81–90 of 100 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
what are the rich anyway. UK average citizen is in the top 95 percentile in global wealth. there are no poor in UK, just wasted opportunities. if you want to listen how massive inequality is created in UK, start by looking at immigration
You will find inequality growing in Japan and South Korea where there’s very low immigration. How do you explain this?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We have oligarchic corporatism, not democratic capitalism, though I guess that is what is meant by the phrase ‘late stage capitalism’. The problem is that we already have regulatory capture, a more powerful regulatory system leaves us with fewer ways to escape the oligarchs control.
The problem isn’t the number of regulators or how muscular they are. It’s that there’s no functioning enforcement. You can design the neatest regulatory framework in the world, but if the people meant to uphold it look the other way, you may as well print it on kitchen roll. Take MI5. Their remit explicitly includes safeguarding the democratic system. Yet when you’ve got a government holding cosy meetings with global…
To me the apparent incompetence of the SFO is better explained as a mechanism for the UK gov to double dip on bribes / campaign donations when the first one was insufficient.
I think the effective anti corruption institutional culture was built when there was competition between empires and it was in the empires interest to do so.
There is still a general perception that the UK has comparatively low levels of corruption but I attribute this to low levels of petty corruption. It is still in the interest of a corrupt state that lower level corruption is effectively policed as they are in competition. So it’s very possible that the majority of the population will not be privy to corruption while at the same time the majority of important decisions made are corrupted.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m pretty sure the retort was aimed at the patronizing bit here: > but ignores the tough question of the individual responsibility not to have more children than one can afford. Which seems quite relevant. The only fool-proof plan for anyone is to have zero kids, which is ridiculous. My wife and I live beneath ours means, save as much as possible, live debt free, and we instead try to afford as much as possible for…
Nothing patronising in my comment... it's common sense. Unfortunately it almost customary here that any comments be interpreted in the most negative way possible for some reason. Perhaps to avoid discussion or, indeed, the tough, uncomfortable questions.
That’s the best interpretation, and the response still fits if less harshly worded.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nothing patronising in my comment... it's common sense. Unfortunately it almost customary here that any comments be interpreted in the most negative way possible for some reason. Perhaps to avoid discussion or, indeed, the tough, uncomfortable questions.
I have no dog in this fight, but your intent matters less than what it signifies: The comment is patronizing in the abstract, because it’s out-of-touch. That’s the best interpretation, and the response still fits if less harshly worded.
Social issues can't be tackled without facing the tough questions head on.
My point is that I think that the best way to actually help families and children is to incentivise and teach not to have children you can't afford in the first place instead of infantilising people and to tell them that anything goes and the state will pick up the tab.
No-one, no-one replied to my comments on the point. Only intellectually lazy outrage.
The title was edited for some reason, the actual one is: " Budget 2025: how inflation and the two-child benefit cap has increased poverty " And indeed this is an article against the 2-child benefit cap. This is obviously full of warm feelings but ignores the tough question of the individual responsibility not to have more children than one can afford. The article interviews a family with 4 young children and apparent…
quite the juicy implication there, chief
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m pretty sure the retort was aimed at the patronizing bit here: > but ignores the tough question of the individual responsibility not to have more children than one can afford. Which seems quite relevant. The only fool-proof plan for anyone is to have zero kids, which is ridiculous. My wife and I live beneath ours means, save as much as possible, live debt free, and we instead try to afford as much as possible for…
Nothing patronising in my comment... it's common sense. Unfortunately it almost customary here that any comments be interpreted in the most negative way possible for some reason. Perhaps to avoid discussion or, indeed, the tough, uncomfortable questions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m just going to throw this out there. What if reducing birth rates at this point in time is rational? On the employment side, we have rapidly advancing automation and AI that are dramatically reducing the work force required to maintain society. On the ecological side we have a combination of climate change, soil depletion, and many other factors that at least threaten to impose a bottleneck on us. We are smart and…
This runs into trouble when the older people rely on the younger ones to pay for their retirement and government services. Having fewer children means fewer people to pay taxes, so while a lower birth rate might address environmental and automation/AI challenges, it creates significant headaches elsewhere and requires a society-wide shift in expectations and responsibilities.
Retirement for all was an artifact of rapidly growing populations and shorter life spans. Back 50-100 years ago you had each young person supporting maybe 0.1 to 0.25 retired people, and a retirement age in the 60s meant you’d get a few years before now easily treatable heart conditions would kill you. (Everyone smoked too, which “helped” clear the retirement rolls.)
In a world with even a stable population (let alone a declining one) retirement isn’t viable. Or at the very least the age will be raised a lot. I could see 80 as a retirement age in 2050.
Honestly an institutionalized retirement age in the 60s today is unfair and exploitative toward young people. It’s generational economic cannibalism, stopping young people from establishing themselves to fund the old.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have no dog in this fight, but your intent matters less than what it signifies: The comment is patronizing in the abstract, because it’s out-of-touch. That’s the best interpretation, and the response still fits if less harshly worded.
My comment was neither patronizing nor out of touch. In fact it acknowledges that this is a "tough question". Social issues can't be tackled without facing the tough questions head on. My point is that I think that the best way to actually help families and children is to incentivise and teach not to have children you can't afford in the first place instead of infantilising people and to tell them that anything goes…
It’s out of touch because it’s not merely a “tough” question.
It’s not a well-defined question and it may not be quantifiable.
It’s a terrible lens to view through, but financially speaking creating or extending your family is a major risk.
The easy questions: What does it even mean to say one has more children than one can afford? What standard is being used to decide when someone has gone past affordability?
The harder or impossible questions, and these are critically important: What factors play into the financial risk of having or extending a family? And can each factor be quantified?
I suspect the answer is no, because few or no private insurer is in business guaranteeing long-term employment terms.
Finally: Even if the probabilities can be accurately quantified, what risk threshold can we establish as responsible vs irresponsible?
And the burden is on the claim maker to establish that it’s possible, because as far as I know life in a market economy is a bit too messy to forecast in this manner.
If this inspires you or someone else to try, I wish you all the best and with my blessing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My comment was neither patronizing nor out of touch. In fact it acknowledges that this is a "tough question". Social issues can't be tackled without facing the tough questions head on. My point is that I think that the best way to actually help families and children is to incentivise and teach not to have children you can't afford in the first place instead of infantilising people and to tell them that anything goes…
> the tough question of the individual responsibility not to have more children than one can afford It’s out of touch because it’s not merely a “tough” question. It’s not a well-defined question and it may not be quantifiable. It’s a terrible lens to view through, but financially speaking creating or extending your family is a major risk. The easy questions: What does it even mean to say one has more children than on…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> the tough question of the individual responsibility not to have more children than one can afford It’s out of touch because it’s not merely a “tough” question. It’s not a well-defined question and it may not be quantifiable. It’s a terrible lens to view through, but financially speaking creating or extending your family is a major risk. The easy questions: What does it even mean to say one has more children than on…
No idea what you're on about but good luck to you...
Your quip implies decisions based on financial risk, which is just probabilities of a certain category.
Given that the market doesn’t insure to hedge against your “tough question”, it suggests (though doesn’t prove) it can’t really answer that question.
But if your suggestion and quip wasn’t meant to be thought through and modeled, then carry on.
Edit: tl:dr; I’m trying to understand your question beyond vagaries, which you’ve so far refused to clarify. Therefore, nobody can really answer your question.