TheDon Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 We should actively endeavour to import less and produce more - manufacturing, construction, engineering, technology - "stuff". We should actively make drastic changes to our econonomy. It's utterly bioased towards parasitic activities that create nothing and add no value But then you're basically saying that our surplus should come at the expense of another countries deficit, is that not a parasitic activity in itself? Unless no one makes a profit, someone has to pick up the tab. That's either governments, companies, or households. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 But then you're basically saying that our surplus should come at the expense of another countries deficit, is that not a parasitic activity in itself? Unless no one makes a profit, someone has to pick up the tab. That's either governments, companies, or households. Arguably not parasitic if the surplus on foreign trade doesn't exist every year, and participating countries are content with what they do and are relatively good at it. We could export wind energy to Spain and Italy in return for olive oil and wine, for example. But if the deal is that we export finance "services" or some other hookey activity, and in return other countries toil in sweatshops to provide us with trainers and Iphones, that may not be too sustainable. The US and China are interesting here. The US has for a very long time been engaged in the most stunningly wasteful conspicuous consumption, made possible because countries like China have been willing to let it do so in return for a pile of IOUs. That's not sustainable either. One thing that we should definitely be doing is preparing for a time when we can't just place an order abroad for more energy, or food, or clothing. Modern economies are too interdependent, too prone to crashes from minor disruption. How many days fuel shortage would it take to make our current food distribution networks collapse completely, with all the central distribution points and just-in-time ordering? And what happens then, when people have no food? Social breakdown is seriously scary. Making the economy more resilient should be a top priority, but I see no interest in it compared to flogging more cars, or getting the house price bubble inflated again, or other nonsense. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 couldn't agree more with the sentiments at the end of that post As a country we've decided to be a 'player', to get stuck in and change the politics of other countries and to export arms and keep a seat at the big table. But just below the surface, we are 48 hours from meltdown. We have a knee jerk reaction to hearing of or suspecting shortage that fulfils its own fears (it's actually a perfectly sensible reflex) but that is coupled with food distribution that is spectacularly vulnerable. We spend money on bullets and satellites to defend ourselves, yet we have no food security. Perhaps we need to spend a little less on nuclear submarines and grow our own food and source our own energy. I don't mean to sound like a prepper, but it feels pretty basic. It creates jobs and distributes wealth and leads to productive non destructive exports too. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 How much tax does Michael Green pay? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 Do something about 'the stock'? Did Johnson just say that (I may have not heard it correctly)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 Telegraph leader calls for Mitchell to step down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 Telegraph leader calls for Mitchell to step down. as is Yvette Cooper now out of interest is allegedly swearing at a policeman less serious , the same or more serious than say engaging in a fist fight with a member of the public ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markavfc40 Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 out of interest is allegedly swearing at a policeman less serious , the same or more serious than say engaging in a fist fight with a member of the public ? I suppose in what context it is really. If I walk out into the street now and someone attacks me and I punch him to defend myself then I'd say that is fair enough. If however I go out into the street and start verbally abusing a policeman for doing nothing more than doing there job then I 'd say I should be arrested. What do you think? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 as is Yvette Cooper now out of interest is allegedly swearing at a policeman less serious , the same or more serious than say engaging in a fist fight with a member of the public ? Cooper doesn't want him to stand down, of course. It's not allegedly swearing. He admitted it. What he didn't admit was calling them plebs and telling them to know their lowly place in the great chain of being. He didn't deny it, mind - just tried to bluster about "we draw a line under this and move on". You wish. The police continue to call for him to state clearly exactly what he said. This will make him either call them liars or admit what he said. Neither of these options work for Mitchell, so he will have to try to avoid both. Better or worse than instinctively defending yourself when physically attacked? I'd say the characteristics of lying, bullying, threatening ("You haven't heard the last of this") are far more suggestive of unfitness for public office. But in practical terms, he is a public liability, and he is so lacking in respect among tory backbenchers that he can't even do his job. Inevitably, he will have to go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted October 12, 2012 Moderator Share Posted October 12, 2012 But then you're basically saying that our surplus should come at the expense of another countries deficit, is that not a parasitic activity in itself? Unless no one makes a profit, someone has to pick up the tab. That's either governments, companies, or households. Parasitic? No. I look at it like this. If we make as a country, (say) water-pumps, we sell them to an arid country, to help with irrigation. We have a surplus, them a defecit. In due course, arid country's improved yield of oranges, or bananas, or coffee or whatever, leads them to sell us fruit we can't grow ourselves. They have a surplus, we have a defecit. That's obviously ridiculously simplified, but it's not parasitic, it's mutually beneficial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 I suppose in what context it is really. If I walk out into the street now and someone attacks me and I punch him to defend myself then I'd say that is fair enough. If however I go out into the street and start verbally abusing a policeman for doing nothing more than doing there job then I 'd say I should be arrested. What do you think? The Mitchell thing seems to be more about is he fit for holding a position that he does rather than did he break any law ... thus why I raised the example I did and the apparent hypocrisy from Cooper, whether or not Prescott was justified in his over reaction he was the deputy PM at the time and his actions were clearly not befitting of a man in that position .... NB most other politicians that have been egged etc have brushed it off and carried on their way , rather than street brawling I think it's interesting that when it comes to the students and other acts of protest, it seems to be automatically that the police are lying ..yet when it comes to a Tory MP suddenly the police are guardians of the truth and not to be questioned as to the offences Swearing at a policeman shouldn't be a crime , indeed a judge set a precedent recently didn't he by saying they were adults and that sort of language wouldn't shock them retaliation for an "attack" (giving the benefit of the doubt that having an egg thrown at you is an attack" , is a tough one , i suspect if it were you or I we would have been taken away for questioning and charged .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 This has received little attention as far as I can see, but one of the three candidates for the job of Governor of the Bank of England is suggesting more radical policies which amount to straightforward printing money (rather than the more circuitous quantitative easing) and writing off debt, which places him in Steve Keen/David Graeber territory. Osborne decides who to give the job to in December, so I suppose Turner must be assuming Osborne won't understand what he is saying on this, or it would rule him out completely. "QE alone may be subject to declining marginal impact," he said. He called for "a willingness to employ still more innovative and unconventional policies". He did not expand on this, but it is understood he believes the Bank of England should consider telling the Treasury it never has to repay some of the £375bn of government debts the Bank acquired through quantitative easing, BBC business editor Robert Peston says. As it does not involve injecting money through loans that are expected to be paid back, as quantitative easing is, it is more akin to printing money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 The Mitchell thing seems to be more about is he fit for holding a position that he does rather than did he break any law He clearly broke a law. He has admitted it. The question for the police was whether they felt his action should have resulted in arrest. The police on site didn't, and a more senior officer commenting on it on the radio later said he should have been arrested. From outside, it looks like he was treated differently, and better, because of who he is and the position he holds - and possibly also because the officers feared all the grief they would get if Downing St complained and their senior officers thought they had acted inappropriately. He is also unfit to hold his position. That's not because he broke this law, but because he threatened, lied, tried to blame the police for his own stupid behaviour, and more damagingly for the tory party, because he gave an embarrassing insight into the mindset of part of their party. ... thus why I raised the example I did and the apparent hypocrisy from Cooper, whether or not Prescott was justified in his over reaction he was the deputy PM at the time and his actions were clearly not befitting of a man in that position .... NB most other politicians that have been egged etc have brushed it off and carried on their way , rather than street brawling False comparison. Most eggings happen from a distance, and there is no possibility of engaging in a fight unless the victim goes over to wheovere threw it. The Prescott case was not like this. The man was next to him, which is why the instinctive reaction of hitting him was even possible. I think it's interesting that when it comes to the students and other acts of protest, it seems to be automatically that the police are lying ..yet when it comes to a Tory MP suddenly the police are guardians of the truth and not to be questioned That's because they have so often been found to be lying, to defend their own actions and to cover up for their colleagues, when they have exceeded their lawful authority, committed criminal assaults and so on. In this case, they did nothing, and there was nothing to cover up. It is very hard to think of a motive for inventing that particular phrase. What could the motive possibly be, do you think? Swearing at a policeman shouldn't be a crime , indeed a judge set a precedent recently didn't he by saying they were adults and that sort of language wouldn't shock them I agree it shouldn't be a crime. However, it is a crime. The choice we have is whether the law applies to the rich and powerful as well as to hoodie-wearers. Plainly, it does not. And that is wrong. retaliation for an "attack" (giving the benefit of the doubt that having an egg thrown at you is an attack" , is a tough one , i suspect if it were you or I we would have been taken away for questioning and charged .... I doubt it, when the police could see that he was attacked first. It would be very odd if they had charged him, as the victim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 How much tax does Michael Green pay? A little research into the product offered by Mr Green. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 Is shyster too strong a word for Mr Green? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markavfc40 Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 Swearing at a policeman shouldn't be a crime , indeed a judge set a precedent recently didn't he by saying they were adults and that sort of language wouldn't shock themretaliation for an "attack" (giving the benefit of the doubt that having an egg thrown at you is an attack" , is a tough one , i suspect if it were you or I we would have been taken away for questioning and charged .... It depends in what context doesn’t it. If you are continually swearing at a Policeman whilst at the same time talking down to them then I’d suggest it should be seen as an offence. As for Prescott I thought at the time it was an instinctive reaction from a guy that clearly stands no **** about. If I was in the same boat and some pratt **** an egg at me from a couple of feet away I’d certainly be looking to make sure I wasn’t going to give him the opportunity to follow it up. In all fairness the Prescott and Mitchell instances are not comparable apart from they were both instinctive reactions. One to an unprovoked attack the other to a Police officer for having the audacity to do there job. The instinctive reaction of Prescott the vast majority of us can I'd imagine understand, sympathise with and justify. The instinctive reaction of Mitchell is thankfully not one which the vast majority of us can defend or align ourselves with. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 Is shyster too strong a word for Mr Green? I'd say it would be a very restrained word. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 In all fairness the Prescott and Mitchell instances are not comparable apart from they were both instinctive reactions. One to an unprovoked attack the other to a Police officer for having the audacity to do their job. The instinctive reaction of Prescott the vast majority of us can I'd imagine understand, sympathise with and justify. The instinctive reaction of Mitchell is thankfully not one which the vast majority of us can defend or align ourselves with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 maybe the new VT site could have a feature that just defaults to putting up a thumbs up for you for anything anti Tory that Ian and Peter write and a thumbs down for anything anti Leftist that Awol and myself write would save you a whole load of trouble , I feel for you both if you think violence is acceptable and wish to align yourself to such a cause .. I for one don't Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 I feel for you both if you think violence is acceptable and wish to align yourself to such a cause .. I for one don't come on Tony, are you really trying to stretch the Prescott point that much? watch the footage again if you haven't lately and you are genuine in your apparent opinion. Prescott was assaulted and went up in my estimation with an instinctive hit back. Prescott's a rough diamond at best, but that egg incident did him no harm in my eyes. I'd like to think I'd have reacted the same way. I'd hate to think I'd ever act like that slime ball tory did. If I had to share the rest of time with Shapps, Mitchell or Prescott it wouldn't take me long to choose (I'd spend longer hiding the food stocks). 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts