Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[Vardinio'sCat]

45 minutes ago, Milo said:

Maybe. Maybe not. 

You're kidding me, why comment on something you are barely paying attention to. I can go and find the precise quotes, here we go

But before I turn to what a new and better model might look like, I want to be straight with people – because the reality is that we all need to face up to some hard facts. We are leaving the single market.  Life is going to be different. In certain ways, our access to each other’s markets will be less than it is now. How could the EU’s structure of rights and obligations be sustained, if the UK - or any country - were allowed to enjoy all the benefits without all of the obligations?

 

The remainers have lurched from doom and gloom economy to doom and gloom trade.

I understand it is highly politicised and hard to see the wood from the trees. The economy has deteriorated, but somewhat slower than expected. Osboune's predictions were way over the top, but then he always was one for a big fat lie. Trade will get worse initially, as our access to the single market will be reduced. If things go well with trade deals with the rest of the world, in 10-20 years, if you believe the Brexiteers, we will end up ahead.

 

Remainers are spouting as fact that we will be worse off when we leave the EU. 

 

Believe it or not, I have no strong opinion either way regarding leave or remain, I just get a little peeved that people are stating theory as fact - I do believe that a trade bloc is a good thing...I also believe that uncontrolled migration (immigration) is clearly unsustainable and is a bad thing. 

 

I see the EU as a swollen, self serving, repugnant slug of an organisation. (Same as I view FIFA/UEFA, for what it’s worth)

That's fair enough, but it gives us access to the biggest free trade area on the planet. If you think the EU is seriously affecting your ability to enjoy your life, I can see you might think it is worth taking the initial (and perhaps long term) hit.

 

But there are obvious benefits of being a parasite on that slug. 

 

I don’t particularly want a European banking system or European Army - which (in my non-expert opinion) is the way things are headed. 

I think the EU Army bit is oversold, we aren't going to suddenly stick EU badges on the British Army and have a French Admiral ordering (what remains of) the navy about. Maybe we would have a few joint units to march up and down the eastern frontier to discourage Putin. It is a bit like the 70 million Turks who were about to move to Britain, barely factual and well oversold.

 

I couldn't give a flying fvck about the minutiae of fishing quotas and farming subsidies, if I’m being brutally honest. 

Nor did the fishermen who voted to leave, and are now asking for free ports and the like. Farming subsidies are a sore point, as they have been for decades, benefits the French the most, bit of a racket, but then France has a massive agricultural sector.

 

I think the European Research Council is an amazingly good idea and we really have to be part of it. 

 

I think the ECJ is a crock of shit.

It is a pain in the neck, imho, but it is hardly ruining my life. House prices, wages, the NHS, taxes and job availability make much more of a difference to me. Of course the Daily Mail will bang on about it, but they love to demonise the immigrant. It resonates, and sells papers, especially during hard times. My Granny was in Vienna when they forced Jews to clean the pavements with soap, on their hands and knees. When the SS came to claim her uncle's apartment, he shot himself. I cannot abide demonising foreigners/immigrants/Muslims, and I would not wipe my arse on the Daily Mail.

 

I think Brexit will be manipulated and used as a stick for all the ills of the world that the remainers will use to beat whatever a given social  issue is on whatever given day. 

I would agree, except I would swap the words Brexit for the EU, and remainers for Brexiteers

 

I think the PM is weak and wholly unsuitable to lead this project - and I think the alternatives are probably worse. 

 

No idea where that leaves me. But please, don’t say that experts know for a fact what will happen when we leave the EU. They really don’t.

Of course they don't know everything, and anyway it depends who you ask, but even the coward that is Theresa May has had to acknowledge that at least in the short term, it will cost us. It is clear to me, from what you have said, that you are not really working that hard to try to understand what is going on, and why should you, what will happen will happen. But not trying hard to understand it, and then telling me, who is paying attention and trying quite hard to follow developments, what experts do and do not know, is a bit rich. But time will tell. I have studied economics, so I probably have a head start on some, when it comes to, well, the economics.

 

Peace

Absolutely, I'm sorry for having somewhat dissed your efforts to understand this ginormous s**tstorm of a subject, I think anyone on this thread is not in a bunker where everyone agrees with them, and that counts for a lot these days. Although I probably sound like a stuck up know-it-all, I certainly don't know everything about Brexit (in fact I only heard of Euratom 6 months ago) I genuinely am interested in talking to those I disagree with, and that's why I have just spent half an hour of what remains of my life on this reply.

As we used to say in my raving days, PLUR

 

 

[Vardinio'sCat]

30 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

 

I think you do economics a bit of a disservice sometimes. Most of the time when it comes into the public sphere its either politicised and so is actually a case of politics rather than economics or its to do with Macro forecasting, for which I don't think it compares unfavourably to other forecasting disciplines. When the Queen opened the NAB building at LSE she asked the director of research why they didn't see it coming, but by and large that isn't what economists are supposed to do. They're much better as empiricists than forecasters. 

 

If you look at Microeconomics, its as mathematically sound as any of the 'hard' sciences with the assumptions used. Maybe its not always testable, but is string theory? How much of Physics does pass the falsifiable test rather than just the human perception of falsifiable? (I'm not keen on getting into the philosophical debate around whether we really understand science). I've digressed. Okay maybe one of the issues is combining the mathematical insights based on assumptions with the human element. And certainly the human behaviour element poses a problem. But there is now growing work on behavioural economics to fit real reactions into mathematical models. For instance, we're now pretty good at modelling risk and loss aversion. Bare in mind, it's a relatively young discipline as well, certainly its quantitative origins. The increasing availability of data and statistics will only make it more scientific. The concept of GDP only came about in the 40s and wasn't really used until the 70s, so that's just one area where we don't have enough data (yeah they go back and try to estimate historically). And whilst very much still in its infancy, quantum economics is gaining traction as there is now the belief that quantum mechanics could be used to model consumer behaviour, decision making, and could be used to explain George Soros' idea of reflexivity in financial markets. 

 

From a macro point of view, yeah it's a little less of a science. Partly because it's pretty difficult to repeatedly create a financial crisis to observe it perfectly. Even if we could, it would be impossible to predict the start of a financial crisis (if you did it wouldn't happen anyway) but neither is it possible to predict when an earthquake will strike (I don't know at what point it is possible to predict the formation of a star?) And yeah we are yet to understand if monetary or fiscal policy play a more important role, which is probably more observable. But with the advent, and growing influence of econometrics, we are better able to test scenarios using empirical data to come up with how situations might play out. So even macro is moving closer. The problem will always lie with damned politicians using economics for policy reasons to further themselves. 

 

I still maintain it is no less of a science than medicine and medicine suffers similarly when its brought into the public sphere for public health policy. Is it really any difference that the medical profession still doesn't have full understanding of the full connections between diet and lifestyle on health and ageing. Are economists that test theories and develop them with changing data any different to that do research on new treatments? I think I've made the medicine point before ( I remember writing it somewhere and I'm only a saddo on here). I think medical science does more damage to expert reputation personally. But again blame the journos and politicians for misrepresenting it.

 

Quantum Economics.... Whatchyou talkin about Willis? 

 

Actually, don't bother, I'll Google it. This post (apart from the bit I didn't understand) made me go misty-eyed. I could have spent a good hour writing and got nowhere near as good as that. The distinction between micro and macro, and how  much better we are at one than the other, is something I bang on about myself.

 

It is hard to convince people that there are certain things in macro that are pretty well established, when they see some person who is called an economist on the TV, lying his or her ass off on behalf of this thinktank or that trade association. Added to which the Keynsians were virtually invisible for most of the last 30 years, or at least waiting til the death squads had stopped roaming the campuses of Britain.

 

I'm not averse to the odd crisis myself, history is easier to analyse than now, but obviously different strands take different lessons, and I wouldn't consider myself that well enough read to really have a stand up fight with someone I disagreed with, if they vaguely knew what they were talking about. I would scurry about the net and find some learned piece and throw that at any rival though, as I did on our blessed return to surplus. 

 

Victory is when it all goes quiet...

 

Anyway, I can't really remember agreeing with you on much, but that post is worth a hundred arguments to me. Brilliant work, although I always thought of medicine as a black box kind of science (god knows where I picked this up), at least until the technology really started to kick in. By black box I mean think of the body as one, you cannot see into it, mainly cos it so bloody complicated, so you can only measure inputs and outputs. Basically, you are pretty much working blind, so I would agree that medicine is probably tougher than economics, but a lot sexier (apart from boils and abcesses).

 

I'm probably talking s**t now so I'll stop there. 

 

 

[Guest Foxin_mad]

15 hours ago, breadandcheese said:

It's really not a dreadful idea.  More homes are needed in the South East.  If a new motorway is added connecting Oxford and Cambridge then that would link two major research hubs all commutable into London.

 

Yes, it's annoying that the country is London centric, but that's the reality and houses need to be built to reduce the ridiculous situation in London prices relative to wages.

 

Granted, it shouldn't be either or, as investment should be in other areas of the country, but right now, if the biggest pressures are on the South East, it makes sense to concentrate resources there.

One way to stop ridiculous London prices is to stop rich speculators buying property in London. To be honest the only way to get away from this London centric world is to stop putting all the money into London. London already as a public transport system 25 times better than the rest of the country, it already has many thousands of jobs. There should be a Tax applied to all business that unnecessarily operate from there.

14 hours ago, Kopfkino said:

 

It's a chicken and egg situation. Fact is, London is by far the most productive area of the country, London and the South-East produce a huge percentage of output, and it's where the housing crisis is the worse. The new garden towns are in the Oxford-Cambridge corridor (there's plans to improve rail and road links between the two) which are again hugely productive cities, and between the three are comfortably the most recognisable places for the international community. There's a big damage done to our economy as a result of the difficulty to get reasonably-priced housing in these areas. So any investment in this area is going to produce bigger returns than investing elsewhere. Yes it would be great to actually deliver on the northern powerhouse and create something like Silicon Valley up there, it just won't produce the same returns very quickly, people and firms will still want to be in and around London. 

Its the most productive because they have all the jobs and all the infrastructure crammed into a overcrowded area of the country that will probably be under the channel in another 100 years! The have to forward plan a bit more, this is a pathetic half hearted attempt at having a plan. Yet again it delivers for only half the country.

 

They can keep coming up with quick fixes but we need a long term plan that delivers for the whole country. The North and Midlands has been neglected by successive governments both Red and Blue for many years, its hardly surprising that they are becoming disenchanted and potentially voting for extreme parties because they have been let down for a long time, to be honest actions like this further push for more devolution. The electrification of the East Coast Main Line and parts of Wales has been delayed/cancelled. Its impossible to expect the Midlands/North to become more productive when they are on outdated slow trains, on crumbling roads etc. etc. To be honest I wonder what happens when they overpopulate the South East that already runs out of water in warm years, what will happen if we have a very dry year due to global warming? Perhaps then the North can pipe down water at £1 a litre? Very poorly thought out stop gap solution.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Foxin_mad said:

One way to stop ridiculous London prices is to stop rich speculators buying property in London. To be honest the only way to get away from this London centric world is to stop putting all the money into London. London already as a public transport system 25 times better than the rest of the country, it already has many thousands of jobs. There should be a Tax applied to all business that unnecessarily operate from there.

Its the most productive because they have all the jobs and all the infrastructure crammed into a overcrowded area of the country that will probably be under the channel in another 100 years! The have to forward plan a bit more, this is a pathetic half hearted attempt at having a plan. Yet again it delivers for only half the country.

 

They can keep coming up with quick fixes but we need a long term plan that delivers for the whole country. The North and Midlands has been neglected by successive governments both Red and Blue for many years, its hardly surprising that they are becoming disenchanted and potentially voting for extreme parties because they have been let down for a long time, to be honest actions like this further push for more devolution. The electrification of the East Coast Main Line and parts of Wales has been delayed/cancelled. Its impossible to expect the Midlands/North to become more productive when they are on outdated slow trains, on crumbling roads etc. etc. To be honest I wonder what happens when they overpopulate the South East that already runs out of water in warm years, what will happen if we have a very dry year due to global warming? Perhaps then the North can pipe down water at £1 a litre? Very poorly thought out stop gap solution.

You know what fox? I think you're slowly turning into a Corbynista ?

[David Guiza]

Guido, and others, who believe that women should be grateful for what Thatcher did simply because she had a virgina (allegedly) really are delightful. 

 

https://order-order.com/people/margaret-thatcher/ 

[Guest Foxin_mad]

3 minutes ago, toddybad said:

You know what fox? I think you're slowly turning into a Corbynista ?

There are some issues in the country that I think everyone can agree on regardless. I guess the views differ on how to get there.

 

Unfortunately it seems Labour being run by a rich socialist from Islington isn't particularly helping them to get their message across to the North, or prove to the North that they will make a difference. Unfortunately much of Labours policy that I have seen doesn't seem to indicate much difference from the current status quo in terms of London centric investment.

 

To me it seems ridiculous to be overcrowding an area that can already have water shortages when there is a possibility when we could get hotter summers. We have brownfield sites across the North that need to be redeveloped, offer business and individuals incentives to relocate there, invest in reliable infrastructure and connectivity in these areas. Don't blame them for being less productive than London when the receive less than 1/3 of the investment. Personally I would scrap HS2 it will be out dated by the time it is finished anyway. Fix the existing routes, electrify and provide more modern trains, reopen routes closed in the 60s/70s where possible, have better integrated transport in all major cities outside London. Yes London is the Capital but it is not the centre of the Universe, cities like Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool and Newcastle have transformed in recent years but they are still isolated and still need more.

[breadandcheese]

22 minutes ago, David Guiza said:

Guido, and others, who believe that women should be grateful for what Thatcher did simply because she had a virgina (allegedly) really are delightful. 

 

https://order-order.com/people/margaret-thatcher/ 

I think it's more that she smashed the ultimate glass ceiling in becoming prime minister. Looking at it today, it seems odd that it could be such a huge achievement, as no-one bats an eyelid that we have a female PM.  But at the time, it was a huge achievement, whether you are on the left or right of politics. 

 

[Guest Foxin_mad]

27 minutes ago, breadandcheese said:

I think it's more that she smashed the ultimate glass ceiling in becoming prime minister. Looking at it today, it seems odd that it could be such a huge achievement, as no-one bats an eyelid that we have a female PM.  But at the time, it was a huge achievement, whether you are on the left or right of politics. 

 

I can not see that a shop owners daughter from Grantham will ever become prime minister again. Regardless of her vision and whether you disagree with her politics, it was an achievement none the less and rightly or wrongly a breakthrough to have a strong female global leader at that time. We could do with one now!

 

Even the so called honest hard working normal man Corbyn is from a highly privileged elite family in London (his brother is some kind of mad wetherman), Labour are still yet to have a female leader of the party, the majority of Trade Union Barons are privileged vile ugly old men. Its often quite bizarre that these privileged few can make decisions to affect the masses.

Edited 6 March 2018 by Foxin_mad

[David Guiza]

28 minutes ago, breadandcheese said:

I think it's more that she smashed the ultimate glass ceiling in becoming prime minister. Looking at it today, it seems odd that it could be such a huge achievement, as no-one bats an eyelid that we have a female PM.  But at the time, it was a huge achievement, whether you are on the left or right of politics. 

 

True, but she was practically female in genitalia alone. The message that it put out there was more 'you too can become PM girls, if you also walk, talk, think and act like a man', rather than breaking any barriers it arguably built more. The fact it then took another few decades to get a second female leader, and that was more by default than ability, says it all. 

I just can't stand this notion that a group of people should be satisfied because a person of their race/gender was successful. The same can be said for Obama in America.

 

5 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said:

I can not see that a shop owners daughter from Grantham will ever become prime minister again. Regardless of her vision and whether you disagree with her politics, it was an achievement none the less and rightly or wrongly a breakthrough to have a strong female global leader at that time.

 

Even the so called honest hard working normal man Corbyn is from a privileged elite family in London, Labour are still yet to have a female leader of the party, the majority of Trade Union Barons are privileged vile ugly old men. Its often quite bizarre that these privileged few can make decisions to affect the masses.

I agree and I think that's a large reason as to why so many are disillusioned with politics and politicians as a result. It's completely understandable as to why many outside of the Westminster Bubble cannot identify with their MP when they are so vastly different in education, background and social status. 

 

[Countryfox]

Nationalise house building ...    I know those fookin old multi millionaire house builders wouldn't like it but it would soon get any problems we now have sorted. 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, breadandcheese said:

I think it's more that she smashed the ultimate glass ceiling in becoming prime minister. Looking at it today, it seems odd that it could be such a huge achievement, as no-one bats an eyelid that we have a female PM.  But at the time, it was a huge achievement, whether you are on the left or right of politics. 

 

I actually agreed with both of you.

I'm no Thatcherite but can see that our first female PM is an achievement that deserves recognition.

But then you think about the destructive policies and it's difficult to accept that her actual deeds deserve recognition.

So I'm stumped.

I believe there's a bust within the palace of Westminster. I think for now that will suffice. Perhaps in the future, when memories of what she did to the north etc have dimmed perhaps something bigger can be used. But not yet.

[ealingfox]

44 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said:

I can not see that a shop owners daughter from Grantham will ever become prime minister again. Regardless of her vision and whether you disagree with her politics, it was an achievement none the less and rightly or wrongly a breakthrough to have a strong female global leader at that time. We could do with one now!

 

Even the so called honest hard working normal man Corbyn is from a highly privileged elite family in London (his brother is some kind of mad wetherman), Labour are still yet to have a female leader of the party, the majority of Trade Union Barons are privileged vile ugly old men. Its often quite bizarre that these privileged few can make decisions to affect the masses.

 

Corbyn has the biggest democratic mandate of any politician in Britain and members sign up to trade unions knowing the leadership structure in place which is also democratically elected. Your insistence in fitting that last sentence in as a weird attempt to criticise the left is bizarre considering firstly that neither Corbyn or the trade union 'barons' are in government, and secondly that that is kind of the idea of an elected government in the first place. Not forgetting that if you want to criticise the 'privileged' and 'elite' there's really only one place to start, now and throughout history.

 

You've got a real chip on your shoulder about Corbyn haven't you?

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

1 minute ago, ealingfox said:

 

Corbyn has the biggest democratic mandate of any politician in Britain and members sign up to trade unions knowing the leadership structure in place which is also democratically elected. Your insistence in fitting that last sentence in as a weird attempt to criticise the left is bizarre considering firstly that neither Corbyn or the trade union 'barons' are in government, and secondly that that is kind of the idea of an elected government in the first place. Not forgetting that if you want to criticise the 'privileged' and 'elite' there's really only one place to start, now and throughout history.

 

You've got a real chip on your shoulder about Corbyn haven't you?

All politicians are despised, so hatred for Corbyn is nothing special, although it does seem particularly vitriolic - due to a vociferous and constant attack from the press probably

 

I'm not saying Corbyn is brilliant or would be a wonderful PM or anything like that necessarily, but he is the only candidate whom I have actually heard people be positive about.  As in some people in our country are excited about him as a potential PM.  This never happens to anyone in this country

[Buce]

12 minutes ago, toddybad said:

I actually agreed with both of you.

I'm no Thatcherite but can see that our first female PM is an achievement that deserves recognition.

But then you think about the destructive policies and it's difficult to accept that her actual deeds deserve recognition.

So I'm stumped.

I believe there's a bust within the palace of Westminster. I think for now that will suffice. Perhaps in the future, when memories of what she did to the north etc have dimmed perhaps something bigger can be used. But not yet.

 

 

Over my dead body - any memorial to her should be torn down as soon as it's erected.

 

That woman was pure evil and any woman with an ounce of self-respect would distance herself from the bitch's memory.

[Guest Kopfkino]

3 hours ago, Foxin_mad said:

Its the most productive because they have all the jobs and all the infrastructure crammed into a overcrowded area of the country that will probably be under the channel in another 100 years! The have to forward plan a bit more, this is a pathetic half hearted attempt at having a plan. Yet again it delivers for only half the country.

 

They can keep coming up with quick fixes but we need a long term plan that delivers for the whole country. The North and Midlands has been neglected by successive governments both Red and Blue for many years, its hardly surprising that they are becoming disenchanted and potentially voting for extreme parties because they have been let down for a long time, to be honest actions like this further push for more devolution. The electrification of the East Coast Main Line and parts of Wales has been delayed/cancelled. Its impossible to expect the Midlands/North to become more productive when they are on outdated slow trains, on crumbling roads etc. etc. To be honest I wonder what happens when they overpopulate the South East that already runs out of water in warm years, what will happen if we have a very dry year due to global warming? Perhaps then the North can pipe down water at £1 a litre? Very poorly thought out stop gap solution.

 

I'm just saying its a chicken-egg situation. I don't disagree. Yes the rest of country needs investment but given the choice, if returns are going to be greater by further investing around London, Oxford, Cambridge then it's just not going to happen. Especially when you're trying to solve a problem that is at its greatest in that area. It's no use solving the housing crisis in the South East by building garden towns in the Pennines because it won't solve the problem. (It's a feeble response to the problem anyway). It's essentially a problem of political incentives, there is more to gain by keep funnelling investment into London. Yeah it must be galling for the rest of the country to see Crossrail and then Crossrail 2 be built at the expense of infrastructure elsewhere, I suppose its just cost-benefit analysis. Whether that's right or not is different. 

 

I do struggle to understand the resentment towards London that exists in this country. Having it and investing in it is a good thing. It's had a comparative advantage in services for yonks and as the global economy moves towards services, that's only to the benefit of London and unfortunately to the detriment of industrialised areas. It's literally the centre of the world, has been financial capital of the world for all bar about 20 years between the 70s and mid 90s, and one of the top places to do business. We're a small country and having something of such significance is of course going to create a huge gravitational pull. It's probably too organic to be interfered with now anyway. 

 

Part of the problem is centralised government and that government being in London. De-centralise, take power out of the hands of the few in Westminster. If there is to be investment elsewhere, there needs to be further devolution such that areas can compete to entice businesses and enterprise. In a similar way that 30+ US cities have been competing to get Amazon's second headquarters. UK cities need to market themselves to particular industries, basically become a hub. But that's hard without devolution. Birmingham has done alright being a secondary centre of financial services. Manchester could become a media city, helped if the Guardian moves back and move Channel 4 there instead of Birmingham. Give areas the opportunity to create free enterprise zones or special incentives.

[Guest Kopfkino]

26 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

Over my dead body - any memorial to her should be torn down as soon as it's erected.

 

That woman was pure evil and any woman with an ounce of self-respect would distance herself from the bitch's memory.

 

Intimidation of political views from the cuddly left yet again At least I'm not a woman.

[Buce]

1 minute ago, Kopfkino said:

 

Intimidation of political views from the cuddly left yet again At least I'm not a woman.

 

You weren’t alive at that time so I’ll forgive your ignorance. 

[Izzy]

31 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

Over my dead body - any memorial to her should be torn down as soon as it's erected.

 

That woman was pure evil and any woman with an ounce of self-respect would distance herself from the bitch's memory.

Don’t forget she pretty much ended the Cold War by bringing together Gorbachev and Regan.

We’d probably have all been nuked if it wasn’t for Mrs T 

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

4 minutes ago, Izzy Muzzett said:

Don’t forget she pretty much ended the Cold War by bringing together Gorbachev and Regan.

We’d probably have all been nuked if it wasn’t for Mrs T 

Only an iron lady could lift the iron curtain  

[Guest Kopfkino]

10 hours ago, Vardinio'sCat said:

 

Quantum Economics.... Whatchyou talkin about Willis? 

 

Actually, don't bother, I'll Google it. This post (apart from the bit I didn't understand) made me go misty-eyed. I could have spent a good hour writing and got nowhere near as good as that. The distinction between micro and macro, and how  much better we are at one than the other, is something I bang on about myself.

 

It is hard to convince people that there are certain things in macro that are pretty well established, when they see some person who is called an economist on the TV, lying his or her ass off on behalf of this thinktank or that trade association. Added to which the Keynsians were virtually invisible for most of the last 30 years, or at least waiting til the death squads had stopped roaming the campuses of Britain.

 

I'm not averse to the odd crisis myself, history is easier to analyse than now, but obviously different strands take different lessons, and I wouldn't consider myself that well enough read to really have a stand up fight with someone I disagreed with, if they vaguely knew what they were talking about. I would scurry about the net and find some learned piece and throw that at any rival though, as I did on our blessed return to surplus. 

 

Victory is when it all goes quiet...

 

Anyway, I can't really remember agreeing with you on much, but that post is worth a hundred arguments to me. Brilliant work, although I always thought of medicine as a black box kind of science (god knows where I picked this up), at least until the technology really started to kick in. By black box I mean think of the body as one, you cannot see into it, mainly cos it so bloody complicated, so you can only measure inputs and outputs. Basically, you are pretty much working blind, so I would agree that medicine is probably tougher than economics, but a lot sexier (apart from boils and abcesses).

 

I'm probably talking s**t now so I'll stop there. 

 

 

 

It's a long read but you might find this interesting. Talks about the need for a quantum revolution in economics rather than just the small work out there so far. 

https://aeon.co/essays/has-the-time-come-for-a-quantum-revolution-in-economics

[leicsmac]

12 hours ago, Vardinio'sCat said:

 

True enough, it can be painful the way science is represented, especially in politicised areas. But if we apply a little intellectual rigour, and do the background, the 'softer' sciences can be very valuable.

 

Economists, for example, have had a very hard time in recent years, but I can point you to some pretty good ones. See above.

 

 

That's fair enough, and Kopf makes some very good points about exactly that.

 

10 hours ago, Kopfkino said:

 

I think you do economics a bit of a disservice sometimes. Most of the time when it comes into the public sphere its either politicised and so is actually a case of politics rather than economics or its to do with Macro forecasting, for which I don't think it compares unfavourably to other forecasting disciplines. When the Queen opened the NAB building at LSE she asked the director of research why they didn't see it coming, but by and large that isn't what economists are supposed to do. They're much better as empiricists than forecasters. 

 

 

1

This is a very good defence, and I'm going to reply to each paragraph in turn.

 

I definitely agree that when a scientific area gets politicised then things tend to go south pretty fast, and economics suffers with that more than most. People do tend to want predictions rather than empirical analysis after the fact when it comes to money, and that often does lead to trouble. 

 

12 hours ago, Kopfkino said:

If you look at Microeconomics, its as mathematically sound as any of the 'hard' sciences with the assumptions used. Maybe its not always testable, but is string theory? How much of Physics does pass the falsifiable test rather than just the human perception of falsifiable? (I'm not keen on getting into the philosophical debate around whether we really understand science). I've digressed. Okay maybe one of the issues is combining the mathematical insights based on assumptions with the human element. And certainly the human behaviour element poses a problem. But there is now growing work on behavioural economics to fit real reactions into mathematical models. For instance, we're now pretty good at modelling risk and loss aversion. Bare in mind, it's a relatively young discipline as well, certainly its quantitative origins. The increasing availability of data and statistics will only make it more scientific. The concept of GDP only came about in the 40s and wasn't really used until the 70s, so that's just one area where we don't have enough data (yeah they go back and try to estimate historically). And whilst very much still in its infancy, quantum economics is gaining traction as there is now the belief that quantum mechanics could be used to model consumer behaviour, decision making, and could be used to explain George Soros' idea of reflexivity in financial markets. 

 

5

Yeah, when you go down the epistemological route then practically everything is subjective, best to leave that alone. 

 

I'll be honest, I've not looked at micro v macroeconomics all that much and probably should - if they are as you say then it would make for an interesting read. I'd also agree that the lack of empirical data (as it is a fairly "young" science) does mean that things are going to have to be tweaked a bit to make things more accurate - I just wish that folks who quote economic data would add that disclaimer consistently. 

 

Though right now I'm seeing parallels between the economists and climate scientists in that they're only analysing the data and then tearing their hair out when daft media outlets/talking heads/politicians misinterpret them for their own interest.

 

12 hours ago, Kopfkino said:

 

From a macro point of view, yeah it's a little less of a science. Partly because it's pretty difficult to repeatedly create a financial crisis to observe it perfectly. Even if we could, it would be impossible to predict the start of a financial crisis (if you did it wouldn't happen anyway) but neither is it possible to predict when an earthquake will strike (I don't know at what point it is possible to predict the formation of a star?) And yeah we are yet to understand if monetary or fiscal policy play a more important role, which is probably more observable. But with the advent, and growing influence of econometrics, we are better able to test scenarios using empirical data to come up with how situations might play out. So even macro is moving closer. The problem will always lie with damned politicians using economics for policy reasons to further themselves. 

 

I still maintain it is no less of a science than medicine and medicine suffers similarly when its brought into the public sphere for public health policy. Is it really any difference that the medical profession still doesn't have full understanding of the full connections between diet and lifestyle on health and ageing. Are economists that test theories and develop them with changing data any different to that do research on new treatments? I think I've made the medicine point before ( I remember writing it somewhere and I'm only a saddo on here). I think medical science does more damage to expert reputation personally. But again blame the journos and politicians for misrepresenting it.

2

There's something in that - though with respect to earthquakes and other big phenomena of that type there is an awful lot of historical data from which to draw, which means that predictions can be a little more accurate than your average economic forecast. (Btw, predicting the formation of a star or a star dying can be done a very long time before it happens - it's a reasonably methodical process and simple analysis of composition and gravitational effects allows you to pinpoint what will happen next and when with a reasonable degree of accuracy.)

 

I guess I have sold economics short a bit in my commentary on here, and perhaps that's down to my own frustrations - I see economic predictions of all different types being made by talking heads (probably not the economists themselves)...and when they don't, people with an agenda use that as an excuse to tar all scientific experts with the same brush or engage in wild conspiracy theories (yes, climate change, yes, creationists, and yes, anti-vaxxers, I'm frigging looking at all of you), which have serious connotations beyond material wealth and gain for the future. But as you say, the economic scientists probably shouldn't be blamed for it - they're hardly the only area of science to be misrepresented when things get political.

[Guest Foxin_mad]

3 hours ago, ealingfox said:

 

Corbyn has the biggest democratic mandate of any politician in Britain and members sign up to trade unions knowing the leadership structure in place which is also democratically elected. Your insistence in fitting that last sentence in as a weird attempt to criticise the left is bizarre considering firstly that neither Corbyn or the trade union 'barons' are in government, and secondly that that is kind of the idea of an elected government in the first place. Not forgetting that if you want to criticise the 'privileged' and 'elite' there's really only one place to start, now and throughout history.

 

You've got a real chip on your shoulder about Corbyn haven't you?

I am not sure the first paragraph is true but am happy to see evidence to the contary. I have worked in a number of public sector organisations and you were pretty much railroaded into the trade unions, if you didn't join and strike you were treated as some kind of leper, some were bullied, there is a pretty concerning internal culture in most unions I feel, but when you have horrible gits like Len McLuskey in charge its hardly surprising. Their attitude is pretty disgusting in my opinion but again that is just my view.

 

Labour say they are a 'government ' in waiting, it they talk the talk then walk the walk.

 

Why have/are there been so few female or ethnic minorities in powerful positions in the Labour Party and Unions? I don't know? but seems much like a game for privileged white middle class (mostly men) people to me? Who knows?

 

So you say the Tories serve the rich and elite, perhaps they do but at least they are honest about it! The Tories are a lot more likely to have a minority woman leader than Labour any time soon. Labour again pretend to care about the poor, they actually don't have a clue about what is going in in their supposed northern heartlands. The contempt with which they are treating the north is now becoming quite worrying as it is only a matter of time before some far right nutter comes and tells them what they want to hear, through years of neglect Labour will quite rightly trounced at the polls if the right candidate appears.

 

I just think Corbyn is a complete charlatan, a disgrace and a liar. He has been polished by an absolute nasty bastard in Seamus Milne, make no mistake these people are not nice people. Again purely my view, but I will not hide my personal disgust towards that man.

[breadandcheese]

4 hours ago, David Guiza said:

True, but she was practically female in genitalia alone. The message that it put out there was more 'you too can become PM girls, if you also walk, talk, think and act like a man', rather than breaking any barriers it arguably built more. The fact it then took another few decades to get a second female leader, and that was more by default than ability, says it all. 

I just can't stand this notion that a group of people should be satisfied because a person of their race/gender was successful. The same can be said for Obama in America.

 

Bit sexist that.  I find it really odd that there is an attempt to deconstruct Thatcher's gender into one that is not seen as female.  There's even been arguments by feminists that Thatcher wasn't really a female prime minister, in order to take away from the achievement.  I

 

I agree, no-one should be satisfied because a person of their race/gender was successful, but they should recognise the achievement and the breaking down of barriers.  

 

A case in point is Sadiq Khan.  I don't agree with his politics and wouldn't have voted for him were I a Londoner.  However, I respect what he has achieved in that he is probably the highest democratically elected Muslim in the Western World.  It is a tremendous achievement.  To most, it will seem unimportant, but to members of the UK Muslim community, it will provide a shining example for kids within their community and a riposte to nefarious elements (both Neo-Nazi and Islamist).  It's a big deal.  He should be recognised more.

Edited 6 March 2018 by breadandcheese

[Guest]

31 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said:

I am not sure the first paragraph is true but am happy to see evidence to the contary. I have worked in a number of public sector organisations and you were pretty much railroaded into the trade unions, if you didn't join and strike you were treated as some kind of leper, some were bullied, there is a pretty concerning internal culture in most unions I feel, but when you have horrible gits like Len McLuskey in charge its hardly surprising. Their attitude is pretty disgusting in my opinion but again that is just my view.

 

Labour say they are a 'government ' in waiting, it they talk the talk then walk the walk.

 

Why have/are there been so few female or ethnic minorities in powerful positions in the Labour Party and Unions? I don't know? but seems much like a game for privileged white middle class (mostly men) people to me? Who knows?

 

So you say the Tories serve the rich and elite, perhaps they do but at least they are honest about it! The Tories are a lot more likely to have a minority woman leader than Labour any time soon. Labour again pretend to care about the poor, they actually don't have a clue about what is going in in their supposed northern heartlands. The contempt with which they are treating the north is now becoming quite worrying as it is only a matter of time before some far right nutter comes and tells them what they want to hear, through years of neglect Labour will quite rightly trounced at the polls if the right candidate appears.

 

I just think Corbyn is a complete charlatan, a disgrace and a liar. He has been polished by an absolute nasty bastard in Seamus Milne, make no mistake these people are not nice people. Again purely my view, but I will not hide my personal disgust towards that man.

I wish you'd apply some of your by new found sense with labour.

 

I can't really about trade unions as I.know nothiing about them but will say that in my current experience not that many public sector workers are members it seems to me. Plenty of us are here working during strikes.

 

Re women/minorities half the shadow cabinet is female. There are plenty of minorities represented too. I think the leader not being female is a pretty poor argument when there's only been 2 in British history. If there was a contest now Thornbury would stand a decent chance I'd have thought. 

 

We've argued about corbyn's history before so I won't go there again. We each have to make our own judgements about his history. But I see little in the current Corbyn to suggest he's into violence or to suggest he doesn't genuinely want a fairer world. 

[David Guiza]

24 minutes ago, breadandcheese said:

Bit sexist that.  I find it really odd that there is an attempt to deconstruct Thatcher's gender into one that is not seen as female.  There's even been arguments by feminists that Thatcher wasn't really a female prime minister, in order to take away from the achievement.  I

 

I agree, no-one should be satisfied because a person of their race/gender was successful, but they should recognise the achievement and the breaking down of barriers.  

 

A case in point is Sadiq Khan.  I don't agree with his politics and wouldn't have voted for him were I a Londoner.  However, I respect what he has achieved in that he is probably the highest democratically elected Muslim in the Western World.  It is a tremendous achievement.  To most, it will seem unimportant, but to members of the UK Muslim community, it will provide a shining example for kids within their community and a riposte to nefarious elements (both Neo-Nazi and Islamist).  It's a big deal.  He should be recognised more.

Perhaps I didn't word it too well, but my point was that she was not a feminist and women shouldn't have to look up to her as a pioneer for feminism just because she is a woman. 

 

Thatcher undoubtedly fought against the odds to become PM given her background and gender and perhaps paved the way for future female MPs, however an equal argument could also be made that the only precedent she set in terms of women's role in politics was that to force your way into a male dominated world you must 'think like a man', which defeats the object. Not mentioning the fact that she only promoted one other woman to her cabinet, which was ultimately her decision and if she felt that the men were best placed for the job then so be it. Though the men she did promote hardly backed up that argument.

 

I completely agree with your argument, especially the final paragraph. Khan, Obama and Thatcher all fought much more adversity than any of their predecessors to achieve their goals, but it doesn't automatically mean that they did Islam, Black People or Women any favours as a result of their success. 

 

I'm sure the same would have happened were Hilary made President. She probably would ultimately have been judged a failure (probably rightly so as well), but people would still have made the argument that she was a feminist icon to American women because she was the first female POTUS. Again, yes she would deserve recognition for achieving the position, but to be considered a feminist icon, in my eyes at least, she would have to have at least demonstrated some commitment to making a positive difference for equality.