Jump to content

economic situation is dire


Recommended Posts

  • VT Supporter
But he does not meet with the banks first thats the differnce.

What exactly is the big difference? They both have biased agendas that aren't necessarily for the greater good of the country. Influence does not equal ownership was my sole point.

Make Cuts - says who..? Take a look at britains book after the second world war and compare them to now.

And for how long are you going to run a deficit? You can't necessarily compare post-war economics to present day economics. How much room is there in the British economy for revenue increase and how much are you willing to bet at that increase taking place?

Where Did I say I was a Socialist.

So you don't what socialism? You just want better regulation of the market economy and the banking sector?

Why not - that sums it up nicely...?

That doesn't answer my question...? :)

Its got a lot to do with the big picture.

Then what are you going to do about it?

Lots of people think that Torries are Scum if you live in liverpool, wales scotland and lots of places in England.

That doesn't necessarily make tories scum. Just as your left-wing views don't make you a marxist maniac.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • VT Supporter
Pretty much yes.

Then I suppose our definitions of "screwed" differ slightly.

No, I don't. I don't want my banks to be usurers.

It's guff. It;'s guff that makes a lot of people rich, I'll grant you - it's still guff. It may drag people along too - for as long as it's good.

Then let's do our best to keep it good. No need to go too far.

People don't live 'on average' or as statistical deviations.

Though 'on the whole' most people may x, that requires some (or a lot) of peolple to live without x, y z or any other statistical, academic piece of utter shitspeak.

No, they certainly don't. Be that as it may macro data is a useful tool for comparison and evalution of entities larger than a couple of scores of people. You can't say judge a country on the back of the fates of a small sample of individuals (please read this as a general point. I am not suggesting that poverty in Britain only concerns "a small sample of individuals").

'Compared to just about any other nation...' - are those nations starving nations by any chance? Are they other nations that are also **** up?

Your comments are the equivalent of the matron telling a child to eat up because there are starving people who would be grateful of their parsnips

They are not necessarily starving nations. They are nations who enjoy a lower standard of living than that enjoyed by the vast majority of people in Western Europe. My ONLY point is that Britain is relatively well off. I fail to see how that is in any way condescending or in any way suggests ignorance of those who suffer.

Of course it isn't and I very much doubt I have suggested that.

Then what was the point of your "try living here at the bottom" comment?

They may well do - a lot don't.

Too many don't, I agree. Again, what's your point?

Your comments appear to marginalize (whether intentionally or not) the large number of people who do struggle in this apparently first world economy (again try living in it) and your comments, as suggested above, seem to fall in to the category of the comfortable middle class who tell the poor that they ought to be grateful because they aren't as poor as they could be.

I am not trying to marginalize, I was merely trying to contextualise. I'm not telling anyone to be grateful for anything. I was just trying to say that Britain is not a horrible place. It could and probably should be a better place but it is not a horrible place. I fail to see how that is in any way controversial.

Your comments are a feudalistic sop - a pseudo-acedemic doffing of a cap to the 'masters of our universe'.

Oh do behave. I don't know where the feudalism comes in. I am certainly not a pseudo-academic and I don't doff a cap to anyone.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • VT Supporter

If you believe in capitalism you don't want socialism.

If you believe in capitalism then you're a moron.

Gee, thanks.

It wasn't meant to be personal.

It was meant to point out the idiocy of 'believing' in an economic system

Well I believe it works. What word would you rather have me use?

Link to post
Share on other sites

We don't just need banks though. We need the banking industry. And we need the banking industry to be able to take risks and we need them to have incentives. Regulations should be better but we shouldn't choke the banking industry in our quest for better regulation.

If you believe in capitalism you don't want socialism.

We also need risks to actually, you know, carry risk.

At the moment we've proven they do not. If you take risks and fail in the banking industry it doesn't matter, you'll get a bailout. The people who made the bad decisions still get rewarded with their huge salaries. There's no actual risk involved as the banks are "too big to fail".

If you believe in capitalism you'd be able to look around and see we don't live in a capitalist society. There's been far too much state intervention for that to be true. We live in a society that supports big business (banks are just businesses after all) at the expense of the individual. In capitalism there's no such thing as being too big to fail, if you **** up then that's it, you're done. It's that risk that lets the system grow and evolve. When the risk isn't there the market stagnates and innovation disappears and exploitation appears in its place.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course it isn't and I very much doubt I have suggested that.

Then what was the point of your "try living here at the bottom" comment?

The comment was in response to your 'Times are tough, but Britain is still a decent place to live' comment.

My point, therefore, was that for some people it is not a decent place to live.

I fail to see how that is in any way controversial.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you believe in capitalism you don't want socialism.

If you believe in capitalism then you're a moron.

Gee, thanks.

It wasn't meant to be personal.

It was meant to point out the idiocy of 'believing' in an economic system

then maybe one ought to express ones self a bit better instead of littering a thread with insults and trolling ....

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • VT Supporter

Of course it isn't and I very much doubt I have suggested that.

Then what was the point of your "try living here at the bottom" comment?

The comment was in response to your 'Times are tough, but Britain is still a decent place to live' comment.

My point, therefore, was that for some people it is not a decent place to live.

I fail to see how that is in any way controversial.

Im with Michelsen on this one, as harsh as it sounds I think the majority of us are unaffected by the recession. Its not a gloating point but amongst my friends I dont have one out of work. A few have lost and found jobs again quite easily. Most are benefitting from significantly lower mortgage costs. Energy and petrol costs are increased but the supermarket is as cheap as its been for a while.

Im sure at the bottom it is tough and I have sympathy for those but who are but I honestly think you could live in a worse country. We have a benefits system, we have social housing and we have the NHS.

Link to post
Share on other sites

quote="Michelsen"]

But he does not meet with the banks first thats the differnce.

What exactly is the big difference? They both have biased agendas that aren't necessarily for the greater good of the country. Influence does not equal ownership was my sole point.

What exactly is the big difference between trade Unions...?

Are you being serious...?

The point that your suggesting there is little difference between trade Union and Banks is comedy gold it really is...!

I will give you a clue. One organisation has helped ruin the global economy which has caused mass record levels of unemployment, University fee increases, Pension increases, closures of youth clubs and libraries ect ect.

The other helps defend you in your work place and fights for better working rights for million in the country.

Are yo

Make Cuts - says who..? Take a look at britains book after the second world war and compare them to now.

And for how long are you going to run a deficit? You can't necessarily compare post-war economics to present day economics. How much room is there in the British economy for revenue increase and how much are you willing to bet at that increase taking place?

The point I was trying to make is these cuts are partly Ideological. Irrespective of the time difference debt is debt.

How much were we in debt after the war and when did Britain introduce the NHS....?

Where Did I say I was a Socialist.

So you don't what socialism? You just want better regulation of the market economy and the banking sector?

When did I say that. All I want is fairness and equality for the masses and not the minority.

Would you want the following figures to be higher lower or stay the same “ 70% of the worlds wealth to be owned by 1% of the worlds population.

Why not - that sums it up nicely...?

That doesn't answer my question...? :)

Ditto.

Its got a lot to do with the big picture.

Then what are you going to do about it?

Worry about your self Jeeves.

Lots of people think that Torries are Scum if you live in liverpool, wales scotland and lots of places in England.

That doesn't necessarily make tories scum. Just as your left-wing views don't make you a marxist maniac.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In capitalism there's no such thing as being too big to fail, if you **** up then that's it, you're done. It's that risk that lets the system grow and evolve. When the risk isn't there the market stagnates and innovation disappears and exploitation appears in its place.

This, bang on the button, cartels flourish. The more i read about our system the more it seems to be wrong.

"The coporation of the city of London", 9000 residents and an MP.....how does that work? Their own police force, 3 private schools.......

London weighting, another artificial method to support a system thats not working, ie if you cant afford to work in London then either raise your prices or don't work there.

The power companies have a monopoly. We have to pay for our water that drops from the skys ffs.

Big business has the biggest lobby of any of our sectors of society. The unions represent most of the countries working population and any lobbying power they have is frowned upon by the press........big business.

The public sector are now being criticised for fighting to keep what they have had for years, they are not changing the playing field, the government are, yet the unions get the stick, why?

Link to post
Share on other sites

In capitalism there's no such thing as being too big to fail, if you **** up then that's it, you're done. It's that risk that lets the system grow and evolve. When the risk isn't there the market stagnates and innovation disappears and exploitation appears in its place.

This, bang on the button, cartels flourish. The more i read about our system the more it seems to be wrong.

"The coporation of the city of London", 9000 residents and an MP.....how does that work? Their own police force, 3 private schools.......

London weighting, another artificial method to support a system thats not working, ie if you cant afford to work in London then either raise your prices or don't work there.

The power companies have a monopoly. We have to pay for our water that drops from the skys ffs.

Big business has the biggest lobby of any of our sectors of society. The unions represent most of the countries working population and any lobbying power they have is frowned upon by the press........big business.

The public sector are now being criticised for fighting to keep what they have had for years, they are not changing the playing field, the government are, yet the unions get the stick, why?

DEF agree.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • VT Supporter

In capitalism there's no such thing as being too big to fail, if you **** up then that's it, you're done. It's that risk that lets the system grow and evolve. When the risk isn't there the market stagnates and innovation disappears and exploitation appears in its place.

This, bang on the button, cartels flourish. The more i read about our system the more it seems to be wrong.

"The coporation of the city of London", 9000 residents and an MP.....how does that work? Their own police force, 3 private schools.......

London weighting, another artificial method to support a system thats not working, ie if you cant afford to work in London then either raise your prices or don't work there.

The power companies have a monopoly. We have to pay for our water that drops from the skys ffs.

Big business has the biggest lobby of any of our sectors of society. The unions represent most of the countries working population and any lobbying power they have is frowned upon by the press........big business.

The public sector are now being criticised for fighting to keep what they have had for years, they are not changing the playing field, the government are, yet the unions get the stick, why?

Agree with everything but the final part. Pensions have to change as people are living longer than when the current retirement age was set. Its painful but with an ageing population we need to work longer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In capitalism there's no such thing as being too big to fail, if you **** up then that's it, you're done. It's that risk that lets the system grow and evolve. When the risk isn't there the market stagnates and innovation disappears and exploitation appears in its place.

This, bang on the button, cartels flourish. The more i read about our system the more it seems to be wrong.

"The coporation of the city of London", 9000 residents and an MP.....how does that work? Their own police force, 3 private schools.......

London weighting, another artificial method to support a system thats not working, ie if you cant afford to work in London then either raise your prices or don't work there.

The power companies have a monopoly. We have to pay for our water that drops from the skys ffs.

Big business has the biggest lobby of any of our sectors of society. The unions represent most of the countries working population and any lobbying power they have is frowned upon by the press........big business.

The public sector are now being criticised for fighting to keep what they have had for years, they are not changing the playing field, the government are, yet the unions get the stick, why?

Agree with everything but the final part. Pensions have to change as people are living longer than when the current retirement age was set. Its painful but with an ageing population we need to work longer.

We already work longer than most of the rest of Europe. We most certainly do not need to work longer. This is a red Herring propogated by the wealthy to avoid having to share their immense wealth in order to p;rovide for the many. Company Directors incomes increased by an obscene 47% last year. Lets target those with the deepest pockets, not the final pensions of those who have worked all their lives for what in most cases are quite small pensions.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Agree with everything but the final part. Pensions have to change as people are living longer than when the current retirement age was set. Its painful but with an ageing population we need to work longer".

If we can spend 40 million a day in Libiya setting fire to it and let the wealthiest people get away with billions and billion in Tax evasion. Then I will think you will find we have enough for Pensions.

Dont believe the hype.

Link to post
Share on other sites
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of use Terms of Use, Cookies We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.

Â