Tories are considering reducing ESA disability benefit by 30% Watch

Poll: Should disabled people bare more austerity?
Yes (13)
30.23%
No (30)
69.77%
MrJAKEE
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#121
Report 4 years ago
#121
(Original post by illegaltobepoor)
What Billy doesn't seem to understand is that Capitalism is a zero sum game. Its either 0 or 1. Someone loses and someone wins.

And that person who wins will spend a portion of his wealth for his daily needs. He will save 99% of it and use 1% where as everyone who slaves under him will gradually spend more and save less. This is why we have a pyramid structure. And that is Capitalism.

And as you clearly said that it costs a lot to be a lawyer. So this means the wealthier you are the more chance you have to win and the poorer you are the more chance you have to lose.

The rich protect the Pyramid because the rich dont want to work as hard as everyone else and want their opponents to shrug and think we need guys like these rich ceos because there the ones that create the jobs ............

LMAO! The degree of stupidity of useless eaters.
That's ridiculously stereotypical of you to claim such blatantly hilarious things. Yes in life there are winners and losers, no one is equal in productivity (I'm sorry to say!) and so no one is worth the same. Some people are more intelligent than others, heck some pieces of land are not equal to others. In many universities nowadays there are bursaries to enable people from poorer backgrounds to go there; Oxford for example. Although I do wish there was more. I blame the poor education in the UK. Grammar schools should be installed in every town & city to encourage the good people in society (no matter how poor) to work hard & persevere (blame the Tories & Labour for accepting the draconian diatribe of the unions). Money is just a material way of judging how much a person is worth, although nowadays it is slightly skewed. And yes, I would support higher taxation for people on top incomes, but would also advocate less tax on those that have worked (yes those rich CEOs that have worked themselves up to the top.. Like Alan Sugar) as they are the ones who have been bloody successful and given the supposed "lower classes" a job. It's insulting that people claim rich people don't work hard.. I know many people previously at my school who worked bloody hard and achieved high GCSE grades, something money cannot buy.


Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
billydisco
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#122
Report 4 years ago
#122
(Original post by scrotgrot)
Of course they would BTL. And that's why the government needs to take radical action to restrict it - it's a licence to print money.

Having to rent a house in itself makes the tenant unsuccessful and having no money - because all their rent is going to pay the lazy, feckless landlord's mortgage, plus a month-to-month return higher and with less risk than almost any other investment.

Seriously, both you and I, and the rest of the forum, know you're just wilfully obstinate and obtuse over this sort of thing. You simply can't be genuinely too stupid to understand this.

BTL is disgusting and needs to be seriously curtailed if not banned outright. You can't play Monopoly with human necessities like shelter, and if people insist on doing so then the government needs to increase supply.

It really is the classic example of market failure and why governments, as representatives of the majority, need to be empowered to make strong and radical interventions to correct the market.
I am stupid? Please, don't make me laugh........

This country has a very good FREE education system- we are NOT living in the victorian age when I would emphasise with your position because not everybody had access to an education.

If people don't make good use of this FREE education (and the FREE libraries and evening classes) and still end up poor/putting money in the pockets of rich people- then thats survival of the fittest and they were simply too weak!

Summary:

Take advantage of the FREE education you were given.
0
reply
billydisco
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#123
Report 4 years ago
#123
(Original post by MrJAKEE)
That's ridiculously stereotypical of you to claim such blatantly hilarious things. Yes in life there are winners and losers, no one is equal in productivity (I'm sorry to say!) and so no one is worth the same. Some people are more intelligent than others, heck some pieces of land are not equal to others. In many universities nowadays there are bursaries to enable people from poorer backgrounds to go there; Oxford for example. Although I do wish there was more. I blame the poor education in the UK. Grammar schools should be installed in every town & city to encourage the good people in society (no matter how poor) to work hard & persevere (blame the Tories & Labour for accepting the draconian diatribe of the unions). Money is just a material way of judging how much a person is worth, although nowadays it is slightly skewed. And yes, I would support higher taxation for people on top incomes, but would also advocate less tax on those that have worked (yes those rich CEOs that have worked themselves up to the top.. Like Alan Sugar) as they are the ones who have been bloody successful and given the supposed "lower classes" a job. It's insulting that people claim rich people don't work hard.. I know many people previously at my school who worked bloody hard and achieved high GCSE grades, something money cannot buy.


Posted from TSR Mobile
Its nothing to do with money mate, its reverse-snobbery. How often do these socialists mention footballers? or movie stars? Never. Its always bankers and politicians (who earn a LOT less than footballers/film stars)- generally consisting of more upper class people.
0
reply
billydisco
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#124
Report 4 years ago
#124
(Original post by scrotgrot)
Christ almighty - you really think the BBC is socialist?

Those Telegraph articles must really be potent.
When they shove anti-Tory stories on the front page of their website for all to see and yet the Labour-encouraged/PC/leftie-caused Rotherham sex scandal gets bare coverage- yes.
0
reply
scrotgrot
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#125
Report 4 years ago
#125
(Original post by billydisco)
I am stupid? Please, don't make me laugh........

This country has a very good FREE education system- we are NOT living in the victorian age when I would emphasise with your position because not everybody had access to an education.

If people don't make good use of this FREE education (and the FREE libraries and evening classes) and still end up poor/putting money in the pockets of rich people- then thats survival of the fittest and they were simply too weak!

Summary:

Take advantage of the FREE education you were given.
So everyone takes your advice and everyone gets 100% UMS at A-level.

Now what do you do?

As illegaltobepoor said in his reply to the above, capitalism (and competition) is a zero-sum game. Your advice has just devalued the A-level qualification, and you will have to devise something else to separate the wheat from the chaff.

Because jobs don't just magically appear from the ether when people are highly qualified. Jobs are a demand-side phenomenon. There are only a limited amount of slots to fill. If anything, over-educating the population and filling people up with big dreams means they are less likely to be loyal employees when conscripted by the market into a job for which they are vastly overqualified.
0
reply
illegaltobepoor
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#126
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#126
(Original post by billydisco)
I am stupid? Please, don't make me laugh........

This country has a very good FREE education system- we are NOT living in the victorian age when I would emphasise with your position because not everybody had access to an education.

If people don't make good use of this FREE education (and the FREE libraries and evening classes) and still end up poor/putting money in the pockets of rich people- then thats survival of the fittest and they were simply too weak!

Summary:

Take advantage of the FREE education you were given.
It has a rubbish free education system when it comes to computing.
0
reply
MrJAKEE
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#127
Report 4 years ago
#127
(Original post by illegaltobepoor)
It has a rubbish free education system when it comes to computing.
One of my friends taught herself the AS computing course and got an A. It really isn't hard, you can self-teach it on the internet.


Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
MrJAKEE
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#128
Report 4 years ago
#128
(Original post by billydisco)
Its nothing to do with money mate, its reverse-snobbery. How often do these socialists mention footballers? or movie stars? Never. Its always bankers and politicians (who earn a LOT less than footballers/film stars)- generally consisting of more upper class people.
I think so yes. The hypocritical thing is is that Trade Unions like ex RMT lead Bob Crow was earning way over 100k per year along with many other trade union leaders.


Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
MatureStudent36
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#129
Report 4 years ago
#129
(Original post by illegaltobepoor)
He just doesn't like me. For 1 someone on JSA isn't going to be online at 5am in the morning getting ready for LSE to open.
LSE opens at 8 you
Muppet
0
reply
scrotgrot
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#130
Report 4 years ago
#130
(Original post by billydisco)
When they shove anti-Tory stories on the front page of their website for all to see and yet the Labour-encouraged/PC/leftie-caused Rotherham sex scandal gets bare coverage- yes.
Could that be because the Tories are a sitting government and therefore worthy of criticism?

Could you give an example of the front page you're talking about, or a typical one?

The BBC generally reports government spin as if it were fact - for Labour and Tories (who are both right-wing, by the way).

The BBC won't have the Greens in the debates despite there being absolutely no equitable argument against it - because they don't want to give a non-neo-liberal viewpoint a platform.

The BBC is as right-wing as they come, because it's establishment, and the establishment is further right-wing neo-liberal than it has been in a century, if not forever.

As for their reticence on Rotherham, that is because PC/being seen to not be racist is also something that has been encoded into the establishment, same with feminism and other strong identity politics. None of that is really "lefty". It's certainly nothing to do with socialism, as you originally described the BBC.

Most comprehensive studies of news outlets (rather than you whining about one anti-Tory story) find that the BBC falls on the right side of the spectrum, even relatively speaking.
0
reply
MrJAKEE
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#131
Report 4 years ago
#131
(Original post by scrotgrot)
So everyone takes your advice and everyone gets 100% UMS at A-level.

Now what do you do?

As illegaltobepoor said in his reply to the above, capitalism (and competition) is a zero-sum game. Your advice has just devalued the A-level qualification, and you will have to devise something else to separate the wheat from the chaff.

Because jobs don't just magically appear from the ether when people are highly qualified. Jobs are a demand-side phenomenon. There are only a limited amount of slots to fill. If anything, over-educating the population and filling people up with big dreams means they are less likely to be loyal employees when conscripted by the market into a job for which they are vastly overqualified.
The whole point of UMS is to make sure every paper every year is judged equally, so if there is an easy paper one year the UMS grade boundaries are set so it is harder to get a top grade - so I see everyone getting 100% UMS as highly highly unlikely. And yes, there are other things when it comes to a job or uni application, A levels don't mean everything and so there is a UCAS you can write your extra bobs in. I really don't get your argument, of course jobs are a demand-side phenomenon, if you don't like it go and be self-sustaining. (And if you don't like that - migrate!). I really don't get in general the counter argument to capitalism, surely a completely opposite system of everyone having no job or everyone being assigned a job creates exactly the same problems of inequality, so no one wins? It just seems like you're all huffing and puffing attempting to blow the house down


Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
illegaltobepoor
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#132
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#132
(Original post by MatureStudent36)
LSE opens at 8 you
Muppet
Need time to have breakfast, get dressed and get the tube.
0
reply
MatureStudent36
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#133
Report 4 years ago
#133
(Original post by illegaltobepoor)
Need time to have breakfast, get dressed and get the tube.
Amazing as you've claimed to be a day trader dealing in penny sticks working from home in the past.

Do you have mental issues?
0
reply
illegaltobepoor
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#134
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#134
(Original post by MatureStudent36)
Amazing as you've claimed to be a day trader dealing in penny sticks working from home in the past.

Do you have mental issues?
No. I don't spend everyday at home. I'm currently doing a couple of days of high frequency trading training. It can only be done in London.

google haskell + high frequency trading. Your see what i mean.
0
reply
scrotgrot
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#135
Report 4 years ago
#135
(Original post by MrJAKEE)
The whole point of UMS is to make sure every paper every year is judged equally, so if there is an easy paper one year the UMS grade boundaries are set so it is harder to get a top grade - so I see everyone getting 100% UMS as highly highly unlikely.
OK semantics, it's been years since I did A-levels. I'm sure my argument is clear.

And yes, there are other things when it comes to a job or uni application, A levels don't mean everything and so there is a UCAS you can write your extra bobs in. I really don't get your argument, of course jobs are a demand-side phenomenon, if you don't like it go and be self-sustaining. (And if you don't like that - migrate!). I really don't get in general the counter argument to capitalism, surely a completely opposite system of everyone having no job or everyone being assigned a job creates exactly the same problems of inequality, so no one wins? It just seems like you're all huffing and puffing attempting to blow the house down
I'm not making a value judgement on jobs, I'm just informing young Billy here that they are indeed a demand-side phenomenon, as you appear to agree, and for that reason increasing supply (educated people) is not going to magically create jobs, as he thinks it will.

We are all huffing and puffing but the difference is some of us are trying to blow the rich people's house down and some the poor people's house.

The point is that inequality is inevitable and a feedback loop (until everything breaks down), so we have governments and other civil institutions to either periodically or incrementally move the goalposts. That could be, and indeed is, done by taxation, expropriation, legislation, inflation of bubbles...

The alternative being violent revolution, war, genocide or total economic collapse when the feedback loop breaks down.
0
reply
MrJAKEE
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#136
Report 4 years ago
#136
(Original post by scrotgrot)
OK semantics, it's been years since I did A-levels. I'm sure my argument is clear.



I'm not making a value judgement on jobs, I'm just informing young Billy here that they are indeed a demand-side phenomenon, as you appear to agree, and for that reason increasing supply (educated people) is not going to magically create jobs, as he thinks it will.

We are all huffing and puffing but the difference is some of us are trying to blow the rich people's house down and some the poor people's house.

The point is that inequality is inevitable and a feedback loop (until everything breaks down), so we have governments and other civil institutions to either periodically or incrementally move the goalposts. That could be, and indeed is, done by taxation, expropriation, legislation, inflation of bubbles...

The alternative being violent revolution, war, genocide or total economic collapse when the feedback loop breaks down.
A major flaw in your argument is quite simply, globalisation. Indeed, the general gist of job creationism in the future is that it will eventually stagnate and decrease, due to the lack of demand for humans in industries such as farming, industry and care. However at the moment job creation is going up, especially in the STEM jobs. Of course different degrees are worth different amounts, people who leave with a STEM degree will be most likely guaranteed a job in future, whereas, say a history student might face problems. What Billy was mentioning was that irrespective of wealth, one can go to university to do one of these degrees allowing them to have a better future.

Globalisation means foreign companies can come over to the UK, which is highly regarded as one of top places in the world for research, due to some of the best universities being located here (Oxbridge, Imperial etc). An educated population in STEM subjects means we are enticing companies to come here as there will be an ease of finding the appropriate people for the work required (which in science, will not be completed for a very long time in my opinion - meaning a very large demand).

Other than that I would agree with much of what you said. Clearly institutions move the goal posts to attract companies, but it is necessary nowadays to keep people employed in many sectors.

On a slightly different note, I hate it when people say that they have a raw deal with capitalism in the UK. Compared to many other people in the world practically everyone in UK is doing relatively better financially + living "decent" lives.



Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
billydisco
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#137
Report 4 years ago
#137
(Original post by scrotgrot)
So everyone takes your advice and everyone gets 100% UMS at A-level.

Now what do you do?

As illegaltobepoor said in his reply to the above, capitalism (and competition) is a zero-sum game. Your advice has just devalued the A-level qualification, and you will have to devise something else to separate the wheat from the chaff.

Because jobs don't just magically appear from the ether when people are highly qualified. Jobs are a demand-side phenomenon. There are only a limited amount of slots to fill. If anything, over-educating the population and filling people up with big dreams means they are less likely to be loyal employees when conscripted by the market into a job for which they are vastly overqualified.
Earlier on (can't be bothered to find it) I said being "good" is not good enough- you must be "better" than everybody......
0
reply
billydisco
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#138
Report 4 years ago
#138
(Original post by illegaltobepoor)
No. I don't spend everyday at home. I'm currently doing a couple of days of high frequency trading training. It can only be done in London.

google haskell + high frequency trading. Your see what i mean.
Are you going to show me this £160k Haskell job spec or not?
0
reply
billydisco
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#139
Report 4 years ago
#139
(Original post by scrotgrot)
OK semantics, it's been years since I did A-levels. I'm sure my argument is clear.



I'm not making a value judgement on jobs, I'm just informing young Billy here that they are indeed a demand-side phenomenon, as you appear to agree, and for that reason increasing supply (educated people) is not going to magically create jobs, as he thinks it will.

We are all huffing and puffing but the difference is some of us are trying to blow the rich people's house down and some the poor people's house.

The point is that inequality is inevitable and a feedback loop (until everything breaks down), so we have governments and other civil institutions to either periodically or incrementally move the goalposts. That could be, and indeed is, done by taxation, expropriation, legislation, inflation of bubbles...

The alternative being violent revolution, war, genocide or total economic collapse when the feedback loop breaks down.
Are the poor people educated or not? Regardless of grades?

Answer: no. They are completely and utterly stupid. They are worthless. Why? Because they are more interested in TOWIE and sky sports than furthering themselves.

So my point still stands- they didn't take advantage of a decent FREE education, did they?
0
reply
scrotgrot
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#140
Report 4 years ago
#140
(Original post by MrJAKEE)
A major flaw in your argument is quite simply, globalisation. Indeed, the general gist of job creationism in the future is that it will eventually stagnate and decrease, due to the lack of demand for humans in industries such as farming, industry and care. However at the moment job creation is going up, especially in the STEM jobs. Of course different degrees are worth different amounts, people who leave with a STEM degree will be most likely guaranteed a job in future, whereas, say a history student might face problems. What Billy was mentioning was that irrespective of wealth, one can go to university to do one of these degrees allowing them to have a better future.

Globalisation means foreign companies can come over to the UK, which is highly regarded as one of top places in the world for research, due to some of the best universities being located here (Oxbridge, Imperial etc). An educated population in STEM subjects means we are enticing companies to come here as there will be an ease of finding the appropriate people for the work required (which in science, will not be completed for a very long time in my opinion - meaning a very large demand).

Other than that I would agree with much of what you said. Clearly institutions move the goal posts to attract companies, but it is necessary nowadays to keep people employed in many sectors.

On a slightly different note, I hate it when people say that they have a raw deal with capitalism in the UK. Compared to many other people in the world practically everyone in UK is doing relatively better financially + living "decent" lives.
Yes, there are local reversals of entropy such as STEM, but still, there will never be enough STEM jobs to stem (sorry) the entire tide of people coming through the educational system.

Sure, people would benefit from a lot less bull**** marketing and a lot more in-depth careers advice as they transition to university; I myself could have done a STEM degree but did a humanity instead...

So maybe a few graduates currently serving up lattes at Starbucks would have been able to fill these shortages, but the point is that there are never going to be nearly enough shortages to employ the entire cohort if they all went off and did STEM degrees, which is the sort of thing Billy appears to believe.

It's also worth mentioning that if more people did do STEM degrees, even if it was only enough to fill the shortages, wages would still go down for those currently in STEM occupations, because their bargaining power would still have been reduced.

Thanks for the point about companies moving here due to expertise. It's something I hadn't really considered. I will say that it's far from being a panacea though. It's just one sector and companies are quite immobile. When young or nascent they don't have much freedom to set up halfway across the world and when old they may be too large and with an entrenched workforce. Either way I would tend to see the mobility of companies - especially those which require a lot of employees - as being more restricted than the mobility of labour.

Frankly I don't think the British economy is sufficiently specialised in anything apart from financial services - which requires few employees - to really attract enough business from around the world to provide jobs for all of its citizens. But we live in hope, and it's probably the only way to gain a competitive advantage that benefits all citizens in the globalised era.

My problem with capitalism in the UK and the Western world is it is growing increasingly unequal. This leads to us being controlled by the elites, because while poverty is about absolute wealth/power, control is about relative wealth/power. Hollowing out the middle class, jacking up rentier activities and working the poor ever harder for less reward (wages for the poorest 10% have not risen as a share of GDP since 1980) removes the aspiration which is the engine of the consumer economy, and rentiership/wage suppression sucks money out of the real economy and into illiquid investments. This will lead to consequences.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Have you registered to vote?

Yes! (179)
39.51%
No - but I will (25)
5.52%
No - I don't want to (32)
7.06%
No - I can't vote (<18, not in UK, etc) (217)
47.9%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise