pap

This is why to avatars are a good thing.

Certainly a better plan than borrowing a fúckton of money to buy houses we don't own so they can be sold off to the public at a discount rate.

Back in the days of feudalism, freemen, those that were not the bítch of some lord, were distinguished by their long hair. All the serfs had to have their barnets shorn, as did conquered peoples at other periods in history

Let's hope that the rest of the population aren't as malleable and indifferent as yourself.

Yup, but you had no expectation that it would ever be the case. Thatcher enabled Pinochet, who is also estimated to have taken 1m lives. We can play body count all day long, but tell me when I have ever defended Blair on Iraq. The difference now is that you have to look Conservative victims directly in the eye. The ones that are still around, anyway. http://johnpilger.com/articles/dance-on-thatcher-s-grave-but-remember-there-has-been-a-coup-in-britain

Ha, I got lucky. Timed photo standing in front of a lamp. I prefer Last Dragon to Ready Brek, though. We'll agree to differ. I totally accept that Tory voters are going to feel deeply uncomfortable with my statement that a Conservative-led government will end up with more people taking their own lives. They should. It is not an unfounded claim, and you'll be voting for even more of the same. Source: this Tory-led government.

Yup, to placate the floating voters in the centre. Personally, I think it is a disgrace that Miliband couldn't even march with the Unions when they were trying to protect vital services. I am not a Labour voter, nor am I a slavish apologist for Miliband's behaviour. On the other end of that, I find it amazing that people bemoan the lack of conviction politicians that looked like them, yet fail to see how taking Unions out of the equation had any bearing on it. Classic case of people getting the politicians they deserve. I don't think they are exactly the same. They share similarities, sure. Both parties are beholden to lobbyists and corporate interests. Both parties seem to have nurtured a political class of PPE grads, with no real indication that it'll change anytime soon. Where we agree is that Labour has had to shift right to appeal to the ignorance of those on that side of the divide. Again, I've seen them try and cosy up to the centre with Tory like policies or sentiments. I find it personally disgusting. That said, the level of disgust I have with Labour in its current incarnation for their various mis-steps and appeals at populism is dwarfed by the tangible harm that this government has done to its own people, perhaps only equalled by the contempt for those that know what's going on, and wilfully look the other way.

My general point is that you're not taking anyone else's money. There isn't some large finite pile from which your mortgage is drawn. And are we really doing right by ourselves by being beholden to shareholders, who when push comes to shove, will always insist on the sort of cost-cutting measures that initiate the race to the bottom, thus destroying the structural economy over here? I still look at the example of Cadburys, a perfectly profitable business giving jobs to British workers, relocating to Poland after it was sold to Kraft. tbf to Kraft, shareholder pressure had Cadbury's considering the move in any event, but it's an example of how the greed of shareholders is often to the detriment of those that rely on private industry for work.

There is so much creativity to love in that movie, and can't disagree with you on Pesci's performance. The tracking shot as Henry introduces Karen to his world is utterly fantastic. Like yourself, I love the ending too. It's shot so well that you feel as if you're on the beak yourself, enduring the kind of frantic day that Henry is. Alas, poor Spider. Still, the actor playing him turned out to be Christopher Moltisanti in the Sopranos.

Interesting articles. Probably an occupational hazard, but these crises hit me the complete opposite away round. The dot com bubble gave me a proper financial spanking, whereas the post-2007 prestidigitation of financial types created quite a bit of demand for contractors that don't appear on any permanent headcount. I left my last permanent job in 2007. Literally the day after, people were speaking of financial icebergs on the horizon. Haven't spent a day out of work since. Here's that Guardian article I was talking about earlier. http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/apr/26/recession-rich-britains-wealthiest-double-net-worth-since-crisis We are not all in it together.

I've little time for Gordon Brown, or indeed, the time and effort he must have spent manoeveuring himself into Number Ten. He is not running this time. Also, are we talking the same IMF that is effectively a front for Western interests? The same one that has stoked conflict in Ukraine by tying loan amounts to control of the disputed regions? How credible are they at this point?

If he's going to dive, he needs to up his game so that he doesn't look like a c**t. I suggest he goes here:- http://www.muffdivingclub.ie/

You may as well blame them for a natural disaster, such as an earthquake, and then moan because they spent money on relief. The sub-prime loan crisis which spurred on the financial crash was an external event. If you want to blame anyone, look at the people that thought deregulation was a good idea. Thatcher was certainly one of them, but it was a phenomenon that occurred all over the West. Oddly enough, much of the regulation was introduced after the Great Depression. Deregulate, and we get two global financial crises in the space of 30 years. You seeing the link here?

The system will get rebalanced one way or the other. The only question is whether we do that in an orderly fashion, or through the chaos of war and social unrest. My view is that the system favours the elites far too readily, which is more than backed up by any number of financial reports, including the one published in the Guardian today. I've often said that institutions that retain power are the ones that truly wield it. The creation and distribution is arguably one of the most important issues we face, yet we've no direct power to address it. The "hatstand" Iceland incident I linked shows that governments can make a difference with the right political will. I keep saying that it's all IOUs, and that is the truth, sir. Can't we say that people owe a little bit less? Wouldn't the resultant disposable income that people have be good for the economy in general? The banks have to bear some responsibility. The system as constituted allows them to take all of the wealth and none of the risks. What other sector on Earth has that power?

The only person using the term murder is you. As btf's link shows, it's actually suicide by people in desperate circumstances that are causing the deaths. Conservative policy, particularly the targeted benefit sanctions, are the prime driver behind those desperate circumstances. Tory voters are not murderers, but they will be complicit in more suicides if they vote for them this time around. We've seen the effects of five years of Tory-led government. I shudder to think what can be "achieved" in a decade. Unlike 2010, the game is afoot. Know what you're voting for.

No, greedy banks lending money to people that weren't economically sound got us into this mess. Bad consumer debt got us into this mess. The IFS reckons there is a £30bn black hole in the Conservatives spending plans, yet you're complaining about the financial probity of Labour? FFS, mate. The Tories were never good at running an economy. The only thing they know how to do is sell, sell, sell. Contextualising that to me and you, would anyone think we were economically competent if we were to simply sell everything we own at knock-down prices, or would we be considered a pair of f**king chumps with no assets, and less cash than the value of the assets we used to hold?

Hatstand. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-11-28/iceland-defies-creditor-backlash-with-debt-relief-nordic-credit

Great, on-topic discussion. Nice to see a consistent approach when the themes get too hard for you

I think in 2010, people had an excuse to vote Conservative. This time around, we know the beast we're dealing with. There's no excuse. A vote for Conservative is a vote for more of this.

Great, on-topic discussion. Nice to see a consistent approach when the themes get too hard for you

Government policy, including benefit sanctions. Nice ad hominem at the end, btw.

Which is an entirely different argument, venturing back onto real left and right concepts, such as who should own the means of production. We are already killing the poor in deference to this system, and the rich are getting richer. One of the things that people forget about recessions is that some people do very well out of them. The Guardian reports today that the net worth of many of the rich has doubled since the recession began, and is it any wonder? Recession just means that the poor get a worse shake of things, and who do they go to when seeking to make up the difference? The rich, who benefit from the usury (either directly or indirectly). Capitalism is fine with certain safeguards. The universality of money is a good thing. Neither of us would fancy seeking out a baker who happened to want computer programming or electrical engineering skills. The issue is that over the long term, it always fails, and whenever it does, it's socialism that is left to pick up the pieces. There is bugger all wrong with recognising that before the doom breaks.

A big refocusing. Is the banking system there to support the people, or do the people support (whether they like it or not) the banking system? Answering your particular example, that'd be a prime example of creating money to provide infrastructure. I'm not saying that we ditch it, just change the parameters and focus of the system so that it serves human needs, rather than artificial wants and/or the pockets of banks and their shareholders. Remember that we gave 45Bn to the banks to keep them afloat. Who is suffering as a result of this decision? Clue: it's not the banks.

He actually acted as peacemaker in both situations. The wielder was drunk on both occasions (not the same person).

Right now, the banking system is driven by consumer demand, again itself completely artificial because we're constantly being marketed to. One of the best ideas I've heard is that money should only be created for infrastructure projects. The topic under discussion, housing, would obviously be part of that. The huge objection I have is the primacy of the banking system. It is under no real government control, and more often than not, is setting the agenda for us all. See austerity in all its forms across the continent. Each and every life that is affected is a consequence of supporting the fiction.