Re: Housing : Fri Dec 06, 2013 1:53 pm  

Mintball wrote:

Thank you.

You've not answered a single point I've made.

Let's put it another way: if wide income inequality affects social outcomes negatively, then it will cost more money than narrower income inequality that affects social outcomes less negatively.

So that's saving money, not 'throwing' it at anything.

Just following your lead. Asked you 3 simple questions. No replies.

Re: Housing : Fri Dec 06, 2013 2:28 pm  

Him wrote:

Why? And can you define social spend yet? Or why pure GDP is the sign of wealth of a nation?

Do we? How are you quantifying how much is spent per head at school kids compared to other countries? Because they aren't easily obtainable or comparable figures. And how are you quantifying the outcomes?

Well, I don't know Mrs M's precise definition - but it will inlude housing, pensions, medical, welfare, education, etc

GDP per capita is a good proxy to wealth. If Europe has 7% of the world's population and 25% of its GDP it does not take a genius to work out that its per capita GDP is many times the world's average. If you have ever travelled outside Europe you would have seen that too. It's not rocket science.

As to spending, as was widely reported earlier in the week the OECD issued its findings on education across 65 countries. Our 15 year olds' performance was 26th in Maths, 23rd in reading, 21st in science. Our average percapita spend for 6-15 year old education was 17.6% over the OECD average spend whereas our per capita GDP was only 4.6% above. Our spend was the 11th highest per child but as noted above their proficiency was less than 11th in all three categories. So, seems like our kids are inherently thick or money is not been wisely spent.

Re: Housing : Fri Dec 06, 2013 2:28 pm  

Dally wrote:

Just following your lead. Asked you 3 simple questions. No replies.

And you have failed to respond to repeated requests to explain what you think 'social spending' means.

Re: Housing : Fri Dec 06, 2013 2:29 pm  

Mintball wrote:

And you have failed to respond to repeated requests to explain what you think 'social spending' means.

I asked my questions first. I have also done so above.

Re: Housing : Fri Dec 06, 2013 2:53 pm  

Dally wrote:

I asked my questions first. I have also done so above.

And I have explained to you, in the simplest terms that I could manage, that the wider the income gap, the more the cost to the state in terms of lower social outcomes.

Dally wrote:

What do you think will happen if that state of affairs is not addressed?

As has been pointed out, you're quite clearly confused about matters such as GDP etc.

And are you really suggesting that, for instance, the UK should increase aid so as 'level the playing field', as you seem to see it?

Or what? We stop, for instance, selling lots of financial services and let the Chinese or the Indians do it instead?

Or are you seriously suggesting that we cut healthcare and education etc?

What you refuse utterly to deal with in all this is the actual, real-time consequences.

Do you imagine it would suddenly be nice and cheap if people just happen to be bounced out of their homes on to the street because they don't earn enough to keep a roof over their heads and government decides it'll do away with housing benefits? Or if we'd just butcher education and health spending, even though we'd then be consequently less productive?

Perhaps we should cut pensions? Maybe just send the retired off into the wilderness to die and stop eating up valuable resources?

I repeat, because I have been asking this for weeks if not months, and you're just one of many who ignores it: the evidence shows that the wider the income gap, the poorer the social outcomes for ALL of a society. And those poorer social outcomes come at a financial cost too.

Next, for someone who has posted many times on this forum about the need for people (well, not himself, obviously) to become religious again in order to make them behave better, you could do with showing some sense of morals/ethics yourself.

At present, your entire line seems to be that if Big Business and Big Finance tell you something, you swallow it hook line and sinker, and are then entirely happy for your fellow citizens to suffer,.

You never have a single concrete answer to that suffering; ever, or to how far you think people who blameless for the financial crisis can be pushed and what will happen if they keep on being pushed.

Dally wrote:

Do you think it's fair that we have so much of the cake when others have so little?

The bulk of the global 'cake', if you insist on such an analogy, is held by a very, very small percentage of the population/companies/banks: and the ordinary working people of this country are not included any more than the ordinary working people of any other countries are included.

Merkel is a conservative who will never easily admit that the major problem is the power of transnational and multination corporates, and the era's dominant political-economic ideology that has worked to put an ever-increasing share of that bleedin' cake into the hands of fewer and fewer people.

Different shares of the cake? Happily. Let's sort out big business and big finance then, which is ripping off people around the world and then playing them off against each other.

Dally wrote:

Do you really think that the global cake will expand to c.7 times its current level in the short-term so that we can justify that level of spending based on your concept of what's fair?

See your previous question and my previous answer. It wouldn't need to if big business and big finance behaved with human decency at their core, and if sustainability and the long-term were considered as opposed to short-term profit that puts human beings as the least important part of the equation.

Re: Housing : Fri Dec 06, 2013 3:08 pm  

Mintball wrote:

And I have explained to you, in the simplest terms that I could manage, that the wider the income gap, the more the cost to the state in terms of lower social outcomes.

As has been pointed out, you're quite clearly confused about matters such as GDP etc.

And are you really suggesting that, for instance, the UK should increase aid so as 'level the playing field', as you seem to see it?

Or what? We stop, for instance, selling lots of financial services and let the Chinese or the Indians do it instead?

Or are you seriously suggesting that we cut healthcare and education etc?

What you refuse utterly to deal with in all this is the actual, real-time consequences.

Do you imagine it would suddenly be nice and cheap if people just happen to be bounced out of their homes on to the street because they don't earn enough to keep a roof over their heads and government decides it'll do away with housing benefits? Or if we'd just butcher education and health spending, even though we'd then be consequently less productive?

Perhaps we should cut pensions? Maybe just send the retired off into the wilderness to die and stop eating up valuable resources?

I repeat, because I have been asking this for weeks if not months, and you're just one of many who ignores it: the evidence shows that the wider the income gap, the poorer the social outcomes for ALL of a society. And those poorer social outcomes come at a financial cost too.

Next, for someone who has posted many times on this forum about the need for people (well, not himself, obviously) to become religious again in order to make them behave better, you could do with showing some sense of morals/ethics yourself.

At present, your entire line seems to be that if Big Business and Big Finance tell you something, you swallow it hook line and sinker, and are then entirely happy for your fellow citizens to suffer,.

You never have a single concrete answer to that suffering; ever, or to how far you think people who blameless for the financial crisis can be pushed and what will happen if they keep on being pushed.

The bulk of the global 'cake', if you insist on such an analogy, is held by a very, very small percentage of the population/companies/banks: and the ordinary working people of this country are not included any more than the ordinary working people of any other countries are included.

Merkel is a conservative who will never easily admit that the major problem is the power of transnational and multination corporates, and the era's dominant political-economic ideology that has worked to put an ever-increasing share of that bleedin' cake into the hands of fewer and fewer people.

Different shares of the cake? Happily. Let's sort out big business and big finance then, which is ripping off people around the world and then playing them off against each other.

See your previous question and my previous answer. It wouldn't need to if big business and big finance behaved with human decency at their core, and if sustainability and the long-term were considered as opposed to short-term profit that puts human beings as the least important part of the equation.

Lie down dear. After that off topic rant you need it.

Re: Housing : Fri Dec 06, 2013 3:12 pm  

It's not "off topic". And yet again you cannot or will respond.

Re: Housing : Fri Dec 06, 2013 3:14 pm  

Illustration of how highly profitable companies are using the financial crisis to exploit even more people. "Although US internship offerings have always ranged from the paid to the unpaid, increasingly in recent years, as the number of unemployed youth has surged in the wake of the financial collapse, the balance has tipped to the unpaid."

Illustration of how highly profitable companies are using the financial crisis to exploit even more people. "Although US internship offerings have always ranged from the paid to the unpaid, increasingly in recent years, as the number of unemployed youth has surged in the wake of the financial collapse, the balance has tipped to the unpaid."

[DaveO]

Re: Housing : Fri Dec 06, 2013 3:15 pm  

Dally wrote: Why do people on the left always equate throwing money at something equalling improvement? We throw more money per head at school kids in this country than most places and get worse outcomes. In my day I went to a school that had relatively poor, outdated facilities but good teachers and outcomes were pretty good. Mrs Dally went to a similar establishment and her school produced the best outcomes in the county. Indeed, I would argue that an austere environment is preferable when it comes to education. Comfort breeds complacency (which in a wider sense has become a national problem). It's not what you spend, it's how you spend it that counts. You don't half write some tripe at times but this is just out of the Ark. My wife recently visited a local school to find out about its web site but while she was there was shown the way they organise the students work and in particular homework. They all have an iPad and the work they do along with notes from the teachers and other resources is all in the school's intra-net. This is accessible from home and the parents are also given access. So the parents can see what homework is set and when it is due. It uses software similar to this: https://www.showmyhomework.co.uk/ No more "The teacher didn't set any homework" from the kids and if teachers don't set any, parents can complain etc. I am sure this is a very slick and comfortable environment to work within and as the students know everyone can see what they have to do the last thing it will breed is complacency. It will do the exact opposite. I am sure it also took some money to set it up and to ensure all students could access it. It is therefore completely at odds with this statement of yours "I would argue that an austere environment is preferable when it comes to education". It's modern, bang up to date and has obvious benefits. You and Gove will get on well. Harking back to the "Good old days" and blind or even against genuine improvements such as this to the educational system for nonsensical reasons such as it does not provide an austere enough environment. A mind-bogglingly ridiculous stance.

Dally wrote: Why do people on the left always equate throwing money at something equalling improvement? We throw more money per head at school kids in this country than most places and get worse outcomes. In my day I went to a school that had relatively poor, outdated facilities but good teachers and outcomes were pretty good. Mrs Dally went to a similar establishment and her school produced the best outcomes in the county. Indeed, I would argue that an austere environment is preferable when it comes to education. Comfort breeds complacency (which in a wider sense has become a national problem). It's not what you spend, it's how you spend it that counts. You don't half write some tripe at times but this is just out of the Ark. My wife recently visited a local school to find out about its web site but while she was there was shown the way they organise the students work and in particular homework. They all have an iPad and the work they do along with notes from the teachers and other resources is all in the school's intra-net. This is accessible from home and the parents are also given access. So the parents can see what homework is set and when it is due. It uses software similar to this: https://www.showmyhomework.co.uk/ No more "The teacher didn't set any homework" from the kids and if teachers don't set any, parents can complain etc. I am sure this is a very slick and comfortable environment to work within and as the students know everyone can see what they have to do the last thing it will breed is complacency. It will do the exact opposite. I am sure it also took some money to set it up and to ensure all students could access it. It is therefore completely at odds with this statement of yours "I would argue that an austere environment is preferable when it comes to education". It's modern, bang up to date and has obvious benefits. You and Gove will get on well. Harking back to the "Good old days" and blind or even against genuine improvements such as this to the educational system for nonsensical reasons such as it does not provide an austere enough environment. A mind-bogglingly ridiculous stance.

Re: Housing : Fri Dec 06, 2013 3:18 pm  

Mintball wrote:

It's not "off topic". And yet again you cannot or will respond.

It's too long to be bothered!

But, for a start - where is this evidence you refer to (re income inequality) being bad for ALL. If it is ALL why has nobody thought of adressing the issue? If they haven't and it is bad for ALL then it is only a matter of time before someone does.

Just thinking about China's recent history - income disparaity was relatively low and nearly everone poor. Now they are not but more and more people are not poor. Is that good or bad? How does your evidence explain that?

This big business that rips people off. Are people forced to buy Apple products? Or work for them?