You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > biggest poppulation & biggest debt
January 29 2022 1.08pm

biggest poppulation & biggest debt

Previous Topic | Next Topic


Page 3 of 7 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 >

 

View Stirlingsays's Profile Stirlingsays Online Flag 29 Dec 17 10.10am Send a Private Message to Stirlingsays Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add Stirlingsays as a friend

Originally posted by .TUX.

Jesus wept, it's exactly the bloody same!
And yes, it did ''save thousands of jobs'' but was it really worth it at the expense of millions for 8yrs now.......that includes YOU?

Blinkered to say the least.

?

It saved millions of jobs. You are the blinkered one here. Welcome to Greek economics on acid.

Most jobs are wrapped up in smaller businessness, which survive on credit. They get by on overdrafts and all the rest of it.

Did you have money in a bank account? Because if you did you would have lost all of it and had no recourse to be certain of.

Yes it was bloody worth it......what realistic other choice was there....let the banks fold? In an ideal world....yeah....if you have money enough to get through the next five years great for you...but what everybody else?

Was it ethically ok......no it bloody wasn't....life isn't fair and it was a prime and bloody clear example of it.

What can we do about it? Nothing......it's apart of the unfairness of life that we have to put up with because there is no radically different system (which is no assurance of improvement) can be enacted without revolution....and no real revolution happens without blood...anyone telling you different is deluded or a liar.....the banking system is full of gutter low lifes with big lifestyles but it is also full of savings, accounts, pensions, government bonds and all the rest of it.....you can fiddle around the edges...ring fence this or that but that's about it if you are even going to pretend in a free market.

You can't divorce the baby from the bath water.


Edited by Stirlingsays (29 Dec 2017 10.20am)

 


'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Kermit8's Profile Kermit8 Flag Hevon 29 Dec 17 10.24am Send a Private Message to Kermit8 Add Kermit8 as a friend

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

?

It saved millions of jobs. You are the blinkered one here. Welcome to Greek economics on acid.

Most jobs are wrapped up in smaller businessness, which survive on credit. They get by on overdrafts and all the rest of it.

Did you have money in a bank account? Because if you did you would have lost all of it and had no recourse to be certain of.

Yes it was bloody worth it......what realistic other choice was there....let the banks fold? In an ideal world....yeah....if you have money enough to get through the next five years great for you...but what everybody else?

Was it ethically ok......no it bloody wasn't....life isn't fair and it was a prime and bloody clear example of it.

What can we do about it? Nothing......it's apart of the unfairness of life that we have to put up with because there is no radically different system (which is no assurance of improvement) can be enacted without revolution....and no real revolution happens without blood...anyone telling you different is deluded or a liar.....the banking system is full of gutter low lifes with big lifestyles but it is also full of savings, accounts, pensions, government bonds and all the rest of it.....you can fiddle around the edges...ring fence this or that but that's about it if you are even going to pretend in a free market.

You can't divorce the baby from the bath water.


Edited by Stirlingsays (29 Dec 2017 10.20am)

Iranian revolution 1979? Fall of the Berlin Wall 1989? The Velvet Revolution also 1989?

The rest of your post is pretty much spot on but the bold bit is wrong. There have been bloody consequences in Iran but the actual revolution itself was bloodless.

Edited by Kermit8 (29 Dec 2017 10.25am)

 


Big chest and massive boobs

[Link]


Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View serial thriller's Profile serial thriller Flag The Promised Land 29 Dec 17 10.39am Send a Private Message to serial thriller Add serial thriller as a friend

It is a funny argument in my mind. Take London. It has just returned to its population level of 1939, a little higher than it was post-war. That means that we, as a state, have had 70 years to plan a city around a population of 8 million, and for the most part, rising.

Why then do we have a homeless crisis? To my mind, blaming overpopulation could make sense if we had seen a sudden increase in population, but we haven't seen that, either in London or the rest of the UK. Migration has been steady, emigration is now on the increase, and if anything we have a problem with birthrates of citizens.

So what argument is overpopulation a convenient one to deploy against? Well, when we talk about overpopulation, we ignore the fact that we are the most unequal nation in Europe; that we are the 5th richest economy in the world, and yet thousands will go to sleep tonight in temporary, inadequate accommodation or worse; that the UK population gives the government nearly 800 billion a year in tax, and yet that government at the moment can't even house all of its citizens.

We aren't facing any problems that we, as humans, haven't faced before, and haven't dealt with before. All it takes is us to have the courage to tackle them, and for normal people like us to not allow the decisions to be made by vested interest groups at the very top of our society.

 


If punk ever happened I'd be preaching the law, instead of listenin to Lydon lecture BBC4

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Kermit8's Profile Kermit8 Flag Hevon 29 Dec 17 11.32am Send a Private Message to Kermit8 Add Kermit8 as a friend

The Big Issue was founded in 1991 in response to the serious housing problems occurring with the shock of the policies of the 80's which have still to be rectified. Not one government since has really properly tackled the ongoing demands of the sector since and has just watched it get worse.

 


Big chest and massive boobs

[Link]


Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Hrolf The Ganger's Profile Hrolf The Ganger Flag 29 Dec 17 11.42am Send a Private Message to Hrolf The Ganger Add Hrolf The Ganger as a friend

Originally posted by serial thriller

It is a funny argument in my mind. Take London. It has just returned to its population level of 1939, a little higher than it was post-war. That means that we, as a state, have had 70 years to plan a city around a population of 8 million, and for the most part, rising.

Why then do we have a homeless crisis? To my mind, blaming overpopulation could make sense if we had seen a sudden increase in population, but we haven't seen that, either in London or the rest of the UK. Migration has been steady, emigration is now on the increase, and if anything we have a problem with birthrates of citizens.

So what argument is overpopulation a convenient one to deploy against? Well, when we talk about overpopulation, we ignore the fact that we are the most unequal nation in Europe; that we are the 5th richest economy in the world, and yet thousands will go to sleep tonight in temporary, inadequate accommodation or worse; that the UK population gives the government nearly 800 billion a year in tax, and yet that government at the moment can't even house all of its citizens.

We aren't facing any problems that we, as humans, haven't faced before, and haven't dealt with before. All it takes is us to have the courage to tackle them, and for normal people like us to not allow the decisions to be made by vested interest groups at the very top of our society.

Why do people bend over backwards to avoid a simple obvious reality? It's OK I already know.

Which part of an increasing population needs an increasing number of houses is too hard for them to understand?

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Hrolf The Ganger's Profile Hrolf The Ganger Flag 29 Dec 17 11.46am Send a Private Message to Hrolf The Ganger Add Hrolf The Ganger as a friend

Originally posted by Mapletree

Might be better to answer the question.

Immigrants are more likely to have jobs and less likely to use any and all public services.

Our problem is dreadful productivity fuelled by poor investment decisions. Immigration has disguised the scale of the problem but canít reasonably be claimed to have caused it.

Do you think we can have an annual population increase of the size of recent years, every year for the forseeable future? It's a simple question.

Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (29 Dec 2017 12.55pm)

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
jamiemartin721 Flag Reading 29 Dec 17 12.48pm

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

Deflection. More people means bigger housing crisis.

I don't want to live in a country with an insane population density and I'm not wasting my time engaging with irrational people on ths subject.

True, but then less people means a massive crash of the housing market, and the UK economy is very dependent on that market. The route of the problem is several factors

1) EU working migration levels increasing the population
2) Shortage of Property and an unregulated property and rental market
3) An economy driven by the housing market.
4) Cuts to public spending, to pay for tax cuts and corporate tax cuts.
5) Suppression of supply to the job market through the use of migrant workers.
6) Corporations paying minimal taxes.

These are all significant factors. To see this just in terms of population levels is myopic, as there is a reason why the rental market and buy to rent market has been keeping the housing market afloat.

Of course none of this is sustainable - and the housing crisis is probably the single most likely factor to deliver a victory to Labour at an election (now that Brexit is out of the way).

 


"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
View Hrolf The Ganger's Profile Hrolf The Ganger Flag 29 Dec 17 12.54pm Send a Private Message to Hrolf The Ganger Add Hrolf The Ganger as a friend

Originally posted by jamiemartin721

True, but then less people means a massive crash of the housing market, and the UK economy is very dependent on that market. The route of the problem is several factors

1) EU working migration levels increasing the population
2) Shortage of Property and an unregulated property and rental market
3) An economy driven by the housing market.
4) Cuts to public spending, to pay for tax cuts and corporate tax cuts.
5) Suppression of supply to the job market through the use of migrant workers.
6) Corporations paying minimal taxes.

These are all significant factors. To see this just in terms of population levels is myopic, as there is a reason why the rental market and buy to rent market has been keeping the housing market afloat.

Of course none of this is sustainable - and the housing crisis is probably the single most likely factor to deliver a victory to Labour at an election (now that Brexit is out of the way).


It's not just about population but population increase can only make everything worse.

No.4 is a stretch.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View cryrst's Profile cryrst Flag Chatham 29 Dec 17 2.32pm Send a Private Message to cryrst Add cryrst as a friend

Originally posted by .TUX.

Jesus wept, it's exactly the bloody same!
And yes, it did ''save thousands of jobs'' but was it really worth it at the expense of millions for 8yrs now.......that includes YOU?

Blinkered to say the least.

But TUX we would not have the dough now or in any years between.
That's the point.
It wasn't in the budget.
It was borrowed at a very low rate specifically for the bail outs.
Now on reselling any profit WILL go in the budget for us. So in effect we will all benefit ( well some will but probably not me n you !!!!) We work !!!
The yanks issue wasn't the same, as their bad bits made our bad bits look like peanuts.
Speculate to accumulate was the mantra.
It's like you getting a house and not wanting to borrow for it.
You won't have a house then.
It's done and dusted.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Lyons550's Profile Lyons550 Flag Shirley 29 Dec 17 3.55pm Send a Private Message to Lyons550 Add Lyons550 as a friend

Originally posted by Mr Palaceman

Giving hundreds of billions to the banks might have something to do with it.

Does anyone actually think that a country can use billions and billions of public money to bail out private finance and that country would not face decades of hardship.

I think that where you should be looking..

You do realise that the Government made a profit on selling the Lloyds shares...don't you!?

 


The Voice of Reason In An Otherwise Mediocre World

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Badger11's Profile Badger11 Flag Beckenham 29 Dec 17 4.18pm Send a Private Message to Badger11 Add Badger11 as a friend

Bailing out the banks was the best of a bad deal. The alternative was to let the banks go bust. I assume that Labour would have protected small savers up to about 75 / 85k. However
- Any individual with savings over the threshold would have lost the lot.
- Any investors / share holders / bond holders would have lost the lot meaning the markets losing confidence in the UK.
- Thousands of ordinary people who work for high street banks would have been laid off through no fault of their own. I worked at Barclays HQ for 3 years the average salary of the folks on the tills outside of London was 16k hardly big money.
- Thousands more people would have lost their jobs indirectly. There are many jobs in Canary Wharf which are only there because of the bankers e.g. shops.
- Thousands of businesses would be in jeopardy. The liquidator's only concern is to get back as much money as they can. Business loans would have been called in companies and people with cash flow problems would not get any leeway.
- Unemployment would go up and the economy would take a hit as less tax money to spend.
- Because the economy is tanking the Chancellor would need to borrow money from the markets to pay the increased benefits bill. Guess what? The markets are made up of the very investors the government knocked. They are not going to want to lend money and if they do they will demand a high rate of interest. I saw this when Argentina knocked the American banks in the 1980's. It killed their economy and of course the ordinary folk suffer.

I could go on as I have previously stated I wasn't happy bailing the banks out. At least this way we could borrow money at a low rate of interest and to some extent the governments (Labour and Tory) have managed the economy. As for getting our money back we will eventually and there is an argument that says the banks should be taxed more to compensate for the grief they caused.

 


One more point

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Mapletree's Profile Mapletree Flag Croydon 29 Dec 17 4.58pm Send a Private Message to Mapletree Add Mapletree as a friend

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

Do you think we can have an annual population increase of the size of recent years, every year for the forseeable future? It's a simple question.

Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (29 Dec 2017 12.55pm)

This is deflection and is not related to the points I was making or the OP was making.

Like I said, answer the question. You need to respond to the specific point of why aren't we more productive if you want to be taken seriously on this thread, instead of taking it back to your own personal agenda.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply

 

Page 3 of 7 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > biggest poppulation & biggest debt