antiquark
Derek Ross
But why is he "sticking it" to the teachers? The teachers aren't the enemy -- they didn't bring in the recession. Why should they be punished?
I'm raising that point because the right wingers are saying the same thing in my province. "Will the premier have the guts to freeze the wages of the nurses?" As if the nurses caused the recession.
None of the citizens are the 'enemy.'
We're all going to be 'punished' one way or another for all this excess.
We're all going to be 'punished' one way or another for all this excess.
The future is here at least for the UK.
"The sick would be urged to stay at home and email doctors rather than visit surgeries, while procedures such as hip replacements could be scrapped."
"The SHA proposes shifting services out of hospitals and making social workers take over some treatments."
Great news for fans of socialist health care. No more doctors, hello social workers!
"The sick would be urged to stay at home and email doctors rather than visit surgeries, while procedures such as hip replacements could be scrapped."
"The SHA proposes shifting services out of hospitals and making social workers take over some treatments."
Great news for fans of socialist health care. No more doctors, hello social workers!
antiquark
Derek Ross
Here's another comical video:
http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/r...et-traders-the-fat-cats-strike-back/19347065/
Shorter version: WAHHH, OBAMA CALLED US FATCATS!!!
What do you think the odds are that these guys caused the recession?
But I'm sort of joking. Bankers aren't all bad: http://www.nocaptionneeded.com/?p=2436
UPDATE: I did more online sleuthing, and I think I found the person who caused the recession. See that lady in the back? I bet she's a nurse, I bet she did it!
http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/r...et-traders-the-fat-cats-strike-back/19347065/
Shorter version: WAHHH, OBAMA CALLED US FATCATS!!!
What do you think the odds are that these guys caused the recession?
But I'm sort of joking. Bankers aren't all bad: http://www.nocaptionneeded.com/?p=2436
UPDATE: I did more online sleuthing, and I think I found the person who caused the recession. See that lady in the back? I bet she's a nurse, I bet she did it!
Last edited:
The guy on the right. He did it. 
Sweetheart deal with Countrywide, kept telling everyone Fannie/Freddie were fine.
Him and Bawney Fwank. And Frank Raines.
Nothing to see here, move along.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs
Sweetheart deal with Countrywide, kept telling everyone Fannie/Freddie were fine.
Him and Bawney Fwank. And Frank Raines.
Nothing to see here, move along.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs
Roger Hicks
Veteran
First, for someone who attacks the 'liberal media', it's a bit of a joke to drag in a notoriously right-wing newspaper. The only daily that is further to the right than the Torygraph is the Daily Mail, known to some as the Daily Fascist.
Second (from another post), no, America isn't centre-right. Your 'centre' is our right wing.
Third, you always seem convinced that you speak for 'the vast majority of Americans'. So does my chum Rick, who's been a Democrat activist for 30 years. Being charitable, I give both of you equal weighting, but then I place that weighting a long way behind election results.
Election results indicate clearly that differences in support are a percentage point or two. Fairly clearly this implies an enormous overlap between the parties, both fighting for what passes in the USA as the centre ground.
Cheers,
R.
Olsen
Well-known
Have you ever been to Britain after the Margaret Thatcher Rampage? Much of it has become a economical backwater of poverty and sadness only matched by the former Eastern Europe. This Eastern Europe-likeness startled me. I was totally unprepared to see that in a country where such a Milton Friedman-capitalist like Margaret Thatcher had reigned had turned into a communist duplicate of poverty.
But is it a suprise?
Besides Britain there is three other countries that followed Milton Friedman, Laffer and all that: Iceland (a grotesque example of what 'less government' can do to a country), Chile (ended with Gen Pinochet's time with 35% unemployment and a starving population.
The next great Milton Friedman-following nation is USA. See my post over. I will argue that unemployment is not 9,9% in USA (official figures), not 17% if the officials include those who have given up looking for work, and not 21 - 22% as some observers claim (like The Economist), but close to 35%! The the potential workforce in USA is close to 200 million people, but less than 150 million do actually work. I can document what I claim through statistics for you.
I was once a Milton Friedman admirer. But not any more. His ideas leads to that the rich get richer on the behalf of the poor, that gets poorer.
That's no growth...
Olsen
Well-known
Ha, ha ha!
Never mind the Louvre. Last time my wife and I were there the cues was so long that we just gave up. We spent two hours in incredible traffic jams from Charles de Gaulle Airport to Hotel Concord La Fayette. Have the place bombed and free up some parking space! - Like Bagdad...
Roger Hicks
Veteran
An excellent point. But then, what would anyone expect from a leader whose most famous quote is "There is no such thing as society"?
The UK isn't as bad as Eastern Europe, though of course it's very patchy. But it certainly doesn't feel as prosperous as France or Germany. Quite like the USA, now I come to think of it. Lakes of (relative) wealth in a desert of (relative) run-down misery (I've driven across the USA, east-west and west-east, half a dozen times or more in the last 25 years or so, so unlike some people's arguments, it's based on what I've seen with my own eyes.
Cheers,
R.
Last edited:
Olsen
Well-known
Antiquark,
Here is what I think caused the crash:
1)
All too low interest rate from the Fed through many years during Allan Greenspan. To have a banker to decide the raw material price of money is like having a monkey guard a sack of bananas. It is beond me why Greenpan was not sacked after the Savings & Loans Crisis. He was a totally corrupt guy, but still not the only one to be blamed.
The US politician Ron Paul wants a floating prime rate. That a free market shall decide what the prime rate shall be. I am sceptical to that.
What we have seen the last 30 years since Reagan and Thatcher & Friedman and Laffer, is that less regulation and government has led to 'the rich getting richer - the poor getting poorer'. That's no growth. Totally; both UK and USA have become poorer due to this policy (re. the huge public debt)!
Low interest rate sped up sales of expensive goods like housing, cars, M8, M9 and 1Ds IIIs. It created a false feeling of growth.
2)
US Banks with all too small criteria for security funds. Too low monetized, as many call it. US banks must have common security funds like in many European nations have. Instead, US banks have been piggy-backing on these European funds. Many European banks are now plundered.
They can fill the walls with American ABSs, CDOs etc. worth nothing. Despite that Moody's have rated them AAA as late as August 2008. These ABS and CDO - etc instruments were supposed to fill the purpose of a security fund by spreading the risk. But due to totally corrupt rating companies (Moody's, Standard & Poor etc) toxic waste was sold as gold. It makes me angry that nobody has been prosecuted for this.
Never trust an American banker again. That was very much the sentiment in the late 2008 and the international financial market stopped working.
And here we are.
Here is what I think caused the crash:
1)
All too low interest rate from the Fed through many years during Allan Greenspan. To have a banker to decide the raw material price of money is like having a monkey guard a sack of bananas. It is beond me why Greenpan was not sacked after the Savings & Loans Crisis. He was a totally corrupt guy, but still not the only one to be blamed.
The US politician Ron Paul wants a floating prime rate. That a free market shall decide what the prime rate shall be. I am sceptical to that.
What we have seen the last 30 years since Reagan and Thatcher & Friedman and Laffer, is that less regulation and government has led to 'the rich getting richer - the poor getting poorer'. That's no growth. Totally; both UK and USA have become poorer due to this policy (re. the huge public debt)!
Low interest rate sped up sales of expensive goods like housing, cars, M8, M9 and 1Ds IIIs. It created a false feeling of growth.
2)
US Banks with all too small criteria for security funds. Too low monetized, as many call it. US banks must have common security funds like in many European nations have. Instead, US banks have been piggy-backing on these European funds. Many European banks are now plundered.
They can fill the walls with American ABSs, CDOs etc. worth nothing. Despite that Moody's have rated them AAA as late as August 2008. These ABS and CDO - etc instruments were supposed to fill the purpose of a security fund by spreading the risk. But due to totally corrupt rating companies (Moody's, Standard & Poor etc) toxic waste was sold as gold. It makes me angry that nobody has been prosecuted for this.
Never trust an American banker again. That was very much the sentiment in the late 2008 and the international financial market stopped working.
And here we are.
dfoo
Well-known
I don't really agree with that. If you just look around we are all much wealthier than 30 years ago. Look at the level of new construction, consumerism, tvs, cars and so on. By any measure we certainly have more stuff. I also don't believe all that stuff was purchased only through dept.
Olsen
Well-known
Both Canada, Norway (Saudi Arabia, Germany, Russia etc, etc.) and a range of other nations have had 'real growth'. Very much due to a high utilisation of natural resources. But USA and UK have just built up a huge debt.
Still, many people in USA and UK have become richer. But this is on expense of others. There has been no total growth. The future generations of Americans will have to pay the bill. For a party they did not attend! Mind you; 33% of all taxes in USA is interest on public debt! No wonder Americans complain about high taxes!
Look up this: http://www.usdebtclock.org/
If USA started now they just might take 3 - 5 generations to be back at the prosperous situation they enjoyed in 1980 with no debt, but a nice fortune. But they havn't even started! USA are still borrowing money at an alarming rate. By this sending the bill to future generations.
Sparrow
Veteran
Define "we" a little more precisely please, and where would be the best place to "look around"
N
Nikon Bob
Guest
Having more stuff is not a measure of an improved life style/standard of living in and of itself. There are far more people in Canada today that spend their net family income making the payments on all that they owe and saving virtually nothing for the future than in my parents generation. They bought the American Plan lock, stock and barrel. If it ain't 100% paid for it ain't yours and you are only kidding yourself and everyone else. Just smoke and mirrors.
Bob
Olsen
Well-known
The guy on the right. He did it.
Sweetheart deal with Countrywide, kept telling everyone Fannie/Freddie were fine.
Him and Bawney Fwank. And Frank Raines.
Nothing to see here, move along.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs
The crisis and problems that USA is facing today I far beond party politics. That a tiny corrupt fascist like party with support from the US (potential) electorate
of some 22% - the Republicans, can save the nation now is a fantasy.
It is just sad to watch this video.
As it was when sen. Ted Kennedy bad-mouthed the Fed chief Ben Bernanke. Most likely, one of his last political acts of the good old senator.
This system that needs to be reformed!
Get yourself a multi party parliamentarian system. And a government owned National Bank. The printing of money is the last thing you should privatise!
PS
Looking at these guys that are supposed to represent the average of the US people: Do you all wear 200$ ties every day? Cut out the expensive ties and the nation might be saved!
antiquark
Derek Ross
Since this is a photography forum, and we're talking about Thatcher, you might be interested in Richard Billingham, who documented his working class family during the Thatcher era. It wasn't a pretty sight!
Genius of Photography page:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/photography/genius/gallery/billingham.shtml
Google Image Search:
http://images.google.ca/images?um=1&hl=en&tbs=isch:1&q=richard+billingham&sa=N&start=21&ndsp=21
Genius of Photography page:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/photography/genius/gallery/billingham.shtml
Google Image Search:
http://images.google.ca/images?um=1&hl=en&tbs=isch:1&q=richard+billingham&sa=N&start=21&ndsp=21
You might want to check your history. We weren't enjoying much in 1980, it was not prosperous in the least. Check what interest rates were at that time. That was killing business of every kind.
Oh, and don't forget the Iran hostages. We're still paying for that, thank you Mr. Carter. The most incompetent president we've ever had, although the current one is well on his way. (Anyone see how he insulted Netanyahu?)
The best thing about 1980? We had an election...
antiquark
Derek Ross
What, did you forget Bush? Or was Obama president in 2000?
http://dailyreckoning.com/another-lost-decade/
Where did I attack the liberal media? I seem to have missed that.
I didn't say America is 'centre-right' either. The quote is: "nearly twice as many people call themselves conservatives as liberals."
Again, a term I did not use, and I speak for myself.
Which election results are you speaking of? Some have been within a point or two, but others have been landslides.
Democrats tend to campaign as centrists, Republicans as conservatives, with some exceptions. (Bush ran on 'compassionate conservatism.' McCain tried claim to be a conservative, but his record shows otherwise, he had no credibility with true conservatives.) Recent history shows that Republicans tend to compromise towards liberals once in office, and up until Obama, Democrats tended to govern towards the center. Obama is the first Democrat in my lifetime who moved far left from his campaign rhetoric. Of course, he was always far left, his team did a great job concealing that fact ('hope and change', hardly controversial, nothing but 'feel good' but no substance), and the Republicans had a poor candidate who did not run on conservatism, but on 'bipartisanship.'
Last edited by a moderator:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.