Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

boynamedsue

Members
  • Posts

    468
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by boynamedsue

  1. You must think everybody's an imbecile. Do you think that we suppose that a BACS transfer involves a bike messenger and brown envelope of cash? Nobody believes the bank has a pile of cash with their name on it, and most people are aware that banks don't have the cash to cover the ammounts recorded on their computers. Given people are actually taught this at school, I'd have thought it was quite obviously the case.
  2. The idea that the rich should pay a higher proportion of theit wealth than the poor in taxes is pretty well established in Britain. I'm personally one of the old-fashioned types who don't believe that financial reward tallies in any way shape or form with social usefulness, so taxation should be an instrument to redistribute wealth from the rich to the poor. The rich benefit more from the state, given their property and wealth is guaranteed by the government (you may or may not have noticed the Head of State's picture is on our money), and so should pay more.
  3. No, people rebelled against it because it was unfair. Families of 4 low waged working people, livng in a two bedroom house received a bill of £4000, whereas a millionaire in a seven bedroom mansion received a bill of £1000. This is unfair, the rich should pay more tax than the poor, not the other way round. The poll tax has been introduced twice in Britain, and blood ran in the streets both times. I would love the tories to try it again and put themselves out of power for another generation.
  4. I've lived in a country without an official, universal, rubbish collection service. I really don't recommend it, unless you like your beauty spots buried under plastic, and rats infesting your suburban streetd.
  5. Oh yes, and let's not forget that the Ra actually tried to kill him, and he still spoke to them... The rest of his government were a set of mongrels and wrong cocks though... only Hague had owt about him.
  6. Started by Major, brought to fruition by Mowlam and sealed by Mandelson. So why exactly is it Blair's legacy?
  7. True, but there were no petrol bombs in the poll tax disturbances, so I though I'd go back to when both the riots and the soundtrack were a bit classier. I suppose I could have harked back to the original poll tax riots and listened to a lute solo while sharpening my scythe... I'm a labour man, but I've got a bit of a soft spot for old Major. He should've devalued after he won in 92 though, according to Hattersley labour were going to do it the first day. Major laid the groundwork for the positive cultural changes that became the official national values under Blair, and he never used the police repressively as Thatcher did, and actively sought to depoliticise them.
  8. Yep, it was a winner the first time, but Thatcher just didn't have the spine to carry it through. Now we've got the Iron Toff in charge, I'm sure it'll work out fine. **puts Ghost Town on I-Pod, fills milkbottles with petrol and giggles**
  9. Nobody has suggested the tories join. So it should be coalition of SOME losers.
  10. I don't think you know what hypocrite means. It's not a synonym of "wrong". You were asked a serious question about how the policy you proposed would be enforced. Your answer was "trident", if your answer was "rhetorical" can we assume that you agree that there is no means to enforce your plan? If so, I no longer believe you to be criminally insane and a danger to the public. That's assuming you know what "rhetorical" means. Your example sheds more light on your personality than it does on any issue of international finance. You don't have a legal claim. A loan to a sovreign nation is like a gambling debt, it is totally unenforceable under any law. Lenders know that as well as borrowers.
  11. 1. Greece doesn't have a legal obligation to repay its debts. No law governs loans to sovereign nations. 2. Unprovoked nuclear attacks against sovereign nations ARE however illegal under international law. 3. You are a [email protected] loon. If you really think that defaulting debtors should be murdered along with their children, you need help of the kind administered at Special Rampton.
  12. Should work a treat, as long as the Greek army know that bankrupts aren't allowed to shoot because the bullets don't belong to them.
  13. Trade isn't voluntary between parties with gross inequality of resources. A starving man doesn't trade voluntarily with someone who owns all the food within walking distance. That idea doesn't lead to any more freedom than the sytem we have now, for most people there would be less freedom.
  14. Yes, in as much as freedom exists as anything other than a word. A person is only absolutely economically free if they control all the world's resources and all of the physical goods within it. They must also be obeyed by the rest of the population, though that would kind of follow on from the first conditions. Then they can do whatever they want, they are completely free. All the other theories of freedom are just about what is the right way to divide the inability to fulfill our desires.
  15. Anarcho-Capitalists. Proudly supporting other people's right to starve to death since Ayn Rand stopped taking her meds. BTW. I know Aesop is from ancient Greece, but I doubt the type of freedom he had in mind was the same as the one people on this thread seem to be subscribing.
  16. That's irrelevant, we are talking about economic effects, not virtue. I can make quite a strong case that the people who work at the lowest levels are those who in reality create the wealth, but that's not the debate here. Taxing money that would only have been saved does stimulate the economy, particularly in the case of inheritance tax (though I admit the sums are comparatively small in that example). That was a bit of a wild eyed rant, wasn't it? Do you read the mail by any chance?
  17. Depends on the tax being cut. Tax cuts on the rich in this environment would largely be converted into savings, or (mis)allocated to property. The ammount of deposits today isn't going to change how much the banks lend, as the banks haven't restricted their lending for lack of deposits, but because they're worried they won't get paid back. So you can kind of see what his argument is. Also, in reaction to the OP's tone, I'd like to say: Just because you're losing!
  18. That's not true, unless you believe a popular policy is buying votes. What utter rot. How on Earth you can describe guaranteeing everybody housing adequate for the needs of their family as evil? Badly executed on occasion, some might say misguided, but evil? Only if you suffer from a bad case of Ayn Rand's syndrome. As to "every one can afford a house", simply no. It's just not what would happen. Just because you find an outcome desirable, there is no reason to believe that a "free market" would provide it. You would have seen a massive concentration of housing stock in the hands of slum landlords who would gouge prices so that the working class could barely afford their radio-rentals. Do you read a paper at all? I would have loved Labour to take Britain back to the post-war consensus. They haven't even tried.
  19. Unless it was already locked away inside the earth's crust, under the north sea for example. In that case, unlocking it and burning it still causes massive greenhouse emmissions.
  20. I think the Von Mises institute should start organising Anglo-Somalian friendship tours, so British libertarians can see the workers' paradise first hand.
  21. It never ceases to amaze me how people can't see the contradiction in believing that all their savings are their just and rightful reward for their hard work, while recognising that money is merely something conjured into existance by the government and banks. Your savings are as artificial and arbitrary as any other aspect of the insane financial merry-go-round. Capitalism is the child of the state, and when it goes wrong the state tries to fix it (as has happened on many occasions, in many places). In general the poor pay more than the rich in this process, but sometimes the middle and upper middle lose out too through inflation being higher than interest rates. Stop pouting like fekking children and stroking your bank-books, you're probably not worth your wages anyway.
  22. It never ceases to amaze me how people can't see the contradiction in believing that all their savings are their just and rightful reward for their hard work, while recognising that money is merely something conjured into existance by the government and banks. Your savings are as artificial and arbitrary as any other aspect of the insane financial merry-go-round. Capitalism is the child of the state, and when it goes wrong the state tries to fix it (as has happened on many occasions, in many places). In general the poor pay more than the rich in this process, but sometimes the middle and upper middle lose out too through inflation being higher than interest rates. Stop pouting like fekking children and stroking your bank-books, you're probably not worth your wages anyway.
  23. That's just ******** I'm afraid, and you have absolutely no evidence whatsoever to back it up.
  24. I'm sorry I didn't answer you directly. I'm talking in real terms. As I say, debt is not homogenous, and certain kinds of debt will have positive effects, while others won't. In addition, the idea that this chart demonstrates the effect of debt on GDP is simply not correct, other factors influence GDP.
×
×
  • 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.