Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Game_Over

New Members
  • Posts

    7,861
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Game_Over

  1. I would be really interested on your views as to what specifically in the education system is ruining kids' life chances.

    I could write a book about this subject.

    How about this.

    A level Chemistry coursework with maths content, my son was doing A level maths so got virtually 100% right, other students basically failed but were given C's.

    A sample of the coursework was then checked by the external board and the C grade work was found to only be worth E's

    so my sons A was knocked down to a C despite it being worth an A.

    And we couldn't ask for his work to be marked individually because it is cohort marking and there is no way an individual can dispute the moderation.

    I have dozens of examples like this - so appalling that no one ever believes me.

    :blink:

  2. Indeed. The BoE is nothing but an unaccountable scapegoat for the incompetent economic decisions of this shower of sh1te we are told is a Government. A honest and accountable Government would be true to the people, sack the lot of them and take responsibility for their actions. That this situation has continued for as long as it has, shows we neither deserve the benefits of democracy, nor understand it's price.

    Since the end of WW2 democracy in the West has largely involved politicians promising people more and more free stuff in order to buy their votes.

    Where we are now is just the logical consequence of this process.

    This has been the true price of democracy.

    How does Democracy work when the only way forward is shrinking the size of the state?

    :blink:

  3. Absolute nonsense. Our current account deficit is ~2% of GDP. That means as a nation we are spending ~2% more than we earn. The problem thus boils down to one of internal imbalances too much income in the hands of some, too little in others.

    Testimony of Marriner Eccles to the Committee on the Investigation of Economic Problems in 1933

    "It is utterly impossible, as this country has demonstrated again and again, for the rich to save as much as they have been trying to save, and save anything that is worth saving. They can save idle factories and useless railroad coaches; they can save empty office buildings and closed banks; they can save paper evidences of foreign loans; but as a class they can not save anything that is worth saving, above and beyond the amount that is made profitable by the increase of consumer buying. It is for the interests of the well to do – to protect them from the results of their own folly – that we should take from them a sufficient amount of their surplus to enable consumers to consume and business to operate at a profit. This is not “soaking the rich”; it is saving the rich. Incidentally, it is the only way to assure them the serenity and security which they do not have at the present moment."

    http://londonbanker.blogspot.co.uk/2011/09/testimony-of-marriner-eccles-to.html

    In the 1930's Germany tried printing

    then they tried National Socialism

    then they tried waging war.

    None of these solutions worked.

    We are more screwed than you seem prepared to accept

    and the consequences, WHATEVER anyone now does are unavoidable.

    :blink:

  4. I get the impression that our young, in addition to having their life chances ruined by the economy we now have, also face something of a media stigma.

    It's been a decade since I read the Daily Wail, but I get the impression that if they were running the country we'd have curfews on anyone aged under 30 going out after 7pm and the Telegraph - given the demographic it represents - isn't any better.

    I have three kids, 2 at Uni and 1 training to be an accountant.

    The main thing ruining our kids life chances is the state education system.

    My kids have all done really well - but only because as a family we have fought for years against an education system that went to extra ordinary lengths to ruin their chances.

    Couple this with the state actively undermining and destroying the family - which is the fundamental unit of all happy, successful human societies

    and there can only be one outcome - misery.

    :)

  5. I was just talking about this the other day to Mrs What's'isname. One of my first jobs took me to Port Sunlight on a regular basis and I thought it was lovely. It speaks volumes that housing provided for the workers in the 1890s is much more desirable to most people than the majority of the private housing built today!

    Port_Sunlight.jpg

    How far we have fallen as a nation :(

    Err.......

    These communities were built by Capitalists to house their workers, because happy, healthy workers are more productive.

    Compare the value and quality of these homes to all the council houses and flats built after WW2.

    And the reason private housing is so poor now is because of planning restrictions which force developers to build high density housing which no one wants.

    :blink:

  6. Just remember this Sunshine

    There was no problem before THE CITY broke the UK.

    Are they contributing more - NO they offshore TRILLIANS £££'s of untaxed cash

    Are the CITY being reformed - are they fekk

    Sorry, but the rot started after WW2 - North Sea Oil probably bought us 10-20 years extra breathing space.

    For decades people have been made promises by politicians, all trying to outbid each other to buy their votes.

    Now the bills for all these promises have to be paid

    and there is no way our economy can generate enough wealth to cover the bill.

    This is why Government and personal debt has run out of control as individuals and the state attempt to continue living way beyond their means.

    It wasn't a conspiracy, it was just the logical conclusion of the Social model we adopted in the West post WW2.

    Well everyone wants free stuff - but eventually someone has to pay.

    :blink:

  7. Have you been smoking rolled up copies of the Daily Mail again?

    :lol:

    Where do you guys get this stuff!?!

    No public sector worker effectively pays any tax or makes any pension contributions.

    If they did, the Government could just borrow unlimited amounts of money

    create millions of public sector jobs

    then the tax they paid would fund the deficit.

    It doesn't take a genius to work out the flaw in this cunning plan.

    Having said that it, was the Labour Party's economic strategy for all its time in office.

    You really have no idea how screwed we are

    or how much pain is heading our way

    :blink:

  8. I think it's because back then there were far fewer retired people vs people in work.

    There is also another aspect - people felt they owned the WWI and WWII generations a debt of gratitude; they ensured hardship and loss so that subsequent generations could be born free. Not many people in their 30s feel they owe a big debt of gratitude to random people in their late 60s, who by all accounts had a pretty good life and opportunities (free higher education, reasonably priced houses, flares and hi-karate).

    Exactly.

    Pensions are only viable if a small number are taking out and a large number are paying in.

    The same applies to welfare benefits

    which is why the whole system is completely screwed.

    :blink:

  9. Ahh - yes

    That old chest-nut

    Feed more Wealth towards FAT CATS (backed up by made-up lies heh heh)

    So food getting more expensive has nothing to do with 300 Billions of QE?

    Perhaps we should do 1 Trillion of QE then?

    If you want a conspiracy theory, how about blaming high food prices on Global Warming

    when they are actually due to over population and the devaluation of the pound.

    :blink:

  10. Dear god.

    This two party political system is dire. Jokers on the left, jokers on the right.

    And in the middle you have lefty do gooders.

    The welfare system in this country is ******ing broken.

    It's totally pointless arguing with people.

    At the end of the day, unless the whole system is completely reformed, it will bankrupt the UK.

    And if Labour get elected promising more free stuff for everyone

    paid for by printing 'free money'

    then we will just end up bankrupt even sooner.

    The really amusing thing is, the Coalition aren't even cutting at all.

    At some point there are going to be huge and extremely painful social changes imposed on millions of people who have had a free ride for decades - including the political classes and public sector non-workers.

    Try not to stress about it - because the end is nigh

    much nigher than people realise, I suspect.

    :blink:

  11. More fantasy economics from the Big State Social Welfare fanatics.

    At the end of the day you cannot escape REALITY.

    Any state which consistently spends more than it takes in will eventually go bankrupt.

    The REALITY is that sooner or later the sh1t is going to hit the proverbial fan.

    Someone once said that the meek would inherit the Earth

    in reality, the Tea Party will inherit the Earth

    trouble is, there won't be much left to inherit.

    :blink:

  12. More Brainwashing crap from the troughing Norman - Masonic - Zionist dyna-sty

    rubbed in by you - their lying Mason Mis-leading sychophants!

    The crop was merely late

    - The Noman Landowners are creating false rumours about shortage

    (like the Irish Famine

    - The British/Irish landowners were exporting huge tonnage of cerial crops whilst Millions died/emigrated)

    Blame Masonic run Eddie Stobart and the other giant transport companies they created whilst putting loads of one man drivers out of business (I knew a load of 'em)

    - so they can 'create' artificial "shortages" & fekk the people of the UK around at WILL

    With respect

    If Governments continue printing, then EVERYTHING is INEVITABLY going to get more expensive.

    On the upside, given the levels of obesity in the UK, there is clearly a lot of scope for saving by reducing consumption.

    :blink:

  13. VAT isn't a tax that Wetherspoons pay though since they reclaim it on inputs.

    Their customers pay it.

    But silly having it in this calculation, almost as if they were trying to exaggerate how much tax they pay...

    Got to make a comment on this because I have heard similar remarks made on the BBC.

    When someone is selling something they charge the maximum that the market will bear, they then deduct costs to give profit

    therefore VAT comes directly out of profits.

    If VAT was abolished tomorrow, Wetherspoons could still charge the same for their coffee and I would still buy it,

    the only difference is, they would make 20% more profit.

    :blink:

  14. James Delingpole in the Telegraph points out how special interests like Tim Yeo and the socialists in power want to effectively end electricity on demand and regulate when you get your power through 'smart meters' and other technology:

    -

    My main worry about Tim Yeo, though, is that he is not merely routinely unpleasant but actively dangerous. Among the few to have noticed just how dangerous he is is Richard North at Eureferendum, who notes the terrifying, eco-fascistic undertones of a speech Yeo gave recently at Bloomberg's HQ.

    Instead of "lumbering the UK economy with a centralised power system largely reliant on gas", Yeo wants, "super efficient solar cells, anaerobic digestion, wind power, new nuclear reactors, wave and tidal power and carbon capture and storage". These, he declares, are the technologies of the future. "Smart meters, new grid technology and increased interconnection across the continent will lead to a new 'energy internet'".

    What we then see for our money is, "decentralising electricity generation, giving consumers much more control of their use of energy, and empowering people and businesses, both large and small, to produce and sell electricity back to the grid themselves".

    But what Yeo then describes should chill the very marrow of your bones. "The dynamic demand management allowed by these new technological developments", he tells us, "will help to address the problem posed by increasing proportions of intermittent generation in the system; gradually reducing the amount of gas back up that is needed".

    If you can't see what the problem is here, let me explain. Up until now we have all lived in a world where we expect to enjoy electricity on demand. When we want a cup of tea, for example, we take it for granted that we can put on the kettle there and then. It would strike us as barmy beyond measure that we might have to wait for two or three hours until such time as the National Grid deemed it fit to provide us with the electricity we desired. Yet this is the principle behind those "smart meters" and "new grid technology" which Yeo is advocating. Yeo and his fellow green ideologues and eco-profiteers are trying to usher in a new world in which it is the State – through the National Grid – which decides when, where and how much electricity you get to use, not you the consumer.

    I first cottoned on to this when I was researching Watermelons:

    You hear "smart" employed in its new meaning quite often by environmental propagandists and technocrats these days, as for example, in an interview on BBC Radio 4 in March 2011 with Steve Holliday, chief executive of Britain's electricity connecting network the National Grid.“The grid is going to be a very different system in 2020, 2030. We keep thinking that we want it to be there and provide power when we need it. It is going to be much smarter than that. We are going to change our own behaviour and consume it when it is available and available cheaply.”

    Traditionally "smarter" has tended to mean positive things like "more intelligent", "better designed" , "sharper" or "quicker". But not in this context. "The time when consumers were free to use electricity whenever they wanted is coming to an end," Holliday is basically saying. "Now we must prepare ourselves for a new golden age of environmental righteousness, when power is rationed according to the whim of Big Brother."

    It's no surprise that self-confessed watermelons like Caroline Lucas MP should be four square behind such schemes. But what, you might not unreasonably ask, is a Tory MP doing trying to advance something so inimical to conservative principles as state-controlled energy rationing? This is eco-fascism, pure and simple. It's not about free markets; it's not about consumer choice; it's not about a healthy economy; and it's most definitely not about rationalism or common sense. Remember, we are about to enter a new era of abundant, relatively cheap, home-grown energy – the shale gas revolution. This revolution will make a mockery of all the assumptions behind so-called "smart growth" – ie that scarce resources need to be preserved, that we need "energy security", and that the only way we can achieve this is through "rationing" sexily rebranded as something desirable and "smart."

    At the moment "smart growth" is just an unpleasant twinkle in the eyes of a few (very well-placed) green ideologues. But just you watch as, with the help of eco-fascist-dominated government departments like DECC, hard-left lobbyists like Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace, hairshirt anti-prosperity movements like Transition Towns and their amen corner on the Guardian's Environment pages, the concept slowly mutates from "What? Energy rationing by the government? We'd never stand for it" to linchpin of government energy policy.

    The single best thing the Conservatives could do in 2013 is boot Tim Yeo out of every position of power he holds and watch as he crosses the floor to his natural home: Caroline Lucas's barmy, misanthropic, anti-capitalist Greens.

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100195422/tim-yeo-no-headline-can-do-him-justice/

    The Greens are anti-humanity.

    :blink:

  15. Yes, I do.

    Nope.

    I just tell you what you have to do to get the result you want.

    Fact that you aren't strong enough to actually do it is your problem, not mine.

    There you go again.

    If only everyone would 'turn the other cheek'

    Your philosophy requires the existence of God

    mine does not.

    Anyway, I am trying to give up posting here

    but I find it hard to ignore the 'everyone has a right to everything' posts

    and you find it impossible to ignore my responses.

    Anyway, I think this quote from Luke 7:36-50 sums up my feelings on our philosophical disagreement

    'Thy faith hath saved thee; go in peace.'

    :)

  16. Rights are observations of behaviour, which if undertaken lead to desired results. As real as gravity. And about as optional.

    I agree. Which is why we have rights.

    The problem is, you have absolutely no idea how you would behave if you were starving, or if you had a family and they were starving.

    I have spent my whole life reading how people behave in such circumstances

    and I can tell you that they do not behave in the same way as they do when they have everything they need for survival.

    Because you live in a society where everyone is provided for

    you extrapolate how people behave in these circumstances across the whole of time and space

    and constantly argue that this is what humans are 'really' like.

    Well humans are humans and how they behave in different circumstances is well documented.

    :)

  17. Yes, they do. It's simply impossible for you to fight the rest of humanity.

    Which is the same as saying there is no right to monopolise resources.

    Great Ormand street hospital just called, they said you are smoking crack. What you describe is not how people work.

    The problem with your philosophical position is that it requires the existence of God.

    And you don't believe in God.

    Which is actually hugely ironic if you think about it.

    :)

  18. Yes, they do. It's simply impossible for you to fight the rest of humanity.

    Which is the same as saying there is no right to monopolise resources.

    Great Ormand street hospital just called, they said you are smoking crack. What you describe is not how people work.

    Clearly it is not necessary to fight the whole of humanity

    and rights are a human intellectual construct

    they no more exist in nature than ghosts or unicorns.

    At the end of the day, humans are just one of millions of species clinging to existence on a spec of dust in a vast, timeless universe.

    We have no more control over nature or the realities of existence than ants or microbes.

    :)

  19. You can only own what other people agree is yours, but that agreement isn't what makes something yours. :)

    Getting there.

    They don't have to agree if you can defend what you claim to 'own'

    also I edited my post for clarification,

    if eveyone has an equal right to exist then everyone has an equal right to monopolise resources in order to do so.

    This inevitably leads to conflict which is decided in the only fair way possible.

    The strong survive and the weak perish.

    This is not my opinion, or how I would like the World to be

    this is just the reality of existence.

    :blink:

  20. Also plenty of people did actually predict what was going to happen, they were just ignored so people could carry on taking short term profits as long as they greased the right palms.

    It was blindingly obvious what was going to happen

    because it has happened before.

    And everything going on in Europe has also happened before.

    I think the problem is, the world is run by economists and lawyers ie charlatans and crooks

    when it should be run by historians.

    :blink:

×
×
  • 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.