The Politics Thread

[BWFC_Insane]

First of all I dislike the fact welfare is a homogenised mess of lots of different things and gets viewed negatively because it produces a huge number. For a start pensions should be a separate thing. Take that out and the numbers start to look a little better. Sort out housing in general and cut the housing benefit element and that number is looking better still. Split the out of work stuff into short term and long term and we get a better picture.

The whole system needs reform so that people who need help get it and get it when they need it, without needing a degree in form filling. If it takes 6 weeks or whatever to get out of work assistance then taking insecure work on means regularly going 6 weeks without anything and a salary that doesn't allow you to save for those in-between times. Lots of people would take work as and when they can get it, but if by coming off UC and the job only lasting a few weeks, then having to wait 6 weeks (or whatever), then you aint taking the work. Simplify it all and make work pay in reality. The long term lot have completely different needs. Those that might want to work lack skills and confidence. From first hand experience most of these people don't last long and there is only so much an employer can do.

Yep - simplified and less punitive. But I do think we have an issue the numbers show it of people long term out of work being higher and rising above European neighbours and likely to rise further. We can’t ignore it. The case in my post - I doubt would happen in many European nations.

But taking their money won’t force them back in because they aren’t in work because they wouldn’t get any. Nobody would employ them. They need to fix that issue or find a way around it before they start cutting stuff.

[Abdoulaye's Twin]

Yep - simplified and less punitive. But I do think we have an issue the numbers show it of people long term out of work being higher and rising above European neighbours and likely to rise further. We can’t ignore it. The case in my post - I doubt would happen in many European nations.

But taking their money won’t force them back in because they aren’t in work because they wouldn’t get any. Nobody would employ them. They need to fix that issue or find a way around it before they start cutting stuff.

No issue with that, though in reality the availability of the kind of shit jobs we're talking about are going to become more scarce and in different locations to these people.

[BWFC_Insane]

Yep - simplified and less punitive. But I do think we have an issue the numbers show it of people long term out of work being higher and rising above European neighbours and likely to rise further. We can’t ignore it. The case in my post - I doubt would happen in many European nations.

But taking their money won’t force them back in because they aren’t in work because they wouldn’t get any. Nobody would employ them. They need to fix that issue or find a way around it before they start cutting stuff.

No issue with that, though in reality the availability of the kind of shit jobs we're talking about are going to become more scarce and in different locations to these people.

Yep. And it’s all so disconnected. Many people claiming sickness or disability benefits who aren’t working could probably do a lot of jobs from home. The issue is that we’ve decided working from home is bad. And again that flies against the idea of trying to get more people into work.

They have announced what sound like decent pathways to work schemes but the test will be whether they actually offer the proper tailored support needed with the specialists in place alongside proper employer partnerships.

[Worthy4England]

The whole shooting match is broken. I don't think looking at elements in isolation helps much although it can be cathartic. The main problem is, the UK (xth richest nation in the world) is broke. They can raise some in tax from the current group and/or cut some expense and maybe a bit of both. But if you grow at 1-2% (2 is looking a bit of a stretch) and your debt interest is at 5%. The poor generally have few assets, the "middle class" are lising theirs, the government have bugger all, yet the "economy" has generally "grown," over time.

People need to look at where it's all gone. And maybe then there's a conversation about what to do to get it back.

Labour nor any government will "fix" it, unless the have a plan to address wealth inequality. This is little different in Europe or the US.

[BWFC_Insane]

The whole shooting match is broken. I don't think looking at elements in isolation helps much although it can be cathartic. The main problem is, the UK (xth richest nation in the world) is broke. They can raise some in tax from the current group and/or cut some expense and maybe a bit of both. But if you grow at 1-2% (2 is looking a bit of a stretch) and your debt interest is at 5%. The poor generally have few assets, the "middle class" are lising theirs, the government have bugger all, yet the "economy" has generally "grown," over time.

People need to look at where it's all gone. And maybe then there's a conversation about what to do to get it back.

Labour nor any government will "fix" it, unless the have a plan to address wealth inequality. This is little different in Europe or the US.

I agree with the caveat that nobody can solve wealth inequality at least not the UK alone - whoever runs it. The problem is too large for us to fix and the solutions require international cooperation.

[Worthy4England]

Caveat accepted.

[Abdoulaye's Twin]

I see Reform are giving it shades of Jim'll Fix It

[BWFC_Insane]

I see Reform are giving it shades of Jim'll Fix It

Now then……..

[BWFC_Insane]

Looks like the alternative to free market trade based economics is going well then. Deary me.

[KeyserSoze]

I'm interested to find out who Donald thinks will invest in the reindustrialisation of the US given his actions are going to wipe out the investing potential of the majority of candidates.

Not a fun couple of days in the city. And it ain't stopping soon I fear.

[Worthy4England]

I'm interested to find out who Donald thinks will invest in the reindustrialisation of the US given his actions are going to wipe out the investing potential of the majority of candidates.

Not a fun couple of days in the city. And it ain't stopping soon I fear.

It's cunning. Penguins unite.

He's trying to create negotiating leverage, because they system they designed to favour the US and re-designed in the 80's has slipped and will continue to do so. He's actually trying to do what needs doing (renegotiating capitalism,) we need to not give him a free hand.

[BWFC_Insane]

I'm interested to find out who Donald thinks will invest in the reindustrialisation of the US given his actions are going to wipe out the investing potential of the majority of candidates.

Not a fun couple of days in the city. And it ain't stopping soon I fear.

It's cunning. Penguins unite.

He's trying to create negotiating leverage, because they system they designed to favour the US and re-designed in the 80's has slipped and will continue to do so. He's actually trying to do what needs doing (renegotiating capitalism,) we need to not give him a free hand.

He’s not renegotiating capitalism though he’s simply trying to rewrite markets to ensure America is untouchable - and making them the opposite in the process.

This is what I mean when people say ‘oh we need to do something’ the proposed solutions are all worse than what we have.

[Worthy4England]

Yeah he is. Some people assume when we say it needs renegotiating, restructuring and rebalancing that everyone would do that with no country interest, no self interest, all sat trying to reach a concensus on behalf of the masses. This is just his first shots at his version of the renegotiation...

[BWFC_Insane]

Yeah he is. Some people assume when we say it needs renegotiating, restructuring and rebalancing that everyone would do that with no country interest, no self interest, all sat trying to reach a concensus on behalf of the masses. This is just his first shots at his version of the renegotiation...

If you think genuinely that Trump is trying to disrupt capitalism as his aim then I’ve got some magic beans you can buy

He’s surrounded himself with folk who have a similarly distorted and plain wrong understanding of how the economy works but his aim is to make rich people more able to make more money. That’s capitalism on steroids. That he wants to do it in a protectionist way is not only madness but also reflects how little he understands. Also how those who backed him and are now up in arms (hey tech bros) didn’t understand what they signed up for.

[Abdoulaye's Twin]

I actually think this is purely down to getting corporate America under his thumb. He's doing the same in the legal world too. He's threatening companies with the tariffs, but back him and the tariffs will disappear. Do his legal bidding or no access to federal buildings/contracts etc. Means in 3/4 years time he'll have no barriers to running for a 3rd term. He couldn't give a feck about American jobs, lowering costs etc. He's gambling everything will be under his thumb quickly enough that the tariffs can disappear and he wont be the bad guy.

[Worthy4England]

I'd be embarrassed to take your magic beans off you. I'm not suggesting he wants to make it better for all. He wants to make it better for him and his backers as you say. That still involves renegotiationg capitalism, just not the way you or I would do it. So it doesn't have to work in the notional interests of free markets, it just needs to make a few people richer. Then all we have to do is wait for it to trickle down. Plenty of shorting will already be making some richer...just not the dude hoping for a manufacturing job in Ohio.

The problem they have with capitalism, is at some point, the largest nation wins. The US is already suffering from it..

[Worthy4England]

I actually think this is purely down to getting corporate America under his thumb. He's doing the same in the legal world too. He's threatening companies with the tariffs, but back him and the tariffs will disappear. Do his legal bidding or no access to federal buildings/contracts etc. Means in 3/4 years time he'll have no barriers to running for a 3rd term. He couldn't give a feck about American jobs, lowering costs etc. He's gambling everything will be under his thumb quickly enough that the tariffs can disappear and he wont be the bad guy.

Under Bretton Woods, US was a clear winner...it pretty much broke in the 70's so they had to try change it which they did with a movie star. That it's absolutely broke now is pretty clear. The richest nation on earth has millions of people on the breadline that they can't even give healthcare to, so irrespective of what you think of the incumbent president, they need to try and change the playing field...historically this involved war, but if you can secure territory (and resources) without one, it's cheaper!

I can't recall the last time I heard a serious economist mention "trickle down."

[Abdoulaye's Twin]

Under Bretton Woods, US was a clear winner...it pretty much broke in the 70's so they had to try change it which they did with a movie star. That it's absolutely broke now is pretty clear. The richest nation on earth has millions of people on the breadline that they can't even give healthcare to, so irrespective of what you think of the incumbent president, they need to try and change the playing field...historically this involved war, but if you can secure territory (and resources) without one, it's cheaper!

I can't recall the last time I heard a serious economist mention "trickle down."

I just don't believe Trump is trying to change the playing field. He's making sure of a pay day for a few, but this is all a means to the end of putting himself and possibly family in power forever. Putin can do it and he's not as Bigly and fantastic as Trump.

[Worthy4England]

Under Bretton Woods, US was a clear winner...it pretty much broke in the 70's so they had to try change it which they did with a movie star. That it's absolutely broke now is pretty clear. The richest nation on earth has millions of people on the breadline that they can't even give healthcare to, so irrespective of what you think of the incumbent president, they need to try and change the playing field...historically this involved war, but if you can secure territory (and resources) without one, it's cheaper!

I can't recall the last time I heard a serious economist mention "trickle down."

I just don't believe Trump is trying to change the playing field. He's making sure of a pay day for a few, but this is all a means to the end of putting himself and possibly family in power forever. Putin can do it and he's not as Bigly and fantastic as Trump.

The way he ensures a pay day for a few, is to change the playing field to his advantage, like the contracts Musk cancelled for Starlink alternatives etc. They still have the main problem that capitalism is failing most people. He's not that arsed about that part.

[Hoboh]

When you inflict tariffs on a country, then that country retaliates, I don't quite get why the world acts in shock?

The biggest culprits in this are the huge companies in their great haste to export manufacturing to others who enjoy virtual slave labour to provide the goods at buckshee prices. Example, iPhone cost the, well yeah, stupid consumer over a grand yet the Chinese manufacturer them for about $30.
Closer to home, the likes of Dyson, Triumph motorcycles and hell, that great US symbol, Harley Davidson.

The world has been screwed by the 'speed of greed' disguised as so called advances in living standards, that, frankly, would have happened anyway, probably without all the fallout.