Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

[Owlbread]

Well, I enjoyed the latest speech from Tommy Sheridan (the crazy ultra left-winger of Scotland) on the subject of the Bedroom Tax...

It can be seen here.

I had a good old laugh though listening to one of the guys in the crowd who was cheering him on:

"TOMMYYYYYYYY"

"NO WAY! NO WAY! NO WAY TOMMY!"

"BASTARDS! BASTARDS! BASTARDS"

"Brothers and sisters, here's a wee ide-"HANG THEM!!!"

"They're already on the breadlin-"THAT'S ME!!! THAT'S RIGHT TOMMY! THAT'S RIGHT TOMMY!"

"FUCK THEM! FUCK THE BEDROOM TAX!"

"WOAOAAAAAAAAAAAOOOOOOOOOO"

[DWC]

This Snowden guy hasn't really revealed anything people didn't already know. He is really playing the PR game though, I'm guessing he wants to write a book so he can retire when he gets out of prison? He tattled on some diplomats being diplomats and reminded people what the PATRIOT act is, what's the big deal?

[scriver]

I think making it all go from semiparanoid suspicions and theories to proven fact is a pretty big deal.

[GlyphGryph]

This Snowden guy hasn't really revealed anything people didn't already know. He is really playing the PR game though, I'm guessing he wants to write a book so he can retire when he gets out of prison? He tattled on some diplomats being diplomats and reminded people what the PATRIOT act is, what's the big deal?

If you think most people knew about this stuff... you might be surprised. The extent, the purpose, even the idea of it was pretty foreign to many people. Not everyone is tuned in all the time. And even the many who heard the rumours often assumed they were conspiracy theories. It was a kind of open secret to those in the know, but it's a mistake to assume the general population is always in the know, and he brought out hard evidence along with the accusation.

Also, uh... he HASN'T tattled on any diplomats. He tattled TO diplomats that they were being illegally spied upon by their host countries, and since one would assume they thought they had managed to secure their communications I would imagine that is kind of a big deal. (Though not the fact the other guys might be trying)

And since the guy who wrote the Patriot act says what is is being done goes WAY, WAY beyond what the Patriot act allows, it's seems to be a bit more than a reminder.

I don't see how you /can't/ see what the big deal is.

[MonkeyHead]

This Snowden guy hasn't really revealed anything people didn't already know. He is really playing the PR game though, I'm guessing he wants to write a book so he can retire when he gets out of prison? He tattled on some diplomats being diplomats and reminded people what the PATRIOT act is, what's the big deal?

If you think most people knew about this stuff... you might be surprised. The extent, the purpose, even the idea of it was pretty foreign to many people. Not everyone is tuned in all the time. And even the many who heard the rumours often assumed they were conspiracy theories. It was a kind of open secret to those in the know, but it's a mistake to assume the general population is always in the know, and he brought out hard evidence along with the accusation.

Also, uh... he HASN'T tattled on any diplomats. He tattled TO diplomats that they were being illegally spied upon by their host countries, and since one would assume they thought they had managed to secure their communications I would imagine that is kind of a big deal. (Though not the fact the other guys might be trying)

And since the guy who wrote the Patriot act says what is is being done goes WAY, WAY beyond what the Patriot act allows, it's seems to be a bit more than a reminder.

I don't see how you /can't/ see what the big deal is.

Meh, in the late 90's and early 2000's my Dad actually worked on ECHELON in his capacity as a fibre optic engineer. He was never required to keep his invovlement a secret and told pretty much anyone about it - the black helicopters have not come to take him away yet. General reaction to people being told by him about it was "oh, thats ok I suppose", with most people happy with the idea that a small loss of perosnal freedom was a fair price to pay for increased safety. Dare I suggest that a more vocal minority are creating most of the current popular opinion regarding the current situation while a quiet majority sit unmoved?

[GlyphGryph]

It seems to be about evenly split in the US and someone just posted numbers for Germany - in the US it was about 45% of those polled support the program, 45% oppose, and 10% just really don't want to think about it thanks. Of course, it's hard to tell how accurate that is - many of those who support the program are doing so solely because Obama is in the whitehouse - many of those who oppose are doing so for the same reason (seems to be about 20-30% in either case). I know the numbers are somewhere around there anyway - you'd have to look up the exact values.

Regardless, the shape and nature of the US has always been determined by minorities of the population. The vast majority of people simply don't care, and will go with whatever means they can let someone else worry about it. The vast majority of the population doesn't know the sort of thing the US government has gotten up to over the years - The MK Ultras and Latin American Coups, the infiltration, subversion, and breakup of peaceful opposed political organizations, the money spent on corporate capture or the violence done to those who fight the status quo, or the not-exactly-hidden extent of the corporate capture many sections of government have experienced. When things change, they change because a minority of the population either manages to bend the system to serve their interests, or convinces a large enough section of the population that an issue is worth caring about.

So around half the population don't care about this sort of thing - but they should, in my opinion.

[kaijyuu]

I don't think it's applicable in this case (being that the US is spying on non-citizens), but as a side note, remember that things like the Bill of Rights are there to protect people from their own stupidity. Our Bill of Rights isn't constitutional because we think everyone is going to think them good ideas, but rather because we know lots of people will either take those rights away from others or give them freely being the impressionable morons they are.

Even if a majority of the US feels we should give up our privacy for nothing, it doesn't mean that should happen.

[10ebbor10]

Democratic Left party leaves Governement coalition

So well, the situation in Greece is rather unstable to say the least. The Governement shut down national broadcasting system to save money, which didn't go well with most people. Especially because it happened without much of a warning.

[shadenight123]

I realized something a few days ago...
the fault of market crashing and debt piling...

It's interest, isn't it?

I mean...let's say you have one hundred dollars and loan them to another one, in exchange for one hundred and five dollars back.

If there are only one hundred dollars around in the economy...then where do those five extra dollars come from? Nowhere. So you end up five dollars in debt.

Correct me if I'm wrong...but isn't that the trouble in the end?

[10ebbor10]

The trouble is that the banks lend up to 10 times the money they actually had, and other such shenanigans. Interest is fine, but that kind of things creates fatal bubbles, which collapse when people can't pay the money back.

[shadenight123]

I suppose the simple example works fine though, because I mean...

Let's say the 'state' stamps more money, so as to cover the interest.

So he gives five more dollars to the guy who owns one hundred and five to the bank. The guy pays the debt back.

Now the state has paid five dollars worth to print them.

The state is in debt.

The state should tax those five dollars of debt from the bank...
effectively nullifying the debit problem and restoring 'balance' with the bank holding one hundred dollars.

And we would be back at the 'start-game'.

[XXSockXX]

Yeah it's complicated. One big problem is that normally a state with a weak economy would just inflate the debt away, but Greece (and the other southern European states) can't do that, because they're part of the Eurozone which also includes countries whose economies are doing ok, keeping the Euro stable on a higher level. Historically, printing money is what they always did, and now they can't do it anymore.

[shadenight123]

I know nearly nothing of the economy, but technically speaking...the problem could go away if someone decided to simply create a...
'World bank' right?

I mean, all the debts of all the countries are pooled into a single, titanic and massive 'World Debt' which is then conveniently increased depending on the circumstances or could be...I don't know...

what happens if a bank simply says 'No more debts guys! I annulled all the money you owe me!' to the economy? does it increase, does it lower?

[Pnx]

It would probably make it more stagnant, on account of the people who owned the debt now no longer getting income from it, and they'd be really angry about all the trillions they'd invested in other people's poor spending habits suddenly disappearing.

It would also hurt market confidence, especially in terms of future debts. I mean if they annulled your debt, what's to stop them doing it again? Considering capitalism is run on debt, that would be very bad for a lot of people.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

what happens if a bank simply says 'No more debts guys! I annulled all the money you owe me!' to the economy? does it increase, does it lower?

Utter chaos, the board commits suicide/murders the CFO, economic collapse because the creation and maintenance of fiat currency relies upon debt to exist.