tonyh29 Posted March 28, 2009 Share Posted March 28, 2009 ="Gringo"bromance i can assure you that none of number 7 took place ... :shock: a strong romance between two males, but also between two females that fist pound and explode. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted March 28, 2009 Share Posted March 28, 2009 .. :shock:... Maybe not the most appropriate smiley for the 'bromance' discussion. :winkold: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLax Posted March 28, 2009 Share Posted March 28, 2009 It really is a shame the government didn't build up large budget surpluses in the boom years like many other governments just in case we had a down turn. What I can't fathom is how Brown claimed he ended the boom and bust cycle when he wasn't putting money away during the boom years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted March 28, 2009 Share Posted March 28, 2009 It really is a shame the government didn't build up large budget surpluses in the boom years like many other governments just in case we had a down turn. What I can't fathom is how Brown claimed he ended the boom and bust cycle when he wasn't putting money away during the boom years. Good question, I think he believed unending economic growth really was achievable, hence 'no more boom and bust'. That fundamental incromprehension of our economic system (combined with the evidence of the current situation) should disabuse people of the notion that he is the man to fix it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A.J.Rimmer Posted March 28, 2009 Share Posted March 28, 2009 It really is a shame the government didn't build up large budget surpluses in the boom years like many other governments just in case we had a down turn. What I can't fathom is how Brown claimed he ended the boom and bust cycle when he wasn't putting money away during the boom years. Good question, I think he believed unending economic growth really was achievable, hence 'no more boom and bust'. That fundamental incromprehension of our economic system (combined with the evidence of the current situation) should disabuse people of the notion that he is the man to fix it. I agree with both of you here. The fact is that politicians, by their very nature, both borrow and spend all they possibly can in order to 'buy' the next election thus further feathering their own beds. If we believe and accept that the old left/right economic arguments are largely defunct, we are going to need some new ideas for a financially stable and ecologically sound future, which does not rely on never ending growth. Won't be easy. One wonders what people are actually prepared to give up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted March 28, 2009 Share Posted March 28, 2009 It really is a shame the government didn't build up large budget surpluses in the boom years like many other governments just in case we had a down turn. What I can't fathom is how Brown claimed he ended the boom and bust cycle when he wasn't putting money away during the boom years. Good question, I think he believed unending economic growth really was achievable, hence 'no more boom and bust'. That fundamental incromprehension of our economic system (combined with the evidence of the current situation) should disabuse people of the notion that he is the man to fix it. I agree with both of you here. The fact is that politicians, by their very nature, both borrow and spend all they possibly can in order to 'buy' the next election thus further feathering their own beds. If we believe and accept that the old left/right economic arguments are largely defunct, we are going to need some new ideas for a financially stable and ecologically sound future, which does not rely on never ending growth. Won't be easy. One wonders what people are actually prepared to give up? Getting OT here but you're exactly right, and because this fundamental point is being willfully ignored by those responsible for answering it, well, lets see what happens in London this week and how big the ground swell of 'anti' actually is. That will be an interesting gauge of how the public feel imo. The power and vested interests tied up in the current (collective suicide) system are so great that the implications of what would be necessary to overturn them - effectively overturning the rule of the State - are mind boggling, but that's the only logical way of fundamentally changing the future. Carpe Diem? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A.J.Rimmer Posted March 28, 2009 Share Posted March 28, 2009 Getting OT here but you're exactly right, and because this fundamental point is being willfully ignored by those responsible for answering it, well, lets see what happens in London this week and how big the ground swell of 'anti' actually is. That will be an interesting gauge of how the public feel imo. The power and vested interests tied up in the current (collective suicide) system are so great that the implications of what would be necessary to overturn them - effectively overturning the rule of the State - are mind boggling, but that's the only logical way of fundamentally changing the future. Carpe Diem? Again I agree with you, though I doubt demonstrations and the likely bad behaviour of certain factions amongst the crowd will do much to further the cause of reform. As you say, it will be interesting to gauge the public mood, but little else. I usually prefer to be more contenious, but I also agree with your second paragraph... it is very hard to see a way forward, without a fundamental overturning of the system. If we could make one major change, short of total revolution, for which previous historical examples do not bode well, I would opt for a much deeper, more inclusive and fundamental form of democracy, with computer voting on all kinds of different issues, great and small. This may, at least to some extent, make politicians redundant. I'm really not sure where this would lead us; but perhaps people would feel more involved and included in the political process, rather than feeling alienated; thus instead of endlessly blaming the politicians, they might actually take more responsibility for their own lives, rather than rely upon the state. PS I admire your Latin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted March 28, 2009 Share Posted March 28, 2009 PS I admire your Latin. Saepe summa ingenia in occulto latent Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A.J.Rimmer Posted March 28, 2009 Share Posted March 28, 2009 PS I admire your Latin. Saepe summa ingenia in occulto latent I got the first one from 'Ask Oxford'... but this one has me stumped.... please enlighten. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted March 28, 2009 Share Posted March 28, 2009 off the top of my head :winkold: something like ...Frequently, The Greatest Minds Lie Hidden Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted March 28, 2009 Share Posted March 28, 2009 Tony's been at his 'bluffer's guide to (foreign) quotes' book, again. :winkold: (Having looked up the original it seems you, and others, have missed the first word off the sentence. Here is Plautus.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ender4 Posted March 28, 2009 Share Posted March 28, 2009 If we could make one major change, short of total revolution, for which previous historical examples do not bode well, I would opt for a much deeper, more inclusive and fundamental form of democracy, with computer voting on all kinds of different issues, great and small. This may, at least to some extent, make politicians redundant. I'm really not sure where this would lead us; but perhaps people would feel more involved and included in the political process, rather than feeling alienated; thus instead of endlessly blaming the politicians, they might actually take more responsibility for their own lives, rather than rely upon the state. whilst i agree in theory that would be good, in practice there are too many stupid people to allow everyone to vote on everything. The populist direction isn't always the best direction... the most popular newspaper is The Sun, so we would be basically letting Sun readers form the political direction of the country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tegis Posted March 30, 2009 VT Supporter Share Posted March 30, 2009 Obama denies bailout funds for GM and Chrysler And GM CEO resigns. Cant find full story though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gringo Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 And another one bites the dust Dunfermline building society branch The Nationwide is to buy the Dunfermline Building Society's branches, good loans and deposits, it has been confirmed. The mutual was put up for sale after incurring losses of £26m. The Nationwide will also take on Dunfermline's 530 staff, according to the BBC's business editor Robert Peston. The Treasury will take over £1bn of commercial property lending and acquired portfolios of mortgages. The deal with the Nationwide has emerged less than 48 hours after the UK Government announced that the building society was to be put on the market. Robert Peston said Britain's largest building society was the natural buyer of the good parts of the Dunfermline and that it has a strong track record of absorbing weaker societies. He said the deal would also preserve the brand name of the society. There are still Cheshire and Derbyshire branches, even though these two societies have recently been bought by Nationwide. 'Deeply disappointed' Chancellor Alistair Darling had said the Dunfermline would have needed between £60m and £100m to keep it going because of its exposure to risky assets. But the Treasury ruled out a full government bailout after regulators said the move was not sustainable. However, the Dunfermline's outgoing chairman, Jim Faulds, had claimed government funding of £20m-£30m would have helped secure its future and dismissed claims the building society had debts linked to the toxic US sub-prime mortgage market. Mr Faulds said he "warmly welcomed" Nationwide's involvement but was "deeply disappointed" that the government did not provide the support needed for the building society to continue as an independent operation. He said the Nationwide was "a first-class operation" by which existing Dunfermline members would be "well served". But he added: "What we needed was not capital but access to the liquidity scheme and the Financial Services Authority raised the bar for access to the liquidity scheme. "We were not asking for money to be given to us. We were asking for a loan, which would have been repaid with interest. "We could have serviced a loan of between £20-£30m. That's what we think we needed. It would have been secured against a good property book and a social housing book that's rock solid." The Scottish Government had offered money to help keep the Dunfermline going, but did not get Treasury approval for the move. First Minister Alex Salmond has expressed disappointment that the building society could not continue as a going concern. The Dunfermline was founded in the Fife town from which it takes its name in 1869, and has 34 branches. A protest at the sale is planned in the town on Monday morning. However, the local MP, Liberal Democrat Willie Rennie, welcomed the takeover. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 Cant find full story though unless it's on the approved news source list :winkold: then it's no news i'm afraid :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 at least he put a link in though Tony - good to see you abiding by the request of the mods to behave ............NOT! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 Funny how some are seeing any protest this week as anti-gvmt but then supporting the Tory party with vigour. The protestors will be more anti-Tory policy that is for certain Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danversp Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 Obama denies bailout funds for GM and Chrysler And GM CEO resigns. Cant find full story though It is on the BBC, Obama has rejected GM's turnaround plan as unrealistic and asked for the CEO to resign, it is fair to say that GM should go bankrupt under any normal circumstances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 The protestors will be more anti-Tory policy that is for certain And they will probably be wise enough not to care whether it is the Tory policy proposed by Tories or the Tory policy enacted by New Labour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gringo Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 The protestors will be more anti-Tory policy that is for certain And they will probably be wise enough not to care whether it is the Tory policy proposed by Tories or the Tory policy enacted by New Labour.Aye - but it would be amusing to see the streets thronged with thousands protesting against the opposition. Of course the protests are anti-govt - who else would they be protesting against? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts