Brown is a twerp
Gordon Brown might mean well and I don’t hate the guy but come on the solutions are well within Labour’s control.
1) child poverty is not going to be fixed by abolition of the second child benefit cap. If it were that simple, there would have been no need to set up the first multibank in Scotland, where the cap doesn't exist.
2) child poverty in this country is a complex problem. It's to do with wages, taxes, benefits, illness, housing, education, childcare and more. Fixing it is going to require a sustained, cross-government, practical programme - the kind of boring, responsible thing this country hasn't done for 20+ years since SureStart. The child poverty task force is the first step in that.
3) it's not gonna happen overnight. Until then, like Brown says, "As a new anti-poverty plan is being prepared, the multibanks still need to secure more supplies and more funds from generous donors so that, working with food banks, [they] can provide poverty relief.”
Labour could take one important step tomorrow and the refuse to do so. Its right they are called out for it and Browns total hypocrisy
the scottish child payment mitigates but does not eliminate the issues caused by the 2 child cap
As a new anti-poverty plan is being prepared
Perhaps they should take the immediate and obvious step as they have been urged to do by the various bodies that work in this field. All this taskforce and plan is is a can kicking exercise. they know the first step to take and refuse to do it
Browns total hypocrisy
Brown is not PM or even an MP (NB also he is not a Lord even though he would have been offered a peerage).
It is not hypocrisy to help organisations that work on child poverty in Scotland or in England. We could do with a lot more "hypocrites" like him.
At the risk of highlighting my own hypocrisy - some of us keyboard warriors could do more to fix problems by helping food banks or multibanks like than by banging away arguing online.
You are not naive enough to not realise he is doing that as a senior labour figure with the blessing of the labour leadership.
You do not know what charity work I do.
I will also point out that Brown does not live in London. If he was doing this where he lived then maybe a pass - but doing this in London? Its just a photo op to distract from labours lack of action
You are not naive enough to not realise he is doing that as a senior labour figure with the blessing of the labour leadership.
"Kier Starmer secretly ordered Gordon Brown to help open a multibank to support poor kids because Labour doesn't want to solve child poverty" is an absolute dog egg of a take.
I will also point out that Brown does not live in London. If he was doing this where he lived then maybe a pass – but doing this in London? Its just a photo op to distract from labours lack of action
If you read the link, TJ, you'd notice the first one that Gordon Brown helped to set up was in his own back yard of Lochgelly, Fife.
Does that makes him a hypocritical bastard too - coming down here and working on child poverty when there's so much more he could be doing north of the border?
you are not that naive are you?
He is not working on child poverty. He is sticking plasters on a gaping wound and of course the london one was a sanctioned photo op. Otherwise it would not have been all over the news. Come on
Just catching up on this thread so a little behind but..
You dirty Northern Bast**ds!
Oi! Don’t be lumping us all in with people from Yorkshire 😉
I'll have you both know I had a shower this morning!
He is not working on child poverty. He is sticking plasters on a gaping wound and of course the london one was a sanctioned photo op. Otherwise it would not have been all over the news.
Sorry, TJ, are you talking about Gordon Brown? The guy that made sure SureStart was paid for when he was Chancellor? The guy that wanted to make eradicating child poverty was written into law when he was PM? The guy that's been calling on Westminster and Holyrood to act on child poverty for years? The guy that said the two child cap should be abolished after Starmer said it shouldn't? The guy that just published a white paper on how to reduce child poverty? The guy that - just to reiterate - got off his arse to help set up multibanks for poor children in Scotland and London?
That is the guy that you think isn't working on child poverty, and who is controlled by Kier Starmer (who apparently also controls whether the media can control launch events), and the point is to distract the media from child poverty policy?
https://www.scotsman.com/news/gordon-brown-slams-snp-record-on-child-poverty-1396268
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/gordon-brown-demands-two-child-32815904
https://gordonandsarahbrown.com/2024/05/partnership-to-end-poverty/
Come on PCA - I was referring to the photo op stunt in London only - which clearly was a PR stunt which he would not have done without consultation and clearly intended to take the heat off Starmer
Brown in the round is an interesting character and his heart is in the right place i agree. But all those things you say are irrelevant to this point.
"The chancellor has hinted that she may give public sector workers above-inflation pay rises this summer."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4ng5n0my0zo
This is further good news imo.
Or just give them what the pay bodies are recommending, which would be the right thing to do bearing in mind they are there to work it out.
And while she is at it set the pay rises to match inflation from now on and then you never get in the position of getting so far behind with real terms pay reductions for so many people.
According to the link:
But Ms Reeves told Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg that "we will do it in a proper way and make sure the sums add up" - emphasising that her spending rules are "non-negotiable".
And also in the link :
IFS director Paul Johnson said paying for such an increase would require the government to either increase borrowing or taxes, or cut spending elsewhere.
Since she has ruled out increasing borrowing or taxes that only leaves spending cuts elsewhere. So depending where these cuts elsewhere are it is not necessarily good news.
And considering that the government believes a child benefit cap which condemns families to poverty is an acceptable way to save money I am not particularly impressed with their list of priorities
On the benefit cap - reported in the Grauniad. Binners might be getting his pies yet.
The newly elected Labour government will “consider” removing the two-child benefit cap “as one of a number of ways” of lifting children out of poverty, education secretary Bridget Phillipson has said, paving the way for a potential U-turn on the policy.
She told Sky News: “Unfortunately it’s also a very expensive measure, but we will need to consider it as one of a number of levers in terms of how we make sure we lift children out of poverty.
Arrgghhhh - its not very expensive. Its less per year than the aid pledge to Ukraine. Its as tiny amount compared to many depts spending. It will pay back much of its cost in savings in other areas like health and education
But:
On Sunday, chancellor Rachel Reeves told the BBC she could not pledge to scrap the cap without saying where the £3bn annual cost “is going to come from”.
Since she has ruled out increasing borrowing or taxes that only leaves spending cuts elsewhere. So depending where these cuts elsewhere are it is not necessarily good news.
And considering that the government believes a child benefit cap which condemns families to poverty is an acceptable way to save money I am not particularly impressed with their list of priorities
Except they haven't said that and even as per earlier post haven't ruled it out. They will consider all spending in the coming weeks, prioritising all the different needs of their different priorities (health, defence, technology, etc.) and seeing what they can afford and what compromises need to be made elsewhere, and then publish their decisions in the form of (probably) an interim spending review, with a view to a comprehensive SR next year.
Yes, I know you and others would have liked the 2CBC to be agreed BEFORE the process, it wasn't. It may be yet depending how much voice the taskforce has. I'd be surprised if it didn't get agreed in the SR at the latest.
WRT the increased borrowing, I'm not even convinced that is as red line as people are making out. Yes, it 'breaks' a manifesto pledge* but I could see a situation where as part of the SR they need to 'admit' that to even fund the top priorities won't wait, and they need to temporarily increase borrowing to deal with things that were left to them. Stuff they couldn't know at the time.... and that they still believe growth is the actual solution but in the meantime some things can't wait. That looks like a very defensible off ramp to me, depends how dogmatic they are about what was said 2 months ago vs reacting to what's on the table in front of them.
* and they'd get beaten up on here and elsewhere for it, even if it was the right thing to do. Just because.
Its as tiny amount compared to many depts spending. It will pay back much of its cost in savings in other areas like health and education
Yes, and as I've said at length there are dozens, hundreds even of other comparatively tiny amounts, backed by expert opinion, with potentially far greater risks to not doing than this, that also are waiting on this review. The 2CBC is morally high on the list, i agree, technically there are far bigger fish to fry for far lower cost than £3bn per year.
Except they haven’t said that
Don't try to change facts, it can't be done. They have clearly said that the child benefit cap cannot be removed until the economy improves. They are very likely to change their minds but that is what they have said and it reflects their current priorities.
WRT the increased borrowing, I’m not even convinced that is as red line as people are making out.
People ? What people? It is the Chancellor Rachel Reeves herself who has clearly said that it is a red line, she uses the term "non-negotiable" read the link above. Or are you suggesting that she is lying?
Yes, and as I’ve said at length there are dozens, hundreds even of other comparatively tiny amounts, backed by expert opinion, with potentially far greater risks to not doing than this, that also are waiting on this review. The 2CBC is morally high on the list, i agree, technically there are far bigger fish to fry for far lower cost than £3bn per year.
You can say it as many times as you like but what are these hundreds of other things with greater risk or are bigger fish to fry? If you can't name them then that won't be a good start.
It will pay back much of its cost in savings in other areas like health and education
Is there a source for this?
You can say it as many times as you like but what are these hundreds of other things with greater risk or are bigger fish to fry? If you can’t name them then that won’t be a good start.
I can't name them all, I'm in a specific sphere of Science, Innovation & Technology (SIT) but maybe go back and read my earlier posts (in fairness that was on the Election thread, but as you say 'You keep saying that' I assume you were on there)
RETSI https://www.ion.org/ptti/abstracts.cfm?paperID=12977
All of these and many more are part of the critical (SIT) priorities for the UK https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/uk-science-and-technology-framework/the-uk-science-and-technology-framework and yet weren't in the King's Speech specifically and are waiting to have their funding confirmed as part of the SR. Look at NQTP - that was £1bn approx over I think 10 years, a FRACTION of the £3bn per year for 2CBC. But if we lose our place in the Quantum race and become subservient to friendly countries, reliant on them for technology, or worse fall behind unfriendly countries we have a huge national security risk.
And also remember not so long ago we were espousing collaborations with China, now we're rushing to ensure we don't have Chinese tech in our infrastructure because we no longer have the same trust, so even being subservient to friendly countries carries a risk.
So yeh, it's 'only' £3bn a year...... and like I said, dozens of others that you can say similar about in SIT. And then Health? And Energy and Net Zero? and...... Go googling, they've all published their priorities too, the majority of which I'm sure you'd say -'Yep, we've gotta fund that'
Fortunately, there's a process to gather all the info and expert advice and make a holistic decision. Including I believe some potential to admit that election 'promises' have to be broken, for the right reasons.
tjagain
Full Member
Brown is a twerp
Sorry this has been bugging me every time I open this page.
Your name will go on zee list
They don't need to increase taxes to do this (though it would be a good thing for redistribution) and borrowing is irrelevant in having the capacity for spending public money.
They actually just need to spend the cash and make the decision - all other arguments are designed to be a reflection of limited spending power and the lies about the state of the economy.
None of this applies to money promised for Ukraine. No mention of it.
It's so painfully obvious I don't know why we are going around in circles.
It is as usual down to political will.
That's why it's pretty awful.
At some point this sort of stuff is going to come to a head. Reeves need to stop posturing and hinting and realise it's a good thing to inject money into the economy especially if she wants growth.
It's shouldn't be controversial.
I can’t name them all, I’m in a specific sphere of Science, Innovation & Technology (SIT)
Clearly, your examples are only important to someone in your bubble. The location of a UK telecoms hub comes pretty low on list of priorities when child poverty is on the same list...
Except they haven’t said that
Don’t try to change facts, it can’t be done.
I was only referring to your specific statement "the government believes a child benefit cap which condemns families to poverty is an acceptable way to save money"
Where did they say that?
I'm not changing facts, I'm pointing out 'facts' that you have made up.
1) child poverty is not going to be fixed by abolition of the second child benefit cap. If it were that simple, there would have been no need to set up the first multibank in Scotland, where the cap doesn’t exist.
No one suggested it would fix every element of child poverty which is where you have placed your silly logic.
And you don't fix it by not contributing money to economy as a starting point.
It's a bare minimum not a total solution. No point lecturing me on how many things contribute to poverty. But it does comes down to lack of money.
It's also tokenistic of what a Labour party ought to be doing - pushing back against decisions that have made things worse economically for a certain group of people.
Centrist defenses like this are economic bluster and bathed in total deflection of appalling Neoliberal choices.
It's a useless, mean and regressive Tory policy FFS why on earth would you want to keep it?
Besides if Reeves wants growth she has to get money into the economy for people to spend. These people will spend it.
It's shouldn't even be an argument.
(As a Centrist is it that hard to ever criticise something the Labour party are doing badly? Or do you genuinely believe in regressive polices from the Tory party?)
I just can't believe any decent person would align with Labour on this and try and construct a defense over Tory policy which they hate. It makes no sense.
Keir Starmer has indicated for the first time that he will consider scrapping the two-child benefit cap amid a brewing rebellion by Labour MPs.
The prime minister endorsed comments by Bridget Phillipson, the education secretary, who said that removing the cap was among measures the government would look at as part of a review into child poverty.
Phillipson told Sky News the government would “consider [lifting the cap] as one of a number of levers in terms of how we make sure we lift children out of poverty”.
A careful hedging - so he neither disagrees with Phillipson or Reeves 🙂
Ernie - Seen from here Brown is a twerp. He has said some really stupid things around Scots politics that will not be in mainstream UK news
I was only referring to your specific statement “the government believes a child benefit cap which condemns families to poverty is an acceptable way to save money”
Well they have said they cannot do it now as they do not have the money - so its a reasonable inference to draw
The location of a UK telecoms hub comes pretty low on list of priorities when child poverty is on the same list…
Yeh, you're now being obtuse, and IMHO making yourself look silly. I used it as an example of the setting up of a UKTL facility. Maybe it was a bad link to choose, the location is secondary in importance (although closeness to companies in this field is not unimportant) because it opens up to daft criticism like yours.
It is directly aligned to priorities in my other DSIT strategy link, and as the article said
UKTL was established as a response to the Government’s 5G Diversification Strategy and aim to make the UK a “science and technology superpower” by 2030 and mitigate national security risks.
Funded by the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT), it will be run on DSIT’s behalf, by the National Physical Laboratory (NPL), championing cybersecurity and shaping the future of telecoms infrastructure. Experts from NPL will provide testing and advice to vendors, suppliers, and users, for example on network vulnerabilities to enable them to improve their systems before deployment or use, helping to keep the UK’s networks safe and secure.
I don't dispute that morally child poverty is probably higher. But if our communications technology fails, either by being shit or by attack from malign actors (and make no mistake we already are under attack) then we have far bigger problems. Hell, the banking comms system might fall over and we wouldn't be able to make any payments......
If and when Labour do remove this cap are the same people that argued it was okay to leave in place shit Tory policy- will they then say it was a good move?
Curios.
It would be a good move to do it now... but they won't because they said they wouldn't in the campaign. Time will have to pass... things will need to be looked at... "excuses" made for changing policy since the election. We've found "room" in the finances to fund this because of reductions in X, or increased Y.
I was only referring to your specific statement “the government believes a child benefit cap which condemns families to poverty is an acceptable way to save money”
These people need calling out.
It's totally and utterly impossible for the government to save money in this regard.
There is no place in the BoE g'ment accounts for saving money. They are sweeped clean every day to a zero balance.
There is no pot of money. Just money creation, effectively on demand.
I guarantee you when (if) they do it - there will be no actual financial restriction. It will be totally forgotten.
Then Labour must defend their position against the onslaught the papers may give about spending money. Labour are weak on this part.
Well they have said they cannot do it now as they do not have the money – so its a reasonable inference to draw
Inference =/= fact. Especially if it's not my inference.
I'm a scientist. I deal in facts, but we also have opinions (which scientists call theories, or hypotheses) - that are subsequently proven to be right or wrong.
Kerley called me out on giving examples to back up my fact based assertion that there are other fish to fry, I provided the facts and I think have justified the assertion (if you ignore him being a bit daft about one bit)
Ernie said that "the government believes a child benefit cap which condemns families to poverty is an acceptable way to save money" and I have asked where? Not what his or your assessment of what they have said is - that's in the box marked opinion, theory, or hypothesis and we'll see in due course. My opinion is different, as I have laid out with reasoning, that in the course of the SR they will prioritise or (to appease Rone), 'find' the extra needed to enable them to sort it. As I believe they should. The contention is they think it acceptable. Whereas the reality is that 1/ they are reviewing as part of a suite of measures; 2/ my inference is that they don't think child poverty is acceptable, but that there are possibly other ways to deal with it.
Probably we'll all be part right and part wrong. Time will tell.
There is no place in the BoE g’ment accounts for saving money. They are sweeped clean every day to a zero balance.
Well it is a principle of double entry book keeping that there is always a zero balancd. What exactly is it that is balanced to zero?
Where did they say that?
The bit where Rachel Reeves claimed that scrapping the child benefit cap was, quote, "unaffordable".
It is only unaffordable if you choose to say that it is unaffordable. For a lot of people it is completely affordable.
Rachel Reeves is not scrapping the child benefit cap to save money and no other reason at all. Unless you believe that she deliberately wants to punish poor people with more than two children?
No of course you don't. So just accept the "fact"
If and when Labour do remove this cap are the same people that argued it was okay to leave in place shit Tory policy- will they then say it was a good move?
Curios.
Of course they will. Their whole argument is based on the belief that you must not criticise the Labour Party (unless it is under the influence of lefties, then full yer boots)
Apparently all that matters is that Labour are always better than the Tories. Even when their policies are identical to the Tories. Dissent is not an option
Of course they will. Their whole argument is based on the belief that you must not criticise the Labour Party (unless it is under the influence of lefties, then full yer boots)
Apparently all that matters is that Labour are always better than the Tories. Even when their policies are identical to the Tories. Dissent is not an option
I have criticised them. I think they should have removed it already, and they are wrong not to. Every further day a bit more wrong. BUT - I also have an idea why they haven't and don't see it as a done deal yet. Personally I think they'll find an off ramp to use (early recommendation from CP taskforce?) or failing that it'll be funded somehow out of the SR.
Well it's great that your criticism is not unconditional however I am sure that Rachel Reeves could also construct the same meaningless defence........i hate the Tory child benefit cap, and believe me if it was possible to scrap it I do so instantly, unfortunately this is currently impossible due to the appalling state of the economy that we have inherited from a totally incompetent government
I categorise it in the same vain as "difficult decisions". Don't give me that bollocks
I don’t dispute that morally child poverty is probably higher. But if our communications technology fails, either by being shit or by attack from malign actors (and make no mistake we already are under attack) then we have far bigger problems. Hell, the banking comms system might fall over and we wouldn’t be able to make any payments……
Yeah, that must also be in your list of 100s of other things. They all need to be dealt with and prioritised but for a wealthy country to continue keeping children in poverty when all it needs to do it snap it's fingers is not even on a priority list, it is just something you do without question.
So they should just fund it. And all of the other must do's? Or some of them? Which some?
You say meaningless, but that's your opinion. I don't like it but I can see a rationale for reviewing to see if there's another, better, way to achieve the goal.
They all need to be dealt with and prioritised but for a wealthy country to continue keeping children in poverty when all it needs to do it snap it’s fingers is not even on a priority list, it is just something you do without question.
Morally yes. And I agree it should be (should have been).
But real step back, big picture - UKTL or RETSI is a fraction of the cost and with far higher benefits overall. Sorry, it's a fact. That's what Gov is, making these choices taking all into consideration. And as I say, I don't even think it's just about the 2CBC, is there another means to achieve the same goal?
IDK why Ernie keeps saying that difficult decisions is bollocks. Sensible Gov is all about making difficult decisions. Including this one.
IDK why Ernie keeps saying that difficult decisions is bollocks.
Because he’s a “big hitter”. ?
IDK why Ernie keeps saying that difficult decisions is bollocks. Sensible Gov is all about making difficult decisions. Including this one.
That is the point, it is not a difficult decision. Some things don't need to be thought about, prioritised etc, when they were wrong from the start. This is not anything like deciding whether to do project A or Project B as can't do both of them.
So you say. And yet.
Which brings my conclusion, it IS a difficult decision. Or maybe, there might be a better decision being worked up.
Or as the bashers would have it, they're just doing it to be cruel / to send a message about toughness / to demonstrate how shit the finances are / to annoy Rone specifically and make him post something about borrowing again....
Which personally I don't believe but then I'll be accused of being an apologist, and I'll accuse you all of just choosing anything to beat them up about, and we'll go round and round for ever so why not just call a truce and wait and see.
I was still right about the other priorities though, I hope you enjoyed them facts.
So they should just fund it. And all of the other must do’s? Or some of them? Which some?
I thought that we had both previously agreed that politics, and all the political arguments surrounding politics, was basically about differences in priorities?
I don't expect Labour and the Tories to have the same priorities, do you?
As for the claim that I "keep saying" that the difficult decision argument is bollocks I am intrigued in knowing how many times I have made it? Making the right decision is never difficult, it's making the wrong ones which people feel they have a problem with.
And Kramer even small hitters can disagree with something, don't be shy
Because someone might disagree? If you have an opinion on the child benefit cap I don't understand why snidey comments are more constructive.
I thought that we had both previously agreed that politics, and all the political arguments surrounding politics, was basically about differences in priorities?
It is. Deciding on priorities takes difficult discussions and decisions.
I don’t expect Labour and the Tories to have the same priorities, do you?
I don't know that I totally agree that they need to have different priorities, there are clearly some (back to eg: NatSec) that are going to be party agnostic, others may be different. But even those that are common, doesn't always mean the approach to solving and funding has to be the same, and hence there can be adoption of an intent with a change to the how.
Anyway... Yvette Cooper just made a speech to the House of Commons and said that now she's seen the books, it turns out the total cost of the completely unworkable and ridiculous Rwanda scheme was 700 million quid
700 MILLION QUID!!
She then described it, somewhat superfluously, as the biggest waste of taxpayers money she'd ever seen
James Cleverly actually had the audacity to say that the Labour party scrapped the scheme without an alternatve (which is clearly bollocks), but interestingly he didn't dispute the figures
The problem with the Rwanda scheme is that its supporters were completely convinced it would work, so in their eyes Labour have given up on illegal immigration. They can't see any flaws in the plan.
I'm not sure they thought it would work. I'm not sure they cared. They were just happy that it sounded as if the government were going to be nasty to a class of people they didn't like. Performative cruelty.
James Cleverly actually had the audacity to say that the Labour party scrapped the scheme without an alternatve (which is clearly bollocks), but interestingly he didn’t dispute the figures
Presumably a sensible alternative to spending 700 million on literally nothing, would be spending no money at all on the same thing?
I’m not sure they thought it would work. I’m not sure they cared.
I had an argument with someone who did. They think Labour is scrapping the perfect solution that would definitely have saved us all.
Im with one wheel.
It was never going to work and they knew it. The purpose of the rwanda scheme was to make it look like they were doing something and to create an enemy in the judiciary as it was clearly going to get tangled in legal stuff and a stick tobeat labour with
Also to feed raw meat to racists
She then described it, somewhat superfluously, as the biggest waste of taxpayers money she’d ever seen
It's poor use of public money. The Tories are good at that.
But it's not tax payer's money. Then again it's Yvette Cooper talking.
Labour should concentrate their efforts on fixing things I reckon rather than what the Tories have messed up.
Let's look to the future? What are they going to do to improve things?
Labour should concentrate their efforts on fixing things I reckon rather than what the Tories have messed up. Let’s look to the future? What are they going to do to improve things?
Labour is fixing the leak of taxpayer money to the Kigali regime by stopping it. That is an improvement. It's 22 July, they haven't been in power 3 weeks yet.
Short of adopting your exotic monetary theory in full, is there anything this Labour government could do to win your approval?
Scrapping this bonkers policy… but let’s not talk about it? Why not? This is exactly the kind of change in direction we need.
This should get some Tory cronies arses twitching…
https://Twitter.com/carolvorders/status/1815425636762001720?s=46&t=1lK7Dw1b6RqGJyvufO-trQ
It doesn't really matter if they are is or aren't, it's not their theory that they are espousing. It's an alternative theory to the mainstream and I'm not well versed enough to know if it is right or not.
The problem with economics, is that like a science it has the potential to construct theories about how things work, what the effect of doing A is on B, and so on. The specific problem with macroeconomics is that unlike a science it's hard to run side by side comparisons to see what happens if you do A or don't do A. I'm sure Rone will say words to the effect that mainstream theory has been shown to not work overall and aspects of MMT have been tried and haven't crashed the ship; they might be right and consequently I'm not writing it off in the way some do. Others will say it has been tried in places and caused problems, the MMTers counter that it wasn't done properly. IANAE, IDK.
It is a bit wearing that every third post seems to be reminding us all that Reeves isn't a fan of the theory. But I hope they are right; it would make writing our business cases way easier.
Dear Chancellor;
It's clear we need <it> - any fule can see. Just issue some more money and let's get on with it, save all the hassle?
Rgds;
TOJV
Suella's amazed they didn't include it in the KS too.
Erm.....
theotherjonv
Full Member
Suella’s amazed they didn’t include it in the KS too.
I am immensely happy that she is an opposition back bencher now. Shame she didn't lose her seat of course but this will do.
The Tories already seem like a bad dream that a morning coffee is gradually wiping from memory.
In many ways yes, it is, but it's not one that it's easy to run experiments on.
I guess it is but few proven facts and no consernsus
Its a bit like you have evolution, creationism, intelligent design and pastafarianism all given equal creedence
theotherjonv
Full Member
In many ways yes, it is, but it’s not one that it’s easy to run experiments on.
Truss have it a good go though. Lol
In many ways yes, it is, but it’s not one that it’s easy to run experiments on.
Not necessarily, but it may not go quite as you expect…
In many ways yes, it is, but it’s not one that it’s easy to run experiments on.
No, it's like the other social sciences or cosmology etc in that respect. You don't get to stare at petri dishes, it's true. But denying the existence of a science isn't a promising start. Notably some of the most fervent opinions on this subject are coming from people who not only disagree with the orthodox policy prescriptions (which is fair enough) but actually don't seem to grasp some of the most fundamental concepts.
Since everyone abandoned the gold standard, money has been entirely imaginary, worth only what the consensus of vested interests decide that's it's worth. It's just a confidence thing. Difficult to build a science on such tenuous foundations.
The problem with economics
I think Churchill summed up its issues well.
" if you put two economists in a room, you get two opinions, unless one of them is Lord Keynes, in which case you get three opinions."
Despite the fact that there are no test tubes involved, economics is a science.
But best viewed as part of the social sciences. As the underlying subject matter is humans behaving collectively in a social setting.
But denying the existence of a science isn’t a promising start
It isnt a science.
It is a social science.
If you choose to deny why they are separated then that isnt a promising start.
Wasn't one of the arguments for the 2 child cap that it shouldn't be more financially viable for the unemployed to have many children, than it is for working people? Seemed like a fair principle, but the practical effects seem not to be pretty.
onewheelgood
Full Member
Since everyone abandoned the gold standard,
Isn't the value of gold purely down to human perception though?
Ultimately it has held a value due to it being pretty, rare and non oxidising. It's still just a perception of worth, just like "paper" money.
Since everyone abandoned the gold standard, money has been entirely imaginary, worth only what the consensus of vested interests decide that’s it’s worth.
If it were entirely imaginary, you could just imagine yourself another million quid. Keep pursuing the "consensus" point, though, you're about to stumble across why it's a social science and not a natural one!
PS what caused gold to rise and fall in value in that golden era...?
I'm not denying it's a science, but it is distinct from a pure science like physics. I guess if you want to be absolute, it would be the same if you could if you wanted run experiments but the morals and ethics would be difficult, as well as the detail.
But I suppose that's not totally different to eg: medicine where experimentation to produce an answer can be difficult as well. That too works (to some extent) by allowing choice and observing the outcomes; even then we don't know the right answer, and the allegations of "few proven facts and no consensus" can also be made. Is a glass of red wine good for you or not?
So, it might be but it might not be.
