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

«‹›193 »

foot: Mar 28, 2002; why foot why

Class struggle/analysis didn't start with Marx, and it didn't end with him.

# ? Aug 1, 2016 20:29

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 25, 2024 22:09

ThomasPaine: Feb 4, 2009; We have no compassion and we ask no compassion from you. When our turn comes, we shall not make excuses for the terror.

foot posted:

Class struggle/analysis didn't start with Marx, and it didn't end with him.

Did anyone say it did?

# ? Aug 1, 2016 20:32

Tesseraction: Apr 5, 2009

ThomasPaine posted:

Did anyone say it did?

I think his point is that orthodox Marxism is not the only way to look at class consciousness.

# ? Aug 1, 2016 20:33

TomViolence: Feb 19, 2013; PLEASE ASK ABOUT MY 80,000 WORD WALLACE AND GROMIT SLASH FICTION. PLEASE.

All this talk of identity politics ansd intersectionality has put me in mind of a quite good article I read recently which includes a radical critique of the liberal gay rights movement's emphasis on marriage equality among other things pertaining to identity politics in the US and their lip service appropriation by the liberal establishment.

# ? Aug 1, 2016 20:34

ThaumPenguin: Oct 9, 2013

So how long until this thread goes full Stirner and denounces the entire concept of group identity as a 'spook'

# ? Aug 1, 2016 20:37

Zephro: Nov 23, 2000; I suppose I could part with one and still be feared...

Back to pensions for a second, this is actually a really good post on why the triple lock might actually be a good thing, including for young people:

http://stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com/stumbling_and_mumbling/

quote:

Baroness Altmann wants to abolish the triple lock on pensions. She�s wrong.

First, let�s dispose of a myth � that the triple lock is yet another of those policies that benefit the old at the expense of the young. It doesn�t. If it remains in place, it will in fact be of greatest value to today�s youngsters. This is because they will benefit from decades of growth, whereas today�s oldsters will see only a few years of it. And remember � the power of compound growth is very great.

Instead, the issue is a different one: how should we provide for our pensions? Should we do so as individuals by saving, or through the state via higher future taxes? The triple lock is, in effect, a form of creeping nationalization which shifts the job of pension provision from the individual to the state because the higher is the state pension, the less we need to save for ourselves.

In this context, it is nonsense to say that the triple lock is expensive. Given low annuity rates, any form of pension income is expensive. Yes, it�ll be expensive for the state to provide a high future pension. But it�ll be expensive for young people today to get a future pension through their savings. The issue is not the expense, but how that expense should be incurred. Should it be by the state or by the individual?

Several things make me think it should be the state.

One is that private pensions incur big management charges � and these compound horribly over time. Cynics might think this is why the Baroness is opposed to the triple lock: she�s thinking of protecting the interests of her prospective future employers.

Secondly, the job of saving for yourself requires you to solve problems which are almost insuperable. On the one hand there are irrationalities such as the present bias which cause us to save too little. But on the other hand, it�s also possible to be irrationally prudent and to save too much. A state pension takes the impossible job of intertemporal choice out of the individual�s hands.

Thirdly, individuals face huge long-term investment risk. Even if the economy grows steadily, the stock market might not: studies show very little correlation over the long-term between economic growth and equity returns. This could be because of distribution risk � the benefits of growth might go to workers rather than shareholders. Or it might be because economic growth accrues to firms which don�t yet exist. Because the government can fund future pensions out of future taxes, it doesn�t face these risks.

In fact, there�s another way in which the government is better able to bear risk.

Real bond yields are negative now and the market expects them to remain so for years. This might well be because investors expect low economic growth. If this is the case, then anyone trying to save for a pension faces a massive problem � that returns on financial assets generally will be poor. There�s a risk that this problem could get worse � that trend growth might fall even more, further depressing real returns for savers.

But the government can bear this risk better than savers. If real yields fall further, it will be rewarded even more handsomely for borrowing. What�s a horrible danger for savers is thus no problem for the government. This too argues for the government to take on the job of providing future pensions.

You might object that lower trend growth will be a problem for the government because lower future GDP will make it harder to raise the taxes to pay higher pensions. But lower future GDP is also a problem for pension savers, as it means lower dividends on shares. The issue isn�t how to avoid this problem, but rather who is better placed to cope with it.

These factors make me suspect that the government is better than the individual at providing future pensions. Insofar as the triple lock is a form of gradual nationalization of pensions savings, it is therefore a good thing. It is almost certainly George Osborne�s greatest legacy as Chancellor.

It's basically the reasons why companies are better placed to bear pensions risk than individuals, but applied to the state, which can also borrow at zero or even negative cost at the moment.

# ? Aug 1, 2016 20:37

Renaissance Robot: Oct 10, 2010; Bite my furry metal ass

ThaumPenguin posted:

So how long until this thread goes full Stirner and denounces the entire concept of group identity as a 'spook'

you're a spook

# ? Aug 1, 2016 20:40

OwlFancier: Aug 22, 2013

It is a little bit odd to me to complain that pensions are too expensive and shouldn't be as generous rather than to suggest that perhaps other forms of benefits could do with being more generous instead.

Especially when you agree with the tories about the former, what are tories invariably when they complain about benefits being too expensive?

# ? Aug 1, 2016 20:40

XMNN: Apr 26, 2008; I am incredibly stupid

Barry Foster posted:

You doing alright, pal?

tbf I'm being a bit hyperbolic but I am feeling better p much completely ignoring the news and politics and focussing on getting as hosed up as possible in a field at every available opportunity

# ? Aug 1, 2016 20:42

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

OwlFancier posted:

I've not found it especially hard to reconcile my sexuality with my economic class, both are methods of oppression (and frankly, the latter rather more serious in my case) but I don't really feel a need to pick one or another. A purely economic solution won't solve the former and a socially liberal solution won't help me with the latter.

A socialist manifesto can guarantee equality in more ways than economic.

Well yeah, a motion to enshrine gay and lesbian rights into the Labour Party manifesto passed due to a block vote of total approval from (We've all seen that movie, right? I wouldn't want to spoil it :v:

)

baka kaba posted:

'The PLP here. We need a leader to build a Labour movement serious about winning power. Will you run for leader? Reply YES, NO or MAYBE. Or STOP to opt out.'

foot posted:

Class struggle/analysis didn't start with Marx, and it didn't end with him.

Marx (and Engels particularly) did provide a start into standpoint analysis that is worth considering in any discussion of identity and class though.

ThaumPenguin posted:

So how long until this thread goes full Stirner and denounces the entire concept of group identity as a 'spook'

By quoting, this post is now my property. :stirner:

(By not existing, that smiley is not my property.

)

# ? Aug 1, 2016 20:42

ThaumPenguin: Oct 9, 2013

Renaissance Robot posted:

you're a spook

Can't argue with that.

# ? Aug 1, 2016 20:42

Renaissance Robot: Oct 10, 2010; Bite my furry metal ass

Zephro posted:

It's basically the reasons why companies are better placed to bear pensions risk than individuals, but applied to the state, which can also borrow at zero or even negative cost at the moment.

But will it though? It should have done after 2008 but resolutely refused to because public borrowing is wrong at a time when we are running a deficit, apparently. (god I want to thump gideon so hard for that one)

# ? Aug 1, 2016 20:48

Spuckuk: Aug 11, 2009; Being a bastard works

Noxville posted:

https://twitter.com/jeremycorbyn/status/760190568018305024

These things do seem a little better attended than Owen Smith's.

I'm at this now, it's mental, 5000 plus, they've have to close roads as the crowd is too big

http://i.imgur.com/zMyUDTG.jpg

# ? Aug 1, 2016 20:48

OwlFancier: Aug 22, 2013

But I heard jeremy was not popular in the north.

# ? Aug 1, 2016 20:49

foot: Mar 28, 2002; why foot why

Guavanaut posted:

Marx (and Engels particularly) did provide a start into standpoint analysis that is worth considering in any discussion of identity and class though.

Eh, it falls into the same essentialist trap that a lot of Marxist analysis does.

# ? Aug 1, 2016 20:51

ThomasPaine: Feb 4, 2009; We have no compassion and we ask no compassion from you. When our turn comes, we shall not make excuses for the terror.

Tesseraction posted:

I think his point is that orthodox Marxism is not the only way to look at class consciousness.

Yes, I don't think anyone suggested that it was. I personally find the orthodox class distinction between wage labourer and capitalist pretty drat convincing though. And the definition of the term 'capital' can be easily expanded beyond its original economic meaning to open up the discussion a lot. I think a lot of people assume Marxist writers post-Marx must be better because they built on him, but I don't really buy that as a given.

# ? Aug 1, 2016 20:51

Gum: Mar 9, 2008; _{oho, a rapist

time to try this puppy out}

Guavanaut posted:

Well yeah, a motion to enshrine gay and lesbian rights into the Labour Party manifesto passed due to a block vote of total approval from (We've all seen that movie, right? I wouldn't want to spoil it )

anyone who hasn't really needs to. best movie i've seen in years

# ? Aug 1, 2016 20:53

OwlFancier: Aug 22, 2013

What film?

# ? Aug 1, 2016 20:54

Renaissance Robot: Oct 10, 2010; Bite my furry metal ass

OwlFancier posted:

It is a little bit odd to me to complain that pensions are too expensive and shouldn't be as generous rather than to suggest that perhaps other forms of benefits could do with being more generous instead.

That would be great but would require the government to acknowledge that in fact it can print and/or borrow money to counter a recession and nothing bad would happen.

This will not happen because they've been screaming the opposite for nearly a decade.

# ? Aug 1, 2016 20:55

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

OwlFancier posted:

What film?

Pride. It's good.

# ? Aug 1, 2016 20:57

JFairfax: Oct 23, 2008; by FactsAreUseless

OwlFancier posted:

But I heard jeremy was not popular in the north.

liverpool is not really the north, it's west if you think about it and they're scousers who are all moaners and troublemakers anyway

# ? Aug 1, 2016 20:57

Thundercloud: Mar 28, 2010; To boldly be eaten where no grot has been eaten before!

Niric posted:

In the last thread there was some chat about an FOI request that revealed firms using/benefiting from the workfare scheme. Interestingly, at least two charities named on the list are denying that they knew anything about this and would not take part in workfare on principle, which suggests to me that the DWP might be deliberately disguising/fudging information given out about workfare placements to avoid disagreements/complications and improve the stats

https://twitter.com/MarysMeals/status/760071623722631168
https://twitter.com/GovanhillBaths/status/760101160405565440

I think that some of the names on that list may be work experience providers.

If New Life Baptist Church is the one in Birmingham then it hasn't done mandatory work activity but has always done work experience, where the volunteers for the Christian Coffee shop there can, if they're on benefit, do it as a work experience placement so the jobcentre pays their travel.

There are also organisations I'm sure have done workfare missing from that list.

# ? Aug 1, 2016 20:57

Cerv: Sep 14, 2004; This is a silly post with little news value.

Zephro posted:

Back to pensions for a second, this is actually a really good post on why the triple lock might actually be a good thing, including for young people:

http://stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com/stumbling_and_mumbling/

It's basically the reasons why companies are better placed to bear pensions risk than individuals, but applied to the state, which can also borrow at zero or even negative cost at the moment.

but this triple lock will not exist when today's young people retire. the question is whether it's abolished now or in a few years time. 40 years of compounded ≥2.5% isn't happening

# ? Aug 1, 2016 20:58

Jose: Jul 24, 2007; Adrian Chiles is a broadcaster and writer

OwlFancier posted:

But I heard jeremy was not popular in the north.

liverpool is a major city which he is generally very popular in

# ? Aug 1, 2016 20:58

GEORGE W BUSHI: Jul 1, 2012

Which is why it's doubly hilarious they put up a Liverpool MP as their stalking horse. They set Eagle up for a massive fall and let her think she might actually be leader out of it all. Sad.

# ? Aug 1, 2016 21:00

TACD: Oct 27, 2000

XMNN posted:

tbf I'm being a bit hyperbolic but I am feeling better p much completely ignoring the news and politics and focussing on getting as hosed up as possible in a field at every available opportunity

I strongly suspect that prolonged exposure to hard drugs is better for your health than prolonged exposure to the news.

# ? Aug 1, 2016 21:00

TomViolence: Feb 19, 2013; PLEASE ASK ABOUT MY 80,000 WORD WALLACE AND GROMIT SLASH FICTION. PLEASE.

Guavanaut posted:

Pride. It's good.

It was alright. A bit happy clappy and congratulatory, though, considering the rather sad end for the miners was just glossed over.

# ? Aug 1, 2016 21:00

JFairfax: Oct 23, 2008; by FactsAreUseless

Baron Corbyn posted:

Which is why it's doubly hilarious they put up a Liverpool MP as their stalking horse. They set Eagle up for a massive fall and let her think she might actually be leader out of it all. Sad.

to be fair it's her fault if she ever thought she had a chance, even without being the stalking horse

# ? Aug 1, 2016 21:00

OwlFancier: Aug 22, 2013

Renaissance Robot posted:

That would be great but would require the government to acknowledge that in fact it can print and/or borrow money to counter a recession and nothing bad would happen.

This will not happen because they've been screaming the opposite for nearly a decade.

Yes but if they cut spending from pensions they're not going to put it into other benefits are they?

Pensions are good and should be kept as generous as possible, and should be held up as an example of what everyone should be entitled to as a minimum standard of living.

# ? Aug 1, 2016 21:04

GEORGE W BUSHI: Jul 1, 2012

JFairfax posted:

to be fair it's her fault if she ever thought she had a chance, even without being the stalking horse

She must have really thought that she'd done enough to make people think she'd tried her hardest to make it work out with Corbyn. One of the things I'll never get out of the whole Labour coup is how little the PLP understand the Labour membership and how to get elected by them even with almost a year to analyse where they went wrong the first time Corbyn was elected. Like when you're presenting yourself as the hard nosed electable type, the most basic loving skill you should be able to demonstrate is how to read an electorate.

# ? Aug 1, 2016 21:07

Prince John: Jun 20, 2006; Oh, poppycock! Female bandits?

Guavanaut posted:

Pride. It's good.

On that topic, enjoy one of the more amusing MP photo opportunities from Norwich's pride march this weekend:

Guavanaut posted:

The traditional liberal position on religion is the same as the traditional liberal position on sexuality, that "It is not, in our view, the function of the law to intervene in the private life of citizens, or to seek to enforce any particular pattern of behaviour."

You can do whatever sexual things you want in the privacy of your bedroom (subject to the consent of all those involved and things like the common law definition of actual bodily harm) and you can do whatever religious things you want in the privacy of your shrine (subject to things like animal welfare and fire codes). Where the trad. liberal model falls apart is when you want any kind of a public life, whether that's wearing a hijab or having your partnership recognized.

It's also dependent heavily on a model of property ownership. Your bedroom. Your place of worship. It's reliant on everyone having equal access to forms of private property. I could probably make a pun about cruising on the commons here, but most of the thread criticism of liberals from a Marxist perspective is against this baseline reliance on individual propertied transactions rather than their tolerance.

�i�ek has an interesting and relevant quote about how this gets applied to the specific example of religious doctrine.

Also have a tip of the hat for this interesting post and the OP.

Edit: Also while my mind is still on LGBT themes, this article is quite interesting uncovering some of the reasons behind historical stereotypes linking homosexuality and child molestation and a debunking of claimed academic papers to support such links. I found it when the topic strayed onto this in the last thread and forgot to share.

Prince John fucked around with this message at 21:10 on Aug 1, 2016

# ? Aug 1, 2016 21:07

Gum: Mar 9, 2008; _{oho, a rapist

time to try this puppy out}

Prince John posted:

On that topic, enjoy one of the more amusing MP photo opportunities from Norwich's pride march this weekend:

gotta smash state

# ? Aug 1, 2016 21:09

Renfield: Feb 29, 2008

Jose posted:

liverpool is a major city which he is generally very popular in

Isn't that where the anti-Corbyn is ?

I though Jezza was in Hull today

# ? Aug 1, 2016 21:13

ThaumPenguin: Oct 9, 2013

Gum posted:

gotta smash state

I never realized Shadow the Hedgehog was an ancom.

# ? Aug 1, 2016 21:14

XMNN: Apr 26, 2008; I am incredibly stupid

Baron Corbyn posted:

Which is why it's doubly hilarious they put up a Liverpool MP as their stalking horse. They set Eagle up for a massive fall and let her think she might actually be leader out of it all. Sad.

wallasey isnt liverpool :aagh:

# ? Aug 1, 2016 21:17

JFairfax: Oct 23, 2008; by FactsAreUseless

XMNN posted:

wallasey isnt liverpool :aagh:

yeah yeah and next you'll be telling me that stockport isn't manchester

# ? Aug 1, 2016 21:19

XMNN: Apr 26, 2008; I am incredibly stupid

there's a river and everything

# ? Aug 1, 2016 21:23

Jose: Jul 24, 2007; Adrian Chiles is a broadcaster and writer

stockport is a really loving lazy name for a town

# ? Aug 1, 2016 21:24

Spuckuk: Aug 11, 2009; Being a bastard works

OwlFancier posted:

But I heard jeremy was not popular in the north.

TIBFJC

# ? Aug 1, 2016 21:25

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 25, 2024 22:09

Malcolm XML: Aug 8, 2009; I always knew it would end like ｔｈｉｓ．

Zephro posted:

Back to pensions for a second, this is actually a really good post on why the triple lock might actually be a good thing, including for young people:

http://stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com/stumbling_and_mumbling/

It's basically the reasons why companies are better placed to bear pensions risk than individuals, but applied to the state, which can also borrow at zero or even negative cost at the moment.

double lock guarantees a good pension future value that isn't eroded by inflation. triple lock makes it a wildly good investment, given stability (not a guarantee i guess). I'd really like to have a nearly risk-free return of 2.5%. It's unclear how the government will fund this except by printing cash unless it can somehow manage to make long term yields stick above 2.5% which even the BoE doesn't target

# ? Aug 1, 2016 21:26

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

«‹›193 »