[Misc] Will the Unions bring everyone to their knees?

[lawros left foot]

Footballers are rich, but they're very far from the "super rich" parasites that are funneling money out of your society to their tax-free offshore bank accounts.

I read somewhere that Uk billionaires increased their wealth, collectively by 55 billion last year.
That’s increased, not how much they are worth.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

This is very interesting and states the case being made, very clearly. Read it through, carefully.

[tweet]1539859602136862720[/tweet]

 

[beorhthelm]

That's the neo-liberal theory, proven to be dubious at best. 50 years of the lie that "the market solves it, let the money flow into the pockets of the rich and we'll all be living in some utopia", which is quite obviously not the case.

nothing "neo-liberal", you put your money in an account, offshore or otherwise, it gets lent out so thats investment into the economy. if it doesnt you'll be losing to inflation year after year, you believe the rich are letting that happen? no, they put the money into bonds, stock, funds to at least keep pace or make more money. a few do that via offshore account, and usually paying taxes when the money comes back onshore. no one ever claimed giving money to the rich will lead to utopia.

 

[Badger Boy]

But.....she was demolished.

Yesterday I had a strong negative attitude to the rail usion and the leader. Now....I think he's pretty effective - at dealing with the usual types of interviewer intent on demolishing him. He used facts to....demolish her narrative. Like it or not

I'm sure she was still in one piece after the interview, therefore - demolished is the wrong word, used for hyperbolic purposes, bordering on propaganda.

 

[Machiavelli]

I largely agree, although be careful about assuming all rail workers are earning a decent wage. As an example, the people doing cleaning jobs at stations are one sector of the industry on strike, and they're not well paid for what they do at all apparently.

Yes, you're right on that. I think some of those cleaners are contracted out, which makes it difficult for them to join a union and be involved in this dispute, but might have those details wrong.

 

[highflyer]

the McScrooge theory of economics enters the room.

no one keeps money hidden offshore in a vault, out of society as you put it. money gets spent, invested, feeds into the economy.

https://www.trtworld.com/magazine/e...global-gdp-is-held-in-offshore-accounts-52438

https://www.icij.org/investigations/swiss-leaks/explore-swiss-leaks-data/

It may not be 'cash in vaults' but it is big chunks of the economy kept hidden.

Profit extraction from public services, often via offshore mechanisms is very real. Profits being declared by global companies in the UK, including many of those involved in providing public services and taking government money, are rarely as they seem.

Governments and poor people spend money better (creating jobs, stimulating local economies) than big companies and rich people. 'Trickle down' is a myth, but still gets rolled out in various forms by those that stand to benefit from the system staying as it is.

 

[Uh_huh_him]

This is very interesting and states the case being made, very clearly. Read it through, carefully.

[tweet]1539859602136862720[/tweet]

Wow.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

I'm sure she was still in one piece after the interview, therefore - demolished is the wrong word, used for hyperbolic purposes, bordering on propaganda.

It is a phrase in the English language. Demolishing arguments, not the person.

 

[Uh_huh_him]

I'm sure she was still in one piece after the interview, therefore - demolished is the wrong word, used for hyperbolic purposes, bordering on propaganda.

You're right.
It was purely a humiliation.

 

[Is it PotG?]

It is a phrase in the English language. Demolishing arguments, not the person.

Is that the same as 'owned'?

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I'm sure she was still in one piece after the interview, therefore - demolished is the wrong word, used for hyperbolic purposes, bordering on propaganda.

Haven't I told you a million billion times to not exaggerate?

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

It is a phrase in the English language. Demolishing arguments, not the person.

Careful. He may start feeling crushed by the lack of support.

 

[Uh_huh_him]

the McScrooge theory of economics enters the room.

no one keeps money hidden offshore in a vault, out of society as you put it. money gets spent, invested, feeds into the economy.

Nowhere nearly as effectively as giving that money directly to the poor though.
They do spend every penny they are given, which all filters back to the government via various taxation methods within the UK economy.

The Trickle up theory is far more valid than Trickle down.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Yes, you're right on that. I think some of those cleaners are contracted out, which makes it difficult for them to join a union and be involved in this dispute, but might have those details wrong.

In the hospital where I work all the cleaners are contracted out. Aside from the low pay, when they change staff the new people are not show where the bins to empty are located, and we have no direct access to report and get fixed any issues. Luckily some of us have made a private arrangement (based on chatting and getting friendly) with the supervisor who can fix things for us. It's like being back in the 1950s.

 

[beorhthelm]

... 'Trickle down' is a myth, but still gets rolled out in various forms by those that stand to benefit from the system staying as it is.

it absolutly is a myth, only brought up by people saying how bad it is.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

In answer to Mouldy Boots, it seems to be having the opposite effect on workers.

[tweet]1539905606429155333[/tweet]

 

[Badger Boy]

It is a phrase in the English language. Demolishing arguments, not the person.

It's hyperbole in the context you used it in. No argument was demolished. The nature of debating is one person has an opinion and another person has a different opinion. They get discussed and debated and you're welcome to champion whoever you thought won but to suggest someone was "demolished" is ridiculous and lowers the tone of the discussion.

Personally, I would prefer both sides debate like adults without trying to grandstand. That's best left for PMQs, this is the real world and impacts real people. People trying to travel, go to work, put money into the economy by enjoying days out, etc.

You're right.
It was purely a humiliation.

If that's your opinion, sure. Personally, I've not seen any interviews so far where anyone has been humiliated. Some people are making points I thoroughly disagree with, both in content and intention. But I wouldn't argue anyone has been humiliated for stating their opinion and justifying it. I'm welcome to review any video I haven't so far seen.

 

[beorhthelm]

Nowhere nearly as effectively as giving that money directly to the poor though.
They do spend every penny they are given, which all filters back to the government via various taxation methods within the UK economy.

The Trickle up theory is far more valid than Trickle down.

giving money directly... so we're on handouts now? bit leap.

what do you think the mid and higher earners do with their money? all those cars, building work, holidays, iphones etc just appear do they? they dont go to the supermarket, hairdressers, pubs or restaurants? where is this absurd notion that only one group of people spend their money coming from?

 

[Thunder Bolt]

It's hyperbole in the context you used it in. No argument was demolished. The nature of debating is one person has an opinion and another person has a different opinion. They get discussed and debated and you're welcome to champion whoever you thought won but to suggest someone was "demolished" is ridiculous and lowers the tone of the discussion.

Personally, I would prefer both sides debate like adults without trying to grandstand. That's best left for PMQs, this is the real world and impacts real people. People trying to travel, go to work, put money into the economy by enjoying days out, etc.



If that's your opinion, sure. Personally, I've not seen any interviews so far where anyone has been humiliated. Some people are making points I thoroughly disagree with, both in content and intention. But I wouldn't argue anyone has been humiliated for stating their opinion and justifying it. I'm welcome to review any video I haven't so far seen.

Have a look at Piers Morgan and Mick Lynch.

If you want an adult discussion look at the Dan Walker interview which was very civilised.



You have your opinion, and I have mine. You think no argument was demolished, I disagree. Have a nice day.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

it absolutly is a myth, only brought up by people saying how bad it is.

That isn't quite right. The Republicans (and Thatcher) defended tax cuts for the rich because with more spending power this would benefit the poor. That is trickle down economics. The idea was criticised in the 1930s as an expecatation that wealth would trickle down (which is when the term was coined - in mockery), which as you say, is a myth. It isn't a case of it only being brought up by people who say how 'bad' it is. If it worked it would be good. The fact is it doesn't work so in that regards it is a myth. Sometimes you seem to struggle with nuance. Perhaps write a bit more carefully, include some punction and that?

From Reuters:

For both (Thatcher and Reagan), the watchwords were tax cutting, smaller government, trickle-down economics and a rising tide lifting all boats. Thatcher sneered at Britain’s welfare system, calling it the “nanny state.”

Despite some economic improvements during their tenure in the 1980s, critics complained of a growing gap between rich and poor, parodying their right-wing theory as “a rising tide which lifts all yachts.”