Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > UK forums  > Mythbusters (1)      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 Jo van
Joined: 5/23/2009
Msg: 26
Mythbusters (1)Page 2 of 2    (1, 2)
Goal
Messages this short may not be postedMessages this short may not be postedMessages this short may not be posted
 vlad dracul
Joined: 4/30/2009
Msg: 27
view profile
History
Mythbusters (1)
Posted: 12/28/2017 7:08:47 AM
Josef Spartacus
"And Vlad will regale us with more tales of what "socialists" were doing and thinking,100 years ago, in case we missed it."

As you will regale us with more tales of utopia under 1970's london labour eh?........

"A time when doctors were performing labotomies on the mentally ill, and forcibly sterilising them.
A time when doctors put single mothers into "asylums", and gave their children to "priests", to do what they wanted with them, and then discard their little starved, beaten, and abused bodies, into cesspits. -No questions asked."


Funnily enough the social democratic kleenex moment nation sweden was still steralising single mothers in the 70's. Should have gave the bairns to your islamic mates. They would treat them well eh?.........

"-Not "socialists", but doctors were doing that."

And london labour did what exactly to stop that?...........

"A time when we gave opium to babies, and gave lead soldiers to children, who slept in lead-painted cots, and drank from lead water pipes, "lagged" with asbestos.
A time when cigarettes were sold as "good for you"."

Fvck me lol. Like the toys, water pipes and cigarettes you could still buy when i was a bairn? I worked with lead paint as an apprentice. My mate of 46 years a glazier has lead in his lungs and is seriously ill. And that was in the 70's where you STILL live. What did london labour do to stop that?.........

"A time when Tory government felt the "kindest thing" we could do for the various "sub-human" "races", was to conquer them, beat them into submission, and then make them work for us."

Like the iraq's london labour slaughtered? Thought times had changed?.....

"Times change.
We're working from different information now.
(Or at least, some of us are)"

Yet you are stuck in the 70's mentality where all you need to do is vote for 'firebrand socialists' like the racist hypocrite like the abbottsaurus? 'Firebrand socialists' like the kinnocks.

Jesus wept you are comedy gold mate. Break out the flares and lets join the rapists of the swp eh? (Look up rape kangaroo courts swp).

Kick on the peoples socialist republic of Sparticusville eh?

Have you got nuclear free zones badges on?

Maybe YOU should drag yourself from the 1970's.

"Have a nice day."

Always do. Apart from the bad ones when toiling to get wages in for rent, leccy, food, pay bills. All things YOU do not struggle with eh?
 Paulineandsalem
Joined: 12/7/2017
Msg: 28
Mythbusters (1)
Posted: 12/28/2017 7:36:55 AM
I just saw a tweet from John mcternan, labour political strategist and activist, saying that he preferred anyone to the party currently running Scotland (I assume he also means the tory party).

This is the current state of London labour.
 rekirked
Joined: 11/7/2017
Msg: 29
view profile
History
Mythbusters (1)
Posted: 12/28/2017 7:45:10 AM

Yeah, just keep repeating the same Tory propaganda, as if it were true.
"Socialists" kept the banks afloat, after the capitalists had gambled themselves insolvent, and went begging for help.


Socialists deregulated the banks then admitted they didn't have a clue how bad the problem that they created was! Gordon was too busy congratulating himself for his "economic miracle" while simultaneously flogging our gold reserves at rock bottom prices
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-13032013


But the tories, and their funders; the banks, were saying the same thing.
"That banks knew best", and that labour was "over-regulating" them.
The tories even had a "deregulation task force", to "cut away the red tape".
John redwood was making the same claims about "socialists" back then.


Sooo you're saying Gordon brown was bullied into letting the banks run riot by the nasty party? i think his honourable apology years later suggests the fault was all his own.


13 years of growth, before that.


Mostly funded by government borrowing and spending


Labour actually ran a budget surplus for a couple of years.


That's true, in the midst of a worldwide economic boom they did run a surplus......followed by eight years of spiralling deficit *high fives* *pukes* *spits on floor*

https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/7568/debt/government-debt-under-labour-1997-2010/


After the banking crisis, labour got the British economy back to 1.9% growth by the time of the election (2010).


Yes, by borrowing even more!


Productivity won't increase, because far too many people produce nothing, and do no work.


You mean non jobs? let's think back to who invented most of these non jobs.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2014/02/why-are-quangos-still-so-stuffed-with-lefties/

From saturated health and safety departments in local government to various quangos as above, even dinner ladies being promoted to pastoral staff members in vast bloody teams teams of safeguarding which amount to precisely what "The lady in the office" used to do when i was at school. The amount of total BS jobs in bureaucracy went into hyperdrive under NewLab just to buy voters.


Well, I defer to your superior economic intellect.


Don't hold your breath waiting for me to defer to your inferior grasp of history, great smilies though *high fives*
 billybonds
Joined: 8/8/2014
Msg: 30
Mythbusters (1)
Posted: 12/28/2017 8:59:11 AM
13 years of growth ........I think from memory it started in June 92
and ended in March 2008???...so 16 ...I remember reading in the
Sunday newspapers that future mass murderer Tony and Mad Gordon
were living in absolute fear of an imminent recession given that
they had inherited a five year old economic expansion.....

For those that don't remember that expansion it really revolved
around the dot com. bubble and its promise of a "new paradigm" which developed into a bubble ( a bubble is a synonym for miles and miles of malinvestment that has to be then unwound in a recession or if left to fester in a depression) and the housing bubble and ex gold bug and seemingly future gold bug Alan "the put" Greenspan, chairman of the federal reserve from 1987...2006? fed the bubbles with his fiat credit. Presumably because he feared the end game on his watch which is yet to come.

So when I see nigel lawson being interviewed a few months back and still talking about the tories 1980s economic miracle, I'd say he was lying or deluded. Sure Thatcher's government can take a a small tertiary credit for saving the fiat dollar system but it was Jimmy Carter 's pick, fed chair, paul volker jacking the fed funds rate up to 20% with the support of Reagan who saved the then fiat system and allowed new labour their vacuous 13 years in charge.

Oh and the rules of capitalism and free markets would never have had too big to fail or jail banks. And these banks should have been wound down. But I don't blame Brown as he was an incidental and a cypher in allowing the financialisation of the global economy. That was a failure of American leadership and the bailout was borne by the American tax payer to the tune of 16 trillion dollars . And this mess has been inherited from the globalist-centralbanking- warmongering-Kleptocracy by Donald Trump.

Like I said earlier there is not much wealth or assets or collateral out there in the global economy. I think at some point this monetary system will derail real growth ie..production....get yourself a piece of that unencumbered collateral while you can...the socialists are lying the money is not there.. only pieces of paper. .
 Jo van
Joined: 5/23/2009
Msg: 31
Mythbusters (1)
Posted: 1/2/2018 4:52:44 AM

Socialists deregulated the banks then admitted they didn't have a clue how bad the problem that they created was!

Like Billy, you seem to think that Maggie was a "socialist".

Gordon was too busy congratulating himself for his "economic miracle" while simultaneously flogging our gold reserves at rock bottom prices

Yeah, because the tories never sold any of the country's assets cheaply, did they?

Sooo you're saying Gordon brown was bullied into letting the banks run riot by the nasty party? i think his honourable apology years later suggests the fault was all his own.

In a way, yes.
The banks and the tories were both telling him that the "banks knew best", and that regulation was "unnecessary", and "stifled growth"
They even had a "deregulation task force", headed by Vulcan Redwood, who said : "the government seems to think that without all this regulation, the banks would just steal all the money" (quoting from memory), which got a big laugh, at the "mansion house", or wherever it was.
The banks caused the problems, not GB.
The collapse began in the USA. British regulations had no impact there.


Labour actually ran a budget surplus for a couple of years.



That's true, in the midst of a worldwide economic boom they did run a surplus......followed by eight years of spiralling deficit *high fives* *pukes* *spits on floor*

https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/7568/debt/government-debt-under-labour-1997-2010/

From your link:

In 1997, public sector debt as % of GDP:

1997/98 – 40.4% of GDP
2007/08 – 36.4% of GDP
2010/11 – 60.0% of GDP.
At the start of the great recession in 2007, public sector debt had fallen from 40.4% of GDP to 36.4% of GDP. This was despite increased real government spending. After the start of the crisis, public sector debt almost doubled in the space of three years.



Yes, by borrowing even more!

That's true.
He used public (borrowed) money to keep the banks afloat.
Had he not, every mortgage, and every loan would have had to be "called in" to liquidate the banks.
No salaries would have been paid to public or private sector workers. Everything relies on banking these days.
IMO., we (the public) should have owned the banks, from that point on.



You mean non jobs? let's think back to who invented most of these non jobs.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2014/02/why-are-quangos-still-so-stuffed-with-lefties/

From saturated health and safety departments in local government to various quangos as above, even dinner ladies being promoted to pastoral staff members in vast bloody teams teams of safeguarding which amount to precisely what "The lady in the office" used to do when i was at school. The amount of total BS jobs in bureaucracy went into hyperdrive under NewLab just to buy voters.

Well, that didn't work, did it?
And the "Spectator" article?
I think you'll find that MOST of the people working for the public sector (not just in "QUANGOs") would probably be described by the spectator, as "lefties".
Those who subscribe to the notion of having a public sector at all, they would probably describe as "lefties".


Don't hold your breath waiting for me to defer to your inferior grasp of history, great smilies though *high fives*

Thanks.
The tories have been very successful in their "marketing" message that "labour can't manage the economy".
Many people simply accept that, and "trot it out", as if it were a "fact", as you've done here.

The link you provided shows the exact opposite.
-And if you read the comments, historically:


There’s evidence here that you’re wrong. Since WW2, either in original prices, or adjusted to 2014 price, Labour paid back more national debt, more often than the Tories did, despite being in power for 28 vs 42 years:

http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2016/03/13/the-conservatives-have-been-the-biggest-borrowers-over-the-last-70-years/

-But don't let the facts spoil a good story eh?
Still....the smilies must mean anything I write is wrong, obviously...
Have a nice day.
 rekirked
Joined: 11/7/2017
Msg: 32
view profile
History
Mythbusters (1)
Posted: 1/2/2018 7:02:52 AM
Why do you keep banging on about the tories? I’ve made no mention of them. I’ve not needed to hold one political party up against the other, they're both full of self serving cvnts.

Defending one axe murderer by claiming another axe murderer was worse isn’t much of an argument, is it.
 Justanotherchap
Joined: 12/4/2013
Msg: 33
view profile
History
Mythbusters (1)
Posted: 1/2/2018 7:08:59 AM
You're probably both right because the reality is that neither LABOUR nor the Tories have covered themselves in glory.

Bank deregulation took place under both flavours and hasn't been corrected since the failings in 2008.

The sell off of public assets goes on. is that because of ideology or because of desperation to find cash somewhere? I believe it was McMillan who warned of selling off the family silver. (off topic - I didn't know this about him - but his unwillingness to disclose United States nuclear secrets to France contributed to a French veto of the United Kingdom's entry into the European Economic Community.)

You can't get more Tory than McMillan but he was a very different Tory to those of today - he was a real toff, very rich but believed in more equalty and worked towards it unlike ?????

I think there were many things the government should not have been involved with which needed to be sold off but as always with politicians they take a vote winning idea and take it to the absurd.

Politicians cannot see beyond the end of the next vote else why would they be considering putting yet more public money into supporting private housebuilding. The 10 billion already spent seems to have been converted into 500 million bonuses for the directors of persimmon and hoosue price increases for some already rich people. It is said the same amount culd have built 100,000 social houses.

One wonders why the stupidity continues. Can't be anything to do with the nice jobs senior ex ministers and PMs seem to pick up could it ? A cynicism too far?
 Jo van
Joined: 5/23/2009
Msg: 34
Mythbusters (1)
Posted: 1/2/2018 8:10:12 AM

Why do you keep banging on about the tories?

Because you sounded just like one.


I’ve made no mention of them.

You claimed that "socialistsSocialists deregulated the banks then admitted they didn't have a clue how bad the problem that they created was!"
I simply pointed out that such deregulation was (and continues to be, ) a Tory policy, not a labour one.


I’ve not needed to hold one political party up against the other, they're both full of self serving cvnts.

It looked like you were only blaming one party.


Defending one axe murderer by claiming another axe murderer was worse isn’t much of an argument, is it.

The tories have been in power for 7 years, yet you keep having little digs at "socialists"
Like this one:

Apologies, i realise how as a socialist basic economics aren't your major......well anything

And other little trolling digs at me, for being a socialist, which I've ignored.
(Some crap about a "tractor factory"?)

You even posted a link, to support your allegations, which actually showed the exact opposite!

This thread was about "mythbusters", and that's what I'm doing.
-Busting your myths.

This government made immigration their main policy, and got elected, -because people are seemingly very willing to turn against "outsiders", if they're told that all their problems are their fault.
Despite that,
Under this govt., immigration has increased, and will continue to do so, after we leave the EU.
-Because "the economy" means they'll do whatever their biggest "lobby groups" and donors tell them to do.

The failure to fund and build the infrastructure necessary to support and house a growing population lies with the government.
The difference between me and you, is that I don't give a fvck where the extra heads came from.
Previous population growth predictions had a much higher birth rate.
Tories don't like public services, so they cut them.
Or sell them.

I see education, health, housing, infrastructure, etc as "investing in your population/"workforce".
They see it as "big state".

History shows that such investment pays off, in the long term.
-Whether that's improved productivity, or just a healthier, wealthier, and better-educated population,
or by any other more technical "metrics", such as "wellbeing indexes" etc.

But keep slagging socialists, if it makes you feel better.
Every improvement to the "lot" of working people, in the last 100 years, has been fought for, and won, by socialists.

The problem is, for the most part, capitalists control the media, and the reporting of the news.
-Which is how they've managed to keep the socialists out of office.

It's very depressing to see people who really shouldn't be, helping that effort, by posting those same unsupported myths.
Like claiming that it was "labours recession", which they still regularly say, in parliament.
It plays well with a simpleton electorate.

Politics has become all about such 2 or 3-word memorable "soundbites", and too few people bother to do any research of their own, to verify if it's true.


Oh, and btw, the only reason I said the snp was "no use", was down here, -I mean I realise they sit in the uk parliament, but there's no SNP candidate in Oxford, or Maidenhead, or anywhere else.
Our only option is labour, tory, or....... you know, those other ones?

Saying they're both shit doesn't really help.
I think there's a huge difference between them, particularly now, with Corbyn's policies.

Convincing voters that "labour are just as bad", is another Tory ploy: "better the devil you know".
-And tories were all public-school educated, and "groomed" for power, -so the "natural leaders" etc etc.

I don't "buy" that shit either.
Jmo
 rekirked
Joined: 11/7/2017
Msg: 35
view profile
History
Mythbusters (1)
Posted: 1/2/2018 8:28:35 AM
For the record:

Labour: Wasteful spendthrift Islington idealist hypocrites who have nothing in common with the working class they claim to represent.

Conservative: self serving, ruthless capitalist Scrooge’s who would sell their own granny’s council house from under her.

LibDems: Meh

UKIP: Daily mail readers, little Englanders. Still live in 1958.

That is my view of what’s on offer.
 Paulineandsalem
Joined: 12/7/2017
Msg: 36
Mythbusters (1)
Posted: 1/2/2018 8:37:33 AM
Jo.

I get what you mean about the difference between labour and the Tories.

However there are MPs who voted for Tory austerity measures. Including labour.

Welsh labour are pro austerity and Scottish labour are a toxic shit show

I think Wales would be better served by Plaid Cymru and that has nothing to do with them wanting Indy for Wales

The Labour Party are still stuffed full of Blairites. You only need to see how difficult it was made for Corbyn to be leader to say that.

You said it yourself. The SNP and labour have similar policies. Most of what Corbyn has in his manifesto the snp have already done for Scotland

But Scottish labour oppose everything the snp do. Did you see john mcternans comment last week that he would support anyone but the snp (that includes Tories).

Corbyn blames Westminster for the things that labour in Wales can't do. But then blames the snp for the things it can't do due to the same reasons. Hypocrisy. There were many snp voters who told English voters to vote Corbyn. Championed him. For what? A boot in the baws

Massive let down. McDonnell. Same. And the Cry was snp bad. Sick of it.
 billybonds
Joined: 8/8/2014
Msg: 37
Mythbusters (1)
Posted: 1/2/2018 6:44:55 PM
42nd street was a triumph. So good, the performers, the songs, the ever inventive sets, the mass tap dancing.. Sheena Easton had the night off , she wasn't missed. Had a lovely posts theatre supper over the road. (Cote brasserie ...very solid chain) But if anyone is looking for a great musical this 1934 one is it.

Yes some people believe in politicians and some of us find more dignity in facing reality. ...what can I say.

The English language is a great language and the word independence is a lovely word... but everytime I read the word indy. I go into a paroxysm of vexation and sobbing at the utter despair I feel for the future of humankind. I suppose in this regard , I feel like jo does when a terribly nice vicar rambles on about mary, Joseph and the baby Jesus .

Labour.. what you need to know about new labour is that they murdered a million Iraqis . Gordon Brown sold half our gold reserves at the lowest possible price because some of the bullion banks had gone short gold and needed to be bailed out. A Tory apologist would also point out that new labour inherited a growing economy with a falling deficit and then handed back one charred.
 heavenlivesnear
Joined: 8/29/2016
Msg: 38
view profile
History
Mythbusters (1)
Posted: 1/3/2018 3:57:25 AM

I go into a paroxysm of vexation and sobbing at the utter despair I feel for the future of humankind


ive discovered i thrive on secondary drama... now i'm totally desensitised to the four numpty's im looking for something else to vicariously fill my drama free life... billy do you think you could take photos of you going into a paraxysm of vexation and sobbing please? a little utube video would be better if you are able to oblige, but photos would also be super if thats all you can manage.

thanks billy
 Jo van
Joined: 5/23/2009
Msg: 39
Mythbusters (1)
Posted: 1/3/2018 6:18:28 AM

Labour: Wasteful spendthrift


Labour not only repaid more often, it turns out: it also repaid much more in total and on average (not shown) during each year when repayment was made.

So what do we learn? Two essential things, I suggest.

First, Labour invariably borrows less than the Conservatives. The data always shows that.

And second, Labour has always repaid debt more often than the Conservatives, and has always repaid more debt, on average.


The trend does not vary however you do the data.

Or, to put it another way, the Conservatives are the party of high UK borrowing and low debt repayment contrary to all popular belief, including that of most radio presenters. Which means that the next time I am presented with that nonsense I will be very firmly rebutting it.

http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2016/03/13/the-conservatives-have-been-the-biggest-borrowers-over-the-last-70-years/
(My bold)
-There are other similar analyses, but this one keeps it simple.
(Wiki shows the same thing, in different formats)

Mythbusters.

Islington idealist hypocrites

Really?
-Or is that just something someone like boris once said
Jeremy Corbyn has been the mp for Islington north since 1983.
He's certainly an idealist (I don't see that as a bad thing)
But HOW is he a "hypocrite"?

who have nothing in common with the working class they claim to represent.

I won't bore you again with the list of things which labour has achieved for the people they represent, education, health service, holidays, shorter working hours, votes for women, health and safety, industrial injuries compensation, etc, but they fought for all that, and the tories opposed it ALL.

I mean, I agree that bliar was a bit of a cvnt, as it turned out.
When Campbell said "we don't do religion", I stupidly thought "great".

-But it turned out he was nothing more than another lying "devout christian".
He was off kissing the "pope's" ring, as soon as he'd stepped down.
-Putting him in the position of "peace envoy" between the "muslims" and the "jews", was like putting a believer in pixies, in charge of mediating a dispute between the believer in fairies, and the believers in elfs.
It's not gonna help, is it?
What you really need is someone sane.
Someone who looks at history objectively, and know the difference between fact and myth.
But I digress...

It's easy to become cynical.
Things have got worse, for most people, since the crash.

The "people they represent" for the tories, are the business owners, and the wealthy.
So they've cut their taxes,
While reducing benefits.
And cutting spending on public services.

They do this, based on another lie, that they "must reduce the deficit/debt",
and the popular "meme" of "not leaving the debt for future generations"
It's clever, and it "plays well" with the electorate.
They don't like people like me ("baby boomers") pointing out that I "inherited" a debt of over 200% (GDP), and a country which was literally a bomb site.
We borrowed even more.
We had to.
But we built, and we invested.
It paid off.

Labour.. what you need to know about new labour is that they murdered a million Iraqis . Gordon Brown sold half our gold reserves at the lowest possible price because some of the bullion banks had gone short gold and needed to be bailed out. A Tory apologist would also point out that new labour inherited a growing economy with a falling deficit and then handed back one charred.

You ARE a Tory apologist!
The tories will continue to spread memes and propaganda about labour,
-because they hate labour, and more importantly: their donors, (in whose interests they work,) hate labour, because they don't get rich, quite so fast.

But yeah, we get that "you're all right jack", Billy, with all your gold, when many working people can't afford their rent, much less savings.
But you were quite happy to use the "socialist" free education, health, rail, roads, electricity grid, water, etc etc.
Fvck everyone else eh Billy?
We get it.

Inequality is worse now, than it (probably? I don't know?)was, in the Victorian era?
Now we've got more billionaires, than they had millionaires.
-But we've also got rising child poverty, and food banks, and homeless, and young people, with no hope.

Because people (like Billy, thatcher, Cameron, may, et al) believe in "trickle down".
40 years into that little "experiment", -and its still bone-dry at the bottom, but the top's absolutely flooded !!!
Tory response:Cut their taxes, -and "buy gold".

It all comes down to what sort a society you want.
The people who come closest to what I think, are labour.
I don't get everything, but at least they want to move in the right fvcking direction.!!

The tories want to move backwards.
And that's what has happened, under them.
Jmo
 Paulineandsalem
Joined: 12/7/2017
Msg: 40
Mythbusters (1)
Posted: 1/3/2018 6:26:13 AM


Really?
-Or is that just something someone like boris once said
Jeremy Corbyn has been the mp for Islington north since 1983.
He's certainly an idealist (I don't see that as a bad thing)
But HOW is he a "hypocrite"?


He blames the Scottish Government for their failure to deal with certain reserved issues (reserved to Westminster) at the same time stating that Welsh Labour are being held back for being unable to do the same. He is on record as saying this.

As I said in another thread, I championed Corbyn for the English vote like many other people in Scotland even though I don't vote for them myself. I have been massively disappointed by him and McDonnell.

Corbyn also refused to consider a progressive alliance in 2017. He refuses to work with other parties that have similar ideals to himself.

He was 3000 votes away from being PM (all English votes). Labour also stood a candidate in every seat in England and Wales as far as I am aware, if Labour had stepped aside for other parties such as the Greens and Plaid Cymru, he might have ended up with enough seats to form a Government.

Labour MPs have also voted for Tory austerity measures, its easily found if you check their voting records. I also believe Corbyn backs a hard Brexit, how much damage is that going to cause to the UK economy?

Corbyn voted against this, but many Labour MPs did not. Every other leadership candidate at the time abstained.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/these-are-the-184-labour-mps-who-didn-t-vote-against-the-tories-welfare-bill-10404831.html

Surely if you are anti poverty, you oppose stuff like this?

The main changes in the Bill are reducing the household welfare cap from £26,000 to £23,000, abolishing legally binding child poverty targets, cuts to child tax credits, cuts to Employment and Support Allowance, and cuts to housing benefit for young people.

 billybonds
Joined: 8/8/2014
Msg: 41
Mythbusters (1)
Posted: 1/3/2018 10:55:41 AM
I'm not really a tory apologist jo even though in 1997 the UK was booming and in 2008-2010 well.....at least unlike 1976 we were not alone this time...and although Heath was out of office he was just as much to blame for the national bankruptcy as Labour. See. Similarly 2008 wasn't about labour or the vulcan it was about our meek global banking system misbehaving. I don't even blame the bankers. It's the monetary system stop pulverising tories jo because they are not where it's at. The tories governmental ability is on a par with a shit made brick. See not making any excuses for them spinning their record because they are not really where it's at.

As for people getting poorer and poorer and poorer and poorerthat's true..we have been agreeing on that for ages. Your remedy is to install Jeremy in downing street and I would say that Theresa or Jeremy is not where it's at.

Since 1997 the banking system has been Ladling more and more debt into our global economy. This debt jo in its aggregate is not stimulant no longer. ...since 20 years. The money velocity has dropped to I think 1.43... (the speed that money makes its way around the economy) last time it was that low it was 1947..Don't know if that is a global figure or U.S. but it's all similar.

I was going to say those lunatic central bankers but it's not them it's the dictates of the system that demands greater amounts of debt to keep the system growing. Keeping stock bond and house prices elevated. This is all in the global aggregate we are talking Jo. So great, they can create the debt and as for its societal costs they claim with some reform we can drive it's costs from zero to negative hopefully those interest rates will trickle down to the
man in the street. They are also thinking of handing out universal incomes Jeremy will like that one . We could also print currency that is not debt based. And hey presto we could purchase all the debt in the world and unwind the derivatives.


Jo I'm a capitalist you know freemarkets ..sound money...savings etc.. and I have to say these policies that I believe in are not on the table. And so I worry about food ..clothes. ..shoes. ..shelter ...energy etc & these paper games are just words not actions? I want a just world where everything is on the level.

I started work in 1980. Never been out of work. Whether I'm in the public sector or private sector it is irrelevant For I have provided utility for all and sundry including doctors etc all my life ...and you now are saying that I should not have a doctor serve me ? Or that it was some socialism that provided my utility and I simply stayed in bed sinking Stella? What a world you believe in. Still at least you don't believe in cloud pixies.


As for the Brown bottom Gordon sold half OUR gold reserves
for the lowest possible price over three years at
17 auctions . I don't blame him he was simply a cog in the
system. Sure he wanted to diversify our assets andl get euros...
colourful pieces of paper. I think he wanted OUR assets
to be less volatile. That's his story.


My story is Sue nye ran his office in downing street and her husband (ex Goldman sachs ex bbc chairman socialist) Gavin Davies Visited Gordon Brown and ask him for some Gold . Of course it wasn't that vulgar for Gordon is a statesman he has his oil painted portrait up in downing street. And if it was me a true hard as nails tory blueblood .I would have given this master of the universe it too. So let us not blame the remainer.

Apparently some guys, let's called them, JP.. citi and saches, had been doing a bit of gambling out east. And a ****ing systemic banking insolvency had occurred and would he mind if the British taxpayer would bail them out. Gordon naturally did because to be fair the opposite outcome could have been more expensive. So Gordon gave Gavin half our gold because he was prudent and he got to be a heroic statesman when the American tax payer bailed (16trilion) the same guys out again nine years later.


So yeah these gamblers were basically borrowing gold for a trifle (Lots of it because the gold carry trade was profitable ) and selling it because the gold derivative price (real price is way higher..but that's another saga) was ironically stable and indeed on a little decline...lovely. .. so yeah sorry they borrowed it sold it ...don't worry ....bought some Japanese securities that were a sure thing ...rode that price up sold out & bought back the gold and returned it to its owner. Pocketing a fortune what with all the Leveraging. What could go wrong.? ?? Clearly the trade went against them in the manner of long term capital the year before. And the loses were prohibited. Similarly the mortgage back securites in 2008. All paper ..

Except this time the actual physical gold bars needed to be returned to china? and Gordon went out of his way to get the lowest possible price and in the interest of "open government " with pre announced auctions allowing the guys at the trough again to short the **** out of the price. I think the average price was $275 dollars..an ounce the fake derivative price at the moment is $1300 dollars . It's much higher you know if they cut the paper I'll change my tune but I think it's about $10,000 dollars based on the current money supply.

Anyway we are all getting poorer a fact jo and I agree on.
But he thinks it's the tories and Jeremy will address it all
And I think it's the 46 year old monetary system......
 billybonds
Joined: 8/8/2014
Msg: 42
Mythbusters (1)
Posted: 1/3/2018 1:02:53 PM

It's easy to become cynical.
Things have got worse, for most people, since the crash.

They do this, based on another lie, that they "must reduce the deficit/debt",
and the popular "meme" of "not leaving the debt for future generations"
It's clever, and it "plays well" with the electorate.
They don't like people like me ("baby boomers") pointing out that I "inherited" a debt of over 200% (GDP), and a country which was literally a bomb site.
We borrowed even more.
We had to.
But we built, and we invested.
It paid off



Apples and pears ....

Yes we've done this one jo but ok .......I think it was 245% of gdp so you are hiding your light under a bushel.

Our gdp was a lot smaller then. Because we were broke and we didn't have much of an economy at the end of world war two.
While our money was debt based we were on the Bretton woods
standard too. So no fiat dollar standard. Also I'm not entirely
sure we got the same cheap and plentiful energy to drive growth.

Today our problem is not paying back debt so we can do as much as you want. We have $240 trillion of it and it's not con fined to governments now but businesses and people ..That's over 300% of gdp there jo. Of course there is another $ 260
trillion that we have hidden off book so called off balance
sheet liabilities. ..Jo we don't have to pay this 600% plus of
Gdp don't fret..we have by governmental manipulation (socialism) in the bonds (debt) markets by way of QE fixed interest rates at zero and they expect to go negative in a big way to support the increasing debt. Don't forget the derivatives those
fellows weren't around in 1945. Yeah conservatively that could be over a quadrillion dollars we don't have. So say conservatively $2000 trillion dollars that would be and I'm being
a little reckless divided by $70 trillion of gdp equals 2,850 % of gdp...it's probably worst. I'm sure we can come back from that
..don't worry about the debt jo we need more of it...it's the system can we have interest rates at minus 678% ...I'd borrow then if I could find something to buy.
 RoxyMoronic
Joined: 6/7/2016
Msg: 43
view profile
History
Mythbusters (1)
Posted: 1/4/2018 8:23:29 AM
myth or not?.......if the nhs had all the resources it needs, it would still be a shambles as a result of the people in charge who run it?

Also, I see another mp has been grossly offended by poverty and homelessness
If only everyone could have an overpaid job with shady deal benefits. See? I’ve singlehandedly solved the problem :)
Show ALL Forums  > UK forums  > Mythbusters (1)