Select Page
Poker Forum
Over 1,288,000 Posts!
Poker ForumFTR Community

*** OFFICIAL BREXIT SUNLIT UPLANDS and #MEGA THREAD ***

Page 24 of 26 FirstFirst ... 142223242526 LastLast
Results 1,726 to 1,800 of 1894
  1. #1726
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    The Reuters article was like, You separated your electric grid on paper, but it's still connected irl, and there's still exchange along those cables, and there's no consistent pricing on said interchange because we split the systems on paper without describing how this problem is solved. So we're working on a pricing system that is clear.

    Or am I missing something there, as well?
    Only that the problem was evident five years ago when Brexit was decided on, and it's only now someone thought maybe they should do something to address it. Meanwhile the prices have gone waaaay up.

    That's pretty much par for the course though, so no surprises there.

    Still haven't figured out how they're going to manage the customs checks on items imported from the EU, and they've now put this off from January to July to October to "whenever", so even if you disagree about the energy one being obvious it's still pretty clear they've spent five years making no plans whatsoever for Brexit.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  2. #1727
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Norway are perfectly capable of enjoying a strong economic relationship with the EU. They're one of the richest countries in the world, so not being in the EU doesn't seem to be hurting them.
    Norway is in the European Economic Area (the single market). Free migration and no customs borders. So yeah, of course they have a good economic relationship with the EU, it's as good as being a member as far as the economy is concerned.

    We're not in the EEA. We could have been, but "Brexit means Brexit" was what a lot of the Brexitards shouted, so we're lucky we got any trade deal at all. Except for the one we got of course, which is hardly better than no deal at all, and is threatening to fall apart the further along it goes.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  3. #1728
    I think there were quite a few Brexit voters who would have been happy to remain in the EEA. But that wasn't possible. Brexit voters will blame the EU, remainers will blame the UK govt, truth is it's probably a healthy dose of both. There was definitely a feeling that the EU wanted to deter other member states from leaving the EU, so allowing the UK to follow the Scandinavia model was probably not something they wanted, as it would be an appealing path forwards for others.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  4. #1729
    Free migration
    And I've said repeatedly that, at least for me any anyone else I know who voices opposition to immigration, it's not EU migration that was the problem. It's Islamic migration, and uneducated folk with no skills that people oppose. I don't know anyone who had a problem with Polish people working here.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  5. #1730
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    I think there were quite a few Brexit voters who would have been happy to remain in the EEA. But that wasn't possible. Brexit voters will blame the EU, remainers will blame the UK govt, truth is it's probably a healthy dose of both. There was definitely a feeling that the EU wanted to deter other member states from leaving the EU, so allowing the UK to follow the Scandinavia model was probably not something they wanted, as it would be an appealing path forwards for others.
    Adds up.

    If the gov't came out at any time between 2016-2020 and said "we're asking for EEA membership" publicly, and the EU said "no, sorry, can't do that," then you might have a case. But as it happened, a lot of Tory party members were pushing for a hard Brexit, no deal at all. So blaming the EU for why we didn't stay in the EEA is a bit hard to swallow. They can't give us what we don't ask for.

    Another point worth adding is that the most prominent Brexit campaigner said we could be like Norway, but if your analysis is correct and the EU was never going to allow that, that seems like the kind of thing you'd want to find out from the EU before having a vote on whether or not to leave. That's assuming you want people to know what they're voting for instead of just making promises that may or may not be viable.

    This is another problem with the referendum. It became a political campaign, with politicians taking sides and making all kinds of wild promises to try to sell it to the voters. The Leavers could do this, they could promise the moon, all the Remainers could promise was the status quo.

    Instead of what happened, there should have been no campaigning allowed. Just independent commissions setting out what was most likely to be the consequences. It's easy now for Brexit voters to say "we didn't want this kind of Brexit", and a lot of them are right, because this isn't the one they were promised.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  6. #1731
    that seems like the kind of thing you'd want to find out from the EU before having a vote on whether or not to leave.
    If they said we absolutely could not be treated the same as Norway, then that's more reason to leave the EU. Why would we want to remain part of a union that treats us differently to non-members? If they're giving preferential treatment to Norway, that tells you everything you need to know about the regard they held the UK, as a member state.

    all the Remainers could promise was the status quo.
    This sums it up quite nicely. What it came down to was status quo vs not status quo. And we voted the latter. We voted for change.

    It's easy now for Brexit voters to say "we didn't want this kind of Brexit", and a lot of them are right, because this isn't the one they were promised.
    I can remember having these kind of discussions in the build up to the vote, and after it. What kind of Brexit do we want? Most Brexit voters would agree that any Brexit is better than no Brexit. We had our preferences, for example a continued economic relationship that was in our mutual benefit, while some were happy to keep freedom of movement. The Scandinavia model was cited often. That was the ideal situation for me, at least. But if that wasn't possible, and clearly it wasn't, then hard Brexit is better than remaining.

    If the gov't came out at any time between 2016-2020 and said "we're asking for EEA membership" publicly, and the EU said "no, sorry, can't do that," then you might have a case.
    idk why it was never a viable option. It should have been. It would've been a decent compromise which would have kept remainers at least somewhat happy, while also leaving the union. But ultimately we voted to leave, a decision which had to be respected. So what we have is better than remaining part of the EU. It actually restored some faith in democracy, at least to those of us who value it.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  7. #1732
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    If they said we absolutely could not be treated the same as Norway, then that's more reason to leave the EU. Why would we want to remain part of a union that treats us differently to non-members? If they're giving preferential treatment to Norway, that tells you everything you need to know about the regard they held the UK, as a member state.
    Yeah well you're speaking in pure hypotheticals here...let's try to stick to what can be proven huh?


    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Most Brexit voters would agree that any Brexit is better than no Brexit.
    Source?


    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    We had our preferences, for example a continued economic relationship that was in our mutual benefit, while some were happy to keep freedom of movement. The Scandinavia model was cited often. That was the ideal situation for me, at least. But if that wasn't possible, and clearly it wasn't, then hard Brexit is better than remaining.
    Source?




    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    idk why it was never a viable option.
    Who says it wasn't?

    Why do you assume it was the EU who decided we couldn't be in the EEA? When did the gov't mention it as even being an option, never mind their preferred option? When did the EU say we couldn't?

    I get the narrative works for you: We wanted to leave, so the big bad EU got all butthurt and decided to make us pay for it by keeping us out of the EEA. Fact is, there's no evidence that's how things played out. And you can be sure that if our gov't wanted EEA membership and it was the EU who denied it, Boris would be shouting it from the rooftops because it would give him a perfect excuse for all the problems we're having.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  8. #1733
    Only 273 short of the target! Not bad.



    Last edited by Poopadoop; 10-05-2021 at 05:46 AM.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  9. #1734
    As for staying in the EEA, the rules are that we had to leave the EEA at the same time as we left the EU. We would first have to join the EFTA (free trade agreement), then we could join the EEA. We could have applied to join the EFTA during negotiations over Brexit or at any time after we left. Once in the EFTA, we could apply to join the EEA.

    Not clear what the timeline on any of this is (i..e., how long after applying it takes to join), but since we haven't applied to even the first step of the process for joining the EEA, the point seems a bit moot.

    Point is, the EU can't deny us membership if we don't apply. So blaming the EU for why we're not in the EEA doesn't really fly.
    Last edited by Poopadoop; 10-05-2021 at 05:49 AM.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  10. #1735
    Fine. Well it changes nothing from my pov. I would approve of EEA membership, but no such membership doesn't change my opinion that we should not be a member state of the EU.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  11. #1736
    btw, Euro drivers is a short term solution. Our focus should be on processing UK driver applications and training, and improving working conditions for HGV drivers in the UK to make it an appealing job, more appealing than driving a van.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  12. #1737
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    btw, Euro drivers is a short term solution.
    More like it's no solution at all, if only 27 will come.

    Problem with training new people is it takes time. If only we had some warning that this would happen a few years ago, we could have started then. Oh right, we did have a warning, but it was dismissed as fearmongering. Derp.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  13. #1738
    You're criticising the govt here though, not Brexit. You won't get much disagreement from me there. But these problems have been brewing for far longer than the Brexit debate. The warning signs were there long ago that we were far too reliant on migrant labour, which is one reason why people wanted out of the EU, to reshape the economy into one that works better for British people.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  14. #1739
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    You're criticising the govt here though, not Brexit. You won't get much disagreement from me there. But these problems have been brewing for far longer than the Brexit debate. The warning signs were there long ago that we were far too reliant on migrant labour, which is one reason why people wanted out of the EU, to reshape the economy into one that works better for British people.
    I never heard this argument until recently. The moan people had about migrant labour BEFORE Brexit was that they were "stealing our jobs." Now there's no-one to do those jobs, no-one who's British wants to do those jobs, and the plan is to somehow make British people do jobs they don't want to because for some reason that's better than getting people over from aboard who are ready and willing to do them. It's just a convenient argument made up in retrospect because it's obvious things aren't working.

    And let me remind you it's not just truck drivers we're short of, it's farm labour, retail, hospitality, and careworkers to name a few. That's a hell of a lot of retraining we're going to need to fill all those gaps.

    And this isn't just a criticism of the gov't, it's a criticism of Brexit and the logical knots Brexiters are twisting themselves into to explain away our problems. Remainers argued that we relied on migrant labour and would suffer if they were suddenly kicked out. Back THEN, Brexiters said it was project fear. NOW, it's suddently all part of their master plan to re-shape our economy. Into what? An economy with giant holes in the labour market? With gas and food shortages?

    I get that you're happy to die on the hill of Brexit, and no amount of economic pain for the country will change your mind about it, but even you have to admit that arguing this was all foreseen by Brexiters and all part of their plan to build back better or whatever is complete and utter 1984-style gaslighitng bullshit. If anything, the gov't is just making it worse by their feeble, token attempts to encourage immigrants countered by their stronger attempts to discourage them. Just today, Cruela Patel announced they would no longer let in people from EEA countries with just an identity card - now they need a passport. She claimed this was for security reasons. Lots of terrorists coming over from Switzerland and Norway apparently. Meanwhile, anyone can smuggle anything they want in from the EU since there's no-one to do customs checks. It's lol. They couldn't fuck things up worse if they tried.
    Last edited by Poopadoop; 10-05-2021 at 07:13 PM.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  15. #1740
    The moan people had about migrant labour BEFORE Brexit was that they were "stealing our jobs."
    This is nothing more than a meme peddled by leftists. I never heard anyone saying this seriously. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure there's examples of BNP voters barely able to construct a sentence saying these things, but it's not representative of the general Brexit voter.

    Here's an article from 2010 from, believe it or not, the Guardian.

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/...ion-hits-wages

    This was definitely one of the issues that contributed to our decision to leave the EU. I'm sure you can find more articles on this subject if you do some fishing.

    no-one who's British wants to do those jobs
    Because there are more appealing careers. If you had the choice between driving a HGV, or a white van, for the same money, what job are you going to take? HGV driving is difficult, driving a van is a piece of piss. HGV driving should be much better paid, the drivers are carrying much more freight than the van so they make a greater economic contribution. They should be rewarded so.

    The UK appears to have plenty of HGV qualified drivers, it's just they choose another job.

    And let me remind you it's not just truck drivers we're short of, it's farm labour, retail, hospitality, and careworkers to name a few. That's a hell of a lot of retraining we're going to need to fill all those gaps.
    Farm labour, hospitality and retail are hardly jobs that need intensive training. And care is another sector where people are underpaid for the job they do. It's barely above minimum wage for wiping other peoples' arses. Why aren't care workers paid a fair wage? Same story. Migrant labour driving down wages. So pay more, that will solve the problem. Care workers deserve a good wage.

    Also, I'm not aware of any retail shortage before covid. There might well be now, I'm definitely seeing lots of vacancies in this sector, but I don't anticipate that remaining a problem once we're back to normal. Farm labour and hospitality, maybe there are chronic problems here. This is where unskilled migrant labour is actually beneficial to the British economy.

    And this isn't just a criticism of the gov't, it's a criticism of Brexit
    The problems began with membership. So you can criticise Brexit if you like, but it's short sighted.

    Remainers argued that we relied on migrant labour and would suffer if they were suddenly kicked out.
    Brexiteers didn't dispute this. Our argument was that we need to readjust our economy so we're not reliant on migrant labour. We were saying reliance on migrant labour is a problem that needed fixing. We also knew that this wouldn't magically be fixed the day we left the EU.

    Back THEN, Brexiters said it was project fear.
    No, project fear was a reference to doomsday predictions that suggested our economy would collapse, that inflation would cripple us. Funny how Germany is currently suffering worse inflation than the UK.

    I get that you're happy to die on the hill of Brexit, and no amount of economic pain for the country will change your mind about it
    I'm sure if you can be bothered to trawl through my pre-vote posts you'll see me saying exactly this, that the short term economic pain would be worth it in the long run. I was saying it would take a decade, not a couple of years. I knew it wouldn't be smooth sailing. But it was something I felt needed to happen for the long term benefit of the UK. Come back in 2030 and let's see if we still have these problems.

    If anything, the gov't is just making it worse
    The Tories being useless cunts is not part of the debate about whether or not we should have left the EU. That's a General Election issue.

    Lots of terrorists coming over from Switzerland and Norway apparently.
    Remember the French terrorist attacks at the Bataclan and Stade de France? Those terrorists came from Belgium.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  16. #1741
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    This is nothing more than a meme peddled by leftists. I never heard anyone saying this seriously. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure there's examples of BNP voters barely able to construct a sentence saying these things, but it's not representative of the general Brexit voter.

    Here's an article from 2010 from, believe it or not, the Guardian.

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/...ion-hits-wages

    This was definitely one of the issues that contributed to our decision to leave the EU. I'm sure you can find more articles on this subject if you do some fishing.
    Interesting that, in the balance, you support the idea of the entire country being 5% poorer as long as that wealth is more evenly distributed.

    This wasn't the only way to redistribute wealth, however. Just raising the minimum wage does pretty much the same thing, without making the country any richer or poorer as a whole.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  17. #1742
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post

    Farm labour, hospitality and retail are hardly jobs that need intensive training. And care is another sector where people are underpaid for the job they do. It's barely above minimum wage for wiping other peoples' arses. Why aren't care workers paid a fair wage? Same story. Migrant labour driving down wages. So pay more, that will solve the problem. Care workers deserve a good wage.
    Again, raise the minimum wage and you cover all of these without labour, food, and petrol shortages.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  18. #1743
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    The problems began with membership. So you can criticise Brexit if you like, but it's short sighted.
    The EU never set our minimum wage as low as it is, we did. So no, membership in the EU had nothing to do with it.



    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Our argument was that we need to readjust our economy so we're not reliant on migrant labour. We were saying reliance on migrant labour is a problem that needed fixing. We also knew that this wouldn't magically be fixed the day we left the EU.
    Another new one on me. I've heard arguments against immigration, but always because they take jobs we could have ourselves, not because they fill the ones we don't want to do.

    And how exactly was having a large labour force we could tap into a problem? I think you'd be hard pressed to find many businesses complaining they had access to too many workers before Brexit, and now things are much better 'cause there's no-one to do those jobs. For example, I'll doubt the pub owner will take much comfort in the fact that bartenders are making more money a year from now when they've had to go out of business in the meantime because they couldn't find a bartender.

    If you're arguing from the perspective of the ones doing the jobs, then I'll say it for the last time - the easiest way to deal with wages that you think are too low is to raise the minimum wage. It's not to starve the labour market of qualified workers so there's huge shortages followed by massive wage inflation. If a lorry driver is earning as much as a university professor, then you've completely unbalanced the economy.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  19. #1744
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Remember the French terrorist attacks at the Bataclan and Stade de France? Those terrorists came from Belgium.
    Did they use identity cards to get in? Was this because a passport would have said "terrorist" on it?
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  20. #1745
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    9,659
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Why a minimum wage and not a maximum wage?

    If you're trying to solve wealth disparity, then why only cap one end of the line?

    Expressing bias in favor of wealth disparity, IMO.
    You can find any pattern you want to any level of precision you want, if you're prepared to ignore enough data.
  21. #1746
    Interesting that, in the balance, you support the idea of the entire country being 5% poorer as long as that wealth is more evenly distributed.
    Interesting take. Higher wages for HGV drivers and care workers = 5% poorer all round.

    This wasn't the only way to redistribute wealth, however. Just raising the minimum wage does pretty much the same thing, without making the country any richer or poorer as a whole.
    Raising the minimum wage doesn't magically make people better off, and the reason for that is businesses simply charge more for their goods or service to compensate. An increase in minimum wage = inflation.

    In the case of HGV drivers, their wage isn't a fair reflection of their economic value. That's clear because self employed van drivers can earn a similar income. Someone stacking shelves at Tesco isn't worth £15 an hour, which is the figure being thrown about by Labour as the ideal minimum wage. If shelf stackers get £15 an hour, then we'll be paying £2 for a loaf of bread.

    The EU never set our minimum wage as low as it is, we did. So no, membership in the EU had nothing to do with it.
    You're turning this into a discussion about minimum wage, not me. I'm suggesting people get paid a fair wage for their economic value. That's not the same as increasing the minimum wage.

    Another new one on me.
    Well clearly you weren't paying attention to my posts before we voted. Selective memory.

    And how exactly was having a large labour force we could tap into a problem?
    In the case of HGV drivers, migrants were happy to do the job for less, which drives down wages. If you're a logistics company who can pay a UK driver £50k a year, or a Polish driver £30k a year, you're going for the latter. That either prices UK drivers out, or forces them to take a pay cut.

    I think you'd be hard pressed to find many businesses complaining they had access to too many workers before Brexit
    Naturally. It means more profit.

    Do you not see how this is actually a pretty right wing view? This is capitalism, globalism, increasing profits at the expense of the worker.

    I'll doubt the pub owner...
    Bartenders are worth minimum wage. And there are absolutely plenty of British people willing to work a bar for minimum wage. I'm in no doubt there are staffing issues right now, seeing as they had to lay off most of their staff due to covid. But students and young people actually like working in pubs, I certainly did when I was younger.

    the easiest way to deal with wages that you think are too low is to raise the minimum wage.
    Nope. It solves nothing. It's basically no different to moving a decimal point on everything.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  22. #1747
    Quote Originally Posted by mojo
    Why a minimum wage and not a maximum wage?
    I'm not sure this can work. People should be able to earn whatever they can based on their economic value. If someone is brilliant enough at their job to earn their employer a large amount of money, for example a professional footballer, why should they not be able to negotiate a salary that reflects their economic value?
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  23. #1748
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    Why a minimum wage and not a maximum wage?

    If you're trying to solve wealth disparity, then why only cap one end of the line?

    Expressing bias in favor of wealth disparity, IMO.

    You can do both. I'm more concerned about getting people out of poverty than I am out of keeping people from getting too rich. But yeah, one definitely feeds into the other.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  24. #1749
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Interesting take. Higher wages for HGV drivers and care workers = 5% poorer all round.
    Reductio ad bananum.

    As if anyone thinks raising wages for HGV drivers and care workers is going to harm the economy as a whole.

    It's all the harm being done to the economy by restricting trade, introducing red tape, and labour shortages that is causing it to suffer.



    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Raising the minimum wage doesn't magically make people better off, and the reason for that is businesses simply charge more for their goods or service to compensate. An increase in minimum wage = inflation.
    It gives the poorest people more money. That's kind of the idea. The better-off can afford to pay a bit more for things by definition.



    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Someone stacking shelves at Tesco isn't worth £15 an hour
    Why not? Do they not deserve to make enough to not live in poverty?



    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    You're turning this into a discussion about minimum wage, not me. I'm suggesting people get paid a fair wage for their economic value. That's not the same as increasing the minimum wage.
    Straight out of the Tory playbook - let the market sort it's own wages out. But before you were saying people in certain jobs deserved more, and conveniently that will happen now due to labour shortages - a Brexit dividend. What about the labour that isn't in short supply? Just fuck 'em, they deserve to be poor? Why do you have to cause a labour shortage to ensure someone gets paid a decent wage?



    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Well clearly you weren't paying attention to my posts before we voted. Selective memory.
    Oh sorry for not memorizing all your posts over the years. If you said that then fine. It's still wrong, but fine.



    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    In the case of HGV drivers, migrants were happy to do the job for less, which drives down wages. If you're a logistics company who can pay a UK driver £50k a year, or a Polish driver £30k a year, you're going for the latter. That either prices UK drivers out, or forces them to take a pay cut.
    So the market determined the wages, just as they're doing now. But then it was bad and now it's good. Gotcha.



    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Do you not see how this is actually a pretty right wing view? This is capitalism, globalism, increasing profits at the expense of the worker.
    Not really, no. It's bad for everyone if businesses are failing because they can't get workers. Surely you understand how the economy is all interconnected.



    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Bartenders are worth minimum wage. And there are absolutely plenty of British people willing to work a bar for minimum wage.
    Your feelings don't change the fact that close to 1 million EU workers in hospitality went home after Brexit, and a lot of their jobs are still vacant. I guess we just need more younger British people. So, let's encourage everyone to have babies and in 18 years or so the problem will be solved. #MEGA.



    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Nope. It solves nothing. It's basically no different to moving a decimal point on everything.
    Right, and when I get a raise that just causes inflation and so it doesn't actually benefit me.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  25. #1750
    It gives the poorest people more money.
    More money to spend on more expensive bread? Nice idea.

    Why not? Do they not deserve to make enough to not live in poverty?
    Because literally anyone capable of working can do it. Shelf stacking is a minimum wage job because it's as low skilled as work tends to get. They're only worth £15 an hour if that's the minimum wage, and in that event bread costs more and I'd be saying they're not worth £20 an hour.

    Straight out of the Tory playbook - let the market sort it's own wages out.
    No, it's straight out of the free market capitalism playbook.

    What about the labour that isn't in short supply? Just fuck 'em, they deserve to be poor?
    lol what? And you reductio ad bananum me.

    We're talking about HGV drivers here because that's current affairs. If you want to discuss other sectors, fire away and I'll share my thoughts. I'll pick on out of the blue... bus drivers. They deserve a decent wage too because driving a bus is difficult, and it's an essential service. According to a quick google search, they get something like £11.15 an hour. Ridiculous. I'm surprised anyone wants to do that at that wage, again just drive a white van and triple that salary. Less stress.

    Any other sectors you want to discuss?

    So the market determined the wages
    Yes. This European market you seem to adore determined the wages. Why do you like a market that drives down wages? I thought you were a socialist that wanted everyone to be better off? Doesn't work out that way though, does it?

    You should be pro-Brexit if you want to improve wages, as it forces wages back up when companies can no longer rely on cheap European labour. The market is forced to adjust, for the better. Companies have to pay their HGV drivers a better wage because the labour at their disposal require more money than migrants who either live in cheaper places like Poland, or perhaps roomshare with several of their migrant friends. There are tons of reasons why migrants are willing to work for a lower wage than British people.

    Not really, no. It's bad for everyone if businesses are failing because they can't get workers.
    They can get workers, they just have to pay more.

    Your feelings don't change the fact that close to 1 million EU workers in hospitality went home after Brexit
    Hotels still seem to be open.

    Right, and when I get a raise that just causes inflation and so it doesn't actually benefit me.
    You're not on minimum wage. Presumably your employer decides what your economic value is worth, rather than the government saying they must pay you x amount. Presumably when you get a raise it's based on merit.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  26. #1751
    Fun fact - the minimum wage in Japan is the equivalent of £5.50

    Those poor, impoverished people.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  27. #1752
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    I'm not sure this can work. People should be able to earn whatever they can based on their economic value. If someone is brilliant enough at their job to earn their employer a large amount of money, for example a professional footballer, why should they not be able to negotiate a salary that reflects their economic value?
    The problem is that we can intuitively know that a single person cannot produce value equivalent to millennia of an above average wage. Yet we know there are people who earn as if they do.

    You have to ask yourself, are the axioms that support your statement really self evident? These axioms which support single individuals amassing 12 and, without course correction, 13 figure stockpiles of wealth while countless people can only hope to earn in the 6 figures?

    Elon Musk, while clearly very talented in many different fields, is simply not, individually, providing a multiple of tens of thousands of the value to society that you or I are. Despite all his talents, his wealth can best be explained as being positioned atop a large economic structure of which he is able to skim from.

    Even if we granted that our intuitions were wrong, that he, individually, is in fact producing exponentially more value than you or I, there's still a very compelling argument that such disparities in compensation are simply bad for society and even bad for Elon Musk.
    You-- yes, you-- you're a cunt.
  28. #1753
    Fun fact: When minimum wage workers get a raise, they don't spend it on bread, they pay their bills.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  29. #1754
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Fun fact - the minimum wage in Japan is the equivalent of £5.50

    Those poor, impoverished people.
    Have they tried pulling out of a trade bloc?
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  30. #1755
    Quote Originally Posted by boost
    Elon Musk, while clearly very talented in many different fields, is simply not, individually, providing a multiple of tens of thousands of the value to society that you or I are.
    Elon Musk is an entrepreneur, he didn't get paid 8 figures plus by an employer paying him a salary. He basically earned it himself.

    Let's look at this another way, a little closer to home. Let's say you earn an 8 figure sum by being fucking awesome at poker. Is there a point where you shouldn't be allowed to continue winning? What about if you bought bitcoin for a couple of cents, and are now worth nine or ten figures? Your economic value in both these examples is close to zero when it comes to society, but you have still earned this money fairly and legally. What right does society have to impose limits in these cases?

    Now apply this thought to someone who actually does provide value to society. The footballer for me is a good example, because people often express dismay at the amount of money they earn. But of course when so many people are willing to pay for their TV subscription in order to watch football games, their economic value to their club, who get paid huge amounts of money from these TV companies, becomes clear. Footballers are worth what they earn, even if that's ridiculous to people who live in the real world.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  31. #1756
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    Fun fact: When minimum wage workers get a raise, they don't spend it on bread, they pay their bills.
    You're being deliberately dense here. When I talk about bread going up, you can apply that to butter, milk, cheese, and indeed bills too. Their increase in salary pays for their increase in living costs. That's why raising the minimum wage does little to improve peoples' relative income. If the minimum wage doesn't go up, neither does the cost of living.

    Of course, the minimum wage should continue to rise with inflation, but it should cause inflation. A jump from under £10 to £15 is insane. And I can tell you this... if it happens, the government won't increase benefits by 50%, so those on benefits get left behind and become even poorer.

    Have they tried pulling out of a trade bloc?
    This has nothing to do with minimum wage. My point, obviously, is that one of the most wealthy and functional countries in the world have a ridiculously low minimum wage by our standards. It doesn't result in widespread poverty. On the contrary, their system of capitalism is thriving.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  32. #1757
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    You're being deliberately dense here. When I talk about bread going up, you can apply that to butter, milk, cheese, and indeed bills too. Their increase in salary pays for their increase in living costs. That's why raising the minimum wage does little to improve peoples' relative income. If the minimum wage doesn't go up, neither does the cost of living.
    You're the one being dense here lol. If you give some proportion of the population more money, it causes inflation which affects everyone. The people getting the raise still have more money relative to the rest relative to what they had before. It's not complicated.

    Note how you didn't have this objection to raising the pay of lorry drivers or care workers. You didn't say they'd have to use that pay rise to cover the inflation caused by their wage rise. Why not?

    And if it did work that way, why ever raise anyone's wages (minimum or not). If there's no benefit to a person to have a higher wage, why do people go on strike for more money?

    The problem here is you're failing at the simple math that if I make more money, that alone doesn't cause enough inflation to cancel out my raise. It works on an individual level, and it works on a group level. As long as its relative wealth that is changing, then giving some people more money and not others redistributes the wealth.




    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    This has nothing to do with minimum wage. My point, obviously, is that one of the most wealthy and functional countries in the world have a ridiculously low minimum wage by our standards. It doesn't result in widespread poverty. On the contrary, their system of capitalism is thriving.
    16% of Japan lives in poverty. Our rate is 20%. So they're not much better off than us.

    There's also the fact that their culture is more family-oriented, so people are more likely to get support from their parents if they're on minimum wage.

    There's also the fact that minimum wage != total income. There's all kinds of other benefits people can get to compensate for a low wage. That's how it works here, and I imagine Japan is no different.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  33. #1758
    Note how you didn't have this objection to raising the pay of lorry drivers or care workers. You didn't say they'd have to use that pay rise to cover the inflation caused by their wage rise. Why not?
    Because I'm not talking about raising the wage of a massive number of people.

    And if it did work that way, why ever raise anyone's wages (minimum or not).
    Because there are other factors that cause inflation.

    The problem here is you're failing at the simple math that if I make more money, that alone doesn't cause enough inflation to cancel out my raise.
    The minimum wages goes up every year. Why aren't people better off now than they were? Because inflation is keeping pace.

    16% of Japan lives in poverty. Our rate is 20%. So they're not much better off than us.
    These are surely relative figures. Our idea of poverty is a very privileged one. I'd be counted as one of the 20% of British people living in poverty, I'm probably in the bottom 5%, but when I compare myself to most of the world, I'm pretty well off. So personally I find it insulting to suggest I live in poverty. I have somewhere to live and do not go hungry. idk about Japan but what I do know is it's thriving, and has been for a very long time.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  34. #1759
    btw, by "insulting" I don't mean an insult to me, it's an insult to those in genuine poverty.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  35. #1760
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    9,659
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    IDK what the rate of increase in minimum wage is in the UK, but in the US, that rate is well below inflation.
    You can find any pattern you want to any level of precision you want, if you're prepared to ignore enough data.
  36. #1761
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    IDK what the rate of increase in minimum wage is in the UK, but in the US, that rate is well below inflation.
    Probably the same here. But, it would be pointless to raise it any higher 'cause it'd just be cancelled out by the inflation it causes, according to Ongonomics.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  37. #1762
    poop you seem to be incapable of realising that cheap European labour benefits employers, not employees. You're more right wing than I am on this matter.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  38. #1763
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    9,659
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    All trade benefits both sides.
    All work benefits both sides.

    Cheap labor benefits the laborers and the employers.

    Ong, shouldn't your argument be
    the problem was that the cheap labor (while great for UK businesses) was sending UK monies abroad, rather than into UK pockets - hurting the greater UK economy.
    You can find any pattern you want to any level of precision you want, if you're prepared to ignore enough data.
  39. #1764
    I'm aware of the economic problem of money being sent abroad but I avoid using it in argument for the simple reason that what people do with their legally earned money is their business. I respect people who help support their families, it's incredibly unselfish.

    Migrants still pay income tax, so they still provide economic value to the UK even if their spending in the UK is minimised. Of course their productivity is of value too.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  40. #1765
    As for cheap labour benefitting employees, I don't see how you can seriously think that. I mean, if your point is that some income is better than none, then yes a poor wage is a benefit to the employee, but that's not the context by which I'm using the word benefit. I'm using it in the sense that lower wages means more profit for the employer, which comes at the expense of the employee, which clearly isn't a benefit.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  41. #1766
    Cheap labour benefits the employer and the consumer. Expensive labour benefits the worker.

    Non-existent labour, on the other hand, harms everyone.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  42. #1767
    Cheap labour benefits the employer and the consumer.
    This is where you're tending to the right. You know every bit as much as I do that a business will not pass on all of the benefits of cheap labour onto the consumer. They will pass some on, while pocketing the rest. Greater profits. Yet you seem to be ignoring this.

    Expensive labour benefits the worker.
    I'm also aware that a company faced with higher wages will not simply absorb all of that cost from their profits. They will pass some of the losses onto the consumer. But since the market is a free market, they can only pass on so much of the losses before they are outcompeted. So there is a mechanism that ensures there is greater benefit for the employee. Yes bread might cost more, but in this case the increase in wages more than accounts for the rise in the cost of living.

    Non-existent labour, on the other hand, harms everyone.
    The non existence of labour is an easily solved problem in most cases. Pay more. If a company has no labour, it has no profit at all. So the company is faced with a choice... less profits, or bankruptcy.

    It's funny how I'm the one trying to hit profit instead of screwing the worker over. I'd say it's left leaning on my part, but I'm relying on capitalism to ensure the consumer isn't fucked.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  43. #1768
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    The non existence of labour is an easily solved problem in most cases. Pay more. If a company has no labour, it has no profit at all. So the company is faced with a choice... less profits, or bankruptcy.
    And if there is no access to labour because, for example, it hasn't been trained, then paying more won't solve their problem. So the company is faced with no choices at all, it just can't operate at full capacity.



    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    It's funny how I'm the one trying to hit profit instead of screwing the worker over. I'd say it's left leaning on my part, but I'm relying on capitalism to ensure the consumer isn't fucked.
    It's not funny because it's consistent with your desire to find some positive outcome out of Brexit. And I agree, there's a good argument for paying certain jobs more than they were getting before. The problem is it's an accidental outcome, it's not instantaneous, and there was no plan to prepare for these shifts in the labour market - on the contrary, the gov'ts been arguing for several years that they wouldn't be a problem. Well, there is a problem, right now. Boris' latest attempt to deflect the blame onto businesses for 'not preparing' is lol, because before he was telling them there wouldn't be a problem.

    The latest news is theyr'e going to have to cull 120,000 pigs 'cause there's no-one to butcher and process them. Where does that money go? Down the drain. Who benefits? Pig farmers in other countries I guess, as the prices will go up. Certainly not our pig farmers who are having to light their profits on fire.

    And we could well have these shortages for years. If in five years there's still not enough people to fill these jobs, still shortages of food, petrol, farm labour, careworkers, butchers, etc., it won't matter how happy and prosperous the few who are doing those jobs are, the economy as a whole will have suffered immensely and people's lives will be worse, not better. And it doesn't matter if Brexiters or the gov't or anyone else says it won't happen. It already is happening and there's no end in sight.
    Last edited by Poopadoop; 10-07-2021 at 04:51 PM.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  44. #1769
    And if there is no access to labour because, for example, it hasn't been trained, then paying more won't solve their problem.
    Again, we're talking about HGV drivers here. The trained labour exists.

    it's consistent with your desire to find some positive outcome out of Brexit.
    ...and your refusal to acknowledge any positive outcome of Brexit. I bet you'll be gutted if by 2030 things are all peachy.

    The problem is it's an accidental outcome
    lol

    Boris' latest attempt to deflect the blame onto businesses for 'not preparing' is lol, because before he was telling them there wouldn't be a problem.
    Fine, but this is criticism of the Tories, not Brexit. Like I said before, not gonna dispute this. They're useless.

    The latest news is theyr'e going to have to cull 120,000 pigs 'cause there's no-one to butcher and process them.
    So they're going to set money on fire instead of pay more in wages? Seems logical.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  45. #1770
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Again, we're talking about HGV drivers here. The trained labour exists.
    They also have to be available. Not everyone with an HGV license who already has a job doing something else is just going to jump into a lorry because you wave a flag at them.



    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    and your refusal to acknowledge any positive outcome of Brexit. I bet you'll be gutted if by 2030 things are all peachy.
    I just said it's good if some wages go up.

    You complain I don't remember things you said 5 years ago. You don't even remember what I said 5 hours ago.




    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    So they're going to set money on fire instead of pay more in wages? Seems logical.
    Last I checked, farmers weren't in charge of how much butchers get paid.

    Otherwise, nice try Boris.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  46. #1771
    Here you go poop, in case there was any doubt...

    https://twitter.com/EU_Commission/st...73325517012997

    We reaffirm the founding principles of the Union's legal order:

    EU law has primacy over national law, incl. constitutional provisions

    All rulings by @EUCourtPress are binding on all Member States' authorities, incl. national courts
    We can talk about economics until the cows go home but THIS is the key reason why people wanted to leave. This is what the sovereignty argument is about.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  47. #1772
    CoccoBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    2,256
    Location
    Finding my game
    I'll say it again as I've said it before, the best solution to many of our problems as a species is a world government. No more petty nationalism.
    Our brains have just one scale, and we resize our experiences to fit.

  48. #1773
    I'm so glad you're in the minority cocco. It's not that I'm pro-nationalism, but I'm definitely anti-globalism. The idea of a one-world government is terrifying. How can you want to put that much power into the hands of so few people? How on earth can democracy work when the entire world has to vote in certain parties?

    It most certainly would not solve problems, it would create a great deal more problems. You'd see civil disobedience the world over.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  49. #1774
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  50. #1775
    Better than what, a one world government? Yes it is. The only way such a system can hope to survive is pure, overt fascism. This one world government would have to use brute force to resist rebellion. And this government would not be able to ever hope to command a global democratic majority.

    Not being able to purchase lettuce or whatever for a month or two, who cares? It's not that essential. The use of the word "essential" in this context is not entirely accurate, is it? I'd consider bread and butter essential, but if I can't buy them, I'm not going to die. So maybe the word "preferential" is better.

    That article doesn't actually say what products are unavailable, not does it explain why. It's based on a survey of 3000-odd people who decide for themselves what "essential" means. Sometimes I can't get Hovis Granary because they've ran out, which I consider essential. I will eat other bread, but it annoys the fuck out of me if I have to. And Clover is definitely essential, since it's the cheapest not-shit butter. Lurpack is twice the price, and margarine is disgusting. So if someone asked me if I could get "essential" products then it depends if I could get those. Doesn't matter if there were alternative brands, my idea of "essential" is purely subjective, just like the 3000-odd people asked in this survey.

    Hit me with something more detailed, like whether it's particular brands unavailable, certain products like lettuce, or entire sections like fruit. Let's see what other people think "essential" means. How many people are hungry because they can't buy what they need? My guess is zero. Prove me wrong.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  51. #1776
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    That article doesn't actually say what products are unavailable, not does it explain why. It's based on a survey of 3000-odd people who decide for themselves what "essential" means. Sometimes I can't get Hovis Granary because they've ran out, which I consider essential. I will eat other bread, but it annoys the fuck out of me if I have to. And Clover is definitely essential, since it's the cheapest not-shit butter. Lurpack is twice the price, and margarine is disgusting. So if someone asked me if I could get "essential" products then it depends if I could get those. Doesn't matter if there were alternative brands, my idea of "essential" is purely subjective, just like the 3000-odd people asked in this survey.
    Sure, everyone has their own definition of "essential." For most, it includes their favourite foods and not just staples like bread, rice, etc.

    The point is, people can't get the things they want.


    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    How many people are hungry because they can't buy what they need? My guess is zero. Prove me wrong.
    Where did the article say that? It said people couldn't get things they deemed essential. It didn't say there was no food anywhere lol.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  52. #1777
    Ok so we agree that the word "essential" is basically hyperbole. Great.

    So now we have to ask... who cares if you can't get precisely what you want, all of the time? Is that really something to lose your shit over? Why is it worth an article? Why is it worth you posting it for discussion?

    If someone has to dunk choccy digestives into their tea because there's no hobnobs, I'm not going to give a fuck.

    So long as there is tea. If we run out of tea we have a problem, at that point maybe I would consider rejoining the EU if it would fix it.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  53. #1778
    People are used to getting things they like, that's why. Just like they're used to getting fuel when they want it and used to going to a pub that has enough staff, and so on. Is it the end of life as we know it if those things aren't there? No, but when it's self-inflicted it's kind of annoying.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  54. #1779
    "kind of annoying"

    We reaffirm the founding principles of the Union's legal order:

    EU law has primacy over national law, incl. constitutional provisions


    All rulings by @EUCourtPress are binding on all Member States' authorities, incl. national courts
    Slightly more than half the voting public find this kind of annoying, more so than no hobnobs for a week or two.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  55. #1780
    Quite the variety of hobnobs they're selling there.

    On the meat aisle, no less.


    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  56. #1781
    Another luxury item in short supply - blood test tubes.

    https://inews.co.uk/news/health/bloo...lained-1177737
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  57. #1782
    CoccoBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    2,256
    Location
    Finding my game
    Our brains have just one scale, and we resize our experiences to fit.

  58. #1783
    CoccoBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    2,256
    Location
    Finding my game
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    How can you want to put that much power into the hands of so few people?
    What do you mean so few? Why would it have to be few?

    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    How on earth can democracy work when the entire world has to vote in certain parties?
    What parties? The same as today, not great not terrible.

    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    It most certainly would not solve problems, it would create a great deal more problems.
    Depends how it's implemented. What problems would those be that we don't have already?

    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    You'd see civil disobedience the world over.
    Unlike now huh.
    Our brains have just one scale, and we resize our experiences to fit.

  59. #1784
    What do you mean so few? Why would it have to be few?
    Well what's your thinking? Have a large number of people in control? Perhaps have these people control certain territories? These territories could easily manage democracy if they're small enough. I've got an idea... let's call them nation states.

    Depends how it's implemented. What problems would those be that we don't have already?
    Nationalism in nations that don't currently have problems with nationalism.

    Unlike now huh.
    On a much larger scale.

    How does a global government keep control? There is only one sensible answer to that... by force. You're talking pure tyranny.

    That article you post only serves to fuel conspiracy theories about how covid has been manufactured for the purpose of advancing a world government agenda.

    How does a world government reduce inequality?

    Quotes from article...

    If a federal world government were elected democratically...
    How do you propose this happens? Do you think there is a global appetite for it? How do you enforce an election on a nation that already has a democratically elected government? Overthrow them? How is that democratic?

    A fourth problem is that those with economic power can avoid taxation.
    How does this not apply to the global government? Do you think they will happily pay tax? What makes you think a global government wouldn't itself be corrupt?

    Curbing the power of multinationals
    This seems incredibly naive, I would expect the exact opposite to happen... multinationals would become even more powerful and corrupt.

    I don't think you realise quite what you're in support of here. Totalitarianism, that's what. You're removing the right of self determination for literally everyone on the planet, and you can only do that by force. Even if somehow we democratically voted for it, can we democratically change our mind if it's not working out? We can see how difficult and problematic that is when we talk about a much smaller and much less powerful continental government.

    I'm in no doubt that a world government can solve some of the world's problems, But it will crate many more. It can only work by force. I don't see why you would have any reason to trust the world government more or even equally as much as national governments.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  60. #1785
    CoccoBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    2,256
    Location
    Finding my game
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Well what's your thinking? Have a large number of people in control? Perhaps have these people control certain territories? These territories could easily manage democracy if they're small enough. I've got an idea... let's call them nation states.
    Precisely! You're catching on, kinda like we already do with the US, EU, UK etc.

    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Nationalism in nations that don't currently have problems with nationalism.
    Please elaborate, how would everyone being the same nation create that?

    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    On a much larger scale.
    How? Why?

    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    How does a global government keep control? There is only one sensible answer to that... by force. You're talking pure tyranny.
    The same way smaller governments do. Why would it be any different?

    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    That article you post only serves to fuel conspiracy theories about how covid has been manufactured for the purpose of advancing a world government agenda.
    It seems like most things do.

    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    How does a world government reduce inequality?
    Right now it's every country for themselves, the rich ones get all they want and the poorer ones get scraps. If it were all managed centrally, everyone could get their share of goods, services and resources.

    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    How do you propose this happens? Do you think there is a global appetite for it? How do you enforce an election on a nation that already has a democratically elected government? Overthrow them? How is that democratic?
    I don't. Those are questions for someone actually knowledgeable in the technicalities, those don't interest me (at this time). How are nation states built in the first place? This would probably happen one of the same ways.

    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    How does this not apply to the global government? Do you think they will happily pay tax? What makes you think a global government wouldn't itself be corrupt?
    There wouldn't be tax havens, and of course it could be, but we already have that problem.

    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    This seems incredibly naive, I would expect the exact opposite to happen... multinationals would become even more powerful and corrupt.
    Why would they? And you do realize they wouldn't be multinationals anymore. :P

    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    I don't think you realise quite what you're in support of here. Totalitarianism, that's what. You're removing the right of self determination for literally everyone on the planet, and you can only do that by force. Even if somehow we democratically voted for it, can we democratically change our mind if it's not working out? We can see how difficult and problematic that is when we talk about a much smaller and much less powerful continental government.

    I'm in no doubt that a world government can solve some of the world's problems, But it will crate many more. It can only work by force. I don't see why you would have any reason to trust the world government more or even equally as much as national governments.
    So a person living in a country of say 67.22 million apparently still has "self determination", but a person in a country of 7 billion could not possibly have it? What would you say is the upper bound on the country size, and what creates it?

    Why would it be worse trusting a bigger government, when you clearly already don't trust any of the smaller ones? Why are you convinced things would automatically be worse, while many things point to many things being better? Of course it wouldn't wholly and completely solve every problem on the planet, but I think it would GREATLY improve many things, which I feel are some of the greatest hurdles we have as a species if we want to survive. Global collaboration, for one.
    Our brains have just one scale, and we resize our experiences to fit.

  61. #1786
    Please elaborate, how would everyone being the same nation create that?
    So your idea is to redefine the meaning of "nation"? A nation is not a government. The EU, for example, is not a nation. The only way the EU ever becomes a nation is if we change what "nation" means. But in doing so we change what "nationalism" means. Instead it will just become culturism, some new word to describe what we currently call "nationalism".

    So under a world government, we don't all live in one nation. We live in one state. A very different thing. Nationalists don't want to be part of a state, so those who reject a world government will be nationalists... people who want self determination.

    How? Why?
    Let's give a purely hypothetical example. Let's say we have a global election to decide if we have a democratic world government. 55% of the world says yes. 98% of Iceland say no. Iceland is a peaceful country, by some standards the most peaceful country on the planet. Do you suppose it remains peaceful? Do you suppose they just accept global rule? Do you suppose they just willingly abandon the nation of Iceland because most of China and India voted for a world government?

    I don't. I expect Iceland to rebel in this hypothetical situation. So what does the world government do about it? Crush them?

    The same way smaller governments do. Why would it be any different?
    The difference is with smaller governments, in our case they are democratically elected and subject to regular elections. People accept rule in this way. People will not accept global rule.

    Right now it's every country for themselves, the rich ones get all they want and the poorer ones get scraps. If it were all managed centrally, everyone could get their share of goods, services and resources.
    I think it's incredibly naive to think a central global government will not oversee a system which continues to favour the rich.

    How are nation states built in the first place?
    Culturally. I really don't think you know what "nation state" means. The UK is not a nation state. It is a union, or a country, it is not a nation state. They are different things. Iceland is a nation state. It became a nation state when it declared itself independent from the Kingdom of Denmark.

    Your entire argument seems to be based on the premise that nations and countries are the same thing. They categorically are not.

    You can't just erase the concept of a nation.

    There wouldn't be tax havens, and of course it could be, but we already have that problem.
    Who use tax havens? The rich and powerful. You're suggesting we eradicate corruption by giving corrupt people more power, not just more power but ultimate power. How can you not see how ludicrous this is?

    Why would they? And you do realize they wouldn't be multinationals anymore. :P
    Who do you think will be the people who make up the world government? The same people who have interests in global corporations.

    Do you think this one-world government is going to be normal folk like you and me? No, it'll be your Blairs and Merkels.

    So a person living in a country of say 67.22 million apparently still has "self determination"
    "Self determination" refers mainly to the right of a nation. And by nation I mean a people, not a country. The concept you don't seem to understand. Scotland has the right to self determination. This is why England are unable to stop them leaving the union. England can make it difficult, but ultimately not stop them. Glasgow on the other hand does not have the right to self determination. That is because Glasgow is not a nation, it is a city, a settlement. If this confuses you, then you really need to learn what nation means. Briefly, it means a people with a common culture, language, and territory, usually with some history of self rule.

    What would you say is the upper bound on the country size, and what creates it?
    I guess the upper bound of a country is the population of China. If they absorb more territory, that's a problem, right? They would need to invade, say Mongolia. Maybe Mongolia could democratically elect to join China, but Japan won't. There's no way that every country in the world will ever agree to be part of a global state with common law and currency. Not democratically, anyway.

    Why would it be worse trusting a bigger government, when you clearly already don't trust any of the smaller ones?
    Democracy. It's the only thing that stops our governments becoming truly rogue.

    Why are you convinced things would automatically be worse, while many things point to many things being better?
    Because there would be no way to hold the global leaders to account. This is not a democratic possibility for reasons I've already stated. This can only happen by force.

    Of course it wouldn't wholly and completely solve every problem on the planet, but I think it would GREATLY improve many things, which I feel are some of the greatest hurdles we have as a species if we want to survive.
    The problem you have is you're trying to erase a fundamental part of human nature, and that is culture. The concepts of nations and culture are very much linked. You erase a nation, you erase culture. But culture is what makes humans diverse in the first place. It's like you're trying to eradicate diversity. Make everyone exactly the same, a population of sheep. You don't seem to realise this is what you're arguing for. You want to change what humans are.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  62. #1787
    If you're not trying to eradicate diversity in humans, which presumably you're not, then you hold culture to be a quality of humans worth keeping. And in doing so, you basically just created the concept of a nation... those with a common culture.

    This is why your idea that "nationalism" is a dirty word is ludicrous. Nationalists want to preserve their culture. If you oppose them, you oppose their culture.

    The problem with nationalism of course is that it attracts racists, and that gives it a bad name. But nationalism doesn't have to be built from hatred, it can come from a place of celebrating diversity. I don't want to see any nation erased, my attachment to nationalism is not exclusive to England.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  63. #1788
    Another problem with nations is that it is a fuzzy line. There's no universal agreement on what nation means. But there is universal agreement that it means something. In most cases, it's pretty clear if a given people can be called a nation. Iceland, Scotland, Wales, Estonia, Japan... and in other cases it's clear a people are not a nation... Europe, UK, Glasgow, left handed people, goths, John and his family next door... but in others it's not clear... Catalonia, Texas, Transnistria.

    Just because it's hard to actually define what a nation is, and hard to agree, doesn't mean the concept has no meaning at all. And it certainly doesn't mean we should erase the concept of a nation altogether.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  64. #1789
    CoccoBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    2,256
    Location
    Finding my game
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    So your idea is to redefine the meaning of "nation"?
    No, my idea is to establish a world government, like I said.

    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    So under a world government, we don't all live in one nation. We live in one state. A very different thing. Nationalists don't want to be part of a state, so those who reject a world government will be nationalists... people who want self determination.
    Well I don't think having a global government says anything about what the structure beneath it is, but having just one nation could in theory have great benefits. People are always gonna complain want all kinds of stuff no matter what. All of the negative consequences you're stating are already problems now.

    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Let's give a purely hypothetical example. Let's say we have a global election to decide if we have a democratic world government. 55% of the world says yes. 98% of Iceland say no. Iceland is a peaceful country, by some standards the most peaceful country on the planet. Do you suppose it remains peaceful? Do you suppose they just accept global rule? Do you suppose they just willingly abandon the nation of Iceland because most of China and India voted for a world government?
    I don't know and I don't care, those are hypothetical technicalities of implementation.

    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    The difference is with smaller governments, in our case they are democratically elected and subject to regular elections. People accept rule in this way. People will not accept global rule.
    And what exactly is stopping a world government from being democratically elected? That's not a new issue, just look at Russia.

    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    I think it's incredibly naive to think a central global government will not oversee a system which continues to favour the rich.
    Yes, worst case scenario is that things will stay like they are.

    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Who use tax havens? The rich and powerful. You're suggesting we eradicate corruption by giving corrupt people more power, not just more power but ultimate power. How can you not see how ludicrous this is?
    Why would you give them more power? And why would it have to be exactly like some current form of government?

    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Who do you think will be the people who make up the world government? The same people who have interests in global corporations.
    Who are those and why would you give them the power?

    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Do you think this one-world government is going to be normal folk like you and me? No, it'll be your Blairs and Merkels.
    Well I wouldn't personally elect those kind of people but ok. How would things be different then? Yes, some people might be able to wield more power than they do today, why would that be worse situation than we have now? Think Russia, China, Philippines, Syria, Afghanistan, half of Africa, Ira*, Myanmar, etc etc. How well are we doing currently?

    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    "Self determination" refers mainly to the right of a nation. And by nation I mean a people, not a country. The concept you don't seem to understand. Scotland has the right to self determination. This is why England are unable to stop them leaving the union. England can make it difficult, but ultimately not stop them. Glasgow on the other hand does not have the right to self determination. That is because Glasgow is not a nation, it is a city, a settlement. If this confuses you, then you really need to learn what nation means. Briefly, it means a people with a common culture, language, and territory, usually with some history of self rule.
    Do you feel your responses have more gravitas if you start every paragraph by saying I don't understand? Rhetorical question.

    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    I guess the upper bound of a country is the population of China. If they absorb more territory, that's a problem, right? They would need to invade, say Mongolia. Maybe Mongolia could democratically elect to join China, but Japan won't. There's no way that every country in the world will ever agree to be part of a global state with common law and currency. Not democratically, anyway.
    So China will seize to function momentarily since its population is growing?

    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Democracy. It's the only thing that stops our governments becoming truly rogue.
    Like the X-Man? You do realize that even if we populated half the Milky Way we could still have a democracy?

    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Because there would be no way to hold the global leaders to account. This is not a democratic possibility for reasons I've already stated. This can only happen by force.
    Right. Because there just couldn't.

    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    The problem you have is you're trying to erase a fundamental part of human nature, and that is culture. The concepts of nations and culture are very much linked. You erase a nation, you erase culture. But culture is what makes humans diverse in the first place. It's like you're trying to eradicate diversity. Make everyone exactly the same, a population of sheep. You don't seem to realise this is what you're arguing for. You want to change what humans are.
    Yeah, I'm still mourning all the cultures lost when the EU was formed, so tragic.
    Our brains have just one scale, and we resize our experiences to fit.

  65. #1790
    but having just one nation could in theory have great benefits.
    You're continually failing to understand the fundamental meaning of "nation".

    Having just one nation means everyone in the world speaks the same language, and shares the same culture. That's what a global nation is. So you literally just erased every culture other than the one surviving one.

    If you want to preserve language and culture, you are preserving nations. A global world government in this context is a union of nations. It is not one nation.

    And what exactly is stopping a world government from being democratically elected? That's not a new issue, just look at Russia.
    Well for one I guess you can call it a hunch, in the sense I do not think there is anywhere near enough appetite to talk about it seriously from a democratic point of view, but maybe I'm wrong.

    Secondly, it's a problem if some regions of the world heavily favour it while others do not. This is how wars start, not end.

    If you think that every part of the world can muster up a majority, then maybe this is a serious possibility. But I am near certain this can only happen by force, by overthrowing democratically elected government already in existence.

    Why would you give them more power?
    That's kind of what I'm asking you. You just don't seem to realise that giving a central group of people control of the world's economy and law is giving them more power than they already have.

    Who are those and why would you give them the power?
    We don't choose who we give power to. If we did, we'd be able to change the world by simply voting out the crooks. But every time we do it, different crooks replace them. The system is utterly rigged. Why do you think you can change that by having just one government?

    Well I wouldn't personally elect those kind of people but ok.
    The probability of you voting for someone not corrupt is probably 1%. I'm pulling that number out my arse but it's probably in that region. Most people who get into politics do so for the gravy train, not to make society a better place for all. And of those who do get in for the right reasons, some of those become corrupted too because everyone likes money.

    Think Russia, China, Philippines, Syria, Afghanistan, half of Africa, Ira*, Myanmar, etc etc. How well are we doing currently?
    We're doing shit and I appreciate why you are looking for radical solutions, but this is most definitely not a good solution.

    Do you feel your responses have more gravitas if you start every paragraph by saying I don't understand? Rhetorical question.
    If there's a tone of mockery I'm sorry, my intention is to encourage you to become educated on the concept of a nation, because it really does seem you think that nation means country. There's plenty of stuff I don't understand.

    Like the X-Man? You do realize that even if we populated half the Milky Way we could still have a democracy?
    Actually the speed of light becomes and important factor at this point. If it takes 100,000 years just to communicate an election result between two planets, then democracy isn't going to work, is it? Let's keep things within the solar system to keep things practical.

    Right. Because there just couldn't.
    Obviously my pedantic response to your last comment doesn't apply on the planetary scale, but there are still massive problems. Different cultures have different interests. Larger cultures will therefore dominate. This will fuel appetite for self determination from cultures that feel they are not adequately represented. This is why large states always fail. It gets to the point where people are willing to die for their liberation from the state. This is when wars happen.

    Yeah, I'm still mourning all the cultures lost when the EU was formed, so tragic.
    They weren't lost. That's because the EU is not one nation. It's many nations. The cultures weren't erased. But you're still seeing problems with the concept of the superstate, where nations feel their right to self determination is being compromised. Poland are probably on their way out, the EU have basically said bend over and be fucked, or leave. That's the choice facing Poland right now, because the EU are saying the Polish Constitution is basically not worth wiping your arse on. They are saying EU law is supreme. And Poland will probably reject this, so they will eventually leave.

    If your idea of a global government involves some mechanism for nations leaving the world government, then it might not end in total war, and could have democratic merit, but at the same time the entire point of it is lost.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  66. #1791
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    9,659
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    The development of a world government is inevitable. It's just a matter of when and what it looks like.
    The UN is an attempt at world government, and its power is severely limited.
    The presence of a world government doesn't imply a powerful organization that oppresses people... but it's hard to pretend that, too, isn't an inevitable outcome of humans being the ones doing the governing.

    It's not necessarily the case that a world government means a single world culture, but that, too, seems inevitable. It was our isolation that lead to various cultures, and the isolation is evaporating quickly. The avenues to culture are changing, and culture is always dynamic. IDK how it will change, but the need to be in the same place to be united in culture is less necessary now than before. The ability to communicate and share views with people anywhere is new, different, and we're in the baby stages of adjusting to that as a human race.
    You can find any pattern you want to any level of precision you want, if you're prepared to ignore enough data.
  67. #1792
    You're right that culture is dynamic, but it's also geographical. An obvious example is how cultures vastly differ between the Arctic and the Sahara. If you mix everyone up at random and stick people in those two places, over time they will develop new different cultures. There will never be only one world culture. Religion is a huge barrier to this too. Will we ever rid ourselves of religion? I'm not so sure about that.

    I don't see a global world government replacing national governments. There will be too much resistance. Maybe some kind of UN type body that oversees international law and human rights issues, and they'll definitely try for a common global currency, that seems somewhat inevitable, but nations of people in a state of self-rule? That isn't going anywhere, not unless a fascist global power suppresses them. And that means war, so it's not solving the problems of our time.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  68. #1793
    I just don't see how an all-powerful global government can be anything other than totalitarian. I've no idea why this isn't obvious, and therefore why anyone would want it.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  69. #1794
    The EU is a decent example to look at. With their current dispute with Poland, they are making it clear that EU law takes precedent over constitutional law. Their posture is one of force. This is non negotiable for them. If it's non negotiable for Poland too, there can only be one outcome. Fortunately that is not war.

    The EU at the very least has an exit mechanism. It's this sole aspect that just about makes it democratic. If a global government does not allow nations to exit, then it can only hold together the union by force. It has to suppress rebellion. It has to be totalitarianism. How else can it stop collapse?
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  70. #1795
    Former PM of Finland saying EU should be ready to send emergency supplies to Britain.

    Hope you've got your lorry driver license, coco.


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-ne...er-pm-finland/
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  71. #1796
    lol plz send hobnobs
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  72. #1797
    You not gonna wade into this world government debate poop? Do you like the idea of a one-world government? Is this a left/right thing? Or a sane/crazy thing?
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  73. #1798
    There already is a world government on some levels. The UN, WTO, WHO, etc.. are all global forms of government, their power is just limited.

    I think the idea of a world gov't would be good, global cooperation is definitely better than global competition. I don't see why it needs to be any more or less good or bad than any of the national gov'ts around right now. That said, it's probably not something that's going to happen in the foreseeable future.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  74. #1799
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Here you go poop, in case there was any doubt...

    https://twitter.com/EU_Commission/st...73325517012997

    Had to look into this little matter. Turns out Poland has elected a right-wing loony party that is infringing on human rights by, for example, setting up a commission to "punish" judges whose rulings it doesn't like, and pass anti-LGBTQ laws. The EU basically said "yeah, that's not how we act in the EU," and Poland is saying "fuck you, MPGA."

    So yeah, if you're worried about fascism on a global scale this isn't a good example. The EU is basically telling one of its member states that fascism is frowned on, and preparing to punish it for ignoring that. I'm ok with that.

    OTOH, if you're keen that the UK use its newfound sovereignty to repress minorities and intimidate judges, then leaving was a great idea. No more Eurolibtards and their "rights" and "democratic institutions." #MEGA
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  75. #1800
    The fascism argument would carry more weight if the EU didn't turn a blind eye to Spain crushing Catalonian independence by beating up grannies who dared to vote. The UK turned a blind eye too though so it's not like I'm taking moral high ground on behalf of the country. But the EU is in no position to cry about fascism either.

    Their anti-LGBT laws are religion based. Funny how it's a problem when it's Poland but if we cry about anti-LGBT laws in an Islamic country it's racism.

    Personally, I'm equally as critical of Catholicism as I am Islam. They're both batshit and belong in the 14th century, not the 21st century.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •