Scottish Person
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#1
IMO The EU is set to collapse soon, with Brexit and euroskeptic parties likely to win in Germany and France the EU's days seem to be numbered. While some might cheer about this I see mass instability with an already fragile world economy see German or Italian banks if you don't believe me.

It would be great if I could just say that was it as far as problems are concerned but I'm only just getting started of course there is the environment which looks gloomier by the day (2/3rds of animals extinct by 2020, 2016 hottest year ever)
especially with Trump in the white house.

Then you have the general problems with our modern society, global corporations and the super wealthy are able to completely undermine democracy causing countless problems. Wages have fallen, unbreakable monopolies have formed and in order to try and keep the economy afloat desperate measures such as the constant downsizing of products (Like mars bars) have happened in order for people to still buy them.

Ref for falling wages: http://touchstoneblog.org.uk/2016/07...-equal-greece/

I would love to be proven wrong but I worry about the current trends over the world, from the growth of nationalism, general political unrest and a status quo seemingly more and more incompetent to deal with modern issues such as jobs once the self driving cars are introduced, to tackle the environmental issues in a sensible and efficient manner or have continuous economic growth on a finite planet. I'm probably missing out on half the problems but go ahead prove to me that everything is fine and peachy.
2
reply
astutehirstute
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#2
Report 3 years ago
#2
Please stop spelling scepticism in the American fashion.

If you aren't a Yank (and since you claim to be a Scot you would seem not to be) it is deeply irritating.
1
reply
the bear
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#3
Report 3 years ago
#3
(Original post by Scottish Person)
prove to me that everything is fine and peachy.


2
reply
the bear
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#4
Report 3 years ago
#4
(Original post by Foo.mp3)
the folly of pseudo-progressive repressive/exploitative/extractive neo-liberalism but these eventualities are, to my mind, an anthropological near inevitability, and integral to the evolution, and elevation, of the human condition
or Pseudo-progressiven repressiven / ausbeuterischen / extraktiven Neoliberalismus as our friends in Bonn would say

:toofunny:
0
reply
sunshine774
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#5
Report 3 years ago
#5
(Original post by Scottish Person)
IMO The EU is set to collapse soon, with Brexit and euroskeptic parties likely to win in Germany and France the EU's days seem to be numbered. While some might cheer about this I see mass instability with an already fragile world economy see German or Italian banks if you don't believe me.

It would be great if I could just say that was it as far as problems are concerned but I'm only just getting started of course there is the environment which looks gloomier by the day (2/3rds of animals extinct by 2020, 2016 hottest year ever)
especially with Trump in the white house.

Then you have the general problems with our modern society, global corporations and the super wealthy are able to completely undermine democracy causing countless problems. Wages have fallen, unbreakable monopolies have formed and in order to try and keep the economy afloat desperate measures such as the constant downsizing of products (Like mars bars) have happened in order for people to still buy them.

Ref for falling wages: http://touchstoneblog.org.uk/2016/07...-equal-greece/

I would love to be proven wrong but I worry about the current trends over the world, from the growth of nationalism, general political unrest and a status quo seemingly more and more incompetent to deal with modern issues such as jobs once the self driving cars are introduced, to tackle the environmental issues in a sensible and efficient manner or have continuous economic growth on a finite planet. I'm probably missing out on half the problems but go ahead prove to me that everything is fine and peachy.
Don't worry, I worry about these things a lot too!
1
reply
Scottish Person
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#6
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#6
(Original post by sunshine774)
Don't worry, I worry about these things a lot too!
Glad to know I'm not the only one, ironic your name is sunshine though xD
0
reply
sunshine774
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#7
Report 3 years ago
#7
(Original post by Scottish Person)
Glad to know I'm not the only one, ironic your name is sunshine though xD
Yeah but I try my best to stay positive and I'm a happy person- and despite all this I still have faith in humanity!
0
reply
skunkboy
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#8
Report 3 years ago
#8
It could be such a bright future for Soros. What if he could control American media and communities.

I'm really compassionate towards US right now. I never thought...just an ugly old Soros could tear America apart. This greedy soul doesn't care actually.

He uses any means to make money fast and in large amounts . But it's impossible to make an omelet without breaking eggs!

The buy low,sell high philosophy makes him a big wizard of the universe!

What country is next? :-)

Name:  1479238102421.jpg
Views: 169
Size:  29.5 KB

Name:  1479238134309.jpg
Views: 166
Size:  33.3 KB

Name:  1479238160380.jpg
Views: 160
Size:  13.5 KB

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
L i b
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#9
Report 3 years ago
#9
(Original post by Scottish Person)
Then you have the general problems with our modern society, global corporations and the super wealthy are able to completely undermine democracy causing countless problems.
They really don't. If you think the world's biggest companies are particularly happy with the political direction of either Britain or the US right now, I think you'd be very wrong indeed.

Wages have fallen,

...

Ref for falling wages: http://touchstoneblog.org.uk/2016/07...-equal-greece/
Wages have fallen in real terms in the UK following the 2008 recession. However earnings have increased - as there are more people in work and more hours being worked. As such, we have higher disposable incomes (let's not forget too that real terms disposable incomes have doubled since the 1980s and tripled since the 1970s).

This is worth a read if you're interested in a rather less slanted analysis.

I would love to be proven wrong but I worry about the current trends over the world, from the growth of nationalism, general political unrest and a status quo seemingly more and more incompetent to deal with modern issues such as jobs once the self driving cars are introduced, to tackle the environmental issues in a sensible and efficient manner or have continuous economic growth on a finite planet. I'm probably missing out on half the problems but go ahead prove to me that everything is fine and peachy.
The problem is that you're to some extent being contradictory here. In one breath, you're complaining about the rise of nationalism; in the other, you're complaining about favourable treatment of global corporations. Ultimately you're either in favour of globalised free trade or you're more into economic nationalism. Sure, there's a sliding scale, but don't think for a second that the left are immune from their own insularity on this point.

As for "modern issues", technological advancement and so on: if it increases productivity, the more the better. Britain has lagged behind in productivity growth for a long time and we really need our workers to be generating more for the hours they work. This involves things like automation, more efficient sectors and a reduced reliance on low-pay, low-skill positions.

It has ever been so - for everyone who has complained that their interests are affected by the march of modernity, there are countless more who silently reap the benefits over decades and generations. Luddism has never benefited society.

We've made a great deal of progress on the environment, but it's not necessarily been through the sort of political action I think you're envisaging. Instead, technology has reduced the need to heat and light our homes through burning massive amounts of coal. Cars are more efficient than ever before.

The areas where there is little progress are developing countries, where they - in my mind quite legitimately - value economic growth over concerns about climate change. It's quite a thing for us to tell them that climate change will impact them when our wealth gives us a great deal of immunity from natural disasters and the negative effects of the weather. These societies see more keenly than we do that they cannot stand still and that their lives will be hugely improved by infrastructure, investment and development. They're probably right.
0
reply
L i b
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#10
Report 3 years ago
#10
(Original post by Foo.mp3)
It's been clear the Eurozone, and broader institutions of the EU, and the environment, were ****ed either way for some time now

Out of ordered chaos comes disordered chaos, followed by authoritarianism, rebellion, and, finally, a brave new world

Our generation, and the next, will suffer greatly as a result of the folly of pseudo-progressive repressive/exploitative/extractive neo-liberalism but these eventualities are, to my mind, an anthropological near inevitability, and integral to the evolution, and elevation, of the human condition
Or, alternatively, whether or not we stay in one trade block of another isn't really of a huge deal of consequence on a global and generational level. These "neo-liberal" policies that you're complaining about have created huge advances across the globe in a very, very short space of time. I have little doubt that they will continue to do so.
0
reply
L i b
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#11
Report 3 years ago
#11
(Original post by Foo.mp3)
Such as?..

Any more (equitably) wealthy? Nope, the reverse

Are we really any happier? Nope, the reverse

Any more safe/secure? Nope, the reverse

Living much longer? Not really, no

Call that 'progress'? Nope
1. There has been a massive increase in wealth across all sectors of society: as I pointed out, real terms disposable incomes in this country have grown hugely in only a few decades. In reality, economic inequality in this country has been pretty flat since the 1980s, but I'm not really an economic equality campaigner.

2. I'm pretty sure we are rather happier. Let's look at it this way: I'm far happier in my life that I would have been working in heavy industry or some other backbreaking labour that was common even in relatively recent times. I'm far happier to have more money to spend, greater access to luxury goods, to be able to routinely have things that would have been unimaginable to my grandparents when they were my age.

3. More secure? Yes. Much. The rare of death from armed conflict has fallen enormously. Safer? I'm not really sure how you're measuring that. Violent crime? Certainly down over recent decades in most of the developed world.

4. Living much longer? Certainly. Life expectancies are increasing markedly. To quote the ONS "Life expectancy at birth has increased by 13.1 weeks per year on average since 1980–1982 for males and 9.5 weeks per year on average for females in the UK". That's quite incredible. In just 1980, the life expectancy in the UK was 70.81 years. In 2015 (well, actually, 2013-15), it was 79.09. That's nothing short of amazing.

If you fancy a more global picture, according to the World Bank, the life expectancy across the world was 53 in 1960 - in 2014, it was 72.

So yes, I not only call that progress, I call that little short of miraculous.
0
reply
Scottish Person
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#12
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#12
(Original post by L i b)
They really don't. If you think the world's biggest companies are particularly happy with the political direction of either Britain or the US right now, I think you'd be very wrong indeed.



Wages have fallen in real terms in the UK following the 2008 recession. However earnings have increased - as there are more people in work and more hours being worked. As such, we have higher disposable incomes (let's not forget too that real terms disposable incomes have doubled since the 1980s and tripled since the 1970s).

This is worth a read if you're interested in a rather less slanted analysis.



The problem is that you're to some extent being contradictory here. In one breath, you're complaining about the rise of nationalism; in the other, you're complaining about favourable treatment of global corporations. Ultimately you're either in favour of globalised free trade or you're more into economic nationalism. Sure, there's a sliding scale, but don't think for a second that the left are immune from their own insularity on this point.

As for "modern issues", technological advancement and so on: if it increases productivity, the more the better. Britain has lagged behind in productivity growth for a long time and we really need our workers to be generating more for the hours they work. This involves things like automation, more efficient sectors and a reduced reliance on low-pay, low-skill positions.

It has ever been so - for everyone who has complained that their interests are affected by the march of modernity, there are countless more who silently reap the benefits over decades and generations. Luddism has never benefited society.

We've made a great deal of progress on the environment, but it's not necessarily been through the sort of political action I think you're envisaging. Instead, technology has reduced the need to heat and light our homes through burning massive amounts of coal. Cars are more efficient than ever before.

The areas where there is little progress are developing countries, where they - in my mind quite legitimately - value economic growth over concerns about climate change. It's quite a thing for us to tell them that climate change will impact them when our wealth gives us a great deal of immunity from natural disasters and the negative effects of the weather. These societies see more keenly than we do that they cannot stand still and that their lives will be hugely improved by infrastructure, investment and development. They're probably right.
I don't agree with everything you've said but overall this is the sort of post I was hoping for and has actually taught me a lot especially about developing countries investing in infrastructure to deal with the negative effects of the weather rather than combating climate change the MEDC way.

I actually somewhat like the idea of economic nationalism strangely but I don't like the baggage or the rhetoric of the politicians that promote it. Guess we will just have to see how this economic nationalism plays out. Still hope something stops Trump's stupid ideas from passing such as his ideas on foreign policy and the environment to name a few.
0
reply
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#13
Report 3 years ago
#13
(Original post by Scottish Person)
I don't agree with everything you've said but overall this is the sort of post I was hoping for and has actually taught me a lot especially about developing countries investing in infrastructure to deal with the negative effects of the weather rather than combating climate change the MEDC way.

I actually somewhat like the idea of economic nationalism strangely but I don't like the baggage or the rhetoric of the politicians that promote it. Guess we will just have to see how this economic nationalism plays out. Still hope something stops Trump's stupid ideas from passing such as his ideas on foreign policy and the environment to name a few.
People in the UK like the idea of protectionism because they have a manufacturing fetish and picture high paid workers on a production line. What they don't consider is that actually by abolishing tarrifs on steel imports and letting the 20,000 people get made redundant the disinflationary pressure resulting from cheaper steel imports will probably generate 50,000 jobs across car showrooms, the construction industry and some high skilled jobs in car production as manufacturers have a bigger incentive to come here.

The real way to think about protectionism is.. Do i think that we should pay more for goods in order to protect jobs in manufacturing. If you answer yes then go for it, if not then your a free trader probably.
0
reply
BibleMan
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#14
Report 3 years ago
#14
I am afraid it is worse than you imagined, one the old roman empire revives (EU ARMY etc) things will turn to complete chaos, read the bible.
0
reply
L i b
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#15
Report 3 years ago
#15
(Original post by Scottish Person)
I actually somewhat like the idea of economic nationalism strangely but I don't like the baggage or the rhetoric of the politicians that promote it.
Everything has its upsides, certainly. Globalism arguably takes unskilled and semi-skilled jobs away from developed nations like the UK - at least in the shorter-term - and the motive force of global capitalism is certainly not cushioned: market forces largely outside of an individual's control can have a huge impact on individual lives. Interdependence can have some serious consequences too - say Britain got into a major war again without a credible agricultural base to feed ourselves from.

Most ideological positions end up being a trade-off or a balance. I'm an economic liberal internationalist type, as I'm sure you realise. But I recognise the perfectly legitimate concerns on the other side of the argument.
0
reply
ThePurging
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#16
Report 3 years ago
#16
The future is very dark for Europe..

0
reply
L i b
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#17
Report 3 years ago
#17
(Original post by Foo.mp3)
Real terms wage increases have been virtually non-existant this past decade, and weren't much to rejoice in the noughties

Whilst there were indeed impressive gains up to the turn of the century, this past generation (as far back as the 80s) income and wealth inequality have grown significantly in the relatively Crony Capitalist dominated, and (hence) deregulated, Atlantic Nations. Today the richest 10% own around half of all UK wealth, whereas half the population collectively own less than 10%
Indeed, wages have not grown considerably and have not recovered in the UK in an effective way since the recession in 2008. That's a fairly damning indictment, particularly on Britain's productivity problem. Earnings, however, have increased far faster as employment has increased markedly - which, of course, disproportionately benefits the worst-off in our society far more than uniform wage growth would.

I've already said I'm not an economic equality campaigner. I recognise the Gini coefficient for the UK increased in the 1980s - but has been more or less flat in statistical terms since the 1990s - although there has been a statistically significant decline since 2008, which you should probably be celebrating if you take that view.

On the whole though, I think a level of inequality is an effective driver of the economy. That inequality has grown in tandem with living standards, while societies going in the opposite direction have floundered, perhaps tell us something about inequality – then again, I might be getting too close to the correlation/causation fallacy there.

If you look into the economics of inequality and social epidemiology, you find that perceptions relating to wealth and comfort are not so much to do with individual gains, but more so with interpersonal relativistic comparison i.e. if economic systems become more unequal people feel less wealthy/happy, even if their individual income/wealth may have increased a little
People certainly relate their wealth to their peers. A six-figure household salary for a couple in London may seem very wealthy to someone elsewhere in the UK, but among peer groups you can very easily think you're just getting by. However, as you might expect, there’s a limited degree of sympathy there. If improving people’s wealth is not filtering through into their perceptions, then it’s the perceptions that must yield – not the economic system.

How do we define “huge advances” i.e. profound improvements in the human condition, if not by people feeling more wealthy and content? This is the problem that the establishment now has to address (given the rise of populism, partly in the context of these socioeconomic pressures). Politics and Economics must evolve
Equally we might have to accept that affluence causes a level of decadence and leads to things like the rise of populist politics. Or we could look at history and note that populist politics have arisen at many periods in the past very different from the one we currently inhabit.

Mass immigration and state multiculturalism - fairly naked social engineering, brought to you by a political left desperate to create safe constituencies and a global capitalist elite on a cost cutting drive - has scarcely advanced (in recent years, significantly worsened) inter-cultural relations or social conditions
I’m not immune to the notion that immigration has negative consequences and do think some aspects of our immigration policy have, in the past couple of decades, been thoroughly ridiculous. That said, the value of immigration labour has given this country a great deal of the success it has enjoyed in recent times. It’s one of the consequences of Brexit too – if the Government doesn’t appreciate the need for immigration, not just at a wealthy and highly skilled level, then it will harm us.

You lack a solid frame of reference and do not speak for the nation. There have been improvements in terms of health and safety, and diversification/evolution in industry/industrial practices, but these are certainly not contingent upon neoliberal globalism (although they do of course relate to advancement associated with global engagement which, it must be stressed, has been ongoing for thousands of years)
Neoliberal globalism is what, however, advances these causes.

Luxury goods don’t buy you happiness either, as per the testimony of many a whore to materialism (just see how poor little social media stars break down when their grossly superficial, hyperpersonal, hyperconsumerist virtual realities come caving in). We are social animals; we thrive on social commonality (equity), connectivity (non-segregation), and certainty (empowered vocational/financial stability). Take the those things out of the equation and almost no matter how much moola you slosh about e.g. on average, people soon find themselves living a very hollow, somewhat haunted, existence

Your grandparents enjoyed this thing called human dignity. You can see it on the faces of relatively untouched indigenous tribes in places like the Amazon. Where you cannot see it is on the faces of, for example, the affected tribes of Standing Rock
You say that, but I think human dignity is better served by increased leisure time, less work and access choice and decisions. You may think luxury goods do not buy happiness, but the last 50 years has unchained women from the kitchen, led to longer life expectancies, better health, reduced energy costs and consumption… we’re not talking about diamond-studded gold watches worn by rappers here, but about the washing machine, the freezer, the vacuum cleaner and central heating.

Perhaps you are unaware how close NeoCon US ‘deep government’ is to engineering wholly voidable conflict with a nuclear power it has repeatedly sanctioned (under dubious circumstances) and backed into a corner. If you know anything about international relations and strategic study you’ll know that the prospect of East-West escalation and possible “limited nuclear conflict” (as the sociopaths like to call it) is pretty much at its highest level since The Cuban Missle Crisis

You’ll also be aware of the massive recent influx of hoodlums and Islamists from Africa, the Middle East, and Asia – a great many of them males of fighting age – into Europe and the fact that we already have 3,000,000 people in the UK whose primary loyalty and allegiance is to their 'brothers and sisters' and, more fundamentally, to an ideologically incompatible, hostile, divisive, oppressive, and combative, supreme immortal whose direct commandment can never be questioned/reformed

Already, members drawn from this community are 3.25 times overrepresented in our prison population, and 7+ times overrepresented in French and Belgian systems. These ratios are even lower than they in fact should be e.g. against a backdrop of paralysing political correctness that has meant that the safety and security of tens of thousands of vulnerable women and children across Europe has been sacrificed, abandoned to rape and sexual slavery. Why? Thanks to neoliberal globalist inspired ‘one world’ free movement, and the related normalisation/legalistic
Yet strangely enough, we have a great many Muslims – who I assume are the individuals you are directing your ire at here – who work in our health service, who pay their taxes, who live modestly and decently, who give to charity and have nothing whatsoever to do with the sort of extremism you seem to be suggesting.

As for Russia, I’m entirely mindful of the botched job that the Nato countries have made of relations with Russia in recent years. I’m not sure of the relevance though.

The past generation enjoyed a significant increase, aye, but life expectancy has a lagged effect. Watch what happens to the stats as the impact of modern industrial/lifestyle norms hit home. Look at the rise of cancer, not just among old people (up by a factor of several times, prematurely claiming a number of much loved icons in the past year alone), but also among the young (up over 50%). Look at the mass-pandemics of heart and neurodegenerative diseases (dementia), and consider the effect of hyperconsumption, smog, and electrosmog on these thematics (profound)
I had to look up electro-smog. It’s a conspiracy theory. I can more or less guarantee you that life expectancy will continue to increase.
0
reply
cbreef
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#18
Report 3 years ago
#18
(Original post by Foo.mp3)
Not sure what you mean by “earnings”. In Economics, we typically define earnings as quarterly/yearly company profits or as weekly pay. Neither of these things are necessarily contingent upon greater employment; the later is expected to move counter to it, in classical economic theory. At any rate, an average increase in corporate, or individual, earnings, again, does not necessarily benefit the worst off in the slightest, let alone disproportionately (not sure where you’re getting that idea from)

Our income gini has improved in the order of 2% during the recent blip in the trend, but this does not reflect the fact that the top 10% have held on, in spite of this broader improvement, nor the fact that the elites continue to cream off the top (below). Consistent with this (recent) history, and the relativistic stats I made mention of in my earlier commentary, we have a wealth gini coefficient of 67.8%. This is morally untenable, socially destabilising, and economically unsustainable

Spoiler:
Show




Spoiler:
Show





Correct

Such as? I invite you to watch the lecture I provided. Living standards do not necessarily make for a more contented populous

It is as if you’re treating humans as Homo Economicus. Economics has moved on since the 1950s. No longer do we conceive of humans as perfectly rational agents purely focused on maximising (material vestiges of) personal utility. Hence, Behavioural Economics (see the lit review in my dissertation, for an introduction to this helpful evolution of our ‘social science’)

We might have to accept that human interaction leads to increased risk of deadly disease pandemics. Or, we might think it prescient to do something about the nascent threat, following early identification. We are not simply destined to become passengers in our own voyage of discovery, we have the opportunity, post enlightenment, to drive human progress in a direction approaching social/socioeconomic optimality, if only we have the wherewithal to get behind the wheel and the wisdom to know when to shift gears, or to amend our route e.g. in response to changeability in 'road conditions'

This is an unhelpful tautology. To ignore the lessons from history, and seek to deny any meaningful associations, is not just anti-intellectual but socially irresponsible

Would you care to quantify this ‘great deal’ with some figures, or is this mere parroting of politically correct spiel from the status quo political/media elites?

What is one of the consequences? A reduction in unskilled labour flows from the EU? It’s a possible consequence, aye, depending on the settlement, but not necessarily a significantly harmful one to our people, on balance. To our short to medium term domestic productivity, and in particular corporate profitability in labour intensive sectors, yes, but, as explicated, this is not synonymous with the welfare of the nation

It is one of many factors that influence, and yes sometimes, in some respects, have played an important role in advancing, some of these developments, but it cannot be approached as a categorical enabler, ignoring counter-factual possibilities of continued advancement, as indicated by systems that have not been similarly compromised by the neoliberal agenda, both historically and contemporarily comparatively speaking

I tend to agree. Unfortunately work/life balance has been going in the opposite direction for some time, hence the need for the Working Time Directive



Any searching sociologist/infant health and development researcher with a shred of moral/intellectual integrity would pause before celebrating the decimation of traditional gender norms/roles, and associated increase in the divorce rate/decrease in the number engaging in the historically socially/familial stabilising institution of matrimony. I would encourage you, and anyone reading this, to do the same (as per my earlier commentary on women’s lib, plus a number of other related posts, to include these)

In what way is neoliberal globalism responsible for this e.g. given that it arguably only really became a monster (of privatisation/deregulation) in the 80s/90s?

Plenty would take issue with this e.g. given the much maligned energy cost element of the 'cost of living crisis', and arguable cartelisation/oligopoly/foreign ownership of significant elements of the UK energy sector

None of these goods are either essential for our survival nor represent a remarkable net improvement in our quality of life if you examine related usage in a socially nuanced way



Nor was their innovation/spread contingent upon the existence of globalism, let alone neolibalism. People seem to forget (and I accept that you are no fan of our industrial heritage, or of a return to an economy rebalanced by a sizeable manufacturing sector) that Britain and the USA used to make things. Hoover and Dyson ring any bells?

Jesu-moralist humanitarians are unlikely to feel a lasting sense of anger towards any people bound by the sorts of tribal and associative instincts that I am, as a reasonably learned and perspicacious social scientist and follower/debater of current affairs, by now very well aware affect us all

The only serious antipathy I have is toward the establishment, for creating a multicultural mess that will, it (increasingly) seems depressingly likely, surely result in misery for tens of millions across Europe (and most of those worst affected are, unfortunately, likely to be members of minority groups, rather than the elites, who will be doing their best to mimic the Tony Blair disappearing act, when the proverbial really hits the fan)

Everyone under the sun works in our NHS, this does not render anyone immune from criticism. To suggest otherwise is as facile as it is puerile

Some do, some don’t. Non-EEA migrants cost the exchequer in the order of net £15bn p.a., and only around half of Muslim men, and a quarter of Muslim women, are economically active. Forgive me if I’m not overwhelmed by the economic contribution of this purportedly 'culturally enriching' community

Where are you based, and are you a member of said community? The stats (those given, plus a host of others, including these), and the direct, empirical experience of people who do actually have to live side by side with these parallel societies, speak rather differently. Best to be informed before making bold/dismissive claims



With the rise of populism, and the wolf of financial collapse fundamentally no further from the door, the neoliberal house of cards is in the process of stacking. The powers that be – those who orchestrated, presided over, and profited from this insidious paradigm – are positioning themselves in order to be able to cling to power, influence, and assets, when the next major correction hits

Manufactured conflict represents one such 'Plan B' scenario as it would mean an economic reset/confiscation of assets and monetary hedges like gold, along with a marked degradation of civil liberties and Democratic representation/collective political and bargaining power going relatively unnoticed/unopposed

Their M.O. is as it ever was, from the time of the early New World, and African, genocides, through the French, and World Wars, 9/11 and the Iraq Wars, to today: deflect, distract, divide, disenfranchise, denude, destroy



It’s not a conspiracy theory (although there are related, rather far fetched, conspiracy theories out there e.g. that it represents a concerted attempt to control/subdue minds). What it is, in fact, is an envelope term used to describe anthropogenic electromagnetic fields/radiation that constitutes a form of pollution known, and repeatedly shown, to interfere with a number of physiological processes

It is, further, and relatedly, associated with a deterioration in health and functioning (as well as particular illnesses like cancer) among some people, myself included, upon (chronic) exposure. If you wish to discuss/debate this there is a thread for that, but I would caution you not to pursue a line that makes a mockery of an incredibly intrusive and limiting disability that has made life extremely difficult for people like myself

I hope you’re right, but sadly have a number of reasons to suppose the contrary will transpire, given what I know of related nascent health pandemics, in the light of fairly considerable secondary biomed research
Not sure why you tagged me in this.... I haven't bothered to read this essay yet though so maybe I'll find out. :rofl:
1
reply
nulli tertius
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#19
Report 3 years ago
#19
(Original post by Mathemagicien)
Then of course, none of this spells doom as much as Africa's population boom. Their population will quadruple to 4 billion by the end of the century, and combined with industrialisation, CO2 emissions will go through the roof. Africa can't sustain that many people, but those people are being born regardless. So we'll see huge famines, diseases, and wars in Africa, and decades of biblical scale emigration, doubtless causing much chaos in Europe, magnitudes worse than in 2015.
Given that this is mantra that has been asserted at various times over the last 200 years about various countries including our own and has not yet ever been proved correct in any one of them, the onus is on you to demonstrate why Africa is different.
0
reply
Cremated_Spatula
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#20
Report 3 years ago
#20
(Original post by the bear)




Hakuna matata
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
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 considered distance learning for any of your qualifications?

Yes! I'm on a distance learning course right now (7)
8.86%
Yes, I've thought about it but haven't signed up yet (8)
10.13%
No, but maybe I will look into it (21)
26.58%
No and I wouldn't consider it (43)
54.43%

Watched Threads

View All