- Welcome to Languish.org.
Recent posts
#21
Off the Record / Re: Russo-Ukrainian War 2014-2...
Last post by Sheilbh - December 08, 2025, 10:38:37 PMI think Ukraine stopped transit of Russian gas to EU countries at the start of the year. I think the Russian pipe gas in Europe now is via Turkstream - so Turkey and the Balkans.
#22
Off the Record / Re: The EU thread
Last post by Sheilbh - December 08, 2025, 10:05:42 PMRight but my point - which I think that link largely supports - is that it's broadly plateaued in the UK over the last 40-50 years (on both income and wealth) as I think is common in the rest of Europe. There are fluctuations within a range but, we've not seen a huge shift in the type or scale of inequailty in that period, while there is a change in the US since Reagan:
I think the key reason is that the driver is the emergence of tech as a new industry and we don't have an equivalent tech sector driving that change. Neither does most of the rest of Europe - France is an exception as they have huge luxury goods companies, who've hugely grown serving the new global elite, with significant family stakes. Of the ten richest people in the world I think all of them (except for the Arnaults) are from tech in industries that did not exist 30-40 years ago and overwhelmingly based in the US. If we had billionaires like the US, there'd be problems but we're exposed to those anyway we just don't have a tech sector that means we can easily avoid reliance on American big tech (to Jake's point on Palantir).
I don't think the key point in the UK is that the 1% are hoovering up more wealth or income - because they're not. It's broadly flat within a range. The issue is our inequality interacts hugely with time/generation and location. The biggest chunk of wealth in the UK is property so if you were able to buy a place (including your council flat) in London or the South-East before the boom in property values then you'll have done very well. You see this even in existing council homes where Reeves has said that council homes will not be hit by the "mansion tax", because there are council homes worth over £2 million (and there should be).
So I think the challenges in the UK is more about how young people are able to access wealth, how we generate it more in all regions (and I say generate because there's already huge redistribution - the UK redistributes more North-South than Germany did East-West - FWIW I think devolution is key as I believe Manchester and Scotland are the only regions actually closing the gap) and also after the massive sell-off under Thatcher (which reducd wealth inequality as it hugely increased the number of people who owned stocks and shares or their own home) how to build state, common assets back up (and I think part of that should be tech - nationally owned cloud infrastructure and nationally owned open LLMs for domestic companies and research and public sector etc).
Edit Not least because we've got the bigest wealth transfer in British history on its way with older people who are now sitting on £1 trillion + property assets in often run of the mill suburban homes in outer London/South-East dying and passing that on which will create deeper and more entrenched inequality. Again it's not necessarily about billionaires but becoming a day-to-day Jane Austen/Regency society not Edith Wharton/Gilded Age.
I think the key reason is that the driver is the emergence of tech as a new industry and we don't have an equivalent tech sector driving that change. Neither does most of the rest of Europe - France is an exception as they have huge luxury goods companies, who've hugely grown serving the new global elite, with significant family stakes. Of the ten richest people in the world I think all of them (except for the Arnaults) are from tech in industries that did not exist 30-40 years ago and overwhelmingly based in the US. If we had billionaires like the US, there'd be problems but we're exposed to those anyway we just don't have a tech sector that means we can easily avoid reliance on American big tech (to Jake's point on Palantir).
I don't think the key point in the UK is that the 1% are hoovering up more wealth or income - because they're not. It's broadly flat within a range. The issue is our inequality interacts hugely with time/generation and location. The biggest chunk of wealth in the UK is property so if you were able to buy a place (including your council flat) in London or the South-East before the boom in property values then you'll have done very well. You see this even in existing council homes where Reeves has said that council homes will not be hit by the "mansion tax", because there are council homes worth over £2 million (and there should be).
So I think the challenges in the UK is more about how young people are able to access wealth, how we generate it more in all regions (and I say generate because there's already huge redistribution - the UK redistributes more North-South than Germany did East-West - FWIW I think devolution is key as I believe Manchester and Scotland are the only regions actually closing the gap) and also after the massive sell-off under Thatcher (which reducd wealth inequality as it hugely increased the number of people who owned stocks and shares or their own home) how to build state, common assets back up (and I think part of that should be tech - nationally owned cloud infrastructure and nationally owned open LLMs for domestic companies and research and public sector etc).
Edit Not least because we've got the bigest wealth transfer in British history on its way with older people who are now sitting on £1 trillion + property assets in often run of the mill suburban homes in outer London/South-East dying and passing that on which will create deeper and more entrenched inequality. Again it's not necessarily about billionaires but becoming a day-to-day Jane Austen/Regency society not Edith Wharton/Gilded Age.
#23
Off the Record / Re: What does a TRUMP presiden...
Last post by The Minsky Moment - December 08, 2025, 10:03:42 PMIt's the old pull the pin on the hand grenade in the enclosed room negotiation trick.
Sometimes it seems like Trump read something about the madman theory of international politics and decided to improvise around it, without really understanding how it is supposed to work. Of course, that isn't really possible. Everyone knows Trump doesn't read.
Sometimes it seems like Trump read something about the madman theory of international politics and decided to improvise around it, without really understanding how it is supposed to work. Of course, that isn't really possible. Everyone knows Trump doesn't read.
#24
Gaming HQ / Re: Europa Universalis V confi...
Last post by Legbiter - December 08, 2025, 10:02:40 PMI'm parking the game for now. Will check back inn March once they're back in the office and have settled on how they want the in-game systems to work and have ironed out the bugs. There's a gem buried under the jank though.
#25
Off the Record / Re: What does a TRUMP presiden...
Last post by Bauer - December 08, 2025, 09:36:00 PMQuote from: The Minsky Moment on December 08, 2025, 08:38:47 PMQuote from: viper37 on December 08, 2025, 08:21:01 PMTrump is threatening tariffs on Canadian fertilizers because of... price increases in the US.
No one in MAGA understands what is happening.
https://globalnews.ca/news/11568842/donald-trump-tariffs-fertilizer-canada/
What a load of shit.
I see what you did there.
And also as usual, how can you negotiate with a man like that. He's punishing us all with tariffs on stuff America needs. Riiight.
#26
Off the Record / Re: Russo-Ukrainian War 2014-2...
Last post by Tonitrus - December 08, 2025, 09:35:06 PMThat's what I meant.
Though, it may be that there aren't any parts of the infrastructure in Ukraine that would allow them to just "switch it off", and it would require actually physically "cutting off" the pipeline...which I expect would be very messy (if they could even stop the flow without the Russians stopping it from their pumping stations).
Though, it may be that there aren't any parts of the infrastructure in Ukraine that would allow them to just "switch it off", and it would require actually physically "cutting off" the pipeline...which I expect would be very messy (if they could even stop the flow without the Russians stopping it from their pumping stations).
#27
Off the Record / Re: Brexit and the waning days...
Last post by Sheilbh - December 08, 2025, 09:12:37 PMSo I think Motability is actually pretty good. Living with a disability is expensive. We are not a kind, caring or generous society for people with disabilities. So my inclination is that anything that is helping disabled is worth fighting for (although I am worried at the growth in long-term disability claimants and costs as well as SEND costs - not least because I thought a lot of it was long covid, but we seem to be the only country where this is happening) - Frances Ryan is a commentator I really like and often agree with.
There are some costs to the taxpayer in that I don't think there's VAT or some other taxes on the vehicles. It's also basically a state backed company in a lot of ways which will be an implicity subsidy. I think the tax breaks are about £1 billion. Not nothing, but not vast - however that has grown pretty rapidly in recent years as the numbers of people using the service have increased.
Motability Operations Group plc (so the corporate bit that delivers the services) has a history over the last few years of earning significant "unplanned profits". Basically their profits have been double what they anticipated and planned for over the last decade or so. I don't think they give money to shareholders in the normal way a company would, but worth noting that the shareholders of MOG plc are Barclays, Lloyds, HSBC and Natwest. So there is an argument that it is a way of financialising welfare - with huge reserves, large "unplanned profits" and massive executive pay (especially for a company with state backed revenue and no competition).
Having said all that I don't necessarily mind saying they need to buy UK manufactured vehicles. I broadly think we should have a lot more of that in government contracting/procurement.
I sort of feel like this is one of those things that the Economist flagged of the UK state having relatively generous policies available but they're not straight forward to get an implicit assumption by the state is that most people won't claim what they're entiteld to. Increasingly the internet has democratised knowledge of how to actully get what you're entitled to - what forms to fill in, what evidence to provide etc (something similar in the asylum system) which basically means the state's bluff is being called and it doesn't like it/can't afford it.
There are some costs to the taxpayer in that I don't think there's VAT or some other taxes on the vehicles. It's also basically a state backed company in a lot of ways which will be an implicity subsidy. I think the tax breaks are about £1 billion. Not nothing, but not vast - however that has grown pretty rapidly in recent years as the numbers of people using the service have increased.
Motability Operations Group plc (so the corporate bit that delivers the services) has a history over the last few years of earning significant "unplanned profits". Basically their profits have been double what they anticipated and planned for over the last decade or so. I don't think they give money to shareholders in the normal way a company would, but worth noting that the shareholders of MOG plc are Barclays, Lloyds, HSBC and Natwest. So there is an argument that it is a way of financialising welfare - with huge reserves, large "unplanned profits" and massive executive pay (especially for a company with state backed revenue and no competition).
Having said all that I don't necessarily mind saying they need to buy UK manufactured vehicles. I broadly think we should have a lot more of that in government contracting/procurement.
I sort of feel like this is one of those things that the Economist flagged of the UK state having relatively generous policies available but they're not straight forward to get an implicit assumption by the state is that most people won't claim what they're entiteld to. Increasingly the internet has democratised knowledge of how to actully get what you're entitled to - what forms to fill in, what evidence to provide etc (something similar in the asylum system) which basically means the state's bluff is being called and it doesn't like it/can't afford it.
#28
Off the Record / Re: What does a TRUMP presiden...
Last post by The Minsky Moment - December 08, 2025, 08:44:39 PMQuote from: Zoupa on December 08, 2025, 07:53:03 PMPosted by DoD. Interesting flag on the helmet there. Gilead is closer by the day.
The fact that there are still American Jews supporting Trump is powerful evidence falsifying the stereotype of Jewish intellectual achievement.
#29
Off the Record / Re: What does a TRUMP presiden...
Last post by The Minsky Moment - December 08, 2025, 08:38:47 PMQuote from: viper37 on December 08, 2025, 08:21:01 PMTrump is threatening tariffs on Canadian fertilizers because of... price increases in the US.
No one in MAGA understands what is happening.
https://globalnews.ca/news/11568842/donald-trump-tariffs-fertilizer-canada/
What a load of shit.
#30
Off the Record / Re: What does a TRUMP presiden...
Last post by viper37 - December 08, 2025, 08:21:01 PMTrump is threatening tariffs on Canadian fertilizers because of... price increases in the US. 
No one in MAGA understands what is happening.
https://globalnews.ca/news/11568842/donald-trump-tariffs-fertilizer-canada/
No one in MAGA understands what is happening.
https://globalnews.ca/news/11568842/donald-trump-tariffs-fertilizer-canada/
QuoteThe president has been very unequivocal in saying we have to figure out why all these input costs are skyrocketing," Rollins said.
Many U.S. farmers rely on Canadian potash fertilizer from Saskatchewan in order to add potassium to their soils. Over 90 per cent of Canadian fertilizer is exported, and the U.S. market accounts for well over half of that, according to Fertilizer Canada.
When Trump imposed a blanket 25 per cent tariff on Canadian goods early this year, he lowered the tariff on fertilizer to 10 per cent after outcry from industry groups and Republican lawmakers in farming states, such as Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa.
That tariff only applies to quantities of fertilizer exports to the U.S. that exceed limits under the Canada-U.S.-Mexico Agreement on free trade (CUSMA).
Canadian and U.S. farmers said in March they were facing higher fertilizer bills amid Trump's trade war. Some Canadian lawmakers like Ontario Premier Doug Ford had suggested Canada should block potash exports as a negotiating tactic in broader trade talks with the U.S., a move Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe opposed.