This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In
jamiemartin721 Reading 24 Oct 16 1.43pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
So you think it is integrity not to serve your country. Also not all remainers voted remain for the same reasons nor had the same intensity. I know a few remainers who voted remain but had little enthusiasm for the EU. It isn't for an observer to judge a person on integrity without knowing the actual person. No one serves 'our country', they serve their ideas about their country, and their own interests. I think its a noble concept, but its largely a self serving concept of their country, their personal interests, convenience - and we tend to broadly define 'serving the country' to support our perspective and the argument we're trying to make (typically to present defence or avoidance of certain 'inconveniences'). Unsurprisingly, this 'service of the nation' is a popular political phrase, because politicians can by default link other peoples 'service' to their own, and by extstention serve their personal agenda.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
steeleye20 Croydon 24 Oct 16 2.04pm | |
---|---|
I get that but to get labour into power means votes. 48% of the vote probably more now are against brexit and they are not represented in Parliament. Yet Corbyn has gone over to leave. Tony Blair won elections he has obviously seen this. Blair and Thatcher opposed the govt. of the day thats how they came to power todays Labour Party do not oppose the govt.
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Hoof Hearted 24 Oct 16 2.46pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by nickgusset
First level. Trotting this load of bollocks out again eh?
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Hoof Hearted 24 Oct 16 2.49pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by jamiemartin721
Faith or support of democracy, to carry through their plan for Brexit, irrespective of what the will or majority of the people want it to mean. Which is odd, because all I keep hearing is how Labour are completely unelectable. So the Tories would apparently be a shoe in. I haven't got the slightest clue what point you are making here jamie?
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
steeleye20 Croydon 24 Oct 16 3.54pm | |
---|---|
Put simply the government is deciding what they think is best for the government from the narrow leave victory and will apply that if they can IMO.
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
jamiemartin721 Reading 24 Oct 16 4.18pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Hoof Hearted
I haven't got the slightest clue what point you are making here jamie?
Democratic mandates and manifestos etc. Personally, I don't understand why the Conservatives aren't putting 'Brexit' to manifestos and general elections - they're pretty nailed on to win one.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
chris123 hove actually 24 Oct 16 4.19pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by steeleye20
I get that but to get labour into power means votes. 48% of the vote probably more now are against brexit and they are not represented in Parliament. Yet Corbyn has gone over to leave. Tony Blair won elections he has obviously seen this. Blair and Thatcher opposed the govt. of the day thats how they came to power todays Labour Party do not oppose the govt.
The flaw here is to represent the 48% as pro Labour - this is no more true than the 52% is pro Government.
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
chris123 hove actually 24 Oct 16 4.39pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by jamiemartin721
No one serves 'our country', they serve their ideas about their country, and their own interests. I think its a noble concept, but its largely a self serving concept of their country, their personal interests, convenience - and we tend to broadly define 'serving the country' to support our perspective and the argument we're trying to make (typically to present defence or avoidance of certain 'inconveniences'). Unsurprisingly, this 'service of the nation' is a popular political phrase, because politicians can by default link other peoples 'service' to their own, and by extstention serve their personal agenda. Well there is a military line in my family and I don't agree - we lost a number, so I'm probably biased.
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
steeleye20 Croydon 24 Oct 16 4.46pm | |
---|---|
Actually I think the referendum was characterised by Labour lukewarm support for remain now they are leave so are voters likely to turn out I think not and it is the big issue for a long time IMO regrettably. For me Mrs.Sturgeon leads her party and comes over direct and bright. She has a role to play here.
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
.TUX. 24 Oct 16 7.44pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Hoof Hearted
The Remain camp's warnings were that we would be in economic meltdown by now. They correctly forecast the devaluation of the £, but forgot about the upside of that event helping our exports. Initially the stockmarket fell, but only for a few days and has now recovered and nearly at an all time high. Sh1t stirrers like you will seize on any opportunity to bang your drum about the Tories, The Brexiteers, Capitalism, etc... anything your miserable lives detest in your world of communist inspired unworkable heaven. Go on a march or something with a witty placard like "Tories Out". This is also a problem though. The 'highs' the FTSE is witnessing is nothing other than QE funds (our money) being pumped into the market (share buy-backs etc) to artificially inflate it. This is, surprise surprise, making a lot of very rich people even richer. Deep State Economics: How QE 'Works'
LIKE A HOUSE on fire, the election continues to draw a crowd of gawkers, writes Bill Bonner in his Diary of a Rogue Economist. We joined them this week, warming our hands and hoping to see the whole damned place burn down. Wednesday night's debate brought a shift to policy issues. But, as usual, it was a pathetic discussion. One, a slick, conniving pro with more jackass solutions to the problems she helped cause. The other floundering, unable to form a coherent critique of his opponent's claptrap programs. Both of them offered to heal the sick, enrich the poor, and raise the dead. Occasionally, by accident, an intelligent idea came running out of the house with its hair on fire. The candidates quickly shot it dead. Hillary's Deep State economics don't work. We've been arguing for years that fixing the price of credit by central banks would have the same consequences as fixing any other price: disaster. If you set the price of credit too high, borrowing gets too expensive...and the shelves groan with unsold inventory as you punish demand. If you set the price too low, buyers are happy at first...until the manufacturer gets tired of taking losses and the product disappears. The only price that works is the one you don't set...the one that is discovered by buyers and sellers...moving freely as supply and demand shift. So it was that when the Fed nailed the price of credit to the floor, we expected the typical debacle. And now, others are coming around to our point of view. Here's William Hague, the former leader of the British Conservative Party, explaining in The Telegraph why QE is a bad idea: 1. Savers find it impossible to earn a worthwhile return, which drives them into riskier assets, thus causing the price of houses and shares to be inflated ever higher. The trouble is it wasn't the show Mr.Hague and others thought it was. It was more like House of Cards or Game of Thrones than Father Knows Best or The Andy Griffith Show – the good guys were never meant to win. Fixing prices never makes sense for the public. It makes sense only when you are trying to achieve a result that willing buyers and sellers – the public – wouldn't achieve on their own...and wouldn't want. QE is designed to steal from the public and reward the privileged elite. Pushing down interest rates punishes ordinary savers; it benefits big borrowers, the rich, and Wall Street. That is the way the system is really rigged. It is obvious why Ms.Clinton didn't mention it last night. She is one of the riggers...a member of the Establishment...the Deep State...the Parasitocracy. She benefits from the rigged-up system. In 2013 alone, she was paid 5,000 for three speeches to Goldman Sachs. We don't know what she said, but we doubt that Goldman was paying for financial advice. Mr.Trump didn't mention either in the debate Wednesday night. Too bad.
Buy Litecoin. |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Cucking Funt Clapham on the Back 24 Oct 16 7.58pm | |
---|---|
And there I was, thinking that the main purpose of QE was to enable the banks to shore up their balance sheets. Silly me.
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
JohnyBoy 24 Oct 16 8.50pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by .TUX.
This is also a problem though. The 'highs' the FTSE is witnessing is nothing other than QE funds (our money) being pumped into the market (share buy-backs etc) to artificially inflate it. This is, surprise surprise, making a lot of very rich people even richer. Deep State Economics: How QE 'Works'
LIKE A HOUSE on fire, the election continues to draw a crowd of gawkers, writes Bill Bonner in his Diary of a Rogue Economist. We joined them this week, warming our hands and hoping to see the whole damned place burn down. Wednesday night's debate brought a shift to policy issues. But, as usual, it was a pathetic discussion. One, a slick, conniving pro with more jackass solutions to the problems she helped cause. The other floundering, unable to form a coherent critique of his opponent's claptrap programs. Both of them offered to heal the sick, enrich the poor, and raise the dead. Occasionally, by accident, an intelligent idea came running out of the house with its hair on fire. The candidates quickly shot it dead. Hillary's Deep State economics don't work. We've been arguing for years that fixing the price of credit by central banks would have the same consequences as fixing any other price: disaster. If you set the price of credit too high, borrowing gets too expensive...and the shelves groan with unsold inventory as you punish demand. If you set the price too low, buyers are happy at first...until the manufacturer gets tired of taking losses and the product disappears. The only price that works is the one you don't set...the one that is discovered by buyers and sellers...moving freely as supply and demand shift. So it was that when the Fed nailed the price of credit to the floor, we expected the typical debacle. And now, others are coming around to our point of view. Here's William Hague, the former leader of the British Conservative Party, explaining in The Telegraph why QE is a bad idea: 1. Savers find it impossible to earn a worthwhile return, which drives them into riskier assets, thus causing the price of houses and shares to be inflated ever higher. The trouble is it wasn't the show Mr.Hague and others thought it was. It was more like House of Cards or Game of Thrones than Father Knows Best or The Andy Griffith Show – the good guys were never meant to win. Fixing prices never makes sense for the public. It makes sense only when you are trying to achieve a result that willing buyers and sellers – the public – wouldn't achieve on their own...and wouldn't want. QE is designed to steal from the public and reward the privileged elite. Pushing down interest rates punishes ordinary savers; it benefits big borrowers, the rich, and Wall Street. That is the way the system is really rigged. It is obvious why Ms.Clinton didn't mention it last night. She is one of the riggers...a member of the Establishment...the Deep State...the Parasitocracy. She benefits from the rigged-up system. In 2013 alone, she was paid 5,000 for three speeches to Goldman Sachs. We don't know what she said, but we doubt that Goldman was paying for financial advice. Mr.Trump didn't mention either in the debate Wednesday night. Too bad.
This is a good appraisal of the downside of qe TUX and i dont disagree with it. William Hagues points are all relevant. If we solve a debt crisis by borrowing more just doesnt sound right. If central banks keep IR low this can only be negative for savers (mostly old people) and good for younger people who are able to borrow money cheaply. I only disagree when apportioning blame onto politicians. I know we all like to blame them for everything but they are not responsible for central bank (bofe or Fed) policy so cant impact monetary policy (IR, QE or money supply). And the flipside of not having low IR QE or increased money supply could have meant we entered a huge 1930s style depression after the financial crisis. The above policies weaken currencies and people on here have argued this is a positive for the uk after brexit but again the flipside is that the Uk economy has plunged by 17% in us$ terms. With total uk gdp of 2.8trillion,this has effectively cost the uk economy £476billion....which might be good for international property buyers (i.e elites) buying up our already short supply of housing at a discount but poor uk citizens will shoulder the burden...we can again blame politicians for this loss but all the main political parties (except UKIP and DUP) did not support this collapse.
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Registration is now on our new message board
To login with your existing username you will need to convert your account over to the new message board.
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2024 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.