|
Borrovan posted:Anything that wasn't deducted straight from benefits or hoovered up by predatory brokers would be negated anyway when most of the population immediately starts selling all of their miles every year and markets adjust to suck the extra money straight back off them (much like UBI without rent/price controls). The only effect would be that only rich people can travel at all, which they continue to do literally all they want. Travel certificates (every citizen has x miles free per year) much like carbon certificates would work if business travelers also need to participate. It would actually provide a good indirect tax on businesses. Rich people don't care either way. I don't see why travel prices themselves would increase, given that demand is more likely to drop - as long as the amount of miles is enough for normal people to do their vacations. The lowest demand elasticity (and largest slice of demand) are business travelers (see: business class tickets). In the first round, they'd pay. I don't think second round effects would eliminate any income advantage gained by selling one's miles to KPMG and BCG or whatever. However, lol if you think that this would work politically. If at all, it would exclude business travel, which would mean it won't work at all and will be tax on non-rich people. As always, none of this concerns rich people in any way. Edit: Your thesis that any redistribution measures don't work without price control is a tad pessimistic. It's not a binary thing. Yeah, some costs will inflate prices, but redistribution is still a good thing. Haramstufe Rot fucked around with this message at 21:23 on Feb 13, 2021 |
#
?
Feb 13, 2021 21:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 21:38 |
|
|
It’s only gonna get worse as vaccinations continue to ramp up, things reopen, and we return to some degree of normality while the Tories crow about it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2021 21:22
|
|
|
Z the IVth posted:Doing my insurance today and I've just found out that "Spiderman" is a choice of profession.  obviously
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2021 21:24
|
|
|
crispix posted:by way of reconciliation as i seem to have pissed off some people today i will share with you all some photographs that i took (using the camera built into my mobile-telephone) on my walk today. i hope that those of you who did not get to have a lovely walk today will get some enjoyment from seeing photographs taken during my lovely walk on your computer screen/monitor/Visual Display Unit there You run in trousers? Wimp.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2021 21:25
|
|
|
Just stop bailing out airlines the travel issue will correct itself when they all go bust.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2021 21:26
|
|
|
Rich people would just get their accountant to declare them as a box of meat for tax purposes, and then have their private jet declared as a freight vehicle, or something equally stupid. You can't create legislation around this because rich wankers will just lobby to get an exception made so they can circumvent it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2021 21:27
|
|
|
NotJustANumber99 posted:You run in trousers? Wimp. i'm very body-shy tbh, i don't like people seeing my legs or my bare chest or that
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2021 21:33
|
|
|
I enjoyed your pictures crispix, thank you for posting them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2021 21:34
|
|
|
Bobby Deluxe posted:Rich people would just get their accountant to declare them as a box of meat for tax purposes, and then have their private jet declared as a freight vehicle, or something equally stupid. Box of meat is perfect for making into buns. Mmm meat buns.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2021 21:41
|
|
|
I enjoyed these photos and also the descriptions.Bobby Deluxe posted:Rich people would just get their accountant to declare them as a box of meat for tax purposes, 
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2021 21:43
|
|
|
crispix posted:I have long wanted to force all cruise ships to be renamed The Diarrhea Princess and for those who still go on them to be put on a list, sort of like the sex offenders' register but for grossly thoughtless people instead I’m extremely grateful for what I have. I have perspective. That doesn’t stop me from wanting this loving lockdown to end and to go on holiday. Sure, sometimes people whinging about not being able to go on holiday are NOT aware of how comparatively fortunate they are, but wanting a holiday doesn’t axiomatically mean that all of those people lack perspective. Anyway, I am an excellent speller and am also frequently baffled by how to spell diarrhoea. Although I did just get it right! Whoops, didn’t realise the thread had moved on. Didn’t intend to reopen the argument. therattle fucked around with this message at 21:46 on Feb 13, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2021 21:44
|
|
|
Dire rear
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2021 21:47
|
|
|
therattle posted:
nah you forgot the y
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2021 21:47
|
|
|
crispix posted:by way of reconciliation as i seem to have pissed off some people today i will share with you all some photographs that i took (using the camera built into my mobile-telephone) on my walk today. i hope that those of you who did not get to have a lovely walk today will get some enjoyment from seeing photographs taken during my lovely walk on your computer screen/monitor/Visual Display Unit there I recognised that shite daylight right away.  All the snow has unfortunately been rained out of existence, a shameful display.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2021 21:56
|
|
|
Follow up on the Bristol West Labour party. The right have basically stolen all the positions and the social media officer has already started to redesign the website. I strongly recommend everyone take a look: https://www.bristolwestlabour.org.uk/our-executive-committee/ Amazing. What a man.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2021 22:00
|
|
|
quote:I enjoyed your pictures crispix, thank you for posting them. Angry that you didn't pet doggo though. ALWAYS PET DOGGO
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2021 22:03
|
|
|
therattle posted:That’s a separate argument (with which I have some sympathy). It’s not the basis on which crispix et al are arguing though. It is absolutely part of why I find the obsession with it pretty contemptible, the fact that its proponents want to just actively start killing a bunch of people to facilitate it, that they can't even deal without having it for any reason only amplifies that. I don't really see why I shouldn't feel that way about people who, from my perspective, simply cannot exist without gorging themselves constantly on an endless stream of manufactured novelty, whatever the cost, because their brains are so rotted that they cannot fabricate their own meaning or sense of enjoyment in life, especially when as the costs escalate all they do is come out with weaselly justifications for why it is right that ever more people should suffer for their happiness. What is someone who does that other than intrinsically hostile to me? How am I supposed to view them any other way? It might not be their fault that they are the way they are, but they still are that way. How am I supposed to interpret it other than just another example of me being forced to support a society that does nothing for me. To sideline my best interests yet again for people who have no desire to do anything for me in return, lockdowns to protect them, work and risk of lifelong complications for me, all just so they can stuff their faces in restaurants and fly abroad because they cannot go five loving minutes without consuming everything in sight like utter pigs. I don't know how not to feel that way when that attitude is inextricable from the attitude that denies me every possible chance of improving my life and having a loving future. I don't see why I shouldn't feel that way, it seems to me to be entirely reasonable that I should. As I said, they would make very good tories. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 02:01 on Feb 14, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2021 22:37
|
|
|
The Perfect Element posted:It's an interesting question : does the fact that others are suffering more than you invalidate any grief you might feel about your own situation? Like, is ANYONE entitled to ever feel sorry for themselves in the developed world, when bombs are being dropped on other people who are objectively worse off? My own perspective is that while I'm sure worse things are happening elsewhere in the world, the bad things that I'm currently experiencing are happening to me and therefore deserve an outsize proportion of my personal attention.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2021 22:42
|
|
|
namesake posted:Follow up on the Bristol West Labour party. The right have basically stolen all the positions and the social media officer has already started to redesign the website. I strongly recommend everyone take a look: what the gently caress
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2021 22:44
|
|
|
happyhippy posted:Angry that you didn't pet doggo though. i miss petting friend dogs and kitties and even horses (if they don't look too demented of a horse) that i see out and about but there is that risk that i could get plague from them or inadventently contaminate them with plague and they'll take it back in their houses and give it to people and well stables in the case of horses, not houses only knew one person who let a horse in the house, always said no (thanks) to a cup of tea at hers
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2021 22:54
|
|
|
crispix posted:i miss petting friend dogs and kitties and even horses (if they don't look too demented of a horse) that i see out and about but there is that risk that i could get plague from them or inadventently contaminate them with plague and they'll take it back in their houses and give it to people and well Should have politely said Neigh instead.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2021 22:59
|
|
|
Pistol_Pete posted:what the gently caress Liberalism
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2021 23:03
|
|
|
nothing better than a cup of tea for a horse throat
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2021 23:04
|
|
|
Scikar posted:This would be lovely for the same reasons as fishing quotas and carbon credits. The airlines, who don't care who is flying as long as somebody is and pays for it, would continuously lobby for the quota to be as high as possible. The tiny proportion of frequent flyers who currently account for a vastly disproportionate amount of the travel and carbon emissions would argue that their travel is now not causing any problems so long as they pay for the credits. And you just know that any money people did make from selling their credits would be deducted from any benefits they might receive anyway - it's unlike to leave the poorest any better off. All that effort, little help to those who need it the most, no effect on climate change, and the rich have an excuse to deflect blame for it. If you're going to put up quotas, they should be fixed, non-transferrable, and tax the everliving gently caress out of any travel that exceeds them. Airlines will lobby against anything which limits flights to address climate change, without magic clean tech being imminent that's a fake argument because it could be applied to literally any measure that reduces flight miles within capitalism. There's no reason to declare flight miles would necessarily be reduced from benefits, that's stupid 'ugh donchaknow any policy idea is actually bad because hellworld' it's a massive catastrophising assumption. Borrovan posted:Anything that wasn't deducted straight from benefits or hoovered up by predatory brokers would be negated anyway when most of the population immediately starts selling all of their miles every year and markets adjust to suck the extra money straight back off them (much like UBI without rent/price controls). The only effect would be that only rich people can travel at all, which they continue to do literally all they want. Why do you idiots assume that this would have anything to do with benefits, the entire concept is that it's a universal measure and please give me a more specific definition of 'predatory brokers' because a single desirable commodity with a perhaps floating but fundamentally reliable value seems like 'predatory brokers' would be a non-issue. "The only effect would be that only rich people can travel at all" is such a massive reach that you need to justify it at least somehow. FYI it's fine to say 'i dunno that policy might cause problems' but you morons are declaring it awful based on absolutely no logical reasoning. namesake posted:https://www.bristolwestlabour.org.uk/our-executive-committee/ At the risk of realising there's a sinister new Type of Guy he looks eerily similar to the worst of the north london righty cunts.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2021 23:16
|
|
|
therattle posted:That’s a separate argument (with which I have some sympathy). It’s not the basis on which crispix et al are arguing though. it wasn't sneering. i remain genuinely baffled as to why it's such a priority for some people. i've acknowledged that i'm the one who is an oddball (not a having experiences person) and i have apologised for hitting a nerve with a lot of people so there's not much more i can really do
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2021 23:19
|
|
|
Vitamin P posted:Airlines will lobby against anything which limits flights to address climate change, without magic clean tech being imminent that's a fake argument because it could be applied to literally any measure that reduces flight miles within capitalism. There's no reason to declare flight miles would necessarily be reduced from benefits, that's stupid 'ugh donchaknow any policy idea is actually bad because hellworld' it's a massive catastrophising assumption. You claimed it would be an efficient wealth transfer from the rich to the poor, and you didn't even bother to claim it would actually reduce carbon emissions from aircraft, only that it would lay the groundwork for future flight restrictions (when? after it's already too late?). You made these assertions without any reasoning or consideration for how they would actually happen. But of course, the people pointing out ways that it might not work are the idiots. I disagree that it would be an efficient wealth transfer. Maybe you could include some numbers here so we could evaluate what qualifies as efficient. I also don't think it would reduce emissions, presumably you don't either as you didn't claim it - assume the airlines get no say in this policy, and you limit total passenger miles to say 50% of current. The airlines could reduce the number of seats on planes and raise prices - same number of flights, similar level of emissions (maybe we can be generous here and say they will favour smaller, more efficient aircraft, but aircraft purchasing cycles are measured in decades), only now that one holiday abroad per year is too expensive for some people who can currently afford it. If you want to say this is a good policy, show some working. Maybe then you can call people idiots.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2021 00:02
|
|
|
Regarde Aduck posted:Seems like a hot take but I’m not sure tbh I don't actually think that a forever lockdown or sacrificing thousands of people with otherwise manageable illnesses is necessary. The UK could even now follow Australia in practically eliminating Covid in Great Britain if the Tories were willing to (NI would presumably require coordination with the Irish government and even as a hypothetical that might be expecting too much of Johnson). lovely leadership from a lovely government is the problem. People frustrated with being stuck inside wishing that they could lead normal lives again and people who don't want to die a preventable death should both be on the same side here.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2021 00:09
|
|
|
The Conservative Party appears as the only multi-cultural party.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2021 00:18
|
|
|
As a pet dog haver, I can assure you they are not happy about the lack of pets either.  This is just a dog, standing in front of an internet, asking it to pet him.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2021 00:25
|
|
|
Scikar posted:You claimed it would be an efficient wealth transfer from the rich to the poor, and you didn't even bother to claim it would actually reduce carbon emissions from aircraft, only that it would lay the groundwork for future flight restrictions (when? after it's already too late?). You made these assertions without any reasoning or consideration for how they would actually happen. But of course, the people pointing out ways that it might not work are the idiots. If all citizens equally recieve a resource that the wealthy luxuriat and business fliers disproportionately use and a single specific market mechanism would allow that resource to be traded then you are insane to say it wouldn't be an incredibly efficient wealth transfer mechanism. It would also be politically popular, or at least achievable, because '99% of people get money directly from the richest 1%, it's not charity or taxation it's The Market' is npt a contentious or difficult concept it's populist in the best possible way. "(when? after it's already too late?)" now you have to do more than critique because you're claiming a flaw of the policy is that it's insufficient and only lays the groundwork for future more effective policy and yeah no poo poo, I acknowledged that in the first post. If you think it's bad then suggest a more effective policy. Scikar posted:I disagree that it would be an efficient wealth transfer. Maybe you could include some numbers here so we could evaluate what qualifies as efficient. I also don't think it would reduce emissions, presumably you don't either as you didn't claim it - assume the airlines get no say in this policy, and you limit total passenger miles to say 50% of current. The airlines could reduce the number of seats on planes and raise prices - same number of flights, similar level of emissions (maybe we can be generous here and say they will favour smaller, more efficient aircraft, but aircraft purchasing cycles are measured in decades), only now that one holiday abroad per year is too expensive for some people who can currently afford it. I legit think that doing the numbers would support my point, and if you want to keep being an obnoxious wee prick in defense of (?) then we can do that but your disagreement that a resource distributed universally wouldn't lead to redistribution seems logically incoherent. Also you seem to be assuming a flexibility of assets that is literally impossible for the airline industry, planes are a big deal.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2021 00:29
|
|
|
I'm watching the new Adam Curtis, and it is predictably good, in a Curtis sort of way. However, I've realised that his voice is very similar to Keir Starmers, or at least to the guy who does those amazing Keir starmer rap covers. I'll never be able to unhear it. More importantly, my fudge has arrived, and we've already got through one pack, despite an original pledge of 'just one piece per day'.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2021 00:38
|
|
|
Vitamin P posted:If you think it's bad then suggest a more effective policy. Scikar posted:If you're going to put up quotas, they should be fixed, non-transferrable, and tax the everliving gently caress out of any travel that exceeds them. e: Vitamin P posted:I've never seen a good argument against
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2021 00:40
|
|
|
The Perfect Element posted:However, I've realised that his voice is very similar to Keir Starmer this is hypernormalisation
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2021 00:46
|
|
|
Vitamin P posted:If you think it's bad then suggest a more effective policy. Yeah, I did, you ignored it. quote:I legit think that doing the numbers would support my point, and if you want to keep being an obnoxious wee prick in defense of (?) then we can do that but your disagreement that a resource distributed universally wouldn't lead to redistribution seems logically incoherent. "I legit think that I'm holding a pair of aces right here, but I'm just going sit here talking about aces and calling you an idiot. No you can't see them, just give me the money!" Again you didn't bother to read what I wrote either. The airlines can't afford to purchase new planes. But they can afford to change the seat layouts on the planes they have. Their purchasing decisions, and the industry's aircraft design, engine design, and manufacturing are all predicated on assumptions about passenger travel and optimised around those numbers. So they will be able to reduce the number of seats on each plane, increasing the space available per passenger, and raising the cost of the flight. But the result will be less efficient than today because it's not what the aircraft was optimised for, so emissions per passenger mile will rise, and in most cases the exact same planes will be making the exact same journeys just with fewer people on board. That's not going to deliver meaningful impact on emissions until the next round of aircraft design, production and purchasing - decades away. And we needed to act on emissions yesterday.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2021 00:49
|
|
|
if you want to go on holiday then i have no choice but to report you to the GMC
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2021 01:09
|
|
|
i think covid is a levelling event the like of which is unprecedented in our lifetimes
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2021 04:06
|
|
|
the way we are reacting to it is shaped by the lives we were living beforehand
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2021 04:10
|
|
|
it's outwith my experience for foreign travel for pleasure to be considered a necessity and it's genuinely surprised me that others disagree
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2021 04:23
|
|
|
crispix posted:i think covid is a levelling event the like of which is unprecedented in our lifetimes
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2021 04:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 21:38 |
|
|
crispix posted:it's outwith my experience for foreign travel for pleasure to be considered a necessity and it's genuinely surprised me that others disagree It doesn't surprise me, but I still have no tolerance for being told I need to eat poo poo so they can have them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2021 04:29
|
|