Exactly. Silly cow. That was all about the public health though, nowt to do with protecting her own interests at Wham.Originally Posted by LEGS
|
|
|
First Team
Someone should read out her comments 8 months ago and ask her why her opinion has changed.
First Team
Exactly. Silly cow. That was all about the public health though, nowt to do with protecting her own interests at Wham.
Koala tea
As defined by the un and other bodies around the world. I admire your ability to skeptically question the data whilst trying to claim facts from the data.
More people are fed, educated, accessing medicine and technology than ever before. Those living in abject poverty, an ever smaller share of the global population.
The rise of bric nations, African wealth up. It is the rise in wealth that sees billionaires rise across all these nations and regions.
Yes, there are people still in abject poverty. But Rome wasn't built in a day.
Why you think your fact is a rebuttal of another fact is kind of bizarre.
If infant mortality rates are down, saying there are still lots of infants dying - does not negate the truth of the former trend.
People live longer & people still die even youngens and even infants.
The facts of the matter are you hate fsg for many reasons.
They are yanks, they dont get the sport iyo.
They ONLY put £150million into the stadium.
The ruined Melwood.
They haven't net spent enough millions on wages and transfers.
But they are greedy for looking for more money to spend, huh, funny how their greed works so against the true socialist fans like you.
Who've called for more and more spending on a brand new 70k stadium and millions on fees and wages.
Your holiday across Europe in the middle of a pandemic when global poverty trends temporarily worsened due to lockdowns, are beyond justification to others.
But in the face of starving millions you are some arbitrator of morality for me
Solidite with the NHS - stay home stay safe message. Thanking the starving and dead for their solidarity with your holiday nancy.
Your world view should have seen you send that money to the poor and hungry but you didn't.
You were quite happy to indulge in a trans European pandemic road trip.
Now in my world view, you wouldn't be a hypocrite killing the poor. But by your preach, hmmm...
Imo fans if they were calm and clear in their thinking would wonder about an esl with 2 main questions.
1) is it in the club's interest? I would say yes, but it's a wide yes. I'd argue the club is not seeing a fair share of the reward/wealth it generates.
2) what's in it for fans ?
Well it would have been an extra 12 CL/ESL games a season, not the extra 4 games from UEFAs reformed announcement iirc
Possibly the bankrolling of an effective B-team for the domestic cups and an enhanced first team proper player depth with the number of games.
A huge increase in Europe's top tier competition, more games generating more money, generating more taxes.
It would have meant more money. Around 60% of our income goes on wages, we'd have a bigger squad demand, our lads pay a few taxes - 50%ish according to legs/doc iirc
Which would meet the demands of LFC fans, bigger/bettet squad and more taxes generated, cause Gov and charity are so diligent with their spending.
Lfc has by estimates the second most active fans online in the world, Manu led, with Real & Barca also north of 500million fans worldwide.
Long term record success levels, massive clubs, real competition in their domestic leagues.
City & Barca winning titles whilst LFC & Real lifted old big ears, various other clubs in ko stages, in finals, strong enough in the sid cup sides too. Currently doing well financially.
In Spain they don't need parachute payments as with the pl & championship because relegated teams aren't getting as much as Barca/Real.
In the PL teams like Leeds United have a net spend not too far shy of Real Madrid over the last 5-6 seasons !!
Everton spending more than us in the transfer market & we more than Real Madrid!!
Lfc and Real Madrid are ffp compliant, Everton? Dont think so.
Iirc around 13-14 of the richest clubs in Europe are PL sides.
Pl inflated prices, Bosman super inflated fees & wages, City, Chelsea, PSG inflated wages again.
Plenty of Everton fans would have gleefully seen city stopping lfc. Lfc and manu will have seen anybody but lfc/manu minds emerge, who'd turn a blind eye to their own teams spending - rarely see people on here point to the net spend table and decry Evertons greed in net spending !! No it's Johns greed for not spending more, whilst millions live in poverty.
We've seen ffp die a death, CAS delivering the final nail in its coffin. An awful institution itself.
If you based the ESL on richest clubs/net spend clubs you'd find a lot more than 6 PL sides in it.
The ESL could have solved a lot of issues.
But the biggest issue for fans imo Representing their interest$.
The pandemic has shown the value of fans to the sport itself as well as the wider economy. Fans should leverage that value against their clubs.
If the club has massive potential growth in global digital media, it does, fans (matchgoers) should be looking for ticket prices to be reduced drastically.
Uncoupling the hitherto coupling of ticket prices rising in line with wages and fees (or tv money)
Instead the fans poo-pooed it under a variety of flags. Rubber stamped the pl dividend, rubber stamped cas and the death of FFP, rubber stamped UEFA and fifa, UEFAs cl for another 10+ years.
Lfc were it to own its tv rights, could be easily seeing 1 billion a year in tv rights alone.
The scale of the digital economy would also allow such wealth generation to occur with less cost than sly/bt.
Fans should be stating to the club we're on board with this boom and growth, but we want a massive reduction on ticket prices imo.
Rowdy Yates
Inequality is on the rise and has been since the last world war and there are many sources for this.
Do some reading and some living ( maybe even - god forbid...get to a game??) and you will see the light.
https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...uality-unequal
Koala tea
I've read it and how exactly do you think or feel this supports your beliefs ? Or what is the point you think it makes.
It reads like a lazy college paper, or one without the broad perspectives or courage to produce a proper picture, not surprised a sociologist would miss these elements in a guardian piece. I'd be surprised to see a proper picture tbh. It seems to me the guardian is just trying to meet the desires of its readership as is far too common in media.
First up. More diversity increases inequality. In the UK the most successful groups on average are migrant groups, the least succesful groups are migrant groups. If you take Britain's natural population and add a host of migrant groups, who score higher and lower on average you increase the range of scores. Which increases inequality within the UK.
Successful migrant groups and say less successful migrants groups have made Britain more unequal than it would naturally be.
The most successful migrants (all migrants, even refugees, are rather capitalistic) succeed and boost the wealth of industries and research. Widening the gap between where they came from and where they are today. India and other nations have raised the economic brain drain problem. They educate them and then they fook off to wealthier nations and generate wealth and taxes there, living a better material life. Its come up over here with Irish nurses leaving for better terms.
Others, less succesful migrants. I've known people from Latvia who could earn a months child allowance in a day over here. Equivalent for an Irish person would be working somewhere else in a factory and earning 4,500 a day roughly.
For 30k they could purchase and renovate a home in Latvia mortgage free with an equivalent amount in cash to retire. 15k house, 15 k fund. Bit dearer in other parts of eastern Europe. Brazil 3-4 bed home for 30k, a mile or 2 of beachfront luxury property 300k.
Saving is hyper incentivised as a result in these groups, the habit formed as a result very beneficial.
With many western natives/dwellers they essentially keep their earning to saving ratio when hit with a rise in income. So, as these people get richer in their own economy and environment they tend to either spend their whole wages each week, regardless of income levels, or they save the same fraction. When I say a wage change I mean a normal one, not 16 year old mbappe to psg wage changes.
This change in habit post ww2 has helped boost inequality within the UK. As people spend more of their wealth on lifestyle. It generates more economic wealth too. Pre ww2 people had a more frugal habit, in part due to the fact their wasn't as easy access to wealthy services and experiences, anothe rpaet their moral fabric.
Those economies like Latvia will develop in time and that 15k might subside in spending power but the value of their home will increase, same with their businesses and earnings.
Living and working in ireland they will have bought homes, started businesses and taken advantage of the relative purchasing powers back home. Sending money home to family a long tradition of migrants.
Making their families back home wealthier and society there more unequal too.
The wealthier nations have increased diversity as a goal (a controversial end and eugencially minded) which increases inequality within those states and between regions that have migrants and ones with immigrants.
At the same time they have pushed smaller families through education and taxation policies. Then import more workers and families to offset the falling population.
The trend for the UK is increased diversity, increased wealth inequality and reduced civic & social lifes.
Strong measures have been implemented to reduce the wealth divide between 1st and 3rd worlds. As seen in latest measures, that trend is on a good pathway too.
Of course google et al are unlikely to relocate to the DRC as it doesn't meet their socialist needs. And why would Google invest in the DRC (a hotspot to say the least) when it can just import it's best talents.
Innovation increases inequality. Theres been a lot of innovation since ww2. Ingenuity and wealth drive innovation. Extra ingenuity has been imported via immigration as well as nurturing native talents, and that effect increases wealth for those host nations companies and industries. Increased diversity drives innovation.
So you can see a nestling of factors that interact in a direction.
Lfc are such a huge club due to the fact that Mane, Bob and Mo have left their continents. This has made LFC richer and they pay their taxes in the UK adding to the wealth of the club and nation.
Maybe Salah can spend more money on charities back home than he could if he remained in the mighty Egyptian league. So a rising inequality due to Mo, could see the poor benefit more from his contribution to rising inequality. Even just with taxes as there are few players who would command his wages and the taxes due off of them.
If you wanted the world more equal, strip away technological advancements over the last 70+ years. This of course would be counterproductive and stagnating.
The global market connects people around the world, it allows redistribution of resources and succesful people to succeed at higher rates than ever before.
Such as with liverpool, half a billion fans paying a fiver a year to watch all lfc games on the clubs website brings in 2.5 billion a year.
Even 1 in 5 of those fans paying a fiver a year generates half a billion.
If you take succesful people or companies and you open up markets what else would you expect to happen. These people will gain a share of the increased market. Making them richer and inequality higher.
The eu for example wouldn't have helped make your average person fantastically wealthy, but if you were a good business say like car makers, you'd eventually win out.
Facebook posted a quarter trillion in ad revenue income in their last quarter. Nobody had such a means of communication before. Over 2 billion people use Facebook every day, a population in excess of historical global populations.
More people in the world also lends itself to -> Higher inequality.
If 40% of people think your product or service is worth purchasing, like with Facebook (not 4 me) and you have billions more people in the world and able to connect, then their (FB) wealth will rise drastically compared to the common man. Same for retailers.
Elon musk is planning on grabbing an asteroid with more value in monetary terms than the entire annual global economy. If he succeeds the world will be wealthier again. His wealth and yank/global inequality will increase too.
To be confused as to how inequality has risen so steadily is to not understand the topic imo.
The world looks a lot different than the pre-ww2 era. Tech that was unimaginable back then is here now, movements of people and demographic changes, associated transfers of wealth.
Inequality is a factor for consideration and to be controlled, but even that's a complex task.
Put corporate tax @90% today and see the worlds super companies buy everything up.
Making smaller adjustments is probably a more practical solution.
But you're not going to be able to stop super succesful people from making hay. Same way super succesful countries will be nicer than ones bogged down in civil war or hyper partisanship.
Plus you've also got to focus on the poor, who say in sub saharan Africa want to join the global economy and solve their own issues. They might at times need assistance with the science/solutions but essentially they don't want handouts as it demoralises communities.
In more developed economies perhaps you would like the state to tackle the poor. Dragging hard drug users off the streets and confined in dry tanks for a year or so to break the habit. Redcue cartwl wealth, reduce crime, reduce poverty.
A government mandated you can't spend all your money rule, effectively reducing your spending power and forcing you to save and generate wealth. No holiday for you kiddo, we want you to save so the inequality factor is reduced. Yes we took your taxes already, now we are taking control or mandating what you can do with your own property ?
The main reason to control wealth inequality is it is a risk to society, as there are many people who seem intent on 'eating the rich'. Paradoxically there is no shortage of such people online, where they fuel in the main giant telecommunications companies & social media giants. But there are many gauges to watch and it's nice for people to see how they interact, which media companies rarely provide.
Media, like social media, has learned that for their bottom dollar they are best served keeping their audience ignorant of a wider view, so their audience can rage which is good for business.
The rage model is a very effective tool in driving interaction and keeping customers loyal. It has many downsides naturally enough.
Rowdy Yates
A mixture of stating the bleedin obvious and flat out claptrap - from start to finish.
Please - explain China....
But do it in off topic because this is beyond boring.
Koala tea
Great explanation Steveo.
What do you mean by explain china ?
Seen as you've given so much, let me reply in kind.. (With wikipedia)
China’s current mainly market economy features a high degree of income inequality. According to the Asian Development Bank Institute, “before China implemented reform and open-door policies in 1978, its income distribution pattern was characterized as egalitarianism in all aspects.”[1] At this time, the Gini coefficient for rural – urban inequality was only 0.16. As of 2012, the official Gini coefficient in China was 0.474, although that number has been disputed by scholars who “suggest China’s inequality is actually far greater.”[2] A study published in the PNAS estimated that China’s Gini coefficient increased from 0.30 to 0.55 between 1980 and 2002.[3]
China moved away from Communism and is probably best described as a facist regime at this point. State controlled capitalism. People are not so free to scream about orangemanbad, the mango Mussolini etc
Still has its caste system and arranged marriage in the upper echelons.
Has individuals with phenomenal wealth and in conjunction with many huge companies has really delivered a massive uptick in wealth. Started under the Nixon administration really.
Koala tea
I think you might be addicted to rage Steveo !!
I can see why you would be too
Rowdy Yates
If you want a model CC - within the so called western democratic system - look to Scandinavia - particularly Sweden. The most civilised nations I know of. Where a social conscience is pretty keenly felt by all. Where education and health services are of a very high standard due to high levels of taxation. Big salaries and high taxes..
I really don’t feel rage mate.
I pity you a little that’s all.
Koala tea
Sweden is an interesting case. But they too ran into the problem of reducing inequality beyond a reasonable level.
They are an interesting peoples, remember one kid over here with a swedish mom attending a birthday party and eating a fun size Mars bar with the wrapper on, never having seen a wrapper before.
Their paye/income tax is very high mostly, above the 50% rate which I personally would deem to be unfair. Other taxes are comparable and in some cases more competitive than the OECD average.
When they got their gini score down to 0.21 iirc they ran into the problem of their wealthier individuals leaving and their higher earners productivity declining, like with doctors who didn't see the point of working a full week or overtime. It seemed they were practically as well off working part time.
Since then to revitalise their economy and tax take they relaxed their levers of control and have seen their gini score rise to 0.26. Which imo is still too low but more reasonable. I'd go for 0.3 with a 0.05 range of error and aim to get to 0.3.
Their wealth and economic growth and transformation really occurred prior to that era. Then they switched to a high income tax policy. I've read a few analysis pieces that state theyre really not seeing the bang for their buck in services as they had once done.
Good case for reducing inequality alright, also a good case of how going too far has it's own problems. They pretend to pay us, we pretend to work.
Believe they scrapped inheritance tax, which I agree with. Stayed out of the euro too. Personally I think your average person should never be paying more than 50% of their income in taxes.
When you add on paye, prsi, vat, dirt, duties, property taxes, on fuel etc I think the state takes too much money and money rarely delivers the value of the money they take.
You want people to be able to draw welfare where needed, but I'd say there's not a big enough gap between low paid jobs and unemployment. Over here in my last job as a carer my effective net gain from working was 1euro per hour worked. Could stay on the scratcher and do a few odd jobs and be better off. Worse paid job I ever had.
Ah pity, empathies evil twin, useless emotion really.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks