see I was right you're minted.
March in London on the 26th?
- Thread starter Tummy
- Start date
see I was right you're minted.
hello!!! anybody there
Deleted member 66701
Deleted member 66701
Do you get to meet Ed?
I was in meeting with him on Thursday (I think he's a male hen btw).
I'm booked in for the whole weekend, starting Thursday night.
Last edited by a moderator:
Deleted member 66701
Deleted member 66701
Edit:- Double post.
Last edited by a moderator:
Caporegime
- Joined
- 13 May 2003
- Posts
- 34,581
- Location
- Warwickshire
Proof right there that student doesn't mean intelligent.
Actually, you need to apply some logic to flawed research.
Banks were deregulated to the point at which they could do whatever the hell they wanted and they did. That isn't their fault, they played by the crappy rules outlined by governments. They were allowed to do what they did and so they did.
It's like quantitative easing - a bloody ridiculous idea. Give banks money to lend, they lend the money to Russia at a solid 7% interest rate and profit on their own borrowing. Why? Because the government allows them to. The same government that allowed the deregulation that caused so much butthurt then decide to print money to give to banks to lend to whomever pays the most interest. 13 years of Labour economic policy was like watching a bunch of retards try to **** a door knob.
If you tell a child that they can have all the candy they want at the shop, they're not going to restrain themselves for fear of rotting their teeth - they will maximise their own gain by eating everything within arm's reach.
And please, don't rebut with an altruism argument or I will ****ing an hero. There is no such thing.
I probably didn't explain myself very well. I probably should have left my mortgage out of the equasion as it doesn't have much relevance here. I was just having a rant
But the country needs cuts. It needs them right now. It doesn't have any money. Printing it or borrowing it isn't the solution.
so you are saying the banks are child like and can't be trusted, seems a bit of a problem to me.
I probably didn't explain myself very well. I probably should have left my mortgage out of the equasion as it doesn't have much relevance here. I was just having a rant
But the country needs cuts. It needs them right now. It doesn't have any money. Printing it or borrowing it isn't the solution.
the country needs a lot more than ****ing cuts.
[TW]Fox;18661993 said:
Err yes. What do you think the bailout actually was?
People's obsession with reducing the issue with the economy down to idiotic levels of simplicity just so they can have one big evil thing to point their finger at and 'blame' makes me a sad panda
You're right of course, it's far more complex than that. Labour certainly should be held to account for de-regulating the financial services industry so much that no-one cared they were investing in products they didn't understand. It frankly beggars belief that this government is intent on even more de-regulation given the demonstrable harm it has caused. However the banks must take the greatest portion of blame, until the economic midgets on this forum start to understand that there really is no point trying to debate the more complex issues.
*sigh* no, it was an analogy. Are you capable of reading something out of a literal context?
Point being that if you legislate to allow people to crash the system, they will do so if the end result is gain for them. And by and large, it was gain for them.
I just might. It would be a laugh if nothing else.
haha! If I could fit one in the coach I'd bring one and I'd drive you round
I'll try to break the economy down in to the most basic method and why I feel cuts at this level, or more are required.
1. The level of gearing by the UK Government (i.e. how much debt we have) has resulted in interest payments which pushing us close to bankruptcy. If bankruptcy, or close to it, occurs our debt will get more expensive. It's a vicious cycle. This debt interest should be spent on services which would make our life better.
2. If the Government completely removed one sector of public sector jobs, all of those people would be unemployed. However the gap in the market for the services the Government used to provide would now become very enticing to private companies. These companies will require the same skills as these newly unemployed people have and the best of them will be recruited. If the public sector was inefficient, bloated or the service generally wasn't required, those people wouldn't be recruited again aka, the sector would become more efficient. If the private company fails to provide a decent service, another better company would appear and customers would use that new company. Competition occurs and both companies become more efficient, prices fall, services get better, salaries increase as skills improve. This competition currently won't exist in a public sector as there is no other companies to compete against. The higher salaried staff spend more of their money, resulting in jobs for those who didn't get reemployed.
With the private companies, rather than the staff costing tax payers money, the staff become tax payers and therefore positive contributors to the country. The Government can then do things like pay off its debt and put more money in to services which private companies would find difficult to provide. A perfect, but extreme example, is Hong Kong.
If the cuts aren't this deep, interest will remain too high. We still have to borrow more money each year and this will increase interest levels each year and will continue until good years where we can decrease the debt levels (something labour should have done, rather than spend more than income).
1. The level of gearing by the UK Government (i.e. how much debt we have) has resulted in interest payments which pushing us close to bankruptcy. If bankruptcy, or close to it, occurs our debt will get more expensive. It's a vicious cycle. This debt interest should be spent on services which would make our life better.
2. If the Government completely removed one sector of public sector jobs, all of those people would be unemployed. However the gap in the market for the services the Government used to provide would now become very enticing to private companies. These companies will require the same skills as these newly unemployed people have and the best of them will be recruited. If the public sector was inefficient, bloated or the service generally wasn't required, those people wouldn't be recruited again aka, the sector would become more efficient. If the private company fails to provide a decent service, another better company would appear and customers would use that new company. Competition occurs and both companies become more efficient, prices fall, services get better, salaries increase as skills improve. This competition currently won't exist in a public sector as there is no other companies to compete against. The higher salaried staff spend more of their money, resulting in jobs for those who didn't get reemployed.
With the private companies, rather than the staff costing tax payers money, the staff become tax payers and therefore positive contributors to the country. The Government can then do things like pay off its debt and put more money in to services which private companies would find difficult to provide. A perfect, but extreme example, is Hong Kong.
If the cuts aren't this deep, interest will remain too high. We still have to borrow more money each year and this will increase interest levels each year and will continue until good years where we can decrease the debt levels (something labour should have done, rather than spend more than income).
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
Ah, so now you are saying the only reason for the deficit is because the government purchased shares in ailing banks?
Shares it will shortly re-sell for more than it paid.
Well thats then then, surely, the problem will be solved when the shares are re-sold.
Well, that or as per usual you are so wound up in your own 'I hate the fact other people made something in life whereas I didn't' anti corporation rubbish you've no real idea what you are talking about.
Not according to scorza, it was all the banks who overspent the governments/our money for all those years....
haha! If I could fit one in the coach I'd bring one and I'd drive you round
"I think we need a bigger coach!"
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Jul 2009
- Posts
- 16,234
- Location
- Newcastle/Aberdeen
Associate
- Joined
- 30 Dec 2005
- Posts
- 902
- Location
- Calgary
Was it not Thatcher who said that anybody not a Socialist age 20 has no heart?
Google suggests that quote is hard to place on a single person - but the saying goes on to say if you are over 30 and not a Conservative you have no brain