5 ms·

I read the wikipedia article rather than the linked BBC article. What struck me was the boneheaded greed of the National Coal Board. Pettily resisting things

by xamuel 10y ago

I read the wikipedia article rather than the linked BBC article. What struck me was the boneheaded greed of the National Coal Board. Pettily resisting things like 'move the giant pile which killed all the kids, away from the village' because it would cost so much. When the costs are not all that much on government scale, even adjusting for inflation. They initially wanted to compensate the families with £50 (!!) per dead kid. Eventually they raised that to £500 and called it "generous". None of the jokers in question suffered any real consequences for it. Really shines a dim light on the UK government around that time.

hilop 10y ago
I am not seeing the "bonehead" part of it. Just banal evil.
chimprich 10y ago
Using an online inflation calculator, £50 in 1966 is equivalent to £873 today. £500 is £8,731. Wow. Still startling. I thought the next sentence was even more shocking: "A more substantial sum, it was advised, would have destroyed the working class recipients not used to large amounts of money."
- nzp 10y ago
  That was a common meme about the poor repeated by the rich. It still lives, sometimes in a more sophisticated form, eg. poor people don't know how to manage spending, not buying in bulk, not taking advantage of discounts, etc., when in reality, in practice, most things cost more when you are poor because you can't afford to wait for good opportunities, and people are actually doing the best they can it their circumstances.
  - sargun 10y ago
    Also, if anything, I find that people who are lower-middle class tend to be better with their money than many of the "elite" -- not better as in taking advantage of unattainable economic tools, but perhaps more conservative with purchases, and such.
- Spooky23 10y ago
  Why is that so shocking? In another thread today, people were arguing that there was nothing at all wrong with a bunch of investors jacking the price of a drug used to treat lead poisoning by 2700%. Aristocrats and people who worship capitalism are pretty much the same... charging $750 for a $2 pill is no different than paying 50 quid for a dead kid.
pif 10y ago
> I read the wikipedia article rather than the linked BBC article. Me too. It's a matter of getting to the point.

by xamuel 10y ago

hilop 10y ago

I am not seeing the "bonehead" part of it. Just banal evil.

chimprich 10y ago

Using an online inflation calculator, £50 in 1966 is equivalent to £873 today. £500 is £8,731. Wow. Still startling. I thought the next sentence was even more shocking: "A more substantial sum, it was advised, would have destroyed the working class recipients not used to large amounts of money."

nzp 10y ago
That was a common meme about the poor repeated by the rich. It still lives, sometimes in a more sophisticated form, eg. poor people don't know how to manage spending, not buying in bulk, not taking advantage of discounts, etc., when in reality, in practice, most things cost more when you are poor because you can't afford to wait for good opportunities, and people are actually doing the best they can it their circumstances.
- sargun 10y ago
  Also, if anything, I find that people who are lower-middle class tend to be better with their money than many of the "elite" -- not better as in taking advantage of unattainable economic tools, but perhaps more conservative with purchases, and such.
Spooky23 10y ago
Why is that so shocking? In another thread today, people were arguing that there was nothing at all wrong with a bunch of investors jacking the price of a drug used to treat lead poisoning by 2700%. Aristocrats and people who worship capitalism are pretty much the same... charging $750 for a $2 pill is no different than paying 50 quid for a dead kid.

pif 10y ago

> I read the wikipedia article rather than the linked BBC article. Me too. It's a matter of getting to the point.