Comments by "" (@downshift4503) on "Labour only cares about people who are earning or learning" video.

Couldn't agree more, I knocked it on the head at 52 and would rather live very frugally than put up with it anymore. Granted not everyone is in a position to do so, but I encourage many people to consider it. You can't buy the time back no matter how much you accumulate.
15
It's a term deserving a place in George Carlin's "National Press Club" speech. It's a good watch if you've never seen it.
6
@PickledSquidiles nah, students loans are just a form of taxation.
3
@antonyjh1234 "Why shouldn't we live like the 1800's gentry but with electricity? If that is the cost, why is that a hard sell?" You are welcome to disconnect your own house and buy a horse if you like. I'm not doing it nor are you going to convince me to do it. I don't think many other people will either.
2
While I think it was barmy to leave, the topic of rejoining is flogging a dead horse in the foreseeable.
2
depends what you mean. I don't work nor do I ask anyone else to buy stuff for me. People work because they need to get money at the very least to pay tax (no-one can exist in this system without money). People don't work because they want to (though there are exceptions, some people claim to enjoy working). You need to solve what I call "the money problem" first. Then you can stop.
1
i don't have the numbers to hand but I believe most government "hand outs" (bar the station pension) are to people who already go to work.
1
the system works ok while its growing as people tend to believe they are all on a journey to being wealthier.
1
@PickledSquidiles The government is the source of the money, it can create it via its central bank. What it can't do is to create output. It needs you and others to do so. Tax liabilities mean most people have little choice but to create output (via jobs) in order to get the money to pay tax. On top of that, its generally becoming a requirement to get a degree in order to get a job (or at least a better job) and further tax liabilities (structured as "student loans") are invoked. Point is, money is just a technology to get you to do something, the government doesn't need your money (that just goes in the bin when you've paid tax), it needs your output.
1
@PickledSquidiles The question might therefore be "it's still your responsibility to create output"..... and some people (like Rachel Reeves) do argue that "those who can work should work". I just don't agree with them.
1
@PickledSquidiles All the money the government ever spent (currently in the form of reserves / gilts / cash) stays in the system until it is taxed out. The tax liability is coercion that forces most people to produce output. If you can either obtain sufficient money for your needs (and taxes) or find a way to make money without producing output, you no longer need to work. There's no obligation to work.
1
I think its a bit of a red herring frankly. The system is pretty good at producing an oversupply of people (at their own cost and risk) to become elites in particular fields who've have unrealistic expectations of reality. Many then become disappointed. We already have a chance to learn languages, instruments etc for free.... the internet is exploding with information and online advice / courses. We've never had it so good in terms of solutions for sickness and disability either (not pretending it can't be improved).
1
@antonyjh1234 nothing is free though, it all requires production.
1
@antonyjh1234 it's not a question of money. The government can create all the money it wants via its central bank.
1
@antonyjh1234 Nonsense you can simply regulate the consumption oil, typically via taxes. in order to change behaviour. All the tools are there without re-inventing money. However it's likely to result in people living poorer lives and they don't like that. They want the lifestyles they dream about. They won't vote for governments that take away their toys.
1
@antonyjh1234 Nope. You can regulate consumption.
1
@summerisonthursday5239 People desire great lifestyles and won't vote for governments who take them away.
1
@antonyjh1234 I'm leading you to the problem. It isn't money. However you take away people's access to cheap energy, you are going to take away their lifestyles. The easiest way is to regulate it (high taxes or bans). Noone is going to vote for any government that takes away their lifestyles.
1
@antonyjh1234 I've replied to you put it keeps getting deleted. In brief, however you stop people using cheap energy, they won't vote for it.
1
@antonyjh1234 People's priorities are their desires (typically unrealistic) and those of their families, that's just a fact of what a human is. They won't voluntarily become poor.
1
@antonyjh1234 for instance, you could ban tourism and flying for pleasure tomorrow - you know how people would respond to that.
1
@antonyjh1234 I reject that "the point of society is to reduce consumption / emissions". It might be necessary to do so, but it is not the point of society.
1
@antonyjh1234 The basics are not "free", they need to be produced people who will only produce excess output of their own needs if they are rewarded for it.
1
@antonyjh1234 Society is a collection of individuals who act on self interest and those of their families (with a degree of empathy for people they do not know). Humans are animals that are not well adapted to live in this system we've constructed.
1
@antonyjh1234 "People only need to work on a roster system like military service" What if, like me, they have no desire to work?
1
@antonyjh1234 "Once upon a time people said that about slavery. We have energy slaves that we are not paying the external costs of, yet" Slavery was rightly banned because we recognised those people as being equal to ourselves rather than being farm equipment. Energy slaves is a different topic. People definitely do enjoy lifestyles that are a result of energy slaves. It is a technical problem that needs fixing, not to return to the medieval period.
1
@antonyjh1234 Yes I choose not to serve the military. "The point is that people are going to stop working, lower consumption..." No that's a claim, not a point. How are you going to force people to do that? they aren't going to volunteer it and they will vote for governments who instead won't take that away. What you are identifying is that human beings are animals with innate tendencies of self interest and do not cooperate if you act against them.
1
@antonyjh1234 "There is no tech fix to replace oil" I didn't say replace. Whatever we do, we aren't going back to using tiny amounts of energy.
1
@antonyjh1234 "Everything you do is because of somebody else's choice" People do things for only two reasons, one is because they want to (and you don't control your "wants") and the second is because they are forced to (and the force itself means avoiding something they don't want). "we are products of our environment", we are animals with innate tendencies that we don't control. The system we've developed it subject to our tendencies. You aren't going to convince people to control their wants or their tendencies. You'll need to force them and people don't tend to react positively to force.
1
I'd refrain from it being "womens" contribution
1
Gen Y isn't happy with food and experience. They simply cannot afford anything else.
1
@refsOnReality well... I'd say wherever you have people giving their attention (like TV or the internet) they will be exposed to advertising and marketeers are really clever in getting people to want their goods. I agree though if you are out and about then you are far more likely to be buying a lot of things. I buy very little as I just don't do much of that nowadays (but I certainly did back in the day)
1
@refsOnReality Good luck with that!
1
@refsOnReality I mean good luck with replacing capitalism... not on an individual level, but systemic.
1