BBO Discussion Forums: EU Brexit thread - BBO Discussion Forums

StevenG, on 2016-August-09, 06:32, said:

Great, than tell me about my family- Start with my parents if you like.

Zelandakh, on 2016-August-09, 06:50, said:

And that is a statement with which I wholeheartedly agree. But since I changed to my current position on EU membership about 15 years ago (because I thought about and analysed the issues, and came to a conclusion that, at the time, seemed counter-intuitive), and have been reconsidering the evidence ever since then, it had no bearing on my vote.

Zelandakh, on 2016-August-09, 06:51, said:

I can't, of course. But when I said "middle-class", I didn't realise it was an insult, let alone an insult in the same league as "racist" and "xenophobic". Since you seem to find it so, I apologise.

StevenG, on 2016-August-09, 07:31, said:

In the context of not understanding working class people it is surely an insult and, indeed, is often used as an insult more generally. Google "middle class parents" for example. The truth is that I am middle class by most measures, since I have a degree and a (small) professional income. I am not "middle class" in the way that many extremely rich people claim to be, meaning that they do not hold a title. On the other hand my childhood was living with a divorced mother who worked as a part-time cleaning lady. About as working class as you can get.

You see it is possible to be middle class, understand something about poverty and also find fear and hatred based on cultural differences offensive. And yes, some of what I saw towards the end of the referendum campaign was racist in my opinion. Many of the "ordinary" people interviewed seemed oblivious to what they were saying as well, which is disappointing. The lack of media scrutiny of obviously downright lies was also disappointing. Maintaining balance apparently means that the more outrageous things you say, the closer the middle point is to your side.

In any case, I hope things start sorting themselves out soon. I imagine they will start improving at some point but whether the UK can get back to where it would have been after a Bremain result is something I remain highly doubtful of. At least Merkel is supportive though, that will be very helpful in the months to come.

StevenG, on 2016-August-09, 02:06, said:

Where most inner city children play.

Cyberyeti, on 2016-August-09, 02:58, said:

Thanks. That is good to understand. I could see how that would cause a grievance for childless locals.

I found this to be interesting reading https://www.gov.uk/g..._March_2016.pdf

If you look up the UK government stats for rough sleeping in GB they show that the number of people has approximately doubled since 2010 (both in and out of London) to the fall of last year; according to newspaper articles ( no idea where they got their stats) the number has increased substantially since then. They have run articles about businesses putting various devices in place to prevent people from sleeping in sheltered areas in the streets around their businesses.

Someone a while ago asked what research there was to support the concept of crowding leading to problems for society. The original research I was referring to was admittedly dealing with overcrowded animals. Calhoun’s study of laboratory rats found correlations between population density and increased aggression, disruptions in mating patterns and maternal activity, and higher rates of illness (Calhoun 1962).

There have been studies since then which have dealt with the effects of living in crowded conditions have on kids. Some quotes: Lack of privacy can result in stress, difficult social interactions, and behavioral problems for all household members (Evans et al. 1998). Parents in overcrowded homes tend to show less responsive parenting (Caldwell and Bradley 1984), which may lower parents’ participation in parent-teacher organizations at school, monitoring of children’s academic performance, and help with children’s schoolwork. Children in crowded homes have more behavioral problems in school (Evans et al. 2001), which can extend to other social contexts.

A study by people in McGill University on the Palestinian refugee camps in the West Bank and Gaza strip was fairly damning. http://prrn.mcgill.c...arah_0004_6.htm

Or read the reports on the refugee detention camp in Nauru that came out today.

To dismiss the findings as irrelevant to situations outside a refugee camp is to my mind the same thing as denying the evidence of a cancer beginning because it has not yet reached the point of being fatal.

StevenG, on 2016-August-09, 07:31, said:

You are, apparently, racist if you voted for Brexit. I think that is now the definition ; just live with it.

Trinidad, on 2016-August-09, 04:55, said:

That is not the main problem in England. Yes, the population is ageing, but the bigger problem is overpopulation, and an ever-increasing population. If the net population fell, the country would be a more pleasant place to live for the remainder. Increasing GDP, which seems to be a generally accepted target, in reality means increasing numbers. I would prefer a reducing GDP. Quality of life is more important.

onoway, on 2016-August-10, 11:05, said:

Now that's the dumbest pseudo-intelligent post ever written on BBF. Congratulations.

fromageGB, on 2016-August-11, 06:09, said:

Fair enough. "Money doesn't make one happy; space and clean air do." I have some (actually quite a bit of) sympathy for that point of view. But then you will have to accept a lower standard of living, a lower pension (or a pension at the age of 75), and a lower quality health care.

If you decrease the GDP per inhabitant then that simply means that there is less money.

Steven's point was that immigrants are the problem. I pointed out that they provide tomorrow's GDP. And I don't know whether Steven is as eager as you to decrease his standard of living.

Rik

Trinidad, on 2016-August-11, 07:34, said:

No, my point is that population growth is a big problem in a society that seems to me to be dysfunctional, consuming more than it creates. If population increases, and our productive capacity doesn't, we need to import more, and our balance of trade figures demonstrate that we cannot pay for these imports by exporting. Effective we pay by selling our companies to foreigners. This is not sustainable. Immigration is a cause of population growth, so it needs to be curtailed, as things stand at the moment. I don't differentiate between people; to me the effect on the economy of a returning British citizen is the same as that of an equivalently skilled foreigner.

Also, increasing GDP by increasing population is pointless. In practice GDP per capita is barely rising, even though GDP itself appears to be gaining significantly. I don't even consider GDP to be a good measure of economic well-being, since it conflates genuine wealth-creation (manufacturing, agriculture, etc.) with economic activity of no real value. (No, that's not the right word, but I can't find a way of expressing what I mean. Of course a hospital employee is of value, but it is social value, not economic.) An increase in GDP driven by the service sector is, I believe, an illusion.

fromageGB, on 2016-August-11, 05:56, said:

As has been pointed out already many times, that the campaign had elements of racism in it and many supporters made racist statements at various times is not the same as saying that everyone voting Leave is racist. Not everyone that voted for Hitler was fascist either, nor is everyone supporting Trump any of the -isms associated with him. People vote the way they do for many reasons. If I heard a Brexit supporter say: "Yes, some of the campaigning on our side was racist" then my immediate reaction would be to think that person was very likely not. And many Brexit supporters have made such criticisms. On the other hand, when I see Brexit supporters saying that everything was ok and it is simply sour grapes on the Remain side that these things are even suggested, well then I get a rather different impression.

fromageGB, on 2016-August-11, 06:09, said:

Would it? With fewer workers per pensioner the current model would be impossible even without factoring in the damage to the economy from Brexit. Would you prefer a. to remove all State support for pensioners; b. to increase the retirement age to 90; c. to (at least) double the tax burden on workers; or d. to deny pensioners medical attention to make sure they die off more quickly? Which option do you feel results in a more pleasant place for the remainder?

cherdano, on 2016-August-08, 21:11, said:

Not here, where we are building (and live in) the smallest dwellings in Europe. Most of what we are building are very small apartments which cost at least £400,000, for people whose wages are close to the lowest in Western Europe.

There are also large flats costing millions being built, but these are usually purchased by foreigners and kept empty.

Vampyr, on 2016-August-11, 08:52, said:

Now, wouldn't that have been a reason to vote against a Brexit and to start working in another EU country?

Rik

P.S. Comparing salaries between countries is a silly thing to do. As an example, salaries in Sweden are very low, since the employer pays a massive amount of tax. The employee pays relatively little. In the Netherlands, the salaries are much higher, but after tax it doesn't look so good anymore. And if you then think of what the government provides for your taxes in Sweden, Sweden starts to look pretty good...

Zelandakh, on 2016-August-11, 08:47, said:

All of these, to a degree. Certainly I believe the NHS policy is wrong, and it should be recognised that limited funding means expenditure per individual should be capped. If someone's age-related illness progresses beyond this point they should be allowed to die. More importantly, many other age-related policies are wrong, such as publicly funded final salary pension schemes and the regulations that force pension funds to "invest" in non-productive goverment bonds rather than private business.

I dont understand the problem. I dont need any shelves for canned tomatoes. If we have 60 million immigrants or whatever the number is then 700,000 cans of tomatoes are not enough. I need more canned tomatoes! If i am getting 700,000 cans of tomatoes at prices set in a contract 40 years ago...I am rich, rich, rich.

Do posters realize how many tomatoes 60 million or whatever the number of immigranta are going to consume!

mike777, on 2016-August-12, 15:10, said:

Didn't mean to upvote. Instead, I meant to say "Huh?"

shyams, on 2016-August-12, 16:03, said:

Yeah - white noise.