Tuesday, 27 October 2009

Count Ourselves Lucky?

"We can't have full employment. People should count themselves lucky to have a job. Full employment only leads to strikes."

Well, I don't see full employment at the moment.

But I see plenty of strikes.
Posted by at

20 comments:

  1. Descartes27 October 2009 at 15:57

    This is why denying the antecedent is a logical fallacy.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Deus Ex Machina27 October 2009 at 16:00

    Can Descartes explain why there were far fewer strikes in the boom years? Or will he finally admit that the Thtacherites were wrong?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Descartes27 October 2009 at 16:05

    For all you know, Deus, I've admitted it already.

    David has committed a simple and common logical fallacy - he's assumed that the statement "full employment means strikes" can be rephrased as "no full employment means no strikes". A moment's thought should suffice to show that this is an illegitimate inference.

    It reminds me of the time I walked into a bar, and the barman asked me if I wanted a small sherry.

    ReplyDelete
  4. David Lindsay27 October 2009 at 16:09

    For nearly 30 years, you've based an entire economic, and consequent social, policy on "no full employment means no strikes". So, as Deus asks, are you going to admit that it was wrong? Are you going to denounce Her? And, indeed, Him, the next President of Europe?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Descartes27 October 2009 at 16:20

    'For nearly 30 years, you've based an entire economic, and consequent social, policy on "no full employment means no strikes".'

    No I haven't. Trust me on this.


    This isn't a political point, it's a logical one. You think that the fact that we now have less than full employment and have strikes is in some way a refutation of the idea that full employment leads to strikes. It simply is not. And not for reasons of political theory, but because of a fundamental flaw in your logic.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anonymous27 October 2009 at 16:21

    We had full employment and excellent industrial relations for several years until Descartes' preferred system collapsed at global level. He is clearly a bailed out City boy with nothing better to do all day than sit around counting our money. When do we get to hang him and the rest of his kind?

    ReplyDelete
  7. David Lindsay27 October 2009 at 16:22

    Our day will come...

    ReplyDelete
  8. Deus Ex Machina27 October 2009 at 16:24

    Be fair David, Descartes is no older than 23.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Anonymous27 October 2009 at 16:26

    Nuke the City.

    ReplyDelete
  10. David Lindsay27 October 2009 at 16:27

    Don't you dare nuke all those lovely old churches. Or the Smithfield meat market, historic beating heart of Cockney working-class patriotism.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Luigi Gentili27 October 2009 at 16:46

    Is St. Ethelreda's, Ely Place in the City?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Descartes27 October 2009 at 16:47

    Before he's done fitting the noose round my neck, could Anon kindly explain just how he's arrived at his various erroneous conclusions?

    (I rather suspect he's Affirming the Consequent, but want to hear more from him first.)

    ReplyDelete
  13. David Lindsay27 October 2009 at 16:55

    Fancy having to ask, with a name like that, Father.

    I'm open to correction, but I have a feeling that it is about one street outside. So, just as it was badly damaged in the Blitz that the Smithfield meat porters had tried so valiantly to prevent, England's oldest Catholic church, the only church in London to date back to the reign of Edward I, and rather amusingly intended to convert the immigrant Irish until the C of E had to sell it and the Rosminians bought it, would certainly be destroyed in any nuking of the Square Mile.

    Even ridding the world of Descartes would not be worth that.

    Descartes, you are not a difficult type to identify. Perhaps you only know people like yourself?

    ReplyDelete
  14. Anonymous27 October 2009 at 17:12

    You've always had the measure of them. You're the man, Mr L. Always have been, always will be.

    So Descartes, after 30 years of saying lots of unemployment meant no strikes, after about 10 of them with very little unemployment and hardly any strikes, and now with lots of unemployment and loads of strikes, where does that leave you? If you ever come back, answer.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Descartes27 October 2009 at 17:15

    I'm keen to answer, Anon, but I find not all my responses are getting through. Probably some problem with the server.

    To answer your question - I've never advocated anything of the kind. I can only suggest that you read my arguments with a little more care.

    ReplyDelete
  16. David Lindsay27 October 2009 at 17:16

    No, Descartes, your "comments" have been rejected. I think that quite that level of arrogance, including your continued failure to answer, rather proves our point. We all know the people who are like that. You, it seems, can't see it, since you know no one else.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Poetry Corner27 October 2009 at 17:30

    Learn the lesson, learn it well:
    You don't mess with Mr L.

    ReplyDelete
  18. David Lindsay27 October 2009 at 17:31

    You should see some of the comments that I have had to reject. Like so many of my critics, he has never been disagreed with or stood up to in his life, and he has absolutely no idea how to cope with it.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Anonymous27 October 2009 at 17:37

    You put up a comment calling for him to be lynched.

    ReplyDelete
  20. David Lindsay27 October 2009 at 17:38

    And now, he has been.

    There are people in this world whom you cannot sack, Descartes. You have just met a few of them.

    Now, has anyone anything on-topic to say?

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)