for good, it turned out to be cat pictures and a 95% drop in productivity because of spending all day on PB.
Spookily my autocomplete which is what AI basically is atm supplied everything after "spending" there.
From the article: "Picture postcards of the era – a popular way for visitors to show families back home where they were visiting in the years before photography was commonplace – made much of the pub's quirks." Have we really reached the point now where we have to explain what a postcard is? I feel old!
Crikey, me too. OLD
Tho it makes sense. I wonder how many kids have any idea what a "typewriter" is, or what it does
The 2024 POTUS election will be the first election that, potentially, will be won by AI deciding the outcome. The ways it can be used to sway voters are so manifold and powerful
I see AI is already destroying publishing.
Reminds me of this Spectator article - possibly written under a fake name by a bot - which predicted this. Many scoffed at the time
But bravo to them for trying. I’ve heard rumours the strike might last til January - or beyond. That’s huge
If AI spreads and takes jobs without replacement then we will be back to the 1970s in terms of strikes too, workers aren't go to accept most jobs being taken over by AI, certainly without a big UBI funded by a massive robot/AI tax on corporations
Strikes aren't going to stop AI, any more than loom-smashing stopped the industrial revolution
Then capitalism is dead, at least in its purest form.
If AI leads to mass unemployment and few full time and permanent jobs, most voters ie the non rich and non corporate executives will only vote for parties promising massive robot taxes on corporations to fund big universal basic income and welfare payments.
We will end up with the main western parties effectively offering social democracy just in slightly different forms
AI will kill capitalism as we have known in. What happens then is impossible to say. Revolutions? Civil strife?
A gentle slide into universal basic income and ubiquitous social democracy is right at the optimal end of the Outcome Spectrum
The 2024 POTUS election will be the first election that, potentially, will be won by AI deciding the outcome. The ways it can be used to sway voters are so manifold and powerful
I see AI is already destroying publishing.
Reminds me of this Spectator article - possibly written under a fake name by a bot - which predicted this. Many scoffed at the time
But bravo to them for trying. I’ve heard rumours the strike might last til January - or beyond. That’s huge
If AI spreads and takes jobs without replacement then we will be back to the 1970s in terms of strikes too, workers aren't go to accept most jobs being taken over by AI, certainly without a big UBI funded by a massive robot/AI tax on corporations
Strikes aren't going to stop AI, any more than loom-smashing stopped the industrial revolution
Then capitalism is dead, at least in its purest form.
If AI leads to mass unemployment and few full time and permanent jobs, most voters ie the non rich and non corporate executives will only vote for parties promising massive robot taxes on corporations to fund big universal basic income and welfare payments.
We will end up with the main western parties effectively offering social democracy just in slightly different forms
AI will kill capitalism as we have known in. What happens then is impossible to say. Revolutions? Civil strife?
A gentle slide into universal basic income and ubiquitous social democracy is right at the optimal end of the Outcome Spectrum
If AI is such a bad thing, why are we allowing it to happen?
Because there's no stopping it. If the West did the Chinese wouldn't, and the US would enter into an awful lot of research partnerships with the comp sci departments of universities in places like Wuhan. Plus Musk is in the mix, and there seems to be something in the US constitution to say he can do what he likes.
Human beings are very strange, allowing something to happen which is going to make life worse for nearly everyone.
Well yes. Like war and slavery and global warming and everything else. Kesslerisation is a case in point. It was predicted at the time of sputnik 1, satellites confer just incremental benefits to TV and Internet and weather forecasting and stuff vs the absolutely fundamental disbenefit of locking ourselves in from the rest of the universe and making terrestrial astronomy impossible, but there's money and military advantage and, once again, Musk, and here we are.
Even if every Starlink satellite exploded into shrapnel, in the style of Lemmings*, the orbits would be clear in months. They are very low by recent standards.
I am sorry to break it to you. Even the government had to disband it's Department for Brexit Opportunities (titter) because it could not find any. There are no benefits of Brexit. There are no fairies at the end of the garden. There are no alien landings.
But I just showed you one. We are now free of burdensome EU regulation on AI. We can develop it as we wish. Now, we may fuck this up - given our recent track record, that's probably a good bet - but at least with Brexit we have the opportunity to steer our own course. That is a palpable benefit. It's up to us to exploit it, or not
“The UK’s approach is driven, in a post-Brexit world, by a desire to encourage AI investment,” [the expert] added, which gives the U.K. more “freedom and flexibility to pitch regulation at the appropriate level to encourage investment,” he said in an email to CNBC.
In contrast the EU’s AI Act could make France “less attractive” for investment in artificial intelligence given that it lays down “a burdensome regulatory regime” for AI, Tanna said."
The 2024 POTUS election will be the first election that, potentially, will be won by AI deciding the outcome. The ways it can be used to sway voters are so manifold and powerful
I see AI is already destroying publishing.
Reminds me of this Spectator article - possibly written under a fake name by a bot - which predicted this. Many scoffed at the time
But bravo to them for trying. I’ve heard rumours the strike might last til January - or beyond. That’s huge
If AI spreads and takes jobs without replacement then we will be back to the 1970s in terms of strikes too, workers aren't go to accept most jobs being taken over by AI, certainly without a big UBI funded by a massive robot/AI tax on corporations
Strikes aren't going to stop AI, any more than loom-smashing stopped the industrial revolution
Then capitalism is dead, at least in its purest form.
If AI leads to mass unemployment and few full time and permanent jobs, most voters ie the non rich and non corporate executives will only vote for parties promising massive robot taxes on corporations to fund big universal basic income and welfare payments.
We will end up with the main western parties effectively offering social democracy just in slightly different forms
AI will kill capitalism as we have known in. What happens then is impossible to say. Revolutions? Civil strife?
A gentle slide into universal basic income and ubiquitous social democracy is right at the optimal end of the Outcome Spectrum
If AI is such a bad thing, why are we allowing it to happen?
Because there's no stopping it. If the West did the Chinese wouldn't, and the US would enter into an awful lot of research partnerships with the comp sci departments of universities in places like Wuhan. Plus Musk is in the mix, and there seems to be something in the US constitution to say he can do what he likes.
Human beings are very strange, allowing something to happen which is going to make life worse for nearly everyone.
Well yes. Like war and slavery and global warming and everything else. Kesslerisation is a case in point. It was predicted at the time of sputnik 1, satellites confer just incremental benefits to TV and Internet and weather forecasting and stuff vs the absolutely fundamental disbenefit of locking ourselves in from the rest of the universe and making terrestrial astronomy impossible, but there's money and military advantage and, once again, Musk, and here we are.
WTAF? You are completely bonkers.
Satellites have conferred massive advantage to us in science, technology, telecommunications, weather analysis and forecasting, understanding the climate and much more.
Anyone who predicted they would have just incremental or minor benefits was as incorrect as those who thought that "I think there is a world market for maybe five computers" [predicted by IBM], or "There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home."
Yes, Bart. "Telecommunications" and the other stuff is just a fancy way of repeating what I said. "Massive advantage" is Look and Learn style yay for science cheerleading, the benefits are merely incremental; starlink and its competitors do not provide a game changing advance on 5g. So the calculation is, is that stuff all worth kesslerising ourselves, which is about the most damaging to science thing that could happen?
I suggest you talk to some remote communities about what fast internet access has meant for them.
There’s a reason that this stuff is spreading fast.
EDIT: how do you get your 5G in a remote community? Ever wonder?
Indeed, the human desire to make every datapoint fit a storyline is a very dangerous cognitive bias.
We see that here with the belief that because we had 18 years of Tory rule, followed by 13 years of New Labour, followed by another 14 years of Conservative government, then we must now be due 10-15 years of Labour again.
There is no rule to this pattern. And yet it's remarkably persistent.
Its not a rule, but its most probable.
People are pissed off with the Tories now. Unless or until they become more pissed off with Labour than the Tories, then they're likely to re-elect Labour.
Predictions are normally about odds and what is more likely. Currently Labour being in power for a decade is much more likely than not, but it certainly is not guaranteed.
If Labour win the next election, as expected, then they will take over in exceptionally poor circumstances with a tedious, risk-averse leader, and little thought about what to do about Britain's problems beyond a pastiche of Blairite slogans. I think there's a greater than normal potential for the situation to unravel rapidly.
I would have the situation closer to finely balanced than much more likely.
But the circumstances aren't exceptionally poor. That's the frustrating thing.
The economic situation has some real positives, but the Government is either too piss-poor to sell them as positives, or worse is seeing them as negatives.
We have full employment which most likely isn't going to change that significantly. Inflation is due to fall back, which won't reverse the pain of the last couple of years but will mean new pain won't be happening. Real wages should be growing - and its a Government choice not a law of the economy that they're not right now.
Our biggest problems as an economy are that our debt is too high, and the cost of houses are too high, and we should have have moderately high inflation soon which is perfect for handling both of those by allowing deflating both of them as a ratio to GDP/income.
Starmer is a very lucky general and I think he's going to inherit a mixed-golden economic legacy, and worse for the Tories one they've talked down so won't even be able to take credit for and he will be able to claim the credit then.
Average wages are growing about 6 to 7%, any more than that and that would push up inflation at about 7 to 8% yet further
Average wages are declining.
If a wages go up by 7% when inflation is 10% then that's a 3% pay cut, not a pay rise.
But what's worse is that Sunak froze tax thresholds. So when wages go up by 7% then Sunak taxes you more, while your pay is declining.
So someone on UC, with a Student Loan, facing a 78.4% real tax rate may get a 7% pay rise, but of that they keep only 1.5% of that while inflation is 10%. So that's an 8.5% pay cut.
That's fucking shit.
Inflation is now 7-8%, put average wages up to 8-10%+ and you get an inflationary wage spiral.
Basic economics
An economist would know that inflation has been a lot higher and wages have not kept up for that time. So there is a huge deflationary chunk already built in before you start worrying aboiut wages a percentage point or two above inflation for a brief period.
And if average wages had been 10%+ last year, inflation would now also be 10%+ and rising not fallen to 7% now which is closer in line with average wages anyway.
We have historically had long periods where wages rose faster than inflation. Would that not be a good situation to return to?
Yes, the 1970s and no it would not be, the UK economy was a basket case, with soaring inflation and regular strikes led by powerful trade unions, which was why the government changed so frequently
So, the Brexit Tories have taken us back to the 1970s with their inflation, air of dilapidation of public services and widespread strikes. If only we had some better music with it...
(As a matter of fact GDP growth in the UK was higher in the 1970s in the UK than the 1980s: 30.39% from 70-79; 26.66% from 80-89. So the UK economy was not a basket case in the 1970s, indeed rather vigorous compared to today)
I just had a look at local housing allowance rates for my local authority. £115 per week for a one bed flat = £5980 per year. If you want to build a 50 sqm one bed flat, current build costs are £2500 per sqm pre land, services etc. £125k. The cheapest new build flats are being sold in the south east for around £250k.
A decade ago build costs were a fraction of what they are now, developers were able to build and then sell flats at £125k, whilst making a profit.
The LHA now would not even cover paying the interest on a loan at 5% to build a £125k flat, even if everything else (land, connections etc) fell in to place.
I am sorry to break it to you. Even the government had to disband it's Department for Brexit Opportunities (titter) because it could not find any. There are no benefits of Brexit. There are no fairies at the end of the garden. There are no alien landings.
But I just showed you one. We are now free of burdensome EU regulation on AI. We can develop it as we wish. Now, we may fuck this up - given our recent track record, that's probably a good bet - but at least with Brexit we have the opportunity to steer our own course. That is a palpable benefit. It's up to us to exploit it, or not
“The UK’s approach is driven, in a post-Brexit world, by a desire to encourage AI investment,” [the expert] added, which gives the U.K. more “freedom and flexibility to pitch regulation at the appropriate level to encourage investment,” he said in an email to CNBC.
In contrast the EU’s AI Act could make France “less attractive” for investment in artificial intelligence given that it lays down “a burdensome regulatory regime” for AI, Tanna said."
I will see whether I can throw you another straw to grasp at.
For there to be genuine "benefits of Brexit" for any business, the benefit will need to demonstrably outweigh the disbenefit. As I have self interest in AI I will happily concede if that turns out to be the case. At the moment it seems very unlikely that many businesses that are using AI enabled products would think they have an overall benefit by the UK not being part of the the biggest single market in the world.
The refusal of Remoaners to admit there might actually be Brexit Benefits is as ludicrous and infantile as the bollocks from Leavers about "Brexit being the easiest deal in history" and "We hold all the cards"
Of course there will be benefits, just as there have been disbenefits. Brexit was a huge national life change, equivalent to say, "having a baby". Good and bad consequences flow from these imponderable but enormous evolutions
I just had a look at local housing allowance rates for my local authority. £115 per week for a one bed flat = £5980 per year. If you want to build a 50 sqm one bed flat, current build costs are £2500 per sqm pre land, services etc. £125k So the LHA would not even cover paying the interest on a loan at 5% to build a £125k flat, even if everything else fell in to place. A decade ago build costs were a fraction of what they are now, developers were able to build and then sell flats at £125k, whilst making a profit.
Because builders have to live somewhere. Which means they need higher wages for their housing costs.
First pass, half the cost of a building project is labour. But then you have the labour to make the materials… it all comes back to labour cost. Which is now largely a function of housing cost, in large chunks of the U.K.
I am sorry to break it to you. Even the government had to disband it's Department for Brexit Opportunities (titter) because it could not find any. There are no benefits of Brexit. There are no fairies at the end of the garden. There are no alien landings.
But I just showed you one. We are now free of burdensome EU regulation on AI. We can develop it as we wish. Now, we may fuck this up - given our recent track record, that's probably a good bet - but at least with Brexit we have the opportunity to steer our own course. That is a palpable benefit. It's up to us to exploit it, or not
“The UK’s approach is driven, in a post-Brexit world, by a desire to encourage AI investment,” [the expert] added, which gives the U.K. more “freedom and flexibility to pitch regulation at the appropriate level to encourage investment,” he said in an email to CNBC.
In contrast the EU’s AI Act could make France “less attractive” for investment in artificial intelligence given that it lays down “a burdensome regulatory regime” for AI, Tanna said."
It sounds like nonsense though. Britain can have a different law from the EU. Great. But have they considered the EU can have a different law from Britain? It tells us nothing about whether AI can flourish here or in France. Tbh, I'd have thought language might be more important.
I am sorry to break it to you. Even the government had to disband it's Department for Brexit Opportunities (titter) because it could not find any. There are no benefits of Brexit. There are no fairies at the end of the garden. There are no alien landings.
But I just showed you one. We are now free of burdensome EU regulation on AI. We can develop it as we wish. Now, we may fuck this up - given our recent track record, that's probably a good bet - but at least with Brexit we have the opportunity to steer our own course. That is a palpable benefit. It's up to us to exploit it, or not
“The UK’s approach is driven, in a post-Brexit world, by a desire to encourage AI investment,” [the expert] added, which gives the U.K. more “freedom and flexibility to pitch regulation at the appropriate level to encourage investment,” he said in an email to CNBC.
In contrast the EU’s AI Act could make France “less attractive” for investment in artificial intelligence given that it lays down “a burdensome regulatory regime” for AI, Tanna said."
I will see whether I can throw you another straw to grasp at.
For there to be genuine "benefits of Brexit" for any business, the benefit will need to demonstrably outweigh the disbenefit. As I have self interest in AI I will happily concede if that turns out to be the case. At the moment it seems very unlikely that many businesses that are using AI enabled products would think they have an overall benefit by the UK not being part of the the biggest single market in the world.
We shall see
"The EU Should Learn From How the UK Regulates AI to Stay Competitive"
I am sorry to break it to you. Even the government had to disband it's Department for Brexit Opportunities (titter) because it could not find any. There are no benefits of Brexit. There are no fairies at the end of the garden. There are no alien landings.
But I just showed you one. We are now free of burdensome EU regulation on AI. We can develop it as we wish. Now, we may fuck this up - given our recent track record, that's probably a good bet - but at least with Brexit we have the opportunity to steer our own course. That is a palpable benefit. It's up to us to exploit it, or not
“The UK’s approach is driven, in a post-Brexit world, by a desire to encourage AI investment,” [the expert] added, which gives the U.K. more “freedom and flexibility to pitch regulation at the appropriate level to encourage investment,” he said in an email to CNBC.
In contrast the EU’s AI Act could make France “less attractive” for investment in artificial intelligence given that it lays down “a burdensome regulatory regime” for AI, Tanna said."
It sounds like nonsense though. Britain can have a different law from the EU. Great. But have they considered the EU can have a different law from Britain? It tells us nothing about whether AI can flourish here or in France. Tbh, I'd have thought language might be more important.
The big issue in IT startups is French employment law.
As a French co-worker put it, creating a startup in France and doing it honestly - you might as well file for bankruptcy first.
Most of the French startups I know of, offshore the development etc - the actual bit in France is the owner and a name plate. To collect various government incentives.
Indeed, the human desire to make every datapoint fit a storyline is a very dangerous cognitive bias.
We see that here with the belief that because we had 18 years of Tory rule, followed by 13 years of New Labour, followed by another 14 years of Conservative government, then we must now be due 10-15 years of Labour again.
There is no rule to this pattern. And yet it's remarkably persistent.
Its not a rule, but its most probable.
People are pissed off with the Tories now. Unless or until they become more pissed off with Labour than the Tories, then they're likely to re-elect Labour.
Predictions are normally about odds and what is more likely. Currently Labour being in power for a decade is much more likely than not, but it certainly is not guaranteed.
If Labour win the next election, as expected, then they will take over in exceptionally poor circumstances with a tedious, risk-averse leader, and little thought about what to do about Britain's problems beyond a pastiche of Blairite slogans. I think there's a greater than normal potential for the situation to unravel rapidly.
I would have the situation closer to finely balanced than much more likely.
But the circumstances aren't exceptionally poor. That's the frustrating thing.
The economic situation has some real positives, but the Government is either too piss-poor to sell them as positives, or worse is seeing them as negatives.
We have full employment which most likely isn't going to change that significantly. Inflation is due to fall back, which won't reverse the pain of the last couple of years but will mean new pain won't be happening. Real wages should be growing - and its a Government choice not a law of the economy that they're not right now.
Our biggest problems as an economy are that our debt is too high, and the cost of houses are too high, and we should have have moderately high inflation soon which is perfect for handling both of those by allowing deflating both of them as a ratio to GDP/income.
Starmer is a very lucky general and I think he's going to inherit a mixed-golden economic legacy, and worse for the Tories one they've talked down so won't even be able to take credit for and he will be able to claim the credit then.
Average wages are growing about 6 to 7%, any more than that and that would push up inflation at about 7 to 8% yet further
Average wages are declining.
If a wages go up by 7% when inflation is 10% then that's a 3% pay cut, not a pay rise.
But what's worse is that Sunak froze tax thresholds. So when wages go up by 7% then Sunak taxes you more, while your pay is declining.
So someone on UC, with a Student Loan, facing a 78.4% real tax rate may get a 7% pay rise, but of that they keep only 1.5% of that while inflation is 10%. So that's an 8.5% pay cut.
That's fucking shit.
Inflation is now 7-8%, put average wages up to 8-10%+ and you get an inflationary wage spiral.
Basic economics
An economist would know that inflation has been a lot higher and wages have not kept up for that time. So there is a huge deflationary chunk already built in before you start worrying aboiut wages a percentage point or two above inflation for a brief period.
And if average wages had been 10%+ last year, inflation would now also be 10%+ and rising not fallen to 7% now which is closer in line with average wages anyway.
We have historically had long periods where wages rose faster than inflation. Would that not be a good situation to return to?
Yes, the 1970s and no it would not be, the UK economy was a basket case, with soaring inflation and regular strikes led by powerful trade unions, which was why the government changed so frequently
So, the Brexit Tories have taken us back to the 1970s with their inflation, air of dilapidation of public services and widespread strikes. If only we had some better music with it...
(As a matter of fact GDP growth in the UK was higher in the 1970s in the UK than the 1980s: 30.39% from 70-79; 26.66% from 80-89. So the UK economy was not a basket case in the 1970s, indeed rather vigorous compared to today)
Though the 1970s GDP really needs to be split around 1974. Very healthy growth at the start of the decade, abysmal growth for the rest of it.
I am sorry to break it to you. Even the government had to disband it's Department for Brexit Opportunities (titter) because it could not find any. There are no benefits of Brexit. There are no fairies at the end of the garden. There are no alien landings.
But I just showed you one. We are now free of burdensome EU regulation on AI. We can develop it as we wish. Now, we may fuck this up - given our recent track record, that's probably a good bet - but at least with Brexit we have the opportunity to steer our own course. That is a palpable benefit. It's up to us to exploit it, or not
“The UK’s approach is driven, in a post-Brexit world, by a desire to encourage AI investment,” [the expert] added, which gives the U.K. more “freedom and flexibility to pitch regulation at the appropriate level to encourage investment,” he said in an email to CNBC.
In contrast the EU’s AI Act could make France “less attractive” for investment in artificial intelligence given that it lays down “a burdensome regulatory regime” for AI, Tanna said."
I will see whether I can throw you another straw to grasp at.
For there to be genuine "benefits of Brexit" for any business, the benefit will need to demonstrably outweigh the disbenefit. As I have self interest in AI I will happily concede if that turns out to be the case. At the moment it seems very unlikely that many businesses that are using AI enabled products would think they have an overall benefit by the UK not being part of the the biggest single market in the world.
We shall see
"The EU Should Learn From How the UK Regulates AI to Stay Competitive"
Though before we preen ourselves too much about the UK's tech savvy, remember that, as things stand, HMG is about to regulate online messaging out of existence;
I am sorry to break it to you. Even the government had to disband it's Department for Brexit Opportunities (titter) because it could not find any. There are no benefits of Brexit. There are no fairies at the end of the garden. There are no alien landings.
But I just showed you one. We are now free of burdensome EU regulation on AI. We can develop it as we wish. Now, we may fuck this up - given our recent track record, that's probably a good bet - but at least with Brexit we have the opportunity to steer our own course. That is a palpable benefit. It's up to us to exploit it, or not
“The UK’s approach is driven, in a post-Brexit world, by a desire to encourage AI investment,” [the expert] added, which gives the U.K. more “freedom and flexibility to pitch regulation at the appropriate level to encourage investment,” he said in an email to CNBC.
In contrast the EU’s AI Act could make France “less attractive” for investment in artificial intelligence given that it lays down “a burdensome regulatory regime” for AI, Tanna said."
It sounds like nonsense though. Britain can have a different law from the EU. Great. But have they considered the EU can have a different law from Britain? It tells us nothing about whether AI can flourish here or in France. Tbh, I'd have thought language might be more important.
If you want to set up a European company exploiting AI and developing it further, do you go into the EU with its burdensome AI laws, or to a nearby European country with lighter regulation?
If the latter, you choose the UK. As things stand. It is notable that ChatGPT and Anthropic have both chosen London for their European HQs
Then capitalism is dead, at least in its purest form.
If AI leads to mass unemployment and few full time and permanent jobs, most voters ie the non rich and non corporate executives will only vote for parties promising massive robot taxes on corporations to fund big universal basic income and welfare payments.
We will end up with the main western parties effectively offering social democracy just in slightly different forms
Where does the massive robot tax come from? We're a consumerist society, we pay ourselves wages for doing jobs so we can buy the crap the jobs produce. If AI takes all the jobs who buys the crap to produce the taxes? You've got yourself a recursive loop there.
It's possible to imagine a society where 90% of production is automatic, and everyone gets a citizens' income to buy the stiff they produce. It sounds quite nice, really - rather like being a pensioner with a small charity job. But getting from here to there without people being left behind will be non-trivial.
Of course there will be benefits, just as there have been disbenefits.
If there really were benefits (there are not) the Tories would have plastered them all over their pledge cards instead of the ludicrous "stop the boats" bollocks.
I am sorry to break it to you. Even the government had to disband it's Department for Brexit Opportunities (titter) because it could not find any. There are no benefits of Brexit. There are no fairies at the end of the garden. There are no alien landings.
But I just showed you one. We are now free of burdensome EU regulation on AI. We can develop it as we wish. Now, we may fuck this up - given our recent track record, that's probably a good bet - but at least with Brexit we have the opportunity to steer our own course. That is a palpable benefit. It's up to us to exploit it, or not
“The UK’s approach is driven, in a post-Brexit world, by a desire to encourage AI investment,” [the expert] added, which gives the U.K. more “freedom and flexibility to pitch regulation at the appropriate level to encourage investment,” he said in an email to CNBC.
In contrast the EU’s AI Act could make France “less attractive” for investment in artificial intelligence given that it lays down “a burdensome regulatory regime” for AI, Tanna said."
I will see whether I can throw you another straw to grasp at.
For there to be genuine "benefits of Brexit" for any business, the benefit will need to demonstrably outweigh the disbenefit. As I have self interest in AI I will happily concede if that turns out to be the case. At the moment it seems very unlikely that many businesses that are using AI enabled products would think they have an overall benefit by the UK not being part of the the biggest single market in the world.
We shall see
"The EU Should Learn From How the UK Regulates AI to Stay Competitive"
Though before we preen ourselves too much about the UK's tech savvy, remember that, as things stand, HMG is about to regulate online messaging out of existence;
I am sorry to break it to you. Even the government had to disband it's Department for Brexit Opportunities (titter) because it could not find any. There are no benefits of Brexit. There are no fairies at the end of the garden. There are no alien landings.
But I just showed you one. We are now free of burdensome EU regulation on AI. We can develop it as we wish. Now, we may fuck this up - given our recent track record, that's probably a good bet - but at least with Brexit we have the opportunity to steer our own course. That is a palpable benefit. It's up to us to exploit it, or not
“The UK’s approach is driven, in a post-Brexit world, by a desire to encourage AI investment,” [the expert] added, which gives the U.K. more “freedom and flexibility to pitch regulation at the appropriate level to encourage investment,” he said in an email to CNBC.
In contrast the EU’s AI Act could make France “less attractive” for investment in artificial intelligence given that it lays down “a burdensome regulatory regime” for AI, Tanna said."
I will see whether I can throw you another straw to grasp at.
For there to be genuine "benefits of Brexit" for any business, the benefit will need to demonstrably outweigh the disbenefit. As I have self interest in AI I will happily concede if that turns out to be the case. At the moment it seems very unlikely that many businesses that are using AI enabled products would think they have an overall benefit by the UK not being part of the the biggest single market in the world.
The 2024 POTUS election will be the first election that, potentially, will be won by AI deciding the outcome. The ways it can be used to sway voters are so manifold and powerful
I see AI is already destroying publishing.
Reminds me of this Spectator article - possibly written under a fake name by a bot - which predicted this. Many scoffed at the time
But bravo to them for trying. I’ve heard rumours the strike might last til January - or beyond. That’s huge
If AI spreads and takes jobs without replacement then we will be back to the 1970s in terms of strikes too, workers aren't go to accept most jobs being taken over by AI, certainly without a big UBI funded by a massive robot/AI tax on corporations
Strikes aren't going to stop AI, any more than loom-smashing stopped the industrial revolution
Then capitalism is dead, at least in its purest form.
If AI leads to mass unemployment and few full time and permanent jobs, most voters ie the non rich and non corporate executives will only vote for parties promising massive robot taxes on corporations to fund big universal basic income and welfare payments.
We will end up with the main western parties effectively offering social democracy just in slightly different forms
AI will kill capitalism as we have known in. What happens then is impossible to say. Revolutions? Civil strife?
A gentle slide into universal basic income and ubiquitous social democracy is right at the optimal end of the Outcome Spectrum
If AI is such a bad thing, why are we allowing it to happen?
Because there's no stopping it. If the West did the Chinese wouldn't, and the US would enter into an awful lot of research partnerships with the comp sci departments of universities in places like Wuhan. Plus Musk is in the mix, and there seems to be something in the US constitution to say he can do what he likes.
Human beings are very strange, allowing something to happen which is going to make life worse for nearly everyone.
Well yes. Like war and slavery and global warming and everything else. Kesslerisation is a case in point. It was predicted at the time of sputnik 1, satellites confer just incremental benefits to TV and Internet and weather forecasting and stuff vs the absolutely fundamental disbenefit of locking ourselves in from the rest of the universe and making terrestrial astronomy impossible, but there's money and military advantage and, once again, Musk, and here we are.
WTAF? You are completely bonkers.
Satellites have conferred massive advantage to us in science, technology, telecommunications, weather analysis and forecasting, understanding the climate and much more.
Anyone who predicted they would have just incremental or minor benefits was as incorrect as those who thought that "I think there is a world market for maybe five computers" [predicted by IBM], or "There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home."
Yes, Bart. "Telecommunications" and the other stuff is just a fancy way of repeating what I said. "Massive advantage" is Look and Learn style yay for science cheerleading, the benefits are merely incremental; starlink and its competitors do not provide a game changing advance on 5g. So the calculation is, is that stuff all worth kesslerising ourselves, which is about the most damaging to science thing that could happen?
I suggest you talk to some remote communities about what fast internet access has meant for them.
There’s a reason that this stuff is spreading fast.
EDIT: how do you get your 5G in a remote community? Ever wonder?
Yes, I didn't say NO benefit. 20 years ago I had to pay a fortune for ISDN because broadband was unavailable and you can't run a business on dial up. Now I have 4g and broadband. I would have bitten your arm off for a starlink account back then, and there's millions of people now where I was then. The benefit is substatial, but it was provided in my case without satellite involvement, so the question is, does the differential between the two solutions justify a possible kesslerisation of the planet?
There's precedents for passing up huge gains to avoid even huger dangers. We could have saved millions from malaria with DDT.
Then capitalism is dead, at least in its purest form.
If AI leads to mass unemployment and few full time and permanent jobs, most voters ie the non rich and non corporate executives will only vote for parties promising massive robot taxes on corporations to fund big universal basic income and welfare payments.
We will end up with the main western parties effectively offering social democracy just in slightly different forms
Where does the massive robot tax come from? We're a consumerist society, we pay ourselves wages for doing jobs so we can buy the crap the jobs produce. If AI takes all the jobs who buys the crap to produce the taxes? You've got yourself a recursive loop there.
It's possible to imagine a society where 90% of production is automatic, and everyone gets a citizens' income to buy the stiff they produce. It sounds quite nice, really - rather like being a pensioner with a small charity job. But getting from here to there without people being left behind will be non-trivial.
It happened to agriculture - the labour just got used for other things. Like the NHS.
Of course there will be benefits, just as there have been disbenefits.
If there really were benefits (there are not) the Tories would have plastered them all over their pledge cards instead of the ludicrous "stop the boats" bollocks.
Let's face it, if a Brexit Benefit came along and forcibly sodomised you til your eyeballs popped out, you'd still be denying its existence. You are emotionally incapable of rational thought on this subject
I read that. I really wouldn't like to be that couple, right now. They are such perfect villains, boastful property developers with previous, who "allegedly" like to smash up beloved pubs
Apparently the guy who rented them the JCB (and is, it seems, entirely blameless) has been severely harrassed with hate mail and billions of angry calls. The social media anger aimed at the actual couple themselves must be extraordinary. I wonder if they might have to move out of the UK, there's no coming back from this
They were unfortunate that their alleged crimes happened in mid August, with a bored media lacking stories, waiting to pounce. Oh well, never mind, etc
I genuinely hope their business is liquidated. Bloke sounds like a right scumbag.
Indeed, the human desire to make every datapoint fit a storyline is a very dangerous cognitive bias.
We see that here with the belief that because we had 18 years of Tory rule, followed by 13 years of New Labour, followed by another 14 years of Conservative government, then we must now be due 10-15 years of Labour again.
There is no rule to this pattern. And yet it's remarkably persistent.
Its not a rule, but its most probable.
People are pissed off with the Tories now. Unless or until they become more pissed off with Labour than the Tories, then they're likely to re-elect Labour.
Predictions are normally about odds and what is more likely. Currently Labour being in power for a decade is much more likely than not, but it certainly is not guaranteed.
If Labour win the next election, as expected, then they will take over in exceptionally poor circumstances with a tedious, risk-averse leader, and little thought about what to do about Britain's problems beyond a pastiche of Blairite slogans. I think there's a greater than normal potential for the situation to unravel rapidly.
I would have the situation closer to finely balanced than much more likely.
But the circumstances aren't exceptionally poor. That's the frustrating thing.
The economic situation has some real positives, but the Government is either too piss-poor to sell them as positives, or worse is seeing them as negatives.
We have full employment which most likely isn't going to change that significantly. Inflation is due to fall back, which won't reverse the pain of the last couple of years but will mean new pain won't be happening. Real wages should be growing - and its a Government choice not a law of the economy that they're not right now.
Our biggest problems as an economy are that our debt is too high, and the cost of houses are too high, and we should have have moderately high inflation soon which is perfect for handling both of those by allowing deflating both of them as a ratio to GDP/income.
Starmer is a very lucky general and I think he's going to inherit a mixed-golden economic legacy, and worse for the Tories one they've talked down so won't even be able to take credit for and he will be able to claim the credit then.
Average wages are growing about 6 to 7%, any more than that and that would push up inflation at about 7 to 8% yet further
Average wages are declining.
If a wages go up by 7% when inflation is 10% then that's a 3% pay cut, not a pay rise.
But what's worse is that Sunak froze tax thresholds. So when wages go up by 7% then Sunak taxes you more, while your pay is declining.
So someone on UC, with a Student Loan, facing a 78.4% real tax rate may get a 7% pay rise, but of that they keep only 1.5% of that while inflation is 10%. So that's an 8.5% pay cut.
That's fucking shit.
Inflation is now 7-8%, put average wages up to 8-10%+ and you get an inflationary wage spiral.
Basic economics
An economist would know that inflation has been a lot higher and wages have not kept up for that time. So there is a huge deflationary chunk already built in before you start worrying aboiut wages a percentage point or two above inflation for a brief period.
And if average wages had been 10%+ last year, inflation would now also be 10%+ and rising not fallen to 7% now which is closer in line with average wages anyway.
We have historically had long periods where wages rose faster than inflation. Would that not be a good situation to return to?
Yes, the 1970s and no it would not be, the UK economy was a basket case, with soaring inflation and regular strikes led by powerful trade unions, which was why the government changed so frequently
So, the Brexit Tories have taken us back to the 1970s with their inflation, air of dilapidation of public services and widespread strikes. If only we had some better music with it...
(As a matter of fact GDP growth in the UK was higher in the 1970s in the UK than the 1980s: 30.39% from 70-79; 26.66% from 80-89. So the UK economy was not a basket case in the 1970s, indeed rather vigorous compared to today)
Though the 1970s GDP really needs to be split around 1974. Very healthy growth at the start of the decade, abysmal growth for the rest of it.
Then capitalism is dead, at least in its purest form.
If AI leads to mass unemployment and few full time and permanent jobs, most voters ie the non rich and non corporate executives will only vote for parties promising massive robot taxes on corporations to fund big universal basic income and welfare payments.
We will end up with the main western parties effectively offering social democracy just in slightly different forms
Where does the massive robot tax come from? We're a consumerist society, we pay ourselves wages for doing jobs so we can buy the crap the jobs produce. If AI takes all the jobs who buys the crap to produce the taxes? You've got yourself a recursive loop there.
It's possible to imagine a society where 90% of production is automatic, and everyone gets a citizens' income to buy the stiff they produce. It sounds quite nice, really - rather like being a pensioner with a small charity job. But getting from here to there without people being left behind will be non-trivial.
i remember reading a sci-fi story decades ago which had precisely this premise. A world where there was total abundance and almost no work needed to be done
The writer developed the idea that meaingful work would become incredibly precious and enviable, and people who had proper "jobs", even if only for a few hours a week, were regarded as vastly lucky. Everyone else was either bored witless or stoned on drugs to keep them quiet
I am sorry to break it to you. Even the government had to disband it's Department for Brexit Opportunities (titter) because it could not find any. There are no benefits of Brexit. There are no fairies at the end of the garden. There are no alien landings.
But I just showed you one. We are now free of burdensome EU regulation on AI. We can develop it as we wish. Now, we may fuck this up - given our recent track record, that's probably a good bet - but at least with Brexit we have the opportunity to steer our own course. That is a palpable benefit. It's up to us to exploit it, or not
“The UK’s approach is driven, in a post-Brexit world, by a desire to encourage AI investment,” [the expert] added, which gives the U.K. more “freedom and flexibility to pitch regulation at the appropriate level to encourage investment,” he said in an email to CNBC.
In contrast the EU’s AI Act could make France “less attractive” for investment in artificial intelligence given that it lays down “a burdensome regulatory regime” for AI, Tanna said."
I will see whether I can throw you another straw to grasp at.
For there to be genuine "benefits of Brexit" for any business, the benefit will need to demonstrably outweigh the disbenefit. As I have self interest in AI I will happily concede if that turns out to be the case. At the moment it seems very unlikely that many businesses that are using AI enabled products would think they have an overall benefit by the UK not being part of the the biggest single market in the world.
We shall see
"The EU Should Learn From How the UK Regulates AI to Stay Competitive"
Though before we preen ourselves too much about the UK's tech savvy, remember that, as things stand, HMG is about to regulate online messaging out of existence;
Indeed, the human desire to make every datapoint fit a storyline is a very dangerous cognitive bias.
We see that here with the belief that because we had 18 years of Tory rule, followed by 13 years of New Labour, followed by another 14 years of Conservative government, then we must now be due 10-15 years of Labour again.
There is no rule to this pattern. And yet it's remarkably persistent.
Its not a rule, but its most probable.
People are pissed off with the Tories now. Unless or until they become more pissed off with Labour than the Tories, then they're likely to re-elect Labour.
Predictions are normally about odds and what is more likely. Currently Labour being in power for a decade is much more likely than not, but it certainly is not guaranteed.
If Labour win the next election, as expected, then they will take over in exceptionally poor circumstances with a tedious, risk-averse leader, and little thought about what to do about Britain's problems beyond a pastiche of Blairite slogans. I think there's a greater than normal potential for the situation to unravel rapidly.
I would have the situation closer to finely balanced than much more likely.
But the circumstances aren't exceptionally poor. That's the frustrating thing.
The economic situation has some real positives, but the Government is either too piss-poor to sell them as positives, or worse is seeing them as negatives.
We have full employment which most likely isn't going to change that significantly. Inflation is due to fall back, which won't reverse the pain of the last couple of years but will mean new pain won't be happening. Real wages should be growing - and its a Government choice not a law of the economy that they're not right now.
Our biggest problems as an economy are that our debt is too high, and the cost of houses are too high, and we should have have moderately high inflation soon which is perfect for handling both of those by allowing deflating both of them as a ratio to GDP/income.
Starmer is a very lucky general and I think he's going to inherit a mixed-golden economic legacy, and worse for the Tories one they've talked down so won't even be able to take credit for and he will be able to claim the credit then.
Average wages are growing about 6 to 7%, any more than that and that would push up inflation at about 7 to 8% yet further
Average wages are declining.
If a wages go up by 7% when inflation is 10% then that's a 3% pay cut, not a pay rise.
But what's worse is that Sunak froze tax thresholds. So when wages go up by 7% then Sunak taxes you more, while your pay is declining.
So someone on UC, with a Student Loan, facing a 78.4% real tax rate may get a 7% pay rise, but of that they keep only 1.5% of that while inflation is 10%. So that's an 8.5% pay cut.
That's fucking shit.
Inflation is now 7-8%, put average wages up to 8-10%+ and you get an inflationary wage spiral.
Basic economics
An economist would know that inflation has been a lot higher and wages have not kept up for that time. So there is a huge deflationary chunk already built in before you start worrying aboiut wages a percentage point or two above inflation for a brief period.
And if average wages had been 10%+ last year, inflation would now also be 10%+ and rising not fallen to 7% now which is closer in line with average wages anyway.
We have historically had long periods where wages rose faster than inflation. Would that not be a good situation to return to?
Yes, the 1970s and no it would not be, the UK economy was a basket case, with soaring inflation and regular strikes led by powerful trade unions, which was why the government changed so frequently
So, the Brexit Tories have taken us back to the 1970s with their inflation, air of dilapidation of public services and widespread strikes. If only we had some better music with it...
(As a matter of fact GDP growth in the UK was higher in the 1970s in the UK than the 1980s: 30.39% from 70-79; 26.66% from 80-89. So the UK economy was not a basket case in the 1970s, indeed rather vigorous compared to today)
Though the 1970s GDP really needs to be split around 1974. Very healthy growth at the start of the decade, abysmal growth for the rest of it.
The UK was a basket case by the end of the 1970s.
I appreciate that you are too young to remember, but it was 74 and 74 (fuel crisis) that led to contraction of the economy.
UK GDP Growth was 2.91% in 76, 2.46% in 77, 4.2% in 78 and 3.75% in 79.
Of course there will be benefits, just as there have been disbenefits.
If there really were benefits (there are not) the Tories would have plastered them all over their pledge cards instead of the ludicrous "stop the boats" bollocks.
Let's face it, if a Brexit Benefit came along and forcibly sodomised you til your eyeballs popped out, you'd still be denying its existence. You are emotionally incapable of rational thought on this subject
Then capitalism is dead, at least in its purest form.
If AI leads to mass unemployment and few full time and permanent jobs, most voters ie the non rich and non corporate executives will only vote for parties promising massive robot taxes on corporations to fund big universal basic income and welfare payments.
We will end up with the main western parties effectively offering social democracy just in slightly different forms
Where does the massive robot tax come from? We're a consumerist society, we pay ourselves wages for doing jobs so we can buy the crap the jobs produce. If AI takes all the jobs who buys the crap to produce the taxes? You've got yourself a recursive loop there.
It's possible to imagine a society where 90% of production is automatic, and everyone gets a citizens' income to buy the stiff they produce. It sounds quite nice, really - rather like being a pensioner with a small charity job. But getting from here to there without people being left behind will be non-trivial.
i remember reading a sci-fi story decades ago which had precisely this premise. A world where there was total abundance and almost no work needed to be done
The writer developed the idea that meaingful work would become incredibly precious and enviable, and people who had proper "jobs", even if only for a few hours a week, were regarded as vastly lucky. Everyone else was either bored witless or stoned on drugs to keep them quiet
Indeed, the human desire to make every datapoint fit a storyline is a very dangerous cognitive bias.
We see that here with the belief that because we had 18 years of Tory rule, followed by 13 years of New Labour, followed by another 14 years of Conservative government, then we must now be due 10-15 years of Labour again.
There is no rule to this pattern. And yet it's remarkably persistent.
Its not a rule, but its most probable.
People are pissed off with the Tories now. Unless or until they become more pissed off with Labour than the Tories, then they're likely to re-elect Labour.
Predictions are normally about odds and what is more likely. Currently Labour being in power for a decade is much more likely than not, but it certainly is not guaranteed.
If Labour win the next election, as expected, then they will take over in exceptionally poor circumstances with a tedious, risk-averse leader, and little thought about what to do about Britain's problems beyond a pastiche of Blairite slogans. I think there's a greater than normal potential for the situation to unravel rapidly.
I would have the situation closer to finely balanced than much more likely.
But the circumstances aren't exceptionally poor. That's the frustrating thing.
The economic situation has some real positives, but the Government is either too piss-poor to sell them as positives, or worse is seeing them as negatives.
We have full employment which most likely isn't going to change that significantly. Inflation is due to fall back, which won't reverse the pain of the last couple of years but will mean new pain won't be happening. Real wages should be growing - and its a Government choice not a law of the economy that they're not right now.
Our biggest problems as an economy are that our debt is too high, and the cost of houses are too high, and we should have have moderately high inflation soon which is perfect for handling both of those by allowing deflating both of them as a ratio to GDP/income.
Starmer is a very lucky general and I think he's going to inherit a mixed-golden economic legacy, and worse for the Tories one they've talked down so won't even be able to take credit for and he will be able to claim the credit then.
Average wages are growing about 6 to 7%, any more than that and that would push up inflation at about 7 to 8% yet further
Average wages are declining.
If a wages go up by 7% when inflation is 10% then that's a 3% pay cut, not a pay rise.
But what's worse is that Sunak froze tax thresholds. So when wages go up by 7% then Sunak taxes you more, while your pay is declining.
So someone on UC, with a Student Loan, facing a 78.4% real tax rate may get a 7% pay rise, but of that they keep only 1.5% of that while inflation is 10%. So that's an 8.5% pay cut.
That's fucking shit.
Inflation is now 7-8%, put average wages up to 8-10%+ and you get an inflationary wage spiral.
Basic economics
An economist would know that inflation has been a lot higher and wages have not kept up for that time. So there is a huge deflationary chunk already built in before you start worrying aboiut wages a percentage point or two above inflation for a brief period.
And if average wages had been 10%+ last year, inflation would now also be 10%+ and rising not fallen to 7% now which is closer in line with average wages anyway.
We have historically had long periods where wages rose faster than inflation. Would that not be a good situation to return to?
Yes, the 1970s and no it would not be, the UK economy was a basket case, with soaring inflation and regular strikes led by powerful trade unions, which was why the government changed so frequently
So, the Brexit Tories have taken us back to the 1970s with their inflation, air of dilapidation of public services and widespread strikes. If only we had some better music with it...
(As a matter of fact GDP growth in the UK was higher in the 1970s in the UK than the 1980s: 30.39% from 70-79; 26.66% from 80-89. So the UK economy was not a basket case in the 1970s, indeed rather vigorous compared to today)
Though the 1970s GDP really needs to be split around 1974. Very healthy growth at the start of the decade, abysmal growth for the rest of it.
The UK was a basket case by the end of the 1970s.
Not sure either of your points stack up. I'll let others interpret the growth figures -
The UK was far from a basket case in the second half of the seventies. Ironically the myth of Thatcher could not have taken root but for it. The unfortunate timing of the 1974-79 Labour Government put it in the phase of capital investment for North Sea oil exploration, rather than allowing it to reap the benefits of that investment. Subsequently, Thatcher took advantage and then misused the benefits - she cut tax for the middle class and provided unemployment benefits for over three million people, instead of investing it. As a result we ended up with an economy dominated by the financial services sector in and around London, ultimately leaving us with the mess we have today.
I am sorry to break it to you. Even the government had to disband it's Department for Brexit Opportunities (titter) because it could not find any. There are no benefits of Brexit. There are no fairies at the end of the garden. There are no alien landings.
But I just showed you one. We are now free of burdensome EU regulation on AI. We can develop it as we wish. Now, we may fuck this up - given our recent track record, that's probably a good bet - but at least with Brexit we have the opportunity to steer our own course. That is a palpable benefit. It's up to us to exploit it, or not
“The UK’s approach is driven, in a post-Brexit world, by a desire to encourage AI investment,” [the expert] added, which gives the U.K. more “freedom and flexibility to pitch regulation at the appropriate level to encourage investment,” he said in an email to CNBC.
In contrast the EU’s AI Act could make France “less attractive” for investment in artificial intelligence given that it lays down “a burdensome regulatory regime” for AI, Tanna said."
I will see whether I can throw you another straw to grasp at.
For there to be genuine "benefits of Brexit" for any business, the benefit will need to demonstrably outweigh the disbenefit. As I have self interest in AI I will happily concede if that turns out to be the case. At the moment it seems very unlikely that many businesses that are using AI enabled products would think they have an overall benefit by the UK not being part of the the biggest single market in the world.
We shall see
"The EU Should Learn From How the UK Regulates AI to Stay Competitive"
Though before we preen ourselves too much about the UK's tech savvy, remember that, as things stand, HMG is about to regulate online messaging out of existence;
Absolutely. It is entirely possible - even likely? - that we will screw it up. That is the point of Brexit: it's up to us
Tho we are doing alright on AI so far, with some serious players in London
AI should fuck off back to the Terminator franchise!
2030
"@ Sunil_Prasannan - You have been found guilty of disrespect to the LGBTQIA+AI community, due to your remarks on political betting in the past. You are sentenced to 100 years of cryo-prison."
I am sorry to break it to you. Even the government had to disband it's Department for Brexit Opportunities (titter) because it could not find any. There are no benefits of Brexit. There are no fairies at the end of the garden. There are no alien landings.
But I just showed you one. We are now free of burdensome EU regulation on AI. We can develop it as we wish. Now, we may fuck this up - given our recent track record, that's probably a good bet - but at least with Brexit we have the opportunity to steer our own course. That is a palpable benefit. It's up to us to exploit it, or not
“The UK’s approach is driven, in a post-Brexit world, by a desire to encourage AI investment,” [the expert] added, which gives the U.K. more “freedom and flexibility to pitch regulation at the appropriate level to encourage investment,” he said in an email to CNBC.
In contrast the EU’s AI Act could make France “less attractive” for investment in artificial intelligence given that it lays down “a burdensome regulatory regime” for AI, Tanna said."
I will see whether I can throw you another straw to grasp at.
For there to be genuine "benefits of Brexit" for any business, the benefit will need to demonstrably outweigh the disbenefit. As I have self interest in AI I will happily concede if that turns out to be the case. At the moment it seems very unlikely that many businesses that are using AI enabled products would think they have an overall benefit by the UK not being part of the the biggest single market in the world.
We shall see
"The EU Should Learn From How the UK Regulates AI to Stay Competitive"
Though before we preen ourselves too much about the UK's tech savvy, remember that, as things stand, HMG is about to regulate online messaging out of existence;
Absolutely. It is entirely possible - even likely? - that we will screw it up. That is the point of Brexit: it's up to us
Tho we are doing alright on AI so far, with some serious players in London
AI should fuck off back to the Terminator franchise!
2030
"@ Sunil_Prasannan - You have been found guilty of disrespect to the LGBTQIA+AI community, due to your remarks on political betting in the past. You are sentenced to 100 years of cryo-prison."
I am sorry to break it to you. Even the government had to disband it's Department for Brexit Opportunities (titter) because it could not find any. There are no benefits of Brexit. There are no fairies at the end of the garden. There are no alien landings.
But I just showed you one. We are now free of burdensome EU regulation on AI. We can develop it as we wish. Now, we may fuck this up - given our recent track record, that's probably a good bet - but at least with Brexit we have the opportunity to steer our own course. That is a palpable benefit. It's up to us to exploit it, or not
“The UK’s approach is driven, in a post-Brexit world, by a desire to encourage AI investment,” [the expert] added, which gives the U.K. more “freedom and flexibility to pitch regulation at the appropriate level to encourage investment,” he said in an email to CNBC.
In contrast the EU’s AI Act could make France “less attractive” for investment in artificial intelligence given that it lays down “a burdensome regulatory regime” for AI, Tanna said."
I will see whether I can throw you another straw to grasp at.
For there to be genuine "benefits of Brexit" for any business, the benefit will need to demonstrably outweigh the disbenefit. As I have self interest in AI I will happily concede if that turns out to be the case. At the moment it seems very unlikely that many businesses that are using AI enabled products would think they have an overall benefit by the UK not being part of the the biggest single market in the world.
We shall see
"The EU Should Learn From How the UK Regulates AI to Stay Competitive"
Though before we preen ourselves too much about the UK's tech savvy, remember that, as things stand, HMG is about to regulate online messaging out of existence;
Absolutely. It is entirely possible - even likely? - that we will screw it up. That is the point of Brexit: it's up to us
Tho we are doing alright on AI so far, with some serious players in London
AI should fuck off back to the Terminator franchise!
2030
"@ Sunil_Prasannan - You have been found guilty of disrespect to the LGBTQIA+AI community, due to your remarks on political betting in the past. You are sentenced to 100 years of cryo-prison."
Indeed, the human desire to make every datapoint fit a storyline is a very dangerous cognitive bias.
We see that here with the belief that because we had 18 years of Tory rule, followed by 13 years of New Labour, followed by another 14 years of Conservative government, then we must now be due 10-15 years of Labour again.
There is no rule to this pattern. And yet it's remarkably persistent.
Its not a rule, but its most probable.
People are pissed off with the Tories now. Unless or until they become more pissed off with Labour than the Tories, then they're likely to re-elect Labour.
Predictions are normally about odds and what is more likely. Currently Labour being in power for a decade is much more likely than not, but it certainly is not guaranteed.
If Labour win the next election, as expected, then they will take over in exceptionally poor circumstances with a tedious, risk-averse leader, and little thought about what to do about Britain's problems beyond a pastiche of Blairite slogans. I think there's a greater than normal potential for the situation to unravel rapidly.
I would have the situation closer to finely balanced than much more likely.
But the circumstances aren't exceptionally poor. That's the frustrating thing.
The economic situation has some real positives, but the Government is either too piss-poor to sell them as positives, or worse is seeing them as negatives.
We have full employment which most likely isn't going to change that significantly. Inflation is due to fall back, which won't reverse the pain of the last couple of years but will mean new pain won't be happening. Real wages should be growing - and its a Government choice not a law of the economy that they're not right now.
Our biggest problems as an economy are that our debt is too high, and the cost of houses are too high, and we should have have moderately high inflation soon which is perfect for handling both of those by allowing deflating both of them as a ratio to GDP/income.
Starmer is a very lucky general and I think he's going to inherit a mixed-golden economic legacy, and worse for the Tories one they've talked down so won't even be able to take credit for and he will be able to claim the credit then.
Average wages are growing about 6 to 7%, any more than that and that would push up inflation at about 7 to 8% yet further
Average wages are declining.
If a wages go up by 7% when inflation is 10% then that's a 3% pay cut, not a pay rise.
But what's worse is that Sunak froze tax thresholds. So when wages go up by 7% then Sunak taxes you more, while your pay is declining.
So someone on UC, with a Student Loan, facing a 78.4% real tax rate may get a 7% pay rise, but of that they keep only 1.5% of that while inflation is 10%. So that's an 8.5% pay cut.
That's fucking shit.
Inflation is now 7-8%, put average wages up to 8-10%+ and you get an inflationary wage spiral.
Basic economics
An economist would know that inflation has been a lot higher and wages have not kept up for that time. So there is a huge deflationary chunk already built in before you start worrying aboiut wages a percentage point or two above inflation for a brief period.
And if average wages had been 10%+ last year, inflation would now also be 10%+ and rising not fallen to 7% now which is closer in line with average wages anyway.
We have historically had long periods where wages rose faster than inflation. Would that not be a good situation to return to?
Yes, the 1970s and no it would not be, the UK economy was a basket case, with soaring inflation and regular strikes led by powerful trade unions, which was why the government changed so frequently
So, the Brexit Tories have taken us back to the 1970s with their inflation, air of dilapidation of public services and widespread strikes. If only we had some better music with it...
(As a matter of fact GDP growth in the UK was higher in the 1970s in the UK than the 1980s: 30.39% from 70-79; 26.66% from 80-89. So the UK economy was not a basket case in the 1970s, indeed rather vigorous compared to today)
Though the 1970s GDP really needs to be split around 1974. Very healthy growth at the start of the decade, abysmal growth for the rest of it.
The UK was a basket case by the end of the 1970s.
Not sure either of your points stack up. I'll let others interpret the growth figures -
The UK was far from a basket case in the second half of the seventies. Ironically the myth of Thatcher could not have taken root but for it. The unfortunate timing of the 1974-79 Labour Government put it in the phase of capital investment for North Sea oil exploration, rather than allowing it to reap the benefits of that investment. Subsequently, Thatcher took advantage and then misused the benefits - she cut tax for the middle class and provided unemployment benefits for over three million people, instead of investing it. As a result we ended up with an economy dominated by the financial services sector in and around London, ultimately leaving us with the mess we have today.
Your version is the alternative myth of Fatcha, who alone is responsible for everything that's wrong with modern Britain.
Indeed, the human desire to make every datapoint fit a storyline is a very dangerous cognitive bias.
We see that here with the belief that because we had 18 years of Tory rule, followed by 13 years of New Labour, followed by another 14 years of Conservative government, then we must now be due 10-15 years of Labour again.
There is no rule to this pattern. And yet it's remarkably persistent.
Its not a rule, but its most probable.
People are pissed off with the Tories now. Unless or until they become more pissed off with Labour than the Tories, then they're likely to re-elect Labour.
Predictions are normally about odds and what is more likely. Currently Labour being in power for a decade is much more likely than not, but it certainly is not guaranteed.
If Labour win the next election, as expected, then they will take over in exceptionally poor circumstances with a tedious, risk-averse leader, and little thought about what to do about Britain's problems beyond a pastiche of Blairite slogans. I think there's a greater than normal potential for the situation to unravel rapidly.
I would have the situation closer to finely balanced than much more likely.
But the circumstances aren't exceptionally poor. That's the frustrating thing.
The economic situation has some real positives, but the Government is either too piss-poor to sell them as positives, or worse is seeing them as negatives.
We have full employment which most likely isn't going to change that significantly. Inflation is due to fall back, which won't reverse the pain of the last couple of years but will mean new pain won't be happening. Real wages should be growing - and its a Government choice not a law of the economy that they're not right now.
Our biggest problems as an economy are that our debt is too high, and the cost of houses are too high, and we should have have moderately high inflation soon which is perfect for handling both of those by allowing deflating both of them as a ratio to GDP/income.
Starmer is a very lucky general and I think he's going to inherit a mixed-golden economic legacy, and worse for the Tories one they've talked down so won't even be able to take credit for and he will be able to claim the credit then.
Average wages are growing about 6 to 7%, any more than that and that would push up inflation at about 7 to 8% yet further
Average wages are declining.
If a wages go up by 7% when inflation is 10% then that's a 3% pay cut, not a pay rise.
But what's worse is that Sunak froze tax thresholds. So when wages go up by 7% then Sunak taxes you more, while your pay is declining.
So someone on UC, with a Student Loan, facing a 78.4% real tax rate may get a 7% pay rise, but of that they keep only 1.5% of that while inflation is 10%. So that's an 8.5% pay cut.
That's fucking shit.
Inflation is now 7-8%, put average wages up to 8-10%+ and you get an inflationary wage spiral.
Basic economics
An economist would know that inflation has been a lot higher and wages have not kept up for that time. So there is a huge deflationary chunk already built in before you start worrying aboiut wages a percentage point or two above inflation for a brief period.
And if average wages had been 10%+ last year, inflation would now also be 10%+ and rising not fallen to 7% now which is closer in line with average wages anyway.
We have historically had long periods where wages rose faster than inflation. Would that not be a good situation to return to?
Yes, the 1970s and no it would not be, the UK economy was a basket case, with soaring inflation and regular strikes led by powerful trade unions, which was why the government changed so frequently
So, the Brexit Tories have taken us back to the 1970s with their inflation, air of dilapidation of public services and widespread strikes. If only we had some better music with it...
(As a matter of fact GDP growth in the UK was higher in the 1970s in the UK than the 1980s: 30.39% from 70-79; 26.66% from 80-89. So the UK economy was not a basket case in the 1970s, indeed rather vigorous compared to today)
Though the 1970s GDP really needs to be split around 1974. Very healthy growth at the start of the decade, abysmal growth for the rest of it.
The UK was a basket case by the end of the 1970s.
Not sure either of your points stack up. I'll let others interpret the growth figures -
The UK was far from a basket case in the second half of the seventies. Ironically the myth of Thatcher could not have taken root but for it. The unfortunate timing of the 1974-79 Labour Government put it in the phase of capital investment for North Sea oil exploration, rather than allowing it to reap the benefits of that investment. Subsequently, Thatcher took advantage and then misused the benefits - she cut tax for the middle class and provided unemployment benefits for over three million people, instead of investing it. As a result we ended up with an economy dominated by the financial services sector in and around London, ultimately leaving us with the mess we have today.
Your version is the alternative myth of Fatcha, who alone is responsible for everything that's wrong with modern Britain.
Quite a lot but sometimes Tories miss the point of references to Mrs Thatcher which is to point out the real Prime Minister was more nuanced than the caricature they idolise.
You are emotionally incapable of rational thought on this subject
I am right, and you know it.
That Sean Thomas chap agrees,
And to be fair to these people, since the Brexit vote, obvious, tangible, yay-look-at-this Brexit Benefits have been pretty thin on the ground. Or, in fact, utterly non existent.
He's then reduced to fluffing low tax digital nomad visas if you move to Spain.
Indeed, the human desire to make every datapoint fit a storyline is a very dangerous cognitive bias.
We see that here with the belief that because we had 18 years of Tory rule, followed by 13 years of New Labour, followed by another 14 years of Conservative government, then we must now be due 10-15 years of Labour again.
There is no rule to this pattern. And yet it's remarkably persistent.
Its not a rule, but its most probable.
People are pissed off with the Tories now. Unless or until they become more pissed off with Labour than the Tories, then they're likely to re-elect Labour.
Predictions are normally about odds and what is more likely. Currently Labour being in power for a decade is much more likely than not, but it certainly is not guaranteed.
If Labour win the next election, as expected, then they will take over in exceptionally poor circumstances with a tedious, risk-averse leader, and little thought about what to do about Britain's problems beyond a pastiche of Blairite slogans. I think there's a greater than normal potential for the situation to unravel rapidly.
I would have the situation closer to finely balanced than much more likely.
But the circumstances aren't exceptionally poor. That's the frustrating thing.
The economic situation has some real positives, but the Government is either too piss-poor to sell them as positives, or worse is seeing them as negatives.
We have full employment which most likely isn't going to change that significantly. Inflation is due to fall back, which won't reverse the pain of the last couple of years but will mean new pain won't be happening. Real wages should be growing - and its a Government choice not a law of the economy that they're not right now.
Our biggest problems as an economy are that our debt is too high, and the cost of houses are too high, and we should have have moderately high inflation soon which is perfect for handling both of those by allowing deflating both of them as a ratio to GDP/income.
Starmer is a very lucky general and I think he's going to inherit a mixed-golden economic legacy, and worse for the Tories one they've talked down so won't even be able to take credit for and he will be able to claim the credit then.
Average wages are growing about 6 to 7%, any more than that and that would push up inflation at about 7 to 8% yet further
Average wages are declining.
If a wages go up by 7% when inflation is 10% then that's a 3% pay cut, not a pay rise.
But what's worse is that Sunak froze tax thresholds. So when wages go up by 7% then Sunak taxes you more, while your pay is declining.
So someone on UC, with a Student Loan, facing a 78.4% real tax rate may get a 7% pay rise, but of that they keep only 1.5% of that while inflation is 10%. So that's an 8.5% pay cut.
That's fucking shit.
Inflation is now 7-8%, put average wages up to 8-10%+ and you get an inflationary wage spiral.
Basic economics
An economist would know that inflation has been a lot higher and wages have not kept up for that time. So there is a huge deflationary chunk already built in before you start worrying aboiut wages a percentage point or two above inflation for a brief period.
And if average wages had been 10%+ last year, inflation would now also be 10%+ and rising not fallen to 7% now which is closer in line with average wages anyway.
We have historically had long periods where wages rose faster than inflation. Would that not be a good situation to return to?
Yes, the 1970s and no it would not be, the UK economy was a basket case, with soaring inflation and regular strikes led by powerful trade unions, which was why the government changed so frequently
So, the Brexit Tories have taken us back to the 1970s with their inflation, air of dilapidation of public services and widespread strikes. If only we had some better music with it...
(As a matter of fact GDP growth in the UK was higher in the 1970s in the UK than the 1980s: 30.39% from 70-79; 26.66% from 80-89. So the UK economy was not a basket case in the 1970s, indeed rather vigorous compared to today)
Though the 1970s GDP really needs to be split around 1974. Very healthy growth at the start of the decade, abysmal growth for the rest of it.
The UK was a basket case by the end of the 1970s.
Not sure either of your points stack up. I'll let others interpret the growth figures -
The UK was far from a basket case in the second half of the seventies. Ironically the myth of Thatcher could not have taken root but for it. The unfortunate timing of the 1974-79 Labour Government put it in the phase of capital investment for North Sea oil exploration, rather than allowing it to reap the benefits of that investment. Subsequently, Thatcher took advantage and then misused the benefits - she cut tax for the middle class and provided unemployment benefits for over three million people, instead of investing it. As a result we ended up with an economy dominated by the financial services sector in and around London, ultimately leaving us with the mess we have today.
Your version is the alternative myth of Fatcha, who alone is responsible for everything that's wrong with modern Britain.
Quite a lot but sometimes Tories miss the point of references to Mrs Thatcher which is to point out the real Prime Minister was more nuanced than the caricature they idolise.
Speaking as a sometime ex-Tory I don't think anyone but a few idolise a caricature. But what we do realise is that she changed British politics, and arguably society and on the whole the change was beneficial. Not without exception but she managed to transform society which is no small achievement especially when "Thatcherite reforms" were not rolled back at the earliest opportunity by eg the next Labour govt to get into power.
Of course there will be benefits, just as there have been disbenefits.
If there really were benefits (there are not) the Tories would have plastered them all over their pledge cards instead of the ludicrous "stop the boats" bollocks.
Let's face it, if a Brexit Benefit came along and forcibly sodomised you til your eyeballs popped out..
Indeed, the human desire to make every datapoint fit a storyline is a very dangerous cognitive bias.
We see that here with the belief that because we had 18 years of Tory rule, followed by 13 years of New Labour, followed by another 14 years of Conservative government, then we must now be due 10-15 years of Labour again.
There is no rule to this pattern. And yet it's remarkably persistent.
Its not a rule, but its most probable.
People are pissed off with the Tories now. Unless or until they become more pissed off with Labour than the Tories, then they're likely to re-elect Labour.
Predictions are normally about odds and what is more likely. Currently Labour being in power for a decade is much more likely than not, but it certainly is not guaranteed.
If Labour win the next election, as expected, then they will take over in exceptionally poor circumstances with a tedious, risk-averse leader, and little thought about what to do about Britain's problems beyond a pastiche of Blairite slogans. I think there's a greater than normal potential for the situation to unravel rapidly.
I would have the situation closer to finely balanced than much more likely.
But the circumstances aren't exceptionally poor. That's the frustrating thing.
The economic situation has some real positives, but the Government is either too piss-poor to sell them as positives, or worse is seeing them as negatives.
We have full employment which most likely isn't going to change that significantly. Inflation is due to fall back, which won't reverse the pain of the last couple of years but will mean new pain won't be happening. Real wages should be growing - and its a Government choice not a law of the economy that they're not right now.
Our biggest problems as an economy are that our debt is too high, and the cost of houses are too high, and we should have have moderately high inflation soon which is perfect for handling both of those by allowing deflating both of them as a ratio to GDP/income.
Starmer is a very lucky general and I think he's going to inherit a mixed-golden economic legacy, and worse for the Tories one they've talked down so won't even be able to take credit for and he will be able to claim the credit then.
Average wages are growing about 6 to 7%, any more than that and that would push up inflation at about 7 to 8% yet further
Average wages are declining.
If a wages go up by 7% when inflation is 10% then that's a 3% pay cut, not a pay rise.
But what's worse is that Sunak froze tax thresholds. So when wages go up by 7% then Sunak taxes you more, while your pay is declining.
So someone on UC, with a Student Loan, facing a 78.4% real tax rate may get a 7% pay rise, but of that they keep only 1.5% of that while inflation is 10%. So that's an 8.5% pay cut.
That's fucking shit.
Inflation is now 7-8%, put average wages up to 8-10%+ and you get an inflationary wage spiral.
Basic economics
An economist would know that inflation has been a lot higher and wages have not kept up for that time. So there is a huge deflationary chunk already built in before you start worrying aboiut wages a percentage point or two above inflation for a brief period.
And if average wages had been 10%+ last year, inflation would now also be 10%+ and rising not fallen to 7% now which is closer in line with average wages anyway.
We have historically had long periods where wages rose faster than inflation. Would that not be a good situation to return to?
Yes, the 1970s and no it would not be, the UK economy was a basket case, with soaring inflation and regular strikes led by powerful trade unions, which was why the government changed so frequently
So, the Brexit Tories have taken us back to the 1970s with their inflation, air of dilapidation of public services and widespread strikes. If only we had some better music with it...
(As a matter of fact GDP growth in the UK was higher in the 1970s in the UK than the 1980s: 30.39% from 70-79; 26.66% from 80-89. So the UK economy was not a basket case in the 1970s, indeed rather vigorous compared to today)
Though the 1970s GDP really needs to be split around 1974. Very healthy growth at the start of the decade, abysmal growth for the rest of it.
The UK was a basket case by the end of the 1970s.
Not sure either of your points stack up. I'll let others interpret the growth figures -
The UK was far from a basket case in the second half of the seventies. Ironically the myth of Thatcher could not have taken root but for it. The unfortunate timing of the 1974-79 Labour Government put it in the phase of capital investment for North Sea oil exploration, rather than allowing it to reap the benefits of that investment. Subsequently, Thatcher took advantage and then misused the benefits - she cut tax for the middle class and provided unemployment benefits for over three million people, instead of investing it. As a result we ended up with an economy dominated by the financial services sector in and around London, ultimately leaving us with the mess we have today.
The mess we have today? In the late 1970s we had a brain drain of our most talented and highest earners to the US, Hong Kong, Switzerland etc due to sky high taxes, over regulation and union dominated inefficient industry.
London was miles behind New York city, now London is clearly the financial centre of Europe and a genuine alternative for global high flyers
From the article: "Picture postcards of the era – a popular way for visitors to show families back home where they were visiting in the years before photography was commonplace – made much of the pub's quirks." Have we really reached the point now where we have to explain what a postcard is? I feel old!
Crikey, me too. OLD
Tho it makes sense. I wonder how many kids have any idea what a "typewriter" is, or what it does
Or a slide rule. They're great for teaching logarithms and inciting interest in engineering.
Soon we'll be asking the same question about a road atlas.
Or a brain cell. OMG I'm going to have read H G Wells's Time Machine again.
Joined-up writing has now almost disappeared for most people under 40. When I went to a car garage and wrote a description of the problem for the engineers, this guy was staring at me with his mouth open because I was joining each letter to the next one.
It would be amusing if it wasn't so scary to hear middle-class graduate types, when asked, say the reason they print letters like an infant and don't join them up is because it's "quicker". (It isn't. It's slower. Anyone who can actually do joined-up writing can verify this.)
Indeed, the human desire to make every datapoint fit a storyline is a very dangerous cognitive bias.
We see that here with the belief that because we had 18 years of Tory rule, followed by 13 years of New Labour, followed by another 14 years of Conservative government, then we must now be due 10-15 years of Labour again.
There is no rule to this pattern. And yet it's remarkably persistent.
Its not a rule, but its most probable.
People are pissed off with the Tories now. Unless or until they become more pissed off with Labour than the Tories, then they're likely to re-elect Labour.
Predictions are normally about odds and what is more likely. Currently Labour being in power for a decade is much more likely than not, but it certainly is not guaranteed.
If Labour win the next election, as expected, then they will take over in exceptionally poor circumstances with a tedious, risk-averse leader, and little thought about what to do about Britain's problems beyond a pastiche of Blairite slogans. I think there's a greater than normal potential for the situation to unravel rapidly.
I would have the situation closer to finely balanced than much more likely.
But the circumstances aren't exceptionally poor. That's the frustrating thing.
The economic situation has some real positives, but the Government is either too piss-poor to sell them as positives, or worse is seeing them as negatives.
We have full employment which most likely isn't going to change that significantly. Inflation is due to fall back, which won't reverse the pain of the last couple of years but will mean new pain won't be happening. Real wages should be growing - and its a Government choice not a law of the economy that they're not right now.
Our biggest problems as an economy are that our debt is too high, and the cost of houses are too high, and we should have have moderately high inflation soon which is perfect for handling both of those by allowing deflating both of them as a ratio to GDP/income.
Starmer is a very lucky general and I think he's going to inherit a mixed-golden economic legacy, and worse for the Tories one they've talked down so won't even be able to take credit for and he will be able to claim the credit then.
Average wages are growing about 6 to 7%, any more than that and that would push up inflation at about 7 to 8% yet further
Average wages are declining.
If a wages go up by 7% when inflation is 10% then that's a 3% pay cut, not a pay rise.
But what's worse is that Sunak froze tax thresholds. So when wages go up by 7% then Sunak taxes you more, while your pay is declining.
So someone on UC, with a Student Loan, facing a 78.4% real tax rate may get a 7% pay rise, but of that they keep only 1.5% of that while inflation is 10%. So that's an 8.5% pay cut.
That's fucking shit.
Inflation is now 7-8%, put average wages up to 8-10%+ and you get an inflationary wage spiral.
Basic economics
An economist would know that inflation has been a lot higher and wages have not kept up for that time. So there is a huge deflationary chunk already built in before you start worrying aboiut wages a percentage point or two above inflation for a brief period.
And if average wages had been 10%+ last year, inflation would now also be 10%+ and rising not fallen to 7% now which is closer in line with average wages anyway.
We have historically had long periods where wages rose faster than inflation. Would that not be a good situation to return to?
Yes, the 1970s and no it would not be, the UK economy was a basket case, with soaring inflation and regular strikes led by powerful trade unions, which was why the government changed so frequently
So, the Brexit Tories have taken us back to the 1970s with their inflation, air of dilapidation of public services and widespread strikes. If only we had some better music with it...
(As a matter of fact GDP growth in the UK was higher in the 1970s in the UK than the 1980s: 30.39% from 70-79; 26.66% from 80-89. So the UK economy was not a basket case in the 1970s, indeed rather vigorous compared to today)
Though the 1970s GDP really needs to be split around 1974. Very healthy growth at the start of the decade, abysmal growth for the rest of it.
The UK was a basket case by the end of the 1970s.
Not sure either of your points stack up. I'll let others interpret the growth figures -
The UK was far from a basket case in the second half of the seventies. Ironically the myth of Thatcher could not have taken root but for it. The unfortunate timing of the 1974-79 Labour Government put it in the phase of capital investment for North Sea oil exploration, rather than allowing it to reap the benefits of that investment. Subsequently, Thatcher took advantage and then misused the benefits - she cut tax for the middle class and provided unemployment benefits for over three million people, instead of investing it. As a result we ended up with an economy dominated by the financial services sector in and around London, ultimately leaving us with the mess we have today.
Your version is the alternative myth of Fatcha, who alone is responsible for everything that's wrong with modern Britain.
Don't be silly.
The reality is that any reasonable analysis of the Thatcher era can't ignore that it was the root of a number of our current problems. The increasing concentration of wealth and political power in London is certainly one of them; the arse made of water privatisation another. Housing, too.
Of course there are balancing positives, but it was a decidedly mixed record.
Indeed, the human desire to make every datapoint fit a storyline is a very dangerous cognitive bias.
We see that here with the belief that because we had 18 years of Tory rule, followed by 13 years of New Labour, followed by another 14 years of Conservative government, then we must now be due 10-15 years of Labour again.
There is no rule to this pattern. And yet it's remarkably persistent.
Its not a rule, but its most probable.
People are pissed off with the Tories now. Unless or until they become more pissed off with Labour than the Tories, then they're likely to re-elect Labour.
Predictions are normally about odds and what is more likely. Currently Labour being in power for a decade is much more likely than not, but it certainly is not guaranteed.
If Labour win the next election, as expected, then they will take over in exceptionally poor circumstances with a tedious, risk-averse leader, and little thought about what to do about Britain's problems beyond a pastiche of Blairite slogans. I think there's a greater than normal potential for the situation to unravel rapidly.
I would have the situation closer to finely balanced than much more likely.
But the circumstances aren't exceptionally poor. That's the frustrating thing.
The economic situation has some real positives, but the Government is either too piss-poor to sell them as positives, or worse is seeing them as negatives.
We have full employment which most likely isn't going to change that significantly. Inflation is due to fall back, which won't reverse the pain of the last couple of years but will mean new pain won't be happening. Real wages should be growing - and its a Government choice not a law of the economy that they're not right now.
Our biggest problems as an economy are that our debt is too high, and the cost of houses are too high, and we should have have moderately high inflation soon which is perfect for handling both of those by allowing deflating both of them as a ratio to GDP/income.
Starmer is a very lucky general and I think he's going to inherit a mixed-golden economic legacy, and worse for the Tories one they've talked down so won't even be able to take credit for and he will be able to claim the credit then.
Average wages are growing about 6 to 7%, any more than that and that would push up inflation at about 7 to 8% yet further
Average wages are declining.
If a wages go up by 7% when inflation is 10% then that's a 3% pay cut, not a pay rise.
But what's worse is that Sunak froze tax thresholds. So when wages go up by 7% then Sunak taxes you more, while your pay is declining.
So someone on UC, with a Student Loan, facing a 78.4% real tax rate may get a 7% pay rise, but of that they keep only 1.5% of that while inflation is 10%. So that's an 8.5% pay cut.
That's fucking shit.
Inflation is now 7-8%, put average wages up to 8-10%+ and you get an inflationary wage spiral.
Basic economics
An economist would know that inflation has been a lot higher and wages have not kept up for that time. So there is a huge deflationary chunk already built in before you start worrying aboiut wages a percentage point or two above inflation for a brief period.
And if average wages had been 10%+ last year, inflation would now also be 10%+ and rising not fallen to 7% now which is closer in line with average wages anyway.
We have historically had long periods where wages rose faster than inflation. Would that not be a good situation to return to?
Yes, the 1970s and no it would not be, the UK economy was a basket case, with soaring inflation and regular strikes led by powerful trade unions, which was why the government changed so frequently
So, the Brexit Tories have taken us back to the 1970s with their inflation, air of dilapidation of public services and widespread strikes. If only we had some better music with it...
(As a matter of fact GDP growth in the UK was higher in the 1970s in the UK than the 1980s: 30.39% from 70-79; 26.66% from 80-89. So the UK economy was not a basket case in the 1970s, indeed rather vigorous compared to today)
Though the 1970s GDP really needs to be split around 1974. Very healthy growth at the start of the decade, abysmal growth for the rest of it.
The UK was a basket case by the end of the 1970s.
Not sure either of your points stack up. I'll let others interpret the growth figures -
The UK was far from a basket case in the second half of the seventies. Ironically the myth of Thatcher could not have taken root but for it. The unfortunate timing of the 1974-79 Labour Government put it in the phase of capital investment for North Sea oil exploration, rather than allowing it to reap the benefits of that investment. Subsequently, Thatcher took advantage and then misused the benefits - she cut tax for the middle class and provided unemployment benefits for over three million people, instead of investing it. As a result we ended up with an economy dominated by the financial services sector in and around London, ultimately leaving us with the mess we have today.
Your version is the alternative myth of Fatcha, who alone is responsible for everything that's wrong with modern Britain.
Don't be silly.
The reality is that any reasonable analysis of the Thatcher era can't ignore that it was the root of a number of our current problems. The increasing concentration of wealth and political power in London is certainly one of them; the arse made of water privatisation another. Housing, too.
Of course there are balancing positives, but it was a decidedly mixed record.
Balancing the economy on the financial sector - yes, totally true. Aka stopping the country from producing very much at all.
Delapidation of public services - one example is the slumification of state-owned housing, which began in the 1980s and has been ongoing ever since, including under Blair and Brown, so it's not quite accurate to say the Tories are returning to it. This didn't have to happen. In the 1970s many council houses were in good condition and tended to have quite large rooms compared to private-sector houses, albeit smaller plots, often no driveways, too much concrete, and so on - but they were by no means all "slums in the sky" or on "sink estates". Take a look at the St Helier estate in south London, which had quite a garden city feel. Less of a drug problem then too.
Then capitalism is dead, at least in its purest form.
If AI leads to mass unemployment and few full time and permanent jobs, most voters ie the non rich and non corporate executives will only vote for parties promising massive robot taxes on corporations to fund big universal basic income and welfare payments.
We will end up with the main western parties effectively offering social democracy just in slightly different forms
Where does the massive robot tax come from? We're a consumerist society, we pay ourselves wages for doing jobs so we can buy the crap the jobs produce. If AI takes all the jobs who buys the crap to produce the taxes? You've got yourself a recursive loop there.
It's possible to imagine a society where 90% of production is automatic, and everyone gets a citizens' income to buy the stiff they produce. It sounds quite nice, really - rather like being a pensioner with a small charity job. But getting from here to there without people being left behind will be non-trivial.
i remember reading a sci-fi story decades ago which had precisely this premise. A world where there was total abundance and almost no work needed to be done
The writer developed the idea that meaingful work would become incredibly precious and enviable, and people who had proper "jobs", even if only for a few hours a week, were regarded as vastly lucky. Everyone else was either bored witless or stoned on drugs to keep them quiet
Brilliant bit of foresight, looking back
A society with complete abundance of resources, run along anarchistic lines by benevolent AIs is the premise of Iain Banks's 'Culture' novels. Nobody seems to get too bored, but maybe the novels about boring cultures didn't sell well.
Indeed, the human desire to make every datapoint fit a storyline is a very dangerous cognitive bias.
We see that here with the belief that because we had 18 years of Tory rule, followed by 13 years of New Labour, followed by another 14 years of Conservative government, then we must now be due 10-15 years of Labour again.
There is no rule to this pattern. And yet it's remarkably persistent.
Its not a rule, but its most probable.
People are pissed off with the Tories now. Unless or until they become more pissed off with Labour than the Tories, then they're likely to re-elect Labour.
Predictions are normally about odds and what is more likely. Currently Labour being in power for a decade is much more likely than not, but it certainly is not guaranteed.
If Labour win the next election, as expected, then they will take over in exceptionally poor circumstances with a tedious, risk-averse leader, and little thought about what to do about Britain's problems beyond a pastiche of Blairite slogans. I think there's a greater than normal potential for the situation to unravel rapidly.
I would have the situation closer to finely balanced than much more likely.
But the circumstances aren't exceptionally poor. That's the frustrating thing.
The economic situation has some real positives, but the Government is either too piss-poor to sell them as positives, or worse is seeing them as negatives.
We have full employment which most likely isn't going to change that significantly. Inflation is due to fall back, which won't reverse the pain of the last couple of years but will mean new pain won't be happening. Real wages should be growing - and its a Government choice not a law of the economy that they're not right now.
Our biggest problems as an economy are that our debt is too high, and the cost of houses are too high, and we should have have moderately high inflation soon which is perfect for handling both of those by allowing deflating both of them as a ratio to GDP/income.
Starmer is a very lucky general and I think he's going to inherit a mixed-golden economic legacy, and worse for the Tories one they've talked down so won't even be able to take credit for and he will be able to claim the credit then.
Average wages are growing about 6 to 7%, any more than that and that would push up inflation at about 7 to 8% yet further
Average wages are declining.
If a wages go up by 7% when inflation is 10% then that's a 3% pay cut, not a pay rise.
But what's worse is that Sunak froze tax thresholds. So when wages go up by 7% then Sunak taxes you more, while your pay is declining.
So someone on UC, with a Student Loan, facing a 78.4% real tax rate may get a 7% pay rise, but of that they keep only 1.5% of that while inflation is 10%. So that's an 8.5% pay cut.
That's fucking shit.
Inflation is now 7-8%, put average wages up to 8-10%+ and you get an inflationary wage spiral.
Basic economics
An economist would know that inflation has been a lot higher and wages have not kept up for that time. So there is a huge deflationary chunk already built in before you start worrying aboiut wages a percentage point or two above inflation for a brief period.
And if average wages had been 10%+ last year, inflation would now also be 10%+ and rising not fallen to 7% now which is closer in line with average wages anyway.
We have historically had long periods where wages rose faster than inflation. Would that not be a good situation to return to?
Yes, the 1970s and no it would not be, the UK economy was a basket case, with soaring inflation and regular strikes led by powerful trade unions, which was why the government changed so frequently
So, the Brexit Tories have taken us back to the 1970s with their inflation, air of dilapidation of public services and widespread strikes. If only we had some better music with it...
(As a matter of fact GDP growth in the UK was higher in the 1970s in the UK than the 1980s: 30.39% from 70-79; 26.66% from 80-89. So the UK economy was not a basket case in the 1970s, indeed rather vigorous compared to today)
Though the 1970s GDP really needs to be split around 1974. Very healthy growth at the start of the decade, abysmal growth for the rest of it.
The UK was a basket case by the end of the 1970s.
Not sure either of your points stack up. I'll let others interpret the growth figures -
The UK was far from a basket case in the second half of the seventies. Ironically the myth of Thatcher could not have taken root but for it. The unfortunate timing of the 1974-79 Labour Government put it in the phase of capital investment for North Sea oil exploration, rather than allowing it to reap the benefits of that investment. Subsequently, Thatcher took advantage and then misused the benefits - she cut tax for the middle class and provided unemployment benefits for over three million people, instead of investing it. As a result we ended up with an economy dominated by the financial services sector in and around London, ultimately leaving us with the mess we have today.
Your version is the alternative myth of Fatcha, who alone is responsible for everything that's wrong with modern Britain.
Don't be silly.
The reality is that any reasonable analysis of the Thatcher era can't ignore that it was the root of a number of our current problems. The increasing concentration of wealth and political power in London is certainly one of them; the arse made of water privatisation another. Housing, too.
Of course there are balancing positives, but it was a decidedly mixed record.
To be clear, "mixed" is pretty good. There are Prime Ministers who dream of having a mixed record.
But some of our current problems have their roots in the Thatcher era, and others in the ongoing obsession with cargo cult Thatcherism.
Indeed, the human desire to make every datapoint fit a storyline is a very dangerous cognitive bias.
We see that here with the belief that because we had 18 years of Tory rule, followed by 13 years of New Labour, followed by another 14 years of Conservative government, then we must now be due 10-15 years of Labour again.
There is no rule to this pattern. And yet it's remarkably persistent.
Its not a rule, but its most probable.
People are pissed off with the Tories now. Unless or until they become more pissed off with Labour than the Tories, then they're likely to re-elect Labour.
Predictions are normally about odds and what is more likely. Currently Labour being in power for a decade is much more likely than not, but it certainly is not guaranteed.
If Labour win the next election, as expected, then they will take over in exceptionally poor circumstances with a tedious, risk-averse leader, and little thought about what to do about Britain's problems beyond a pastiche of Blairite slogans. I think there's a greater than normal potential for the situation to unravel rapidly.
I would have the situation closer to finely balanced than much more likely.
But the circumstances aren't exceptionally poor. That's the frustrating thing.
The economic situation has some real positives, but the Government is either too piss-poor to sell them as positives, or worse is seeing them as negatives.
We have full employment which most likely isn't going to change that significantly. Inflation is due to fall back, which won't reverse the pain of the last couple of years but will mean new pain won't be happening. Real wages should be growing - and its a Government choice not a law of the economy that they're not right now.
Our biggest problems as an economy are that our debt is too high, and the cost of houses are too high, and we should have have moderately high inflation soon which is perfect for handling both of those by allowing deflating both of them as a ratio to GDP/income.
Starmer is a very lucky general and I think he's going to inherit a mixed-golden economic legacy, and worse for the Tories one they've talked down so won't even be able to take credit for and he will be able to claim the credit then.
Average wages are growing about 6 to 7%, any more than that and that would push up inflation at about 7 to 8% yet further
Average wages are declining.
If a wages go up by 7% when inflation is 10% then that's a 3% pay cut, not a pay rise.
But what's worse is that Sunak froze tax thresholds. So when wages go up by 7% then Sunak taxes you more, while your pay is declining.
So someone on UC, with a Student Loan, facing a 78.4% real tax rate may get a 7% pay rise, but of that they keep only 1.5% of that while inflation is 10%. So that's an 8.5% pay cut.
That's fucking shit.
Inflation is now 7-8%, put average wages up to 8-10%+ and you get an inflationary wage spiral.
Basic economics
An economist would know that inflation has been a lot higher and wages have not kept up for that time. So there is a huge deflationary chunk already built in before you start worrying aboiut wages a percentage point or two above inflation for a brief period.
And if average wages had been 10%+ last year, inflation would now also be 10%+ and rising not fallen to 7% now which is closer in line with average wages anyway.
We have historically had long periods where wages rose faster than inflation. Would that not be a good situation to return to?
Yes, the 1970s and no it would not be, the UK economy was a basket case, with soaring inflation and regular strikes led by powerful trade unions, which was why the government changed so frequently
So, the Brexit Tories have taken us back to the 1970s with their inflation, air of dilapidation of public services and widespread strikes. If only we had some better music with it...
(As a matter of fact GDP growth in the UK was higher in the 1970s in the UK than the 1980s: 30.39% from 70-79; 26.66% from 80-89. So the UK economy was not a basket case in the 1970s, indeed rather vigorous compared to today)
Though the 1970s GDP really needs to be split around 1974. Very healthy growth at the start of the decade, abysmal growth for the rest of it.
The UK was a basket case by the end of the 1970s.
Not sure either of your points stack up. I'll let others interpret the growth figures -
The UK was far from a basket case in the second half of the seventies. Ironically the myth of Thatcher could not have taken root but for it. The unfortunate timing of the 1974-79 Labour Government put it in the phase of capital investment for North Sea oil exploration, rather than allowing it to reap the benefits of that investment. Subsequently, Thatcher took advantage and then misused the benefits - she cut tax for the middle class and provided unemployment benefits for over three million people, instead of investing it. As a result we ended up with an economy dominated by the financial services sector in and around London, ultimately leaving us with the mess we have today.
Your version is the alternative myth of Fatcha, who alone is responsible for everything that's wrong with modern Britain.
Don't be silly.
The reality is that any reasonable analysis of the Thatcher era can't ignore that it was the root of a number of our current problems. The increasing concentration of wealth and political power in London is certainly one of them; the arse made of water privatisation another. Housing, too.
Of course there are balancing positives, but it was a decidedly mixed record.
If it wasn't for the Thatcher years London would not now be a global world city, nor the financial centre of Europe, fewer working class people would own their own homes and the mines would still largely have gone anyway
From the article: "Picture postcards of the era – a popular way for visitors to show families back home where they were visiting in the years before photography was commonplace – made much of the pub's quirks." Have we really reached the point now where we have to explain what a postcard is? I feel old!
Crikey, me too. OLD
Tho it makes sense. I wonder how many kids have any idea what a "typewriter" is, or what it does
Or a slide rule. They're great for teaching logarithms and inciting interest in engineering.
Soon we'll be asking the same question about a road atlas.
Or a brain cell. OMG I'm going to have read H G Wells's Time Machine again.
Joined-up writing has now almost disappeared for most people under 40. When I went to a car garage and wrote a description of the problem for the engineers, this guy was staring at me with his mouth open because I was joining each letter to the next one.
It would be amusing if it wasn't so scary to hear middle-class graduate types, when asked, say the reason they print letters like an infant and don't join them up is because it's "quicker". (It isn't. It's slower. Anyone who can actually do joined-up writing can verify this.)
OTOH they have more prehensile thumbs than I do. They can type on a phone with two thumbs - I can't. I do it with ten fingers on a keyboard.
Indeed, the human desire to make every datapoint fit a storyline is a very dangerous cognitive bias.
We see that here with the belief that because we had 18 years of Tory rule, followed by 13 years of New Labour, followed by another 14 years of Conservative government, then we must now be due 10-15 years of Labour again.
There is no rule to this pattern. And yet it's remarkably persistent.
Its not a rule, but its most probable.
People are pissed off with the Tories now. Unless or until they become more pissed off with Labour than the Tories, then they're likely to re-elect Labour.
Predictions are normally about odds and what is more likely. Currently Labour being in power for a decade is much more likely than not, but it certainly is not guaranteed.
If Labour win the next election, as expected, then they will take over in exceptionally poor circumstances with a tedious, risk-averse leader, and little thought about what to do about Britain's problems beyond a pastiche of Blairite slogans. I think there's a greater than normal potential for the situation to unravel rapidly.
I would have the situation closer to finely balanced than much more likely.
But the circumstances aren't exceptionally poor. That's the frustrating thing.
The economic situation has some real positives, but the Government is either too piss-poor to sell them as positives, or worse is seeing them as negatives.
We have full employment which most likely isn't going to change that significantly. Inflation is due to fall back, which won't reverse the pain of the last couple of years but will mean new pain won't be happening. Real wages should be growing - and its a Government choice not a law of the economy that they're not right now.
Our biggest problems as an economy are that our debt is too high, and the cost of houses are too high, and we should have have moderately high inflation soon which is perfect for handling both of those by allowing deflating both of them as a ratio to GDP/income.
Starmer is a very lucky general and I think he's going to inherit a mixed-golden economic legacy, and worse for the Tories one they've talked down so won't even be able to take credit for and he will be able to claim the credit then.
Average wages are growing about 6 to 7%, any more than that and that would push up inflation at about 7 to 8% yet further
Average wages are declining.
If a wages go up by 7% when inflation is 10% then that's a 3% pay cut, not a pay rise.
But what's worse is that Sunak froze tax thresholds. So when wages go up by 7% then Sunak taxes you more, while your pay is declining.
So someone on UC, with a Student Loan, facing a 78.4% real tax rate may get a 7% pay rise, but of that they keep only 1.5% of that while inflation is 10%. So that's an 8.5% pay cut.
That's fucking shit.
Inflation is now 7-8%, put average wages up to 8-10%+ and you get an inflationary wage spiral.
Basic economics
An economist would know that inflation has been a lot higher and wages have not kept up for that time. So there is a huge deflationary chunk already built in before you start worrying aboiut wages a percentage point or two above inflation for a brief period.
And if average wages had been 10%+ last year, inflation would now also be 10%+ and rising not fallen to 7% now which is closer in line with average wages anyway.
We have historically had long periods where wages rose faster than inflation. Would that not be a good situation to return to?
Yes, the 1970s and no it would not be, the UK economy was a basket case, with soaring inflation and regular strikes led by powerful trade unions, which was why the government changed so frequently
So, the Brexit Tories have taken us back to the 1970s with their inflation, air of dilapidation of public services and widespread strikes. If only we had some better music with it...
(As a matter of fact GDP growth in the UK was higher in the 1970s in the UK than the 1980s: 30.39% from 70-79; 26.66% from 80-89. So the UK economy was not a basket case in the 1970s, indeed rather vigorous compared to today)
Though the 1970s GDP really needs to be split around 1974. Very healthy growth at the start of the decade, abysmal growth for the rest of it.
The UK was a basket case by the end of the 1970s.
Not sure either of your points stack up. I'll let others interpret the growth figures -
The UK was far from a basket case in the second half of the seventies. Ironically the myth of Thatcher could not have taken root but for it. The unfortunate timing of the 1974-79 Labour Government put it in the phase of capital investment for North Sea oil exploration, rather than allowing it to reap the benefits of that investment. Subsequently, Thatcher took advantage and then misused the benefits - she cut tax for the middle class and provided unemployment benefits for over three million people, instead of investing it. As a result we ended up with an economy dominated by the financial services sector in and around London, ultimately leaving us with the mess we have today.
Your version is the alternative myth of Fatcha, who alone is responsible for everything that's wrong with modern Britain.
Don't be silly.
The reality is that any reasonable analysis of the Thatcher era can't ignore that it was the root of a number of our current problems. The increasing concentration of wealth and political power in London is certainly one of them; the arse made of water privatisation another. Housing, too.
Of course there are balancing positives, but it was a decidedly mixed record.
If it wasn't for the Thatcher years London would not now be a global world city, nor the financial centre of Europe, fewer working class people would own their own homes and the mines would still largely have gone anyway
What's the point of a financial world centre if all the money drains away under the spivs? None at all to the residents of, say, Sedgefield.
Indeed, the human desire to make every datapoint fit a storyline is a very dangerous cognitive bias.
We see that here with the belief that because we had 18 years of Tory rule, followed by 13 years of New Labour, followed by another 14 years of Conservative government, then we must now be due 10-15 years of Labour again.
There is no rule to this pattern. And yet it's remarkably persistent.
Its not a rule, but its most probable.
People are pissed off with the Tories now. Unless or until they become more pissed off with Labour than the Tories, then they're likely to re-elect Labour.
Predictions are normally about odds and what is more likely. Currently Labour being in power for a decade is much more likely than not, but it certainly is not guaranteed.
If Labour win the next election, as expected, then they will take over in exceptionally poor circumstances with a tedious, risk-averse leader, and little thought about what to do about Britain's problems beyond a pastiche of Blairite slogans. I think there's a greater than normal potential for the situation to unravel rapidly.
I would have the situation closer to finely balanced than much more likely.
But the circumstances aren't exceptionally poor. That's the frustrating thing.
The economic situation has some real positives, but the Government is either too piss-poor to sell them as positives, or worse is seeing them as negatives.
We have full employment which most likely isn't going to change that significantly. Inflation is due to fall back, which won't reverse the pain of the last couple of years but will mean new pain won't be happening. Real wages should be growing - and its a Government choice not a law of the economy that they're not right now.
Our biggest problems as an economy are that our debt is too high, and the cost of houses are too high, and we should have have moderately high inflation soon which is perfect for handling both of those by allowing deflating both of them as a ratio to GDP/income.
Starmer is a very lucky general and I think he's going to inherit a mixed-golden economic legacy, and worse for the Tories one they've talked down so won't even be able to take credit for and he will be able to claim the credit then.
Average wages are growing about 6 to 7%, any more than that and that would push up inflation at about 7 to 8% yet further
Average wages are declining.
If a wages go up by 7% when inflation is 10% then that's a 3% pay cut, not a pay rise.
But what's worse is that Sunak froze tax thresholds. So when wages go up by 7% then Sunak taxes you more, while your pay is declining.
So someone on UC, with a Student Loan, facing a 78.4% real tax rate may get a 7% pay rise, but of that they keep only 1.5% of that while inflation is 10%. So that's an 8.5% pay cut.
That's fucking shit.
Inflation is now 7-8%, put average wages up to 8-10%+ and you get an inflationary wage spiral.
Basic economics
An economist would know that inflation has been a lot higher and wages have not kept up for that time. So there is a huge deflationary chunk already built in before you start worrying aboiut wages a percentage point or two above inflation for a brief period.
And if average wages had been 10%+ last year, inflation would now also be 10%+ and rising not fallen to 7% now which is closer in line with average wages anyway.
We have historically had long periods where wages rose faster than inflation. Would that not be a good situation to return to?
Yes, the 1970s and no it would not be, the UK economy was a basket case, with soaring inflation and regular strikes led by powerful trade unions, which was why the government changed so frequently
So, the Brexit Tories have taken us back to the 1970s with their inflation, air of dilapidation of public services and widespread strikes. If only we had some better music with it...
(As a matter of fact GDP growth in the UK was higher in the 1970s in the UK than the 1980s: 30.39% from 70-79; 26.66% from 80-89. So the UK economy was not a basket case in the 1970s, indeed rather vigorous compared to today)
Though the 1970s GDP really needs to be split around 1974. Very healthy growth at the start of the decade, abysmal growth for the rest of it.
The UK was a basket case by the end of the 1970s.
Not sure either of your points stack up. I'll let others interpret the growth figures -
The UK was far from a basket case in the second half of the seventies. Ironically the myth of Thatcher could not have taken root but for it. The unfortunate timing of the 1974-79 Labour Government put it in the phase of capital investment for North Sea oil exploration, rather than allowing it to reap the benefits of that investment. Subsequently, Thatcher took advantage and then misused the benefits - she cut tax for the middle class and provided unemployment benefits for over three million people, instead of investing it. As a result we ended up with an economy dominated by the financial services sector in and around London, ultimately leaving us with the mess we have today.
Your version is the alternative myth of Fatcha, who alone is responsible for everything that's wrong with modern Britain.
Don't be silly.
The reality is that any reasonable analysis of the Thatcher era can't ignore that it was the root of a number of our current problems. The increasing concentration of wealth and political power in London is certainly one of them; the arse made of water privatisation another. Housing, too.
Of course there are balancing positives, but it was a decidedly mixed record.
If it wasn't for the Thatcher years London would not now be a global world city, nor the financial centre of Europe, fewer working class people would own their own homes and the mines would still largely have gone anyway
"Financial Centre of Europe" has started to look a less convincing title since 2016. I was talking to a colleague who trades European sovereign bonds, who said that ten years ago his counterparts were all sat in London, and now most of them aren't. He was very bearish about the UK. Now for some people, a diminished, less dominant, London will be what they want, and I get that. All I say is, be careful what you wish for.
Indeed, the human desire to make every datapoint fit a storyline is a very dangerous cognitive bias.
We see that here with the belief that because we had 18 years of Tory rule, followed by 13 years of New Labour, followed by another 14 years of Conservative government, then we must now be due 10-15 years of Labour again.
There is no rule to this pattern. And yet it's remarkably persistent.
Its not a rule, but its most probable.
People are pissed off with the Tories now. Unless or until they become more pissed off with Labour than the Tories, then they're likely to re-elect Labour.
Predictions are normally about odds and what is more likely. Currently Labour being in power for a decade is much more likely than not, but it certainly is not guaranteed.
If Labour win the next election, as expected, then they will take over in exceptionally poor circumstances with a tedious, risk-averse leader, and little thought about what to do about Britain's problems beyond a pastiche of Blairite slogans. I think there's a greater than normal potential for the situation to unravel rapidly.
I would have the situation closer to finely balanced than much more likely.
But the circumstances aren't exceptionally poor. That's the frustrating thing.
The economic situation has some real positives, but the Government is either too piss-poor to sell them as positives, or worse is seeing them as negatives.
We have full employment which most likely isn't going to change that significantly. Inflation is due to fall back, which won't reverse the pain of the last couple of years but will mean new pain won't be happening. Real wages should be growing - and its a Government choice not a law of the economy that they're not right now.
Our biggest problems as an economy are that our debt is too high, and the cost of houses are too high, and we should have have moderately high inflation soon which is perfect for handling both of those by allowing deflating both of them as a ratio to GDP/income.
Starmer is a very lucky general and I think he's going to inherit a mixed-golden economic legacy, and worse for the Tories one they've talked down so won't even be able to take credit for and he will be able to claim the credit then.
Average wages are growing about 6 to 7%, any more than that and that would push up inflation at about 7 to 8% yet further
Average wages are declining.
If a wages go up by 7% when inflation is 10% then that's a 3% pay cut, not a pay rise.
But what's worse is that Sunak froze tax thresholds. So when wages go up by 7% then Sunak taxes you more, while your pay is declining.
So someone on UC, with a Student Loan, facing a 78.4% real tax rate may get a 7% pay rise, but of that they keep only 1.5% of that while inflation is 10%. So that's an 8.5% pay cut.
That's fucking shit.
Inflation is now 7-8%, put average wages up to 8-10%+ and you get an inflationary wage spiral.
Basic economics
An economist would know that inflation has been a lot higher and wages have not kept up for that time. So there is a huge deflationary chunk already built in before you start worrying aboiut wages a percentage point or two above inflation for a brief period.
And if average wages had been 10%+ last year, inflation would now also be 10%+ and rising not fallen to 7% now which is closer in line with average wages anyway.
We have historically had long periods where wages rose faster than inflation. Would that not be a good situation to return to?
Yes, the 1970s and no it would not be, the UK economy was a basket case, with soaring inflation and regular strikes led by powerful trade unions, which was why the government changed so frequently
So, the Brexit Tories have taken us back to the 1970s with their inflation, air of dilapidation of public services and widespread strikes. If only we had some better music with it...
(As a matter of fact GDP growth in the UK was higher in the 1970s in the UK than the 1980s: 30.39% from 70-79; 26.66% from 80-89. So the UK economy was not a basket case in the 1970s, indeed rather vigorous compared to today)
Though the 1970s GDP really needs to be split around 1974. Very healthy growth at the start of the decade, abysmal growth for the rest of it.
The UK was a basket case by the end of the 1970s.
Not sure either of your points stack up. I'll let others interpret the growth figures -
The UK was far from a basket case in the second half of the seventies. Ironically the myth of Thatcher could not have taken root but for it. The unfortunate timing of the 1974-79 Labour Government put it in the phase of capital investment for North Sea oil exploration, rather than allowing it to reap the benefits of that investment. Subsequently, Thatcher took advantage and then misused the benefits - she cut tax for the middle class and provided unemployment benefits for over three million people, instead of investing it. As a result we ended up with an economy dominated by the financial services sector in and around London, ultimately leaving us with the mess we have today.
Your version is the alternative myth of Fatcha, who alone is responsible for everything that's wrong with modern Britain.
Don't be silly.
The reality is that any reasonable analysis of the Thatcher era can't ignore that it was the root of a number of our current problems. The increasing concentration of wealth and political power in London is certainly one of them; the arse made of water privatisation another. Housing, too.
Of course there are balancing positives, but it was a decidedly mixed record.
If it wasn't for the Thatcher years London would not now be a global world city, nor the financial centre of Europe, fewer working class people would own their own homes and the mines would still largely have gone anyway
What's the point of a financial world centre if all the money drains away under the spivs? None at all to the residents of, say, Sedgefield.
Sedgefield schools, hospitals, police officers, state benefits are in large part paid for by taxes paid for by the City of London
Indeed, the human desire to make every datapoint fit a storyline is a very dangerous cognitive bias.
We see that here with the belief that because we had 18 years of Tory rule, followed by 13 years of New Labour, followed by another 14 years of Conservative government, then we must now be due 10-15 years of Labour again.
There is no rule to this pattern. And yet it's remarkably persistent.
Its not a rule, but its most probable.
People are pissed off with the Tories now. Unless or until they become more pissed off with Labour than the Tories, then they're likely to re-elect Labour.
Predictions are normally about odds and what is more likely. Currently Labour being in power for a decade is much more likely than not, but it certainly is not guaranteed.
If Labour win the next election, as expected, then they will take over in exceptionally poor circumstances with a tedious, risk-averse leader, and little thought about what to do about Britain's problems beyond a pastiche of Blairite slogans. I think there's a greater than normal potential for the situation to unravel rapidly.
I would have the situation closer to finely balanced than much more likely.
But the circumstances aren't exceptionally poor. That's the frustrating thing.
The economic situation has some real positives, but the Government is either too piss-poor to sell them as positives, or worse is seeing them as negatives.
We have full employment which most likely isn't going to change that significantly. Inflation is due to fall back, which won't reverse the pain of the last couple of years but will mean new pain won't be happening. Real wages should be growing - and its a Government choice not a law of the economy that they're not right now.
Our biggest problems as an economy are that our debt is too high, and the cost of houses are too high, and we should have have moderately high inflation soon which is perfect for handling both of those by allowing deflating both of them as a ratio to GDP/income.
Starmer is a very lucky general and I think he's going to inherit a mixed-golden economic legacy, and worse for the Tories one they've talked down so won't even be able to take credit for and he will be able to claim the credit then.
Average wages are growing about 6 to 7%, any more than that and that would push up inflation at about 7 to 8% yet further
Average wages are declining.
If a wages go up by 7% when inflation is 10% then that's a 3% pay cut, not a pay rise.
But what's worse is that Sunak froze tax thresholds. So when wages go up by 7% then Sunak taxes you more, while your pay is declining.
So someone on UC, with a Student Loan, facing a 78.4% real tax rate may get a 7% pay rise, but of that they keep only 1.5% of that while inflation is 10%. So that's an 8.5% pay cut.
That's fucking shit.
Inflation is now 7-8%, put average wages up to 8-10%+ and you get an inflationary wage spiral.
Basic economics
An economist would know that inflation has been a lot higher and wages have not kept up for that time. So there is a huge deflationary chunk already built in before you start worrying aboiut wages a percentage point or two above inflation for a brief period.
And if average wages had been 10%+ last year, inflation would now also be 10%+ and rising not fallen to 7% now which is closer in line with average wages anyway.
We have historically had long periods where wages rose faster than inflation. Would that not be a good situation to return to?
Yes, the 1970s and no it would not be, the UK economy was a basket case, with soaring inflation and regular strikes led by powerful trade unions, which was why the government changed so frequently
So, the Brexit Tories have taken us back to the 1970s with their inflation, air of dilapidation of public services and widespread strikes. If only we had some better music with it...
(As a matter of fact GDP growth in the UK was higher in the 1970s in the UK than the 1980s: 30.39% from 70-79; 26.66% from 80-89. So the UK economy was not a basket case in the 1970s, indeed rather vigorous compared to today)
Though the 1970s GDP really needs to be split around 1974. Very healthy growth at the start of the decade, abysmal growth for the rest of it.
The UK was a basket case by the end of the 1970s.
Not sure either of your points stack up. I'll let others interpret the growth figures -
The UK was far from a basket case in the second half of the seventies. Ironically the myth of Thatcher could not have taken root but for it. The unfortunate timing of the 1974-79 Labour Government put it in the phase of capital investment for North Sea oil exploration, rather than allowing it to reap the benefits of that investment. Subsequently, Thatcher took advantage and then misused the benefits - she cut tax for the middle class and provided unemployment benefits for over three million people, instead of investing it. As a result we ended up with an economy dominated by the financial services sector in and around London, ultimately leaving us with the mess we have today.
Your version is the alternative myth of Fatcha, who alone is responsible for everything that's wrong with modern Britain.
Don't be silly.
The reality is that any reasonable analysis of the Thatcher era can't ignore that it was the root of a number of our current problems. The increasing concentration of wealth and political power in London is certainly one of them; the arse made of water privatisation another. Housing, too.
Of course there are balancing positives, but it was a decidedly mixed record.
If it wasn't for the Thatcher years London would not now be a global world city, nor the financial centre of Europe, fewer working class people would own their own homes and the mines would still largely have gone anyway
What's the point of a financial world centre if all the money drains away under the spivs? None at all to the residents of, say, Sedgefield.
Sedgefield schools, hospitals, police officers, state benefits are in large part paid for by taxes paid for by the City of London
Used to be paid locally. And Thatcher made no sane effort to keep industry going (by replacement).
Indeed, the human desire to make every datapoint fit a storyline is a very dangerous cognitive bias.
We see that here with the belief that because we had 18 years of Tory rule, followed by 13 years of New Labour, followed by another 14 years of Conservative government, then we must now be due 10-15 years of Labour again.
There is no rule to this pattern. And yet it's remarkably persistent.
Its not a rule, but its most probable.
People are pissed off with the Tories now. Unless or until they become more pissed off with Labour than the Tories, then they're likely to re-elect Labour.
Predictions are normally about odds and what is more likely. Currently Labour being in power for a decade is much more likely than not, but it certainly is not guaranteed.
If Labour win the next election, as expected, then they will take over in exceptionally poor circumstances with a tedious, risk-averse leader, and little thought about what to do about Britain's problems beyond a pastiche of Blairite slogans. I think there's a greater than normal potential for the situation to unravel rapidly.
I would have the situation closer to finely balanced than much more likely.
But the circumstances aren't exceptionally poor. That's the frustrating thing.
The economic situation has some real positives, but the Government is either too piss-poor to sell them as positives, or worse is seeing them as negatives.
We have full employment which most likely isn't going to change that significantly. Inflation is due to fall back, which won't reverse the pain of the last couple of years but will mean new pain won't be happening. Real wages should be growing - and its a Government choice not a law of the economy that they're not right now.
Our biggest problems as an economy are that our debt is too high, and the cost of houses are too high, and we should have have moderately high inflation soon which is perfect for handling both of those by allowing deflating both of them as a ratio to GDP/income.
Starmer is a very lucky general and I think he's going to inherit a mixed-golden economic legacy, and worse for the Tories one they've talked down so won't even be able to take credit for and he will be able to claim the credit then.
Average wages are growing about 6 to 7%, any more than that and that would push up inflation at about 7 to 8% yet further
Average wages are declining.
If a wages go up by 7% when inflation is 10% then that's a 3% pay cut, not a pay rise.
But what's worse is that Sunak froze tax thresholds. So when wages go up by 7% then Sunak taxes you more, while your pay is declining.
So someone on UC, with a Student Loan, facing a 78.4% real tax rate may get a 7% pay rise, but of that they keep only 1.5% of that while inflation is 10%. So that's an 8.5% pay cut.
That's fucking shit.
Inflation is now 7-8%, put average wages up to 8-10%+ and you get an inflationary wage spiral.
Basic economics
An economist would know that inflation has been a lot higher and wages have not kept up for that time. So there is a huge deflationary chunk already built in before you start worrying aboiut wages a percentage point or two above inflation for a brief period.
And if average wages had been 10%+ last year, inflation would now also be 10%+ and rising not fallen to 7% now which is closer in line with average wages anyway.
We have historically had long periods where wages rose faster than inflation. Would that not be a good situation to return to?
Yes, the 1970s and no it would not be, the UK economy was a basket case, with soaring inflation and regular strikes led by powerful trade unions, which was why the government changed so frequently
So, the Brexit Tories have taken us back to the 1970s with their inflation, air of dilapidation of public services and widespread strikes. If only we had some better music with it...
(As a matter of fact GDP growth in the UK was higher in the 1970s in the UK than the 1980s: 30.39% from 70-79; 26.66% from 80-89. So the UK economy was not a basket case in the 1970s, indeed rather vigorous compared to today)
Though the 1970s GDP really needs to be split around 1974. Very healthy growth at the start of the decade, abysmal growth for the rest of it.
The UK was a basket case by the end of the 1970s.
Not sure either of your points stack up. I'll let others interpret the growth figures -
The UK was far from a basket case in the second half of the seventies. Ironically the myth of Thatcher could not have taken root but for it. The unfortunate timing of the 1974-79 Labour Government put it in the phase of capital investment for North Sea oil exploration, rather than allowing it to reap the benefits of that investment. Subsequently, Thatcher took advantage and then misused the benefits - she cut tax for the middle class and provided unemployment benefits for over three million people, instead of investing it. As a result we ended up with an economy dominated by the financial services sector in and around London, ultimately leaving us with the mess we have today.
Your version is the alternative myth of Fatcha, who alone is responsible for everything that's wrong with modern Britain.
Don't be silly.
The reality is that any reasonable analysis of the Thatcher era can't ignore that it was the root of a number of our current problems. The increasing concentration of wealth and political power in London is certainly one of them; the arse made of water privatisation another. Housing, too.
Of course there are balancing positives, but it was a decidedly mixed record.
If it wasn't for the Thatcher years London would not now be a global world city, nor the financial centre of Europe, fewer working class people would own their own homes and the mines would still largely have gone anyway
You mean if it was not for stolen Scottish oil..............
Indeed, the human desire to make every datapoint fit a storyline is a very dangerous cognitive bias.
We see that here with the belief that because we had 18 years of Tory rule, followed by 13 years of New Labour, followed by another 14 years of Conservative government, then we must now be due 10-15 years of Labour again.
There is no rule to this pattern. And yet it's remarkably persistent.
Its not a rule, but its most probable.
People are pissed off with the Tories now. Unless or until they become more pissed off with Labour than the Tories, then they're likely to re-elect Labour.
Predictions are normally about odds and what is more likely. Currently Labour being in power for a decade is much more likely than not, but it certainly is not guaranteed.
If Labour win the next election, as expected, then they will take over in exceptionally poor circumstances with a tedious, risk-averse leader, and little thought about what to do about Britain's problems beyond a pastiche of Blairite slogans. I think there's a greater than normal potential for the situation to unravel rapidly.
I would have the situation closer to finely balanced than much more likely.
But the circumstances aren't exceptionally poor. That's the frustrating thing.
The economic situation has some real positives, but the Government is either too piss-poor to sell them as positives, or worse is seeing them as negatives.
We have full employment which most likely isn't going to change that significantly. Inflation is due to fall back, which won't reverse the pain of the last couple of years but will mean new pain won't be happening. Real wages should be growing - and its a Government choice not a law of the economy that they're not right now.
Our biggest problems as an economy are that our debt is too high, and the cost of houses are too high, and we should have have moderately high inflation soon which is perfect for handling both of those by allowing deflating both of them as a ratio to GDP/income.
Starmer is a very lucky general and I think he's going to inherit a mixed-golden economic legacy, and worse for the Tories one they've talked down so won't even be able to take credit for and he will be able to claim the credit then.
Average wages are growing about 6 to 7%, any more than that and that would push up inflation at about 7 to 8% yet further
Average wages are declining.
If a wages go up by 7% when inflation is 10% then that's a 3% pay cut, not a pay rise.
But what's worse is that Sunak froze tax thresholds. So when wages go up by 7% then Sunak taxes you more, while your pay is declining.
So someone on UC, with a Student Loan, facing a 78.4% real tax rate may get a 7% pay rise, but of that they keep only 1.5% of that while inflation is 10%. So that's an 8.5% pay cut.
That's fucking shit.
Inflation is now 7-8%, put average wages up to 8-10%+ and you get an inflationary wage spiral.
Basic economics
An economist would know that inflation has been a lot higher and wages have not kept up for that time. So there is a huge deflationary chunk already built in before you start worrying aboiut wages a percentage point or two above inflation for a brief period.
And if average wages had been 10%+ last year, inflation would now also be 10%+ and rising not fallen to 7% now which is closer in line with average wages anyway.
We have historically had long periods where wages rose faster than inflation. Would that not be a good situation to return to?
Yes, the 1970s and no it would not be, the UK economy was a basket case, with soaring inflation and regular strikes led by powerful trade unions, which was why the government changed so frequently
So, the Brexit Tories have taken us back to the 1970s with their inflation, air of dilapidation of public services and widespread strikes. If only we had some better music with it...
(As a matter of fact GDP growth in the UK was higher in the 1970s in the UK than the 1980s: 30.39% from 70-79; 26.66% from 80-89. So the UK economy was not a basket case in the 1970s, indeed rather vigorous compared to today)
Though the 1970s GDP really needs to be split around 1974. Very healthy growth at the start of the decade, abysmal growth for the rest of it.
The UK was a basket case by the end of the 1970s.
Not sure either of your points stack up. I'll let others interpret the growth figures -
The UK was far from a basket case in the second half of the seventies. Ironically the myth of Thatcher could not have taken root but for it. The unfortunate timing of the 1974-79 Labour Government put it in the phase of capital investment for North Sea oil exploration, rather than allowing it to reap the benefits of that investment. Subsequently, Thatcher took advantage and then misused the benefits - she cut tax for the middle class and provided unemployment benefits for over three million people, instead of investing it. As a result we ended up with an economy dominated by the financial services sector in and around London, ultimately leaving us with the mess we have today.
Your version is the alternative myth of Fatcha, who alone is responsible for everything that's wrong with modern Britain.
Don't be silly.
The reality is that any reasonable analysis of the Thatcher era can't ignore that it was the root of a number of our current problems. The increasing concentration of wealth and political power in London is certainly one of them; the arse made of water privatisation another. Housing, too.
Of course there are balancing positives, but it was a decidedly mixed record.
If it wasn't for the Thatcher years London would not now be a global world city, nor the financial centre of Europe, fewer working class people would own their own homes and the mines would still largely have gone anyway
You have no idea of what might otherwise have happened, as you don't get to run history twice. You're entitled to your opinion, though.
Indeed, the human desire to make every datapoint fit a storyline is a very dangerous cognitive bias.
We see that here with the belief that because we had 18 years of Tory rule, followed by 13 years of New Labour, followed by another 14 years of Conservative government, then we must now be due 10-15 years of Labour again.
There is no rule to this pattern. And yet it's remarkably persistent.
Its not a rule, but its most probable.
People are pissed off with the Tories now. Unless or until they become more pissed off with Labour than the Tories, then they're likely to re-elect Labour.
Predictions are normally about odds and what is more likely. Currently Labour being in power for a decade is much more likely than not, but it certainly is not guaranteed.
If Labour win the next election, as expected, then they will take over in exceptionally poor circumstances with a tedious, risk-averse leader, and little thought about what to do about Britain's problems beyond a pastiche of Blairite slogans. I think there's a greater than normal potential for the situation to unravel rapidly.
I would have the situation closer to finely balanced than much more likely.
But the circumstances aren't exceptionally poor. That's the frustrating thing.
The economic situation has some real positives, but the Government is either too piss-poor to sell them as positives, or worse is seeing them as negatives.
We have full employment which most likely isn't going to change that significantly. Inflation is due to fall back, which won't reverse the pain of the last couple of years but will mean new pain won't be happening. Real wages should be growing - and its a Government choice not a law of the economy that they're not right now.
Our biggest problems as an economy are that our debt is too high, and the cost of houses are too high, and we should have have moderately high inflation soon which is perfect for handling both of those by allowing deflating both of them as a ratio to GDP/income.
Starmer is a very lucky general and I think he's going to inherit a mixed-golden economic legacy, and worse for the Tories one they've talked down so won't even be able to take credit for and he will be able to claim the credit then.
Average wages are growing about 6 to 7%, any more than that and that would push up inflation at about 7 to 8% yet further
Average wages are declining.
If a wages go up by 7% when inflation is 10% then that's a 3% pay cut, not a pay rise.
But what's worse is that Sunak froze tax thresholds. So when wages go up by 7% then Sunak taxes you more, while your pay is declining.
So someone on UC, with a Student Loan, facing a 78.4% real tax rate may get a 7% pay rise, but of that they keep only 1.5% of that while inflation is 10%. So that's an 8.5% pay cut.
That's fucking shit.
Inflation is now 7-8%, put average wages up to 8-10%+ and you get an inflationary wage spiral.
Basic economics
An economist would know that inflation has been a lot higher and wages have not kept up for that time. So there is a huge deflationary chunk already built in before you start worrying aboiut wages a percentage point or two above inflation for a brief period.
And if average wages had been 10%+ last year, inflation would now also be 10%+ and rising not fallen to 7% now which is closer in line with average wages anyway.
We have historically had long periods where wages rose faster than inflation. Would that not be a good situation to return to?
Yes, the 1970s and no it would not be, the UK economy was a basket case, with soaring inflation and regular strikes led by powerful trade unions, which was why the government changed so frequently
So, the Brexit Tories have taken us back to the 1970s with their inflation, air of dilapidation of public services and widespread strikes. If only we had some better music with it...
(As a matter of fact GDP growth in the UK was higher in the 1970s in the UK than the 1980s: 30.39% from 70-79; 26.66% from 80-89. So the UK economy was not a basket case in the 1970s, indeed rather vigorous compared to today)
Though the 1970s GDP really needs to be split around 1974. Very healthy growth at the start of the decade, abysmal growth for the rest of it.
The UK was a basket case by the end of the 1970s.
Not sure either of your points stack up. I'll let others interpret the growth figures -
The UK was far from a basket case in the second half of the seventies. Ironically the myth of Thatcher could not have taken root but for it. The unfortunate timing of the 1974-79 Labour Government put it in the phase of capital investment for North Sea oil exploration, rather than allowing it to reap the benefits of that investment. Subsequently, Thatcher took advantage and then misused the benefits - she cut tax for the middle class and provided unemployment benefits for over three million people, instead of investing it. As a result we ended up with an economy dominated by the financial services sector in and around London, ultimately leaving us with the mess we have today.
Your version is the alternative myth of Fatcha, who alone is responsible for everything that's wrong with modern Britain.
Don't be silly.
The reality is that any reasonable analysis of the Thatcher era can't ignore that it was the root of a number of our current problems. The increasing concentration of wealth and political power in London is certainly one of them; the arse made of water privatisation another. Housing, too.
Of course there are balancing positives, but it was a decidedly mixed record.
If it wasn't for the Thatcher years London would not now be a global world city, nor the financial centre of Europe, fewer working class people would own their own homes and the mines would still largely have gone anyway
You have no idea of what might otherwise have happened, as you don't get to run history twice. You're entitled to your opinion, though.
Yes I do, in 1979 we had a below average gdp per capita compared to the rest of Western Europe, by 1990 we had a gdp per capita above the Western European average
Indeed, the human desire to make every datapoint fit a storyline is a very dangerous cognitive bias.
We see that here with the belief that because we had 18 years of Tory rule, followed by 13 years of New Labour, followed by another 14 years of Conservative government, then we must now be due 10-15 years of Labour again.
There is no rule to this pattern. And yet it's remarkably persistent.
Its not a rule, but its most probable.
People are pissed off with the Tories now. Unless or until they become more pissed off with Labour than the Tories, then they're likely to re-elect Labour.
Predictions are normally about odds and what is more likely. Currently Labour being in power for a decade is much more likely than not, but it certainly is not guaranteed.
If Labour win the next election, as expected, then they will take over in exceptionally poor circumstances with a tedious, risk-averse leader, and little thought about what to do about Britain's problems beyond a pastiche of Blairite slogans. I think there's a greater than normal potential for the situation to unravel rapidly.
I would have the situation closer to finely balanced than much more likely.
But the circumstances aren't exceptionally poor. That's the frustrating thing.
The economic situation has some real positives, but the Government is either too piss-poor to sell them as positives, or worse is seeing them as negatives.
We have full employment which most likely isn't going to change that significantly. Inflation is due to fall back, which won't reverse the pain of the last couple of years but will mean new pain won't be happening. Real wages should be growing - and its a Government choice not a law of the economy that they're not right now.
Our biggest problems as an economy are that our debt is too high, and the cost of houses are too high, and we should have have moderately high inflation soon which is perfect for handling both of those by allowing deflating both of them as a ratio to GDP/income.
Starmer is a very lucky general and I think he's going to inherit a mixed-golden economic legacy, and worse for the Tories one they've talked down so won't even be able to take credit for and he will be able to claim the credit then.
Average wages are growing about 6 to 7%, any more than that and that would push up inflation at about 7 to 8% yet further
Average wages are declining.
If a wages go up by 7% when inflation is 10% then that's a 3% pay cut, not a pay rise.
But what's worse is that Sunak froze tax thresholds. So when wages go up by 7% then Sunak taxes you more, while your pay is declining.
So someone on UC, with a Student Loan, facing a 78.4% real tax rate may get a 7% pay rise, but of that they keep only 1.5% of that while inflation is 10%. So that's an 8.5% pay cut.
That's fucking shit.
Inflation is now 7-8%, put average wages up to 8-10%+ and you get an inflationary wage spiral.
Basic economics
An economist would know that inflation has been a lot higher and wages have not kept up for that time. So there is a huge deflationary chunk already built in before you start worrying aboiut wages a percentage point or two above inflation for a brief period.
And if average wages had been 10%+ last year, inflation would now also be 10%+ and rising not fallen to 7% now which is closer in line with average wages anyway.
We have historically had long periods where wages rose faster than inflation. Would that not be a good situation to return to?
Yes, the 1970s and no it would not be, the UK economy was a basket case, with soaring inflation and regular strikes led by powerful trade unions, which was why the government changed so frequently
So, the Brexit Tories have taken us back to the 1970s with their inflation, air of dilapidation of public services and widespread strikes. If only we had some better music with it...
(As a matter of fact GDP growth in the UK was higher in the 1970s in the UK than the 1980s: 30.39% from 70-79; 26.66% from 80-89. So the UK economy was not a basket case in the 1970s, indeed rather vigorous compared to today)
Though the 1970s GDP really needs to be split around 1974. Very healthy growth at the start of the decade, abysmal growth for the rest of it.
The UK was a basket case by the end of the 1970s.
Not sure either of your points stack up. I'll let others interpret the growth figures -
The UK was far from a basket case in the second half of the seventies. Ironically the myth of Thatcher could not have taken root but for it. The unfortunate timing of the 1974-79 Labour Government put it in the phase of capital investment for North Sea oil exploration, rather than allowing it to reap the benefits of that investment. Subsequently, Thatcher took advantage and then misused the benefits - she cut tax for the middle class and provided unemployment benefits for over three million people, instead of investing it. As a result we ended up with an economy dominated by the financial services sector in and around London, ultimately leaving us with the mess we have today.
Your version is the alternative myth of Fatcha, who alone is responsible for everything that's wrong with modern Britain.
Don't be silly.
The reality is that any reasonable analysis of the Thatcher era can't ignore that it was the root of a number of our current problems. The increasing concentration of wealth and political power in London is certainly one of them; the arse made of water privatisation another. Housing, too.
Of course there are balancing positives, but it was a decidedly mixed record.
If it wasn't for the Thatcher years London would not now be a global world city, nor the financial centre of Europe, fewer working class people would own their own homes and the mines would still largely have gone anyway
What's the point of a financial world centre if all the money drains away under the spivs? None at all to the residents of, say, Sedgefield.
Sedgefield schools, hospitals, police officers, state benefits are in large part paid for by taxes paid for by the City of London
Used to be paid locally. And Thatcher made no sane effort to keep industry going (by replacement).
Wrong, Nissan's factory came to Sunderland first in 1984 when Thatcher was PM
From the article: "Picture postcards of the era – a popular way for visitors to show families back home where they were visiting in the years before photography was commonplace – made much of the pub's quirks." Have we really reached the point now where we have to explain what a postcard is? I feel old!
Crikey, me too. OLD
Tho it makes sense. I wonder how many kids have any idea what a "typewriter" is, or what it does
Or a slide rule. They're great for teaching logarithms and inciting interest in engineering.
Soon we'll be asking the same question about a road atlas.
Or a brain cell. OMG I'm going to have read H G Wells's Time Machine again.
Joined-up writing has now almost disappeared for most people under 40. When I went to a car garage and wrote a description of the problem for the engineers, this guy was staring at me with his mouth open because I was joining each letter to the next one.
It would be amusing if it wasn't so scary to hear middle-class graduate types, when asked, say the reason they print letters like an infant and don't join them up is because it's "quicker". (It isn't. It's slower. Anyone who can actually do joined-up writing can verify this.)
"The needle returns to the start of the song" needs explaining, as does (to classics undergraduates) a barley sugar column - What's barley sugar?
Indeed, the human desire to make every datapoint fit a storyline is a very dangerous cognitive bias.
We see that here with the belief that because we had 18 years of Tory rule, followed by 13 years of New Labour, followed by another 14 years of Conservative government, then we must now be due 10-15 years of Labour again.
There is no rule to this pattern. And yet it's remarkably persistent.
Its not a rule, but its most probable.
People are pissed off with the Tories now. Unless or until they become more pissed off with Labour than the Tories, then they're likely to re-elect Labour.
Predictions are normally about odds and what is more likely. Currently Labour being in power for a decade is much more likely than not, but it certainly is not guaranteed.
If Labour win the next election, as expected, then they will take over in exceptionally poor circumstances with a tedious, risk-averse leader, and little thought about what to do about Britain's problems beyond a pastiche of Blairite slogans. I think there's a greater than normal potential for the situation to unravel rapidly.
I would have the situation closer to finely balanced than much more likely.
But the circumstances aren't exceptionally poor. That's the frustrating thing.
The economic situation has some real positives, but the Government is either too piss-poor to sell them as positives, or worse is seeing them as negatives.
We have full employment which most likely isn't going to change that significantly. Inflation is due to fall back, which won't reverse the pain of the last couple of years but will mean new pain won't be happening. Real wages should be growing - and its a Government choice not a law of the economy that they're not right now.
Our biggest problems as an economy are that our debt is too high, and the cost of houses are too high, and we should have have moderately high inflation soon which is perfect for handling both of those by allowing deflating both of them as a ratio to GDP/income.
Starmer is a very lucky general and I think he's going to inherit a mixed-golden economic legacy, and worse for the Tories one they've talked down so won't even be able to take credit for and he will be able to claim the credit then.
Average wages are growing about 6 to 7%, any more than that and that would push up inflation at about 7 to 8% yet further
Average wages are declining.
If a wages go up by 7% when inflation is 10% then that's a 3% pay cut, not a pay rise.
But what's worse is that Sunak froze tax thresholds. So when wages go up by 7% then Sunak taxes you more, while your pay is declining.
So someone on UC, with a Student Loan, facing a 78.4% real tax rate may get a 7% pay rise, but of that they keep only 1.5% of that while inflation is 10%. So that's an 8.5% pay cut.
That's fucking shit.
Inflation is now 7-8%, put average wages up to 8-10%+ and you get an inflationary wage spiral.
Basic economics
An economist would know that inflation has been a lot higher and wages have not kept up for that time. So there is a huge deflationary chunk already built in before you start worrying aboiut wages a percentage point or two above inflation for a brief period.
And if average wages had been 10%+ last year, inflation would now also be 10%+ and rising not fallen to 7% now which is closer in line with average wages anyway.
We have historically had long periods where wages rose faster than inflation. Would that not be a good situation to return to?
Yes, the 1970s and no it would not be, the UK economy was a basket case, with soaring inflation and regular strikes led by powerful trade unions, which was why the government changed so frequently
So, the Brexit Tories have taken us back to the 1970s with their inflation, air of dilapidation of public services and widespread strikes. If only we had some better music with it...
(As a matter of fact GDP growth in the UK was higher in the 1970s in the UK than the 1980s: 30.39% from 70-79; 26.66% from 80-89. So the UK economy was not a basket case in the 1970s, indeed rather vigorous compared to today)
Though the 1970s GDP really needs to be split around 1974. Very healthy growth at the start of the decade, abysmal growth for the rest of it.
The UK was a basket case by the end of the 1970s.
Not sure either of your points stack up. I'll let others interpret the growth figures -
The UK was far from a basket case in the second half of the seventies. Ironically the myth of Thatcher could not have taken root but for it. The unfortunate timing of the 1974-79 Labour Government put it in the phase of capital investment for North Sea oil exploration, rather than allowing it to reap the benefits of that investment. Subsequently, Thatcher took advantage and then misused the benefits - she cut tax for the middle class and provided unemployment benefits for over three million people, instead of investing it. As a result we ended up with an economy dominated by the financial services sector in and around London, ultimately leaving us with the mess we have today.
Your version is the alternative myth of Fatcha, who alone is responsible for everything that's wrong with modern Britain.
Don't be silly.
The reality is that any reasonable analysis of the Thatcher era can't ignore that it was the root of a number of our current problems. The increasing concentration of wealth and political power in London is certainly one of them; the arse made of water privatisation another. Housing, too.
Of course there are balancing positives, but it was a decidedly mixed record.
If it wasn't for the Thatcher years London would not now be a global world city, nor the financial centre of Europe, fewer working class people would own their own homes and the mines would still largely have gone anyway
"Financial Centre of Europe" has started to look a less convincing title since 2016. I was talking to a colleague who trades European sovereign bonds, who said that ten years ago his counterparts were all sat in London, and now most of them aren't. He was very bearish about the UK. Now for some people, a diminished, less dominant, London will be what they want, and I get that. All I say is, be careful what you wish for.
Diehard Remainers like you told us Brexit would have seen Paris and Frankfurt overtake London as the European financial centre long ago, they haven't
Indeed, the human desire to make every datapoint fit a storyline is a very dangerous cognitive bias.
We see that here with the belief that because we had 18 years of Tory rule, followed by 13 years of New Labour, followed by another 14 years of Conservative government, then we must now be due 10-15 years of Labour again.
There is no rule to this pattern. And yet it's remarkably persistent.
Its not a rule, but its most probable.
People are pissed off with the Tories now. Unless or until they become more pissed off with Labour than the Tories, then they're likely to re-elect Labour.
Predictions are normally about odds and what is more likely. Currently Labour being in power for a decade is much more likely than not, but it certainly is not guaranteed.
If Labour win the next election, as expected, then they will take over in exceptionally poor circumstances with a tedious, risk-averse leader, and little thought about what to do about Britain's problems beyond a pastiche of Blairite slogans. I think there's a greater than normal potential for the situation to unravel rapidly.
I would have the situation closer to finely balanced than much more likely.
But the circumstances aren't exceptionally poor. That's the frustrating thing.
The economic situation has some real positives, but the Government is either too piss-poor to sell them as positives, or worse is seeing them as negatives.
We have full employment which most likely isn't going to change that significantly. Inflation is due to fall back, which won't reverse the pain of the last couple of years but will mean new pain won't be happening. Real wages should be growing - and its a Government choice not a law of the economy that they're not right now.
Our biggest problems as an economy are that our debt is too high, and the cost of houses are too high, and we should have have moderately high inflation soon which is perfect for handling both of those by allowing deflating both of them as a ratio to GDP/income.
Starmer is a very lucky general and I think he's going to inherit a mixed-golden economic legacy, and worse for the Tories one they've talked down so won't even be able to take credit for and he will be able to claim the credit then.
Average wages are growing about 6 to 7%, any more than that and that would push up inflation at about 7 to 8% yet further
Average wages are declining.
If a wages go up by 7% when inflation is 10% then that's a 3% pay cut, not a pay rise.
But what's worse is that Sunak froze tax thresholds. So when wages go up by 7% then Sunak taxes you more, while your pay is declining.
So someone on UC, with a Student Loan, facing a 78.4% real tax rate may get a 7% pay rise, but of that they keep only 1.5% of that while inflation is 10%. So that's an 8.5% pay cut.
That's fucking shit.
Inflation is now 7-8%, put average wages up to 8-10%+ and you get an inflationary wage spiral.
Basic economics
An economist would know that inflation has been a lot higher and wages have not kept up for that time. So there is a huge deflationary chunk already built in before you start worrying aboiut wages a percentage point or two above inflation for a brief period.
And if average wages had been 10%+ last year, inflation would now also be 10%+ and rising not fallen to 7% now which is closer in line with average wages anyway.
We have historically had long periods where wages rose faster than inflation. Would that not be a good situation to return to?
Yes, the 1970s and no it would not be, the UK economy was a basket case, with soaring inflation and regular strikes led by powerful trade unions, which was why the government changed so frequently
So, the Brexit Tories have taken us back to the 1970s with their inflation, air of dilapidation of public services and widespread strikes. If only we had some better music with it...
(As a matter of fact GDP growth in the UK was higher in the 1970s in the UK than the 1980s: 30.39% from 70-79; 26.66% from 80-89. So the UK economy was not a basket case in the 1970s, indeed rather vigorous compared to today)
Though the 1970s GDP really needs to be split around 1974. Very healthy growth at the start of the decade, abysmal growth for the rest of it.
The UK was a basket case by the end of the 1970s.
Not sure either of your points stack up. I'll let others interpret the growth figures -
The UK was far from a basket case in the second half of the seventies. Ironically the myth of Thatcher could not have taken root but for it. The unfortunate timing of the 1974-79 Labour Government put it in the phase of capital investment for North Sea oil exploration, rather than allowing it to reap the benefits of that investment. Subsequently, Thatcher took advantage and then misused the benefits - she cut tax for the middle class and provided unemployment benefits for over three million people, instead of investing it. As a result we ended up with an economy dominated by the financial services sector in and around London, ultimately leaving us with the mess we have today.
Your version is the alternative myth of Fatcha, who alone is responsible for everything that's wrong with modern Britain.
Don't be silly.
The reality is that any reasonable analysis of the Thatcher era can't ignore that it was the root of a number of our current problems. The increasing concentration of wealth and political power in London is certainly one of them; the arse made of water privatisation another. Housing, too.
Of course there are balancing positives, but it was a decidedly mixed record.
If it wasn't for the Thatcher years London would not now be a global world city, nor the financial centre of Europe, fewer working class people would own their own homes and the mines would still largely have gone anyway
You have no idea of what might otherwise have happened, as you don't get to run history twice. You're entitled to your opinion, though.
Yes I do, in 1979 we had a below average gdp per capita compared to the rest of Western Europe, by 1990 we had a gdp per capita above the Western European average
I suspect when we get to the next election the figures for the UK relative to large parts of Europe will look dire for the period 2010 to 2023/4?
The 2024 POTUS election will be the first election that, potentially, will be won by AI deciding the outcome. The ways it can be used to sway voters are so manifold and powerful
I see AI is already destroying publishing.
Reminds me of this Spectator article - possibly written under a fake name by a bot - which predicted this. Many scoffed at the time
But bravo to them for trying. I’ve heard rumours the strike might last til January - or beyond. That’s huge
If AI spreads and takes jobs without replacement then we will be back to the 1970s in terms of strikes too, workers aren't go to accept most jobs being taken over by AI, certainly without a big UBI funded by a massive robot/AI tax on corporations
Strikes aren't going to stop AI, any more than loom-smashing stopped the industrial revolution
Then capitalism is dead, at least in its purest form.
If AI leads to mass unemployment and few full time and permanent jobs, most voters ie the non rich and non corporate executives will only vote for parties promising massive robot taxes on corporations to fund big universal basic income and welfare payments.
We will end up with the main western parties effectively offering social democracy just in slightly different forms
AI will kill capitalism as we have known in. What happens then is impossible to say. Revolutions? Civil strife?
A gentle slide into universal basic income and ubiquitous social democracy is right at the optimal end of the Outcome Spectrum
The 2024 POTUS election will be the first election that, potentially, will be won by AI deciding the outcome. The ways it can be used to sway voters are so manifold and powerful
I see AI is already destroying publishing.
Reminds me of this Spectator article - possibly written under a fake name by a bot - which predicted this. Many scoffed at the time
But bravo to them for trying. I’ve heard rumours the strike might last til January - or beyond. That’s huge
If AI spreads and takes jobs without replacement then we will be back to the 1970s in terms of strikes too, workers aren't go to accept most jobs being taken over by AI, certainly without a big UBI funded by a massive robot/AI tax on corporations
Strikes aren't going to stop AI, any more than loom-smashing stopped the industrial revolution
Then capitalism is dead, at least in its purest form.
If AI leads to mass unemployment and few full time and permanent jobs, most voters ie the non rich and non corporate executives will only vote for parties promising massive robot taxes on corporations to fund big universal basic income and welfare payments.
We will end up with the main western parties effectively offering social democracy just in slightly different forms
AI will kill capitalism as we have known in. What happens then is impossible to say. Revolutions? Civil strife?
A gentle slide into universal basic income and ubiquitous social democracy is right at the optimal end of the Outcome Spectrum
If AI is such a bad thing, why are we allowing it to happen?
Because there's no stopping it. If the West did the Chinese wouldn't, and the US would enter into an awful lot of research partnerships with the comp sci departments of universities in places like Wuhan. Plus Musk is in the mix, and there seems to be something in the US constitution to say he can do what he likes.
Human beings are very strange, allowing something to happen which is going to make life worse for nearly everyone.
Well yes. Like war and slavery and global warming and everything else. Kesslerisation is a case in point. It was predicted at the time of sputnik 1, satellites confer just incremental benefits to TV and Internet and weather forecasting and stuff vs the absolutely fundamental disbenefit of locking ourselves in from the rest of the universe and making terrestrial astronomy impossible, but there's money and military advantage and, once again, Musk, and here we are.
Even if every Starlink satellite exploded into shrapnel, in the style of Lemmings*, the orbits would be clear in months. They are very low by recent standards.
GEO is millions of years, by comparison.
Terrestrial astronomy has adapted and continues.
*ancient computer game
Lemmings is one of the greatest games of all time. Still very much holds up, and the graphics are still nice.
Indeed, the human desire to make every datapoint fit a storyline is a very dangerous cognitive bias.
We see that here with the belief that because we had 18 years of Tory rule, followed by 13 years of New Labour, followed by another 14 years of Conservative government, then we must now be due 10-15 years of Labour again.
There is no rule to this pattern. And yet it's remarkably persistent.
Its not a rule, but its most probable.
People are pissed off with the Tories now. Unless or until they become more pissed off with Labour than the Tories, then they're likely to re-elect Labour.
Predictions are normally about odds and what is more likely. Currently Labour being in power for a decade is much more likely than not, but it certainly is not guaranteed.
If Labour win the next election, as expected, then they will take over in exceptionally poor circumstances with a tedious, risk-averse leader, and little thought about what to do about Britain's problems beyond a pastiche of Blairite slogans. I think there's a greater than normal potential for the situation to unravel rapidly.
I would have the situation closer to finely balanced than much more likely.
But the circumstances aren't exceptionally poor. That's the frustrating thing.
The economic situation has some real positives, but the Government is either too piss-poor to sell them as positives, or worse is seeing them as negatives.
We have full employment which most likely isn't going to change that significantly. Inflation is due to fall back, which won't reverse the pain of the last couple of years but will mean new pain won't be happening. Real wages should be growing - and its a Government choice not a law of the economy that they're not right now.
Our biggest problems as an economy are that our debt is too high, and the cost of houses are too high, and we should have have moderately high inflation soon which is perfect for handling both of those by allowing deflating both of them as a ratio to GDP/income.
Starmer is a very lucky general and I think he's going to inherit a mixed-golden economic legacy, and worse for the Tories one they've talked down so won't even be able to take credit for and he will be able to claim the credit then.
Average wages are growing about 6 to 7%, any more than that and that would push up inflation at about 7 to 8% yet further
Average wages are declining.
If a wages go up by 7% when inflation is 10% then that's a 3% pay cut, not a pay rise.
But what's worse is that Sunak froze tax thresholds. So when wages go up by 7% then Sunak taxes you more, while your pay is declining.
So someone on UC, with a Student Loan, facing a 78.4% real tax rate may get a 7% pay rise, but of that they keep only 1.5% of that while inflation is 10%. So that's an 8.5% pay cut.
That's fucking shit.
Inflation is now 7-8%, put average wages up to 8-10%+ and you get an inflationary wage spiral.
Basic economics
An economist would know that inflation has been a lot higher and wages have not kept up for that time. So there is a huge deflationary chunk already built in before you start worrying aboiut wages a percentage point or two above inflation for a brief period.
And if average wages had been 10%+ last year, inflation would now also be 10%+ and rising not fallen to 7% now which is closer in line with average wages anyway.
We have historically had long periods where wages rose faster than inflation. Would that not be a good situation to return to?
Yes, the 1970s and no it would not be, the UK economy was a basket case, with soaring inflation and regular strikes led by powerful trade unions, which was why the government changed so frequently
So, the Brexit Tories have taken us back to the 1970s with their inflation, air of dilapidation of public services and widespread strikes. If only we had some better music with it...
(As a matter of fact GDP growth in the UK was higher in the 1970s in the UK than the 1980s: 30.39% from 70-79; 26.66% from 80-89. So the UK economy was not a basket case in the 1970s, indeed rather vigorous compared to today)
Though the 1970s GDP really needs to be split around 1974. Very healthy growth at the start of the decade, abysmal growth for the rest of it.
The UK was a basket case by the end of the 1970s.
Not sure either of your points stack up. I'll let others interpret the growth figures -
The UK was far from a basket case in the second half of the seventies. Ironically the myth of Thatcher could not have taken root but for it. The unfortunate timing of the 1974-79 Labour Government put it in the phase of capital investment for North Sea oil exploration, rather than allowing it to reap the benefits of that investment. Subsequently, Thatcher took advantage and then misused the benefits - she cut tax for the middle class and provided unemployment benefits for over three million people, instead of investing it. As a result we ended up with an economy dominated by the financial services sector in and around London, ultimately leaving us with the mess we have today.
Your version is the alternative myth of Fatcha, who alone is responsible for everything that's wrong with modern Britain.
Don't be silly.
The reality is that any reasonable analysis of the Thatcher era can't ignore that it was the root of a number of our current problems. The increasing concentration of wealth and political power in London is certainly one of them; the arse made of water privatisation another. Housing, too.
Of course there are balancing positives, but it was a decidedly mixed record.
If it wasn't for the Thatcher years London would not now be a global world city, nor the financial centre of Europe, fewer working class people would own their own homes and the mines would still largely have gone anyway
What's the point of a financial world centre if all the money drains away under the spivs? None at all to the residents of, say, Sedgefield.
Sedgefield schools, hospitals, police officers, state benefits are in large part paid for by taxes paid for by the City of London
Used to be paid locally. And Thatcher made no sane effort to keep industry going (by replacement).
Wrong, Nissan's factory came to Sunderland first in 1984 when Thatcher was PM
Forgotten that, fair enough. But still not enough across the wide swathes of devastation.
Indeed, the human desire to make every datapoint fit a storyline is a very dangerous cognitive bias.
We see that here with the belief that because we had 18 years of Tory rule, followed by 13 years of New Labour, followed by another 14 years of Conservative government, then we must now be due 10-15 years of Labour again.
There is no rule to this pattern. And yet it's remarkably persistent.
Its not a rule, but its most probable.
People are pissed off with the Tories now. Unless or until they become more pissed off with Labour than the Tories, then they're likely to re-elect Labour.
Predictions are normally about odds and what is more likely. Currently Labour being in power for a decade is much more likely than not, but it certainly is not guaranteed.
If Labour win the next election, as expected, then they will take over in exceptionally poor circumstances with a tedious, risk-averse leader, and little thought about what to do about Britain's problems beyond a pastiche of Blairite slogans. I think there's a greater than normal potential for the situation to unravel rapidly.
I would have the situation closer to finely balanced than much more likely.
But the circumstances aren't exceptionally poor. That's the frustrating thing.
The economic situation has some real positives, but the Government is either too piss-poor to sell them as positives, or worse is seeing them as negatives.
We have full employment which most likely isn't going to change that significantly. Inflation is due to fall back, which won't reverse the pain of the last couple of years but will mean new pain won't be happening. Real wages should be growing - and its a Government choice not a law of the economy that they're not right now.
Our biggest problems as an economy are that our debt is too high, and the cost of houses are too high, and we should have have moderately high inflation soon which is perfect for handling both of those by allowing deflating both of them as a ratio to GDP/income.
Starmer is a very lucky general and I think he's going to inherit a mixed-golden economic legacy, and worse for the Tories one they've talked down so won't even be able to take credit for and he will be able to claim the credit then.
Average wages are growing about 6 to 7%, any more than that and that would push up inflation at about 7 to 8% yet further
Average wages are declining.
If a wages go up by 7% when inflation is 10% then that's a 3% pay cut, not a pay rise.
But what's worse is that Sunak froze tax thresholds. So when wages go up by 7% then Sunak taxes you more, while your pay is declining.
So someone on UC, with a Student Loan, facing a 78.4% real tax rate may get a 7% pay rise, but of that they keep only 1.5% of that while inflation is 10%. So that's an 8.5% pay cut.
That's fucking shit.
Inflation is now 7-8%, put average wages up to 8-10%+ and you get an inflationary wage spiral.
Basic economics
An economist would know that inflation has been a lot higher and wages have not kept up for that time. So there is a huge deflationary chunk already built in before you start worrying aboiut wages a percentage point or two above inflation for a brief period.
And if average wages had been 10%+ last year, inflation would now also be 10%+ and rising not fallen to 7% now which is closer in line with average wages anyway.
We have historically had long periods where wages rose faster than inflation. Would that not be a good situation to return to?
Yes, the 1970s and no it would not be, the UK economy was a basket case, with soaring inflation and regular strikes led by powerful trade unions, which was why the government changed so frequently
So, the Brexit Tories have taken us back to the 1970s with their inflation, air of dilapidation of public services and widespread strikes. If only we had some better music with it...
(As a matter of fact GDP growth in the UK was higher in the 1970s in the UK than the 1980s: 30.39% from 70-79; 26.66% from 80-89. So the UK economy was not a basket case in the 1970s, indeed rather vigorous compared to today)
Though the 1970s GDP really needs to be split around 1974. Very healthy growth at the start of the decade, abysmal growth for the rest of it.
The UK was a basket case by the end of the 1970s.
Not sure either of your points stack up. I'll let others interpret the growth figures -
The UK was far from a basket case in the second half of the seventies. Ironically the myth of Thatcher could not have taken root but for it. The unfortunate timing of the 1974-79 Labour Government put it in the phase of capital investment for North Sea oil exploration, rather than allowing it to reap the benefits of that investment. Subsequently, Thatcher took advantage and then misused the benefits - she cut tax for the middle class and provided unemployment benefits for over three million people, instead of investing it. As a result we ended up with an economy dominated by the financial services sector in and around London, ultimately leaving us with the mess we have today.
Your version is the alternative myth of Fatcha, who alone is responsible for everything that's wrong with modern Britain.
Don't be silly.
The reality is that any reasonable analysis of the Thatcher era can't ignore that it was the root of a number of our current problems. The increasing concentration of wealth and political power in London is certainly one of them; the arse made of water privatisation another. Housing, too.
Of course there are balancing positives, but it was a decidedly mixed record.
If it wasn't for the Thatcher years London would not now be a global world city, nor the financial centre of Europe, fewer working class people would own their own homes and the mines would still largely have gone anyway
"Financial Centre of Europe" has started to look a less convincing title since 2016. I was talking to a colleague who trades European sovereign bonds, who said that ten years ago his counterparts were all sat in London, and now most of them aren't. He was very bearish about the UK. Now for some people, a diminished, less dominant, London will be what they want, and I get that. All I say is, be careful what you wish for.
Diehard Remainers like you told us Brexit would have seen Paris and Frankfurt overtake London as the European financial centre long ago, they haven't
Indeed, the human desire to make every datapoint fit a storyline is a very dangerous cognitive bias.
We see that here with the belief that because we had 18 years of Tory rule, followed by 13 years of New Labour, followed by another 14 years of Conservative government, then we must now be due 10-15 years of Labour again.
There is no rule to this pattern. And yet it's remarkably persistent.
Its not a rule, but its most probable.
People are pissed off with the Tories now. Unless or until they become more pissed off with Labour than the Tories, then they're likely to re-elect Labour.
Predictions are normally about odds and what is more likely. Currently Labour being in power for a decade is much more likely than not, but it certainly is not guaranteed.
If Labour win the next election, as expected, then they will take over in exceptionally poor circumstances with a tedious, risk-averse leader, and little thought about what to do about Britain's problems beyond a pastiche of Blairite slogans. I think there's a greater than normal potential for the situation to unravel rapidly.
I would have the situation closer to finely balanced than much more likely.
But the circumstances aren't exceptionally poor. That's the frustrating thing.
The economic situation has some real positives, but the Government is either too piss-poor to sell them as positives, or worse is seeing them as negatives.
We have full employment which most likely isn't going to change that significantly. Inflation is due to fall back, which won't reverse the pain of the last couple of years but will mean new pain won't be happening. Real wages should be growing - and its a Government choice not a law of the economy that they're not right now.
Our biggest problems as an economy are that our debt is too high, and the cost of houses are too high, and we should have have moderately high inflation soon which is perfect for handling both of those by allowing deflating both of them as a ratio to GDP/income.
Starmer is a very lucky general and I think he's going to inherit a mixed-golden economic legacy, and worse for the Tories one they've talked down so won't even be able to take credit for and he will be able to claim the credit then.
Average wages are growing about 6 to 7%, any more than that and that would push up inflation at about 7 to 8% yet further
Average wages are declining.
If a wages go up by 7% when inflation is 10% then that's a 3% pay cut, not a pay rise.
But what's worse is that Sunak froze tax thresholds. So when wages go up by 7% then Sunak taxes you more, while your pay is declining.
So someone on UC, with a Student Loan, facing a 78.4% real tax rate may get a 7% pay rise, but of that they keep only 1.5% of that while inflation is 10%. So that's an 8.5% pay cut.
That's fucking shit.
Inflation is now 7-8%, put average wages up to 8-10%+ and you get an inflationary wage spiral.
Basic economics
An economist would know that inflation has been a lot higher and wages have not kept up for that time. So there is a huge deflationary chunk already built in before you start worrying aboiut wages a percentage point or two above inflation for a brief period.
And if average wages had been 10%+ last year, inflation would now also be 10%+ and rising not fallen to 7% now which is closer in line with average wages anyway.
We have historically had long periods where wages rose faster than inflation. Would that not be a good situation to return to?
Yes, the 1970s and no it would not be, the UK economy was a basket case, with soaring inflation and regular strikes led by powerful trade unions, which was why the government changed so frequently
So, the Brexit Tories have taken us back to the 1970s with their inflation, air of dilapidation of public services and widespread strikes. If only we had some better music with it...
(As a matter of fact GDP growth in the UK was higher in the 1970s in the UK than the 1980s: 30.39% from 70-79; 26.66% from 80-89. So the UK economy was not a basket case in the 1970s, indeed rather vigorous compared to today)
Though the 1970s GDP really needs to be split around 1974. Very healthy growth at the start of the decade, abysmal growth for the rest of it.
The UK was a basket case by the end of the 1970s.
Not sure either of your points stack up. I'll let others interpret the growth figures -
The UK was far from a basket case in the second half of the seventies. Ironically the myth of Thatcher could not have taken root but for it. The unfortunate timing of the 1974-79 Labour Government put it in the phase of capital investment for North Sea oil exploration, rather than allowing it to reap the benefits of that investment. Subsequently, Thatcher took advantage and then misused the benefits - she cut tax for the middle class and provided unemployment benefits for over three million people, instead of investing it. As a result we ended up with an economy dominated by the financial services sector in and around London, ultimately leaving us with the mess we have today.
Your version is the alternative myth of Fatcha, who alone is responsible for everything that's wrong with modern Britain.
Don't be silly.
The reality is that any reasonable analysis of the Thatcher era can't ignore that it was the root of a number of our current problems. The increasing concentration of wealth and political power in London is certainly one of them; the arse made of water privatisation another. Housing, too.
Of course there are balancing positives, but it was a decidedly mixed record.
If it wasn't for the Thatcher years London would not now be a global world city, nor the financial centre of Europe, fewer working class people would own their own homes and the mines would still largely have gone anyway
You mean if it was not for stolen Scottish oil..............
Oh no, Malcolmg the most obnoxious village idiot in the history of village idiots has entered the room. Time to go!!
have a nice afternoon everyone. Try and ignore everything Malcolm says - he doesn't even understand his own country's history. He went to the University of Life lol (he really said that lol)
Indeed, the human desire to make every datapoint fit a storyline is a very dangerous cognitive bias.
We see that here with the belief that because we had 18 years of Tory rule, followed by 13 years of New Labour, followed by another 14 years of Conservative government, then we must now be due 10-15 years of Labour again.
There is no rule to this pattern. And yet it's remarkably persistent.
Its not a rule, but its most probable.
People are pissed off with the Tories now. Unless or until they become more pissed off with Labour than the Tories, then they're likely to re-elect Labour.
Predictions are normally about odds and what is more likely. Currently Labour being in power for a decade is much more likely than not, but it certainly is not guaranteed.
If Labour win the next election, as expected, then they will take over in exceptionally poor circumstances with a tedious, risk-averse leader, and little thought about what to do about Britain's problems beyond a pastiche of Blairite slogans. I think there's a greater than normal potential for the situation to unravel rapidly.
I would have the situation closer to finely balanced than much more likely.
But the circumstances aren't exceptionally poor. That's the frustrating thing.
The economic situation has some real positives, but the Government is either too piss-poor to sell them as positives, or worse is seeing them as negatives.
We have full employment which most likely isn't going to change that significantly. Inflation is due to fall back, which won't reverse the pain of the last couple of years but will mean new pain won't be happening. Real wages should be growing - and its a Government choice not a law of the economy that they're not right now.
Our biggest problems as an economy are that our debt is too high, and the cost of houses are too high, and we should have have moderately high inflation soon which is perfect for handling both of those by allowing deflating both of them as a ratio to GDP/income.
Starmer is a very lucky general and I think he's going to inherit a mixed-golden economic legacy, and worse for the Tories one they've talked down so won't even be able to take credit for and he will be able to claim the credit then.
Average wages are growing about 6 to 7%, any more than that and that would push up inflation at about 7 to 8% yet further
Average wages are declining.
If a wages go up by 7% when inflation is 10% then that's a 3% pay cut, not a pay rise.
But what's worse is that Sunak froze tax thresholds. So when wages go up by 7% then Sunak taxes you more, while your pay is declining.
So someone on UC, with a Student Loan, facing a 78.4% real tax rate may get a 7% pay rise, but of that they keep only 1.5% of that while inflation is 10%. So that's an 8.5% pay cut.
That's fucking shit.
Inflation is now 7-8%, put average wages up to 8-10%+ and you get an inflationary wage spiral.
Basic economics
An economist would know that inflation has been a lot higher and wages have not kept up for that time. So there is a huge deflationary chunk already built in before you start worrying aboiut wages a percentage point or two above inflation for a brief period.
And if average wages had been 10%+ last year, inflation would now also be 10%+ and rising not fallen to 7% now which is closer in line with average wages anyway.
We have historically had long periods where wages rose faster than inflation. Would that not be a good situation to return to?
Yes, the 1970s and no it would not be, the UK economy was a basket case, with soaring inflation and regular strikes led by powerful trade unions, which was why the government changed so frequently
So, the Brexit Tories have taken us back to the 1970s with their inflation, air of dilapidation of public services and widespread strikes. If only we had some better music with it...
(As a matter of fact GDP growth in the UK was higher in the 1970s in the UK than the 1980s: 30.39% from 70-79; 26.66% from 80-89. So the UK economy was not a basket case in the 1970s, indeed rather vigorous compared to today)
Though the 1970s GDP really needs to be split around 1974. Very healthy growth at the start of the decade, abysmal growth for the rest of it.
The UK was a basket case by the end of the 1970s.
Not sure either of your points stack up. I'll let others interpret the growth figures -
The UK was far from a basket case in the second half of the seventies. Ironically the myth of Thatcher could not have taken root but for it. The unfortunate timing of the 1974-79 Labour Government put it in the phase of capital investment for North Sea oil exploration, rather than allowing it to reap the benefits of that investment. Subsequently, Thatcher took advantage and then misused the benefits - she cut tax for the middle class and provided unemployment benefits for over three million people, instead of investing it. As a result we ended up with an economy dominated by the financial services sector in and around London, ultimately leaving us with the mess we have today.
Your version is the alternative myth of Fatcha, who alone is responsible for everything that's wrong with modern Britain.
Don't be silly.
The reality is that any reasonable analysis of the Thatcher era can't ignore that it was the root of a number of our current problems. The increasing concentration of wealth and political power in London is certainly one of them; the arse made of water privatisation another. Housing, too.
Of course there are balancing positives, but it was a decidedly mixed record.
If it wasn't for the Thatcher years London would not now be a global world city, nor the financial centre of Europe, fewer working class people would own their own homes and the mines would still largely have gone anyway
What's the point of a financial world centre if all the money drains away under the spivs? None at all to the residents of, say, Sedgefield.
Sedgefield schools, hospitals, police officers, state benefits are in large part paid for by taxes paid for by the City of London
Used to be paid locally. And Thatcher made no sane effort to keep industry going (by replacement).
Wrong, Nissan's factory came to Sunderland first in 1984 when Thatcher was PM
Forgotten that, fair enough. But still not enough across the wide swathes of devastation.
Unfortunately we were locked into the Common Market by then, so we were powerless to protect our industry from continental competition.
I am sorry to break it to you. Even the government had to disband it's Department for Brexit Opportunities (titter) because it could not find any. There are no benefits of Brexit. There are no fairies at the end of the garden. There are no alien landings.
But I just showed you one. We are now free of burdensome EU regulation on AI. We can develop it as we wish. Now, we may fuck this up - given our recent track record, that's probably a good bet - but at least with Brexit we have the opportunity to steer our own course. That is a palpable benefit. It's up to us to exploit it, or not
“The UK’s approach is driven, in a post-Brexit world, by a desire to encourage AI investment,” [the expert] added, which gives the U.K. more “freedom and flexibility to pitch regulation at the appropriate level to encourage investment,” he said in an email to CNBC.
In contrast the EU’s AI Act could make France “less attractive” for investment in artificial intelligence given that it lays down “a burdensome regulatory regime” for AI, Tanna said."
I will see whether I can throw you another straw to grasp at.
For there to be genuine "benefits of Brexit" for any business, the benefit will need to demonstrably outweigh the disbenefit. As I have self interest in AI I will happily concede if that turns out to be the case. At the moment it seems very unlikely that many businesses that are using AI enabled products would think they have an overall benefit by the UK not being part of the the biggest single market in the world.
We shall see
"The EU Should Learn From How the UK Regulates AI to Stay Competitive"
Though before we preen ourselves too much about the UK's tech savvy, remember that, as things stand, HMG is about to regulate online messaging out of existence;
Politicians on all sides are worryingly clueless on this stuff, and I can't imagine their civil servants are much better. They need impartial, specialist advice.
From the article: "Picture postcards of the era – a popular way for visitors to show families back home where they were visiting in the years before photography was commonplace – made much of the pub's quirks." Have we really reached the point now where we have to explain what a postcard is? I feel old!
Crikey, me too. OLD
Tho it makes sense. I wonder how many kids have any idea what a "typewriter" is, or what it does
Or a slide rule. They're great for teaching logarithms and inciting interest in engineering.
Soon we'll be asking the same question about a road atlas.
Or a brain cell. OMG I'm going to have read H G Wells's Time Machine again.
Joined-up writing has now almost disappeared for most people under 40. When I went to a car garage and wrote a description of the problem for the engineers, this guy was staring at me with his mouth open because I was joining each letter to the next one.
It would be amusing if it wasn't so scary to hear middle-class graduate types, when asked, say the reason they print letters like an infant and don't join them up is because it's "quicker". (It isn't. It's slower. Anyone who can actually do joined-up writing can verify this.)
"The needle returns to the start of the song" needs explaining, as does (to classics undergraduates) a barley sugar column - What's barley sugar?
[gets suddenly nostalgic about barley sugar]
On the episode of Yes Minister on BBC4 on Monday night, which I'm sure you saw (AND IF NOT WHY NOT?), Jim Hacker is caught up with a scheme to get word-proccessors built in the UK. It was amazing. Somebody pointed out the other day that during the whole of the Apollo program letters were written using typewriters.
Indeed, the human desire to make every datapoint fit a storyline is a very dangerous cognitive bias.
We see that here with the belief that because we had 18 years of Tory rule, followed by 13 years of New Labour, followed by another 14 years of Conservative government, then we must now be due 10-15 years of Labour again.
There is no rule to this pattern. And yet it's remarkably persistent.
Its not a rule, but its most probable.
People are pissed off with the Tories now. Unless or until they become more pissed off with Labour than the Tories, then they're likely to re-elect Labour.
Predictions are normally about odds and what is more likely. Currently Labour being in power for a decade is much more likely than not, but it certainly is not guaranteed.
If Labour win the next election, as expected, then they will take over in exceptionally poor circumstances with a tedious, risk-averse leader, and little thought about what to do about Britain's problems beyond a pastiche of Blairite slogans. I think there's a greater than normal potential for the situation to unravel rapidly.
I would have the situation closer to finely balanced than much more likely.
But the circumstances aren't exceptionally poor. That's the frustrating thing.
The economic situation has some real positives, but the Government is either too piss-poor to sell them as positives, or worse is seeing them as negatives.
We have full employment which most likely isn't going to change that significantly. Inflation is due to fall back, which won't reverse the pain of the last couple of years but will mean new pain won't be happening. Real wages should be growing - and its a Government choice not a law of the economy that they're not right now.
Our biggest problems as an economy are that our debt is too high, and the cost of houses are too high, and we should have have moderately high inflation soon which is perfect for handling both of those by allowing deflating both of them as a ratio to GDP/income.
Starmer is a very lucky general and I think he's going to inherit a mixed-golden economic legacy, and worse for the Tories one they've talked down so won't even be able to take credit for and he will be able to claim the credit then.
Average wages are growing about 6 to 7%, any more than that and that would push up inflation at about 7 to 8% yet further
Average wages are declining.
If a wages go up by 7% when inflation is 10% then that's a 3% pay cut, not a pay rise.
But what's worse is that Sunak froze tax thresholds. So when wages go up by 7% then Sunak taxes you more, while your pay is declining.
So someone on UC, with a Student Loan, facing a 78.4% real tax rate may get a 7% pay rise, but of that they keep only 1.5% of that while inflation is 10%. So that's an 8.5% pay cut.
That's fucking shit.
Inflation is now 7-8%, put average wages up to 8-10%+ and you get an inflationary wage spiral.
Basic economics
An economist would know that inflation has been a lot higher and wages have not kept up for that time. So there is a huge deflationary chunk already built in before you start worrying aboiut wages a percentage point or two above inflation for a brief period.
And if average wages had been 10%+ last year, inflation would now also be 10%+ and rising not fallen to 7% now which is closer in line with average wages anyway.
We have historically had long periods where wages rose faster than inflation. Would that not be a good situation to return to?
Yes, the 1970s and no it would not be, the UK economy was a basket case, with soaring inflation and regular strikes led by powerful trade unions, which was why the government changed so frequently
So, the Brexit Tories have taken us back to the 1970s with their inflation, air of dilapidation of public services and widespread strikes. If only we had some better music with it...
(As a matter of fact GDP growth in the UK was higher in the 1970s in the UK than the 1980s: 30.39% from 70-79; 26.66% from 80-89. So the UK economy was not a basket case in the 1970s, indeed rather vigorous compared to today)
Though the 1970s GDP really needs to be split around 1974. Very healthy growth at the start of the decade, abysmal growth for the rest of it.
The UK was a basket case by the end of the 1970s.
Not sure either of your points stack up. I'll let others interpret the growth figures -
The UK was far from a basket case in the second half of the seventies. Ironically the myth of Thatcher could not have taken root but for it. The unfortunate timing of the 1974-79 Labour Government put it in the phase of capital investment for North Sea oil exploration, rather than allowing it to reap the benefits of that investment. Subsequently, Thatcher took advantage and then misused the benefits - she cut tax for the middle class and provided unemployment benefits for over three million people, instead of investing it. As a result we ended up with an economy dominated by the financial services sector in and around London, ultimately leaving us with the mess we have today.
Your version is the alternative myth of Fatcha, who alone is responsible for everything that's wrong with modern Britain.
Don't be silly.
The reality is that any reasonable analysis of the Thatcher era can't ignore that it was the root of a number of our current problems. The increasing concentration of wealth and political power in London is certainly one of them; the arse made of water privatisation another. Housing, too.
Of course there are balancing positives, but it was a decidedly mixed record.
If it wasn't for the Thatcher years London would not now be a global world city, nor the financial centre of Europe, fewer working class people would own their own homes and the mines would still largely have gone anyway
What's the point of a financial world centre if all the money drains away under the spivs? None at all to the residents of, say, Sedgefield.
Sedgefield schools, hospitals, police officers, state benefits are in large part paid for by taxes paid for by the City of London
Used to be paid locally. And Thatcher made no sane effort to keep industry going (by replacement).
Wrong, Nissan's factory came to Sunderland first in 1984 when Thatcher was PM
Forgotten that, fair enough. But still not enough across the wide swathes of devastation.
Unfortunately we were locked into the Common Market by then, so we were powerless to protect our industry from continental competition.
The CM was the reason *why* Nissan built the factory in the first place, as I well recall.
Indeed, the human desire to make every datapoint fit a storyline is a very dangerous cognitive bias.
We see that here with the belief that because we had 18 years of Tory rule, followed by 13 years of New Labour, followed by another 14 years of Conservative government, then we must now be due 10-15 years of Labour again.
There is no rule to this pattern. And yet it's remarkably persistent.
Its not a rule, but its most probable.
People are pissed off with the Tories now. Unless or until they become more pissed off with Labour than the Tories, then they're likely to re-elect Labour.
Predictions are normally about odds and what is more likely. Currently Labour being in power for a decade is much more likely than not, but it certainly is not guaranteed.
If Labour win the next election, as expected, then they will take over in exceptionally poor circumstances with a tedious, risk-averse leader, and little thought about what to do about Britain's problems beyond a pastiche of Blairite slogans. I think there's a greater than normal potential for the situation to unravel rapidly.
I would have the situation closer to finely balanced than much more likely.
But the circumstances aren't exceptionally poor. That's the frustrating thing.
The economic situation has some real positives, but the Government is either too piss-poor to sell them as positives, or worse is seeing them as negatives.
We have full employment which most likely isn't going to change that significantly. Inflation is due to fall back, which won't reverse the pain of the last couple of years but will mean new pain won't be happening. Real wages should be growing - and its a Government choice not a law of the economy that they're not right now.
Our biggest problems as an economy are that our debt is too high, and the cost of houses are too high, and we should have have moderately high inflation soon which is perfect for handling both of those by allowing deflating both of them as a ratio to GDP/income.
Starmer is a very lucky general and I think he's going to inherit a mixed-golden economic legacy, and worse for the Tories one they've talked down so won't even be able to take credit for and he will be able to claim the credit then.
Average wages are growing about 6 to 7%, any more than that and that would push up inflation at about 7 to 8% yet further
Average wages are declining.
If a wages go up by 7% when inflation is 10% then that's a 3% pay cut, not a pay rise.
But what's worse is that Sunak froze tax thresholds. So when wages go up by 7% then Sunak taxes you more, while your pay is declining.
So someone on UC, with a Student Loan, facing a 78.4% real tax rate may get a 7% pay rise, but of that they keep only 1.5% of that while inflation is 10%. So that's an 8.5% pay cut.
That's fucking shit.
Inflation is now 7-8%, put average wages up to 8-10%+ and you get an inflationary wage spiral.
Basic economics
An economist would know that inflation has been a lot higher and wages have not kept up for that time. So there is a huge deflationary chunk already built in before you start worrying aboiut wages a percentage point or two above inflation for a brief period.
And if average wages had been 10%+ last year, inflation would now also be 10%+ and rising not fallen to 7% now which is closer in line with average wages anyway.
We have historically had long periods where wages rose faster than inflation. Would that not be a good situation to return to?
Yes, the 1970s and no it would not be, the UK economy was a basket case, with soaring inflation and regular strikes led by powerful trade unions, which was why the government changed so frequently
So, the Brexit Tories have taken us back to the 1970s with their inflation, air of dilapidation of public services and widespread strikes. If only we had some better music with it...
(As a matter of fact GDP growth in the UK was higher in the 1970s in the UK than the 1980s: 30.39% from 70-79; 26.66% from 80-89. So the UK economy was not a basket case in the 1970s, indeed rather vigorous compared to today)
Though the 1970s GDP really needs to be split around 1974. Very healthy growth at the start of the decade, abysmal growth for the rest of it.
The UK was a basket case by the end of the 1970s.
Not sure either of your points stack up. I'll let others interpret the growth figures -
The UK was far from a basket case in the second half of the seventies. Ironically the myth of Thatcher could not have taken root but for it. The unfortunate timing of the 1974-79 Labour Government put it in the phase of capital investment for North Sea oil exploration, rather than allowing it to reap the benefits of that investment. Subsequently, Thatcher took advantage and then misused the benefits - she cut tax for the middle class and provided unemployment benefits for over three million people, instead of investing it. As a result we ended up with an economy dominated by the financial services sector in and around London, ultimately leaving us with the mess we have today.
Your version is the alternative myth of Fatcha, who alone is responsible for everything that's wrong with modern Britain.
Don't be silly.
The reality is that any reasonable analysis of the Thatcher era can't ignore that it was the root of a number of our current problems. The increasing concentration of wealth and political power in London is certainly one of them; the arse made of water privatisation another. Housing, too.
Of course there are balancing positives, but it was a decidedly mixed record.
If it wasn't for the Thatcher years London would not now be a global world city, nor the financial centre of Europe, fewer working class people would own their own homes and the mines would still largely have gone anyway
What's the point of a financial world centre if all the money drains away under the spivs? None at all to the residents of, say, Sedgefield.
Sedgefield schools, hospitals, police officers, state benefits are in large part paid for by taxes paid for by the City of London
Used to be paid locally. And Thatcher made no sane effort to keep industry going (by replacement).
Wrong, Nissan's factory came to Sunderland first in 1984 when Thatcher was PM
Forgotten that, fair enough. But still not enough across the wide swathes of devastation.
Unfortunately we were locked into the Common Market by then, so we were powerless to protect our industry from continental competition.
'Powerless', really ? Since we had a government ideologically opposed to making any such effort, I suppose you might draw such an erroneous conclusion.
Indeed, the human desire to make every datapoint fit a storyline is a very dangerous cognitive bias.
We see that here with the belief that because we had 18 years of Tory rule, followed by 13 years of New Labour, followed by another 14 years of Conservative government, then we must now be due 10-15 years of Labour again.
There is no rule to this pattern. And yet it's remarkably persistent.
Its not a rule, but its most probable.
People are pissed off with the Tories now. Unless or until they become more pissed off with Labour than the Tories, then they're likely to re-elect Labour.
Predictions are normally about odds and what is more likely. Currently Labour being in power for a decade is much more likely than not, but it certainly is not guaranteed.
If Labour win the next election, as expected, then they will take over in exceptionally poor circumstances with a tedious, risk-averse leader, and little thought about what to do about Britain's problems beyond a pastiche of Blairite slogans. I think there's a greater than normal potential for the situation to unravel rapidly.
I would have the situation closer to finely balanced than much more likely.
But the circumstances aren't exceptionally poor. That's the frustrating thing.
The economic situation has some real positives, but the Government is either too piss-poor to sell them as positives, or worse is seeing them as negatives.
We have full employment which most likely isn't going to change that significantly. Inflation is due to fall back, which won't reverse the pain of the last couple of years but will mean new pain won't be happening. Real wages should be growing - and its a Government choice not a law of the economy that they're not right now.
Our biggest problems as an economy are that our debt is too high, and the cost of houses are too high, and we should have have moderately high inflation soon which is perfect for handling both of those by allowing deflating both of them as a ratio to GDP/income.
Starmer is a very lucky general and I think he's going to inherit a mixed-golden economic legacy, and worse for the Tories one they've talked down so won't even be able to take credit for and he will be able to claim the credit then.
Average wages are growing about 6 to 7%, any more than that and that would push up inflation at about 7 to 8% yet further
Average wages are declining.
If a wages go up by 7% when inflation is 10% then that's a 3% pay cut, not a pay rise.
But what's worse is that Sunak froze tax thresholds. So when wages go up by 7% then Sunak taxes you more, while your pay is declining.
So someone on UC, with a Student Loan, facing a 78.4% real tax rate may get a 7% pay rise, but of that they keep only 1.5% of that while inflation is 10%. So that's an 8.5% pay cut.
That's fucking shit.
Inflation is now 7-8%, put average wages up to 8-10%+ and you get an inflationary wage spiral.
Basic economics
An economist would know that inflation has been a lot higher and wages have not kept up for that time. So there is a huge deflationary chunk already built in before you start worrying aboiut wages a percentage point or two above inflation for a brief period.
And if average wages had been 10%+ last year, inflation would now also be 10%+ and rising not fallen to 7% now which is closer in line with average wages anyway.
We have historically had long periods where wages rose faster than inflation. Would that not be a good situation to return to?
Yes, the 1970s and no it would not be, the UK economy was a basket case, with soaring inflation and regular strikes led by powerful trade unions, which was why the government changed so frequently
So, the Brexit Tories have taken us back to the 1970s with their inflation, air of dilapidation of public services and widespread strikes. If only we had some better music with it...
(As a matter of fact GDP growth in the UK was higher in the 1970s in the UK than the 1980s: 30.39% from 70-79; 26.66% from 80-89. So the UK economy was not a basket case in the 1970s, indeed rather vigorous compared to today)
Though the 1970s GDP really needs to be split around 1974. Very healthy growth at the start of the decade, abysmal growth for the rest of it.
The UK was a basket case by the end of the 1970s.
Not sure either of your points stack up. I'll let others interpret the growth figures -
The UK was far from a basket case in the second half of the seventies. Ironically the myth of Thatcher could not have taken root but for it. The unfortunate timing of the 1974-79 Labour Government put it in the phase of capital investment for North Sea oil exploration, rather than allowing it to reap the benefits of that investment. Subsequently, Thatcher took advantage and then misused the benefits - she cut tax for the middle class and provided unemployment benefits for over three million people, instead of investing it. As a result we ended up with an economy dominated by the financial services sector in and around London, ultimately leaving us with the mess we have today.
Your version is the alternative myth of Fatcha, who alone is responsible for everything that's wrong with modern Britain.
Don't be silly.
The reality is that any reasonable analysis of the Thatcher era can't ignore that it was the root of a number of our current problems. The increasing concentration of wealth and political power in London is certainly one of them; the arse made of water privatisation another. Housing, too.
Of course there are balancing positives, but it was a decidedly mixed record.
If it wasn't for the Thatcher years London would not now be a global world city, nor the financial centre of Europe, fewer working class people would own their own homes and the mines would still largely have gone anyway
"Financial Centre of Europe" has started to look a less convincing title since 2016. I was talking to a colleague who trades European sovereign bonds, who said that ten years ago his counterparts were all sat in London, and now most of them aren't. He was very bearish about the UK. Now for some people, a diminished, less dominant, London will be what they want, and I get that. All I say is, be careful what you wish for.
Diehard Remainers like you told us Brexit would have seen Paris and Frankfurt overtake London as the European financial centre long ago, they haven't
Indeed, the human desire to make every datapoint fit a storyline is a very dangerous cognitive bias.
We see that here with the belief that because we had 18 years of Tory rule, followed by 13 years of New Labour, followed by another 14 years of Conservative government, then we must now be due 10-15 years of Labour again.
There is no rule to this pattern. And yet it's remarkably persistent.
Its not a rule, but its most probable.
People are pissed off with the Tories now. Unless or until they become more pissed off with Labour than the Tories, then they're likely to re-elect Labour.
Predictions are normally about odds and what is more likely. Currently Labour being in power for a decade is much more likely than not, but it certainly is not guaranteed.
If Labour win the next election, as expected, then they will take over in exceptionally poor circumstances with a tedious, risk-averse leader, and little thought about what to do about Britain's problems beyond a pastiche of Blairite slogans. I think there's a greater than normal potential for the situation to unravel rapidly.
I would have the situation closer to finely balanced than much more likely.
But the circumstances aren't exceptionally poor. That's the frustrating thing.
The economic situation has some real positives, but the Government is either too piss-poor to sell them as positives, or worse is seeing them as negatives.
We have full employment which most likely isn't going to change that significantly. Inflation is due to fall back, which won't reverse the pain of the last couple of years but will mean new pain won't be happening. Real wages should be growing - and its a Government choice not a law of the economy that they're not right now.
Our biggest problems as an economy are that our debt is too high, and the cost of houses are too high, and we should have have moderately high inflation soon which is perfect for handling both of those by allowing deflating both of them as a ratio to GDP/income.
Starmer is a very lucky general and I think he's going to inherit a mixed-golden economic legacy, and worse for the Tories one they've talked down so won't even be able to take credit for and he will be able to claim the credit then.
Average wages are growing about 6 to 7%, any more than that and that would push up inflation at about 7 to 8% yet further
Average wages are declining.
If a wages go up by 7% when inflation is 10% then that's a 3% pay cut, not a pay rise.
But what's worse is that Sunak froze tax thresholds. So when wages go up by 7% then Sunak taxes you more, while your pay is declining.
So someone on UC, with a Student Loan, facing a 78.4% real tax rate may get a 7% pay rise, but of that they keep only 1.5% of that while inflation is 10%. So that's an 8.5% pay cut.
That's fucking shit.
Inflation is now 7-8%, put average wages up to 8-10%+ and you get an inflationary wage spiral.
Basic economics
An economist would know that inflation has been a lot higher and wages have not kept up for that time. So there is a huge deflationary chunk already built in before you start worrying aboiut wages a percentage point or two above inflation for a brief period.
And if average wages had been 10%+ last year, inflation would now also be 10%+ and rising not fallen to 7% now which is closer in line with average wages anyway.
We have historically had long periods where wages rose faster than inflation. Would that not be a good situation to return to?
Yes, the 1970s and no it would not be, the UK economy was a basket case, with soaring inflation and regular strikes led by powerful trade unions, which was why the government changed so frequently
So, the Brexit Tories have taken us back to the 1970s with their inflation, air of dilapidation of public services and widespread strikes. If only we had some better music with it...
(As a matter of fact GDP growth in the UK was higher in the 1970s in the UK than the 1980s: 30.39% from 70-79; 26.66% from 80-89. So the UK economy was not a basket case in the 1970s, indeed rather vigorous compared to today)
Though the 1970s GDP really needs to be split around 1974. Very healthy growth at the start of the decade, abysmal growth for the rest of it.
The UK was a basket case by the end of the 1970s.
Not sure either of your points stack up. I'll let others interpret the growth figures -
The UK was far from a basket case in the second half of the seventies. Ironically the myth of Thatcher could not have taken root but for it. The unfortunate timing of the 1974-79 Labour Government put it in the phase of capital investment for North Sea oil exploration, rather than allowing it to reap the benefits of that investment. Subsequently, Thatcher took advantage and then misused the benefits - she cut tax for the middle class and provided unemployment benefits for over three million people, instead of investing it. As a result we ended up with an economy dominated by the financial services sector in and around London, ultimately leaving us with the mess we have today.
Your version is the alternative myth of Fatcha, who alone is responsible for everything that's wrong with modern Britain.
Don't be silly.
The reality is that any reasonable analysis of the Thatcher era can't ignore that it was the root of a number of our current problems. The increasing concentration of wealth and political power in London is certainly one of them; the arse made of water privatisation another. Housing, too.
Of course there are balancing positives, but it was a decidedly mixed record.
If it wasn't for the Thatcher years London would not now be a global world city, nor the financial centre of Europe, fewer working class people would own their own homes and the mines would still largely have gone anyway
What's the point of a financial world centre if all the money drains away under the spivs? None at all to the residents of, say, Sedgefield.
Sedgefield schools, hospitals, police officers, state benefits are in large part paid for by taxes paid for by the City of London
Used to be paid locally. And Thatcher made no sane effort to keep industry going (by replacement).
Wrong, Nissan's factory came to Sunderland first in 1984 when Thatcher was PM
Forgotten that, fair enough. But still not enough across the wide swathes of devastation.
The problem was that swathes of British heavy industry were completely uninterested and opposed to modernisation. There was a very good book written by a chap who tried to save ship building. He would put together a deal only to find the ship builders preferred to go out of business rather than adapt. Both unions and management weren't interested. Why should they be? - all they knew was that another government bung would keep the yard limping along until the next election.
Go round the industrial museums, and giggle at how ancient the machines were. In the 1960s. Let alone the 80s.
From the article: "Picture postcards of the era – a popular way for visitors to show families back home where they were visiting in the years before photography was commonplace – made much of the pub's quirks." Have we really reached the point now where we have to explain what a postcard is? I feel old!
Crikey, me too. OLD
Tho it makes sense. I wonder how many kids have any idea what a "typewriter" is, or what it does
My daughter told me the other day that I was officially old because “I was born in the era of typewriters”
Indeed, the human desire to make every datapoint fit a storyline is a very dangerous cognitive bias.
We see that here with the belief that because we had 18 years of Tory rule, followed by 13 years of New Labour, followed by another 14 years of Conservative government, then we must now be due 10-15 years of Labour again.
There is no rule to this pattern. And yet it's remarkably persistent.
Its not a rule, but its most probable.
People are pissed off with the Tories now. Unless or until they become more pissed off with Labour than the Tories, then they're likely to re-elect Labour.
Predictions are normally about odds and what is more likely. Currently Labour being in power for a decade is much more likely than not, but it certainly is not guaranteed.
If Labour win the next election, as expected, then they will take over in exceptionally poor circumstances with a tedious, risk-averse leader, and little thought about what to do about Britain's problems beyond a pastiche of Blairite slogans. I think there's a greater than normal potential for the situation to unravel rapidly.
I would have the situation closer to finely balanced than much more likely.
But the circumstances aren't exceptionally poor. That's the frustrating thing.
The economic situation has some real positives, but the Government is either too piss-poor to sell them as positives, or worse is seeing them as negatives.
We have full employment which most likely isn't going to change that significantly. Inflation is due to fall back, which won't reverse the pain of the last couple of years but will mean new pain won't be happening. Real wages should be growing - and its a Government choice not a law of the economy that they're not right now.
Our biggest problems as an economy are that our debt is too high, and the cost of houses are too high, and we should have have moderately high inflation soon which is perfect for handling both of those by allowing deflating both of them as a ratio to GDP/income.
Starmer is a very lucky general and I think he's going to inherit a mixed-golden economic legacy, and worse for the Tories one they've talked down so won't even be able to take credit for and he will be able to claim the credit then.
Average wages are growing about 6 to 7%, any more than that and that would push up inflation at about 7 to 8% yet further
Average wages are declining.
If a wages go up by 7% when inflation is 10% then that's a 3% pay cut, not a pay rise.
But what's worse is that Sunak froze tax thresholds. So when wages go up by 7% then Sunak taxes you more, while your pay is declining.
So someone on UC, with a Student Loan, facing a 78.4% real tax rate may get a 7% pay rise, but of that they keep only 1.5% of that while inflation is 10%. So that's an 8.5% pay cut.
That's fucking shit.
Inflation is now 7-8%, put average wages up to 8-10%+ and you get an inflationary wage spiral.
Basic economics
An economist would know that inflation has been a lot higher and wages have not kept up for that time. So there is a huge deflationary chunk already built in before you start worrying aboiut wages a percentage point or two above inflation for a brief period.
And if average wages had been 10%+ last year, inflation would now also be 10%+ and rising not fallen to 7% now which is closer in line with average wages anyway.
We have historically had long periods where wages rose faster than inflation. Would that not be a good situation to return to?
Yes, the 1970s and no it would not be, the UK economy was a basket case, with soaring inflation and regular strikes led by powerful trade unions, which was why the government changed so frequently
So, the Brexit Tories have taken us back to the 1970s with their inflation, air of dilapidation of public services and widespread strikes. If only we had some better music with it...
(As a matter of fact GDP growth in the UK was higher in the 1970s in the UK than the 1980s: 30.39% from 70-79; 26.66% from 80-89. So the UK economy was not a basket case in the 1970s, indeed rather vigorous compared to today)
Though the 1970s GDP really needs to be split around 1974. Very healthy growth at the start of the decade, abysmal growth for the rest of it.
The UK was a basket case by the end of the 1970s.
Not sure either of your points stack up. I'll let others interpret the growth figures -
The UK was far from a basket case in the second half of the seventies. Ironically the myth of Thatcher could not have taken root but for it. The unfortunate timing of the 1974-79 Labour Government put it in the phase of capital investment for North Sea oil exploration, rather than allowing it to reap the benefits of that investment. Subsequently, Thatcher took advantage and then misused the benefits - she cut tax for the middle class and provided unemployment benefits for over three million people, instead of investing it. As a result we ended up with an economy dominated by the financial services sector in and around London, ultimately leaving us with the mess we have today.
Your version is the alternative myth of Fatcha, who alone is responsible for everything that's wrong with modern Britain.
Don't be silly.
The reality is that any reasonable analysis of the Thatcher era can't ignore that it was the root of a number of our current problems. The increasing concentration of wealth and political power in London is certainly one of them; the arse made of water privatisation another. Housing, too.
Of course there are balancing positives, but it was a decidedly mixed record.
If it wasn't for the Thatcher years London would not now be a global world city, nor the financial centre of Europe, fewer working class people would own their own homes and the mines would still largely have gone anyway
What's the point of a financial world centre if all the money drains away under the spivs? None at all to the residents of, say, Sedgefield.
Sedgefield schools, hospitals, police officers, state benefits are in large part paid for by taxes paid for by the City of London
Used to be paid locally. And Thatcher made no sane effort to keep industry going (by replacement).
Wrong, Nissan's factory came to Sunderland first in 1984 when Thatcher was PM
Forgotten that, fair enough. But still not enough across the wide swathes of devastation.
Unfortunately we were locked into the Common Market by then, so we were powerless to protect our industry from continental competition.
'Powerless', really ? Since we had a government ideologically opposed to making any such effort, I suppose you might draw such an erroneous conclusion.
Thatcher was far less ideological than her caricature. If she'd come to power in a UK that wasn't part of the EEC, I doubt she'd have been falling over herself to allow German imports to decimate British industry.
I am sorry to break it to you. Even the government had to disband it's Department for Brexit Opportunities (titter) because it could not find any. There are no benefits of Brexit. There are no fairies at the end of the garden. There are no alien landings.
But I just showed you one. We are now free of burdensome EU regulation on AI. We can develop it as we wish. Now, we may fuck this up - given our recent track record, that's probably a good bet - but at least with Brexit we have the opportunity to steer our own course. That is a palpable benefit. It's up to us to exploit it, or not
“The UK’s approach is driven, in a post-Brexit world, by a desire to encourage AI investment,” [the expert] added, which gives the U.K. more “freedom and flexibility to pitch regulation at the appropriate level to encourage investment,” he said in an email to CNBC.
In contrast the EU’s AI Act could make France “less attractive” for investment in artificial intelligence given that it lays down “a burdensome regulatory regime” for AI, Tanna said."
I will see whether I can throw you another straw to grasp at.
For there to be genuine "benefits of Brexit" for any business, the benefit will need to demonstrably outweigh the disbenefit. As I have self interest in AI I will happily concede if that turns out to be the case. At the moment it seems very unlikely that many businesses that are using AI enabled products would think they have an overall benefit by the UK not being part of the the biggest single market in the world.
We shall see
"The EU Should Learn From How the UK Regulates AI to Stay Competitive"
Though before we preen ourselves too much about the UK's tech savvy, remember that, as things stand, HMG is about to regulate online messaging out of existence;
On an entirely unrelated point, where do I get a VPN registered in a US state with freedom-of-speech laws or a Starlink uplink to bypass the UK entirely? Asking for a paranoid friend who wants to live in a free bloody country.
From the article: "Picture postcards of the era – a popular way for visitors to show families back home where they were visiting in the years before photography was commonplace – made much of the pub's quirks." Have we really reached the point now where we have to explain what a postcard is? I feel old!
Crikey, me too. OLD
Tho it makes sense. I wonder how many kids have any idea what a "typewriter" is, or what it does
My daughter told me the other day that I was officially old because “I was born in the era of typewriters”
I visited a museum in US and was surprised to find a typewriter on display
Indeed, the human desire to make every datapoint fit a storyline is a very dangerous cognitive bias.
We see that here with the belief that because we had 18 years of Tory rule, followed by 13 years of New Labour, followed by another 14 years of Conservative government, then we must now be due 10-15 years of Labour again.
There is no rule to this pattern. And yet it's remarkably persistent.
Its not a rule, but its most probable.
People are pissed off with the Tories now. Unless or until they become more pissed off with Labour than the Tories, then they're likely to re-elect Labour.
Predictions are normally about odds and what is more likely. Currently Labour being in power for a decade is much more likely than not, but it certainly is not guaranteed.
If Labour win the next election, as expected, then they will take over in exceptionally poor circumstances with a tedious, risk-averse leader, and little thought about what to do about Britain's problems beyond a pastiche of Blairite slogans. I think there's a greater than normal potential for the situation to unravel rapidly.
I would have the situation closer to finely balanced than much more likely.
But the circumstances aren't exceptionally poor. That's the frustrating thing.
The economic situation has some real positives, but the Government is either too piss-poor to sell them as positives, or worse is seeing them as negatives.
We have full employment which most likely isn't going to change that significantly. Inflation is due to fall back, which won't reverse the pain of the last couple of years but will mean new pain won't be happening. Real wages should be growing - and its a Government choice not a law of the economy that they're not right now.
Our biggest problems as an economy are that our debt is too high, and the cost of houses are too high, and we should have have moderately high inflation soon which is perfect for handling both of those by allowing deflating both of them as a ratio to GDP/income.
Starmer is a very lucky general and I think he's going to inherit a mixed-golden economic legacy, and worse for the Tories one they've talked down so won't even be able to take credit for and he will be able to claim the credit then.
Average wages are growing about 6 to 7%, any more than that and that would push up inflation at about 7 to 8% yet further
Average wages are declining.
If a wages go up by 7% when inflation is 10% then that's a 3% pay cut, not a pay rise.
But what's worse is that Sunak froze tax thresholds. So when wages go up by 7% then Sunak taxes you more, while your pay is declining.
So someone on UC, with a Student Loan, facing a 78.4% real tax rate may get a 7% pay rise, but of that they keep only 1.5% of that while inflation is 10%. So that's an 8.5% pay cut.
That's fucking shit.
Inflation is now 7-8%, put average wages up to 8-10%+ and you get an inflationary wage spiral.
Basic economics
An economist would know that inflation has been a lot higher and wages have not kept up for that time. So there is a huge deflationary chunk already built in before you start worrying aboiut wages a percentage point or two above inflation for a brief period.
And if average wages had been 10%+ last year, inflation would now also be 10%+ and rising not fallen to 7% now which is closer in line with average wages anyway.
We have historically had long periods where wages rose faster than inflation. Would that not be a good situation to return to?
Yes, the 1970s and no it would not be, the UK economy was a basket case, with soaring inflation and regular strikes led by powerful trade unions, which was why the government changed so frequently
So, the Brexit Tories have taken us back to the 1970s with their inflation, air of dilapidation of public services and widespread strikes. If only we had some better music with it...
(As a matter of fact GDP growth in the UK was higher in the 1970s in the UK than the 1980s: 30.39% from 70-79; 26.66% from 80-89. So the UK economy was not a basket case in the 1970s, indeed rather vigorous compared to today)
Though the 1970s GDP really needs to be split around 1974. Very healthy growth at the start of the decade, abysmal growth for the rest of it.
The UK was a basket case by the end of the 1970s.
Not sure either of your points stack up. I'll let others interpret the growth figures -
The UK was far from a basket case in the second half of the seventies. Ironically the myth of Thatcher could not have taken root but for it. The unfortunate timing of the 1974-79 Labour Government put it in the phase of capital investment for North Sea oil exploration, rather than allowing it to reap the benefits of that investment. Subsequently, Thatcher took advantage and then misused the benefits - she cut tax for the middle class and provided unemployment benefits for over three million people, instead of investing it. As a result we ended up with an economy dominated by the financial services sector in and around London, ultimately leaving us with the mess we have today.
Your version is the alternative myth of Fatcha, who alone is responsible for everything that's wrong with modern Britain.
Don't be silly.
The reality is that any reasonable analysis of the Thatcher era can't ignore that it was the root of a number of our current problems. The increasing concentration of wealth and political power in London is certainly one of them; the arse made of water privatisation another. Housing, too.
Of course there are balancing positives, but it was a decidedly mixed record.
If it wasn't for the Thatcher years London would not now be a global world city, nor the financial centre of Europe, fewer working class people would own their own homes and the mines would still largely have gone anyway
"Financial Centre of Europe" has started to look a less convincing title since 2016. I was talking to a colleague who trades European sovereign bonds, who said that ten years ago his counterparts were all sat in London, and now most of them aren't. He was very bearish about the UK. Now for some people, a diminished, less dominant, London will be what they want, and I get that. All I say is, be careful what you wish for.
Diehard Remainers like you told us Brexit would have seen Paris and Frankfurt overtake London as the European financial centre long ago, they haven't
Diehard Tory propagandists like you...
Is diehard remainers a Christmas film?
Bienvenue à la fête, mon pote. Ho-ho-ho. Maintenant, j'ai une mitrailleuse. Youpi-kay-yay, enfoiré
I am sorry to break it to you. Even the government had to disband it's Department for Brexit Opportunities (titter) because it could not find any. There are no benefits of Brexit. There are no fairies at the end of the garden. There are no alien landings.
But I just showed you one. We are now free of burdensome EU regulation on AI. We can develop it as we wish. Now, we may fuck this up - given our recent track record, that's probably a good bet - but at least with Brexit we have the opportunity to steer our own course. That is a palpable benefit. It's up to us to exploit it, or not
“The UK’s approach is driven, in a post-Brexit world, by a desire to encourage AI investment,” [the expert] added, which gives the U.K. more “freedom and flexibility to pitch regulation at the appropriate level to encourage investment,” he said in an email to CNBC.
In contrast the EU’s AI Act could make France “less attractive” for investment in artificial intelligence given that it lays down “a burdensome regulatory regime” for AI, Tanna said."
I will see whether I can throw you another straw to grasp at.
For there to be genuine "benefits of Brexit" for any business, the benefit will need to demonstrably outweigh the disbenefit. As I have self interest in AI I will happily concede if that turns out to be the case. At the moment it seems very unlikely that many businesses that are using AI enabled products would think they have an overall benefit by the UK not being part of the the biggest single market in the world.
We shall see
"The EU Should Learn From How the UK Regulates AI to Stay Competitive"
Though before we preen ourselves too much about the UK's tech savvy, remember that, as things stand, HMG is about to regulate online messaging out of existence;
On an entirely unrelated point, where do I get a VPN registered in a US state with freedom-of-speech laws or a Starlink uplink to bypass the UK entirely? Asking for a paranoid friend who wants to live in a free bloody country.
It's all just a plan to normalise Tor use with the general population.
From the article: "Picture postcards of the era – a popular way for visitors to show families back home where they were visiting in the years before photography was commonplace – made much of the pub's quirks." Have we really reached the point now where we have to explain what a postcard is? I feel old!
Crikey, me too. OLD
Tho it makes sense. I wonder how many kids have any idea what a "typewriter" is, or what it does
My daughter told me the other day that I was officially old because “I was born in the era of typewriters”
I visited a museum in US and was surprised to find a typewriter on display
If things keep going, in ten years time we'll be asking "what was a museum", twenty years "what was the internet", and thirty years "what was the US"?
From the article: "Picture postcards of the era – a popular way for visitors to show families back home where they were visiting in the years before photography was commonplace – made much of the pub's quirks." Have we really reached the point now where we have to explain what a postcard is? I feel old!
Crikey, me too. OLD
Tho it makes sense. I wonder how many kids have any idea what a "typewriter" is, or what it does
My daughter told me the other day that I was officially old because “I was born in the era of typewriters”
I visited a museum in US and was surprised to find a typewriter on display
I am sorry to break it to you. Even the government had to disband it's Department for Brexit Opportunities (titter) because it could not find any. There are no benefits of Brexit. There are no fairies at the end of the garden. There are no alien landings.
But I just showed you one. We are now free of burdensome EU regulation on AI. We can develop it as we wish. Now, we may fuck this up - given our recent track record, that's probably a good bet - but at least with Brexit we have the opportunity to steer our own course. That is a palpable benefit. It's up to us to exploit it, or not
“The UK’s approach is driven, in a post-Brexit world, by a desire to encourage AI investment,” [the expert] added, which gives the U.K. more “freedom and flexibility to pitch regulation at the appropriate level to encourage investment,” he said in an email to CNBC.
In contrast the EU’s AI Act could make France “less attractive” for investment in artificial intelligence given that it lays down “a burdensome regulatory regime” for AI, Tanna said."
I will see whether I can throw you another straw to grasp at.
For there to be genuine "benefits of Brexit" for any business, the benefit will need to demonstrably outweigh the disbenefit. As I have self interest in AI I will happily concede if that turns out to be the case. At the moment it seems very unlikely that many businesses that are using AI enabled products would think they have an overall benefit by the UK not being part of the the biggest single market in the world.
We shall see
"The EU Should Learn From How the UK Regulates AI to Stay Competitive"
Though before we preen ourselves too much about the UK's tech savvy, remember that, as things stand, HMG is about to regulate online messaging out of existence;
On an entirely unrelated point, where do I get a VPN registered in a US state with freedom-of-speech laws or a Starlink uplink to bypass the UK entirely? Asking for a paranoid friend who wants to live in a free bloody country.
In order to operate in a country, Starlink needs licensing from the government* of that country. This is under existing international telecommunications law. This is enforced both by the terminal and by the satellites - they don't broadcast to countries outside the agreements (apart from Iran).
As part of the granting of the license, nearly all governments, including the UK (IIRC) mandate that all traffic from their territorial domains is downlinked to station(s) within their territory and connects to the internet there. This means that each country retains control of internet access, even via Starlink
Starlink is gradually rolling out laser links between satellites. However, this won't be used as a way round this.
*Turning Starlink terminals on in Iran was an interesting exception, at the behest of the Biden adminstartion.
From the article: "Picture postcards of the era – a popular way for visitors to show families back home where they were visiting in the years before photography was commonplace – made much of the pub's quirks." Have we really reached the point now where we have to explain what a postcard is? I feel old!
I would encourage everyone to send a postcard next time they're on holiday. Keep the traditions going.
From the article: "Picture postcards of the era – a popular way for visitors to show families back home where they were visiting in the years before photography was commonplace – made much of the pub's quirks." Have we really reached the point now where we have to explain what a postcard is? I feel old!
Crikey, me too. OLD
Tho it makes sense. I wonder how many kids have any idea what a "typewriter" is, or what it does
My daughter told me the other day that I was officially old because “I was born in the era of typewriters”
I visited a museum in US and was surprised to find a typewriter on display
From the article: "Picture postcards of the era – a popular way for visitors to show families back home where they were visiting in the years before photography was commonplace – made much of the pub's quirks." Have we really reached the point now where we have to explain what a postcard is? I feel old!
Crikey, me too. OLD
Tho it makes sense. I wonder how many kids have any idea what a "typewriter" is, or what it does
My daughter told me the other day that I was officially old because “I was born in the era of typewriters”
I visited a museum in US and was surprised to find a typewriter on display
From the article: "Picture postcards of the era – a popular way for visitors to show families back home where they were visiting in the years before photography was commonplace – made much of the pub's quirks." Have we really reached the point now where we have to explain what a postcard is? I feel old!
Crikey, me too. OLD
Tho it makes sense. I wonder how many kids have any idea what a "typewriter" is, or what it does
My daughter told me the other day that I was officially old because “I was born in the era of typewriters”
I visited a museum in US and was surprised to find a typewriter on display
There's an iPod on display in the Design Museum.
I’ve never found (and never will find) an adequate replacement for the combo of my now-dead laptop with iTunes (rip) and my 160gb iPod classic (also dead).
Loads of music not available to stream, and all my old cd library. Spotify is great - teenage me couldn’t have possibly dreamt of such a wonderful service - but I generally need internet, my phone battery is crap etc etc.
Indeed, the human desire to make every datapoint fit a storyline is a very dangerous cognitive bias.
We see that here with the belief that because we had 18 years of Tory rule, followed by 13 years of New Labour, followed by another 14 years of Conservative government, then we must now be due 10-15 years of Labour again.
There is no rule to this pattern. And yet it's remarkably persistent.
Its not a rule, but its most probable.
People are pissed off with the Tories now. Unless or until they become more pissed off with Labour than the Tories, then they're likely to re-elect Labour.
Predictions are normally about odds and what is more likely. Currently Labour being in power for a decade is much more likely than not, but it certainly is not guaranteed.
If Labour win the next election, as expected, then they will take over in exceptionally poor circumstances with a tedious, risk-averse leader, and little thought about what to do about Britain's problems beyond a pastiche of Blairite slogans. I think there's a greater than normal potential for the situation to unravel rapidly.
I would have the situation closer to finely balanced than much more likely.
But the circumstances aren't exceptionally poor. That's the frustrating thing.
The economic situation has some real positives, but the Government is either too piss-poor to sell them as positives, or worse is seeing them as negatives.
We have full employment which most likely isn't going to change that significantly. Inflation is due to fall back, which won't reverse the pain of the last couple of years but will mean new pain won't be happening. Real wages should be growing - and its a Government choice not a law of the economy that they're not right now.
Our biggest problems as an economy are that our debt is too high, and the cost of houses are too high, and we should have have moderately high inflation soon which is perfect for handling both of those by allowing deflating both of them as a ratio to GDP/income.
Starmer is a very lucky general and I think he's going to inherit a mixed-golden economic legacy, and worse for the Tories one they've talked down so won't even be able to take credit for and he will be able to claim the credit then.
Average wages are growing about 6 to 7%, any more than that and that would push up inflation at about 7 to 8% yet further
Average wages are declining.
If a wages go up by 7% when inflation is 10% then that's a 3% pay cut, not a pay rise.
But what's worse is that Sunak froze tax thresholds. So when wages go up by 7% then Sunak taxes you more, while your pay is declining.
So someone on UC, with a Student Loan, facing a 78.4% real tax rate may get a 7% pay rise, but of that they keep only 1.5% of that while inflation is 10%. So that's an 8.5% pay cut.
That's fucking shit.
Inflation is now 7-8%, put average wages up to 8-10%+ and you get an inflationary wage spiral.
Basic economics
An economist would know that inflation has been a lot higher and wages have not kept up for that time. So there is a huge deflationary chunk already built in before you start worrying aboiut wages a percentage point or two above inflation for a brief period.
And if average wages had been 10%+ last year, inflation would now also be 10%+ and rising not fallen to 7% now which is closer in line with average wages anyway.
We have historically had long periods where wages rose faster than inflation. Would that not be a good situation to return to?
Yes, the 1970s and no it would not be, the UK economy was a basket case, with soaring inflation and regular strikes led by powerful trade unions, which was why the government changed so frequently
So, the Brexit Tories have taken us back to the 1970s with their inflation, air of dilapidation of public services and widespread strikes. If only we had some better music with it...
(As a matter of fact GDP growth in the UK was higher in the 1970s in the UK than the 1980s: 30.39% from 70-79; 26.66% from 80-89. So the UK economy was not a basket case in the 1970s, indeed rather vigorous compared to today)
Though the 1970s GDP really needs to be split around 1974. Very healthy growth at the start of the decade, abysmal growth for the rest of it.
The UK was a basket case by the end of the 1970s.
Not sure either of your points stack up. I'll let others interpret the growth figures -
The UK was far from a basket case in the second half of the seventies. Ironically the myth of Thatcher could not have taken root but for it. The unfortunate timing of the 1974-79 Labour Government put it in the phase of capital investment for North Sea oil exploration, rather than allowing it to reap the benefits of that investment. Subsequently, Thatcher took advantage and then misused the benefits - she cut tax for the middle class and provided unemployment benefits for over three million people, instead of investing it. As a result we ended up with an economy dominated by the financial services sector in and around London, ultimately leaving us with the mess we have today.
Your version is the alternative myth of Fatcha, who alone is responsible for everything that's wrong with modern Britain.
Don't be silly.
The reality is that any reasonable analysis of the Thatcher era can't ignore that it was the root of a number of our current problems. The increasing concentration of wealth and political power in London is certainly one of them; the arse made of water privatisation another. Housing, too.
Of course there are balancing positives, but it was a decidedly mixed record.
If it wasn't for the Thatcher years London would not now be a global world city, nor the financial centre of Europe, fewer working class people would own their own homes and the mines would still largely have gone anyway
What's the point of a financial world centre if all the money drains away under the spivs? None at all to the residents of, say, Sedgefield.
Sedgefield schools, hospitals, police officers, state benefits are in large part paid for by taxes paid for by the City of London
Used to be paid locally. And Thatcher made no sane effort to keep industry going (by replacement).
Wrong, Nissan's factory came to Sunderland first in 1984 when Thatcher was PM
Forgotten that, fair enough. But still not enough across the wide swathes of devastation.
Unfortunately we were locked into the Common Market by then, so we were powerless to protect our industry from continental competition.
'Powerless', really ? Since we had a government ideologically opposed to making any such effort, I suppose you might draw such an erroneous conclusion.
Thatcher was far less ideological than her caricature. If she'd come to power in a UK that wasn't part of the EEC, I doubt she'd have been falling over herself to allow German imports to decimate British industry.
She was absolutely insistent on not protecting Uk companies from foreign competition or takeover. It was an article of faith not to have an industrial strategy.
But industrial policy was deeply constrained, with large cuts in the DTI and regional aid budgets (the latter draconian). Such interventions as there were tended to be unsystematic (eg the British Leyland and I L bailouts). I wouldn't dignify it with the title of industrial strategy.
Comments
Tho it makes sense. I wonder how many kids have any idea what a "typewriter" is, or what it does
GEO is millions of years, by comparison.
Terrestrial astronomy has adapted and continues.
*ancient computer game
“The UK’s approach is driven, in a post-Brexit world, by a desire to encourage AI investment,” [the expert] added, which gives the U.K. more “freedom and flexibility to pitch regulation at the appropriate level to encourage investment,” he said in an email to CNBC.
In contrast the EU’s AI Act could make France “less attractive” for investment in artificial intelligence given that it lays down “a burdensome regulatory regime” for AI, Tanna said."
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/07/18/france-and-britain-are-battling-it-out-for-europes-ai-crown.html
There’s a reason that this stuff is spreading fast.
EDIT: how do you get your 5G in a remote community? Ever wonder?
(As a matter of fact GDP growth in the UK was higher in the 1970s in the UK than the 1980s: 30.39% from 70-79; 26.66% from 80-89. So the UK economy was not a basket case in the 1970s, indeed rather vigorous compared to today)
£115 per week for a one bed flat = £5980 per year.
If you want to build a 50 sqm one bed flat, current build costs are £2500 per sqm pre land, services etc. £125k. The cheapest new build flats are being sold in the south east for around £250k.
A decade ago build costs were a fraction of what they are now, developers were able to build and then sell flats at £125k, whilst making a profit.
The LHA now would not even cover paying the interest on a loan at 5% to build a £125k flat, even if everything else (land, connections etc) fell in to place.
For there to be genuine "benefits of Brexit" for any business, the benefit will need to demonstrably outweigh the disbenefit. As I have self interest in AI I will happily concede if that turns out to be the case. At the moment it seems very unlikely that many businesses that are using AI enabled products would think they have an overall benefit by the UK not being part of the the biggest single market in the world.
Of course there will be benefits, just as there have been disbenefits. Brexit was a huge national life change, equivalent to say, "having a baby". Good and bad consequences flow from these imponderable but enormous evolutions
First pass, half the cost of a building project is labour. But then you have the labour to make the materials… it all comes back to labour cost. Which is now largely a function of housing cost, in large chunks of the U.K.
"The EU Should Learn From How the UK Regulates AI to Stay Competitive"
https://datainnovation.org/2023/04/the-eu-should-learn-from-how-the-uk-regulates-ai-to-stay-competitive/
As a French co-worker put it, creating a startup in France and doing it honestly - you might as well file for bankruptcy first.
Most of the French startups I know of, offshore the development etc - the actual bit in France is the owner and a name plate. To collect various government incentives.
The UK was a basket case by the end of the 1970s.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-66455616
If the latter, you choose the UK. As things stand. It is notable that ChatGPT and Anthropic have both chosen London for their European HQs
https://www.standard.co.uk/tech/openai-london-offices-chatgpt-b1091094.html
Tho we are doing alright on AI so far, with some serious players in London
Oh, why, were we going to join the USA?
There's precedents for passing up huge gains to avoid even huger dangers. We could have saved millions from malaria with DDT.
The writer developed the idea that meaingful work would become incredibly precious and enviable, and people who had proper "jobs", even if only for a few hours a week, were regarded as vastly lucky. Everyone else was either bored witless or stoned on drugs to keep them quiet
Brilliant bit of foresight, looking back
UK GDP Growth was 2.91% in 76, 2.46% in 77, 4.2% in 78 and 3.75% in 79.
Better figures than we can manage at present!
https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/GBR/united-kingdom/gdp-growth-rate
The UK was far from a basket case in the second half of the seventies. Ironically the myth of Thatcher could not have taken root but for it. The unfortunate timing of the 1974-79 Labour Government put it in the phase of capital investment for North Sea oil exploration, rather than allowing it to reap the benefits of that investment. Subsequently, Thatcher took advantage and then misused the benefits - she cut tax for the middle class and provided unemployment benefits for over three million people, instead of investing it. As a result we ended up with an economy dominated by the financial services sector in and around London, ultimately leaving us with the mess we have today.
"@ Sunil_Prasannan - You have been found guilty of disrespect to the LGBTQIA+AI community, due to your remarks on political betting in the past. You are sentenced to 100 years of cryo-prison."
"India's greenhouse emissions rate dropped by 33 per cent in 14 years, officials report.
This drop is faster than expected and is down to a rise in renewable energy generation and forest cover, according to two officials who have seen the latest assessment made for submission to the United Nations."
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/india-slashes-emissions-rate-by-one-third-in-14-years-putting-it-on-track-to-reach-un-goal/ar-AA1f54VZ?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=1add649c167a43f19aef8fb4e509a772&ei=24
And to be fair to these people, since the Brexit vote, obvious, tangible, yay-look-at-this Brexit Benefits have been pretty thin on the ground. Or, in fact, utterly non existent.
He's then reduced to fluffing low tax digital nomad visas if you move to Spain.
The UK has developed a strong lead here, one of the few positives over the last 15 years or so. Let's keep pushing.
London was miles behind New York city, now London is clearly the financial centre of Europe and a genuine alternative for global high flyers
Soon we'll be asking the same question about a road atlas.
Or a brain cell. OMG I'm going to have read H G Wells's Time Machine again.
Joined-up writing has now almost disappeared for most people under 40. When I went to a car garage and wrote a description of the problem for the engineers, this guy was staring at me with his mouth open because I was joining each letter to the next one.
It would be amusing if it wasn't so scary to hear middle-class graduate types, when asked, say the reason they print letters like an infant and don't join them up is because it's "quicker". (It isn't. It's slower. Anyone who can actually do joined-up writing can verify this.)
The reality is that any reasonable analysis of the Thatcher era can't ignore that it was the root of a number of our current problems.
The increasing concentration of wealth and political power in London is certainly one of them; the arse made of water privatisation another. Housing, too.
Of course there are balancing positives, but it was a decidedly mixed record.
https://twitter.com/KHONnews/status/1689545709266341888
Nasty.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12392871/Autistic-girl-16-arrested-dragged-screaming-home-Leeds-12-officers-saying-female-cop-looked-like-lesbian-nana.html
Delapidation of public services - one example is the slumification of state-owned housing, which began in the 1980s and has been ongoing ever since, including under Blair and Brown, so it's not quite accurate to say the Tories are returning to it. This didn't have to happen. In the 1970s many council houses were in good condition and tended to have quite large rooms compared to private-sector houses, albeit smaller plots, often no driveways, too much concrete, and so on - but they were by no means all "slums in the sky" or on "sink estates". Take a look at the St Helier estate in south London, which had quite a garden city feel. Less of a drug problem then too.
But some of our current problems have their roots in the Thatcher era, and others in the ongoing obsession with cargo cult Thatcherism.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12392833/Supermarket-closed-fears-male-shoppers-suffer-permanent-erections-Spider-bite-cause-bizarre-reaction-men-sparks-evacuation.html
For which party could currently UNDECIDED voters see themselves voting? (6 August)
Conservative 20%
Labour 19%
An independent 14%
None 14%
Liberal Democrat 13%
Green 12%
Reform UK 8%
https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1689627710950174720
18% were undecided.
35% of the 18% were still undecided after being pressed.
That's about 6% of those polled. Even if they break 2-1 for the Tories it will make only a couple of points difference to the Labour lead.
You're entitled to your opinion, though.
have a nice afternoon everyone. Try and ignore everything Malcolm says - he doesn't even understand his own country's history. He went to the University of Life lol (he really said that lol)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/66449456
On the episode of Yes Minister on BBC4 on Monday night, which I'm sure you saw (AND IF NOT WHY NOT?), Jim Hacker is caught up with a scheme to get word-proccessors built in the UK. It was amazing. Somebody pointed out the other day that during the whole of the Apollo program letters were written using typewriters.
Since we had a government ideologically opposed to making any such effort, I suppose you might draw such an erroneous conclusion.
Go round the industrial museums, and giggle at how ancient the machines were. In the 1960s. Let alone the 80s.
As part of the granting of the license, nearly all governments, including the UK (IIRC) mandate that all traffic from their territorial domains is downlinked to station(s) within their territory and connects to the internet there. This means that each country retains control of internet access, even via Starlink
Starlink is gradually rolling out laser links between satellites. However, this won't be used as a way round this.
*Turning Starlink terminals on in Iran was an interesting exception, at the behest of the Biden adminstartion.
Loads of music not available to stream, and all my old cd library. Spotify is great - teenage me couldn’t have possibly dreamt of such a wonderful service - but I generally need internet, my phone battery is crap etc etc.
It was an article of faith not to have an industrial strategy.
Of course the picture is a little more complicated than that, as this rather good analysis details.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/13691481221077854
But industrial policy was deeply constrained, with large cuts in the DTI and regional aid budgets (the latter draconian).
Such interventions as there were tended to be unsystematic (eg the British Leyland and I L bailouts).
I wouldn't dignify it with the title of industrial strategy.