|
LemonDrizzle posted:Dave has a Message: Who actually reads this poo poo? It's like the hypnosis tapes they play to babies in Brave New World
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2015 18:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 06:25 |
|
|
baka kaba posted:Who actually reads this poo poo? It's like the hypnosis tapes they play to babies in Brave New World gently caress no, BNW actually featured a functional society where everyone, no matter their role, was cared for.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2015 18:34
|
|
|
Between 2000 and 2012, 2.9 million private sector houses were built in the UK. BTL landlords bought 2.5 million of them: http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/life/property/article4311161.ece?shareToken=15b2410d946d0a35bf4bb875d204d1d6quote:Buy-to-let lending has grown from a standing start in 1996 into a business that accounts for 13 per cent of the mortgage market. Of the 2.6 million additional properties in the private rented sector since 1996, 1.4 million have been financed by buy-to-let loans, according to IMLA. baka kaba posted:Who actually reads this poo poo?
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2015 20:19
|
|
|
LemonDrizzle posted:
If your gaze didn't fall through those sentences pachinko-style, from soundbite to glib well-worn soundbite, I don't know what to tell you! But obviously I was talking about a receptive audience... who are these people who read that tripe and go 'hmm yes!' e- or more like 'well that wasn't a complete waste of a minute of my life' baka kaba fucked around with this message at 20:35 on Jan 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2015 20:29
|
|
|
LemonDrizzle posted:Between 2000 and 2012, 2.9 million private sector houses were built in the UK. BTL landlords bought 2.5 million of them: http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/life/property/article4311161.ece?shareToken=15b2410d946d0a35bf4bb875d204d1d6 No one cares because the current narrative is "buy to let" is the new way to become an entrepreneur which we should all become. This bad thing? It is a good thing!
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2015 23:23
|
|
|
Right we're gonna need to have a very good transfer window if Stevie is ever gonna get that winner's medal.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 00:10
|
|
|
Regarde Aduck posted:No one cares because the current narrative is "buy to let" is the new way to become an entrepreneur which we should all become. This bad thing? It is a good thing! And half of them are on benefits. http://ampp3d.mirror.co.uk/2014/03/05/ten-members-of-the-sunday-times-rich-list-who-receive-housing-benefit/
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 00:21
|
|
|
Hoops posted:Right Wrong thread mate.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 00:38
|
|
|
Hoops posted:Right Lol, stevie's current form 
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 00:39
|
|
|
Deffo wrong thread, the UKMT has been desecrated with talk of men in shorts kicking a ball, around a field, as if we're all expected to care about it.
Hoops fucked around with this message at 00:50 on Jan 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 00:46
|
|
|
Hoops posted:Deffo wrong thread, the UKMT has been desecrated with talk of men in shorts kicking a ball, around a field, as if we're all expected to care about it. Whereas when David Cameron says something...
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 00:56
|
|
|
Renaissance Robot posted:Does this terrible stupid notion have a name? I'm not sure whether you or TinTower are disagreeing with the idea that it is worse to be poor when others around you are rich? Because it massively is, for very practical reasons that have nothing to do with spite. Of course that doesn't imply that people on benefits here are necessarily better off than people on a lower income in a more equal country, the absolute poverty rate matters as well. But who was better off could be shown by rates of death/suicide/mental illness - it shouldn't just be assumed because of simple income. Oh dear me fucked around with this message at 11:45 on Jan 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 11:43
|
|
|
Oh dear me posted:I'm not sure whether you or TinTower are disagreeing with the idea that it is worse to be poor when others around you are rich? Because it massively is, for very practical reasons that have nothing to do with spite. Of course that doesn't imply that people on benefits here are necessarily better off than people on a lower income in a more equal country, the absolute poverty rate matters as well. But who was better off could be shown by rates of death/suicide/mental illness - it shouldn't just be assumed because of simple income. No? I was asking about the opposite thing where some people, given the choice between "I have two cows and so does my neighbour" or "I have two cows while my neighbour has one", will state a preference for the latter scenario (a query satisfactorily answered by Forgall) I'm aware this isn't what's being happening in the quote TinTower posted, it just coincidentally reminded me of something similar but different. I'm personally aware that being better off than third worlders in the company of people who are richer still is a poo poo time. Using this to downplay the situation of said third world people, however, is an absolutely terrible justification for claiming that the world as a whole has gotten too rich and needs to be pared back. e/ if you don't know what Malthusianism is I suggest you check it out, the tl;dr is "kill the poor" Renaissance Robot fucked around with this message at 13:35 on Jan 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 13:32
|
|
|
Renaissance Robot posted:e/ if you don't know what Malthusianism is I suggest you check it out, the tl;dr is "kill the poor" Many of the methods to achieve the goals of Malthusianism do disproportionately affect the poor, but this is a consequence of the economic systems currently at play. There's no way to implement population control in a capitalist economy that doesn't disproportionately affect the poor, but there's no way to implement most things in a capitalist economy that doesn't disproportionately affect the poor, so I'm not so sure that's a demerit against Malthusianism rather than a demerit against capitalism. Some forms of Malthusianism specifically say that reducing the number of rich/middle-class/developed-worlders is a priority due to their higher consumption.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 14:22
|
|
|
Of course I know what Malthusianism is. It is the idea that the population will naturally grow beyond its capacity to feed itself - which becomes a harmful idea when it is accompanied by the further assumption that the poor are at fault for reproducing, but of course that is not a logical corollary at all. I've only seen rightwingers argue that. Still, I expect most Greens think we should, for the sake of other species, limit our population size - through the known and effective method of allowing women education, contraception and equal rights. And of course this was all started by a quotation which Natalie Bennett denies having said anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 14:27
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:Some forms of Malthusianism specifically say that reducing the number of rich/middle-class/developed-worlders is a priority due to their higher consumption. Higher consumption you say? *writes daily mail article about how the fatties need to be culled*
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 14:28
|
|
|
Prince Andrew has been named in "Sex slave" suit in the States. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/news/prince-andrew-named-in-underage-sex-lawsuit-9954198.html Wonder what his mother thinks.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 14:42
|
|
|
Mega Comrade posted:Prince Andrew has been named in "Sex slave" suit in the States. I'm sure some favours will be cashed in and it will disappear.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 14:46
|
|
|
ANY bad thing is going to disproportionately affect the poor. There's just so many poor to affect, and rich people can buy their way out of the problem.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 14:54
|
|
|
JFairfax posted:Listen to The Coup, Kill My Landlord is a loving amazing album from about the only communist hip-hop group out there. Then you can come back to reality with Lyapis Trubetskoy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 15:06
|
|
|
 less amusing this way, but such is life
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 15:42
|
|
|
Does Farage have a formal education, or at least, a basic understanding of macroeconomics?
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 15:53
|
|
awesome-express posted:Does Farage have a formal education, or at least, a basic understanding of macroeconomics? He went to a good school but then went straight into a bank to be a trader. If you've ever met traders, that would tell you exactly what you need to know.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 15:57
|
|
|
awesome-express posted:Does Farage have a formal education, or at least, a basic understanding of macroeconomics? He's a libertarian so the answer is yes to the first and a big fat no to the second.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 16:27
|
|
|
goddamnedtwisto posted:He's a libertarian so the answer is yes to the first and a big fat no to the second. I wouldn't say any libertarian has a formal education in macroeconomics. Libertarianism is not by any means gospel in mainstream macroeconomic thought. It's mainly Keynesian macroeconomics and neoclassical microeconomics.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 17:47
|
|
|
Tory's new election poster: It's a highway to hell 
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 17:48
|
|
|
I like that the road to a stronger economy features no buildings or industry.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 18:05
|
|
|
Single-lane back road with no visible passing places. Seems pretty appropriate to their "How I think things are is how they are, lalala I can't hear anything different" approach.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 18:11
|
|
|
Bumps along the road motif. Oh how do I hate them
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 18:14
|
|
|
Remember when it was all fields? Remember when there was nothing?
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 18:42
|
|
|
Pesky Splinter posted:Tory's new election poster: Hello voter! Do you know anything about economics? No? Well the deficit is halved. This must be really important because it's on our poster.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 18:54
|
|
|
I want to see a version of that poster that's not lush countryside, but a main street in one of our nation's many depressed, shithole cities. I feel the flag would look more natural creeping down a potholed road full of betting shops, vagrants and torn £££'s for gold posters. Edit: Actually, I'm not geographically inclined, so is it possible that country road leads to the German border??
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 19:02
|
|
|
Mega Comrade posted:Prince Andrew has been named in "Sex slave" suit in the States. That's been talked about for over a decade, its just hes never been named in the court documents before. Going to be tricky if they lose any of the cases, as will permanently tarnish his name, although this allegation isn't the only one he has had in regards to sex with teenage girls, mostly due to he had a habit of being friends with very dodgy people. Think he changed the type of people he hangs round after all these rumours / allegations started to surface a decade ago.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 19:16
|
|
|
Looks like the roads that are based on the lines of the old Roman roads.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 19:17
|
|
|
We are not out of the woods, rather we are heading right into them and when we emerge it will be 1935.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 19:28
|
|
|
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a poorly maintained road disappearing into an uninhabited English landscape — forever.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 19:42
|
|
|
Not Operator posted:I want to see a version of that poster that's not lush countryside, but a main street in one of our nation's many depressed, shithole cities. I couldn't find a high street shot so have liverpool instead  I also ran into this! 
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 20:13
|
|
|
 
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 20:26
|
|
|
Can someone give me the Cliffnotes version of understanding Tory-speak on the deficit. They say it has been halved. I don't think that's a particular priority at all but whatever let's run with it. Then I'm told the deficit is actually higher than it was under New Labour. So which is true? Whether it's an important measure or not, have the Tories actually been successful at reducing it? If not, how do they spin their claims of halving it? I'm going to guess it's possible with some statistical alchemy, because surely even George Osborne can't just barefaced lie and not even bother to make it seem believable without the opposition and the media giving him a hiding? ...Surely. He can, can't he?
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 20:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 06:25 |
|
|
Xachariah posted:I wouldn't say any libertarian has a formal education in macroeconomics. Libertarianism is not by any means gospel in mainstream macroeconomic thought. It's mainly Keynesian macroeconomics and neoclassical microeconomics. The archetypal libertarian has taken an introduction class in economics where they cover Smith and Ricardo and basic monetary policy, mixes it in with half-remembered stuff about Wiemar Germany and how unions destroyed industry in the seventies, and just runs with it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 20:36
|
|