Brexit.

[UGagain]

“For the past 25 years, the center-left has told the bottom 60% of the income distribution in their countries the following story: “Globalization is good for you. It’s awesome. It’s really great. We’re going to sign these trade agreements. Don’t worry, there will be compensation. You’ll be fine. You’ll all end up as computer programmers. It’ll be fantastic. And, by the way, we don’t really care because we’re all going to move to the middle because that’s where the voters are, and they’re the ones with the money, and they’re the only ones we really care about…and you basically take the bottom 30% of the income distribution and you say, “We don’t care what happens to you. You’re now something to be policed. You’re now something that has to have its behavior changed. We’re going to nudge you into better parts…

It’s a very paternal, patronizing relationship. This is no longer the warm embrace of social democracy, arm in arm in solidarity with the working classes. They are to policed and excluded in their housing estates, so you can feel safe in your neighborhoods and private schools.

So once this has evolved over 20 years, you have this revolt, not just against Brexit. It’s not about the EU. It’s about the elites. It’s about the 1%. It’s about the fact that your parties, have sold you down the river.”



Mark Blyth

[Len]

Its not about the elites for all of the people I've talked to. Do you think its interesting that now the descision has seemingly been made the very politicians that have let the country down time again are now the ones in charge of negotiating new deals. If they fail to produce the goods how disenfranchised will the people feel then? People who wanted tighter immigration, what happens if that falls through?

[jared_7]

Its not about the elites for all of the people I've talked to.

Blaming immigrants is a result of policy favouring the "elites".

[Eugene Wrayburn]

Let's give the elite a bloody nose by doing what that nice Mr Johnson says...

[Sandydragon]

If people voted to leave the EU because they wanted to regain sovereignty, or to explore trade opportunities outside of that organisation then fair enough. The concerning things is that some people voted, in probably the most important vote of their lives, to leave the EU in order to bash some so called 'Elites'.

[Sandydragon]

Its not about the elites for all of the people I've talked to. Do you think its interesting that now the descision has seemingly been made the very politicians that have let the country down time again are now the ones in charge of negotiating new deals. If they fail to produce the goods how disenfranchised will the people feel then? People who wanted tighter immigration, what happens if that falls through?

The key thing for May and her government is to provide enough of what the Leave side wanted to keep the majority happy. Watertight immigration is never going to happen. The ability to decide in the UK how many and whom is probably enough for most Leavers.

I say probably as there is no sense in the referendum of what people who voted to leave actually wanted. Immigration definitely influenced the vote, but how strict do the controls need to be to satisfy those who voted that way. Not all those who voted leave were totally focused on immigration, whilst there is a lunatic fringe who wont be happy until we ship all foreigners back.

Interesting times ahead.

[Digby]

Its not about the elites for all of the people I've talked to. Do you think its interesting that now the descision has seemingly been made the very politicians that have let the country down time again are now the ones in charge of negotiating new deals. If they fail to produce the goods how disenfranchised will the people feel then? People who wanted tighter immigration, what happens if that falls through?

The key thing for May and her government is to provide enough of what the Leave side wanted to keep the majority happy. Watertight immigration is never going to happen. The ability to decide in the UK how many and whom is probably enough for most Leavers.

I say probably as there is no sense in the referendum of what people who voted to leave actually wanted. Immigration definitely influenced the vote, but how strict do the controls need to be to satisfy those who voted that way. Not all those who voted leave were totally focused on immigration, whilst there is a lunatic fringe who wont be happy until we ship all foreigners back.

Interesting times ahead.

I doubt it is, which concerns me as to where some voters go next when the rhetoric they've responded to in voting leave doesn't remotely deliver what they want. About the most detailed projection we've heard is the UK will move to an Australian style points system, and that is I suspect ignoring the Aussies have moved to more of a US style system which allows business much more of what it wants. And then we'd still get onto refugees as an issue which is a huge problem as of today no matter government deals with by pretending it doesn't exist, and the numbers who've fled are a small fraction of those who might seek to move

[Sandydragon]

I think they need to come up with some basic plan fairly soon. This chicken and egg thing regarding triggering of Brexit will get old real soon.

[Mellsblue]

I think they need to come up with some basic plan fairly soon. This chicken and egg thing regarding triggering of Brexit will get old real soon.

They've already announced the preferred timetable. End of the year for the framework/basic plan, hopefully sooner, and then article 50 triggered very early in the new year. If the courts allow it, that is. The aim is to be out on 01/01/19.

[Sandydragon]

I think they need to come up with some basic plan fairly soon. This chicken and egg thing regarding triggering of Brexit will get old real soon.

They've already announced the preferred timetable. End of the year for the framework/basic plan, hopefully sooner, and then article 50 triggered very early in the new year. If the courts allow it, that is. The aim is to be out on 01/01/19.

Good point, I had forgotten that we had kind of set a date. So 6 months to develop a plan and then 2 years to negotiate properly with the EU.

The court case could be interesting mind. If a court rules that Parliament has to vote on implementing Brexit then there will be a lot of nervous MPs.

[UGagain]

Its not about the elites for all of the people I've talked to. Do you think its interesting that now the descision has seemingly been made the very politicians that have let the country down time again are now the ones in charge of negotiating new deals. If they fail to produce the goods how disenfranchised will the people feel then? People who wanted tighter immigration, what happens if that falls through?

Despite the seemingly endless ability of some to wish it away, neoliberalism is the problem.

Brexit won't guarantee getting rid of the neoliberals but leaving the EU is a precondition for doing so.

Having a saner immigration programme similarly.

[UGagain]

If people voted to leave the EU because they wanted to regain sovereignty, or to explore trade opportunities outside of that organisation then fair enough. The concerning things is that some people voted, in probably the most important vote of their lives, to leave the EU in order to bash some so called 'Elites'.

You really, really, really need to read this work.

https://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/resour ... irit-level

Everything you think about inequailty is wrong. And all your preconceptions about economics are falsehoods.

[UGagain]

Its not about the elites for all of the people I've talked to.

Blaming immigrants is a result of policy favouring the "elites".

Exactly.

[Sandydragon]

If people voted to leave the EU because they wanted to regain sovereignty, or to explore trade opportunities outside of that organisation then fair enough. The concerning things is that some people voted, in probably the most important vote of their lives, to leave the EU in order to bash some so called 'Elites'.

You really, really, really need to read this work.

https://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/resour ... irit-level

Everything you think about inequailty is wrong. And all your perconceptions about economics are falsehoods.

I think that you are kind of missing my point - it seems some people voted to leave in order to give the Elite a kicking. Regardless of what the future brings, leaving the EU isn't going to harm the elite as a group any more than it will suddenly change their lives (as a group). Rather than view the referendum positively, they basically took the opportunity to register a protest vote. I think that is a shame given the importance of the referendum; if people voted to leave I would hope it was because they genuinely thought life could be improved.

Ive heard of the Spirit Level but not read it in depth. Thanks for the link.

[UGagain]

If people voted to leave the EU because they wanted to regain sovereignty, or to explore trade opportunities outside of that organisation then fair enough. The concerning things is that some people voted, in probably the most important vote of their lives, to leave the EU in order to bash some so called 'Elites'.

You really, really, really need to read this work.

https://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/resour ... irit-level

Everything you think about inequailty is wrong. And all your perconceptions about economics are falsehoods.

I think that you are kind of missing my point - it seems some people voted to leave in order to give the Elite a kicking. Regardless of what the future brings, leaving the EU isn't going to harm the elite as a group any more than it will suddenly change their lives (as a group). Rather than view the referendum positively, they basically took the opportunity to register a protest vote. I think that is a shame given the importance of the referendum; if people voted to leave I would hope it was because they genuinely thought life could be improved.

Ive heard of the Spirit Level but not read it in depth. Thanks for the link.

Did you even watch the video?

[UGagain]

Western elites were shocked by Brexit, shocked that all their fear mongering and finger-wagging amounted to nothing. The same is true in the US, where the media’s daily attacks on Trump have failed to erode his base of support at all, in fact, they may have added to it.

Why is that? Why has the media’s repudiation of Trump only increased his popularity and strengthened the resolve of his supporters? Has the media lost its power to influence or is something else going on?

The media hasn’t lost its power, it’s just that personal experience is more powerful than propaganda.

What personal experience are we talking about?

Economic insecurity. Brexit was about economic insecurity. The Trump phenom is about economic insecurity. The rise of left and right-wing groups across Europe and the US is about economic insecurity. This isn’t about ideology, it’s about reality; the reality of not knowing if you’re ever going to be able to retire or put your kids through school or make your house payment or scrape by until payday. The reality of muddling by in an economy where the prospects for survival look worse with every passing day. That’s the reality that made Trump possible, and that’s what this election is about, economic insecurity.

Donald Trump and the Revolt of the Proles
by MIKE WHITNEY

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/07/18/ ... he-proles/

[Stooo]

Western elites were shocked by Brexit, shocked that all their fear mongering and finger-wagging amounted to nothing. The same is true in the US, where the media’s daily attacks on Trump have failed to erode his base of support at all, in fact, they may have added to it.

Why is that? Why has the media’s repudiation of Trump only increased his popularity and strengthened the resolve of his supporters? Has the media lost its power to influence or is something else going on?

The media hasn’t lost its power, it’s just that personal experience is more powerful than propaganda.

What personal experience are we talking about?

Economic insecurity. Brexit was about economic insecurity. The Trump phenom is about economic insecurity. The rise of left and right-wing groups across Europe and the US is about economic insecurity. This isn’t about ideology, it’s about reality; the reality of not knowing if you’re ever going to be able to retire or put your kids through school or make your house payment or scrape by until payday. The reality of muddling by in an economy where the prospects for survival look worse with every passing day. That’s the reality that made Trump possible, and that’s what this election is about, economic insecurity.

Donald Trump and the Revolt of the Proles
by MIKE WHITNEY

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/07/18/ ... he-proles/

Fucking TRUTH.

And when you take into consideration it's all fucking made up bollocks anyways it just adds to the madness.

[UGagain]

Western elites were shocked by Brexit, shocked that all their fear mongering and finger-wagging amounted to nothing. The same is true in the US, where the media’s daily attacks on Trump have failed to erode his base of support at all, in fact, they may have added to it.

Why is that? Why has the media’s repudiation of Trump only increased his popularity and strengthened the resolve of his supporters? Has the media lost its power to influence or is something else going on?

The media hasn’t lost its power, it’s just that personal experience is more powerful than propaganda.

What personal experience are we talking about?

Economic insecurity. Brexit was about economic insecurity. The Trump phenom is about economic insecurity. The rise of left and right-wing groups across Europe and the US is about economic insecurity. This isn’t about ideology, it’s about reality; the reality of not knowing if you’re ever going to be able to retire or put your kids through school or make your house payment or scrape by until payday. The reality of muddling by in an economy where the prospects for survival look worse with every passing day. That’s the reality that made Trump possible, and that’s what this election is about, economic insecurity.

Donald Trump and the Revolt of the Proles
by MIKE WHITNEY

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/07/18/ ... he-proles/

Fucking TRUTH.

And when you take into consideration it's all fucking made up bollocks anyways it just adds to the madness.

But not according to our ... erm... centrist friends here.

According to them the poor have never had it so good and the elite are only a) a figment of the loony left's imagination or b) absolutely vital to society because they provide for the rest of us with money that they've magically manufactured. Often both in the same argument.

[Sandydragon]

You really, really, really need to read this work.

https://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/resour ... irit-level

Everything you think about inequailty is wrong. And all your perconceptions about economics are falsehoods.

I think that you are kind of missing my point - it seems some people voted to leave in order to give the Elite a kicking. Regardless of what the future brings, leaving the EU isn't going to harm the elite as a group any more than it will suddenly change their lives (as a group). Rather than view the referendum positively, they basically took the opportunity to register a protest vote. I think that is a shame given the importance of the referendum; if people voted to leave I would hope it was because they genuinely thought life could be improved.

Ive heard of the Spirit Level but not read it in depth. Thanks for the link.

Did you even watch the video?

No, I read through the power point and the attached documents instead.

First of all, its interesting and I agree that there is a close link between the financial state of an area and health. Parts of the UK have appallingly bad health stats and its not a surprise they are poorer than others. I do think the authors have been a bit selective in their data though. I notice that suicide rates aren't covered. Sweden is held up as one of the most equal societies, yet its suicide rate is as high as the US. I think the authors make sufficient good points to allow some contrary evidence, otherwise they open themselves up to the point that they are being selective i their data use.

Ive made it pretty clear on here that Im not a huge fan of the term relative poverty. Absolute poverty needs to be tackled by any means that works, but relative poverty is less tangible and is a dangerous concept to deal with. You could, theoretically, have a country where the poorest in society have lives far more comfortable than in the third world, yet we still concern ourselves at leveling equality.

Furthermore, does equality mean reducing the incomes of the top earners or raising the earnings of the poor? IN the stats used, even the best countries had 4x income levels for richer vs poorer. And why should everyone get the same reward - its a child like argument that everyone is worth the same in terms of financial reward for their skills or effort they put in.

So you could argue that tax is the way forward for the upper earners, except that tax receipts are higher following the reduction in the highest rate. SO are we just taxing the top earners to make a political point, or to actually improve revenue? For me, practicality wins over ideology every day of the week.

There is also a danger that blaming issues like poor health on equality misses the real cause of those problems. Why is life expectancy in some parts of the country much lower than in others? How much of that is done to the lifestyle of patients? How much of that lifestyle needs wealth? Obviously private care is something which having money benefits you one. But what about smoking and drinking alcohol to excess? They cos money and can result in poor health. Its perfectly possible to eat healthily on a lower income, so why do people prefer not to? Wealth has its place in this discussion, but I don't think its the only issue.

The one area where equality is hugely important is education. Putting to one side the issue of parental support and expectations and peer pressure and focusing solely on the establishment. Why are some schools so much better than others, even considering catchment areas? The private sector isn't necessarily staffed with better teachers, but the opportunities it gives to students through extra curricular activities, lower class sizes, greater support, better facilities, etc, etc are in a league above.

Now not all students are equal, some are brighter than others and some develop later than others. So a mature education system allows for the early identification of the brighter kids and for them to be pushed. Those children who just aren't academic and who want to be practical should be allowed to do so, without disrupting the academic ones. Whilst derided, the Grammar School system ushered in greater social mobility.

To me, equality means getting the same chance in life to progress. Ive met plenty of people who haven't worked hard at fulfilling their potential. Tough luck if that is the case, you only have yourself to blame, especially when others from the same background succeed. But a bright child who wants to work hard, from a poorer background, should be able to achieve as much at school as a similar child from a richer home and have the same opportunities at higher education and get the same wider training, i.e. the confidence that public school tends to give children. Get that right and arguments over equality become historic. At the moment its too easy for bright kids to be dragged down by the less interested ones and sink.

[UGagain]

I think that you are kind of missing my point - it seems some people voted to leave in order to give the Elite a kicking. Regardless of what the future brings, leaving the EU isn't going to harm the elite as a group any more than it will suddenly change their lives (as a group). Rather than view the referendum positively, they basically took the opportunity to register a protest vote. I think that is a shame given the importance of the referendum; if people voted to leave I would hope it was because they genuinely thought life could be improved.

Ive heard of the Spirit Level but not read it in depth. Thanks for the link.

Did you even watch the video?

No, I read through the power point and the attached documents instead.

First of all, its interesting and I agree that there is a close link between the financial state of an area and health. Parts of the UK have appallingly bad health stats and its not a surprise they are poorer than others. I do think the authors have been a bit selective in their data though. I notice that suicide rates aren't covered. Sweden is held up as one of the most equal societies, yet its suicide rate is as high as the US. I think the authors make sufficient good points to allow some contrary evidence, otherwise they open themselves up to the point that they are being selective i their data use.

Ive made it pretty clear on here that Im not a huge fan of the term relative poverty. Absolute poverty needs to be tackled by any means that works, but relative poverty is less tangible and is a dangerous concept to deal with. You could, theoretically, have a country where the poorest in society have lives far more comfortable than in the third world, yet we still concern ourselves at leveling equality.

Furthermore, does equality mean reducing the incomes of the top earners or raising the earnings of the poor? IN the stats used, even the best countries had 4x income levels for richer vs poorer. And why should everyone get the same reward - its a child like argument that everyone is worth the same in terms of financial reward for their skills or effort they put in.

So you could argue that tax is the way forward for the upper earners, except that tax receipts are higher following the reduction in the highest rate. SO are we just taxing the top earners to make a political point, or to actually improve revenue? For me, practicality wins over ideology every day of the week.

There is also a danger that blaming issues like poor health on equality misses the real cause of those problems. Why is life expectancy in some parts of the country much lower than in others? How much of that is done to the lifestyle of patients? How much of that lifestyle needs wealth? Obviously private care is something which having money benefits you one. But what about smoking and drinking alcohol to excess? They cos money and can result in poor health. Its perfectly possible to eat healthily on a lower income, so why do people prefer not to? Wealth has its place in this discussion, but I don't think its the only issue.

The one area where equality is hugely important is education. Putting to one side the issue of parental support and expectations and peer pressure and focusing solely on the establishment. Why are some schools so much better than others, even considering catchment areas? The private sector isn't necessarily staffed with better teachers, but the opportunities it gives to students through extra curricular activities, lower class sizes, greater support, better facilities, etc, etc are in a league above.

Now not all students are equal, some are brighter than others and some develop later than others. So a mature education system allows for the early identification of the brighter kids and for them to be pushed. Those children who just aren't academic and who want to be practical should be allowed to do so, without disrupting the academic ones. Whilst derided, the Grammar School system ushered in greater social mobility.

To me, equality means getting the same chance in life to progress. Ive met plenty of people who haven't worked hard at fulfilling their potential. Tough luck if that is the case, you only have yourself to blame, especially when others from the same background succeed. But a bright child who wants to work hard, from a poorer background, should be able to achieve as much at school as a similar child from a richer home and have the same opportunities at higher education and get the same wider training, i.e. the confidence that public school tends to give children. Get that right and arguments over equality become historic. At the moment its too easy for bright kids to be dragged down by the less interested ones and sink.

Dude, this is cut and paste right wing drivel.

The fact is that prosperity is reliant on increasing income.

If you don't have a plan for doing that, you're full of shit.

Macroeconomics is like another dimension for people like you. So you deny it exists.

It does exist. Increased incomes don't occur by magicWhich is what your right wing talking points boil down to.

[Sandydragon]

Did you even watch the video?

No, I read through the power point and the attached documents instead.

First of all, its interesting and I agree that there is a close link between the financial state of an area and health. Parts of the UK have appallingly bad health stats and its not a surprise they are poorer than others. I do think the authors have been a bit selective in their data though. I notice that suicide rates aren't covered. Sweden is held up as one of the most equal societies, yet its suicide rate is as high as the US. I think the authors make sufficient good points to allow some contrary evidence, otherwise they open themselves up to the point that they are being selective i their data use.

Ive made it pretty clear on here that Im not a huge fan of the term relative poverty. Absolute poverty needs to be tackled by any means that works, but relative poverty is less tangible and is a dangerous concept to deal with. You could, theoretically, have a country where the poorest in society have lives far more comfortable than in the third world, yet we still concern ourselves at leveling equality.

Furthermore, does equality mean reducing the incomes of the top earners or raising the earnings of the poor? IN the stats used, even the best countries had 4x income levels for richer vs poorer. And why should everyone get the same reward - its a child like argument that everyone is worth the same in terms of financial reward for their skills or effort they put in.

So you could argue that tax is the way forward for the upper earners, except that tax receipts are higher following the reduction in the highest rate. SO are we just taxing the top earners to make a political point, or to actually improve revenue? For me, practicality wins over ideology every day of the week.

There is also a danger that blaming issues like poor health on equality misses the real cause of those problems. Why is life expectancy in some parts of the country much lower than in others? How much of that is done to the lifestyle of patients? How much of that lifestyle needs wealth? Obviously private care is something which having money benefits you one. But what about smoking and drinking alcohol to excess? They cos money and can result in poor health. Its perfectly possible to eat healthily on a lower income, so why do people prefer not to? Wealth has its place in this discussion, but I don't think its the only issue.

The one area where equality is hugely important is education. Putting to one side the issue of parental support and expectations and peer pressure and focusing solely on the establishment. Why are some schools so much better than others, even considering catchment areas? The private sector isn't necessarily staffed with better teachers, but the opportunities it gives to students through extra curricular activities, lower class sizes, greater support, better facilities, etc, etc are in a league above.

Now not all students are equal, some are brighter than others and some develop later than others. So a mature education system allows for the early identification of the brighter kids and for them to be pushed. Those children who just aren't academic and who want to be practical should be allowed to do so, without disrupting the academic ones. Whilst derided, the Grammar School system ushered in greater social mobility.

To me, equality means getting the same chance in life to progress. Ive met plenty of people who haven't worked hard at fulfilling their potential. Tough luck if that is the case, you only have yourself to blame, especially when others from the same background succeed. But a bright child who wants to work hard, from a poorer background, should be able to achieve as much at school as a similar child from a richer home and have the same opportunities at higher education and get the same wider training, i.e. the confidence that public school tends to give children. Get that right and arguments over equality become historic. At the moment its too easy for bright kids to be dragged down by the less interested ones and sink.

Dude, this is cut and paste right wing drivel.

The fact is that prosperity is reliant on increasing income.

If you don't have a plan for doing that, you're full of shit.

Macroeconomics is like another dimension for people like you. So you deny it exists.

It does exist. Increased incomes don't occur by magicWhich is what your right wing talking points boil down to.

I see. So an attempt to discuss the issues like adults fails. Oh well.

[UGagain]

It's not like an adult though.

It's adolescent.

Maybe that's your problem.

You don't understand that there's a whole bunch of stuff that you don't understand.

[UGagain]

No, I read through the power point and the attached documents instead.

First of all, its interesting and I agree that there is a close link between the financial state of an area and health. Parts of the UK have appallingly bad health stats and its not a surprise they are poorer than others. I do think the authors have been a bit selective in their data though. I notice that suicide rates aren't covered. Sweden is held up as one of the most equal societies, yet its suicide rate is as high as the US. I think the authors make sufficient good points to allow some contrary evidence, otherwise they open themselves up to the point that they are being selective i their data use.

Ive made it pretty clear on here that Im not a huge fan of the term relative poverty. Absolute poverty needs to be tackled by any means that works, but relative poverty is less tangible and is a dangerous concept to deal with. You could, theoretically, have a country where the poorest in society have lives far more comfortable than in the third world, yet we still concern ourselves at leveling equality.

Furthermore, does equality mean reducing the incomes of the top earners or raising the earnings of the poor? IN the stats used, even the best countries had 4x income levels for richer vs poorer. And why should everyone get the same reward - its a child like argument that everyone is worth the same in terms of financial reward for their skills or effort they put in.

So you could argue that tax is the way forward for the upper earners, except that tax receipts are higher following the reduction in the highest rate. SO are we just taxing the top earners to make a political point, or to actually improve revenue? For me, practicality wins over ideology every day of the week.

There is also a danger that blaming issues like poor health on equality misses the real cause of those problems. Why is life expectancy in some parts of the country much lower than in others? How much of that is done to the lifestyle of patients? How much of that lifestyle needs wealth? Obviously private care is something which having money benefits you one. But what about smoking and drinking alcohol to excess? They cos money and can result in poor health. Its perfectly possible to eat healthily on a lower income, so why do people prefer not to? Wealth has its place in this discussion, but I don't think its the only issue.

The one area where equality is hugely important is education. Putting to one side the issue of parental support and expectations and peer pressure and focusing solely on the establishment. Why are some schools so much better than others, even considering catchment areas? The private sector isn't necessarily staffed with better teachers, but the opportunities it gives to students through extra curricular activities, lower class sizes, greater support, better facilities, etc, etc are in a league above.

Now not all students are equal, some are brighter than others and some develop later than others. So a mature education system allows for the early identification of the brighter kids and for them to be pushed. Those children who just aren't academic and who want to be practical should be allowed to do so, without disrupting the academic ones. Whilst derided, the Grammar School system ushered in greater social mobility.

To me, equality means getting the same chance in life to progress. Ive met plenty of people who haven't worked hard at fulfilling their potential. Tough luck if that is the case, you only have yourself to blame, especially when others from the same background succeed. But a bright child who wants to work hard, from a poorer background, should be able to achieve as much at school as a similar child from a richer home and have the same opportunities at higher education and get the same wider training, i.e. the confidence that public school tends to give children. Get that right and arguments over equality become historic. At the moment its too easy for bright kids to be dragged down by the less interested ones and sink.

Dude, this is cut and paste right wing drivel.

The fact is that prosperity is reliant on increasing income.

If you don't have a plan for doing that, you're full of shit.

Macroeconomics is like another dimension for people like you. So you deny it exists.

It does exist. Increased incomes don't occur by magicWhich is what your right wing talking points boil down to.

I see. So an attempt to discuss the issues like adults fails. Oh well.

Either way, you're not fit to be a moderator here.

[kk67]

Its not about the elites for all of the people I've talked to.

Blaming immigrants is a result of policy favouring the "elites".

All too true. It's classic divide and conquer and it's a worldwide phenomenon.

Obviously any sensible person is concerned about Trump but I was particularly struck by the total absence of any content in his speeches. In that respect he really is the new Hitler.

[Sandydragon]

Its not about the elites for all of the people I've talked to.

Blaming immigrants is a result of policy favouring the "elites".

All too true. It's classic divide and conquer and it's a worldwide phenomenon.

Obviously any sensible person is concerned about Trump but I was particularly struck by the total absence of any content in his speeches. In that respect he really is the new Hitler.

Its a shyte line up. Trump vs Clinton. Clinton is a lying manipulative career politician, but Trump is no better. The number of people running law suits against him for various business practices is a cause for concern in itself.