Average UK worker would be £200 a week better off if real wages had grown at pre-crisis rate

[ks.234]

Have you not figured out yet that I’ve zero interest in your self-righteous lectures? See if you can write a post which doesn‘t pose a question that only you have the right answer to. Better still, try music and audio.

If, as you say, you have zero interest in what I post, then why the hell you keep responding to my posts?

If you choose to engage in a discussion with me by using the reply button to respond to my post, then any rational person would expect a discussion.

Which is what attempted.

My response to your post quoting me, was pointing out certain facts and the interpretation of events from other economists. It was not personal in any way and as such, not self righteous.

Shame that your response here is not in the same vein. It is, as always, a quick descent in to ad hom.

Ad hom is the response of someone without the ability to form a rational or coherent argument to back up anything they say.

 

[Mike Hughes]

If, as you say, you have no interest in what I post, then why the hell you keep responding to my posts?

When you do respond you always descend in to ad hom, like here.

Ad hom is the response of someone without the ability to form a rational or coherent argument to back up anything they say.

Not sure you understand what ad hom is other than a phrase to bandy about. I’ve no idea what you’re like in real life and zero interest in abusing you. My post addressed the tone of your posts. Ad hom is where you attack the poster not the post. I have no idea whether you’re this self-righteous in real life but that is the tone of your posts. They are lectures which start from a position of wanting to educate people. That in turn starts from the incredible assumption that we all need educating and apparently only you can do it. It is a demonstrable favt that your posts pose questions where you dispute all answers bar your own as ypu’re all over this forum doing exactly that.

You’re now telling us Stieglitz would disagree, so apparently you’ve the gift of being able to put words in the mouth of others too. Having seen him in person; heard my exact point being made to him by another audience member and then heard him agree with them/gently concede the point, I’m afraid your assumption of his answer is simply wrong.

 

[ks.234]

Not sure you understand what ad hom is other than a phrase to bandy about. I’ve no idea what you’re like in real life and zero interest in abusing you. My post addressed the tone of your posts.

Ad hom is where you attack the poster not the post.

Which is exactly what do did.

I have no idea whether you’re this self-righteous in real life but that is the tone of your posts.

If you find my posts self righteous, then don't read them.

If you do respond, respond to the argument, not to the person as you have done

They are lectures which start from a position of wanting to educate people.

Not true. They start from a position of trying to educate myself

That in turn starts from the incredible assumption that we all need educating

I can’t speak for everyone, but I know I need educating. I believe that learning is a life long experience and part of that learning experience is, for me, reading and then writing down arguments with references and acknowledgements.

If you disagree with the argument, then disagree with the argument, references and acknowledgements, not the person.

and apparently only you can do it.

Not true. I constantly reference economists, historians and the like. By trying to reduce any argument you have to me personally is to try to avoid the substantive argument.

It is a demonstrable favt that your posts pose questions where you dispute all answers bar your own as ypu’re all over this forum doing exactly that.

I pose questions and I question the answers. If you don't like it, either make an argument addressing the substantive point, or, if you find my posts objectionable in any way, dont read them

You’re now telling us Stieglitz would disagree, so apparently you’ve the gift of being able to put words in the mouth of others too.

Having seen him in person; heard my exact point being made to him by another audience member and then heard him agree with them/gently concede the point I’m afraid your assumption of his answer is simply wrong.

Is it? My point was not about “investment”, that was in the quote you addressed to another poster. My response was to what you quoted when you addressed me which but was about the assumptions you made about the significance of 2008 to the topic of this thread

 

[Mike Hughes]

I responced explicitly at #138 but you struggle with not being the only person right on a the thread so did your usual “Wah, ad hom” when I rejected your assertion of what Stieglitz would say having heard what he actually said.

 

[Mike Hughes]

Which is exactly what do did.



If you find my posts self righteous, then don't read them.

If you do respond, respond to the argument, not to the person as you have done

Not true. They start from a position of trying to educate myself



I can’t speak for everyone, but I know I need educating. I believe that learning is a live long experience and prt of that learning experience is writing down arguments with references and acknowledgemnets.

If you disagree with the argument, then disagree with the argument, references and acknowledgements not the person.
Not true. I constantly reverence economists, historians and the like. By trying to reduce any argument you have to me personally is to try to avoid the substantive argument.


I pose questions and I question the answers. If you don't like it, either make an argument addressing the substantive point, or, if you find my posts objectionable in any way, dont read them

Christ almighty. You really struggle with the opinions of others. What impression do you think you give with a line by line analysis on an internet forum? It ain’t a good one.

 

[ks.234]

I responced explicitly at #138 but you struggle with not being the only person right on a the thread so did your usual “Wah, ad hom” when I rejected your assertion of what Stieglitz would say having heard what he actually said.

Again, I was responding to what you said to me. I was not making any sort of comment about what Stiglitz said on QT.

You seem to be entangling something you said to me with something you said to someone else.

As such an avid follower of my posts, you should know that I very much agree with Stiglitz about investment in public services like the NHS.

 

[ks.234]

Christ almighty. You really struggle with the opinions of others.

Not true, I value the opinions of others and respond to them and question them in a civilised manner.

What impression do you think you give with a line by line analysis on an internet forum? It ain’t a good one.

I would leave other people to their own private impressions.

 

[Mick P]

Not true, I value the opinions of others and respond to them and question them in a civilised manner.

I would leave other people to their own private impressions.

Greetings Mr ks.234

I have had a somewhat pleasant but nevertheless strange morning. My daughter in law has successfully retained her council seat for the Tories albeit with a much reduced majority, but a win is a win as they say.

The strange bit is I have spent the morning chatting to both Labour and Tory councillors and overall now that the election is over they have reverted to their normal friendly relationships with each other. Politicians leave the hate to extreme members of the electorate. Councillors may have a go at each other in the Chamber but in private they are much more civilised. The same almost certainly applies to MPs.

One point that may be of interest to you is that the Labour councillors privately concede that there will be continued outsourcing in the NHS and that there is no stomach to re nationalise anything. Both parties are again becoming closer to each other with the Tories veering to the right and Labour are catching up with them.

This is the opinion of councillors and I am merely a messenger of the message. Nevertheless your presumptions and predictions are entirely correct.

The councillors predict a Labour majority of around 80 MPs with the Tories suffering at the presence of Reform. The Tories agreed with all that. The Greens and LidDems don't seem to have got anywhere so the forthcoming election, whenever that happens, is really now a three horse race. The burning question is whether the Tories and Reform concoct some sort of deal.

I hope to continue reading your musings as they are, if nothing else, devoid of anger and entirely sensible.

 

[ks.234]

Greetings Mr ks.234

I have had a somewhat pleasant but nevertheless strange morning. My daughter in law has successfully retained her council seat for the Tories albeit with a much reduced majority, but a win is a win as they say.

The strange bit is I have spent the morning chatting to both Labour and Tory councillors and overall now that the election is over they have reverted to their normal friendly relationships with each other. Politicians leave the hate to extreme members of the electorate. Councillors may have a go at each other in the Chamber but in private they are much more civilised. The same almost certainly applies to MPs.

One point that may be of interest to you is that the Labour councillors privately concede that there will be continued outsourcing in the NHS and that there is no stomach to re nationalise anything. Both parties are again becoming closer to each other with the Tories veering to the right and Labour are catching up with them.

This is the opinion of councillors and I am merely a messenger of the message. Nevertheless your presumptions and predictions are entirely correct.

The councillors predict a Labour majority of around 80 MPs with the Tories suffering at the presence of Reform. The Tories agreed with all that. The Greens and LidDems don't seem to have got anywhere so the forthcoming election, whenever that happens, is really now a three horse race. The burning question is whether the Tories and Reform concoct some sort of deal.

I hope to continue reading your musings as they are, if nothing else, devoid of anger and entirely sensible.

Thank you for the considered reply. I would offer my congratulations to your DinL in person, but if the opportunity arose, might possibly have a few er, follow on, questions!

That there is no real difference between Labour and Tory on fiscal policy is very much the issue. We very much need government investment in public services if we want better economic, social and environmental outcomes, especially in the NHS.

But instead of government investment directed at the NHS, we now have a coalition for more privatisation of some sort or another, but it is being done by stealth.

I would have more respect for either party if the came out and actually made a proposal for further privatisation by referencing say, one of the European models, with a plan, an argument and public benefit as an outcome

There are such arguments to be had.

But what we seem to be getting is an agreement that reducing government investment is *the* goal (the ‘stomach” for re nationalisation is I’d say, there in the public, but not in stomach, heart or soul of Rachael Reeves and her followers) and, apart from, imho, being a bonkers and broken Ideology all on it’s own, is also holding the doors to the NHS wide open for the likes of Planatir, which will put profit above outcomes all day long

 

[Enfield boy]

Why would there be animosity? Starmer's "change" Labour and the tories are but two cheeks of the same arse.

 

[Mike Hughes]

Politicians leave the hate to extreme members of the electorate.

It’s almost like the last 14 years haven’t happened eh. There has been a long stream of abuse, invective and outright hate from politicians. It has resulted in a number of them being attacked for their views and has actively encouraged abuse and violence from the electorate. To suggest otherwise is nonsense.

 

[Kirk]

Hard to get incontestable figures but the NHS spent around 7% of its budget in 20/21 on independent sector providers (aka the dreaded private sector). This has probably climbed in recent years but certainly not to the point where the NHS's identity is being threatened.

Productivity can encompass workers, investment and capital. Brexit Britain struggles with all three.

 

[Mick P]

It’s almost like the last 14 years haven’t happened eh. There has been a long stream of abuse, invective and outright hate from politicians. It has resulted in a number of them being attacked for their views and has actively encouraged abuse and violence from the electorate. To suggest otherwise is nonsense.

For goodness Mike, get real, it's all a pantomime. It's the keyboard warriors and street protestors who have the real hate. Politicians have more sense.

Ed Balls and George Osbourne were always at each others throats in Parliament but were actually best buddies in real life.

Just remember the old adage "be close to your friends etc etc"

 

[ks.234]

Hard to get incontestable figures but the NHS spent around 7% of its budget in 20/21 on independent sector providers (aka the dreaded private sector). This has probably climbed in recent years but certainly not to the point where the NHS's identity is being threatened.

What is the case for more privatisation over government investment?

 

[Mick P]

What is the case for more privatisation over government investment

It is actually more outsourcing, not privatisation.

 

[ks.234]

For goodness Mike, get real, it's all a pantomime. It's the keyboard warriors and street protestors who have the real hate. Politicians have more sense.

Ed Balls and George Osbourne were always at each others throats in Parliament but were actually best buddies in real life.

Just remember the old adage "be close to your friends etc etc"

Yes, just take a look at their podcast. Both have their thinking parts submerged in the same 200 year old ideology.

Similar with Alistair Campbell and Rory Stewart, except Steward says something interesting occasionally.

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

For goodness Mike, get real, it's all a pantomime. It's the keyboard warriors and street protestors who have the real hate. Politicians have more sense.

Ed Balls and George Osbourne were always at each others throats in Parliament but were actually best buddies in real life.

Just remember the old adage "be close to your friends etc etc"

So, when Kemi Badenoch, or Suella Braverman, or Priti Patel do that 'othering' thing they do in their public statements about immigrants, asylum seekers, small boat migrants, LGBTQ+ people, and all manner of other vulnerable minorities, this is all political pantomime? There's no recognition by you, or the politicians you claim to speak for, that their words get translated into actions by the more extreme elements within our society, and people get hurt. Incitement is just as much a crime in the eyes of the law, as the act it has incited. Trying to airily dismiss this behaviour as 'pantomime' is one of the most grotesque things I think I have ever read from you.

 

[ks.234]

It is actually more outsourcing, not privatisation.

Maybe, but so is the use of private hospitals for the easy (profitable) operations, which is damaging the NHS and effecting outcomes elsewhere

The waiting times for more difficult problems, like cancer, have grown to become the “worse on record”.

Call it outsourcing or call it privatisation, it ain't working.

 

[Mick P]

Maybe, but so is the use of private hospitals for the easy (profitable) operations, which is damaging the NHS and effecting outcomes elsewhere

The waiting times for more difficult problems, like cancer, have grown to become the “worse on record”.

Call it outsourcing or call it privatisation, it ain't working.

Outsourcing does work or it would not happen but that is a long winded and separate discussion.

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

Outsourcing does work or it would not happen but that is a long winded and separate discussion.

'Can work', not 'does work', I think. Very context-dependent.