| Expectations 07:58 - Dec 13 with 3719 views | NthQldITFC |
Is it the truth that we all want and expect more money, more 'disposable income' all the time, wage rises at above inflation levels, and demand a constantly increasing 'standard of living', irrespective of the constraints of base levels of welfare in our society, and a collapsing environment.
Is that just how things are? |  |
| |  |
| Expectations on 08:22 - Dec 14 with 761 views | NthQldITFC |
| Expectations on 19:21 - Dec 13 by BanksterDebtSlave |
Makes you wonder where all the money is going.
Clue....we're being mugged. |
...and we all know it, and most of us (fairly) happily swallow the 'medicine' and go along with it. | |
| |
| Expectations on 08:38 - Dec 14 with 728 views | lowhouseblue |
| Expectations on 08:19 - Dec 14 by Churchman |
An interesting article. Towards the end is a little summary of what might help. It says:
‘Whatever the root causes of the growth malaise, looking forward the only sustainable route out is increases in productivity – the amount we produce for every hour worked. And while there are no silver bullets here, we do know what the government can do to put us in the best position for good growth.
First, reform taxes to prevent unnecessary disincentives to work and invest.
Second, reform the planning system to allow housing and commercial development in the places where people want to live and where companies want to invest.
Third, deliver high-quality education that raises human capital.
Fourth, make well-targeted public investments, bearing the long-term future in mind.
Five, ensure that regulation that does not unnecessarily hold up public or private investment.
Six, improve trading conditions with the EU – our biggest and nearest trading partner. Seven, political consistency and stability help.’
This was published in May and is just opinion. For me, the two that stick out the most are education and relations with the EU, but all the points have relevance. Looking at the stats in the article, 14 years of austerity cuts seems to have done nothing good, yet it still appears to be the main plank of government policy, along with loading costs onto business, which I find odd. |
agree with all that. but you could also take from that article that: median real incomes have grown since 2009 (all be it slowly); median real incomes have grown by approx 50% since 1995; the richest decile have seen their incomes grow most slowly since 2009; and absolute poverty has fallen since both 2009 and 2002. it's not quite the story which is usually told - since 1995 we're 50% better off in real terms - something that applies across the income distribution. if we're miserable now just think how miserable we must have been in 1995. how did we ever survive? |  |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| Expectations on 08:42 - Dec 14 with 729 views | unbelievablue |
It is hard to disentangle disposable income, growth etc. from standards of living. For society collectively, I would prefer a more equitable distribution of wealth, and better standards of living for those struggling. Ultimately a better baseline.
On a personal level though, money just isn't as important as it once was for me. Having had issues with addiction, where money is the route to the goal, I am now thankfully in a place where other things bring me the joy and satisfaction and excitement that having money and *wanting* money and new things once did.
I used to work for a company I'd now consider quite inherently awful, but eschewed that to work for a non-profit. It's not a 'holier than thou' thing, I just feel better about life for having done it.
Would I like a house with a little garden? Sure, but I'm damn happy in our little flat. [Post edited 14 Dec 2024 8:44]
|  |
| |
| Expectations on 08:52 - Dec 14 with 709 views | WinchBlue |
Huge strides have been made in medicine and other scientific research. Life expectancy has been higher than ever. Treatments for breast cancer particularly have improved spectacularly along with many other cancers and diseases. Technology has provided far more for our younger generations. We haven’t had a major war for 80 years. Travel has become easy and cheap. There is much that newer generations have that older generations didn’t. |  | | |
| Expectations on 08:58 - Dec 14 with 706 views | NthQldITFC |
| Expectations on 08:42 - Dec 14 by unbelievablue |
It is hard to disentangle disposable income, growth etc. from standards of living. For society collectively, I would prefer a more equitable distribution of wealth, and better standards of living for those struggling. Ultimately a better baseline.
On a personal level though, money just isn't as important as it once was for me. Having had issues with addiction, where money is the route to the goal, I am now thankfully in a place where other things bring me the joy and satisfaction and excitement that having money and *wanting* money and new things once did.
I used to work for a company I'd now consider quite inherently awful, but eschewed that to work for a non-profit. It's not a 'holier than thou' thing, I just feel better about life for having done it.
Would I like a house with a little garden? Sure, but I'm damn happy in our little flat. [Post edited 14 Dec 2024 8:44]
|
'It is hard to disentangle disposable income, growth etc. from standards of living.'
That is exactly the biggest problem we face in our collective delusion.
Because we strive for a financially-measured better standard of living, we depend upon and actually worship growth and disposable income. These things, when multiplied by size of population, broadly give us a close metric for environmental destruction on our finite planet, plus they squeeze the bottom end to accommodate.
Until we measure our 'standard of living' by happiness, equality and health of both the human population and the rest of the environment which sustains the former, we are shooting our species and the rest of life on Earth in the head. All in the name of the unrealistic god of Perpetual Growth. | |
| |
| Expectations on 09:01 - Dec 14 with 701 views | NthQldITFC |
| Expectations on 08:52 - Dec 14 by WinchBlue |
Huge strides have been made in medicine and other scientific research. Life expectancy has been higher than ever. Treatments for breast cancer particularly have improved spectacularly along with many other cancers and diseases. Technology has provided far more for our younger generations. We haven’t had a major war for 80 years. Travel has become easy and cheap. There is much that newer generations have that older generations didn’t. |
..the planet's life-support systems are under immense and immediate threat, inequality, poverty and misery in rich and poor nations is rising under irresponsible and personality-cult politicians. | |
| |
| Expectations on 09:22 - Dec 14 with 687 views | unbelievablue |
| Expectations on 08:58 - Dec 14 by NthQldITFC |
'It is hard to disentangle disposable income, growth etc. from standards of living.'
That is exactly the biggest problem we face in our collective delusion.
Because we strive for a financially-measured better standard of living, we depend upon and actually worship growth and disposable income. These things, when multiplied by size of population, broadly give us a close metric for environmental destruction on our finite planet, plus they squeeze the bottom end to accommodate.
Until we measure our 'standard of living' by happiness, equality and health of both the human population and the rest of the environment which sustains the former, we are shooting our species and the rest of life on Earth in the head. All in the name of the unrealistic god of Perpetual Growth. |
I agree. There is a false class consciousness here that feeds the system and the collective delusion. But I think the nuance is between individuals and the collective to some extent.
And all of those standards you mention that are non-financial are ultimately financial because of the way things are configured. Happiness, perhaps, is easier to disentangle, but health, equality etc.? These are inextricably linked with the development of capitalism. | |
| |
| Expectations on 09:37 - Dec 14 with 655 views | CoachRob |
| Expectations on 09:01 - Dec 14 by NthQldITFC |
..the planet's life-support systems are under immense and immediate threat, inequality, poverty and misery in rich and poor nations is rising under irresponsible and personality-cult politicians. |
Interesting looking at the responses you have got, there always seems to be these self-imposed boundaries people put on these types of discussion. We have run out of room for tinkering or slightly adjusting some metric. We need deep cuts to emissions now whatever the consequences for our hollow consumptive lifestyles.
Couple of worrying things I saw recently, one a piece by the BBC that claims we can adapt to 4C (people maybe thought that 15 years ago, but impacts and adaptation was poorly understood then), and a paper that looked at regional warming thresholds (economists would reject this out of hand because in their models what happens in space, happens in time).
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgl9yk42rz7o
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ad91ca
Nice to see our resident climate change denier painting a rosy picture of capitalism backed up with some appeal to authority of some Right-wing think tank. I've notice the cranks on this site have been having a bit of a competition of who can post the most offensive nonsense without falling foul of the banhammer threshold.
Here is some actual science that supports your view.
https://www.planetaryhealthcheck.org/ |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Expectations on 10:24 - Dec 14 with 624 views | Churchman |
| Expectations on 09:37 - Dec 14 by CoachRob |
Interesting looking at the responses you have got, there always seems to be these self-imposed boundaries people put on these types of discussion. We have run out of room for tinkering or slightly adjusting some metric. We need deep cuts to emissions now whatever the consequences for our hollow consumptive lifestyles.
Couple of worrying things I saw recently, one a piece by the BBC that claims we can adapt to 4C (people maybe thought that 15 years ago, but impacts and adaptation was poorly understood then), and a paper that looked at regional warming thresholds (economists would reject this out of hand because in their models what happens in space, happens in time).
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgl9yk42rz7o
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ad91ca
Nice to see our resident climate change denier painting a rosy picture of capitalism backed up with some appeal to authority of some Right-wing think tank. I've notice the cranks on this site have been having a bit of a competition of who can post the most offensive nonsense without falling foul of the banhammer threshold.
Here is some actual science that supports your view.
https://www.planetaryhealthcheck.org/ |
I don’t disagree with you, but who is actually going to make these ‘deep cuts’? Attached is some statistics on CO2 emissions by country:
https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-by-country/
The U.K. is 80th in land mass and 21st by population. Say we reduced emissions to zero. Get everybody into their Chinese electric cars (power to make them supplied from one of their 1100 coal fired power stations) and have everyone keeping warm dancing round a maypole with a net zero rosy grin, despite no employment because Vauxhall have moved to Germany (48 coal fired power stations).
Will the eradication of our current 0.88% contribution to world CO2 make any difference to the planet? Especially as developing countries carry on growing.
It could be argued that if we show the way, the rest will follow. The cynic in me says this is as realistic as appeasement towards Putin as a solution. They won’t give a stuff. Do we really think the dictators in Russia, China etc, people like Trump, India I.e. those countries most responsible for current emissions care?
The only way I can see realistic change to those that cause the most harm is disasters that directly affect them. And even then swivel eyed loons like trump will blame something or somebody else. This is a depressing, negative viewpoint and hopefully a wrong one. |  | | |
| Expectations on 10:55 - Dec 14 with 604 views | Swansea_Blue |
| Expectations on 19:21 - Dec 13 by BanksterDebtSlave |
Makes you wonder where all the money is going.
Clue....we're being mugged. |
I’ve got it all. Def info.
 |  |
| |
| Expectations on 11:03 - Dec 14 with 595 views | Swansea_Blue |
| Expectations on 10:24 - Dec 14 by Churchman |
I don’t disagree with you, but who is actually going to make these ‘deep cuts’? Attached is some statistics on CO2 emissions by country:
https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-by-country/
The U.K. is 80th in land mass and 21st by population. Say we reduced emissions to zero. Get everybody into their Chinese electric cars (power to make them supplied from one of their 1100 coal fired power stations) and have everyone keeping warm dancing round a maypole with a net zero rosy grin, despite no employment because Vauxhall have moved to Germany (48 coal fired power stations).
Will the eradication of our current 0.88% contribution to world CO2 make any difference to the planet? Especially as developing countries carry on growing.
It could be argued that if we show the way, the rest will follow. The cynic in me says this is as realistic as appeasement towards Putin as a solution. They won’t give a stuff. Do we really think the dictators in Russia, China etc, people like Trump, India I.e. those countries most responsible for current emissions care?
The only way I can see realistic change to those that cause the most harm is disasters that directly affect them. And even then swivel eyed loons like trump will blame something or somebody else. This is a depressing, negative viewpoint and hopefully a wrong one. |
You’re depressingly right. But we have to keep trying imo. We have to demand that our politicians prioritise and treat the issue with the seriousness it deserves (which includes not having one of the world’s worse records for the treatment of climate protestors - https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/dec/11/britain-leads-the-world-in-c
Our politicians then need to build alliances and try to show leadership on the international stage. That’s difficult to do of course, especially as people have their own more immediate and tangible concerns. Also, the international political community around this issue seems pretty corrupt. [Post edited 14 Dec 2024 11:05]
| |
| |
| Expectations on 13:17 - Dec 14 with 569 views | NthQldITFC |
| Expectations on 10:24 - Dec 14 by Churchman |
I don’t disagree with you, but who is actually going to make these ‘deep cuts’? Attached is some statistics on CO2 emissions by country:
https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-by-country/
The U.K. is 80th in land mass and 21st by population. Say we reduced emissions to zero. Get everybody into their Chinese electric cars (power to make them supplied from one of their 1100 coal fired power stations) and have everyone keeping warm dancing round a maypole with a net zero rosy grin, despite no employment because Vauxhall have moved to Germany (48 coal fired power stations).
Will the eradication of our current 0.88% contribution to world CO2 make any difference to the planet? Especially as developing countries carry on growing.
It could be argued that if we show the way, the rest will follow. The cynic in me says this is as realistic as appeasement towards Putin as a solution. They won’t give a stuff. Do we really think the dictators in Russia, China etc, people like Trump, India I.e. those countries most responsible for current emissions care?
The only way I can see realistic change to those that cause the most harm is disasters that directly affect them. And even then swivel eyed loons like trump will blame something or somebody else. This is a depressing, negative viewpoint and hopefully a wrong one. |
Then we're dead.
I think the pressure has to come from below, wherever democracy has any residual foothold - because leaders (if they're not corrupt or too personally tied into growth-consumerism to shift) can only respond if their electorate demands it - and that requires much more education of the electorate and a lot of everyday people getting their heads out of their arses and making a noise to the politicians on behalf of their children. | |
| |
| Expectations on 13:29 - Dec 14 with 552 views | Churchman |
| Expectations on 13:17 - Dec 14 by NthQldITFC |
Then we're dead.
I think the pressure has to come from below, wherever democracy has any residual foothold - because leaders (if they're not corrupt or too personally tied into growth-consumerism to shift) can only respond if their electorate demands it - and that requires much more education of the electorate and a lot of everyday people getting their heads out of their arses and making a noise to the politicians on behalf of their children. |
Yes, the pessimist in me says we are done for. I’m not bothered about myself, but future generations? Not much of a legacy is it. It has to be wrong.
The problem with your second para is that for those countries where a difference can truly be made and those who are industrialising (e.g. Saudi, far east etc) with the exception of American there is no true electorate - and they’ve just voted in the orange idiot!
Can you imagine telling Putin or the Chinese bloke the price of anything? At best you’d wind up in a Gulag to have a rethink, at worst your relations charged for the bullet put into the back of your head.
I agree, it’s about education. I think people in this country are certainly more awake to it than they were and there’s more to do, but in countries that can really make a difference? I guess that’s my rather depressing point. | | | |
| Expectations on 14:01 - Dec 14 with 535 views | NthQldITFC |
| Expectations on 13:29 - Dec 14 by Churchman |
Yes, the pessimist in me says we are done for. I’m not bothered about myself, but future generations? Not much of a legacy is it. It has to be wrong.
The problem with your second para is that for those countries where a difference can truly be made and those who are industrialising (e.g. Saudi, far east etc) with the exception of American there is no true electorate - and they’ve just voted in the orange idiot!
Can you imagine telling Putin or the Chinese bloke the price of anything? At best you’d wind up in a Gulag to have a rethink, at worst your relations charged for the bullet put into the back of your head.
I agree, it’s about education. I think people in this country are certainly more awake to it than they were and there’s more to do, but in countries that can really make a difference? I guess that’s my rather depressing point. |
Where there's no democracy you'd need a revolution led by an educated, informed and brave (both in thought and in action) populace, I suppose.
It's a tough ask! | |
| |
| Expectations on 14:35 - Dec 14 with 518 views | Vic |
| Expectations on 19:21 - Dec 13 by BanksterDebtSlave |
Makes you wonder where all the money is going.
Clue....we're being mugged. |
Not sure if thats a tongue in cheek comment or not! My guess is that way too much goes on interest on national debt.
In what way do you think were being mugged? |  |
| |
| Expectations on 17:40 - Dec 14 with 491 views | lowhouseblue |
| Expectations on 09:37 - Dec 14 by CoachRob |
Interesting looking at the responses you have got, there always seems to be these self-imposed boundaries people put on these types of discussion. We have run out of room for tinkering or slightly adjusting some metric. We need deep cuts to emissions now whatever the consequences for our hollow consumptive lifestyles.
Couple of worrying things I saw recently, one a piece by the BBC that claims we can adapt to 4C (people maybe thought that 15 years ago, but impacts and adaptation was poorly understood then), and a paper that looked at regional warming thresholds (economists would reject this out of hand because in their models what happens in space, happens in time).
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgl9yk42rz7o
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ad91ca
Nice to see our resident climate change denier painting a rosy picture of capitalism backed up with some appeal to authority of some Right-wing think tank. I've notice the cranks on this site have been having a bit of a competition of who can post the most offensive nonsense without falling foul of the banhammer threshold.
Here is some actual science that supports your view.
https://www.planetaryhealthcheck.org/ |
you are a very strange person with a weird and obsessive grudge. the ifs holds esrc research institute status and is recognised as one of the uk's leading independent social science research bodies and as a global centre of excellence. if you think the ifs is "some right-wing think tank" then you're frankly an utter loon.
show me any post in which i have denied climate change. i have repeatedly posted that reducing emissions is urgent and involves a significant reduction in consumption by the middle classes in wealthy countries. in terms of the biggest crank on the site i think you're holding your own. | |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
