Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

NobodyInParticular

Members
  • Posts

    3,275
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by NobodyInParticular

  1. He can probably afford several given what he says he warns.
  2. Here's another view from https://www.bondvigilantes.com/blog/2010/02/02/what-happened-the-last-time-the-uk-defaulted/ "This Time Is Different (we’ve plugged it before), Reinhart and Rogoff do not have Britain in their very short list of six nations that have never defaulted (New Zealand, Australia, Thailand, Denmark, Canada and the USA). " And if I'd not truncated the quote it would back you up on the last default being in the interwar period, 1932, to the USA. But 1932 isn't never. Although, I'd note the USA defaulted on debt to France after the War of Independence which triggered the French revolution, but that was the often forgotten USA 1.0, not the USA 2.0 from 1789 to date, and so by my definition, the USA has not defaulted. I can't find any record of the modern nations of Belgium (or Norway) defaulting
  3. Was this before or after Macron said this should be done? Not that I'm giving macron much credit for seeing anything other than a headline.
  4. The UK was in trouble after WW2 too. Richard Roberts notes in When Britain Went Bust, his absorbing, “The years from 1964 to 1967 witnessed essentially a continuous sterling crisis.” From the mid-1940s to mid-1970s, Britain was the heaviest user of IMF resources. You can't really accuse Belgium of having defaulted on sovereign debt before it had any. I may have been wrong about the 1976 debt default, I'll research more, but still bankrupt in a way, depending on definition.
  5. When is your research being published? And we're back to eugenics.
  6. Untrue. It depends on subject. How is this manipulation effected? You seem to be confusing either big state advocates or Marxist-Leninist theories of the avant-garde with the left which in the UK is social democratic. Where there is any dislike it's a suggestion that the EU is corpratist, which was Corbyn's issue. How are you defining bankrupt? If you mean default on sovereign debt, then you are missing quite a few nations on your list that have not (e.g. Beligium) and UK shouldn't be on it, having last defaulted in 1976.
  7. Or smallpox. One of the drivers can be long COVID, apparently, which is not confined to old and fat people and includes some quite fit, healthy people. I hadn't realised hats were so dangerous. I bought some socks - please tell me I am safe! That's right. Smoking is dangerous. COVID is 120k, which is more, even if some are those that might have died of smoking now or in the near future. I've never managed to travel anywhere on a virus. One reason is that the lockdown measures are very effective against influenza. And part of that may be due to the newer strains being more deadly for under 60s, as some research has suggested, although it's not proven. Not in the current studies on how easily COVID can be contracted the new strains are not being used due to the concern they are more deadly to younger people. Ouch! Can she come and be PM here after she's done with NZ? "There is physics. All the rest is stamp collecting".
  8. It turns out that doesn't seem to be true. A significant proportion of people end up with long COVID with unknown long-term effects over an unknown period of time and unknown effects on the economy. And lots more people would have died. How many do you think should be sacrificed? The mutuation likelihood is based infection rate x people, so there would just as much opportunity for new variants. The new and dangerous variants have largely been from places with high infection rates matching best your description of what you believe to be safest, undermining your belief/assertion. And of course, the NHS, with the levels of people hospitalised in your scenario, would have been doing other work without problem? You scenario of 'letting it rip' would have cost 250k and would have been in addition, largely, to that 220k you suggest died as a result of lockdown (for which you have no evidence). Well, that's OK then. When you are older I presume you will report yourself for termination as in 'Soylent Green'.
  9. Mutations is how they determined that most of the cases in New York were infections from Europe. That was around April last year. There were no trials of vaccines at the time.
  10. It's not forgotten at all that the Left was opposed. Generally, it's not now, but Corbyn's leaver credentials were mentioned every 75 seconds in 2016.
  11. I was vilified for suggesting the second wave was beginning at the end of September and made some projections which turned out to be moderately accurate (I just curve fitted as I am not an epidemiologist). I'm going to hazard a guess: "Not in the slightest". The Great Reset is about recognising economic and technological change and proposing it work better for people in an intentional way and the pandemic is a random event. Why would it be fortuitous? In many ways it's made things much harder for globalists. How could such a random event be an intrinsic part? Because Boris was probably told this week he wasn't being sensible and if he set dates and then we had another wave and another lockdown it would be bad Boris. That's the reverse of what they are doing, or at least the reverse of what they are intending to do but managing to do through mismanagement. That might work, but if people don't stop at that then we may see another wave which would be worse than a slow but unidirectional unlocking. Yes, through failing to manage things properly earlier. I don't particularly trust this government to get it right - it's made lots of mistakes. When it has done the right thing then I do mention it, much like you praise a puppy for crapping outside not in the living room. I don't think that makes me a government shill. it does finally seem to be being more sensible. My theory is Boris was told that if expectations are raised that there will be trouble if he pushes it too quickly and another wave requires another lockdown and will be spending more time with his family, even beyond that required by a lockdown.
  12. You'd think it was legally binding if you listened to Johnson or Gove... I can't see the SNP not winning the election. I can't say whether or not it will top 50%. I think it's unlikely that the SNP is going to implode, though.
  13. It was specifically once in a generation but with an assurance that if things changed another would be allowed. The government is reneging on the latter bit. That might actually be the final straw here, ironically.
  14. Spain has no veto over Scottish independence. Scotland could join EFTA. Relatively few will have Scottish grandparents. But it will be complicated, and I presume there will be a CTA as with Ireland. It could get... interesting.
  15. I'll have to go and read the stuff again at some point then and find the references. Some aren't things in treaties, but are contractual obligations, agreements the UK made years ago to which it is still bound, which is why there are various 'tranches' of payments as you would have noticed if you listened to the news years ago. I just don't keep a huge file of answers to your arguments so I will have to do the primary research again. Why do you think we agreed to it. It's actually multiple payments for different elements, BTW. But Scotland isn't obligated. I was never confused about that point. You seem to be confused about the ONS document which says that if we calculated it differently (which we don't) it would be different. But Germany calculates GDP in basically the same way we do, based on the Eurostat method, as does the UK, as the UK was part of the EU and hasn't changed methodology yet. There is a proposal to do so. If you look at the proposed method it reduces the reduction in GDP from 9.9% to 4.8%, but it's still greater than that of Germany (one you keep noting uses a different methodology) to 3.8%. So even then, Germany did better. 2.2% is a fantasy figure.
  16. Meh, according to the Telegraph, barely a ripple. I don't understand the 'police state' mantra as it's inaccurate and antithetical to what the government has been doing. For example, thousands of complaints about workplaces and no actual cases let alone convictions AFAIK. If the government had listened, we might not be out of lockdown but be doing better. We all have to do our bit, though.
  17. They seem to not take SAGE seriously. Scientific debate would be getting the government to listen to SAGE, not ignore it as it did dux months ago which helped deliver us the disaster last month. On the positive side, vaccination is going well and based on the rate of decrease in cases R must be at most 0.8 by now. In a month we'll probably have cases at about 1/4 of what they are now if progress continues and R stays the same, and possibly better. Part of that will be lock down, part vaccination. So moving into the summer I'm cautiously optimistic.
  18. So a very tiny proportion. No, that makes perfect sense. An adverse reaction includes a mild fever which usually indicates a good immune response and is a good sign. Younger adults generally have more vigorous immune systems. It's what you would expect.
  19. Believe it or not I don't keep a compendium of excerpts of quotes from treaties just for your benefit. For example, I read the EU-Japan trade agreement, refuting what Howler said about it. I posted the references in this thread. But I didn't note down the references for later and so if asked the same question I'd have to look on this thread or read the whole thing again. It does not mean that I haven't read it. Ditto various European treaties. So why don't you go and find the bit that says "UK doesn't have to pay"? If we didn't have to pay, why did we? So I already noted it was worse in France with the 'apples to oranges' comparison which, from what I read from the ONS is more apples to apples. But on the basis UK figures are calculated it is still 9. 9% down, not 4.8%.
  20. No veto like the undemocratic EU when a part of the UK votes remain... It's hard to square the circle of 52:48 in England, but remain votes elsewhere. Representation for NI, if reflecting the full spectrum of views in NI would be a good thing. This was always going to be a mess and I still think it will end with the end of the UK unless it becomes fully federal, but I don't think that's likely or would solve this issue. The backstop was the one that might have fixed the NI issue, but would have meant other issues elsewhere. Brexit means Brexit, but whither Norway+? As they allegedly say in Ireland, "if you want to go there I wouldn't start from here"
  21. As far as I can tell, you are mistaken. No, the ONS is right. You're wrong. We don't know for sure. There will be a negotiation. Er, sorry, promises to pay for things like contributions whole a member or pensions of commission members were legally required. I will need to find specific references else you wont be happy. I have finite time. Even when I do you argue black is white. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Maybe I'll get round to it when not redecorating. So I read that, and it says the opposite of what you think it does, as far as I can tell. It says that currently the UK also uses the Eurostat methodology, and so it was a 10% reduction, worse than Germany but better than France, but it was proposed that "One of the main recommendations was that direct measures of output should be used in the measurement of non-market output, seeking “to measure what is achieved by spending on public services”⁵." But it's a proposed CHANGE.
  22. I don't see Scottish people being that concerned about the Salmond issue, though. It would speed up the process, but the momentum due to Brexit seems there already. They wish for people to vote SNP to help speed the process. A referendum will be coming, sooner or later.
  23. It's not from the ONS. Why is the ONS more right about how German GDP is calculated than others? I've yet to see anything from the ONS to back you up. Citation please. No, it's very relevant. I can't follow your 'logic'. You say it's because of A, I point out that your assumption that A is valid is incorrect, so you say A is irrelevant. I noted that there are discrepancies because they rely on incomplete statistics. But please show your ONS Citation Try Google. It's not my job to spoonfeed you
×
×
  • 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.