# UK Future



## Modernist (9 Dec 2011)

Well the 80 or so little Englanders have finally got their way and forced the UK into a position of isolation from Europe.

This was done in the name of protecting the UK financial services industry which has so recently brought about the current recession by a government with no democratic mandate.

It must be obvious to all that the "markets" have the real power to influence our lives, not national governments, other than Germany, so the only possible way of restoring balance is to operate a single entity in Europe. Last nights events ensure the UK will be outside this.

This act of ignorant idiocy will only be portrayed as a success only by those whose view stretches no further than the rabid right wing press which fuels their opinions.

As the current wave of poverty proceeds and increases it will be too late to change when people finally wake up. The damage done will take generations to reverse.

In the meantime many, if not all, our European neighbours, will continue to enjoy increased prosperity and quality of life as they have done over recent decades, but, of course, most here will remain uninformed of that preferring to focus on distant memories of greatness.

If I was younger I would emigrate.


----------



## Jacob (9 Dec 2011)

Agree. Madness. 
We need something like the Leverson enquiry to look at the political side of the media.


----------



## tomatwark (9 Dec 2011)

Modernist":2eciodf1 said:


> Well the 80 or so little Englanders have finally got their way and forced the UK into a position of isolation from Europe.
> 
> This was done in the name of protecting the UK financial services industry which has so recently brought about the current recession by a government with no democratic mandate.
> 
> ...


 

While I agreed with a lot of what you are saying, I think it will depend on if the Euro survives or fails. 

Cameron has thrown the dice and we will have to wait and see. 

But I do think a lot of what Cameron has done has been done to avoid a referendum on Europe. 

The big problem he has created is that if he is proved wrong it is going to cost us a lot in money and power to sort this out. 

But that is what we get for having a government run by a millionaires who were born with silver spoons and their mouths and do not know the meaning of being hard up, or having to work for a living.

Living in Scotland I have always been against independence as I am not sure the figures add up but I am now being to wonder, and if Alex Salmond had a referendum in say 6 months or so he might just swing it.



Tom


----------



## Paul Chapman (9 Dec 2011)

Modernist":2hbuk25f said:


> In the meantime many, if not all, our European neighbours, will continue to enjoy increased prosperity and quality of life as they have done over recent decades



I doubt it very much. The Euro project was flawed from the outset. IMHO the single currency will eventually have to be unpicked and member-countries of the Euro will return to national currencies. Doubt that we will agree, however. Just have to wait and see who is right :wink: 

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## RogerS (9 Dec 2011)

I tend to listen to my wife on these sorts of things as she remains, despite my best endeavours, a very bright and apolitical person. Her view is that David Cameron did the right thing because what Merkel and Sarkozy are proposing (a) won't help the Euro and the economic situation in the short term (b) that their proposals are going to take at least five years to put into place and (c) because Britain is not participating that they will end up revisiting the 'deal'.

As I say, she leaves chips-on-shoulders and prejudiced viewpoints out of the equation. 

Time will tell.


----------



## Digit (9 Dec 2011)

> This was done in the name of protecting the UK financial services industry which has so recently brought about the current recession by a government with no democratic mandate.



Please define 'Democratic Mandate' and explain how that applies to current situation in Greece, Italy and attempts to create fiscal unioun without said mandate from European electorate.

Roy.


----------



## RogerS (9 Dec 2011)

You're wasting your time, Roy. You know how the Left twist things when they don't get their own way. Reminds me of this cartoon


----------



## chipmunk (9 Dec 2011)

Hi Roger,
So you don't think that Roy "twisted" comments about Cameron's democratic mandate into a poke at the democratic mandates of the Greek and Italian prime ministers then ;-)

Jon


----------



## RogerS (9 Dec 2011)

LOL..


----------



## chipmunk (9 Dec 2011)

Not just to be provocative but I admit it is tempting on that score too ;-)

....but I think if we take the "friend in need" proverb seriously and were to look to Britains true long term interest I think that there are very much worse times to join the Euro than right now. Seems crazy but I think it's true.

There's no doubt in my mind that the Euro will survive - it's in ours and everyone else's interests that it does.

I also believe that there will be a two-speed Europe and we'll be in the slow lane with a distinct lack of influence over decisions that will affect us unless we're prepared to do something.

I know this will not be popular but it is my firmly held opinion.
Jon


----------



## Modernist (9 Dec 2011)

Paul Chapman":u2ykx110 said:


> Modernist":u2ykx110 said:
> 
> 
> > In the meantime many, if not all, our European neighbours, will continue to enjoy increased prosperity and quality of life as they have done over recent decades
> ...



Actually I agree the Euro was fatally flawed from the outset (and said so at the time) as there was no mechanism to adjust for different economies. Interestingly I think one of the most likely reasons for failure, should it occur, is that many Germans are understandably fed up with funding the rest of Europe, especially after the colossal cost of re-integrating the former East Germany.

Nevertheless, having not only allowed but positively encouraged industrial and financial globalisation over recent decades this is the inevitable consequence and one or the other has to give. We suffer from delusions of world relevance in the UK fostered by the press and successive governments. We are a small island off Europe with a pitiful manufacturing base and "wide boy" financial sector which is a social pariah. It does indeed pump wealth into the economy but the proportion is only as high as it is owing to the paucity of manufacturing.



> Please define 'Democratic Mandate' and explain how that applies to current situation in Greece, Italy and attempts to create fiscal unioun without said mandate from European electorate.
> 
> Roy.



The political changes in Greece and Italy were brought about by local elections. I don't have the % to hand but it would be difficult to be less than the UK with a minority Tory group supported (so far) by the Lib Dems.

We are still at the stage of negotiating a possible solution. I agree that should be tested by a referendum or general election (preferably the latter), although it may follow on anyway.



> While I agreed with a lot of what you are saying, I think it will depend on if the Euro survives or fails.
> 
> Cameron has thrown the dice and we will have to wait and see.
> 
> ...



I think part of the problem is that Cameron is too weak to withstand his own right wing (unlike all his predecessors who have avoided this position owing to the obvious economic consequences), not to mention his cultural and financial background. He canvassed for the election without any clear policy or philosophy and has continued so in office.

The problem now is that, as you say, he has placed us in a position of great risk, and whilst his departure would be irrelevant I would like to see the country survive. 

I share your view on the Tartan Tories and doubt if they would have made such progress in the absence of North Sea oil. I think the Scots are right to be aggrieved attheir treatment from Westminster but at least it is a Tory free zone. Maybe as a Mackenzie I should emigrate there.


----------



## Digit (9 Dec 2011)

> The political changes in Greece and Italy were brought about by local elections.



If so then I am in error for as far as I recall Greece at least has a cabinet of totally unelected reps.
As regards mandates I would observe that Mrs merkel is head of a coalition government and thus has precisely the same mandate as HMG.
I would also point out that HMG was not alone in the result as published this morning.
Brit banks were also not alone in their reprehensible banking activities, but as regards the City, we have people screaming that Bombardier has not been defended then complaining that the City is!
The City apparently, for all its faults, contributes more to the exchequer than our now much reduced manufacturing base! Worth defending?

Roy.


----------



## Modernist (9 Dec 2011)

Digit":3j7qgwbw said:


> > The political changes in Greece and Italy were brought about by local elections.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I stand corrected but they did vote in parliament for the present arrangement, presumably from elected MP's. A new full election is planned for the spring. 

>>On 4 November, 2011 there was a vote of confidence in the parliament, which was narrowly won by the government of George Papandreou by a vote of 153 to 145 in the 300-seat body.[11] Another vote of confidence is set for 4 November 2011,[12] and though a number of Panhellenic Socialist Movement MPs have said they will not support the government in the vote of confidence,[12] all 152 PASOK MPs supported the government,[13] but only because Papandreou has agreed to step down as Prime Minister in order for a government of national unity to take over[13]. Following the vote of confidence one previously expelled PASOK member was re-admitted to the party, raising the Papandreou majority to 153 seats.<<


----------



## Digit (9 Dec 2011)

Yep! And as I understand the the German and French position they will continue with their fiscal plans whether they recieve the support they wish or not.
Their plans seems to ignore the fact that a new treaty, as demanded by Merkel, will require ratification in the Bundestag in accordance with the German federal constitution, yet she claims that ratification within the 17 will not be required.
Democracy ssems to be rather like the Euro, dying!

Roy.


----------



## woodbloke (9 Dec 2011)

RogerS":252htnrw said:


> I tend to listen to my wife on these sorts of things as she remains, despite my best endeavours, a very bright and apolitical person. Her view is that David Cameron did the right thing because what Merkel and Sarkozy are proposing (a) won't help the Euro and the economic situation in the short term (b) that their proposals are going to take at least five years to put into place and (c) because Britain is not participating that they will end up revisiting the 'deal'.
> 
> As I say, she leaves chips-on-shoulders and prejudiced viewpoints out of the equation.
> 
> Time will tell.


I think your Mrs has something here Rog but I also tend to agree with Paul C that the euro may probably need to be un-picked in the future. I heard a comment this morning to the effect that if Major had got us into the euro system in the first place, the UK may have been able to exercise some measure of control over those 'wayward' (if that's the right term) countries that were overstretching themselves. It didn't happen though and so we now find ourselves in the position that we're in. I can't really decide whether it's a good or bad thing, but as we've all said...time will tell

Edit - I also heard a commentator mention that whatever plan the French and Germans had cooked up was going to be bad for the UK whichever way it was sliced, so maybe Cameron did the right thing?... :duno: - Rob


----------



## Modernist (9 Dec 2011)

Digit":gmwc4gwc said:


> Yep! And as I understand the the German and French position they will continue with their fiscal plans whether they recieve the support they wish or not.
> Their plans seems to ignore the fact that a new treaty, as demanded by Merkel, will require ratification in the Bundestag in accordance with the German federal constitution, yet she claims that ratification within the 17 will not be required.
> Democracy ssems to be rather like the Euro, dying!
> 
> Roy.



But where is the democracy in being run by the markets?


----------



## Digit (9 Dec 2011)

Two wrongs don't make a right Brian, also if goverments didn't get themselves into hock the banks would not have any influence. Also as was pointed out to me on this forum some weeks ago vis-a-vis Germany leaning on Greece to stop the referendum, banks always stipulate the rules when you go cap in hand to them, 'he who pays the piper calls the tune.'
Would you lend your money without stipulating conditions? Remember this, when banks in this country bail out Greece it's your money that they are lending.

Roy.


----------



## Modernist (9 Dec 2011)

Digit":18l32yyn said:


> Two wrongs don't make a right Brian, also if goverments didn't get themselves into hock the banks would not have any influence. Also as was pointed out to me on this forum some weeks ago vis-a-vis Germany leaning on Greece to stop the referendum, banks always stipulate the rules when you go cap in hand to them, 'he who pays the piper calls the tune.'
> Would you lend your money without stipulating conditions? Remember this, when banks in this country bail out Greece it's your money that they are lending.
> 
> Roy.



I agree but we are unlikely not to need to borrow in the foreseeable future. It is still the case that for the Euro to live in the real world with the various states, dollar, yen etc then it needs to be consolidated.


----------



## Digit (9 Dec 2011)

That may be so Brian but personally I doubt that it can be made to work.
The value of the Euro was established at a level that should, had not some governments cooked their books, enabled all participant states to function. The outcome was a value that set Germany's exports, so those who are supposed to know tell me, at a level that is some 25% below true value and the PIGS exports at ruinoously high levels.
Without permanent subsidies to the PIGS, how do you suggest the Euro zone can continue?
We have a similar situation here where Wales is permanently in hock to Westminster and the English tax payers.

Roy.


----------



## RogerS (9 Dec 2011)

woodbloke":uh7sai1g said:


> ..... the UK may have been able to exercise some measure of control over those 'wayward' (if that's the right term) countries that were overstretching themselves.....- Rob



Mmmm...not so sure about that. Why would they listen to us if they didn't listen to anyone else? From the little I can gather, nobody in the Euro looked that closely at the Govt books for Greece when they joined up. Otherwise they might just have realised that Greece went into the Euro with the awful state of their 'books' well hidden. 

Did anyone see the spoof on the Greeks that Dara O Briain did on Mock the Week ? Uncomfortably near the mark.


----------



## RogerS (9 Dec 2011)

I have a lot of time for Robert Peston's viewpoints and recommend that you read his latest blog entry here http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16109444.

There is also a strong inference to suggest that anyone who adopts the standard and very blinkered standpoint of 'Dave Cameron and his city mates' take note of Robert Peston's comments towards the end where it is clearly evident that David Cameron actually wanted stronger regulation and control of the finance sector.... a little point overlooked, perhaps, by the naysayers.


----------



## Digit (9 Dec 2011)

Yep! Brit banks got their fingers burnt in the American sub-prime market, if sufficient control had been exercised this would not have happened, same with the injudicious lending to dodgy customers like Greece, who by the way have previous on defaulting on their debts, now when banks are more cautious with their customer's money people have a go at them for being more stringent in their conditions.
It's a strange old world.

Roy.


----------



## WoodMangler (9 Dec 2011)

I have to agree with the commentator this morning who equated Cameron's move with refusing to board the Titanic for its maiden voyage...


----------



## Digit (9 Dec 2011)

Personally I have never had any faith in the European Union nor the Euro as both were formulated for the wrong reasons. I think the best we can hope for now is an orderly disengagement.

Roy.


----------



## Modernist (9 Dec 2011)

Nous verrons


----------



## WoodMangler (9 Dec 2011)

Modernist":2vuntaao said:


> Nous verrons


We will indeed...


----------



## Digit (9 Dec 2011)

We shall.

Roy.


----------



## Allylearm (10 Dec 2011)

The position now taken by DC/UK Govt has some relevant points for the future.

1. DC feels the main issue is that UK is not got the euro currency so should have no part in the decision of this currency, this is understandable
2. Failure to follow the other possible 26 countries in economic union will mean no power or voice in this treaty or direction. This is fair enough but the issue I see for DC was to protect the financial sector in UK. So without voice in this 26 union how does he prevent anything being carried out in taxation of financial transactions or how the future of the financial sector is regulated in the new Euro 26. So he has not prevented anything in this respect as far as I see it. Was this just to look good to his Right wing of his party or solely to prevent a vote by the the public on change, politicians of all persuasions do not like the public to decide anything it never gives them what they want.
3. Failure to join the 26, DC feels that the EC administration cannot be operated or utilised to administer the new Finance alliance. This was rebuffed by the EC President later who seems totally agreeable to police this new union needs, more civil servants and more budget why would he not agree and all the union but one are agreeing to use the EC. Does this make UK position redundant in future, with the objections here or there and veto's when does the 26 see UK as a thorn worth pulling or rejecting from European Parliament totally just to get rid of the irksome relative.
4. Which takes me on to the last alluded in the last bit when does the UK withdraw totally as the only way DC will get aims of border controls, City Finance sector protection and Legal appeals fully devolved back to UK parliament.
5. How does the Eire sit with this choice, they export or rely on imports and financial support from UK, we will need to see how this pans out, I can see their decision as being between a rock and hard place rather than sensible.
6. The German economy since the Euro was setup has benefited from the rates of finance due to the Euro club being so varied and the amalgamation of all economies. With the benefits enjoyed by Germany why should they not now finance recovery of the other nations. I do accept their point that Greece and the like position they find themselves was by bad management but Germany exports and manufacturing benefited greatly during this period and the German Govt let it happen.
6. Greece will not be in the Euro by all accounts, so it may be less than 26 joining.
7. This group of 26 have not enough bail out money from the 26 members to avoid a crash and the European Bank will not lend as I read it, so Italy/Greece/Portugal/Spain ands possible Eire and France could be all turkeys voting for Xmas.

The cost of being in and isolated means that in the long term UK will need to look to other areas of the world for exports. We currently average 40% of our trade to Europe. Norway are not doing to bad being in isolation so to speak, and I do feel our sovereignty of our fishing and coastal waters is worth revisiting to EEC meddling and other countries using our waters. But the UK economy is not like Norway and the manufacturing sector could have issues ahead as a lot of investment in this country was to access the Euro market. 

So myself I personally would not mind being part of the EEC, I have felt the EEC is in some ways best described like the voting in the Euro-vision Song Contest. Over the years we as a nation have taken the German mantle of being less liked or less agreed with due to how we see or portray ourselves and the wars we get involved. Sometimes its being the American poodle that did not sit well with fellow euro govts. But in reality if they fix the Euro and fix the finance problems of certain nations within the 26 and a big if. Where does the future of the UK sit. Minus the payments we make to the EEC will the resulting isolation be to the betterment of the UK. The City is like all business people, where the cash goes they go and with new IT links who or why do they need to be in London. I do not feel the card supporting the City DC thought was right will be benificial to the UK in the long term. But history will be the judge.


----------



## Jacob (10 Dec 2011)

I'm a bit simplistic about this whole issue (lazy really) and it comes down to whether or not I want my destiny in the hands if this lot below, or in partnership with Europe.


----------



## devonwoody (10 Dec 2011)

The way I see it is if the Euro fails, DC made the correct decision.

If the Euro excels he made the incorrect decision.

Simple isnt it?

Remember it has failed because the conference had to be called, so they are now trying a second time to do this again, which reminds me of their referendums when they get a no vote, they have another and it suddenly becomes a yes vote, very fishy to me.
Let birds of a feather flock together springs to mind for me.


----------



## Digit (10 Dec 2011)

Would the flat caps do any better Jacob me old class warrior?
But returning to Ally, I agree with you, but what bothers me about the EU is this.
Now correct if I am wrong all you pros but does it not require the agreement of all member nations to introduce a new treaty under the EU constitution?
If that is so then the 24/ 26 whatever cannot leagaly ignore HMG, will that stop them?
As Eliza Doolittle stated, 'not bloody likely!' The French in particular have always shown a degre of ambivalence towards any rules that conflict with their own self interests, and the German iron fist has been visible since the Greek non-referendum.
Do I want to be part of that club?
See Eliza Doolittle!

Roy.


----------



## Max Power (10 Dec 2011)

Would you rather it was with this lot Jacob :lol: :lol:


----------



## Jacob (10 Dec 2011)

Both missed the point. 
The alternative isn't flat caps or layabouts - it's a civilised and intelligent European parliament running things a lot better than the little gang of public-school twerps we have in power here.


----------



## devonwoody (10 Dec 2011)

Jacob":jhqt0vhl said:


> Both missed the point.
> The alternative isn't flat caps or layabouts - it's a civilised and intelligent European parliament running things a lot better than the little gang of public-school twerps we have in power here.




But those europeans are not honest people. think referendums again.


----------



## Max Power (10 Dec 2011)

Theres Jacob on the right, working class and glad of it :mrgreen: 






wake up Jacob, the worlds moved on :roll:


----------



## RogerS (10 Dec 2011)

What, Jacob?

As opposed to this guy ?






and let's not forget this guy


----------



## Jacob (10 Dec 2011)

So far all the counter examples are an attractive alternative to the bullingdon club boys (except Blair - he's one of them but Fettes not Eton). Wallace or Anne Widdecombe? It's a no brainer!

But Europe is (relatively) classless. Actually so is Wales and Scotland. The Bullngdon boys are a particularly English disease!


----------



## Peter T (10 Dec 2011)

Jacob":1h4uujth said:


> a civilised and intelligent European parliament running things a lot better than the little gang of public-school twerps we have in power here.



Nice dream, pity about the reality!

Given the current state of European politics, I'll take our own public-school twerps over theirs any day


----------



## WoodMangler (10 Dec 2011)

Jacob":o64ubl1f said:


> Both missed the point.
> The alternative isn't flat caps or layabouts - it's a civilised and intelligent European parliament running things a lot better than the little gang of public-school twerps we have in power here.


Nonsense, the Parliament don't run *anything*, they're just a talking-shop to fool us peasants into feeling we have a little bit of a say in things. The real power lies with the Commission, who are all appointees - no taint of democracy there. At least the Bullingdon club types were actually elected - unlike, for instance, the the current Italian prime minister...


----------



## MIGNAL (10 Dec 2011)

So much for Italian democracy though. . . the present one just _has_ to be an improvement over that corrupt Clown.


----------



## Max Power (10 Dec 2011)

Civilised and intelligent European Parliament :lol: :lol: :lol: 

Biggest gravy train ever created more like :roll: 

They make our lots corrupt activities pale into oblivion :mrgreen:


----------



## Allylearm (10 Dec 2011)

I like the take on DC voting first not to vote, but their will be other votes. When will DC actually vote UK in. I think like all ditherers he will wait to see who is winning the debate in UK or European finance and I do not think it will be his back benches and Boris, the CBI are staying on the fence, its members have most to lose or will our manufacturing base leave for Europe in the long term and unemployment that will cause.

The other issue, as I muted the European countries have big employers in London like Deutsche Bank and other's from France, Spain, etc. What if they all leave to their own shores or go and setup in Brussels. What does the City do and what happens to the tax revenue DC wished to protect. The only reason these banks or the City in London is setup for Finance is the skill pool is here. My own part on this was the skills these folks show in past history they would be better getting Pro Gamblers from Las Vegas doing the trading as I do not think the Private School or Oxford/Cambridge educated are hacking it.

I have been thinking about the debt crisis facing Europe/USA and would default be a bad thing, like all bad debt a day of reckoning happens and contacting all creditors is needing faced with what you can pay back and over what period. It may mean hardship but at least we would be in it all together. Plus China would loose most, they seem to bank roll it. Debt is debt when you spend you must pay, but the western countries want it both ways. Stop or come to terms with that we are living beyond our means and put up a plan to payback what we owe. I do not think the Finance sector as we know it now will survive and is such a loss on the long term.


----------



## Modernist (10 Dec 2011)

I make the point again that the current reality is that we are run by the markets with no trace of democracy, morality or national interest.


----------



## Jacob (10 Dec 2011)

Modernist":ghs5pz0e said:


> I make the point again that the current reality is that we are run by the markets with no trace of democracy, morality or national interest.


Ditto the press. Also the Italians' problem, with Berlusconi in control of most of it.


----------



## Digit (10 Dec 2011)

Wales is classless Jacob? Which part would that be please?



> I make the point again that the current reality is that we are run by the markets with no trace of democracy, morality or national interest.



Was Germany and France's actions vis-a-vis Greece determined by democracy, morality or Greece's interest then?
Please explain.
And was HMG's actions this week not based on national interest, and was not Germany's and France's stance?
France for example has ignored EU rules on a number of occasions in their national interest have they not?

Roy.


----------



## RogerS (10 Dec 2011)

Modernist":26abgmxj said:


> I make the point again that the current reality is that we are run by the markets with no trace of democracy, morality or national interest.




You are absolutely correct and that's what worries me more than anything else. European banks including ours are facing a huge liquidity crisis. Even today in the FT it looks like several smaller German banks will be asking for funds to help them in the short term. The ECB seem to have no intention of doing anything constructive as far as I can see and yet they are the European bankers of last resort.

Anyone suggesting that we should let banks or entire economies go bankrupt is talking out of their backside.


----------



## Jacob (10 Dec 2011)

RogerS":2v4hav30 said:


> ..... we should let banks or entire economies go bankrupt ..........


Isn't that the free market way? These things self-correct in time, and wealth trickles down relentlessly (with the occasional hiccup)!
The alternative would seem to be socialism of one sort or another. :roll: We can't have that.


----------



## Digit (10 Dec 2011)

Do I get an answer Jacob? :twisted: 

Roy.


----------



## RogerS (10 Dec 2011)

Jacob...NEVER EVER QUOTE ME OUT OF CONTEXT AGAIN AS I WILL GET EVEN MORE P*SSED OFF WITH YOU


----------



## Allylearm (10 Dec 2011)

RogerS":2pbg78cj said:


> Anyone suggesting that we should let banks or entire economies go bankrupt is talking out of their backside.



Care to elaborate your proof for that statement.


----------



## Digit (10 Dec 2011)

> Care to elaborate your proof for that statement.



Want an overdraft?
Who would you trade with if your partner's economy collapses?
If a business wishes to invest in new equipment etc it either has to remove capital from its trading profits or talk to its friendly local bank manager.

Roy.


----------



## Jacob (10 Dec 2011)

Digit":2aj93n4p said:


> Do I get an answer Jacob? :twisted:
> 
> Roy.


Err what's the question?
PS OK I've scanned back it's abt the Welsh and class :roll: . I meant it in the reverse way. I lived in Wales for some time and in many ways the impression I got was that the riff-raff, hoi pollloi, ordinary man on the Llanfair omnibus etc, did not have the fear of education, art, music, culture, intelligent life, etc which their english counterparts suffer from (e.g. Daily Mail readers).
Scotland similar. *
One consequence is that there are more penguins in Scotland and Wales, than tory MPs. :lol: :lol: 

*PS And Europe for that matter


----------



## Digit (10 Dec 2011)

Strangely Jacob the Daily Mail out sells your chosen rag, tell you anything?



> did not have the fear of education, art, music, culture, intelligent life, etc which their english counterparts suffer from



If you think so little of the English why haven't you moved to where the intelligentsia are, ie, as suggested by you, Europe?
If you have that belief about the English I can only imagine that you have chosed to associate with the wrong 'class' of people! :twisted: 
Or perhaps they avoid you? :lol: 

Roy.


----------



## RogerS (10 Dec 2011)

Allylearm":1et36tvk said:


> RogerS":1et36tvk said:
> 
> 
> > Anyone suggesting that we should let banks or entire economies go bankrupt is talking out of their backside.
> ...



Well, you could read this article on the Icelandic financial crisis. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008%E2%80 ... ial_crisis


----------



## Allylearm (10 Dec 2011)

But Roger, correct me if I am wrong, Italy/Greece/Spain/Portugal and even France have no money to get them out of their mess. Europe/World has not enough money to get them out of the mess of these or resulting failures in the other economies. That is the scenario we are facing so is it better to let some go or all go bankrupt. I alas remember Brown and Darling failure to see that Banks in UK were never to big to fail or be allowed to go, a mistake. The result is what we see now and they and the allies in Europe and USA were also wrong propping up failure. They should allow failing banks or economies fail or we result in prolonged pain for all or the resulting failure for all as their is not enough money to cover the debt of the new economies in crisis as the monies has been already spent on the previous failing banks/economies. I was reading only the day that a few German Banks need assistance and so it begins going round and round. 

Can I say that we are currently are all fish in a ever decreasing pool, some fish ain't going to survive and it usually is the bigger ones first as the ever dwindling water recedes so starving the fish of oxygen. Question who is big and who is small. I fear a global change in economic terms with the West receding and who or where will replace them.


----------



## Max Power (10 Dec 2011)

"Strangely Jacob the Daily Mail out sells your chosen rag, tell you anything?"

which rag would that be Roy?












:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## Digit (10 Dec 2011)

Which ever of the two you seem to get your ideas from Jacob.

No Ally, the non-Euro nations can individually devalue their currencies and change their interest rates, the Euro nations can not. This situation is not new you know, we have been here before.
If you wish to see the effects of a country going bankrupt look at Germany in the 30s and Zimbabwe today.
Remember Argentina? British austerity after WW2? Britain's trip to the IMF under Callaghan and the interst rates at that time?

Roy.


----------



## Modernist (10 Dec 2011)

Getting back to the point the problem was not just that countries and individuals borrowed and spent too much. That is normally reasonably secure. Speaking for my own business the maximum overdraft I can arrange is covered by 6 x assets. This is largely because the banks will not lend against raw material stock. They will only lend against debtors or property or personal guarantee backed by same. i.e little or no risk.

The problem arose because of convoluted schemes to lend against insecure assets which were dreamed up to create profit and bonusses for the financial services. It was the discovery that these assets were worth significantly less than expected which lead to the crisis.

So the crisis was not originally political it was FS inspired. The global nature of finance then lead to so called contagion to other countries. The smoke and mirror schemes were so huge that the whole financial sector in in danger of collapse.

Countries such as Greece have been economic basket cases for years with lax controls and profligate spending and borrowing. Consequently when the pressure was put on they collapsed financially in the same way as Ireland. When working in Ireland about 5 years ago i.e before the crisis, I was shown whole new housing estates with no inhabitants built entirely on speculation and borrowing. Such situations do not take much to collapse. 

The current circus with DC is only exposing existing tensions which the crisis has brought (once again) to the surface. 

As a parting shot if Clegg was walking dead before how do we define his status now.

Maybe he'll save us all by pulling the rug on these idiots.

Final thought, we are heading for a Europe of austerity when what we need is growth to pay off the debts, so they still have it wrong.


----------



## Digit (10 Dec 2011)

> The problem arose because of convoluted schemes to lend against insecure assets which were dreamed up to create profit and bonusses for the financial services. It was the discovery that these assets were worth significantly less than expected which lead to the crisis.



Absolutely Brian, but hereafter is where we separate, according to you that is because the lenders loaned, to me that is because the borrowers borrowed more than they could repay!
If you apply for a credit card and don't tell the lender tht you are already maxed out on half a dozen other cards, or your government cooks the books to obtain more credit, who do you blame?
You say the banks, I disagree.

Roy.


----------



## Modernist (10 Dec 2011)

I've got to go and mend my daughter's central heating so I'll think up a reply while I am there :lol:


----------



## Digit (10 Dec 2011)

Think up one?

Roy.


----------



## RogerS (10 Dec 2011)

Digit":2kccjeoa said:


> > The problem arose because of convoluted schemes to lend against insecure assets which were dreamed up to create profit and bonusses for the financial services. It was the discovery that these assets were worth significantly less than expected which lead to the crisis.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You are both correct. Digit is talking about the retail side of the bank. Brian is talking about the wholesale/investment part of the banking system and he is absolutely spot on...it was invented financial instruments such as CDS's, CDO's, derivatives and the rest of the whole stinking mess. 

Even the retail arm of the banks have their bad points. Notice how high that fine was at HSBC for selling wrong policies to OAPs. You can bet your bottom dollar that the staff, directors and managers etc in the bank who got their bonuses for meeting targets selling these policies won't be asked to pay them back. And then there was PPI, Standard Life endowment ponzi schemes, Equitable Life...it is endless. 

But to let a bank go to the wall is just plain daft. It's a house of cards and the whole lot will come down around our ears. How are you going to explain to the retired population that their pensions are now zero, allylearm ? Which reminds me......in another thread on Public Sector strikes, you quite clearly stated that you had 'done the maths' and I asked you four times to show us. So come on and 'fess up. You were telling porkies, weren't you?


----------



## Losos (10 Dec 2011)

RogerS":1ymcsejl said:


> I tend to listen to my wife on these sorts of things as she remains, despite my best endeavours, a very bright and apolitical person. Her view is that David Cameron did the right thing because what Merkel and Sarkozy are proposing (a) won't help the Euro and the economic situation in the short term (b) that their proposals are going to take at least five years to put into place and (c) because Britain is not participating that they will end up revisiting the 'deal'. As I say, she leaves chips-on-shoulders and prejudiced viewpoints out of the equation. Time will tell.



*Your wife is absolutely right*, there is a basic flaw in the way the Euro was set up, and it will only survive if the one country with a surplus (Germany) transfers about 2 billion Euro to the deficit countries (Greece, Portugal, Ireland, Italy etc) *every year, FOR EVER *!!!! apart from Germany the lack of competiveness in the rest of Europe is endemic and it *has always been that way.*(For the purposes of this post you can consider Holland and Denmark as part of Germany :wink: )

*There is a precedent for this however *as there is a *one federal state *(which is geographically in Europe) and comprises of *four* countries where one of them has always transfered large amounts to the other three and will continue to do so *for ever more*. I'm sure your wife will be able to tell you the name of that federation :lol: :lol:


----------



## Digit (10 Dec 2011)

Specifically Rog I was thinking of Brian's empty housing estates in Ireland, houses that were built speculatively.
Here I put on my history teacher's hat on.
Some of the most desirable properties in England are those semi detached houses built between the wars.
At the time they were classed as 'Jerry Built' by the purists as they widely used cavity walls, this permitted the use of 'stretcher bond' brick laying.
Much quicker than traditional bonds and more economic of bricks.
They were promoted thoughout the south by the London Underground as 'Metro Land', the first of the commuter belts.
And they were all built speculatively!
And to clarify the point further, all the local building here other than 'self builds' are speculative.

Roy.


----------



## Digit (10 Dec 2011)

That's correct Losos, it's the UK, and three of those parts, as I pointed out earlier, are subsidised by England. I _know_ I live in one such.

Roy.


----------



## Jacob (10 Dec 2011)

Being lazy again - here's my lazy theory of economics for slobs.
Not much difference in the real world, from the Monopoly board game. The game goes on and as long as everybody has a hand in it it's OK. 
But when too many houses or too much cash ends up in too few hands, the game slows down or stops. To get it going again you have to share out the cash and the property a bit. If anybody wanted to hang on to their wealth (monopoly money and little wooden houses etc) the rest can just go off and play another game, but unfortunately, not in the real world. In the real world, if there is no share out, there is revolution, riot, theft, social disorder. You could get that with a Monopoly game too if everybody is p|ssed!
So as the bankers (and other expert) have frucked up badly we should allow them all to go bust (and anybody else) then cancel debts, credits, cancel the currency, nationalise all property, then start again. Simple innit!


----------



## Digit (10 Dec 2011)

So how much of your accumulated wealth are you prepared to part with to keep the game going Jacob?

Roy.


----------



## Jacob (10 Dec 2011)

Digit":3bb4yv6d said:


> So how much of your accumulated wealth are you prepared to part with to keep the game going Jacob?
> 
> Roy.


Very good question and straight to the point.

In the Monopoly game - whatever it takes to keep the game going. The game is more important than the monopoly money. If you've ever played this game you will have encountered players who don't get this point and would rather hang on to their token wealth.

In real life - exactly the same.


----------



## Digit (10 Dec 2011)

> Very good question and straight to the point.



And one that you've dodged again.

Roy.


----------



## RogerS (10 Dec 2011)

Jacob":29fjv63a said:


> Digit":29fjv63a said:
> 
> 
> > So how much of your accumulated wealth are you prepared to part with to keep the game going Jacob?
> ...



So answer the question, Jacob. How much of your wealth are you prepared to give up? As far as I am aware there are only the two of you and yet, unless I am mistaken you live in a very large property that you are doing up. If you 'walked the talk' then you would move out into a two bed semi somewhere and let a very large family live where you are currently.


----------



## Digit (10 Dec 2011)

Or to quote Orwell again, 'some animals are more equal than others', eh Jacob?

Roy.


----------



## Modernist (10 Dec 2011)

RogerS":1c1lrg05 said:


> Digit":1c1lrg05 said:
> 
> 
> > > The problem arose because of convoluted schemes to lend against insecure assets which were dreamed up to create profit and bonusses for the financial services. It was the discovery that these assets were worth significantly less than expected which lead to the crisis.
> ...



But the two are connected. All of financial services requires worker bees like me to generate profits to invest for them to p*ss about with. In the case of the sub prime mortgages it was the poor punters who put up the dosh. I don't agree it was their fault as they were going to accept a mortgage if offered. It was up to the FS to establish if it was viable.

Having got that far they then bundled these liabilities and traded them having lost sight of the original vulnerability. Of course people shouldn't borrow more than they can afford but it is up to the provider to establish that, that is their (I hesitate to use the term) profession.

There is no useful purpose in many financial schemes other than to generate profit for themselves. It would be a good idea to eliminate these products and simplify the system getting rid of droves of overpaid and non-productive FS people along the way.

The reason the populace are so angry is that the burden of putting all this right is falling on the easy targets, not on the perpetrators. I was looking at investment funds only yesterday and many of them are back on their pre 2008 trajectory, continuing to generate fees as they do so. In the meantime we have received yet another form today placing more hurdles in the path of my daughter's disability living allowance.

If we need to cut some significant expenditure I suggest we look at place this this first

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16101242


----------



## Digit (10 Dec 2011)

Thus the govenment's plan to separate the retail division from the investmant branch should prevent a recurrence.



> I don't agree it was their fault as they were going to accept a mortgage if offered



That of course being human nature and thus expected, as is making a profit out of trading something that others will buy.
You can't say that one human failing in a customer is better or worse than in the vendor.
Who is worse, the drug dealer or the punter who chooses to take what is being sold?
It's an old cliche Brian but it takes two to make a bargain.

Roy.


----------



## Modernist (10 Dec 2011)

Digit":3u0ld794 said:


> Thus the govenment's plan to separate the retail division from the investmant branch should prevent a recurrence.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Last comment from me for today.

It does take two but one is supposed to be regulated to prevent mis-selling. After all it is the profession versus the general public. You don't have to be Einstein to see where it is going. Re my Ireland housing comment, at one time there were more houses than there were population! 

maybe we'll never agree.


----------



## Digit (10 Dec 2011)

Brian, the Euro zone's problems are not caused by banks! They were caused by certain countries borrowing more than they could repay. They got away with it by being less than honest with their lenders, please note that before the latest bail out they had to hand over their books for examination!
The modern Greek state was formed in 1830, since then they have gone bust four times! 
Once might be a mistake, four times sounds like a habit!

Roy.


----------



## Allylearm (10 Dec 2011)

Roy.[/quote]

Even the retail arm of the banks have their bad points. Notice how high that fine was at HSBC for selling wrong policies to OAPs. You can bet your bottom dollar that the staff, directors and managers etc in the bank who got their bonuses for meeting targets selling these policies won't be asked to pay them back. And then there was PPI, Standard Life endowment ponzi schemes, Equitable Life...it is endless. 

But to let a bank go to the wall is just plain daft. It's a house of cards and the whole lot will come down around our ears. How are you going to explain to the retired population that their pensions are now zero, allylearm ? Which reminds me......in another thread on Public Sector strikes, you quite clearly stated that you had 'done the maths' and I asked you four times to show us. So come on and 'fess up. You were telling porkies, weren't you?[/quote]

Sorry you never gave any proof to your typos so why should I define a reply I even stated as such, so I stopped reading your posts in the public sector debate as you were not being constructive only argumentative for the sake of it.

As for pensions in the private sector, are they not being devalued or been made worthless as private sector employers wish to have short term contracts and less chance of regress to appeal dismissal, has the decline in interest rate and devaluing in currency not affecting anyone at present on a pension. First the private sector and pensioners get it by devaluation or loss of interest and now we have Tory/Lib pact trying to do the public sector. So linked in one way but my stance has not.

House building which is another irk of mine which alludes to similar vain as pension tirades. I used to be employed as a manufacturing manager of a house builder. We made the kits, trusses/covering, stairs, door cassettes, Windows, plasterboard supplied, flooring (Chip) supplied and finishings Red Pine. We supplied it as a kit as you often see. At the time some 3/4 years ago before the bubble well and truly burst I was selling kits for 4/5 bed detached house for £9000 this included all first and second fix but none of the following. Building labour in Electrical/Plumbing/Brickwork if required/Joinery labour for 1st-2nd fixing or concrete work/Slating/Roughcast/Ground work/Landscaping. It did not include electrical or kitchens or plumbing bits or bricks/roughcast or concrete. The other part it did not supply was land. So for Red pine finishing you spent £9000 or for £14K Ash Finishings and Oak Stair and a library and larger rooms.

The £9000 kit house sold on average £190-230k depending on location
The £14K kit house sold on average £350-520k depending on location though the higher price did receive larger garden space and double garage and maybe a fancier roof even a turret from time to time

So justify the price and justify the valuation. And we wonder why at present the UK is suffering in houses price dropping, they were never valued at the right price in the first place and part of this is firmly at the feet of Tory led council house sales that generated the boom in house price rises and the market that was required to be developed as a country we had previously been mostly renting. The new get rich council house sellers needed to go up in the market and go live in schemes out of town with the capitol generated from house discounts at the local taxpayers expense. This started pushing up house sales/market though as a country I would say our house sizes or more correct room sizes have shrunk compared to Europe and USA. So we are being done twice the houses are valued to high and the rooms are smaller, great marketing ploy and even quicker get rich scheme found in the last 20 years or so. All developing from Council House sales and our friend Maggie. It may have even created some election wins and new Tory voters. Now we are short of council housing stock and have a growing population who cannot get mortgages.


----------



## Digit (10 Dec 2011)

> Roy



Sorry, but I don't have a dog in this fight!

Roy.


----------



## Jacob (10 Dec 2011)

RogerS":2jf2nyjm said:


> .....
> So answer the question, Jacob. How much of your wealth are you prepared to give up? As far as I am aware there are only the two of you and yet, unless I am mistaken you live in a very large property that you are doing up. If you 'walked the talk' then you would move out into a two bed semi somewhere and let a very large family live where you are currently.


Actually it's barely habitable so far!
I'm happy to vote for governments which would bring about a fairer distribution, particularly if curbing excess wealth with big marginal rates. I realise this could disadvantage me in the short term but it would be good for all, including me, in the long term. Nothing radical about that - taxation and redistribution is the basis of all civilised countries at the moment. 
I'd vote for civilisation but I'm not planning to set up a socialistic republic with just me in it!


----------



## Digit (10 Dec 2011)

> basis of all civilised countries at the moment.



Name them please!

Roy.


----------



## Jacob (10 Dec 2011)

Digit":39mcv7y1 said:


> > basis of all civilised countries at the moment.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Loosely termed the First World
A portion of the redistribution is in direct benefits but the bulk of it is in public services - in the widest sense, including the military, space exploration, you name it.. This is rarely a drain on the economy in the developed world - quite the opposite, tax and spending drives it onwards and upwards.


----------



## Digit (10 Dec 2011)

I'm curious about your fairer distribution. How would you measure a person's needs or their worth to society.
The press recently reported on a lay about who has fathered 15 offspring, with another on the way, that he pays no support for nor sees very frequently.
He lives on benefits.
Surely fairness would require that he cease his life style.
I find it extraordinary that a working parent, a retiree etc should support this person, I won't say 'man,' in any manner what so ever, or do you think that a fairer distribution should perhaps exclude him?
Mind you, I'm still attempting to recover from the idea that our EU bosses are intelligent! :lol: 

Roy.


----------



## Jacob (10 Dec 2011)

Digit":2wmr4034 said:


> I'm curious about your fairer distribution. How would you measure a person's needs or their worth to society....
> Roy.


Pleased to see you have started to think about these things. It's never too late!


----------



## Digit (10 Dec 2011)

> Pleased to see you have started to think about these things. It's never too late!



What makes you think I have just started? Also that is yet another demonstration by your good self of attempting to deflect the question, so what about an answer?
After all, it's never too late!

Roy.


----------



## RogerS (11 Dec 2011)

Jacob":3iiw5kat said:


> RogerS":3iiw5kat said:
> 
> 
> > .....
> ...



Well weaselled, Jacob.

Your reply confirms what we've always thought. You're a Champagne Socialist at heart. Either that or a bit if a hypocrite. Take your pick.


----------



## Modernist (11 Dec 2011)

RogerS":3eyyoeqh said:


> You're a Champagne Socialist at heart.



Sounds good to me although I would prefer it with the smoked salmon were it not for the Blair connotations.

It is not mandatory to be a whippet racing, pigeon fancying, wife beating drunkard in order to hold some view of social responsibility.

Anyway back to the original post. According to this mornings papers Clegg is already walking backwards from his bosom buddy.

How long, how long?


----------



## devonwoody (11 Dec 2011)

What do those north of the border think about the Euro, surely they don't want to join a failed currency and then in addition hand over all their powers of taxation to Brussels if they went independent?


Afterall the euro is a failed currency otherwise they would not have had their conference this week, they are in the mire, or is it shuuuuuuuuuuush


----------



## Modernist (11 Dec 2011)

This mornings press says it far better than I can.

"A step towards irrelevance" seems about the most appropriate.

The so-called coalition will henceforth function purely as a survival cell for the inmates.

The interests of the country have been trashed.

I'm off to do some woodwork, at least they can't take that away.


----------



## devonwoody (11 Dec 2011)

Modernist":3cmlx3ov said:


> This mornings press says it far better than I can.
> 
> "A step towards irrelevance" seems about the most appropriate.
> 
> ...




Yes they will, EU wil ban use of any timbers not coming from Europe and replaceable.


----------



## Allylearm (11 Dec 2011)

devonwoody":2xkhjx7o said:


> What do those north of the border think about the Euro, surely they don't want to join a failed currency and then in addition hand over all their powers of taxation to Brussels if they went independent?



The SNP have still time to wait and see what happens before the vote is cast to the Scottish electorate, that is why the delayed it and that is why the others want it now. Irony is to gain independence on one hand only to go join the EU to hand it over once again. It was sold for gold the last time through bribes to the nobility, the people who will benefit may have changed but there will be winners in this decision, it only needs concluded who they are. As a Scot with natural leanings to look after the vulnerable or look to being fair to my fellow Scot I hope it is the people.

As a small independent nation I feel Norway is a good example for us to take lead from though the standard of life is good the living cost are high, a trade off. We as a nation have a greater manufacturing base or culture with good natural resources but we do share similarities in respect of fishing/oil. I await more proof what I will vote, a lot of water has to flow under this particular bridge. 

I do not wish to be part of the UK that has as a priority to be a leading part of NATO and lead from the front as per DC statement recently what trade of was this to be a leader in Euro decisions, no we will take everyone to war oir be a leading voice in a group that has no natural enemies left as most are in the EU or is DC going to find new ones, a total waste of more loss of lives and spending monies we do not have. I am still aghast we can spend money easily bombing Libya or supply money to despots, purchase third world countries funding for weapons, corruption of aid or Islamic countries that persecute Christians with foreign aid from our tax payments, all done in our name. While our own country cannot even supply pensions to all Private or Public or look after the workers who have worked all their lives and at time of need are left to free fall. Or according to Govt they should have looked after it themselves with a private pension, our state pension is not even the same as a minimum wage. Very pious to take in taxation and meet your living needs but when you cannot pay your way get a paltry living standard to utilise for the last part of your life. The list goes on and on, we would rather spend money on Olympics/Commonwealth games and World Cups, what folly is this that leads us to these conclusions. Popularity decisions are solely to deflect bad decisions or govt who are bereft of ideas. 

I am to old to emigrate so is going independent a way to solve issues above, jury is still out ask me in a couple of years when the present turmoil is settled in Europe and UK part it plays in the way forward. But can it be any worse is the question or is it better to stand on your own feet and agree on what we believe is right not to be led by others who have no standing or divided from what makes me a Scot. Politics in Scotland are totally different from what the Tory values are, they failed to move with this and paid the price at the elections. As stated before Scots if asked or asked to vote look after those who need others help we look at the vulnerable and you may feel its socialist but it is what makes us Scots. It makes us stand out and goes to answer why Scots have shaped a lot of new nations being formed. The treaty of Arbroath still reverberates and is still got relevance now, a pity people cannot live up to the words, we would be all the better for it if each nation wrote it in their nations goals.


----------



## devonwoody (11 Dec 2011)

I still cannot believe if taxation you have to pay is decided in Brussels the Scottish people would want that.

And if you are wealthy because of your oil deposits etc. Brussels will eventually level a higher tax on your nation and countries like Roumania most probably would have a lower tax rate.Like all good socialists principals.


----------



## Allylearm (11 Dec 2011)

As I said is EU an option we want. I would rather be a small independent nation doing what our populace wants for the betterment of the whole. EU sticks in my craw a bit and the taxation given to them to have a good old gravy chain grates as well, Scots thrift comes to the fore here. I do not mind having a trading agreement or agreement on issues like diplomacy. But for legal/financial/regulations I would like to remain in my "ain midden"

As a very small country why would we wish to govern others, we would be best serving as a voice of opinion or Scots slant on things. EU would benefit and we have past history doing this with France/Prussia/Poland/Sweden and even Russia.

But time will tell what is the way forward and after all the electorate will decide.


----------



## MIGNAL (11 Dec 2011)

devonwoody":3b4p6n0y said:


> Modernist":3b4p6n0y said:
> 
> 
> > This mornings press says it far better than I can.
> ...



Doubt it. We have Cites for that. Further, the EU is more 'liberal' than the US in this regard. Google 'Lacey act' to see what all the fuss is about.


----------



## Losos (11 Dec 2011)

RogerS":17u0f2kh said:


> So answer the question, Jacob. How much of your wealth are you prepared to give up?



Don't think you'll ever get an answer to that one Roger


----------



## Digit (11 Dec 2011)

> It is not mandatory to be a whippet racing, pigeon fancying, wife beating drunkard in order to hold some view of social responsibility.



Thank God! I'm in the clear!

Roy.


----------



## Jacob (11 Dec 2011)

Losos":2pblzxwi said:


> RogerS":2pblzxwi said:
> 
> 
> > So answer the question, Jacob. How much of your wealth are you prepared to give up?
> ...


I answered it further back. I'm quite happy to vote (and campaign) for a left leaning party even though it might mean me having to pay out in higher taxes etc. 
I'm not particularly calling for noble acts of self sacrifice - but if you feel the urge don't let us hold you back!
Death duties is a good one - you only pay after you are dead!


----------



## Jacob (11 Dec 2011)

RogerS":3izvheky said:


> Jacob":3izvheky said:
> 
> 
> > RogerS":3izvheky said:
> ...


Neither. Silly argument anyway.
You don't have to renounce all worldly goods to be a socialist you just have to agree to distribute them in a fairer and more co-operative way. Vows of poverty aren't in any party manifestos, as far as I know.


----------



## Digit (11 Dec 2011)

> Death duties is a good one - you only pay after you are dead!



Wrong again Jacob. Your son and daughter will pay it! If there was a way of making us pay taxes after death the Inland Revenue would have found it!

Roy.


----------



## Sawyer (11 Dec 2011)

Digit":19057pik said:


> I'm curious about your fairer distribution. How would you measure a person's needs or their worth to society.
> The press recently reported on a lay about who has fathered 15 offspring, with another on the way, that he pays no support for nor sees very frequently.
> He lives on benefits.
> 
> Roy.


Daily Mail, by any chance?
If true, the above character is one of the spongers who society can do without. I suggest he goes out and gets one of the many jobs available.  But we also have many other types on non-contributing spongers to sort out too: many of whom are very, very wealthy.

I wonder how much is lost to the Exchequer in benefit fraud, compared to evaded taxes?
Cameron reckons about £5.2 bn. year, so a mere fraction of un-collected taxes. Maybe he needs to re-consider his priorities?


----------



## Digit (11 Dec 2011)

> Daily Mail, by any chance?



Why do you ask?
But as I always attempt to answer questions put to me, I'll reply. No!
He also states that he has an interest in the Church and is following the Biblical diktat of 'go forth and multiply!'
I agee with him.

Roy.


----------



## Digit (11 Dec 2011)

I understand that Croatia joined the EU yesterday......
They claim that history has been made.....
Yep! The only known case of Rats rushing to join a sinking ship! :lol: 

Roy.


----------



## Jacob (11 Dec 2011)

Digit":3g2axo14 said:


> .....
> The press recently reported on a lay about who has fathered 15 offspring, with another on the way, that he pays no support for nor sees very frequently.
> He lives on benefits.
> ....


If you focus attention on oddities like this chap, who lets face it is extremely unusual, then life is going to appear to be an unpleasant freak show. 
Which of course, for Daily Mail and NOTW (et al) readers is exactly how it seems. 
Something which has to be considered in debates like this where many participants have allowed themselves to be conditioned into whichever weird or miserable view of the world most turns them on.


----------



## Digit (11 Dec 2011)

Thanks for the lecture Jacob, now about the question I put to you.
As regards a wierd and gloomy etc, try the Guardian on Climate Change.

Roy.


----------



## Jacob (11 Dec 2011)

Digit":2mebd6ty said:


> Thanks for the lecture Jacob, now about the question I put to you.
> As regards a wierd and gloomy etc, try the Guardian on Climate Change.
> 
> Roy.


What is the question?
nb I don't think the Guardian has a line on climate change does it? It just reports the scientific view fairly objectively.


----------



## Digit (11 Dec 2011)

Other than as the other day as I reported to you that the Guardian published the BEST report in an edited format that ignored the co editors reservations without even mentioning her name, that Jacob, is not objectivity! The DM reported BOTH sides of the co authors views, pro and con, now that _is_ objectivity.
The question was should such as that lay about be supported by tax payers.

Roy.


----------



## Modernist (11 Dec 2011)

Digit":cze1fd1c said:


> Other than as the other day as I reported to you that the Guardian published the BEST report in an edited format that ignored the co editors reservations without even mentioning her name, that Jacob, is not objectivity! The DM reported BOTH sides of the co authors views, pro and con, now that _is_ objectivity.
> The question was should such as that lay about be supported by tax payers.
> 
> Roy.



But I thought Tories were great supporters of religion :?:


----------



## Jacob (11 Dec 2011)

Digit":msp3i2ew said:


> Other than as the other day as I reported to you that the Guardian published the BEST report in an edited format that ignored the co editors reservations without even mentioning her name, that Jacob, is not objectivity! The DM reported BOTH sides of the co authors views, pro and con, now that _is_ objectivity.
> The question was should such as that lay about be supported by tax payers.
> 
> Roy.


Is that the one where the co editor was a climate change sceptic? That's OK, balance doesn't entail an obligation to include loony views. 
You wouldn't expect every suggestion that the earth was round to be accompanied by a balancing comment from a flat earther. Be realisitic! Mind you, the DM probably would, but that's another story. :lol:


----------



## Digit (11 Dec 2011)

Best ask them I guess Brian.

Roy.


----------



## Digit (11 Dec 2011)

```
balance doesn't entail an obligation to include loony views.
```

True Jacob, but who is to decide what is loony? I would point out that the co-editor is vastly better qualified in climate research than you, you are a damn good wood worker, how would you rate the opinion on the subject from someone who couldn't drive a nail straight?
The Guardian repeatedly reported on the 'Hockey Stick' Jacob, despite objections from those same loons. The IPCC has now dropped the stick BTW, had the Guardian not been soon biased it would have reported the alternatives and thus not look quite as silly as it now does.
So which one was loony?

Roy.


----------



## devonwoody (13 Dec 2011)

Some economist last night on Panorama said the Euro is doomed and it will crash and break up again. 
So DC was correct in not cooperating.


----------



## Digit (13 Dec 2011)

Unless they break all their own rules DW I can not see how they can possibly get the necessary institutions up and running for months, or more. Remember, this is the group that took 13 years to define a lawn mower for manufacturing purposes.

Roy.


----------



## Jacob (13 Dec 2011)

Digit":1m7qgw9g said:


> ```
> balance doesn't entail an obligation to include loony views.
> ```
> 
> ...


Guardian *did* report "the alternatives" though alternatives is the wrong word - it's on ongoing study (within the scientific community) subject to continuous re-assessment, not just a simple choice between alternatives.
If you are interested in this Digit - keep looking at the Guardian and also the scientific press, New Scientist, Scientific American etc on or off line . It will certainly sharpen your ability to spot a loony!
And do yourself a favour, don't read the Mail!


----------



## Modernist (13 Dec 2011)

An interesting snippet from David Gow in today's Graun

>>David Gow says I may have underplayed the significance of Jose Manuel Barroso's comments earlier.

Barroso has blown apart Dave's main justification that he was "defending the single market" by saying his six-point demand threatened it - and he, Barroso, tabled a compromise talking about protecting the single market and, specifically, financial services. The pent-up venom towards the UK is also now spewing out in the European Parliament - including from anglophiles.

What people don't seem to get is that Merkel also went out of her way to help Dave as she doesn't want Germany irrevocably tied to France and is closer on economic policy etc to the UK. But the demands he tabled at 3am on Friday last week, senior sources say, were for an effective veto on all single market legislation: "obviously, out of the question." What if Merkel had demanded special protection for the German car industry - VW (soon to be the world's biggest car-maker), Mercedes and BMW? Or Sarko for the French energy sector - EDF/GDF Suez/Areva? Cameron would have gone crazy...>>


----------



## Blister (13 Dec 2011)

I wont use the words UK ( United KINGDOM ) 

I will use Britain

and in my opinion Britain is a sinking ship weighed down with the burden of others 

I have a life jacket ready for the day it goes down


----------



## WoodMangler (13 Dec 2011)

Modernist":3ika9d65 said:


> An interesting snippet from David Gow in today's Graun
> >>David Gow says I may have underplayed the significance of Jose Manuel Barroso's comments earlier.
> Barroso has blown apart ...>


The important thing to remember about Barroso is that he's a communist warmonger with a history of being two-faced...


----------



## Digit (13 Dec 2011)

Dodging again Jacob, I stated that the Guardian failed to report the paper's co editor's concerns and that the DM did. No amount of prevarication by you alters that fact.
You, I believe, consider yourself to be liberal in your views, as does the Guardian....

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j& ... Qw&cad=rja

from above....

_"tolerant of his opponent's opinions" _

.. yet you frequently refer to those whose hold different views to your own as 'morons' or 'loonies'.
I live at the bottom of a narrow valley, to three sides are low hills will the Preseli hills to the fourth. I see the sun rise in the south east and set in the south west. I see trees and fields all about me.
I am a dedicated 'flat Earther', now using what evidence you can, show me the error of my ways.
But before you start let me explain one thing to you. For you to have the slightest chance of changing my view it is essential that I be prepared to listen to what you have to say. Not to dismiss you as a moron, or a loony, but to demonstrate an open mind and to learn.
Liberal Jacob? Actually you are one of the most illiberal people I know of.
That co editor probably knows as much about woodwork to judge you as you know about climatology.

Roy.


----------



## BigShot (13 Dec 2011)

Blister - "Britain" is ambiguous. Being a bit of a libertarian in my spare time I find the "Kingdom" part objectionable, but UK has a very specific meaning. I'll refrain from going into detail here, but this page is pretty useful: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminolog ... tish_Isles


Digit - you've got to remember that "liberal" is a hijacked term.
There's nothing liberal about modern liberalism. Compare almost any self-proclaimed liberal with what it means to be a classic liberal or (perish the thought) a libertarian and you'll see a stark difference.
For "liberal" as used by most today, submit a word to suggest something leaning towards statist/authoritarian (invariably with a socialist slant) and you're closer to the mark. In short - very illiberal.


----------



## Jacob (13 Dec 2011)

Digit":3lnw6g6j said:


> ... I stated that the Guardian failed to report the paper's co editor's concerns and that the DM did. No amount of prevarication by you alters that fact.


What is this about? Do you have any links?


> .....
> 
> _"tolerant of his opponent's opinions" _


I wouldn't be here if I wasn't


> .. yet you frequently refer to those whose hold different views to your own as 'morons' or 'loonies'.


No I don't. It's the ideas which are "loony" not necessarily the people holding them. We can all be confused, deluded, deranged, at some point. It's not the fact that they are "different" views - it's more to do with people relying and dubious sources. I think it is important to speak a bit plainly as many wrongly think they are being well served by the media. It's the emperor's new clothes scenario - sometimes there is little point in debate you just have to bang home a few points.


> I live at the bottom of a narrow valley, to three sides are low hills will the Preseli hills to the fourth. I see the sun rise in the south east and set in the south west. I see trees and fields all about me.
> I am a dedicated 'flat Earther', now using what evidence you can, show me the error of my ways.


I'd immediately suggest that you walk to the top of the nearest hill on a clear day - and you would see the curvature for yourself directly. Yes thats it - get out of the shady valley and have a look around!


> .... For you to have the slightest chance of changing my view .........


Entirely up to you, I don't care either way, I'm merely expressing my own views.


----------



## Digit (13 Dec 2011)

> What if Merkel had demanded special protection for the German car industry - VW (soon to be the world's biggest car-maker), Mercedes and BMW? Or Sarko for the French energy sector -



Brian, for one who is such an avid supporter of Das Klub I have to tell you that your lack of knowledge concerning it is shocking.
Vis a vis your comment above, DC's veto was permitted under an agreement arrived at some years ago. It arose as a result of the fact that at that time agreements within the Council had to be unanimous. A heated debate resulted in one delegate storming out and leaving the 'empty chair'.
From there it was decided that hence forth certain agreements would be decided by majority votes, treaties were exempt.
The agreement is known as the 'Luxemburg Accord,' the situation that produced it was France's refusal to agree to modifications to the CAP as the good General was that year facing an election and he wished to keep his farmers off the streets.
Sound familiar at all?
The words 'hoist' and 'petard' spring to mind.

Roy.


----------



## Sawyer (13 Dec 2011)

Blister":3k0yj0ma said:


> I wont use the words UK ( United KINGDOM )
> 
> I will use Britain
> 
> ...


Ironically, next April is the centenary of the Titanic disaster!  

Then as now, those who are wealthy have the better chance of keeping everything, whilst the rest founder. Titanic survival figures are interesting; given that women & children got first chance on lifeboats:

First Class passengers paying up to £800 (in 1912 money - around 7 years' wages for a skilled manual worker): all the children and 97% of the women survived.
Third Class passengers. Fare about £7: only 46% women and 34% children survived.

Before anyone asks, no, I don't subscribe the view that 3rd class folk were forcibly kept back to allow 1st class people onto the lifeboat.

Had Fred 'The Shred' Goodwin been around in 1912, I wonder if he'd have got himself on to a lifeboat. He certainly managed it in 2008!


----------



## Digit (13 Dec 2011)

> What is this about? Do you have any links?



Thank you Jacob, you have now confirmed what many of us thought. You don't have to know what you are talking about to disagree!

Bigshot. Yep! The other hijacked term is 'diversity', most of its supporters have no time or respect for any who display different views, ie, their support for diversity extends only to those who agree with them.
Not my understanding of the word.

Roy.


----------



## BigShot (13 Dec 2011)

Digit":145wvv3d said:


> Bigshot. Yep! The other hijacked term is 'diversity', most of its supporters have no time or respect for any who display different views, ie, their support for diversity extends only to those who agree with them.
> Not my understanding of the word.
> 
> Roy.


I've always liked "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." by Voltaire (but not really).

I feel you're quite right in your view of the matter, and it's a shame.

For a pale, weakly flavoured taste of liberty one need only go wild camping (preferably with a responsibly built fire) in England, and then head north of the border and try it again. The difference a little freedom makes is truly beautiful and brings life to the soul. I have a hard time believing that people of a clearly illiberal bent have ever felt freedom and compared it to the reality of life in this country.

As for the approved-diversity and free-to-agree nature of modern day liberalism, the following quote, though about an entirely different subject, seems appropriate.
"You are free to do what we tell you!" - Bill Hicks.


----------



## Jacob (13 Dec 2011)

Digit":1bfl1uc2 said:


> > What is this about? Do you have any links?
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you Jacob, you have now confirmed what many of us thought. You don't have to know what you are talking about to disagree!.....


I've been going on what you have said so far, which wasn't a lot.
So are you going to fill in the details or not?


----------



## Digit (13 Dec 2011)

This, Bigshot, from the LIBERAL ELITE,* exactly* expresses my philosophy....

_Tuesday, February 21, 2006
I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.
Few people will shed any tears for the “historian” David Irving, jailed in Austria for three years yesterday, having been found guilty of Holocaust denial – a criminal offence under Austrian law. I certainly won’t.

But is it right that someone should be imprisoned for their opinion, regardless of how vile and abhorrent we might find it? Isn’t this the price of freedom of speech: that we have to tolerate the views of extremist, lying, Nazi-sympathising scum like Irving?

If freedom of speech means the right to publish cartoons that upset Muslims, it is also the right of idiots like Irving to publish his “research” arguing that the gas chambers of Auschwitz were a fallacy. (Although he has since revised his opinion of this, apparently. In the light of “new evidence”, he now accepts that they did exist after all. What a formidable researcher.)

Whilst I can understand why a country like Austria would be sensitive about its own part in the Nazi atrocities, it seems counter-productive to me to enforce this law. I hadn’t heard a thing about Irving since he lost a court case in 2000 to Deborah Lipstadt, who first accused him of Holocaust denial. Today he’s on the front page of virtually every newspaper in Britain, possibly Europe. Now he can claim martyrdom and will become a cause célèbre to every dunderhead on the far right.

I think Ms Lipstadt summed it up best: “He should have been met by the sound of one hand clapping. The one thing he deserves, he really deserves, is obscurity.”
Posted by Citizen Sane at 4:36 PM _

THAT is liberalism.

Roy.


----------



## Digit (13 Dec 2011)

> So are you going to fill in the details or not?



No Jacob, I am not. If you are too narrow minded to read opinions other than those expressed by your personal hymn sheet please do not expect me to it for you. By sticking to your comfort zone you are like someone attempting to understand Darwinism by studying the Old Testament.
Most, if not all newspapers have science correspondents, it is reasonable to assume that they are all as equally qualified to comment as each other, that being so their views, whether we agree with them or not, are equally valid.
Thus if you wish to broaden you views I suggest you diversify your reading.
There are few absolutes in life but of two I am certain.
1 Where there is a divergence of opinions they cannot all be right.
2 Where there is a divergence of opinions they can all be wrong.

Roy.


----------



## Jacob (13 Dec 2011)

What a load of waffle! Nobody is threatening anybodies right to free speech; just being a bit rude about it in a democratic sort of way. We are all grownups here I thought.
Give us a clue about this thing you won't tell us about and we can track it down for ourselves. :roll:


----------



## Digit (13 Dec 2011)

> Give us a clue about this thing you won't tell us about and we can track it down for ourselves.



I already have if you read my posts.

Roy.


----------



## Modernist (13 Dec 2011)

Back to Cameron

It is woeful that half the population has been misinformed by the press to the point of believing many of the mis-truths, so frequently peddled to those who either cannot or can't be bothered to find out the facts for themselves, and consequently adopting an anti -European stance, even in the face of blinding logic to the contrary.

of DC

>>I was reminded of Lord Cardigan returning from the charge of the Light Brigade, explaining to the remaining troops how he had given those Russkies a lesson they wouldn't forget in a hurry.<< :lol: :lol: 

Orwell

>> "The insularity of the English, their refusal to take foreigners seriously, is a folly that has to be paid for very heavily from time to time."<< so true


----------



## WoodMangler (13 Dec 2011)

Digit":mie066o6 said:


> > Give us a clue about this thing you won't tell us about and we can track it down for ourselves.
> 
> 
> I already have if you read my posts.
> Roy.


Try offering a précis, I can't figure out what you're on about either...


----------



## Digit (13 Dec 2011)

Woodmangler. It wasn't even on this thread and has no relevance what so ever to this thread, why Jacob chooses to go on about it I don't know.

Modernist. They don't understand us either.

Roy.


----------



## BigShot (13 Dec 2011)

Modernist - I've refrained from addressing your comments so far, but since you've brought them up again I'll bite.

I don't read ANY newspapers, what I do read I get online from diverse sources (including the mainstream media) and generally look behind the stories to see the studies, laws and theories they are based upon.

With that said, I'm completely anti-EU and not out of any kind of xenophobia (I used to live and work in France for starters).

The implication in your posts that anyone who has bothered to pay attention would be pro-EU is bordering on the offensive.
The EU is a cesspit of corruption where our elected representatives have (get this) NO real power (their words, not mine, and I can post the part of my email exchange that led to that nugget of information coming my way from a serving MEP).

If I woke up in the morning to headlines proclaiming that our politicians had a change of heart, had left the EU and were negotiating new trade and movement treaties "as we speak"... I would not stop jumping for joy for most of the day... and it's not because I don't understand the issues. Quite the opposite in fact.


----------



## Modernist (13 Dec 2011)

BigShot":1rxkfouk said:


> Modernist - I've refrained from addressing your comments so far, but since you've brought them up again I'll bite.
> 
> I don't read ANY newspapers, what I do read I get online from diverse sources (including the mainstream media) and generally look behind the stories to see the studies, laws and theories they are based upon.
> 
> ...



Don't feel obliged to respond - I shan't be offended - or do so as you like - after all it is my thread.

I think you would be hard pressed to find anywhere free of political corruption but that was not the point of the thread. I have made plenty of comments on that in the past.

The point is that to isolate the country from the decision making process in Europe whilst existing in a global market and as a tiny island off the mainland is simply insane. The reasons for it are well documented and, as ever, it is a lot easier to criticise Europe than to create a more prosperous economy here. In my experience there is widespread ignorance of European life in the UK and we are therefore vulnerable to the waves of propaganda pumped out in the so called popular press. It is a modern incarnation of the human trend to find someone to blame or criticise, often to excuse inadequacies closer to home.

I am no fan of German food, it is true, however they will shortly have the largest car manufacturing industry in the world characterised by excellent designs, high investment, efficient production, high prices, high wages, excellent working conditions, comprehensive social services, high taxes and high standard of living. The industry earns billions for the economy. 

Don't you think we would have been better to follow their example rather than being an irritating and now irrelevant annoyance in Europe for the past 30 years.


----------



## Digit (13 Dec 2011)

Politicians Bigshot. Let's take a look at what happened over the week end and during the run up to it.
Mrs Merkal wanted a full blown treaty and had stated so.
Sarkosy wanted to avoid ratification, and stated so.
DC wanted to look after a British institution.
Now unless they were all living a troglodyte existance they all knew each other's position.
Sarkosy stated before they met that DC's concerns would not even be discussed. He new that meant that DC would use the veto or back down, was he gambling or was there a deeper cause?
Sky net reported that certain sections of the French press stated that Sarkosy 'played' DC.
In other words he used DC to defeat the German's wishes as a treaty requires all to agree.
So why would he do that?
He is facing an election in ...March? and was playing to his voters etc same as DC.
Why would Sarkosy wish to avoid a treaty, probably because getting all member states to ratify such a treaty is likely to be impossible.
Merkal knows that as well, so why would she want a treaty? She also is facing an election soon and the German constitution will not permit her to enable a treaty without ratification. The obvious reason for her view, not necessarily the correct one of course, is that she does not want the responsibilty of a refusal.
A further point that is generally ignored is that the Council meeting decided nothing in detail, that is left to others to work out before presentation.
Next point, as I understand it the agreement that was reached was to establish a legal framework for control of debts etc.
Please note that it seems not to have addressed in any way how to deal with the Eurozone's current indebtedness.

Roy.


----------



## Digit (13 Dec 2011)

> Don't you think we would have been better to follow their example



Perhaps you should ask Italy that same question. It was reported on TV some time ago that it takes Fiat 23 times more man hours to manufacture a car that a Toyota worker requires for a similar model.

Roy.


----------



## Jacob (13 Dec 2011)

Digit":3u63o093 said:


> Woodmangler. It wasn't even on this thread and has no relevance what so ever to this thread, why Jacob chooses to go on about it I don't know.....
> Roy.


Cos you keep going on about it - dropping dark hints about Grainuid bias etc. Maybe it isn't so interesting in the cold light of day?


----------



## Modernist (13 Dec 2011)

Digit":16dy0ttt said:


> > Don't you think we would have been better to follow their example
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Hardly the best example of European car industry, but better, I suppose, than Leyland et al. How about the plight of the once mighty Saab or Volvo?

We may be ignoring the fact that colder countries tend to be more industrious than the warm or hot.


----------



## BigShot (13 Dec 2011)

Modernist":pwavgmvm said:


> Don't you think we would have been better to follow their example rather than being an irritating and now irrelevant annoyance in Europe for the past 30 years.


I quite agree. My uncle (from another EU country - I'm a half-breed) once commented on the problem a long time ago while repairing an already-repaired exhaust on an Opel.
"A good German car with a lump of British s*** welded under it."
That was 20 years ago. We certainly need to follow their example somehow, but not by satying in or getting deeper into the EU.

Germany's success comes through an awesome work ethic and massive efficiency. Neither of which are watch words of British car manufacture (or indeed, British culture).

Maybe we should follow their example, but I'll leave it to you to figure out how best to achieve that with one caveat - being ruled by a foreign government over which we have practically no control isn't necessary in the answer.


It is not fundamentally necessary to be involved in the decision making process in Europe. They need us more than we need them when it comes to trade, and when it comes to non-trade (criminal justice, education, defence, immigration - which I'm all for - and so on) we frankly do NOT need to be part of a supranational government.


----------



## Digit (13 Dec 2011)

The Guardian biased Jacob? Good God no! At least no more than any other of course.
Brian, I doubt that the IMF etc cares a great deal about regional climate when lending.

Roy.


----------



## Digit (13 Dec 2011)

> They need us more than we need them



A further fact, Britain is the second largest contributer to the EU coffers, a point conveniently ignore by some sections of the German press.

Roy.


----------



## MIGNAL (13 Dec 2011)

The UK is the fourth largest contributor, behind Germany, France and Italy. That's why it's ignored by all of the German press.


----------



## Digit (13 Dec 2011)

My information came from Sky news...

The BBC says....

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j& ... jw&cad=rja

... once again the answer seems to depend on who you ask. Either way if our contributions ceased the EU would notice it. Third, fourth, tenth, it's a devil a lot of cash!

Roy.


----------



## MIGNAL (13 Dec 2011)

Strange. You were citing it as a fact in your previous answer. Suddenly it becomes 'depends who you ask....

Include the rebate. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_statistics

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8036097.stm

Here's another way of looking at it, given per capita:

http://www.redicecreations.com/article.php?id=7925

We still don't come second.


----------



## Digit (13 Dec 2011)

The gentleman I quoted was the interviewer on Sky News Press Review, nobody argued with him.

Roy.


----------



## MIGNAL (13 Dec 2011)

Here you are Digit:



Digit":o14comyl said:


> > They need us more than we need them
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Sorry but passing that off as mistake by some interviewer is weak. Your mistake.


----------



## Digit (13 Dec 2011)

I think it reasonable to assume that a commentator addressing a national audience would get his facts correct. But I accept that I was in error, meantime, if you are aware of a source of information that you can guarantee is 100% accurate 100% of the time perhaps you would be kind enough to point me in their direction so that I don't make any similar mistakes in the future.

Roy.


----------



## MIGNAL (13 Dec 2011)

The Guardian


----------



## Digit (13 Dec 2011)

Yeah!

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j& ... Pg&cad=rja

on page 10 according to the same commentator.

Roy.


----------



## devonwoody (14 Dec 2011)

This smiling group of people should keep all things calmer today. :wink: 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2XR34gwn ... re=related


----------



## Modernist (14 Dec 2011)

devonwoody":3ho5da1r said:


> This smiling group of people should keep all things calmer today. :wink:
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2XR34gwn ... re=related



Perhaps the Carnival is over - for some?


----------



## Jacob (14 Dec 2011)

Digit":2oomsk3s said:


> I think it reasonable to assume that a commentator addressing a national audience would get his facts correct. But I accept that I was in error, meantime, if you are aware of a source of information that you can guarantee is 100% accurate 100% of the time perhaps you would be kind enough to point me in their direction so that I don't make any similar mistakes in the future.
> 
> Roy.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eBT6OSr1TI


----------



## devonwoody (14 Dec 2011)

The £ is regaining ground again at last

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business/mark ... _month.stm


----------



## Digit (14 Dec 2011)

The headline for the FT informs us that cracks are now appearing in the 'deal'!
*We are not alone!* :lol: 

Roy.


----------



## Digit (14 Dec 2011)

For the benefit of Jacob, the Guardian song...

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j& ... bQ&cad=rja

:lol: :lol: 

Roy.


----------



## Jacob (14 Dec 2011)

Digit":35uptaa7 said:


> For the benefit of Jacob, the Guardian song...
> 
> http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j& ... bQ&cad=rja
> 
> ...


You _are_ having to try hard Digit! :lol:


----------



## Digit (14 Dec 2011)

Or you don't get it.

Roy.


----------



## Modernist (14 Dec 2011)

Digit":1v1vnise said:


> The headline for the FT informs us that cracks are now appearing in the 'deal'!
> *We are not alone!* :lol:
> 
> Roy.



Further indication, if it were needed, that even politicians of the mighty Germany are currently powerless against the "markets".

What hope then for little England?


----------



## Digit (14 Dec 2011)

Funny, I thought they simply didn't want spend their hard earned cash bailing out basket cases.
I have one correspondent blaming the Jews, another blaming the Illuminaty and you blaming the markets, so I'll ask you the same question I asked the other two.
If they are so powerful why don't they solve the problem?
You don't wanna know the other two opinions, trust me!

Roy.


----------



## Modernist (14 Dec 2011)

Digit":1e1pyuum said:


> Funny, I thought they simply didn't want spend their hard earned cash bailing out basket cases.
> I have one correspondent blaming the Jews, another blaming the Illuminaty and you blaming the markets, so I'll ask you the same question I asked the other two.
> If they are so powerful why don't they solve the problem?
> You don't wanna know the other two opinions, trust me!
> ...



As usual the detractors are loud and bar-room popular and proposed solutions absent - until the reality bites then they vanish.

2.7M and rising - watch this space.


----------



## Digit (14 Dec 2011)

> proposed solutions absent



Exactly, which is why I asked _If they are so powerful why don't they solve the problem?_
I must be missing something 'cos as I see it the problem is that certain countries have borrowed beyond their ability to repay, no bankers etc held a gun to their heads, as far as I know at least.
You borrow, you repay, if you don't people won't lend to you again.

Roy.


----------



## Modernist (14 Dec 2011)

Digit":3cklvscj said:


> If they are so powerful why don't they solve the problem?
> Roy.



Because they _are _the problem but it is in their interests to maintain the present situation.

With regard to the over-borrowed governments they were of course elected and responsible to their respective electorates. Unfortunately we and most other Euro countries have been treated to a feast of dishonest bribery at each election with any more thoughtful policies consigned to late night discussion on TV.

This abuse of the democratic process, practised buy all parties, this dumbing down of the process, fuels greed and hides reality leading to the dire situation in which we find ourselves. DC is continuing that process by appealing to and being in the thrall of his so called eurosceptic but actually populist wing who are notable for their complete absence of realistic forward policy.


----------



## Digit (14 Dec 2011)

> Because they are the problem but it is in their interests to maintain the present situation



These 'markets' that you keep on about are at the end of the day, people, so please explain how they will benefit 'cos I'm lost?

Roy.


----------



## Shrubby (15 Dec 2011)

Roy
The speculative side of banking will make money in a volatile market, they have invented so many complex derivatives that they can't fail to.
Have a look at Goldman Sachs' involvemnet in Greece's debt
Spiegel, Forbes,Telegraph, Guardian and many others have covered it 
Don't get me started on defence procurement
Matt


----------



## Digit (15 Dec 2011)

Greece has already written down some of its debt by 60%?, in essence, a devaluation, as I see it that means that considerably less money will be returned than was borrowed, so somebody loses.
If the Euro goes down it is likely that Spain, Portugal, Greece, Italy and possibly Ireland will devalue their currency also, as I understand it only some of the Euro's debts are underwritten by non-governmental groups, in fact the EU has been pleading with them to help.
As I understand it most of the debts are owed to governments and the IMF, therfore I fail to see how money will be made in sufficient quantity that Brian's 'markets', or the Jews or the Illuminaty will profit.
If the markets were that damaging then governments could take action by taxing them.
So I still don't get it.

Roy.


----------



## Modernist (15 Dec 2011)

I don't think we have the resources for a tutorial on investment banking here. Suffice to say there are organisations who profit at the expense of the value of the Euro. Do you remember Black Wednesday?

The point of the original thread was and is that our position in this machine was workable but is now insignificant and there will be an economic cost as a result. Further this was the result of............said it all before. I'm off to do some useful work, manufacturing and exporting.


----------



## Lons (15 Dec 2011)

MIGNAL":103f5ivk said:


> The UK is the fourth largest contributor, behind Germany, France and Italy. That's why it's ignored by all of the German press.



So: As Italys financial situation is dire and France isn't that far behind, who exactly is funding these "contributions"?



> Mrs Merkal wanted a full blown treaty and had stated so.
> Sarkosy wanted to avoid ratification, and stated so.
> DC wanted to look after a British institution.
> Now unless they were all living a troglodyte existance they all knew each other's position.
> ...


*I'm with you Digit*


Having been away, I've only just managed to read the whole thread and come to the conclusion that some contributors have missed their vocation. All the twisting, blame and mud slinging smacks of politicians in the making :lol: :lol: :lol: 

Bob


----------



## devonwoody (15 Dec 2011)

And you Europhiles.

allow EU to control your taxes means that Brussels will spend it for you and good socialists principles will mean that Roumania, Poland etc. will get large portions of your tax deductions instead of being spent in UK.

Eh. and wait for it, Russia will apply for membership sometime in the future, Coooooorh.


----------



## Sawyer (15 Dec 2011)

Digit":10ngntsf said:


> If they are so powerful why don't they solve the problem?
> Roy.


Because they don't want to: it would mean scrapping capitalism. Under the present system, the constant cycle of boom and bust is inevitable: but the people who _really_ run the show (no democracy involved, of course) will always succeed in hanging on to their ill-gotten gains while the rest of the world suffers.

Doubtless, we will end up paying for the current mess, the 1% will emerge unscathed, there will be a war or two (profitable for some) and in about ten years' time, be in the same place all over again.


----------



## Digit (15 Dec 2011)

Sawyer and Brian. I pointed out earlier that some time ago the EU governments were pleading with the financial institutions to take on more of Greece's debts, they being apparently reluctant to do so. How does that fit with arguments that this all down to the wicked bankers?
And may I please once again state the bleeding obvious that the borrower who borrows more than he can repay is the culprit as I see it.
If lending money to a bankrupt country makes money for the 'markets' why are they not lending more, is it because they stand to lose more by doing so or is that too simplistic?
I have asked similar questions of the anti-semite and the conspiracy supporter about the illuminaty, in both cases all they can tell me is that 'you don't understand!'
Yep!

Roy.


----------



## BigShot (15 Dec 2011)

The markets don't make money. They are not some malevolent force working against us. Importantly, they are not the 1%.
Boom and bust is caused by market manipulation, that is, inflation, taxation, government borrowing, governments using and encouraging steady increases in house pricing and so on.

Derivatives aren't a big deal and as they only make money from other people involved in trading stocks, commodities, currencies and so on. You shouldn't care that someone made a killing from shorting FTSE when thing went wobbly back in 2008 because unless you were playing that game (or had an incompetent playing it for you) and got it wrong, it didn't cost you.

What cost you and will cost the next 2 or 3 generations *at best* was meddling in the markets and trying to have a capitalist system without the downside.

If you want someone to blame, blame your politicians for breaking capitalism by being willing to bail out companies that should have gone to the wall. Blame your politicians for being pathologically incapable of running a balanced budget through one of the biggest economic booms of all time, inflating the public sector and piling on debts bigger than we had at the end of WW2. Blame your politicians for being so afraid of reality the they won't even admit the scale of the problem they (or "the party opposite") caused that they are basing our current "austerity" measures on consideration of just ONE TENTH of our real commitments.

The bankers did what they could get away with. If capitalism had worked as it should have some would have gone to the wall. Some people would have lost money, most wouldn't and things would improve. Instead mountains of money yet to be earned by us, our kids or our grandkids has been poured into banks in order to stop that happening, resulting in more pain and bigger losses felt across the board.

If you want answers, don't bicker about newspapers. Don't bicker about some fanciful ideas about "markets", Jews or the Illuminati. Instead get angry with your politicians because (make no mistake about this) they caused 99% of the problems facing us today.


----------



## devonwoody (15 Dec 2011)

Inflation will cure the above mentioned at a stroke. :wink:


----------



## BigShot (15 Dec 2011)

Must... resist...!
Haha.

On a related note, did you know that in the earpy days of America the punishment for reducing the amount of silver in minted coins (so making more money for a given amount of backing... which is what, class?) was death?
I'm no believer in capital punishment, but I share the sentiment.


----------



## Digit (15 Dec 2011)

On the Press Review on last night's Sky News the Guardian reporter was complaining about 'misleading' reporting by the Express which has a headline about us being wanted to provide 30 billion to bail out the Euro. The article states that it is to fund another IMF attempt to..... bail out the Euro.
So here again it is non-'market' intervention. If the 'markets' could make money out of bailing out the Euro why does the IMF needed to go round cap in hand again?

Roy.


----------



## Sawyer (15 Dec 2011)

Browsing the net the other day, I found a downloadable report entitled: 'Euro Meltdown - how to make astronomical profits from the crisis'. :evil: 

Casino capitalism got us into this mess in the first place and even now, people are seeking to profit. When their greed overreaches itself, everyone suffers. Eg. the sub-prime lending. Yes, Roy, borrowers need to be responsible, but so do lenders and seeking to make a fast buck out of someone who is unlikely to be _able _to pay is asking for trouble.

Whatever happens, expect another fine mess in roughly 10 years time. 20 years time. 30 years time. Unless of course, humanity destroys itself and the planet first.


----------



## Digit (15 Dec 2011)

If borrowers didn't go looking for loans they can't repay they wouldn't get them, next you'll be blaming the corner shop owner for lung cancer, personal responsiblity seems to be a thing of the past.
I note today that the Czech PM stated that he and the Hungarian PM would be unlikely to sign up for the new EU initiative unless the tax harmonisation clause was abandoned, seems that where HMG led others will follow.

Roy.


----------



## Karl (15 Dec 2011)

Sawyer":kkgv0z8s said:


> but so do lenders and seeking to make a fast buck out of someone who is unlikely to be _able _to pay is asking for trouble.



I think the problems which have arisen to date are as a result of these dodgy loans being wrapped up in financial instruments so complex that the people who made them up don't understand them. Which is why they weren't bothered about whether the loans were good or not (hence the explosion of the Sub Prime sector). In Robert Peston's excellent programme the other night - RBS bought ABN Amro, thinking it to have an asset base of £billion's. When everything was unravelled, it was pretty much worth £Nil.

Cheers

Karl


----------



## Digit (15 Dec 2011)

And Greece is supposed to have used some very dodgy accounting to have got into the Euro in the first place, so distrusted were they that before the most recent cash handover took place the EU sent in accountants to look at Greece's books. But seeing as the EU hasn't been able to get its own accounts approved for 17? yrs....

Roy.


----------



## soulboy (15 Dec 2011)

BigShot":35zrovus said:


> Must... resist...!
> Haha.
> On a related note, did you know that in the earpy days of America.



would that be the wyatt earpy days? :twisted: 
dont mean any offence BigShot, too pedantic for my own good. chris


----------



## RogerS (15 Dec 2011)

BigShot":utzwr3em said:


> The markets don't make money. They are not some malevolent force working against us. Importantly, they are not the 1%.
> Boom and bust is caused by market manipulation, that is, inflation, taxation, government borrowing, governments using and encouraging steady increases in house pricing and so on.
> 
> Derivatives aren't a big deal and as they only make money from other people involved in trading stocks, commodities, currencies and so on. You shouldn't care that someone made a killing from shorting FTSE when thing went wobbly back in 2008 because unless you were playing that game (or had an incompetent playing it for you) and got it wrong, it didn't cost you.
> ...



Oh God..where do I start? At random...

Derivatives aren't a big deal and as they only make money from other people involved in trading stocks, commodities, currencies and so on. You shouldn't care that someone made a killing from shorting FTSE when thing went wobbly back in 2008 because unless you were playing that game (or had an incompetent playing it for you) and got it wrong, it didn't cost you.

For every trade where someone makes money, someone else loses and that affects ultimately you and me. 

What they are trading are intangible. You cannot touch them. In themselves they offer no intrinsic value to society. The whole world financial system was based on a sea of sand. Entire economies...see Iceland...were built on these ephemeral objects. Politicians did not create them....they might have allowed the regulatory system to be too lax (pace Brown and his little loose governance triumvirate)...but it was the banks that created this monster. And it is this monster....nothing but nothing else...that has got us into this situation.

Of course, they were aided and abetted by everyone who wanted to buy a house, take out a credit card, run up massive credit bills because it was made so so easy.


----------



## Digit (15 Dec 2011)

I _think_ we are tending to talk on two different subjects, personal debts versus government debts, this is the BBC's take on Greece....

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j& ... IQ&cad=rja

... the market, ie, banks, simply are not taking up Greece's debts, we are!
As even France now seems to be having second thoughts on their cobbled up agreement, what chance Greece and the rest of the Eurozone?

Roy.


----------



## BigShot (16 Dec 2011)

Soulboy - I don't know how I missed that one. :lol:
What an appropriate typo. I got a good laugh out of that so thanks. 


RogerS - stocks, commodities, derivatives, futures, forex... the whole thing is built on the same principle of profit and loss as derivatives. You can't separate derivatives out from the rest in an outrage against someone profiting while someone else loses. What's your alternative? Yet more (bigger and more expensive government)? State ownership of everything?


We need governments to STOP bailing out private businesses. When they fail they should fail with heavy consequences for those who mae it or allowed it to happen. That is, those in charge of them at the time.
Corner shops, chains, franchises, supermarkets, manufacturing firms and more besides operate on a simple principle. Do it right and succeed, do it wrong and go out of business. It is this that stops them doing really stupid things and getting stung. it's also that that punishes those who do it wrong.
The simple fact that the banks and bundles that caused the lending crisis (along with an inflated housing market and so on) were acting in full knowledge that there was almost no chance at all that they were "too big to fail" is the reason they were so reckless.

They were a major cause - but they were only that cause because our governments are so utterly clueless about how capitalism works and so utterly irresponsible with their power and so derelict in their duty that they produced a situation where this whole mess could happen in the first place.

Without the downside, capitalism is a complete monster - and it's the governments which have removed that downside. They deserve the totality of our anger.

As someone who should really know about these things famously said "if they're too big to fail, they're too big".


----------



## devonwoody (16 Dec 2011)

Dont you lot side with me, inflation will cure the problem.

Afterall Germany knows all about it, remember they had 1000% inflation or what ever figure it was, and twelve years later had a fighting machine that nearly conquered Europe in the 40's.

(They apparently found 50 billion euros in one of the banks (last week) they had taken over last year, they know how to cure debt problems :wink:


----------



## Digit (16 Dec 2011)

The major problem with capitalism Bigshot is that we don't really have a workable alternative, as Devon says, inflation will like ease some of the problem.

Roy.


----------



## BigShot (16 Dec 2011)

Inflation destroys the money people have worked hard to save. It's like being taxed yet again.
Germany was a military superpower after hyperinflation because inflation crippled the country and paved the way for a dictator so awful that two subsequent generations have almost entirely stopped using his first name and stopped wearing a moustache like he wore. Inflation didn't solve their problems... it caused their problems and led to Hitler, WW2 and concentration camps.

The solution to national debt is allowing failing companies to fail, providing favourable conditions (employment law and taxation) for companies to set up here and letting capitalism work like it should. We can't do most of what we need to do without breaking EU rules so our only options are to wipe out savings with inflation, pray things don't get worse and continue trusting one of the most corrupt political regimes on the face of the planet to save us instead of just getting on with things ourselves.
It's not "Little Britain" - it's providing the conditions needed for the people on these islands to prosper in a way they cannot otherwise.


Digit - I don't think lack of a workable alternative is any sort of problem with capitalism. I think capitalism is FAR better than any conceivable alternative - the problem is interference with capitalism and failing to allow it to take its natural, self-correcting course by bailing out failing companies at the taxpayer's expense.


----------



## Modernist (17 Dec 2011)

BigShot":19at6bqu said:


> The solution to national debt is allowing failing companies to fail, providing favourable conditions (employment law and taxation) for companies to set up here and letting capitalism work like it should. We can't do most of what we need to do without breaking EU rules so our only options are to wipe out savings with inflation, pray things don't get worse and continue trusting one of the most corrupt political regimes on the face of the planet to save us instead of just getting on with things ourselves.
> It's not "Little Britain" - it's providing the conditions needed for the people on these islands to prosper in a way they cannot otherwise.
> 
> 
> Digit - I don't think lack of a workable alternative is any sort of problem with capitalism. I think capitalism is FAR better than any conceivable alternative - the problem is interference with capitalism and failing to allow it to take its natural, self-correcting course by bailing out failing companies at the taxpayer's expense.



Before you get too carried away I suggest you take a look at the consequences of unfettered capitalism in the USA. A large underclass trapped in poverty, poor industrial efficiency, huge social division, sustained by the exploitation of finite natural resources, backed up by acquisition of more through serial warfare. I don't think their domestic financial position looks too rosy either and they have no record of imposing constructive change on the population who believe they are free.


----------



## Digit (17 Dec 2011)

You seem to have missed/ignored what I said Brian, I said that we lacked a workable alternative, I made no comment as how well or badly capitalism worked or where. Do you have a workable alternative?

Roy.


----------



## Modernist (17 Dec 2011)

Digit":3chkxfex said:


> You seem to have missed/ignored what I said Brian, I said that we lacked a workable alternative, I made no comment as how well or badly capitalism worked or where. Do you have a workable alternative?
> 
> Roy.



We don't need an alternative. Capitalism works well providing the excesses are controlled. What happened is that the controls were relaxed and inadequate leading to the present crisis.


----------



## Jacob (17 Dec 2011)

BigShot":8dnh3j71 said:


> Inflation destroys the money people have worked hard to save. It's like being taxed yet again......


it also destroys the value of money not earned, or held in excess; stolen, bank bonus, drugs money, inherited, fraud, general exploitation and trickery etc. It also destroys the cost of debt.
Thoroughly good thing in principle as it is highly re-distributive. 
Similar to the Monopoly money share out - it helps keep the game going.
It's inevitable anyway as Monopoly game "winners" find there is less and less to buy, and in any case the losers can't pay the rents. Extrapolate that to the real economy.


----------



## Jacob (17 Dec 2011)

Modernist":2yoa4pjg said:


> Digit":2yoa4pjg said:
> 
> 
> > You seem to have missed/ignored what I said Brian, I said that we lacked a workable alternative, I made no comment as how well or badly capitalism worked or where. Do you have a workable alternative?
> ...


Yes. Modern economies all have the working alternative in place i.e. various re-distributive systems starting mainly with taxation, even in the USA ,which has a very socialist history. (Thomas Paine et al).
The right wing myth is that this is some sort of emergency "nanny state" operation which wouldn't be necessary in a healthy economy/society. Complete nonsense, as history has shown over and over again


----------



## devonwoody (17 Dec 2011)

I was not suggesting inflation was the way to go, but pointing out that Germany is most probably not frightened knowing how it rises again from such a terrible thing.
If things are approaching armageddon on the continent I bet it would allow the same to happen.


----------



## Sawyer (17 Dec 2011)

Digit":1b1wwfrr said:


> The major problem with capitalism Bigshot is that we don't really have a workable alternative,.


The major problem with capitalism is that it fails humanity by causing global poverty, starvation and ceaseless wars.

_'There is no alternative' _was one of Thatcher's favorite lines that generations of propaganda from the capitalist class have persuaded people to believe. 

There is a potential alternative, never properly tried, but it's controversial!


----------



## Digit (17 Dec 2011)

> There is a potential alternative, never properly tried, but it's controversial!



Never one to be backward in coming forward I'll ask! Tells us what it is.

Brian, uncontrolled, most things have detrimental effects. But the Euro's one size fits all is demonstrably a failure, sticking plaster therapy is not likely to solve it's problems.

Roy.


----------



## Modernist (17 Dec 2011)

The introduction of the Euro was always part of a greater plan for an integrated Europe and was pushed in (too) early as it was the one thing that the public could see as most would be too apathetic to get involved in the more complex arguments. 

Much of Europe is effectively more integrated on a day to day basis and is not seen as the monster it is buy our little islanders. Many of the intended benefits e.g. less likelihood of European war have been buried in squabbling about monsters in Brussels which they have fuelled by behaving like almost all politicians do i.e lining their own nests. (Incidentally this has had a hugely beneficial effect on the top end office furniture industry). Nevertheless it is the only practical balance to the power of the markets (lets not ask for any further definitions of that please) and we exclude ourselves at our future peril.

In the broader picture DC will duly be swept aside as the speck of insignificance that he is and history will roll on to some sort of compromise. What is currently at risk is our involvement in that future.

In the short term the only practical answer to the debts is inflation which will arrive as soon as the economy get up off it's knees fuelled by that need and the billions of unsubstantiated "easing" injected by the BOE, not to mention the attraction of the profits then available to the various "professionals". Within ten years we will be back on the unavoidable track with inflating house prices and the recession will just be another spike on the graph.


----------



## Digit (17 Dec 2011)

The idea that it is 'federation or fight' suggests to me that you pros are short of valid arguments in support of your dream
Croatia is now the 28th member of the EU, a country that was recently involved in the sectarian slaughter of it its neighbours.
EU membership has done nothing to unify Cyprus nor stop the attacks in Spain. I assume this arguement is based on the fact that our European neighbours can't be trusted out on their own without a fight breaking out. The EU president stated in words of one syllable that it was federation or WW3, tells us 'little Englanders' a great deal about our neighbours does it not?
And frankly I fail to see how federation would prevent a conflict, it didn't do so elsewhere.

Roy.


----------



## Modernist (17 Dec 2011)

I said "less likelihood" not prevent.


----------



## Digit (17 Dec 2011)

Thus you are saying that if the EU goes down the pan there is a 'liklihood' of conflict. Do you not see this as the best possible argument for us keeping well away from them? In recent years Europe has witnessed the mass slaughter of people simply because of their religion or ethnicity and and still has troops keeping the peace between them, and Clegg reckon that _we_ are xenophobes! Ye Gods!
It is worth noting I think that the last Balkan conflict was between federal states!

Roy.


----------



## Modernist (17 Dec 2011)

Digit":16bb2t4w said:


> Thus you are saying that if the EU goes down the pan there is a 'liklihood' of conflict. Do you not see this as the best possible argument for us keeping well away from them? In recent years Europe has witnessed the mass slaughter of people simply because of their religion or ethnicity and and still has troops keeping the peace between them, and Clegg reckon that _we_ are xenophobes! Ye Gods!
> It is worth noting I think that the last Balkan conflict was between federal states!
> 
> Roy.



Maybe it would restrain the UK's tendency to engage in unjust war to prop up failing politicians and lapdog to USA's previously detailed belligerent tendencies. 

I thought one of the saddest interviews I saw recently was a legless US serviceman who said he hoped USA would remain active in warfare in order to provide him with an otherwise unavailable job.

What a wonderful world we have made for our children.


----------



## Digit (17 Dec 2011)

And which nations brought the last Balkans conflict to a halt Brian?

Roy.


----------



## Sawyer (17 Dec 2011)

Digit":2lbi2c00 said:


> > There is a potential alternative, never properly tried, but it's controversial!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
I suspect you've guessed already, but think Marx!
(Don't think Stalin, Mao &c, however, who deviated markedly from the original philosophy).


----------



## Digit (17 Dec 2011)

Whose maxim if I recall correctly is that 'to each according to his needs and from each the best he can give', or words to that effect. And that requires a change in human nature, the only places I know of where it has worked are the kibbutzim, elsewhere it always degenerated into a 'some animals are more equal than others,' situation, because it requires a change in human nature.

Roy.


----------



## BigShot (17 Dec 2011)

Modernist":3d3fsava said:


> Before you get too carried away I suggest you take a look at the consequences of unfettered capitalism in the USA.


The USA has no such thing.
The government is bought and sold by big businesses (military, oil, pharma and agri especially), they are among the worst offenders in bailing out failing giants and generally a completely non-capitalist system.
Every comment I made about capitalism (as a system, not capitalist entities individually) here being meddled with applies equally or more so over there.

I don't think we want to get into a discussion about the effect of socialist legislation on job creation (minimum wage, employment taxes and so on) or the disastrous effect state education, medical legislation, social planning and so on have had on the poor of America. It's kinda off topic, but if you want to draw the problem of poverty in the USA as a criticism of "unfettered capitalism" when it's almost entirely down to other issues it must be responded to.


As we're getting to Marxism, it's time for me to step out. Quite apart from the hijackings that have gone on in the various revolutions, it's a reprehensible system which has far, far too many inherent problems to be considered a serious option. It worries me that so many people promote it apparently without seeing that.
I won't be drawn further on this though as it's a deeply technical and philosophical area and one in which I have no desire to debate.

...and yes, I have read Marx.


----------



## Digit (17 Dec 2011)

> I have read Marx.



Often caused by sitting for too long on park benches I believe!

Roy.


----------



## BigShot (17 Dec 2011)

Now I _know_ I had all the vowels in there. 
(Nicely done though.)


----------



## Digit (17 Dec 2011)

I do my best! 8) 

Roy.


----------



## Sawyer (17 Dec 2011)

Digit":1x9uhbxz said:


> Whose maxim if I recall correctly is that 'to each according to his needs and from each the best he can give', or words to that effect. And that requires a change in human nature, the only places I know of where it has worked are the kibbutzim, elsewhere it always degenerated into a 'some animals are more equal than others,' situation, because it requires a change in human nature.
> 
> Roy.


Human nature is to co-operate for the common good: that's how we became the dominant species. It is also capable of change and evolution according to circumstances, which is why we are (I hope) a tad more civilised than two million years ago. We still have some way to go, however. 

Kibbutzim appears to be a good example!


----------



## Digit (17 Dec 2011)

> Human nature is to co-operate for the common good:



Tell me, did you miss all the recent wars?



> which is why we are (I hope) a tad more civilised than two million years ago.



As an avid student of archaeology I can not see one shred of evidence in support of that statement.

Roy.


----------



## devonwoody (18 Dec 2011)

BigShot":253bwdqc said:


> Now I _know_ I had all the vowels in there.
> (Nicely done though.)




it took me a few seconds to catch on to that one. :mrgreen:


----------



## devonwoody (18 Dec 2011)

Anyway, the crash looks like its coming.

I see there was a report that our government is making plans to repatriate British citizens back from Spain & Portugal should the Euro go t i ts up. (should be down I would have thought)


----------



## Sawyer (18 Dec 2011)

> Human nature is to co-operate for the common good
> 
> 
> > Tell me, did you miss all the recent wars?


Point taken Roy; but wars are an inevitable consequence of global capitalism/imperialism.
Moreover, whilst wars themselves call for an exceptionally high level of human co-operation, a more tragic waste and abuse of that quality can scarcely be imagined.



> which is why we are (I hope) a tad more civilised than two million years ago
> 
> 
> > As an avid student of archaeology I can not see one shred of evidence in support of that statement


Alright, I'll take the bait!!  As woodworkers, surely we agree that furniture is civilised? I suspect archaeological evidence would support my own view that furniture has advanced somewhat over the last 2 million years.

Whether it has _continued _to advance over the past 50 is another question (and preferably another thread :!: ) :wink:


----------



## Digit (18 Dec 2011)

Look at this way Sawyer, if I start to agree with you how are we gonna spend the day? :lol: 
You may know from some of my earlier prattlings that some time ago I had cancer, since then I take very little seriously, but I do enjoy a debate, preferably with someone whose views I disagree with, (difficult to have one with those you agree with! :lol: )
This is where me and you know who diverge, I like to hear other's opinions and respect their right to them without being insulted.
As to are we becoming more civilised, in general I think the movement is in that direction, the existance of the international court would suggest that.

Roy.


----------



## coyot (18 Dec 2011)

"We have become morally ill because we are used to saying one thing and thinking another...We have learned not to believe in anything, not to care about each other...Love, friendship, mercy, humility, or forgiveness have lost their depths and dimension...They represent some sort of psychological curiosity, or they appear as long-lost wanderers from faraway times.” 

199?

to remember Czech anti-communist dissident, playwright and former president 

Vaclav Havel

Oct 5th 1936 - Dec 18 2011


RIP


----------



## Sawyer (18 Dec 2011)

Digit":1yl59ww1 said:


> You may know from some of my earlier prattlings that some time ago I had cancer, Roy.



Wasn't aware of that, Roy and sincerely hope that you have it well and truly defeated.


----------



## Digit (18 Dec 2011)

That was 4 yrs ago Sawer so fingers crossed I'm in the clear, the point was that you look at things differently after that.
I took over a failing plant some years ago and was warned that on top of all its problems Tony, the shop steward, was a Trot and a member of the awkward squad.
I was on the shop floor one day and he started on me as a member of the management, he was beligerent and had a go at me about my rapid promotions, I pointed out that effort will aways rise to the top.
His reply was, 'so will scum!'
I'm not sure what response he expected but I thought it was a brilliant riposte and burst out laughing!
I got to know him quite well after that and not unaturally we discussed his politics, I could not agree with them, but I only found that out by listening to what he had to say of course.
It is difficult to hold a reasoned debate with someone who believes that anyone with a different view is a moron.

Roy.


----------



## Lons (19 Dec 2011)

Digit":af10u9l1 said:


> we discussed his politics, I could not agree with them, but I only found that out by listening to what he had to say of course.
> It is difficult to hold a reasoned debate with someone who believes that anyone with a different view is a moron. Roy.




=D> =D> 

And the ONLY way anyone can have a balanced outlook Roy 

=D> =D>


----------



## Digit (19 Dec 2011)

> And the ONLY way anyone can have a balanced outlook Roy



Couldn't agree more.

Roy.


----------



## Lons (19 Dec 2011)

My Dad, bless him, was an intelligent man who wasted his life down the mines. He was however bigotted, blinkered and an unwavering dyed in the wool labour and union man as are so many in parts of the North East where they can elect monkeys (and have) into politics without effort.
He would listen to no one and always resorted to shouting down and bullying tactics as soon as he was losing an "argument", following which he would turn it on it's head.

We had a falling out when I refused to be bullied in to voting labour and would not reveal which party got my X on the ballot paper which enraged him as he realised he could no longer control my actions  

Only in later life when he took up the mantle of union shop steward did he open his eyes and came to realise just how distorted the views of the general membership were and how easily the "sheep" (his words), were manipulated.

He was shattered when he began to accept how his attitude and beliefs had collapsed around him and spent his last years in remorse. He had emphysema from the mines and entitled to compensation. I had to handle his claim due to his illness and he couldn't believe the attitude of his beloved union in respect of his case.
They also insisted on a sizeable % of his potential award as a "voluntary" donation even though all legal costs were being paid by the government. When I queried this, I was told in no uncertain terms by the then local secretary of the union (now an MP) that should I transfer his case to another company, "his notes and all files would be mislaid". :shock: How bad is that? He wouldn't let me take it further and signed the forms. :evil: 
The award of only £8000 was not paid until after his death and they succeeded in "appropriating" a sizeable chunk of that from my mother who at 70 really needed the money.

Don't get me wrong. He was a good father in most ways and life was difficult for him. Neither do I have any issues with trade unions or the labour party (Only with a couple of the uneducated idiots who were so easily elected to power).
Each has its place, it's individuals who use the system purely for their own benefit which irritates me.

Bob


----------



## BigShot (19 Dec 2011)

Wow.
Lons, I too have no issue with unions per se... though I find the British model for the unions somewhat poor in comparison with the more forward-thinking ones in other countries... but that story pushed even my jaded view of the unions further than it's been before. It was familiar stuff right up to the part where they gouged a lifetime, loyal member for a cut of his compensation... an utterly disgusting move.


----------



## Digit (19 Dec 2011)

I, in my time, have been a senior exec and a shop steward. The union fought a case for me and were very good to me.
Later, when I was on the opposite side of the table I was forced on more than one occasion to protect workers from vicious individuals who acted under the cloak of stewardship.
At the plant where I was an exec one of my best friends was works convenor, and many a lunchtime pint and debates we enjoyed.
But to use his phrase when on union business, those other meetings, 'never happened.'

Roy.


----------



## BigShot (19 Dec 2011)

Digit":2r5jgtvp said:


> I, in my time, have been a senior exec and a shop steward. The union fought a case for me and were very good to me.
> Later, when I was on the opposite side of the table I was forced on more than one occasion to protect workers from vicious individuals who acted under the cloak of stewardship.
> At the plant where I was an exec one of my best friends was works convenor, and many a lunchtime pint and debates we enjoyed.
> But to use his phrase when on union business, those other meetings, 'never happened.'
> ...


Digit - there are, of course, cases where unions fight cases for members - and when the member is in a more-than-rank-and-file position, or the issue is one with political/public implications they are pretty good at it too... but when you're just a lowly subs-payer things can be quite different.
I've seen union-members of decades-long standing be left utterly un-helped by their union when being hounded out of a job. It's only blind luck she managed to find a job in a different area before they managed to finish the process of sacking her due to a personal vendetta.
I'm not 100%, but I believe she is in Unison - not exactly a union that never does anything, but does seem somewhat inclined to the public song-and-dance and from what I've seen, somewhat less inclined to helping out someone in a normal job, with no union responsibility who was subject to some appalling treatment by management.

Nice to hear your mate could separate business from pleasure. I've known far too many union types who sounded like they were about to tell people to "down tools" in a social setting.


----------



## Digit (19 Dec 2011)

He made a hit with my wife by stating, 'I like Roy, he makes me look intelligent!' :lol: 

Roy.


----------



## BigShot (19 Dec 2011)

Good one.
Make your next post a good one too... 8888 takes a LOT of typing to reach.


----------

