• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Politics, politics, politics

wiziwig said:
The data is supplied by the Economist - they're the experts that didn't give fair warning of the 2008 financial crash.

Disinformation is what they do.

It's 50% owned by the Rothschild that's all you need to know
Click to expand...

Like so many so called EXPERTS then.
 
wiziwig said:
The data is supplied by the Economist - they're the experts that didn't give fair warning of the 2008 financial crash.

Disinformation is what they do.

It's 50% owned by the Rothschild that's all you need to know
Click to expand...
Weathermen got the hurricane wrong in 90's but I still look at the weather forecast- I think the Economist if a fine publication and one of the most unbiased for reporting on News (their bias is free market rather than right and left). They have a wide range of contributors some I agree with some I disagree with.

In addition to that all those clever people (with a few exceptions) working for the major investment banks (Market knows best and all that jazz) also completely missed the possibility of the crash.

To highlight the Economist for not giving fair warning is a bit obtuse, they are a in essence a newspaper. There are a whole heap of institutions who's job it was to warn (they may be economists but not the Economist) you should be focusing that on.
 
Last edited:
parklane1 said:
Like so many so called EXPERTS then.
Click to expand...

There a common misunderstanding that facts actually exist. Even in the physical sciences which you think will be very black and white, there's still a lot of opinion informed by data.

Social science, including economics, is often called 'slow journalism'. 'Experts' just look at past data and predict future trends. It is very much finger in the air stuff.

Basically experts are far more fallible than the public assumes, though they do tend to be bound be standards of rigour and integrity in their work (which journalists aren't really anymore).
 
Gutter Boy said:
There a common misunderstanding that facts actually exist. Even in the physical sciences which you think will be very black and white, there's still a lot of opinion informed by data.

Social science, including economics, is often called 'slow journalism'. 'Experts' just look at past data and predict future trends. It is very much finger in the air stuff.

Basically experts are far more fallible than the public assumes, though they do tend to be bound be standards of rigour and integrity in their work (which journalists aren't really anymore).
Click to expand...

Fair point, but experts are just the same as anyone else, we all have our opinions ( some may call them agendas) which they
are going to highlight in their findings.
 
parklane1 said:
Fair point, but experts are just the same as anyone else, we all have our opinions ( some may call them agendas) which they
are going to highlight in their findings.
Click to expand...
Not having that - the majority of time the economy will follow semi-predictive patterns, the experts have models and insight to recognize what this will be. Asking your Nan and the Governor of BOE how the economy will progress inn the next 5 years, yes they are both opinions but one will and should hold a lot more weight. Everyone will have their agenda that's why you look for consensus, where there is no consensus then you look at risks and likely hood of things occurring.

Do you believe in man made climate change or this an opinion with an agenda?
 
r-u-s-x said:
Not having that - the majority of time the economy will follow semi-predictive patterns, the experts have models and insight to recognize what this will be. Asking your Nan and the Governor of BOE how the economy will progress inn the next 5 years, yes they are both opinions but one will and should hold a lot more weight. Everyone will have their agenda that's why you look for consensus, where there is no consensus then you look at risks and likely hood of things occurring.

Do you believe in man made climate change or this an opinion with an agenda?
Click to expand...

Please yourself if that is your opinion. I am not going to criticise or praise experts i leave that to the individual to decide for themselves.
 
r-u-s-x said:
Weathermen got the hurricane wrong in 90's but I still look at the weather forecast- I think the Economist if a fine publication and one of the most unbiased for reporting on News (their bias is free market rather than right and left). They have a wide range of contributors some I agree with some I disagree with.

In addition to that all those clever people (with a few exceptions) working for the major investment banks (Market knows best and all that jazz) also completely missed the possibility of the crash.

To highlight the Economist for not giving fair warning is a bit obtuse, they are a in essence a newspaper. There are a whole heap of institutions who's job it was to warn (they may be economists but not the Economist) you should be focusing that on.
Click to expand...

Yes, their bias is free market and that's okay, I don't have a problem with that or the magazine in it's entirety and it has often found a resting place in my home. I do however recognise that the Economist also has a political viewpoint which is globalisation, pro EU and the free movement of labour. It is also pro cultural marxist, anti nation.

I lifted this from wikipedia: John Ralston Saul describes The Economist as a "magazine which hides the names of the journalists who write its articles in order to create the illusion that they dispense disinterested truth rather than opinion. This sales technique, reminiscent of pre-Reformation Catholicism, is not surprising in a publication named after the social science most given to wild guesses and imaginary facts presented in the guise of inevitability and exactitude. That it is the Bible of the corporate executive indicates to what extent received wisdom is the daily bread of a managerial civilization"


I agree with the philosopher John Saul.



 
glorygloryeze said:
Some interesting thoughts there. I certainly do think your point about tribalism can hold true many times across the world over; religion and access to resources playing key roles.

BUT when discussing the attempts to interlink and globalize ask yourself:

- Are these attempts happening organically or being 'forced'?
- WHO is driving these attempts and for what purposes and for WHO's benefit?
Click to expand...

The higher-ups do not do coercion, they do not have secret agendas or do manipulation of those they see as underlings. They're happy to be in the dark and leave everything to chance.;)

I think it were @Gutter Boy who mentioned one of the founding fathers of the true European Project, Jean Monnet who stated ~“Europe’s nations should be guided towards the superstate without their people understanding what is happening.”

Then there's the other federalist fanatic and o_O'great voice of democracy' Mr Coudenhove-Kalergi

CR.jpg



I've not logged into this thread in quite some time and there were over 250 unread so I spent some time having a gander! Good debate fellahs, even by you guys I most fundamentally disagree with. But, I must say a big thank you, to both @Gutter Boy and @glorygloryeze and on a smaller scale @parklane1 , for your 'We are European but not EU Superstate' contributions - great work guys!
 
scaramanga said:
I get how the quotas work, but for the life of me I can't comprehend why we'd put quotas on beef imports.
Click to expand...

I think that the article was written before Fox's statement yesterday and was arguing that all of our current schedules would need to be resolved before we could settle our own position with the WTO and that other countries were likely to raise objections for their own gain.

Fox said yesterday that it was the government's intention to transpose the current EU schedules when we depart. I don't think this changes the need to untangle ourselves from the current quotas but it would leave us with a load that we wouldn't need and block us negotiating new ones that we may want.
 
galeforce said:
Yes, and further, I'd be happy with one united planet earth under one democratic govt

It's inevitable, we might as well get on with it
Click to expand...

glorygloryeze said:
Not inevitable at all (unless you want more wars, some racial groups wiped out etc), but thanks for the entertainment anyway:)
Click to expand...

galeforce said:
yeah, the whole point of that is there won't be any wars as we'll have realised we aren't actually different

a single racial group is the logical evolution of the human race
Click to expand...

glorygloryeze said:
More lols...so what exactky will this "single racial group" be exactly in this new world of yours?
Click to expand...

images
 
milo said:
I think that the article was written before Fox's statement yesterday and was arguing that all of our current schedules would need to be resolved before we could settle our own position with the WTO and that other countries were likely to raise objections for their own gain.

Fox said yesterday that it was the government's intention to transpose the current EU schedules when we depart. I don't think this changes the need to untangle ourselves from the current quotas but it would leave us with a load that we wouldn't need and block us negotiating new ones that we may want.
Click to expand...
Why not just drop the quotas?
 
I'm looking forward to the shi1 storm that will be Brisket.

Government delivering something people didn't vote for.

Government struggling to deliver the bonza package to U.K. as the EU puts its members first - why shouldn't they?

Meanwhile costs on imported goods will rise in 2017 as the weaker pound takes effect.

And at the end of it, people will say: I didn't vote for this! And they will be right. At this point the whole farce will collapses, leaving many disgruntled.

If you're pro UK exit, don't worry this post was designed to wind you up. But there are irreconcilable truths in it, ones that I can not see being resolved to the U.K.s benefit.


Sitting on my porcelain throne using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app
 
Last edited:
I had to indulge myself to a little smile when I read "the EU puts its members first", but of course all politicians and admin staff of that fine organisation are selfless.
 
K.D.D.D.D.Soc said:
I had to indulge myself to a little smile when I read "the EU puts its members first", but of course all politicians and admin staff of that fine organisation are selfless.
Click to expand...

Out of curiosity where does your image of EU government come from? What do we base our judgments of these slightly boring EU offices and workers on?

Having seen first hand how ineffective our own uk Ministries can be, I've found the EU equivalent Commission relatively effective. It attracts some of the best people from EU countries, and has less staff than Birmingham city council.



Sitting on my porcelain throne using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back