Monday 16th January 2017

[refitman]

Morning all.

[citizenJA]

Good-morning, everyone.

[StephenDolan]

Morning all.

I'd pay good money to see YouGov ask the question

"who do you trust more, Donald Trump or the EU?"

[HindleA]

Morning


https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... t-disarray" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Election looms for Northern Ireland amid Stormont

[Willow904]

https://www.theguardian.com/global-deve ... poorest-50" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

World's eight richest people have same wealth as poorest 50%
A new report by Oxfam warns of the growing and dangerous concentration of wealth

To me this isn't a failure of capitalism per se, but a failure of governments to manage economies effectively. The purpose of money is to trade for goods and services and to pay taxes. If someone has more money than they need to exchange for the goods and services they require, it's the government's responsibility to tax them in order to return that money into circulation in order to fulfil its fundamental role. Our current political obsession with lowering taxes and refusing to redistribute money into circulation via government spending is a kind of economic insanity. Not a natural consequence of our monetary system, but a perverse impulse to destroy it.

[PaulfromYorkshire]

https://www.theguardian.com/global-deve ... poorest-50

World's eight richest people have same wealth as poorest 50%
A new report by Oxfam warns of the growing and dangerous concentration of wealth

To me this isn't a failure of capitalism per se, but a failure of governments to manage economies effectively. The purpose of money is to trade for goods and services and to pay taxes. If someone has more money than they need to exchange for the goods and services they require, it's the government's responsibility to tax them in order to return that money into circulation in order to fulfil its fundamental role. Our current political obsession with lowering taxes and refusing to redistribute money into circulation via government spending is a kind of economic insanity. Not a natural consequence of our monetary system, but a perverse impulse to destroy it.

Great post.

Marx would have said that it is an inevitable consequence of capitalism, but the rest of your post follows just the same. If we allow capitalism, we must have governments to control it.

[HindleA]

https://inews.co.uk/essentials/news/edu ... our-seats/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Devastating’ cuts to hit schools in Labour seats

[SpinningHugo]

https://www.theguardian.com/global-deve ... poorest-50

World's eight richest people have same wealth as poorest 50%
A new report by Oxfam warns of the growing and dangerous concentration of wealth

To me this isn't a failure of capitalism per se, but a failure of governments to manage economies effectively. The purpose of money is to trade for goods and services and to pay taxes. If someone has more money than they need to exchange for the goods and services they require, it's the government's responsibility to tax them in order to return that money into circulation in order to fulfil its fundamental role. Our current political obsession with lowering taxes and refusing to redistribute money into circulation via government spending is a kind of economic insanity. Not a natural consequence of our monetary system, but a perverse impulse to destroy it.

It is a daft statistic that Oxfam brings out each year that right-wingers gleefully knock down in order to show the foolishness of Oxfam and the left in general.

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/01/ox ... m-poverty/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

New born babies have more assets than countless millions because their net asset position is zero. The people at the bottom are those with large debts, but to obtain that credit they'll have needed at least the appearance of human capital.

Global inequality is falling sharply. Many things are not getting better, but that is.

[PaulfromYorkshire]

https://www.theguardian.com/global-deve ... poorest-50

World's eight richest people have same wealth as poorest 50%
A new report by Oxfam warns of the growing and dangerous concentration of wealth

To me this isn't a failure of capitalism per se, but a failure of governments to manage economies effectively. The purpose of money is to trade for goods and services and to pay taxes. If someone has more money than they need to exchange for the goods and services they require, it's the government's responsibility to tax them in order to return that money into circulation in order to fulfil its fundamental role. Our current political obsession with lowering taxes and refusing to redistribute money into circulation via government spending is a kind of economic insanity. Not a natural consequence of our monetary system, but a perverse impulse to destroy it.

It is a daft statistic that Oxfam brings out each year that right-wingers gleefully knock down in order to show the foolishness of Oxfam and the left in general.

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/01/ox ... m-poverty/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

New born babies have more assets than countless millions because their net asset position is zero. The people at the bottom are those with large debts, but to obtain that credit they'll have needed at least the appearance of Han capital.

Global inequality is falling sharply. Many things are not getting better, but that is.

Right wingers like you?

[gilsey]

The G should have a health warning over that pic at the top of politics live.

[SpinningHugo]

https://www.theguardian.com/global-deve ... poorest-50 To me this isn't a failure of capitalism per se, but a failure of governments to manage economies effectively. The purpose of money is to trade for goods and services and to pay taxes. If someone has more money than they need to exchange for the goods and services they require, it's the government's responsibility to tax them in order to return that money into circulation in order to fulfil its fundamental role. Our current political obsession with lowering taxes and refusing to redistribute money into circulation via government spending is a kind of economic insanity. Not a natural consequence of our monetary system, but a perverse impulse to destroy it.

It is a daft statistic that Oxfam brings out each year that right-wingers gleefully knock down in order to show the foolishness of Oxfam and the left in general.

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/01/ox ... m-poverty/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

New born babies have more assets than countless millions because their net asset position is zero. The people at the bottom are those with large debts, but to obtain that credit they'll have needed at least the appearance of Han capital.

Global inequality is falling sharply. Many things are not getting better, but that is.

Right wingers like you?

touché

[Willow904]

https://www.theguardian.com/global-deve ... poorest-50

World's eight richest people have same wealth as poorest 50%
A new report by Oxfam warns of the growing and dangerous concentration of wealth

To me this isn't a failure of capitalism per se, but a failure of governments to manage economies effectively. The purpose of money is to trade for goods and services and to pay taxes. If someone has more money than they need to exchange for the goods and services they require, it's the government's responsibility to tax them in order to return that money into circulation in order to fulfil its fundamental role. Our current political obsession with lowering taxes and refusing to redistribute money into circulation via government spending is a kind of economic insanity. Not a natural consequence of our monetary system, but a perverse impulse to destroy it.

It is a daft statistic that Oxfam brings out each year that right-wingers gleefully knock down in order to show the foolishness of Oxfam and the left in general.

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/01/ox ... m-poverty/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

New born babies have more assets than countless millions because their net asset position is zero. The people at the bottom are those with large debts, but to obtain that credit they'll have needed at least the appearance of Han capital.

Global inequality is falling sharply. Many things are not getting better, but that is.

It's not a daft statistic. The disproportionate amount of money in a few individuals hands represents a disproportionate power to influence the monetary system. Think about the roaring 1920's, Rockefeller and Wall Street and the similar disproportionate amount of money in the hands of a few Americans and think about how that ended. The very real and welcome fall in global poverty is not a result of the corruption of capitalism that is currently concentrating vast sums of money in a few hands, but a result of productive capitalism replacing subsistence farming and the barter system in developing countries. The predatory capitalism of poorly managed developed economies is a threat to the fledgling productive capitalism of developing nations and claims of inequality falling are likely to be based on a statistical quirk of the way inequality is calculated and therefore disengenous. There's a graph from the US that shows this quite starkly. I'll try to dig it out if I have time.

[HindleA]

https://www.instituteforgovernment.org. ... icy-better" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



Better Budgets: making tax policy better

Institute For Government

[Willow904]

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Link to US graph posted on Twitter.

[gilsey]

Belfast Telegraph.
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/opini ... 69244.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Might we see the same kind of swings against pro-Brexit candidates that we have seen in England? If so, what does the Prime Minister do when faced with a new Assembly comprised of a substantial body of MLAs who have campaigned and won upon an anti-Brexit platform; MLAs who could now, irrespective of the Supreme Court decision, plausibly claim to have a refreshed and incontrovertible mandate to oppose Brexit?

How does the Prime Minister then politically, perhaps even morally, impose a hard Brexit upon a recalcitrant electorate who, when provided with time to reflect and finding no new money for the health service, no replacement of crucial agricultural subsidies, no guarantee of continued single market membership and the likely re-imposition of border controls, firmly and unequivocally rejected the entire proposition?

[HindleA]

Frazer Nelson thinks IDS is well informed.Just some context.

[HindleA]

http://notthetreasuryview.blogspot.co.u ... cting.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


The weather is not the climate: predicting the economic impacts of Brexit


J.Portes.

[HindleA]

http://www.24housing.co.uk/opinion/roll ... ents-made/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


(UC)Rollout should stop till improvements made

[HindleA]

https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2017 ... and-trusts" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


The radical model fighting the housing crisis: property prices based on income

[SpinningHugo]

https://www.theguardian.com/global-deve ... poorest-50 To me this isn't a failure of capitalism per se, but a failure of governments to manage economies effectively. The purpose of money is to trade for goods and services and to pay taxes. If someone has more money than they need to exchange for the goods and services they require, it's the government's responsibility to tax them in order to return that money into circulation in order to fulfil its fundamental role. Our current political obsession with lowering taxes and refusing to redistribute money into circulation via government spending is a kind of economic insanity. Not a natural consequence of our monetary system, but a perverse impulse to destroy it.

It is a daft statistic that Oxfam brings out each year that right-wingers gleefully knock down in order to show the foolishness of Oxfam and the left in general.

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/01/ox ... m-poverty/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

New born babies have more assets than countless millions because their net asset position is zero. The people at the bottom are those with large debts, but to obtain that credit they'll have needed at least the appearance of Han capital.

Global inequality is falling sharply. Many things are not getting better, but that is.

It's not a daft statistic. The disproportionate amount of money in a few individuals hands represents a disproportionate power to influence the monetary system. Think about the roaring 1920's, Rockefeller and Wall Street and the similar disproportionate amount of money in the hands of a few Americans and think about how that ended. The very real and welcome fall in global poverty is not a result of the corruption of capitalism that is currently concentrating vast sums of money in a few hands, but a result of productive capitalism replacing subsistence farming and the barter system in developing countries. The predatory capitalism of poorly managed developed economies is a threat to the fledgling productive capitalism of developing nations and claims of inequality falling are likely to be based on a statistical quirk of the way inequality is calculated and therefore disengenous. There's a graph from the US that shows this quite starkly. I'll try to dig it out if I have time.

All of which may be true, but doesn't in any way show it is not a daft statistic.

I have a net wealth greater than that of hundreds upon hundreds of millions people combined. As does a newborn baby in Bangladesh.

What meaningful does that say about inequality?

[HindleA]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/ ... iff-threat" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Germany hits back at Trump criticism of refugee policy and BMW tariff threat

[HindleA]

British woman to appear in April edition of American Vogue.

[Willow904]

It is a daft statistic that Oxfam brings out each year that right-wingers gleefully knock down in order to show the foolishness of Oxfam and the left in general.

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/01/ox ... m-poverty/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

New born babies have more assets than countless millions because their net asset position is zero. The people at the bottom are those with large debts, but to obtain that credit they'll have needed at least the appearance of Han capital.

Global inequality is falling sharply. Many things are not getting better, but that is.

It's not a daft statistic. The disproportionate amount of money in a few individuals hands represents a disproportionate power to influence the monetary system. Think about the roaring 1920's, Rockefeller and Wall Street and the similar disproportionate amount of money in the hands of a few Americans and think about how that ended. The very real and welcome fall in global poverty is not a result of the corruption of capitalism that is currently concentrating vast sums of money in a few hands, but a result of productive capitalism replacing subsistence farming and the barter system in developing countries. The predatory capitalism of poorly managed developed economies is a threat to the fledgling productive capitalism of developing nations and claims of inequality falling are likely to be based on a statistical quirk of the way inequality is calculated and therefore disengenous. There's a graph from the US that shows this quite starkly. I'll try to dig it out if I have time.

All of which may be true, but doesn't in any way show it is not a daft statistic.

I have a net wealth greater than that of hundreds upon hundreds of millions people combined. As does a newborn baby in Bangladesh.

What meaningful does that say about inequality?

It tells us about change over time, which is why Oxfam brings it out every year and I agree it doesn't tell us anything about absolute poverty, but surely tells us a lot about monetary inequality, which is interesting in relation to the operation of the capitalist economic system and how it can become hostage to a small number of wealth hoarders if governments fail to use their tax and spend powers to ensure money keeps circulating within the economy. This is of growing importance to the baby born in Bangladesh as their country moves from subsistence farming to a capitalist economy. Money hoarded, rather than invested in productive activities means fewer opportunities and lower standards of living for this baby's future as opportunities for self sufficiency and living off the land reduce and they become reliant on the circulation of money within the economy to provide them with what they need. Productive capitalism has raised living standards and improved lives around the globe, but the asset-stripping, predatory nature of the corrupted capitalism of over-financialized, under-regulated, under-taxed developed nations threaten these gains.

Edited to change second 'under-regulated' to 'under-taxed', though the under-regulated bit is definitely worth repeating because it was that which was instrumental in the global economic crash.

[RogerOThornhill]

And there are those who think that Corbyn is a real threat to global security...

Sky News Newsdesk Verified account
‏@SkyNewsBreak

Russian government spokesman says Russia agrees with U.S. President-elect Donald Trump that NATO is obsolete

So, at what point to people start to panic and think that an EU-wide security organisation might be a useful thing to have?

[RogerOThornhill]

This is very odd.

Christophe Barraud
‏@C_Barraud

#UK PM OFFICE DECLINES TO PUBLISH TIMING OF MAY #BREXIT SPEECH - BBG

If the Article 50 ruling is tomorrow I can only think she wants to time it so that she doesn't look foolish by later events.

[SpinningHugo]

It tells us about change over time,

It obviously doesn't do that as they don't publish the figures overtime.

I agree it doesn't tell us anything about absolute poverty, but surely tells us a lot about monetary inequality, .

On the Oxfam approach, the poorest people in the world are newly qualified graduates of Harvard Business School with new jobs at Goldman Sachs, who are vastly poorer than subsistence farmers in Bangladesh. That is because they are using net figures.

You are richer (on that approach) than hundreds of millions (probably billions) of people combined. In those millions are all the recent graduates of universities.

All their figure really shows is the willingness in modern economies to extend credit based on human capital.

[PaulfromYorkshire]

This is very odd.

Christophe Barraud
‏@C_Barraud

#UK PM OFFICE DECLINES TO PUBLISH TIMING OF MAY #BREXIT SPEECH - BBG

If the Article 50 ruling is tomorrow I can only think she wants to time it so that she doesn't look foolish by later events.

Indeed.

She may well want to speak after the judges so she can stand for the will of the people against the meddling lawyers

[SpinningHugo]

This is very odd.

Christophe Barraud
‏@C_Barraud

#UK PM OFFICE DECLINES TO PUBLISH TIMING OF MAY #BREXIT SPEECH - BBG

If the Article 50 ruling is tomorrow I can only think she wants to time it so that she doesn't look foolish by later events.

It means they've been told the UKSC Brexit decision is imminent, I think.

[PaulfromYorkshire]

Tweets from "north of the border" suggesting that if May doesn't address Scottish concerns a new IndyRef will be called.

[PaulfromYorkshire]

Which of course she won't.

[RogerOThornhill]

This is very odd.

Christophe Barraud
‏@C_Barraud

#UK PM OFFICE DECLINES TO PUBLISH TIMING OF MAY #BREXIT SPEECH - BBG

If the Article 50 ruling is tomorrow I can only think she wants to time it so that she doesn't look foolish by later events.

It means they've been told the UKSC Brexit decision is imminent, I think.

Er...yeah, that's what I just said.

[HindleA]

https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... sideration" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Government response: SSAC report on decision making and mandatory reconsideration

[HindleA]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 29111.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Power-sharing collapses in Northern Ireland, after Sinn Fein refuse to return to Stormont executive

[HindleA]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... -union-act" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Welsh government tables bill to overturn Trade Union Act

[AnatolyKasparov]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 29111.html


Power-sharing collapses in Northern Ireland, after Sinn Fein refuse to return to Stormont executive

I'm sure our above all extremely competent PM will sort things out......

[HindleA]

In between posing for Vogue.

[Tubby Isaacs]

And there are those who think that Corbyn is a real threat to global security...

Sky News Newsdesk Verified account
‏@SkyNewsBreak

Russian government spokesman says Russia agrees with U.S. President-elect Donald Trump that NATO is obsolete

So, at what point to people start to panic and think that an EU-wide security organisation might be a useful thing to have?

This makes Corbyn look worse. Trump said this before. We still have Corby via Milne crapping on Griffiths and Thornberry over NATO.

[Tubby Isaacs]

This is very odd.

Christophe Barraud
‏@C_Barraud

#UK PM OFFICE DECLINES TO PUBLISH TIMING OF MAY #BREXIT SPEECH - BBG

If the Article 50 ruling is tomorrow I can only think she wants to time it so that she doesn't look foolish by later events.

Indeed.

She may well want to speak after the judges so she can stand for the will of the people against the meddling lawyers

I don't think that would wash. Her popularity is falling.

She'll have to look moderate. The Opposition have backed her Brexit timing anyway.

[citizenJA]

...the text of a letter dated 15 December 2016 from Penny Mordaunt MP, Minister of State for Disabled People, Health and Work
to Paul Gray CB, Chairman of the Social Security Advisory Committee (SSAC).

The letter is the government’s interim response to the SSAC report Decision making and mandatory reconsideration.

just over 300 words long, this response letter from Mordaunt, dated last month, published today.

"...I intend to formally respond to each of your recommendations in the New Year."

Which New Year?

[Tubby Isaacs]

It tells us about change over time,

It obviously doesn't do that as they don't publish the figures overtime.

I agree it doesn't tell us anything about absolute poverty, but surely tells us a lot about monetary inequality, .

On the Oxfam approach, the poorest people in the world are newly qualified graduates of Harvard Business School with new jobs at Goldman Sachs, who are vastly poorer than subsistence farmers in Bangladesh. That is because they are using net figures.

You are richer (on that approach) than hundreds of millions (probably billions) of people combined. In those millions are all the recent graduates of universities.

All their figure really shows is the willingness in modern economies to extend credit based on human capital.

I must say I'm not overconfident with Oxfam research. IIRC they were one of the funders of Richard Murphy''s improbable tax gap figures.

Murphy seems to have some good ideas in general, I've no problem with him mostly.

[citizenJA]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 29111.html


Power-sharing collapses in Northern Ireland, after Sinn Fein refuse to return to Stormont executive

I'm sure our above all extremely competent PM will sort things out......

Matthew d'Ancona's latest is hilarious. He's got a real crush on T May.

Hard or soft Brexit? Theresa May can have both

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... may-speech" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Tubby Isaacs]

Tweets from "north of the border" suggesting that if May doesn't address Scottish concerns a new IndyRef will be called.

And probably lost.

I thought Sturgeon had ruled it out for this year anyway.

[citizenJA]

In between posing for Vogue.

My mother loves Vogue.
It's all so nightmarish these days

[Tubby Isaacs]

https://inews.co.uk/essentials/news/edu ... our-seats/


Devastating’ cuts to hit schools in Labour seats

Yet apparently no pressure to rationalise small primary schools in rural areas.

[HindleA]

cja I was in discussions with them,the "Dishevelled Look",unfortunately we couldn't agree terms.

[citizenJA]

"The World Economic Forum has also found that incomes across many advanced countries shrank since 2008; another sign that economic policies need to change.

WEF’s new report on economic inclusivity...shows that median income shrank by almost 2.5% between 2008 and 2013 across the 26 advanced economies where data is available.

And 51% of countries saw a decline in their inclusion score during the same period; driven by a surge in wealth inequality since the financial crisis.
With public anger against the the political and economic establishment on the rise, WEF is urging politicians to do more to improve living standards,
boosting quality of life and making people feel more secure."

- Graeme Wearden
Guardian business live

[Tubby Isaacs]

Burnham has settled on "balanced Brexit".

[AnatolyKasparov]

I'm sure that will catch on

[citizenJA]

World Economic Forum (WEF)
The Inclusive Growth and Development Report 2017

http://reports.weforum.org/inclusive-gr ... port-2017/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

United Kingdom
Inclusive Growth and Development Index (IDI)
Rank
21 / 30

http://reports.weforum.org/inclusive-gr ... conomy=GBR" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Willow904]

It tells us about change over time,

It obviously doesn't do that as they don't publish the figures overtime.

I agree it doesn't tell us anything about absolute poverty, but surely tells us a lot about monetary inequality, .

On the Oxfam approach, the poorest people in the world are newly qualified graduates of Harvard Business School with new jobs at Goldman Sachs, who are vastly poorer than subsistence farmers in Bangladesh. That is because they are using net figures.

You are richer (on that approach) than hundreds of millions (probably billions) of people combined. In those millions are all the recent graduates of universities.

All their figure really shows is the willingness in modern economies to extend credit based on human capital.

I was responding to the headline in terms of what it says about our monetary system and the dangers inherent in allowing money to be hoarded. If large sums of money are hoarded in the hands of a few, there is less money left circulating in the economy, meaning there is less money available to the ever expanding numbers of graduates to pay off those student debts. I was reading the statistics not in terms of what it tells us about life in the bottom half (not a lot) but as a way in which to begin to comprehend the amount of money being hoarded and what that might mean to the top half that is much more reliant on the global monetary system. The point of the graphic I linked is that it shows how the "squeezed middle" as Ed Miliband termed it, is indeed being squeezed by an approach to economic policy that favours the already very rich at the expense of those who are what you might term "comfortable" - a standard of living most of us aspire to and expect (as opposed to Trump like riches) but which is being enjoyed by fewer and fewer people as a result of current political choices.