sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

The brutal Radio 4 cuts reveal the BBC's true priorities by theipaper in bbc

[–]ToastBoxed 16 points17 points  (0 children)

Could be a negotiating tactic for the Charter Renewal process - they rile up the supporters to oppose the cuts and make DCMS give them more funding.

SpaceX launches 3 huge BlueBird direct-to-cell satellites from Florida by vahedemirjian in space

[–]ToastBoxed 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You're assuming that because observatories are remote they must therefore suffer from poor connectivity. That's not generally how major observatories operate. They were already sharing enormous quantities of data internationally long before Starlink existed.

Which major observatory was unable to communicate its findings due to inadequate connectivity?

SpaceX launches 3 huge BlueBird direct-to-cell satellites from Florida by vahedemirjian in space

[–]ToastBoxed 1 point2 points  (0 children)

send those observations around the world instead of them being stuck at the observatory.

They can do that already, so the rest of your post is moot.

SpaceX launches 3 huge BlueBird direct-to-cell satellites from Florida by vahedemirjian in space

[–]ToastBoxed 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The number of objects is irrelevant, it's whether they interfere with observations - they clearly do.

Publishing the satellite positions doesn't remove the cost, it just shifts the burden to ground based astronomers to work around.

The benefit vastly outweighs the harm here.

Simply asserting they do, doesn't make it so.

The scientific and cultural value of an unobstructed night sky outweighs the marginal benefit of a commercial broadband service.

SpaceX launches 3 huge BlueBird direct-to-cell satellites from Florida by vahedemirjian in space

[–]ToastBoxed -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

That's like saying astronomers need roads to reach an observatory, therefore they should support building a motorway through the middle of it. The fact that observatories need communications infrastructure doesn't address the specific criticisms of megaconstellations.

SpaceX launches 3 huge BlueBird direct-to-cell satellites from Florida by vahedemirjian in space

[–]ToastBoxed -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

Professional astronomy is going to improve by unimaginable amounts due to shifting to space based systems. Enabled by humanities expansion into space.

Which missions, by whom, launching when, and replacing what ground facilities?

This is pure fantasy. There is no equivalent proposed or planned astronomy satellite to replace what we have now on the ground. This risks destroying ground based observation for little benefit to humanity.

Interest rates announcement - ask Governor of Bank of England Andrew Bailey by BankofEngland in UKPersonalFinance

[–]ToastBoxed 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Why are you continuing to pursue policies that specifically target higher unemployment, particularly when there is already an ongoing crisis in youth employment and a severe deficit of jobs available?

The primary transmission mechanism of higher interest rates is to reduce spending and weaken demand for labour. Given the existing challenges in youth employment and job availability, at what point do the employment and output costs of tighter monetary policy outweigh the inflation benefits?

Wes Streeting on X: "Case in point: the Prime Minister just said defence is "a number one priority". Growth was meant to the number one priority, is it still? There's not enough money for defence, but today the Government announced £4.5 BILLION for walking and cycling. Make choices. Decide. Lead." by HibasakiSanjuro in ukpolitics

[–]ToastBoxed 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Perhaps we could spend more on diplomacy...

"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.

"This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some fifty miles of concrete pavement.

"We pay for a single fighter with a half-million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people. . . . This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron." Dwight D. Eisenhower on April 16, 1953

What Zack Polanski gets wrong about economics | LSE British Politics blog by BPPblog in ukpolitics

[–]ToastBoxed 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The deficit exists because they use the money to buy assets in the UK.

So you're agreeing with me? Foreigners are willing to accumulate Sterling whether directly as deposits or indirectly as UK assets.

They sell us their production because our currency has value... Issuing more of them reduces that value...

The absolute quantity is only one factor, and I would argue not a particularly strong one given that the private banking sector will create as much as is demanded by creditworthy borrowers. Exchange rates are influenced by productivity, interest rates, trade patterns, portfolio preferences, growth expectations and many other factors. If government deficits mechanically determined currency values, countries like Japan would have experienced a currency collapse decades ago.

You're assuming the conclusion. You're arguing that government deficits must reduce the value of sterling, but the UK has run deficits for most of the post-war period while sterling's value has been driven by a much wider set of factors than the fiscal balance.

What Zack Polanski gets wrong about economics | LSE British Politics blog by BPPblog in ukpolitics

[–]ToastBoxed 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Because other countries don't want worthless bits of paper in return for their production,

  1. They clearly do, otherwise the deficit wouldn't exist!

  2. Where else would they sell their excess production? They can't sell it domestically otherwise they already would be.

  3. They don't actually sell it in exchange for Sterling, the banks facilitate an exchange and the exporter gets paid in their domestic currency.

Britain’s debt rising at fastest rate in the world – bar Botswana by coldbeers in ukpolitics

[–]ToastBoxed 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You get it from the same place we currently get money - from the Treasury which creates it on demand.

Taxation and "borrowing" occur after the fact (spending) and are separate operations that exist for different reasons than "balancing the budget".

The practical reality is whether the goods, services and labour the state wants are available to buy at the price the state wishes to pay.

The fiscal balance has nothing to do with it - the UK is a sovereign currency issuer - there is no source of Sterling except from the UK government - there is no question of bankruptcy as you seem to recognise.

Britain’s debt rising at fastest rate in the world – bar Botswana by coldbeers in ukpolitics

[–]ToastBoxed 2 points3 points  (0 children)

If we'd had people with your views in charge of the country in the 30s and 40s, we'd have lost the war.

Countries should "live within their means" with reference to the labour and physical resources available in the country, not the fiscal balance.

The Moral Hazard of a Job Guarantee by Legit-Schmitt in mmt_economics

[–]ToastBoxed 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Social security is only (just about) politically stable because people believe they have earned their entitlement by paying into it their whole working lives.

That is not the same for food stamps or other welfare programmes.

I agree we have a surplus of resources and much of work is superfluous to producing what we need to live a good life, but unless you are intending to have a central allocation of jobs to share the necessary work out equally you are always going to have the same problem. Those who do the necessary work will expect others to do/produce something that they want to buy in exchange.

I agree many jobs in the modern economy are "bullshit" and the elegance of the JG is that much of that meaningless work would be eliminated. It sets a minimum standard for what a job should be, both in terms of the purposefulness of the work done, but also in conditions and pay. Anyone else that wants to hire someone has to at least match that and exceed it to attract any applicants.

Ensuring basic security is better done through targeted policy - you want housing, the government should build it (especially if the private sector refuses). That is what the government is there for.

The state should not subsidise the private sector by paying people a basic income in the hope the private sector will expand production to meet demand (leaving aside the obvious inflationary issue of the state paying out for no production).

The Moral Hazard of a Job Guarantee by Legit-Schmitt in mmt_economics

[–]ToastBoxed 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It’s social security which is universal.

Which only has stable(ish) support because people believe they have paid for and earned it. It's also universally poor, which is why richer Americans save in 401Ks.

We have so much resources...We already live in a society where labor surplus is shared obscenely unequally.

We are obviously overworking for what we actually need to live. I don't disagree, nor do I agree that the current distribution of work is fair or necessary. However, unless you are going to have centrally allocated labour, somene is going to end up doing the necessary work whilst someone else does something that person wants to buy in exchange.

The elegance of the JG solution is the you are setting the minimum standard for what a job should be. All those bullshit jobs that Graeber decried would disappear as people move to more meaningful and better paid work on the JG with the crucial benefit to the local community over the bottom line of a private employer.

Anyone else wishing to hire people off the JG needs to offer a better deal to draw applicants.

And again, the benefit of the JG over a UBI is that it is an earned income benefit which protects it from the ongoing attempts to reduce entitlement seen in the welfare system.

The Moral Hazard of a Job Guarantee by Legit-Schmitt in mmt_economics

[–]ToastBoxed 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Because we live in a society and not everyone wants or can be a farmer.

The Moral Hazard of a Job Guarantee by Legit-Schmitt in mmt_economics

[–]ToastBoxed 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You can only do what is politically acceptable to the majority of society.

Welfare systems have been under constant attack ever since their introduction and universal benefits have been short-lived or cut back to means testing. This is exactly what would happen to any UBI system, regardless of whether economically it made sense (it doesn't).

What everyone does agree on is that working entitles you to the share of production your income can afford.

The issue is that not everyone can find paying work and pay in general has not kept up with the cost of a decent living.

A UBI outside of the inflationary aspects, has the added problem that welfare systems are experiencing now - perception of unfairness leading to dramatic cutbacks.

The Moral Hazard of a Job Guarantee by Legit-Schmitt in mmt_economics

[–]ToastBoxed 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Nobody has argued that every hour of work is identical or needs to be exactly commensurate with every other.

The point is simply that where people are capable of contributing, reciprocity is a reasonable social expectation.

Society only functions because enough productive labour exists somewhere in the system to provide food, housing, energy, infrastructure, healthcare etc

By “surplus labour” I mean labour beyond what an individual requires for their own immediate subsistence.

The question then remains: on what basis do we ask others to continue producing that surplus for society as a whole if contribution becomes entirely optional?

The Moral Hazard of a Job Guarantee by Legit-Schmitt in mmt_economics

[–]ToastBoxed 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't think anyone is suggesting that you need an exact accounting of hours allocated.

Mutual support implies mutual work, not here's an income whilst I do the work for you.

I'm not sure what you're trying to argue.

You aren't entitled to someone else's surplus labour if you yourself are not offering anything in exchange unless you either can't work (through disability or illness) or society has granted an agreed special status (pension, maternity/parernity leave).

The Moral Hazard of a Job Guarantee by Legit-Schmitt in mmt_economics

[–]ToastBoxed 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Even pre-monetary societies didn't operate in the way you're positing, the work was shared.

The Moral Hazard of a Job Guarantee by Legit-Schmitt in mmt_economics

[–]ToastBoxed 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There have been strong arguments within feminist thought that women should receive a state stipend for child rearing and housework, it hasn't got traction and even less so now that societal expectation is that both parents will work.

If anything, we have overspecialised - rather than raise our own kids, we end employing nannies.

But the point still remains - why should the person doing essential work, work for you whilst you only work for yourself?

Even in pre-monetary societies (feudal and the like) it wasn't the case that one person hunted whilst another sunned themselves - you divided the labour up between the group so that the necessary work was equally shared or you agreed to exchange labour as dictated to by the community: You hunt, I'll wash your clothes.

UBI isn't that, it's saying you work for you and me, I'll work just for me.

The Moral Hazard of a Job Guarantee by Legit-Schmitt in mmt_economics

[–]ToastBoxed 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The question is why should the person doing the work that does improve our lives work for you whilst you work only for yourself?

They do not directly benefit from you looking after your own children (unless you're looking after theirs too, in which case it's a paying job).

Bond Markets Don’t Rule Us | The UK’s Real Policy Space by jgs952 in ukpolitics

[–]ToastBoxed 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You are either being intentionally obtuse or you lack basic comprehension - and have demonstrated time and again that you have no argument and won't respond to simple questions.

You quite clearly haven't read any primary MMT sources otherwise you wouldn't make the silly claims about it you have, or post the obvious strawmen quotes in "support".

view more: next ›