Slavoj Zizek on Trump & Fake News

[french frank]

you say " suspect a government plot"

You did say, 'Yes, I think there is an agenda, around working age and pensions, since it was published under the auspices of the DWP.'

I say, " a report that needs challenging and peer review".

It is too important just to be waved through.

That's where it departs from being 'news'. Was it challenged at the time, or during the years since, by anyone who would recognise it for the 'fantasy' you say it was? The UK Statistics Authority did indeed make a public statement about the use of statistics by the Leave campaign. Did they not comment on this 'misuse' of the data?

Whatever the case, I think there are cases where the press isn't very accurate. It isn't anything much to do with the recent concept of 'fake news' which is pure invention - disinformation; whereas there seems no reason to doubt that a lot more people are going to reach the age of 100 in the future, unless the end of the world intervenes..

[Lat-Literal]

Statistical projections are only news so far as it is news about those statistical projections. Statistical projections are rarely accurate because of the political need not to factor in unmentionables. One unmentionable is that history tells us we should expect a world war during the period that most statistical projections address. It also tells us that world wars reduce the average lifespan considerably. The definition of an unmentionable in this context is not something that will simply upset large numbers of people. It is something that will upset large numbers of people who will blame that upset on the potential failure of governments. Generally, unmentionables can only become "mentionables" and hence factored in to statistical projections if governments are prepared to risk abandoning intransigence in policy in a way that will not upset people. Rather that may enable them to accept all kinds of risk for what is being newly offered seems on the surface more likely to have advantages. New acceptance may last but only until proof of ineffective delivery.

One example would be to embark on an extensive process of house building as long as that house building is undertaken sensitively. Currently the long-term low levels of house building are considered by many to represent unacceptable intransigence. More building is, then, the sort of thing that many would want to hear as news. But the abandonment of intransigence in a way that is popular doesn't necessarily mean it is based on anything truthful. I argued for years with a senior economist in the government who contributed to the economic crash that historically it was clear that the rules of supply and demand do not apply in the same way to housing. While he vigorously pooh-poohed it, the recent Redfern Report produced by bigger experts than me confirms it when assessing appropriate future approaches. That was in the news and it was in a part of the news I liked, given those statistical projections also drew from solid historical evidence. But I doubt it was news as such, however much I and those who send me newsletters from the CPRE wish it to be.

[teamsaint]

Agenda and plot are different. Governments are actively trying to raise the pension age. In fact they are raising it. they want to raise it further. That is their agenda, then.



More people may well reach 100. I think the suggestion that a quarter of all boys and a third of girls will reach 100 years of age in 100 years from now is speculative in the extreme, and pointless for any genuinely practical purpose.

[Lat-Literal]

Agenda and plot are different. Governments are actively trying to raise the pension age. In fact they are raising it. they want to raise it further. That is their agenda, then.



More people may well reach 100. I think the suggestion that a quarter of all boys and a third of girls will reach 100 years of age in 100 years from now is speculative in the extreme, and pointless for any genuinely practical purpose.

Yes - agree.

Difficult to determine what will become the peak by birth year for the rest of time but we are witnessing it. If I had to choose, I would say 1942. Post national conscription on reaching adulthood; pre hippy excess in the same years; huge accumulation of wealth in terms of trend; optimum service provision in older age. The only slight thing against it might be a bit of higher infant mortality. You are exactly a year older than I am and I believe that this is quickly becoming the prevalent view of "the current fifties". The main worry is that we will take the flak, not least because the term "baby boomer" is used loosely. We will be lumped in with the US/IT definition of it which is actually quite different.

[Serial_Apologist]

Yes - agree.

Difficult to determine what will become the peak by birth year for the rest of time but we are witnessing it. If I had to choose, I would say 1942. Post national conscription on reaching adulthood; pre hippy excess in the same years; huge accumulation of wealth in terms of trend; optimum service provision in older age. The only slight thing against it might be a bit of higher infant mortality. You are exactly a year older than I am and I believe that this is quickly becoming the prevalent view of "the current fifties". The main worry is that we will take the flak, not least because the term "baby boomer" is used loosely. We will be lumped in with the US/IT definition of it which is actually quite different.

You could well be right there, Lat.

One thing I dread when I reach the point of inability to care for myself, is being seen as one of the "blameworthy" generation for all the political problems we foisted on the world while at the same time being able through relative career security to save up for half-decent pensions and paid off mortgages. Two so far unmentioned things that may well affect age longevity in the western world could be having to work longer leading to physical exhaustion earlier than at present, and the long-term effects of obesity

[Lat-Literal]

You could well be right there, Lat.

One thing I dread when I reach the point of inability to care for myself, is being seen as one of the "blameworthy" generation for all the political problems we foisted on the world while at the same time being able through relative career security to save up for half-decent pensions and paid off mortgages. Two so far unmentioned things that may well affect age longevity in the western world could be having to work longer leading to physical exhaustion earlier than at present, and the long-term effects of obesity

You shouldn't feel blame on the basis of what I know about you. I would go further. Voters do what they mainly feel is right. Realistically, they were all shifted to a point from the mid 1990s in which any Government was to be a departure even from what had occurred after 1979. And it was an international phenomenon. Some went willingly. Others didn't.

[teamsaint]

Different ONS figures:

http://www.citymetric.com/horizons/life-expectancy-england-isnt-falling-were-reaching-upper-limit-638

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/lifeexpectancies/bulletins/lifeexpectancyatbirthandatage65bylocalareasinenglandandwales/2015-11-04

Which suggest a gradual levelling out of the increase in life expectancy, which is what you would expect to see.
But, it is just one set of data, and shows how carefully information like this needs using.
Funnily, the DWP doesn't seem to have been quite so keen to get this " News" out there.

But the latest phase of the increase in state pension age had already been announced, within a year of the BBC/DWP report, so the job was done.

[french frank]

But the latest phase of the increase in state pension age had already been announced, within a year of the BBC/DWP report, so the job was done.

Team, I really can't understand what you're getting at. At one point you seem to be pointing out the financial burdens that fall on the shoulders of the young, but in raising the retirement age to respond to older (and now fitter) generations is the result of the DWP manipulating the statistics.

Yes, of course all this statistical data is used to project probable/possible scenarios which can't be considered hard facts; but broadly speaking the fact that people have longer lives and remain quite fit for longer suggests putting off the time when the state pension is paid.

[teamsaint]

The point was that the DWP wanted to raise pension age, and used one( probably flawed) report to highlight the apparent need, and that this was put out on the BBC without challenge.

The question when and how state retirement incomes should be paid is a much wider question, for elsewhere, but a discussion ought to include looking at other state benefits, access to proper private pensions, ( NOT 1% of average salary contributions), pay levels, tax regimes to help enable more flexible working patters, review of housing needs and costs,review of student debt levels over a working life, and so on and so on.

[french frank]

Yes, I see your wider point, though rereading the BBC item it seems to be quite carefully written - 'according to the government', 'the DWP said its figures suggested', ONS 'population projections and life expectancy estimates' and so on. Calculating how many people will have become centenarians by 2066 is clearly not intended to be an accurate prediction so I don't know on what grounds you consider the report 'flawed' or needing to be 'challenged'. Your supposition seems to be that the government wanted to cut its pension bill by raising the pension age - one weapon in its armoury when it should be looking at other aspects? But what they may, or may not, do to alleviate the situation is separate from the release of one report on the consequences of increased life expectancy. Housing needs? They seem to be allowing building on green belt land now - according to the BBC. Is that an allowable policy to meet housing requirements? Should they abandon the triple lock to keep down the pensions bill? And so on. I don't think that none of this is 'news', though I do think the BBC journalists aren't expert enough to hold politicians to account: but they are only broadcasters, not the official opposition.

The point was that the DWP wanted to raise pension age, and used one( probably flawed) report to highlight the apparent need, and that this was put out on the BBC without challenge.

The question when and how state retirement incomes should be paid is a much wider question, for elsewhere, but a discussion ought to include looking at other state benefits, access to proper private pensions, ( NOT 1% of average salary contributions), pay levels, tax regimes to help enable more flexible working patters, review of housing needs and costs,review of student debt levels over a working life, and so on and so on.

[Lat-Literal]

Yes, I see your wider point, though rereading the BBC item it seems to be quite carefully written - 'according to the government', 'the DWP said its figures suggested', ONS 'population projections and life expectancy estimates' and so on. Calculating how many people will have become centenarians by 2066 is clearly not intended to be an accurate prediction so I don't know on what grounds you consider the report 'flawed' or needing to be 'challenged'. Your supposition seems to be that the government wanted to cut its pension bill by raising the pension age - one weapon in its armoury when it should be looking at other aspects? But what they may, or may not, do to alleviate the situation is separate from the release of one report on the consequences of increased life expectancy. Housing needs? They seem to be allowing building on green belt land now - according to the BBC. Is that an allowable policy to meet housing requirements? Should they abandon the triple lock to keep down the pensions bill? And so on. I don't think that none of this is 'news', though I do think the BBC journalists aren't expert enough to hold politicians to account: but they are only broadcasters, not the official opposition.

The Green Belt article which is from 2015 mainly concerns the period 2010-2015. It is largely about what has happened statistically. That Government has gone. The actual news is there is currently a Housing White Paper and consultation. On pensions, senior officials in DWP of all the current departments most closely speak for the previous Government because they have a similar sort of mentality. But the elected MP who is the Secretary of State appears to be a more reasonable sort of person and will hopefully sort them out.

[jean]

The point was that the DWP wanted to raise pension age, and used one( probably flawed) report to highlight the apparent need, and that this was put out on the BBC without challenge.

I've pointed out earlier in this thread that when pension ages were first established, no-one was expected to live much beyond ten tears after reaching pension age. Men in particular would probably live for less.

But I propose to live for at least thirty years after my 60th birthday. Is it really fair for the taxpayer to have to pay my pension for all that time?

[Lat-Literal]

I've pointed out earlier in this thread that when pension ages were first established, no-one was expected to live much beyond ten tears after reaching pension age. Men in particular would probably live for less.

But I propose to live for at least thirty years after my 60th birthday. Is it really fair for the taxpayer to have to pay my pension for all that time?

The key test here is to immediately remove pensions from all women currently over 70 and all men currently over 75. That would provide a clear indication on whether it is considered fair or indeed reasonable. It would also be real news. When the unemployment figures plummet to zero and jobs are in a massive surplus, policy could be shaped by reality. Until that happens, it will be geared by the purely theoretical - a frightening phenomenon that's bound to be calamitous. And - yes - it will lower the average age of life.

We are in a ludicrous position. Millionaire home owners pay part or all of the mortgages for their middle aged, often married and working, offspring and their children. That on the grounds that home ownership would not otherwise be affordable. On occasions, the "poor old pensioner" phrase enters the conversation alongside slightly racist remarks and hard headed Brexit rallying. These people retired at 54 or 56 or 59. They aren't stupid from a financial point of view. Far from it. And yet they pick up copies of the "Mature Times" and join the communal wailing over Mark Carney. His sin is that he is keeping the interest rates so low that they aren't getting a return on their considerable savings. When it is pointed out to them that in paying mortgages too they are also benefiting from those rates, that reality is waved away. Similarly, when they are told that state pensions and health support have never been more generous, it provokes anger on the grounds that "we paid for that". Often one will be reminded that mortgage rates used to be at 15%. "Nothing was easy".

I am not talking about my parents here but rather members of the wider family who went via the finance industries from school at fifteen and a damp council house to a true Life of Riley. They are unusual in historical terms for still holding all the power levers within their families. That gives them a sense of additional entitlement. They never shrink and will not do because they will not be required to do so until their ultimate demise. It is all fine from the perspective of those of us who welcomed social redistribution between the 1960s and the 1990s and obviously those in receipt of mortgage payments are full of gratitude as they are expected to be. Nevertheless, what is most strikingly characteristic of many in that group is the sheer lack of gratitude, especially for a condemned pre 1979 policy which led to it, or any consideration that there should even be a need for gratitude. There is also an emotional connection with their parents and their grandparents that is bizarre beyond belief. While they could not afford to assist others - in no way could they afford to assist others - they were very different in outlook. Personally I would choose them for company any day. That is not to say that the current 20 and 30 somethings come up smelling of roses. There is a lot going on there too that is less than reasonable and it needs to be critiqued beyond the soundbites. I have some sympathy there but it comes with provisos.

[teamsaint]

I've pointed out earlier in this thread that when pension ages were first established, no-one was expected to live much beyond ten tears after reaching pension age. Men in particular would probably live for less.

But I propose to live for at least thirty years after my 60th birthday. Is it really fair for the taxpayer to have to pay my pension for all that time?

But it is so much more complicated than that. For a start, many pensioners are ( income ) tax payers.
Incomes for those currently in retirement are higher than for those in work. Working patterns are changing, but government initiatives to help people through long working lives don't seem to be thick on the ground. Just as one small example, rail companies could be forced to offer tickets that encourage shorter working weeks, so that people could more easily vary their work patterns, to help them comfortably work for 40 plus years.

In direct response to your point, well of course, if people draw a state pension for longer then it has to be funded. But the country is much wealthier than it was 50 , 60 , 70 years ago. Tax take from pensioners has almost certainly risen over that time. What we afford by way of state support is a matter of will, and choice, as well as thinking creatively.

Actuarially reduced pensions for teachers seem to me to be a really good example of how flexible,user friendly systems can work well. Many teachers ( as you know of course) use the provision to ease themselves into semi or partial retirement, whilst remaining economically ( and professionally)active, not a drain on the state, opening up opportunities for others, and reducing their stress levels to enable themselves to live longer, healthier lives.

[french frank]

Incomes for those currently in retirement are higher than for those in work.

I'll swap mine for yours …