Economist explains why Britain is poor

[GeoffF100]

I believe his basic thesis here is good. He contends that we should be able to compete with France, Germany, Netherlands, Canada and Australia on wealth and equality. He also contends that radical action is not good. He contends that what the country needs is slow incremental progress toward greater wealth and equality.

Surely wealth and equality are two completely different things? And you can have either, neither or both?

Bell is always droning on about "equality". But it is wealth that drives most people and not equality, which is more of an ideological concept than a personal ambition.

Wealth is always desirable; equality may or may not be.

He makes it very clear that wealth and equality are two different things. He believes that it is realistic for us to have as much wealth as the aforementioned countries, with as much equality as they have.

OK but I still maintain that wealth is always desirable but equality may or may not be. Nobody says as a child that "I want to be more equal when I grow up".

And if the UK is doing so badly relative to other European nations, then why is it the UK that potential immigrants risk their lives to try and get to? It is easier for them to get to France, Belgium etc., but it is the UK they desire.

We clearly are doing badly in terms of wealth. Both wealth and equality are desirable, We are doing badly at both. (All relative to France...)

We are not a particularly popular destination for migrants. Some have family here, or have other reasons for wanting to come here. Better pay is not one of them.

[Lootman]

Both wealth and equality are desirable, We are doing badly at both. (All relative to France...)

Since we disagree on the premise, it seems unlikely that we will agree on the conclusions either.

I dispute that equality is particularly desirable as an end in itself.

And in terms of wanting to keep my wealth, I would never choose to live in France.

[scrumpyjack]

Both wealth and equality are desirable, We are doing badly at both. (All relative to France...)

Since we disagree on the premise, it seems unlikely that we will agree on the conclusions either.

I dispute that equality is particularly desirable as an end in itself.

And in terms of wanting to keep my wealth, I would never choose to live in France.

Yes and all these migrants risk their lives to escape from France and come and live in our poor blighted country!

[XFool]

Well tell me what is the intention if you describe something as Gross Domestic PRODUCT, but use that term to describe something which is not a product. what am I to make of it?

Above my pay grade. Sorry!

If you limit lie to intentions, about which we can really have no idea, that is very narrow.

I don't "limit lie to intentions", the English language does - that is what the word means.

It's a word, it means what it means. Like a "dog" is a dog - it goes wuff! If it goes "meow", or "moo" or "quack" it definitely isn't a dog, whatever it is. (If it goes "sausages" all bets are off!)

"about which we can really have no idea" - Yes! That is the big problem with lies.

Which is why people are nowadays overly fond of avoiding it by skipping over it and taking "lie" to mean a simple matter of "True or False - in my opinion..."

So it becomes (conveniently?) impossible for anyone to be both truthful and 100% wrong. These are the unforgiving times we live in.

In the end, words change their meaning to fit how people use them... and the old meaning is lost. So is the old concept/idea lost with it?
See: "disinterested/uninterested"



c.f. "Tony Blair lied about weapons of mass destruction."

[Mike4]

Wealth is always desirable; equality may or may not be.

My old constitutional affairs teacher at skool used to drum into us that it is 'equality of opportunity' which is so desirable, not plain 'equality'. Plain 'equality' being the road to hell and mediocrity. AND he was a leftie!

I never hear this suggested nowadays but i think he was so right, if you'll forgive the unintended pun.

[XFool]

My old constitutional affairs teacher at skool used to drum into us that it is 'equality of opportunity' which is so desirable, not plain 'equality'. Plain 'equality' being the road to hell and mediocrity. AND he was a leftie!

I never hear this suggested nowadays...

We are living in 'simplified' times.

See my post above on the meaning of "lie".

[scrumpyjack]

Too many economists and not enough people doing real jobs?

[scotview]

Well tell me what is the intention if you describe something as Gross Domestic PRODUCT, but use that term to describe something which is not a product. what am I to make of it?

Yes, funny thing GDP. I think it also includes a "notional rent" or "imputed rent" applied to all those in the UK who are owner occupiers. What's that all about ?

[mc2fool]

Wealth is always desirable; equality may or may not be.

Re wealth, not necessarily, or perhaps more accurately, only to a point. I went to a presentation of a survey and study on what makes people happy at LSE some years ago, and having money did indeed make people happy, but only up to around £35kpa (I don't remember the exact figure). More than that didn't increase happiness (statistically, across the study sample of course. YMMV )

And, yes, I know income and wealth aren't the same thing but there are plenty of folks around that wouldn't be classed as "wealthy" that are, nevertheless, happy with their lot. Of course, there are others that consider the amount of money they have a way of "keeping score"...

I am reminded of a conversation I had with a Romanian girl I was on a project with some years back. Her father was a lawyer and it was clear from the conversation that her family were doing ok (upper middle class in traditional UK terms) and I commented so, to which she said, yes, but it was difficult to feel well off when there's sh1t in the streets, which she expanded on as a metaphor for the lack of societal wealth they were surrounded by....

All things are relative. Your Romanian girl's father was well off by Romanian standards, but when she was in the UK or Western Europe she would have realised her father's salary was negligible, and that they were not as well off as they thought they were. Which would have made her unhappy. If she had remained in Romania, she probably would have been blissfully happy.

In the UK we are relatively much richer, and an "upper middle class lawyer" would be on a very significant income of well over £100,000/year nowadays. However, in the UK we still don't clean our streets properly, and many people throw their sh1t everywhere.

Methinks you've missed or misunderstood the point. Of course things are relative, and, yes, I got the feeling that her father was probably in the Romanian financial strata equivalent to a UK £100k pa job. But, while she knew that the Romanian "strata" were much less than the UK or Western Europe ones that didn't make her unhappy. What made her unhappy was the generally poor state of her country, where she did remain (it was a short term project in Italy that she joined just for the project).

In "happiness" surveys it's long been noted that increased societal equality leads to increased societal happiness -- and no, that doesn't mean "let's all be poor together".

[GeoffF100]

Well tell me what is the intention if you describe something as Gross Domestic PRODUCT, but use that term to describe something which is not a product. what am I to make of it?

Yes, funny thing GDP. I think it also includes a "notional rent" or "imputed rent" applied to all those in the UK who are owner occupiers. What's that all about ?

Google is as knowledgeable as ever:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imputed_rent

[Lootman]

Wealth is always desirable; equality may or may not be.

My old constitutional affairs teacher at skool used to drum into us that it is 'equality of opportunity' which is so desirable, not plain 'equality'. Plain 'equality' being the road to hell and mediocrity. AND he was a leftie!

I never hear this suggested nowadays but i think he was so right, if you'll forgive the unintended pun.

I can certainly get behind a goal of equality of opportunity rather than equality of outcome, which is what folks talk about now when they speak of equality.

But even there, I am not sure. Back when we had 11-plus exams, kids were divided by ability and potential. In my area 25% or so went to grammar school. And even there, we were streamed by ability. There was the Remove class that did O levels in 4 years, not 5. Then 2A, 2B, 2C and 2D, the D stream having the "thickies". The theory being that kids learn best with others of a similar speed and aptitude.

Talk of equality is a distraction to the more important issue of how to increase prosperity.

[GrahamPlatt]

I believe his basic thesis here is good. He contends that we should be able to compete with France, Germany, Netherlands, Canada and Australia on wealth and equality. He also contends that radical action is not good. He contends that what the country needs is slow incremental progress toward greater wealth and equality.

Surely wealth and equality are two completely different things? And you can have either, neither or both?

Bell is always droning on about "equality". But it is wealth that drives most people and not equality, which is more of an ideological concept than a personal ambition.

Wealth is always desirable; equality may or may not be.

https://invidious.namazso.eu/watch?v=IhJ4CDCfASI

[GrahamPlatt]

I believe his basic thesis here is good. He contends that we should be able to compete with France, Germany, Netherlands, Canada and Australia on wealth and equality. He also contends that radical action is not good. He contends that what the country needs is slow incremental progress toward greater wealth and equality.

Surely wealth and equality are two completely different things? And you can have either, neither or both?

Bell is always droning on about "equality". But it is wealth that drives most people and not equality, which is more of an ideological concept than a personal ambition.

Wealth is always desirable; equality may or may not be.

https://invidious.namazso.eu/watch?v=IhJ4CDCfASI

there’s this as well https://www.bbc.com/future/article/2012 ... -the-money

[Tedx]

Britain isnt poor. It's a very rich country in many ways.

We just need the right government to exploit those riches.

[Lootman]

Britain isnt poor. It's a very rich country in many ways.

The UK is a great place to get rich in ways other than showing up for work every day for 40 years.

You can flip properties. Become a BTL landlord. Play the stock market. Marry one of the many rich women who come to the UK to study. And so on.

The Germans think the only way to get rich is to show up at the factory or chemical plant every day. More fool them.

[CliffEdge]

So, to sum up:

The BBC reports something : "The BBC is biased"

True.

The BBC reports the evidence for something: "The BBC is biased"

After cherry picking and carefully using 'bias by omission'.

The BBC reports the other side of the evidence: "The BBC is biased"

Which it rarely does. And when it does it's again, bias by omission or even selection.
Take Brexit on the BBC news.
TV crew looks for remainers in the street to interview. Records 10 or so and picks the 3 who come off best.
TV crew looks for leavers in the street to interview. Records 10 or so and picks the toothless cretin, the drunk in an England football top with a tattooed face and some old woman going on about the war. The other 7 clips of 'normal' people never get broadcast.

There is certainly a whole lot of bias around... somewhere!

Yeah. You mentioned the BBC 3 times. Maybe it's the BBC.

You will never find 7 normal people in 10 with that filter applied.

[CliffEdge]

Britain isnt poor. It's a very rich country in many ways.

The UK is a great place to get rich in ways other than showing up for work every day for 40 years.

You can flip properties. Become a BTL landlord. Play the stock market. Marry one of the many rich women who come to the UK to study. And so on.

The Germans think the only way to get rich is to show up at the factory or chemical plant every day. More fool them.

Most Europeans are far less selfish than wealthy Brits. I don't think that is something to be proud of but I accept that some posters here would strongly disagree with me. Bullies flourish in the UK.

[Tedx]

Of course, you could never accuse the Germans of being bullies.

[absolutezero]

So, to sum up:

The BBC reports something : "The BBC is biased"

True.

The BBC reports the evidence for something: "The BBC is biased"

After cherry picking and carefully using 'bias by omission'.

The BBC reports the other side of the evidence: "The BBC is biased"

Which it rarely does. And when it does it's again, bias by omission or even selection.
Take Brexit on the BBC news.
TV crew looks for remainers in the street to interview. Records 10 or so and picks the 3 who come off best.
TV crew looks for leavers in the street to interview. Records 10 or so and picks the toothless cretin, the drunk in an England football top with a tattooed face and some old woman going on about the war. The other 7 clips of 'normal' people never get broadcast.

There is certainly a whole lot of bias around... somewhere!

Yeah. You mentioned the BBC 3 times. Maybe it's the BBC.

You will never find 7 normal people in 10 with that filter applied.

Subtle, but I want to see you actually type it.
What do you mean by that comment?

[XFool]

Of course, you could never accuse the Germans of being bullies.

Nowadays?