I've read that, can't remember a thing about it.RobertSnozers wrote: Shades of 'A Canticle for Leibowitz'
The problem as far as I can see is that the minority of people controlling the majority of capital would rather retreat to their gated communities when the world burns than do something now to stop it catching.
That represents a basic mistake about what economists mean by "growth".Temulkar wrote: The economic system is predicated on growth. In a world of finite resources there cannot be infinite growth.
I've not heard any mainstream politicians make that distinction, though - or explain it. It's time that they did.SpinningHugo wrote:That represents a basic mistake about what economists mean by "growth".Temulkar wrote: The economic system is predicated on growth. In a world of finite resources there cannot be infinite growth.
There is of course a finite amount of stuff, and so if by 'growth' we mean 'consumption of stuff' that cannot continue forever.
There is no reason at all why we cannot have growth in the sense of the economist (added value) combined with lower consumption of resources. My smartphone adds much more value than my granny's old bakelite one, but required fewer resources.
Take as an easy example energy consumption. UK energy consumption per capita has fallen, at the same time as GDP per head has risen.
Sorry, haven't read everything. Just wanted to point out that this above isn't actually remotely close to being true.RobertSnozers wrote:Finally this morning, the point that 'Labour has to be in power to reverse the inhuman cuts'...
Climate change was an existential threat in 1980. Now it is a very real and very actual threat. We had the tools to do something about it back in 1980. Back in 1990. Back in 2000. Back in 2010. Yet we didn't really do anything. By the time we do actually do something, it really is going to be much too late.SpinningHugo wrote:Temulkar wrote:
The world really is going to hell inn a handcart, and our species faces an existential threat, the economic system that you don't think needs to be "destroyed" will destroy us unless it is fundementally changed.
Well, in a way I agree about climate change. That does pose an existential threat. Again however, I think we now have the economic tools and understanding to tackle it: what is lacking is political will. I am not a supporter of the Green Party however. (I could explain why not if you like).
Your smartphone consumes more energy and contains far rarer + more resources than your granny's bakerlite ever did, it's made cheap by being transported at a vast energy/environmental cost across the world, offset by perpetuating ecominic inequality globally. It is dependent upon an oil based economy that cannot survive the century because of finite resources - maybe 40 years of oil left at current consumption; at the moment there is no substitute for plastic and metal, and no viable one on the horizon, no viable fuel for planes or tankers to keep the bulk transport of goods flowing.SpinningHugo wrote:That represents a basic mistake about what economists mean by "growth".Temulkar wrote: The economic system is predicated on growth. In a world of finite resources there cannot be infinite growth.
There is of course a finite amount of stuff, and so if by 'growth' we mean 'consumption of stuff' that cannot continue forever.
There is no reason at all why we cannot have growth in the sense of the economist (added value) combined with lower consumption of resources. My smartphone adds much more value than my granny's old bakelite one, but required fewer resources.
Take as an easy example energy consumption. UK energy consumption per capita has fallen, at the same time as GDP per head has risen.
You've exemplified one of the reasons why I am not a Green. They are terrible economists.
Strictly speaking the first part of your sentence is wrong. There is a substitute for petroleum-based plastics from bacterial sources (and metal can be obtained so long as there's a viable energy source to power the machinery required to source, mine/recycle and smelt it). There's also a viable alternative to petroleum-based oil (e.g. rapeseed oil or sugar beet). However, the problem with both is that they don't and can't scale to the capacity required and they also have environmental consequences of their own.Temulkar wrote:...at the moment there is no substitute for plastic and metal, and no viable one on the horizon, no viable fuel for planes or tankers to keep the bulk transport of goods flowing.
Andy Jolley who is cited in that article has blogged about the impact of UIFSM on childhood obesity.AngryAsWell wrote:Top school chef axed as government free school meals funding ‘cuts’ bite
http://schoolsweek.co.uk/top-school-che ... ign=buffer" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
1. Global inequality has fallen *dramatically*. Inequality within some rich countries has risen (although not really in the UK for 25 years), but because of the incredible improvement in developing countries it has fallen overall. Indeed faster than at any time in historyTemulkar wrote: offset by perpetuating ecominic inequality globally.
Russ Jackson
Sociologist at Sheffield Hallam University.
Letter to my socialist MP who recently declared their support for Owen Smith
Thanks for your heartfelt email. I do not doubt for a moment that you have the interests and well-being of your constituents, the wider Party membership and the wider population at the fore of your thoughts and actions. Nor do I doubt that you are an extremely capable, intelligent and principled MP and person. I believe in you and you have my support. Thanks for working so hard, for raising and confronting so many extremely important issues and for being on the side of the many, not the few.
Like numerous others I’m feeling frustrated, disappointed and angry, certainly with the Conservatives but also with the PLP.
You are correct to say that Jeremy is not to blame for the outcome of the referendum vote. He recognises, as does any sensible person, the cogent case against the EU, not least that despite its many advantages and good works, it is a fundamentally neoliberal organisation intent on ensuring that corporatism and hyper-capitalism is enforced at almost any cost. Many people including myself are pleased that he supported the remain position but it would have been extremely hypocritical for him to have given his unreserved
Cont. https://medium.com/@russjackson/letter- ... .47c3dv6qb
1. Branko Milanovic, a senior scholar with the Luxembourg Income Survey now at the City University of New York’s Graduate Center, has done the world’s most rigorous research on the global income inequality picture. he published research finding that inequality within nations is increasing, but inequality worldwide seems to be slightly decreasing as middle classes emerge in China and India and the incomes of typical families in the United States and other rich countries stagnate and even, after inflation, decrease. But this slight worldwide decrease in overall inequality, Milanovich cautions, may be somewhat illusory since available national data regularly underestimate top 1 percent incomes and global tax havens conceal still more income at the economic summit. In 2016, he published Global Inequality: A New Approach for the Age of Globalization, showing how global inequality moves in cycles, fueled by war and disease, technological disruption, access to education, and redistribution.SpinningHugo wrote:1. Global inequality has fallen *dramatically*. Inequality within some rich countries has risen (although not really in the UK for 25 years), but because of the incredible improvement in developing countries it has fallen overall. Indeed faster than at any time in historyTemulkar wrote: offset by perpetuating ecominic inequality globally.
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/04/ ... than-ever/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
That is a good example of the pessimism in defiance of the facts that I started with by citing Krugman on crime.
2. Yes of course we cannot forever go on burning oil and coal. Nothing I said about economic growth was dependent upon that.
3. As for your claim that Krugman also claims that economic growth requires more consumption of resources, you must be making a mistake. You can easily prove me wrong by linking to where he has said that.
Disagree with that, actually. Eagle's "campaign" was as staggeringly vacuous as it is possible to get - and consisted almost entirely of "I'm not Corbyn" (with a bit of "I'm a northern working class lesbian - have I told you this already?") A shame since she can certainly do better.RobertSnozers wrote:It's the worst case scenario in many ways. At least if Eagle had stood it would have presented more of a choice and not simply been about Corbyn vs Not Corbyn.yahyah wrote:Part of the problem is only having two candidates. It never should have happened in the way it has.
Was always going to cause huge ructions.
Am going to find solace in some craft work.
I wonder, if Owen Smith is defeated will it cause the Blairites to say to the soft left 'you had your chance and blew it - our turn now'?
Thank you both for a civil, educational discussion and interesting linksTemulkar wrote:1. Branko Milanovic, a senior scholar with the Luxembourg Income Survey now at the City University of New York’s Graduate Center, has done the world’s most rigorous research on the global income inequality picture. he published research finding that inequality within nations is increasing, but inequality worldwide seems to be slightly decreasing as middle classes emerge in China and India and the incomes of typical families in the United States and other rich countries stagnate and even, after inflation, decrease. But this slight worldwide decrease in overall inequality, Milanovich cautions, may be somewhat illusory since available national data regularly underestimate top 1 percent incomes and global tax havens conceal still more income at the economic summit. In 2016, he published Global Inequality: A New Approach for the Age of Globalization, showing how global inequality moves in cycles, fueled by war and disease, technological disruption, access to education, and redistribution.SpinningHugo wrote:1. Global inequality has fallen *dramatically*. Inequality within some rich countries has risen (although not really in the UK for 25 years), but because of the incredible improvement in developing countries it has fallen overall. Indeed faster than at any time in historyTemulkar wrote: offset by perpetuating ecominic inequality globally.
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/04/ ... than-ever/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
That is a good example of the pessimism in defiance of the facts that I started with by citing Krugman on crime.
2. Yes of course we cannot forever go on burning oil and coal. Nothing I said about economic growth was dependent upon that.
3. As for your claim that Krugman also claims that economic growth requires more consumption of resources, you must be making a mistake. You can easily prove me wrong by linking to where he has said that.
2. The economic system is dependant upon oil, there is no viable alternative, and none in the forseeable future.
3. I will try and find the Krugman quote, but certainly could be wrong on that as it was ottomh. It's most certainly not my line - though I happily agree with it.
http://inequality.org/global-inequality/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
(my bold)JonnyT1234 wrote:Sorry, haven't read everything. Just wanted to point out that this above isn't actually remotely close to being true.RobertSnozers wrote:Finally this morning, the point that 'Labour has to be in power to reverse the inhuman cuts'...
As the Tax Credits pseudo u-turn shows, and as Blunkett's constant shifting right on welfare when New Labour were in power showed, you can be in opposition and still cause a shift in government policy away from what they wanted to what you want. You absolutely do not have to be in power to cause a material effect.
And this is what has been happening with Labour with Corbyn as leader - not necessarily because he's dictating the direction but because the attitude of many of his colleagues has changed from one of appeasement and triangulation towards one of actual opposition.
The more you can actually make this happen - u-turns through opposition - the more likely you are to win an election. It's what makes the claims of a lack of 'effective opposition' ring so hollow. We've had more u-turns within the past 9 months that have made a material difference to people's lives than Miliband achieved in 5 years. And all because the Tories can no longer rely on Labour rolling over at the first whiff of a bad headline in the Mail.
But, hey, let's carry on with the myth that you have to win elections to make any difference at all. Particularly when it conveniently ties into the Labour right's 'mustn't spook the horses' rhetoric.
(cJA edit)howsillyofme1 wrote:To be honest I am just seeing this as a game now as it has become beyond ridiculous and perhaps we need a big massive row to relieve the tension and perhaps a phoenix will rise from the flames. At the moment I see little positive outcome
One of the things that concerns me most about global warming deniers, not the Koch brothers, Lawson et al but their rank and file followers, is that they very often seem to feel it necessary to oppose all alternative forms of energy because not burning up hydrocarbons as fast as possible means they might be giving an inch of credibility to the "so-called 'scientific' global warming conspiracy." It's an argument as illogical and wrong as the Brexit cultists whose answer to every problem with "get rid of the immigrants".Temulkar wrote:It is dependent upon an oil based economy that cannot survive the century because of finite resources - maybe 40 years of oil left at current consumption; at the moment there is no substitute for plastic and metal, and no viable one on the horizon, no viable fuel for planes or tankers to keep the bulk transport of goods flowing.
I think those 'Great Leaders' are as intellectually incapable as you, indeed more so as their character has led them to pursue power, which probably blinds them to the long term consequences of their action/inaction. You admit your fallibility, they cannot.howsillyofme1 wrote: I will also ignore, as most of the world is the most serious problem facing us....ie climate change. This is because it is too big an issue and I am intellectually incapable of getting my head around what we should/could do - despite being fully aware that the likely consequences will be huge.
The fact that the political classes, and the media have ignored this subject is to me the greatest calumny done in recent history, even all of history
It is strange that all these so-called 'Great Leaders' such as Blair, Cameron, Thatcher, Reagan, Kohl etc, etc have completely missed any opportunity to do something
In fact our ancien 'Great Leader' Cameron positively tried his best to make things go backwards...and we just have to look at the approach of the current 'Greatest Leader' in putting this subject completely at the bottom of the list
The Bedroom Tax isn't repealed yet. The NHS is still underfunded and shackled by the Tory Health and Social Care Act of 2012. Ed Miliband's Labour government would've binned both of them and the UK would be a finer place right now, in my opinion.HindleA wrote:It may well be my frazzled brain,given continued high temperatures,although being in an oven at 180 degrees doesn't help.Saying an opposition is limited and arguing against the idea that it cannot make any difference is could be interpretate as saying the same thing.
1. One study that agrees that inequality is decreasing. Most others put the decrease as large (and the evidence of my own eyes having traveled to China and elsewhere says it is large). The last link you posted also shows the same (look at the sharp fall in the numbers of "poor", in just a decade.) Africa, a continent people used to write off, has enormously improved (though it is patchy of course).Temulkar wrote:1. Branko Milanovic, a senior scholar with the Luxembourg Income Survey now at the City University of New York’s Graduate Center, has done the world’s most rigorous research on the global income inequality picture. he published research finding that inequality within nations is increasing, but inequality worldwide seems to be slightly decreasing as middle classes emerge in China and India and the incomes of typical families in the United States and other rich countries stagnate and even, after inflation, decrease. But this slight worldwide decrease in overall inequality, Milanovich cautions, may be somewhat illusory since available national data regularly underestimate top 1 percent incomes and global tax havens conceal still more income at the economic summit. In 2016, he published Global Inequality: A New Approach for the Age of Globalization, showing how global inequality moves in cycles, fueled by war and disease, technological disruption, access to education, and redistribution.SpinningHugo wrote:1. Global inequality has fallen *dramatically*. Inequality within some rich countries has risen (although not really in the UK for 25 years), but because of the incredible improvement in developing countries it has fallen overall. Indeed faster than at any time in historyTemulkar wrote: offset by perpetuating ecominic inequality globally.
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/04/ ... than-ever/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
That is a good example of the pessimism in defiance of the facts that I started with by citing Krugman on crime.
2. Yes of course we cannot forever go on burning oil and coal. Nothing I said about economic growth was dependent upon that.
3. As for your claim that Krugman also claims that economic growth requires more consumption of resources, you must be making a mistake. You can easily prove me wrong by linking to where he has said that.
2. The economic system is dependant upon oil, there is no viable alternative, and none in the forseeable future.
3. I will try and find the Krugman quote, but certainly could be wrong on that as it was ottomh. It's most certainly not my line - though I happily agree with it.
http://inequality.org/global-inequality/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
This is very true but the myth is that they are incapable of any influence at all. Which simply isn't true. Of course you can achieve more by being in power but it doesn't mean you can't achieve anything while out of it. If that were the case then the opposition may as well never bother to turn up in Parliament and just let the government of the day get on with it.citizenJA wrote:The opposition in the UK is limited in their action by not being government.
They could make a lot of difference explaining in simple terms what the Tories are doing wrong, and what Labour would do. How are people to judge who to vote for if they're not informed properly, or as in this instance, if the opposition is more interested in coups and leadership strugglesJonnyT1234 wrote:This is very true but the myth is that they are incapable of any influence at all. Which simply isn't true. Of course you can achieve more by being in power but it doesn't mean you can't achieve anything while out of it. If that were the case then the opposition may as well never bother to turn up in Parliament and just let the government of the day get on with it.citizenJA wrote:The opposition in the UK is limited in their action by not being government.
I know what the opposition in UK Parliament has the authority to do. I emphasised the opposition is limited, not futile.JonnyT1234 wrote:This is very true but the myth is that they are incapable of any influence at all. Which simply isn't true. Of course you can achieve more by being in power but it doesn't mean you can't achieve anything while out of it. If that were the case then the opposition may as well never bother to turn up in Parliament and just let the government of the day get on with it.citizenJA wrote:The opposition in the UK is limited in their action by not being government.
I think there's a couple of things here that you're maybe over-simplifying.Temulkar wrote:History is not a march of progress - it is Marx's fundemental mistake - regression can and does happen, and that is what we face now. A new dark age, where experts are scorned, and society collapses.
I was just about to post that one !ohsocynical wrote:DPAC, which as an organisation has never backed a political party before, has come out in full support of Corbyn’s leadership bid. In a letter, signed by over 700 people who either live with a disability, are carers, or are supporters of the group, the organisation says:
http://www.thecanary.co/2016/07/25/one- ... my-corbyn/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I trained to deliver the Freedom Programme, which is where this character type comes from, some years ago because I was convinced after listening to survivors of domestic abuse that it's effective I helping them understand controlling behaviours. I was shocked & disgusted when I saw this on Twitter last night. I don't blame the woman involved but for Sivier to make capital out of her ill judged remark is appalling. I have no idea what the Freedom Programme's position is as they are a charity with no political links but I hope there's some action they may take.yahyah wrote:AngryAsWell wrote:I saw this earlier but hesitated to post it.yahyah wrote:Oh dear, oh dear. This is so far below the belt it is dragging along the floor.
My 'a pox on both their houses' seems a good position to have taken.
http://voxpoliticalonline.com/2016/07/2 ... rpetrator/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Pretty despicable, it reflects more on the on going dispute between Sivier & Owen Smith (about the disabled lady) than facts, and has diminished Mike Sivier greatly in my eye's.
Utter gutter trollop - and nasty with it.
I thought the same, the risk of repeating the smear, but it just shows how silly this whole thing has become. Any of us who have been on a course, or received counselling/therapy could describe anyone via an interpretation like that.
As for the woman who didn't want to identify herself for suggesting such rubbish, she ought to be ashamed of herself. As for Sivier, and his weak defence of publishing the rubbish.
Will not comment on what I think of him because I don't want to break the spirit of Corbyn's 'no personal abuse' I'm trying to follow.
From the DMThe spokesperson went on to suggest this could be more than one unresignation - perhaps growing into a deshuffle.
To be fair one sentence is clearly an oversimplification of a march of progress theory.TR'sGhost wrote:I think there's a couple of things here that you're maybe over-simplifying.Temulkar wrote:History is not a march of progress - it is Marx's fundemental mistake - regression can and does happen, and that is what we face now. A new dark age, where experts are scorned, and society collapses.
While Marx and his successors regard the inherent contradictions of a class-based society to, over considerable time, result in the economic relationships within that society eventually acting as a brake on production and technological development it's not an automatic process. Reverses are possible and do occur, though there's no example of e.g. established, developed capitalism reverting to feudalism because the economic nature of feudalism is not economically efficient for capitalist production. As the Tsars found out when they tried to extend land feudalism to factory feudalism. The policy was abandoned in the 1860s because capitalism requires labour mobility, consumers to buy what it makes and the ability to shift capital and labour from one thing to another very quickly.
For a capitalist society to revert to a feudal or slavery based one implies a society-wide collapse to the point where such social forms are more efficient than capitalism. Which in turn requires a technological reversion to the pre-industrial age. Which isn't impossible if we imagine a devastating enough scenario such as global nuclear war or an epidemic that kills 90% of the global population.
I suppose Pol Pot's Cambodia and North Korea are the closest examples of a reversion to a kind of neo-feudalism from an originally post-feudal system but they're isolated examples and neither Cambodia or what became North Korea were advanced capitalist societies in the first place, both being recent ex-colonies.
Which brings me to Engels' comment when he was asked by someone if socialism would inevitably follow capitalism. His answer was no, he thought it would either be socialism or barbarism.
As for the scorning of experts, that's something intended for consumption by the masses, not so much collectively by our ruling class. Or at least I hope it is. An individual capitalist might ignore experts, but the wiser ones use and value expert advice. The problem arises when the lower orders pay attention to what the experts say if it might interfere with profits, so anti-intellectualism is advocated for the likes of us to believe in.
As a Roman whose name escapes me put it, the gods were something the masses believed in, the intellectuals didn't believe in and the government, while not believing itself, found a useful tool to keep the masses in their place.
