The Politics Thread

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Exactly, so if everyones income was 10 times greater, in all likelihood they would end up with the same 'real' income due to inflation and so would still be in the same position they were previously? So the median might not be that bad of a measure?

Given that 'income' in this context is shorthand for 'real income', I was talking about 'real income' being ten times greater.

That is however a purely hypothetical scenario, so not sure how it could be used as an argument against using a median? (not that I'm necessarily saying it is a good measure)

Perhaps the Kensington example makes the point against the median more vividly?

[Prufrock]

QE fecking D!!

[Worthy4England]

As interesting as this discussion is, the main point is that we're talking about real income here.

What's that then? Real income, as opposed to say unreal income?

Income adjusted for inflation.

Gotcha.

In that case, wouldn't the problem with it be maintaining an increase in it within an economy, when inflation was rising because you've increased the money supply (and in all likelihood it's velocity) - which is likely to lead to inflation if it's in isolation of output. If inflation increases because the money supply has increased (it's grown faster than output), then wouldn't it have a negative impact on "real income" not a positive one, or if you maintained your real income at a set amount, the inflationary element that you're not counting would spiral upwards.

[Worthy4England]

QE fecking D!!

Sorta - alternatively, if you can't afford to live in Kensington, don't?

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Bloody hell - 50% of a lot is better than 60% of not very much! It's not this complicated!

[Beefheart]

As interesting as this discussion is, the main point is that we're talking about real income here.

What's that then? Real income, as opposed to say unreal income?

Income adjusted for inflation.

Gotcha.

In that case, wouldn't the problem with it be maintaining an increase in it within an economy, when inflation was rising because you've increased the money supply (and in all likelihood it's velocity) - which is likely to lead to inflation if it's in isolation of output. If inflation increases because the money supply has increased (it's grown faster than output), then wouldn't it have a negative impact on "real income" not a positive one, or if you maintained your real income at a set amount, the inflationary element that you're not counting would spiral upwards.

Although, a Keynsian would argue an increased money supply would lead to a decrease in velocity.

[Worthy4England]

As interesting as this discussion is, the main point is that we're talking about real income here.

What's that then? Real income, as opposed to say unreal income?

Income adjusted for inflation.

Gotcha.

In that case, wouldn't the problem with it be maintaining an increase in it within an economy, when inflation was rising because you've increased the money supply (and in all likelihood it's velocity) - which is likely to lead to inflation if it's in isolation of output. If inflation increases because the money supply has increased (it's grown faster than output), then wouldn't it have a negative impact on "real income" not a positive one, or if you maintained your real income at a set amount, the inflationary element that you're not counting would spiral upwards.

Although, a Keynsian would argue an increased money supply would lead to a decrease in velocity.

They would, but I considered that if we were talking about people below a poverty line, then they'd spend it rather than save it.

[Prufrock]

Haha! I think he's saying something along the lines that it would be better if all the poorest people had access to power yachts which relatively were a lot shitter than the intergalactic speed-ships that the rich could afford (thus inequality between two 'absolutely rich' groups) than if everyone rode around as equals on donkeys .

So yeah, wealth inequality is big isn't it?

[Worthy4England]

Haha! I think he's saying something along the lines that it would be better if all the poorest people had access to power yachts which relatively were a lot shitter than the intergalactic speed-ships that the rich could afford (thus inequality between two 'absolutely rich' groups) than if everyone rode around as equals on donkeys .

So yeah, wealth inequality is big isn't it?

I guess that all depends on what you're setting out to do - if you're setting out to try and reduce "poverty" (by whatever measure that comes under), that's clearly different than trying to resolve wealth inequality. The former, I think you can go some way to addressing, the latter I think is a tougher nut to crack.

The problem as ever is likely to be around "what is poverty in the UK" (side-stepping world problems for convenience), and why if you get people all up to a certain level of "non-poverty", there's a problem that some people are better off than that (bearing in mind that "non-poverty" could include having an absolutely necessary power yacht). If we look at everyone's favourite oligarch, Roman, I don't need his yacht, I don't envy the fact that he has it either, because I'm happy with my lot - I wouldn't want particularly to take it off him because he has it and I don't.

[Beefheart]

Haha! I think he's saying something along the lines that it would be better if all the poorest people had access to power yachts which relatively were a lot shitter than the intergalactic speed-ships that the rich could afford (thus inequality between two 'absolutely rich' groups) than if everyone rode around as equals on donkeys .

So yeah, wealth inequality is big isn't it?

The explanation on this website of the measure (http://www.poverty.org.uk/01/index.shtml?2" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;) would suggest that if this were to happen then people would 'expect' to have their own power yacht, as this would become things considered 'normal' or 'essential' in this society. So those without a yacht could be considered to be in relative poverty.

[Prufrock]

I get the concept, I just don't like the phrase 'relative poverty' as the word 'poverty' is emotive and brings to mind images of starving kids in tv adverts, which often isn't the case. As soon as the word poverty is used the whole debate changes to a debate about what relative poverty means and whether the word poverty is appropriate (as here) instead of on the actual issues. Nothing is lost, IMO, in calling it 'wealth inequality' or somesuch.

The debate when it comes to wealth inequality is separate IMO, and should be about how comfortable we are about the differences between the 'rich' and the 'average'.

For the record, I appreciate poverty isn't limited to African kids and there are plenty in this country who struggle to make ends meet in terms of putting a roof over their heads and food on the table. That's what I think we mean when we talk about 'poverty'; not the fact that Roman Abramovich can spend four times my annual salary with a flick of his wrist by turning on his yacht!

[Worthy4England]

On a slightly different note - I was look for the News of the World/Hacking thread, but the only reference I found to Rebekah Brooks was in this thread.

Didn't know 'phone hacking was illegal - I mean no shit?
Didn't know who the company were paying £92 grand a year to, who was undertaking the hacking
Showed no surprise at all the inside information that the paper seemed to be getting from "sources"

Quite frankly, how could someone that fecking stupid, run a business?

[Harry Genshaw]

So - Harriet Harman. Friend to the paedophiles or another smear victim of the Mail?

[William the White]

So - Harriet Harman. Friend to the paedophiles or another smear victim of the Mail?

Well, obviously we can rule out a Daily Mail campaign against a Labour politician. And we all know there's no smoke without fire. So I suspect that evidence will emerge that Harman actually sold children to PIE. She did this because she's evil. Though not as evil as Ed Miliband's dad.

[Abdoulaye's Twin]

I'm just surprised it took the Daily Hate this long. It's no secret she was part of the organisation whose name escapes me and she's been in public office for how long? I've no problem with the questions being asked, it's more the faux outrage from the Daily Hate.

[Athers]

On a slightly different note - I was look for the News of the World/Hacking thread, but the only reference I found to Rebekah Brooks was in this thread.

Didn't know 'phone hacking was illegal - I mean no shit?
Didn't know who the company were paying £92 grand a year to, who was undertaking the hacking
Showed no surprise at all the inside information that the paper seemed to be getting from "sources"

Quite frankly, how could someone that fecking stupid, run a business?

I fear one doesn't need to be razor sharp to be good at storming around like a Murdoch attack-dog paying people for tabloid stories and running sensationalist headlines like "Bonkers Bruno locked up".

Perhaps her mind may not be the only thing she's used to climb the ladder as well.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

So - Harriet Harman. Friend to the paedophiles or another smear victim of the Mail?

Smear victim - but she could have done a better job of putting this to bed!

I think she had a misguided ambition to show the Mail that she cannot be bullied, which has backfired a bit.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

On a slightly different note - I was look for the News of the World/Hacking thread, but the only reference I found to Rebekah Brooks was in this thread.

Didn't know 'phone hacking was illegal - I mean no shit?
Didn't know who the company were paying £92 grand a year to, who was undertaking the hacking
Showed no surprise at all the inside information that the paper seemed to be getting from "sources"

Quite frankly, how could someone that fecking stupid, run a business?

The collective charade over this blows my mind - this was industry standard practice for a while and everyone knew it.

It's an unrealistic witchhunt to go for such a limited number of individuals and treat what they did as being an egregious transgression. Much better to have some honesty about how rotten the entire business was/is and spread the recriminations more widely.

[Prufrock]

Everyone knew it? Everyone in the industry maybe.

The press' response to the threat of regulation is always 'well it was illegal anyway'. So nail as many of the f*ckers as they can for me. If this lot happen to be first, so be it.

[Beefheart]

Everyone knew it? Everyone in the industry maybe.

The press' response to the threat of regulation is always 'well it was illegal anyway'. So nail as many of the f*ckers as they can for me. If this lot happen to be first, so be it.

I don't think anyone would complain if Piers Morgan got sent down.