Spain's "new Deal" For Today's Depression...

[A.steve]

He was a facsist dictator who started and won the Spanish civil war in the 1930s. Under his rule, Spain was kept in economic isolation until his death in 1977. It took a few years (and a failed coup) for democracy to establish itself, but by the mid-80s Spain was on the up and pulling itself out of the dark ages. This coincided with Spain joining the EU. That's why I think Spain was booming anyway, and therefore difficult to quantify how much effect the EU had.

I mean both. Spain has a huge amount of bureaucracy and a complex tax system. Just becoming a freelancer means you have to fill in masses of paperwork, and pay a few hundred euros a month in tax, even if you earned nothing during that month.

See my comment about Franco above

Again, many, many thanks. I feel so dumb - why did I not get taught about this at school, I wonder?

One of my Granddads was obsessive about the Spanish Civil War before he died, but - because he also thought philately a great hobby, I didn't pay any attention - I couldn't even have told you which century it was from...

The thing that now bugs me is how did a fascist dictator in Spain tie-in with WWII? Italy, Germany France, Switzerland etc. are all existent in the British version of history - but Spain, now I come to think about it, is conspicuously absent. In fact, the only thing I can think of that I can remember/think about Spain from the first part of the 20th century are conspiracy stories about Nazis having escaped justice to pretend to be Spanish to move freely around Europe... and I'd dismissed that as the stuff of fantasy too far-fetched to be turned into a war-film. What were Spanish allegiances - and was Spain greatly affected by WWII?

Perhaps I've an over-active imagination - but I note as significant the date of the civil war... would it be reasonable to assume that the 1929 US crash and ensuing depression had anything to do with events in Spain?

Edited May 28, 2009 by A.steve

[winkie]

When I first went to Spain you could not wear a bikini on the beach or dance after midnight but a child could drink alcohol in a bar.

[Injin]

I disagree - banks can operate as banks provided all the customers understand that this is the deal - there's no fraud provided the risk of default is understood. Sure, this would reduce the average size of banks - but that's a different matter entirely.

There ar enoi defaults. if everyone understands how they work, that includes the "borrowers" who will do what I did - tell the banks to bugger off. There is no income for he bank unless it can find peopel to convince they have borrowed money (when they actually haven't.)

Interesting one-liner... and I accept that you've been marginally clever here in appearing to refute my argument about communication being an alternative to trade. You have made an implicit logical error, however, relating to the semantics of implication. (This would be an example of a clever lie - if you intended this.)

Communication is trade... probably, but is trade communication? I'd strongly argue that it is not.

Sure it is. Price signals and all that.

In fact, I'd go so far as to say that this distinction is critical if we want to understand the last 60-odd years. I think you're not the first person to make this subtle error of judgement. I think it was the error made by Kuznets et al. at Bretton Woods when they established the post-war international economic architecture. They argued that trade (as opposed to communication) that would prevent a recurrence of WWII - perhaps with even more deadly weapons.

Which was insane, obviously. What they wanted to do was keep power while mitigating the problem of having power - not smart.

I think the error shows through in the definition of GDP which measures economic output (which is assumed a universal good) with the sum total value of national non-government transactions. I suspect that this is intimately tied with the 'superboom' (as Soros calls it) that arose when international capital flows were deregulated. I think it is possible to credibly argue that it has been a 'worship' of the false God of 'GDP' during the most recent boom that has accentuated the practical economic problems we now face.

Communication differs from trade in so far as communication is a symmetric (typically recursively defined) relation. Trade - definitely trade involving different currencies - is not symmetric. This point is adequately made by comparing the balance of trade and our balance of payments in our national accounts.

That's because national currencies don't start life as trade. They start by theft.

I dismiss the above on syntactic grounds. If the statement is reasonable, it has no reasonable context (definitions for terms) of which I'm aware - hence, if your claim is valid, you've failed to communicate it. I do not recognise this - "Negative Acknowledgement."

not the slightest clue what this means - am talking actions in the real world. Theft is the taking of one mans stuff by another without permission. This definition applies to all men with no exceptions.

I agree with the first, but not necessarily with the second. I can construct infinitely many scenarios in which lying would be a good thing - at least in a local context. In conversations I've been having recently (about theoretical computation) I've found I often start by checking that I've full attention - announcing that I'll tell a few lies - then, after an explanation, return full circle to the 'lie' - identifying it as such. This might sound pointless - but the idea is to convey information - it is a communication technique. I am absolutely convinced that it is the information exchanged that matters, not what is said. This belief, I consider, is a fundamental human right - one that certainly trumps property - the right to private communication. The right to exchange ideas with another individual confidentially - because the language or context assumed would prevent the message being correctly interpreted by someone else. This belief of mine certainly appears to fly in the face of the beliefs of those who feel that telling a lie is evil - and, curiously, those who argue for an 'open society' - though, in almost every other respect, I prefer open societies.

I'll have to think about this a bit.

Hmm... I don't accept 1... Some actions are independent of thought. The sun rises, but I don't believe it thinks about doing so. Icky woodlice walk across my floor - but I don't think they think about it - and I'm pretty sure they're not controlled by some nasty thinking person who knows I don't like them. (Similarly, weeds grow in my garden - in case any Jainists are reading...)

This has ntohing to do with the matter at hand.

I don't accept 2, either... this seems to assume that people don't make mistakes. I've lots of evidence to the contrary here, too...

If you thought something incorrectly by mistake, you still thought it.

A key mistake you've just made is assuming I associated something being allowed with violence. Perhaps you assumed I was a God presenting a revealed and complete truth? You wrongly inferred that, because I said I thought something should be allowed, that, by corollary, I claimed the converse should not be allowed. You assumed my statement was not only true, but covered the universe of possibilities - it did not and I made no representation that it did. You fell victim to a common logical fallacy which, essentially, boils down to assuming implies also means implied by... I'm aware I fell victim to it quite frequently in some disguises in the past - a subtle example of the same error was to confuse trade/communication... that's had the world confused for over sixty years.

No, the only way in the real world you can allow someone to do something is if you have the power to stop them.

This requires violence.

[A.steve]

There ar enoi defaults. if everyone understands how they work, that includes the "borrowers" who will do what I did - tell the banks to bugger off. There is no income for he bank unless it can find peopel to convince they have borrowed money (when they actually haven't.)

The bank can make profit on the difference between the interest rates - and on charged services - such as copy statements. This can be done even if there is zero or negative net lending. Of course, if the borrowers default (as well they might) then the bank makes no profit on the rate spread and the depositors might lose their deposit if this renders the bank insolvent. It really isn't complicated.

Sure it is. Price signals and all that.

Price signals are asymmetric.

not the slightest clue what this means - am talking actions in the real world. Theft is the taking of one mans stuff by another without permission. This definition applies to all men with no exceptions.

If you are strictly in the "real world" - i.e. free of all abstract thought - then there is no concept of ownership. Amusingly, my objection to your original statement is that we have no agreement whatsoever about what the terms you've used mean. You appear to be giving me a definition - not a statement - and I do not consider your definition either factual (i.e. supported adequately by evidence) or fundamental (i.e. abstract and obviously true and necessary.) You failed to communicate... there were words but any meaning was lost.

I'll have to think about this a bit.

Feel free - it's a bit of a hum-dinger... but, of course, not one from the "real world" - it is abstract - orthogonal to it.

This has ntohing to do with the matter at hand.

If you thought something incorrectly by mistake, you still thought it.

Erm... I refuted both of your initial starting points from which you extrapolated - allegedly in support of a claim you made that I disputed. You can't argue that my objection to your initial tenets are invalid just because they've nothing to do with the conclusion. For example, I might say 2+3=4 - and you might dispute this. I might say, it follows from the axioms:

• x + 3 > 3

• 2 + x < 5

• 4 is the only natural number between 3 and 5 - QED

You, of course would be well within your rights to point out that 0+3 > 3 is false and 2+6 < 5 is false - hence my proof fails. This would be a valid objection in spite of neither 0 nor 6 featuring in your original proposition. As soon as you get away with saying something that is false, it is possible (through a sufficiently convoluted logic) to prove any proposition - true or false. This is why I can't let you get away with arguing that your initial assumptions must be interpreted in the narrow confines of a statement with which, from the outset, I've disagreed.

No, the only way in the real world you can allow someone to do something is if you have the power to stop them.

This requires violence.

This is utterly false. I can, and frequently do, allow people to do things I don't have the power to stop. If I've never tried to stop something, how would I know if I had the power in the first place? I allowed you to reply - I had no power to stop you replying - and there was no violence as far as I can tell... except, I guess, from the feint tortured screams of logicians everywhere at the extent of your inconsistency.

Edited May 28, 2009 by A.steve

[Injin]

The bank can make profit on the difference between the interest rates - and on charged services - such as copy statements. This can be done even if there is zero or negative net lending.

Yes, it'll be a warehouse that charges for warehousing.

Price signals are asymmetric.

Of course. All trade is.

If you are strictly in the "real world" - i.e. free of all abstract thought - then there is no concept of ownership. Amusingly, my objection to your original statement is that we have no agreement whatsoever about what the terms you've used mean. You appear to be giving me a definition - not a statement - and I do not consider your definition either factual or fundamental (i.e. abstract and obviously true and necessary.) You failed to communicate... there were words but any meaning was lost.

Saying there is a factual basis for ownership isn't the same as saying that ownership is fact - it obviously isn't or theft wouldn't be possible.

Feel free - it's a bit of a hum-dinger... but, of course, not one from the "real world" - it is abstract - orthogonal to it.

That's why I am having to think.

Erm... I refuted both of your initial starting points from which you extrapolated - allegedly in support of a claim you made that I disputed. You can't argue that my objection to your initial tenets are invalid just because they've nothing to do with the conclusion. For example, I might say 2+3=4 - and you might dispute this. I might say, it follows from the axioms:

• x + 3 > 3

• 2 + x < 5

• 4 is the only natural number between 3 and 5 - QED

You, of course would be well within your rights to point out that 0+3 > 3 is false and 2+6 < 5 is false - hence my proof fails. This would be a valid objection in spite of neither 0 nor 6 featuring in your original proposition. As soon as you get away with saying something that is false, it is possible (through a sufficiently convoluted logic) to prove any proposition - true or false. This is why I can't let you get away with arguing that your initial assumptions must be interpreted in the narrow confines of a statement with which, from the outset, I've disagreed.

Yes, but you said (in effect) that none of those were mathematical expressions because some of them were false. This is silly, I have no idea why you raise it. All things humans do have to be thought of first. If you think this is wrong, you still thought it so your actions prove the case.

This is utterly false. I can, and frequently do, allow people to do things I don't have the power to stop. If I've never tried to stop something, how would I know if I had the power in the first place? I allowed you to reply - I had no power to stop you replying - and there was no violence as far as I can tell... except, I guess, from the feint tortured screams of logicians everywhere at the extent of your inconsistency.

No clue how this relates to the matter at hand.

You seem to be just taking words, generalising them out to build a case and ignoring actualities.

Show me events, show me actions.

[A.steve]

Yes, it'll be a warehouse that charges for warehousing.

No, it will be a bank with consenting depositors who recognise that not all of them can have all their money back at the same time. This might be arranged by putting fixed maturities on deposits to match loan maturity - or it might employ another more flexible strategy and some reserve capital. It doesn't much matter as long as the depositors know what risk they are taking.

Of course. All trade is.

I'm glad you agree - communication is not. Communication is symmetric because it is about sharing information. Our "I don't know what you're on about" replies document failed communication - in spite of data being sent.

Saying there is a factual basis for ownership isn't the same as saying that ownership is fact - it obviously isn't or theft wouldn't be possible.

Facts can be either abstract or tangible (real). Any factual basis for ownership is non-primitive - i.e. not fundamental, in my view.

Yes, but you said (in effect) that none of those were mathematical expressions because some of them were false. This is silly, I have no idea why you raise it. All things humans do have to be thought of first. If you think this is wrong, you still thought it so your actions prove the case.

No clue how this relates to the matter at hand.

You seem to be just taking words, generalising them out to build a case and ignoring actualities.

Show me events, show me actions.

They were all expressions - and, except the disputed equation 2+3=4 (given the obvious interpretation) the other expressions could be valid - depending upon constraints on the unbound variable (c.f. the ideas outside the scope of the disputed statement in your alleged logic.) I gave you an obviously absurd example of the same logic you asked me to accept. Your arguments seem to get more cyclic and unfounded as we go on... and now you're arguing that if I thought something false, it must - by definition - be true or I couldn't have thought about it to determine that it was wrong. Ridiculous. I think you need to learn about axioms and provide me with yours... but, be warned, if you provide too many - or I think they smell - I'll dismiss you as a crank and won't take you seriously. Axioms are your belief system - they are what you trust the other person agrees with without question. Axioms should never be even slightly debatable... thereafter you can employ reason - from a common starting point... from there communication emerges.

[LiveAndLetBuy]

Again, many, many thanks. I feel so dumb - why did I not get taught about this at school, I wonder?

One of my Granddads was obsessive about the Spanish Civil War before he died, but - because he also thought philately a great hobby, I didn't pay any attention - I couldn't even have told you which century it was from...

The thing that now bugs me is how did a fascist dictator in Spain tie-in with WWII? Italy, Germany France, Switzerland etc. are all existent in the British version of history - but Spain, now I come to think about it, is conspicuously absent. In fact, the only thing I can think of that I can remember/think about Spain from the first part of the 20th century are conspiracy stories about Nazis having escaped justice to pretend to be Spanish to move freely around Europe... and I'd dismissed that as the stuff of fantasy too far-fetched to be turned into a war-film. What were Spanish allegiances - and was Spain greatly affected by WWII?

Perhaps I've an over-active imagination - but I note as significant the date of the civil war... would it be reasonable to assume that the 1929 US crash and ensuing depression had anything to do with events in Spain?

I didn't know much about 20th century Spanish history until I moved here - they were hardly a heavyweight on the world stage during that time. Franco was sympathetic to the Nazi cause, and indeed the Nazis helped him destroy the Basque city Guernica (as in the Picasso painting) during the civil war. However Spain was in such a bad way after the civil war that it was unable to take part in WW2 and remained neutral.

I'm not sure if you could connect the 1929 crash with Spain's civil war. Before then some other general was in charge, and after then it was a socialist republic for a decade or so, up until Franco won. I'm not sure how exposed Spain was to stock market events, they were too busy with all the social upheaval that was going on.

[Injin]

No, it will be a bank with consenting depositors who recognise that not all of them can have all their money back at the same time. This might be arranged by putting fixed maturities on deposits to match loan maturity - or it might employ another more flexible strategy and some reserve capital. It doesn't much matter as long as the depositors know what risk they are taking.

It can;t do that withotu defrauding the "borrowers." if you understand banking, you don't have to pay the bank anything back if you "borrowed" from it.

I'm glad you agree - communication is not. Communication is symmetric because it is about sharing information. Our "I don't know what you're on about" replies document failed communication - in spite of data being sent.

No data is sent when you type messages to me. You access my existing knowledge - assymmetry, I am sure you would agree.

Facts can be either abstract or tangible (real). Any factual basis for ownership is non-primitive - i.e. not fundamental, in my view.

Why not just ask me how I do it?

They were all expressions - and, except the disputed equation 2+3=4 (given the obvious interpretation) the other expressions could be valid - depending upon constraints on the unbound variable (c.f. the ideas outside the scope of the disputed statement in your alleged logic.) I gave you an obviously absurd example of the same logic you asked me to accept. Your arguments seem to get more cyclic and unfounded as we go on... and now you're arguing that if I thought something false, it must - by definition - be true or I couldn't have thought about it to determine that it was wrong. Ridiculous. I think you need to learn about axioms and provide me with yours... but, be warned, if you provide too many - or I think they smell - I'll dismiss you as a crank and won't take you seriously. Axioms are your belief system - they are what you trust the other person agrees with without question. Axioms should never be even slightly debatable... thereafter you can employ reason - from a common starting point... from there communication emerges.

Right. But your position was that thinking didn't predate action because your thoughts could be mistaken about things.

Which is self evidently silly.

I look at what you are doing to determine truth and falsehood. What you have done is think about what I have said, thought about how to answer, then answer that I am wrong about thinking predating your actions. now you want me to take it on a s alogical thing and deal with it at a level of linguisitcs or logic.

Why bother?

Your own actions prove it false.

[A.steve]

It can;t do that withotu defrauding the "borrowers." if you understand banking, you don't have to pay the bank anything back if you "borrowed" from it.

No - nothing compels the repayment of loans - default is an undisputed concept.

No data is sent when you type messages to me. You access my existing knowledge - assymmetry, I am sure you would agree.

No, that's gibberish.

Why not just ask me how I do it?

I get the impression that if you could have been coherent, you would have been.

Right. But your position was that thinking didn't predate action because your thoughts could be mistaken about things.

Which is self evidently silly.

No, please read my objections as replies to your most recent claims - which I quoted, for your convenience. This is a technique known as conversation - it involves addressing the most recent points made. If you spout garbage fast enough, of course the "conversation" will become distracted from your earlier points - especially if your earlier points were themselves garbage. I'm far from surprised that the conversation diverged from a coherent point - I don't think there was one.

I look at what you are doing to determine truth and falsehood. What you have done is think about what I have said, thought about how to answer, then answer that I am wrong about thinking predating your actions. now you want me to take it on a s alogical thing and deal with it at a level of linguisitcs or logic.

Why bother?

Your own actions prove it false.

Why do I bother - now that's a thought provoking question. The first in quite a while.

I deal first with linguistics and logic, because linguistics are a prerequisite to communication. This is necessarily true - since we are distinct people. My "actions" prove nothing - you've only experienced messages from me - you've no evidence of any of my actions.

[the owl of minerva]

Many thanks for the reply - you definitely highlight my ignorance about Spain - in my defence, I've never been and I don't own a holiday home there.

I don't understand the relevance of Franco's death (who was he) to a boom - and the alternative typical living arrangements are quite an eye-opener. I'm curious about your comment about it not being easy to start your own company... do you mean "start a company" - which, in Britain takes about 15 minutes and £100-ish to buy one 'off the peg', or do you mean establish a viable profitable business - which, I think, is dramatically difficult in Britain.

What do you mean by "rebuilding after the fascist years" - you lost me entirely there. My sense of history for Spain peters out around when the moorish lot were overrun by Christians... which, I assume, isn't helpful in this context.

Spain in the 1930's had a fairly left wing elected government which upset a lot of the conservative religous establishment and in 1936 there was a military uprising led by a rightwing army officer called Franco . It developed into a full scale and extremely nasty civil war which lasted until 1939 and in which about 300,000 to 1 million people died. Franco was supported by the fascist leaders Hitler and Mussolini with arms, planes and men . Britain and France had a policy of non-intervention and embargoed arms supplies to the elected government , which caused popular resentment here and led to many leftwingers from around the world to go and fight as volunteers in the International Brigades . Stalin supported the left with arms and men but also spent a lot of effort trying to liquidate other leftwing non-Communist groups like the anarchists / socialists / trotskyists etc ( read George Orwell, he was there and became very disillusioned by the communists ) . Franco won in 1939 , and when the second world war started shortly afterwards Hitler wanted him to join Germany but Franco refused as Spain was so completely devastated already and stayed neutral throughout the war. Franco ruled as basically a fascist military dictator until his death in 1975. Altogether a very sad story and it's great that Spain has become such a stable democracy in the last 30 years ( current economic disasters aside)

[A.steve]

read George Orwell, he was there

Wow! I should have known I was being short-changed in my geography and history classes at school!

I've read some Orwell - Animal Farm, which I found fascinating - and, through which, I was guided... because a book about Russia may as well have been about Mars - and to assume I'd grasp who each animal represented was preposterous, given my other educational deficiencies. I read 1984 on my own a while later - for unrelated reasons... and want that girl in the red dress who passes forbidden notes and engages in clandestine forest meetings... I also tried 'The Road to Wigan Pier' - while still a teenager, based solely on author recognition, but found it so devastatingly depressing I couldn't finish it... I still find it hard to think that it's all the same author. Specifically, which Orwell is relevant?

As regards Franco, it is incredible what evaded the history I was taught... utterly mind-boggling. Maybe I'm being arrogant, but I think I'm above average inquisitive... it wasn't until I was almost 30 that I could give a 1000 years at a time version of history... as a one sentence summary. In my education, history was definitely subverted - it became cute detailed anecdotes about banal irrelevances... there was no broad-brush context... passing tests was about recall, not understanding... and, I guess, that's why I dropped the subject as a matter of urgency. If Franco had captured Spain in 1939, surely this is a critical fact with respect to how Hitler captured Germany? If I were ambitious in Germany, I'd certainly have been paying attention to all the European countries. It is significant, too, in my opinion, that Spain avoids the public gaze - in a way that, for example, Switzerland does not. It puts an entirely different perspective on France's surrender, too - come to think about it.

[aa3]

I've been saying Spain had to do something big for months now. I'm glad to see they are starting to take the unemployment situation as seriously as I view it. All around the western world there has been the stunning job loss, and I was waiting for 'the moment'. 'The moment' when the societies started doing something about it, besides cutting interest rates.

It is natural that Spain was the first country to take serious action, as they have the worst unemployment rate. 17.4%. I was starting to think that no one was going to take action, and European nations would in time go to far right parties in power as they are the only ones who had serious plans to deal with the problems. The elite plan of do nothing, keep up the same path on all policies will lead to that imo.

I think to get out of this depression developed nations are going to need a second new deal. I think our economy has reached the point of development where reforms on that level are needed to adapt to the new realities. I personally support the national dividend/citizen's income strategy over expanding the state.

[LiveAndLetBuy]

Wow! I should have known I was being short-changed in my geography and history classes at school!

I've read some Orwell - Animal Farm, which I found fascinating - and, through which, I was guided... because a book about Russia may as well have been about Mars - and to assume I'd grasp who each animal represented was preposterous, given my other educational deficiencies. I read 1984 on my own a while later - for unrelated reasons... and want that girl in the red dress who passes forbidden notes and engages in clandestine forest meetings... I also tried 'The Road to Wigan Pier' - while still a teenager, based solely on author recognition, but found it so devastatingly depressing I couldn't finish it... I still find it hard to think that it's all the same author. Specifically, which Orwell is relevant?

As regards Franco, it is incredible what evaded the history I was taught... utterly mind-boggling. Maybe I'm being arrogant, but I think I'm above average inquisitive... it wasn't until I was almost 30 that I could give a 1000 years at a time version of history... as a one sentence summary. In my education, history was definitely subverted - it became cute detailed anecdotes about banal irrelevances... there was no broad-brush context... passing tests was about recall, not understanding... and, I guess, that's why I dropped the subject as a matter of urgency. If Franco had captured Spain in 1939, surely this is a critical fact with respect to how Hitler captured Germany? If I were ambitious in Germany, I'd certainly have been paying attention to all the European countries. It is significant, too, in my opinion, that Spain avoids the public gaze - in a way that, for example, Switzerland does not. It puts an entirely different perspective on France's surrender, too - come to think about it.

Franco did capture Spain in 1939 - he was their fascist dictator until his death in 1975 (I mistakenly said 1977 earlier). I guess it couldn't have been taught as history to me because when I was at school it was too recent to be seen as part of history. I think events have to occur at least 30 years ago for them to be classified as being historical. I think at the time most foreigners thought of him as rather a benign dictator. He was seen as the guy who developed package tourism in certain areas, and pumped money into the great Real Madrid teams. However he was oppressive to those who didn't fall in line (e.g. you could be severely punished if you did not speak Castillan Spanish).

IIRC Franco was originally a General based in a part of Morrocco that was controlled by Spain, and his army mainly consisted of Morroccan conscripts. It's rather bizarre that it was a mainly Morroccan/muslim army that was used to impose a fascist dictator on Spain. They are still discovering mass graves dating from the civil war to this day.

[A.steve]

Franco did capture Spain in 1939 - he was their fascist dictator until his death in 1975 (I mistakenly said 1977 earlier). I guess it couldn't have been taught as history to me because when I was at school it was too recent to be seen as part of history. I think events have to occur at least 30 years ago for them to be classified as being historical. I think at the time most foreigners thought of him as rather a benign dictator. He was seen as the guy who developed package tourism in certain areas, and pumped money into the great Real Madrid teams. However he was oppressive to those who didn't fall in line (e.g. you could be severely punished if you did not speak Castillan Spanish).

IIRC Franco was originally a General based in a part of Morrocco that was controlled by Spain, and his army mainly consisted of Morroccan conscripts. It's rather bizarre that it was a mainly Morroccan/muslim army that was used to impose a fascist dictator on Spain. They are still discovering mass graves dating from the civil war to this day.

Another "Wow" - and a big thank you for accuracy with the date. Believe it or not, I think it relevant to me... I think I've met someone who came to England from Spain in 1975 - and this information helps me make a lot more sense of a very confusing encounter.

It's strange how emotive issues around this seem to have been... and, yet, I'd not put two and two together. I know people who I remember were scared about the idea of going on holiday in Spain in the 80s, for example - though all the concrete reasons they offered were gibberish. Those ideas make so much more sense if I assume Franco had been willing to permit anything in order to get tourist cash into the country... even freedom can be scary, sometimes. I've never been motivated to visit - though an ex-next-door-neighbour emigrated a few years ago... it emerged last year that she's finding it excessively difficult and nothing like what she imagined it would be... she wanted to return to the UK, but she'd sold her house in a hurry around 2003 - and has lost even that money in the Spanish venture. Quite sad, in a way - but we all make the beds in which we must lie.

The Morocco and Muslim connection is interesting too... perhaps these tensions explain why the exceptionally delectable brunette Catelonians I met in '98 were upset that I considered them 'Spanish'... maybe that was something else entirely. Is there a more general Muslim/Fascist connection that I'm missing? I'd previously thought the concepts a mutual anathema... Islam being a devout Semitic faith, I'd not expect fundamental allegiance to any state - let alone a fascist one.

As we're on the subject of fascism - which, of course, means state sponsored corporatism... how does this tie-in with the history of Santander? What are their origins? What can be estimated about their politics/philosophy? Is it preposterous to ask if Santander might act in the national interests of Spain to the detriment of British people on a national level? Are there many British owned enterprises operating in Spain to balance things up?

[Injin]

No - nothing compels the repayment of loans - default is an undisputed concept.

If banking is fully understood by all "default" will be 100%

No, that's gibberish.

Words have no meaning. When you communicate, you access other peoples stored meaning.

I get the impression that if you could have been coherent, you would have been.

You haven't asked me yet.

No, please read my objections as replies to your most recent claims - which I quoted, for your convenience. This is a technique known as conversation - it involves addressing the most recent points made. If you spout garbage fast enough, of course the "conversation" will become distracted from your earlier points - especially if your earlier points were themselves garbage. I'm far from surprised that the conversation diverged from a coherent point - I don't think there was one.

I am refering to the original, not the non relevent comments that came after - I did say that your original comments weren't material at the time. My position has not altered.

Why do I bother - now that's a thought provoking question. The first in quite a while.

I deal first with linguistics and logic, because linguistics are a prerequisite to communication. This is necessarily true - since we are distinct people. My "actions" prove nothing - you've only experienced messages from me - you've no evidence of any of my actions.

Theres your problem right there - you hold the immaterial as higher than the material.

Neo platonist almost.

My argument had nothing whatsoever to do with linguisitcs, in fact I expressly rejected your use of definitions are irrelevent because real world actions do not change if you change terminology, therefore terminilogy must be irrelevent to actual events.

What I want you to do is answer this post without using your brain to think any thoughts, Don't move your limbs using your brain, don't conuure images of the words you are to type, don't talk to yourself etc etc

Thsi will be proof that thoughts do not precede all your actions. Simple empiricism. Once you'v ecompletely failed, you can reject your initial argument.

Ta.