DWP failures and the real life costs

Bl4ckGryph0n

And here we go again, not admitting to being called out and responding with wall of words that is not answering the point at all.

Toko Black

I must admit, your self confidence and self belief is so overpowering, it almost compensates for what you don't know all by itself

Bl4ckGryph0n

You are still missing the point; you just don't know that, so making statements like you do is just ridiculous and you make a fool out of yourself...

Toko Black

By point, I am assuming you are referring to your argument that because I can't know the sum of an(y) individuals experience, knowledge and capabilities, that by inference implies I can't determine what falls outside those experiences, knowledge and capabilities ?

Oh I understand and haven't missed your point at all, rather I have dismissed it in context and relevance to the posts of mine you originally quoted.
Why ? because it's short sighted, limited and restrictive, which is the purpose of my 'wall of words' attempts to argue/explain.

While it is true that I can't know what experiences, knowledge and capabilities an individual has, I can determine by logic and reasoning what they can't know, because it lays beyond the capabilities of human beings

a) currently in terms of what is and what is not possible,
b) what is not possible for human beings at all without artificialy enhancing the cognitive functions and mechanics of the brain,
c) the limited amount of time, effort and opertunity available to humans based on the environmental (geographical, cultural and historical) framework they inhabit.     
​With some basic information about an individual you can determine what they can't possibly know and do, what they in all probability are highly unlikely to be able to know and do, what is reasonably unlikely that they can't know and do.
That is by no means a complete and comprehensive list, but for any individual, that list is always exponentially larger that a list of what they know and can do by the very nature of the universe and human beings.

I'm pretty certain you can't survive unaided in a vacuum nor speak every language ever used by mankind.

The fundamental point I was making in my post is that even the greatest minds that ever lived knew and understood very little about most things.
The more you understand about something, the more you realise and understand how little you really do know.
Conversely, those with little understanding of something often lack the insight and competence in what ever it is to be able place their competence on any realistic scale.

We all lack a great deal of knowledge and understanding about most things because that is the nature of humans and the universe they exist in - and there is no shame in it.
What is a problem is when confidence, arrogance and a lack of understanding intersect - and you get people can't understand why they are wrong, which for those in positions of power or influence over others, is a very dangerous thing.

Bl4ckGryph0n

Still missing the point, you are applying the above to topics that you don't know anything about and then applying it generally and projecting it to others where you couldn't possibly know what they know, what they know they don't know, let alone what they don't know they know. Yet somehow you pretend to know and come up with some whataboutery example of how someone possibly could know how to survive in a vaccuum unaided. And then you are shifting you position to a 'fundamental point' you were making. Anyway, keep twisting and turning away if that makes you happy...

Derek S-H

You couldn't make it up:

Hammond rejects idea millions in dire poverty

"The chancellor said that for many people, the market economy was not working as it was "supposed to", and the idea the economy is "generating and distributing wealth is at odds with the practice that they are experiencing".

He said the government should be ensuring the market was "delivering in the way that the textbooks tell us it will work.

"To deliver through competition, the best deal for consumers and to distribute wealth in a way that is fair.

"To the extent that it's not working, we have got to evolve the system."

You mean the market that got us into the whole "austerity" mess in the first place and the one you've made no attempt to modify whatsoever. The flow of money is upwards and will continue to be so under your administration.

Why on earth do people vote for them?

Toko Black

and therein lies the problem ... because reading a supply-side favouring textbook will give you a drastically different set of basic principles to achieve your goals than a demand-side favouring textbook.

Pacifico

Because the alternative is even worse..

Trollslayer

Sadly you are right, the lesser of evils.

Derek S-H

Any alternative to the Tories is fine in my book, apart from UKIP and Brexit.

Mind you, governments all over the world suck up to the rich and powerful, so there probably isn't a viable alternative that actually attempts to change the status quo.