Also in the news

[yorkie1999]

20 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

 

As much as the idealist in me would love to see that - seriously, it would make my day - the cynic in me thinks that they are too big to do something like that effectively. Damn shame.

But why. The whole issue is about oil and global oil prices. When you buy a cheap drill to do your diy on a bank holiday off ebay, where's it come from and how did it get to you. It's been mass produced in china by the billion, loaded onto the biggest ship in the world that does 1 foot to the gallon that sails 10000 miles running off american and russian oil, gone through a port that employs a 1000 customs folk, loaded onto a lorry, then into a warehouse and then into some old cronky white van which then deliverers it to your doorstep by a man who's got no goods insurance and has probably been a uk citizen for 3 months. And you pay 20 quid for it. How is that possible? the profits not in the goods, the profits in the amount of fuel bought and sold on it's journey. Now multiply that by almost everything we buy and there is is basics of the problem. Surely in this day of factory automation, don't forget with peopleless factories which is what automation is all about, a product costs the same wherever it's made.  It would be far far more efficient to just manufacture the goods in the are used.

[yorkie1999]

17 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

I dispute the premise that we are an industrial nation. 

 

That woman put paid to that. 

She did, and because of her, industry was forced out of this country and due to the laws of supply and demand, other, unregulated countries took over the mantle. So it could be argued that global warming is a direct consequence of the milk snatchers short-sightedness.

[urban.spaceman]

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2019/may/01/jeremy-corbyn-rejects-antisemitism-claim-over-book-foreword

 

“The book, Imperialism: A Study, written by John Atkinson Hobson in 1902, claims European finance was controlled by “men of a single and particular race”. Corbyn described the book as “brilliant” and “very controversial”, the Times reported.”

 

Never ending. 

[Alf Bentley]

33 minutes ago, urban.spaceman said:

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2019/may/01/jeremy-corbyn-rejects-antisemitism-claim-over-book-foreword

 

“The book, Imperialism: A Study, written by John Atkinson Hobson in 1902, claims European finance was controlled by “men of a single and particular race”. Corbyn described the book as “brilliant” and “very controversial”, the Times reported.”

 

Never ending. 

 

I don't know anything about this book or Corbyn's views on it, but isn't it a matter of historical fact that Jews played a prominent role in finance - and nothing inherently wrong with that?

Admittedly, the phrase "controlled by" could be seen as an overstatement and potentially anti-Semitic. It hints at conspiracy, as do some of the other phrases quoted.

 

From my limited knowledge of Jewish history, the tradition of Jewish involvement in finance dates back many centuries - and was the result of ancient anti-Semitism, ironically.

In the Middle Ages, if not earlier, Jews were prohibited from entering various professions, but money-lending was one that they were allowed to enter, as it was viewed as quite low status back then, before the era of banks, global finance etc.

 

[davieG]

Landslide destroys 17 houses in Bolivia.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-latin-america-48115497/bolivia-landslide-sweeps-houses-away

[Buce]

46 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

I don't know anything about this book or Corbyn's views on it, but isn't it a matter of historical fact that Jews played a prominent role in finance - and nothing inherently wrong with that?

Admittedly, the phrase "controlled by" could be seen as an overstatement and potentially anti-Semitic. It hints at conspiracy, as do some of the other phrases quoted.

 

From my limited knowledge of Jewish history, the tradition of Jewish involvement in finance dates back many centuries - and was the result of ancient anti-Semitism, ironically.

In the Middle Ages, if not earlier, Jews were prohibited from entering various professions, but money-lending was one that they were allowed to enter, as it was viewed as quite low status back then, before the era of banks, global finance etc.

 

 

As I understand it, it was also due to money lending being haram to Muslims and many Jews lived in Muslim ruled lands. 

[Alf Bentley]

4 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

As I understand it, it was also due to money lending being haram to Muslims and many Jews lived in Muslim ruled lands. 

 

That makes sense, with even half of Spain being a Muslim nation in the Middle Ages, and Islamic rules on charging interest etc.

[leicsmac]

2 hours ago, yorkie1999 said:

But why. The whole issue is about oil and global oil prices. When you buy a cheap drill to do your diy on a bank holiday off ebay, where's it come from and how did it get to you. It's been mass produced in china by the billion, loaded onto the biggest ship in the world that does 1 foot to the gallon that sails 10000 miles running off american and russian oil, gone through a port that employs a 1000 customs folk, loaded onto a lorry, then into a warehouse and then into some old cronky white van which then deliverers it to your doorstep by a man who's got no goods insurance and has probably been a uk citizen for 3 months. And you pay 20 quid for it. How is that possible? the profits not in the goods, the profits in the amount of fuel bought and sold on it's journey. Now multiply that by almost everything we buy and there is is basics of the problem. Surely in this day of factory automation, don't forget with peopleless factories which is what automation is all about, a product costs the same wherever it's made.  It would be far far more efficient to just manufacture the goods in the are used.

I think you're absolutely spot on tbh - the more manufacturing gets automated, the more it will be able to keep it closer to where it needs to go. There is a question of the raw materials you need for such - they'll still need to travel - but I do think now it is much more feasible to have manufacturing closer to.

 

Of course, doing that (alongside automating the majority of the manufacturing industry) would have to overhaul the entire economic structure worldwide and there are a lot of powerful interests that don't want that, the same ones who have the world running just nicely as it is and as such are opposed to any kind of change.

 

Overcoming the inertia they possess will be tricky.

[yorkie1999]

1 minute ago, leicsmac said:

I think you're absolutely spot on tbh - the more manufacturing gets automated, the more it will be able to keep it closer to where it needs to go. There is a question of the raw materials you need for such - they'll still need to travel - but I do think now it is much more feasible to have manufacturing closer to.

 

Of course, doing that (alongside automating the majority of the manufacturing industry) would have to overhaul the entire economic structure worldwide and there are a lot of powerful interests that don't want that, the same ones who have the world running just nicely as it is and as such are opposed to any kind of change.

 

Overcoming the inertia they possess will be tricky.

I think it needs a change in attitude from people when it comes to purchasing goods. Buy British makes a lot more sense than just promoting Britain. If peoples first thoughts were to buy goods from the country they were from, it would force manufacturers to produce in that country. Manufacturers will go wherever the market demands and where they can get goods made as cheaply as possible. Take the cost issue out of it, through automation, then they're left with the only option of locating their businesses where the demand is. Here's an example, nothing against Dyson but he's relocating his manufacturing  to Singapore (i think) with the excuse that there is a bigger market in asia . How about no-one in this country buy dysons any more, it's not hard, and it wouldn't be long before he came scuttling back and we'd all be better off for it. You only have to look at companies like Hope (mountain bikes), best cycles in the world and everything they do and build is purposely sourced and designed in this country.

[leicsmac]

6 minutes ago, yorkie1999 said:

I think it needs a change in attitude from people when it comes to purchasing goods. Buy British makes a lot more sense than just promoting Britain. If peoples first thoughts were to buy goods from the country they were from, it would force manufacturers to produce in that country. Manufacturers will go wherever the market demands and where they can get goods made as cheaply as possible. Take the cost issue out of it, through automation, then they're left with the only option of locating their businesses where the demand is. Here's an example, nothing against Dyson but he's relocating his manufacturing  to Singapore (i think) with the excuse that there is a bigger market in asia . How about no-one in this country buy dysons any more, it's not hard, and it wouldn't be long before he came scuttling back and we'd all be better off for it. You only have to look at companies like Hope (mountain bikes), best cycles in the world and everything they do and build is purposely sourced and designed in this country.

I see where you're coming from, but I don't have all that much confidence that purely market-based solutions will work - unless, as you say, a solution is derived where manufacturing something in one place costs exactly the same to the consumer as any other place.

 

FWIW I do hope that happens because it might just be the panacea that is needed.

[Kopfkino]

25 minutes ago, yorkie1999 said:

I think it needs a change in attitude from people when it comes to purchasing goods. Buy British makes a lot more sense than just promoting Britain. If peoples first thoughts were to buy goods from the country they were from, it would force manufacturers to produce in that country. Manufacturers will go wherever the market demands and where they can get goods made as cheaply as possible. Take the cost issue out of it, through automation, then they're left with the only option of locating their businesses where the demand is. Here's an example, nothing against Dyson but he's relocating his manufacturing  to Singapore (i think) with the excuse that there is a bigger market in asia . How about no-one in this country buy dysons any more, it's not hard, and it wouldn't be long before he came scuttling back and we'd all be better off for it. You only have to look at companies like Hope (mountain bikes), best cycles in the world and everything they do and build is purposely sourced and designed in this country.

 

And so what do manufacturers do if they need to source materials and parts from somewhere they're not based? If they can't source everything they need for production from the domestic market, they must stop doing business?

 

Why is it seemingly fine for Hope to export their bikes across the world as final products but nobody should buy Dyson in this country as they're not going to be made in this country? Should Hope set up manufacturing in Germany or wherever else they sell bikes? Or maybe just forgo those 50% of their sales that they don't make in the UK?

 

The idea that deglobalisation is the solution at this stage is nonsense, maybe globalisation and global trading never being a thing in the first place would have been better environmentally. But we know that comparative advantage leads to more efficient production methods. We know that when companies that operate under stricter environmental regulations set up operations in markets with looser regulations they have a positive effect on the energy efficiency of local firms. We have seen that trade agreements often include environmental standards, the WTO has trade related measures (not enough for climate change but shows a possible route to more action).

 

As it is now, trade is the solution to the problem.

[leicsmac]

25 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

 

And so what do manufacturers do if they need to source materials and parts from somewhere they're not based? If they can't source everything they need for production from the domestic market, they must stop doing business?

 

Why is it seemingly fine for Hope to export their bikes across the world as final products but nobody should buy Dyson in this country as they're not going to be made in this country? Should Hope set up manufacturing in Germany or wherever else they sell bikes? Or maybe just forgo those 50% of their sales that they don't make in the UK?

 

The idea that deglobalisation is the solution at this stage is nonsense, maybe globalisation and global trading never being a thing in the first place would have been better environmentally. But we know that comparative advantage leads to more efficient production methods. We know that when companies that operate under stricter environmental regulations set up operations in markets with looser regulations they have a positive effect on the energy efficiency of local firms. We have seen that trade agreements often include environmental standards, the WTO has trade related measures (not enough for climate change but shows a possible route to more action).

 

As it is now, trade is the solution to the problem.

I think yorkie was referring more to the future where automation would mean making parts required could be done in house and it would only need to be raw materials that need to be shipped, but this is a good counterargument.

 

Honestly, right now on this matter I would take any solution that was shown to work and implemented, whether it's economic, social, a mixture of the two or whatever - we have to at the very least bring down coal, oil and gas as forms of energy generation practically everywhere or at least prepare for the consequences, economically and socially, of a world where the average temperature is 2 degrees or more above what we have now, with all that entails.

[bovril]

3 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

I don't know anything about this book or Corbyn's views on it, but isn't it a matter of historical fact that Jews played a prominent role in finance - and nothing inherently wrong with that?

Admittedly, the phrase "controlled by" could be seen as an overstatement and potentially anti-Semitic. It hints at conspiracy, as do some of the other phrases quoted.

 

From my limited knowledge of Jewish history, the tradition of Jewish involvement in finance dates back many centuries - and was the result of ancient anti-Semitism, ironically.

In the Middle Ages, if not earlier, Jews were prohibited from entering various professions, but money-lending was one that they were allowed to enter, as it was viewed as quite low status back then, before the era of banks, global finance etc.

 

There is a lot of dubious stuff in the book, according to most articles I've read. Corbyn not the brightest button for endorsing it.

[Guest]

On 30/04/2019 at 11:15, Buce said:

 

Poll says "Two-thirds of people in the UK recognise there is a climate emergency and 76% say that they would cast their vote differently to protect the planet."

 

That's directly due to the Extinction Rebellion protests bringing the issue into the public arena.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/apr/30/two-thirds-of-britons-agree-planet-is-in-a-climate-emergency

But they won't.

 

People are short-sighted and think of themselves - and why not?- The people of earth are not going to save the planet by changing and paying more. The ONLY way we save the planet (which is a misnomer because the planet will continue on in all probability) is by some engineer/scientist finding a cheap alternative that somehow gets onto the market against the wishes and interests of the present rich companies profitting from destroying man's future on the planet.

[Kopfkino]

13 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I think yorkie was referring more to the future where automation would mean making parts required could be done in house and it would only need to be raw materials that need to be shipped, but this is a good counterargument.

 

Yeah tbf I should have read the end of his prior post. Not sure we're really anywhere near the point where it's the case though. Besides in that case it would make more sense to stick lots of production in the Sahara to have solar/wind power manufacturing and transport it using electric powered vessels travelling through tunnels underground 

 

35 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Honestly, right now on this matter I would take any solution that was shown to work and implemented, whether it's economic, social, a mixture of the two or whatever - we have to at the very least bring down coal, oil and gas as forms of energy generation practically everywhere or at least prepare for the consequences, economically and socially, of a world where the average temperature is 2 degrees or more above what we have now, with all that entails.

Good to see you endorsing mass genocide 

[Kopfkino]

34 minutes ago, bovril said:

There is a lot of dubious stuff in the book, according to most articles I've read. Corbyn not the brightest button for endorsing it.

 

Fundamentally Corbyn's problem is he's thick as pig shit. 

[Jon the Hat]

2 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

 

Fundamentally Corbyn's problem is he's thick as pig shit. 

I disagree.  He isn’t thick, just unable to see beyond his ideology.

[leicsmac]

8 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

Yeah tbf I should have read the end of his prior post. Not sure we're really anywhere near the point where it's the case though. Besides in that case it would make more sense to stick lots of production in the Sahara to have solar/wind power manufacturing and transport it using electric powered vessels travelling through tunnels underground 

 

Good to see you endorsing mass genocide 

That's some lovely imagery in that first paragraph there.

 

I'm definitely going to stop short of what is almost always known these days as the Thanos solution but I just don't want a day to come where the choice is between that or nature doing it for us.

[Guest MattP]

22 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

I disagree.  He isn’t thick, just unable to see beyond his ideology.

It's probably a bit of both to be honest.

[Alf Bentley]

1 hour ago, bovril said:

There is a lot of dubious stuff in the book, according to most articles I've read. Corbyn not the brightest button for endorsing it.

 

You don't greatly surprise me...

 

36 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

I disagree.  He isn’t thick, just unable to see beyond his ideology.

 

There's a lot of truth in this, I think. Corbyn is no genius, but his problem is less stupidity and more a combination of seeing things in black and white ideological terms and being personally very stubborn (and a bit narcissistic), I suspect.

Quite a common problem in politics and religion of almost every kind, unfortunately. Hopefully, more flexible minds around him will continue to exert a positive influence.....

[Guest MattP]

1 hour ago, bovril said:

There is a lot of dubious stuff in the book, according to most articles I've read. Corbyn not the brightest button for endorsing it.

If you want a good laugh listen to RBL on Today show this morning having been giving the poor job of answering for him, at one point she starts laughing because even she knows how ridiculous it is to defend it.

 

I don't even care anymore, Corbyn is either an antisemite or just thick as anything, shouldn't be running the country whichever.

 

It could be revealed he was Hitler's advisor and most of his supporters would just shrug and carry on.

[Alf Bentley]

Gavin Williamson sacked as defence secretary for Huawei leak

Downing Street has just put out this press release.

"The prime minister has this evening asked Gavin Williamson to leave the government, having lost confidence in his ability to serve in the role of defence secretary and as a member of her cabinet.

The prime minister’s decision has been informed by his conduct surrounding an investigation into the circumstances of the unauthorised disclosure of information from a meeting of the National Security Council. 

The prime minister thanks all members of the National Security Council for their full cooperation and candour during the investigation and considers the matter closed".

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2019/may/01/brexit-latest-news-pmqs-may-liaison-pm-to-face-questions-from-mps-amid-claims-she-is-preparing-for-deal-with-labour-live-news

 

[Bellend Sebastian]

1 minute ago, Alf Bentley said:

Gavin Williamson sacked as defence secretary for Huawei leak

Downing Street has just put out this press release.

"The prime minister has this evening asked Gavin Williamson to leave the government, having lost confidence in his ability to serve in the role of defence secretary and as a member of her cabinet.

The prime minister’s decision has been informed by his conduct surrounding an investigation into the circumstances of the unauthorised disclosure of information from a meeting of the National Security Council. 

The prime minister thanks all members of the National Security Council for their full cooperation and candour during the investigation and considers the matter closed".

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2019/may/01/brexit-latest-news-pmqs-may-liaison-pm-to-face-questions-from-mps-amid-claims-she-is-preparing-for-deal-with-labour-live-news

 

Can you bet on stuff like this? I hope not, as I was CERTAIN it was him.

 

He's such a div it's off the scale

[Guest MattP]

Good riddance - wannabe hardman and horrible bloke. Probably destroys his ambitions to be PM as well.

[Guest MattP]

A small side thought on it.

 

Imagine being the person in 2019 who had to sit opposite Theresa May and be told you are sacked as you can't be trusted and no one has any confidence in you

Edited 1 May 2019 by MattP