No, I offered FURTHER evidence, on top of the IQ data and university stuff.
Look, I'm not here to make your life easier - or worse. Fuck it. This isn't a partisan thing! I'm just pointing out painful facts that we all must face, yet few acknowledge (and I speak as the father of two 9 year old daughters going thru the western educational system - I wish what I am saying wasn't true).
The fact is, the West's absolute advantage over the rest of the world has gone. For good. Right now we still have a marginal advantage, but it is rapidly diminishing over time, and we are wilfully destroying it in things like education, where our USP - free liberal debate - (something China denies, inter alia) - is being demolished. We are deliberately handicapping ourselves. Ruining what the world wants.
On top of that, we are - esp in America - actively excluding THEIR students, racially.... because they are too good. Too hard working. Too bright. How long will they tolerate that before developing Oxfords and Harvards of their own?
You are all too clever for me to go any further. Surely. The argument ends.
Yes, China is rising.
Just as the US rose, just as Japan rose, and just as India will (eventually) rise.
Their becoming wealthier doesn't diminish us.
Isn't this somewhat naive? America's rise literally diminished Britain's wealth - the fact that it mostly happened in a voluntary fashion over the course of the two world wars is beside the point. China making everything and us buying it is more or less literally a transfer of wealth from us to them, meaning we're increasingly debt-ridden, and we have to hope they give us a bit of our money back by coming to see London and buying some Landrovers.
Pretty sure UK was richer in 1950 than it was in 1910.
Massively. Japan's rise in the 70s and 80s reduced our relative wealth. But it didn't make us poorer.
By what measure were we richer in the 1950s?
Errr: GDP?
Errr: In real terms? Totally meaningless. Wealth surely has to be measured in terms of relative proportion of value.
Hmm On GOP I've not cashed out my Rubio GOP position, nor have I laid off my Rubio POTUS.
The discrepancy is still there between his GOP and POTUS odds, because if he's going to win GOP then I assume he'd need some sort of comeback narrative which would also improve his POTUS assuming GOP nom odds.
In fact shorn of the whole media narrative I think the current bet is to lay him at ~ 2.07.
Kasich, Christie, Cruz, Trump, Carson, Fiorina all arguably value. Bush looks short at ~ 14.5, but I'm exposed to him enough already.
It simply isn't possible to lay enough Bush.
If it becomes a 4 man race after ST - Rubio, Trump, Cruz, Bush - and then Rubio gets torn apart - he has a chance.
Also, trump could always go rogue and withdraw if/when he realises the maths don't quite add up for him and there might not be any other sane non-cruz candidate left in the race to fall back on.
Its a small chance, but it is there.
@Casino_royale is worried what his misses would say if he got caught with his pants down laying too much Bush though.
I can see the possibility of a fourth candidate getting some traction. But could be kasich rather than bush.
g ridiculous. Some one in the plod needs to either shit or get off the pot.
The number of black women raped by white men is so statistically low, that when the US did produce figures it came out as zero through rounding.
The stats on white murders of blacks versus the opposite are also fairly startling in their difference.
And this: if you take out crime by blacks, if I recall correctly, then America's homicide rate is about the same as a European country.
But it should also be noted that blacks are grievously over-represented in the VICTIMS of violent crime, as well. And they suffer from American policing.
There are various explanations. One thing that, as far as I know, is entirely unexplained, is why Latin America is so violent. The vast majority of the world's most violent cities and countries are in central and south America. Why? They vary wildly in culture, only Iberian colonialism unites them. And this does seem to be the uniting motif: cf The Philippines - another ex-Spanish colony - they are way more dangerous than other south east Asian states.
it is very odd. Spain is pretty peaceable as a country. Portugal even more so. Why are their colonies so troubled?
Cocaine?
Drugs, guns and massive social inequalities.
Someone on Twitter just suggested this explanation: that Iberian colonisers left religious systems, but neglected legal codes. This makes a lot of sense.
Being much less aggressively religious, the Brits, and to a lesser extent the French, were all about imposing The Law (Common or Napoleonic). Hence the greater orderliness in their colonies (with some glaring exceptions, naturally)
The Americas were uniquely hard hit by disease in the colonial era (estimates of up to 95% fatalities as a consequence of encountering Old World diseases are canvassed). The social dislocation that caused may have a part to play in this.
I take the point about the indigenous populations being affected by diseases. I wonder why the colonists were not affected in the same way in reverse?
No, I offered FURTHER evidence, on top of the IQ data and university stuff.
Look, I'm not here to make your life easier - or worse. Fuck it. This isn't a partisan thing! I'm just pointing out painful facts that we all must face, yet few acknowledge (and I speak as the father of two 9 year old daughters going thru the western educational system - I wish what I am saying wasn't true).
The fact is, the West's absolute advantage over the rest of the world has gone. For good. Right now we still have a marginal advantage, but it is rapidly diminishing over time, and we are wilfully destroying it in things like education, where our USP - free liberal debate - (something China denies, inter alia) - is being demolished. We are deliberately handicapping ourselves. Ruining what the world wants.
On top of that, we are - esp in America - actively excluding THEIR students, racially.... because they are too good. Too hard working. Too bright. How long will they tolerate that before developing Oxfords and Harvards of their own?
You are all too clever for me to go any further. Surely. The argument ends.
Yes, China is rising.
Just as the US rose, just as Japan rose, and just as India will (eventually) rise.
Their becoming wealthier doesn't diminish us.
Isn't this somewhat naive? America's rise literally diminished Britain's wealth - the fact that it mostly happened in a voluntary fashion over the course of the two world wars is beside the point. China making everything and us buying it is more or less literally a transfer of wealth from us to them, meaning we're increasingly debt-ridden, and we have to hope they give us a bit of our money back by coming to see London and buying some Landrovers.
Pretty sure UK was richer in 1950 than it was in 1910.
Massively. Japan's rise in the 70s and 80s reduced our relative wealth. But it didn't make us poorer.
By what measure were we richer in the 1950s?
For someone so clever that's rather obtuse. How about lifespan, expected retirement length and pensions, and housing?
I don't think a great power can sustain itself as a rentier forever, which is what we were starting to do by 1910. The wars drastically accelerated what would have happened anyway.
No, I offered FURTHER evidence, on top of the IQ data and university stuff.
Look, I'm not here to make your life easier - or worse. Fuck it. This isn't a partisan thing! I'm just pointing out painful facts that we all must face, yet few acknowledge (and I speak as the father of two 9 year old daughters going thru the western educational system - I wish what I am saying wasn't true).
The fact is, the West's absolute advantage over the rest of the world has gone. For good. Right now we still have a marginal advantage, but it is rapidly diminishing over time, and we are wilfully destroying it in things like education, where our USP - free liberal debate - (something China denies, inter alia) - is being demolished. We are deliberately handicapping ourselves. Ruining what the world wants.
On top of that, we are - esp in America - actively excluding THEIR students, racially.... because they are too good. Too hard working. Too bright. How long will they tolerate that before developing Oxfords and Harvards of their own?
You are all too clever for me to go any further. Surely. The argument ends.
Yes, China is rising.
Just as the US rose, just as Japan rose, and just as India will (eventually) rise.
Their becoming wealthier doesn't diminish us.
Isn't this somewhat naive? America's rise literally diminished Britain's wealth - the fact that it mostly happened in a voluntary fashion over the course of the two world wars is beside the point. China making everything and us buying it is more or less literally a transfer of wealth from us to them, meaning we're increasingly debt-ridden, and we have to hope they give us a bit of our money back by coming to see London and buying some Landrovers.
That's true for the UK, in that we have a persistent current account deficit. But plenty of Western countries run trade surpluses.
Yes - and we should try to follow their example. We'll have to get a lot cleverer though.
But my point is that a huge growth in wealth somewhere must mean a reduction in it elsewhere.
No, I offered FURTHER evidence, on top of the IQ data and university stuff.
Look, I'm not here to make your life easier - or worse. Fuck it. This isn't a partisan thing! I'm just pointing out painful facts that we all must face, yet few acknowledge (and I speak as the father of two 9 year old daughters going thru the western educational system - I wish what I am saying wasn't true).
The fact is, the West's absolute advantage over the rest of the world has gone. For good. Right now we still have a marginal advantage, but it is rapidly diminishing over time, and we are wilfully destroying it in things like education, where our USP - free liberal debate - (something China denies, inter alia) - is being demolished. We are deliberately handicapping ourselves. Ruining what the world wants.
On top of that, we are - esp in America - actively excluding THEIR students, racially.... because they are too good. Too hard working. Too bright. How long will they tolerate that before developing Oxfords and Harvards of their own?
You are all too clever for me to go any further. Surely. The argument ends.
Yes, China is rising.
Just as the US rose, just as Japan rose, and just as India will (eventually) rise.
Their becoming wealthier doesn't diminish us.
Isn't this somewhat naive? America's rise literally diminished Britain's wealth - the fact that it mostly happened in a voluntary fashion over the course of the two world wars is beside the point. China making everything and us buying it is more or less literally a transfer of wealth from us to them, meaning we're increasingly debt-ridden, and we have to hope they give us a bit of our money back by coming to see London and buying some Landrovers.
Pretty sure UK was richer in 1950 than it was in 1910.
Massively. Japan's rise in the 70s and 80s reduced our relative wealth. But it didn't make us poorer.
By what measure were we richer in the 1950s?
Errr: GDP?
Errr: In real terms? Totally meaningless. Wealth surely has to be measured in terms of relative proportion of value.
Yes, in real terms.
The value of goods and services produced in the UK in 1950 was much higher than in 1910. I have long-run economic stats at work I can dig out if you like.
The coincident indicators tell a similar tale: malnutrition levels, life expectancy, infant mortality all point to a richer society.
No, I offered FURTHER evidence, on top of the IQ data and university stuff.
Look, I'm not here to make your life easier - or worse. Fuck it. This isn't a partisan thing! I'm just pointing out painful facts that we all must face, yet few acknowledge (and I speak as the father of two 9 year old daughters going thru the western educational system - I wish what I am saying wasn't true).
The fact is, the West's absolute advantage over the rest of the world has gone. For good. Right now we still have a marginal advantage, but it is rapidly diminishing over time, and we are wilfully destroying it in things like education, where our USP - free liberal debate - (something China denies, inter alia) - is being demolished. We are deliberately handicapping ourselves. Ruining what the world wants.
On top of that, we are - esp in America - actively excluding THEIR students, racially.... because they are too good. Too hard working. Too bright. How long will they tolerate that before developing Oxfords and Harvards of their own?
You are all too clever for me to go any further. Surely. The argument ends.
Yes, China is rising.
Just as the US rose, just as Japan rose, and just as India will (eventually) rise.
Their becoming wealthier doesn't diminish us.
Isn't this somewhat naive? America's rise literally diminished Britain's wealth - the fact that it mostly happened in a voluntary fashion over the course of the two world wars is beside the point. China making everything and us buying it is more or less literally a transfer of wealth from us to them, meaning we're increasingly debt-ridden, and we have to hope they give us a bit of our money back by coming to see London and buying some Landrovers.
Pretty sure UK was richer in 1950 than it was in 1910.
Massively. Japan's rise in the 70s and 80s reduced our relative wealth. But it didn't make us poorer.
By what measure were we richer in the 1950s?
Errr: GDP?
Was'nt Britain pretty close to bankruptcy by 1950?
Hmm On GOP I've not cashed out my Rubio GOP position, nor have I laid off my Rubio POTUS.
The discrepancy is still there between his GOP and POTUS odds, because if he's going to win GOP then I assume he'd need some sort of comeback narrative which would also improve his POTUS assuming GOP nom odds.
In fact shorn of the whole media narrative I think the current bet is to lay him at ~ 2.07.
Kasich, Christie, Cruz, Trump, Carson, Fiorina all arguably value. Bush looks short at ~ 14.5, but I'm exposed to him enough already.
It simply isn't possible to lay enough Bush.
If it becomes a 4 man race after ST - Rubio, Trump, Cruz, Bush - and then Rubio gets torn apart - he has a chance.
Also, trump could always go rogue and withdraw if/when he realises the maths don't quite add up for him and there might not be any other sane non-cruz candidate left in the race to fall back on.
Its a small chance, but it is there.
@Casino_royale is worried what his misses would say if he got caught with his pants down laying too much Bush though.
I can see the possibility of a fourth candidate getting some traction. But could be kasich rather than bush.
As much as I'd love that to be the case I think it unlikely.
For someone so clever that's rather obtuse. How about lifespan, expected retirement length and pensions, and housing?
I don't think a great power can sustain itself as a rentier forever, which is what we were starting to do by 1910. The wars drastically accelerated what would have happened anyway.
We clearly have different definitions of wealth. By your measure, even the poorest in our society is wealthier than the most spoiled aristocrat in the court of Louis the 16th. Of course people enjoyed greater comfort after 40 years of technological progression. You can't measure wealth that way. It must surely be measured in terms of public and private assets and liabilities vs. the rest of the world.
No, I offered FURTHER evidence, on top of the IQ data and university stuff.
Look, I'm not here to make your life easier - or worse. Fuck it. This isn't a partisan thing! I'm just pointing out painful facts that we all must face, yet few acknowledge (and I speak as the father of two 9 year old daughters going thru the western educational system - I wish what I am saying wasn't true).
The fact is, the West's absolute advantage over the rest of the world has gone. For good. Right now we still have a marginal advantage, but it is rapidly diminishing over time, and we are wilfully destroying it in things like education, where our USP - free liberal debate - (something China denies, inter alia) - is being demolished. We are deliberately handicapping ourselves. Ruining what the world wants.
On top of that, we are - esp in America - actively excluding THEIR students, racially.... because they are too good. Too hard working. Too bright. How long will they tolerate that before developing Oxfords and Harvards of their own?
You are all too clever for me to go any further. Surely. The argument ends.
Yes, China is rising.
Just as the US rose, just as Japan rose, and just as India will (eventually) rise.
Their becoming wealthier doesn't diminish us.
Isn't this somewhat naive? America's rise literally diminished Britain's wealth - the fact that it mostly happened in a voluntary fashion over the course of the two world wars is beside the point. China making everything and us buying it is more or less literally a transfer of wealth from us to them, meaning we're increasingly debt-ridden, and we have to hope they give us a bit of our money back by coming to see London and buying some Landrovers.
That's true for the UK, in that we have a persistent current account deficit. But plenty of Western countries run trade surpluses.
Yes - and we should try to follow their example. We'll have to get a lot cleverer though.
But my point is that a huge growth in wealth somewhere must mean a reduction in it elsewhere.
The world has undoubtedly got richer as time has gone on. The more important question is whether society could be better off if those riches were better spread out, rather than concentrated at top.
No, I offered FURTHER evidence, on top of the IQ data and university stuff.
Look, I'm not here to make your life easier - or worse. Fuck it. This isn't a partisan thing! I'm just pointing out painful facts that we all must face, yet few acknowledge (and I speak as the father of two 9 year old daughters going thru the western educational system - I wish what I am saying wasn't true).
The fact is, the West's absolute advantage over the rest of the world has gone. For good. Right now we still have a marginal advantage, but it is rapidly diminishing over time, and we are wilfully destroying it in things like education, where our USP - free liberal debate - (something China denies, inter alia) - is being demolished. We are deliberately handicapping ourselves. Ruining what the world wants.
On top of that, we are - esp in America - actively excluding THEIR students, racially.... because they are too good. Too hard working. Too bright. How long will they tolerate that before developing Oxfords and Harvards of their own?
You are all too clever for me to go any further. Surely. The argument ends.
Yes, China is rising.
Just as the US rose, just as Japan rose, and just as India will (eventually) rise.
Their becoming wealthier doesn't diminish us.
Isn't this somewhat naive? America's rise literally diminished Britain's wealth - the fact that it mostly happened in a voluntary fashion over the course of the two world wars is beside the point. China making everything and us buying it is more or less literally a transfer of wealth from us to them, meaning we're increasingly debt-ridden, and we have to hope they give us a bit of our money back by coming to see London and buying some Landrovers.
That's true for the UK, in that we have a persistent current account deficit. But plenty of Western countries run trade surpluses.
Yes - and we should try to follow their example. We'll have to get a lot cleverer though.
But my point is that a huge growth in wealth somewhere must mean a reduction in it elsewhere.
Why must it mean that?
Because there is a constant amount of 'value' in the world. If you discovered a huge diamond mine, it would be great for you, but your diamonds coming on to the world market would push the diamond price down, keeping the amount of value the same. So if someone is getting it, someone else is losing it.
No, I offered FURTHER evidence, on top of the IQ data and university stuff.
Look, I'm not here to make your life easier - or worse. Fuck it. This isn't a partisan thing! I'm just pointing out painful facts that we all must face, yet few acknowledge (and I speak as the father of two 9 year old daughters going thru the western educational system - I wish what I am saying wasn't true).
The fact is, the West's absolute advantage over the rest of the world has gone. For good. Right now we still have a marginal advantage, but it is rapidly diminishing over time, and we are wilfully destroying it in things like education, where our USP - free liberal debate - (something China denies, inter alia) - is being demolished. We are deliberately handicapping ourselves. Ruining what the world wants.
On top of that, we are - esp in America - actively excluding THEIR students, racially.... because they are too good. Too hard working. Too bright. How long will they tolerate that before developing Oxfords and Harvards of their own?
You are all too clever for me to go any further. Surely. The argument ends.
Yes, China is rising.
Just as the US rose, just as Japan rose, and just as India will (eventually) rise.
Their becoming wealthier doesn't diminish us.
Isn't this somewhat naive? America's rise literally diminished Britain's wealth - the fact that it mostly happened in a voluntary fashion over the course of the two world wars is beside the point. China making everything and us buying it is more or less literally a transfer of wealth from us to them, meaning we're increasingly debt-ridden, and we have to hope they give us a bit of our money back by coming to see London and buying some Landrovers.
Pretty sure UK was richer in 1950 than it was in 1910.
Massively. Japan's rise in the 70s and 80s reduced our relative wealth. But it didn't make us poorer.
By what measure were we richer in the 1950s?
Errr: GDP?
Was'nt Britain pretty close to bankruptcy by 1950?
Would you rather have savings of 50k, and an income of 5k Or debts of 50k and an income of 100k?
No, I offered FURTHER evidence, on top of the IQ data and university stuff.
Look, I'm not here to make your life easier - or worse. Fuck it. This isn't a partisan thing! I'm just pointing out painful facts that we all must face, yet few acknowledge (and I speak as the father of two 9 year old daughters going thru the western educational system - I wish what I am saying wasn't true).
The fact is, the West's absolute advantage over the rest of the world has gone. For good. Right now we still have a marginal advantage, but it is rapidly diminishing over time, and we are wilfully destroying it in things like education, where our USP - free liberal debate - (something China denies, inter alia) - is being demolished. We are deliberately handicapping ourselves. Ruining what the world wants.
On top of that, we are - esp in America - actively excluding THEIR students, racially.... because they are too good. Too hard working. Too bright. How long will they tolerate that before developing Oxfords and Harvards of their own?
You are all too clever for me to go any further. Surely. The argument ends.
Yes, China is rising.
Just as the US rose, just as Japan rose, and just as India will (eventually) rise.
Their becoming wealthier doesn't diminish us.
Isn't this somewhat naive? America's rise literally diminished Britain's wealth - the fact that it mostly happened in a voluntary fashion over the course of the two world wars is beside the point. China making everything and us buying it is more or less literally a transfer of wealth from us to them, meaning we're increasingly debt-ridden, and we have to hope they give us a bit of our money back by coming to see London and buying some Landrovers.
That's true for the UK, in that we have a persistent current account deficit. But plenty of Western countries run trade surpluses.
Yes - and we should try to follow their example. We'll have to get a lot cleverer though.
But my point is that a huge growth in wealth somewhere must mean a reduction in it elsewhere.
Why must it mean that?
Because there is a constant amount of 'value' in the world. If you discovered a huge diamond mine, it would be great for you, but your diamonds coming on to the world market would push the diamond price down, keeping the amount of value the same. So if someone is getting it, someone else is losing it.
So, the world was as well off in the stone age as it is now?
No, I offered FURTHER evidence, on top of the IQ data and university stuff. .....
On top of that, we are - esp in America - actively excluding THEIR students, racially.... because they are too good. Too hard working. Too bright. How long will they tolerate that before developing Oxfords and Harvards of their own?
You are all too clever for me to go any further. Surely. The argument ends.
Yes, China is rising.
Just as the US rose, just as Japan rose, and just as India will (eventually) rise.
Their becoming wealthier doesn't diminish us.
Isn't this somewhat naive? America's rise literally diminished Britain's wealth - the fact that it mostly happened in a voluntary fashion over the course of the two world wars is beside the point. China making everything and us buying it is more or less literally a transfer of wealth from us to them, meaning we're increasingly debt-ridden, and we have to hope they give us a bit of our money back by coming to see London and buying some Landrovers.
Pretty sure UK was richer in 1950 than it was in 1910.
Massively. Japan's rise in the 70s and 80s reduced our relative wealth. But it didn't make us poorer.
By what measure were we richer in the 1950s?
Errr: GDP?
Errr: In real terms? Totally meaningless. Wealth surely has to be measured in terms of relative proportion of value.
Yes, in real terms.
The value of goods and services produced in the UK in 1950 was much higher than in 1910. I have long-run economic stats at work I can dig out if you like.
The coincident indicators tell a similar tale: malnutrition levels, life expectancy, infant mortality all point to a richer society.
Indeed. The rise of America was *not* that we got poorer and they got richer. It was that we were at the top of our potential and coasting down by the start of WWI and they expanded through out the 20th cent. to reach their potential. We became a larger fish - in a much, much larger pond.
Luckyguy1983, have you read the works of Corelli Barnett? I'm getting distinct echoes of his arguments in your posts, his views on Britian's place in Europe excepted.
No, I offered FURTHER evidence, on top of the IQ data and university stuff.
Look, I'm not here to make your life easier - or worse. Fuck it. This isn't a partisan thing! I'm just pointing out painful facts that we all must face, yet few acknowledge (and I speak as the father of two 9 year old daughters going thru the western educational system - I wish what I am saying wasn't true).
The fact is, the West's absolute advantage over the rest of the world has gone. For good. Right now we still have a marginal advantage, but it is rapidly diminishing over time, and we are wilfully destroying it in things like education, where our USP - free liberal debate - (something China denies, inter alia) - is being demolished. We are deliberately handicapping ourselves. Ruining what the world wants.
On top of that, we are - esp in America - actively excluding THEIR students, racially.... because they are too good. Too hard working. Too bright. How long will they tolerate that before developing Oxfords and Harvards of their own?
You are all too clever for me to go any further. Surely. The argument ends.
Yes, China is rising.
Just as the US rose, just as Japan rose, and just as India will (eventually) rise.
Their becoming wealthier doesn't diminish us.
Isn't this somewhat naive? America's rise literally diminished Britain's wealth - the fact that it mostly happened in a voluntary fashion over the course of the two world wars is beside the point. China making everything and us buying it is more or less literally a transfer of wealth from us to them, meaning we're increasingly debt-ridden, and we have to hope they give us a bit of our money back by coming to see London and buying some Landrovers.
That's true for the UK, in that we have a persistent current account deficit. But plenty of Western countries run trade surpluses.
Yes - and we should try to follow their example. We'll have to get a lot cleverer though.
But my point is that a huge growth in wealth somewhere must mean a reduction in it elsewhere.
Why must it mean that?
Because there is a constant amount of 'value' in the world. If you discovered a huge diamond mine, it would be great for you, but your diamonds coming on to the world market would push the diamond price down, keeping the amount of value the same. So if someone is getting it, someone else is losing it.
How do you know the price of other diamonds drops by same amount as value of new diamonds found? And how do you know same is true of products that are actually useful, not status symbols?
The value of goods and services produced in the UK in 1950 was much higher than in 1910. I have long-run economic stats at work I can dig out if you like.
The coincident indicators tell a similar tale: malnutrition levels, life expectancy, infant mortality all point to a richer society.
That's my point. Measuring real terms GDP in the 50s and comparing it to 40 years earlier, and saying on that basis we were wealthier, is nonsense. The only GDP figure worth looking at to make an accurate comparison would be percentage of world GDP.
Wealth is a measure of assets. It can also only be measured relative to other countries. There was a small 'boom' in light industry in the 1950s, all very nice and everything, but we were in no way a wealthier country in that decade than in the 1910s, we were immeasurably poorer.
Jeremy Hunt this morning solemnly announced on national TV that the junior doctors were being deceived by the BMA and that they would be working fewer hours and not more under the new contract. At the same time he's been telling us that the changes are essential to have greater cover at weekends. The man's obviously in the wrong line of work and needs to furnish himself with a top hat and cape and a rabbit or two. So that's what a PPE at Oxford teaches you about simple arithmetic is it?
No, I offered FURTHER evidence, on top of the IQ data and university stuff.
Look, I'm not here to make your life easier - or worse. Fuck it. This isn't a partisan thing! I'm just pointing out painful facts that we all must face, yet few acknowledge (and I speak as the father of two 9 year old daughters going thru the western educational system - I wish what I am saying wasn't true).
The fact is, the West's absolute advantage over the rest of the world has gone. For good. Right now we still have a marginal advantage, but it is rapidly diminishing over time, and we are wilfully destroying it in things like education, where our USP - free liberal debate - (something China denies, inter alia) - is being demolished. We are deliberately handicapping ourselves. Ruining what the world wants.
On top of that, we are - esp in America - actively excluding THEIR students, racially.... because they are too good. Too hard working. Too bright. How long will they tolerate that before developing Oxfords and Harvards of their own?
You are all too clever for me to go any further. Surely. The argument ends.
Yes, China is rising.
Just as the US rose, just as Japan rose, and just as India will (eventually) rise.
Their becoming wealthier doesn't diminish us.
Isn't this somewhat naive? America's rise literally diminished Britain's wealth - the fact that it mostly happened in a voluntary fashion over the course of the two world wars is beside the point. China making everything and us buying it is more or less literally a transfer of wealth from us to them, meaning we're increasingly debt-ridden, and we have to hope they give us a bit of our money back by coming to see London and buying some Landrovers.
That's true for the UK, in that we have a persistent current account deficit. But plenty of Western countries run trade surpluses.
Yes - and we should try to follow their example. We'll have to get a lot cleverer though.
But my point is that a huge growth in wealth somewhere must mean a reduction in it elsewhere.
Why must it mean that?
Because there is a constant amount of 'value' in the world. If you discovered a huge diamond mine, it would be great for you, but your diamonds coming on to the world market would push the diamond price down, keeping the amount of value the same. So if someone is getting it, someone else is losing it.
There is clearly not a constant amount of value in the world. The fact that you are typin this message on the internet should tell you that.
You have a very 18th century Mercantilists view of the world.
The value of goods and services produced in the UK in 1950 was much higher than in 1910. I have long-run economic stats at work I can dig out if you like.
The coincident indicators tell a similar tale: malnutrition levels, life expectancy, infant mortality all point to a richer society.
That's my point. Measuring real terms GDP in the 50s and comparing it to 40 years earlier, and saying on that basis we were wealthier, is nonsense. The only GDP figure worth looking at to make an accurate comparison would be percentage of world GDP.
Wealth is a measure of assets. It can also only be measured relative to other countries. There was a small 'boom' in light industry in the 1950s, all very nice and everything, but we were in no way a wealthier country in that decade than in the 1910s, we were immeasurably poorer.
So, if a global pandemic wiped out everyone except a dozen people in Tunbridge Wells, we'd be richer.
No, I offered FURTHER evidence, on top of the IQ data and university stuff.
........
On top of that, we are - esp in America - actively excluding THEIR students, racially.... because they are too good. Too hard working. Too bright. How long will they tolerate that before developing Oxfords and Harvards of their own?
You are all too clever for me to go any further. Surely. The argument ends.
Yes, China is rising.
Just as the US rose, just as Japan rose, and just as India will (eventually) rise.
Their becoming wealthier doesn't diminish us.
Isn't this somewhat naive? America's rise literally diminished Britain's wealth - the fact that it mostly happened in a voluntary fashion over the course of the two world wars is beside the point. China making everything and us buying it is more or less literally a transfer of wealth from us to them, meaning we're increasingly debt-ridden, and we have to hope they give us a bit of our money back by coming to see London and buying some Landrovers.
That's true for the UK, in that we have a persistent current account deficit. But plenty of Western countries run trade surpluses.
Yes - and we should try to follow their example. We'll have to get a lot cleverer though.
But my point is that a huge growth in wealth somewhere must mean a reduction in it elsewhere.
Why must it mean that?
Because there is a constant amount of 'value' in the world. If you discovered a huge diamond mine, it would be great for you, but your diamonds coming on to the world market would push the diamond price down, keeping the amount of value the same. So if someone is getting it, someone else is losing it.
You appear to have missed the concept of wealth creation. Humans have created a great deal of "stuff". The world isn't a single pizza - someone gets all the slices. We *make* pizzas.
What humans do is take dirt and rock. And make spaceships. Or computers. Things that are *worth* many orders of magnitude more than their primal constituents.
How do you know the price of other diamonds drops by same amount as value of new diamonds found? And how do you know same is true of products that are actually useful, not status symbols?
Because that's the function of a market - the more widely available something is, the less valuable. That is just the same for commodities as it is for trinkets.
The value of goods and services produced in the UK in 1950 was much higher than in 1910. I have long-run economic stats at work I can dig out if you like.
The coincident indicators tell a similar tale: malnutrition levels, life expectancy, infant mortality all point to a richer society.
That's my point. Measuring real terms GDP in the 50s and comparing it to 40 years earlier, and saying on that basis we were wealthier, is nonsense. The only GDP figure worth looking at to make an accurate comparison would be percentage of world GDP.
Wealth is a measure of assets. It can also only be measured relative to other countries. There was a small 'boom' in light industry in the 1950s, all very nice and everything, but we were in no way a wealthier country in that decade than in the 1910s, we were immeasurably poorer.
So, if a global pandemic wiped out everyone except a dozen people in Tunbridge Wells, we'd be richer.
Well, I guess it's a view.
It's a view that abstracts states into little more than corporations with armed forces. One might call it rather eccentric
No, I offered FURTHER evidence, on top of the IQ data and university stuff. .....
On top of that, we are - esp in America - actively excluding THEIR students, racially.... because they are too good. Too hard working. Too bright. How long will they tolerate that before developing Oxfords and Harvards of their own?
You are all too clever for me to go any further. Surely. The argument ends.
Yes, China is rising.
Just as the US rose, just as Japan rose, and just as India will (eventually) rise.
Their becoming wealthier doesn't diminish us.
Isn't this somewhat naive? America's rise literally diminished Britain's wealth - the fact that it mostly happened in a voluntary fashion over the course of the two world wars is beside the point. China making everything and us buying it is more or less literally a transfer of wealth from us to them, meaning we're increasingly debt-ridden, and we have to hope they give us a bit of our money back by coming to see London and buying some Landrovers.
Pretty sure UK was richer in 1950 than it was in 1910.
Massively. Japan's rise in the 70s and 80s reduced our relative wealth. But it didn't make us poorer.
By what measure were we richer in the 1950s?
Errr: GDP?
Errr: In real terms? Totally meaningless. Wealth surely has to be measured in terms of relative proportion of value.
Yes, in real terms.
The value of goods and services produced in the UK in 1950 was much higher than in 1910. I have long-run economic stats at work I can dig out if you like.
The coincident indicators tell a similar tale: malnutrition levels, life expectancy, infant mortality all point to a richer society.
Indeed. The rise of America was *not* that we got poorer and they got richer. It was that we were at the top of our potential and coasting down by the start of WWI and they expanded through out the 20th cent. to reach their potential. We became a larger fish - in a much, much larger pond.
The value of goods and services produced in the UK in 1950 was much higher than in 1910. I have long-run economic stats at work I can dig out if you like.
The coincident indicators tell a similar tale: malnutrition levels, life expectancy, infant mortality all point to a richer society.
That's my point. Measuring real terms GDP in the 50s and comparing it to 40 years earlier, and saying on that basis we were wealthier, is nonsense. The only GDP figure worth looking at to make an accurate comparison would be percentage of world GDP.
Wealth is a measure of assets. It can also only be measured relative to other countries. There was a small 'boom' in light industry in the 1950s, all very nice and everything, but we were in no way a wealthier country in that decade than in the 1910s, we were immeasurably poorer.
So, if a global pandemic wiped out everyone except a dozen people in Tunbridge Wells, we'd be richer.
Well, I guess it's a view.
It's a view that abstracts states into little more than corporations with armed forces. One might call it rather eccentric
It basically states that if you and your neighbour's houses burn down tonight, then so long as you've salvaged your TV, then you're richer in the morning.
Jeremy Hunt this morning solemnly announced on national TV that the junior doctors were being deceived by the BMA and that they would be working fewer hours and not more under the new contract. At the same time he's been telling us that the changes are essential to have greater cover at weekends. The man's obviously in the wrong line of work and needs to furnish himself with a top hat and cape and a rabbit or two. So that's what a PPE at Oxford teaches you about simple arithmetic is it?
As I understand it the Doctors are holding for overtime rates at the weekends which are not paid to nurses or other staff and that the savings will go towards 5000 more doctors. The doctors have also been offered a 11% pay rise and that most doctors will receive higher pay and work less hours. In the end Hunt will win this dispute in the better interest of the patients
According to the press review David Cameron has a big announcement on prison reform tomorrow and that the architect is Michael Gove. Is this the quid pro quo for Gove supporting remain?
g ridiculous. Some one in the plod needs to either shit or get off the pot.
The number of black women raped by white men is so statistically low, that when the US did produce figures it came out as zero through rounding.
The stats on white murders of blacks versus the opposite are also fairly startling in their difference.
And this: if you take out crime by blacks, if I recall correctly, then America's homicide rate is about the same as a European country.
But it should also be noted that blacks are grievously over-represented in the VICTIMS of violent crime, as well. And they suffer from American policing.
There are various explanations. One thing that, as far as I know, is entirely unexplained, is why Latin America is so violent. The vast majority of the world's most violent cities and countries are in central and south America. Why? They vary wildly in culture, only Iberian colonialism unites them. And this does seem to be the uniting motif: cf The Philippines - another ex-Spanish colony - they are way more dangerous than other south east Asian states.
it is very odd. Spain is pretty peaceable as a country. Portugal even more so. Why are their colonies so troubled?
Cocaine?
Drugs, guns and massive social inequalities.
Someone on Twitter just suggested this explanation: that Iberian colonisers left religious systems, but neglected legal codes. This makes a lot of sense.
Being much less aggressively religious, the Brits, and to a lesser extent the French, were all about imposing The Law (Common or Napoleonic). Hence the greater orderliness in their colonies (with some glaring exceptions, naturally)
The Americas were uniquely hard hit by disease in the colonial era (estimates of up to 95% fatalities as a consequence of encountering Old World diseases are canvassed). The social dislocation that caused may have a part to play in this.
I take the point about the indigenous populations being affected by diseases. I wonder why the colonists were not affected in the same way in reverse?
The blurb says the European's background meant they were more resistant to disease. This seems to have been self evident - presumably because the survivors of various plagues were naturally selected to be resistant?
Luckyguy1983, have you read the works of Corelli Barnett? I'm getting distinct echoes of his arguments in your posts, his views on Britian's place in Europe excepted.
No, but thanks for putting me on to him, he sounds good.
Jeremy Hunt this morning solemnly announced on national TV that the junior doctors were being deceived by the BMA and that they would be working fewer hours and not more under the new contract. At the same time he's been telling us that the changes are essential to have greater cover at weekends. The man's obviously in the wrong line of work and needs to furnish himself with a top hat and cape and a rabbit or two. So that's what a PPE at Oxford teaches you about simple arithmetic is it?
As I understand it the Doctors are holding for overtime rates at the weekends which are not paid to nurses or other staff and that the savings will go towards 5000 more doctors. The doctors have also been offered a 11% pay rise and that most doctors will receive higher pay and work less hours. In the end Hunt will win this dispute in the better interest of the patients
He also said their pay isn't going down as well. If you don't believe me rewatch the Marr programme; so where are the savings coming from? They'll be working fewer hours for the same money???? And more pertinently, where are 5000 more junior doctors coming from? Is he going to magic them out of a hat too? As clueless as Mr Hunt.
Question: if London, Scotland and Northern Ireland all vote 60/40 in favour of Remain, does it mean Remain wins the referendum? "Not necessarily" is the interesting answer.
Luckyguy1983, have you read the works of Corelli Barnett? I'm getting distinct echoes of his arguments in your posts, his views on Britian's place in Europe excepted.
No, but thanks for putting me on to him, he sounds good.
The quadrilogy you want are 'The Collapse of British Power', 'The Audit of War', 'The Lost Victory' and 'The Verdict of Peace'. I bought them as a set and read them in order non-stop. What I love is how he mercilessly skewers the complacency and wishful thinking of our governing classes. You'll love them!
So, the world was as well off in the stone age as it is now?
If you wanted to stretch it to extremes, yes. Certainly, a caveman with two rocks was still wealthier than one with one rock.
Would you rather be the caveman with two rocks, or you?
Me now, two rocks then. I'm puzzled that you seem to think we've somehow done well to be more comfortable than our ancestors. Short of total cultural collapse and loss of records (which of course has happened previously in the world's history), this should be expected, because each generation has a vaster repository of knowledge to be built on than the last. In fact, one of the reasons I feel this is a far stupider generation than previous ones is our capacity to actively ignore the lessons of the past that we have unparalleled access to.
Look at our buildings now compared to the Victorian ones. Look at their lavish use of iron, stone, glass etc. That is wealth. It has now gone elsewhere.
Jeremy Hunt this morning solemnly announced on national TV that the junior doctors were being deceived by the BMA and that they would be working fewer hours and not more under the new contract. At the same time he's been telling us that the changes are essential to have greater cover at weekends. The man's obviously in the wrong line of work and needs to furnish himself with a top hat and cape and a rabbit or two. So that's what a PPE at Oxford teaches you about simple arithmetic is it?
As I understand it the Doctors are holding for overtime rates at the weekends which are not paid to nurses or other staff and that the savings will go towards 5000 more doctors. The doctors have also been offered a 11% pay rise and that most doctors will receive higher pay and work less hours. In the end Hunt will win this dispute in the better interest of the patients
He also said their pay isn't going down as well. If you don't believe me rewatch the Marr programme; so where are the savings coming from? They'll be working fewer hours for the same money???? And more pertinently, where are 5000 more junior doctors coming from? Is he going to magic them out of a hat too? As clueless as Mr Hunt.
Their basic pay is not going down, the excessive weekend overtime rates are being moderated, which is fair as most people working at weekends do not get an enhancement. The idea Saturday is a social day requiring overtime is outdated and is a restrictive practice in today's climate. As far as the 5000 extra doctors are concerned this is by 2020 as far as I know when the 7 day service comes into place
So, the world was as well off in the stone age as it is now?
If you wanted to stretch it to extremes, yes. Certainly, a caveman with two rocks was still wealthier than one with one rock.
Would you rather be the caveman with two rocks, or you?
Me now, two rocks then. I'm puzzled that you seem to think we've somehow done well to be more comfortable than our ancestors. Short of total cultural collapse and loss of records (which of course has happened previously in the world's history), this should be expected, because each generation has a vaster repository of knowledge to be built on than the last. In fact, one of the reasons I feel this is a far stupider generation than previous ones is our capacity to actively ignore the lessons of the past that we have unparalleled access to.
Look at our buildings now compared to the Victorian ones. Look at their lavish use of iron, stone, glass etc. That is wealth. It has now gone elsewhere.
Wait: because we are able to build buildings more efficiently, we are poorer?
But even if we assumed that weight of iron and steel were the measure, the world would still be richer, because both the stock and production of each are at all time highs.
If a man in China buys a car, I am not made poorer.
If we venerate your relative concept of wealth, should we not be actively impeding the progress of the Third World to maintain our relative primacy?
Yes. If not their progress, certainly their attempts at gaining a much more significant share of world wealth.
The amount of wealth in the world is not fixed.
You can call it what you like, the figures in the balance sheet might go up, the value remains the same.
This remains utter tosh.
Above all else, I care about being able to eat, and being able to clothe myself.
I am not richer if I starve to death one day later than some other poor fucker.
Yes you are - richer than him. You're engaging in ever more ridiculous hypotheses to avoid the central point - we have got poorer relative to other nations - they have gained it, we have lost it. I fail to see how this is anything other than a bald statement of fact.
If we venerate your relative concept of wealth, should we not be actively impeding the progress of the Third World to maintain our relative primacy?
Yes. If not their progress, certainly their attempts at gaining a much more significant share of world wealth.
The amount of wealth in the world is not fixed.
You can call it what you like, the figures in the balance sheet might go up, the value remains the same.
This remains utter tosh.
Above all else, I care about being able to eat, and being able to clothe myself.
I am not richer if I starve to death one day later than some other poor fucker.
Yes you are - richer than him. You're engaging in ever more ridiculous hypotheses to avoid the central point - we have got poorer relative to other nations - they have gained it, we have lost it. I fail to see how this is anything other than a bald statement of fact.
I have never disputed that we become "relatively" poorer.
I dispute your core thesis that:
a. the amount of wealth in the world is fixed b. that we should concentrate on our relative share rather than increasing our absolute wealth
In my discussions with Luckyguy, I'm reminded of a conversation I had with an investment bank during the 2008 Global Financial Crisis. He congratulated me on my fund outperforming the market - we had performed *relatively* well. I said to him "you can't spend relative dollars." And it's a view I hold to this day.
So, the world was as well off in the stone age as it is now?
If you wanted to stretch it to extremes, yes. Certainly, a caveman with two rocks was still wealthier than one with one rock.
Would you rather be the caveman with two rocks, or you?
Me now, two rocks then. I'm puzzled that you seem to think we've somehow done well to be more comfortable than our ancestors. Short of total cultural collapse and loss of records (which of course has happened previously in the world's history), this should be expected, because each generation has a vaster repository of knowledge to be built on than the last. In fact, one of the reasons I feel this is a far stupider generation than previous ones is our capacity to actively ignore the lessons of the past that we have unparalleled access to.
Look at our buildings now compared to the Victorian ones. Look at their lavish use of iron, stone, glass etc. That is wealth. It has now gone elsewhere.
That's ridiculous. It's style, taste and more efficient engineering (many Victorian structures were radically over-engineered as there was a great deal about structural engineering they did not understand). Victorians would walk around modern-day London in awe of the recent buildings.
Going back further, you could say the same about the great cathedrals. Just because they were magnificent did not mean they were richer.
How do you know the price of other diamonds drops by same amount as value of new diamonds found? And how do you know same is true of products that are actually useful, not status symbols?
Because that's the function of a market - the more widely available something is, the less valuable. That is just the same for commodities as it is for trinkets.
Thats an argument for prices dropping with more supply. Its not an argument that the drop is exactly equivalent to new supply. That you ain't given an argument for.
So, the world was as well off in the stone age as it is now?
If you wanted to stretch it to extremes, yes. Certainly, a caveman with two rocks was still wealthier than one with one rock.
Would you rather be the caveman with two rocks, or you?
Me now, two rocks then. I'm puzzled that you seem to think we've somehow done well to be more comfortable than our ancestors. Short of total cultural collapse and loss of records (which of course has happened previously in the world's history), this should be expected, because each generation has a vaster repository of knowledge to be built on than the last. In fact, one of the reasons I feel this is a far stupider generation than previous ones is our capacity to actively ignore the lessons of the past that we have unparalleled access to.
Look at our buildings now compared to the Victorian ones. Look at their lavish use of iron, stone, glass etc. That is wealth. It has now gone elsewhere.
Wait: because we are able to build buildings more efficiently, we are poorer?
But even if we assumed that weight of iron and steel were the measure, the world would still be richer, because both the stock and production of each are at all time highs.
If a man in China buys a car, I am not made poorer.
The Victorians didn't build inefficiently, they built with lavish attention to detail, mouldings, cornicing, ironwork, stonework. Don't kid yourself, if we tried to recreate what they did, with all our 'efficiency', we couldn't afford it those specifications.
If a Chinese man buys a car, obviously you are not made poorer, you are made poorer by the other products he has manufactured, that you have bought, that has enabled him to buy the care.
If we venerate your relative concept of wealth, should we not be actively impeding the progress of the Third World to maintain our relative primacy?
Yes. If not their progress, certainly their attempts at gaining a much more significant share of world wealth.
The amount of wealth in the world is not fixed.
You can call it what you like, the figures in the balance sheet might go up, the value remains the same.
This remains utter tosh.
Above all else, I care about being able to eat, and being able to clothe myself.
I am not richer if I starve to death one day later than some other poor fucker.
Yes you are - richer than him. You're engaging in ever more ridiculous hypotheses to avoid the central point - we have got poorer relative to other nations - they have gained it, we have lost it. I fail to see how this is anything other than a bald statement of fact.
I have never disputed that we become "relatively" poorer.
I dispute your core thesis that:
a. the amount of wealth in the world is fixed b. that we should concentrate on our relative share rather than increasing our absolute wealth
There is no other type of poverty than relative poverty.
The blurb says the European's background meant they were more resistant to disease. This seems to have been self evident - presumably because the survivors of various plagues were naturally selected to be resistant?
I'm no biologist - and it's some time ago I read that book - but IIRC that's the general idea.
Our ancestors in Europe were lucky to live in a part of the world with several suitably domesticable animal species - but our proximity to them came at the cost of wave after wave of disease.
Ultimately those of us who survived and reproduced had a gigantic immunity advantage against the descendants of those who migrated across the baring strait thousands of years before.
We took both our immunity and our diseases with us to the Americas.
But yeah, I'm really really not an expert on this stuff, so that theory could have all sorts of holes in it.
...Look at our buildings now compared to the Victorian ones. Look at their lavish use of iron, stone, glass etc. That is wealth. It has now gone elsewhere...
Wheras I agree that Victorian civic construction was more monumental and dignified than today's, that's not simply because of lack of wealth. Construction techniques have changed, and curtain walls over steel-frame are quicker, cheaper and allow more internal space for the same footprint.
Plus I also have to say the London skyline is way better now than it was then. Things like the Clean Air Act reduced pollution and eliminated soot-stained buildings, the office buildings are impressive (I adore the Shard).
Domestic buildings have improved considerably. We went from Victorian slums to 60's high rises to 80's Brookside houses to modernday out-of-town Barratt estates. Newbuilds now have downstairs toilets as standard. Double glazing, showers, central heating are considered normal. Ensuites are unremarked.
There are some things I don't like (smaller sizes, wet lofts, shower rooms). But the quality and value of today's housing stock is *way* better than 1900.
Jeremy Hunt this morning solemnly announced on national TV that the junior doctors were being deceived by the BMA and that they would be working fewer hours and not more under the new contract. At the same time he's been telling us that the changes are essential to have greater cover at weekends. The man's obviously in the wrong line of work and needs to furnish himself with a top hat and cape and a rabbit or two. So that's what a PPE at Oxford teaches you about simple arithmetic is it?
As I understand it the Doctors are holding for overtime rates at the weekends which are not paid to nurses or other staff and that the savings will go towards 5000 more doctors. The doctors have also been offered a 11% pay rise and that most doctors will receive higher pay and work less hours. In the end Hunt will win this dispute in the better interest of the patients
He also said their pay isn't going down as well. If you don't believe me rewatch the Marr programme; so where are the savings coming from? They'll be working fewer hours for the same money???? And more pertinently, where are 5000 more junior doctors coming from? Is he going to magic them out of a hat too? As clueless as Mr Hunt.
Their basic pay is not going down, the excessive weekend overtime rates are being moderated, which is fair as most people working at weekends do not get an enhancement. The idea Saturday is a social day requiring overtime is outdated and is a restrictive practice in today's climate. As far as the 5000 extra doctors are concerned this is by 2020 as far as I know when the 7 day service comes into place
Doctors are literate and capable of doing sums. The new proposed contract is in the public domain and my jr colleagues very capable of calculating what their take home pay will be. For most this will be a substantial paycut and more weekend working. This affects those specialities with the most weekend work (eg emergency depts) the most, while specialities with the least weekend work (pathology) get a payrise. They know what they are striking about.
Incidentally my Trust cancelled 25 planned operations in December because of the one day strike. It cancelled several hundred because all the hospital beds were full, largely because of cuts to social care. Why is it that Hunt is outraged by the former yet strangely silent on the latter?
No, I offered FURTHER evidence, on top of the IQ data and university stuff.
Look, I'm not here to make your life easier - or worse. Fuck it. This isn't a partisan thing! I'm just pointing out painful facts that we all must face, yet few acknowledge (and I speak as the father of two 9 year old daughters going thru the western educational system - I wish what I am saying wasn't true).
The fact is, the West's absolute advantage over the rest of the world has gone. For good. Right now we still have a marginal advantage, but it is rapidly diminishing over time, and we are wilfully destroying it in things like education, where our USP - free liberal debate - (something China denies, inter alia) - is being demolished. We are deliberately handicapping ourselves. Ruining what the world wants.
On top of that, we are - esp in America - actively excluding THEIR students, racially.... because they are too good. Too hard working. Too bright. How long will they tolerate that before developing Oxfords and Harvards of their own?
You are all too clever for me to go any further. Surely. The argument ends.
Yes, China is rising.
Just as the US rose, just as Japan rose, and just as India will (eventually) rise.
Their becoming wealthier doesn't diminish us.
Isn't this somewhat naive? America's rise literally diminished Britain's wealth - the fact that it mostly happened in a voluntary fashion over the course of the two world wars is beside the point. China making everything and us buying it is more or less literally a transfer of wealth from us to them, meaning we're increasingly debt-ridden, and we have to hope they give us a bit of our money back by coming to see London and buying some Landrovers.
Pretty sure UK was richer in 1950 than it was in 1910.
Massively. Japan's rise in the 70s and 80s reduced our relative wealth. But it didn't make us poorer.
If we venerate your relative concept of wealth, should we not be actively impeding the progress of the Third World to maintain our relative primacy?
Yes. If not their progress, certainly their attempts at gaining a much more significant share of world wealth.
The amount of wealth in the world is not fixed.
You can call it what you like, the figures in the balance sheet might go up, the value remains the same.
This remains utter tosh.
Above all else, I care about being able to eat, and being able to clothe myself.
I am not richer if I starve to death one day later than some other poor fucker.
Yes you are - richer than him. You're engaging in ever more ridiculous hypotheses to avoid the central point - we have got poorer relative to other nations - they have gained it, we have lost it. I fail to see how this is anything other than a bald statement of fact.
I have never disputed that we become "relatively" poorer.
I dispute your core thesis that:
a. the amount of wealth in the world is fixed b. that we should concentrate on our relative share rather than increasing our absolute wealth
There is no other type of poverty than relative poverty.
How do you know the price of other diamonds drops by same amount as value of new diamonds found? And how do you know same is true of products that are actually useful, not status symbols?
Because that's the function of a market - the more widely available something is, the less valuable. That is just the same for commodities as it is for trinkets.
Thats an argument for prices dropping with more supply. Its not an argument that the drop is exactly equivalent to new supply. That you ain't given an argument for.
If you accept the concept, I don't see the issue. You could hold on to your diamonds and keep the value high (exactly what many people do) but you then wouldn't be realising the asset.
So, the world was as well off in the stone age as it is now?
If you wanted to stretch it to extremes, yes. Certainly, a caveman with two rocks was still wealthier than one with one rock.
Would you rather be the caveman with two rocks, or you?
Me now, two rocks then. I'm puzzled that you seem to think we've somehow done well to be more comfortable than our ancestors. Short of total cultural collapse and loss of records (which of course has happened previously in the world's history), this should be expected, because each generation has a vaster repository of knowledge to be built on than the last. In fact, one of the reasons I feel this is a far stupider generation than previous ones is our capacity to actively ignore the lessons of the past that we have unparalleled access to.
Look at our buildings now compared to the Victorian ones. Look at their lavish use of iron, stone, glass etc. That is wealth. It has now gone elsewhere.
Wait: because we are able to build buildings more efficiently, we are poorer?
But even if we assumed that weight of iron and steel were the measure, the world would still be richer, because both the stock and production of each are at all time highs.
If a man in China buys a car, I am not made poorer.
The Victorians didn't build inefficiently, they built with lavish attention to detail, mouldings, cornicing, ironwork, stonework. Don't kid yourself, if we tried to recreate what they did, with all our 'efficiency', we couldn't afford it those specifications.
If a Chinese man buys a car, obviously you are not made poorer, you are made poorer by the other products he has manufactured, that you have bought, that has enabled him to buy the care.
Why recreate what they did, when we can make them cheaper while still being able to carry out the same purpose.
Incredible that 11 of the 14 Super Tuesday states have yet to have a single poll, and the 3 that have are weeks old.
Why is there a poll famine?
Polls seem a poor relation in the States - excessively small samples, little discussion or even disclosure of methodologies and assumptions. I'd guess it's because of the strong federal structure with few national papers (possibly USA Today and then you're struggling) - if our main media were the Yorkshire Post and the Brighton Argus, maybe we'd have few polls too.
Jeremy Hunt this morning solemnly announced on national TV that the junior doctors were being deceived by the BMA and that they would be working fewer hours and not more under the new contract. At the same time he's been telling us that the changes are essential to have greater cover at weekends. The man's obviously in the wrong line of work and needs to furnish himself with a top hat and cape and a rabbit or two. So that's what a PPE at Oxford teaches you about simple arithmetic is it?
As I understand it the Doctors are holding for overtime rates at the weekends which are not paid to nurses or other staff and that the savings will go towards 5000 more doctors. The doctors have also been offered a 11% pay rise and that most doctors will receive higher pay and work less hours. In the end Hunt will win this dispute in the better interest of the patients
He also said their pay isn't going down as well. If you don't believe me rewatch the Marr programme; so where are the savings coming from? They'll be working fewer hours for the same money???? And more pertinently, where are 5000 more junior doctors coming from? Is he going to magic them out of a hat too? As clueless as Mr Hunt.
Their basic pay is not going down, the excessive weekend overtime rates are being moderated, which is fair as most people working at weekends do not get an enhancement. The idea Saturday is a social day requiring overtime is outdated and is a restrictive practice in today's climate. As far as the 5000 extra doctors are concerned this is by 2020 as far as I know when the 7 day service comes into place
No he said their pay would be the same. So no savings. You cannot pay the same number of people the same amount of money and make any savings.
Hunt: " we are being absolutely clear we don't want to cut junior doctors' pay in fact for the majority of them it will go up"."
Again where are the juniors coming from? Even if Medical Schools increased their input hugely in September they still wouldn't be qualified until 2022.
...Look at our buildings now compared to the Victorian ones. Look at their lavish use of iron, stone, glass etc. That is wealth. It has now gone elsewhere...
Wheras I agree that Victorian civic construction was more monumental and dignified than today's, that's not simply because of lack of wealth. Construction techniques have changed, and curtain walls over steel-frame are quicker, cheaper and allow more internal space for the same footprint.
Plus I also have to say the London skyline is way better now than it was then. Things like the Clean Air Act reduced pollution and eliminated soot-stained buildings, the office buildings are impressive (I adore the Shard).
Domestic buildings have improved considerably. We went from Victorian slums to 60's high rises to 80's Brookside houses to modernday out-of-town Barratt estates. Newbuilds now have downstairs toilets as standard. Double glazing, showers, central heating are considered normal. Ensuites are unremarked.
There are some things I don't like (smaller sizes, wet lofts, shower rooms). But the quality and value of today's housing stock is *way* better than 1900.
You can say we wouldn't want to do things that way, but the plain fact is, we couldn't.
I also don't think we can imagine the London skyline pre-blitz, before Prince Charles' 'carbuncles' went up, but that's an issue of aesthetics.
Jeremy Hunt this morning solemnly announced on national TV that the junior doctors were being deceived by the BMA and that they would be working fewer hours and not more under the new contract. At the same time he's been telling us that the changes are essential to have greater cover at weekends. The man's obviously in the wrong line of work and needs to furnish himself with a top hat and cape and a rabbit or two. So that's what a PPE at Oxford teaches you about simple arithmetic is it?
As I understand it the Doctors are holding for overtime rates at the weekends which are not paid to nurses or other staff and that the savings will go towards 5000 more doctors. The doctors have also been offered a 11% pay rise and that most doctors will receive higher pay and work less hours. In the end Hunt will win this dispute in the better interest of the patients
He also said their pay isn't going down as well. If you don't believe me rewatch the Marr programme; so where are the savings coming from? They'll be working fewer hours for the same money???? And more pertinently, where are 5000 more junior doctors coming from? Is he going to magic them out of a hat too? As clueless as Mr Hunt.
Their basic pay is not going down, the excessive weekend overtime rates are being moderated, which is fair as most people working at weekends do not get an enhancement. The idea Saturday is a social day requiring overtime is outdated and is a restrictive practice in today's climate. As far as the 5000 extra doctors are concerned this is by 2020 as far as I know when the 7 day service comes into place
Doctors are literate and capable of doing sums. The new proposed contract is in the public domain and my jr colleagues very capable of calculating what their take home pay will be. For most this will be a substantial paycut and more weekend working. This affects those specialities with the most weekend work (eg emergency depts) the most, while specialities with the least weekend work (pathology) get a payrise. They know what they are striking about.
Incidentally my Trust cancelled 25 planned operations in December because of the one day strike. It cancelled several hundred because all the hospital beds were full, largely because of cuts to social care. Why is it that Hunt is outraged by the former yet strangely silent on the latter?
We've cancelled most scheduled (elective) work in the next week too because there are no beds.
So, the world was as well off in the stone age as it is now?
If you wanted to stretch it to extremes, yes. Certainly, a caveman with two rocks was still wealthier than one with one rock.
Would you rather be the caveman with two rocks, or you?
Me now, two rocks then. I'm puzzled that you seem to think we've somehow done well to be more comfortable than our ancestors. Short of total cultural collapse and loss of records (which of course has happened previously in the world's history), this should be expected, because each generation has a vaster repository of knowledge to be built on than the last. In fact, one of the reasons I feel this is a far stupider generation than previous ones is our capacity to actively ignore the lessons of the past that we have unparalleled access to.
Look at our buildings now compared to the Victorian ones. Look at their lavish use of iron, stone, glass etc. That is wealth. It has now gone elsewhere.
Wait: because we are able to build buildings more efficiently, we are poorer?
But even if we assumed that weight of iron and steel were the measure, the world would still be richer, because both the stock and production of each are at all time highs.
If a man in China buys a car, I am not made poorer.
The Victorians didn't build inefficiently, they built with lavish attention to detail, mouldings, cornicing, ironwork, stonework. Don't kid yourself, if we tried to recreate what they did, with all our 'efficiency', we couldn't afford it those specifications.
If a Chinese man buys a car, obviously you are not made poorer, you are made poorer by the other products he has manufactured, that you have bought, that has enabled him to buy the care.
Why recreate what they did, when we can make them cheaper while still being able to carry out the same purpose.
For the same reason they did - to reflect our wealth, culture, and guiding ethics. They could also have made plain, rude, transient buildings should they have wished.
So, the world was as well off in the stone age as it is now?
If you wanted to stretch it to extremes, yes. Certainly, a caveman with two rocks was still wealthier than one with one rock.
Would you rather be the caveman with two rocks, or you?
Me now, two rocks then. I'm puzzled that you seem to think we've somehow done well to be more comfortable than our ancestors. Short of total cultural collapse and loss of records (which of course has happened previously in the world's history), this should be expected, because each generation has a vaster repository of knowledge to be built on than the last. In fact, one of the reasons I feel this is a far stupider generation than previous ones is our capacity to actively ignore the lessons of the past that we have unparalleled access to.
Look at our buildings now compared to the Victorian ones. Look at their lavish use of iron, stone, glass etc. That is wealth. It has now gone elsewhere.
Wait: because we are able to build buildings more efficiently, we are poorer?
But even if we assumed that weight of iron and steel were the measure, the world would still be richer, because both the stock and production of each are at all time highs.
If a man in China buys a car, I am not made poorer.
The Victorians didn't build inefficiently, they built with lavish attention to detail, mouldings, cornicing, ironwork, stonework. Don't kid yourself, if we tried to recreate what they did, with all our 'efficiency', we couldn't afford it those specifications.
If a Chinese man buys a car, obviously you are not made poorer, you are made poorer by the other products he has manufactured, that you have bought, that has enabled him to buy the care.
Why recreate what they did, when we can make them cheaper while still being able to carry out the same purpose.
For the same reason they did - to reflect our wealth, culture, and guiding ethics. They could also have made plain, rude, transient buildings should they have wished.
Is wealth measured in terms of aesthetics now? I thought functionality would be a better measure.
If we venerate your relative concept of wealth, should we not be actively impeding the progress of the Third World to maintain our relative primacy?
Yes. If not their progress, certainly their attempts at gaining a much more significant share of world wealth.
The amount of wealth in the world is not fixed.
You can call it what you like, the figures in the balance sheet might go up, the value remains the same.
This remains utter tosh.
Above all else, I care about being able to eat, and being able to clothe myself.
I am not richer if I starve to death one day later than some other poor fucker.
Yes you are - richer than him. You're engaging in ever more ridiculous hypotheses to avoid the central point - we have got poorer relative to other nations - they have gained it, we have lost it. I fail to see how this is anything other than a bald statement of fact.
I have never disputed that we become "relatively" poorer.
I dispute your core thesis that:
a. the amount of wealth in the world is fixed b. that we should concentrate on our relative share rather than increasing our absolute wealth
There is no other type of poverty than relative poverty.
There is also absolute poverty.
There is distress, yes. But poverty is a relative measure, or we'd tell all benefit claimants to sod off because they've got more than a medieval peasant.
If we venerate your relative concept of wealth, should we not be actively impeding the progress of the Third World to maintain our relative primacy?
Yes. If not their progress, certainly their attempts at gaining a much more significant share of world wealth.
The amount of wealth in the world is not fixed.
You can call it what you like, the figures in the balance sheet might go up, the value remains the same.
This remains utter tosh.
Above all else, I care about being able to eat, and being able to clothe myself.
I am not richer if I starve to death one day later than some other poor fucker.
Yes you are - richer than him. You're engaging in ever more ridiculous hypotheses to avoid the central point - we have got poorer relative to other nations - they have gained it, we have lost it. I fail to see how this is anything other than a bald statement of fact.
I have never disputed that we become "relatively" poorer.
I dispute your core thesis that:
a. the amount of wealth in the world is fixed b. that we should concentrate on our relative share rather than increasing our absolute wealth
There is no other type of poverty than relative poverty.
So, the world was as well off in the stone age as it is now?
If you wanted to stretch it to extremes, yes. Certainly, a caveman with two rocks was still wealthier than one with one rock.
Would you rather be the caveman with two rocks, or you?
Me now, two rocks then. I'm puzzled that you seem to think we've somehow done well to be more comfortable than our ancestors. Short of total cultural collapse and loss of records (which of course has happened previously in the world's history), this should be expected, because each generation has a vaster repository of knowledge to be built on than the last. In fact, one of the reasons I feel this is a far stupider generation than previous ones is our capacity to actively ignore the lessons of the past that we have unparalleled access to.
Look at our buildings now compared to the Victorian ones. Look at their lavish use of iron, stone, glass etc. That is wealth. It has now gone elsewhere.
Wait: because we are able to build buildings more efficiently, we are poorer?
But even if we assumed that weight of iron and steel were the measure, the world would still be richer, because both the stock and production of each are at all time highs.
If a man in China buys a car, I am not made poorer.
The Victorians didn't build inefficiently, they built with lavish attention to detail, mouldings, cornicing, ironwork, stonework. Don't kid yourself, if we tried to recreate what they did, with all our 'efficiency', we couldn't afford it those specifications.
If a Chinese man buys a car, obviously you are not made poorer, you are made poorer by the other products he has manufactured, that you have bought, that has enabled him to buy the care.
Why recreate what they did, when we can make them cheaper while still being able to carry out the same purpose.
For the same reason they did - to reflect our wealth, culture, and guiding ethics. They could also have made plain, rude, transient buildings should they have wished.
Is wealth measured in terms of aesthetics now? I thought functionality would be a better measure.
No, it's measured in wealth. That you spend on what you want to.
Incredible that 11 of the 14 Super Tuesday states have yet to have a single poll, and the 3 that have are weeks old.
Why is there a poll famine?
Which do you think are the most important ST states ?
Texas, Virginia, Georgia, Tennessee ?
Virginia not, as it has perfect proportionality, so on current form there will be prizes for all and little net impact on the scoreboard.
Texas, Georgia, Tennessee, Alabama, Arkansas in that order I'd say.
All have a high FPTP component by congressional district, and very high thresholds in the "PR" statewide section. Some candidates will walk away with next to nothing, while others may get a near clean sweep of a goodly number of delegates. 370 up for grabs among these five states.
They could all go in different directions of course...
If we venerate your relative concept of wealth, should we not be actively impeding the progress of the Third World to maintain our relative primacy?
Yes. If not their progress, certainly their attempts at gaining a much more significant share of world wealth.
The amount of wealth in the world is not fixed.
You can call it what you like, the figures in the balance sheet might go up, the value remains the same.
This remains utter tosh.
Above all else, I care about being able to eat, and being able to clothe myself.
I am not richer if I starve to death one day later than some other poor fucker.
Yes you are - richer than him. You're engaging in ever more ridiculous hypotheses to avoid the central point - we have got poorer relative to other nations - they have gained it, we have lost it. I fail to see how this is anything other than a bald statement of fact.
I have never disputed that we become "relatively" poorer.
I dispute your core thesis that:
a. the amount of wealth in the world is fixed b. that we should concentrate on our relative share rather than increasing our absolute wealth
There is no other type of poverty than relative poverty.
That is plainly untrue.
What's your definition then? But I'll have to hear it tomorrow as all this has kept me up way past bedtime.
So, the world was as well off in the stone age as it is now?
If you wanted to stretch it to extremes, yes. Certainly, a caveman with two rocks was still wealthier than one with one rock.
Would you rather be the caveman with two rocks, or you?
Me now, two rocks then. I'm puzzled that you seem to think we've somehow done well to be more comfortable than our ancestors. Short of total cultural collapse and loss of records (which of course has happened previously in the world's history), this should be expected, because each generation has a vaster repository of knowledge to be built on than the last. In fact, one of the reasons I feel this is a far stupider generation than previous ones is our capacity to actively ignore the lessons of the past that we have unparalleled access to.
Look at our buildings now compared to the Victorian ones. Look at their lavish use of iron, stone, glass etc. That is wealth. It has now gone elsewhere.
Wait: because we are able to build buildings more efficiently, we are poorer?
But even if we assumed that weight of iron and steel were the measure, the world would still be richer, because both the stock and production of each are at all time highs.
If a man in China buys a car, I am not made poorer.
The Victorians didn't build inefficiently, they built with lavish attention to detail, mouldings, cornicing, ironwork, stonework. Don't kid yourself, if we tried to recreate what they did, with all our 'efficiency', we couldn't afford it those specifications.
If a Chinese man buys a car, obviously you are not made poorer, you are made poorer by the other products he has manufactured, that you have bought, that has enabled him to buy the care.
Why recreate what they did, when we can make them cheaper while still being able to carry out the same purpose.
For the same reason they did - to reflect our wealth, culture, and guiding ethics. They could also have made plain, rude, transient buildings should they have wished.
Is wealth measured in terms of aesthetics now? I thought functionality would be a better measure.
Would you rather own a Van Gogh or a Nissan Micra ?
Value isn't necessarily contingent with functionality !
As I have said on many occasions my sister spent the last five years of her life, until her death in November, in hospital and everyone dreaded Friday as the hospital geared down for the weekend and it became a bank holiday service. A 7 day NHS is in patients interest, and very popular, and vested interested will be required to adapt to provide this service. My objection to this dispute is that Jeremy Hunt is heinous and wrong and that the doctors are pure and right. It is the way staff in the NHS have largely viewed Health Secretary's of all parties but the NHS does not belong to the staff it is there for the best interest of all patients. It would be easier to view the BMA as a constructive union if most of it's spokespeople were not associated with the hard left of politics
So, the world was as well off in the stone age as it is now?
If you wanted to stretch it to extremes, yes. Certainly, a caveman with two rocks was still wealthier than one with one rock.
Would you rather be the caveman with two rocks, or you?
Me now, two rocks then. I'm puzzled that you seem to think we've somehow done well to be more comfortable than our ancestors. Short of total cultural collapse and loss of records (which of course has happened previously in the world's history), this should be expected, because each generation has a vaster repository of knowledge to be built on than the last. In fact, one of the reasons I feel this is a far stupider generation than previous ones is our capacity to actively ignore the lessons of the past that we have unparalleled access to.
Look at our buildings now compared to the Victorian ones. Look at their lavish use of iron, stone, glass etc. That is wealth. It has now gone elsewhere.
Wait: because we are able to build buildings more efficiently, we are poorer?
But even if we assumed that weight of iron and steel were the measure, the world would still be richer, because both the stock and production of each are at all time highs.
If a man in China buys a car, I am not made poorer.
The Victorians didn't build inefficiently, they built with lavish attention to detail, mouldings, cornicing, ironwork, stonework. Don't kid yourself, if we tried to recreate what they did, with all our 'efficiency', we couldn't afford it those specifications.
If a Chinese man buys a car, obviously you are not made poorer, you are made poorer by the other products he has manufactured, that you have bought, that has enabled him to buy the care.
Why recreate what they did, when we can make them cheaper while still being able to carry out the same purpose.
For the same reason they did - to reflect our wealth, culture, and guiding ethics. They could also have made plain, rude, transient buildings should they have wished.
Is wealth measured in terms of aesthetics now? I thought functionality would be a better measure.
Would you rather own a Van Gogh or a Nissan Micra ?
Value isn't necessarily contingent with functionality !
I'd argue that the Micra was more useful, although it may or may not be more aesthetically pleasing.
If we venerate your relative concept of wealth, should we not be actively impeding the progress of the Third World to maintain our relative primacy?
Yes. If not their progress, certainly their attempts at gaining a much more significant share of world wealth.
The amount of wealth in the world is not fixed.
You can call it what you like, the figures in the balance sheet might go up, the value remains the same.
This remains utter tosh.
Above all else, I care about being able to eat, and being able to clothe myself.
I am not richer if I starve to death one day later than some other poor fucker.
Yes you are - richer than him. You're engaging in ever more ridiculous hypotheses to avoid the central point - we have got poorer relative to other nations - they have gained it, we have lost it. I fail to see how this is anything other than a bald statement of fact.
I have never disputed that we become "relatively" poorer.
I dispute your core thesis that:
a. the amount of wealth in the world is fixed b. that we should concentrate on our relative share rather than increasing our absolute wealth
There is no other type of poverty than relative poverty.
There is also absolute poverty.
Poverty is an iphone 5 when everyone else has an iphone 6.
As I have said on many occasions my sister spent the last five years of her life, until her death in November, in hospital and everyone dreaded Friday as the hospital geared down for the weekend and it became a bank holiday service. A 7 day NHS is in patients interest, and very popular, and vested interested will be required to adapt to provide this service. My objection to this dispute is that Jeremy Hunt is heinous and wrong and that the doctors are pure and right. It is the way staff in the NHS have largely viewed Health Secretary's of all parties but the NHS does not belong to the staff it is there for the best interest of all patients. It would be easier to view the BMA as a constructive union if most of it's spokespeople were not associated with the hard left of politics
And everyone in the NHS will agree with you. Vested interests will not need to adapt. We will need more staff - it's basic common sense. That will cost money. Where is it?
If we venerate your relative concept of wealth, should we not be actively impeding the progress of the Third World to maintain our relative primacy?
Yes. If not their progress, certainly their attempts at gaining a much more significant share of world wealth.
The amount of wealth in the world is not fixed.
You can call it what you like, the figures in the balance sheet might go up, the value remains the same.
This remains utter tosh.
Above all else, I care about being able to eat, and being able to clothe myself.
I am not richer if I starve to death one day later than some other poor fucker.
Yes you are - richer than him. You're engaging in ever more ridiculous hypotheses to avoid the central point - we have got poorer relative to other nations - they have gained it, we have lost it. I fail to see how this is anything other than a bald statement of fact.
I have never disputed that we become "relatively" poorer.
I dispute your core thesis that:
a. the amount of wealth in the world is fixed b. that we should concentrate on our relative share rather than increasing our absolute wealth
There is no other type of poverty than relative poverty.
There is also absolute poverty.
There is distress, yes. But poverty is a relative measure, or we'd tell all benefit claimants to sod off because they've got more than a medieval peasant.
Loius XIV lived in luxury but not in comfort, compared to today.
So, the world was as well off in the stone age as it is now?
If you wanted to stretch it to extremes, yes. Certainly, a caveman with two rocks was still wealthier than one with one rock.
Would you rather be the caveman with two rocks, or you?
Me now, two rocks then. I'm puzzled that you seem to think we've somehow done well to be more comfortable than our ancestors. Short of total cultural collapse and loss of records (which of course has happened previously in the world's history), this should be expected, because each generation has a vaster repository of knowledge to be built on than the last. In fact, one of the reasons I feel this is a far stupider generation than previous ones is our capacity to actively ignore the lessons of the past that we have unparalleled access to.
Look at our buildings now compared to the Victorian ones. Look at their lavish use of iron, stone, glass etc. That is wealth. It has now gone elsewhere.
Wait: because we are able to build buildings more efficiently, we are poorer?
But even if we assumed that weight of iron and steel were the measure, the world would still be richer, because both the stock and production of each are at all time highs.
If a man in China buys a car, I am not made poorer.
The Victorians didn't build inefficiently, they built with lavish attention to detail, mouldings, cornicing, ironwork, stonework. Don't kid yourself, if we tried to recreate what they did, with all our 'efficiency', we couldn't afford it those specifications.
If a Chinese man buys a car, obviously you are not made poorer, you are made poorer by the other products he has manufactured, that you have bought, that has enabled him to buy the care.
Why recreate what they did, when we can make them cheaper while still being able to carry out the same purpose.
For the same reason they did - to reflect our wealth, culture, and guiding ethics. They could also have made plain, rude, transient buildings should they have wished.
Is wealth measured in terms of aesthetics now? I thought functionality would be a better measure.
Would you rather own a Van Gogh or a Nissan Micra ?
Value isn't necessarily contingent with functionality !
"Price": the amount of money you have to give to get the good "Utility": the usefulness of that good to you
Really, and how can they come here without the british government allowing them in? Is Cameron blackmailing his own country, "vote for Remain or I'll open the border" ?
"Mr Cameron will warn that being part of the EU allows Britain to share crucial information that could prevent a Paris-style attack on the streets of Britain."
But we share information with countries that are not in the EU and with Interpol. With all due respect Prime Minister but F.Y., this is just appalling if you really threaten your own country with retaliation.
Why would we want to remain a member of the EU when one of the key member countries, France, would want to punish us in such a way. There is no way we should be bullied or frightened into staying.
So, the world was as well off in the stone age as it is now?
If you wanted to stretch it to extremes, yes. Certainly, a caveman with two rocks was still wealthier than one with one rock.
Would you rather be the caveman with two rocks, or you?
Me now, two rocks then. I'm puzzled that you seem to think we've somehow done well to be more comfortable than our ancestors. Short of total cultural collapse and loss of records (which of course has happened previously in the world's history), this should be expected, because each generation has a vaster repository of knowledge to be built on than the last. In fact, one of the reasons I feel this is a far stupider generation than previous ones is our capacity to actively ignore the lessons of the past that we have unparalleled access to.
Look at our buildings now compared to the Victorian ones. Look at their lavish use of iron, stone, glass etc. That is wealth. It has now gone elsewhere.
Wait: because we are able to build buildings more efficiently, we are poorer?
But even if we assumed that weight of iron and steel were the measure, the world would still be richer, because both the stock and production of each are at all time highs.
If a man in China buys a car, I am not made poorer.
The Victorians didn't build inefficiently, they built with lavish attention to detail, mouldings, cornicing, ironwork, stonework. Don't kid yourself, if we tried to recreate what they did, with all our 'efficiency', we couldn't afford it those specifications.
(Snip)
There's a fallacy there. What we see of Victorian engineering today are the survivors. These tend to be structures that remain because of their continuing utility. Often, they are much altered to cope with new roles or modern loadings. In a few cases (e,g, St Pancras) they survived because of their beauty despite having had no utility.
The Victorians built much more than we see today: large swathes of it has been swept away, often because it was low-quality, life-expired or no longer had utility. Basically, we generally get to see the *best* the Victorians could do.
In the same way, I expect all that will remain of early 21-st century structures in 150 years time will be the best, the poor and shoddy having been swept away in further waves of development.
As for "we couldn't afford it those specifications.". You are right: because there are much better ways of doing things now. It's a thing called progress: you may have heard of it?
Comments
... is one quite interesting theory.
I don't think a great power can sustain itself as a rentier forever, which is what we were starting to do by 1910. The wars drastically accelerated what would have happened anyway.
The value of goods and services produced in the UK in 1950 was much higher than in 1910. I have long-run economic stats at work I can dig out if you like.
The coincident indicators tell a similar tale: malnutrition levels, life expectancy, infant mortality all point to a richer society.
Or debts of 50k and an income of 100k?
Consider this -
http://www.economicshelp.org/wp-content/uploads/blog-uploads/2012/05/Screen-Shot-2012-05-22-at-10.25.38.png
Wealth is a measure of assets. It can also only be measured relative to other countries. There was a small 'boom' in light industry in the 1950s, all very nice and everything, but we were in no way a wealthier country in that decade than in the 1910s, we were immeasurably poorer.
You have a very 18th century Mercantilists view of the world.
Well, I guess it's a view.
What humans do is take dirt and rock. And make spaceships. Or computers. Things that are *worth* many orders of magnitude more than their primal constituents.
There's alot more to buy with your diamonds....
Above all else, I care about being able to eat, and being able to clothe myself.
I am not richer if I starve to death one day later than some other poor fucker.
Look at our buildings now compared to the Victorian ones. Look at their lavish use of iron, stone, glass etc. That is wealth. It has now gone elsewhere.
But even if we assumed that weight of iron and steel were the measure, the world would still be richer, because both the stock and production of each are at all time highs.
If a man in China buys a car, I am not made poorer.
I dispute your core thesis that:
a. the amount of wealth in the world is fixed
b. that we should concentrate on our relative share rather than increasing our absolute wealth
Why is there a poll famine?
Going back further, you could say the same about the great cathedrals. Just because they were magnificent did not mean they were richer.
If a Chinese man buys a car, obviously you are not made poorer, you are made poorer by the other products he has manufactured, that you have bought, that has enabled him to buy the care.
Texas, Virginia, Georgia, Tennessee ?
Our ancestors in Europe were lucky to live in a part of the world with several suitably domesticable animal species - but our proximity to them came at the cost of wave after wave of disease.
Ultimately those of us who survived and reproduced had a gigantic immunity advantage against the descendants of those who migrated across the baring strait thousands of years before.
We took both our immunity and our diseases with us to the Americas.
But yeah, I'm really really not an expert on this stuff, so that theory could have all sorts of holes in it.
Interesting though!
Plus I also have to say the London skyline is way better now than it was then. Things like the Clean Air Act reduced pollution and eliminated soot-stained buildings, the office buildings are impressive (I adore the Shard).
Domestic buildings have improved considerably. We went from Victorian slums to 60's high rises to 80's Brookside houses to modernday out-of-town Barratt estates. Newbuilds now have downstairs toilets as standard. Double glazing, showers, central heating are considered normal. Ensuites are unremarked.
There are some things I don't like (smaller sizes, wet lofts, shower rooms). But the quality and value of today's housing stock is *way* better than 1900.
Incidentally my Trust cancelled 25 planned operations in December because of the one day strike. It cancelled several hundred because all the hospital beds were full, largely because of cuts to social care. Why is it that Hunt is outraged by the former yet strangely silent on the latter?
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/02/02/us/cruz-trump-rubio-nomination-paths.html
As I said watch again 44:30 onwards
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b070rt5r/the-andrew-marr-show-07022016
Hunt: " we are being absolutely clear we don't want to cut junior doctors' pay in fact for the majority of them it will go up"."
Again where are the juniors coming from? Even if Medical Schools increased their input hugely in September they still wouldn't be qualified until 2022.
I also don't think we can imagine the London skyline pre-blitz, before Prince Charles' 'carbuncles' went up, but that's an issue of aesthetics.
My head says it's probably not going to Happen.
All the money is coming in on Carolina
Texas, Georgia, Tennessee, Alabama, Arkansas in that order I'd say.
All have a high FPTP component by congressional district, and very high thresholds in the "PR" statewide section. Some candidates will walk away with next to nothing, while others may get a near clean sweep of a goodly number of delegates. 370 up for grabs among these five states.
They could all go in different directions of course...
Value isn't necessarily contingent with functionality !
As I have said on many occasions my sister spent the last five years of her life, until her death in November, in hospital and everyone dreaded Friday as the hospital geared down for the weekend and it became a bank holiday service. A 7 day NHS is in patients interest, and very popular, and vested interested will be required to adapt to provide this service. My objection to this dispute is that Jeremy Hunt is heinous and wrong and that the doctors are pure and right. It is the way staff in the NHS have largely viewed Health Secretary's of all parties but the NHS does not belong to the staff it is there for the best interest of all patients. It would be easier to view the BMA as a constructive union if most of it's spokespeople were not associated with the hard left of politics
Does Dr Clarke sound like a militant hard lefty?
https://www.facebook.com/ali.benmussa/videos/10153821674942488/
If Britain leaves the EU, France will stop allowing UK officials to make the checks in Calais, he warns"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/12145781/David-Cameron-warns-of-migrant-camps-in-southern-England-if-Brexit-vote.html
"Utility": the usefulness of that good to you
If Cameron keeps bringing stuff like this up it is manna from heaven for LEAVE
Is Cameron blackmailing his own country, "vote for Remain or I'll open the border" ?
"Mr Cameron will warn that being part of the EU allows Britain to share crucial information that could prevent a Paris-style attack on the streets of Britain."
But we share information with countries that are not in the EU and with Interpol.
With all due respect Prime Minister but F.Y., this is just appalling if you really threaten your own country with retaliation.
The border checks are there because Britain & France share a common border and a bit of Infrastructure - its got nowt to do with the EU.
If the French want to sub-optimise it for both countries out of spite, thats up to them - but they could do that today, if they wanted to.
The Victorians built much more than we see today: large swathes of it has been swept away, often because it was low-quality, life-expired or no longer had utility. Basically, we generally get to see the *best* the Victorians could do.
In the same way, I expect all that will remain of early 21-st century structures in 150 years time will be the best, the poor and shoddy having been swept away in further waves of development.
As for "we couldn't afford it those specifications.". You are right: because there are much better ways of doing things now. It's a thing called progress: you may have heard of it?