Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

Started by Josquius, February 20, 2016, 07:46:34 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

How would you vote on Britain remaining in the EU?

British- Remain
12 (12%)
British - Leave
7 (7%)
Other European - Remain
21 (21%)
Other European - Leave
6 (6%)
ROTW - Remain
34 (34%)
ROTW - Leave
20 (20%)

Total Members Voted: 98

Josquius

Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 25, 2023, 08:02:52 PM
Quote from: Josquius on May 25, 2023, 04:55:58 PMKeynsian stimulus doesn't mean "has a deficit.". It refers to government intervention to maintain and improve the economy.
This can involve loaning money where need by but it can also involve running a surplus. Likewise nations can be completely non keynsian and have a surplus or be in debt - the latter being most common in the world.
This is totally incorrect.

I'm not sure what part you're referring to here.
That Keynsianism doesn't automatically mean debt? Your biasses are showing. Debt has nothing automatically to do with the concept of investing. Taking a loan is often the smartest way to fund invesment. But its not automatic and done properly it means a decrease in debt to gdp.
In fact I seem to recall Keynes was quite against debt. Equilibrium was one of his buzz words.

That most nations today aren't pursuing a policy of austerity?
At a google I run into this saying 85% of people will be by September.
https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/85-worlds-population-will-live-grip-stringent-austerity-measures-next-year
Argue this is biased if you will but if you're going to do so then show proof that as you claimed the opposite is true.

QuoteYes it has.  I didn't say every time, I said time and again.  Japan and the US are special cases, Japan because the Japanese people are voracious savers and are perfectly happy to park their money in postal savings accounts paying essentially zero interest.  The US is a special case because of the (IMO irrational) belief that when things go to shit world wide the one safe place is the dollar.

I would equally say time and again it has been proven that obsessing over debt to GDP ratios and pursuing austerity is a mistake vs. investing in improving. Its true on a national and corporate level.

You argue the best examples I mentioned are exceptions...Looking at a list of nations with high debt vs. low debt I note a lot more winners on the high debt list.
██████
██████
██████

Sheilbh

Quote from: Josquius on May 26, 2023, 11:16:18 AMI'd be more concerned about The Independent's high rating.
As embarrassing as this is, I'm not sure I was fully aware The Independent and The I were different :ph34r:

QuoteThe Guardian I honestly don't think is that bad if you bear in mind the simple rules that
1: They often let any random nutter write a silly opinion piece
2: They're left wing and write from this POV.
Yeah I agree I don't think its good or bad, but if you think it's the second most trustworthy news source after Channel 4 News (:lol:) fair to say you're on the left. Its trust level should be similar to Tories for the Telegraph. I love the Guardian but it's got a side.

I think there can be a tendency on the left to think that their view of the world is the truth, when it's not necessarily; I think equivalent tendency on the right is to think that their view of the world is actually shared by most people, when it's not necessarily.

I also think on both right and left this is looking at voters - party members/activists are, I imagine, more extreme and party politicians go through cycles of caring more about the party membership than the electorate. I think the Tories might be about to go on one.

QuoteEven Tories don't trust the Tory papers. On the other hand Labour voters are blind the the pretty obvious biases of the Guardian.
:lol: Yeah. The contrast with the equivalent US survey is extraordinary though - it looks like there's a bigger partisan trust gap for The Weather Channel than most of the news sources in the British version :blink:
Let's bomb Russia!

Gups

The Guardian is terrible. It has some sensible columnists but they are heavily outnumbered by the nutters especially since the great Trans purge. It's at least as bad as the Telegraph comment wise and it's news output is significantly more partisan.

Sheilbh

Totally separate - but I'm still always torn between amused, alarmed and a little proud of Russian state TV going off about the UK. They had another "sink the little island" with nukes rant last night. But this might be my favourite (obvs - wrong on I think every point) :lol:
QuoteFrancis Scarr
@francis_scarr
I'm not quite sure where to start with this from Russian state TV's Olesya Loseva...

She says the UK's strong backing for Ukraine could be part a plot by Rishi Sunak to bankrupt the country in revenge for the British Empire's exploitation of Indians
https://twitter.com/francis_scarr/status/1660950760031502337?s=20
Let's bomb Russia!

Josquius

Quote from: Sheilbh on May 26, 2023, 11:30:16 AM]

Yeah I agree I don't think its good or bad, but if you think it's the second most trustworthy news source after Channel 4 News (:lol:) fair to say you're on the left. Its trust level should be similar to Tories for the Telegraph. I love the Guardian but it's got a side.

I think there can be a tendency on the left to think that their view of the world is the truth, when it's not necessarily; I think equivalent tendency on the right is to think that their view of the world is actually shared by most people, when it's not necessarily.



I mean... I know it's seen as desirable to go for this both sides equally valid sort of thing... But it's 2023.

The right wing media does frequently have serious issues with reality.
██████
██████
██████

Sheilbh

#25295
Quote from: Josquius on May 26, 2023, 03:47:40 PMThe right wing media does frequently have serious issues with reality.
Yeah but they're not trusted as a news source, even by Tory voters.

My point is that according to that the two most trusted media sources by Tory voters are ITV and the FT. The two most trusted by Labour voters are the Guardian and Channel 4 News. Given that they both have a side - but are good in my view, I think they should be about as trusted by Labour voters as the Telegraph is by Tory voters not leading the pack.
Let's bomb Russia!

Barrister

Quote from: Josquius on May 26, 2023, 03:47:40 PMThe right wing media does frequently have serious issues with reality.

OK, so I'm more talking about North American media but I think it extends to the UK too - I mean I am familiar with both the Telegraph and the Guardian.

So first of all you have to separate out the difference between opinion and news.  Opinion pieces are just that - opinion.

There are definitely right-wing media sources that have issues "with reality" - but that goes for the left as well.  I wouldn't trust anything coming out of Breitbart, for example - but I wouldn't trust anything coming out of Jacobin either.

And even those cites - I wouldn't accuse them of simply fabricating their news, but that they will cherry-pick and ignore any "inconvenient" information.

But when it comes to more reputable sources like the Telegraph/Guardian, or Wall Street Journal/New York Times - you can trust the reporting of any of them.  It's just that the bias is going to creep in in deciding what stories are worth covering and which aren't.  If you see a story in the WSJ that story is true - but why did they chose to cover it, and was it also picked up by the NYT.
Posts here are my own private opinions.  I do not speak for my employer.

Josquius

Quote from: Barrister on May 26, 2023, 04:04:46 PM
Quote from: Josquius on May 26, 2023, 03:47:40 PMThe right wing media does frequently have serious issues with reality.

OK, so I'm more talking about North American media but I think it extends to the UK too - I mean I am familiar with both the Telegraph and the Guardian.

So first of all you have to separate out the difference between opinion and news.  Opinion pieces are just that - opinion.

There are definitely right-wing media sources that have issues "with reality" - but that goes for the left as well.  I wouldn't trust anything coming out of Breitbart, for example - but I wouldn't trust anything coming out of Jacobin either.

And even those cites - I wouldn't accuse them of simply fabricating their news, but that they will cherry-pick and ignore any "inconvenient" information.

But when it comes to more reputable sources like the Telegraph/Guardian, or Wall Street Journal/New York Times - you can trust the reporting of any of them.  It's just that the bias is going to creep in in deciding what stories are worth covering and which aren't.  If you see a story in the WSJ that story is true - but why did they chose to cover it, and was it also picked up by the NYT.

Sure. I said as much myself. I used to sometimes read the express as something broadly well written and factual albeit with a right wing spin.

These days however no decent mainstream right wing paper really exists. They're all heavily embracing insanity.
The FT is the closest thing I suppose, but many on the right would argue against that being right wing. It's very much centre right liberal in its outlook.
Then there's the BBC. That's right wing and decent. But again many on the right disavow it.

The left isn't immune. The independent used to be awesome but it's been just click bait for a while.
But in terms of factual reporting the guardian shits all over anything the right has to offer. It often had loopy opinion pieces but it's news reporting is good.
 On a tabloid level even you see the mirror more in touch with reality than the sun.

You'll often see right wingers just refusing to read something from the guardian... But then with a straight face posting a mail article and pretending like the two are equivalent just from different sides.
This really is trumpian fine people on both sides level stuff. The crap on the right is so much worse.


██████
██████
██████

Admiral Yi

Fuck.  Big long nested reply to Squeeze erased. :bleeding:


Admiral Yi

Once more unto the breach.

Quote from: Josquius on May 26, 2023, 11:22:49 AMI'm not sure what part you're referring to here.
That Keynsianism doesn't automatically mean debt? Your biasses are showing. Debt has nothing automatically to do with the concept of investing. Taking a loan is often the smartest way to fund invesment. But its not automatic and done properly it means a decrease in debt to gdp.
In fact I seem to recall Keynes was quite against debt. Equilibrium was one of his buzz words.

Keynesian fiscal stimulus is a decision by the government to increase government spending financed by government borrowing. Keynes advocated fiscal stimulus when the economy was stuck in a recession. In this situation, there is usually a rise in private sector saving and unused resources in the economy. Therefore, if the government borrow and spend, they can help kickstart the economy and provide economic recovery. see more at Keynesian economics

https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/1368/economics/keynesian-stimulus/

QuoteThat most nations today aren't pursuing a policy of austerity?
At a google I run into this saying 85% of people will be by September.
https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/85-worlds-population-will-live-grip-stringent-austerity-measures-next-year
Argue this is biased if you will but if you're going to do so then show proof that as you claimed the opposite is true.

That's the problem with using crappy political euphemisms like austerity instead of precise terms like fiscal surplus.  I scanned that article and could not find any mention of countries fiscal positions.

QuoteI would equally say time and again it has been proven that obsessing over debt to GDP ratios and pursuing austerity is a mistake vs. investing in improving. Its true on a national and corporate level.

You argue the best examples I mentioned are exceptions...Looking at a list of nations with high debt vs. low debt I note a lot more winners on the high debt list.

High income countries have high debt/GDP because generally speaking they haven't defaulted a dozen times.  Lenders are willing to lend to them because they think they will be repaid.

I can think of one time when it was "proven" that contractionary fiscal policy was the wrong choice, during the Great Depression.

It has been "proven" that corporations should always reinvest retained earning and always borrow to finance more research and more expansion on the basis of an ideological argument, not on the basis of return on investment.

celedhring

Quote from: Sheilbh on May 26, 2023, 12:36:08 PMTotally separate - but I'm still always torn between amused, alarmed and a little proud of Russian state TV going off about the UK. They had another "sink the little island" with nukes rant last night. But this might be my favourite (obvs - wrong on I think every point) :lol:
QuoteFrancis Scarr
@francis_scarr
I'm not quite sure where to start with this from Russian state TV's Olesya Loseva...

She says the UK's strong backing for Ukraine could be part a plot by Rishi Sunak to bankrupt the country in revenge for the British Empire's exploitation of Indians
https://twitter.com/francis_scarr/status/1660950760031502337?s=20

They seem obsessed with you lot. I suppose a remnant of the Cold War.

I remember reading a story years ago (I can't find references to it right now, so it might be false) that Philby was initially confined by the KGB upon his defection because he provided them with so few counterintelligence assets, and his escape was so incredible, that the Soviets feared he was a triple agent. But the truth is that the USSR wasn't such a big focus for the MI6 back then.

Josquius

Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 26, 2023, 06:39:36 PMOnce more unto the breach.

Keynesian fiscal stimulus is a decision by the government to increase government spending financed by government borrowing. Keynes advocated fiscal stimulus when the economy was stuck in a recession. In this situation, there is usually a rise in private sector saving and unused resources in the economy. Therefore, if the government borrow and spend, they can help kickstart the economy and provide economic recovery. see more at Keynesian economics

https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/1368/economics/keynesian-stimulus/

.


And by borrowing to invest you avoid debt.

QuoteHigh income countries have high debt/GDP because generally speaking they haven't defaulted a dozen times.  Lenders are willing to lend to them because they think they will be repaid.


Well yes. Richer countries can borrow more. A key reason being it is trusted they will invest this widely rather than syphon it of to the presidents cousins private bank account.


QuoteI can think of one time when it was "proven" that contractionary fiscal policy was the wrong choice, during the Great Depression.

It has been "proven" that corporations should always reinvest retained earning and always borrow to finance more research and more expansion on the basis of an ideological argument, not on the basis of return on investment.
And 2008. And by extension the 1980s.

We've seen time an again companies that don't invest and improve often find themselves wiped out. There's nothing ideological here at all. It's business 101. See for instance blockbuster.
██████
██████
██████

Tonitrus

Quote from: Sheilbh on May 26, 2023, 11:30:16 AM

The most interesting item to me from that chart is that more Dems trust the National Review than Republicans. 

Valmy

Trusting a newsource is not the same as agreeing with its bias.
Quote"This is a Russian warship. I propose you lay down arms and surrender to avoid bloodshed & unnecessary victims. Otherwise, you'll be bombed."

Zmiinyi defenders: "Russian warship, go fuck yourself."