Ian1779
Well-Known Member
The universally accepted way by capitalists.
George Floyd (7 Viewers)
- Thread starter Sky Blue Pete
- Start date
Grendel
Well-Known Member
I didn’t Ian I asked a definition and I receive back a lot of lazy cliches of labour bullshit bingo - I need an answer to my questions please and then I will respond accordingly but the crucial one is if the Blair government was the perfect model for you as I suspect it isn’t - I suspect it’s Corbynomics
Can you at least address this one crucial point in the debate please?
clint van damme
Well-Known Member
Alt right news and conspiracy theory site.
Claimed that the Sandy Hook massacre wasn't real and that the pictures of dead children were faked using actors.
Infowars followers started harassing bereaved parents, one father took his own life. There's more but you get the picture.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Are you not a capitalist Ian? At least we now know where you stand.
mrtrench
Well-Known Member
economists. If you disagree with the way it is calculated, let us know what it is that you think is flawed - because as a mathematician it seems perfectly logical to me.
mrtrench
Well-Known Member
I'll not bother looking for it then. Not a big fan of conspiracy theorists.
Ian1779
Well-Known Member
You don’t need my definition to answer the question - you are just deflecting as per usual.
Ian1779
Well-Known Member
As a mathematician I’m well aware of the manipulation of statistics to say pretty much anything you want it to.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Ian you haven’t answered a single point raised by myself or Mr Trench all day
Still you can I guess believe the majority are deflecting you time and time again and I suspect this will be your stock answer for every defeat of your political ideology
Not that we know what the ideology is Ian as oddly you’ve been deflecting that question all day long
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
There’s a reason they have high taxation, it’s to provide a good standard of living through socialism, they have good health care, good education system, good welfare system etc. They have a good work life balance ethic etc etc. The Nordic Model is a socialist movement, one that strikes a balance with capitalism and one that works very very well. Seriously, read up on the Nordic Model, look at the country’s that operate it, look how those countries fair in any measurement compared to pure capitalist countries. The model of capitalism we follow along with many other countries is as bust a flush as the communism of the Cold War. Our country needs to wake up to itself, unfortunately the media, certain politicians and the people who back them don’t want that so feed us bullshit like Brexit.
Sky_Blue_Dreamer
Well-Known Member
Trouble with that co-effiicient is it doesn't adequately take into account the very top and bottom earners - i.e where inequality is most important.
Ian1779
Well-Known Member
I have - I don’t agree with trench’s assertion that communism and socialism are the same thing. He won’t change his opinion and neither will I.
Nor do I agree with his assertion on the measure of inequality - but again neither of us will be changing our opinions anytime soon.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
I was more interested in your view of Blairite labour versus corbynimics
Ian1779
Well-Known Member
There is no such thing as Corbynomics - just a nonsense phrase made up by people like you to discredit a different way of financial thinking without having to do any critical analysis.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Richard Murphy claims there is Ian
mrtrench
Well-Known Member
It's a calculation. The definition of the calculation is clear. This is not about manipulating statistics, it's about making a calculation using a formula and then publishing the result. There is no manipulation because the formula is defined up front.
I repeat, what is it about the formula that you believe is flawed?
And whilst we are here, if you believe only capitalists would use Gini to measure inequality, how would socialists calculate it? Point me to the definition of the formula that you ne'er-do-wells prefer.
mrtrench
Well-Known Member
However the difference is that I've quoted the oracle as source in both cases and you've just written 'No'. It hasn't really been a compelling argument on your side.
Thanks for your contribution Tony. I'm not muting you because you're not unpleasant but I am ignoring it because I don't think responding is of any value.
Ian1779
Well-Known Member
Firstly it’s one dimensional - and I don’t believe it should be used as a single measure to decide on inequality.
Secondly, as Dreamer said - it can be skewed by extremes at either end - even during the Cov-ID crisis we are hearing about the vast increase in personal wealth for some people - no doubt off set by the increase in destitution at the other end.
mrtrench
Well-Known Member
Richard Murphy is, IMHO, a low-brow Marxist activist. However the one thing I do admire about him is that he doesn't even pretend that he's a qualified economist. He uses the term 'political economist' to describe himself - which is basically a made-up title to avoid admitting that he has nothing to back up his opinions. So much better than Ramesh Patel, who claims he has a Phd in Economics but doesn't bear even the slightest scrutiny to know he knows fuck all.
Ian1779
Well-Known Member
He’s liking hard.... maybe me Brighton and Tony are going to have to step our game up.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Ive just likes another 3 of his posts to cheer you up
mrtrench
Well-Known Member
lol. I can't believe I'm having a conversation on a football forum with some random bloke criticising a universally accepted economic formula.
So which multi-dimensional model (which pays extra attention to the extremes) would you anti-capitalists use? Because I think the answer is 'The Anecdotal Model', which is preferred because it cannot be calculated and you can use it to make any case you want without the tiresome burden of evidence.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
You are so polite - in basic terms he’s a c**t
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
I'm off for a while. Remote classes are back tomorrow and first socially distanced lessons later in the week.
Laters
Ian1779
Well-Known Member
It’s not really a debate though is it? You believe the model you are referring to is without flaw. Your dismissal of ‘anecdotal data’ means that you won’t change your mind either.
Some countries have moved beyond assessing a countries ‘success’ based on financial metrics alone. I believe this is a better way to move forward in the future.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Have you ever heard of taxresearch.com which is a spurious site for Richard Murphy? Please don’t tell me you’ve never heard of Richard Murphy
Ian1779
Well-Known Member
It’s a bit like the time I listened to the Education Secretary talk about how the government are investing record levels of funding in schools.
Now I know as an absolute measure he is right. That amount of money is the largest - what he fails to mention is that is because the numbers of people in the education system has increased hugely which has driven that. And what he most certainly never mentions is that the average investment per pupil has gone down.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
That sounds like an episode of tax research Ian but in reverse
Sky_Blue_Dreamer
Well-Known Member
I think it may have been you I had the discussion with on economic growth and how the way we measure it shows economic growth is absolutely required for everyone in society to be economically better off. I then using first principles proved that both 99.9% of people could be better off in an economy that had contracted and conversely 99.9% of people could be worse off in an economy that had grown. The measure used is done so not because it is sound but because it tells the story those in control want to hear. Economists are very very likely to be capitalists and so will use performance metrics that support that ideal even if they are flawed.
It's not without its uses, but shouldn't be looked upon as foolproof or in isolation. I'm not going to pretend to be good enough at maths to come up with an alternative but even I can say the starting point for something that measures inequality should focus heavily on the extremes rather than push them to one side - that's where inequality is!
You have said about 'anecdotal' and economics works on the basis that everything must have a value and because somethings are very difficult to value they largely get ignored. We knock down trees to build things because the perceived value of the trees is less than what is being built, even though it may well be those trees could clean the air, save hundreds of people from dying and thus save a fortune in healthcare costs and societal costs from family breakdowns/mental health of their loved ones worth ten/hundred times more. But because it's impossible to put a definitive value to that it will be largely ignored or given a small token value to say it has been accounted for. On the otherhand if we suddenly decided to use leaves as currency those cutting the trees down would stop and start planting them by the 100,000 immediately.
Price of everything, value of nothing.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Why is the Nordic Model unworthy of a response? It’s the most successful political model in the world by any measurement you wish to throw at it. It’s the only political model worth discussing.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
His economic theories were around long before Corbyn was ever leader of the Labour Party. Labour adopting parts of his economic theories doesn’t mean he invented Corbynomics, he advised over the course of two meetings IIRC and then everyone went their separate ways, I don’t think he’s even a member of the Labour Party, I would think that you would even struggle to find a quote from him that he’s a labour voter, I suspect that Corbynomics wasn’t radical enough for him if you read his views. You’re doing a typical Grendull and twisting to fit an argument.
clint van damme
Well-Known Member
you seriously think they're not connected?
It would be like saying a thread about poor tactics had been hijacked by mentioning the manager.