UKMT August 2016: The Month of the Dull Knives

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > UKMT August 2016: The Month of the Dull Knives

Pissflaps: Oct 20, 2002; by VideoGames

OwlFancier posted:

Supporting a party because you like the leader and their ideas is good except when it isn't.

Supporting a party only because you like the leader is the bad bit.

edit: Over four days the Russian Navy used four different diving bells and submersibles to try to attach to the escape hatch without success. The navy's response was criticised as slow and inept. The government initially misled and manipulated the public and media about the timing of the accident, stating that communication had been established and that a rescue effort was under way, and refused help from other governments. The Russian Navy offered a variety of reasons for the sub's sinking, including publicly blaming the accident on a collision with a NATO submarine. On the fifth day, President Putin authorized the navy to accept British and Norwegian offers of assistance. Seven days after the submarine went down, Norwegian divers finally opened a hatch to the escape trunk in the ship's ninth compartment, hoping to locate survivors, but found it flooded.

# ? Aug 4, 2016 15:05

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 9, 2024 16:02

Regarde Aduck: Oct 19, 2012; c l o u d k i t t e n; Grimey Drawer

Pissflaps posted:

McDonnell said that money could be borrowed to fund a spending plan.

Corbyn has answered that the spending could be funding by cutting down on tax evasion and 'expanding the economy'.

One is a plan, the other is unconvincing waffle.

The "waffle" sounds like something the average idiot who doesn't know anything about economies would believe. You're seriously putting Corbyn in a no-win situation here. He needs to "utilize the media" but when he says things the electorate will nod and agree with it's bad because it's lies. If he tells the truth he's an idiot who can't put things in ways the people like.

The public hates "borrowing" because the Tories have successfully driven it into their heads that the government has a giant man-purse with the UK's credit card in it.

Heaven loving forbid Corbyn engages in "political language". IE "bullshit". You know, the stuff the Tories coast along on every day. All these years of Osbourne's grand economic plan based on "bullshit" that people lapped up.

# ? Aug 4, 2016 15:06

Pissflaps: Oct 20, 2002; by VideoGames

Regarde Aduck posted:

Heaven loving forbid Corbyn engages in "political language". IE "bullshit". You know, the stuff the Tories coast along on every day. All these years of Osbourne's grand economic plan based on "bullshit" that people lapped up.

A leader who cannot deliver popular support despite perpetuating the usual political discourse is the worst of both worlds.

# ? Aug 4, 2016 15:08

OwlFancier: Aug 22, 2013

It's hardly lying, the idea that it will be paid for by tax returns is correct, that's where a large amount of government spending gets paid from eventually. Borrowing or printing in the short term is entirely fine and sensible. It's a good counter to the narrative that the government has to send the entire civil service out to get wonga loans at ten million percent interest when it borrows.

# ? Aug 4, 2016 15:15

Tesseraction: Apr 5, 2009

Pissflaps posted:

A leader who cannot deliver popular support despite perpetuating the usual political discourse is the worst of both worlds.

But enough about Tim Farron.

# ? Aug 4, 2016 15:15

Pissflaps: Oct 20, 2002; by VideoGames

OwlFancier posted:

It's hardly lying, the idea that it will be paid for by tax returns is correct, that's where a large amount of government spending gets paid from eventually. Borrowing or printing in the short term is entirely fine and sensible. It's a good counter to the narrative that the government has to send the entire civil service out to get wonga loans at ten million percent interest when it borrows.

No it's not lying, but nor is it straight talking.

Though he didn't say 'by tax returns', he said 'by expanding the economy and cutting down on tax evasion'. While the latter goal is laudable - though I doubt it will eat into that figure of �500 billion much - the former is risible.

# ? Aug 4, 2016 15:18

LemonyTang: Nov 29, 2009; Ask me about holding 4gate!

I would argue JC needs to be straight up and talk about what borrowing actually means. He needs to reiterate that the Tories are borrowing more and more to make up for their tax cuts and their terrible long-term economic catastrophe. I have nightmares of a day when it is the Tories who talk about 'borrowing sensibly to invest fairly' or something else. Brexit is (most likely) going to mean more government borrowing to avoid a recession. JC needs to take ownership of that language back from the Tories. Preferably before the Autumn Statement by Hammond

# ? Aug 4, 2016 15:19

goddamnedtwisto: Dec 31, 2004; If you ask me about the mole people in the London Underground, I WILL be forced to kill you; Fun Shoe

Apropos of nothing, I'm fairly sure I saw Luke Bozier in Spitalfields at lunchtime. It looked exactly like him but he was talking to a man in a suit and not a teenage girl, so I can't be entirely sure.

Also I saw a man with both a man-bun and a ponytail, and as a result have now taken out a subscription to the Daily Mail.

# ? Aug 4, 2016 15:23

Niric: Jul 23, 2008

To move away from circular Corbyn chat for a moment, here's a fascinating examination of population growth in UK cities since 1981. It's amazing how starkly the North/South divide comes across; of the 26 place which have grown more than the UK average, only York and Warrington count as the North, and even the Midlands is poorly represented (Leicester and Derby, with Bradford only slightly below average).

For some reason I can't get the images to show, so click through for the graphs

quote:

A tale of 62 cities: how Britain�s population growth fell to its small towns
By Jonn Elledge

The latest instalment of our weekly series, in which we use the Centre for Cities� data tools to crunch some of the numbers on Britain�s cities.

Last week in this slot, we looked at how the populations of Britain's largest cities had changed between 1981 and 2014. What we found is

that London's population boom hadn't been replicated in the other core cities;
that most cities had in fact shrunk, as a share of the population of the UK; and
that those which had shrunk the most (Liverpool, Glasgow) were those which had built up around ports.
Here�s the obligatory chart.

http://www.citymetric.com/sites/default/files/styles/large/public/article_body_2016/08/62_chart_1.png

These, though, are only the largest British cities. Do the same trends hold if you look at every significant British city? What do you get if you plot the way populations have changed in all 62 British cities followed by the Centre for Cities, relative to their 1981 population?

http://www.citymetric.com/sites/default/files/styles/large/public/article_body_2016/08/62_mess.png

A mess, that�s what.

(Full disclosure at this point: I got halfway through colour coding them by their size, realised the result would still be a mess, albeit a mess with slightly fewer colours in it, then decided to try something else. So, there you go.)

That chart is clearly illegible. If we�re going to learn anything at all we need to break things down a bit. So, since that�s where we�ve started, let�s do it by size.

I�ve broken our cities into four groups of 15-17 cities each, based on how big they were back in 1981.

Here�s the largest group: cities which, 35 years ago, had a population of 400,000 or more. (The smallest back in 1981 was Leicester, though it�s since been undertaking by Middlesbrough.) So that you can see how they�ve fared relative to the UK as a whole, I�ve included the trend in national population as a thick black line.

http://www.citymetric.com/sites/default/files/styles/large/public/article_body_2016/08/62_chart_2.png

This is basically last week's graph with a few extra cities thrown in so, once again, the most notable trend is that most cities have grown more slowly than the UK as a whole � have, as a share of the national population, shrunk.

Portsmouth looks like an exception to our theory that shipbuilding cities are in decline. Perhaps it�s protected by fact it's in south east of England and commutable to London; or perhaps the theory was never up to much. More on this below.

The other thing to note is that Bradford and, especially, Leicester have actually grown pretty quickly. One plausible explanation for this is that both have very ethnically diverse populations: diverse cities tend to be younger than mostly white ones, and thus produce more kids.

Anyway. On to the next group down: cities which, in 1981, had populations of between 275,000 and 400,000. Back then, the largest was Huddersfield (377,000) and the smallest Cardiff (287,000). By 2014, the largest was Bournemouth (478,000), and the smallest Sunderland (277,000).

http://www.citymetric.com/sites/default/files/styles/large/public/article_body_2016/08/62_chart_3.png

Once again, the majority of cities have grown slower than UK average. Two of those that have shrunk the most are, on some definitions, suburbs of the larger cities that shrunk most in group one (Birkenhead is sort of Liverpool; Sunderland is sort of Newcastle).

But unlike on the previous chart, in this group there are also a few cities that have grown fairly steadily over the past 30 years (Cardiff, Preston). Several of these � Brighton, Southampton, Bournemouth � are on the south coast of England. Perhaps that�s the trend that allowed Portsmouth to break the curse of the dockyards.

The other city worth noting here is Coventry which, after a long period of decline, seems to have grown unusually quickly since around the time the credit crunch hit. No idea what that�s about.

On to Division Three: cities which, in 1981, had populations of between 165,000 and 275,000. Back then, the largest was Hull (274,000) and the smallest was York (165,000); by 2014, those rankings were held by Reading (320,000) and Dundee (148,000).

Which means that York is now bigger than Dundee. Go figure.

Anyway:

http://www.citymetric.com/sites/default/files/article_body_2016/08/62_chart_4.png

Dundee and Hull seem to fit our narrative that having booming shipyards in the early 20th century is generally a great way of seeing your population collapse by the 21st century. Chatham is another partial exception to that � but, like Portsmouth, was probably saved by its proximity to London.

Aberdeen is another town that�s seen a radical reverse in its fortunes, albeit more explicably: that's almost certainly the oil boom at work.

And, yet again, the vast majority of cities shrunk compared to the UK as a whole. This is becoming weird now.

Last and also, frankly, least are the tiddlers: those which in 1981 were home to fewer than 165,000 people. The largest then was Luton (just shy of 165,000); the smallest was Crawley (just over 82,000). By 2014, the smallest was Worthing (107,000), the largest was... well, look:

http://www.citymetric.com/sites/default/files/article_body_2016/08/62_chart_5.png

Yep. In 1981, Milton Keynes had a population of 126,000. By 2014 it was 259,000. It�s the only city anywhere in these rankings to have doubled in population. It�s grown so much, in fact, that it sort of breaks the graph, so here's a version without it:

http://www.citymetric.com/sites/default/files/article_body_2016/08/62_chart_6.png

In this category, for the first time, all the cities have grown, and most have grown faster than UK as a whole. The smaller the city, the more likely it is to have grown faster than the UK average. Here�s a table:

http://www.citymetric.com/sites/default/files/article_body_2016/08/table.png

There are number of possible explanations for this that I can see. One is that the absolute figures are smaller: it�s probably easier to grow by 10 per cent if you're the size of Exeter (and so need to build about 5,000 extra houses) than if you're the size of Manchester (and so need to build around 100,000).

It probably also reflects land use policies. Most big UK cities are ringed by green belts, intended to stop them growing. As a matter of deliberate government policy, growth was funnelled to the New Towns � which include the likes of Milton Keynes, Swindon, Telford, Crawley, Peterborough, Basildon... Spotting any patterns here?

A prominent theory in the world of urban economics concerns the benefits of aggregation: larger cities, it�s argued, are generally more productive than smaller ones. The UK is a freak in that it doesn�t fit this model at all.

I can�t help but wonder if, just maybe, that�s the result of deliberate government policy to direct growth away from major cities. Perhaps, if we want to solve productivity puzzle, we�ll need to change that.

# ? Aug 4, 2016 15:23

Tesseraction: Apr 5, 2009

goddamnedtwisto posted:

Apropos of nothing, I'm fairly sure I saw Luke Bozier in Spitalfields at lunchtime. It looked exactly like him but he was talking to a man in a suit and not a teenage girl, so I can't be entirely sure.

Luke is bi remember, after all he led to that hilarious quote about Milo's tinky winky.

# ? Aug 4, 2016 15:28

Paxman: Feb 7, 2010

goddamnedtwisto posted:

Apropos of nothing, I'm fairly sure I saw Luke Bozier in Spitalfields at lunchtime. It looked exactly like him but he was talking to a man in a suit and not a teenage girl, so I can't be entirely sure.

Also I saw a man with both a man-bun and a ponytail, and as a result have now taken out a subscription to the Daily Mail.

What is a man-bun please, because I am at work and don't want to Google it

# ? Aug 4, 2016 15:44

Necrothatcher: Mar 26, 2005

Doubt I'd recognise Luke Bozier by his face tbh.

# ? Aug 4, 2016 15:45

Noxville: Dec 7, 2003

Paxman posted:

What is a man-bun please, because I am at work and don't want to Google it

It's a bun, but on a man.

# ? Aug 4, 2016 15:46

OwlFancier: Aug 22, 2013

Pissflaps posted:

No it's not lying, but nor is it straight talking.

Though he didn't say 'by tax returns', he said 'by expanding the economy and cutting down on tax evasion'. While the latter goal is laudable - though I doubt it will eat into that figure of �500 billion much - the former is risible.

Taxes are how the government extracts money from the economy, more economic activity means more tax, assuming you bother to collect it. Investment increases economic growth and economic growth generates more tax income. Being a government it is entirely fine for this to operate on a decades long basis.

# ? Aug 4, 2016 15:47

tooterfish: Jul 13, 2013

Paxman posted:

What is a man-bun please, because I am at work and don't want to Google it

It's a topknot, but instead of being on a Japanese feudal lord it's on a douchebag.

# ? Aug 4, 2016 15:48

Guavanaut: Nov 27, 2009; Looking At Them Tittys
1969 - 1998; Toilet Rascal

OwlFancier posted:

Taxes are how the government extracts money from the economy, more economic activity means more tax, assuming you bother to collect it. Investment increases economic growth and economic growth generates more tax income. Being a government it is entirely fine for this to operate on a decades long basis.

Not the only way, there's also the surplus extracted from careful running of Britain's many nationalized industries.

tooterfish posted:

It's a topknot, but instead of being on a Japanese feudal lord it's on a douchebag.

Instead?

# ? Aug 4, 2016 15:51

goddamnedtwisto: Dec 31, 2004; If you ask me about the mole people in the London Underground, I WILL be forced to kill you; Fun Shoe

Tesseraction posted:

Luke is bi remember, after all he led to that hilarious quote about Milo's tinky winky.

True, but he was only willing to pay money for pictures of underage girls, not boys, so he definitely swings in one direction more than the other.

# ? Aug 4, 2016 15:54

OwlFancier: Aug 22, 2013

Guavanaut posted:

Not the only way, there's also the surplus extracted from careful running of Britain's many nationalized industries.

That would be the other option, yes.

# ? Aug 4, 2016 15:56

Pissflaps: Oct 20, 2002; by VideoGames

OwlFancier posted:

Taxes are how the government extracts money from the economy, more economic activity means more tax, assuming you bother to collect it. Investment increases economic growth and economic growth generates more tax income. Being a government it is entirely fine for this to operate on a decades long basis.

Yes that's all fine.

And then I ask how you're going to generate more economic activity.

If your reply is 'by borrowing at record low rates to invest in public spending' then I think fair enough. If your reply is 'by expanding the economy', I get to describe your answer as bullshit.

# ? Aug 4, 2016 15:59

Microplastics: Jul 6, 2007; It's what's for dinner.

me make economy big

me statesman

# ? Aug 4, 2016 16:01

OwlFancier: Aug 22, 2013

Pissflaps posted:

Yes that's all fine.

And then I ask how you're going to generate more economic activity.

If your reply is 'by borrowing at record low rates to invest in public spending' then I think fair enough. If your reply is 'by expanding the economy', I get to describe your answer as bullshit.

By borrowing at record low rates to invest in public spending on infrastructure, education, grants, and housing, creating more opportunities for money to change hands using roads and railways and healthy, skilled workers who can live near their jobs, thereby expanding the economy.

The wording is a statement of the goal rather than the method. If you want him to deliver more concise responses you have to sacrifice some part of the explanation.

OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 16:07 on Aug 4, 2016

# ? Aug 4, 2016 16:02

Pissflaps: Oct 20, 2002; by VideoGames

OwlFancier posted:

By borrowing at record low rates to invest in public spending on infrastructure, education, grants, and housing, creating more opportunities for money to change hands using roads and railways and healthy, skilled workers who can live near their jobs, thereby expanding the economy.

The wording is a statement of the goal rather than the method. If you want him to deliver more concise responses you have to sacrifice some part of the explanation.

Corbyn didn't provide even the concise version. He said something else instead.

# ? Aug 4, 2016 16:12

tooterfish: Jul 13, 2013

Guavanaut posted:

Instead?

They spent their time carving up peasants with their lovely overrated swords, which is arguably a step or two beyond douchebag.

In their defence though, they never called anything a man bun.

# ? Aug 4, 2016 16:13

OwlFancier: Aug 22, 2013

Pissflaps posted:

Corbyn didn't provide even the concise version. He said something else instead.

When a man is asked a question about his massive investment plan it is perhaps not necessary for him to mention that he is doing a massive investment plan in the response to that question.

It's generally quite annoying when politicians answer questions by repeating things the questioner asked back to them, it makes them look like they aren't actually listening.

# ? Aug 4, 2016 16:17

Pissflaps: Oct 20, 2002; by VideoGames

OwlFancier posted:

When a man is asked a question about his massive investment plan it is perhaps not necessary for him to mention that he is doing a massive investment plan in the response to that question.

But that's exactly what he did! He was asked how he was going to fund his investment plan - and his answer was by 'expanding the economy' which is the fruit of economic investment, not the way it is achieved.

# ? Aug 4, 2016 16:25

OwlFancier: Aug 22, 2013

Pissflaps posted:

But that's exactly what he did! He was asked how he was going to fund his investment plan - and his answer was by 'expanding the economy' which is the fruit of economic investment, not the way it is achieved.

Which is the correct answer, investment pays for itself, that's how it works. The question of where the initial capital comes from doesn't make sense because government has a near limitless supply of on-hand capital if it wants it, the tories just don't use it for anything except propping up expenditure

The government can literally print money, the only real consideration when determining how much it can print is whether there is going to be real productivity growth to back it up, so the funding question only makes sense in a "where is the actual backing for this expenditure going to come from" sense.

OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 16:30 on Aug 4, 2016

# ? Aug 4, 2016 16:28

Pissflaps: Oct 20, 2002; by VideoGames

OwlFancier posted:

Which is the correct answer, investment pays for itself, that's how it works. The question of where the initial capital comes from doesn't make sense because government has a near limitless supply of on-hand capital if it wants it, the tories just don't use it for anything except propping up expenditure.

He was asked how he was going to do something. Good answers would include: tax rises, reallocating spending, borrowing. 'By doing it' is not a good answer.

# ? Aug 4, 2016 16:29

OwlFancier: Aug 22, 2013

Pissflaps posted:

He was asked how he was going to do something. Good answers would include: tax rises, reallocating spending, borrowing. 'By doing it' is not a good answer.

Untrue actually because all of those worry the public and one of them is very stupid.

# ? Aug 4, 2016 16:31

Pissflaps: Oct 20, 2002; by VideoGames

OwlFancier posted:

Untrue actually because all of those worry the public and one of them is very stupid.

I said they're good answers. I didn't say people would like them.

Which is the stupid one?

# ? Aug 4, 2016 16:34

kustomkarkommando: Oct 22, 2012

I don't get the National Education Service thing as education is a devolved matter. Increased funding?

# ? Aug 4, 2016 16:36

GEORGE W BUSHI: Jul 1, 2012

kustomkarkommando posted:

I don't get the National Education Service thing as education is a devolved matter. Increased funding?

From what I recall the last time he floated it, he just wants education to be free at the point of access at all levels for all ages.

# ? Aug 4, 2016 16:37

Paxman: Feb 7, 2010

kustomkarkommando posted:

I don't get the National Education Service thing as education is a devolved matter. Increased funding?

But isn't health also devolved and we still talk about a National Health Service?

I think he wants to establish the principle that the NES will be like the NHS, funded from taxation, available to anyone who needs it and free at the point of delivery. And it would include education generally (eg colleges, universities) not just schools.

# ? Aug 4, 2016 16:40

OwlFancier: Aug 22, 2013

Nice way to undercut the SNP a bit.

# ? Aug 4, 2016 16:51

Guavanaut: Nov 27, 2009; Looking At Them Tittys
1969 - 1998; Toilet Rascal

Paxman posted:

I think he wants to establish the principle that the NES will be like the NHS, funded from taxation, available to anyone who needs it and free at the point of delivery. And it would include education generally (eg colleges, universities) not just schools.

Does it come with the light gun and Duck Hunt though?

# ? Aug 4, 2016 16:54

ronya: Nov 8, 2010; I'm the normal one.

You hate ridden fucks will regret your words when you eventually grow up.

Peace.

OwlFancier posted:

Which is the correct answer, investment pays for itself, that's how it works. The question of where the initial capital comes from doesn't make sense because government has a near limitless supply of on-hand capital if it wants it, the tories just don't use it for anything except propping up expenditure

The government can literally print money, the only real consideration when determining how much it can print is whether there is going to be real productivity growth to back it up, so the funding question only makes sense in a "where is the actual backing for this expenditure going to come from" sense.

I really want to know exactly when the vaguely classical Marxists wandered up to the radical Chartalists and said HEY LET'S BE BEST BUDS, because this sort of lay macro is starting to appear a bit

never mind that the former and the latter have utterly opposed understandings of whether there is overaccumulation of capital or that capital is insufficiently deployed, or what the reserve army of labour is supposed to do. Like for example, here right now you say: real (labour) productivity growth. But that's just wringing more output from labour, holding labour input as given. That's the increased rate of exploitation, right there! How is that a good thing?

# ? Aug 4, 2016 16:56

kustomkarkommando: Oct 22, 2012

Paxman posted:

But isn't health also devolved and we still talk about a National Health Service?

I think he wants to establish the principle that the NES will be like the NHS, funded from taxation, available to anyone who needs it and free at the point of delivery. And it would include education generally (eg colleges, universities) not just schools.

Managed to find an old thing he wrote last year about this for more detail, a 2% corporation tax bump to fund a cradle to grave education service that coordinates with jobcentre plus coupled with scrapping university fees (I think) and bringing back grants.

I'm just curious cause education sector reform is a thing in Northern Ireland and our education sector works in weird ways so I was wondering how it would gel with his policy recommendations but he seems to primarily be focusing on post-secondary stuff with a bit of "death to academies" thrown in

# ? Aug 4, 2016 16:56

OwlFancier: Aug 22, 2013

ronya posted:

I really want to know exactly when the vaguely classical Marxists wandered up to the radical Chartalists and said HEY LET'S BE BEST BUDS, because this sort of lay macro is starting to appear a bit

never mind that the former and the latter have utterly opposed understandings of whether there is overaccumulation of capital or that capital is insufficiently deployed, or what the reserve army of labour is supposed to do. Like for example, here right now you say: real (labour) productivity growth. But that's just wringing more output from labour, holding labour input as given. That's the increased rate of exploitation, right there! How is that a good thing?

Because as overthrowing capitalism is not an especially likely option given that the rest of the world still thinks it's great and would kick our poo poo in if we tried, a country where people have the option to do productive work and where the amount they get paid for it is as much as we can wring out of capital, is preferable to one where people are forced to subsist on rationed welfare from a government that hates them while the productive work slowly drips out of the arse of the country like some kind of economic incontinence.

# ? Aug 4, 2016 17:05

Vengeance of Pandas: Sep 8, 2008; THE TERRIBLE POST WENT THATAWAY!

Looks like London is really going to suck (cock) next year.

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/london-to-get-coffee-and-fellatio-cafe-a7170266.html

# ? Aug 4, 2016 17:09

ronya: Nov 8, 2010; I'm the normal one.

You hate ridden fucks will regret your words when you eventually grow up.

Peace.

OwlFancier posted:

Because as overthrowing capitalism is not an especially likely option given that the rest of the world still thinks it's great and would kick our poo poo in if we tried, a country where people have the option to do productive work and where the amount they get paid for it is as much as we can wring out of capital, is preferable to one where people are forced to subsist on rationed welfare from a government that hates them while the productive work slowly drips out of the arse of the country like some kind of economic incontinence.

but as the Marxists (and indeed the Marxier of post-Keynesians) would point out, there is already too much investment: the crisis of overaccumulation. There is not enough consumption. Further increases in investment can only be destructive, since investment increases productivity and thereby the gap between production and effective demand still further. The additional investment is costly - costs surplus labour, if you like - but fails to produce things which are consumed.

So there's less than zero purpose in investing further.

# ? Aug 4, 2016 17:21

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 9, 2024 16:02

OwlFancier: Aug 22, 2013

Then that presumably drives us closer to the point where capitalism needs to be completely abandoned while simultaneously ensuring better conditions for the workers than the alternative.

So, that's fine?

# ? Aug 4, 2016 17:23

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > UKMT August 2016: The Month of the Dull Knives

«‹›193 »