dave clarkson
|
Edited Nov 06, 2009, 01:46
Re: State of confusion. another 30 billion
Nov 06, 2009, 01:09
|
...there's 30 billion people over there - where are they hiding?
8)
|
sanshee
|
Re: State of confusion. another 30 billion
Nov 06, 2009, 10:41
|
|
grufty jim wrote:
Are you suggesting that because almost none of us live a zero-impact lifestyle we should just stop giving a damn about the planet?
What a ridiculous argument.
Yes it is, but I'm not the one who said it.
What I was saying was (quite clearly if you want to go over my posts again) when we do vote we can't always have it as we want. But I still see voting as important.
In this country we march for those who don't have the right to vote elsewhere.
The fact you/we have the luxury to choose not to vote more or less speaks for itself in that respect.
x
|
sanshee
|
Edited Nov 06, 2009, 11:28
Re: 5000 watts
Nov 06, 2009, 10:58
|
|
grufty jim wrote:
So your estimate is out by a factor of 40.
Estimate?
C'mon very disingenuous of you.
'Twas to the naked eye a mild form of parody, but the irony still makes me chuckle.
Still, elsewhere we all got used to the death of the 100w bulb and darker livingrooms (suits me actually.)
;-)
|
Squid Tempest
|
Squidonomics
Nov 06, 2009, 12:58
|
Apologies if this point has been raised elsewhere in this thread - I haven't had the time to read through every post.
So. The Bank of England is bunging another £25 billion out in "quantitative easing". If I understand this correctly, which I probably don't as I know b*gger all about economics, this means £25 billion spent on government bonds which help to prop up the banks and the fat cats at the top of the feeding chain.
On the radio this morning they were saying that this was necessary as the last chunk of billions hadn't yet filtered down through the economy. So, my point is this. If they want it to "filter down", why the bloody hell can't they just give the cash out to the poorer sectors of society in the first place? Surely this would have a positive effect on the economy - people able to go out and spend more etc, without the drawback of the bankers creaming off the cash first?
Am I missing something? Or are the greedy bastards just giving themselves more of the taxpayers money for fun?
|
sanshee
|
Re: Squidonomics
Nov 06, 2009, 13:12
|
Hehe - Squidonomics!
Haven't got any answer to any of that, but like that new word lots!
:-)
x
|
stray
|
Re: Squidonomics
Nov 06, 2009, 13:12
|
|
Squid Tempest wrote:
Am I missing something? Or are the greedy bastards just giving themselves more of the taxpayers money for fun?
Nope you're not, but maybe, well, thing is the credit market is still fucked up. Well, it isn't, maybe, whatever, the banks aren't lending still, so it's still fucked. The main problem is with this crappy QE tactic is that when the govt gets to (has to) buy these bonds back you can bet that the interest rate will be hellishly higher than it is now. This means we'll all end up spending more to get this cash back. Its crap now and it's going to get worse.
I still reckon that the govt would have been better off spending a lot of these billions (especially this last lot) to set up a seperate/parallel banking system of credit union types of things. These new mini banks would only lend to us street level punters and very small businesses at the current low rates but fixed for a very long time, and guaranteed to remain lower than current rates. It'll get the consumer market running again, also it'll help people pay their mortgages by being able to get cash to pay their banks back which will make the banks more confident to lend. Yeah, yeah, once this is setup it'll be a bastard to deconstruct, so? We can just make the requirements to lend a lot tighter as time progresses so it only helps people in the worst poverty, and small businesses that provide the most to their communities.
What I'm saying, getting at, is print this money for us and not the bankers that fucked it all up. I'm probably missing something, but I really cvan't see the problem with this approach. I mean, fuck, we've nationalised the largest high street banks anyway, and we'll never feel any benefit for it. Well, we could mutualise the fuckers, that'll learn em.
|
Squid Tempest
|
Re: Squidonomics
Nov 06, 2009, 13:21
|
|
stray wrote: What I'm saying, getting at, is print this money for us and not the bankers that fucked it all up. I'm probably missing something, but I really cvan't see the problem with this approach. I mean, fuck, we've nationalised the largest high street banks anyway, and we'll never feel any benefit for it. Well, we could mutualise the fuckers, that'll learn em.
Seems simple when it's put like that doesn't it? I get the feeling much wool has been pulled over the public's eyes with this. I mean, if this is actually the case, people would go nuts if they thought that the Bank of England was just dishing out more cash to the very people who caused all the problems in the first place with their insatiable greed.
|
stray
|
Re: Squidonomics
Nov 06, 2009, 13:30
|
|
Oh just wait until the christmas bonuses are published for these banks. Oh wait.. what am I thinking, the public don't do anything these days except get righteously indignated, instead of behaving rationally and setting light to banks and stringing up traders. It'll just guarantee that everyone will vote tory, who'll do nothing different, except let the banks get away with even more.
|
joudicca
|
Re: 5000 watts
Nov 06, 2009, 14:48
|
|
i know people who grow under energy saving lights and it's ok.
|
joudicca
|
Re: State of confusion. another 30 billion
Nov 06, 2009, 15:05
|
|
that's out of order and rude. ppppppppparrrrp
|
