Join the Labour Party and save your country!

Stevo_666

mamba80 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

And if we accept a lot of that debt growth in ‘08-‘09 was GFC related, and we’re criticising Corbyn’s policy in opposition here, shouldn’t we criticise both parties for pushing for less regulation in the banking sector in the run up to it? Particularly since the Tories, including Cameron, regularly brought up how “burdensome” regulation was to the banking sector whilst in opposition.


(FWIW, the state of the banking system was a regular feature of Lib Dem questioning long before the GFC)

You seem to be assuming that burdensome UK bank regulation would have prevented the GFC.

not prevented but perhaps limited our exposure and subsequent costs?

Nobody will ever know. The only certainty from burdensome regulation is extra costs for the banks in this case, which generally gets passed onto customers.

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

And if we accept a lot of that debt growth in ‘08-‘09 was GFC related, and we’re criticising Corbyn’s policy in opposition here, shouldn’t we criticise both parties for pushing for less regulation in the banking sector in the run up to it? Particularly since the Tories, including Cameron, regularly brought up how “burdensome” regulation was to the banking sector whilst in opposition.


(FWIW, the state of the banking system was a regular feature of Lib Dem questioning long before the GFC)

You seem to be assuming that burdensome UK bank regulation would have prevented the GFC.

I'd argue had there been decent regulations in place, particularly regarding the Capital Adequacy Ratio, then the likelihood of a bailout being needed would have been dramatically lower.

So i'm not arguing it'd have prevented a GFC, but it would have prevented the need for bailouts in the UK.

Remember, the bailout package cost £500bn at the time.


Also, FWIW, and this is unrelated, for all the mistakes Brown & Darling made in the run up to the GFC, once the crisis hit, I think most people with an informed view thinks they did a good job in crisis management. And that's not a partisan statement.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing. How many people at the time who thought that more regulation was needed weeds specifically saying 'let's increase capital adequacy ratios'? If it was the obvious gap before the event, people would have made noises about implementing that. But they didn't as far as I'm aware.

If you look at any major crisis, the preventative measures are always obvious after the event.

As mentioned above, the only cert from onerous regulation is increased costs, which are usually passed onto customers. That and slowing down business - for example it takes ages just to open a corporate bank account for a new group company even though the group is a well known and long standing client. Very frustrating and un-necessary IMO.

rick_chasey

More capitalised banks is not novel and was talked about 100s of years ago.

The more capitalised your bank, the lower the profits, all other things being equal. So it’s a balance. It was iirc historically low heading into ‘07.

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

More capitalised banks is not novel and was talked about 100s of years ago.

The more capitalised your bank, the lower the profits, all other things being equal. So it’s a balance. It was iirc historically low heading into ‘07.

If it was obvious to you, it would be obvious to others and you'll be able to show me evidence that those in favour of more bank regulation were requesting greater capital adequacy ratios before the event.

rick_chasey

https://twitter.com/AllyFogg/status/951065429765771265

Bit of a scoop on Toby Young...

Usual caveats apply.

bompington

Yep, pretty much the usual response these days - burn the witch rather than discuss the issues.

rick_chasey

bompington wrote:

Yep, pretty much the usual response these days - burn the witch rather than discuss the issues.

What issues are they, bompington?

bompington

Just read Young's articles. He has, on many occasions, pointed out the overwhelming evidence that a) success is highly correlated with IQ and b) IQ is highly correlated with social status. This is, of course, taboo for most these days, so there are plenty of cases of people not just saying that it's wrong - a legitimate opinion to advocate, better still if you can back it up with evidence - but that you aren't allowed to discuss it. And if anyone dares even to try and research racial differences in IQ...

The deliberate implication of all this "white supremacists and eugenicists" stuff is that Young is a Nazi who wants to have poor people slaughtered. Both his writing and his actions (i.e. free schools) are a long, long way from this.

rick_chasey

bompington wrote:

Just read Young's articles. He has, on many occasions, pointed out the overwhelming evidence that a) success is highly correlated with IQ and b) IQ is highly correlated with social status. This is, of course, taboo for most these days, so there are plenty of cases of people not just saying that it's wrong - a legitimate opinion to advocate, better still if you can back it up with evidence - but that you aren't allowed to discuss it. And if anyone dares even to try and research racial differences in IQ...

The deliberate implication of all this "white supremacists and eugenicists" stuff is that Young is a Nazi who wants to have poor people slaughtered. Both his writing and his actions (i.e. free schools) are a long, long way from this.

The main difference is he confuses correlation with causation.

It's not so much taboo as misses the point.

The problem however is that confusion leads to a conclusion that is indeed very close to 'progressive eugenics'. Less inflammatory, is that this thinking helps ingrain inequality, and moves a society further away from a meritocracy. And let's be clear, he does specifically talk about 'eugenics'. That's not a topic that has been thrust upon him.

The fact he also argues how the world is in fact meritocratic, and it's just a eugenics thing, in the context of his own life, is decidedly convenient and fairly ironic, given how he has quite clearly been the recipient of a lot of patronage and not much good sense.

That talking, in the context of the above scoop (if it is indeed true), puts his comments on 'eugenics' in a different light, does it not?

The real issue here is that the powers that be could have picked anyone to make the case for free speech in schools & universities, provide a counterweight to the push for 'safe spaces' etc, and they picked this guy who clearly has more baggage than he does worthwhile views on the pressing topics of the day; largely because he's a gobby columnist in much the same mould as the foreign secretary.

bompington

Rick Chasey wrote:

bompington wrote:

Just read Young's articles. He has, on many occasions, pointed out the overwhelming evidence that a) success is highly correlated with IQ and b) IQ is highly correlated with social status. This is, of course, taboo for most these days, so there are plenty of cases of people not just saying that it's wrong - a legitimate opinion to advocate, better still if you can back it up with evidence - but that you aren't allowed to discuss it. And if anyone dares even to try and research racial differences in IQ...

The deliberate implication of all this "white supremacists and eugenicists" stuff is that Young is a Nazi who wants to have poor people slaughtered. Both his writing and his actions (i.e. free schools) are a long, long way from this.

The main difference is he confuses correlation with causation.

It's not so much taboo as misses the point.

The problem however is that confusion leads to a conclusion that is indeed very close to 'progressive eugenics'. Less inflammatory, is that this thinking helps ingrain inequality, and moves a society further away from a meritocracy. And let's be clear, he does specifically talk about 'eugenics'. That's not a topic that has been thrust upon him.

The fact he also argues how the world is in fact meritocratic, and it's just a eugenics thing, in the context of his own life, is decidedly convenient and fairly ironic, given how he has quite clearly been the recipient of a lot of patronage and not much good sense.

You're still missing the point. Everything I've read by him is discussing how to increase life chances for [poor] people despite the things they have holding them back, of which their genes are unquestionably one. I don't think he confuses correlation with causation, he's not stupid and I've definitely seen him mention this as a caveat (sorry, but unlike the left-wing twittermob, I'm not obsessed enough to go trawling through every word he's ever published to find a phrase or two to support my argument).
And as for eugenics - the most memorable thing I've read from him on this topic was an article where he argued basically that genetic engineering should be made selectively available to poor people to improve their IQ and therefore their
chances. Contrarian (remember he made his name as, basically, a wind-up merchant), playing with fire maybe, wrong-headed probably, but hardly the viewpoint of a poor-hating fascist.

rick_chasey

bompington wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

bompington wrote:

Just read Young's articles. He has, on many occasions, pointed out the overwhelming evidence that a) success is highly correlated with IQ and b) IQ is highly correlated with social status. This is, of course, taboo for most these days, so there are plenty of cases of people not just saying that it's wrong - a legitimate opinion to advocate, better still if you can back it up with evidence - but that you aren't allowed to discuss it. And if anyone dares even to try and research racial differences in IQ...

The deliberate implication of all this "white supremacists and eugenicists" stuff is that Young is a Nazi who wants to have poor people slaughtered. Both his writing and his actions (i.e. free schools) are a long, long way from this.

The main difference is he confuses correlation with causation.

It's not so much taboo as misses the point.

The problem however is that confusion leads to a conclusion that is indeed very close to 'progressive eugenics'. Less inflammatory, is that this thinking helps ingrain inequality, and moves a society further away from a meritocracy. And let's be clear, he does specifically talk about 'eugenics'. That's not a topic that has been thrust upon him.

The fact he also argues how the world is in fact meritocratic, and it's just a eugenics thing, in the context of his own life, is decidedly convenient and fairly ironic, given how he has quite clearly been the recipient of a lot of patronage and not much good sense.

You're still missing the point. Everything I've read by him is discussing how to increase life chances for [poor] people despite the things they have holding them back, of which their genes are unquestionably one. I don't think he confuses correlation with causation, he's not stupid and I've definitely seen him mention this as a caveat (sorry, but unlike the left-wing twittermob, I'm not obsessed enough to go trawling through every word he's ever published to find a phrase or two to support my argument).
And as for eugenics - the most memorable thing I've read from him on this topic was an article where he argued basically that genetic engineering should be made selectively available to poor people to improve their IQ and therefore their
chances. Contrarian (remember he made his name as, basically, a wind-up merchant), playing with fire maybe, wrong-headed probably, but hardly the viewpoint of a poor-hating fascist.

Can I just confirm this, you're making an assumption that peoples actual genes are holding those in worse socio-economic circumstances back?

bompington

No, I'm following evidence that suggests that this is the case.

rick_chasey

bompington wrote:

No, I'm following evidence that suggests that this is the case.

So what are you assuming if it isn't that?

Only, that thinking is literally a cornerstone of far right thinking in the '20s and '30s across Europe. It just factually is.

rick_chasey

I mean, from that assumption, that genes hold lower socio-economic circumstance people back, how would you interpret the situation that those from non-European backgrounds in the UK tend to have a lower socio-economic circumstance?

bompington

Rick Chasey wrote:

bompington wrote:

No, I'm following evidence that suggests that this is the case.

So what are you assuming if it isn't that?

Only, that thinking is literally a cornerstone of far right thinking in the '20s and '30s across Europe. It just factually is.

You are illustrating precisely the point I'm trying to make. It's not a question of whether Young's right or wrong, or even whether he happens to agree with Hitler on something. It's that when someone makes a case for something they don't like - maybe because in their head it's associated with Hitler, maybe for any other reason they fancy - their taboo trigger (read The Righteous Mind - utterly brilliant book - on disgust as a driver of our responses) goes off and they start shouting "Nazi!" and try to shut down debate.

bompington

Rick Chasey wrote:

I mean, from that assumption, that genes hold lower socio-economic circumstance people back, how would you interpret the situation that those from non-European backgrounds in the UK tend to have a lower socio-economic circumstance?

Well, believe it or not, there is evidence that genes correlate with IQ and success or lack of it. But not that your salary is directly proportional to your IQ.
Young, Adolf and I would all agree that other factors also carry weight ;-)

mamba80

bompington wrote:

You're still missing the point. Everything I've read by him is discussing how to increase life chances for [poor] people despite the things they have holding them back, of which their genes are unquestionably one. I don't think he confuses correlation with causation, he's not stupid and I've definitely seen him mention this as a caveat (sorry, but unlike the left-wing twittermob, I'm not obsessed enough to go trawling through every word he's ever published to find a phrase or two to support my argument).
And as for eugenics - the most memorable thing I've read from him on this topic was an article where he argued basically that genetic engineering should be made selectively available to poor people to improve their IQ and therefore their
chances. Contrarian (remember he made his name as, basically, a wind-up merchant), playing with fire maybe, wrong-headed probably, but hardly the viewpoint of a poor-hating fascist.

Plenty of people make good in their lives, environmental factors have perhaps more influence.

what needs to happen is stop mothers drinking during pregnancy, learn to cook, nutrition, breastfeed... perhaps for our partners this is just "normal" but if if you r illiterate, you had zero parenting models, how do you know these things? home economics ie cooking classes arent taught in schools anymore.

if genes were the only thing going, the how exactly did we go from an agri economy to the industrial revolution and beyond? or were the engineers, scientists and inventors all from the upper class and eton?

Young may have been trying to be controversial and if he d stopped at Claudia's t1ts then fair enough but to suggest that poor people should have access to eugenics ie finish off their blood line (even as a "joke") is from the 1930s, and of course many of his readers dont need encouragement to believe this stuff.

As Rick said, really need to question why he was was placed in this position of responsibility and why May didnt get rid when she first knew of his views, plenty of othr people are passionate about further education etc.

why the fcuk would we want to debate and therefore give credence to Hitlers theories?

rjsterry

bompington wrote:

No, I'm following evidence that suggests that this is the case.

Let's see some, then. I'm well aware of the correlation between social status and IQ. To me that suggests that IQ at least as good an indicator of social status as it is of intelligence. Can you show me, say a map of haplotype distribution that corresponds in some way to IQ distribution?

rick_chasey

bompington wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

bompington wrote:

No, I'm following evidence that suggests that this is the case.

So what are you assuming if it isn't that?

Only, that thinking is literally a cornerstone of far right thinking in the '20s and '30s across Europe. It just factually is.

You are illustrating precisely the point I'm trying to make. It's not a question of whether Young's right or wrong, or even whether he happens to agree with Hitler on something. It's that when someone makes a case for something they don't like - maybe because in their head it's associated with Hitler, maybe for any other reason they fancy - their taboo trigger (read The Righteous Mind - utterly brilliant book - on disgust as a driver of our responses) goes off and they start shouting "Nazi!" and try to shut down debate.

Sure, I get that.

In fairness to me, I actually studied the whole racism bit in history, so I've dedicated a lot more time and energy into the whole argument than most people.

I do think people also forget that in the context of public discussions, not every argument can be academically broken down and argued, so short hands are used.

Most people play the odds, and I reckon when someone starts spouting the benefits of eugenics, the odds are they're somewhere on the "far right is into eugenics" scale. (I happen to be reading Kershaw's history of Europe 1914-1949 at the moment, and I'm knee deep in the early '30s and a discussion around the prevalence of eugenics. I don't need to illustrate why that is highlighted in the book, nor do I need to illustrate that the kind of argument you're suggested Toby Young uses is precicely the same argument that is highlighted in that history).

I think that there is good reason eugenics in these kinds of context IS taboo, and I think dismissing the 'hysteria' out of hand I think misses the valuable contribution societies have of regulating what kind of society they want. In this instance, they don't want people who espouse the positives of eugenics to be in public leadership roles, however irrelevant or not it is.

It's too easy to moan about reactions without looking at why they happen at all.

rick_chasey

It's a weird hill to die on.

Tories make good points of freedom of speech and argument in universities, and there needs to be a healthy leadership on the topic that covers all sides.

Toby Young was not the man to do that. A lot of his supporters are confusing the disappointment he was appointed with a disappointment that anyone with rightish liberal views on free speech was appointed.

Most of the criticism I have seen is specific to Toby, not to someone of that persuasion.

rjsterry

Rick Chasey wrote:

It's a weird hill to die on.

Tories make good points of freedom of speech and argument in universities, and there needs to be a healthy leadership on the topic that covers all sides.

Toby Young was not the man to do that. A lot of his supporters are confusing the disappointment he was appointed with a disappointment that anyone with rightish liberal views on free speech was appointed.

Most of the criticism I have seen is specific to Toby, not to someone of that persuasion.

Quite. There's a former education secretary who's very interested in widening access to opportunity through education. She probably has the time now.

bompington

rjsterry wrote:

Can you show me, say a map of haplotype distribution that corresponds in some way to IQ distribution?

I'm not an expert in genetics. Toby Young appears to know more than I do but is clearly not on the level of a proper scientist.
None of that is relevant to my (or his) argument. He suggests, and I would agree, that research shows that there is some evidence that genes go some way towards determining intelligence and "success".
We may or may not be right. That's not actually the hill I'm dying on.
What I am trying to say is that far too much discourse is ruined by "burn the witch" reaction to taboos. Ironic, then, that you seek to challenge me on something that wasn't actually the main thrust of my argument by using technical terms to "expert-signal".

rick_chasey

bompington wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Can you show me, say a map of haplotype distribution that corresponds in some way to IQ distribution?

I'm not an expert in genetics. Toby Young appears to know more than I do but is clearly not on the level of a proper scientist.
None of that is relevant to my (or his) argument. He suggests, and I would agree, that research shows that there is some evidence that genes go some way towards determining intelligence and "success".
We may or may not be right. That's not actually the hill I'm dying on.
What I am trying to say is that far too much discourse is ruined by "burn the witch" reaction to taboos. Ironic, then, that you seek to challenge me on something that wasn't actually the main thrust of my argument by using technical terms to "expert-signal".

Or that we're trying to tease out some assumptions that some of us think are suspect, and help illuminate the context of the argument. It's difficult to have the discussion if we're not aware of any conflicting assumptions.

In short, I'd suggest Toby's case is fairly weak, since there's loads of evidence, and you can find it yourself, that, on a macro level, genes play almost f*ck all role in different group's socio-economic statuses, and that if you're making policy, which by its nature is macro, you're playing with fire by focusing on people's genes rather than the myriad of other, more relevant, more significant issues.

pblakeney

How does the above pan out if a rich family adopt a newborn from a poor background? I’d put it more down to basic parenting and encouragement at education.

nickice

PBlakeney wrote:

How does the above pan out if a rich family adopt a newborn from a poor background? I’d put it more down to basic parenting and encouragement at education.

I believe there have been a few studies on identical twins and IQ difference does significantly show if one child is adopted by a family with a higher socioeconomic status. I was reading this yesterday but I can't actually remember where. Of course, any such study is going to have a very small sample size. Genetics and environment (and that includes what the mother does while pregnant play a part).

pblakeney

nickice wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

How does the above pan out if a rich family adopt a newborn from a poor background? I’d put it more down to basic parenting and encouragement at education.

I believe there have been a few studies on identical twins and IQ difference does significantly show if one child is adopted by a family with a higher socioeconomic status. I was reading this yesterday but I can't actually remember where. Of course, any such study is going to have a very small sample size. Genetics and environment (and that includes what the mother does while pregnant play a part).

I'd say that the status leads to an attitude to life which is more relevant than the original genes. Environment. Parenting and attitude. Money (status) helps but it is not a substitute.

rjsterry

bompington wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Can you show me, say a map of haplotype distribution that corresponds in some way to IQ distribution?

I'm not an expert in genetics. Toby Young appears to know more than I do but is clearly not on the level of a proper scientist.
None of that is relevant to my (or his) argument. He suggests, and I would agree, that research shows that there is some evidence that genes go some way towards determining intelligence and "success".
We may or may not be right. That's not actually the hill I'm dying on.
What I am trying to say is that far too much discourse is ruined by "burn the witch" reaction to taboos. Ironic, then, that you seek to challenge me on something that wasn't actually the main thrust of my argument by using technical terms to "expert-signal".

Ha! Expert-signal my arse. I don't even have a biology A-level. This is basic New Scientist level stuff. The idea that poor people could genetically engineer their way out of poverty has so many holes in it it's almost less intelligent than Young's comments about various women's cleavage.

nickice

PBlakeney wrote:

nickice wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

How does the above pan out if a rich family adopt a newborn from a poor background? I’d put it more down to basic parenting and encouragement at education.

I believe there have been a few studies on identical twins and IQ difference does significantly show if one child is adopted by a family with a higher socioeconomic status. I was reading this yesterday but I can't actually remember where. Of course, any such study is going to have a very small sample size. Genetics and environment (and that includes what the mother does while pregnant play a part).

I'd say that the status leads to an attitude to life which is more relevant than the original genes. Environment. Parenting and attitude. Money (status) helps but it is not a substitute.

Perhaps but I'm talking about IQ. Apparently IQ is quite a good predictor of success but it's not the whole story (and it depends how you measure success)

nickice

rjsterry wrote:

bompington wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Can you show me, say a map of haplotype distribution that corresponds in some way to IQ distribution?

I'm not an expert in genetics. Toby Young appears to know more than I do but is clearly not on the level of a proper scientist.
None of that is relevant to my (or his) argument. He suggests, and I would agree, that research shows that there is some evidence that genes go some way towards determining intelligence and "success".
We may or may not be right. That's not actually the hill I'm dying on.
What I am trying to say is that far too much discourse is ruined by "burn the witch" reaction to taboos. Ironic, then, that you seek to challenge me on something that wasn't actually the main thrust of my argument by using technical terms to "expert-signal".

Ha! Expert-signal my ars*. I don't even have a biology A-level. This is basic New Scientist level stuff. The idea that poor people could genetically engineer their way out of poverty has so many holes in it it's almost less intelligent than Young's comments about various women's cleavage.

I think Toby Young's ideas are pretty crazy for a variety of reasons but a very low IQ will result in someone being unable to perform many jobs. If you're born in poverty and you have a very low IQ, your chances of getting out of your socioeconomic band are probably pretty slim.

mamba80

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/un ... st-genetic

Daughter is studying Psychology, she sent me this.