nickb1

the last (maybe also the first) British Tory politician in favour of LVT was Winston Churchill I believe. Maybe he was grandstanding as a landowner, knowing it would never happen? The only way to get LVT is through a party that does not champion (amongst other things) inherited privilege.

I think there are some defensible reasons for being a vegan (I'm not one btw) but I doubt the environmental case. Integrated agriculture is best for soil health, and that is foundational; we need animals on the land. Vegan products can be as destructive as livestock farming. Broadscale soy monoculture in cleared rainforest anyone? But all depends how things are done, whether it's livestock or crops.

I'll take an internet keyboard warrior's view over scientists' any day. Who needs experts, right? Fact is, it's already dramatic.

are they? the ones in Miami? what about "selection bias"?

If socialism destroys everything it has done so thus far to a far lesser degree than capitalism, which has unleashed concentrations of greenhouse gases not seen for millions of years. Not that "socialism" has a good environmental record, if you look at most COMECON economies. But it seems absurd to go around saying that "socialism destroys everything" when we don't have a socialist global economy, and the capitalist one we do have is clearly ... destroying everything.

Probably ordinary Joes who think they can do the same. After all they are surrounded by people crowing about how they bought 6 years ago and "it's gone up £80k" and "aren't you on the ladder yet?" Your house price has gone up = your money is worth less. Sadly nobody is crowing about how much more expensive will be the next house they will buy.

where in the world is your "actual capitalism" actually observed?

With capitalism having brought about the ongoing and permanent wrecking of the climate and (lately) basically ever-increasing levels of inequality what we really need is a thread about why "socialism", almost nowhere observed, "can't work"? I'd say if you look at one of the few examples of current actually existing "socialism" (Cuba) it seems to have worked quite well, given the range of forces assembled against it (the entire so-called "international community" of client states of the most powerful empire the world has ever seen?). On outcomes that matter as captured in the human development index, for example, or the fact that it survived the energy crisis with the collapse of COMECON without the starvation that was endured elsewhere (e.g. N Korea). This is not to extol "socialism" in general (N Korea is "socialist") just to say that there are examples that give the lie to the title of this thread.

yes it begs the question why did they agree in advance that the 19 yr old would take one. But maybe he thumps them in 100% in practice.

You could see it happening. Italy's close control, holding the ball, passing etc. skills generally better than England players'. Before you know it England are standing off giving them lots of room, whereas whenever England have the ball they tend to be quickly hustled off it, moves breaking down etc. Then they resort to those hopeful long balls instead of playing it out from the back. A default pattern of play endemic here but reinforced by (albeit slightly) lower skill levels. This is as much praise of Italy's play as criticism of ours. Still they did fantastically well to get to the final even if it was an "easy route" compared to Italy's.

have you heard of "critical thinking"? The answer is not in a dictionary, or a textbook, since this is not definitive of consensus in the right sense (use of the word on the ground by the relevant linguistic community). Why not address the objections to the definition of money as "medium of exchange", which seem to show this does in fact not fit actual usage, instead of appealing to authority? Furthermore I've no interest in "fighting you" only in exploring the question of what money is (= how the word is used in the language). Since you are happy to stop at the dictionary or textbook, despite the objections, it is of no further interest to respond to you.

yes. the most commonly repeated definition in textbooks and the like is that of medium of exchange. So what? It';s still a cr*p definition.

And my point is: so what? you are apparently avoiding the worthwhile task of getting at the real and relevant sense of a word by sticking to what is commonplace in dictionaries and textbooks. Why? what is gained by that?

not by a poll of textbooks and economists.