Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » How the papers are treating Sunak’s pandemic budget

1235

Comments

  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 43,330
    nichomar said:

    nichomar said:

    @kinabalu it’s not just “fast fashion” that use that model. It’s the entire fashion industry.

    If you buy “higher end” brands, they are still made in Turkey, Bangladesh, Taiwan, China. If you’re lucky they might be made in Portugal.

    Trickers made in England.
    Bladen made in England.
    New & Lingwood made in England.

    No one can say I'm anti English.

    However discomfitingly for Farage, Belstaff made in Romania.
    I thought Farage was more Bellend than Belstaff
    Unfortunately with Branson, Assange and Neil Oliver having entered the middle aged blokes wearing Belstaff arena, the terms may have become interchangeable. I will have to make a style decision very soon.
    Who or what is Belstaff? I buy my polo shirts at the Chinese shop for €2.50
    It was a brand of British motorbike clothing mainly based on waxed cotton or leather, but now includes all sorts of fancy materials. It's reassuringly expensive and mainly worn by rich, posey tossers who don't ride bikes (I am only one of these things).
    I remember now actually standard motorbike wear in 60/70 s nothing posh about it then iirc
    I had some very good riding boots made by a chap who did custom motorcycle wear.

    He found an old pair in a car boot sale, pulled them apart, and when I told him what custom riding boots normally cost.....
  • YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 4,382
    Pulpstar said:

    First Group sounds as if it's in trouble.

    It does I read an article this morning in the local paper by a First Group boss.Saying it is time to stop advising people to avoid public transport.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,603

    eek said:

    Yorkcity said:

    Boots cutting 4000 jobs.
    I would hate to be applying for a job now.
    I remember how hard it was in the early 80s getting work.
    In my opinion it is going to be even harder now.

    Sunak is getting a good press now, but I reckon he is in deep trouble. Deep trouble.

    When he comes to have to raise taxes on in a desperate attempt to make ends meet it will be like asking a skeleton to give blood.

    The economy will just be too weak. His only other opinion, draconian spending cuts, has already been ruled out by his boss.
    I suspect the time for tax rises won't be in 2021 but in 2022/23 by which point it will be Sunak's successor's problem as Sunak looks on from No 10...
    Interesting idea. If and when Boris goes, I'm not sure Sunak will have things all his own way.

    A candidate from the right may emerge. A conservative!
    Sunak is most definitely a conservative, these are extraordinary times and getting the UK into a V shaped recovery is worth whatever it costs. The long term damage of anything else will out weigh whatever the short term costs of achieving the V shaped recovery.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 32,654

    Sunak is getting a good press now, but I reckon he is in deep trouble. Deep trouble.

    In best budget tradition, the press he is getting today now that people have read it is considerably less good than the press yesterday...
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,739
    edited July 2020

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Charles said:

    The thing that some people clearly understand about economics and others clearly don't is that it is circulation that matters.

    Giving money to struggling businesses/individuals does absolutely nothing for the macro economy whatsoever as they cling on to that cash (and then continue to struggle if they're not getting anything circulated back to them).

    What is needed is to get money circulating again. That is why I have been calling for a VAT cut here for months. And I've been laughed at here saying we need tax cuts with replies like "yeah and I'd like a supermodel".

    Cutting VAT and similar issues on the struggling hospitality sectors will allow money to circulate more in those sectors - and allow businesses to cope with thicker margins on smaller volumes - thus saving the sector from a catastrophe and in the long-term the government will make more tax revenue despite temporarily lower taxes.

    Essentially adjusting for the time value of money the peak of the Laffer Curve has temporarily moved far to the left of the graph and the government needs to respond accordingly.

    Wasn't there an old song about the circulation of money? The lines "see the money flow, round the Barley Mow" float into my head but Google finds nothing.

    On its importance, see this Labour Party video. Boris is a fan!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_eJFb-r48Ys
    No one cut teachers salaries for exactly the reason in that film

    Not all government spending is productive or useful
    This is true. But government spends money more "wisely" than private individuals.
    I would suggest that is very debatable
    Just debatable, I think. The "very" implies the proposition is borderline ludicrous whereas imo it's quite a finely balanced argument.
    Its not borderline ludicrous I completely agree with that.
    So you're not putting it on YOUR list. Phew.
    Oh if I was sad enough to keep a list I would.

    Your comment wasn't borderline ludicrous it was to ludicrous as what Mr Kipling's is to good cakes ...

    If Carlsberg were to make ludicrous statements ...
    Well it was intended (and succeeded) as a debate-triggering counterpoint to the lazy old "people spend money more wisely than government" - so hats off me.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,739

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    MaxPB said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Charles said:

    The thing that some people clearly understand about economics and others clearly don't is that it is circulation that matters.

    Giving money to struggling businesses/individuals does absolutely nothing for the macro economy whatsoever as they cling on to that cash (and then continue to struggle if they're not getting anything circulated back to them).

    What is needed is to get money circulating again. That is why I have been calling for a VAT cut here for months. And I've been laughed at here saying we need tax cuts with replies like "yeah and I'd like a supermodel".

    Cutting VAT and similar issues on the struggling hospitality sectors will allow money to circulate more in those sectors - and allow businesses to cope with thicker margins on smaller volumes - thus saving the sector from a catastrophe and in the long-term the government will make more tax revenue despite temporarily lower taxes.

    Essentially adjusting for the time value of money the peak of the Laffer Curve has temporarily moved far to the left of the graph and the government needs to respond accordingly.

    Wasn't there an old song about the circulation of money? The lines "see the money flow, round the Barley Mow" float into my head but Google finds nothing.

    On its importance, see this Labour Party video. Boris is a fan!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_eJFb-r48Ys
    No one cut teachers salaries for exactly the reason in that film

    Not all government spending is productive or useful
    This is true. But government spends money more "wisely" than private individuals.
    My name is Boris Johnson and I have a garden bridge to sell you for £53m!
    Well that's another difficult example. But a more than balancing item on the other side -

    Fast Fashion. Large aggregate sums spent by people on cheap clothes made in sweat shops overseas. Transported over here with big carbon footprint, Worn twice and thrown away.
    A lot of the fast fashion brands use UK manufacturing, that's got a lot of issues too as the Times exposed over the weekend to the detriment of Boohoo.
    Yes, I saw that. Disturbing state of affairs.
    No, an inevitable state of affairs. Unless you change the preconditions.
    It involved law-breaking, I think?
    It's our old friend "selective law enforcement"

    You may remember I mentioned as relative in the building trade, the other day, who was told that illegal wages and conditions for foreign workers were (in effect) to be ignored?

    Same thing, I will bet.

    The sick joke is that it is minorities who end up being mis-treated.
    Suggestion being that the police don't go near for fear of being accused of racism?
  • contrariancontrarian Posts: 5,818
    MaxPB said:

    eek said:

    Yorkcity said:

    Boots cutting 4000 jobs.
    I would hate to be applying for a job now.
    I remember how hard it was in the early 80s getting work.
    In my opinion it is going to be even harder now.

    Sunak is getting a good press now, but I reckon he is in deep trouble. Deep trouble.

    When he comes to have to raise taxes on in a desperate attempt to make ends meet it will be like asking a skeleton to give blood.

    The economy will just be too weak. His only other opinion, draconian spending cuts, has already been ruled out by his boss.
    I suspect the time for tax rises won't be in 2021 but in 2022/23 by which point it will be Sunak's successor's problem as Sunak looks on from No 10...
    Interesting idea. If and when Boris goes, I'm not sure Sunak will have things all his own way.

    A candidate from the right may emerge. A conservative!
    Sunak is most definitely a conservative, these are extraordinary times and getting the UK into a V shaped recovery is worth whatever it costs. The long term damage of anything else will out weigh whatever the short term costs of achieving the V shaped recovery.
    Well you know what I am like, I just do not buy the extraordinary times argument. We are always living in extraordinary times and have done for centuries, but I am not sure we have ever been presented with the economic circumstances we face now.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 39,692
    nichomar said:

    nichomar said:

    @kinabalu it’s not just “fast fashion” that use that model. It’s the entire fashion industry.

    If you buy “higher end” brands, they are still made in Turkey, Bangladesh, Taiwan, China. If you’re lucky they might be made in Portugal.

    Trickers made in England.
    Bladen made in England.
    New & Lingwood made in England.

    No one can say I'm anti English.

    However discomfitingly for Farage, Belstaff made in Romania.
    I thought Farage was more Bellend than Belstaff
    Unfortunately with Branson, Assange and Neil Oliver having entered the middle aged blokes wearing Belstaff arena, the terms may have become interchangeable. I will have to make a style decision very soon.
    Who or what is Belstaff? I buy my polo shirts at the Chinese shop for €2.50
    It was a brand of British motorbike clothing mainly based on waxed cotton or leather, but now includes all sorts of fancy materials. It's reassuringly expensive and mainly worn by rich, posey tossers who don't ride bikes (I am only one of these things).
    I remember now actually standard motorbike wear in 60/70 s nothing posh about it then iirc
    Yeah, it was a wee bit looked down upon in my moped tearaway days as being a bit fuddy duddy, but the leather jackets were relatively cheap - not now! It's a bit like Barbour in that it's marketed as a heritage brand, though I think Barbour still make all their stuff in the UK, and contra what you'd think, tends to be cheaper.
  • Fantastic to see end of over 75 free TV licenses, a really bad Labour policy now scrapped
  • NerysHughesNerysHughes Posts: 3,346
    Some good economic news on the Construction Industry in Hampshire. We have never been as busy and our competitors are the same. It is extraordinary. We have a full order book for the next 12 months. In April we had virtually nothing. We have taken on 6 new staff and will take on 10 more.
  • No_Offence_AlanNo_Offence_Alan Posts: 3,646

    Charles said:

    Breaking 'the Right finding more stuff to get outraged about' news.

    https://twitter.com/FraserNelson/status/1281158449724887040?s=20

    It’s an odd thing to get upset about

    It is an artificial word chosen as the opposite of “blacklist” - which at least has some history.

    I think it’s silly that people get upset about the word as it clearly isn’t racist. But if they do, then find a new word (how about “Safelist”). No biggie.
    I hadn't known of the existence of the word 'whitelist' until I saw that tweet so am somewhat behind the curve at being upset at its banning.
    Pretty common in the IT systems world.
    Wait until people hear about "male" and "female" cable connections.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    MaxPB said:

    eek said:

    Yorkcity said:

    Boots cutting 4000 jobs.
    I would hate to be applying for a job now.
    I remember how hard it was in the early 80s getting work.
    In my opinion it is going to be even harder now.

    Sunak is getting a good press now, but I reckon he is in deep trouble. Deep trouble.

    When he comes to have to raise taxes on in a desperate attempt to make ends meet it will be like asking a skeleton to give blood.

    The economy will just be too weak. His only other opinion, draconian spending cuts, has already been ruled out by his boss.
    I suspect the time for tax rises won't be in 2021 but in 2022/23 by which point it will be Sunak's successor's problem as Sunak looks on from No 10...
    Interesting idea. If and when Boris goes, I'm not sure Sunak will have things all his own way.

    A candidate from the right may emerge. A conservative!
    Sunak is most definitely a conservative, these are extraordinary times and getting the UK into a V shaped recovery is worth whatever it costs. The long term damage of anything else will out weigh whatever the short term costs of achieving the V shaped recovery.
    Well you know what I am like, I just do not buy the extraordinary times argument. We are always living in extraordinary times and have done for centuries, but I am not sure we have ever been presented with the economic circumstances we face now.
    If we have never faced these circumstances then that's pretty much the definition of extraordinary times.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,820

    Charles said:

    Breaking 'the Right finding more stuff to get outraged about' news.

    https://twitter.com/FraserNelson/status/1281158449724887040?s=20

    It’s an odd thing to get upset about

    It is an artificial word chosen as the opposite of “blacklist” - which at least has some history.

    I think it’s silly that people get upset about the word as it clearly isn’t racist. But if they do, then find a new word (how about “Safelist”). No biggie.
    My thoughts exactly. Who cares? If people are somehow happier with a different word being used, then it's just polite to use a different word. I don't understand why some people appear to be irrationally attached to words like "whitelist".
    Why do the views of those who are happier to use the word not count?

    But if we're going to be banning common usages, my number one proposal would be to ban the new-fangled use of the word 'survivor' to mean a victim of sexual abuse. I find this really quite offensive and grating, when there's a perfectly reasonable word already, and 'survivor' means something quite different.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 57,971

    Some good economic news on the Construction Industry in Hampshire. We have never been as busy and our competitors are the same. It is extraordinary. We have a full order book for the next 12 months. In April we had virtually nothing. We have taken on 6 new staff and will take on 10 more.

    in other anecdata news: the house next door but a couple to me has sold in five days.
  • The economy is in deep shit and Sunak knows it. I am afraid to say apart from the policy of apprenticeships (which I support 100%, really good policy for the future), this mini-budget will really do sweet FA.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,603

    MaxPB said:

    eek said:

    Yorkcity said:

    Boots cutting 4000 jobs.
    I would hate to be applying for a job now.
    I remember how hard it was in the early 80s getting work.
    In my opinion it is going to be even harder now.

    Sunak is getting a good press now, but I reckon he is in deep trouble. Deep trouble.

    When he comes to have to raise taxes on in a desperate attempt to make ends meet it will be like asking a skeleton to give blood.

    The economy will just be too weak. His only other opinion, draconian spending cuts, has already been ruled out by his boss.
    I suspect the time for tax rises won't be in 2021 but in 2022/23 by which point it will be Sunak's successor's problem as Sunak looks on from No 10...
    Interesting idea. If and when Boris goes, I'm not sure Sunak will have things all his own way.

    A candidate from the right may emerge. A conservative!
    Sunak is most definitely a conservative, these are extraordinary times and getting the UK into a V shaped recovery is worth whatever it costs. The long term damage of anything else will out weigh whatever the short term costs of achieving the V shaped recovery.
    Well you know what I am like, I just do not buy the extraordinary times argument. We are always living in extraordinary times and have done for centuries, but I am not sure we have ever been presented with the economic circumstances we face now.
    So an economic period where suddenly we have to shut down 50% of the economy isn't extraordinary?
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 43,330
    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    MaxPB said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Charles said:

    The thing that some people clearly understand about economics and others clearly don't is that it is circulation that matters.

    Giving money to struggling businesses/individuals does absolutely nothing for the macro economy whatsoever as they cling on to that cash (and then continue to struggle if they're not getting anything circulated back to them).

    What is needed is to get money circulating again. That is why I have been calling for a VAT cut here for months. And I've been laughed at here saying we need tax cuts with replies like "yeah and I'd like a supermodel".

    Cutting VAT and similar issues on the struggling hospitality sectors will allow money to circulate more in those sectors - and allow businesses to cope with thicker margins on smaller volumes - thus saving the sector from a catastrophe and in the long-term the government will make more tax revenue despite temporarily lower taxes.

    Essentially adjusting for the time value of money the peak of the Laffer Curve has temporarily moved far to the left of the graph and the government needs to respond accordingly.

    Wasn't there an old song about the circulation of money? The lines "see the money flow, round the Barley Mow" float into my head but Google finds nothing.

    On its importance, see this Labour Party video. Boris is a fan!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_eJFb-r48Ys
    No one cut teachers salaries for exactly the reason in that film

    Not all government spending is productive or useful
    This is true. But government spends money more "wisely" than private individuals.
    My name is Boris Johnson and I have a garden bridge to sell you for £53m!
    Well that's another difficult example. But a more than balancing item on the other side -

    Fast Fashion. Large aggregate sums spent by people on cheap clothes made in sweat shops overseas. Transported over here with big carbon footprint, Worn twice and thrown away.
    A lot of the fast fashion brands use UK manufacturing, that's got a lot of issues too as the Times exposed over the weekend to the detriment of Boohoo.
    Yes, I saw that. Disturbing state of affairs.
    No, an inevitable state of affairs. Unless you change the preconditions.
    It involved law-breaking, I think?
    It's our old friend "selective law enforcement"

    You may remember I mentioned as relative in the building trade, the other day, who was told that illegal wages and conditions for foreign workers were (in effect) to be ignored?

    Same thing, I will bet.

    The sick joke is that it is minorities who end up being mis-treated.
    Suggestion being that the police don't go near for fear of being accused of racism?
    Not the police - think inspectors. Does anyone believe that the factories in question have never been inspected. That no complaints about minimum wage have ever been raised?

    There will be a policy of NFA in the system somewhere.

    The building thing was the building inspectors. We are talking about sites, where you could see health and safety being violated from across the road. In the fundamental setup of the site - not just people not wearing hard hats. As a start.

    When my relative suggested that the tax people take a look at cash in hand payment - blank wall. "No, we won't do that".

    It was made clear to him that illegal building work like that was tolerated as part of the "price" keeping the costs of domestic construction down. As policy.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    edited July 2020

    Fantastic to see end of over 75 free TV licenses, a really bad Labour policy now scrapped

    Be better to see the end of TV licences.

    Hopefully the end of bribing old voters with them will help facilitate that.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 32,654

    Wait until people hear about "male" and "female" cable connections.

    For which you can get sex-changers. Or gender-benders.
  • Some good economic news on the Construction Industry in Hampshire. We have never been as busy and our competitors are the same. It is extraordinary. We have a full order book for the next 12 months. In April we had virtually nothing. We have taken on 6 new staff and will take on 10 more.

    Hello fellow Hampshire person (I am originally from there)
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    Charles said:

    Breaking 'the Right finding more stuff to get outraged about' news.

    https://twitter.com/FraserNelson/status/1281158449724887040?s=20

    It’s an odd thing to get upset about

    It is an artificial word chosen as the opposite of “blacklist” - which at least has some history.

    I think it’s silly that people get upset about the word as it clearly isn’t racist. But if they do, then find a new word (how about “Safelist”). No biggie.
    I hadn't known of the existence of the word 'whitelist' until I saw that tweet so am somewhat behind the curve at being upset at its banning.
    Pretty common in the IT systems world.
    Wait until people hear about "male" and "female" cable connections.
    Male and female at least describes what they are.

    No value inferred like white equals good, black equals bad.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,071
    edited July 2020

    Charles said:

    Breaking 'the Right finding more stuff to get outraged about' news.

    https://twitter.com/FraserNelson/status/1281158449724887040?s=20

    It’s an odd thing to get upset about

    It is an artificial word chosen as the opposite of “blacklist” - which at least has some history.

    I think it’s silly that people get upset about the word as it clearly isn’t racist. But if they do, then find a new word (how about “Safelist”). No biggie.
    My thoughts exactly. Who cares? If people are somehow happier with a different word being used, then it's just polite to use a different word. I don't understand why some people appear to be irrationally attached to words like "whitelist".
    Why do the views of those who are happier to use the word not count?

    But if we're going to be banning common usages, my number one proposal would be to ban the new-fangled use of the word 'survivor' to mean a victim of sexual abuse. I find this really quite offensive and grating, when there's a perfectly reasonable word already, and 'survivor' means something quite different.
    Because it's just impolite. It's only a word, it's not really inconvenient to use another one. The only reason for retaining the old word is because you can't be arsed learning to use a new one.

    I personally have no problem using whitelist or blacklist, but if using "allowlist" and "blocklist" or whatever makes a few people happier, then whatever. Who cares.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,071

    Some good economic news on the Construction Industry in Hampshire. We have never been as busy and our competitors are the same. It is extraordinary. We have a full order book for the next 12 months. In April we had virtually nothing. We have taken on 6 new staff and will take on 10 more.

    May I ask what kind of things you are building?
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 20,359
    kinabalu said:

    Charles said:

    Breaking 'the Right finding more stuff to get outraged about' news.

    https://twitter.com/FraserNelson/status/1281158449724887040?s=20

    It’s an odd thing to get upset about

    It is an artificial word chosen as the opposite of “blacklist” - which at least has some history.

    I think it’s silly that people get upset about the word as it clearly isn’t racist. But if they do, then find a new word (how about “Safelist”). No biggie.
    I hadn't known of the existence of the word 'whitelist' until I saw that tweet so am somewhat behind the curve at being upset at its banning.
    Same here. Never heard of it. So a choice now. I can mug up on it, maybe use it a few times, and then drop it under protest of "cancel culture". Or I can just not bother. Second seems more efficient but I do have time on my hands today.
    Obviously on its own its not a problem, its in the context of how much of our language re-enforces white as good and black as bad.

    Just off the top of my head

    White magic v Black magic
    White witch
    White lies
    Black sheep
    Blackball
    Blackmail
    Black mark
    Black death

    Even for new words like white hat hacker it is just assumed that white is good.

    Is it really so difficult to understand that if your group is treated negatively by society, then having language that re-enforces sub conscious biases isnt helpful?
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 6,281

    The economy is in deep shit and Sunak knows it. I am afraid to say apart from the policy of apprenticeships (which I support 100%, really good policy for the future), this mini-budget will really do sweet FA.

    Another prediction. you are full of them.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 13,974
    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Stocky said:

    Charles said:

    kinabalu said:

    Charles said:

    The thing that some people clearly understand about economics and others clearly don't is that it is circulation that matters.

    Giving money to struggling businesses/individuals does absolutely nothing for the macro economy whatsoever as they cling on to that cash (and then continue to struggle if they're not getting anything circulated back to them).

    What is needed is to get money circulating again. That is why I have been calling for a VAT cut here for months. And I've been laughed at here saying we need tax cuts with replies like "yeah and I'd like a supermodel".

    Cutting VAT and similar issues on the struggling hospitality sectors will allow money to circulate more in those sectors - and allow businesses to cope with thicker margins on smaller volumes - thus saving the sector from a catastrophe and in the long-term the government will make more tax revenue despite temporarily lower taxes.

    Essentially adjusting for the time value of money the peak of the Laffer Curve has temporarily moved far to the left of the graph and the government needs to respond accordingly.

    Wasn't there an old song about the circulation of money? The lines "see the money flow, round the Barley Mow" float into my head but Google finds nothing.

    On its importance, see this Labour Party video. Boris is a fan!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_eJFb-r48Ys
    No one cut teachers salaries for exactly the reason in that film

    Not all government spending is productive or useful
    This is true. But government spends money more "wisely" than private individuals.
    You really believe that?

    Yes he does. He`s a collectivist. The rest of us see it the other way round.
    Well that's nice. I feel totally exposed now. Friendless and alone in the midst of the bustling crowd.
    Nobody can say categorically that either the public or private sectors spend money more efficiently. It depends on the circumstances. The public sector is able to look at the big picture and the public good, and spend on things where the social return outweighs any private benefit. But the private sector usually does a better job on cost effectiveness and avoiding waste (not always in large bureaucratic firms where managers are spending other people's money). Depending on what factor is most important for the matter at hand, either could be the wiser. Anyone who takes a black and white position on this is just posturing, or hasn't thought about it very seriously.
    A fair summary. On waste, though, I did see eye watering amounts of it in the City during my time. In the boom times hidden by revenues.
    Yes- from a perspective as a teacher in the state / academy sector, I wonder if the difference is more about the range than the average. Private enterprise can give super efficiency and effectiveness, but it can also lead to spectacular wasteful madness; remember boo.com, anyone? State systems tend to be more consistently average. You see the same thing when council schools become more business-like academies.

    So which is better? I'm willing to believe that, in terms of creating wealth and new stuff, a mixture of triumph and disaster is a smart plan; the wins pay for the losses overall. But that attitude of making multiple bets so that one or two come off is harder to apply to things that governments do, like health.

    The language used here to describe the initial UK Covid testing plan, feels out of place:

    https://twitter.com/JeremyCliffe/status/1281130560505688066?s=20
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    edited July 2020

    Charles said:

    Breaking 'the Right finding more stuff to get outraged about' news.

    https://twitter.com/FraserNelson/status/1281158449724887040?s=20

    It’s an odd thing to get upset about

    It is an artificial word chosen as the opposite of “blacklist” - which at least has some history.

    I think it’s silly that people get upset about the word as it clearly isn’t racist. But if they do, then find a new word (how about “Safelist”). No biggie.
    My thoughts exactly. Who cares? If people are somehow happier with a different word being used, then it's just polite to use a different word. I don't understand why some people appear to be irrationally attached to words like "whitelist".
    Why do the views of those who are happier to use the word not count?

    But if we're going to be banning common usages, my number one proposal would be to ban the new-fangled use of the word 'survivor' to mean a victim of sexual abuse. I find this really quite offensive and grating, when there's a perfectly reasonable word already, and 'survivor' means something quite different.
    How is someone who has survived sexual assault and lived to tell the tale not a survivor?

    Many don't survive sexual assaults. Either because they get killed by the abuser or because the abuse damages them to the point they take their own life.
  • contrariancontrarian Posts: 5,818
    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    eek said:

    Yorkcity said:

    Boots cutting 4000 jobs.
    I would hate to be applying for a job now.
    I remember how hard it was in the early 80s getting work.
    In my opinion it is going to be even harder now.

    Sunak is getting a good press now, but I reckon he is in deep trouble. Deep trouble.

    When he comes to have to raise taxes on in a desperate attempt to make ends meet it will be like asking a skeleton to give blood.

    The economy will just be too weak. His only other opinion, draconian spending cuts, has already been ruled out by his boss.
    I suspect the time for tax rises won't be in 2021 but in 2022/23 by which point it will be Sunak's successor's problem as Sunak looks on from No 10...
    Interesting idea. If and when Boris goes, I'm not sure Sunak will have things all his own way.

    A candidate from the right may emerge. A conservative!
    Sunak is most definitely a conservative, these are extraordinary times and getting the UK into a V shaped recovery is worth whatever it costs. The long term damage of anything else will out weigh whatever the short term costs of achieving the V shaped recovery.
    Well you know what I am like, I just do not buy the extraordinary times argument. We are always living in extraordinary times and have done for centuries, but I am not sure we have ever been presented with the economic circumstances we face now.
    So an economic period where suddenly we have to shut down 50% of the economy isn't extraordinary?
    We never had to shut down anything. We never have before, after all, no matter what the circumstances. The economy's collapsed before, true, but not at the government's order.

    We chose to shut the economy down.

  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,071

    Charles said:

    Breaking 'the Right finding more stuff to get outraged about' news.

    https://twitter.com/FraserNelson/status/1281158449724887040?s=20

    It’s an odd thing to get upset about

    It is an artificial word chosen as the opposite of “blacklist” - which at least has some history.

    I think it’s silly that people get upset about the word as it clearly isn’t racist. But if they do, then find a new word (how about “Safelist”). No biggie.
    My thoughts exactly. Who cares? If people are somehow happier with a different word being used, then it's just polite to use a different word. I don't understand why some people appear to be irrationally attached to words like "whitelist".
    Why do the views of those who are happier to use the word not count?

    But if we're going to be banning common usages, my number one proposal would be to ban the new-fangled use of the word 'survivor' to mean a victim of sexual abuse. I find this really quite offensive and grating, when there's a perfectly reasonable word already, and 'survivor' means something quite different.
    How is someone who has survived sexual assault and lived to tell the tale not a survivor?

    Many don't survive sexual assaults.
    My position is simply: if someone uses the word "victim" instead of "survivor", especially if that's what they are used to then that's fine. However, if they are told that someone would prefer to use "survivor" and then they insist on using "victim" anyway to prove some kind of point, then they are just rude, and a dick.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,788

    Charles said:

    Breaking 'the Right finding more stuff to get outraged about' news.

    https://twitter.com/FraserNelson/status/1281158449724887040?s=20

    It’s an odd thing to get upset about

    It is an artificial word chosen as the opposite of “blacklist” - which at least has some history.

    I think it’s silly that people get upset about the word as it clearly isn’t racist. But if they do, then find a new word (how about “Safelist”). No biggie.
    My thoughts exactly. Who cares? If people are somehow happier with a different word being used, then it's just polite to use a different word. I don't understand why some people appear to be irrationally attached to words like "whitelist".
    Why do the views of those who are happier to use the word not count?

    But if we're going to be banning common usages, my number one proposal would be to ban the new-fangled use of the word 'survivor' to mean a victim of sexual abuse. I find this really quite offensive and grating, when there's a perfectly reasonable word already, and 'survivor' means something quite different.
    Because it's just impolite. It's only a word, it's not really inconvenient to use another one. The only reason for retaining the old word is because you can't be arsed learning to use a new one.

    I personally have no problem using whitelist or blacklist, but if using "allowlist" and "blocklist" or whatever makes a few people happier, then whatever. Who cares.
    What's the word in question here ?
    Victim ? That's a broader term than a victim of sexual abuse.
  • contrariancontrarian Posts: 5,818
    edited July 2020

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    eek said:

    Yorkcity said:

    Boots cutting 4000 jobs.
    I would hate to be applying for a job now.
    I remember how hard it was in the early 80s getting work.
    In my opinion it is going to be even harder now.

    Sunak is getting a good press now, but I reckon he is in deep trouble. Deep trouble.

    When he comes to have to raise taxes on in a desperate attempt to make ends meet it will be like asking a skeleton to give blood.

    The economy will just be too weak. His only other opinion, draconian spending cuts, has already been ruled out by his boss.
    I suspect the time for tax rises won't be in 2021 but in 2022/23 by which point it will be Sunak's successor's problem as Sunak looks on from No 10...
    Interesting idea. If and when Boris goes, I'm not sure Sunak will have things all his own way.

    A candidate from the right may emerge. A conservative!
    Sunak is most definitely a conservative, these are extraordinary times and getting the UK into a V shaped recovery is worth whatever it costs. The long term damage of anything else will out weigh whatever the short term costs of achieving the V shaped recovery.
    Well you know what I am like, I just do not buy the extraordinary times argument. We are always living in extraordinary times and have done for centuries, but I am not sure we have ever been presented with the economic circumstances we face now.
    So an economic period where suddenly we have to shut down 50% of the economy isn't extraordinary?
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 43,330

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Stocky said:

    Charles said:

    kinabalu said:

    Charles said:

    The thing that some people clearly understand about economics and others clearly don't is that it is circulation that matters.

    Giving money to struggling businesses/individuals does absolutely nothing for the macro economy whatsoever as they cling on to that cash (and then continue to struggle if they're not getting anything circulated back to them).

    What is needed is to get money circulating again. That is why I have been calling for a VAT cut here for months. And I've been laughed at here saying we need tax cuts with replies like "yeah and I'd like a supermodel".

    Cutting VAT and similar issues on the struggling hospitality sectors will allow money to circulate more in those sectors - and allow businesses to cope with thicker margins on smaller volumes - thus saving the sector from a catastrophe and in the long-term the government will make more tax revenue despite temporarily lower taxes.

    Essentially adjusting for the time value of money the peak of the Laffer Curve has temporarily moved far to the left of the graph and the government needs to respond accordingly.

    Wasn't there an old song about the circulation of money? The lines "see the money flow, round the Barley Mow" float into my head but Google finds nothing.

    On its importance, see this Labour Party video. Boris is a fan!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_eJFb-r48Ys
    No one cut teachers salaries for exactly the reason in that film

    Not all government spending is productive or useful
    This is true. But government spends money more "wisely" than private individuals.
    You really believe that?

    Yes he does. He`s a collectivist. The rest of us see it the other way round.
    Well that's nice. I feel totally exposed now. Friendless and alone in the midst of the bustling crowd.
    Nobody can say categorically that either the public or private sectors spend money more efficiently. It depends on the circumstances. The public sector is able to look at the big picture and the public good, and spend on things where the social return outweighs any private benefit. But the private sector usually does a better job on cost effectiveness and avoiding waste (not always in large bureaucratic firms where managers are spending other people's money). Depending on what factor is most important for the matter at hand, either could be the wiser. Anyone who takes a black and white position on this is just posturing, or hasn't thought about it very seriously.
    A fair summary. On waste, though, I did see eye watering amounts of it in the City during my time. In the boom times hidden by revenues.
    Yes- from a perspective as a teacher in the state / academy sector, I wonder if the difference is more about the range than the average. Private enterprise can give super efficiency and effectiveness, but it can also lead to spectacular wasteful madness; remember boo.com, anyone? State systems tend to be more consistently average. You see the same thing when council schools become more business-like academies.

    So which is better? I'm willing to believe that, in terms of creating wealth and new stuff, a mixture of triumph and disaster is a smart plan; the wins pay for the losses overall. But that attitude of making multiple bets so that one or two come off is harder to apply to things that governments do, like health.

    The language used here to describe the initial UK Covid testing plan, feels out of place:

    https://twitter.com/JeremyCliffe/status/1281130560505688066?s=20
    I think if we are to progress, the state needs to embrace failure as an option. In many fields, the attempt to guarantee success before any change, leads to total stagnation.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,071
    Pulpstar said:

    Charles said:

    Breaking 'the Right finding more stuff to get outraged about' news.

    https://twitter.com/FraserNelson/status/1281158449724887040?s=20

    It’s an odd thing to get upset about

    It is an artificial word chosen as the opposite of “blacklist” - which at least has some history.

    I think it’s silly that people get upset about the word as it clearly isn’t racist. But if they do, then find a new word (how about “Safelist”). No biggie.
    My thoughts exactly. Who cares? If people are somehow happier with a different word being used, then it's just polite to use a different word. I don't understand why some people appear to be irrationally attached to words like "whitelist".
    Why do the views of those who are happier to use the word not count?

    But if we're going to be banning common usages, my number one proposal would be to ban the new-fangled use of the word 'survivor' to mean a victim of sexual abuse. I find this really quite offensive and grating, when there's a perfectly reasonable word already, and 'survivor' means something quite different.
    Because it's just impolite. It's only a word, it's not really inconvenient to use another one. The only reason for retaining the old word is because you can't be arsed learning to use a new one.

    I personally have no problem using whitelist or blacklist, but if using "allowlist" and "blocklist" or whatever makes a few people happier, then whatever. Who cares.
    What's the word in question here ?
    Victim ? That's a broader term than a victim of sexual abuse.
    I assume so. But the point remains for everything.

    Let's talk about he/she pronouns. Someone accidentally uses the wrong pronoun - that's fine. Just a mistake. However if they continue to use the "wrong" one when it's been requested they use another, just to prove a point, then they are just being rude.
  • NerysHughesNerysHughes Posts: 3,346

    Some good economic news on the Construction Industry in Hampshire. We have never been as busy and our competitors are the same. It is extraordinary. We have a full order book for the next 12 months. In April we had virtually nothing. We have taken on 6 new staff and will take on 10 more.

    May I ask what kind of things you are building?
    We do M & E

    Its all sorts, army bases, schools, fire stations, offices.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,603

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    eek said:

    Yorkcity said:

    Boots cutting 4000 jobs.
    I would hate to be applying for a job now.
    I remember how hard it was in the early 80s getting work.
    In my opinion it is going to be even harder now.

    Sunak is getting a good press now, but I reckon he is in deep trouble. Deep trouble.

    When he comes to have to raise taxes on in a desperate attempt to make ends meet it will be like asking a skeleton to give blood.

    The economy will just be too weak. His only other opinion, draconian spending cuts, has already been ruled out by his boss.
    I suspect the time for tax rises won't be in 2021 but in 2022/23 by which point it will be Sunak's successor's problem as Sunak looks on from No 10...
    Interesting idea. If and when Boris goes, I'm not sure Sunak will have things all his own way.

    A candidate from the right may emerge. A conservative!
    Sunak is most definitely a conservative, these are extraordinary times and getting the UK into a V shaped recovery is worth whatever it costs. The long term damage of anything else will out weigh whatever the short term costs of achieving the V shaped recovery.
    Well you know what I am like, I just do not buy the extraordinary times argument. We are always living in extraordinary times and have done for centuries, but I am not sure we have ever been presented with the economic circumstances we face now.
    So an economic period where suddenly we have to shut down 50% of the economy isn't extraordinary?
    We never had to shut down anything. We never have before, after all, no matter what the circumstances. The economy's collapsed before, true, but not at the government's order.

    We chose to shut the economy down.

    Yes, well starting from your false premise is the issue.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,739
    edited July 2020

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    MaxPB said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Charles said:

    The thing that some people clearly understand about economics and others clearly don't is that it is circulation that matters.

    Giving money to struggling businesses/individuals does absolutely nothing for the macro economy whatsoever as they cling on to that cash (and then continue to struggle if they're not getting anything circulated back to them).

    What is needed is to get money circulating again. That is why I have been calling for a VAT cut here for months. And I've been laughed at here saying we need tax cuts with replies like "yeah and I'd like a supermodel".

    Cutting VAT and similar issues on the struggling hospitality sectors will allow money to circulate more in those sectors - and allow businesses to cope with thicker margins on smaller volumes - thus saving the sector from a catastrophe and in the long-term the government will make more tax revenue despite temporarily lower taxes.

    Essentially adjusting for the time value of money the peak of the Laffer Curve has temporarily moved far to the left of the graph and the government needs to respond accordingly.

    Wasn't there an old song about the circulation of money? The lines "see the money flow, round the Barley Mow" float into my head but Google finds nothing.

    On its importance, see this Labour Party video. Boris is a fan!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_eJFb-r48Ys
    No one cut teachers salaries for exactly the reason in that film

    Not all government spending is productive or useful
    This is true. But government spends money more "wisely" than private individuals.
    My name is Boris Johnson and I have a garden bridge to sell you for £53m!
    Well that's another difficult example. But a more than balancing item on the other side -

    Fast Fashion. Large aggregate sums spent by people on cheap clothes made in sweat shops overseas. Transported over here with big carbon footprint, Worn twice and thrown away.
    A lot of the fast fashion brands use UK manufacturing, that's got a lot of issues too as the Times exposed over the weekend to the detriment of Boohoo.
    Yes, I saw that. Disturbing state of affairs.
    No, an inevitable state of affairs. Unless you change the preconditions.
    It involved law-breaking, I think?
    It's our old friend "selective law enforcement"

    You may remember I mentioned as relative in the building trade, the other day, who was told that illegal wages and conditions for foreign workers were (in effect) to be ignored?

    Same thing, I will bet.

    The sick joke is that it is minorities who end up being mis-treated.
    Suggestion being that the police don't go near for fear of being accused of racism?
    Not the police - think inspectors. Does anyone believe that the factories in question have never been inspected. That no complaints about minimum wage have ever been raised?

    There will be a policy of NFA in the system somewhere.

    The building thing was the building inspectors. We are talking about sites, where you could see health and safety being violated from across the road. In the fundamental setup of the site - not just people not wearing hard hats. As a start.

    When my relative suggested that the tax people take a look at cash in hand payment - blank wall. "No, we won't do that".

    It was made clear to him that illegal building work like that was tolerated as part of the "price" keeping the costs of domestic construction down. As policy.
    Yes, sorry, I did mean "police" in that broad sense. But I'm asking if you think there is a big racial angle - i.e. are the authorities turning blind eye because of the type of activity or because of who is engaged in it?
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,071

    Some good economic news on the Construction Industry in Hampshire. We have never been as busy and our competitors are the same. It is extraordinary. We have a full order book for the next 12 months. In April we had virtually nothing. We have taken on 6 new staff and will take on 10 more.

    May I ask what kind of things you are building?
    We do M & E

    Its all sorts, army bases, schools, fire stations, offices.
    Thanks. I was interested in whether there was a trend towards "general infrastructure" rather than things like retail and city-centre offices.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    eek said:

    Yorkcity said:

    Boots cutting 4000 jobs.
    I would hate to be applying for a job now.
    I remember how hard it was in the early 80s getting work.
    In my opinion it is going to be even harder now.

    Sunak is getting a good press now, but I reckon he is in deep trouble. Deep trouble.

    When he comes to have to raise taxes on in a desperate attempt to make ends meet it will be like asking a skeleton to give blood.

    The economy will just be too weak. His only other opinion, draconian spending cuts, has already been ruled out by his boss.
    I suspect the time for tax rises won't be in 2021 but in 2022/23 by which point it will be Sunak's successor's problem as Sunak looks on from No 10...
    Interesting idea. If and when Boris goes, I'm not sure Sunak will have things all his own way.

    A candidate from the right may emerge. A conservative!
    Sunak is most definitely a conservative, these are extraordinary times and getting the UK into a V shaped recovery is worth whatever it costs. The long term damage of anything else will out weigh whatever the short term costs of achieving the V shaped recovery.
    Well you know what I am like, I just do not buy the extraordinary times argument. We are always living in extraordinary times and have done for centuries, but I am not sure we have ever been presented with the economic circumstances we face now.
    So an economic period where suddenly we have to shut down 50% of the economy isn't extraordinary?
    We never had to shut down anything. We never have before, after all, no matter what the circumstances. The economy's collapsed before, true, but not at the government's order.

    We chose to shut the economy down.

    Actually we have. This has been pointed out to you many times but you keep ignoring it.

    Plagues have resulted in lockdowns before
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 20,359

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Stocky said:

    Charles said:

    kinabalu said:

    Charles said:

    The thing that some people clearly understand about economics and others clearly don't is that it is circulation that matters.

    Giving money to struggling businesses/individuals does absolutely nothing for the macro economy whatsoever as they cling on to that cash (and then continue to struggle if they're not getting anything circulated back to them).

    What is needed is to get money circulating again. That is why I have been calling for a VAT cut here for months. And I've been laughed at here saying we need tax cuts with replies like "yeah and I'd like a supermodel".

    Cutting VAT and similar issues on the struggling hospitality sectors will allow money to circulate more in those sectors - and allow businesses to cope with thicker margins on smaller volumes - thus saving the sector from a catastrophe and in the long-term the government will make more tax revenue despite temporarily lower taxes.

    Essentially adjusting for the time value of money the peak of the Laffer Curve has temporarily moved far to the left of the graph and the government needs to respond accordingly.

    Wasn't there an old song about the circulation of money? The lines "see the money flow, round the Barley Mow" float into my head but Google finds nothing.

    On its importance, see this Labour Party video. Boris is a fan!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_eJFb-r48Ys
    No one cut teachers salaries for exactly the reason in that film

    Not all government spending is productive or useful
    This is true. But government spends money more "wisely" than private individuals.
    You really believe that?

    Yes he does. He`s a collectivist. The rest of us see it the other way round.
    Well that's nice. I feel totally exposed now. Friendless and alone in the midst of the bustling crowd.
    Nobody can say categorically that either the public or private sectors spend money more efficiently. It depends on the circumstances. The public sector is able to look at the big picture and the public good, and spend on things where the social return outweighs any private benefit. But the private sector usually does a better job on cost effectiveness and avoiding waste (not always in large bureaucratic firms where managers are spending other people's money). Depending on what factor is most important for the matter at hand, either could be the wiser. Anyone who takes a black and white position on this is just posturing, or hasn't thought about it very seriously.
    A fair summary. On waste, though, I did see eye watering amounts of it in the City during my time. In the boom times hidden by revenues.
    Yes- from a perspective as a teacher in the state / academy sector, I wonder if the difference is more about the range than the average. Private enterprise can give super efficiency and effectiveness, but it can also lead to spectacular wasteful madness; remember boo.com, anyone? State systems tend to be more consistently average. You see the same thing when council schools become more business-like academies.

    So which is better? I'm willing to believe that, in terms of creating wealth and new stuff, a mixture of triumph and disaster is a smart plan; the wins pay for the losses overall. But that attitude of making multiple bets so that one or two come off is harder to apply to things that governments do, like health.

    The language used here to describe the initial UK Covid testing plan, feels out of place:

    https://twitter.com/JeremyCliffe/status/1281130560505688066?s=20
    I think if we are to progress, the state needs to embrace failure as an option. In many fields, the attempt to guarantee success before any change, leads to total stagnation.
    Well if the PM keeps setting world class as the objective we shall be getting plenty of chances to embrace failure.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,739

    kinabalu said:

    Charles said:

    Breaking 'the Right finding more stuff to get outraged about' news.

    https://twitter.com/FraserNelson/status/1281158449724887040?s=20

    It’s an odd thing to get upset about

    It is an artificial word chosen as the opposite of “blacklist” - which at least has some history.

    I think it’s silly that people get upset about the word as it clearly isn’t racist. But if they do, then find a new word (how about “Safelist”). No biggie.
    I hadn't known of the existence of the word 'whitelist' until I saw that tweet so am somewhat behind the curve at being upset at its banning.
    Same here. Never heard of it. So a choice now. I can mug up on it, maybe use it a few times, and then drop it under protest of "cancel culture". Or I can just not bother. Second seems more efficient but I do have time on my hands today.
    Obviously on its own its not a problem, its in the context of how much of our language re-enforces white as good and black as bad.

    Just off the top of my head

    White magic v Black magic
    White witch
    White lies
    Black sheep
    Blackball
    Blackmail
    Black mark
    Black death

    Even for new words like white hat hacker it is just assumed that white is good.

    Is it really so difficult to understand that if your group is treated negatively by society, then having language that re-enforces sub conscious biases isnt helpful?
    Totally agree. Language is very important.
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 7,483

    Some good economic news on the Construction Industry in Hampshire. We have never been as busy and our competitors are the same. It is extraordinary. We have a full order book for the next 12 months. In April we had virtually nothing. We have taken on 6 new staff and will take on 10 more.

    May I ask what kind of things you are building?
    We do M & E

    Its all sorts, army bases, schools, fire stations, offices.
    Is there a bias to public sector spend given your examples? Is there evidence of investment in projects that will generate wealth in themselves? A factory for example!
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 43,330
    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    MaxPB said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Charles said:

    The thing that some people clearly understand about economics and others clearly don't is that it is circulation that matters.

    Giving money to struggling businesses/individuals does absolutely nothing for the macro economy whatsoever as they cling on to that cash (and then continue to struggle if they're not getting anything circulated back to them).

    What is needed is to get money circulating again. That is why I have been calling for a VAT cut here for months. And I've been laughed at here saying we need tax cuts with replies like "yeah and I'd like a supermodel".

    Cutting VAT and similar issues on the struggling hospitality sectors will allow money to circulate more in those sectors - and allow businesses to cope with thicker margins on smaller volumes - thus saving the sector from a catastrophe and in the long-term the government will make more tax revenue despite temporarily lower taxes.

    Essentially adjusting for the time value of money the peak of the Laffer Curve has temporarily moved far to the left of the graph and the government needs to respond accordingly.

    Wasn't there an old song about the circulation of money? The lines "see the money flow, round the Barley Mow" float into my head but Google finds nothing.

    On its importance, see this Labour Party video. Boris is a fan!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_eJFb-r48Ys
    No one cut teachers salaries for exactly the reason in that film

    Not all government spending is productive or useful
    This is true. But government spends money more "wisely" than private individuals.
    My name is Boris Johnson and I have a garden bridge to sell you for £53m!
    Well that's another difficult example. But a more than balancing item on the other side -

    Fast Fashion. Large aggregate sums spent by people on cheap clothes made in sweat shops overseas. Transported over here with big carbon footprint, Worn twice and thrown away.
    A lot of the fast fashion brands use UK manufacturing, that's got a lot of issues too as the Times exposed over the weekend to the detriment of Boohoo.
    Yes, I saw that. Disturbing state of affairs.
    No, an inevitable state of affairs. Unless you change the preconditions.
    It involved law-breaking, I think?
    It's our old friend "selective law enforcement"

    You may remember I mentioned as relative in the building trade, the other day, who was told that illegal wages and conditions for foreign workers were (in effect) to be ignored?

    Same thing, I will bet.

    The sick joke is that it is minorities who end up being mis-treated.
    Suggestion being that the police don't go near for fear of being accused of racism?
    Not the police - think inspectors. Does anyone believe that the factories in question have never been inspected. That no complaints about minimum wage have ever been raised?

    There will be a policy of NFA in the system somewhere.

    The building thing was the building inspectors. We are talking about sites, where you could see health and safety being violated from across the road. In the fundamental setup of the site - not just people not wearing hard hats. As a start.

    When my relative suggested that the tax people take a look at cash in hand payment - blank wall. "No, we won't do that".

    It was made clear to him that illegal building work like that was tolerated as part of the "price" keeping the costs of domestic construction down. As policy.
    Yes, sorry, I did mean "police" in that broad sense. But I'm asking if you think there is a big racial angle - i.e. are the authorities turning blind eye because of the type of activity or because of who is engaged in it?
    Perhaps an element of that - but not in the positive sense. In fact, quite negative - the attitude is perhaps closer to seeing immigrant workers as more disposable and with less rights.

    Also a lot to do with not upsetting the apple cart. Double the price of digging a basement in parts of London and the Chatterati will be up in arms..... Push up prices in the clothing trade and I bet the owners will be onto their local politicians...
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,600

    Yorkcity said:

    Boots cutting 4000 jobs.
    I would hate to be applying for a job now.
    I remember how hard it was in the early 80s getting work.
    In my opinion it is going to be even harder now.

    Sunak is getting a good press now, but I reckon he is in deep trouble. Deep trouble.

    When he comes to have to raise taxes on in a desperate attempt to make ends meet it will be like asking a skeleton to give blood.

    The economy will just be too weak. His only other opinion, draconian spending cuts, has already been ruled out by his boss.
    Well @HYUFD has assured us that the deficit is an irrelevance so we can just borrow to our heart's content. Nee bother.
    Well voters oppose higher tax rises except on high earners, they do support increasing borrowing by 37% to 26%

    https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1280889426424541185?s=20
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,739

    Charles said:

    Breaking 'the Right finding more stuff to get outraged about' news.

    https://twitter.com/FraserNelson/status/1281158449724887040?s=20

    It’s an odd thing to get upset about

    It is an artificial word chosen as the opposite of “blacklist” - which at least has some history.

    I think it’s silly that people get upset about the word as it clearly isn’t racist. But if they do, then find a new word (how about “Safelist”). No biggie.
    My thoughts exactly. Who cares? If people are somehow happier with a different word being used, then it's just polite to use a different word. I don't understand why some people appear to be irrationally attached to words like "whitelist".
    Why do the views of those who are happier to use the word not count?

    But if we're going to be banning common usages, my number one proposal would be to ban the new-fangled use of the word 'survivor' to mean a victim of sexual abuse. I find this really quite offensive and grating, when there's a perfectly reasonable word already, and 'survivor' means something quite different.
    That's not a good example, Richard. There is a genuine benefit in dropping "victim". People do not like to be thought of as victims of something. It has negative connotations of powerlessness and ongoing definition of yourself by it. Survivor is more empowering.
  • contrariancontrarian Posts: 5,818
    edited July 2020

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    eek said:

    Yorkcity said:

    Boots cutting 4000 jobs.
    I would hate to be applying for a job now.
    I remember how hard it was in the early 80s getting work.
    In my opinion it is going to be even harder now.

    Sunak is getting a good press now, but I reckon he is in deep trouble. Deep trouble.

    When he comes to have to raise taxes on in a desperate attempt to make ends meet it will be like asking a skeleton to give blood.

    The economy will just be too weak. His only other opinion, draconian spending cuts, has already been ruled out by his boss.
    I suspect the time for tax rises won't be in 2021 but in 2022/23 by which point it will be Sunak's successor's problem as Sunak looks on from No 10...
    Interesting idea. If and when Boris goes, I'm not sure Sunak will have things all his own way.

    A candidate from the right may emerge. A conservative!
    Sunak is most definitely a conservative, these are extraordinary times and getting the UK into a V shaped recovery is worth whatever it costs. The long term damage of anything else will out weigh whatever the short term costs of achieving the V shaped recovery.
    Well you know what I am like, I just do not buy the extraordinary times argument. We are always living in extraordinary times and have done for centuries, but I am not sure we have ever been presented with the economic circumstances we face now.
    So an economic period where suddenly we have to shut down 50% of the economy isn't extraordinary?
    We never had to shut down anything. We never have before, after all, no matter what the circumstances. The economy's collapsed before, true, but not at the government's order.

    We chose to shut the economy down.

    Actually we have. This has been pointed out to you many times but you keep ignoring it.

    Plagues have resulted in lockdowns before
    what has been presented to me is evidence of strong measures by the authorities to quarantine the sick. I accept those and also the argument the economy would have taken a big hit anyway, as it has in the past vie the evidence of 1920 etc.

    I have never seen any evidence that whole industries were shut down by government fiat and these measures backed up with the legally enforced house arrest of the healthy.

    I still maintain that what is extraordinary is not the circumstances but the response to them.
  • contrariancontrarian Posts: 5,818
    edited July 2020

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    eek said:

    Yorkcity said:

    Boots cutting 4000 jobs.
    I would hate to be applying for a job now.
    I remember how hard it was in the early 80s getting work.
    In my opinion it is going to be even harder now.

    Sunak is getting a good press now, but I reckon he is in deep trouble. Deep trouble.

    When he comes to have to raise taxes on in a desperate attempt to make ends meet it will be like asking a skeleton to give blood.

    The economy will just be too weak. His only other opinion, draconian spending cuts, has already been ruled out by his boss.
    I suspect the time for tax rises won't be in 2021 but in 2022/23 by which point it will be Sunak's successor's problem as Sunak looks on from No 10...
    Interesting idea. If and when Boris goes, I'm not sure Sunak will have things all his own way.

    A candidate from the right may emerge. A conservative!
    Sunak is most definitely a conservative, these are extraordinary times and getting the UK into a V shaped recovery is worth whatever it costs. The long term damage of anything else will out weigh whatever the short term costs of achieving the V shaped recovery.
    Well you know what I am like, I just do not buy the extraordinary times argument. We are always living in extraordinary times and have done for centuries, but I am not sure we have ever been presented with the economic circumstances we face now.
    So an economic period where suddenly we have to shut down 50% of the economy isn't extraordinary?
    We never had to shut down anything. We never have before, after all, no matter what the circumstances. The economy's collapsed before, true, but not at the government's order.

    We chose to shut the economy down.

    Actually we have. This has been pointed out to you many times but you keep ignoring it.

    Plagues have resulted in lockdowns before
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,147
    Without Googling, does anyone know what the White Death is?
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,071
    tlg86 said:

    Without Googling, does anyone know what the White Death is?

    Cocaine overdose?
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 13,974

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Stocky said:

    Charles said:

    kinabalu said:

    Charles said:

    The thing that some people clearly understand about economics and others clearly don't is that it is circulation that matters.

    Giving money to struggling businesses/individuals does absolutely nothing for the macro economy whatsoever as they cling on to that cash (and then continue to struggle if they're not getting anything circulated back to them).

    What is needed is to get money circulating again. That is why I have been calling for a VAT cut here for months. And I've been laughed at here saying we need tax cuts with replies like "yeah and I'd like a supermodel".

    Cutting VAT and similar issues on the struggling hospitality sectors will allow money to circulate more in those sectors - and allow businesses to cope with thicker margins on smaller volumes - thus saving the sector from a catastrophe and in the long-term the government will make more tax revenue despite temporarily lower taxes.

    Essentially adjusting for the time value of money the peak of the Laffer Curve has temporarily moved far to the left of the graph and the government needs to respond accordingly.

    Wasn't there an old song about the circulation of money? The lines "see the money flow, round the Barley Mow" float into my head but Google finds nothing.

    On its importance, see this Labour Party video. Boris is a fan!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_eJFb-r48Ys
    No one cut teachers salaries for exactly the reason in that film

    Not all government spending is productive or useful
    This is true. But government spends money more "wisely" than private individuals.
    You really believe that?

    Yes he does. He`s a collectivist. The rest of us see it the other way round.
    Well that's nice. I feel totally exposed now. Friendless and alone in the midst of the bustling crowd.
    Nobody can say categorically that either the public or private sectors spend money more efficiently. It depends on the circumstances. The public sector is able to look at the big picture and the public good, and spend on things where the social return outweighs any private benefit. But the private sector usually does a better job on cost effectiveness and avoiding waste (not always in large bureaucratic firms where managers are spending other people's money). Depending on what factor is most important for the matter at hand, either could be the wiser. Anyone who takes a black and white position on this is just posturing, or hasn't thought about it very seriously.
    A fair summary. On waste, though, I did see eye watering amounts of it in the City during my time. In the boom times hidden by revenues.
    Yes- from a perspective as a teacher in the state / academy sector, I wonder if the difference is more about the range than the average. Private enterprise can give super efficiency and effectiveness, but it can also lead to spectacular wasteful madness; remember boo.com, anyone? State systems tend to be more consistently average. You see the same thing when council schools become more business-like academies.

    So which is better? I'm willing to believe that, in terms of creating wealth and new stuff, a mixture of triumph and disaster is a smart plan; the wins pay for the losses overall. But that attitude of making multiple bets so that one or two come off is harder to apply to things that governments do, like health.

    The language used here to describe the initial UK Covid testing plan, feels out of place:

    https://twitter.com/JeremyCliffe/status/1281130560505688066?s=20
    I think if we are to progress, the state needs to embrace failure as an option. In many fields, the attempt to guarantee success before any change, leads to total stagnation.
    Sure. But the art is to make the experiments controlled, and failing as safely as possible as quickly as possible. Which is different to the situation in the private sector.

    If a commercial business goes wrong, investors lose money, and that's up to them.

    If an experiment in education, or public health, or defence goes wrong, the stakes are potentially much higher and the costs are borne by different people. You can't just chuck round big bets on red, because of the harm done to (effectively) bystanders when it comes up black.
  • Surely the option of tax rises on higher earners is out of the question for the Tories since they would be attacking most of their donors
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,916
    Mr. HYUFD, I am shocked to learn people support themselves receiving tax cuts and other people having to pay more in tax.

    Mr. 86, nickname of Nicephorus II Phocas: the White Death of the Saracens.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,739

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    MaxPB said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Charles said:

    The thing that some people clearly understand about economics and others clearly don't is that it is circulation that matters.

    Giving money to struggling businesses/individuals does absolutely nothing for the macro economy whatsoever as they cling on to that cash (and then continue to struggle if they're not getting anything circulated back to them).

    What is needed is to get money circulating again. That is why I have been calling for a VAT cut here for months. And I've been laughed at here saying we need tax cuts with replies like "yeah and I'd like a supermodel".

    Cutting VAT and similar issues on the struggling hospitality sectors will allow money to circulate more in those sectors - and allow businesses to cope with thicker margins on smaller volumes - thus saving the sector from a catastrophe and in the long-term the government will make more tax revenue despite temporarily lower taxes.

    Essentially adjusting for the time value of money the peak of the Laffer Curve has temporarily moved far to the left of the graph and the government needs to respond accordingly.

    Wasn't there an old song about the circulation of money? The lines "see the money flow, round the Barley Mow" float into my head but Google finds nothing.

    On its importance, see this Labour Party video. Boris is a fan!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_eJFb-r48Ys
    No one cut teachers salaries for exactly the reason in that film

    Not all government spending is productive or useful
    This is true. But government spends money more "wisely" than private individuals.
    My name is Boris Johnson and I have a garden bridge to sell you for £53m!
    Well that's another difficult example. But a more than balancing item on the other side -

    Fast Fashion. Large aggregate sums spent by people on cheap clothes made in sweat shops overseas. Transported over here with big carbon footprint, Worn twice and thrown away.
    A lot of the fast fashion brands use UK manufacturing, that's got a lot of issues too as the Times exposed over the weekend to the detriment of Boohoo.
    Yes, I saw that. Disturbing state of affairs.
    No, an inevitable state of affairs. Unless you change the preconditions.
    It involved law-breaking, I think?
    It's our old friend "selective law enforcement"

    You may remember I mentioned as relative in the building trade, the other day, who was told that illegal wages and conditions for foreign workers were (in effect) to be ignored?

    Same thing, I will bet.

    The sick joke is that it is minorities who end up being mis-treated.
    Suggestion being that the police don't go near for fear of being accused of racism?
    Not the police - think inspectors. Does anyone believe that the factories in question have never been inspected. That no complaints about minimum wage have ever been raised?

    There will be a policy of NFA in the system somewhere.

    The building thing was the building inspectors. We are talking about sites, where you could see health and safety being violated from across the road. In the fundamental setup of the site - not just people not wearing hard hats. As a start.

    When my relative suggested that the tax people take a look at cash in hand payment - blank wall. "No, we won't do that".

    It was made clear to him that illegal building work like that was tolerated as part of the "price" keeping the costs of domestic construction down. As policy.
    Yes, sorry, I did mean "police" in that broad sense. But I'm asking if you think there is a big racial angle - i.e. are the authorities turning blind eye because of the type of activity or because of who is engaged in it?
    Perhaps an element of that - but not in the positive sense. In fact, quite negative - the attitude is perhaps closer to seeing immigrant workers as more disposable and with less rights.

    Also a lot to do with not upsetting the apple cart. Double the price of digging a basement in parts of London and the Chatterati will be up in arms..... Push up prices in the clothing trade and I bet the owners will be onto their local politicians...
    Well my view is that if a business has to be dangerous and exploitative to be viable it isn't viable and should not be in business. Easier to say than to enforce, no doubt.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Charles said:

    Breaking 'the Right finding more stuff to get outraged about' news.

    https://twitter.com/FraserNelson/status/1281158449724887040?s=20

    It’s an odd thing to get upset about

    It is an artificial word chosen as the opposite of “blacklist” - which at least has some history.

    I think it’s silly that people get upset about the word as it clearly isn’t racist. But if they do, then find a new word (how about “Safelist”). No biggie.
    I hadn't known of the existence of the word 'whitelist' until I saw that tweet so am somewhat behind the curve at being upset at its banning.
    Same here. Never heard of it. So a choice now. I can mug up on it, maybe use it a few times, and then drop it under protest of "cancel culture". Or I can just not bother. Second seems more efficient but I do have time on my hands today.
    Obviously on its own its not a problem, its in the context of how much of our language re-enforces white as good and black as bad.

    Just off the top of my head

    White magic v Black magic
    White witch
    White lies
    Black sheep
    Blackball
    Blackmail
    Black mark
    Black death

    Even for new words like white hat hacker it is just assumed that white is good.

    Is it really so difficult to understand that if your group is treated negatively by society, then having language that re-enforces sub conscious biases isnt helpful?
    Totally agree. Language is very important.
    Indeed I agree 100%. It's easy to say allowlist and blocklist.

    But please no rewriting of Star Wars. No idea what would happen to James Spader's TV show either ... Though he will always be the original Doctor Daniel Jackson to me anyway.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,600

    Surely the option of tax rises on higher earners is out of the question for the Tories since they would be attacking most of their donors

    Correct, so they will just borrow more.

    It will take a Starmer Government for big tax increases to occur
  • HYUFD said:

    Surely the option of tax rises on higher earners is out of the question for the Tories since they would be attacking most of their donors

    Correct, so they will just borrow more.

    It will take a Starmer Government for big tax increases to occur
    How can we just borrow more when we have been told for over a decade there is no magic money tree and it will be for our grandchildren to pay back?

    You're now supportive of unlimited spending, i.e. you're a Labour 2019 supporter are you?
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 43,330
    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    MaxPB said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Charles said:

    The thing that some people clearly understand about economics and others clearly don't is that it is circulation that matters.

    Giving money to struggling businesses/individuals does absolutely nothing for the macro economy whatsoever as they cling on to that cash (and then continue to struggle if they're not getting anything circulated back to them).

    What is needed is to get money circulating again. That is why I have been calling for a VAT cut here for months. And I've been laughed at here saying we need tax cuts with replies like "yeah and I'd like a supermodel".

    Cutting VAT and similar issues on the struggling hospitality sectors will allow money to circulate more in those sectors - and allow businesses to cope with thicker margins on smaller volumes - thus saving the sector from a catastrophe and in the long-term the government will make more tax revenue despite temporarily lower taxes.

    Essentially adjusting for the time value of money the peak of the Laffer Curve has temporarily moved far to the left of the graph and the government needs to respond accordingly.

    Wasn't there an old song about the circulation of money? The lines "see the money flow, round the Barley Mow" float into my head but Google finds nothing.

    On its importance, see this Labour Party video. Boris is a fan!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_eJFb-r48Ys
    No one cut teachers salaries for exactly the reason in that film

    Not all government spending is productive or useful
    This is true. But government spends money more "wisely" than private individuals.
    My name is Boris Johnson and I have a garden bridge to sell you for £53m!
    Well that's another difficult example. But a more than balancing item on the other side -

    Fast Fashion. Large aggregate sums spent by people on cheap clothes made in sweat shops overseas. Transported over here with big carbon footprint, Worn twice and thrown away.
    A lot of the fast fashion brands use UK manufacturing, that's got a lot of issues too as the Times exposed over the weekend to the detriment of Boohoo.
    Yes, I saw that. Disturbing state of affairs.
    No, an inevitable state of affairs. Unless you change the preconditions.
    It involved law-breaking, I think?
    It's our old friend "selective law enforcement"

    You may remember I mentioned as relative in the building trade, the other day, who was told that illegal wages and conditions for foreign workers were (in effect) to be ignored?

    Same thing, I will bet.

    The sick joke is that it is minorities who end up being mis-treated.
    Suggestion being that the police don't go near for fear of being accused of racism?
    Not the police - think inspectors. Does anyone believe that the factories in question have never been inspected. That no complaints about minimum wage have ever been raised?

    There will be a policy of NFA in the system somewhere.

    The building thing was the building inspectors. We are talking about sites, where you could see health and safety being violated from across the road. In the fundamental setup of the site - not just people not wearing hard hats. As a start.

    When my relative suggested that the tax people take a look at cash in hand payment - blank wall. "No, we won't do that".

    It was made clear to him that illegal building work like that was tolerated as part of the "price" keeping the costs of domestic construction down. As policy.
    Yes, sorry, I did mean "police" in that broad sense. But I'm asking if you think there is a big racial angle - i.e. are the authorities turning blind eye because of the type of activity or because of who is engaged in it?
    Perhaps an element of that - but not in the positive sense. In fact, quite negative - the attitude is perhaps closer to seeing immigrant workers as more disposable and with less rights.

    Also a lot to do with not upsetting the apple cart. Double the price of digging a basement in parts of London and the Chatterati will be up in arms..... Push up prices in the clothing trade and I bet the owners will be onto their local politicians...
    Well my view is that if a business has to be dangerous and exploitative to be viable it isn't viable and should not be in business. Easier to say than to enforce, no doubt.
    Very true. The excuses are just that.

    But you would be attacked, savagely, for doing so.
  • In a sense, Labour is basically back to 2017 support which is unsurprising - but right now 40% seems to be their ceiling
  • contrariancontrarian Posts: 5,818

    Surely the option of tax rises on higher earners is out of the question for the Tories since they would be attacking most of their donors

    There are precisely no options for Sunak. The super rich never pay more tax, ever. Surely the fact every attempt to get them to do so since the war has failed would be the clinching argument there.

    The poor cannot pay more because their marginal tax rates are already high.

    Which essentially leave the bedrock of property owning tory voters in middle England.

    To say Sunak's options are unpalatable would be a big understatement.
  • Labour has the technical ability to get 43% of the vote as Blair achieved - unlikely Starmer can do that though
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,147

    tlg86 said:

    Without Googling, does anyone know what the White Death is?

    Cocaine overdose?
    I like your thinking.

    Mr. HYUFD, I am shocked to learn people support themselves receiving tax cuts and other people having to pay more in tax.

    Mr. 86, nickname of Nicephorus II Phocas: the White Death of the Saracens.

    Okay, him too.

    No, as well as consumption, tuberculosis was also known as the white death or white plague.
  • Surely the option of tax rises on higher earners is out of the question for the Tories since they would be attacking most of their donors

    There are precisely no options for Sunak. The super rich never pay more tax, ever. Surely the fact every attempt to get them to do so since the war has failed would be the clinching argument there.

    The poor cannot pay more because their marginal tax rates are already high.

    Which essentially leave the bedrock of property owning tory voters in middle England.

    To say Sunak's options are unpalatable would be a big understatement.
    Really been enjoying your posts of late - agreed with all of them.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,071

    In a sense, Labour is basically back to 2017 support which is unsurprising - but right now 40% seems to be their ceiling

    Which is fine, because ultimately any Brexit deal Boris may come up with will upset an element of Tory support.
  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 7,981
    HYUFD said:

    Surely the option of tax rises on higher earners is out of the question for the Tories since they would be attacking most of their donors

    Correct, so they will just borrow more.

    It will take a Starmer Government for big tax increases to occur
    Well, your lot have currently been spending at levels that would make devout Marxists blush. The previously unthinkable of taxing the rich "... until the pips squeak" should not be beyond them

  • eekeek Posts: 24,698

    Labour has the technical ability to get 43% of the vote as Blair achieved - unlikely Starmer can do that though

    A bigger issue is that even if Labour did the constituencies now work against them in same way they worked for Blair in 97.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 38,957
    tlg86 said:

    Without Googling, does anyone know what the White Death is?

    Pulmonary TB, I believe.
  • contrariancontrarian Posts: 5,818
    I've just read the extraordinary claim b a serious journalist that Sunak is battling to avoid a 'permanent Milibandite settlement' taking hold in the future.

    Who imposed that settlement? Sunak.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    HYUFD said:

    Surely the option of tax rises on higher earners is out of the question for the Tories since they would be attacking most of their donors

    Correct, so they will just borrow more.

    It will take a Starmer Government for big tax increases to occur
    How can we just borrow more when we have been told for over a decade there is no magic money tree and it will be for our grandchildren to pay back?

    You're now supportive of unlimited spending, i.e. you're a Labour 2019 supporter are you?
    Because there is a difference between borrowing countercyclically during a recession and doing so while the country is growing.

    Pick up an economic textbook and look up Keynes. It's what the left used to claim to believe in.

    Any other questions?
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 7,483
    HYUFD said:
    If 5% of the population understood anything about this issue I’d be amazed.
  • BluestBlueBluestBlue Posts: 4,556

    kinabalu said:

    Charles said:

    Breaking 'the Right finding more stuff to get outraged about' news.

    https://twitter.com/FraserNelson/status/1281158449724887040?s=20

    It’s an odd thing to get upset about

    It is an artificial word chosen as the opposite of “blacklist” - which at least has some history.

    I think it’s silly that people get upset about the word as it clearly isn’t racist. But if they do, then find a new word (how about “Safelist”). No biggie.
    I hadn't known of the existence of the word 'whitelist' until I saw that tweet so am somewhat behind the curve at being upset at its banning.
    Same here. Never heard of it. So a choice now. I can mug up on it, maybe use it a few times, and then drop it under protest of "cancel culture". Or I can just not bother. Second seems more efficient but I do have time on my hands today.
    Obviously on its own its not a problem, its in the context of how much of our language re-enforces white as good and black as bad.

    Just off the top of my head

    White magic v Black magic
    White witch
    White lies
    Black sheep
    Blackball
    Blackmail
    Black mark
    Black death

    Even for new words like white hat hacker it is just assumed that white is good.

    Is it really so difficult to understand that if your group is treated negatively by society, then having language that re-enforces sub conscious biases isnt helpful?
    So ... what? We should rewrite our entire language - even including historical terms such as the Black Death, ffs! - just to appease the irrational obsessions of some perpetually-offended snowflakes? Thanks, but no thanks.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 38,957

    Charles said:

    Breaking 'the Right finding more stuff to get outraged about' news.

    https://twitter.com/FraserNelson/status/1281158449724887040?s=20

    It’s an odd thing to get upset about

    It is an artificial word chosen as the opposite of “blacklist” - which at least has some history.

    I think it’s silly that people get upset about the word as it clearly isn’t racist. But if they do, then find a new word (how about “Safelist”). No biggie.
    I hadn't known of the existence of the word 'whitelist' until I saw that tweet so am somewhat behind the curve at being upset at its banning.
    Pretty common in the IT systems world.
    Wait until people hear about "male" and "female" cable connections.
    An old woodworking/carpentry term (though, as IIRC we discussed before, the male/female/hermaphrodite tanks of the Great War were gendered or rather sexed on a rather different anatomical basis).
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 20,359

    I've just read the extraordinary claim b a serious journalist that Sunak is battling to avoid a 'permanent Milibandite settlement' taking hold in the future.

    Who imposed that settlement? Sunak.

    With a discussion on words to avoid, do we really need "Milibandite"? Sounds horrible (referring to how it sounds not fans of Miliband) and not even clear if its pro Ed or Dave (guess Ed).
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 39,692
    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    Without Googling, does anyone know what the White Death is?

    Cocaine overdose?
    I like your thinking.

    Mr. HYUFD, I am shocked to learn people support themselves receiving tax cuts and other people having to pay more in tax.

    Mr. 86, nickname of Nicephorus II Phocas: the White Death of the Saracens.

    Okay, him too.

    No, as well as consumption, tuberculosis was also known as the white death or white plague.
    Also Simo Häyhä.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simo_Häyhä

    I'd imagine the adjective 'White' would have pretty negative historical connotations for the Red Army/SU.
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 5,578
    Here we go again - it's not just your views but also your partners' views

    https://nypost.com/2020/07/08/jodie-comer-canceled-over-supposed-trump-supporting-boyfriend/

    "The 27-year-old is facing “cancel” cries online after social media users discovered she’s possibly dating a Republican who supports President Trump. This comes amid her vocal support for several progressive causes, such as Black Lives Matter and Pride.

    Twitter sleuths linked the actress, who plays a queer woman on “Killing Eve,” to a man named James Burke after paparazzi photos surfaced of her sitting outdoors with a mystery man. A man by that name is a registered Republican. However, it’s not evidently clear how Burke’s name was discovered, or why some Twitter users are sure that the person Comer is allegedly dating is the same Burke they’ve discovered with right-leaning political affiliations."
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    kinabalu said:

    Charles said:

    Breaking 'the Right finding more stuff to get outraged about' news.

    https://twitter.com/FraserNelson/status/1281158449724887040?s=20

    It’s an odd thing to get upset about

    It is an artificial word chosen as the opposite of “blacklist” - which at least has some history.

    I think it’s silly that people get upset about the word as it clearly isn’t racist. But if they do, then find a new word (how about “Safelist”). No biggie.
    I hadn't known of the existence of the word 'whitelist' until I saw that tweet so am somewhat behind the curve at being upset at its banning.
    Same here. Never heard of it. So a choice now. I can mug up on it, maybe use it a few times, and then drop it under protest of "cancel culture". Or I can just not bother. Second seems more efficient but I do have time on my hands today.
    Obviously on its own its not a problem, its in the context of how much of our language re-enforces white as good and black as bad.

    Just off the top of my head

    White magic v Black magic
    White witch
    White lies
    Black sheep
    Blackball
    Blackmail
    Black mark
    Black death

    Even for new words like white hat hacker it is just assumed that white is good.

    Is it really so difficult to understand that if your group is treated negatively by society, then having language that re-enforces sub conscious biases isnt helpful?
    So ... what? We should rewrite our entire language - even including historical terms such as the Black Death, ffs! - just to appease the irrational obsessions of some perpetually-offended snowflakes? Thanks, but no thanks.
    Why not?

    We don't need to rewrite our language just going forwards cease to use white to mean good and black to mean bad.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,788
    edited July 2020
    An annual wealth tax of 0.6% of all UK held assets to replace IT wouldn't be a terrible idea. If the USA is able to maybe get their billionaire tax in in Biden's first term it could look more attractive for elsewhere to do so too.
    I'm basing the 0.6% off of the Duke of Westminster's trust arrangements in case anyone is wondering.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,071

    kinabalu said:

    Charles said:

    Breaking 'the Right finding more stuff to get outraged about' news.

    https://twitter.com/FraserNelson/status/1281158449724887040?s=20

    It’s an odd thing to get upset about

    It is an artificial word chosen as the opposite of “blacklist” - which at least has some history.

    I think it’s silly that people get upset about the word as it clearly isn’t racist. But if they do, then find a new word (how about “Safelist”). No biggie.
    I hadn't known of the existence of the word 'whitelist' until I saw that tweet so am somewhat behind the curve at being upset at its banning.
    Same here. Never heard of it. So a choice now. I can mug up on it, maybe use it a few times, and then drop it under protest of "cancel culture". Or I can just not bother. Second seems more efficient but I do have time on my hands today.
    Obviously on its own its not a problem, its in the context of how much of our language re-enforces white as good and black as bad.

    Just off the top of my head

    White magic v Black magic
    White witch
    White lies
    Black sheep
    Blackball
    Blackmail
    Black mark
    Black death

    Even for new words like white hat hacker it is just assumed that white is good.

    Is it really so difficult to understand that if your group is treated negatively by society, then having language that re-enforces sub conscious biases isnt helpful?
    So ... what? We should rewrite our entire language - even including historical terms such as the Black Death, ffs! - just to appease the irrational obsessions of some perpetually-offended snowflakes? Thanks, but no thanks.
    Nobody is suggesting we rewrite our entire language including historical terms. Just some terms that are in daily usage are being phased out in favour of better ones. If that upsets you, then I suggest that you are the snowflake.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 20,359
    edited July 2020

    kinabalu said:

    Charles said:

    Breaking 'the Right finding more stuff to get outraged about' news.

    https://twitter.com/FraserNelson/status/1281158449724887040?s=20

    It’s an odd thing to get upset about

    It is an artificial word chosen as the opposite of “blacklist” - which at least has some history.

    I think it’s silly that people get upset about the word as it clearly isn’t racist. But if they do, then find a new word (how about “Safelist”). No biggie.
    I hadn't known of the existence of the word 'whitelist' until I saw that tweet so am somewhat behind the curve at being upset at its banning.
    Same here. Never heard of it. So a choice now. I can mug up on it, maybe use it a few times, and then drop it under protest of "cancel culture". Or I can just not bother. Second seems more efficient but I do have time on my hands today.
    Obviously on its own its not a problem, its in the context of how much of our language re-enforces white as good and black as bad.

    Just off the top of my head

    White magic v Black magic
    White witch
    White lies
    Black sheep
    Blackball
    Blackmail
    Black mark
    Black death

    Even for new words like white hat hacker it is just assumed that white is good.

    Is it really so difficult to understand that if your group is treated negatively by society, then having language that re-enforces sub conscious biases isnt helpful?
    So ... what? We should rewrite our entire language - even including historical terms such as the Black Death, ffs! - just to appease the irrational obsessions of some perpetually-offended snowflakes? Thanks, but no thanks.
    Well someone in the 18th century decided to rename Bubonic Plague/Great Mortality/Great Death as Black Death......whats to stop the 21st century choosing a name that fits our times?

    Black Death was not a term used by the people of the time.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,071
    Pulpstar said:

    An annual wealth tax of 0.6% of all UK held assets to replace IT wouldn't be a terrible idea. If the USA is able to maybe get their billionaire tax in in Biden's first term it could look more attractive for elsewhere to do so too.
    I'm basing the 0.6% off of the Duke of Westminster's trust arrangements in case anyone is wondering.

    Could you explain what you mean regarding the 0.6% and the Duke of Westminster's trust arrangements please?
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,650

    kinabalu said:

    Charles said:

    Breaking 'the Right finding more stuff to get outraged about' news.

    https://twitter.com/FraserNelson/status/1281158449724887040?s=20

    It’s an odd thing to get upset about

    It is an artificial word chosen as the opposite of “blacklist” - which at least has some history.

    I think it’s silly that people get upset about the word as it clearly isn’t racist. But if they do, then find a new word (how about “Safelist”). No biggie.
    I hadn't known of the existence of the word 'whitelist' until I saw that tweet so am somewhat behind the curve at being upset at its banning.
    Same here. Never heard of it. So a choice now. I can mug up on it, maybe use it a few times, and then drop it under protest of "cancel culture". Or I can just not bother. Second seems more efficient but I do have time on my hands today.
    Obviously on its own its not a problem, its in the context of how much of our language re-enforces white as good and black as bad.

    Just off the top of my head

    White magic v Black magic
    White witch
    White lies
    Black sheep
    Blackball
    Blackmail
    Black mark
    Black death

    Even for new words like white hat hacker it is just assumed that white is good.

    Is it really so difficult to understand that if your group is treated negatively by society, then having language that re-enforces sub conscious biases isnt helpful?
    So ... what? We should rewrite our entire language - even including historical terms such as the Black Death, ffs! - just to appease the irrational obsessions of some perpetually-offended snowflakes? Thanks, but no thanks.
    Why not?

    We don't need to rewrite our language just going forwards cease to use white to mean good and black to mean bad.
    So you'd just wave the white flag?
  • BluestBlueBluestBlue Posts: 4,556

    kinabalu said:

    Charles said:

    Breaking 'the Right finding more stuff to get outraged about' news.

    https://twitter.com/FraserNelson/status/1281158449724887040?s=20

    It’s an odd thing to get upset about

    It is an artificial word chosen as the opposite of “blacklist” - which at least has some history.

    I think it’s silly that people get upset about the word as it clearly isn’t racist. But if they do, then find a new word (how about “Safelist”). No biggie.
    I hadn't known of the existence of the word 'whitelist' until I saw that tweet so am somewhat behind the curve at being upset at its banning.
    Same here. Never heard of it. So a choice now. I can mug up on it, maybe use it a few times, and then drop it under protest of "cancel culture". Or I can just not bother. Second seems more efficient but I do have time on my hands today.
    Obviously on its own its not a problem, its in the context of how much of our language re-enforces white as good and black as bad.

    Just off the top of my head

    White magic v Black magic
    White witch
    White lies
    Black sheep
    Blackball
    Blackmail
    Black mark
    Black death

    Even for new words like white hat hacker it is just assumed that white is good.

    Is it really so difficult to understand that if your group is treated negatively by society, then having language that re-enforces sub conscious biases isnt helpful?
    So ... what? We should rewrite our entire language - even including historical terms such as the Black Death, ffs! - just to appease the irrational obsessions of some perpetually-offended snowflakes? Thanks, but no thanks.
    Nobody is suggesting we rewrite our entire language including historical terms. Just some terms that are in daily usage are being phased out in favour of better ones. If that upsets you, then I suggest that you are the snowflake.
    Which would be as incorrect as the rest of your laughable suggestions. There is no right not to be offended.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 20,359
    edited July 2020
    MrEd said:

    Here we go again - it's not just your views but also your partners' views

    https://nypost.com/2020/07/08/jodie-comer-canceled-over-supposed-trump-supporting-boyfriend/

    "The 27-year-old is facing “cancel” cries online after social media users discovered she’s possibly dating a Republican who supports President Trump. This comes amid her vocal support for several progressive causes, such as Black Lives Matter and Pride.

    Twitter sleuths linked the actress, who plays a queer woman on “Killing Eve,” to a man named James Burke after paparazzi photos surfaced of her sitting outdoors with a mystery man. A man by that name is a registered Republican. However, it’s not evidently clear how Burke’s name was discovered, or why some Twitter users are sure that the person Comer is allegedly dating is the same Burke they’ve discovered with right-leaning political affiliations."

    How exactly has she been cancelled? Lost her job? Cant get another? No, its a couple of idiots on twitter who know one has ever heard of dont like her anymore, big deal.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,739

    kinabalu said:

    Charles said:

    Breaking 'the Right finding more stuff to get outraged about' news.

    https://twitter.com/FraserNelson/status/1281158449724887040?s=20

    It’s an odd thing to get upset about

    It is an artificial word chosen as the opposite of “blacklist” - which at least has some history.

    I think it’s silly that people get upset about the word as it clearly isn’t racist. But if they do, then find a new word (how about “Safelist”). No biggie.
    I hadn't known of the existence of the word 'whitelist' until I saw that tweet so am somewhat behind the curve at being upset at its banning.
    Same here. Never heard of it. So a choice now. I can mug up on it, maybe use it a few times, and then drop it under protest of "cancel culture". Or I can just not bother. Second seems more efficient but I do have time on my hands today.
    Obviously on its own its not a problem, its in the context of how much of our language re-enforces white as good and black as bad.

    Just off the top of my head

    White magic v Black magic
    White witch
    White lies
    Black sheep
    Blackball
    Blackmail
    Black mark
    Black death

    Even for new words like white hat hacker it is just assumed that white is good.

    Is it really so difficult to understand that if your group is treated negatively by society, then having language that re-enforces sub conscious biases isnt helpful?
    So ... what? We should rewrite our entire language - even including historical terms such as the Black Death, ffs! - just to appease the irrational obsessions of some perpetually-offended snowflakes? Thanks, but no thanks.
    Language evolves, me old china.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 10,224
    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Charles said:

    Breaking 'the Right finding more stuff to get outraged about' news.

    https://twitter.com/FraserNelson/status/1281158449724887040?s=20

    It’s an odd thing to get upset about

    It is an artificial word chosen as the opposite of “blacklist” - which at least has some history.

    I think it’s silly that people get upset about the word as it clearly isn’t racist. But if they do, then find a new word (how about “Safelist”). No biggie.
    I hadn't known of the existence of the word 'whitelist' until I saw that tweet so am somewhat behind the curve at being upset at its banning.
    Same here. Never heard of it. So a choice now. I can mug up on it, maybe use it a few times, and then drop it under protest of "cancel culture". Or I can just not bother. Second seems more efficient but I do have time on my hands today.
    Obviously on its own its not a problem, its in the context of how much of our language re-enforces white as good and black as bad.

    Just off the top of my head

    White magic v Black magic
    White witch
    White lies
    Black sheep
    Blackball
    Blackmail
    Black mark
    Black death

    Even for new words like white hat hacker it is just assumed that white is good.

    Is it really so difficult to understand that if your group is treated negatively by society, then having language that re-enforces sub conscious biases isnt helpful?
    Totally agree. Language is very important.
    Though I would hazard a guess that the origins of uses of white and black as being respectively goodish and baddish bear little relation historically to skin colour or ethnicity. They are much more likely to derive from the transparency and luminosity of day as compared with the hiddenness and danger of night.

    There is, BTW, the same problem for left handers. Dextra/right v sinistra/left. No contest when it comes to ambience and tone. Sinistra (Latin for left) sounds like a Mafia family to me.

  • BluestBlueBluestBlue Posts: 4,556
    edited July 2020

    kinabalu said:

    Charles said:

    Breaking 'the Right finding more stuff to get outraged about' news.

    https://twitter.com/FraserNelson/status/1281158449724887040?s=20

    It’s an odd thing to get upset about

    It is an artificial word chosen as the opposite of “blacklist” - which at least has some history.

    I think it’s silly that people get upset about the word as it clearly isn’t racist. But if they do, then find a new word (how about “Safelist”). No biggie.
    I hadn't known of the existence of the word 'whitelist' until I saw that tweet so am somewhat behind the curve at being upset at its banning.
    Same here. Never heard of it. So a choice now. I can mug up on it, maybe use it a few times, and then drop it under protest of "cancel culture". Or I can just not bother. Second seems more efficient but I do have time on my hands today.
    Obviously on its own its not a problem, its in the context of how much of our language re-enforces white as good and black as bad.

    Just off the top of my head

    White magic v Black magic
    White witch
    White lies
    Black sheep
    Blackball
    Blackmail
    Black mark
    Black death

    Even for new words like white hat hacker it is just assumed that white is good.

    Is it really so difficult to understand that if your group is treated negatively by society, then having language that re-enforces sub conscious biases isnt helpful?
    So ... what? We should rewrite our entire language - even including historical terms such as the Black Death, ffs! - just to appease the irrational obsessions of some perpetually-offended snowflakes? Thanks, but no thanks.
    Why not?

    We don't need to rewrite our language just going forwards cease to use white to mean good and black to mean bad.
    So you'd just wave the white flag?
    Perhaps we should send some white feathers to these lily-livered cultural cowards?
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,071
    edited July 2020

    kinabalu said:

    Charles said:

    Breaking 'the Right finding more stuff to get outraged about' news.

    https://twitter.com/FraserNelson/status/1281158449724887040?s=20

    It’s an odd thing to get upset about

    It is an artificial word chosen as the opposite of “blacklist” - which at least has some history.

    I think it’s silly that people get upset about the word as it clearly isn’t racist. But if they do, then find a new word (how about “Safelist”). No biggie.
    I hadn't known of the existence of the word 'whitelist' until I saw that tweet so am somewhat behind the curve at being upset at its banning.
    Same here. Never heard of it. So a choice now. I can mug up on it, maybe use it a few times, and then drop it under protest of "cancel culture". Or I can just not bother. Second seems more efficient but I do have time on my hands today.
    Obviously on its own its not a problem, its in the context of how much of our language re-enforces white as good and black as bad.

    Just off the top of my head

    White magic v Black magic
    White witch
    White lies
    Black sheep
    Blackball
    Blackmail
    Black mark
    Black death

    Even for new words like white hat hacker it is just assumed that white is good.

    Is it really so difficult to understand that if your group is treated negatively by society, then having language that re-enforces sub conscious biases isnt helpful?
    So ... what? We should rewrite our entire language - even including historical terms such as the Black Death, ffs! - just to appease the irrational obsessions of some perpetually-offended snowflakes? Thanks, but no thanks.
    Nobody is suggesting we rewrite our entire language including historical terms. Just some terms that are in daily usage are being phased out in favour of better ones. If that upsets you, then I suggest that you are the snowflake.
    Which would be as incorrect as the rest of your laughable suggestions. There is no right not to be offended.
    Nobody is saying there is a right not to be offended.

    There is however a common understanding amongst civilised people that they should be polite, and not deliberately rude.

    You seem to be want to be rude to prove a point. That makes you a dick.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 19,335
    MrEd said:

    Here we go again - it's not just your views but also your partners' views

    https://nypost.com/2020/07/08/jodie-comer-canceled-over-supposed-trump-supporting-boyfriend/

    "The 27-year-old is facing “cancel” cries online after social media users discovered she’s possibly dating a Republican who supports President Trump. This comes amid her vocal support for several progressive causes, such as Black Lives Matter and Pride.

    Twitter sleuths linked the actress, who plays a queer woman on “Killing Eve,” to a man named James Burke after paparazzi photos surfaced of her sitting outdoors with a mystery man. A man by that name is a registered Republican. However, it’s not evidently clear how Burke’s name was discovered, or why some Twitter users are sure that the person Comer is allegedly dating is the same Burke they’ve discovered with right-leaning political affiliations."

    Do rightwing people now spend all their waking hours trawling the internet to find something else to get outraged about? That's the impression one gets from this forum. Perhaps it's not typical, dunno.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,071
    @BluestBlue is probably the type who thinks golliwogs are fine because of "culture" or some other laughable justification.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,739
    algarkirk said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Charles said:

    Breaking 'the Right finding more stuff to get outraged about' news.

    https://twitter.com/FraserNelson/status/1281158449724887040?s=20

    It’s an odd thing to get upset about

    It is an artificial word chosen as the opposite of “blacklist” - which at least has some history.

    I think it’s silly that people get upset about the word as it clearly isn’t racist. But if they do, then find a new word (how about “Safelist”). No biggie.
    I hadn't known of the existence of the word 'whitelist' until I saw that tweet so am somewhat behind the curve at being upset at its banning.
    Same here. Never heard of it. So a choice now. I can mug up on it, maybe use it a few times, and then drop it under protest of "cancel culture". Or I can just not bother. Second seems more efficient but I do have time on my hands today.
    Obviously on its own its not a problem, its in the context of how much of our language re-enforces white as good and black as bad.

    Just off the top of my head

    White magic v Black magic
    White witch
    White lies
    Black sheep
    Blackball
    Blackmail
    Black mark
    Black death

    Even for new words like white hat hacker it is just assumed that white is good.

    Is it really so difficult to understand that if your group is treated negatively by society, then having language that re-enforces sub conscious biases isnt helpful?
    Totally agree. Language is very important.
    Though I would hazard a guess that the origins of uses of white and black as being respectively goodish and baddish bear little relation historically to skin colour or ethnicity. They are much more likely to derive from the transparency and luminosity of day as compared with the hiddenness and danger of night.

    There is, BTW, the same problem for left handers. Dextra/right v sinistra/left. No contest when it comes to ambience and tone. Sinistra (Latin for left) sounds like a Mafia family to me.
    Yes. There used to be quite a stigma to being a lefty.
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 7,418

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Stocky said:

    Charles said:

    kinabalu said:

    Charles said:

    The thing that some people clearly understand about economics and others clearly don't is that it is circulation that matters.

    Giving money to struggling businesses/individuals does absolutely nothing for the macro economy whatsoever as they cling on to that cash (and then continue to struggle if they're not getting anything circulated back to them).

    What is needed is to get money circulating again. That is why I have been calling for a VAT cut here for months. And I've been laughed at here saying we need tax cuts with replies like "yeah and I'd like a supermodel".

    Cutting VAT and similar issues on the struggling hospitality sectors will allow money to circulate more in those sectors - and allow businesses to cope with thicker margins on smaller volumes - thus saving the sector from a catastrophe and in the long-term the government will make more tax revenue despite temporarily lower taxes.

    Essentially adjusting for the time value of money the peak of the Laffer Curve has temporarily moved far to the left of the graph and the government needs to respond accordingly.

    Wasn't there an old song about the circulation of money? The lines "see the money flow, round the Barley Mow" float into my head but Google finds nothing.

    On its importance, see this Labour Party video. Boris is a fan!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_eJFb-r48Ys
    No one cut teachers salaries for exactly the reason in that film

    Not all government spending is productive or useful
    This is true. But government spends money more "wisely" than private individuals.
    You really believe that?

    Yes he does. He`s a collectivist. The rest of us see it the other way round.
    Well that's nice. I feel totally exposed now. Friendless and alone in the midst of the bustling crowd.
    Nobody can say categorically that either the public or private sectors spend money more efficiently. It depends on the circumstances. The public sector is able to look at the big picture and the public good, and spend on things where the social return outweighs any private benefit. But the private sector usually does a better job on cost effectiveness and avoiding waste (not always in large bureaucratic firms where managers are spending other people's money). Depending on what factor is most important for the matter at hand, either could be the wiser. Anyone who takes a black and white position on this is just posturing, or hasn't thought about it very seriously.
    A fair summary. On waste, though, I did see eye watering amounts of it in the City during my time. In the boom times hidden by revenues.
    Yes- from a perspective as a teacher in the state / academy sector, I wonder if the difference is more about the range than the average. Private enterprise can give super efficiency and effectiveness, but it can also lead to spectacular wasteful madness; remember boo.com, anyone? State systems tend to be more consistently average. You see the same thing when council schools become more business-like academies.

    So which is better? I'm willing to believe that, in terms of creating wealth and new stuff, a mixture of triumph and disaster is a smart plan; the wins pay for the losses overall. But that attitude of making multiple bets so that one or two come off is harder to apply to things that governments do, like health.

    The language used here to describe the initial UK Covid testing plan, feels out of place:

    https://twitter.com/JeremyCliffe/status/1281130560505688066?s=20
    I think if we are to progress, the state needs to embrace failure as an option. In many fields, the attempt to guarantee success before any change, leads to total stagnation.
    You have a rose-tinted view of the private sector. One feature of the failure of large corporations in recent years is that the owners and directors seem to walk away with fairly large bank balances, fuelled by ridiculous salaries and bonuses. Corporate failure doesn't equate to personal privation, usually.

    And in the state sector, failure often has consequences. As an example, not many headteachers or college principals who fail an Ofsted inspection survive in their jobs.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 20,359

    MrEd said:

    Here we go again - it's not just your views but also your partners' views

    https://nypost.com/2020/07/08/jodie-comer-canceled-over-supposed-trump-supporting-boyfriend/

    "The 27-year-old is facing “cancel” cries online after social media users discovered she’s possibly dating a Republican who supports President Trump. This comes amid her vocal support for several progressive causes, such as Black Lives Matter and Pride.

    Twitter sleuths linked the actress, who plays a queer woman on “Killing Eve,” to a man named James Burke after paparazzi photos surfaced of her sitting outdoors with a mystery man. A man by that name is a registered Republican. However, it’s not evidently clear how Burke’s name was discovered, or why some Twitter users are sure that the person Comer is allegedly dating is the same Burke they’ve discovered with right-leaning political affiliations."

    Do rightwing people now spend all their waking hours trawling the internet to find something else to get outraged about? That's the impression one gets from this forum. Perhaps it's not typical, dunno.
    Indeed and then they call others snowflakes! Quite incredible.
  • BluestBlueBluestBlue Posts: 4,556

    kinabalu said:

    Charles said:

    Breaking 'the Right finding more stuff to get outraged about' news.

    https://twitter.com/FraserNelson/status/1281158449724887040?s=20

    It’s an odd thing to get upset about

    It is an artificial word chosen as the opposite of “blacklist” - which at least has some history.

    I think it’s silly that people get upset about the word as it clearly isn’t racist. But if they do, then find a new word (how about “Safelist”). No biggie.
    I hadn't known of the existence of the word 'whitelist' until I saw that tweet so am somewhat behind the curve at being upset at its banning.
    Same here. Never heard of it. So a choice now. I can mug up on it, maybe use it a few times, and then drop it under protest of "cancel culture". Or I can just not bother. Second seems more efficient but I do have time on my hands today.
    Obviously on its own its not a problem, its in the context of how much of our language re-enforces white as good and black as bad.

    Just off the top of my head

    White magic v Black magic
    White witch
    White lies
    Black sheep
    Blackball
    Blackmail
    Black mark
    Black death

    Even for new words like white hat hacker it is just assumed that white is good.

    Is it really so difficult to understand that if your group is treated negatively by society, then having language that re-enforces sub conscious biases isnt helpful?
    So ... what? We should rewrite our entire language - even including historical terms such as the Black Death, ffs! - just to appease the irrational obsessions of some perpetually-offended snowflakes? Thanks, but no thanks.
    Nobody is suggesting we rewrite our entire language including historical terms. Just some terms that are in daily usage are being phased out in favour of better ones. If that upsets you, then I suggest that you are the snowflake.
    Which would be as incorrect as the rest of your laughable suggestions. There is no right not to be offended.
    Nobody is saying there is a right not to be offended.

    There is however a common understanding amongst civilised people that they should be polite, and not deliberately rude.

    You seem to be want to be rude to prove a point. That makes you a dick.
    There is also a common understanding that ordinary language should not be effaced when its usage is - as you say - not deliberately rude: 'whitelist' is a good example of precisely that. You'll only find that rude or offensive if you are actively seeking to be offended.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,600
    edited July 2020

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Stocky said:

    Charles said:

    kinabalu said:

    Charles said:

    The thing that some people clearly understand about economics and others clearly don't is that it is circulation that matters.

    Giving money to struggling businesses/individuals does absolutely nothing for the macro economy whatsoever as they cling on to that cash (and then continue to struggle if they're not getting anything circulated back to them).

    What is needed is to get money circulating again. That is why I have been calling for a VAT cut here for months. And I've been laughed at here saying we need tax cuts with replies like "yeah and I'd like a supermodel".

    Cutting VAT and similar issues on the struggling hospitality sectors will allow money to circulate more in those sectors - and allow businesses to cope with thicker margins on smaller volumes - thus saving the sector from a catastrophe and in the long-term the government will make more tax revenue despite temporarily lower taxes.

    Essentially adjusting for the time value of money the peak of the Laffer Curve has temporarily moved far to the left of the graph and the government needs to respond accordingly.

    Wasn't there an old song about the circulation of money? The lines "see the money flow, round the Barley Mow" float into my head but Google finds nothing.

    On its importance, see this Labour Party video. Boris is a fan!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_eJFb-r48Ys
    No one cut teachers salaries for exactly the reason in that film

    Not all government spending is productive or useful
    This is true. But government spends money more "wisely" than private individuals.
    You really believe that?

    Yes he does. He`s a collectivist. The rest of us see it the other way round.
    Well that's nice. I feel totally exposed now. Friendless and alone in the midst of the bustling crowd.
    Nobody can say categorically that either the public or private sectors spend money more efficiently. It depends on the circumstances. The public sector is able to look at the big picture and the public good, and spend on things where the social return outweighs any private benefit. But the private sector usually does a better job on cost effectiveness and avoiding waste (not always in large bureaucratic firms where managers are spending other people's money). Depending on what factor is most important for the matter at hand, either could be the wiser. Anyone who takes a black and white position on this is just posturing, or hasn't thought about it very seriously.
    A fair summary. On waste, though, I did see eye watering amounts of it in the City during my time. In the boom times hidden by revenues.
    Yes- from a perspective as a teacher in the state / academy sector, I wonder if the difference is more about the range than the average. Private enterprise can give super efficiency and effectiveness, but it can also lead to spectacular wasteful madness; remember boo.com, anyone? State systems tend to be more consistently average. You see the same thing when council schools become more business-like academies.

    So which is better? I'm willing to believe that, in terms of creating wealth and new stuff, a mixture of triumph and disaster is a smart plan; the wins pay for the losses overall. But that attitude of making multiple bets so that one or two come off is harder to apply to things that governments do, like health.

    The language used here to describe the initial UK Covid testing plan, feels out of place:

    https://twitter.com/JeremyCliffe/status/1281130560505688066?s=20
    I think if we are to progress, the state needs to embrace failure as an option. In many fields, the attempt to guarantee success before any change, leads to total stagnation.
    You have a rose-tinted view of the private sector. One feature of the failure of large corporations in recent years is that the owners and directors seem to walk away with fairly large bank balances, fuelled by ridiculous salaries and bonuses. Corporate failure doesn't equate to personal privation, usually.

    And in the state sector, failure often has consequences. As an example, not many headteachers or college principals who fail an Ofsted inspection survive in their jobs.
    Headteachers leave with big pension packages
This discussion has been closed.