Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So with all the stuff about Trump and Brexit bouncing around politics seems to have become dominated by a few limited issues. But here is something that arguably could dwarf both in the benefits/draw backs depending on how you see it. The mechanisation and automation of the majority of jobs. eg, AI and robotics replacing humans in the majority of low to mid skilled jobs. The facts are, given the rate of progress in the field, give it 20 years and a lot of people - I mean a lot might have to really start finding and re-training for niche skills if they d not want to be unemployed. Good video outlining the topic at hand if I explained it in a shit way. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq-S557XQU So the question is, how do we as a society, nationally and globally, prepare for this, and will it work out well, or be a disaster." happening already proctor and gambles trafford pak facility is all run by one guy with a lap top everything fully automated only human contact is fork truck drivers loading fully packeged and palleted goods onto the back of trailers | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So with all the stuff about Trump and Brexit bouncing around politics seems to have become dominated by a few limited issues. But here is something that arguably could dwarf both in the benefits/draw backs depending on how you see it. The mechanisation and automation of the majority of jobs. eg, AI and robotics replacing humans in the majority of low to mid skilled jobs. The facts are, given the rate of progress in the field, give it 20 years and a lot of people - I mean a lot might have to really start finding and re-training for niche skills if they d not want to be unemployed. Good video outlining the topic at hand if I explained it in a shit way. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq-S557XQU So the question is, how do we as a society, nationally and globally, prepare for this, and will it work out well, or be a disaster.happening already proctor and gambles trafford pak facility is all run by one guy with a lap top everything fully automated only human contact is fork truck drivers loading fully packeged and palleted goods onto the back of trailers " Interesting. Obviously it's great for buinesses, and eventually it'll be great for the public sector. (I read about the programming of an A.I which could replace chemists and cancer researchers to some extent). But the wider issue is, how will society react to this. Cause eventually we'll have vast amounts of next to useless human labour, who will either have to be re-trained in something, or supported by welfare (unless we abandon a money based economy), or will need to innovate. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Hasn't there been the same issue over and over throughout history with every major industrial change? Weren't people sabotaging steam engines for stealing their jobs before? I remember when Amazon first started. "Order books over the internet?! What a crazy idea? They are going to actually post you a book? That is insane!"... then Royal Mail were wringing their hands about how email would be the death of letters and they would be out of business. However I'd guess that postal volume is higher than it has ever been in history... only it is not letters, but stuff ordered online. The world changes. People are going to have to adapt. Those that can't will have trouble. I can see that being a very significant problem. I mean, even if we hadn't shut down all the coal mines, what would the miners have done when we switch entirely to renewables / nuclear? I read a great piece related to Trump support outside of urban areas in the US. The point was that if you lived in a small community somewhere which was based around a single industry or employer (a mill, factory, etc) and that closed. What could you do? You couldn't even go and, say, train to be a doctor, hairdresser etc. because your town already had a doctor or a hairdresser and until they passed away your town doesn't need another one of those. In a large city, there is a level of population that makes it much easier to support a service industry. The UK has been slowly moving more and more towards a knowledge economy. Pretty much all of the manufacturing we do is high-tech, high margin stuff. Most of our exports are services (financial, IT, etc). How do we deal with this? I don't know. I'd say something along the lines of starting with education... but just take a look at fields like medical in which what few people we have are coming out with all the qualifications but into a completely shit market due to the government hell bent on destroying the NHS. I would say, you would have to have quite some resolve or incentive to go into studying medicine right now with a view of going into working in the NHS in 5 years time. On a totally separate point, my 5 y/o daughter said the other day "I wish there wasn't money in the world". I talked it through with her the best I could as to how you would exchange goods and services without it, and ideas of bartering or gift economies. As best I could to a 5 year old. But, maybe she has a point. Maybe we have to become individually more self-sufficient. -Matt" I disagree with the first point to some extent. Yes we've had tech revolutions appear throughout history which mean less labour is required to produce something - but that's only ever been good, on the basis that it left more people to perform the same task/specialise, which just led to aa higher societal carrying capacity. When robotics and A.I hit the beginning of their golden age, which could be in 20 years, I think we are going to have people being obsolete for certain roles, almost completely. E.g, some programmers are working on a digital Aristotle, as a program which could make teachers just a teaching accessory. I'm optimistic, but nervous, I do not think society, and a money based economy can transfer onto a society where most people might have to become a robotics engineer, or programmer. And I agree won the medicine issue btw, currently doing a PhD in nano biotechnology whist working, and tbh the governments mishandling of the NHS is a morale crusher. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Can anyone explain then why there are more people in employment in the UK now than there has ever been?" You are only thinking short term | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Can anyone explain then why there are more people in employment in the UK now than there has ever been? You are only thinking short term " because technology hasn't advanced much over the last 20 - 30 years has it? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Hasn't there been the same issue over and over throughout history with every major industrial change? Weren't people sabotaging steam engines for stealing their jobs before? I remember when Amazon first started. "Order books over the internet?! What a crazy idea? They are going to actually post you a book? That is insane!"... then Royal Mail were wringing their hands about how email would be the death of letters and they would be out of business. However I'd guess that postal volume is higher than it has ever been in history... only it is not letters, but stuff ordered online. The world changes. People are going to have to adapt. Those that can't will have trouble. I can see that being a very significant problem. I mean, even if we hadn't shut down all the coal mines, what would the miners have done when we switch entirely to renewables / nuclear? I read a great piece related to Trump support outside of urban areas in the US. The point was that if you lived in a small community somewhere which was based around a single industry or employer (a mill, factory, etc) and that closed. What could you do? You couldn't even go and, say, train to be a doctor, hairdresser etc. because your town already had a doctor or a hairdresser and until they passed away your town doesn't need another one of those. In a large city, there is a level of population that makes it much easier to support a service industry. The UK has been slowly moving more and more towards a knowledge economy. Pretty much all of the manufacturing we do is high-tech, high margin stuff. Most of our exports are services (financial, IT, etc). How do we deal with this? I don't know. I'd say something along the lines of starting with education... but just take a look at fields like medical in which what few people we have are coming out with all the qualifications but into a completely shit market due to the government hell bent on destroying the NHS. I would say, you would have to have quite some resolve or incentive to go into studying medicine right now with a view of going into working in the NHS in 5 years time. On a totally separate point, my 5 y/o daughter said the other day "I wish there wasn't money in the world". I talked it through with her the best I could as to how you would exchange goods and services without it, and ideas of bartering or gift economies. As best I could to a 5 year old. But, maybe she has a point. Maybe we have to become individually more self-sufficient. -Matt I disagree with the first point to some extent. Yes we've had tech revolutions appear throughout history which mean less labour is required to produce something - but that's only ever been good, on the basis that it left more people to perform the same task/specialise, which just led to aa higher societal carrying capacity. When robotics and A.I hit the beginning of their golden age, which could be in 20 years, I think we are going to have people being obsolete for certain roles, almost completely. E.g, some programmers are working on a digital Aristotle, as a program which could make teachers just a teaching accessory. I'm optimistic, but nervous, I do not think society, and a money based economy can transfer onto a society where most people might have to become a robotics engineer, or programmer. And I agree won the medicine issue btw, currently doing a PhD in nano biotechnology whist working, and tbh the governments mishandling of the NHS is a morale crusher." So you think that, unlike times of past, that we are reaching some kind of peak where we won't have anything left for humans to do? An interesting point. I guess taking it to the extreme we would all live a life of leisure and robots would do everything for us. Would that be a fulfilling life? I don't think so, but I think this discussion really needs a beer in hand to go further. Have you been watching 'Humans' on C4? Quite an interesting drama posing questions about human labour being replaced with androids. -Matt | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Can anyone explain then why there are more people in employment in the UK now than there has ever been?" I am guessing (making an assumption) that you might be able to relate to this. Your Granddad when looking for a job would likely have been in competion with men in his own local neighbourhood but irrespective of two intervening wars he would have had little problem finding work in a heavily industrialised area. Your Dad would have been able to secure a better paid job than your Granddad and with better (safer) working conditions but he would have had competion for work from miles around albeit once in work he could have had indefinite employment. You probably had the best deal of all as from the 1970's onwards, pay conditions and opportunities all improved albeit the best people were prepared to relocate and commute long distances to secure great jobs with excellent conditions. Today though jobs are no longer secure and unless your children skill up and get a career that will always be in demand they have only a future of insecure employment and low wages to look forward to. Yes there are jobs now and lots of them despite absorbing 3,500,000 or so EU migrants but unless you have a skill, or are prepared to learn one, these are not on the whole good jobs with security. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Can anyone explain then why there are more people in employment in the UK now than there has ever been? I am guessing (making an assumption) that you might be able to relate to this. Your Granddad when looking for a job would likely have been in competion with men in his own local neighbourhood but irrespective of two intervening wars he would have had little problem finding work in a heavily industrialised area. Your Dad would have been able to secure a better paid job than your Granddad and with better (safer) working conditions but he would have had competion for work from miles around albeit once in work he could have had indefinite employment. You probably had the best deal of all as from the 1970's onwards, pay conditions and opportunities all improved albeit the best people were prepared to relocate and commute long distances to secure great jobs with excellent conditions. Today though jobs are no longer secure and unless your children skill up and get a career that will always be in demand they have only a future of insecure employment and low wages to look forward to. Yes there are jobs now and lots of them despite absorbing 3,500,000 or so EU migrants but unless you have a skill, or are prepared to learn one, these are not on the whole good jobs with security." true but that aint gonna change, somebody will always have to do the crap jobs | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's a great opportunity to free most people from working and to use their time on EARTH better if there was excellent political leadership to make it work for everyone But with great distractions (like brexit) the more probable outcome is MASSIVE inequality" I think it is the Green party that is proposing that higher personal and corporate tax revenues are used to pay everyone a non means tested citizens salary and abolish altogether benefits. This incentivises AI, robotics and the like without it negatively impacting humans. These will still be inequality of course but the idea is that no-one should suffer because of progress. Quite revolutionary - but there is something in it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Hasn't there been the same issue over and over throughout history with every major industrial change? Weren't people sabotaging steam engines for stealing their jobs before? I remember when Amazon first started. "Order books over the internet?! What a crazy idea? They are going to actually post you a book? That is insane!"... then Royal Mail were wringing their hands about how email would be the death of letters and they would be out of business. However I'd guess that postal volume is higher than it has ever been in history... only it is not letters, but stuff ordered online. The world changes. People are going to have to adapt. Those that can't will have trouble. I can see that being a very significant problem. I mean, even if we hadn't shut down all the coal mines, what would the miners have done when we switch entirely to renewables / nuclear? I read a great piece related to Trump support outside of urban areas in the US. The point was that if you lived in a small community somewhere which was based around a single industry or employer (a mill, factory, etc) and that closed. What could you do? You couldn't even go and, say, train to be a doctor, hairdresser etc. because your town already had a doctor or a hairdresser and until they passed away your town doesn't need another one of those. In a large city, there is a level of population that makes it much easier to support a service industry. The UK has been slowly moving more and more towards a knowledge economy. Pretty much all of the manufacturing we do is high-tech, high margin stuff. Most of our exports are services (financial, IT, etc). How do we deal with this? I don't know. I'd say something along the lines of starting with education... but just take a look at fields like medical in which what few people we have are coming out with all the qualifications but into a completely shit market due to the government hell bent on destroying the NHS. I would say, you would have to have quite some resolve or incentive to go into studying medicine right now with a view of going into working in the NHS in 5 years time. On a totally separate point, my 5 y/o daughter said the other day "I wish there wasn't money in the world". I talked it through with her the best I could as to how you would exchange goods and services without it, and ideas of bartering or gift economies. As best I could to a 5 year old. But, maybe she has a point. Maybe we have to become individually more self-sufficient. -Matt" Why would the gover nment want to destoy the NHS . That is a completely meaningless and ridiculous statement . My understanding is that the government is trying to create a strong economy in order that we can fund tbe NHS . We should be exceptionally gratefull to David Cameron for creating a strong and vibrant economy in order to fund the NHS . He was a true man of the people | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's a great opportunity to free most people from working and to use their time on EARTH better if there was excellent political leadership to make it work for everyone But with great distractions (like brexit) the more probable outcome is MASSIVE inequality" So who decides who doesnt have to work and how do those that dont work pay for food etc, your idea just sounds like an excuse to be lazy and get someone else to keep you. Life work balance is something most need to do better but I cant imagine doing nothing productive for years,it would drive me mad | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's a great opportunity to free most people from working and to use their time on EARTH better if there was excellent political leadership to make it work for everyone But with great distractions (like brexit) the more probable outcome is MASSIVE inequality I think it is the Green party that is proposing that higher personal and corporate tax revenues are used to pay everyone a non means tested citizens salary and abolish altogether benefits. This incentivises AI, robotics and the like without it negatively impacting humans. These will still be inequality of course but the idea is that no-one should suffer because of progress. Quite revolutionary - but there is something in it. " didn't Switzerland try to bring something like this in? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's a great opportunity to free most people from working and to use their time on EARTH better if there was excellent political leadership to make it work for everyone But with great distractions (like brexit) the more probable outcome is MASSIVE inequality So who decides who doesnt have to work and how do those that dont work pay for food etc, your idea just sounds like an excuse to be lazy and get someone else to keep you. Life work balance is something most need to do better but I cant imagine doing nothing productive for years,it would drive me mad" I'd like it.... if I had a yacht  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Can anyone explain then why there are more people in employment in the UK now than there has ever been?" It's your favorite answer: Immigrants! Because of immigrants there are more people in the UK than there has ever been  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Can anyone explain then why there are more people in employment in the UK now than there has ever been? It's your favorite answer: Immigrants! Because of immigrants there are more people in the UK than there has ever been "and life for most gets worse than its ever been. But the point of the thread was to do with technology | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's a great opportunity to free most people from working and to use their time on EARTH better if there was excellent political leadership to make it work for everyone But with great distractions (like brexit) the more probable outcome is MASSIVE inequality So who decides who doesnt have to work and how do those that dont work pay for food etc, your idea just sounds like an excuse to be lazy and get someone else to keep you. Life work balance is something most need to do better but I cant imagine doing nothing productive for years,it would drive me mad" And yet everyone hates Mondays The economist Keynes reckoned we would all work a handle of hours in the future thanks to industrialisation but he got it wrong... we invented consumerism, advertising, debt and keeping up with the Jones | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Hasn't there been the same issue over and over throughout history with every major industrial change? Weren't people sabotaging steam engines for stealing their jobs before? I remember when Amazon first started. "Order books over the internet?! What a crazy idea? They are going to actually post you a book? That is insane!"... then Royal Mail were wringing their hands about how email would be the death of letters and they would be out of business. However I'd guess that postal volume is higher than it has ever been in history... only it is not letters, but stuff ordered online. The world changes. People are going to have to adapt. Those that can't will have trouble. I can see that being a very significant problem. I mean, even if we hadn't shut down all the coal mines, what would the miners have done when we switch entirely to renewables / nuclear? I read a great piece related to Trump support outside of urban areas in the US. The point was that if you lived in a small community somewhere which was based around a single industry or employer (a mill, factory, etc) and that closed. What could you do? You couldn't even go and, say, train to be a doctor, hairdresser etc. because your town already had a doctor or a hairdresser and until they passed away your town doesn't need another one of those. In a large city, there is a level of population that makes it much easier to support a service industry. The UK has been slowly moving more and more towards a knowledge economy. Pretty much all of the manufacturing we do is high-tech, high margin stuff. Most of our exports are services (financial, IT, etc). How do we deal with this? I don't know. I'd say something along the lines of starting with education... but just take a look at fields like medical in which what few people we have are coming out with all the qualifications but into a completely shit market due to the government hell bent on destroying the NHS. I would say, you would have to have quite some resolve or incentive to go into studying medicine right now with a view of going into working in the NHS in 5 years time. On a totally separate point, my 5 y/o daughter said the other day "I wish there wasn't money in the world". I talked it through with her the best I could as to how you would exchange goods and services without it, and ideas of bartering or gift economies. As best I could to a 5 year old. But, maybe she has a point. Maybe we have to become individually more self-sufficient. -Matt Why would the gover nment want to destoy the NHS . That is a completely meaningless and ridiculous statement . My understanding is that the government is trying to create a strong economy in order that we can fund tbe NHS . We should be exceptionally gratefull to David Cameron for creating a strong and vibrant economy in order to fund the NHS . He was a true man of the people " Go and talk to any doctor, nurse, etc and see what they say. It really is quite dire. The government has been reducing percentage GDP spend on the NHS over time. Despite an aging population and more advanced medicine that requires more funding, not less. -Matt | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Go and talk to any doctor, nurse, etc and see what they say. It really is quite dire. The government has been reducing percentage GDP spend on the NHS over time. Despite an aging population and more advanced medicine that requires more funding, not less. -Matt" Well according to the world bank which produces figures for the whole world in 1995 we spent 6.7% in 2014 it was 9.1% of gdp thats a huge increase,most countries have increased too but most by less % wise,claiming things as facts that arent true doesnt help your argument I agree that a aging population and more expensive treatment have an impact but as K has worked in the nhs all her working life she would say the poor management and huge wastes of money must be addressed | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Can anyone explain then why there are more people in employment in the UK now than there has ever been? I am guessing (making an assumption) that you might be able to relate to this. Your Granddad when looking for a job would likely have been in competion with men in his own local neighbourhood but irrespective of two intervening wars he would have had little problem finding work in a heavily industrialised area. Your Dad would have been able to secure a better paid job than your Granddad and with better (safer) working conditions but he would have had competion for work from miles around albeit once in work he could have had indefinite employment. You probably had the best deal of all as from the 1970's onwards, pay conditions and opportunities all improved albeit the best people were prepared to relocate and commute long distances to secure great jobs with excellent conditions. Today though jobs are no longer secure and unless your children skill up and get a career that will always be in demand they have only a future of insecure employment and low wages to look forward to. Yes there are jobs now and lots of them despite absorbing 3,500,000 or so EU migrants but unless you have a skill, or are prepared to learn one, these are not on the whole good jobs with security. true but that aint gonna change, somebody will always have to do the crap jobs" This is what i'm trying to put forward though. Eventually people wont be needed for crap jobs. In the UK we are already testing robotics which have A.I and dexterity to pick crops without damaging them - select the shit ones, bit them, and select the rest according to weight and quality. In Japan I think they are already looking at mechanised street cleaners and bin emptiers. Basically, when this tech hits a good enough point, shit jobs as they are will no longer be avalible for people on the whole. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Hasn't there been the same issue over and over throughout history with every major industrial change? Weren't people sabotaging steam engines for stealing their jobs before? I remember when Amazon first started. "Order books over the internet?! What a crazy idea? They are going to actually post you a book? That is insane!"... then Royal Mail were wringing their hands about how email would be the death of letters and they would be out of business. However I'd guess that postal volume is higher than it has ever been in history... only it is not letters, but stuff ordered online. The world changes. People are going to have to adapt. Those that can't will have trouble. I can see that being a very significant problem. I mean, even if we hadn't shut down all the coal mines, what would the miners have done when we switch entirely to renewables / nuclear? I read a great piece related to Trump support outside of urban areas in the US. The point was that if you lived in a small community somewhere which was based around a single industry or employer (a mill, factory, etc) and that closed. What could you do? You couldn't even go and, say, train to be a doctor, hairdresser etc. because your town already had a doctor or a hairdresser and until they passed away your town doesn't need another one of those. In a large city, there is a level of population that makes it much easier to support a service industry. The UK has been slowly moving more and more towards a knowledge economy. Pretty much all of the manufacturing we do is high-tech, high margin stuff. Most of our exports are services (financial, IT, etc). How do we deal with this? I don't know. I'd say something along the lines of starting with education... but just take a look at fields like medical in which what few people we have are coming out with all the qualifications but into a completely shit market due to the government hell bent on destroying the NHS. I would say, you would have to have quite some resolve or incentive to go into studying medicine right now with a view of going into working in the NHS in 5 years time. On a totally separate point, my 5 y/o daughter said the other day "I wish there wasn't money in the world". I talked it through with her the best I could as to how you would exchange goods and services without it, and ideas of bartering or gift economies. As best I could to a 5 year old. But, maybe she has a point. Maybe we have to become individually more self-sufficient. -Matt Why would the gover nment want to destoy the NHS . That is a completely meaningless and ridiculous statement . My understanding is that the government is trying to create a strong economy in order that we can fund tbe NHS . We should be exceptionally gratefull to David Cameron for creating a strong and vibrant economy in order to fund the NHS . He was a true man of the people Go and talk to any doctor, nurse, etc and see what they say. It really is quite dire. The government has been reducing percentage GDP spend on the NHS over time. Despite an aging population and more advanced medicine that requires more funding, not less. -Matt" Hi. Who would you like to pay for all tbis extra funding?. How would talking to a Doctor or nurse help? We need to do a stragetic review of NHS spending and where the noney goes . A good start would be a rigorous clamp down on health tourism and a refusal to treat any one who is ineligible for treatment. ie checking passports etc. Sadly our NHS has become a World Health Service , not a National Health service . Hopefully Brexit will stop the mis use of it . I know if I were to travel abroad I need to produce my insurance cover before receiving treatment . Why should the UK be any different. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Can anyone explain then why there are more people in employment in the UK now than there has ever been? I am guessing (making an assumption) that you might be able to relate to this. Your Granddad when looking for a job would likely have been in competion with men in his own local neighbourhood but irrespective of two intervening wars he would have had little problem finding work in a heavily industrialised area. Your Dad would have been able to secure a better paid job than your Granddad and with better (safer) working conditions but he would have had competion for work from miles around albeit once in work he could have had indefinite employment. You probably had the best deal of all as from the 1970's onwards, pay conditions and opportunities all improved albeit the best people were prepared to relocate and commute long distances to secure great jobs with excellent conditions. Today though jobs are no longer secure and unless your children skill up and get a career that will always be in demand they have only a future of insecure employment and low wages to look forward to. Yes there are jobs now and lots of them despite absorbing 3,500,000 or so EU migrants but unless you have a skill, or are prepared to learn one, these are not on the whole good jobs with security. true but that aint gonna change, somebody will always have to do the crap jobs This is what i'm trying to put forward though. Eventually people wont be needed for crap jobs. In the UK we are already testing robotics which have A.I and dexterity to pick crops without damaging them - select the shit ones, bit them, and select the rest according to weight and quality. In Japan I think they are already looking at mechanised street cleaners and bin emptiers. Basically, when this tech hits a good enough point, shit jobs as they are will no longer be avalible for people on the whole." I know what you're saying but you're thinking of robots that can do the jobs that are already being done and for a long time yet there will be people needed to build the robots that build the robots that do the work. In the future there will be mundane jobs we've not even thought of yet. If I'd asked you 150 years ago what an air hostess was, what would you have said? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"My understanding is that the government is trying to create a strong economy in order that we can fund tbe NHS . We should be exceptionally gratefull to David Cameron for creating a strong and vibrant economy in order to fund the NHS . He was a true man of the people " Obviously the only point of occasionally dipping into this folder is for the comedy value...and yet again, it deliver in spades! Beautiful stuff Pat!  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Can anyone explain then why there are more people in employment in the UK now than there has ever been? I am guessing (making an assumption) that you might be able to relate to this. Your Granddad when looking for a job would likely have been in competion with men in his own local neighbourhood but irrespective of two intervening wars he would have had little problem finding work in a heavily industrialised area. Your Dad would have been able to secure a better paid job than your Granddad and with better (safer) working conditions but he would have had competion for work from miles around albeit once in work he could have had indefinite employment. You probably had the best deal of all as from the 1970's onwards, pay conditions and opportunities all improved albeit the best people were prepared to relocate and commute long distances to secure great jobs with excellent conditions. Today though jobs are no longer secure and unless your children skill up and get a career that will always be in demand they have only a future of insecure employment and low wages to look forward to. Yes there are jobs now and lots of them despite absorbing 3,500,000 or so EU migrants but unless you have a skill, or are prepared to learn one, these are not on the whole good jobs with security. true but that aint gonna change, somebody will always have to do the crap jobs This is what i'm trying to put forward though. Eventually people wont be needed for crap jobs. In the UK we are already testing robotics which have A.I and dexterity to pick crops without damaging them - select the shit ones, bit them, and select the rest according to weight and quality. In Japan I think they are already looking at mechanised street cleaners and bin emptiers. Basically, when this tech hits a good enough point, shit jobs as they are will no longer be avalible for people on the whole. I know what you're saying but you're thinking of robots that can do the jobs that are already being done and for a long time yet there will be people needed to build the robots that build the robots that do the work. In the future there will be mundane jobs we've not even thought of yet. If I'd asked you 150 years ago what an air hostess was, what would you have said?" I know what you are saying and see your point but I think when we hit a certain point there will still be a lot of people left without work if population growth continues at it's current rate globally. I get what you are saying, medical robots will require specialist robots to make them, specialist robots will need to be made by general robots, we'll need mechanics and specialist mechanics. Also programmers, coders, and people who innovate programmes and codes. But the facts are that population growth leads to an exponential growth curve of rapid tech progression, and improved tech. With each new mark so to speak, the need for human labour is decreased. I suppose it really depends on how diverse robotics and A.I becomes and how fast it progresses. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's a great opportunity to free most people from working and to use their time on EARTH better if there was excellent political leadership to make it work for everyone But with great distractions (like brexit) the more probable outcome is MASSIVE inequality I think it is the Green party that is proposing that higher personal and corporate tax revenues are used to pay everyone a non means tested citizens salary and abolish altogether benefits. This incentivises AI, robotics and the like without it negatively impacting humans. These will still be inequality of course but the idea is that no-one should suffer because of progress. Quite revolutionary - but there is something in it. " The notion of people not suffering and trying to reduce the amount inequality, as a result of progress is what I was trying to get across. Because really, once governments and businesses see the positives of investing and innovating in this line of progress there will be no stopping it from taking off exponentially. The question becomes how do we prepare our population for it. Both in tooling up and in the welfare due to at some point, inevitable job losses and further restriction of the labour market. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Go and talk to any doctor, nurse, etc and see what they say. It really is quite dire. The government has been reducing percentage GDP spend on the NHS over time. Despite an aging population and more advanced medicine that requires more funding, not less. -Matt Well according to the world bank which produces figures for the whole world in 1995 we spent 6.7% in 2014 it was 9.1% of gdp thats a huge increase,most countries have increased too but most by less % wise,claiming things as facts that arent true doesnt help your argument " You are wrong. Go look up the stats on the ONS: "Healthcare expenditure as a percentage of GDP fell between 2009 and 2013 due to GDP growing at a rate faster than healthcare expenditure" Which reverses the trend of the previous decade of healthcare expenditure increasing as a proportion of GDP. -Matt | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Go and talk to any doctor, nurse, etc and see what they say. It really is quite dire. The government has been reducing percentage GDP spend on the NHS over time. Despite an aging population and more advanced medicine that requires more funding, not less. -Matt Well according to the world bank which produces figures for the whole world in 1995 we spent 6.7% in 2014 it was 9.1% of gdp thats a huge increase,most countries have increased too but most by less % wise,claiming things as facts that arent true doesnt help your argument You are wrong. Go look up the stats on the ONS: "Healthcare expenditure as a percentage of GDP fell between 2009 and 2013 due to GDP growing at a rate faster than healthcare expenditure" Which reverses the trend of the previous decade of healthcare expenditure increasing as a proportion of GDP. -Matt" Well I guess we will have to disagree on that as I have now looked up five different sources three of which say it has increased one decrease and two the same,they vary from 7.3 % to 9.4% they cant all be right,the only thing they agree on is cash spent is higher perhaps a better measure is spend percapita. Thats the trouble believing stats and experts they all have adifferent view | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Can we not have this become an NHS thread? The topic at hand was getting a pleasant and interesting discussion" Yes please I think there is enough resources globally to give everybody a comfortable life and reduce the driving force for violence People are social and peaceful at their core but naturally defensive/offensive when deprived | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Hasn't there been the same issue over and over throughout history with every major industrial change? Weren't people sabotaging steam engines for stealing their jobs before? I remember when Amazon first started. "Order books over the internet?! What a crazy idea? They are going to actually post you a book? That is insane!"... then Royal Mail were wringing their hands about how email would be the death of letters and they would be out of business. However I'd guess that postal volume is higher than it has ever been in history... only it is not letters, but stuff ordered online. The world changes. People are going to have to adapt. Those that can't will have trouble. I can see that being a very significant problem. I mean, even if we hadn't shut down all the coal mines, what would the miners have done when we switch entirely to renewables / nuclear? I read a great piece related to Trump support outside of urban areas in the US. The point was that if you lived in a small community somewhere which was based around a single industry or employer (a mill, factory, etc) and that closed. What could you do? You couldn't even go and, say, train to be a doctor, hairdresser etc. because your town already had a doctor or a hairdresser and until they passed away your town doesn't need another one of those. In a large city, there is a level of population that makes it much easier to support a service industry. The UK has been slowly moving more and more towards a knowledge economy. Pretty much all of the manufacturing we do is high-tech, high margin stuff. Most of our exports are services (financial, IT, etc). How do we deal with this? I don't know. I'd say something along the lines of starting with education... but just take a look at fields like medical in which what few people we have are coming out with all the qualifications but into a completely shit market due to the government hell bent on destroying the NHS. I would say, you would have to have quite some resolve or incentive to go into studying medicine right now with a view of going into working in the NHS in 5 years time. On a totally separate point, my 5 y/o daughter said the other day "I wish there wasn't money in the world". I talked it through with her the best I could as to how you would exchange goods and services without it, and ideas of bartering or gift economies. As best I could to a 5 year old. But, maybe she has a point. Maybe we have to become individually more self-sufficient. -Matt Why would the gover nment want to destoy the NHS . That is a completely meaningless and ridiculous statement . My understanding is that the government is trying to create a strong economy in order that we can fund tbe NHS . We should be exceptionally gratefull to David Cameron for creating a strong and vibrant economy in order to fund the NHS . He was a true man of the people Go and talk to any doctor, nurse, etc and see what they say. It really is quite dire. The government has been reducing percentage GDP spend on the NHS over time. Despite an aging population and more advanced medicine that requires more funding, not less. -Matt Hi. Who would you like to pay for all tbis extra funding?. How would talking to a Doctor or nurse help? We need to do a stragetic review of NHS spending and where the noney goes . A good start would be a rigorous clamp down on health tourism and a refusal to treat any one who is ineligible for treatment. ie checking passports etc. Sadly our NHS has become a World Health Service , not a National Health service . Hopefully Brexit will stop the mis use of it . I know if I were to travel abroad I need to produce my insurance cover before receiving treatment . Why should the UK be any different." We don't and BREXIT won't make any difference one way or the other. Currently the NHS spends about £2 million a year in treating foreign patients who are not entitled to free care on the NHS. Of that £2 billion about £1 billion is recovered from the patient's insurance schemes (which may be the government of the country the patient has come from or it might be a private insurance scheme). Whilst I would agree that more should be done to recover the other £1 billion owed, whether it's actually recovered or not is not going to make any real difference to the NHS finances. The NHS yearly budget is £120+ billion a year. The unrecovered amount is less than 1% of that. Most of the rest of the world actually encourage health tourism as it is seen as a good way to earn extra foreign income. There is no reason why, if we put the correct procedures in place, we can't earn money out of it ourselves. But either way, it's neither going to help or hinder the NHS finances significantly one way or the other. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"My understanding is that the government is trying to create a strong economy in order that we can fund tbe NHS . We should be exceptionally gratefull to David Cameron for creating a strong and vibrant economy in order to fund the NHS . He was a true man of the people Obviously the only point of occasionally dipping into this folder is for the comedy value...and yet again, it deliver in spades! Beautiful stuff Pat! "Funny thing is is that most of those who think he did great a strong and vibrant economy are the ones hell bent on destroying it with their crazy BREXIT schemes. You'd think they'd want to protect it, not throw it all away. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"My understanding is that the government is trying to create a strong economy in order that we can fund tbe NHS . We should be exceptionally gratefull to David Cameron for creating a strong and vibrant economy in order to fund the NHS . He was a true man of the people Obviously the only point of occasionally dipping into this folder is for the comedy value...and yet again, it deliver in spades! Beautiful stuff Pat!
Funny thing is is that most of those who think he did great a strong and vibrant economy are the ones hell bent on destroying it with their crazy BREXIT schemes. You'd think they'd want to protect it, not throw it all away."Surely it is the other way round. By saving the money which we contribute to the EU and having tight border control must contribute to a stonger economy .. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Hasn't there been the same issue over and over throughout history with every major industrial change? Weren't people sabotaging steam engines for stealing their jobs before? I remember when Amazon first started. "Order books over the internet?! What a crazy idea? They are going to actually post you a book? That is insane!"... then Royal Mail were wringing their hands about how email would be the death of letters and they would be out of business. However I'd guess that postal volume is higher than it has ever been in history... only it is not letters, but stuff ordered online. The world changes. People are going to have to adapt. Those that can't will have trouble. I can see that being a very significant problem. I mean, even if we hadn't shut down all the coal mines, what would the miners have done when we switch entirely to renewables / nuclear? I read a great piece related to Trump support outside of urban areas in the US. The point was that if you lived in a small community somewhere which was based around a single industry or employer (a mill, factory, etc) and that closed. What could you do? You couldn't even go and, say, train to be a doctor, hairdresser etc. because your town already had a doctor or a hairdresser and until they passed away your town doesn't need another one of those. In a large city, there is a level of population that makes it much easier to support a service industry. The UK has been slowly moving more and more towards a knowledge economy. Pretty much all of the manufacturing we do is high-tech, high margin stuff. Most of our exports are services (financial, IT, etc). How do we deal with this? I don't know. I'd say something along the lines of starting with education... but just take a look at fields like medical in which what few people we have are coming out with all the qualifications but into a completely shit market due to the government hell bent on destroying the NHS. I would say, you would have to have quite some resolve or incentive to go into studying medicine right now with a view of going into working in the NHS in 5 years time. On a totally separate point, my 5 y/o daughter said the other day "I wish there wasn't money in the world". I talked it through with her the best I could as to how you would exchange goods and services without it, and ideas of bartering or gift economies. As best I could to a 5 year old. But, maybe she has a point. Maybe we have to become individually more self-sufficient. -Matt Why would the gover nment want to destoy the NHS . That is a completely meaningless and ridiculous statement . My understanding is that the government is trying to create a strong economy in order that we can fund tbe NHS . We should be exceptionally gratefull to David Cameron for creating a strong and vibrant economy in order to fund the NHS . He was a true man of the people Go and talk to any doctor, nurse, etc and see what they say. It really is quite dire. The government has been reducing percentage GDP spend on the NHS over time. Despite an aging population and more advanced medicine that requires more funding, not less. -Matt Hi. Who would you like to pay for all tbis extra funding?. How would talking to a Doctor or nurse help? We need to do a stragetic review of NHS spending and where the noney goes . A good start would be a rigorous clamp down on health tourism and a refusal to treat any one who is ineligible for treatment. ie checking passports etc. Sadly our NHS has become a World Health Service , not a National Health service . Hopefully Brexit will stop the mis use of it . I know if I were to travel abroad I need to produce my insurance cover before receiving treatment . Why should the UK be any different. We don't and BREXIT won't make any difference one way or the other. Currently the NHS spends about £2 million a year in treating foreign patients who are not entitled to free care on the NHS. Of that £2 billion about £1 billion is recovered from the patient's insurance schemes (which may be the government of the country the patient has come from or it might be a private insurance scheme). Whilst I would agree that more should be done to recover the other £1 billion owed, whether it's actually recovered or not is not going to make any real difference to the NHS finances. The NHS yearly budget is £120+ billion a year. The unrecovered amount is less than 1% of that. Most of the rest of the world actually encourage health tourism as it is seen as a good way to earn extra foreign income. There is no reason why, if we put the correct procedures in place, we can't earn money out of it ourselves. But either way, it's neither going to help or hinder the NHS finances significantly one way or the other." Regardless of how you view it , it is still a significant amount of money and any health tourist either denies or delays the treatment of those entitled to use the service . | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Go and talk to any doctor, nurse, etc and see what they say. It really is quite dire. The government has been reducing percentage GDP spend on the NHS over time. Despite an aging population and more advanced medicine that requires more funding, not less. -Matt Well according to the world bank which produces figures for the whole world in 1995 we spent 6.7% in 2014 it was 9.1% of gdp thats a huge increase,most countries have increased too but most by less % wise,claiming things as facts that arent true doesnt help your argument You are wrong. Go look up the stats on the ONS: "Healthcare expenditure as a percentage of GDP fell between 2009 and 2013 due to GDP growing at a rate faster than healthcare expenditure" Which reverses the trend of the previous decade of healthcare expenditure increasing as a proportion of GDP. -Matt" That's not really useful information. If the GDP figure has gone up then the fact that the percentage of GDP that is spent on the NHS is lower doesn't actually tell use anything about whether more money in real terms is being spent on the NHS or not. The reality is is that in real terms, if real terms is defined as the cost of living, the amount spent on the NHS has gone up every year since 2010 faster than inflation. However, in real terms, if real terms is defined by demand for health services, it has not kept pace with demand. It has also not kept up in real terms, if real terms is defined as the cost of health materials, with inflation in the world health service market. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"My understanding is that the government is trying to create a strong economy in order that we can fund tbe NHS . We should be exceptionally gratefull to David Cameron for creating a strong and vibrant economy in order to fund the NHS . He was a true man of the people Obviously the only point of occasionally dipping into this folder is for the comedy value...and yet again, it deliver in spades! Beautiful stuff Pat!
Funny thing is is that most of those who think he did great a strong and vibrant economy are the ones hell bent on destroying it with their crazy BREXIT schemes. You'd think they'd want to protect it, not throw it all away. Surely it is the other way round. By saving the money which we contribute to the EU and having tight border control must contribute to a stonger economy .. "Well it might be apart from the fact that the process of leaving the EU is unlikely to save us any money and saying tightening our borders is going to equate to a stronger economy is a bit of a gamble given the positive financial benefits of EU migrants to the UK. -Matt | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Well it might be apart from the fact that the process of leaving the EU is unlikely to save us any money and saying tightening our borders is going to equate to a stronger economy is a bit of a gamble given the positive financial benefits of EU migrants to the UK. -Matt" Well we had bloody well better save some money by leaving and I am sure we will, on your other point all the points made about the financial benefits of migrants are very vague,yes they pay some tax but as many are on low wages not sure how much they do pay,and then when you take into account the benefits that have to be paid to the uk nationals that arent working( or wont),also the cost of housing educating and health care that they cost , of course they buy stuff here so that helps profits for some companies. I dont think it is possible to arrive at an accurate figure either way | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Well it might be apart from the fact that the process of leaving the EU is unlikely to save us any money and saying tightening our borders is going to equate to a stronger economy is a bit of a gamble given the positive financial benefits of EU migrants to the UK. -Matt Well we had bloody well better save some money by leaving and I am sure we will, on your other point all the points made about the financial benefits of migrants are very vague,yes they pay some tax but as many are on low wages not sure how much they do pay,and then when you take into account the benefits that have to be paid to the uk nationals that arent working( or wont),also the cost of housing educating and health care that they cost , of course they buy stuff here so that helps profits for some companies. I dont think it is possible to arrive at an accurate figure either way " Well, the EU was costing us £12.9 billion a year. We have just borrowed £122 billion that Hammond has said is due to Brexit. So whether we can turn that £122 billion into profit or not, we have just borrowed ten year's worth of our EU fee. That is assuming that that EU fee gave us no benefits at all. This article from The Telegraph a few months back makes a case that actually once we've replaced all the funds and services we've lost we won't really save anything: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08/20/leaving-the-eu-could-cost-us-even-more-than-staying-in/ Whether the specific details in that article are quite right or not, they have a point... that £12.9 billion did get us *some* services and benefits that we are going to have to pay to replace if we still want them. As for the financial benefit of EU immigrants, you are right.. it is hard to quantify. But there are plenty of studies out there that have attempted to and all say there is a net benefit, they just disagree on exactly how much. -Matt | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Well it might be apart from the fact that the process of leaving the EU is unlikely to save us any money and saying tightening our borders is going to equate to a stronger economy is a bit of a gamble given the positive financial benefits of EU migrants to the UK. -Matt Well we had bloody well better save some money by leaving and I am sure we will, on your other point all the points made about the financial benefits of migrants are very vague,yes they pay some tax but as many are on low wages not sure how much they do pay,and then when you take into account the benefits that have to be paid to the uk nationals that arent working( or wont),also the cost of housing educating and health care that they cost , of course they buy stuff here so that helps profits for some companies. I dont think it is possible to arrive at an accurate figure either way Well, the EU was costing us £12.9 billion a year. We have just borrowed £122 billion that Hammond has said is due to Brexit. So whether we can turn that £122 billion into profit or not, we have just borrowed ten year's worth of our EU fee. That is assuming that that EU fee gave us no benefits at all. This article from The Telegraph a few months back makes a case that actually once we've replaced all the funds and services we've lost we won't really save anything: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08/20/leaving-the-eu-could-cost-us-even-more-than-staying-in/ Whether the specific details in that article are quite right or not, they have a point... that £12.9 billion did get us *some* services and benefits that we are going to have to pay to replace if we still want them. As for the financial benefit of EU immigrants, you are right.. it is hard to quantify. But there are plenty of studies out there that have attempted to and all say there is a net benefit, they just disagree on exactly how much. -Matt" No we havent "borrowed" 122 billion,it is a forecast from the "experts" that we "may" need to,but when have they ever been right ? Lets face it no one can predict how it will work out so its all guess work if the governments experts were that clever they would have seen the crash coming. With the greatest respect the only studies I have seen that say there is a net benefit have been produced by bodies that want to show there is a benefit, ALL research is tainted by its funding source and outlook of its researchers | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Hasn't there been the same issue over and over throughout history with every major industrial change? Weren't people sabotaging steam engines for stealing their jobs before? I remember when Amazon first started. "Order books over the internet?! What a crazy idea? They are going to actually post you a book? That is insane!"... then Royal Mail were wringing their hands about how email would be the death of letters and they would be out of business. However I'd guess that postal volume is higher than it has ever been in history... only it is not letters, but stuff ordered online. The world changes. People are going to have to adapt. Those that can't will have trouble. I can see that being a very significant problem. I mean, even if we hadn't shut down all the coal mines, what would the miners have done when we switch entirely to renewables / nuclear? I read a great piece related to Trump support outside of urban areas in the US. The point was that if you lived in a small community somewhere which was based around a single industry or employer (a mill, factory, etc) and that closed. What could you do? You couldn't even go and, say, train to be a doctor, hairdresser etc. because your town already had a doctor or a hairdresser and until they passed away your town doesn't need another one of those. In a large city, there is a level of population that makes it much easier to support a service industry. The UK has been slowly moving more and more towards a knowledge economy. Pretty much all of the manufacturing we do is high-tech, high margin stuff. Most of our exports are services (financial, IT, etc). How do we deal with this? I don't know. I'd say something along the lines of starting with education... but just take a look at fields like medical in which what few people we have are coming out with all the qualifications but into a completely shit market due to the government hell bent on destroying the NHS. I would say, you would have to have quite some resolve or incentive to go into studying medicine right now with a view of going into working in the NHS in 5 years time. On a totally separate point, my 5 y/o daughter said the other day "I wish there wasn't money in the world". I talked it through with her the best I could as to how you would exchange goods and services without it, and ideas of bartering or gift economies. As best I could to a 5 year old. But, maybe she has a point. Maybe we have to become individually more self-sufficient. -Matt Why would the gover nment want to destoy the NHS . That is a completely meaningless and ridiculous statement . My understanding is that the government is trying to create a strong economy in order that we can fund tbe NHS . We should be exceptionally gratefull to David Cameron for creating a strong and vibrant economy in order to fund the NHS . He was a true man of the people Go and talk to any doctor, nurse, etc and see what they say. It really is quite dire. The government has been reducing percentage GDP spend on the NHS over time. Despite an aging population and more advanced medicine that requires more funding, not less. -Matt Hi. Who would you like to pay for all tbis extra funding?. How would talking to a Doctor or nurse help? We need to do a stragetic review of NHS spending and where the noney goes . A good start would be a rigorous clamp down on health tourism and a refusal to treat any one who is ineligible for treatment. ie checking passports etc. Sadly our NHS has become a World Health Service , not a National Health service . Hopefully Brexit will stop the mis use of it . I know if I were to travel abroad I need to produce my insurance cover before receiving treatment . Why should the UK be any different. We don't and BREXIT won't make any difference one way or the other. Currently the NHS spends about £2 million a year in treating foreign patients who are not entitled to free care on the NHS. Of that £2 billion about £1 billion is recovered from the patient's insurance schemes (which may be the government of the country the patient has come from or it might be a private insurance scheme). Whilst I would agree that more should be done to recover the other £1 billion owed, whether it's actually recovered or not is not going to make any real difference to the NHS finances. The NHS yearly budget is £120+ billion a year. The unrecovered amount is less than 1% of that. Most of the rest of the world actually encourage health tourism as it is seen as a good way to earn extra foreign income. There is no reason why, if we put the correct procedures in place, we can't earn money out of it ourselves. But either way, it's neither going to help or hinder the NHS finances significantly one way or the other. Regardless of how you view it , it is still a significant amount of money and any health tourist either denies or delays the treatment of those entitled to use the service." No it's not really a significant amount compared to the total NHS budget and leaving the EU will make little difference as most EU citizens are covered by insurance that is mostly provided for by their governments. In fact, as one of the almost inevitable things that BREXIT will bring is a decrease in EU migration and an increase in non EU migration, including countries around the world that do not provided government supported health services, it could well get a lot worse post BREXIT. The reality is is that the NHS is entitled to claim any health costs from EU citizens needing treatment here, it just has to put the processes in place to claim the money back. The same can not be said for the rest of the world. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"My understanding is that the government is trying to create a strong economy in order that we can fund tbe NHS . We should be exceptionally gratefull to David Cameron for creating a strong and vibrant economy in order to fund the NHS . He was a true man of the people Obviously the only point of occasionally dipping into this folder is for the comedy value...and yet again, it deliver in spades! Beautiful stuff Pat!
Funny thing is is that most of those who think he did great a strong and vibrant economy are the ones hell bent on destroying it with their crazy BREXIT schemes. You'd think they'd want to protect it, not throw it all away. Surely it is the other way round. By saving the money which we contribute to the EU and having tight border control must contribute to a stonger economy .. "Is that the mythical £350 million a week you're still imagining we're going to save? Have you also taken into consideration that £1,000 million a week we could also loos from the loss of business in the financial sector alone. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I dont think it is possible to arrive at an accurate figure either way " "But they are costing us 1 billion" "yeah OK, they are but it's less than 1% in the scheme of things" "but.... One BILLON" If you want to be accurate with your analysis of the situation, always look at the number relatively! How much will the legal cost of brexit come to? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Well it might be apart from the fact that the process of leaving the EU is unlikely to save us any money and saying tightening our borders is going to equate to a stronger economy is a bit of a gamble given the positive financial benefits of EU migrants to the UK. -Matt Well we had bloody well better save some money by leaving and I am sure we will, on your other point all the points made about the financial benefits of migrants are very vague,yes they pay some tax but as many are on low wages not sure how much they do pay,and then when you take into account the benefits that have to be paid to the uk nationals that arent working( or wont),also the cost of housing educating and health care that they cost , of course they buy stuff here so that helps profits for some companies. I dont think it is possible to arrive at an accurate figure either way Well, the EU was costing us £12.9 billion a year. We have just borrowed £122 billion that Hammond has said is due to Brexit. So whether we can turn that £122 billion into profit or not, we have just borrowed ten year's worth of our EU fee. That is assuming that that EU fee gave us no benefits at all. This article from The Telegraph a few months back makes a case that actually once we've replaced all the funds and services we've lost we won't really save anything: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08/20/leaving-the-eu-could-cost-us-even-more-than-staying-in/ Whether the specific details in that article are quite right or not, they have a point... that £12.9 billion did get us *some* services and benefits that we are going to have to pay to replace if we still want them. As for the financial benefit of EU immigrants, you are right.. it is hard to quantify. But there are plenty of studies out there that have attempted to and all say there is a net benefit, they just disagree on exactly how much. -Matt No we havent "borrowed" 122 billion,it is a forecast from the "experts" that we "may" need to,but when have they ever been right ? Lets face it no one can predict how it will work out so its all guess work if the governments experts were that clever they would have seen the crash coming. With the greatest respect the only studies I have seen that say there is a net benefit have been produced by bodies that want to show there is a benefit, ALL research is tainted by its funding source and outlook of its researchers" Sorry, I stand corrected. We have not yet borrowed £122 billion. We have budgeted that we will need to borrow £122 billion by that 'expert' Hammond. You know, the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The guy who is meant to be in charge of the country's fiscal matters. But you are right, there is no need to believe them. Or anything else the government says. -Matt | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" With the greatest respect the only studies I have seen that say there is a net benefit have been produced by bodies that want to show there is a benefit, ALL research is tainted by its funding source and outlook of its researchers Sorry, I stand corrected. We have not yet borrowed £122 billion. We have budgeted that we will need to borrow £122 billion by that 'expert' Hammond. You know, the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The guy who is meant to be in charge of the country's fiscal matters. But you are right, there is no need to believe them. Or anything else the government says. -Matt" Its the backroom staff that tell hammond the figures tobe fair, but did those backroom staff predict the crash, they and the BOE staff had access to the figures in 2008 yet didnt have a clue or they could have tried to do something about it, look back at any "forecast" about any econony,they are never accurate and in many cases not even close, do you remember the world bank, oecd imf etc predicting that the coalition policies would cause negative growth higher unemployment etc etc,now remind me how close they were,they claim to be financial experts. I am not saying that we may need to borrow more or that we may not, we dont know anything until brexit happens and then we may have a slighly better picture, | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Can we not have this become an NHS thread? The topic at hand was getting a pleasant and interesting discussion" . I've read your posts with great interest, there always interesting. I think technology and it's inevitable consequences are the biggest failings of politics in 50 years, I find politics and politicans tend to meddle in business affairs to much and instead should be thinking of what a future society would be built upon..... Business only has one goal, to make as much profit as possible and that's fine, it's how it should be, however the failure of politicans is what do with the objective. I mean work is a concept, we've never worked out what to do when technology meant there's not as much work to do.... The obvious answer is to work less, it's an obvious goal to me that business and commerce was meant to push technology to a point where it's advantageous to human life.... Surely one of those goals is a reversal where we work two days and take five day weekends? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" With the greatest respect the only studies I have seen that say there is a net benefit have been produced by bodies that want to show there is a benefit, ALL research is tainted by its funding source and outlook of its researchers Sorry, I stand corrected. We have not yet borrowed £122 billion. We have budgeted that we will need to borrow £122 billion by that 'expert' Hammond. You know, the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The guy who is meant to be in charge of the country's fiscal matters. But you are right, there is no need to believe them. Or anything else the government says. -Matt Its the backroom staff that tell hammond the figures tobe fair, but did those backroom staff predict the crash, they and the BOE staff had access to the figures in 2008 yet didnt have a clue or they could have tried to do something about it, look back at any "forecast" about any econony,they are never accurate and in many cases not even close, do you remember the world bank, oecd imf etc predicting that the coalition policies would cause negative growth higher unemployment etc etc,now remind me how close they were,they claim to be financial experts. I am not saying that we may need to borrow more or that we may not, we dont know anything until brexit happens and then we may have a slighly better picture, " And this is just another example of the BREXIT anti expert lie that they have said so often now that many people believe it to be true but, like nearly everything else BREXITers say, it's simply not true. Many economists predicted a financial crisis was likely to be caused by over lending and a derivatives and commodities' market that was, and still is, driven more by speculation than any want or need for the commodities. Here's a relatively short list of some who predicted a global banking and financial crisis if we didn't change our practices. Steve Keen Nouriel Roubini Dean Baker Joseph Stiglitz Ann Pettifor Robert Shiller Paul Krugman Michael Hudson Wynne Godley George Soros Kurt Richebächer Jakob Brøchner Warren Buffett publicly stated in his Berkshire 2002 Shareholder Letter includes "Charlie and I are of one mind in how we feel about derivatives and the trading activities that go with them: We view them as time bombs, both for the parties that deal in them and the economic system." Again in 2006 he said "We've had a real bubble to some degree. I would be surprised if there aren't some significant downward adjustments." So Buffett clearly warned in advance of the potential problems. It was not that experts never predicted the financial crisis, they did. The problem was was that people, who were having such a great time spending cheap money, didn't want to listen to them. They just called them doom-mongers. Bit like you and other BREXITers are doing now. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Steve keen is a brexiter  "But he also predicted the 2008 crisis, and that's the point. Also, unlike most BREXITers, I don't dismiss out of hand the opinion of experts just because they don't always say what I want to hear. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" George Soros lost millions/billions in the crash a few years back so obviously never saw that coming." They saw it coming but no one could predict exactly when. It's a bit like predicting earthquakes. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Steve keen is a brexiter
But he also predicted the 2008 crisis, and that's the point.
Also, unlike most BREXITers, I don't dismiss out of hand the opinion of experts just because they don't always say what I want to hear.". That's good, neither do I, I've read far too much expert analysis and data from experts on climate to change to know you lot arguing about what colour paint we use on the walls while the fucking house is on fire..... Is pointless in the extreme. My advise to everyone is enjoy the next ten years, if there anything like right, after that were all fucked, and flying to Spain for a weekend will be the distant memory of What you all thought would go on forever! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" And this is just another example of the BREXIT anti expert lie that they have said so often now that many people believe it to be true but, like nearly everything else BREXITers say, it's simply not true. Many economists predicted a financial crisis was likely to be caused by over lending and a derivatives and commodities' market that was, and still is, driven more by speculation than any want or need for the commodities. Here's a relatively short list of some who predicted a global banking and financial crisis if we didn't change our practices. Steve Keen Nouriel Roubini Dean Baker Joseph Stiglitz Ann Pettifor Robert Shiller Paul Krugman Michael Hudson Wynne Godley George Soros Kurt Richebächer Jakob Brøchner Warren Buffett publicly stated in his Berkshire 2002 Shareholder Letter includes "Charlie and I are of one mind in how we feel about derivatives and the trading activities that go with them: We view them as time bombs, both for the parties that deal in them and the economic system." Again in 2006 he said "We've had a real bubble to some degree. I would be surprised if there aren't some significant downward adjustments." So Buffett clearly warned in advance of the potential problems. It was not that experts never predicted the financial crisis, they did. The problem was was that people, who were having such a great time spending cheap money, didn't want to listen to them. They just called them doom-mongers. Bit like you and other BREXITers are doing now. " Thanks for that post there are some interesting names on it, I have looked at some and their views, it appears that some did warn of the 08 crash but as they infer the snouts were so deep in the trough that most didnt look up,some appear to think brexit is good some dont, read a piece from ann pettifor in which she blames the greed of the financial sector for creating the conditions for brexit , trumps victory etc, unless this greed is halted then things will get worse as those left behind will rightly become more agrieved . Whether you think its post truth or not the fact remains that the world bodies I quoted were completely wrong in 2010 so what makes you think they will be right this time ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
