USA presidential elections 2016

Little John · Post by **Little John** » 23 Aug 2016, 21:29

Most of the people I know who are voting for JC as leader are far from worshippers of him. For myself, I cannot abide his Merkel-like stance on immigration issues. However, following a win by Corbyn he will have to make his piece and do a deal with the large number of MPs who are not Blairite but who also recognize that in the absence of an immigration policy that reflect the concerns of ordinary working lclss people, Labour is f***ed. If that happens, the Blairites will be cornered and will have no choice but to up-sticks and join the Tories becasue they will have finally lost the Labour party.

That is why I am voting for Corbyn and your attempt to simplify this to some kind of theological-like political dichotomy is pathetic.

UndercoverElephant · Post by **UndercoverElephant** » 23 Aug 2016, 22:36

If the choice is between Corbyn and Owen Smith then I have to vote Corbyn. I have significant reservations, but the moment Owen Smith started talking about negotiating with ISIS he exposed himself as completely clueless. Corbyn therefore gets my vote because he's the only other name on the ballot paper.

Post by **kenneal - lagger** » 24 Aug 2016, 04:29

johnhemming2 wrote:I accept that the certainties of 40 years ago are no longer there. This which is mainly a technological issue is an important issue.

However, if we look at the standard of living for most people not living in War Zones.

Is it better than 40 years ago or worse. If worse which countries are worse and which countries better.

How do you measure this to come to your conclusions?

If you are talking about the UK, I would say that we were better off 40 years ago because at that time I could afford for my wife to have several years off work to raise our children and we could still pay the mortgage. We could afford to send our children to nursery school and make a profit on my wife's part time work.

Nowadays, my daughter and son in law, both professional people with degrees and early, cheaper, student loans, can barely afford a house in this area even as key workers. The cost of a nursery school place is more than one of them earns for that day. The ludicrous price of property is to blame for this; it is now unaffordable in the south east for both the residential and commercial sectors.

woodburner · Post by **woodburner** » 24 Aug 2016, 05:53

johnhemming2 wrote:It is is merely a theological question and one of faith then I am sorry I will not worship at the Church of JC (Jeremy Corbyn).

Was that a stutter at the beginning of your sentence, or because you didn't bother checking what you wrote, or because there is some hidden meaning?

johnhemming2 · Post by **johnhemming2** » 24 Aug 2016, 07:09

Little John wrote:That is why I am voting for Corbyn and your attempt to simplify this to some kind of theological-like political dichotomy is pathetic.

What I am saying is that this debate is not really driven by rational argument. Moreso it is based upon emotional responses with the odd bit of personal abuse thrown in.

If we look at the last 40 years in terms of GDP (adjusted for inflation) per capita we get the following graph (you need to click on max).
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united- ... per-capita

That does not look like people in the UK "on their knees".

There are things that have changed. Property is a particularly difficult area although I do wish to retain the green belts.

However, all in all on a useful measurement people have done quite well in the UK compared to 40 years ago.

johnhemming2 · Post by **johnhemming2** » 24 Aug 2016, 07:10

woodburner wrote:
johnhemming2 wrote:It is is merely a theological question and one of faith then I am sorry I will not worship at the Church of JC (Jeremy Corbyn).
Was that a stutter at the beginning of your sentence, or because you didn't bother checking what you wrote, or because there is some hidden meaning?

"If it is" sorry.

PS_RalphW · Post by **PS_RalphW** » 24 Aug 2016, 07:34

GDP per capita is not a guaranteed measure of the quality of life for the majority. There is far greater inequality now, and lots of electronic trinkets do not offset the near stagnant housing market where higher and higher debt is needed to buy an asset that is moew scarce relative to demand than it has been since the 1950s. Mortgages were introduced as a means to stimulate the house building industry through the building societies, but under financial deregulation they simply became a means of inflicting long term debt on people desperate for a home (which at the time was made an absolute status symbol of freedom) who were outbidding each other for a finite supply of houses as house build rates stagnated and jobs moved en mass from the North to the South. The banks have been creaming the profits, and the land owners, backed by a corrupt (or at best non-functional ) planning system reeled in ever higher profits.

I am not sure what the political solution is, but it is a very real effect.

Post by **kenneal - lagger** » 24 Aug 2016, 07:37

johnhemming2 wrote:....

That does not look like people in the UK "on their knees".

There are things that have changed. Property is a particularly difficult area although I do wish to retain the green belts.

However, all in all on a useful measurement people have done quite well in the UK compared to 40 years ago.

That is an average and while people at the top have done very well the rest haven't. Most people haven't improved the standard of living over the last 40 years. If the majority of people aren't doing well, which is the case, the economy in general will not be doing well, which is the case.

The property market is in the doldrums with low levels of sales. Housing completions are low because most people can't afford to purchase at current prices so builders aren't building. Yes there is a healthy "Buy to Let" market but we are getting to the stage where people can't afford the level of private rents either. That market is also dropping off as it becomes unaffordable.

The government is going to have to intervene to keep house building going by paying for Housing Associations to build quality, properly insulated houses using QE money instead of pushing it into banks and causing property and stock market bubbles! Giving QE money to the already rich, which is what has happened in the past, has not worked so they will have to try giving some of it to the poor instead for a change.

There has been very little trickle down: about 8% according to the organisation Positive Money. If this money were invested in the economy directly by the government in the form of housing for rental and an insulation scheme if could give a return of over 100% to the government in increased economic activity and taxation. After all, the big corporations aren't paying any tax whereas the ordinary people get stuffed by it all the time! Why give the thieving bastards any more more money to syphon off into tax havens?

johnhemming2 · Post by **johnhemming2** » 24 Aug 2016, 07:40

PS_RalphW wrote:GDP per capita is not a guaranteed measure of the quality of life for the majority.

True, but it is a measure.

You can look, for example, at the proportion of household income spent on food. Obviously food is something that has to be a priority. Discretionary income after that is another issue.

My own view is that the lack of security and the exclusion of more people from the working place and from having a formal role in society is a big issue that we need to at least recognise even if they are not short of material goods.

I simply say that people in the UK are not "on their knees" and the fact that lots of people want to come here indicates there is something good about being in the UK.

I find it absurd when NGOs argue about poverty including recent economic migrants in the category of poor. They have clearly decided to come to the UK to be "Poor" because that is better for them than being somewhere else.

johnhemming2 · Post by **johnhemming2** » 24 Aug 2016, 07:44

kenneal - lagger wrote:. Most people haven't improved the standard of living over the last 40 years. If the majority of people aren't doing well, which is the case, the economy in general will not be doing well, which is the case.

Find some stats to justify this.

I have given you GDP adjusted for inflation per capita. Whilst I accept that there is greater inequality (and I believe this is primarily driven by technology). The figures state a substantial improvement.

The figures do indicate that things deteriorated after 2008.

What I do believe to be the case is that resource limitations will again knock back real living standards (as they did in 2008). However, they are not doing that now.

Post by **kenneal - lagger** » 24 Aug 2016, 07:58

When you pump £380 billion into the economy and what ever was pumped into the economy again recently the figures are bound to look good for some. But that money isn't trickling down as we are told it will.

Yes, the streets of London are paved with gold for some, and that is attracting people from all over the world, but it is not getting to the already poor here now and increasingly it is not getting the middle classes and their children who are suffering from high property prices. The middle class are having to remortgage their houses to pay the deposit for their children's house. We are not getting richer, we are getting more and more indebted to a bunch of thieving *ankers.

Meanwhile the economic migrants are flooding into the country putting more and more pressure on on wages and increasing demand in an already heated housing market. So the people at the bottom and in the middle are suffering while the rich get richer. And GDP is getting higher so we must all be better off. Like ***k we are. Are all politicians ( and ex politicians) blind to the realities of current life.

In the words of that old classic, "Its the rich what gets the pleasure, Its the poor what get the blame, Its the same the whole world over, Ain't it all a bloody shame!

johnhemming2 · Post by **johnhemming2** » 24 Aug 2016, 08:11

ie no stats to justify the argument (over the past 40 years).

woodburner · Post by **woodburner** » 24 Aug 2016, 09:37

GDP is one of those "measures" that don't matter, and what does matter ie security and well being of individuals for example, you don't have a measure for. The problem with this circulatory discussion is that there are several participants who are earthbound, and one that appears to live on another planet and has not yet visited earth.

johnhemming2 · Post by **johnhemming2** » 24 Aug 2016, 09:43

woodburner wrote:GDP is one of those "measures" that don't matter

If GDP doesn't matter why does a limit to growth (of GDP) matter?

Little John · Post by **Little John** » 24 Aug 2016, 10:17

johnhemming2 wrote:
woodburner wrote:GDP is one of those "measures" that don't matter
If GDP doesn't matter why does a limit to growth (of GDP) matter?

Because the limits to growth being referred to are the actual physical limits of the capacity of industrial civilization to grow. GDP is now becoming utterly unconnected to that physical reality in much the same way as it is becoming unconnected to the well being of citizens. That's the entire point being made. A point which you appear to be significantly missing