Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Why the lib-dems are shit

No. butchers despises me. You're not very good at this reading comprehension lark, are you?

I posted a couple of articles earlier. Try reading them. Come back with an informed critique and you might get a more detailed response. Sticking your fingers in your ears and chanting lalala isn't going to win any arguments.
 
only one of us is engaging in a discussion here. there's nothing wrong with post 1228, if there was you'd be all over it like a rash.

instead you're asking me to read some rubbish you posted earlier - not even bothering to offer a link.

say alot about your confidence in debating the points i raised.

oh well....
 
You have not engaged in any debate whatsoever! You have provided nothing to back up your assertions, ignored every attempt from many different posters to explain why your understanding of macroeconomics is horribly flawed, and your last response was the last ditch of the desperate - asking me about my links to someone else who is disagreeing with you.

You have offered only statements on this thread. You've been given plenty of information to work with - by many people - and yet you refuse to even look at it. There's no reason why anyone should put more effort into engaging with you when you're simply intent on insisting that black is white because that's what you thought you read somewhere once.
 
still no link.

**whistles** wonders if he'll state the reasons he opposes post 1228.

i can see no reason why it's wrong. i bet he can't either.

silly boy
 
only one of us is engaging in a discussion here. there's nothing wrong with post 1228, if there was you'd be all over it like a rash.

instead you're asking me to read some rubbish you posted earlier - not even bothering to offer a link.

say alot about your confidence in debating the points i raised.

oh well....

Everything is wrong with post 1228, it's a lot of shit. Money in the UK isn't backed by any tangible assets and hasn't been, arguably since the introduction of the token coinage in 1816. The currency of the UK is backed by the UK economy and confidence in it. This confidence in the UK is what marks the limit of QE before this hyperinflation you talk of results.
 
money has a relative value to a commodity. the commodity is the thing we work for, purchase and consume.

This is wrong for a kick off. It's utterly meaningless in relation to a commodity (you don't know what a commodity is). This will be very easy. What is the value of a commodity?
 
still no link.

**whistles** wonders if he'll state the reasons he opposes post 1228.

i can see no reason why it's wrong. i bet he can't either.

silly boy
It's she. And I already said that the last paragraph shows a glimmer of understanding - but it appears to be there by accident, given the context in which it appears.

The links you requested:

No.

Try reading the full article linked to in Indeed. It's quite shocking how poor the dominant school of economics since the 1980s has been.

Another great article for Edie:
http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/th.../URL].[/QUOTE] [QUOTE="ymu, post: 9045816
 
Everything is wrong with post 1228, it's a lot of shit. Money in the UK isn't backed by any tangible assets and hasn't been, arguably since the introduction of the token coinage in 1816. The currency of the UK is backed by the UK economy and confidence in it. This confidence in the UK is what marks the limit of QE before this hyperinflation you talk of results.

confidence results from being able to purchase goods and services to the agreed value of the currency used. debasing the currency (QE) destroys confidence.

chris rock said he changed $3,000 dollars in the uk and got a loaf of bread :)
 
It's she. And I already said that the last paragraph shows a glimmer of understanding - but it appears to be there by accident, given the context in which it appears.

The links you requested:

another G.I.R.L. (guy in real life) i wrongly diagnosed.

the link won't open in my browser.
 
confidence results from being able to purchase goods and services to the agreed value of the currency used. debasing the currency (QE) destroys confidence.

chris rock said he changed $3,000 dollars in the uk and got a loaf of bread.

You're one thick fucker aren't you? Ignoring for one moment who Chris Rock is and why we shouldn't care what he has to say about economics you do understand that his statement slates the dollar and not the pound don't you? Of course you don't
 
You're one thick fucker aren't you? Ignoring for one moment who Chris Rock is and why we shouldn't care what he has to say about economics you do understand that his statement slates the dollar and not the pound don't you? Of course you don't

it serves to illustrate the erosion of confidence in the dollar, once the currency leaves the U.S. a two tier agreement on the currency's value in relation to commodities.
it's relevant to the discussion about QE in the uk
 
a creditor nation doesn't want the money we create, it wants the commodities our money buys. the only achievable way of doing this
is making commodities in the domestic market available. cuts in public expenditure will ensure those goods aren't consumed as people lose their
jobs and with them their purchasing power.

WTF?

Its not just commodities that they may want to spend our currency on. Other goods and services may be just as desirable.

The creditor nation may be exporting commodities and other stuff to to us, and imports make up a good deal of the domestic consumption that you are calling on us to reduce. If we import less, it will help our balance of trade but it damages the country that is relying on us as a market.

Likewise, if we manufactured, mined etc more stuff that other people wanted to buy, they would have more use for our currency. Not sure why you'd need to slash the public sector etc to achieve that.

As for commodities, our North Sea oil production has dropped massively in a decade and we now have a lot less of it to export. Probably little that can be done about that, and cutting stuff doesnt make enough difference. Yes there are all sorts of scenarios where we could be priced out of the market for a commodity, leaving more available in the global market for others to buy, but I dont think we are quite at that stage yet.

I disagree with any posters who think there arent a load of really big problems of epic proportions that require us to change a lot, yes there is extreme ideology at work here, and making the most of opportunities, but there is other stuff going on too. The problem is that underlying fundamental issues are totally overshadowed by the numerous injustices and general lack of fairness. Imagine for a moment that its not just a load of fiscal shenanigans, and that resource constrains mean we have to massively change our lives and our expectations. Well, there is no chance of doing that in a way that most will go along with when the burden is placed so unfairly upon certain people, whilst others spend their energies in shoring up their own position and wealth, and we are denied detailed information and debates about the underlying realities.

I think it can be hard to ascertain this nations true wealth. In some ways we are well developed and wealthy, in others we are poor and the dodgy systems whose partial-failure and near collapse we may celebrate, were also responsible for allowing us to pretend to be better off than we ought to be. We've still got some potential, but we have to go in a direction quite different to the one e have been travelling in for 30ish years, and this involves the loss of some of the perks that went with the horror.

What is entirely missing at this stage, is the idea that if we must suffer and sacrifice in some way, we should get something in return. And I dont mean that all we get is a lecture in how to be responsible with our own finances from people who were deeply irresponsible with the nations finances. I mean fundamental rights. But right now, before we can get to the stage , we are being stripped of many of the basic rights that were hard won in the past. If they get away with this now, I dont think they will get away with it forever. For if we are to become poorer as a nation, if there is less to go around, then it must be shared more evenly, not less.
 
owning a property isn't a right it's a privilege. most people knew when taking out a mortgage they couldn't afford the repayments, yet did it anyway. there's
nearly 1 million on interest only mortgages and a vast majority of these have no savings to pay off the outstanding balance once the mortgage matures.

these people could rent, and those with families will get properties to live in if they can't afford rental deposits. it's not as though people are being thrown onto the streets.

Its horseshit to say that most people knew they couldnt afford the repayments.

And who sold people on the great dream of home ownership anyway? You cant blame people if they had it hammered into their head for decades that home ownership is what they should aim for, with shitty experiences with landlords reinforcing it, along with the powerful idea that increasing property prices in this country offered a way for many people to substantially increase their personal wealth, perhaps the only true investment theyd ever make. And then they were offered a way to achieve this dream via what seemed like great offers, not knowing quite how exploitative, sloppy and reckless the lenders were being.

Well its mostly over now anyway, the great mass home ownership dream isnt quite dead yet but theres a pretty good chance it will wither in a way not seen here in recent times. Think even the condems are looking at ending the 'buy your council house' stuff.
 

the disconnect with reality on u75, is so strong you could have testicles and a penis and i'm sure you could convince posters you're a girl. anyway..

funny you should use a nytimes article as i found this by them

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/01/business/worldbusiness/01irish.html

in it they describe ireland as the wild west of european finance. note this was written in 05, well before the crash.
is it really surprising an economy built in the way ireland's has been, has suffered a crash of their magnitude? receive grants from europe,
entice financial institutions with lax regulatory practices and tax them a pittance to boot. oh.. i forgot, they had a property bubble similar to ours.
 
Absolutely. Did you not read the article which points out that Ireland instituted its savage cuts 2 years ago, and are the first to be downgraded by Moody's? Or did you just not understand it? :(
 
ymu - if you were a million euros in debt and you decided to cut back on food shopping for 2 years, would you expect the debt to be paid?

this is the magnitude of the problems facing ireland today.
 
Its horseshit to say that most people knew they couldnt afford the repayments.

And who sold people on the great dream of home ownership anyway? You cant blame people if they had it hammered into their head for decades that home ownership is what they should aim for, with shitty experiences with landlords reinforcing it, along with the powerful idea that increasing property prices in this country offered a way for many people to substantially increase their personal wealth, perhaps the only true investment theyd ever make. And then they were offered a way to achieve this dream via what seemed like great offers, not knowing quite how exploitative, sloppy and reckless the lenders were being.

Well its mostly over now anyway, the great mass home ownership dream isnt quite dead yet but theres a pretty good chance it will wither in a way not seen here in recent times. Think even the condems are looking at ending the 'buy your council house' stuff.

how can you absolve reckless, greedy individuals of any responsiblity, for purchasing property they knew full well they had no right buying.

p.s. haven't we been here before with the housing crash of 87. surely we know by now these dreams come at a cost
 
Thanks a lot for your replies on the why we're in debt question. Seems to be cos we stopped making stuff and turned into a finance economy (I don't really understand why this would lead to us as a nation owing more, did we buy other countries debts because we believe long term they will be repayed. Or something :confused:), we've over spent and then it was all made worse by bailing out the banks. Is that fair?

Whatever the reason, it seems most people agree there is a debt and something needs to be done.

kyser showed that we can either cut spending or tax more or a mix. Other people seem to think that by investing a lot more (borrowed) money into the economy, we create jobs... make more money... then can tax people more... then pay off more debt. (this is called Keynesian stimulus).

So.. it seems that the last option is best for most people if it works cos there is less unemployment, less poverty, less people being made homeless. But it also seems like the most risk. What evidence is there that borrowing more to invest will work? If it doesn't I guess we're doubly fucked.
 
Back
Top Bottom