LEAVE the Conservative Party and save your country!

rick_chasey

Stevo_666 said:

sungod said:

Stevo_666 said:

orraloon said:

Has this been listed yet?

https://ismympaprick.co.uk/

Informative. Not exclusive to #toryscum of course.

Searched my MP and he's done a lot of good things that apparently enrage lefties

has he done any good things to enrage neo-nazis?

Possibly, but the website designer didn't seem to include any of these There might be a few things that irritate champagne socialists though

You cannot use the 'champagne socialist' line as you were a big lover of Eat Out to Help Out which is about as literally champagne socialist as you get.

Stevo_666

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

sungod said:

Stevo_666 said:

orraloon said:

Has this been listed yet?

https://ismympaprick.co.uk/

Informative. Not exclusive to #toryscum of course.

Searched my MP and he's done a lot of good things that apparently enrage lefties

has he done any good things to enrage neo-nazis?

Possibly, but the website designer didn't seem to include any of these There might be a few things that irritate champagne socialists though

You cannot use the 'champagne socialist' line as you were a big lover of Eat Out to Help Out which is about as literally champagne socialist as you get.

Alcohol wasn't part of the deal

sungod

Stevo_666 said:

sungod said:

orraloon said:

Will I go fetch some popcorn? A T-1000 vs The Solar Deity. Game on. 😉

it really isn't, i assume he's doing it out of boredom/mischievousness

i'm merely suggesting the path toward contempt for pretty much all politicians is the more honourable one

but i've always been happy for people to go to hell in their own way

anyway, back to my non-socialist bubbly

I was right on one bit

currently finishing off the second bottle of the month

Stevo_666

sungod said:

Stevo_666 said:

sungod said:

orraloon said:

Will I go fetch some popcorn? A T-1000 vs The Solar Deity. Game on. 😉

it really isn't, i assume he's doing it out of boredom/mischievousness

i'm merely suggesting the path toward contempt for pretty much all politicians is the more honourable one

but i've always been happy for people to go to hell in their own way

anyway, back to my non-socialist bubbly

I was right on one bit

currently finishing off the second bottle of the month

Lightweight

sungod

Stevo_666 said:

sungod said:

Stevo_666 said:

sungod said:

orraloon said:

Will I go fetch some popcorn? A T-1000 vs The Solar Deity. Game on. 😉

it really isn't, i assume he's doing it out of boredom/mischievousness

i'm merely suggesting the path toward contempt for pretty much all politicians is the more honourable one

but i've always been happy for people to go to hell in their own way

anyway, back to my non-socialist bubbly

I was right on one bit

currently finishing off the second bottle of the month

Lightweight

that's just me, mrs s is on the red

tbh i ought to cut down, but after bubbly comes port

chin chin

surrey_commuter

@rick_chasey I think I have finally unravelled the contradiction atthe heart of MMT.

One of my problems is that if it is such a good idea why bother with any restrictions and just keep ging full chat afterall with an independent currency we can just issue more money.

Then on the other hand you get the Treasury quibbling over sums of a few hundred million (free school meals etc) which is just causing them unecessary pain if they believe the above to be true.

Am I right in thinking that whilst the annual deficit is unlikely to dip below £100bn before the end of the decade and that total debt will be north of £3trn and that nobody thinks that deficit % will ever go below % growth (barring freak circumstances) they believe that they have to maintain a facade of fiscal discipline?

bompington

Isn't it the old paradox that they'll lend any amount of money to anyone as long as you don't look like someone who needs to borrow lots of money?

I'm guessing that borrowing lots of money is easy until it isn't, and that point might come a bit suddenly.

Full disclosure: I'm intelligent but uninformed when it comes to economics so this intuitive reasoning might be nonsense.

But then a lot of what the experts say is clearly nonsense too.

surrey_commuter

bompington said:

Isn't it the old paradox that they'll lend any amount of money to anyone as long as you don't look like someone who needs to borrow lots of money?

I'm guessing that borrowing lots of money is easy until it isn't, and that point might come a bit suddenly.

Full disclosure: I'm intelligent but uninformed when it comes to economics so this intuitive reasoning might be nonsense.

But then a lot of what the experts say is clearly nonsense too.

I would argue a lot of economics is common sense and if you don’t understand it that is because the emperor has no clothes

rick_chasey

surrey_commuter said:

@rick_chasey I think I have finally unravelled the contradiction atthe heart of MMT.

One of my problems is that if it is such a good idea why bother with any restrictions and just keep ging full chat afterall with an independent currency we can just issue more money.

Then on the other hand you get the Treasury quibbling over sums of a few hundred million (free school meals etc) which is just causing them unecessary pain if they believe the above to be true.

Am I right in thinking that whilst the annual deficit is unlikely to dip below £100bn before the end of the decade and that total debt will be north of £3trn and that nobody thinks that deficit % will ever go below % growth (barring freak circumstances) they believe that they have to maintain a facade of fiscal discipline?

I am not MMT; I don't think using employment is a great measuring stick with respect to government spending.

I believe there is a limit at which governments can borrow and that governments have to raise money from taxation to pay for it. Not just to take some heat out of an economy.

I also believe that people are frightened of big numbers for the sake of it and aren't paying attention to the conditions and the context, and the focus should more be about the cost of servicing vs cost of not having the spending in the first place .

I think that is the calculation the economists make and why they are relaxed about the big expansion of the gov'ts balance sheet - because the cost of not doing that is far far higher.

I think you and plenty of others treat government spending like it's a credit card. It's not.

I also believe you run the risk of creating an environment of extremist politics if you do not manage growth properly, and that is a bigger risk to the likelihood of good policy decisions in the future.

I would argue, FWIW had the Tories not choked off the recovery in '08-10, on balance Brexit would not have happened, as the type of anger Shortfall goes on about would not be as strong, and you would have less zero-sum style politics.

surrey_commuter

rick_chasey said:

surrey_commuter said:

@rick_chasey I think I have finally unravelled the contradiction atthe heart of MMT.

One of my problems is that if it is such a good idea why bother with any restrictions and just keep ging full chat afterall with an independent currency we can just issue more money.

Then on the other hand you get the Treasury quibbling over sums of a few hundred million (free school meals etc) which is just causing them unecessary pain if they believe the above to be true.

Am I right in thinking that whilst the annual deficit is unlikely to dip below £100bn before the end of the decade and that total debt will be north of £3trn and that nobody thinks that deficit % will ever go below % growth (barring freak circumstances) they believe that they have to maintain a facade of fiscal discipline?

I am not MMT; I don't think using employment is a great measuring stick with respect to government spending.

I believe there is a limit at which governments can borrow and that governments have to raise money from taxation to pay for it. Not just to take some heat out of an economy.

I also believe that people are frightened of big numbers for the sake of it and aren't paying attention to the conditions and the context, and the focus should more be about the cost of servicing vs cost of not having the spending in the first place .

I think that is the calculation the economists make and why they are relaxed about the big expansion of the gov'ts balance sheet - because the cost of not doing that is far far higher.

I think you and plenty of others treat government spending like it's a credit card. It's not.

I also believe you run the risk of creating an environment of extremist politics if you do not manage growth properly, and that is a bigger risk to the likelihood of good policy decisions in the future.

I would argue, FWIW had the Tories not choked off the recovery in '08-10, on balance Brexit would not have happened, as the type of anger Shortfall goes on about would not be as strong, and you would have less zero-sum style politics.

bizarrely I think the spending free for all gives populism the fuel to thrive.

How about this for a thought.
For hundreds of years there was not a lot of growth in the european economy or in standards of living, this was changed by exploitation of empires and then the industrial revolution, throughout the 1900s this growth in the economy and living standards was maintained by technology advances. Now say the last gasp of these advances was the rise of the internet and that since the turn of the century we have seen, in europe, the start of a period of slower growth. This would mean that politicians are not smoothing out short term blips but trying to buck a long term trend.

Per your ref of Shortfall I saw a program about Victorian England and was surprised (shocked) and how sh1t things were for the common man in the 1890s which got me thinking about when was this period when the working class "never had it so good" that they want to return to or is it wanting something better than they have ever had. Is this an absolute thing or is it comparative.

TheBigBean

I think @surrey_commuter you should buy bitcoin.

TheBigBean

Just realised my bitcoin holdings are now worth over $700. Not bad given I got them for free. Might need to find my password one day.

rjsterry

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

surrey_commuter said:

@rick_chasey I think I have finally unravelled the contradiction atthe heart of MMT.

One of my problems is that if it is such a good idea why bother with any restrictions and just keep ging full chat afterall with an independent currency we can just issue more money.

Then on the other hand you get the Treasury quibbling over sums of a few hundred million (free school meals etc) which is just causing them unecessary pain if they believe the above to be true.

Am I right in thinking that whilst the annual deficit is unlikely to dip below £100bn before the end of the decade and that total debt will be north of £3trn and that nobody thinks that deficit % will ever go below % growth (barring freak circumstances) they believe that they have to maintain a facade of fiscal discipline?

I am not MMT; I don't think using employment is a great measuring stick with respect to government spending.

I believe there is a limit at which governments can borrow and that governments have to raise money from taxation to pay for it. Not just to take some heat out of an economy.

I also believe that people are frightened of big numbers for the sake of it and aren't paying attention to the conditions and the context, and the focus should more be about the cost of servicing vs cost of not having the spending in the first place .

I think that is the calculation the economists make and why they are relaxed about the big expansion of the gov'ts balance sheet - because the cost of not doing that is far far higher.

I think you and plenty of others treat government spending like it's a credit card. It's not.

I also believe you run the risk of creating an environment of extremist politics if you do not manage growth properly, and that is a bigger risk to the likelihood of good policy decisions in the future.

I would argue, FWIW had the Tories not choked off the recovery in '08-10, on balance Brexit would not have happened, as the type of anger Shortfall goes on about would not be as strong, and you would have less zero-sum style politics.

bizarrely I think the spending free for all gives populism the fuel to thrive.

How about this for a thought.
For hundreds of years there was not a lot of growth in the european economy or in standards of living, this was changed by exploitation of empires and then the industrial revolution, throughout the 1900s this growth in the economy and living standards was maintained by technology advances. Now say the last gasp of these advances was the rise of the internet and that since the turn of the century we have seen, in europe, the start of a period of slower growth. This would mean that politicians are not smoothing out short term blips but trying to buck a long term trend.

Per your ref of Shortfall I saw a program about Victorian England and was surprised (shocked) and how censored things were for the common man in the 1890s which got me thinking about when was this period when the working class "never had it so good" that they want to return to or is it wanting something better than they have ever had. Is this an absolute thing or is it comparative.

I'm a little surprised that you're surprised 🙂. If you find yourself in Birmingham, the back-to-backs are worth a visit.

https://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/birmingham-back-to-backs

TheBigBean

18 Stafford Terrace in London is quite good fun as well.

rick_chasey

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

surrey_commuter said:

@rick_chasey I think I have finally unravelled the contradiction atthe heart of MMT.

One of my problems is that if it is such a good idea why bother with any restrictions and just keep ging full chat afterall with an independent currency we can just issue more money.

Then on the other hand you get the Treasury quibbling over sums of a few hundred million (free school meals etc) which is just causing them unecessary pain if they believe the above to be true.

Am I right in thinking that whilst the annual deficit is unlikely to dip below £100bn before the end of the decade and that total debt will be north of £3trn and that nobody thinks that deficit % will ever go below % growth (barring freak circumstances) they believe that they have to maintain a facade of fiscal discipline?

I am not MMT; I don't think using employment is a great measuring stick with respect to government spending.

I believe there is a limit at which governments can borrow and that governments have to raise money from taxation to pay for it. Not just to take some heat out of an economy.

I also believe that people are frightened of big numbers for the sake of it and aren't paying attention to the conditions and the context, and the focus should more be about the cost of servicing vs cost of not having the spending in the first place .

I think that is the calculation the economists make and why they are relaxed about the big expansion of the gov'ts balance sheet - because the cost of not doing that is far far higher.

I think you and plenty of others treat government spending like it's a credit card. It's not.

I also believe you run the risk of creating an environment of extremist politics if you do not manage growth properly, and that is a bigger risk to the likelihood of good policy decisions in the future.

I would argue, FWIW had the Tories not choked off the recovery in '08-10, on balance Brexit would not have happened, as the type of anger Shortfall goes on about would not be as strong, and you would have less zero-sum style politics.

bizarrely I think the spending free for all gives populism the fuel to thrive.

How about this for a thought.
For hundreds of years there was not a lot of growth in the european economy or in standards of living, this was changed by exploitation of empires and then the industrial revolution, throughout the 1900s this growth in the economy and living standards was maintained by technology advances. Now say the last gasp of these advances was the rise of the internet and that since the turn of the century we have seen, in europe, the start of a period of slower growth. This would mean that politicians are not smoothing out short term blips but trying to buck a long term trend.

Per your ref of Shortfall I saw a program about Victorian England and was surprised (shocked) and how censored things were for the common man in the 1890s which got me thinking about when was this period when the working class "never had it so good" that they want to return to or is it wanting something better than they have ever had. Is this an absolute thing or is it comparative.

Well you did have some fairly punchy upheaval during that time across the west.... '26 general strike...Russian revolution, etc etc....

In the main people need to think they have the opportunity to improve their standard of life. If that's happening, people are generally content.

More important in a democracy when your Victorian England common man had no say over anything anyway...

elbowloh

If you're going to go to a National Trust place, nowhere better than this

https://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/george-inn

surrey_commuter

TheBigBean said:

I think @surrey_commuter you should buy bitcoin.

I don’t buy stuff I don’t understand

The counter argument is to put 1% of your portfolio in it and if all goes well it will be worth 10% of your portfolio.

rick_chasey

surrey_commuter said:

TheBigBean said:

I think @surrey_commuter you should buy bitcoin.

I don’t buy stuff I don’t understand

The counter argument is to put 1% of your portfolio in it and if all goes well it will be worth 10% of your portfolio.

I don't believe in helping criminals launder money.

surrey_commuter

rick_chasey said:

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

surrey_commuter said:

@rick_chasey I think I have finally unravelled the contradiction atthe heart of MMT.

One of my problems is that if it is such a good idea why bother with any restrictions and just keep ging full chat afterall with an independent currency we can just issue more money.

Then on the other hand you get the Treasury quibbling over sums of a few hundred million (free school meals etc) which is just causing them unecessary pain if they believe the above to be true.

Am I right in thinking that whilst the annual deficit is unlikely to dip below £100bn before the end of the decade and that total debt will be north of £3trn and that nobody thinks that deficit % will ever go below % growth (barring freak circumstances) they believe that they have to maintain a facade of fiscal discipline?

I am not MMT; I don't think using employment is a great measuring stick with respect to government spending.

I believe there is a limit at which governments can borrow and that governments have to raise money from taxation to pay for it. Not just to take some heat out of an economy.

I also believe that people are frightened of big numbers for the sake of it and aren't paying attention to the conditions and the context, and the focus should more be about the cost of servicing vs cost of not having the spending in the first place .

I think that is the calculation the economists make and why they are relaxed about the big expansion of the gov'ts balance sheet - because the cost of not doing that is far far higher.

I think you and plenty of others treat government spending like it's a credit card. It's not.

I also believe you run the risk of creating an environment of extremist politics if you do not manage growth properly, and that is a bigger risk to the likelihood of good policy decisions in the future.

I would argue, FWIW had the Tories not choked off the recovery in '08-10, on balance Brexit would not have happened, as the type of anger Shortfall goes on about would not be as strong, and you would have less zero-sum style politics.

bizarrely I think the spending free for all gives populism the fuel to thrive.

How about this for a thought.
For hundreds of years there was not a lot of growth in the european economy or in standards of living, this was changed by exploitation of empires and then the industrial revolution, throughout the 1900s this growth in the economy and living standards was maintained by technology advances. Now say the last gasp of these advances was the rise of the internet and that since the turn of the century we have seen, in europe, the start of a period of slower growth. This would mean that politicians are not smoothing out short term blips but trying to buck a long term trend.

Per your ref of Shortfall I saw a program about Victorian England and was surprised (shocked) and how censored things were for the common man in the 1890s which got me thinking about when was this period when the working class "never had it so good" that they want to return to or is it wanting something better than they have ever had. Is this an absolute thing or is it comparative.

Well you did have some fairly punchy upheaval during that time across the west.... '26 general strike...Russian revolution, etc etc....

In the main people need to think they have the opportunity to improve their standard of life. If that's happening, people are generally content.

More important in a democracy when your Victorian England common man had no say over anything anyway...

In the USA the culture seems to need a belief that the system allows them to improve, over here it feels more like people are benchmarking and not happy with what they have in comparison to others rather than a lack of opportunity to improve.

surrey_commuter

rjsterry said:

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

surrey_commuter said:

@rick_chasey I think I have finally unravelled the contradiction atthe heart of MMT.

One of my problems is that if it is such a good idea why bother with any restrictions and just keep ging full chat afterall with an independent currency we can just issue more money.

Then on the other hand you get the Treasury quibbling over sums of a few hundred million (free school meals etc) which is just causing them unecessary pain if they believe the above to be true.

Am I right in thinking that whilst the annual deficit is unlikely to dip below £100bn before the end of the decade and that total debt will be north of £3trn and that nobody thinks that deficit % will ever go below % growth (barring freak circumstances) they believe that they have to maintain a facade of fiscal discipline?

I am not MMT; I don't think using employment is a great measuring stick with respect to government spending.

I believe there is a limit at which governments can borrow and that governments have to raise money from taxation to pay for it. Not just to take some heat out of an economy.

I also believe that people are frightened of big numbers for the sake of it and aren't paying attention to the conditions and the context, and the focus should more be about the cost of servicing vs cost of not having the spending in the first place .

I think that is the calculation the economists make and why they are relaxed about the big expansion of the gov'ts balance sheet - because the cost of not doing that is far far higher.

I think you and plenty of others treat government spending like it's a credit card. It's not.

I also believe you run the risk of creating an environment of extremist politics if you do not manage growth properly, and that is a bigger risk to the likelihood of good policy decisions in the future.

I would argue, FWIW had the Tories not choked off the recovery in '08-10, on balance Brexit would not have happened, as the type of anger Shortfall goes on about would not be as strong, and you would have less zero-sum style politics.

bizarrely I think the spending free for all gives populism the fuel to thrive.

How about this for a thought.
For hundreds of years there was not a lot of growth in the european economy or in standards of living, this was changed by exploitation of empires and then the industrial revolution, throughout the 1900s this growth in the economy and living standards was maintained by technology advances. Now say the last gasp of these advances was the rise of the internet and that since the turn of the century we have seen, in europe, the start of a period of slower growth. This would mean that politicians are not smoothing out short term blips but trying to buck a long term trend.

Per your ref of Shortfall I saw a program about Victorian England and was surprised (shocked) and how censored things were for the common man in the 1890s which got me thinking about when was this period when the working class "never had it so good" that they want to return to or is it wanting something better than they have ever had. Is this an absolute thing or is it comparative.

I'm a little surprised that you're surprised 🙂. If you find yourself in Birmingham, the back-to-backs are worth a visit.

https://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/birmingham-back-to-backs

No need to go there, my dad went and was impressed with the authenticity as that is the sort of sh1thole my dad grew up in. Visiting relatives t'up north used to be an eye opener .

rick_chasey

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

surrey_commuter said:

@rick_chasey I think I have finally unravelled the contradiction atthe heart of MMT.

One of my problems is that if it is such a good idea why bother with any restrictions and just keep ging full chat afterall with an independent currency we can just issue more money.

Then on the other hand you get the Treasury quibbling over sums of a few hundred million (free school meals etc) which is just causing them unecessary pain if they believe the above to be true.

Am I right in thinking that whilst the annual deficit is unlikely to dip below £100bn before the end of the decade and that total debt will be north of £3trn and that nobody thinks that deficit % will ever go below % growth (barring freak circumstances) they believe that they have to maintain a facade of fiscal discipline?

I am not MMT; I don't think using employment is a great measuring stick with respect to government spending.

I believe there is a limit at which governments can borrow and that governments have to raise money from taxation to pay for it. Not just to take some heat out of an economy.

I also believe that people are frightened of big numbers for the sake of it and aren't paying attention to the conditions and the context, and the focus should more be about the cost of servicing vs cost of not having the spending in the first place .

I think that is the calculation the economists make and why they are relaxed about the big expansion of the gov'ts balance sheet - because the cost of not doing that is far far higher.

I think you and plenty of others treat government spending like it's a credit card. It's not.

I also believe you run the risk of creating an environment of extremist politics if you do not manage growth properly, and that is a bigger risk to the likelihood of good policy decisions in the future.

I would argue, FWIW had the Tories not choked off the recovery in '08-10, on balance Brexit would not have happened, as the type of anger Shortfall goes on about would not be as strong, and you would have less zero-sum style politics.

bizarrely I think the spending free for all gives populism the fuel to thrive.

How about this for a thought.
For hundreds of years there was not a lot of growth in the european economy or in standards of living, this was changed by exploitation of empires and then the industrial revolution, throughout the 1900s this growth in the economy and living standards was maintained by technology advances. Now say the last gasp of these advances was the rise of the internet and that since the turn of the century we have seen, in europe, the start of a period of slower growth. This would mean that politicians are not smoothing out short term blips but trying to buck a long term trend.

Per your ref of Shortfall I saw a program about Victorian England and was surprised (shocked) and how censored things were for the common man in the 1890s which got me thinking about when was this period when the working class "never had it so good" that they want to return to or is it wanting something better than they have ever had. Is this an absolute thing or is it comparative.

Well you did have some fairly punchy upheaval during that time across the west.... '26 general strike...Russian revolution, etc etc....

In the main people need to think they have the opportunity to improve their standard of life. If that's happening, people are generally content.

More important in a democracy when your Victorian England common man had no say over anything anyway...

In the USA the culture seems to need a belief that the system allows them to improve, over here it feels more like people are benchmarking and not happy with what they have in comparison to others rather than a lack of opportunity to improve.

To add to the 19th century debate, Keynes said it himself when he said that basically the super rich in 19th C understood that in order to preserve it they had to either spend it on grand things everyone could enjoy or save it like bees. If they spend it on their own enjoyment the regime would have been intolerable....

surrey_commuter

rick_chasey said:

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

surrey_commuter said:

@rick_chasey I think I have finally unravelled the contradiction atthe heart of MMT.

One of my problems is that if it is such a good idea why bother with any restrictions and just keep ging full chat afterall with an independent currency we can just issue more money.

Then on the other hand you get the Treasury quibbling over sums of a few hundred million (free school meals etc) which is just causing them unecessary pain if they believe the above to be true.

Am I right in thinking that whilst the annual deficit is unlikely to dip below £100bn before the end of the decade and that total debt will be north of £3trn and that nobody thinks that deficit % will ever go below % growth (barring freak circumstances) they believe that they have to maintain a facade of fiscal discipline?

I am not MMT; I don't think using employment is a great measuring stick with respect to government spending.

I believe there is a limit at which governments can borrow and that governments have to raise money from taxation to pay for it. Not just to take some heat out of an economy.

I also believe that people are frightened of big numbers for the sake of it and aren't paying attention to the conditions and the context, and the focus should more be about the cost of servicing vs cost of not having the spending in the first place .

I think that is the calculation the economists make and why they are relaxed about the big expansion of the gov'ts balance sheet - because the cost of not doing that is far far higher.

I think you and plenty of others treat government spending like it's a credit card. It's not.

I also believe you run the risk of creating an environment of extremist politics if you do not manage growth properly, and that is a bigger risk to the likelihood of good policy decisions in the future.

I would argue, FWIW had the Tories not choked off the recovery in '08-10, on balance Brexit would not have happened, as the type of anger Shortfall goes on about would not be as strong, and you would have less zero-sum style politics.

bizarrely I think the spending free for all gives populism the fuel to thrive.

How about this for a thought.
For hundreds of years there was not a lot of growth in the european economy or in standards of living, this was changed by exploitation of empires and then the industrial revolution, throughout the 1900s this growth in the economy and living standards was maintained by technology advances. Now say the last gasp of these advances was the rise of the internet and that since the turn of the century we have seen, in europe, the start of a period of slower growth. This would mean that politicians are not smoothing out short term blips but trying to buck a long term trend.

Per your ref of Shortfall I saw a program about Victorian England and was surprised (shocked) and how censored things were for the common man in the 1890s which got me thinking about when was this period when the working class "never had it so good" that they want to return to or is it wanting something better than they have ever had. Is this an absolute thing or is it comparative.

Well you did have some fairly punchy upheaval during that time across the west.... '26 general strike...Russian revolution, etc etc....

In the main people need to think they have the opportunity to improve their standard of life. If that's happening, people are generally content.

More important in a democracy when your Victorian England common man had no say over anything anyway...

In the USA the culture seems to need a belief that the system allows them to improve, over here it feels more like people are benchmarking and not happy with what they have in comparison to others rather than a lack of opportunity to improve.

To add to the 19th century debate, Keynes said it himself when he said that basically the super rich in 19th C understood that in order to preserve it they had to either spend it on grand things everyone could enjoy or save it like bees. If they spend it on their own enjoyment the regime would have been intolerable....

London was the busiest docks in the world bringing in the riches of the empire yet dockers were paid by the job and averaged 3 hours work a day.

I can not believe that the grandeur of public buildings cheered them up that much

TheBigBean

surrey_commuter said:

TheBigBean said:

I think @surrey_commuter you should buy bitcoin.

I don’t buy stuff I don’t understand

The counter argument is to put 1% of your portfolio in it and if all goes well it will be worth 10% of your portfolio.

Fair enough, but your dislike of fiat money because governments keep printing more is precisely the reason bitcoin was conceived.

TheBigBean

rick_chasey said:

surrey_commuter said:

TheBigBean said:

I think @surrey_commuter you should buy bitcoin.

I don’t buy stuff I don’t understand

The counter argument is to put 1% of your portfolio in it and if all goes well it will be worth 10% of your portfolio.

I don't believe in helping criminals launder money.

I'd rank that as one of your most objectionable posts.

It is the equivalent, of "if you have nothing to hide, what's the problem with ..."

Bitcoin allows transactions. It doesn't affect money laundering. Criminals use it instead of cash, diamonds, whatever, but its existence is only as objectionable as those other items.

rick_chasey

TheBigBean said:

rick_chasey said:

surrey_commuter said:

TheBigBean said:

I think @surrey_commuter you should buy bitcoin.

I don’t buy stuff I don’t understand

The counter argument is to put 1% of your portfolio in it and if all goes well it will be worth 10% of your portfolio.

I don't believe in helping criminals launder money.

I'd rank that as one of your most objectionable posts.

It is the equivalent, of "if you have nothing to hide, what's the problem with ..."

Bitcoin allows transactions. It doesn't affect money laundering. Criminals use it instead of cash, diamonds, whatever, but its existence is only as objectionable as those other items.

Beyond speculation I'm fairly sure criminal activity is the main use of it, and that a lot of punters piling in only makes it easier for those people who earn their money in bitcoin to get out.

I am well aware that criminals have used cash for millennia.

In the same way I made sure my wife's engagement ring had conflict free diamonds in it.

pangolin

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

rick_chasey said:

surrey_commuter said:

TheBigBean said:

I think @surrey_commuter you should buy bitcoin.

I don’t buy stuff I don’t understand

The counter argument is to put 1% of your portfolio in it and if all goes well it will be worth 10% of your portfolio.

I don't believe in helping criminals launder money.

I'd rank that as one of your most objectionable posts.

It is the equivalent, of "if you have nothing to hide, what's the problem with ..."

Bitcoin allows transactions. It doesn't affect money laundering. Criminals use it instead of cash, diamonds, whatever, but its existence is only as objectionable as those other items.

Beyond speculation I'm fairly sure criminal activity is the main use of it, and that a lot of punters piling in only makes it easier for those people who earn their money in bitcoin to get out.

I am well aware that criminals have used cash for millennia.

In the same way I made sure my wife's engagement ring had conflict free diamonds in it.

You could mine them yourself or buy from a responsible seller so you had confidence you'd only bought conflict free bitcoins.

rick_chasey

pangolin said:

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

rick_chasey said:

surrey_commuter said:

TheBigBean said:

I think @surrey_commuter you should buy bitcoin.

I don’t buy stuff I don’t understand

The counter argument is to put 1% of your portfolio in it and if all goes well it will be worth 10% of your portfolio.

I don't believe in helping criminals launder money.

I'd rank that as one of your most objectionable posts.

It is the equivalent, of "if you have nothing to hide, what's the problem with ..."

Bitcoin allows transactions. It doesn't affect money laundering. Criminals use it instead of cash, diamonds, whatever, but its existence is only as objectionable as those other items.

Beyond speculation I'm fairly sure criminal activity is the main use of it, and that a lot of punters piling in only makes it easier for those people who earn their money in bitcoin to get out.

I am well aware that criminals have used cash for millennia.

In the same way I made sure my wife's engagement ring had conflict free diamonds in it.

You could mine them yourself or buy from a responsible seller so you had confidence you'd only bought conflict free bitcoins.

Well that is the other obvious problem with it. I think the energy usage of bitcoin mining is equivalent to the energy usage of pakistan IIRC..


Edit: https://cbeci.org/cbeci/comparisons about the same as the Netherlands....

pangolin

rick_chasey said:

pangolin said:

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

rick_chasey said:

surrey_commuter said:

TheBigBean said:

I think @surrey_commuter you should buy bitcoin.

I don’t buy stuff I don’t understand

The counter argument is to put 1% of your portfolio in it and if all goes well it will be worth 10% of your portfolio.

I don't believe in helping criminals launder money.

I'd rank that as one of your most objectionable posts.

It is the equivalent, of "if you have nothing to hide, what's the problem with ..."

Bitcoin allows transactions. It doesn't affect money laundering. Criminals use it instead of cash, diamonds, whatever, but its existence is only as objectionable as those other items.

Beyond speculation I'm fairly sure criminal activity is the main use of it, and that a lot of punters piling in only makes it easier for those people who earn their money in bitcoin to get out.

I am well aware that criminals have used cash for millennia.

In the same way I made sure my wife's engagement ring had conflict free diamonds in it.

You could mine them yourself or buy from a responsible seller so you had confidence you'd only bought conflict free bitcoins.

Well that is the other obvious problem with it. I think the energy usage of bitcoin mining is equivalent to the energy usage of pakistan IIRC..


Edit: https://cbeci.org/cbeci/comparisons about the same as the Netherlands....

Yeah it's an interesting point. Energy use for mining bitcoin feels extra frivolous because all you end up with is a chain of numbers. But ultimately couldn't you make the same argument for much of the economy? Loads of the shite we produce and buy is stuff we could all well do without.

TheBigBean

rick_chasey said:

pangolin said:

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

rick_chasey said:

surrey_commuter said:

TheBigBean said:

I think @surrey_commuter you should buy bitcoin.

I don’t buy stuff I don’t understand

The counter argument is to put 1% of your portfolio in it and if all goes well it will be worth 10% of your portfolio.

I don't believe in helping criminals launder money.

I'd rank that as one of your most objectionable posts.

It is the equivalent, of "if you have nothing to hide, what's the problem with ..."

Bitcoin allows transactions. It doesn't affect money laundering. Criminals use it instead of cash, diamonds, whatever, but its existence is only as objectionable as those other items.

Beyond speculation I'm fairly sure criminal activity is the main use of it, and that a lot of punters piling in only makes it easier for those people who earn their money in bitcoin to get out.

I am well aware that criminals have used cash for millennia.

In the same way I made sure my wife's engagement ring had conflict free diamonds in it.

You could mine them yourself or buy from a responsible seller so you had confidence you'd only bought conflict free bitcoins.

Well that is the other obvious problem with it. I think the energy usage of bitcoin mining is equivalent to the energy usage of pakistan IIRC..


Edit: https://cbeci.org/cbeci/comparisons about the same as the Netherlands....

It feels like you have decided it is bad and have then looked for reasons why. It is true that securing the network consumes a lot of power and there could be a more productive way. Security is never really a productive cost though for anything.

On the other side, it is a pretty amazing creation. Something that is independent of government, finite and has value. Also, it has lots of great features e.g. it is virtually impossible to transfer coins to the wrong address as not all addresses exist.

bompington

Another great feature that quite a few people are in despair over is the ability to lose either your password or the physical storage... assuming that a finite proportion of bitcoin holders do this every year, there will eventually be simply no bitcoins left.