Billy_wizz
Established Member
To be fair I don't see how turning a budgetary surplus into huge borrowing is not that bad to be fair!
Won't somebody think of "young people"? (Edit: and No, older people aren't "to blame")
- Thread starter Jelly
- Start date
Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:
rafezetter
Troll Hunter
I would refute most of that with a simple caveat aded to the beginning of each of your points: "some".
Your posts reads like it's 100% coverage when that is simply untrue and frankly an incredibly egregious oversimplification of very complex matters.
Not everyone lives way beyond thier means. - Banks have the majority share of the blame for both the ability of the people to have debt fuelled growth, it's how they made money and also in part for the ingrained dogma that success is derived from material wealth.
"Want a NICER car? Have a loan". "Want a larger pool than your neighbours? Have a loan." "exotic holiday? loan" "cosmetic surgery? loan"
"Need a new oxen? I'll loan you some sheckels against your harvest this year".
This is not new, infact this hasn't been new since the first "coins" were minted thousands of years ago.
We still use fossil fuels because solar and other non nuclear forms of energy are not even close to performing as needed - even solar "net zero" houses are rare, almost all of them are still tied to the grid to compensate for low power days, and almost all of those net zero houses are in countries with LOTS OF SUNSHINE. Yet despite ALL of this undeniable proof that "green power" is a long way off being a serious, vaible alternative, nuclear is universally reviled by "the greens" - because they are idiots and most importantly, despite it being the ONLY form of CURRENT technology that can replace fossil fuels kilowatt output; yet because of some unfortunate incidents, numbering only a few in the last 50 years and several of which could have been prevented, suddenly, nuclear power is anathema - well... guess what? Planes crash all the time - one only very recently, yet people still fly (or did) in thier millions every year, so what's your (the greens) point exactly?
LESS people have died from nuclear incidents in it's entire history than have died in plane crashes for the same period of time, 66 years - but apparently that fact "isn't relevant" when assessing the dangers of nuclear power.
There are nuclear power plants now so small and self contained they practically manage themselves - they are on submarines.
One teenager in the USA MADE ONE IN HIS GARAGE!
I'll also point out "the greens" age group HAS ALWAYS spanned 10-100, with as many if not MORE of the younger generation among them - so your claim this situation is on those 40 or older is so much poppycock.
I'll also state that the goal of "the greens" is noble insofar as reducing the pollution of the atmosphere and global warming and abunch of other stuff, HOWEVER, ignoring the realities of TODAY, and the energy needs of TODAY for the dream of a reality that might not be feasable for decades is incredibly naive, and energy shortages are going to be even more commonplace, lol and we now have electric cars to feed as well.... you couldn't make it up.
as to 4) - Oh my... where do I even begin.... are you actually stating you are of the opinion that "inequality in everything" is a NEW phenomena, having happened in the last say 80 years - or are you even vaguely aware that "inequality in everything" has been happening since the dawn of life itself?
Inequality is inherent in nature, and always has been - stronger, fitter, faster, smarter - weaker, less able, slower, less intelligent - maybe you should familairise yourself with the work of Charles Darwin, he's quite well known for a book he wrote a while ago.
Are the ones gifted with natural talents supposed to ignore them, at the cost of thier own quality of life, as long as it doesn't upset the snowflakes - or should they be allowed to tap that resource and be the best they can be?
Should we remunerate a highly gifted brain surgeon the same salary as a dentist?
What about sport - say - racing drivers - should we ban that because they get paid millions for risking thier lives (and deaths still happen).
Should we stop all forms of entertainment lest they become "too rich" - as an example should we limit the sales of music to only a few thousand copies, so the singer and writer doesn't earn too much? Not feasable, as those copies will themselves become worth a great deal - collectors items like art - so we've no choice but to allow open, unlimited sales - so then where does the rest of the money go? Can't go to the publisher or they will become billionaires... how about charities? Ok WHICH charities - there's not enough money earned by all the entertainers on earth to be meaningful if spread out among ALL charites, so WHICH CHARITY - WHO makes that choice - randomly like bingo, or based on merit - ok merit - so then WHICH is the MOST meritous - Cancer - heart disease - all the different forms of childrens charity - parkinsons - poverty in the 3rd world (no because we already throw billions at that and it's done FA)
and on and on and on
Didn't take me more than a couple of minutes to prove how ridiculous that viewpoint is.
Humanity uses the universally exchangeable currency of money - because gold is limited, and the barter system hasn't been viable for any sized conurbation population over a few dozen people for oh 1000 years give or take.
I REALLY wish people would learn a bit more history - it would help an awful lot.
Edit - before you start accusing me of being part of the problem and a "capitalistic pig" - I fully agree that there are far too many people paid sums of money that are so far in excess of their actual worth it's obscene.
However as the saying goes - "Capitalism is crap - but it's still better than all the other options." and we will always have inequality for as long as humanity exists, because "survival of the fittest" in ALL IT'S FORMS is hardwired into every species on earth and none of us are born equally.
This is the world you live in - maybe you should pay a bit more attention.
Terry - Somerset
Established Member
We have a convention in the UK of holding ministers and governments accountable for that which that happens under their control.
This is often unfair as they may have no knowledge, or relied upon their civil servants to alert, advise and correct.
However, if a party has been in power for 10 years or more they must accept full responsibility. They cannot fairly blame their predecessors.
The Tories are wholly responsible for failings in contingency planning, lack of PPE etc which resulted in a high early death toll in the pandemic.
Similarly, Labour under Blair and Brown are wholly responsible for failings in financial governance which lead to the 2008-10 financial crisis.
Both are global in nature, both could at the time have been assessed as fairly high risks requiring action, and in both cases they failed.
This is often unfair as they may have no knowledge, or relied upon their civil servants to alert, advise and correct.
However, if a party has been in power for 10 years or more they must accept full responsibility. They cannot fairly blame their predecessors.
The Tories are wholly responsible for failings in contingency planning, lack of PPE etc which resulted in a high early death toll in the pandemic.
Similarly, Labour under Blair and Brown are wholly responsible for failings in financial governance which lead to the 2008-10 financial crisis.
Both are global in nature, both could at the time have been assessed as fairly high risks requiring action, and in both cases they failed.
Trainee neophyte
Established Member
I have have a bit of sympathy for the various governments not being prepared for a pandemic - USA and UK were deemed by the experts to be the most prepaired of all nations in the world. It turns out that experts aren't worth the paper they write on, especially
ly when they change the rules mid crisis. (The Countries Best And Worst Prepared For An Epidemic [Infographic])
As for financial crises - these are created by the system, and therefore happen on a regular, predictable timescale. Claiming that you couldn't see one coming just confirms you as being completely incompetent. Or a liar who benefits from the perpetual boom/bust cycle. (If you are in on the timimg there is lots of money to be made).
I wrote about it on the other thread. UK was very well prepared for a flu pandemic. Unfortunately mother nature was rather sneaky and sent us something less deadly but far more transmissible for which we had no effective treatment at the time. It was like we were prepared for a rain storm with umbrella and sou'westers, then we had a heatwave.
RobinBHM
Established Member
On the same basis a dead clock is right twice a day.
RobinBHM
Established Member
I disagree, as does ex Bank of England governor:
"The former Bank of England governor Mervyn King has denied that the previous Labour government was responsible for the financial crash, saying there was a shared intellectual responsibility across the political parties and financial institutions for failing to foresee the problems.
Saying his view on the cause of the crisis had evolved, he said he doubted any single one country could have found their way through the crisis."
RobinBHM
Established Member
On that basis, this Tory government have massively increased borrowing in the last 12 months.
Maybe context is important.......
Suffolk Brian
Established Member
There are a lot of conflicting views here, which imho all carry a certain amount of weight. My wife and I own our own home; partly through footslog on our own part, and partly through inheritance. I do feel sorry for the younger generation, though. My great grandson is manager of a store in the construction world, responsible job, married with two small boys - I hate the word kids - and is trapped paying £1K+ a month rent for a crappy little newish build 2 up 2 down. His wife works part time, but I cannot see them being able to get on the housing ladder soon, if ever. Another point I noticed in this thread, my wife is dyslexic. Didn’t hold her back. She was manageress of a hairdressers back in the day. But I know when she is struggling because her writing becomes a scribble that even she cannot read. Some words are phonetically spelt, which may seem nonsense unless you know what she is trying to say. But she can communicate, and that’s what it is all about.
Jacob
What goes around comes around.
Just did word count of the above - 1021!!!
I think that's about 800 too many. Can't be bothered to read any of them!
Deadeye
Established Member
Gosh, where on earth did you find most of that in my post? I obviously put 10p in the rant machine.
I believe that collectively my generation has been asleep at the wheel (at best; at worst it's actively and knowingly pursued these things) and allowed a system to develop that is very harmful long-term. You don't.
Oh, and it's a long time since I've seen a less credible use of the word "proved".
But, hey, be as patronising and narrow thinking as you like. I've got the perfect pigeonhole for you, and it's not the one you think!
billw
The Tattooed One
Chernobyl is estimated (conservatively) to have killed 16,000 people, Fukushima 18,500. Since 1970 the annual total number of deaths from air crashes has never breached 400, and rarely exceeds 200. Therefore even using a probably way too high average of 300 for the last 50 years gives a total of 15,000 deaths. The suspicious explosion in the Russian Arctic recently had unknown effects but was likely nuclear.
People have indeed made nuclear reactors at home although 1) they consume more energy than they produce; 2) they're very dangerous - you need a 40kV DC supply (for comparison the UK train network runs on 25kV AC) which I'm pretty sure is going to sting if it touches you
That is real data, it is the best available at a given point in time likewise from this..
Just wait till we get the real data in a few years time.
https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/hea...ronavirus/coronavirus-disease-2019-vs-the-flu
Governments, agencies et al are reacting to information derived from available data. In time as more data becomes available then those agencies simply review and inform, it is a constantly evolving process.
Yep and at the moment the data is flawed. We have no idea what the true level of infection vs deaths of C19 is so our mortality rate is inflated (but we don't know exactly how much). Conversely flu, we vaccinate every year and almost never test for it, so our mortality figures are a best guess and are deflated. I think we are probably pretty close with our numbers of the IFR for flu, but our IFR for C19 is probably at least 10x higher than the real number (not my estimates, that of scientists). As I say, in a few years we will have much more accurate data and it will almost certainly show that C19 is less deadly than flu, or possibly comparable.
Using confirmed infections, I absolutely agree, C19 looks to be several times more deadly than flu but that rate has been dropping since last years estimations and will continue to do so as more data becomes available.
EDIT: A simple example, on July 1st 2020 in the UK, the CFR was 14.2%, today the CFR is 2.6%. That's a significant drop.
People have indeed made nuclear reactors at home although 1) they consume more energy than they produce; 2) they're very dangerous - you need a 40kV DC supply (for comparison the UK train network runs on 25kV AC) which I'm pretty sure is going to sting if it touches you
I think you're thinking of cold-fusion reactors, which I would classify with tesla coils as cool but highly impractical and slightly terrifying hobby projects.
I think he was referring to David Hahn "the nuclear boy scout" who tried to make a breeder reactor using geology samples, disassembled smoke detectors, and camping lantern mantles.
Whilst he never achieved fission, Hahn did manage to build a potent neutron source, and cause a major pollution and radiological incident in the process.
Whilst I believe nuclear power is an important part of the energy mix, Hahn's dangerous and misguided experiments are not anything I'd chose to use in a PR exercise for it, as they couldn't be further from the tightly controlled, hyper safery-concious, slow moving leviathan that is the nuclear industry.
Jacob
What goes around comes around.
Chernobyl was very close to becoming a world changing disaster for a huge area downstream, into the Mediterranean and all coastal countries.Chernobyl is estimated (conservatively) to have killed 16,000 people, Fukushima 18,500. Since 1970 the annual total number of deaths from air crashes has never breached 400, and rarely exceeds 200. Therefore even using a probably way too high average of 300 for the last 50 years gives a total of 15,000 deaths. The suspicious explosion in the Russian Arctic recently had unknown effects but was likely nuclear.
People have indeed made nuclear reactors at home although 1) they consume more energy than they produce; 2) they're very dangerous - you need a 40kV DC supply (for comparison the UK train network runs on 25kV AC) which I'm pretty sure is going to sting if it touches you
"International Nuclear Information System" website says: "The accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant could have been worse. Only one reactor was affected and only a small percentage of the core was released. The effect of fallout was less than it might have been because the initial plume did not encounter rain until it reached Sweden, so that much of the radioactivity dispersed over the Arctic and oceans. Also the wind direction meant that less radioactivity was deposited over Western Europe than was potentially possible. It is concluded that the Chernobyl accident could have been much worse with 200 to 400 times the radiation consequences. This would have had severe social consequences as well. "
Last edited:
Selwyn
Established Member
Well if he did he would find he would have been culpable as well
Mark Hancock
Established Member
It was interesting hear Mark Carney's take on this subject recently in the Reith Lectures.
