Food for thought - Climate Change

[Linas.P]

11 hours ago, Boomer54 said:

Got you. " gives undue influence from parents to the child's future". Lord forbid any of us care enough about our children that we wish to try to 'influence' their future.

I really am proving nothing at this point other than it is perfectly natural for a parent to try and raise their child to the best of their ability. You seem to have a problem with that which I really don't wish to get into.

I will leave the issue here ...bon voyage.

I think it is you who is taking that literally now... I have provided analogy for a reason. As a parent would you go as far as paying money for your kids to cheat in marathon? The private education has same influence kids education, kids from public schools will struggle more at every step, getting in university, then from worse university getting into best jobs etc. They can still get there, they just going to work much harder - this is zero sum game, one kid having easier as well makes another kid having it harder when they compete for same university places, same jobs etc. 

Most normal parents will try to make their kids future better, that is fine... but you still failing to see it from child perspective, especially the one who does not have good parents. And not only that you ignoring the rest of my arguments of how not having private education would benefit the society overall. 

And sorry, if I wasn't explicitly clear - I am not blaming parents for paying for such "shortcut" in their kids education, no I am blaming government for allowing it to exist. I understand that parents will want best for their kids even if it comes at the expense of other people kids, that is kind of natural parental thing, but that is why in society we should set-up education in such way that this does not happen and parents don't need to worry about this. 

[Boomer54]

4 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

I think it is you who is taking that literally now... I have provided analogy for a reason. As a parent would you go as far as paying money for your kids to cheat in marathon? The private education has same influence kids education, kids from public schools will struggle more at every step, getting in university, then from worse university getting into best jobs etc. They can still get there, they just going to work much harder - this is zero sum game, one kid having easier as well makes another kid having it harder when they compete for same university places, same jobs etc. 

Most normal parents will try to make their kids future better, that is fine... but you still failing to see it from child perspective, especially the one who does not have good parents. And not only that you ignoring the rest of my arguments of how not having private education would benefit the society overall. 

A new day , fuelled for the 'fight'.

So, to summarise, you think a better option for Education is to intervene in people's ability to make a choice on the issue.  For example, you probably have no issue with paying for classes in self defence for the child who goes on to be a boxer , tennis lessons for you know what, private tuition for you know what. You don't though want people to be able to choose to pay for their childs education. Let's extend the argument to show the fallacy at it's heart. As I tried to point out at the very beginning there is nothing special about a right to an education. If you believe in that right why would you not believe in the right to healthcare for example to further people's right to longevity. However, if you do then presumably you wouldn't support people being able to pay for private healthcare? We could of course find many ways to extend this argument based upon 'rights', but they all lead back to the same basic issue. Do we have a right to make personal choices? On your side of the argument you want to see a reduction in those choices. You wish to advocate for an intrusion into peoples personal liberties. Surely you do, because the moment you start taking away personal choice that is what you are doing.

I am going to write something separately so as not to muddy the above.

[Boomer54]

Could I ask you to read this...

Tripartite System of education in England, Wales and Northern Ireland - Wikipedia

It's not bad as a summary of how we got here. You see once upon a time we had a system that tried to identify the 'smart kids' and let them progress based upon merit. Labour didn't see it that way. Indeed, I could argue they were guilty of 'perfect solution ' idiocy. Instead of focusing on how that system did lead to greater social mobility they turned it on it's head and basically said the system is no good because it 'traps' too many people from advancing not quite understanding that not advancing academically is not the same as failing. So, they resolved that by removing anything that streams people according to their abilities at least until higher education levels.

In effect they removed "choice". That is a word I keep coming back to. The thing is though for every action there is a reaction, but not always equal of course. Not just a law of Physics ,but equally applicable to psychologically motivated behaviour. In this case people took back their choice the only way they could and private education went from being a relatively niche issue to becoming more widely available to people who wished to choose to pay for it.

In time of course govts made a similar error by encouraging University inclusiveness. Today we churn out people with degrees that really tell us very little about them. The merit system you advocate for we once had at least to some degree. perfect?. No, but better than what we now have.

In conclusion, private education exists in the main because there is a raison d'etre for it that was mostly created because government took away the very thing you are advocating for educational advancement by merit. I am genuinely sorry to say the secondary and higher education system that we now have really is just an apology for a system that channels people by merit into a career that is best suited to their strengths.

Larger scale Private education exists only because of the above.

For full disclosure I am living proof that social mobility and Grammar schools worked ,not perfectly, but better than what existed before.

[Malc1]

and if it's not already been mentioned  .............  the great great advantage to errant parents to be enabled to pay to send their kids to Private School so's they're out of the goddam way and sometimes being able to leave the kids at the school during the holidays so they don't have to have them under their feet ..........

I remember this from a couple of decades back when my erstwhile 2nd wife was working at an esteemed and brilliant private School ...  having to cope with this sort of attitude from some challenging parents .......  nice kids, just goddam challenging parents up themselves with self-importance sadly

Sort of Private Schooling taking the place of some Social Services that would otherwise be paid for and a drain on the taxpayer  😇

Malc

[Boomer54]

1 hour ago, Malc1 said:

and if it's not already been mentioned  .............  the great great advantage to errant parents to be enabled to pay to send their kids to Private School so's they're out of the goddam way and sometimes being able to leave the kids at the school during the holidays so they don't have to have them under their feet ..........

I remember this from a couple of decades back when my erstwhile 2nd wife was working at an esteemed and brilliant private School ...  having to cope with this sort of attitude from some challenging parents .......  nice kids, just goddam challenging parents up themselves with self-importance sadly

Sort of Private Schooling taking the place of some Social Services that would otherwise be paid for and a drain on the taxpayer  😇

Malc

My regards to your Ex been a moment.😉

[Boomer54]

Actually Malc ,my niece has been a teacher in state schools for quite sometime. All of your comments apply there plus a lot more regarding violent and anti social behaviour (that's just the parents) and the kids are even worse 😀. She no longer teaches in state schools now being self employed teaching special needs having decided that she didn't sign on to raise the kids as well as teach them. The stories she told. All I can say is if even half of it was true then sending mine private was one of the best decisions I ever made.

[Linas.P]

6 hours ago, Boomer54 said:

A new day , fuelled for the 'fight'.

Yes coffee + ice cream was fuelling me. As well, I do not consider this a fight, rather an interesting topic to discuss, hopefully this does not strain you too much... 

I had slightly different response drafted but you have distracted me with Tripartite System reading... I can clearly see why somebody would have an issue with it, so I think it is correct that system was abolished, it was clearly flawed... that said it's replacement is clearly not addressed the issues and arguably made some issues with education worse.

I think I would like to take a step back here and just recognise that we going further apart on this discussion and I feel like you building a strawman... to be fair your building it from my statements, but you keep squiring around the core idea I am arguing about. Either that or it is my fault for not explaining it properly.

To start with, maybe the confusion is that I do indeed consider Education as a special and different area than anything else... So comparison even to Healthcare does not work, you paying for private medical care does not hurt my health in any way, so yes of course it is fine for people just to pay for their private medical care. This for sure this should not be an excuse to destroy public medical care, but in itself is not an issue. Education is different thought, again I would like to point you back to my analogy which I believe illustrates the issue quite well. The existence of private education does not make kids to compete on their merits between the two systems, it just means that kids in private schools have advantage and that is all. You yourself said that public schools are rather horrible from the stories you heard from your family... wouldn't it be right to make the public schools decent? Wouldn't that even benefit people like you, because public schools being decent would mean you can keep your money for something more exciting than just paying for your kids education?

In summary, the way I understand what you saying - past government ruined education, nowadays the reality is that you either caught-up a lot of money to send your kids to private school or you basically ruin their life. I am not even sure what we are disagreeing with here, because I think the same... basically those that can afford private schools are working around government created problem, and all the rest who can't afford or whose parents do not care can pretty much burn? Is that acceptable in developed world and society? As well what makes it so bad is that people who are suffering here are not the ones making decisions, it is kids who are suffering, not their parents... that is why I don't think parents should have that choice at all, because the consequences are on kids not parents. Still the big point which still seems to be amiss - kids cannot choose the education they will receive, so I am not advocating for removing any choice here, kids don't have choice, so I am advocating for that only choice they have to be the right one, society and the government has to ensure it, because kids can't ensure it for themselves.

[Malc1]

17 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

so I am advocating for that only choice they have to be the right one, society and the government has to ensure it, because kids can't ensure it for themselves.

I'm thinking you're all just ignoring the simplicity of life and kids education in the UK being totally bereft of anything very pleasant in times past .  between the 2 wars and early 1950's 60's .  some of it to my personal knowledge being so so lacking in much academic knowledge ....... the teachers having to cope with parents and families really really on the breadline and so impoverished ........ many a sad sight I'm sure and quite possibly a lot worse than it might be today .......... Foodbanks and ClothesBanks ....  jeez school uniform banks too these days .  Wot School Uniforms in the 50's etc ..  lucky to have trousers with seats in their pants .......... !!!!!

Great maybe to have Private Education that's relieving some strain from the National Education System AND those Private Schools sometimes being able to " share " some of their good fortune with local Non-Private kids ..........  swimming pool availability maybe ........... sharing school playing fields whatever

Not looking deep enough into the total scenario would be a utter failing methinks  .  there's never going to be enough money in the State systems to bring what's ideal to kids today, there never was and probably never will be  ... there's no money tree you know !

Malc

[First_Lexus]

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-conspiracy-against-grammar-schools/

I’m finding this debate about education interesting and constructive. The different opinions and perspectives show why successive Governments have struggled to really implement change for the benefit of our young people.

My own perspective, for what it’s worth, is as follows. We speak about ‘education’ as a single and specific activity, but I don’t consider it to be so. There are people who are more suited to academic pursuits - even those can be split into science, maths, humanities, art, music, languages etc. Then there are those who are more practical, and there are large numbers in the middle. In my opinion we specialise too early, and we’ve drifted from offering ‘education’ to providing ‘training’ for future careers.

The Grammar School system (selective by examination at age eleven or twelve) suits those with an academic bent. It was a good enabler for social mobility as it was based on (essentially) an IQ exam. However, what it did was consign those who failed to poorer quality schooling, whereas it SHOULD have offered those who didn’t pass the exam the chance to explore more practical options. 

The comprehensive school system, which largely replaced the selective system from the 1960s, merged everybody together. It was a fine example of unintended consequences. Instead of raising standards for all, having multiple ability children in one educational setting rather reduced overall standards, frustrating the potential of higher achievers, broadly trying not to upset any specific group. 

For me, education - at least to the age of twelve - should be for its own sake. Knowledge and exploration. Children, parents and teachers could then specialise in secondary school, including apprenticeships from age fifteen of sixteen. 

University or higher education shouldn’t be seen as a goal for all. It should return to being the exception for those who are really suited to it, and who will really benefit from it. It should be useful, rather than being something to fill out another three or four years.

Choice - as has been noted - is the key. There is a place for selective education, apprenticeships, and private education as well as for comprehensive schooling for those that want it. These options should all be available, enabling parents with different views and aspirations and children with different abilities and skills to thrive. I’m afraid I see what we have as a mandated (to a degree) ‘one size fits all’ approach, symbolic of the left leaning Governments that introduced it, albeit with good intentions.

Private education exists so that those willing and able to afford it can escape the system that we now have. It should not NEED to exist, but it does. Same with private health, as I see somebody’s ability to access better healthcare as just as important as their ability to access better education. Choice again, and that’s right. As has been said, those who pay for either health or education also pay for the children of others as well. Double bubble. I find it hard to argue that offering that choice is a bad thing.

Finally, in the UK;

Public school = fee paying top private school

Private school = fee paying smaller school

State school = any school where there are no fees

Comprehensives, Grammars, Secondary Moderns, Academies etc. are all different versions of state education.

 

[Linas.P]

15 minutes ago, Malc1 said:

I'm thinking you're all just ignoring the simplicity of life and kids education in the UK being totally bereft of anything very pleasant in times past .  between the 2 wars and early 1950's 60's .  some of it to my personal knowledge being so so lacking in much academic knowledge ....... the teachers having to cope with parents and families really really on the breadline and so impoverished ........ many a sad sight I'm sure and quite possibly a lot worse than it might be today .......... Foodbanks and ClothesBanks ....  jeez school uniform banks too these days .  Wot School Uniforms in the 50's etc ..  lucky to have trousers with seats in their pants .......... !!!!!

Great maybe to have Private Education that's relieving some strain from the National Education System AND those Private Schools sometimes being able to " share " some of their good fortune with local Non-Private kids ..........  swimming pool availability maybe ........... sharing school playing fields whatever

Not looking deep enough into the total scenario would be a utter failing methinks  .  there's never going to be enough money in the State systems to bring what's ideal to kids today, there never was and probably never will be  ... there's no money tree you know !

I am not sure there is any benefit to look at what was in the past, unless there was something working that we can use today. As such I am just saying today Education does not work and that is all... is that fault of Private education? No Private education is just a symptom of bigger problem. 

However, I disagree that "there is not enough money to make it work", education is one of the cheapest and best investments in the society, way more important in peace time than absolutelly anything else. Education is what builds the society, that is future generations and relatively speaking it is not very expensive.  

7 minutes ago, First_Lexus said:

Choice - as has been noted - is the key. There is a place for selective education, apprenticeships, and private education as well as for comprehensive schooling for those that want it. These options should all be available, enabling parents with different views and aspirations and children with different abilities and skills to thrive.

Agree with a lot of what you said, but not this bit... the problem is again that people making choice is not the kids themselves. So inevitably we have a situation where better quality education is not provided to those who have "bent" for it, but those who parents paying for it. So we are just basically failing entire generations of kids who simply due to lottery of life failed to be born in the families that care.

The education should be based on choices of kids not choices of parents, especially the quality of it. If the state schools would be at least decent, then there would be no problem, but they are not and that is key problem.

[HighlandJohn]

I started back reading this thread, but it seems to have morphed into one covering striking healthcare workers and education somewhere along the way/pages?  

[Linas.P]

15 minutes ago, HighlandJohn said:

I started back reading this thread, but it seems to have morphed into one covering striking healthcare workers and education somewhere along the way/pages?  

Just very recently... ~page 9 or 10.

Basically after I have already started the thread, there was new policy claims by current government which kind of went in line with the discussion... and now opposition had provided their alternative policy which included tax on private education and it just kinds of created new topic... 

One one hand good reminder to get back to the topic... in other hand I reckon everything that could be discussed was discussed in 9 or 10 pages, so I think this topic about climate has reached it's natural bottom and now it is a little bit of free for all 🙂 

[Boomer54]

8 minutes ago, HighlandJohn said:

I started back reading this thread, but it seems to have morphed into one covering striking healthcare workers and education somewhere along the way/pages?  

You are right of course, but sometimes it's just 'fun' and stimulating to take an issue that raises it's head and run with it. I mean I cannot imagine a more boring world than one in which we all agree with each other.

[Bluemarlin]

20 hours ago, Boomer54 said:

"I don't know what the answer to achieving that is, but I do know that we're a long way from it."

You would be a shoo in for the Nobel if you did.

Almost needless to say the issue of inequality is not a simple one. Should be needless to say if it were it probably would have already been resolved more than it has been. What is clear is this. Taxing the rich more will not do it. It is the default solution for almost everybody of a socialist slant, but it ignores the fact that capturing that wealth is an impossible task for any government. Basically, the wealth flees for pastures new. There are a number of high profile names who have done that in just the last couple of years as they found that no party in this country was a safe harbour for them. So, take their taxes out of the pot and the target zone moves gradually further down the wealth scale at the targets less likely to flee. Enter the 'wealthy' middle classes. Not 'rich' just well off and probably so not through being born into wealth per se. See where this is going? You start with some idealistic target and then come slap bang up against reality. As a general rule it's safe to say that the measures to capture more tax to fund public ideals ends up capturing less ,because it fails to encompass behavioural changes that take place as a reaction to the action taken. You don't have to take my word for it. I think there is already enough research out there.

Frankly, I think there is a lot more mileage to resolving this issue to be had by first of all cutting the huge amount of fat from public waste and inefficiency.

Totally agree with your last sentence, as well as your statement that merely taxing the rich more won't solve anything. As you say, the very rich will simply find ways to avoid it, and so they, along with successive governments, have long since learned that there's far more money to be had from a few extra percentage points in the midddle, than any number of points from the top. Especially as those people in the middle are less able to avoid it, and too busy getting on with their lives to rebel against it.

That's why I believe it's more a structural issue than a financial one. The current situation, along with most future proposals, offers little more ingenuity than taking more money from top and blindly dishing it out at the bottom. In my opinion this perversely harms those at the midddle and botttom more that it does those at the top. Whilst it might be seen as somewhat idealistic and socialist in principle, it appears to be more of a necessary function of the economic system we've created.

In order for businesses to grow profits, an important factor is to keep wage costs down. The most reliable way of doing this is to always maintain a surplus of labour. I read somewhere once that the optimum level of unemmployment for a capitalist society is between 6% & 9%. Below that and wages get too high, and above that the benefits costs start to have a negative effect. That level can be managed in a number of ways, such as immigration, or incentivising non work through the benfits systems. Both parties seem to do both, either by accident or design.

Far from benefits being a drain on the wealthy though, it's a bit of shell game. Any tax paid by corporations and the rich, which goes to the poor, almost exclusively gets spent on goods and services, and so that money eventually filters its way back up the chain. The bulk of that tax money comes from the middle though, who already spend what they need/want, and would otherwise save or invest any surplus. By taking it from them, it allows that surplus to be put in the hands of those who have no choice but to spend it, and so it simply shuffles money from the middle, to the bottom, which finally ends up at the top. It's probably why the middle classes keep getting poorer and the number of the poor gets larger.

Whether this system is by accident or design, it's seems evident by just following the flow of money. To me, one of the primary causes of this is that our economic model requires constant growth for it to function. That can only happen through ever increasing expenditure, which can only be achieved by either increased loan finance, or taking unspent money from those who save, and giving it to those who'll spend it. In other words, using seemingly socialist tools to drive a capitalist economy.

Either way it keeps people at the bottom down, either by pricing their labour at an unrealistically low level, or not providing enough incentive or motivation to work, and simply thowing money at them to survive. Both sides of the political spectrum do it, either for economic benefit, or under the guise of idealistic principles, with no one seeming to catch on that the results are the same, regardless of differing motivations. It is of course possible that both sides want the same, and simply sell it under a different label, in order to appeal to their own voter base.

So, whllst I agree with your last sentence, I'd also add that I'd look at the waste and unfair distribution that comes from the need for ever increasing growth and profits. Instead of taxing the middle to enable the bottom not to work and yet still spend, I'd be looking at a wage structure that creates a big enough gap between working and non working, so that there's no incentive not to, except for the incurably lazy and incapable. Of course there are mechanisms that large corporations could use to avoid this, but also measures to combat those if the will was there.   

The goal of any country should be to create an environment where even the poorest members have the tools and opportunity to work and earn enough to feed, clothe and house their family, in reasonable comfort, without having to rely on loans or handouts. If the cost of that is reduced profits, dividends and bonuses, then so be it. I'm fortunate, in that I've had the benefit of a private education, and a successful career, but even I can see there's something fundamentally wrong when corporations post billions in profits and pay millions in bonuses, while there are capable people, willing to work, and even working, who are struggling to get by. This will never come by arbitrarily redistributing wealth within the same game, but instead from changing the rules of the game itself.

I guess what I'm saying is that we've relied heavily on enabling wealth creation, and relying on a trickle down effect to benefit society, which clearly hasn't worked, and is instead increasingly crippling society. Perhaps then it's worth enabling the poor, instead of simply financing them, with the goal of that trickling up to benefit society, whilst still allowing those who are capable of it to create as much wealth as they want.

[Boomer54]

15 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

I am not sure there is any benefit to look at what was in the past, unless there was something working that we can use today. As such I am just saying today Education does not work and that is all... is that fault of Private education? No Private education is just a symptom of bigger problem. 

However, I disagree that "there is not enough money to make it work", education is one of the cheapest and best investments in the society, way more important in peace time than absolutelly anything else. Education is what builds the society, that is future generations and relatively speaking it is not very expensive.

Precisely, that is why some of us dug down and paid for it, twice ! 😃

And yes, it would have been lovely not to have forked out a couple of hundred thousand, but a lack of choice leaves little alternative.

If you finished reading that link it should be apparent the original ideas never actually came to fruition. Those were pretty much what ED was writing about above.

You see the fundamental error of thinking came about because they didn't know what a successful education system might look like. They were ideologically blinded and they made mistakes because of it.

A successful system does not lead to 'advancement' ,or one child winning over another. It leads to children being assessed to the degree you can see where their strengths and weaknesses are and in doing so can then direct them into areas of learning that are appropriate to them. That may be academic ,but in many cases will not be. The former is certainly not somehow superior to the latter, but of course society seems to have come to that belief. Until of course they need a brick layer  😉Contrast that with an higher education system that just sucks in kids and throws them out with a piece of paper of dubious value.

Our system unfortunately is highly flawed.

[Linas.P]

38 minutes ago, Bluemarlin said:

Totally agree with your last sentence, as well as your statement that merely taxing the rich more won't solve anything. As you say, the very rich will simply find ways to avoid it, and so they, along with successive governments, have long since learned that there's far more money to be had from a few extra percentage points in the midddle, than any number of points from the top. Especially as those people in the middle are less able to avoid it, and too busy getting on with their lives to rebel against it.

That's why I believe it's more a structural issue than a financial one. The current situation, along with most future proposals, offers little more ingenuity than taking more money from top and blindly dishing it out at the bottom. In my opinion this perversely harms those at the midddle and botttom more that it does those at the top. Whilst it might be seen as somewhat idealistic and socialist in principle, it appears to be more of a necessary function of the economic system we've created.

In order for businesses to grow profits, an important factor is to keep wage costs down. The most reliable way of doing this is to always maintain a surplus of labour. I read somewhere once that the optimum level of unemmployment for a capitalist society is between 6% & 9%. Below that and wages get too high, and above that the benefits costs start to have a negative effect. That level can be managed in a number of ways, such as immigration, or incentivising non work through the benfits systems. Both parties seem to do both, either by accident or design.

Far from benefits being a drain on the wealthy though, it's a bit of shell game. Any tax paid by corporations and the rich, which goes to the poor, almost exclusively gets spent on goods and services, and so that money eventually filters its way back up the chain. The bulk of that tax money comes from the middle though, who already spend what they need/want, and would otherwise save or invest any surplus. By taking it from them, it allows that surplus to be put in the hands of those who have no choice but to spend it, and so it simply shuffles money from the middle, to the bottom, which finally ends up at the top. It's probably why the middle classes keep getting poorer and the number of the poor gets larger.

Whether this system is by accident or design, it's seems evident by just following the flow of money. To me, one of the primary causes of this is that our economic model requires constant growth for it to function. That can only happen through ever increasing expenditure, which can only be achieved by either increased loan finance, or taking unspent money from those who save, and giving it to those who'll spend it. In other words, using seemingly socialist tools to drive a capitalist economy.

Either way it keeps people at the bottom down, either by pricing their labour at an unrealistically low level, or not providing enough incentive or motivation to work, and simply thowing money at them to survive. Both sides of the political spectrum do it, either for economic benefit, or under the guise of idealistic principles, with no one seeming to catch on that the results are the same, regardless of differing motivations. It is of course possible that both sides want the same, and simply sell it under a different label, in order to appeal to their own voter base.

So, whllst I agree with your last sentence, I'd also add that I'd look at the waste and unfair distribution that comes from the need for ever increasing growth and profits. Instead of taxing the middle to enable the bottom not to work and yet still spend, I'd be looking at a wage structure that creates a big enough gap between working and non working, so that there's no incentive not to, except for the incurably lazy and incapable. Of course there are mechanisms that large corporations could use to avoid this, but also measures to combat those if the will was there.   

The goal of any country should be to create an environment where even the poorest members have the tools and opportunity to work and earn enough to feed, clothe and house their family, in reasonable comfort, without having to rely on loans or handouts. If the cost of that is reduced profits, dividends and bonuses, then so be it. I'm fortunate, in that I've had the benefit of a private education, and a successful career, but even I can see there's something fundamentally wrong when corporations post billions in profits and pay millions in bonuses, while there are capable people, willing to work, and even working, who are struggling to get by. This will never come by arbitrarily redistributing wealth within the same game, but instead from changing the rules of the game itself.

I guess what I'm saying is that we've relied heavily on enabling wealth creation, and relying on a trickle down effect to benefit society, which clearly hasn't worked, and is instead increasingly crippling society. Perhaps then it's worth enabling the poor, instead of simply financing them, with the goal of that trickling up to benefit society, whilst still allowing those who are capable of it to create as much wealth as they want.

uuuuu.... you going very deep with this one, may add another 10 pages to discussion if we go there, but I agree with most that you said... and even reflects back to why I have such a horrible and pessimistic view about life... just happens to be that I am at the top of the middle, but not quite reached the "escape velocity in wealth", so I end-up paying loads of tax and can save little, despite earning much. People richer than me simple finds ways to avoid paying taxes... 

Anyhow... enough about myself, but I agree with everything yous said. Being pessimist and conspiracy theorist I am - I would go with the option of "by design". 

31 minutes ago, Boomer54 said:

And yes, it would have been lovely not to have forked out a couple of hundred thousand, but a lack of choice leaves little alternative.

Wait what?! You just argued that I should not remove the choice and now you saying you didn't have one! Isn't that ironic?!

Agree with the rest thought, I never said older system was better or worse, I just have an issue with current one, that is all. 

Again... sadly it may be the case of "by design"... they giving you illusion of choice, whereas realistically that was the only way reasonable person could have gone anyway... as well I would like to circle back to my earlier point that maybe good education and educated society is undesirable for ruling elites? Which then nicely circled back again to our original topic of climate change, why we have such horrible issues understanding and interpreting science and why it is so easy to create and control zealots who will fight for the cause of either pro or anti-environmental stance.

[Bluemarlin]

27 minutes ago, First_Lexus said:

University or higher education shouldn’t be seen as a goal for all. It should return to being the exception for those who are really suited to it, and who will really benefit from it. It should be useful, rather than being something to fill out another three or four years.

Totally agree with your post Ed, and would like to comment on one paragraph.

The result, or even the purpose of some things isn't always as advertised.

As well as it being seen as a worthy goal for all, university for everyone also served the purpose of removing large numbers of school leavers from the unemployment register, whilst requiring them to borrow money for the priviledge.

Whether the intention was good or not, it was oversold, and in many ways set unrealistic expectations and became self defeating, as it tumed more into a commercial venture than an eduactional one.

[First_Lexus]

26 minutes ago, Bluemarlin said:

The goal of any country should be to create an environment where even the poorest members have the tools and opportunity to work and earn enough to feed, clothe and house their family, in reasonable comfort, without having to rely on loans or handouts.

One of the very first things I learnt at University - political philosophy (it was a foundation ahead of my political history and theology degree) - was that the oft quoted “…people want and deserve to live in a democracy…” is actually a myth. 

Most people simply want a good standard of living, food, housing and education for their children, exactly as you note. How it is achieved, and by which political system, is pretty much irrelevant. Well, as long as one group isn’t favoured over another.

Ironically the almost perfect system - stick with me here - is a benevolent dictatorship, as long as it delivers for all the people. It does away with costly elections, short-term planning and popularity contests, instability caused by changes in direction etc. Unfortunately it’s almost unachievable, what with power corrupting and preferences shown to the elite (whosoever that may be). Even so, how lovely would it be to live under an altruistic leader who did everything for his or her people without any other motive…and yes, I know I sound like a conflicted hippy.

[Bluemarlin]

1 minute ago, First_Lexus said:

One of the very first things I learned at University - political philosophy (it was a foundation ahead of my political history and theology degree) - was that the oft quoted “…people want and deserve to live in a democracy…” is actually a myth. 

Most people simply want a good standard of living, food, housing and education for their children, exactly as you note. How it is achieved, and by which political system, is pretty much irrelevant. Well, as long as one group isn’t favoured over another.

Ironically the almost perfect system - stick with me here - is a benevolent dictatorship, as long as it delivers for all the people. It does away with costly elections, short-term planning and popularity contests, instability caused by changes in direction etc. Unfortunately it’s almost unachievable, what with power corrupting and preferences shown to the elite (whosoever that may be). Even so, how lovely would it be to live under an altruistic leader who did everything for his or her people without any other motive…and yes, I know I sound like a conflicted hippy.

Funnily enough I have always considered a benevolent dictatotship to have the most potential for the best political system 🙂

[Bluemarlin]

17 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

Again... sadly it may be the case of "by design"... they giving you illusion of choice, whereas realistically that was the only way reasonable person could have gone anyway..

An interesting philosophical point.

We all have choices, even the mugging victim, when offered the alternative of being stabbed over handing over his wallet. The question then becomes whether they're meaningful choices, or an illusion that comes from having to decide between the lesser of two evils.

[Malc1]

3 minutes ago, Bluemarlin said:

Funnily enough I have always considered a benevolent dictatotship to have the most potential for the best political system 🙂

Sultan of Brunei maybe ……. Just flies his people for any healthcare issues to a local country / expert for medical care ……… guess he had UK Private Education too  👍

Benevolent Sultanate but there, comparing him to Assad of Syria who also benefitted ……. aaaarrrrgggghhhh 🥵

Malc 

[First_Lexus]

26 minutes ago, Bluemarlin said:

An interesting philosophical point.

We all have choices, even the mugging victim, when offered the alternative of being stabbed over handing over his wallet. The question then becomes whether they're meaningful choices, or an illusion that comes from having to decide between the lesser of two evils.

Trying to drag this back to climate change, even though the last discussions have been entertaining…

The question for me, is whether the response of (global) Governments to the climate situation - essentially their policies and legislation - are both proportionate and reasonable, much as terms and conditions need to be in order to be enforceable if legally challenged.

Personally I think most of what the UK Government has done is both proportionate and reasonable. I do believe the climate is changing / has changed. I don’t know how much of that is caused by the impact of people and how much is natural as I’m not a scientist, but I do believe we as global citizens should do what we can to minimise the impacts. If that means following Government directives, then that’s fine with me as long as they remain proportionate and reasonable.

Now, I know that many people don’t agree that what Government is doing is either of those things, but I do. I may be wrong, but that’s my judgement based on my beliefs and values. However, it must be said that even I do think some of the media reporting is overly dramatic and unnecessarily alarmist. People need to be bought into the need for change, and that comes from sensible and pragmatic policies articulated by sensible and pragmatic politicians. I’m rather afraid that we have don’t have those on any side at the moment.

 

[Boomer54]

1 hour ago, Bluemarlin said:

Totally agree with your last sentence, as well as your statement that merely taxing the rich more won't solve anything. As you say, the very rich will simply find ways to avoid it, and so they, along with successive governments, have long since learned that there's far more money to be had from a few extra percentage points in the midddle, than any number of points from the top. Especially as those people in the middle are less able to avoid it, and too busy getting on with their lives to rebel against it.

That's why I believe it's more a structural issue than a financial one. The current situation, along with most future proposals, offers little more ingenuity than taking more money from top and blindly dishing it out at the bottom. In my opinion this perversely harms those at the midddle and botttom more that it does those at the top. Whilst it might be seen as somewhat idealistic and socialist in principle, it appears to be more of a necessary function of the economic system we've created.

In order for businesses to grow profits, an important factor is to keep wage costs down. The most reliable way of doing this is to always maintain a surplus of labour. I read somewhere once that the optimum level of unemmployment for a capitalist society is between 6% & 9%. Below that and wages get too high, and above that the benefits costs start to have a negative effect. That level can be managed in a number of ways, such as immigration, or incentivising non work through the benfits systems. Both parties seem to do both, either by accident or design.

Far from benefits being a drain on the wealthy though, it's a bit of shell game. Any tax paid by corporations and the rich, which goes to the poor, almost exclusively gets spent on goods and services, and so that money eventually filters its way back up the chain. The bulk of that tax money comes from the middle though, who already spend what they need/want, and would otherwise save or invest any surplus. By taking it from them, it allows that surplus to be put in the hands of those who have no choice but to spend it, and so it simply shuffles money from the middle, to the bottom, which finally ends up at the top. It's probably why the middle classes keep getting poorer and the number of the poor gets larger.

Whether this system is by accident or design, it's seems evident by just following the flow of money. To me, one of the primary causes of this is that our economic model requires constant growth for it to function. That can only happen through ever increasing expenditure, which can only be achieved by either increased loan finance, or taking unspent money from those who save, and giving it to those who'll spend it. In other words, using seemingly socialist tools to drive a capitalist economy.

Either way it keeps people at the bottom down, either by pricing their labour at an unrealistically low level, or not providing enough incentive or motivation to work, and simply thowing money at them to survive. Both sides of the political spectrum do it, either for economic benefit, or under the guise of idealistic principles, with no one seeming to catch on that the results are the same, regardless of differing motivations. It is of course possible that both sides want the same, and simply sell it under a different label, in order to appeal to their own voter base.

So, whllst I agree with your last sentence, I'd also add that I'd look at the waste and unfair distribution that comes from the need for ever increasing growth and profits. Instead of taxing the middle to enable the bottom not to work and yet still spend, I'd be looking at a wage structure that creates a big enough gap between working and non working, so that there's no incentive not to, except for the incurably lazy and incapable. Of course there are mechanisms that large corporations could use to avoid this, but also measures to combat those if the will was there.   

The goal of any country should be to create an environment where even the poorest members have the tools and opportunity to work and earn enough to feed, clothe and house their family, in reasonable comfort, without having to rely on loans or handouts. If the cost of that is reduced profits, dividends and bonuses, then so be it. I'm fortunate, in that I've had the benefit of a private education, and a successful career, but even I can see there's something fundamentally wrong when corporations post billions in profits and pay millions in bonuses, while there are capable people, willing to work, and even working, who are struggling to get by. This will never come by arbitrarily redistributing wealth within the same game, but instead from changing the rules of the game itself.

I guess what I'm saying is that we've relied heavily on enabling wealth creation, and relying on a trickle down effect to benefit society, which clearly hasn't worked, and is instead increasingly crippling society. Perhaps then it's worth enabling the poor, instead of simply financing them, with the goal of that trickling up to benefit society, whilst still allowing those who are capable of it to create as much wealth as they want.

Nothing to say other than that was seriously good.

[Boomer54]

1 hour ago, Linas.P said:

uuuuu.... you going very deep with this one, may add another 10 pages to discussion if we go there, but I agree with most that you said... and even reflects back to why I have such a horrible and pessimistic view about life... just happens to be that I am at the top of the middle, but not quite reached the "escape velocity in wealth", so I end-up paying loads of tax and can save little, despite earning much. People richer than me simple finds ways to avoid paying taxes... 

Anyhow... enough about myself, but I agree with everything yous said. Being pessimist and conspiracy theorist I am - I would go with the option of "by design". 

Wait what?! You just argued that I should not remove the choice and now you saying you didn't have one! Isn't that ironic?!

Agree with the rest thought, I never said older system was better or worse, I just have an issue with current one, that is all. 

Again... sadly it may be the case of "by design"... they giving you illusion of choice, whereas realistically that was the only way reasonable person could have gone anyway... as well I would like to circle back to my earlier point that maybe good education and educated society is undesirable for ruling elites? Which then nicely circled back again to our original topic of climate change, why we have such horrible issues understanding and interpreting science and why it is so easy to create and control zealots who will fight for the cause of either pro or anti-environmental stance.

Laughing, yes, lack of choiceS, but still I did have one more choice than most people would perhaps clarify my former statement.

[Linas.P]

33 minutes ago, First_Lexus said:

Trying to drag this back to climate change, even though the last discussions have been entertaining…

The question for me, is whether the response of (global) Governments to the climate situation - essentially their policies and legislation - are both proportionate and reasonable, much as terms and conditions need to be in order to be enforceable if legally challenged.

Personally I think most of what the UK Government has done is both proportionate and reasonable. I do believe the climate is changing / has changed. I don’t know how much of that is caused by the impact of people and how much is natural as I’m not a scientist, but I do believe we as global citizens should do what we can to minimise the impacts. If that means following Government directives, then that’s fine with me as long as they remain proportionate and reasonable.

Now, I know that many people don’t agree that what Government is doing is either of those things, but I do. I may be wrong, but that’s my judgement based on my beliefs and values. However, it must be said that even I do think some of the media reporting is overly dramatic and unnecessarily alarmist. People need to be bought into the need for change, and that comes from sensible and pragmatic policies articulated by sensible and pragmatic politicians. I’m rather afraid that we have don’t have those on any side at the moment.

I am not intending to change your mind on this, but there are countless examples of where it was neither proportionate nor reasonable... 

It really depends on where you stand on what is causing climate change, or whenever the change is acceptable or not... so if the view is that change is caused by humans and the change we have is not acceptable, then I would even argue that our government (or collectively the world governments) don't do anywhere near enough. Obviously alternative view points are possible - for example that change is not human caused, or that like me - that change that is being caused is simply not a problem.