Independent Leyton Orient Forum

CEB wrote: ↑Sun May 19, 2024 9:57 pm

Dunners wrote: ↑Sun May 19, 2024 5:11 pm

Hoover Attack wrote: ↑Sun May 19, 2024 4:35 pm

Good point. Things are - for now, at least - better than Victorian times, I guess.

So, you're in agreement that the post-war capitalist settlement has been a relative success, in that it has delivered the greatest benefits to health and wealth to more people globally (both in relative and absolute terms) than any previous system in all of 2 million years of humanity's existence?

Isn’t that a little bit of a wordier way of saying “the poors have got HD ready tellies, and they’re still complaining”?

And they hardly ever get scurvy these days, so don't know what they're bleating about.

Dunners wrote: ↑Sun May 19, 2024 11:02 pm

CEB wrote: ↑Sun May 19, 2024 9:57 pm

Dunners wrote: ↑Sun May 19, 2024 5:11 pm

So, you're in agreement that the post-war capitalist settlement has been a relative success, in that it has delivered the greatest benefits to health and wealth to more people globally (both in relative and absolute terms) than any previous system in all of 2 million years of humanity's existence?

Isn’t that a little bit of a wordier way of saying “the poors have got HD ready tellies, and they’re still complaining”?

Not in this context. And, just to remind the viewers, the context is this comment:

"Any countries making a success of this way?"

You see, what this comment insinuates is that the current system has not been a success. There's two ways we can approach this:

1. We take the boarder at his word. Only that the relatively minor evidence of all of human history begs to differ.

Or

2. We assume that what he really means is that "There's always room for improvement." Well, nobody is disagreeing with that. But, for there to be room for improvement, you have to assume that the current system has been a success, even if only so far.

It's 1. It has not been a success. Ask the 12 million people eeking out an existence in poverty in this country if they think it's a success.

Hoover Attack wrote: ↑Mon May 20, 2024 9:14 am

Dunners wrote: ↑Sun May 19, 2024 11:02 pm

CEB wrote: ↑Sun May 19, 2024 9:57 pm


Isn’t that a little bit of a wordier way of saying “the poors have got HD ready tellies, and they’re still complaining”?

Not in this context. And, just to remind the viewers, the context is this comment:

"Any countries making a success of this way?"

You see, what this comment insinuates is that the current system has not been a success. There's two ways we can approach this:

1. We take the boarder at his word. Only that the relatively minor evidence of all of human history begs to differ.

Or

2. We assume that what he really means is that "There's always room for improvement." Well, nobody is disagreeing with that. But, for there to be room for improvement, you have to assume that the current system has been a success, even if only so far.

It's 1. It has not been a success. Ask the 12 million people eeking out an existence in poverty in this country if they think it's a success.

So it's 2 then.

12 million people eeking out an existence in poverty in this country is bad, but has been far worse in pretty much all of human history. Both in absolute and relative terms. And, for many of those 12 million people, I bet they wouldn't trade places with their counterparts at any time in the past 2 million years. Which means that there has been progress, which would validate the post-war system to a degree.

It is possible to acknowledge that things needs to be better without implying that, whatever the current system is, has been awful and needs to be upended.

No, it's 1.

Absolute terms, yes. Relative terms, no. Because the advances made by human civilisation have not been equally distributed amongst all. Which is the problem with the way things are under this way.

You and the other 1%ers just can't see beyond your own bubble.

Which period in history was it better to be poor in this country?

Maybe the 60s when everyone looked out for each other, leant each other butter and when we all used to sing Knees up mother brown before eating tinned spam in front of the coal fireplace to keep warm

Halcyon days of yore

Not so long ago, didnt people get free university, a cheap house and could support a family on one wage?

Currywurst and Chips wrote: ↑Mon May 20, 2024 11:58 am Which period in history was it better to be poor in this country?

That’s not the question though, if we’re talking relative terms.
The better question would be at what point in history was there a bigger gap in standards of living between the richest and poorest?

Is it? Well then the answer is cave many times when nobody had anything but a club and a cave (so cartoons assure me)

But I doubt anyone would trade what we have now for that? Just because everyone had nothing but at least it was equal

It’s not about trading, but about not allowing the shitness of history to mean it’s fine to be fobbed off that we’ve never had it so good

When in relative terms was it better then?

Currywurst and Chips wrote: ↑Mon May 20, 2024 12:54 pm Is it? Well then the answer is cave many times when nobody had anything but a club and a cave (so cartoons assure me)

If cave many times were relatively the same, one cave man would have had a club. Let’s call him Captain Caveman for ease of reference. Captain Caveman would have used it to exert influence over all the other cave men.

The other clubless cave men would have spent their days out hunting and gathering for Captain Caveman, their evenings drawing pictures on cave walls depicting how great Captain Caveman was, and their nights dreaming about some idyll in which everyone had a club, not just Captain Caveman, even though that was obviously impossible.

CEB wrote: ↑Mon May 20, 2024 12:51 pm

Currywurst and Chips wrote: ↑Mon May 20, 2024 11:58 am Which period in history was it better to be poor in this country?

That’s not the question though, if we’re talking relative terms.
The better question would be at what point in history was there a bigger gap in standards of living between the richest and poorest?

Difficult to say for sure, as the Gini co-efficient is only a bit more than a hundred years old.

OyinbO wrote: ↑Tue May 21, 2024 10:43 am

CEB wrote: ↑Mon May 20, 2024 12:51 pm

Currywurst and Chips wrote: ↑Mon May 20, 2024 11:58 am Which period in history was it better to be poor in this country?

That’s not the question though, if we’re talking relative terms.
The better question would be at what point in history was there a bigger gap in standards of living between the richest and poorest?

Difficult to say for sure, as the Gini co-efficient is only a bit more than a hundred years old.

I don’t know what Champions League qualification has to do with any of this

Relative poverty is one thing. What we have in the UK these days are millions who are literally destitute and the numbers grow every day.

Millions? Really?

Under the current economic system, 4.3% of children globally die before reaching the age of puberty. 0.3% in some countries.

Obviously, this is a disgrace as it means that millions are suffering, so we must ditch the current system and try another way.

But there isn't one.

Still, at least child mortality rates are better than in Roman times. Hardly any kids get thrown to the lions these days.

What I want to know, is why are we so busy watching Labour? With their track record, surely it is the Tories that need close scrutiny. This is a strange website!

Not strange at all, just full of far right types & Corbynistas

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 52361.html

Surely Sir Kier wouldn't do something like this?

He's such a spineless piece of sh*t. No doubt this will, apart from the Newsnight revelations, be glossed over by the grown ups and sensibles but he's showing us who he is again and again and again.

Allowing her back would be a silly move.

Then have the balls to expel her rather than hiding behind an "ongoing" process he knows full well has finished months ago. He's a repeatedly proven liar.