Comments by "Xyz Same" (@xyzsame4081) on "Channel 4 News"
channel.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The UK has among the lowest per capita healthcare expenditures among the wealthy nations (Japan is even better - approx. 3,800 USD , which is sensational, must be the healthy lifestyle). But in Europe UK is the best: UK 3,900 average in Europe and Canada 5,000 - 5,500. Australia 6,000, Germany 5,600
(World Bank data - 2014 in USD - not sure where up to date date is - but it gives you the idea)
And of course most of the UK spending happens via the NHS.
The next best in Europe is around 4,200 USD - and then there is Norway with 8,000, Switzerland with 9,600 (both rich countries with high costs of living).
And then there is the infamous U.S. with 9,600 - they are meanwhile at 10,000.
In case someone preaches the wonders of privatized healthcare
see the U.S. Switzerland, even Germany (some private insurance - full coverage allowed, and Australia with a 2 tier system).
Healthcare is a bad fit for the "free market", the incentives of privat for-profit do not work there - on the contrary.
1
-
1
-
Automation is our friend, it is time to get the reduced workweek (with full pay) and the employees / productive people (incl. smaller biz) taking back the power over the economy (and the knowledge !!)
In the U.S. the 40 hour workweek came in 1940 !! (with the war looming) - for an industryjob that meant a family could live on it.
in Europe 40 hours 5 days came in the 1950s.
We had quite an improvement of average wages adjusted for inflation and productivity. WAGES: plus 97 % in the U.S. 1947 - 1970 so almost doubled, productivity rosy by 112 % in that time.
So a big chunk until the 1970s was given in form of higher wages = higher purchasing power. (so the workers = consumers could keep up with buying the output).
And the 15 % over 23 years of the large U.S. economy was for a small number of entrepreneurs and shareholders - so they were doing well.
From the 1970s - 2013 it was some more + 69 % producitivity and ONLY + 8 (or 9) % in average wages (adjusted for inflation). So there a huge gap opened (that explains consumer debt in the U.S., in the 70s they got the credit card).
After 1970 the continued automation, computer, women in the workforce, migration should not have been used to undermine the workers - the increases should have been given in more free time (same ! wage - and shorter worktime).
Debt and Interest Free Money (Dr. Richard Werner) could take care of social housing. So people could be living comfortably and with stability. And only work 30 or 25 hours per week with a SUFFICIENT WAGE to live off. That would mean full employment with a work week that fits the 21st century.
do not belive the current low unemployment numbers - they are manipulated. They play that game in the U.S. too (people that have given up searching, do not count, underemployed people count as as "employed" - like having only 20 or 28 hours when one would need at least 40 to make a living. As long as they can impose zero hour contracts and wages are not rising - there is no REAL low unemployment.
Now if more automation can further reduce that to let's the 20 hour workweek - bring it on. The question is WHO benefits the most from gains in productivity. Since the 70s / 80s it was the upper 10 - 20 % - and the 0,001 % the most.
There needed of course be a transfer of wealth. Industrial production CAN automate more (and pay better wages or offer shorter worktime) than let's say in restaurants, healthcare (because they need more human work).
From 1980 on neoliberalism undercut the negotiating power of workers, stagnant wages could not keep up with ever growing output (private debt rose). (The oil crises in the 1970s were quite disruptive, then the upper class could hit back).
And instead of social housing - those who did have some capital (or inherited houses or money) were in a good position to profit from becoming a landlord. Housing became an investment niche, the governments stopped investing to level the playing field.
Automation is the NEXT big productivity win. That is a GOOD thing. But we must stop allowing neoliberalism and globalization (putting the workforce of poor against that of wealthy countries ) to undermine the livelihood of the masses.
The problem is not that Western companies produce in China - they have 1,3 bn people. But they produce instead and not EXTRA. China exports so much because they MUST. Even though wages have improved a lot - they still cannot afford enough
(Consumerism, and what we produce and sustainability is another issue.) But if / what we produce that we must also consume, and that needs disposable income = wages, or Universal Income etc.)
The tariffs agreed under "free" "trade" deals make sure Western companies CAN outsource production, can produce elsewhere and pollute and pay so little that the poor workers cannot jumpstart their domestic consumption. And then they CAN export to the wealthier countries w/o PROHIBITIVE tariffs - the stuff they could not sell to the underpaid workers.
That is what the free trade deals between unequal !! economies are really for. (A deal - or reduced tariffs between Canada, UK, Germany, Japan etc. should work, they play in the same league).
The Economic Miracle - post WW2 until 1970s *
Only somewhat free markets, a lot of PROTECTIONISM going on.
The "free market" is overrated.
* the boom lasted longer on the continent. In Germany the good times lasted until the 1990s. In the UK the troubles started in the 70s. In early 1980s Thatcher and Reagan started to ruin it for the middleclass.
Wages rising in lockstep with productivity, purchasing power of average wages doubled in the U.S. (1947 - 1970) and trippled in France.
High !! taxes for the wealthy and profitable biz (and they were paid, only investments into the company could prevent taxation).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Automation is our friend, it is time to get the reduced workweek (with full pay) and the employees / productive people (incl. smaller biz) taking back the power over the economy (and the knowledge !!)
In the U.S. the 40 hour workweek came in 1940 !! (with the war looming) - for an industryjob that meant a family could live on it.
in Europe 40 hours 5 days came in the 1950s.
We had quite an improvement of average wages adjusted for inflation and productivity. WAGES: plus 97 % in the U.S. 1947 - 1970 so almost doubled, productivity rosy by 112 % in that time.
So a big chunk until the 1970s was given in form of higher wages = higher purchasing power. (so the workers = consumers could keep up with buying the output).
And the 15 % over 23 years of the large U.S. economy was for a small number of entrepreneurs and shareholders - so they were doing well.
From the 1970s - 2013 it was some more + 69 % producitivity and ONLY + 8 (or 9) % in average wages (adjusted for inflation). So there a huge gap opened (that explains consumer debt in the U.S., in the 70s they got the credit card).
After 1970 the continued automation, computer, women in the workforce, migration should not have been used to undermine the workers - the increases should have been given in more free time (same ! wage - and shorter worktime).
Debt and Interest Free Money (Dr. Richard Werner) could take care of social housing. So people could be living comfortably and with stability. And only work 30 or 25 hours per week with a SUFFICIENT WAGE to live off. That would mean full employment with a work week that fits the 21st century.
do not belive the current low unemployment numbers - they are manipulated. They play that game in the U.S. too (people that have given up searching, do not count, underemployed people count as as "employed" - like having only 20 or 28 hours when one would need at least 40 to make a living. As long as they can impose zero hour contracts and wages are not rising - there is no REAL low unemployment.
Now if more automation can further reduce that to let's the 20 hour workweek - bring it on. The question is WHO benefits the most from gains in productivity. Since the 70s / 80s it was the upper 10 - 20 % - and the 0,001 % the most.
There needed of course be a transfer of wealth. Industrial production CAN automate more (and pay better wages or offer shorter worktime) than let's say in restaurants, healthcare (because they need more human work).
From 1980 on neoliberalism undercut the negotiating power of workers, stagnant wages could not keep up with ever growing output (private debt rose). (The oil crises in the 1970s were quite disruptive, then the upper class could hit back).
And instead of social housing - those who did have some capital (or inherited houses or money) were in a good position to profit from becoming a landlord. Housing became an investment niche, the governments stopped investing to level the playing field.
Automation is the NEXT big productivity win. That is a GOOD thing. But we must stop allowing neoliberalism and globalization (putting the workforce of poor against that of wealthy countries ) to undermine the livelihood of the masses.
The problem is not that Western companies produce in China - they have 1,3 bn people. But they produce instead and not EXTRA. China exports so much because they MUST. Even though wages have improved a lot - they still cannot afford enough
(Consumerism, and what we produce and sustainability is another issue.) But if / what we produce that we must also consume, and that needs disposable income = wages, or Universal Income etc.)
The tariffs agreed under "free" "trade" deals make sure Western companies CAN outsource production, can produce elsewhere and pollute and pay so little that the poor workers cannot jumpstart their domestic consumption. And then they CAN export to the wealthier countries w/o PROHIBITIVE tariffs - the stuff they could not sell to the underpaid workers.
That is what the free trade deals between unequal !! economies are really for. (A deal - or reduced tariffs between Canada, UK, Germany, Japan etc. should work, they play in the same league).
The Economic Miracle - post WW2 until 1970s *
Only somewhat free markets, a lot of PROTECTIONISM going on.
The "free market" is overrated.
* the boom lasted longer on the continent. In Germany the good times lasted until the 1990s. In the UK the troubles started in the 70s. In early 1980s Thatcher and Reagan started to ruin it for the middleclass.
Wages rising in lockstep with productivity, purchasing power of average wages doubled in the U.S. (1947 - 1970) and trippled in France.
High !! taxes for the wealthy and profitable biz (and they were paid, only investments into the company could prevent taxation).
1
-
1
-
Go and look at footage on the morning after BoJo had "won" the referendum. He was no happy camper ! - On the flip side of the 2019 election result (that seemed to be really bad at first sight): BoJo was the one who chose to specialize in xenophobia and in leaving the EU - the plan was to ramp up his right wing street creds so he would have a chance to oust Cameron as party leader and PM.
he and the Tories have long lost control of the Frankenstein monster they created, the riled up Brexit means Brexit voters - and NOW they have enough rope to hang themselves. they have a majority and they will be damned either way. Unfortunately they will only pay the political consequences. the likes of Blair, Alan Johnson his home secretary (the weasel run his mouth about Corbyn, Iraq war, financial crisis anyone ?) or Johnson, May, Cameron will land with a golden parachute.
The country will pay the consequences - and not only those who refused to be open to a NUANCED VIEW.
It would be fun, the Tories have now the opportunity to really mess this up - if it would not mean so much destruction and misery. The usual harm done by a Tory government - and on top the damage done by a Hard Bexit.
it was never about leaving the EU for Johnson (although I can easily believe that being xeonophobic is not a stretch for him). It was the wedge issue he could utilize to stick it to Cameron. Bojo was not considered typical Tory PM material, he would never have stood a chance so had to use more drastic branding to distinguish himself.
BoJo speculated the referendum would be REMAIN for sure - so he would "honorably" lose the crusade. he could sell his loss to the riled up voter base ("The powers that be were stronger, and we have to respect the democratic decision, but vote for me and at least we will go against the immigrants).
AND AFTER the referendum he could compete for party leadership. Then he would get the vote of people that always vote Tory but would have been wary to leave the EU (but the referendum already would have solved that little problem for BoJo. He could always state that he would honor the democratic result, and not lose with either group).
Let's not forget the role of David Cameron who solved his internal party rivalry problems with giving BoJo the referendum.
people do not believe the experts on economics anymore, even though in the case of a HARD Brexit they are right.
But lying the U.K. into a war, then the Great Financial crisis, in the U.S. real wages (adjusted for inflation) have been stagnant for 2 decades (more or less stagnant the last 40 years). They HAVE GONE DOWN in the U.K. !!!
The population has lost trust in the experts, politicians, media - and it is with good reason.
So the charlatans and tabloids that are owned by rich people and reflect their interests are free to shape public opinion.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Spending per capita typical wealthy nation: 5,400 USD per person take or leave 400 USD. Germany 5,850. Sweden, Netherlands, Austria around 5,400, the younger nations Canada, Australia and Iceland 4,900 - 5,000.
Interestingly also Japan is around 4,900 USD (must be diet !)
and then there is the U.K. after 10 years of Tory austerity with approx. 4,300 USD.
Next time you hear someone complain about the NHS - or hear Tory or neoliberal Labour politicians fawn over "our" beloved NHS.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1