What are Models and Photographers saying about the economy?

waist.it said

CalmNudes said

waist.it said

I did not mention denigrating anyone. You just made that up. lol Besides, state Benefit is not "charity" it is a legal entitlement defined by Act of Parliament.

And go-easy with the junk-maths. Trussell Trust's food parcels provide food for three days, not just one meal. And it is just one of many organisations running foodbanks here in the UK. Almost all of which are reporting rapidly rising food poverty.

You took the typical leftist position of spouting bile about how dreadful the very existence of food banks is. 

Various acts of parliament govern and give names to hand outs to those in need. Saying that moves them from charitable to something else is just the standard line of those who think the state should do everything. Besides, we have a government which thinks that if you pass an act which says a country is safe, that makes it safe, so... forgive me if I don't buy into what parliament says changing reality. 

You're not really in a position to lecture on junk maths. You did your "Oh think of the children" handwringing act citing a million parcels but not whether they are concentrated on a small number of people who are stuck in deep poverty, or large number of people having a short term need for emergency help. I said: take an estimate of the number of children in the country, multiply by the number of meals they each need, and accept that some people did go hungry (or went to other sources) before food banks so there is a need for some parcels. If a parcel goes out for every X meals, what number would we expect X to be in a normal society? I haven't put one forward, but if one thinks it's one parcel per million meals, 1 per 20K (or there abouts with my back of an envelope sums) is a disaster. If you think it's the 1% of poorest, even if Trussell put 10 meals in, and they are only 10% of food banks 1 per 20K would look low. 

I'm on the train at the moment and what I notice going through stations is places selling coffee at £4, 5, even £6 per cup are doing pretty well. If I step inside McDonalds I notice a huge proportion of orders being collected, if I turn on the TV most adverts seem to be for gambling. There are plainly plenty of people with money to throw away.  Lots of people in one segment doesn't tell us very much about the state of the whole economy. To the original post that kind of spending gives some hint about where the economy is going, and food banks give some hint about where it's been.  

But that won't stop you jumping into a "ha ha , hookers can predict the economy" thread with your all-charity-should-be-nationalized politics.   

What I found very striking on a recent trip was that we were the only people in KFC (West Wales) at 2.30 on a Friday.

Here the "We'll pop into the takaway for a little treat after doing the shopping" is noticably less common.

CalmNudes said

waist.it said

CalmNudes said

waist.it said

I did not mention denigrating anyone. You just made that up. lol Besides, state Benefit is not "charity" it is a legal entitlement defined by Act of Parliament.

And go-easy with the junk-maths. Trussell Trust's food parcels provide food for three days, not just one meal. And it is just one of many organisations running foodbanks here in the UK. Almost all of which are reporting rapidly rising food poverty.

You took the typical leftist position of spouting bile about how dreadful the very existence of food banks is. 

Various acts of parliament govern and give names to hand outs to those in need. Saying that moves them from charitable to something else is just the standard line of those who think the state should do everything. Besides, we have a government which thinks that if you pass an act which says a country is safe, that makes it safe, so... forgive me if I don't buy into what parliament says changing reality. 

You're not really in a position to lecture on junk maths. You did your "Oh think of the children" handwringing act citing a million parcels but not whether they are concentrated on a small number of people who are stuck in deep poverty, or large number of people having a short term need for emergency help. I said: take an estimate of the number of children in the country, multiply by the number of meals they each need, and accept that some people did go hungry (or went to other sources) before food banks so there is a need for some parcels. If a parcel goes out for every X meals, what number would we expect X to be in a normal society? I haven't put one forward, but if one thinks it's one parcel per million meals, 1 per 20K (or there abouts with my back of an envelope sums) is a disaster. If you think it's the 1% of poorest, even if Trussell put 10 meals in, and they are only 10% of food banks 1 per 20K would look low. 

I'm on the train at the moment and what I notice going through stations is places selling coffee at £4, 5, even £6 per cup are doing pretty well. If I step inside McDonalds I notice a huge proportion of orders being collected, if I turn on the TV most adverts seem to be for gambling. There are plainly plenty of people with money to throw away.  Lots of people in one segment doesn't tell us very much about the state of the whole economy. To the original post that kind of spending gives some hint about where the economy is going, and food banks give some hint about where it's been.  

But that won't stop you jumping into a "ha ha , hookers can predict the economy" thread with your all-charity-should-be-nationalized politics.   

I didn't do any maths, junk or otherwise. I merely quoted directly from one of Britain's leading foodbank charities. It was you who extrapolated those figures in a manner that was at best disingenuous,  confusing individual meals with food packages that contain three day's worth of meals.

Nor did I denigrate any of the charities involved as you falsely claimed. I merely agreed with and directly quoted the CEO of one of the leading charities involved. She clearly states it is not the job of charities provide a long term solution to ever increasing food poverty. Interestingly it seems there are at least some in government who agree...

• https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9209/

I expect Trumo to win the US Election with the US Econony then going through a boom period.

Huw said

What I found very striking on a recent trip was that we were the only people in KFC (West Wales) at 2.30 on a Friday.

Here the "We'll pop into the takaway for a little treat after doing the shopping" is noticably less common.

Interesting. I can't remember the last time we ordered a take-away, but it was before COVID. Must be a decade since we set foot in a pub. And the various take-away delivery vans and scooters that used to nip in-an-out of our close of a Friday or Saturday night seem to be a thing of the past too.

Edited by waist.it

The big multinational companies I work with in my day job are cutting back their marketing/ad spending just like they did in the 90's and on the S&P500 because its become the Stocks to invest in as its had a great 15yrs, many of the companies are over valued.  Lastly lots of younger relatives are having to spend such a large amount of their income on housing and energy, they have nothing else to spend on the things that historically propped up the rest of the UK economy.

waist.it said

CalmNudes said 

I didn't do any maths, junk or otherwise. I merely quoted directly from one of Britain's leading foodbank charities. It was you who extrapolated those figures in a manner that was at best disingenuous,  confusing individual meals with food packages that contain three day's worth of meals.

Nor did I denigrate any of the charities involved as you falsely claimed. I merely agreed with and directly quoted the CEO of one of the leading charities involved. She clearly states it is not the job of charities provide a long term solution to ever increasing food poverty. Interestingly it seems there are at least some in government who agree...

• https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9209/

No, you quoted a headline number with intent to mislead.  I said, if there are 15-20 million children that's about 20 Billion meals. How many n-meal packs would we be expect to be sent out by food banks? 

You are also counting delivery, and not need. Pre food banks some people went hungry , even now presumably not everyone who needs help is getting it, so, we don't know if the number of hungry has gone up in spite of the efforts of food banks, or gone down because of those efforts.  Fewer hungry kids would be good, right? But if you can portray all those meals going out as need which wasn't there before you can paint a worse picture to suit your politics. 

Here's an interesting question - if your town has 1000 needy children, all fed by a food bank, is that better or worse than having only 100 needy children going hungry because there's no food bank. I know having no-one in the bottom few percent would be ideal, but someone is always going to be at the bottom. I know that the state hand outs taking care of everyone who needs it is the next best thing, but that doesn't always work either. But we care either about total need, or unmet need, right ? And you're quoting figures for need being met. I've got a lot more time and regard for those trying to reduce the number who are hungry than for those who complain about we managed to feed those who are aren't 

From the point of view of the economy, if the economy improves and I'm working overtime, my employer might hire a new person and my income goes down, or if I'm not working overtime I might get the chance to be paid for more hours and my income goes up. Really hard to know what the effect of change is on any given person.  If GDP grows, will that change the proportion of people we classify as poor? Based the fact the economy has grown over hundreds of years and poverty hasn't gone away, I don't think it so.  Does a rise in GDP even change how many need special extra hand-outs ? Again I don't think it makes a lot of difference, and actually I think the number of people who are really up shit creek can go UP when the economy booms if that causes inflation.     

CalmNudes said

waist.it said

CalmNudes said 

I didn't do any maths, junk or otherwise. I merely quoted directly from one of Britain's leading foodbank charities. It was you who extrapolated those figures in a manner that was at best disingenuous,  confusing individual meals with food packages that contain three day's worth of meals.

Nor did I denigrate any of the charities involved as you falsely claimed. I merely agreed with and directly quoted the CEO of one of the leading charities involved. She clearly states it is not the job of charities provide a long term solution to ever increasing food poverty. Interestingly it seems there are at least some in government who agree...

• https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9209/

No, you quoted a headline number with intent to mislead.  I said, if there are 15-20 million children that's about 20 Billion meals. How many n-meal packs would we be expect to be sent out by food banks? 

You are also counting delivery, and not need. Pre food banks some people went hungry , even now presumably not everyone who needs help is getting it, so, we don't know if the number of hungry has gone up in spite of the efforts of food banks, or gone down because of those efforts.  Fewer hungry kids would be good, right? But if you can portray all those meals going out as need which wasn't there before you can paint a worse picture to suit your politics. 

Here's an interesting question - if your town has 1000 needy children, all fed by a food bank, is that better or worse than having only 100 needy children going hungry because there's no food bank. I know having no-one in the bottom few percent would be ideal, but someone is always going to be at the bottom. I know that the state hand outs taking care of everyone who needs it is the next best thing, but that doesn't always work either. But we care either about total need, or unmet need, right ? And you're quoting figures for need being met. I've got a lot more time and regard for those trying to reduce the number who are hungry than for those who complain about we managed to feed those who are aren't 

From the point of view of the economy, if the economy improves and I'm working overtime, my employer might hire a new person and my income goes down, or if I'm not working overtime I might get the chance to be paid for more hours and my income goes up. Really hard to know what the effect of change is on any given person.  If GDP grows, will that change the proportion of people we classify as poor? Based the fact the economy has grown over hundreds of years and poverty hasn't gone away, I don't think it so.  Does a rise in GDP even change how many need special extra hand-outs ? Again I don't think it makes a lot of difference, and actually I think the number of people who are really up shit creek can go UP when the economy booms if that causes inflation.     

I'm growing a little weary of your false and baseless accusations. I quoted what you describe as a "headline number" because it was the official statistic published Trussell Trust. I also provided an easily understood chart from the same source, along with a valid link. It is also the statistic accepted by a recent House of Commons Report entitled "Food poverty: Households, food banks and free school meals".

Perhaps you would kindly explain this alleged "intent to mislead"?

While you are at it, in two earlier posts, you also falsely accused me of "denigrating" the charities involved. I think that deserves a proper explanation too please.

Timmee said

ps. In the movie 'The Big Short' the 'shorting' guys from one bank go to a property investing convention in Las Vegas in order to assess whether property prices are in a bubble. In addition to finance industry people, they interview one of the strippers who has bought multiple homes with low start variable rate mortgage loans (which are just about to ramp up interest rates dramatically.) Apparently there were real instances of this, so (in a sense) the fate of the strippers was signaling the more general financial crash about to happen.

I watched that only recently. Brilliant film but those "fact-finding mission" scenes near the beginning and at the convention really get across how the people in the know must have been feeling.

Well before the 2008 crash I was a regular listener of "The Truth About Markets" on Resonance FM, which was Max Keiser's radio show. He was one of the earliest people talking about the vulnerability of subprime mortgages. And he was, to be clear, something of a post-cocaine-habit nutjob, though a very knowledgeable one (and hugely entertaining). But he got across the sense that the reason it took so long for the market to twig to the vulnerability is that everyone in financial markets constantly has to suppress that urge to point out that all contemporary finance is really constructed on nothing more than sentiment. So they get so good at it, they don't notice when there are unusually bad indicators. Or they convince themselves that they are just blips. And they become immune to the idea of layering as if it creates stability, when it's merely hiding instability with probabilities.

So well before the crash I knew that, for example, when it finally happened, interbank loan rates would be implicated.

Two or three days after the first failures I was on a fairly busy late train coming back from London, and I got talking to a defeated-looking city guy who asked me if I knew what LIBOR was -- I said I did, basically -- and he went on to explain that he didn't know how bad it was for sure, but it was possible that it was so bad that half the people on the train would be out of a job and many would lose their houses. And that was before the news about the LIBOR side of things broke.

Edited by Unfocussed Mike

Huw said

What I found very striking on a recent trip was that we were the only people in KFC (West Wales) at 2.30 on a Friday.

A Welsh ex-pat friend of mine is back in Wales (he's here a couple of times a year to visit elderly relatives) and this time has had a bit more of a chance to get around and see places. And he sounds absolutely horrified at the changes he's seen, even in Cardiff.

waist.it said

CalmNudes said

waist.it said

CalmNudes said 

I didn't do any maths, junk or otherwise. I merely quoted directly from one of Britain's leading foodbank charities. It was you who extrapolated those figures in a manner that was at best disingenuous,  confusing individual meals with food packages that contain three day's worth of meals.

Nor did I denigrate any of the charities involved as you falsely claimed. I merely agreed with and directly quoted the CEO of one of the leading charities involved. She clearly states it is not the job of charities provide a long term solution to ever increasing food poverty. Interestingly it seems there are at least some in government who agree...

• https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9209/

No, you quoted a headline number with intent to mislead.  I said, if there are 15-20 million children that's about 20 Billion meals. How many n-meal packs would we be expect to be sent out by food banks? 

You are also counting delivery, and not need. Pre food banks some people went hungry , even now presumably not everyone who needs help is getting it, so, we don't know if the number of hungry has gone up in spite of the efforts of food banks, or gone down because of those efforts.  Fewer hungry kids would be good, right? But if you can portray all those meals going out as need which wasn't there before you can paint a worse picture to suit your politics. 

Here's an interesting question - if your town has 1000 needy children, all fed by a food bank, is that better or worse than having only 100 needy children going hungry because there's no food bank. I know having no-one in the bottom few percent would be ideal, but someone is always going to be at the bottom. I know that the state hand outs taking care of everyone who needs it is the next best thing, but that doesn't always work either. But we care either about total need, or unmet need, right ? And you're quoting figures for need being met. I've got a lot more time and regard for those trying to reduce the number who are hungry than for those who complain about we managed to feed those who are aren't 

From the point of view of the economy, if the economy improves and I'm working overtime, my employer might hire a new person and my income goes down, or if I'm not working overtime I might get the chance to be paid for more hours and my income goes up. Really hard to know what the effect of change is on any given person.  If GDP grows, will that change the proportion of people we classify as poor? Based the fact the economy has grown over hundreds of years and poverty hasn't gone away, I don't think it so.  Does a rise in GDP even change how many need special extra hand-outs ? Again I don't think it makes a lot of difference, and actually I think the number of people who are really up shit creek can go UP when the economy booms if that causes inflation.     

I'm growing a little weary of your false and baseless accusations. I quoted what you describe as a "headline number" because it was the official statistic published Trussell Trust. I also provided an easily understood chart from the same source, along with a valid link. It is also the statistic accepted by a recent House of Commons Report entitled "Food poverty: Households, food banks and free school meals".

Perhaps you would kindly explain this alleged "intent to mislead"?

While you are at it, in two earlier posts, you also falsely accused me of "denigrating" the charities involved. I think that deserves a proper explanation too please.

"someone is always going to be at the bottom" - spoken like a true capitalist. Utter nonsense. Doesn't have to be this way and shouldn't be.

waist.it said

 

I'm growing a little weary of your false and baseless accusations. I quoted what you describe as a "headline number" because it was the official statistic published Trussell Trust. I also provided an easily understood chart from the same source, along with a valid link. It is also the statistic accepted by a recent House of Commons Report entitled "Food poverty: Households, food banks and free school meals".

Perhaps you would kindly explain this alleged "intent to mislead"?

While you are at it, in two earlier posts, you also falsely accused me of "denigrating" the charities involved. I think that deserves a proper explanation too please.

OK which is it. You didn't know how misleading the the "million parcels" stat was and just quoted it off your party briefing sheet, or I correctly assumed you understood it and pushed it to suit your politics..

You've simply do the standard lefty thing of attacking food banks, and by implication those who work in them and donate to them. You could look in the dictionary for denigrate I got "Criticize unfair, disparage" which seems exactly what you have done.     

But both of those are really beside the point.  The number of "rich" or "poor" people doesn't tell you much about how the economy is doing, never mind where it is heading. Want to use food banks to "prove" the economy is doing well ... look at all the donations! Of course it doesn't prove anything of the kind. But it needs similar care to with the statistics for parcels delivered, but your. The handwringing "think of the children" "It's a million parcels" rhetoric is designed to prevent anyone looking critically at the statistic.   

In a country where (according to a search which turned up something from the commons library) 2 Million pupils receive free school meals every day; about 3000 parcels going out per day, means about 1 in 600 FSM recipients don't go to bed hungry thanks to the biggest charity. Same numbers made to sound really very small. But the million makes it sound like a vast number - but we don't know how many 'hard core' cases there are, and how many are short term one offs. You can do the sums for "if it's 80% go are taken by 20%" as well as I can 
As a school governor I was bothered that some kids often turned up having had no breakfast (the head started a breakfast club and I don't remember how it was funded), if a pupil had eaten I didn't give a stuff about whether the food came from a food bank, they were a "solved problem" - which probably sounds horribly dismissive. What I want to know is how many more people need help and the food banks aren't reaching. 

CalmNudes said

waist.it said

 

I'm growing a little weary of your false and baseless accusations. I quoted what you describe as a "headline number" because it was the official statistic published Trussell Trust. I also provided an easily understood chart from the same source, along with a valid link. It is also the statistic accepted by a recent House of Commons Report entitled "Food poverty: Households, food banks and free school meals".

Perhaps you would kindly explain this alleged "intent to mislead"?

While you are at it, in two earlier posts, you also falsely accused me of "denigrating" the charities involved. I think that deserves a proper explanation too please.

OK which is it. You didn't know how misleading the the "million parcels" stat was and just quoted it off your party briefing sheet, or I correctly assumed you understood it and pushed it to suit your politics..

You've simply do the standard lefty thing of attacking food banks, and by implication those who work in them and donate to them. You could look in the dictionary for denigrate I got "Criticize unfair, disparage" which seems exactly what you have done.     

But both of those are really beside the point.  The number of "rich" or "poor" people doesn't tell you much about how the economy is doing, never mind where it is heading. Want to use food banks to "prove" the economy is doing well ... look at all the donations! Of course it doesn't prove anything of the kind. But it needs similar care to with the statistics for parcels delivered, but your. The handwringing "think of the children" "It's a million parcels" rhetoric is designed to prevent anyone looking critically at the statistic.   

In a country where (according to a search which turned up something from the commons library) 2 Million pupils receive free school meals every day; about 3000 parcels going out per day, means about 1 in 600 FSM recipients don't go to bed hungry thanks to the biggest charity. Same numbers made to sound really very small. But the million makes it sound like a vast number - but we don't know how many 'hard core' cases there are, and how many are short term one offs. You can do the sums for "if it's 80% go are taken by 20%" as well as I can 
As a school governor I was bothered that some kids often turned up having had no breakfast (the head started a breakfast club and I don't remember how it was funded), if a pupil had eaten I didn't give a stuff about whether the food came from a food bank, they were a "solved problem" - which probably sounds horribly dismissive. What I want to know is how many more people need help and the food banks aren't reaching. 

So you misunderstood the figures. OK. So what about your other accusation, namely that I denigrated the charities involved? Where exactly do you think I did that?

LightMatter Portraits said

CalmNudes said

[snip]

Here's an interesting question - if your town has 1000 needy children, all fed by a food bank, is that better or worse than having only 100 needy children going hungry because there's no food bank. I know having no-one in the bottom few percent would be ideal, but someone is always going to be at the bottom. I know that the state hand outs taking care of everyone who needs it is the next best thing, but that doesn't always work either. But we care either about total need, or unmet need, right ? And you're quoting figures for need being met. I've got a lot more time and regard for those trying to reduce the number who are hungry than for those who complain about we managed to feed those who are aren't

[snip]

"someone is always going to be at the bottom" - spoken like a true capitalist. Utter nonsense. Doesn't have to be this way and shouldn't be.

+1. Agreed.

LightMatter Portraits said

waist.it said 

"someone is always going to be at the bottom" - spoken like a true capitalist. Utter nonsense. Doesn't have to be this way and shouldn't be.

Spoken , If I might say, like someone who read Das Kapital, but didn't understand it.

Show me a place where  where all have the same IQ, physical ability and work ethic, where everyone is equally tall (or short) fat or thin, where no one is more skilled at numbers or less skilled at languages   -to reach for a favourite quote  , "when you find that fair land, I will go there with you myself. We'll live Of fruit and nuts, commune with all that's left of bloody nature. Just look around  PP, are some models more photogenic, and some photographers more gifted ?

And if you can equalize all of that, without bring everyone down to the level of the least able, how are will everybody gets the same opportunities to benefit from their equal talent (doesn't work in communist countries, where being in with the party has more to do with success than talent does). 

Some people rise, and some people don't. And if society is a decent one, the former take care of the latter. 

I'm not sure what a true capitalist is, but if wanting as many people to rise as a high as possible, that's me.

waist.it   I've answered the denigrate point. I examined the figures, you just did the "chuck a number out and hope no one looks too closely" thing. Last word is yours if you want it, because arguing with communists is like trying to teach a pig to sing - wastes your time and annoys them, so you'll be blocked in a moment.