Scummy behaviour

Here you can comment on political news, create threads for open discussion.

Moderators: PoshinDevon, Soner, Dragon

Post Reply
User avatar
erol
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 3267
Joined: Tue 01 May 2012 7:14 pm

Scummy behaviour

  • Quote
  •   Message 1 of 16 in Discussion

Post by erol »

EnjoyingTheSun wrote:
Mon 23 Mar 2020 1:57 pm
No I'm pointing out that this has highlighted the ways of scum and hopefully highlights it enough that we can start to deal with it. I realise that the 100s queuing and bullying has has somewhat kicked the legs out from the "its a very tiny almost invisible minority" argument though so bad luck there.
As I hope it will lead to the identifying and dealing of ALL scum, those with billions along with those with next to nothing. The problem is scummy behaviour and you can not address that imo by saying scummy behaviour by those with billions does not impinge on 'ordinary peoples' lives as directly as that of those with very little in comparative terms

EnjoyingTheSun
Kibkommer
Kibkommer
Posts: 3413
Joined: Fri 16 Mar 2018 4:46 pm

Re: Scummy behaviour

  • Quote
  •   Message 2 of 16 in Discussion

Post by EnjoyingTheSun »

erol wrote:
Mon 23 Mar 2020 2:08 pm

As I hope it will lead to the identifying and dealing of ALL scum, those with billions along with those with next to nothing. The problem is scummy behaviour and you can not address that imo by saying scummy behaviour by those with billions does not impinge on 'ordinary peoples' lives as directly as that of those with very little in comparative terms
The fact that the world has billionaires who have too much and a lot of people have to little is a given. Many of those billionaires make little contribution, avoid tax and exploit people is also a given. Some do employ thousands of people too and do countless good deeds as well which is admitidely no more than they should.
But the thing is I doubt that we will ever abolish economic inequality and certainly not in the short term.

You objected to my using the phrase underclass and I really objected to you dragging in some insider trader into a discussion about lowlife using mob rule in a supermarket queue.

Whether it is measured by money, influence, mental ability, physical strength or party membership there is always an elite. On every system in every country in every year through out history there is and always will be an elite. Nothing will ever stop that.

Can governments stop billionaires squirreling their money away and not paying a fair contribution in tax? I would say not. The billionaires can afford the best advice which is why The Vestey family will contunue to pay less tax than you do.
Fair? No but who said life is fair.
But we can wail and whine about things we can't change or have a go at what we can change.

I do think that there is selective blindness as to the low lifes who are not billionaires. They are allowed to hide amongst decent people who are struggling despite doing the right thing. They can always be excused by the use of figures. It's a tiny proportion or compared with the tax avoided.... etc etc. But they are predators as much as any billionaire and a far more visible threat to the poor.

But even if we say every single one of these billionaires in Britain are selfish and the lowest form of life, there are only 54 of them in the UK. It isn't them who decided yesterday that the hour reserved for NHS workers also applied to them.

I have had the 'pleasure' of meeting Phillip Green a few times and can assure you that he is as charming in real life as you would imagine.
But if I was a vulnerable person who left my high rise to collect my weekly pension he wouldn't be the person I'd be worried about that might attack me for my meager pension.

If we want to politicise it, in my experience ordinary people have a pretty narrow view. They just try and take care of themself and theirs and if they can help their neighbours out they will do.

They really don't give a toss as to who owns what in Gaza or even where Gaza is, how many genders we should finally settle on and the ins and outs of chlorinated chicken or whatever is the pet project this week from the utopian theorists.

And god bless them for that. If everybody looked after themselves and their families and neighbours as best as they could the world would be in better shape. Because a lots of us can do that.

Maybe this crisis can make us all realise that the small stuff is the most important stuff.

User avatar
erol
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 3267
Joined: Tue 01 May 2012 7:14 pm

Re: Scummy behaviour

  • Quote
  •   Message 3 of 16 in Discussion

Post by erol »

EnjoyingTheSun wrote:
Mon 23 Mar 2020 3:39 pm
But the thing is I doubt that we will ever abolish economic inequality and certainly not in the short term.
It may well be that it is impossible to end economic inequality but I do not believe that it is impossible to change the degree of it. Your position is a fatalistic one that I can not subscribe too. Because we can not end inequality entirely we should make no effort to try and reduce the degree of it that is prevalent today and not worry at all about how that degree is changing over time.
EnjoyingTheSun wrote:
Mon 23 Mar 2020 3:39 pm
Whether it is measured by money, influence, mental ability, physical strength or party membership there is always an elite. On every system in every country in every year through out history there is and always will be an elite. Nothing will ever stop that.
The degree is not and has not been constant across country and across time.
EnjoyingTheSun wrote:
Mon 23 Mar 2020 3:39 pm
Can governments stop billionaires squirreling their money away and not paying a fair contribution in tax? I would say not. The billionaires can afford the best advice which is why The Vestey family will contunue to pay less tax than you do.
Fair? No but who said life is fair.
But we can wail and whine about things we can't change or have a go at what we can change.
I do not accept that we can not change such things , in degree. I do believe that we have no chance of changing the degree if we chose to subscribe to the myth that nothing can be done, to any degree at all.
EnjoyingTheSun wrote:
Mon 23 Mar 2020 3:39 pm
I do think that there is selective blindness as to the low lifes who are not billionaires. They are allowed to hide amongst decent people who are struggling despite doing the right thing. They can always be excused by the use of figures. It's a tiny proportion or compared with the tax avoided.... etc etc. But they are predators as much as any billionaire and a far more visible threat to the poor.
Your mantra that it is impossible to change the degree to which low life scummy billionaires are able to disadvantage others through selfishness is no different to me. You excuse them. In many ways and to significant degrees the entire history of humanity has been about the battle over the degree to which a minuscule few can own and control so much more than everyone else.
EnjoyingTheSun wrote:
Mon 23 Mar 2020 3:39 pm
But even if we say every single one of these billionaires in Britain are selfish and the lowest form of life, there are only 54 of them in the UK. It isn't them who decided yesterday that the hour reserved for NHS workers also applied to them.
I never said that all billionaires are scummy. I am saying the opposite. That scumminess is NOT primarily a function of wealth OR lack of it. Now it does seem clear to me that if the objective is to become a billionaire , being willing to be utterly selfish can only help achieve that objective but that is not saying that it is the only way to achieve it.

So you just want to talk about scummy behaviour of those with very little in comparative terms. That is is your choice and right. As it is mine to respond with let us not forget and ignore or excuse the scumminess of those who own nearly everything.
EnjoyingTheSun wrote:
Mon 23 Mar 2020 3:39 pm
I have had the 'pleasure' of meeting Phillip Green a few times and can assure you that he is as charming in real life as you would imagine.
But if I was a vulnerable person who left my high rise to collect my weekly pension he wouldn't be the person I'd be worried about that might attack me for my meager pension.
No the chance that Phillip Green might mug one person for their pension is low. The chance that he might steal thousands of peoples pensions without having to mug them is much higher.
EnjoyingTheSun wrote:
Mon 23 Mar 2020 3:39 pm
They really don't give a toss as to who owns what in Gaza or even where Gaza is, how many genders we should finally settle on and the ins and outs of chlorinated chicken or whatever is the pet project this week from the utopian theorists.
It is easy to talk with certainty and authority about what 'ordinary people' think or care about. In many ways and to a signifcant degree you are an 'ordinary person' but you do give a toss who owns Gaza I suspect. 'Ordinary' people have been and are subject to prejudice over issues of gender identity and for them these issue matter. In many ways and to significant degrees I am an 'ordinary' person and I do care about issues like equality in the broadest sense.
EnjoyingTheSun wrote:
Mon 23 Mar 2020 3:39 pm
Maybe this crisis can make us all realise that the small stuff is the most important stuff.
Maybe this crisis will help us realise that there is important small stuff and important big stuff that we should have been more concerned with.

Ragged Robin
Kibkommer
Kibkommer
Posts: 2038
Joined: Mon 26 May 2014 5:15 pm

Re: Scummy behaviour

  • Quote
  •   Message 4 of 16 in Discussion

Post by Ragged Robin »

With reference to scum, lower classes e tc - g.b. shaw covered the subject more succinctly- see Arther Dolittle in PIgmmalion or my fair lady.........some things just don't change

EnjoyingTheSun
Kibkommer
Kibkommer
Posts: 3413
Joined: Fri 16 Mar 2018 4:46 pm

Re: Scummy behaviour

  • Quote
  •   Message 5 of 16 in Discussion

Post by EnjoyingTheSun »

erol wrote:
Mon 23 Mar 2020 4:31 pm

It may well be that it is impossible to end economic inequality but I do not believe that it is impossible to change the degree of it. Your position is a fatalistic one that I can not subscribe too. Because we can not end inequality entirely we should make no effort to try and reduce the degree of it that is prevalent today and not worry at all about how that degree is changing over time.
It's called tilting at windmills. I cannot do anything about the Sun or the oceans or China but I can do something about UK wind power so I will push for that no matter that it is spitting in the wind and will make not one ounce of difference.
erol wrote:
Mon 23 Mar 2020 4:31 pm

The degree is not and has not been constant across country and across time.
The rich are richer although pro rata the likes of Carnegie and Rockefeller might argue.
But here's the thing, the poor are much better off too.
Those vast land owning idle rich now are simply decended from those who were rather useful with a sword back in the day.
Btw Castro might not have had Bill Gates money but he had millions.
erol wrote:
Mon 23 Mar 2020 4:31 pm

I do not accept that we can not change such things , in degree. I do believe that we have no chance of changing the degree if we chose to subscribe to the myth that nothing can be done, to any degree at all.
You can never get the rich it's tilting at windmills but live the dream if you want just don't spend that money before it is in the bank or else I'm getting a share of that bill. It's all about degrees so you will bankrupt the world and make the poorest even poorer for 0.6 of a degree
erol wrote:
Mon 23 Mar 2020 4:31 pm

Your mantra that it is impossible to change the degree to which low life scummy billionaires are able to disadvantage others through selfishness is no different to me. You excuse them. In many ways and to significant degrees the entire history of humanity has been about the battle over the degree to which a minuscule few can own and control so much more than everyone else.
I don't excuse them and you kind of answered your own point there with the entire history of humanity bit.
erol wrote:
Mon 23 Mar 2020 4:31 pm

So you just want to talk about scummy behaviour of those with very little in comparative terms. That is is your choice and right. As it is mine to respond with let us not forget and ignore or excuse the scumminess of those who own nearly everything.
Who do you think the scum with very little in comparative terms are taking from?
Phillip Green or the more vulnerable than them?
I'm not naive to think that a Rees Mogg wouldn't have me over but I do know I would get home in one piece if a little poorer.

But I guess we can let the bullies still push their way to the front of the queue while we prioritise and strategise for the next 50 years how we might be the ones who can crack The Phillip Green tax fiddles.
erol wrote:
Mon 23 Mar 2020 4:31 pm

No the chance that Phillip Green might mug one person for their pension is low. The chance that he might steal thousands of peoples pensions without having to mug them is much higher.
OK we've given you a 100 years to stop the Phillip Greens with zero success but hey the grannies can still run the gauntlet while you chin stroke your way through the Green problem as long as you promise to sort them out say after you sort the definitive number of genders?
erol wrote:
Mon 23 Mar 2020 4:31 pm

'Ordinary' people have been and are subject to prejudice over issues of gender identity and for them these issue matter. In many ways and to significant degrees I am an 'ordinary' person and I do care about issues like equality in the broadest sense.
Bayoneting the wounded.
Devastated that homosexuality has been legalised and homosexuals and women have equality, you having missed those battles need your own battle to fight.
The fact that this battle is alienating just about everyone including the gay community, feminists and also many transexuals you will plough on because those couple of hundred people matter.
So on that subject if someone is going to share a changing room with your wife do they have to physically change sex or is just identifying enough? Obviously men and women aren't enough genders and I guess just adding transmen and transwomen aren't enough so how many do you think we should stop with? BTW whatever number you come up with wont be enough, someone will always out Erol you. In fact as the leftwaffe have given up on the likes of me you will be labelled as more bigoted than me if you haven't read the latest memo and stick on 158.

Here's a very topical question. There are going to be mass shortages of pretty much anything but in the interests of political correctness obviously you wouldn't stop me loading up on some sanitary products as I am thinking of identifying as a woman next week?

All vital questions that no one cares about.
erol wrote:
Mon 23 Mar 2020 4:31 pm

Maybe this crisis will help us realise that there is important small stuff and important big stuff that we should have been more concerned with.
And though time is vital we reserve the right to take a few years reflection before we tackle it arse about face.

EnjoyingTheSun
Kibkommer
Kibkommer
Posts: 3413
Joined: Fri 16 Mar 2018 4:46 pm

Re: Scummy behaviour

  • Quote
  •   Message 6 of 16 in Discussion

Post by EnjoyingTheSun »

Ragged Robin wrote:
Mon 23 Mar 2020 5:26 pm
With reference to scum, lower classes e tc - g.b. shaw covered the subject more succinctly- see Arther Dolittle in PIgmmalion or my fair lady.........some things just don't change
My point exactly much to some of the middle classes disappointment the lower classes just get on with life and don't spend their life theorising.
Although I guess some middle age black women do miss out on some white class student explaining to them what they should and shouldn't find offensive

sausage and pash
Kibkommer
Kibkommer
Posts: 127
Joined: Thu 30 Apr 2015 4:50 pm

Re: Scummy behaviour

  • Quote
  •   Message 7 of 16 in Discussion

Post by sausage and pash »

We do not have billions but we have always tried to help strangers or neighbours out sometimes it costing us a few hundred pounds when we dropped some people out and our car broke down. But it does'nt mattet how much money you have, you only have it to use on this earth. Once you die you cannot take it with you, and others receive it or fight for it. Just take care of yourselves. Health is more important than wealth.

EnjoyingTheSun
Kibkommer
Kibkommer
Posts: 3413
Joined: Fri 16 Mar 2018 4:46 pm

Re: Scummy behaviour

  • Quote
  •   Message 8 of 16 in Discussion

Post by EnjoyingTheSun »

sausage and pash wrote:
Mon 23 Mar 2020 5:53 pm
We do not have billions but we have always tried to help strangers or neighbours out sometimes it costing us a few hundred pounds when we dropped some people out and our car broke down. But it does'nt mattet how much money you have, you only have it to use on this earth. Once you die you cannot take it with you, and others receive it or fight for it. Just take care of yourselves. Health is more important than wealth.
Amen to that

User avatar
erol
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 3267
Joined: Tue 01 May 2012 7:14 pm

Re: Scummy behaviour

  • Quote
  •   Message 9 of 16 in Discussion

Post by erol »

Apologies for posting this in the general forum section. It should have been posted in 'politics' section of the forum. My bad and I will try and do better going forward. Thanks in advance to who ever ends up now having to spend their time cleaning up my mistake.

User avatar
erol
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 3267
Joined: Tue 01 May 2012 7:14 pm

Re: Scummy behaviour

  • Quote
  •   Message 10 of 16 in Discussion

Post by erol »

ETS you appear to claim that seeking to limit the degree to which the selfish super rich are able to harm others through the pursuit of selfish greed is 'tilting at windmills'. Yet seeking to limit the degree to which selfish non rich are able to harm others through their selfish greed is not 'tilting at windmills' but where we must direct all our efforts ? Such a position makes no sense to me. I argue we should seek to tackle selfishness by addressing it regardless of how rich the selfish person may or may not be. You appear to be arguing we should only seek to tackle such selfish behaviour by those on normal or lower levels of wealth and ignore it from those with obscene levels of wealth.

You appear to argue that in 100 years we have not been able to stop the Philip Greens selfish behaviour harming others so we should not worry or seek to do anything about such. Yet in 5000 years have we been able to stop the selfish behaviour of the bullies pushing the weaker out of the way in supermarkets ?

Back in reality, Philip Green driven by his selfishness stole £100's of millions from thousands of peoples pensions. He was then forced to pay back £363 million of it to the people he had stolen from. Where did the laws and mechanisms that made him do so come from ? I can tell you where they did NOT come from. They did not come from people who argued for the last hundred years that 'you can not stop or limit the rich from behaving in such ways, they always have and always will, attempts to limit the impact of their selfishness or greed on others is pointless and a waste of time and we should let them get on with it without let or hindrance and only worry about people who steal one persons pension at a time.'

Displace our relative positions by 120 years and my position is the one arguing that we need to form a labour movement so that we can confront and limit the greed of the super wealthy and your position is arguing that doing so is just tilting at windmills, a pointless waste of time and all that we should be doing is seeking to stop the selfish behaviour of people with normal or lower than normal amounts of wealth whilst letting those with obscene amounts do as they like without let or hindrance.

You hope that this crisis might lead to us 're evaluate'. Will it lead you to re evaluate your claim that a family, any family, of two adults and three children where the two adults only earn £25,000 each per year are a net burden on society that you constructed specifically to try and show what you wanted to show, that non billionaire migrants to the UK are a burden on the UK ? I might hope that the images of the hundreds of thousand non selfish front line health care workers coming off 20+ hour shifts exhausted with bruised faces, vast numbers of which do meet your artificially constructed 'earn £25k per anum or less and you are a burden on the UK' analysis, might lead you to re evaluate such analysis and notions like value and worth and what people earn. I can not see much sign that it is leading to such re evaluation in your case yet ?
Last edited by erol on Tue 24 Mar 2020 9:35 am, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
erol
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 3267
Joined: Tue 01 May 2012 7:14 pm

Re: Scummy behaviour

  • Quote
  •   Message 11 of 16 in Discussion

Post by erol »

er misspost. meant to edit above and quoted by mistake.

EnjoyingTheSun
Kibkommer
Kibkommer
Posts: 3413
Joined: Fri 16 Mar 2018 4:46 pm

Re: Scummy behaviour

  • Quote
  •   Message 12 of 16 in Discussion

Post by EnjoyingTheSun »

erol wrote:
Tue 24 Mar 2020 9:27 am
Yet seeking to limit the degree to which selfish non rich are able to harm others through their selfish greed is not 'tilting at windmills' but where we must direct all our efforts ?
No its where we should prioritise our current efforts. The current problem is the selfish people who are deciding to bully their way past elderly vulnerable people and steal the time slots of key workers particularily the NHS workers. If you can convince me that it is our 54 billionaires that are responsible for this I’m all ears. This is the problem with the left. We have an immediate problem but you have your tick box agenda so it’s a case that we need to look at sanctions against Israel first before we seek to address the law of the jungle on our streets.

erol wrote:
Tue 24 Mar 2020 9:27 am
You appear to argue that in 100 years we have not been able to stop the Philip Greens selfish behaviour harming others so we should not worry or seek to do anything about such. Yet in 5000 years have we been able to stop the selfish behaviour of the bullies pushing the weaker out of the way in supermarkets?
I know you will no doubt find some faux facts here but when I was a kid living in a very poor rough area with many who were violent and out for themselves I cannot remember one occasion where an old woman would be mugged for her pension or pushed out of the way by someone in a hurry. Maybe you or someone else remember it different?
To me that is a fairly new phenomenon which has been allowed to flourish by those who turn a blind eye to it and assure those bullies that nothing is ever their fault because they got dealt a bad hand in life.
erol wrote:
Tue 24 Mar 2020 9:27 am
He was then forced to pay back £363 million of it to the people he had stolen from. Where did the laws and mechanisms that made him do so come from ?
Sorry to cut you off in mid flow here when you are warming to your theme but Green chose to pay back that money, legally I think you’ll find he didn’t have to. It wasn’t enough and bad press certainly influenced his decision but legally I think you’ll find he was free and clear. Sorry to let facts get in the way of your thank god for the work of Bevan spiel.
erol wrote:
Tue 24 Mar 2020 9:27 am
we need to form a labour movement so that we can confront and limit the greed of the super wealthy
Again sorry to spoil you rewriting of history here but Unions were one of the biggest opponents of immigration due to the effect it would have on their member’s jobs. So strong unions and no immigration would have been best with hindsight? I know you like to have it both ways but real world life isn’t so simple sadly.
erol wrote:
Tue 24 Mar 2020 9:27 am
Will it lead you to re evaluate your claim that a family, any family, of two adults and three children where the two adults only earn £25,000 each per year are a net burden on society that you constructed specifically to try and show what you wanted to show, that non billionaire migrants to the UK are a burden on the UK ? I might hope that the images of the hundreds of thousand non selfish front line health care workers coming off 20+ hour shifts exhausted with bruised faces, vast numbers of which do meet your artificially constructed 'earn £25k per anum or less and you are a burden on the UK' analysis, might lead you to re evaluate such analysis and notions like value and worth and what people earn. I can not see much sign that it is leading to such re evaluation in your case yet ?
What is interesting on here is you will bring in something from an unconnected thread. If I ignore it I’m accused of avoiding the question. If I answer it I’m accused of going off topic.
Here is the thread for anyone who actually want to read what was said
viewtopic.php?p=247921#p247921

But as you bought it up with the clever “constructed specifically” dig.

I bought it up to challenge that immigrants as a whole are net contributers to our economy. It was a pounds shillings and pence exercise and zero to do with any other contribution they make to our society as I clearly stated at the time.
It is one of those sound bites that is simply waved through as so obvious anyone challenging it is stupid.
So I thought I would break it down a bit.

When you say constructed specifically, please explain. I picked the figure of £25,000 because that was the figure that was said to be too low re the new points system.
I had both working for 42 years solid with no breaks, which is probably unlikely.
They had no NHS bill to pay the children had been born abroad. Again unlikely.
No further education. Again unlikely.
And no pensions. Again unlikely.

What was biased about that specific construction? I put together a most unlikely scenario and still it showed that the net contributor line is BS. I’m sorry if the facts don’t fit the narrative but that’s not my fault.

But you never replied in the thread so please have a go here, where is my maths biased?
Have I over estimated the cost of schooling or under estimated the amount of tax they would pay?

User avatar
erol
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 3267
Joined: Tue 01 May 2012 7:14 pm

Re: Scummy behaviour

  • Quote
  •   Message 13 of 16 in Discussion

Post by erol »

EnjoyingTheSun wrote:
Tue 24 Mar 2020 12:38 pm
No its where we should prioritise our current efforts. The current problem is ...
and there was me thinking we were discussing within the context of
Hopefully this will give society the big reset that it has needed for a long time and we all come out of it stronger and nicer.
and
Wouldn't it be worth it if we came out of this a nicer society.We start to band together against the bullies in society.
EnjoyingTheSun wrote:
Tue 24 Mar 2020 12:38 pm
I know you will no doubt find some faux facts here but when I was a kid living in a very poor rough area with many who were violent and out for themselves I cannot remember one occasion where an old woman would be mugged for her pension or pushed out of the way by someone in a hurry. Maybe you or someone else remember it different?
To me that is a fairly new phenomenon which has been allowed to flourish by those who turn a blind eye to it and assure those bullies that nothing is ever their fault because they got dealt a bad hand in life.
There was me thinking we were talking about people that "have no shame, moral compass or self awareness." and "boorish, anti social" people. None of these things seem to me to be a 'new phenomenon' ? The argument that such things have always been so and always will be so and any and all effort to try and change the degree of such things is futile and tilting at windmills seems no less applicable to this than it does to the issue of inequality and elites. I reject such arguments in both cases. You appear to me to use such arguments when it suits and deny them when it does not ?
erol wrote:
Tue 24 Mar 2020 9:27 am
Sorry to cut you off in mid flow here when you are warming to your theme but Green chose to pay back that money, legally I think you’ll find he didn’t have to. It wasn’t enough and bad press certainly influenced his decision but legally I think you’ll find he was free and clear. Sorry to let facts get in the way of your thank god for the work of Bevan spiel.
He 'chose' to pay back the sums that he did in response to public outrage and under threat of legal enforcement of potentially much bigger sanctions against him. Neither of which 'encouragements' would exist if following the mantra of 'you can not limit the selfish excesses of the massively rich / elite you can only limit selfish excesses of the non super rich'.
erol wrote:
Tue 24 Mar 2020 9:27 am
Again sorry to spoil you rewriting of history here but Unions were one of the biggest opponents of immigration due to the effect it would have on their member’s jobs. So strong unions and no immigration would have been best with hindsight? I know you like to have it both ways but real world life isn’t so simple sadly.
Did the formation of the labour movement lead to a change in the degree to which the elites could exercise selfishness excesses at the expense of the many or not ? Did it lead to zero net immigration in to the UK or not ? The answers to these questions are to me clear an obvious as it is equally clear and obvious to me that had the mantra that 'you can not limit the selfish excesses of the elite and it is pointless middle class naivety to imagine you can' been prevalent back then, then real world progress that benefited millions would not have been achieved. Nor despite your attempts at obfuscation, would migration have been different either imo.
erol wrote:
Tue 24 Mar 2020 9:27 am
When you say constructed specifically, please explain.
Your 'analysis' in that thread was constructed because it starts from a position 'what do I want to try and prove' and then works backwards from there and not from 'let's look at the data as dispassionately as possible and see where that leads'. As ever this is a matter of 'degree' but the degree to which you did this in your 'analysis' is extreme even as you write off analysis from others with far greater credentials that yours on this very basis who demonstrably do such to a far lesser degree than you. Such 'constructed' analyses are almost always seriously flawed and yours, imo, is no different in this regard.

Some but certainly not all of the most glaring flaws in that analysis of yours are as follows.

1 . The analysis does not look at the differences between economic contribution of migrants compared with non migrants. It looks at a fictional constructed hypothetical that applies to all who earn less than a given 'snapshot' amount be they migrant or not. It concludes that anyone earning less than your snapshot figure of £25,000 per year is a net economic drain on the UK economy, which if true and in the context of the current global crisis means large numbers of those front line individuals that are daily putting themselves at increased risk for the benefit of wider society be they non migrant or migrant are by your analysis are a 'net economic drain' on the UK.

The analysis in reality and imo tells us nothing of the difference between the statistical averages of non migrants populations and their economic contribution to the UK vs that of migrant ones because it is constructed in such a way as to not look at or for this difference should it exist. Imo it is just asking the wrong question in the first place and it is hard not to think it does so because of the flawed nature in which it has been constructed. The relevant question is not does anyone, migrant or not, earning under a given snapshot figure represent a net drain on the UK economy or not but rather does the evidence show that migrant populations on average show a different net gain or drain on the economy at any given income level vs those of the non migrant populations. The data and analysis on this question done by large numbers of people far better qualified than either of us and with a far lesser degree of 'construction to get the wanted result' is imo credible and compelling. What your construct seeks to ignore entirely, in anecdotal 'man in street common sense' terms is that migrant populations have on average and by definition more 'get up and go' than non migrant ones.

2. You arbitrarily pick and choose (construct) economic costs and benefits to reach the wanted conclusion. So for example you initially choose to ignore the income taxes that your hypothetical migrant family pays. You did then later add that in when challenged but you analysis still lacks any element of other taxes paid by your hypothetical migrant family, like sales taxes. This is particularly glaring to me given how much it is these kind of taxes that are used to demonstrate how much UK migrants here are net contributors to the economy here.

To give another example you classify money spent by the state on education, for anyone, migrant or not, as pure 'cost' and ignore the degree to which such is not simply 'cost' but is in fact 'investment'. You ignore that the money spent on state education of any child migrant or otherwise seeks to regain that cost and more down the line.

3. You ignore the 'economics 101' axiom that what is beneficial to an economy is growth. In doing so you come to all sorts of incorrect conclusions as to the relative benefits to the economy of billionaire migrants vs 'poor migrants'. A billionaire migrant's contribution to growth of an economy is suspect and dubious in countless ways and certainly orders of magnitude less than that of a migrant who arrives with nothing and becomes a billionaire after having migrated to a country. The question that should be being asked is does the migrant population in a country on average produce more economic growth that the average for the non migrant population. Again there is copious credible statistical evidence from around the globe and across time periods than in fact they do. The anecdotal man in the street common sense version of this would be 'look at the USA between 1900 and 1970'.

4. You take 'snapshot figures' of income and multiply them up over decades as if what someone earns today, migrant or not, is what they will be earning over 40 years. This is plainly flawed imo. Someone like Alan Sugar at the age of 20 and earning very little at that time would, using your methodology have been defined as someone who is a net drain on the UK economy not just when he was 20 years old but over his entire lifetime. This is clearly nonsense imo. I can however see the 'utility' of such nonsense when the objective is to reach the pre determined conclusion wanted.

These are, 'off the top of my head' just some but by no means all of the flaws as I see them in your 'analysis' that are derive from the way it has been constructed to reach the pre determined conclusion wanted.

I will end this particular post with a question. Do you think that the millions of European Jewish migrants that fled their native European countries in the 1930's and 40's and beyond in the face of rising antisemitism and war in those countries went on to ultimately be net economic contributors to the countries they fled too or net drains on those countries ?

EnjoyingTheSun
Kibkommer
Kibkommer
Posts: 3413
Joined: Fri 16 Mar 2018 4:46 pm

Re: Scummy behaviour

  • Quote
  •   Message 14 of 16 in Discussion

Post by EnjoyingTheSun »

erol wrote:
Tue 24 Mar 2020 3:52 pm
There was me thinking we were talking about people that "have no shame, moral compass or self awareness." and "boorish, anti social" people. None of these things seem to me to be a 'new phenomenon' ?
So mugging old age pensioners for their pension was common place in the 60s and early 70s? Pushing them over to beat them in a queue was common?
You know it wasn’t but it isn’t the little poppits fault who are forced to do it now due to their ‘relative poverty’ is it?
erol wrote:
Tue 24 Mar 2020 3:52 pm
He 'chose' to pay back the sums that he did in response to public outrage and under threat of legal enforcement of potentially much bigger sanctions against him. Neither of which 'encouragements' would exist if following the mantra of 'you can not limit the selfish excesses of the massively rich / elite you can only limit selfish excesses of the non super rich'.
No I think your find that legally he had to pay nothing, zero, nada. After all he no longer owned the firm in question.
It did give the opportunity for some MPs to get a bit of TV time as they had a go at him but legally he was on very firm ground.
Sorry you were talking encouragements its just I got confused by the word mechanisms which indicates some legal apparatus put in place that meant he had to pay up?
The likes of Green work exactly within the law and twist it and keep their feet on the line of what is legal or illegal. Wherever you draw that line they will as ever keep both feet on it.
Hence you will always find it hard to get the rich
erol wrote:
Tue 24 Mar 2020 3:52 pm
Did the formation of the labour movement lead to a change in the degree to which the elites could exercise selfishness excesses at the expense of the many or not ? Did it lead to zero net immigration in to the UK or not ? The answers to these questions are to me clear an obvious as it is equally clear and obvious to me that had the mantra that 'you can not limit the selfish excesses of the elite and it is pointless middle class naivety to imagine you can' been prevalent back then, then real world progress that benefited millions would not have been achieved. Nor despite your attempts at obfuscation, would migration have been different either imo.
Blah blah blah. Were the unions one of the foremost supporters of a strong immigration policy to protect their members jobs? I’m missing an answer in the rhetoric.
erol wrote:
Tue 24 Mar 2020 3:52 pm

Your 'analysis' in that thread was constructed because it starts from a position 'what do I want to try and prove' and then works backwards from there and not from 'let's look at the data as dispassionately as possible and see where that leads'. As ever this is a matter of 'degree' but the degree to which you did this in your 'analysis' is extreme even as you write off analysis from others with far greater credentials that yours on this very basis who demonstrably do such to a far lesser degree than you.
My analysis was purely done to question the fact that immigrants make a net economic contribution. Purely that. That they in the main add to our culture was not the question. I am sure that some with far more credentials can spin the figures but simply on the potential tax they will pay and what they receive I have my doubts.
That isn’t to say that most of the population don’t make much net contribution at the end of the day but I don’t like this accepted wisdom that immigrants make a net economic contribution which can’t actually stand up to even the most rudimentary scrutiny. When I'm lied to about that it only makes me question other accepted wisdoms
erol wrote:
Tue 24 Mar 2020 3:52 pm
1 . The analysis does not look at the differences between economic contribution of migrants compared with non migrants.
It looks at a fictional constructed hypothetical that applies to all who earn less than a given 'snapshot' amount be they migrant or not. It concludes that anyone earning less than your snapshot figure of £25,000 per year is a net economic drain on the UK economy, which if true and in the context of the current global crisis means large numbers of those front line individuals that are daily putting themselves at increased risk for the benefit of wider society be they non migrant or migrant are by your analysis are a 'net economic drain' on the UK.
Absolutely irrelevant to the quote that was stated as a fact that migrants make a net economic contribution.
erol wrote:
Tue 24 Mar 2020 3:52 pm
2. of other taxes paid by your hypothetical migrant family, like sales taxes. This is particularly glaring to me given how much it is these kind of taxes that are used to demonstrate how much UK migrants here are net contributors to the economy here.
One it is impossible to measure sales tax paid by individuals so it is a very useful figure to spin. Two a country has limited resources if we give to one we can’t give to another. If we did give more to that other then they would pay more sales tax. So its one of those lovely pie in the sky figures that anyone can hide behind.
As for people here who do pay sales tax how many of them receive welfare benefits, education, free hospital treatment, TRNC pensions etc etc. Roughly? Is it about zero? Apples and oranges but nice whataboutism.
erol wrote:
Tue 24 Mar 2020 3:52 pm

To give another example you classify money spent by the state on education, for anyone, migrant or not, as pure 'cost' and ignore the degree to which such is not simply 'cost' but is in fact 'investment'.

You ignore that the money spent on state education of any child migrant or otherwise seeks to regain that cost and more down the line.
They as others will have children too. So if they get an average job then what they pay in tax won’t cover their bills either. Also more children bigger class sizes = less quality education.
erol wrote:
Tue 24 Mar 2020 3:52 pm
A billionaire migrant's contribution to growth of an economy is suspect and dubious in countless ways and certainly orders of magnitude less than that of a migrant who arrives with nothing and becomes a billionaire after having migrated to a country. The question that should be being asked is does the migrant population in a country on average produce more economic growth that the average for the non migrant population. Again there is copious credible statistical evidence from around the globe and across time periods than in fact they do. The anecdotal man in the street common sense version of this would be 'look at the USA between 1900 and 1970'.
We only have 54 billionaires in the country so it won’t be hard to find this mythical ‘migrant who arrives with nothing and becomes a billionaire’ We can then have a look at their net contribution and offset it against the net expenses overall. I’m still confident as to the final total.
Wow are you bringing up the great satan of America to help!
OK want to look at the number of migrants in China over the last 100 years? Japan? They seemed to have coped
erol wrote:
Tue 24 Mar 2020 3:52 pm
You take 'snapshot figures' of income and multiply them up over decades as if what someone earns today, migrant or not, is what they will be earning over 40 years. This is plainly flawed imo.
Someone like Alan Sugar
Sure wages go up, so do bills and pensions etc so that is a moot point.
You know Alan Sugar is one of those disgusting billionaires who takes out far more than he puts in don’t you? Can’t have it both ways.
erol wrote:
Tue 24 Mar 2020 3:52 pm
I will end this particular post with a question. Do you think that the millions of European Jewish migrants that fled their native European countries in the 1930's and 40's and beyond in the face of rising antisemitism and war in those countries went on to ultimately be net economic contributors to the countries they fled too or net drains on those countries ?
Generally Jews as migrants have thrived throughout history which isn’t always the case for other races but the main point you are missing is THEY WEREN'T ECONOMIC MIGRANTS.

User avatar
erol
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 3267
Joined: Tue 01 May 2012 7:14 pm

Re: Scummy behaviour

  • Quote
  •   Message 15 of 16 in Discussion

Post by erol »

EnjoyingTheSun wrote:
Tue 24 Mar 2020 4:44 pm
So mugging old age pensioners for their pension was common place in the 60s and early 70s? Pushing them over to beat them in a queue was common?
You know it wasn’t but it isn’t the little poppits fault who are forced to do it now due to their ‘relative poverty’ is it?
Do you have any evidence other than your own perception that mugging pensioners is more prevalent today than it was in the 60's or 70's ? In any case whether that particular specific form of 'selfish scummy' behaviour was or was not more prevalent then, it does not change the point I was making, namely that I am arguing we should make effort to limit and stop the degree of this kind of selfish behaviour as well as that of elites vs your position that we should make efforts to stop that kind of selfish behaviour but not do so re selfish behaviour of elites because that is just a universal constant and any and all such effort is futile tilting at windmills.
EnjoyingTheSun wrote:
Tue 24 Mar 2020 4:44 pm
No I think your find that legally he had to pay nothing, zero, nada. After all he no longer owned the firm in question.
So says the legal expert. The bottom line is he settled and he only did so because his judgement was the cost of not doing so was greater than the cost of doing so. It terms of the point I making it does not matter if that cost was potential legal sanction or public outrage or a combination of both. He settled because people in general did NOT follow your mantra that it is pointless to try and limit selfish excess from such people. If they had of followed it, he would not have settled and would have paid nada.
EnjoyingTheSun wrote:
Tue 24 Mar 2020 4:44 pm
Hence you will always find it hard to get the rich
Hard or impossible ? There is quite a difference between the two. Feels like goalposts being shifted to me.
EnjoyingTheSun wrote:
Tue 24 Mar 2020 4:44 pm
Blah blah blah. Were the unions one of the foremost supporters of a strong immigration policy to protect their members jobs? I’m missing an answer in the rhetoric.
I think your frustration is that I am declining to play along with your attempts at obfuscation of the points I am trying to make. Namely that the mantra 'you can not limit selfish excess of the super rich and any and all attempts to do so is just pointless tilting at windmills' is patent nonsense. I maintain that the degree to which the labour movement did result in in limits being placed on the selfish excess of the super wealthy is germane to this point and the degree to which they may have been anti immigrant is not.
EnjoyingTheSun wrote:
Tue 24 Mar 2020 4:44 pm
but I don’t like this accepted wisdom that immigrants make a net economic contribution
Unless they are Jewish refugee migrants rather than non Jewish economic migrants ?
EnjoyingTheSun wrote:
Tue 24 Mar 2020 4:44 pm
One it is impossible to measure sales tax paid by individuals so it is a very useful figure to spin.
And it is not spin to estimate the figure as zero as you did in your analysis because it is 'hard' to come up with a better estimate ?
EnjoyingTheSun wrote:
Tue 24 Mar 2020 4:44 pm
As for people here who do pay sales tax how many of them receive welfare benefits, education, free hospital treatment, TRNC pensions etc etc. Roughly? Is it about zero? Apples and oranges but nice whataboutism.
How many of them work here 'under the table' ? I would venture to suggest that it is not so close to zero as to be statically the same as zero in effect. How many of them use free hospital treatment ? Again I would venture to suggest that this is more than zero as well and that the state national insurance available to them does not cover all the costs of treatment they get under it. How many use the 'police' ? Government offices of any kind ?
EnjoyingTheSun wrote:
Tue 24 Mar 2020 4:44 pm
They as others will have children too. So if they get an average job then what they pay in tax won’t cover their bills either. Also more children bigger class sizes = less quality education.
I am not sure I am understanding you here at all ? More people, more children equals more cost in education and more economic growth to support those costs. If it cost more per additional child to educate said child than the growth that child and the education it accrues as a result, then this is true regardless of if the child is from an immigrant family or not.
EnjoyingTheSun wrote:
Tue 24 Mar 2020 4:44 pm
We only have 54 billionaires in the country so it won’t be hard to find this mythical ‘migrant who arrives with nothing and becomes a billionaire’ We can then have a look at their net contribution and offset it against the net expenses overall. I’m still confident as to the final total.
Study after study, considerably better constructed and less biased and peer reviewed than your own shows that what you dismiss as 'myth' is reality. I could present such but really what would the point be ? As far as I can see there is simply no analysis done by anyone or volume of them reaching the same conclusions that will convince you that your own intuition and common sense is not superior to such. Be it on issues of climate change, smoking (secondary or tertiary), migration or anything else.
EnjoyingTheSun wrote:
Tue 24 Mar 2020 4:44 pm
Wow are you bringing up the great satan of America to help!
OK want to look at the number of migrants in China over the last 100 years? Japan? They seemed to have coped
I mention the USA because if it is true that economic migrants on average are a net drain on a country then it begs the question how did a nation that was built on such economic migration for a century or more become the pre eminent economic power during that same period ? As to China and Japan do you know how much more economically successful they would be today had they had similar levels of economic migration in to them for similar periods as the USA had, for that is the only relevant question. That they have 'coped' is to miss the point entirely.
EnjoyingTheSun wrote:
Tue 24 Mar 2020 4:44 pm
Sure wages go up, so do bills and pensions etc so that is a moot point.
No it would only be moot if the absolute amount a persons income increased exactly matched how much the 'costs' you listed increased and if that were true it would also completely undermine the analysis that says 'at £25k pa a person is net drain on the UK but at higher amounts they are not'.
EnjoyingTheSun wrote:
Tue 24 Mar 2020 4:44 pm
You know Alan Sugar is one of those disgusting billionaires who takes out far more than he puts in don’t you? Can’t have it both ways.
You are putting words in to my mouth. I have not and am not arguing that any and all billionaires are disgusting and take out far more than they put in. I am arguing that we should seek to limit and reduce selfish egregious behaviour from anyone regardless of if they are super rich or not and I am doing so in the face of your argument (as I understand it) that we should seek to try and do so for selfish people who are not billionaires and not do so with regards to billionaires because such would be pointless tilting at windmills.
EnjoyingTheSun wrote:
Tue 24 Mar 2020 4:44 pm
Generally Jews as migrants have thrived throughout history which isn’t always the case for other races but the main point you are missing is THEY WEREN'T ECONOMIC MIGRANTS.
So do you believe that migrants to the UK who are genuine refugees and not just economic migrants end up ultimately being a net drain on the UK and not net contributors ?

EnjoyingTheSun
Kibkommer
Kibkommer
Posts: 3413
Joined: Fri 16 Mar 2018 4:46 pm

Re: Scummy behaviour

  • Quote
  •   Message 16 of 16 in Discussion

Post by EnjoyingTheSun »

erol wrote:
Tue 24 Mar 2020 6:05 pm

Do you have any evidence other than your own perception that mugging pensioners is more prevalent today than it was in the 60's or 70's ?
Every government for the last 50 years fiddles the crime figures. Do one of your polls it might be 'anecdotal' but we can't all be wrong. OK easy question we agree both need tackling, which one first? Which one is going to get the most immediate results?
erol wrote:
Tue 24 Mar 2020 6:05 pm

So says the legal expert.
Ok simple question did he settle for the amount of the deficit? If he was legally obliged to why not?
He did not legally have to pay a penny. There was no legal mechanism in place to force him to pay he settled because he was terrified he'd lose his knighthood
erol wrote:
Tue 24 Mar 2020 6:05 pm

Hard or impossible ? There is quite a difference between the two. Feels like goalposts being shifted to me.
Semantics again. OK do you think that the inland revenue had a go at breaking the Vestey family trust? All the laws for 70 odd years never cracked it. Are you confident that they are now paying the right amount of tax?
OK in your utopian society you abolish private education because it is unfair. Obviously it will be a hammer blow for the Milne family etc etc etc but I guess they can simply create some special academies for party members and charge the people. But the main thing is it will punish the rich. Do you seriously think they wont send their children abroad to be educated? Are you that naive?
If you want to press me I'd go with impossible but even if you could convince me it was possible it would take decades and decades.
erol wrote:
Tue 24 Mar 2020 6:05 pm

I think your frustration is that I am declining to play along with your attempts at obfuscation of the points
I'm not frustrated I'm amused visualising you twisting yourself to avoid answering a question you don't want to because the answer doesn't suit.
erol wrote:
Tue 24 Mar 2020 6:05 pm

Unless they are Jewish refugee migrants rather than non Jewish economic migrants ?
If you can not tell the difference between us taking Jews fleeing from Nazi Germany, Ugandan Asians or Hungarians in 1956 and Albanians who think the grass is greener then I give up. Let's be honest you will agree we need a sensible immigration policy but if I was to put 1 million immigrants in front of you and ask you who shouldn't really qualify you wouldn't. Just say I want completely open borders, I'd have a lot of respect for honesty.
erol wrote:
Tue 24 Mar 2020 6:05 pm

And it is not spin to estimate the figure as zero as you did in your analysis because it is 'hard' to come up with a better estimate ?
OK how much VAT did immigrants pay last year. Until you give me that figure please explain how anyone can arrive at the figures that immigration produces x amount of net benefit. Breakdown those figures for me? You are big on evidence show me that profit and loss account. You putting up a quote saying it is you will agree is anecdotal evidence.
erol wrote:
Tue 24 Mar 2020 6:05 pm

How many of them work here 'under the table' ? I would venture to suggest that it is not so close to zero as to be statically the same as zero in effect. How many of them use free hospital treatment ? Again I would venture to suggest that this is more than zero as well and that the state national insurance available to them does not cover all the costs of treatment they get under it. How many use the 'police' ? Government offices of any kind ?
Working under the table isn't claiming benefits is it?
How many purchase private medical insurance thus putting more money into the economy? If you look at the forums here when the new insurance rules came in for residency it was pretty clear that the majority weren't troubling the Health service over here.
Sure many use the government offices to pay their taxes so I'm struggling to see your point,
Please point me to one purely English person here that has received welfare payments or a house or is in line for a pension? Just one, it'll be easy surely?
erol wrote:
Tue 24 Mar 2020 6:05 pm

Study after study, considerably better constructed and less biased and peer reviewed
I love the peer reviewed. Pssst you know they all peer review each others stuff? Its a very cozy club.
OK you bring up climate change.
As a % how much CO2 is in the atmosphere?
As a % how much of that CO2 is man made?
For the UK to remove their 1% contribution how much will that cost?
How much will it cost for the world to achieve 0 emmissions?
What will be the drop in average temperature when we do?
What is the optimum amount of CO2 in the atmosphere that we should be aiming for? Obviously we need some for life to exist.

All easy questions, after all the science is settled and when the world is expected to stump up trillions to sort this we need to know it's going to work. After all sometimes solutions can cause more harm than good and with the cost its going to be a one shot deal.
erol wrote:
Tue 24 Mar 2020 6:05 pm

I mention the USA because if it is true that economic migrants on average are a net drain on a country then it begs the question how did a nation that was built on such economic migration for a century or more become the pre eminent economic power during that same period ? As to China and Japan do you know how much more economically successful they would be today had they had similar levels of economic migration in to them for similar periods as the USA had, for that is the only relevant question. That they have 'coped' is to miss the point entirely.
Well as the USA pretty much had just prairie Indians and was pretty thinly populated they did need some people in it to grow. A densly populated country not so much. So again apples and oranges. Although if you listen to many liberals those immigrants were a total blight and should have left the native americans to it. When you say Japan and China being more economically successful then you obviously agree that they have been economically successful.
erol wrote:
Tue 24 Mar 2020 6:05 pm

No it would only be moot if the absolute amount a persons income increased exactly matched how much the 'costs' you listed increased and if that were true it would also completely undermine the analysis that says 'at £25k pa a person is net drain on the UK but at higher amounts they are not'.
The £25k pa a person was chosen because this was the figure that was quoted as far too high as to be a cut off for our new points system. OK if you don't believe in totally open borders and we will never be full enough then give me a figure or some parameters on which we should say someone doesn't qualify.
erol wrote:
Tue 24 Mar 2020 6:05 pm

You are putting words in to my mouth. I have not and am not arguing that any and all billionaires are disgusting and take out far more than they put in. I am arguing that we should seek to limit and reduce selfish egregious behaviour from anyone regardless of if they are super rich or not and I am doing so in the face of your argument (as I understand it) that we should seek to try and do so for selfish people who are not billionaires and not do so with regards to billionaires because such would be pointless tilting at windmills.
No I am up for us reducing selfish egregious behaviour wherever we can. The point at which this started was those people deciding that the NHS only times shouldn't apply to them. Up for sorting that or should we go after your US Senator insider trading first?
I'm sure you will agree this crisis means that we need to prioritise.
erol wrote:
Tue 24 Mar 2020 6:05 pm

So do you believe that migrants to the UK who are genuine refugees and not just economic migrants end up ultimately being a net drain on the UK and not net contributors ?
I believe that as a net, migrants are probably not net contributors. With our deficit probably not many of our population are but it comes down to the old argument. There's a fire in the school wouldn't you get your own kids out first or would that be selfish.
But if you can produce some figures that proves that they are then I'm all ears. You'll forgive me if I need something a little more specific than they obviously might pay an amount of money that I can't actually prove.
I did put up my admittedly back of a fag packet calculations which you have yet to say are wrong. I'm happy to expand on them if you like?

I think we have a moral obligation to take in genuine refugees and genuine asylum seekers but we do not have the capacity to take in a never ending supply of economic migrants. My geography isn't great but I'm struggling to see how an Albanian is a Syrian asylum seeker.

I do think that we have a moral obligation to help other people around the world who are struggling bearing in mind we don't have a money tree.
But I can't help feel that we might be able to help a lot more people and get a lot more bang for our buck if we used the money that it might take to say home a family of Ethiopians and pay for any births, education, healthcare, welfare, pensions etc etc in one of the more expensive countries on Earth and keep them there and spend our money there.
I'm also willing to take the risk that we might miss out that one of their children may invent a better train timetable or figure out why Des O'Conner is so shiny.

Post Reply

Return to “POLITICS - Kibkom North Cyprus Forum”