[ rss / options / help ]
post ]
[ b / iq / g / zoo ] [ e / news / lab ] [ v / nom / pol / eco / emo / 101 / shed ]
[ art / A / beat / boo / com / fat / job / lit / map / mph / poof / £$€¥ / spo / uhu / uni / x / y ] [ * | sfw | o ]
logo
news

Return ] Entire Thread ] First 100 posts ] Last 50 posts ]

Posting mode: Reply [Last 50 posts]
Reply ]
Subject   (reply to 33825)
Message
File  []
close
gary larson predicts wuhan.png
338253382533825
>> No. 33825 Anonymous
30th May 2021
Sunday 1:47 pm
33825 Coronavirus #4
Thread #2 was over 1,700 posts long; thread #3 (>>27266) is now close to 2,800 replies and no longer loads on my phone at work. Let's have a new, hopefully final thread.

The current situation:
Everything is expected to reopen on the 21st of June 2021.
It might not, because cases are rising from the lesser reopenings and the dreaded Indian variant.
Vaccination is going well in rich countries. UK deaths are ~10/day.
Speculation is starting again that the virus might have escaped from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, because it's such an intriguing coincidence, but reasonable people do not currently believe it was a deliberate Chinese conspiracy.
India is currently the country with the worst COVID-19 horror stories.

Will Dominic Cummings give any more evidence about the ineptitude of government handling, or has he said everything he wanted to say now?
1118 posts omitted. Last 50 posts shown. Expand all images.
>> No. 36594 Anonymous
6th January 2022
Thursday 3:52 pm
36594 spacer
>>36585
I just want you to know that I laughed at your post. It was a good post.
>> No. 36595 Anonymous
6th January 2022
Thursday 5:13 pm
36595 spacer

0_Newsflash-KenBeauty-03jpegjpgNewsflash.jpg
365953659536595
>>36593

>that after a lifetime of plastic surgery they didn't get vaccinated out of an aversion to being jabbed with something weird.

Well it's good to know your limits. That former Human Ken Doll, a.k.a. Rodrigo/Jessica Alves apparently still can't get enough.

https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/ex-human-ken-doll-jessica-25020769
>> No. 36607 Anonymous
9th January 2022
Sunday 2:46 pm
36607 spacer

33e81a8054f5f14badb102bd54db99c1687ac05567b927ed6a.jpg
366073660736607
it's only matter of time before it mutates into airbourne aids
>> No. 36608 Anonymous
10th January 2022
Monday 2:46 pm
36608 spacer
dead board
>> No. 36609 Anonymous
10th January 2022
Monday 2:50 pm
36609 spacer
>>36608
You have to have something more interesting to say if you need a quick dopamine hit.
>> No. 36610 Anonymous
10th January 2022
Monday 2:50 pm
36610 spacer

dead-bod-pinterest.jpg
366103661036610
>>36608
Dead bod.
>> No. 36611 Anonymous
10th January 2022
Monday 5:59 pm
36611 spacer
>>36607
i suppose we really would be a bit fucked then.
>> No. 36615 Anonymous
11th January 2022
Tuesday 11:18 pm
36615 spacer
There're some very interesting document links in this latest Project Veritas article; https://www.projectveritas.com/news/military-documents-about-gain-of-function-contradict-fauci-testimony-under/
>> No. 36616 Anonymous
12th January 2022
Wednesday 12:57 am
36616 spacer
>>36615
Yes if it's one thing the far right are known for, it's their scientific literacy and accurate reporting.
>> No. 36617 Anonymous
12th January 2022
Wednesday 1:21 pm
36617 spacer
I really don't give the slightest fuck about Boris having a party in No 10. I don't understand why everyone does; sure it's a good excuse to kick the cunt, but focus on something else.
>> No. 36618 Anonymous
12th January 2022
Wednesday 2:27 pm
36618 spacer
>>36617
In PMQs today, there were quite a lot of MPs saying their constituents were unable to be there for their dying relatives due to lockdown, their final moments being over Zoom. People went without seeing friends and family for months. The general public were massively restricted in how they live their life.

Then during the same lockdown, Boris invited dozens of allies for a piss up in Number 10. It's a pretty extreme case of "one rule for them, another for the rest of us". If he came out and said outright "I fucked up", it'd probably be put to bed. But his "apology" at PMQs was weaselly, and his counter to people rightly taking him to task was "wait for the results of the inquiry".
>> No. 36619 Anonymous
12th January 2022
Wednesday 2:42 pm
36619 spacer
>>36618

I just think it's odd that some people are more angered by inconsequential hypocrisy than incompetence that led to tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths.
>> No. 36620 Anonymous
12th January 2022
Wednesday 3:20 pm
36620 spacer
>>36619
Everyone wanted to have gatherings like these, but only the government got to. On the same day the party happened, Boris was asked by a journalist in his daily coronavirus briefing what she should do if she sees three people socialising in a park, and he recommended she should report them to the police. Then he went home and had a barbecue with all his buddies from all over the country, who would all be going back to their respective constituencies and coofing on their elderly voters.

The government could, of course, say the rules were excessive and only a moron would have followed them, but nevertheless they did and it's infuriating to be told your sacrifices were irrelevant.

Anyway, I have bad news for you if you don't like this, because there will be much more to come out, and I think Labour have it all and are releasing it gradually to keep it in the news for as long as possible. They say they only have some evidence, Boris denies everything and says that evidence is insufficient, and then Labour release some more to utterly expose and humiliate the Conservatives. And it's working, so why would they stop? I am utterly certain this won't be the end of this.
>> No. 36621 Anonymous
12th January 2022
Wednesday 4:30 pm
36621 spacer
>>36619

It's not inconsequential hypocrisy though is it. It's very consequential hypocrisy. It's part and parcel of the incompetence, because it quite clearly shows the truth- They don't actually give a shit. Their catastrophic management of the pandemic is because they have never taken it seriously, and this hypocrisy clearly demonstrates that fact.

I think you're just being a bit contrarian, and I understand and sympathise with that urge. But this one is worth every bit of people's anger.
>> No. 36622 Anonymous
12th January 2022
Wednesday 5:42 pm
36622 spacer
>>36619

It's the emotional argument. I could only have ten people at my grandads funeral - I couldn't even go into the hospital to say goodbye to him, he couldn't have the traditional funeral he would have dearly loved, all because of decisions made by people who had no intention of following their own rules.

We know they're incompetent and all but murdered a great deal of vulnerable people, but the thought of them having a proper, old fashioned eton cunt party while we personally suffered is a far more emotive argument.
>> No. 36623 Anonymous
12th January 2022
Wednesday 5:46 pm
36623 spacer
>>36619

It's not inconsequential at all though, is it?. A lot of those tens of thousands died alone, entirely alone, because of these rules. There were plenty of consequences, mental, practical, physical, financial, to being on lockdown. So to find out the ruling class just decided it didn't apply to them, is pretty important. It's 'let them eat cake', but unfortunately we aren't sharpening the guillotine this time.
>> No. 36624 Anonymous
12th January 2022
Wednesday 5:50 pm
36624 spacer
It's just part of the whole "rolling dead cat" thing. Maybe. I don't know if they care enough to be doing it on purpose. If the whole system relies on people being "honourable" enough to resign when they should rightly be taken from power and they don't give a shit about that, why would they?
If it bothers them at all, they just need to weather it until Patel's laws to make protest illegal and redefine criticism of the government as treason/harassment (depending on whether you're a journalist or not) come in.
>> No. 36625 Anonymous
12th January 2022
Wednesday 6:00 pm
36625 spacer
>>36624
People are complaining to their MPs, though. It's the backbenchers who know they could get canned from this cushy 80-grand-a-year job who are frantically trying to distance themselves from their own leader. Since Labour can just turn on the anti-Tory tap at will now, I don't think they want Boris to go because it'll be harder to discredit whoever comes next. I bet Rishi Sunak never went to that garden party, because who would invite him? So now the battle is to keep Bodge in power, but with everyone hating him. And I think the Conservatives who aren't at the very top all recognise this, and can see they'll all be going back to the mill towns and chicken farms when the next election comes.
>> No. 36626 Anonymous
13th January 2022
Thursday 12:08 am
36626 spacer
>>36625
> cushy 80-grand-a-year job

Yah, I hate to be that person, but 80 grand1 isn't a lot for being an MP, and all the grief and attention that comes with the job. There is no way on earth I would accept that amount of money for doing it. MPs should be paid a lot lot more, and we might actually get some decent ones.

1 - It would be a fifty percent paycut. I'm keen on public service, but fuck that.
>> No. 36627 Anonymous
13th January 2022
Thursday 12:39 am
36627 spacer

Steve Bell Rats.png
366273662736627
I, personally, think Johnson should be dragged into the Thames with hooks. I'd ask Mary Beard to back my proposal, but I've not got a Twitter account.

He is resigning tomorrow, right? There's literally zero way for him to bumble his way through this. He'd be the most unpopular British leader since King John if he's still around on Friday. I do almost feel sorry for whoever has to live in that awful flat next though, it's political trip mine but it's also so ugly it looks like something I'd design at age 12, when I thought not buttoning up my shirt sleeves made me look like a character from The Duelists.
>> No. 36628 Anonymous
13th January 2022
Thursday 1:06 am
36628 spacer
>>36626
>It would be a fifty percent paycut
That's nice for you. For me, it would be a 183% raise, roughly, and I'd get that to fend off emails from angry pensioners and spend a lot of time on the train. I'd also get lots of perks such as a free home in central London that I can live in. Plus if you lick the right anuses, you can add another 40 grand onto that by being housing minister or Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. Maybe you don't want to do it, but I would willingly give it a go and there are at least 650 other people who also wanted to.
>> No. 36629 Anonymous
13th January 2022
Thursday 1:27 am
36629 spacer
>>36626

I don't want to ignite one of those discussions; but I think it's probably fair to say that MPs aren't underpaid- People like you are overpaid. I don't even know what you do, but you almost certainly don't deserve it.

Are you more important than, say... A dentist? Or a binman? I doubt it, but because our economy is all backwards we pay based on scarcity of skills instead of the value of the work. I bet there's loads of people who'd do your job for eighty grand if we started herding kids into BTECs for it.

Not a personal attack, by the way, lad. Player, game, and all that. I'm just using you as an example.
>> No. 36630 Anonymous
13th January 2022
Thursday 3:06 am
36630 spacer
>>36626
I'd like to see a comparison of an MP's salary to the average person's over time.
(Even better if in a form that could be cross compared with one of those charts which tends to show an income explosion for the rich, lukewarm growth for the middle, and stagnation or decline for the poor. Then you'd see who their salary tracks, who they see as their social equals.)
>> No. 36634 Anonymous
13th January 2022
Thursday 8:37 am
36634 spacer
>>36629
> herding kids into BTECs
That's probably not quite the level. I assume it's data science lad, and I imagine he has a good degree from a decent university.
>> No. 36635 Anonymous
13th January 2022
Thursday 8:50 am
36635 spacer
Don't forget pensions. Serving 10 years as an MP could get you a pension of over £20k a year. You'd never get anything like thag elsewhere.
>> No. 36646 Anonymous
16th January 2022
Sunday 6:43 pm
36646 spacer

mp salary over time.png
366463664636646
>>36630
There used to be a chart going back to the 1960s, but I can't find that now. But you can look here:
https://www.statista.com/chart/17547/short-history-of-mp-pay-rises-uk/

There's also this link which only goes back to 2010: https://www.theipsa.org.uk/mps-pay-and-pensions
>> No. 36653 Anonymous
16th January 2022
Sunday 10:53 pm
36653 spacer
>>36628

What's stopping you then?
>> No. 36654 Anonymous
16th January 2022
Sunday 10:53 pm
36654 spacer
>>36629

>because our economy is all backwards we pay based on scarcity of skills instead of the value of the work

Nothing has a fixed value, it's all on the margins.

Water is so cheap that we spray it on our gardens, but people will happily pay a quid for 500ml of water when it's conveniently provided to them in a chilled bottle. If you were lost in the desert and dying of thirst, you'd probably pay an awful lot more than a quid for that bottle.

Non-market-based economic systems invariably fail because they can't deal with the immense complexity of resource allocation.

Prices in a market economy are both an allocation system things usually go to the highest bidder and a communications system. High prices are a signal of shortage, low prices are a signal of surplus.

Binmen aren't poorly paid because rubbish collection isn't useful to society, they're poorly paid because the number of people who are able to collect the bins vastly outweighs the number of people who we need to do that job.

Hypothetically we could have a National Council for Wages that determines the "fair" rate of pay for every conceivable job, but that would inevitably lead to horrendous unintended consequences. The obvious example is trained doctors in communist countries working as taxi drivers, because they can earn more in tips than they could on a government salary. The less obvious example is corruption - you can never actually stop the free market, only push it underground. If the market can't use prices to allocate labour based on supply and demand, people will inevitably start doing things for cash in hand or trade favour for favours.

A certain amount of economic inequality is both inevitable and necessary; if you try to eliminate it entirely, the outcomes for everyone are inevitably worse than if you hadn't tried at all. Successful social democracies are based on a finely-balanced level of redistribution.
>> No. 36655 Anonymous
16th January 2022
Sunday 10:55 pm
36655 spacer
>>36634

At least three quarters of the jobs that "need" degrees as an entry requirement these days don't actually need someone with a degree to do the job in reality, I'd estimate. Most of them could be done just as well, if not better, by someone educated at in the basics and then trained up vocationally.
>> No. 36656 Anonymous
16th January 2022
Sunday 10:59 pm
36656 spacer
>>36654

It bemuses me how you lot are always making this kind of "oh dear, looks like I have to explain the basics of market economics!" response to someone who would not have made the argument they made if they didn't already have that, as though you can fundamentally refute the labour theory of value with what you learned in the first term of GCSE business studies.
>> No. 36660 Anonymous
17th January 2022
Monday 12:35 am
36660 spacer
>>36656

The labour theory of value isn't even wrong, it's just a tautology. "All value derives from labour, anything that doesn't derive from labour has no value, QED" is not an argument worth refuting. Okishio and Sraffa have clearly demonstrated that Marx's theories of value are self-contradictory.

Marx and Engels tried and failed to refute the theory of marginal utility, as have countless numbers of their followers. Capital is the economic equivalent of those nonsense proofs every professional mathematician receives from time to time, written by some amateur who believes that they have solved the Poincare conjecture or the Riemann hypothesis with some idiosyncratic logic of their own.

Aside from all that, any attempt to crowbar the LTV into social policy doesn't actually help the proletariat any more, because their problem is the declining total demand for labour. In Marx's terms, the vast majority of labour in the contemporary economy is unproductive labour; only a fraction of the workforce are actually engaged in the creation of use-value. A 21st century economy without reification is an economy in which the proletariat become the lumpenproletariat.
>> No. 36661 Anonymous
17th January 2022
Monday 12:49 am
36661 spacer
>>36654
Someone's been listening to their Deconstructing the Magic Money Tree.
>> No. 36662 Anonymous
17th January 2022
Monday 12:50 am
36662 spacer
>>36653
The concept of political parties, and the fact the electorate doesn't agree with me on a lot of things. Would YOU vote for an independent candidate who wants to increase taxes, punitively so in the case of anyone who owns more than one home, while also legalising some drug crimes and harvesting the organs of prisoners? I'd vote for me, but I doubt I can fight the hegemony of the two-party system.
>> No. 36663 Anonymous
17th January 2022
Monday 12:55 am
36663 spacer
>>36661
I don't know what that is, but even if the poster who wrote it is Rich Tory Bastard Man, that was still a very good post.
>> No. 36664 Anonymous
17th January 2022
Monday 1:06 am
36664 spacer
>>36660

The point went over your head there lad- It wasn't about the labour theory of value, it was about the fact that you felt the need to make a long post explaining fundamental principles of economics to somebody who clearly has more than an adequate grasp of them.

But as for this post: Trouble is, all economics is bullshit voodoo magic when you get right down to it.

It's fundamentally impossible to science-ify economics because all economics really is is the mass psychology of human behaviour. Every human is a particle in the system of the market, but unlike in physics, humans don't have a set of laws governing their behaviour in consistent or predictable ways.

Economists are just a big set of arseholes who like to ignore that fact and go about tugging their dick over game theory and other such nonsense.
>> No. 36665 Anonymous
17th January 2022
Monday 1:12 am
36665 spacer
>>36663
It was a short podcast series, and one episode talked about price existing on the margins, and used a similar water example.
>> No. 36668 Anonymous
17th January 2022
Monday 7:30 am
36668 spacer
>>36654
>A certain amount of economic inequality is both inevitable and necessary; if you try to eliminate it entirely, the outcomes for everyone are inevitably worse than if you hadn't tried at all. Successful social democracies are based on a finely-balanced level of redistribution.
The difficulty is that this premise is then immediately used to excuse the levels of inequality we already have. A doctor should be paid more than a binman, therefore we shouldn't interfere with Bitcoin millionaires or network-effect exploiting tech billionaires, and Britain should continue to have an economy oriented towards financial services because obviously our comparative advantage is being a tax haven dotted with some of the poorest areas in northern Europe - the market decrees it.

And while we're at it, this talk of doctors gives me an idea - these price signals, they sound jolly good - why not bring them into the NHS? Doesn't that sound like a clever idea? Successful social democracy in action? this is a trap question, not an appeal to the sacrosanct nature of the NHS
>> No. 36672 Anonymous
17th January 2022
Monday 6:02 pm
36672 spacer
>>36662

Then you aren't willing to do the actual job of being an MP, which is mostly about playing the party political game and pandering to the electorate. We might wish that the requirements of the job were different, we might believe that they are different, but show me the incentives and I'll show you the outcome. You could become a local councillor, keep your nose clean, lick the right arses and stand quite a good chance of ending up on the selection list, but you don't want to, which is sort of the point.

>>36668

>Britain should continue to have an economy oriented towards financial services because obviously our comparative advantage is being a tax haven dotted with some of the poorest areas in northern Europe

That's our problem in a nutshell. We've painted ourselves into a corner by being absolutely dirty bastards for decades. The City banks aren't owned by oligarchs, they're owned by your pension fund. We're a rich country and we all have a finger in the pie, whether we realise it or not. You might look at tech billionaires and think that they're taking the piss, but there are billions of people in the developing world that look at you in the same light.

There's a popular notion that we'd be living in a utopia if the super-rich just paid their way, but the numbers just don't add up. A tiny handful of people are immensely wealthy, but there's still only a tiny handful of them. If a global communist revolution confiscated the wealth of all the billionaires in the world and redistributed it equally, we'd get a one-off payment of about a thousand quid each - a life-changing sum for most Ugandans, but not for most Britons. If everyone in the world got paid an equal share of global GDP, we'd all be on about £8,000 per year; again, total result if you're a Ugandan, not so much if you're British.

>these price signals, they sound jolly good - why not bring them into the NHS?

Well, quite. Most of the reason for "staff shortages" is an inflexible system of pay grading. You can't offer higher salaries for posts that are hard to fill, but you can bring in agency staff at double the cost.

"Privatisation" is the great bogeyman of British healthcare, but anyone who has been in a German hospital can see that maybe there's a third way between "vast and dysfunctional monolithic bureaucracy" and "brutal free-market absolutism with a side dish of regulatory capture".
>> No. 36673 Anonymous
17th January 2022
Monday 6:38 pm
36673 spacer
Thought this was meant to be the COVID thread, not the "let's have a whinge at the Tories, thread#1245346" thread.
>> No. 36674 Anonymous
17th January 2022
Monday 6:49 pm
36674 spacer
>>36673

I reckon the discussion of how our government is handling COVID is definitely on topic.
>> No. 36675 Anonymous
17th January 2022
Monday 6:58 pm
36675 spacer

Figure 2_ UK healthcare expenditure as a share of .png
366753667536675
>>36672
>"Privatisation" is the great bogeyman of British healthcare, but anyone who has been in a German hospital can see that maybe there's a third way between "vast and dysfunctional monolithic bureaucracy" and "brutal free-market absolutism with a side dish of regulatory capture".
The trouble is that the last time we tried to find a third way (Thiiings...) we wound up with a ludicrously complicated structure for the English NHS which seems to be no more efficient or effective than the more monolithic structure they went with in Scotland after devolution. Where NHS England ran off with the internal market, NHS Trusts, the purchaser-provider split, encouraging competition and the use of private providers, etc, NHS Scotland scrapped the first three and barely does the last one (~0.5% of the budget on private providers vs ~7%), preferring to ditch competition for collaboration. Yet instead of some kind of inefficient communist nightmare the worst you can say is that we're seeing double - an NHS and an NHS.

Now that's not exactly made the case that we should be looking northwards instead of outwards (which is obviously what I think would've been the sensible thing to do), but it would add weight to a secondary case that even if you can hypothetically reform things in pursuit of idealised market mechanisms and public-private partnerships, in practice there's a risk that what you do is spend a lot of money and political capital purely to generate a lot of busy work and an organisational diagram appealing only to fans of mazes.
(I might also add that anyone who's been in a German hospital might have overlooked the extra ~£1500 per head in funding, most of which is public. Less by way of snide comment, more by way of shoehorning in that for all we moan about the NHS being an inefficient money pit it's pretty cheap as first world healthcare systems go.)
>> No. 36676 Anonymous
17th January 2022
Monday 7:12 pm
36676 spacer
>>36675
>for all we moan about the NHS being an inefficient money pit it's pretty cheap as first world healthcare systems go
That. The NHS (x4) is astonishingly good value for money. Just think how much more it could deliver if we put a bit more in.
>> No. 36677 Anonymous
18th January 2022
Tuesday 3:57 am
36677 spacer
Thatcherlad is my least favourite of the current .gs cast. How much of a dull wanker do you have to be to whole heartedly and unironically endorse flat out neoliberalism.

Whichever one of you is role-playing this character, can you give it a rest now, I'm getting sick of seeing the same stock replies trotted out time after time.
>> No. 36682 Anonymous
21st January 2022
Friday 5:17 am
36682 spacer
>>36677
There are other websites available for you to circlejerk.
>> No. 36683 Anonymous
21st January 2022
Friday 5:36 am
36683 spacer
>>36682
The free market wins again.
>> No. 36684 Anonymous
21st January 2022
Friday 6:41 am
36684 spacer
>>36682

Or you could just stop posting the same shit over and over. This place moves slowly, people start to notice the same sorts of posts cropping up. Even class warrior lad gives it a bit of a rest between bouts of furious marxism.
>> No. 36685 Anonymous
21st January 2022
Friday 2:46 pm
36685 spacer
>>36677
I'm pretty sure you're equating anyone who disagrees with you as one person. I quite enjoy winding you up like clockwork so I'm bound to be a Thatcherlad as well even if I sometimes have to work.
>> No. 36686 Anonymous
21st January 2022
Friday 4:19 pm
36686 spacer
>>36685
There are only three of us here, lad.
>> No. 36698 Anonymous
21st January 2022
Friday 11:13 pm
36698 spacer
>>36684
It's wrong to pick on someone to bully them, but the absolute most boring poster here posted again recently. I thought he had stopped, but there's another one up now. His posts are so dull I absolutely want to stab him. I cannot possibly stand idly by while you single out a different poster and say they are the worst poster, when this utter dildo who shall remain unidentified gets away scot-free. Unless the Thatcherposter is behind these non-Thatcherite bollocks posts as well, you can fuck yourself.
>> No. 36699 Anonymous
21st January 2022
Friday 11:16 pm
36699 spacer
>>36698

Look, sometimes I just need to tell someone I'm hungry but don't want to make carbonara, you might think it's boring but who else am I supposed to tell?

Return ] Entire Thread ] First 100 posts ] Last 50 posts ]
whiteline

Delete Post []
Password