EPTUK Politics Mega-thread - Page 72
| Forum Index > General Forum |
In order to ensure that this thread meets TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we ask that everyone please adhere to this mod note. Posts containing only Tweets or articles adds nothing to the discussions. Therefore, when providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments will be actioned upon. All in all, please continue to enjoy posting in TL General and partake in discussions as much as you want! But please be respectful when posting or replying to someone. There is a clear difference between constructive criticism/discussion and just plain being rude and insulting. https://www.registertovote.service.gov.uk | ||
|
Soap
Brazil1546 Posts
| ||
|
Fuchsteufelswild
Australia2028 Posts
That's not to say their prices don't at all rise as a result of an increased amount of money in the economy, but perfectly proportionate to the total increase in currency? | ||
|
Zaros
United Kingdom3692 Posts
Lol just lol | ||
KwarK
United States44354 Posts
On September 13 2015 07:59 Fuchsteufelswild wrote: Their value hasn't directly increased though, just the overall amount of money in the market, no? That's not to say their prices don't at all rise as a result of an increased amount of money in the economy, but perfectly proportionate to the total increase in currency? If the government printed more currency and then distributed it to the people in proportion to the amount of currency people already had then the price increase would be as you describe. Take a basic example of putting a zero behind all bank accounts. We'd all be 10x richer but we'd charge 10x more for everything so we'd be in the same position. However that's not how printing currency works. When the government prints currency it then spends it itself. So the example for that would be a zero is put behind every bank account, then the gov take 90% of every balance (putting you back to where you started) but everything is still 10x more expensive. | ||
|
Zaros
United Kingdom3692 Posts
I don't think Corbyn will last long at this rate. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
Zaros
United Kingdom3692 Posts
On September 14 2015 07:09 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Corbyn wants to leave NATO? Imagine if Labour wins and the UK leaves. Huge. Labour won't win, the rate they are going they will be lucky to still exist by 2020, Tories are going to hit their Union Finances tommorow with new legislation, party membership isn't enough to fund the party and they won't get any donations from rich individuals with their policies. Plus Corbyn will probably be the worst rated party leader on record. | ||
|
FuzzyJAM
Scotland9300 Posts
On September 13 2015 07:08 Zaros wrote: As a counter counter, Putin is acting as if it never did. Yes, because NATO is acting as though it doesn't have to abide by its agreements, and as though it's totally morally justified in expanding its sphere of influence against promises. Corbyn's plan for the UK is terrifying, but I'd take his principled position over how we should behave in the world over any other current major politician, or any other in Europe that I can think of. The idea that we shouldn't bully others and that our own benefit is not necessarily what we should pursue is extremely refreshing. I find it odd that the Conservatives are emphasising his foreign policy when that's the one area where I'd argue any remotely acceptable person would agree with Corbyn. | ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
On September 14 2015 07:31 FuzzyJAM wrote: Yes, because NATO is acting as though it doesn't have to abide by its agreements How so? | ||
|
UdderChaos
United Kingdom707 Posts
www.ft.com So basically: - He contemplates re-opening coal mines (great for the environment! Also causes more earthquakes than fracking, oh well who needs logic) - Possibly want to leave EU - Wants to leave NATO - Has spoken at Hamas and Hezbollah rallies, called them friends, and shared a stage with a holocaust denier (what a great guy! Ok I'm not pro Israel but these groups are just as bad with violence) - Want to re-nationalise a lot without giving fair compensation/market price to the private companies - Wants to print money (Yikes!) - Appointed a man as Chancellor who said: .."bravery" of the IRA, whose "bombs and bullets" had resulted, in the peace process in Northern Ireland. - Build 250,000 new homes a year (Also separately mentions he wants to protect the environment, both of these really are impossible to achieve) Hes got some pretty good stuff too but that list alone is very damming. The right love to pull the fear card, and say Corbyn is dangerous, thing is they will actually be right about it for once. But maybe it will be the boy who cried wolf. | ||
|
KwarK
United States44354 Posts
| ||
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51493 Posts
 | ||
|
RvB
Netherlands6322 Posts
Jeremy Corbyn walked into his first encounter with the lawmakers of the Labour Party that he now leads, and was greeted with silence. Meetings of the Parliamentary Labour Party are conducted in private, in a large room just off the chamber of the House of Commons. The only way to judge the popularity of what’s being said is the sound coming through the walls. The arrival of a leader, especially a newly elected leader, is usually greeted with applause and the sound of people banging on tables. Corbyn, who received the votes of fewer than one in 10 of his colleagues, got neither. According to two of those in the room, who asked not to be identified because the meeting was private, a silence fell when Corbyn, in an open-necked white shirt, walked in. To many present, he was a stranger, as his 32 years in Parliament have been spent on the fringes of the party. His new education spokeswoman, Lucy Powell, told the BBC on Monday that even though she’d been in the House of Commons for five years she still hadn’t met him. Despite having little support among lawmakers, Corbyn won nearly 60 percent of the vote in Labour’s leadership election, announced at the weekend, thanks to broad support from hundreds of thousands of new party members and supporters who warmed to his anti-austerity message. After a speech in which he promised to visit Scotland once a month until elections are held there in May and told his fellow lawmakers that one of his aims is to win the 2020 general election, Corbyn took questions. www.bloomberg.com How can you lead a party when they don't even like you? This seems like a disaster for Labour. Both the electorate AND the MPs who are supposed to support him don't see anything in his policies. | ||
|
RvB
Netherlands6322 Posts
| ||
|
RvB
Netherlands6322 Posts
| ||
|
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51493 Posts
Labour have been no challenge for Conservatives since Tony Blair an actual leader i could listen to all day. The party is terrible and is making the whole system look a farce again. | ||
|
Dapper_Cad
United Kingdom964 Posts
On September 14 2015 06:25 KwarK wrote: If the government printed more currency and then distributed it to the people in proportion to the amount of currency people already had then the price increase would be as you describe. Take a basic example of putting a zero behind all bank accounts. We'd all be 10x richer but we'd charge 10x more for everything so we'd be in the same position. However that's not how printing currency works. When the government prints currency it then spends it itself. So the example for that would be a zero is put behind every bank account, then the gov take 90% of every balance (putting you back to where you started) but everything is still 10x more expensive. I'm pretty sure doesn't even bear a passing resemblance to any current economic theory. Which is a good thing I think as it doesn't really make any sense. If you add a zero to everyone's bank accounts it not only multiples deposits it multiplies debts (£-1 x 10 = ?). It also doesn't address incomes, so if you're lucky enough to have £1,000 in the bank which becomes £10,000 but your next cheque from your employer is the same as last month's cheque how much richer are you really? All this means that the effect of this fantasy would not be anything like everything costing 10 times more. The result would be chaos surely, and prices would likely go up. But by how much? Current monetary theory holds that inflation is related to the amount of money circulating in the economy not how much money exists in the economy. That's why trillions of £ and $ being printed and handed to banks didn't create hyper inflation, the banks spent some of it on government debt (buying bonds) which allowed the governments to spend a bit more when tax receipts fell, they also felt a tiny bit more comfortable about lending in general, but they also held onto a great deal of that money so while inflation went up, it didn't go crazy and now, just a few years later, it's fallen back to pretty much zero. What Corbyn calls "People's Quantitative Easing" is more radical than printing money and handing it to banks. With the money printing we saw after the crash we placed the banks in the position to say what should and shouldn't be invested in. With this money we're cutting out the middle man and having democratically elected politicians make those decisions. This comes with it's own dangers of course, in terms of inflation the key difference will be that all the money printed will be invested in the economy, none will be sat on, so £1 of money printed and spent this way will create more inflation than £1 printed and given to banks because that £1 goes more directly into the money circulation. However we must remember that this isn't intended to be something that goes on forever. When inflation goes up then the money tap (should) stop. Again we can see a danger here, where politicians wanted to get elected will print more money than they should, but there is no such thing as a perfect solution, political economy is not a science. What this is though is an actual, real live alternative that will have a progressive redistributive effect, something we sorely need. For those interested the term "People's Quantitative Easing" comes from Richard Murphey, his blog is here: http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/ You might also like to read an article by Paul Krugman (Just an Economist, not jesus, lots of people say he's wrong) recommending something similar for Japan, though he doesn't call it PQE http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/11/opinion/paul-krugman-japans-economy-crippled-by-caution.html On September 14 2015 07:24 Zaros wrote: Labour won't win, the rate they are going they will be lucky to still exist by 2020, Tories are going to hit their Union Finances tomorrow with new legislation, party membership isn't enough to fund the party and they won't get any donations from rich individuals with their policies. Plus Corbyn will probably be the worst rated party leader on record. What politics in most of the west needs is less control by Oligarchs so that the government can be responsive to the needs of the people. http://www.businessinsider.com/major-study-finds-that-the-us-is-an-oligarchy-2014-4?IR=T While I expect that the Tories Union neutering bill will pass, their majority will be slim and there will be resistance. I wouldn't be surprised if we see a great deal more union action as a result. As for your other claims, they seem to have little going for them other than the fact that rich, influential people keep saying them. Well the first agreement that NATO broke after the fall of the Soviet Union was George H.W. Bush's promise to Gorbachev that NATO would expand "not one inch" to the East after the unification of Germany. On September 14 2015 23:15 Pandemona wrote: Corbyn has just given free reign to SNP in Scotland for many years, this i want to add is bad but it doesn't bother me as they won't get anything done. Free reign of Conservatives in government for even longer haha, im pretty happy Corbyn's election obviously gives Labour a much better chance to win Scotland as his social and economic policies are much closer to the SNPs. If a Corbyn had been leader, instead of Ed Millibad, Labour might not have lost Scotland at all, or at least not lost quite so many seats. As a conservative I'm not sure exactly what you have to be so happy about. You have a tiny majority and a Labour party which is much closer in ideology to the number 3 party in the commons (The SNP). You lost an important vote on Europe the first day back from recess because a very small group of Conservative MPs rebelled http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34173126 . I'm not a dedicated Corbynite by any means. First up "they always disappoint you". However I am glad that we will see, even if only briefly, real debate in the house of commons rather than this constant barrage from Tariq Ali's "Extreme Center" http://www.versobooks.com/books/1943-the-extreme-centre that so many in this thread seem to be cheerleaders for. | ||
|
Dapper_Cad
United Kingdom964 Posts
On September 15 2015 18:42 RvB wrote: www.bloomberg.com How can you lead a party when they don't even like you? This seems like a disaster for Labour. Both the electorate AND the MPs who are supposed to support him don't see anything in his policies. You're absolutely right that the biggest challenge facing him is his own party. The conservatives are still finding their footing propaganda wise, they need to be very careful not to alienate people by sounding like a bunch of fascists http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/sep/13/tory-theme-corbyn-threat-national-security-criticised | ||
|
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51493 Posts
Corbyn's election obviously gives Labour a much better chance to win Scotland as his social and economic policies are much closer to the SNPs. If a Corbyn had been leader, instead of Ed Millibad, Labour might not have lost Scotland at all, or at least not lost quite so many seats. It doesn't give him a better chance to win Scotland, just because his policies on paper look good doesn't mean he is going to be able to "speak it" out there to them. Also SNP will get there independance wish and will have another vote being bought up very soon they are already campaigning with it again. He has a terrible manner when speaking and has already made stupidly questionable decisions in his cabinet. He is getting ridiculed everywhere he turns at the moment. The main problem with Labour election was there is nobody in the group that was remotely a good candidate which was crazy. As a conservative I'm not sure exactly what you have to be so happy about. You have a tiny majority and a Labour party which is much closer in ideology to the number 3 party in the commons (The SNP). You lost an important vote on Europe the first day back from recess because a very small group of Conservative MPs rebelled http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34173126 . Yeah they lose votes all the time but that isn't because of anything to do with labour, there rival making noise or whatever. The way the Conservatives are run today is so different to what it has been like in the past and as a Tony Blair voter in past i am happy with how the Conservatives are doing. To be a good politician is about how you can portray yourself with words and not with writing. | ||
|
Dapper_Cad
United Kingdom964 Posts
I still don't think the Conservatives are in a very strong position right now and that Corbyn will gain much more sympathy in Scotland than any of the alternatives. It IS possible that Scotland will end up independent, if they do it might be because of something like this: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/tories-accused-trying-manufacture-majority-5989477 where Cameron tried to ram through the constitution shredding "English Votes for English Laws" (yes, seriously E.V.E.L.) just before the summer recess, another move which he had to back down from by the way. Right now it really does look to me like Labour have a better shot at preserving the Union than the Conservatives. At least if the Conservatives keep trying things like that. I'm not sure I agree with you about Corbyn's manner and, during his run for labour leader, he filled halls across the country to standing room only and his talks were well recieved: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-33880482 Ultimately though it's a matter of taste. I don't think he's the greatest speaker, but then again I find listening to Cameron a bit like having a chimpanzee wearing a tux throw shit at me. To each their own I guess. | ||
| ||
