Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Methinkshe

  1. You know I disagree with this statement. Humans are ABOVE animals in any hierarchy you care to name. Let us confine ourselves to that which we can evidence and see with our own eyes. Sure, we can learn from history, but there has always to be an element of interpretation. However, your contention is that we, as human-animals will consume all our resources and then become extinct. Looking at history, how do you square that with the progress from flint-age to iron age to our present nuclear age? Isn't it the case that required resources for the particular time in history were abundant and then, when technology moved on, the need for those resources became redundant and the resources that the new technolgy required were abundant? What evidence do you have for this overshoot apart from your own opinion? Are you unable to comprehend that this is purely your personal opinion? I disagree, others on this thread disagree, and I am sure that many the world over disagree. Why do you believe that you are right? Steve, you have this particular (as in especial) catastrophe embedded in your mind to the extent that you exclude all external pointers in any other direction. You exude hopelessness, helplessness, and worse still, a dogmatic desire to cling to your misanthropy regardless of ANY argument to the contrary. I'm so glad I'm a Christian and not an atheist. Oh, the hope I have - not only in this world but the next! I sow good seed, they multiply, I reap! You are welcome to your "species" this and "animal" that. Know what - I rejoice in being human! I am no animal! I have choice and intellect and wisdom which I can apply to make a difference to my life and the lives of others. I am not led by the nose by mere animalish instincts. It is a Herculean task for man to attempt to work out his own salvation. Woe is me! I don't know what else to say in the face of such hopelessness. Imo, I have never met anyone more devoid of truth than you. We are polar opposites in terms of just about every belief we hold. If you claim truth, that makes me a liar or a believer in lies. If I claim truth, that makes you a liar or believer in lies. Because, for sure, we are so diametrically opposed in terms of belief concerning just about everything that we cannot both lay claim to truth. Edited to make meaning clear in para 1.
  2. I should also add that it is possible to see from the excerpt I posted how quickly population control becomes eugenics; note how the pregnant woman was referred to as a "sow" and the references to "peasant pigs" as though farmers/peasants were in some way sub-human. The doctors, of course, were a "master-race" by comparison. I may have missed out a step or two in referring to your stance on over-population/population control as eugenicist, but it seems to be that one inexorably leads to the other. Imo, it is a very, very short slippery slope from enforced population-control to eugenics.
  3. Yes, I wept buckets when I read this book. But from the little acorn of an apparently reasonable desire to limit population growth (albeit for spurious reasons, imo) grows an oak of repression, murder, debasement of human life, perversion of maternal and child-friendly instincts and ....oh, I could go on and on, but you get the message.
  4. YOU are the one who is constantly going on about over-population and a need for population to be controlled. Now just exactly how do you propose that is achieved? I propose it is best achieved through allowing third world countries to join the first world countries through free trade, NO imposition of nonsensical and impoverishing CO2 controls, and targeted help in terms of education and medical training of the populations. Wealth and education and a longer life expectancy will be natural controllers of their populations. From what I can remember of your posts, you advocate enforced birth control (if not through threats than via almost irresistible carrots) and imposition of CO2 targets so that third world countries don't even get a chance to industrialise and catch up with the western world. If I have not correctly understood your stance, then I apologise for my misinterpretation/misunderstanding/poor memory concerning your previous posts over the past two years - in whatever thread, and invite you to clarify and/or correct any misunderstanding on my part.
  5. All the evidence suggests that we do not need wicked and cruel and authoritarian policies like China's one-child policy to control population growth. Wealth and education and medical care are natural limiters of population - witness the below-replacement level population growth in western nations. In fact, if it were not for immigration into this country, by now our population would have fallen to a critically low level that would have lead to economic decline apart from the recent financial crisis. I get really angry when people glibly refer to China's one-child policy as though it were akin to just any other policy designed to affect supply and demand. (Nothing personal, Gameover, btw.) It is a wicked and cruel and evil policy as the following excerpt from the book "A Mother's Ordeal: Story of Chi An - One Woman's Fight Against China's One-child Policy makes clear. And I know I've posted this before but I make no apologies for posting it again; people have to understand that to follow the eugenicist path is to end up with Hitler's Final Solution, Buchenwald, Dachau and this........................ Is this what you want to see, Steve, and those who erroneously believe that the world is over-populated?
  6. Aren't you a little behind the curve as far as shares are concerned? The time to have got back in was March. This rally is on its last legs.
  7. Timely reminder. But I think we're now further up the hill than the "you are here" red arrow depicts. I reckon we're probably squatting right on the top of that hill. It's downhill all the way from now - and it's a very big slide.
  8. And sterling has shot up v US$ Don't know how to import a chart but perhaps someone can help. What the hec is going on?
  9. Well, something's got to give. Seems to me the equity markets have been stretched way beyond breaking point and when they do snap (and I can't see why or how they won't) it could be a very violent retracement.
  10. Ummm Ftse set to open UP 100 Asian markets all UP overnight Oil UP Gold UP Everything is UP Up Up and AWAY......!!
  11. Yes, that's possible. Tbh, I'd like to believe the best but it can be difficult to figure out in face of the bald facts.
  12. That's what bugs me; he had a choice - to pay £75,000 off his 2nd home and thus reduce the burden on the taxpayer, or max out his allowances by paying off the mortgage on his London property and then selling it for a whacking great profit. Looking at the sum and not the parts, the taxpayer subsidised the profit he took from his London property.
  13. Actually, I don't believe we need saving. The evidence of history is that one technology overtakes another. Flint age, bronze age, iron age......................man-power, horse power, steam power, electricty etc. Are you suggesting that if there were a choice between devaluing property through the siting of a nuclear power station, and the impoverishment and decline of a nation, that the former would lose? Seven billion people = seven billion brains and the potential ingenuity and creativity that comes with them. Or, in your opinion, do brains cease to function at the seven billion mark? Edited win to lose to make meaning clear.
  14. Post deleted. Attempting to edit previous post for typos and managed to do a reply instead. Sorry.
  15. The brain drain will never stop until engineers and research scientists are better paid in this country. I have personal examples within 3 generations of my family. My OH (an engineer) was engaged in the 1960's with research on knee replacements. He continued as a professional engineer for 20 years or so but eventually, so as to earn a decent living, had to resort to self-employment in an engineering-related industry which required him to be more hands-on mechanic than engineer, although he was able to bring to bear his theoretical engineering knowledge. My brother has a Mech Eng degree from Cambridge but has now been working and living in the USA for 15 years. His salary there is at least 50% higher than he could get here. My daughter-in-law, until recently, was engaged in stem-cell research. She has a bio-med degree and MA. She has just left for better paid employment - locum in a path-lab - almost twice the salary. As far as I can tell, one either has to be a mad-scientist-in-the-garret type, prepared to give up all for the sake of the research, or give up the research. It is impossible to earn a living and have a family on the current UK salaries awarded to professional engineers and scientific researchers - even when they have multiple degrees from the best universities. Edited for typos.
  16. Ah, allegations re Cameron's expenses claim briefly mentioned on Sky News but was quickly diverted to his latest idea that MPs should be recallable. Seems like it is being deliberately downplayed. I wonder why?
  17. It's quite convenient, isn't it, to have everyone on tenterhooks trying to second-guess what the denouement might be.........?
  18. Interesting. Maybe there's a general consensus that what DC did wasn't as bad as out and out flipping and if he gets brought down, just about every MP could follow. It's a difficult one to judge, imo. I certainly think he took advantage of generous 2nd home allowances by rearranging his affairs to make sure this was possible. But it would appear that all MPs were encouraged to do this in lieu of foregone salary increases. Their efforts to surreptitiously award themselves salary increases through the backdoor of personal allowances has spectacularly backfired. Oh what a tangled web we weave When first we practise to deceive. OR: One sin leads to another...... The initial deception is where it began; pretending that they were foregoing salary increases to curry public favour yet bolstering their salary through allowances on the sly.
  19. Is it the case that David Cameron's alleged indiscretions re expenses have only been reported by the Mail on Sunday? I haven't picked it up on the news - either BBC or Sky, nor has Guido Fawkes run with it, so is it just a M on S non-story or what? Is Cameron being protected by the wider media for instance?
  20. I keep some C$ in cash - just in case things go downhill very fast and sterling goes the way of the Icelandic kroner. When I first joined and CGNAO was posting here, he near scared the life out of me. He said C$ would be good long term (I think he also mentioned Swiss francs, but can't remember for sure) so I went and bought some C$ and have kept them under the mattress ever since - just in case..... I paid £715 for 1420 C$. I've just checked and they are now worth £804.69.
  21. I agree with your point re investment/speculation and that the word "play" was a poor choice on my part - it was misleading. What I meant to imply was that even seasoned investors are unsure about whether to enter the equity markets, stay in cash or buy treasuries.
  22. If nothing else, the ignominy of means-testing (to which at least half of the population is subjected due to tax credits largely having replaced tax-free allowances) might go some way to addressing their arrogance and provoking a much needed humility.
  23. Exactly, and the more that people like GOM lose confidence in sterling and move their money into gold or other currencies, or invest in foreign markets, the more the financial base of the UK is undermined and the greater yield bond-holders require to continue financing UK debt, driving interest rates higher and round and round we go.....one inflationary spiral engaged without even a glimpse of a wage rise.
  24. I'd have thought the last thing the US economy needs is to offer another tax shelter to corporations. The tax take will already be massively reduced putting pressure on PSBR so why further undermine the tax take? I realise that there's a balance to be achieved between giving the economy a kick-start through tax-breaks and funding public expenditure through taxation, but is this really the way to go about achieving that balance? It looks like another scheme whereby the rich get richer (corporations) and the poor get poorer. But what do I know?
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.