Good Times in Great Britain

[Bud Struggle]

Brits Richer, Healthier, Living Longer, But Not Happier

http://www.ujnews.com/html/story4.shtml

Since 1973 Brits have enjoyed economic growth paralleled with better health, according to the survey, conducted for the Office for National Statistics, but happiness did not accompany the improvements.
The annual survey on social trends showed that household income has gone up by 60 percent, and household wealth has more than doubled, in the past twenty years.

Mostly due to Thatcher and Blair, I guess. :)

And as far as not being happy--I've noticed that some Britishers around here could be pretty grumpy at times. :lol:

[Demogorgon]

You need better sources, things are absolutely shit here right now:( Maybe not quite as bad as America but the economy is in a real sorry state which we can blame on the Thatcherite economic policies we have suffered. That being said, that looks like a five year old source to me and back then the economy was doing well as far as such things are measured.

As for Britain growing since '73, well you could put that down to the EU and its predecessors I suppose. Mind you, it is worth noting that for the average person, quality of living has declined for much of that time. Thatcher boosted the wealthy so much that they skew the figures and mean that in terms of raw averages. the fact that most people have actually been made worse off is glossed over.

[Bud Struggle]

I was warned only to say away from quoting the "Daily Mail."

[Killfacer]

too right, the daily mail supported Hitler.

Despite Demogorgon sais, life in the UK is pretty good. Employment is pretty high and its easy to get a job. As for the happy thing, its part of our national identity to be slightly grumpy and cynical. Although i have to admit that Demogorgon is right, the economy is looking pretty shaky at the moment. However i think some of Englands wealth has to be attributed to the growth of London as the international economic center of the world. A wealth which, like it or not, is partially due to the policies of recent goverments.

[Forward Union]

Brits Richer, Healthier, Living Longer, But Not Happier

Read this.

According to Oxfam, Nearly 13 million people live in poverty in the UK – that’s 1 in 5 of population. 3.8 million children in the UK are living in poverty. 2.2 million pensioners in the UK are living in poverty. 7.2 million working age adults in the UK are living in poverty.And The UK has a higher proportion of its population living in relative poverty than most other EU countries: of the 27 EU countries, only 6 have a higher rate than the UK.

Add this to the Office of National Statistics, which states; "The wealthiest 1 per cent [of the uk] owned approximately a fifth of the UK's marketable wealth in 2003. In contrast, half the population shared only 7 per cent of total wealth."

So your article is a load of libertarian wank. And it's frankly, insulting.

House Repossetions have gone up 27% in the last few months, and according to Studies done at Oxford University, the Class Divide in the UK is now bigger than it was in the victorian age. The London School of economics determined that "In a comparison of eight European and North American countries, Britain and the United States have the lowest social mobility" that "Social mobility in Britain has declined whereas in the US it is stable " and that "Part of the reason for Britain's decline has been that the better off have benefited disproportionately from increased educational opportunity "

According to the guardian;


By the age of three, children from disadvantaged families are already lagging a full year behind their middle-class contemporaries in social and educational development, pioneering research by a London university reveals today.
A "generation Blair" project, tracking the progress of 15,500 boys and girls born between 2000 and 2002, found a divided nation in which a child's start in life was still determined by the class, education, marital status and ethnic background of the parents.

Furthermore, if we're so rich and happy, why is it possible for the BBC to produce headlines like "Hundreds of elderly die of the cold" as a result of them not being able to afford heating.
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/3344489.stm) I think heating is a pretty fucking basic necesity. And even more worryingly, 5% of the death from the cold, were not elderly. They were young.

I don't really know where to start.

[Kami]

Employment is pretty high and its easy to get a job.
Fuck you.
Sorry to come off aggressive, but that's just a downright lie. In London, at the very least.

Yes, the average wealth has increased; but so has the rich/poor gap, and in particular so has the value of pretty much everything. A house is pretty much unaffordable to the majority of the country. I forget where I read the statistics (eurobarometer, I think) but it's pretty near the top in europe for inequality.

[Bud Struggle]

As for the happy thing, its part of our national identity to be slightly grumpy and cynical.


Hanging on in quiet desparation is the English way...Pink Floyd. :)

(Nothing against the British--I just thought of that quote.)

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Last time you posted about Britain, didn't you make a huge blunder by citing a neo-fascist web source?

Britain has some of the worse poverty in the developed world, and social mobility - which you apparently champion - is actually worse than the United States (which ranks pretty much as the lowest in all of the developed world).

Kapitalism wins. :laugh:

[Zurdito]

Real household income has gone up by 60% in the UK? I very much doubt that. In the 1970's, i.e. before Thatcher, wages reached the highest percentage of GDP they ever had been before, and ever would be up to the present day...compared to the rights, proportion of wealth owned, and power in society workers had back then, we have literally gone back 40 years in the past 30 - Thatcher always openly said that the 1930's - the Great Depression - were a great time for her, and that she wanted to recreate that country. And so she did.

Regarding household income supposedly increasing that much, I can assume they did one of two things: a.) they didn't take into account price increases - which makes the claim worthless - or b.), they are including the value of someone's home and/or the money borrowed against that as part of people's income, and likewise are counting various privatised pension schemes etc. as part of peoples income - i.e. money that disappears the moment you go pick it up,and is actually much less good for your standard of living that the old state pension system.

The same goes for housing, etc.: suddenly, Britain is "wealthy" because of a housing "boom" and on paper everyone is "richer" than the 1970's. Yet, down here in the real world, all that has happened is that the exact same houses which once were a right, and provided to people cheaply, are now privatised, people have to mortgage their kids futures and sell themselves and their kids to a lifetime of debt slavery just to live in them. Yet, on paper, this actually counts as economic growth and as part of people's onw personal wealth, when in reality it means making people go into huge debt, just to live in a house which they will never truly own (but own on paper thereby making them richer on paper than before) and which before was provided by the government,

I'd say it's not really worth listening to the economic analysis of people who, as part of national income, count an increase in the price of the same house, and increase in "wealth" due to lending which grows ever more out of proportion to wages, i.e. ever more out of proportion to people's ability to pay it back. do you realise that eocnomic growth figures are based on doing exactly that?:lol:i.e., a house increasing in price for 100k; to 300k, adds that much extra to GDP, and is counted as real economic growth by official figures.:lol: no wonder the figures look so good on paper, yet more and more people are sinking every day.

[Bud Struggle]

Last time you posted about Britain, didn't you make a huge blunder by citing a neo-fascist web source?


No. I quoted the Daily Mail--which is the SECOND LARGEST NEWSPAPER in Britain. In the distant past the paper was once a supporter of Oswald Mosley--some sort of neo-Fascist 70 or 60 years ago which puts it beyond the pale for quotation on RevLeft for all time.

[careyprice31]

Read this.

According to Oxfam, Nearly 13 million people live in poverty in the UK – that’s 1 in 5 of population. 3.8 million children in the UK are living in poverty. 2.2 million pensioners in the UK are living in poverty. 7.2 million working age adults in the UK are living in poverty.And The UK has a higher proportion of its population living in relative poverty than most other EU countries: of the 27 EU countries, only 6 have a higher rate than the UK.

Add this to the Office of National Statistics, which states; "The wealthiest 1 per cent [of the uk] owned approximately a fifth of the UK's marketable wealth in 2003. In contrast, half the population shared only 7 per cent of total wealth."

So your article is a load of libertarian wank. And it's frankly, insulting.

House Repossetions have gone up 27% in the last few months, and according to Studies done at Oxford University, the Class Divide in the UK is now bigger than it was in the victorian age. The London School of economics determined that "In a comparison of eight European and North American countries, Britain and the United States have the lowest social mobility" that "Social mobility in Britain has declined whereas in the US it is stable " and that "Part of the reason for Britain's decline has been that the better off have benefited disproportionately from increased educational opportunity "

According to the guardian;



Furthermore, if we're so rich and happy, why is it possible for the BBC to produce headlines like "Hundreds of elderly die of the cold" as a result of them not being able to afford heating.
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/3344489.stm) I think heating is a pretty fucking basic necesity. And even more worryingly, 5% of the death from the cold, were not elderly. They were young.

I don't really know where to start.

I have friends from Britain who actually do live in poverty. and im not surprised about that rich/poor gap, its happening everywhere.

We Canadians have it too. And its getting bigger.

I personally know of people who have like less than 100 friggin dollars to live on a week.

[RedAnarchist]

No. I quoted the Daily Mail--which is the SECOND LARGEST NEWSPAPER in Britain. In the distant past the paper was once a supporter of Oswald Mosley--some sort of neo-Fascist 70 or 60 years ago which puts it beyond the pale for quotation on RevLeft for all time.

The Daily Mail is a jumped up tabloid that does nothing but blamed Muslims, gays, women and asylum seekers. It often prints stories that have no basis in reality and is usually read only by the rich or the bigoted.

[Jazzratt]

These "good times" are wearing a clever disguise I must say, what with falling employment rates, increases in the cost of basics (like food) and the slow erosion of a social safety-net.

[Bud Struggle]

The Daily Mail is a jumped up tabloid that does nothing but blamed Muslims, gays, women and asylum seekers. It often prints stories that have no basis in reality and is usually read only by the rich or the bigoted.

Granted. Look, I'm not British and I certainly don't know the ramifications of all the English newspapers. I though the Daily Mail was like our Daily News of NY Post--a little unsophisticated, but basically an OK paper.

On the other hand if the Mail is that bad--I'm suprised that it's so popular--there must be a lot of rich and bigoted people in Britain. :lol:

[RedAnarchist]

Granted. Look, I'm not British and I certainly don't know the ramifications of all the English newspapers. I though the Daily Mail was like our Daily News of NY Post--a little unsophisticated, but basically an OK paper.

On the other hand if the Mail is that bad--I'm suprised that it's so popular--there must be a lot of rich and bigoted people in Britain. :lol:

I think the reason its so popular is because a lot of people in the UK are anti-EU, and the DM is very, very anti-EU.

[Kami]

I'm suprised that it's so popular
I'm not, in the last election 1 in every 20 londoners voted BNP, after all -.-
An interesting little nugget; Incapacity Benefit and Income Support are being abolished, and replaced with something harder to get called "Employment and Support Allowance", I suspect to make good on the promise to get people off the sick. Shifting the goalposts and claiming victory is quite the New Labour pastime

[Bud Struggle]

Shifting the goalposts and claiming victory is quite the New Labour pastime

I though Labour were the "good guys" and the tories were the "bad guys."

And that's 1 in 20 voting Fascist? :crying:

How do the Commies do? You have to wonder why the disenfranchised are supporting the Fascists more than the Socialists.

[Killfacer]

The communist have failed miserably. So have the socialists, the RESPECT party flopped and deserved to. They are out of touch with Britain and allow the BNP to score easy points on immigration and crime because of their ridiculous refusal to deal with it. TomK im not sure if your joking, labour WERE the good guy like 30 years ago, now they are much the same as the tories.

The BNP did really well though which is pretty god damn worrying but it is too easy to simply say they voted facist, many of the people who voted for them simply see no other option because far left groups such as the Socialist Workers Party and Respect are hopelessly outdated. Come on British commies sort it out!

[Forward Union]

So, no none of the restricted lot going to respond do the statistics I posted?

[Forward Union]

I though Labour were the "good guys" and the tories were the "bad guys."


No.

In the 80s Labor used to take alot of influence from the Unions, and had a Trotskyist party operating inside it called "Millitant" which is why many advocated voting Labour.

Today Labour have adopted Thatherism and are indistinguisable from the Tories.


And that's 1 in 20 voting Fascist? :crying:

Well Labour won back in the 90s because people wanted to escape conservative policies. But now over 10 years on it's quite clear that labour are no alternative. With the defeat of the Unions under Thatcher the working class has been decimated. As I've said a couple of times we've only got 27% union density.

So people start to polorise and vote for extremes. With no class unity it's easy to pick on scapegoats.



How do the Commies do? You have to wonder why the disenfranchised are supporting the Fascists more than the Socialists

Trotskyist parties are in decline in all areas. As is Union Membership. Anarchist groups are irelivent and disorganised. And the Largest revolutionary Left organisation in the UK is the Kurdish Communist Party, mad up largely of asylum seekers.

But there are exceptions, the IWW for example actually has a 200% growth rate in the UK and 15% internationally, which is optimistic. We need to identify factors for sucess in this Revolutionary Union and see which are applyable to wider organisation.


Come on British commies sort it out!

This is a genuine focus at the moment.

[Lord Testicles]

Fuck you.
Sorry to come off aggressive, but that's just a downright lie. In London, at the very least.

I was about to say that, I don't live in London, but it's still quite hard to find a job.

[Zurdito]

The communist have failed miserably. So have the socialists, the RESPECT party flopped and deserved to. They are out of touch with Britain and allow the BNP to score easy points on immigration and crime because of their ridiculous refusal to deal with it.


it's funny how in Britain and the US, at every election you get all the parties wipping themselves up in a hysteria about how hard they are going to be on criminals, build more prisons, give the police more powers, etc., and yet, now, Britain has higher prison population than ever before, tougher laws than ever before, yet crime is still increasing. funny that.

what's your proposal, that the far left should go down the same failed route of trying to sound tough? it might pick up vots in the short term, but in the long term, you are just lying to people and make yourself part of the problem.

now the truth is that the polce do not give a fuck about you, or me. has a crime against oyu or your family ever been dealt with? in my case, the answer is no. yet, they are stroolling around central London, armed to the teeth, protecting parliament, and they are on call to protect any company from any protest ever to be found outside their headquarters.

so there is no refusal to deal with crime on behalf of the left. I believe that crime has material causes, and that most offenders are from deprived backgrounds, and that most violent offenders suffer psychological damage. according to Brian Catton, head of the Prison Officers Association, 90% of people in prison suffer from psychological disorders. yet there is basically no treatment, and prison is just a place of abuse where the people are herded together and then thrown out, on the street, with nothing to their name but the conenctions they made inside.

so I would say that in the long run, you can only solve crime by having prosperous, employed communities, which police themselves. it's an economic issue. I would also say that huge amounts of money should be taken away from the rich, and ploughed into top quality psychological care for offenders. in the short-term, at the very least police leaders in Britain should be brought under the democratic control of the community, as happens in the US. the current situation where the police don't answer to anyone and where the justice system is based on moralism and not results.

[Kami]

has a crime against oyu or your family ever been dealt with?
Yup; they strongly "advised" me to drop the assault charges. arsehats.
More on topic though, that's a bit of a silly statement to make; it's pretty much certain someone has had a problem dealt with sometime.

[Zurdito]

Yup; they strongly "advised" me to drop the assault charges. arsehats.
More on topic though, that's a bit of a silly statement to make; it's pretty much certain someone has had a problem dealt with sometime.

it wasn't a statement, it was a question, and not a silly one at all. when you are talking to people about politics do you never engage them by asking about their personal experience? is this forbidden by the strict laws of logic of internet debate? I didn't realise this was the fucking Oxford Union mate. ;)

[Peacekeeper]

Mostly due to Thatcher and Blair, I guess. :)

Of course, because it is common knowledge that the figurehead of the current government is responsible for everything that happens in the nation during their tenure.

[Killfacer]

Zurdito your just another trot who doesnt pay any attention to what the people you are trying to liberate want.

The left has been touting the same crap policies for god knows how long, where did it get us? No where. Now im not saying the left should come up with half baked anti crime policies but there is an undeniable need for actual ideas which dont involved far fetched "once we make everyone equal it will go away" ideas. Im just trying to point out that we ignore crime and immigration at our peril. You also happened to not speak about immigration, what do you think about that? Because the "fascists" are going to get seats in parliament over it, should we really be surrendering something which can potentially be egalitarian, left even, to a bunch of nazis?

[Zurdito]

Zurdito your just another trot who doesnt pay any attention to what the people you are trying to liberate want.

The left has been touting the same crap policies for god knows how long, where did it get us? No where. Now im not saying the left should come up with half baked anti crime policies but there is an undeniable need for actual ideas which dont involved far fetched "once we make everyone equal it will go away" ideas. Im just trying to point out that we ignore crime and immigration at our peril. You also happened to not speak about immigration, what do you think about that? Because the "fascists" are going to get seats in parliament over it, should we really be surrendering something which can potentially be egalitarian, left even, to a bunch of nazis?


well you are putting words in my mouth. I gave you some anti-crime policies. what are yours?

regarding immigration, I support the right of all people in the world to live where they want. if there is increased demand on the state for services, then we need to demand they provide it out of the pockets of big business and the rich, and also that they address the causes behind the regional inequalities that make people leave their homes and risk their lives just for a poorly paid job and life of discrimination in Europe. I don't see how you can propose a solution which fucks over those people and sends them back to poverty and death in lands exploitedby European and US imperialism in the first place. also workers fighting other workers just lets the bosses off the hook.

regarding the BNP I don't think most of those who vote for it are fascist, but I know for a fact that the leaders are.

[Bud Struggle]

TomK im not sure if your joking,

Not joking at all, really the only news we get about GB is PBS shows on the Queen and Princess Diana (it seems she's still dead). So I guess there's more to Britain than just those two? :)

Thnks to you and Wat for the info.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

By the time Thatcher left office, one in three (http://www.revleft.com/vb/e%20one%20in%20three%20children) children were living beneath the poverty line.

By the way, was Reagan ever able to prove his "welfare queen" existed? :laugh:

[IcarusAngel]

No, he did not. Reagan's mythical "black welfare queens" was simply his version of Willie Horton, a mythical embellishment of the facts designed to stir up racial hatred, and garner more votes for Republicans.

The myth still lives on, though, and conservatives still feel that the biggest threats to their income is social welfare (a very small percentage of the GDP in America).

In their mind, people on welfare = rich people. :laugh:

[Dr Mindbender]

...has anyone else mentioned that the UK has the worst child poverty in western Europe?


EDIT: I find this thread particulary ironic set admist the background of this (http://news.aol.co.uk/bigstorynews/call-for-starving-death-inquiry/article/20080522051709990001?country=uk)

[Awful Reality]

Ignore This, for some reason I cannot delete my posts.

[Bud Struggle]

...has anyone else mentioned that the UK has the worst child poverty in western Europe?


EDIT: I find this thread particulary ironic set admist the background of this (http://news.aol.co.uk/bigstorynews/call-for-starving-death-inquiry/article/20080522051709990001?country=uk)

I found the article in a Florida paper for British expats that I was reading waiting for my take out order of fish 'n chips. I must admit it seemed a bit far fetched.

There are quite a few British here in sunny Florida--my fish and chip restaurant owners are a retired couple from Lancaster.

[Dr Mindbender]

I found the article in a Florida paper for British expats that I was reading waiting for my take out order of fish 'n chips. I must admit it seemed a bit far fetched.
.

Not at all, it did happen. It's been in all the mainstream news sources.


PS Out of interest how do fish n chips go down in the states? I always though british food had a bit of a bad rep out there!

[Bud Struggle]

PS Out of interest how do fish n chips go down in the states? I always though british food had a bit of a bad rep out there!

EXCELLENT! I stop into this little place at least once a week. It's the real stuff--real British people cooking real British food--can't get any better.

It's a really popular place.

[Dr Mindbender]

EXCELLENT! I stop into this little place at least once a week. It's the real stuff--real British people cooking real British food--can't get any better.

It's a really popular place.

doh. Shame you don't have a real british NHS to take care of those real british coronaries.

Good luck to you all. :lol:

[RedAnarchist]

I found the article in a Florida paper for British expats that I was reading waiting for my take out order of fish 'n chips. I must admit it seemed a bit far fetched.

There are quite a few British here in sunny Florida--my fish and chip restaurant owners are a retired couple from Lancaster.

I'm from Preston, which is near Lancaster. I can see why they moved from Lancaster to Florida:lol:

[Robert]

Shame you don't have a real british NHS to take care of those real british coronaries.


Much as I love and esteem TomK, if he eats greasy fried pieces of cod -- I don't say codpieces -- he should pay for his own quadruple bypass.

Not to hijack here, Tom, but don't you agree that these national health services have as a deficiency that they don't carry the condition that the individual do anything whatsoever as a condition to receiving care? Workplace injuries should be covered, but too many Americans at least abuse their health.

We could just ban tobacco products, sugar, and potato chips (for starters) to reduce cancer and diabetes in the states, but does either side really want to go there?

[Bud Struggle]

Much as I love and esteem TomK, if he eats greasy fried pieces of cod -- I don't say codpieces -- he should pay for his own quadruple bypass.

Not to hijack here, Tom, but don't you agree that these national health services have as a deficiency that they don't carry the condition that the individual do anything whatsoever as a condition to receiving care? Workplace injuries should be covered, but too many Americans at least abuse their health.

We could just ban tobacco products, sugar, and potato chips (for starters) to reduce cancer and diabetes in the states, but does either side really want to go there?

I see a big problem with it--and that's why I have a problem with socialized medicine of any sort. With the problems you mentioned above--you begin the homogenization of society. You can't smoke, not because you'll suffer but because I'll have to pay for your waywardness. So me and all the other non-smokers start passing laws about what you can and cannot do.

And then freedom goes out the window.

[Killfacer]

s'all about fat tax. Nothing like taxing the fatties to get some money back in the NHS. Then they can do what they want, just if they do it TOO much they will become fat and good ole fat tax will save us.

Or you can just refuse to treat people who smoke heavily or abuse their own health. But i prefer fat tax as it has a good ring to it.

[Kropotesta]

wow. Now that was worth reading.....

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Not to hijack here, Tom, but don't you agree that these national health services have as a deficiency that they don't carry the condition that the individual do anything whatsoever as a condition to receiving care? Workplace injuries should be covered, but too many Americans at least abuse their health.

We could just ban tobacco products, sugar, and potato chips (for starters) to reduce cancer and diabetes in the states, but does either side really want to go there?

You may see the unconditional nature of an NHS as a "deficiency", but seeing as I'm more interested in healthy people than the bottom line of some medical insurance company I prefer it over the American way of doing things when all's said and done.

The NHS may have it's problems, but the medical "system" in the US regularly screws over people. Nobody but a sociopath or someone with a vested interest in private medical insurance would go for the US system.


I see a big problem with it--and that's why I have a problem with socialized medicine of any sort. With the problems you mentioned above--you begin the homogenization of society. You can't smoke, not because you'll suffer but because I'll have to pay for your waywardness. So me and all the other non-smokers start passing laws about what you can and cannot do.

And then freedom goes out the window.

Or you could forgo harping on about "freedom" and "homogenisation" and just put a fucking tax on cigarettes, like what most of the rest of the world does.

In fact, tax on tobacco products in the UK is so high that any costs to the NHS induced by smoking are more than covered by the tax.

[Robert]

You may see the unconditional nature of an NHS as a "deficiency", but seeing as I'm more interested in healthy people than the bottom line of some medical insurance companyWhat??? The British and French systems have no "medical insurance companies" trying to improve a "bottom line," and the U.S. system, when socialized, won't either.

We're interested in healthy people too, but we're also interested, yes, in freedom, a word that you oddly place in parentheses as though it's a silly notion.

As for a tobacco tax, Shirley, you jest. Ciggies are already heavily taxed in the U.S., though it varies state to state. But you're making my point: the only way to get everybody sufficiently healthy to justify the coverage is for the state, through controls, taxes, and bans, to take away individual freedom. You really like the idea of Big Brother telling you whether and how much to smoke? How about the candy bars and chips? We need special taxes on those too? What if they're making you morbidly obese? What's the difference?

[Plagueround]

What??? The British and French systems have no "medical insurance companies" trying to improve a "bottom line," and the U.S. system, when socialized, won't either.

He was talking about the current U.S. system.


We're interested in healthy people too, but we're also interested, yes, in freedom, a word that you oddly place in parentheses as though it's a silly notion.

How do you propose people get medical coverage then? What "freedom" is there in having so much of the population completely unable to afford seeing a doctor? The reason "freedom" is in parenthesis is because the "freedom" you're suggesting is simply another way for covering the ass of those who have money and need justification for leaving others in the cold.


As for a tobacco tax, Shirley, you jest. Ciggies are already heavily taxed in the U.S., though it varies state to state. But you're making my point: the only way to get everybody sufficiently healthy to justify the coverage is for the state, through controls, taxes, and bans, to take away individual freedom. You really like the idea of Big Brother telling you whether and how much to smoke? How about the candy bars and chips? We need special taxes on those too? What if they're making you morbidly obese? What's the difference?

I personally would impose a tax on the marketing companies that know for a fact the damages these products do, but push them more and more aggressively each year (especially to children). Just recently I saw a box of Coca-Cola that made the ridiculous claim that it would rehydrate you because it had water in it. Cigarette companies lied for how long about the damages they knew they were causing? Tax the hell out them.

[Kami]

Just recently I saw a box of Coca-Cola that made the ridiculous claim that it would rehydrate you because it had water in it.sorry to nitpick, but... what, exactly, is the problem here? It will rehydrate you -.- With you on lying marketers though; on the other hand, shouldn't an informed public take some responsibility as well?

[Plagueround]

sorry to nitpick, but... what, exactly, is the problem here? It will rehydrate you -.- With you on lying marketers though; on the other hand, shouldn't an informed public take some responsibility as well?

I knew when I wrote it that one would get some eyebrows raised.

It was just one of the most extreme, ludicrous examples I've seen in recent times. Yes, it will initially rehydrate you until the diuretic element makes you lose more water than it initially made you gain. It was an example of the twisting of language and facts used to market things to people. I agree that the public should take responsibility as well. I'm not saying everyone's health problems are solely the result of these corporations and everyone would suddenly become super healthy if not for "them dern corperashuns!"...just that if these companies are going to make money willingly exploiting people's health, tax them. You know...so they can "give a little back to the community". ;)

[Bud Struggle]

just that if these companies are going to make money willingly exploiting people's health, tax them. You know...so they can "give a little back to the community". ;)

You know the problem there is that corporation don't really pay any taxes. Only people pay taxes--so the corporation pass through the tax to the people that purchase the product.

Further: when the government won its cases against the cigarette companies the companies didn't pay the fines. In the end the people that payed the fines were the people that buy cigarettes because the cigarette companies raised the prices of cigarettes to pay what they owed to the government. That's one of the reasons that cigarette prices are so high--even beyond their sin tax.

Only people pay taxes. So you can regulate taxes to control the prices of some goods, but you can't punish corporations by taxing them--you only punish the people that use the product.

[Plagueround]

You know the problem there is that corporation don't really pay any taxes. Only people pay taxes--so the corporation pass through the tax to the people that purchase the product.

Further: when the government won its cases against the cigarette companies the companies didn't pay the fines. In the end the people that payed the fines were the people that buy cigarettes because the cigarette companies raised the prices of cigarettes to pay what they owed to the government. That's one of the reasons that cigarette prices are so high--even beyond their sin tax.

Only people pay taxes. So you can regulate taxes to control the prices of some goods, but you can't punish corporations by taxing them--you only punish the people that use the product.

Yeah I suppose this is true...corporations will always find a way to make the public their whipping boys. :(

[Robert]

I saw a box of Coca-Cola that made the ridiculous claim that it would rehydrate you because it had water in it.Are you sure? Where was this, and are you sure it was cola? That company makes other products besides cola.



Cigarette companies lied for how long about the damages they knew they were causing? Tax the hell out them.I've already acknowledged that cigs are taxed. I have mixed feelings about the tax. To the extent you are talking about deceptive trade practices, then I suggest they should be fined and/or ordered off the market.

Here's a really ugly truth that possible militates in favor of a ban on tobacco, though cigarettes are very popular I think in socialist countries too: to the extent they shorten life spans, and they do, then they are arguably easing the burden on social security systems as much as they may strain a national health service. That's cynical, I know. But people love their cigarettes. I say as long as the tobacco companies make no false claims about health risks or addiction rates, they should be allowed to sell them.

I don't know what you guys plan for cigarettes after the revolution, when there's no such thing as a corporation or money to be earned from the sales anyway. Are you guys going to criminalize smoking?

No, I don't smoke, so I don't care, so long as you don't criminalize non-smoking.

[Matty_UK]

I've noticed right wing libertarians tend to use the word "freedom" in such a way that it actually means, "you have no rights beyond what you can do in the market." This is true, think about it.

[Robert]

If that's directed at me, you're incorrect. I believe in both positive law and natural law, both of which endow us with rights: to vote, to speak, to bear arms, to associate freely with others, to dissent, to be protected from fraud and abuse, and many others. Those aren't established by a market, if that's what you mean. I also agree we should have equal access to health care.

But leftists speak only of "rights," rarely if ever of responsibilities. If I'm wrong, tell me what responsibilities to the health care system you accept, post-revolution.

[Bud Struggle]

If that's directed at me, you're incorrect. I believe in both positive law and natural law, both of which endow us with rights: to vote, to speak, to bear arms, to associate freely with others, to dissent, to be protected from fraud and abuse, and many others. Those aren't established by a market, if that's what you mean. I also agree we should have equal access to health care.

Same with me. I'm a believer in freedoms listed in the Bill of Rights of the US Constitution.

[Robert]

Tom, do you think a congressional enactment establishing a national health care system in the USA would pas constitutional muster? I think you'd have to go to the commerce clause to validate such legislation, but Congress has done crazier things with the commerce clause than this.

Hey Plaqueround, if you're still with us, are you sure you didn't see a package of this coca-cola product making the "ridiculous claim" that it would re-hydrate you? If so, the claim was totally valid. It's just Powerade, Coke's version of Gatorade, another great corporate product.

http://www.coca-cola.co.uk/_img/126.jpg

Now go have a nice glass of ice-cold Coca-Cola ... the pause that refreshes.

http://www.coca-cola.co.uk/_img/9.jpg

[IcarusAngel]

Now see what's in your corporate softdrinks:

http://axiomsun.com/home/video/how_much_sugar_is_in_a_can_of_soda.html

I'll think I'll stick with water.

[Robert]

I'll think I'll stick with water.

Well aren't you the party monster! I sincerely admire your purity, but please tell me you serve your guests something, anything, in addition to water when you entertain?
A nice cold Budweiser, maybe?

[Kami]

A nice cold Budweiser, maybe?
He doesn't hate them that much, surely? Why not serve gnat piss, for an improvement?

[Robert]

That's pretty good, Kami!

Okay, how about a nice Bass Ale from the fine folks at Bass Brewers Ltd.? Better?




on edit: Kami, how do you know what gnat piss tastes like?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

As for a tobacco tax, Shirley, you jest. Ciggies are already heavily taxed in the U.S., though it varies state to state.

And the tax is spent on what, precisely? Certainly not a national health service, since you Yanks don't have one.


But you're making my point: the only way to get everybody sufficiently healthy to justify the coverage is for the state, through controls, taxes, and bans, to take away individual freedom.Why is it that "taxes" suddenly becomes "controls, taxes and bans"? Speaking as a smoker, banning tobacco products is the last thing I'd like to see happen. As for controls, I'm also against age limitations for purchasing cigarettes. If I had my way, they'd be as easy to pick up as a can of beans. I absolutely hate the "ID culture" bullshit that goes along with age restrictions on products such as tobacco and alcohol.

The point of taxing tobacco (or rather, what should be the point of taxing it) is to recoup the losses incurred by smoking-related illnesses. Freedom comes with a price. I'd rather that price be more expensive cigarettes than having to pay for any treatment of smoking-related illness. In effect, by paying tax on cigarettes, you're already paying for any future treatment "on the installment plan". Other smokers are paying taxes too, which means more money for the pot in case you (or any other smoker) do fall ill.

Of course, if there's no such thing as a national health service then taxing tobacco is just another way for the government to raise money. In fact, I suspect that UK taxes on tobacco products could be lowered without needlessly starving the NHS of much-needed cash.

But of course, that depends on the ruling class actually cutting into their "profit margins", which is laughably unlikely to happen.

If given a choice between cheaper cigarettes and a national health service, I'd go for the NHS. Thanks to the NHS, I've been able to get dental fillings and a crown. In the absence of such, and since I have very little income, I would have still have rotting holes in my teeth.

I consider more expensive tobacco a fair price for having a set of teeth that aren't dissolving away.


You really like the idea of Big Brother telling you whether and how much to smoke?Of course not. But even in the absence of taxes, age limits, and so on, my "freedom to smoke" is still limited by how much cash I actually earn, and how much of it I can spend on non-essentials.

So if I didn't have to pay money for food, rent, and bills, I'd be able to spend more on cigarettes. But subsidised living is an example of that eeeeevil socialism, isn't it? Whoops, turns out capitalism isn't as free as it's cracked up to be! :laugh:

Of course, I want to go further than mere socialism.


How about the candy bars and chips? We need special taxes on those too? What if they're making you morbidly obese? What's the difference?Personally I wouldn't trust the ruling class to honestly classify "good" food and junk food, as the line can be drawn in a wide area depending on the activity level of the consumer, how much they actually eat daily, and so on.

[Robert]

Thanks for the extended response. I do find you thoughtful and provocative. Okay ...


And the tax is spent on what, precisely? Certainly not a national health service, since you Yanks don't have one."You Yanks." I love that. Seriously. Anyway, the tax revenue from cigarette sales, like that from alcohol, is dumped into the state's (the individual state, like NY, Calif., or Texas, not "l'état") general operating fund. In my state, it constitutes about 5% of total revenues. Where does the money go when it leaves? Well, basically, that rat cappie TomK and I just split it 50-50, even though I have more politicians' peckers in my pocket than he does, I don't care what he tells you.

No, actually, the budget's expenses are mostly in education (about 50%) and health and human services (about 25%, or $74 billion -- not million). That's a lot of health care and education for a lot of people, though much is administrative, as it is in the UK I imagine. Here's a link to some details:http://www.dshs.state.tx.us/budget/lar/default.shtm


What? You thought we just let you die in the streets if you're poor and seek attention? A common misconception. In fact, every U.S. hospital must admit you if you seek admission, whether you're insured or not. Undocumented Mexican worker having a baby? In you go and out it comes. No, they don't just ship you off in a wagon to the charity hospital, not in my area anyway. In my one county, for example, at least 70 babies are born every day to poor people. In one hospital alone (the same one that attended Kennedy btw). Most are Mexican citizens. They are attended by real doctors and real nurses.


Thanks to the NHS, I've been able to get dental fillings and a crown. In the absence of such, and since I have very little income, I would have still have rotting holes in my teeth.Not in the USA you wouldn't. We have medicaid for the poor, and it covers exactly those problems. Admittedly there is sometimes a problem finding dentists who accept medicaid patients, but not in my area. Anyway, there's some greed by the dentists at work there IMO.

Now, what else are you fussing at me about ... oh yeah:


Other smokers are paying taxes too, which means more money for the pot in case you (or any other smoker) do fall ill.

Do they? I don't suppose I could talk you into not smoking, could I?


I wouldn't trust the ruling class to honestly classify "good" food and junk food
You are so funny with this "ruling class" business. In the first place, there are in the USA at least small businesses that make potato chips and candies. Don't you have "mom and pop" operations selling fish and chips in merry ole England? The "oligarchs" of these businesses sometimes do well, and sometimes they go broke, and sometimes they just squeak by. But the food is just as bad for the consumer, if he overindulges, whether he buys from a multinational or the mom and pop. Second, why in the world should a business man be forced to tell you that eating a whole bag of potato chips is not quite as good as eating a nice carrot? Sadly, however, our intrepid chipmaker is already required to tell you how many fat grams, calories, carbs, and varying ingredients go into every flavor-filled bite. You don't have to "trust" him. Big Brother (the Food and Drug Administration) is already watching him.

http://www.fda.gov/FDAC/special/foodlabel/facts.html

For what it's worth, I do enjoy reading your point of view. Why don't you come to the states sometime? TomK and I will take you to a few honky tonks. If you fall off a mechanical horse, we'll make sure you get health care

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

What? You thought we just let you die in the streets if you're poor and seek attention? A common misconception. In fact, every U.S. hospital must admit you if you seek admission, whether you're insured or not. Undocumented Mexican worker having a baby? In you go and out it comes. No, they don't just ship you off in a wagon to the charity hospital, not in my area anyway. In my one county, for example, at least 70 babies are born every day to poor people. In one hospital alone (the same one that attended Kennedy btw). Most are Mexican citizens. They are attended by real doctors and real nurses.

They may be legally required to admit you, but you still have to pay for the treatment. Depending on why exactly you're being admitted, that could come to thousands of dollars.

I have about £20 to my name at the moment. Would £20 pay for treatment if I got run over? And even if it did, that's £20 I no longer have to spend on food.

And the sad thing is, the people who most often need treatment are those on lower incomes (IE, working class or unemployed), as the wealthy have the cash to afford insurance and a decent standard of living.


Not in the USA you wouldn't. We have medicaid for the poor, and it covers exactly those problems.It's not good enough. From what I've heard about medicaid, you have to be basically destitute in order to qualify (which means that if you have a job, even a shitty McJob with worse pay, it sucks to be you). Whereas the NHS is available to almost everyone.


Do they? I don't suppose I could talk you into not smoking, could I?Why would you? I enjoy smoking, and despite being a relatively expensive habit I can afford it. I even have money leftover to buy weed.

What's your point?


You are so funny with this "ruling class" business. In the first place, there are in the USA at least small businesses that make potato chips and candies. Don't you have "mom and pop" operations selling fish and chips in merry ole England? The "oligarchs" of these businesses sometimes do well, and sometimes they go broke, and sometimes they just squeak by. But the food is just as bad for the consumer, if he overindulges, whether he buys from a multinational or the mom and pop.It won't be the massive food corporations or the "mom-and-pop" businesses deciding what foods are "unhealthy" and therefore subject to "fat tax", it will be some government quango or some other unaccountable body.


Second, why in the world should a business man be forced to tell you that eating a whole bag of potato chips is not quite as good as eating a nice carrot?They shouldn't. That's not his job. Similarly, it wasn't the tobacco companies' decision to slap massive warning labels on packets of fags and tax them to high heaven, it was the government's. I assume the scenario would be similar with regards to any kind of "fat tax", the idea of which has been bandied about occasionally. Personally I'm against it as I can't trust them to do it right - even with tobacco tax the government's greedy paws can't help but skim the top off the revenue from it.


Sadly, however, our intrepid chipmaker is already required to tell you how many fat grams, calories, carbs, and varying ingredients go into every flavor-filled bite. You don't have to "trust" him. Big Brother (the Food and Drug Administration) is already watching him.It's not the content of the food I'm concerned about - it's about which foods will be classed as "unhealthy" and therefore subject to "fat tax".

For example, will tins of beans be "healthy" or "unhealthy"? This is a more important question than you might think, as there have been times when I have been desperately short of cash and had to scrape together every penny I could find in order to buy food. Tins of beans are very cheap and filling, and hence are a preferred choice when money is tight. But if a "fat tax" is slapped on them on the spurious notion they're "unhealthy" then it makes it that much harder for me to eat.

Some fatarse might enjoy three tins of beans with their cooked breakfast, but in hard times three tins is a day's worth of eating for those on the lower rungs of society's ladder. But both rich and poor people get cancer as a result of smoking cigarettes, hence why it "fair" to tax tobacco but not "fair" to issue a "fat tax" on foods, however "unhealthy" they may be.

[Plagueround]

Tom, do you think a congressional enactment establishing a national health care system in the USA would pas constitutional muster? I think you'd have to go to the commerce clause to validate such legislation, but Congress has done crazier things with the commerce clause than this.

Hey Plaqueround, if you're still with us, are you sure you didn't see a package of this coca-cola product making the "ridiculous claim" that it would re-hydrate you? If so, the claim was totally valid. It's just Powerade, Coke's version of Gatorade, another great corporate product.

http://www.coca-cola.co.uk/_img/126.jpg

Now go have a nice glass of ice-cold Coca-Cola ... the pause that refreshes.

http://www.coca-cola.co.uk/_img/9.jpg

LOL nice marketing campaign. I don't still have the box, but I assure you it was a box of run of the mill coca-cola, not powerade. I've forever doomed myself as revleft's crazed lunatic fearful of soft drinks! :laugh:

P.S. Thats a G in the name PlaGueRound. Plaqueround sounds really gross, like I don't brush my teeth or something. :lol:

[Robert]

G! I'm glad you clarified that, as I thought something was a little off there. I will now go brush my own teeth in your honor.

[RedAnarchist]

G! I'm glad you clarified that, as I thought something was a little off there. I will now go brush my own teeth in your honor.

Just make sure you haven't drunk any coke in the last half hour or so, its bad for your teeth to do that:)

[Robert]

No, 20 pounds won't cover it. Funny thing, though, if you end up in a county hospital, it's free. Private? Yes, they bill you, but they can't really collect the money unless you come into a big inheritance or win the lottery. They can't take your wages or home. So it gets written off anyway.


Why would you? I enjoy smoking, and despite being a relatively expensive habit I can afford it.Because I don't want you to get cancer. And if you only have 20£ at the moment, you can't afford it.


I even have money leftover to buy weed. Oh, well, okay .... Just so long as you have enough for weed.
Sorry, I guess that was judgmental. But you sound on the one hand like you're near the poorhouse, but then you have money for pot. Isn't there a tension there?


the NHS is available to almost everyoneAlmost?


it will be some government quango or some other unaccountable body.I LOVE that word! But I'm confused; do you want this stuff regulated and/or taxed or don't you? You don't trust the government quangos (!) or the capitalists. Who's left? A revolutionary committee?



Tins of beans are very cheap and filling, and hence are a preferred choice when money is tight. But if a "fat tax" is slapped on them on the spurious notion they're "unhealthy" then it makes it that much harder for me to eat.

I can't imagine anyone finding beans unhealthy, but now you're making MY point! Are you sure you're a socialist? I knew there was something about you I liked.

Hey, here's a question: why should health care be guaranteed by the government but not food? Or do want free food too? How abut clothing? I know you're smart enough to know nothing's free, so how do you propose keeping track of whether your contributions to society are equal to your benefits?

[pusher robot]

The point of taxing tobacco (or rather, what should be the point of taxing it) is to recoup the losses incurred by smoking-related illnesses.

That's the justification, yes, but in reality smoking reduces the burden on health care resources because smokers tend to die so much earlier than non-smokers, whereas non-smokers tend to live on another twenty or so years, steadily consuming more and more resources as they age, not to mention pensions and other social services.

In reality, smoking taxes have to do both with the perceived injustice of consuming any health care resources at all due to one's choice of smoking, and the notion of the immorality of self-harm, and nothing really whatsoever about the actual costs imposed on the system.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

No, 20 pounds won't cover it. Funny thing, though, if you end up in a county hospital, it's free. Private? Yes, they bill you, but they can't really collect the money unless you come into a big inheritance or win the lottery. They can't take your wages or home. So it gets written off anyway.

So that's accidents, and I suspect it varies from state to state. What about chronic conditions that require ongoing treatment, drugs, perhaps multiple visits to the surgeon?


Because I don't want you to get cancer.Your concern is touching. :lol: But seriously, I know the risks, and yet I'm doing it anyway because I enjoy it. Isn't that what freedom is about? The ability to take risks to gain pleasure in full knowledge of the potential consequences?


And if you only have 20£ at the moment, you can't afford it.A small pouch of baccy with some papers costs me about £3 and lasts me a week. I get money every two weeks so that's a mere £6 off my budget, out of a total of about £70 after rent.


Oh, well, okay .... Just so long as you have enough for weed.
Sorry, I guess that was judgmental. But you sound on the one hand like you're near the poorhouse, but then you have money for pot. Isn't there a tension there?Of course not. Compared to going out to clubs, resturaunts and so on, weed is a very cheap form of recreation. I don't go on expensive holidays, although sometimes I spend the money I would have spent on weed for a train or coach ticket to visit friends. My internet access is provided by the place where I live. It's not fantastic admittedly, but it beats the streets and is more stable than squatting, and I satisfy the need for face-to-face human contact by socialising with the other residents.


Almost? I'm not totally sure, but I imagine that people who aren't British citizens have to pay for it. I could be wrong though. All I know is that when I scalded my foot and the resulting injury got infected, I simply went to the walk-in clinic and got a decent dressing and some antibiotics, free of charge.


I LOVE that word! But I'm confused; do you want this stuff regulated and/or taxed or don't you? You don't trust the government quangos (!) or the capitalists. Who's left? A revolutionary committee?Current food regulation is OK, I guess. It's very rare that stuff like broken glass, botulism or arsenic ends up in food, and I personally have yet to come across such misfortune myself. I'm opposed to any kind of fat tax as it would in all likelyhood increase the cost of my shopping ( I need to eat - I don't need to smoke, hence why tobacco taxes aren't such a big problem for me). It's as simple as that, really.

I don't profess to know how things will be done in classless society, of course. I can speculate, but that doesn't tell us how things will actually turn out in real life.


I can't imagine anyone finding beans unhealthy, but now you're making MY point! Are you sure you're a socialist? I knew there was something about you I liked.I'm not a "socialist" - my ideology is a combination of "Marxism without the crap" (http://rs2kpapers.awardspace.com/theory2ff8.html?subaction=showfull&id=1082912812&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&), anarchism, Technocracy (http://en.technocracynet.eu/index.php) and Transhumanism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transhumanism)


Hey, here's a question: why should health care be guaranteed by the government but not food? Or do want free food too? How abut clothing? I know you're smart enough to know nothing's free, so how do you propose keeping track of whether your contributions to society are equal to your benefits?Energy Accounting (http://en.technocracynet.eu/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=84&Itemid=137) seems to me to be the best way of managing resources in the absence of currency. The barcodes that we currently use to scan items in shops could instead be used as a way of keeping track of consumption - others have proposed a swipe-card system, but I think simply scanning items will be simpler, plus there's no card to lose.

[luxemburg89]

I think you all misunderstand Britain, and in particular the people. There is a history of misery because Capitalism is successful and people have no choice but to accept it, I think somewhere deep down everyone knows they are a failure. It is a nation of failure, of coming close and failing. However, the climate is more important to most than politics, if the sun is shining we are more likely to be happy. They find an identity in misery, and to an extent, solitude. It is this desire for solitude that leads them to be xenophobic and racist, yet when these people meet people from other countries they tend to actually endear to them. People here want to adhere to the principles of previous generations, because it keeps them alone. Money is a means of prolonging that controlled, somewhat artificial misery, those without money face the actual reality of true misery. We all strive for attention and misery, because this gets us sympathy, and we pretend to have this desire for solitude but, really, what we want is someone, or something to end solitude.

This often goes wrong in a society that promotes competition and promotion as the hanging bodies of teenagers in Brigend in Wales clearly demonstrate. We are encouraged to hold up certain people as wonderful and realise how worthless we are, this kills some of us.

I'm sorry to kill the buzz, I know some of you are purring with your unfounded political explanations, but I'm afraid politics is secondary to personal feelings on this island - I'm not saying that's good or bad - but it's the way it is. Or at least in Hampshire anyway, I suppose that's all I've ever really known.