The Politics Thread

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Anyone else catch the third and final "Joe the Plumber" debate?

[Zulus Thousand of em]

Anyone else catch the third and final "Joe the Plumber" debate?

I caught the bit where it turns out he's not a plumber. Did I miss something?

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

Am I not right in saying that there is a quantifiable, finite amount of money in the world?

yes, you're not right, the amount of money can be expanded at the whim of government, as will happen here in the near future. Plus it depends on which definition of 'money' you use.

But doesn't that lead in turn to higher inflation?

Shizzle yeah, muthafizzle. They can't keep it down forever, even ignoring the "official" 2% inflation rate is, according to my rentbook, fuel bills and Lidl receipts, clearly utter bollocks.

On economic prop-ups, this chap's entertaining, if possibly insane

[Zulus Thousand of em]

On economic prop-ups, this chap's entertaining, if possibly insane

As mad as a mad thing. He might be right though.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

I played golf with one of the top ten most influential men in the City the other day.

You'll be pleased to know that the stress must be getting to him because I beat him 3&2....

[Lord Kangana]

I'd have been more pleased if the stakes were him paying back the money he's been robbing the last few years

[Lord Kangana]

And just as a catch-all answer to those who dismiss it as "conspiracy theory" (I'm thinking of you Prufrock ), I've tried to explain many times the reason America invaded Iraq, and how their economy is running scared. Its that bloke again, and this is my understanding:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ktBDj8Vo ... re=related

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

On economic prop-ups, this chap's entertaining, if possibly insane

As mad as a mad thing. He might be right though.

I'm sure holes can be picked in his arguments, but he's like a coked-up Johnny Ball of economics. Funnily enough, Think Of A Number appears to have been just what the US banks did when asking for the multi-billion dollar prop-up a few weeks ago... y'know, the one Congress rejected then approved, the one that didn't work...

Keiser's enthusiasm is infectious, I actually found myself watching other videos. On economics.

I played golf with one of the top ten most influential men in the City the other day.

You'll be pleased to know that the stress must be getting to him because I beat him 3&2....

Good to see someone's benefiting!

[ratbert]

I'd have Johnny Ball in double quick to sort out the financial crisis. A few matchsticks moved about a couple of times and it's done.

[lovethesmellofnapalm]

I played golf with one of the top ten most influential men in the City the other day.

You'll be pleased to know that the stress must be getting to him because I beat him 3&2....

While those poor plebs who dont "strive" hard enough to "better" themselves are probably doing an extra shift at the factory/hospital/shop etc to make ends meet. Still i suppose relatively speaking they are much better off than their ancestors who resided in workhouses or the pit while the landowning aristocracy swanned around their country estates. Same horse different jockey imo.
The last ten to twenty years has seen less opportunity for social mobility, a widening gap between rich and poor and a corresponding breakdown in those aspects of social cohesion and community that mark a truly civilised society.
We might all have Sky Sports and credit cards but we are poorer in real terms than at any time since the 1930's.

[Prufrock]

I played golf with one of the top ten most influential men in the City the other day.

You'll be pleased to know that the stress must be getting to him because I beat him 3&2....

While those poor plebs who dont "strive" hard enough to "better" themselves are probably doing an extra shift at the factory/hospital/shop etc to make ends meet. Still i suppose relatively speaking they are much better off than their ancestors who resided in workhouses or the pit while the landowning aristocracy swanned around their country estates. Same horse different jockey imo.
The last ten to twenty years has seen less opportunity for social mobility, a widening gap between rich and poor and a corresponding breakdown in those aspects of social cohesion and community that mark a truly civilised society.
We might all have Sky Sports and credit cards but we are poorer in real terms than at any time since the 1930's.

There is an interesting view, eminating from an american scholar whose name i have forgotten, but it sounded french and began with a 'T', which suggests that a classless society provides more inequality, because the people at the top genuinly beleive they have earnt all they have and therefore dont feel guilty. The inherited wealth a class system provides means the rich feel guilty about being rich, and so are more inclined to accept higher taxes, and lean towards philanthropic pursuits. Just one point of view.

[Montreal Wanderer]

There is an interesting view, eminating from an american scholar whose name i have forgotten, but it sounded french and began with a 'T', which suggests that a classless society provides more inequality, because the people at the top genuinly beleive they have earnt all they have and therefore dont feel guilty. The inherited wealth a class system provides means the rich feel guilty about being rich, and so are more inclined to accept higher taxes, and lean towards philanthropic pursuits. Just one point of view.

Are you sure this is not Paul Kingston, who wrote "The Classless Society: Studies in Social Inequality"?

[Prufrock]

There is an interesting view, eminating from an american scholar whose name i have forgotten, but it sounded french and began with a 'T', which suggests that a classless society provides more inequality, because the people at the top genuinly beleive they have earnt all they have and therefore dont feel guilty. The inherited wealth a class system provides means the rich feel guilty about being rich, and so are more inclined to accept higher taxes, and lean towards philanthropic pursuits. Just one point of view.

Are you sure this is not Paul Kingston, who wrote "The Classless Society: Studies in Social Inequality"?

Im fairly sure, something like Torquet or Torqueville. No doubt there are other books on the subject though this man with the elusive name is just where i first heard of it.

[lovethesmellofnapalm]

I played golf with one of the top ten most influential men in the City the other day.

You'll be pleased to know that the stress must be getting to him because I beat him 3&2....

While those poor plebs who dont "strive" hard enough to "better" themselves are probably doing an extra shift at the factory/hospital/shop etc to make ends meet. Still i suppose relatively speaking they are much better off than their ancestors who resided in workhouses or the pit while the landowning aristocracy swanned around their country estates. Same horse different jockey imo.
The last ten to twenty years has seen less opportunity for social mobility, a widening gap between rich and poor and a corresponding breakdown in those aspects of social cohesion and community that mark a truly civilised society.
We might all have Sky Sports and credit cards but we are poorer in real terms than at any time since the 1930's.

There is an interesting view, eminating from an american scholar whose name i have forgotten, but it sounded french and began with a 'T', which suggests that a classless society provides more inequality, because the people at the top genuinly beleive they have earnt all they have and therefore dont feel guilty. The inherited wealth a class system provides means the rich feel guilty about being rich, and so are more inclined to accept higher taxes, and lean towards philanthropic pursuits. Just one point of view.

De Tocqueville?
You've lost me. Do you mean a pre-capitalist society such as 18th century England? Pre- industrialisation the ruling class did see themselves as having a paternalistic role in society which justified their reasoning in not giving "ordinary" people the vote- they ruled in the "best" interest of all society not a narrow class interest. Total bollocks of course and when the industrial revolution and capitalism kicked in the ruling class gave up any pretence of ruling in the common interest and allowed their greed full rein.

[Montreal Wanderer]

There is an interesting view, eminating from an american scholar whose name i have forgotten, but it sounded french and began with a 'T', which suggests that a classless society provides more inequality, because the people at the top genuinly beleive they have earnt all they have and therefore dont feel guilty. The inherited wealth a class system provides means the rich feel guilty about being rich, and so are more inclined to accept higher taxes, and lean towards philanthropic pursuits. Just one point of view.

Are you sure this is not Paul Kingston, who wrote "The Classless Society: Studies in Social Inequality"?

Im fairly sure, something like Torquet or Torqueville. No doubt there are other books on the subject though this man with the elusive name is just where i first heard of it.

Oh! Perhaps you mean Alexis de Tocqueville who was French but wrote "Democracy in America" in the middle of the Nineteenth Century - I was thinking something more recent.

[Prufrock]

I played golf with one of the top ten most influential men in the City the other day.

You'll be pleased to know that the stress must be getting to him because I beat him 3&2....

While those poor plebs who dont "strive" hard enough to "better" themselves are probably doing an extra shift at the factory/hospital/shop etc to make ends meet. Still i suppose relatively speaking they are much better off than their ancestors who resided in workhouses or the pit while the landowning aristocracy swanned around their country estates. Same horse different jockey imo.
The last ten to twenty years has seen less opportunity for social mobility, a widening gap between rich and poor and a corresponding breakdown in those aspects of social cohesion and community that mark a truly civilised society.
We might all have Sky Sports and credit cards but we are poorer in real terms than at any time since the 1930's.

There is an interesting view, eminating from an american scholar whose name i have forgotten, but it sounded french and began with a 'T', which suggests that a classless society provides more inequality, because the people at the top genuinly beleive they have earnt all they have and therefore dont feel guilty. The inherited wealth a class system provides means the rich feel guilty about being rich, and so are more inclined to accept higher taxes, and lean towards philanthropic pursuits. Just one point of view.

De Tocqueville?
You've lost me. Do you mean a pre-capitalist society such as 18th century England? Pre- industrialisation the ruling class did see themselves as having a paternalistic role in society which justified their reasoning in not giving "ordinary" people the vote- they ruled in the "best" interest of all society not a narrow class interest. Total bollocks of course and when the industrial revolution and capitalism kicked in the ruling class gave up any pretence of ruling in the common interest and allowed their greed full rein.

Thats the mon.
Not saying i agree with him, but as Monty has also said (cheers both of you for helping my sorry memory) he was writing 1800's, pre 'capitalism'. Not saying i agree with it, but its an interesting point of view. From the stories ive heard and read it can definately be said about NYC society, where the fat cats genuinly beleive they are fulfilling the American dream and as such feel superior to those less wealthy. The classic stories of New York women on dates asking outright and shamelessly 'job?, car?, house?'

Personally i hate capitalism as a system, i think it very unfair, but i would certainly also describe myself as being against any idea of a class based society. There is evidence that suggests in America, the one great inequality that is accepted is inequality of wealth. There is less economic mobility in America now than there has been for a long time, possibly ever.

[Athers]

OECD saying Britain has reduced income inequality since 2000.

Obama has it in the bag so much he's off to visit his poorly granny.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

OECD saying Britain has reduced income inequality since 2000.

Obama has it in the bag so much he's off to visit his poorly granny.

He could probably club her to death and still win.

[Worthy4England]

OECD saying Britain has reduced income inequality since 2000.

Obama has it in the bag so much he's off to visit his poorly granny.

He could probably club her to death and still win.

I suspect that granny clubbing does have a long term effect on the requirement for future healthcare resources - it's probably linked in with his manifesto pledge to bring down the cost of healthcare, and as such is entirely consistent with that pledge

[ratbert]

Creates a whole new euthanasia debate though!

Interesting article here about whether Obama really does have it sewn up -

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americ ... 675551.stm