Katy Posted 25 February 2005 Posted 25 February 2005 Chandler, just one thing before you get this thread locked - did you seriously honestly think I thought Oadby was a county? 71414[/snapback] HAHA. IT WUD BE CHANNEL 5's version of THE O.C 71418[/snapback] Ahh why cant Chandler be more like you D4!
Simon Posted 25 February 2005 Posted 25 February 2005 You are way out of your depth sonny. Your understanding of the EU and what it's function is is incredibly superficial. Let me tell you it has nothing to do with peace or human rights. You see politics in terms of simplistic slogans because you have little or no understanding of economics and power. That is why you characterise Euro scepticism as 'xenophobia.' This is how Europhilia is sold to gullible, middle class liberals - because they are terrifed of being branded 'racists.' 71347[/snapback] Rhetoric. And, may I say, your understanding of the EU is also incredibly superficial. At the heart of this is you rather stupid habit of conflating the EU with Europe. BONEHEAD! Once again, like your fickle bonehead friends, you post in haste without thinking things through. If the EU was the ideal to which we should all subscribe why are so many 'mainland Europeans' uncertain about its consititution? Why has Blair to resort to his usual tricks to avoid the verdict of the people and keep himself in power? 71347[/snapback] Rhetoric, with a little fact embedded within it. Could it just be that people here and on the continent see through the lies? Weren't we supposed to be doomed outside the Euro? Instead we have a better economy than all the major nations in the Eurozone. 71347[/snapback] Rhetoric. There are so many caveats in the treaties (mainly due to earlier trade agreements negotiated within the EU) to allow us to continue to trade at favourable rates that currently this is not a major problem. It may come to be so in the future. Pulling out of teh European Union would CERTAINLY cripple our economy as we would lose most of these favourable trade agreements. What in reality is Europe? I 'll tell you what it is. A tiny elite of Franco German technocrats and their allies run by remote from the Elysee and the Reichstag. Terrified. Terrified because slowly but surely their power is waning. Their bloated unreformed economies can't change to make them super competitive. Europe is being squeezed between the US and Asia. It's becoming irrelevant. 71347[/snapback] Rhetoric. Europe is a continent. Europe (lets be honest - France) wants us in to help bail them out. But they really hate us, they're the real racists. They hate Anglo Saxonism (UK, North America, Australasia) which they see as the 'enemy' because the see our culture and language replacing their own. And they have a very big hang up about that. So they want to cut us off from wider Anglo Saxon influences. 71347[/snapback] Highly inflamatory rhetoric. And also factually incorrect. Above all Europe hates the US. That's why it is making so much trouble for it (in collusion with Russia and China). Far from wanting peace, Europe wants a power struggle with the US. And far from wanting human rights they want to keep shitty, corrupt dictators in power throughout the third world. 71347[/snapback] Rhetoric. You speak of Europe as if it is a consious entity, this is again wrong. Europe is a geographical landmass called continent. You are right if you are talking about European governments. But I will also point out, this applies to many governments outside of the EU, including the US. BONEHEAD! You and your shitty 'not in my namers' marched in your millions to keep a fecker in power who murdered hundreds of thousands of his own countrymen. Why? To protect French, Russian and German interests. 71347[/snapback] Rhetoric. That was not their motive and you know it. BONEHEAD! On the other hand, when a rather large cheese eating nation trains and arms hoodlums to murder 750,000 people and then helps them to get away nothing is said by anyone for ten years. 71347[/snapback] This is actually factual, and it does rather p*** me off that anyone still bangs on about this. Before you lecture anyone on peace, human rights and xenophobia TT put away your silly left wing comics (Iny and Grauniad) and start to see beyond these Orwellian slogans. 71347[/snapback] More rhetoric. Your presumtion of the poster in relation to 'left wing comics' is nothing more than that. This is NOT FACT. BONEHEAD! Intellectual flyweight is also rhetoric. If only you knew And if you must know I have yet to decide whether or not I favour the euro at this point in time (right now I am leading towards it as I feel the pound is becomming too strong and is actually having a derogatory effect on the lives of people in this country) and I have also yet to decide whether or not I am in favour of the consitution right now (as it stands I think its a hotch potch mess and I'm currently inclined NOT to favour it).
Simon Posted 25 February 2005 Posted 25 February 2005 Chandler you are to this forum what Robert Kilroy Silk is to politics. You only have one point to make, which you insist on making over and over again even though no one is listening. What is worst of all is, like Kilroy, this one point you seem to devote all your time to pushing is flawed at best and complete and utter bollcoks in reality.Please think of something interesting to say! 71261[/snapback] Lets wait for the referendum on the EU constitution then eh? Then we'll see how much the British people agree with Kilroy or not. Only a sad deluded fool could ever think that the EU is any thing other than a bureaucratic, corrupt, talking shop. And if no one was listening to Kilroy how comes he topped the poll here in the Euro elections? Yet another example of a fickle bonehead failing to think before he speaks his drivel. Twat. 71288[/snapback] (No one else read this unless you are interesting in Politics, it is goign to be particuarly boring but I just want to show Chandler what an obnoxious being he is to presume superiority and to brand us all boneheads) Well Lets get political shall we, because it appears to me you have committed oen of the sins you like to spend your life preaching against and following what you are told! Just because Rupert Murdoch's The Scum and the associated Press say that the EU is an expensive talkshop, presumably because xenophobia sells papers in this country, does not mean its true. Persoannly I value trade links, not wanting the economy to go tits up (how silly and naive of me) and not to mention European agreement on peace and Human Rights. Now does anyone listen to Kilroy Silk, a one issue politician who's career is in tatters and the laughing stock of British politics. Well he may have convince Johnny 'I hate foreigners' Bloggs and Paul 'xenophob' Smith that EU is a bad idea but all three major political parties support the EU in some form, as do all serious newspapers (no I don't count the SCUM or Daily Hate mail as serious newspapers). As for a vote on the constitution, it isn't going to happen. Tony has been clever enough to commit himself to such a late date that one other country WILL vote against it before it gets anywhere near the Great British public. Now that was a waste of 15 minutues of my life, but hopefully I may have suceeding in making you realise that you need to think about issues just as much as everyone else on this board and that you are no voice of enlightentment. Just a patronising and arrogant cretin with nothing interesting to say. 71294[/snapback] You are way out of your depth sonny. Your understanding of the EU and what it's function is is incredibly superficial. Let me tell you it has nothing to do with peace or human rights. You see politics in terms of simplistic slogans because you have little or no understanding of economics and power. That is why you characterise Euro scepticism as 'xenophobia.' This is how Europhilia is sold to gullible, middle class liberals - because they are terrifed of being branded 'racists.' Once again, like your fickle bonehead friends, you post in haste without thinking things through. If the EU was the ideal to which we should all subscribe why are so many 'mainland Europeans' uncertain about its consititution? Why has Blair to resort to his usual tricks to avoid the verdict of the people and keep himself in power? Could it just be that people here and on the continent see through the lies? Weren't we supposed to be doomed outside the Euro? Instead we have a better economy than all the major nations in the Eurozone. What in reality is Europe? I 'll tell you what it is. A tiny elite of Franco German technocrats and their allies run by remote from the Elysee and the Reichstag. Terrified. Terrified because slowly but surely their power is waning. Their bloated unreformed economies can't change to make them super competitive. Europe is being squeezed between the US and Asia. It's becoming irrelevant. Europe (lets be honest - France) wants us in to help bail them out. But they really hate us, they're the real racists. They hate Anglo Saxonism (UK, North America, Australasia) which they see as the 'enemy' because the see our culture and language replacing their own. And they have a very big hang up about that. So they want to cut us off from wider Anglo Saxon influences. Above all Europe hates the US. That's why it is making so much trouble for it (in collusion with Russia and China). Far from wanting peace, Europe wants a power struggle with the US. And far from wanting human rights they want to keep shitty, corrupt dictators in power throughout the third world. You and your shitty 'not in my namers' marched in your millions to keep a fecker in power who murdered hundreds of thousands of his own countrymen. Why? To protect French, Russian and German interests. On the other hand, when a rather large cheese eating nation trains and arms hoodlums to murder 750,000 people and then helps them to get away nothing is said by anyone for ten years. Before you lecture anyone on peace, human rights and xenophobia TT put away your silly left wing comics (Iny and Grauniad) and start to see beyond these Orwellian slogans. 71347[/snapback] There is so much rhetoric in this its unbelievable. For a person who says they deal in facts I find very few here. I also see that you choose the posts to reply to very carefully Mr Bing. You'd rather dish out insults to people then engage in the 'reasoned debate' you say you are so fond of. Now why is this? Tricky Trev made a very good post, why have you not bothered to reply to it? 71392[/snapback] Exactly what a pig ignorant Europhiliac would say of course. I note that you fail to point out exactly where all the rhetoric is in my post. C'mon you intellectual flyweight, point out exactly where it all is, quote by quote. And then give me your puny arguments, point by point, for the shitty union. C'mon smart arse. 71409[/snapback] Why would he bother when I have already picked apart that post and you still haven't bothered to reply to it. Calling people bitches and other insults is obviously eaiser for you. 71412[/snapback] Unfortunately I did just bother. i wonder where it'll get me.
D4 Posted 25 February 2005 Posted 25 February 2005 Chandler, just one thing before you get this thread locked - did you seriously honestly think I thought Oadby was a county? 71414[/snapback] HAHA. IT WUD BE CHANNEL 5's version of THE O.C 71418[/snapback] Ahh why cant Chandler be more like you D4! 71431[/snapback] if only u didnt look like dirty den x
Katy Posted 25 February 2005 Posted 25 February 2005 Chandler, just one thing before you get this thread locked - did you seriously honestly think I thought Oadby was a county? 71414[/snapback] HAHA. IT WUD BE CHANNEL 5's version of THE O.C 71418[/snapback] Ahh why cant Chandler be more like you D4! 71431[/snapback] if only u didnt look like dirty den x 71436[/snapback] Bummer, I was nearly in there as well - ahh well theres always plastic surgery
Chandler Posted 26 February 2005 Author Posted 26 February 2005 You are way out of your depth sonny. Your understanding of the EU and what it's function is is incredibly superficial. Let me tell you it has nothing to do with peace or human rights. You see politics in terms of simplistic slogans because you have little or no understanding of economics and power. That is why you characterise Euro scepticism as 'xenophobia.' This is how Europhilia is sold to gullible, middle class liberals - because they are terrifed of being branded 'racists.' 71347[/snapback] Rhetoric. And, may I say, your understanding of the EU is also incredibly superficial. At the heart of this is you rather stupid habit of conflating the EU with Europe. BONEHEAD! Once again, like your fickle bonehead friends, you post in haste without thinking things through. If the EU was the ideal to which we should all subscribe why are so many 'mainland Europeans' uncertain about its consititution? Why has Blair to resort to his usual tricks to avoid the verdict of the people and keep himself in power? 71347[/snapback] Rhetoric, with a little fact embedded within it. Could it just be that people here and on the continent see through the lies? Weren't we supposed to be doomed outside the Euro? Instead we have a better economy than all the major nations in the Eurozone. 71347[/snapback] Rhetoric. There are so many caveats in the treaties (mainly due to earlier trade agreements negotiated within the EU) to allow us to continue to trade at favourable rates that currently this is not a major problem. It may come to be so in the future. Pulling out of teh European Union would CERTAINLY cripple our economy as we would lose most of these favourable trade agreements. What in reality is Europe? I 'll tell you what it is. A tiny elite of Franco German technocrats and their allies run by remote from the Elysee and the Reichstag. Terrified. Terrified because slowly but surely their power is waning. Their bloated unreformed economies can't change to make them super competitive. Europe is being squeezed between the US and Asia. It's becoming irrelevant. 71347[/snapback] Rhetoric. Europe is a continent. Europe (lets be honest - France) wants us in to help bail them out. But they really hate us, they're the real racists. They hate Anglo Saxonism (UK, North America, Australasia) which they see as the 'enemy' because the see our culture and language replacing their own. And they have a very big hang up about that. So they want to cut us off from wider Anglo Saxon influences. 71347[/snapback] Highly inflamatory rhetoric. And also factually incorrect. Above all Europe hates the US. That's why it is making so much trouble for it (in collusion with Russia and China). Far from wanting peace, Europe wants a power struggle with the US. And far from wanting human rights they want to keep shitty, corrupt dictators in power throughout the third world. 71347[/snapback] Rhetoric. You speak of Europe as if it is a consious entity, this is again wrong. Europe is a geographical landmass called continent. You are right if you are talking about European governments. But I will also point out, this applies to many governments outside of the EU, including the US. BONEHEAD! You and your shitty 'not in my namers' marched in your millions to keep a fecker in power who murdered hundreds of thousands of his own countrymen. Why? To protect French, Russian and German interests. 71347[/snapback] Rhetoric. That was not their motive and you know it. BONEHEAD! On the other hand, when a rather large cheese eating nation trains and arms hoodlums to murder 750,000 people and then helps them to get away nothing is said by anyone for ten years. 71347[/snapback] This is actually factual, and it does rather p*** me off that anyone still bangs on about this. Before you lecture anyone on peace, human rights and xenophobia TT put away your silly left wing comics (Iny and Grauniad) and start to see beyond these Orwellian slogans. 71347[/snapback] More rhetoric. Your presumtion of the poster in relation to 'left wing comics' is nothing more than that. This is NOT FACT. BONEHEAD! Intellectual flyweight is also rhetoric. If only you knew And if you must know I have yet to decide whether or not I favour the euro at this point in time (right now I am leading towards it as I feel the pound is becomming too strong and is actually having a derogatory effect on the lives of people in this country) and I have also yet to decide whether or not I am in favour of the consitution right now (as it stands I think its a hotch potch mess and I'm currently inclined NOT to favour it). 71433[/snapback] If you are an undergrad at Cambridge then I can only remark on how academic standards have deteriorated over the last thirty years. Your prose, grammar, syntax and spelling (even allowing for the odd typo) are all truly atrocious. You are also very literal minded. All commentators refer to the EU as 'Europe'. Didn't you know that? You clearly don't understand the first prinicples of the single currency. In fact you don't understand currencies period (the pound too strong at the moment? What, against the Euro? Don't you know the Euro is the world's most over valued currency? Are you out of your mind?). Needless to say you will argue that you do. OK, short pants, why was the Euro proposed (there is only one reason)? Answer this correctly and I will destroy the rest of your drivel.
Simon Posted 26 February 2005 Posted 26 February 2005 You are way out of your depth sonny. Your understanding of the EU and what it's function is is incredibly superficial. Let me tell you it has nothing to do with peace or human rights. You see politics in terms of simplistic slogans because you have little or no understanding of economics and power. That is why you characterise Euro scepticism as 'xenophobia.' This is how Europhilia is sold to gullible, middle class liberals - because they are terrifed of being branded 'racists.' 71347[/snapback] Rhetoric. And, may I say, your understanding of the EU is also incredibly superficial. At the heart of this is you rather stupid habit of conflating the EU with Europe. BONEHEAD! Once again, like your fickle bonehead friends, you post in haste without thinking things through. If the EU was the ideal to which we should all subscribe why are so many 'mainland Europeans' uncertain about its consititution? Why has Blair to resort to his usual tricks to avoid the verdict of the people and keep himself in power? 71347[/snapback] Rhetoric, with a little fact embedded within it. Could it just be that people here and on the continent see through the lies? Weren't we supposed to be doomed outside the Euro? Instead we have a better economy than all the major nations in the Eurozone. 71347[/snapback] Rhetoric. There are so many caveats in the treaties (mainly due to earlier trade agreements negotiated within the EU) to allow us to continue to trade at favourable rates that currently this is not a major problem. It may come to be so in the future. Pulling out of teh European Union would CERTAINLY cripple our economy as we would lose most of these favourable trade agreements. What in reality is Europe? I 'll tell you what it is. A tiny elite of Franco German technocrats and their allies run by remote from the Elysee and the Reichstag. Terrified. Terrified because slowly but surely their power is waning. Their bloated unreformed economies can't change to make them super competitive. Europe is being squeezed between the US and Asia. It's becoming irrelevant. 71347[/snapback] Rhetoric. Europe is a continent. Europe (lets be honest - France) wants us in to help bail them out. But they really hate us, they're the real racists. They hate Anglo Saxonism (UK, North America, Australasia) which they see as the 'enemy' because the see our culture and language replacing their own. And they have a very big hang up about that. So they want to cut us off from wider Anglo Saxon influences. 71347[/snapback] Highly inflamatory rhetoric. And also factually incorrect. Above all Europe hates the US. That's why it is making so much trouble for it (in collusion with Russia and China). Far from wanting peace, Europe wants a power struggle with the US. And far from wanting human rights they want to keep shitty, corrupt dictators in power throughout the third world. 71347[/snapback] Rhetoric. You speak of Europe as if it is a consious entity, this is again wrong. Europe is a geographical landmass called continent. You are right if you are talking about European governments. But I will also point out, this applies to many governments outside of the EU, including the US. BONEHEAD! You and your shitty 'not in my namers' marched in your millions to keep a fecker in power who murdered hundreds of thousands of his own countrymen. Why? To protect French, Russian and German interests. 71347[/snapback] Rhetoric. That was not their motive and you know it. BONEHEAD! On the other hand, when a rather large cheese eating nation trains and arms hoodlums to murder 750,000 people and then helps them to get away nothing is said by anyone for ten years. 71347[/snapback] This is actually factual, and it does rather p*** me off that anyone still bangs on about this. Before you lecture anyone on peace, human rights and xenophobia TT put away your silly left wing comics (Iny and Grauniad) and start to see beyond these Orwellian slogans. 71347[/snapback] More rhetoric. Your presumtion of the poster in relation to 'left wing comics' is nothing more than that. This is NOT FACT. BONEHEAD! Intellectual flyweight is also rhetoric. If only you knew And if you must know I have yet to decide whether or not I favour the euro at this point in time (right now I am leading towards it as I feel the pound is becomming too strong and is actually having a derogatory effect on the lives of people in this country) and I have also yet to decide whether or not I am in favour of the consitution right now (as it stands I think its a hotch potch mess and I'm currently inclined NOT to favour it). 71433[/snapback] If you are an undergrad at Cambridge then I can only remark on how academic standards have deteriorated over the last thirty years. Your prose, grammar, syntax and spelling (even allowing for the odd typo) are all truly atrocious. You are also very literal minded. All commentators refer to the EU as 'Europe' didn't you know that? You clearly don't understand the first prinicples of the single currency. In fact you don't understand currencies period (the pound too strong at the moment? What, against the Euro? Don't you know the Euro is the world's most over valued currency? Are you out of your mind?). Needless to say you will argue that you do. OK short pants, why was the Euro proposed (there is only one reason). Answer this correctly and I will destroy the rest of your drivel. 71456[/snapback] Yours' is hardly the height of excellence is it Mr Bing? Did it take you that long to write that? My my we are getting desparate Edit: And yes the pound is too strong at the moment, have you seen our housing market? This is all related to the strength of the pound.
breadandcheese Posted 26 February 2005 Posted 26 February 2005 I agree wholeheartedly with Chandler. Not about football, but about the EU. The EU should stick to being a trade area and abandon its political ambitions (which are as Chandler stated based on an inferiority complex to American power). There is huge global imbalance at the moment. This has manifested itself in currency disparities. In due time, these will be corrected, as the economy always returns to its long-run equilibrium (sometimes rather painfully with recession). Sterling is not overvalued. The Asian currencies are UNDERvalued, due to the official and unofficial pegs with the dollar. Thus as the overvalued dollar falls, the Asian currencies also depreciate. I am intrigued as to the argument that the strength of sterling is related to the housing market. Low interest rates and massive liquidity have been the cause of house price growth, not what you would expect to result in a strengthening pound. Essentially, the European Union is a bureaucratic nightmare, devolved from the people it is supposed to serve. Its accounts are so appalling that no auditors have been able to sign them off for the last nine years. Don't worry though, Neil Kinnock has been collecting his fat hefty pension, I mean investigating the accounts. Surprise, surprise, he has found nothing. I think we have integrated as far as we need to. Yes to free trade. No to euro or the European constitution. The best of Europe, best of british.
Chandler Posted 26 February 2005 Author Posted 26 February 2005 I agree wholeheartedly with Chandler. Not about football, but about the EU.The EU should stick to being a trade area and abandon its political ambitions (which are as Chandler stated based on an inferiority complex to American power). There is huge global imbalance at the moment. This has manifested itself in currency disparities. In due time, these will be corrected, as the economy always returns to its long-run equilibrium (sometimes rather painfully with recession). Sterling is not overvalued. The Asian currencies are UNDERvalued, due to the official and unofficial pegs with the dollar. Thus as the overvalued dollar falls, the Asian currencies also depreciate. I am intrigued as to the argument that the strength of sterling is related to the housing market. Low interest rates and massive liquidity have been the cause of house price growth, not what you would expect to result in a strengthening pound. Essentially, the European Union is a bureaucratic nightmare, devolved from the people it is supposed to serve. Its accounts are so appalling that no auditors have been able to sign them off for the last nine years. Don't worry though, Neil Kinnock has been collecting his fat hefty pension, I mean investigating the accounts. Surprise, surprise, he has found nothing. I think we have integrated as far as we need to. Yes to free trade. No to euro or the European constitution. The best of Europe, best of british. 71469[/snapback] Breadand cheese you know your onions! You credit Cambridge Fox with too much. He is trying to attribute low interest rates to the 'high' pound and not low inflation. Being efficient (and thus very non European) I will put the question again to CF. Why was the Euro proposed (do not prompt him B&C)? And while you are not about this CF is your opposition to the proposed constitution because of the provisions to join NAFTA and ASEAN (North American and Asian trade organisations)? PS Shame I didn't come across you three years ago breadandcheese -might have signed you up for one of my publications.
breadandcheese Posted 26 February 2005 Posted 26 February 2005 I am intrigued Chandler. What publication is this?
Chandler Posted 26 February 2005 Author Posted 26 February 2005 I agree wholeheartedly with Chandler. Not about football, but about the EU.The EU should stick to being a trade area and abandon its political ambitions (which are as Chandler stated based on an inferiority complex to American power). There is huge global imbalance at the moment. This has manifested itself in currency disparities. In due time, these will be corrected, as the economy always returns to its long-run equilibrium (sometimes rather painfully with recession). Sterling is not overvalued. The Asian currencies are UNDERvalued, due to the official and unofficial pegs with the dollar. Thus as the overvalued dollar falls, the Asian currencies also depreciate. I am intrigued as to the argument that the strength of sterling is related to the housing market. Low interest rates and massive liquidity have been the cause of house price growth, not what you would expect to result in a strengthening pound. Essentially, the European Union is a bureaucratic nightmare, devolved from the people it is supposed to serve. Its accounts are so appalling that no auditors have been able to sign them off for the last nine years. Don't worry though, Neil Kinnock has been collecting his fat hefty pension, I mean investigating the accounts. Surprise, surprise, he has found nothing. I think we have integrated as far as we need to. Yes to free trade. No to euro or the European constitution. The best of Europe, best of british. 71469[/snapback] Serious point here b&c. Do you think the current administration in the US is deliberately running a deficit (current account and budget) to shaft the Euro? I've had a feeling for sometime that it is. The problem for the Euro APPEARS to have ripened around the Iraq crisis. Might be wrong though...
Simon Posted 26 February 2005 Posted 26 February 2005 I agree wholeheartedly with Chandler. Not about football, but about the EU.The EU should stick to being a trade area and abandon its political ambitions (which are as Chandler stated based on an inferiority complex to American power). There is huge global imbalance at the moment. This has manifested itself in currency disparities. In due time, these will be corrected, as the economy always returns to its long-run equilibrium (sometimes rather painfully with recession). Sterling is not overvalued. The Asian currencies are UNDERvalued, due to the official and unofficial pegs with the dollar. Thus as the overvalued dollar falls, the Asian currencies also depreciate. I am intrigued as to the argument that the strength of sterling is related to the housing market. Low interest rates and massive liquidity have been the cause of house price growth, not what you would expect to result in a strengthening pound. Essentially, the European Union is a bureaucratic nightmare, devolved from the people it is supposed to serve. Its accounts are so appalling that no auditors have been able to sign them off for the last nine years. Don't worry though, Neil Kinnock has been collecting his fat hefty pension, I mean investigating the accounts. Surprise, surprise, he has found nothing. I think we have integrated as far as we need to. Yes to free trade. No to euro or the European constitution. The best of Europe, best of british. 71469[/snapback] Breadand cheese you know your onions! You credit Cambridge Fox with too much. He is trying to attribute low interest rates to the 'high' pound and not low inflation. Being efficient (and thus very non European) I will put the question again to CF. Why was the Euro proposed (do not prompt him B&C)? And while you are not about this CF is your opposition to the proposed constitution because of the provisions to join NAFTA and ASEAN (North American and Asian trade organisations)? PS Shame I didn't come across you three years ago breadandcheese -might have signed you up for one of my publications. 71471[/snapback] Saved your bacon Mr Bing didnt he? I dont agree with him but he comes up with a far more eloquent argument. Although I would like to know if our world economy is so stable in the long-term why it has been through so many 'descrete systems' and why there always has to be a country or group of countrues which need to underwrite this so called 'natural phenomenon'? And no I am not a communist. You want me to say the following. I'll simply quote the Werner report (1970): In the words of the Report, the economic union was set up for the following reason 'total and irreversible convertibility of currencies, the elimination of fluctuation in exchange rates, the irrevocable fixing of parity rates and the complete liberation of movements of capital.' The actual reason I am at this moment not in favour of the constitution is that the whole thing is a nightmare. It is a hotch potch of treaties, caveats and unclear statements as well as botched compromises. What has NAFTA and ASEAN got to do with it? From what I remember of the consitution this is not in it! (I admit to only having read some but not all of it- I have far too much work on my hands as it is!). Our position within the constitution itself is not even clear right now because our country does not even have its own consittution. IMO this should be first on our agenda. Please do not try an paint me as some europhille, you will be pleasantly surprised to know that I am not. I am skeptical about many areas of Europe, not least the waste of space that is the common agricultural policy. But I am however a realist.
breadandcheese Posted 26 February 2005 Posted 26 February 2005 There is an ancient Chinese proverb that to crush something, you must first raise it up. There are strong suggestions that this is what the US is doing with the euro. Europe cannot maintain a strong euro. It's domestic demand is too weak. If America loses its status as having the reserve currency of the world, then it is in massive trouble. It will fight all it possibly can to prevent any threat to this (of which the euro is one). There are strong suggestions that America went into Iraq for the purpose of ensuring that Iraqi oil was priced in dollars (Saddam was trading his oil in euros), to help ensure its status as reserve currency. In terms of current American policy on the trade deficit however, it is as Greenspan said, "We are in uncharted territory". I do not think the US would run such a huge trade deficit to take out the euro. It is too big a risk. Not unless they were iron-clad sure they could depend on the Asian economies. Everyday, Asian investors own more and more of America. That leaves the US extremely vulnerable. I think we will continue to see more and more protectionism in the future (something that is increasingly more evident today - Russia and its mineral reserves, Asian trading policies, etc). The future could well be rocky.
Simon Posted 26 February 2005 Posted 26 February 2005 There is an ancient Chinese proverb that to crush something, you must first raise it up. There are strong suggestions that this is what the US is doing with the euro. Europe cannot maintain a strong euro. It's domestic demand is too weak. If America loses its status as having the reserve currency of the world, then it is in massive trouble. It will fight all it possibly can to prevent any threat to this (of which the euro is one). There are strong suggestions that America went into Iraq for the purpose of ensuring that Iraqi oil was priced in dollars (Saddam was trading his oil in euros), to help ensure its status as reserve currency. In terms of current American policy on the trade deficit however, it is as Greenspan said, "We are in uncharted territory". I do not think the US would run such a huge trade deficit to take out the euro. It is too big a risk. Not unless they were iron-clad sure they could depend on the Asian economies. Everyday, Asian investors own more and more of America. That leaves the US extremely vulnerable. I think we will continue to see more and more protectionism in the future (something that is increasingly more evident today - Russia and its mineral reserves, Asian trading policies, etc). The future could well be rocky. 71479[/snapback] The precise reason I am worrying that this 'equilibrium' you posit will not be returning...
breadandcheese Posted 26 February 2005 Posted 26 February 2005 "Saved your bacon Mr Bing didnt he? I dont agree with him but he comes up with a far more eloquent argument. Although I would like to know if our world economy is so stable in the long-term why it has been through so many 'descrete systems' and why there always has to be a country or group of countrues which need to underwrite this so called 'natural phenomenon'? And no I am not a communist." - CambridgeFox quote In answer to your question about why there are so many systems and why some countries need to underwrite this so called 'natural phenomenon', here goes: You have clearly studied some Economics and so don't need me to tell you that there is never a set answer, but many schools of thought in economic theory. I personally believe in business cycles (due to human behaviour resulting in credit expansion and contractions), which cannot be undone (despite what any politician claiming credit for a growing economy will tell you). I believe that underpinning these cycles is a long-term equilibrium level which the economy will veer towards. It's a bit like a sine wave, going in waves and cycles, but never straying above one before flipping and turning the other way. The economic system is stable in the long-run, provided you accept recession as a from of redressing imbalances. This is easy to say, whilst the reality is hardship and struggle for people. It is this corrective phase that can cause people to become disillusioned with the capitalist system, but no-one has yet been able to come up with a better system. In the long-run though, the economy will always redress itself and return to the level it finds. Central banks can attempt to manipulate economies (and do so fairly well - we have a lot to thank them for) but eventually, the economy will have to return towards its equilibrium. Other economists will disagree with my school of thought. That's the nature of the debate.
Simon Posted 26 February 2005 Posted 26 February 2005 "Saved your bacon Mr Bing didnt he? I dont agree with him but he comes up with a far more eloquent argument. Although I would like to know if our world economy is so stable in the long-term why it has been through so many 'descrete systems' and why there always has to be a country or group of countrues which need to underwrite this so called 'natural phenomenon'? And no I am not a communist." - CambridgeFox quote In answer to your question about why there are so many systems and why some countries need to underwrite this so called 'natural phenomenon', here goes: You have clearly studied some Economics and so don't need me to tell you that there is never a set answer, but many schools of thought in economic theory. I personally believe in business cycles (due to human behaviour resulting in credit expansion and contractions), which cannot be undone (despite what any politician claiming credit for a growing economy will tell you). I believe that underpinning these cycles is a long-term equilibrium level which the economy will veer towards. It's a bit like a sine wave, going in waves and cycles, but never straying above one before flipping and turning the other way. The economic system is stable in the long-run, provided you accept recession as a from of redressing imbalances. This is easy to say, whilst the reality is hardship and struggle for people. It is this corrective phase that can cause people to become disillusioned with the capitalist system, but no-one has yet been able to come up with a better system. In the long-run though, the economy will always redress itself and return to the level it finds. Central banks can attempt to manipulate economies (and do so fairly well - we have a lot to thank them for) but eventually, the economy will have to return towards its equilibrium. Other economists will disagree with my school of thought. That's the nature of the debate. 71484[/snapback] To tell you the truth I have probably not read enough to make an informed decision on this (my main subject is actually Sociology so most of my time is spent on that). I am skeptical that such a system will continue in perpetuaty. Arguably this economic system has only really been in evidence (in current form) since abut 1850 (if my memory serves me right, if not please correct me). It is clear that communism isnt the answer, as you always have to cheat to get by, people's wealth does get get more equal- more people get poorer generally. However, China is a particulalry worrying anomally as it will likely become the worlds biggest economic power in our lifetimes, and it is hardly a great capitalist model (I am not saying I agree with their economic model). Indeed it is the nature of debate that people disagree. I have no problem with this. I enjoy debate (its what I spend a lot of my time doing, if only between writers in an essay), but it does nark me when someone calls rhetoric or opinion 'fact' and when that person also insults others. Now I really must go to bed... the g/f's da, uncle and grandad are down tommorow and we're going to watch Cambridge Vs Oxford at the Abbey Stadium. Now THATS hoofball...
Chandler Posted 26 February 2005 Author Posted 26 February 2005 I agree wholeheartedly with Chandler. Not about football, but about the EU.The EU should stick to being a trade area and abandon its political ambitions (which are as Chandler stated based on an inferiority complex to American power). There is huge global imbalance at the moment. This has manifested itself in currency disparities. In due time, these will be corrected, as the economy always returns to its long-run equilibrium (sometimes rather painfully with recession). Sterling is not overvalued. The Asian currencies are UNDERvalued, due to the official and unofficial pegs with the dollar. Thus as the overvalued dollar falls, the Asian currencies also depreciate. I am intrigued as to the argument that the strength of sterling is related to the housing market. Low interest rates and massive liquidity have been the cause of house price growth, not what you would expect to result in a strengthening pound. Essentially, the European Union is a bureaucratic nightmare, devolved from the people it is supposed to serve. Its accounts are so appalling that no auditors have been able to sign them off for the last nine years. Don't worry though, Neil Kinnock has been collecting his fat hefty pension, I mean investigating the accounts. Surprise, surprise, he has found nothing. I think we have integrated as far as we need to. Yes to free trade. No to euro or the European constitution. The best of Europe, best of british. 71469[/snapback] Breadand cheese you know your onions! You credit Cambridge Fox with too much. He is trying to attribute low interest rates to the 'high' pound and not low inflation. Being efficient (and thus very non European) I will put the question again to CF. Why was the Euro proposed (do not prompt him B&C)? And while you are not about this CF is your opposition to the proposed constitution because of the provisions to join NAFTA and ASEAN (North American and Asian trade organisations)? PS Shame I didn't come across you three years ago breadandcheese -might have signed you up for one of my publications. 71471[/snapback] Saved your bacon Mr Bing didnt he? I dont agree with him but he comes up with a far more eloquent argument. Although I would like to know if our world economy is so stable in the long-term why it has been through so many 'descrete systems' and why there always has to be a country or group of countrues which need to underwrite this so called 'natural phenomenon'? And no I am not a communist. You want me to say the following. I'll simply quote the Werner report (1970): In the words of the Report, the economic union was set up for the following reason 'total and irreversible convertibility of currencies, the elimination of fluctuation in exchange rates, the irrevocable fixing of parity rates and the complete liberation of movements of capital.' The actual reason I am at this moment not in favour of the constitution is that the whole thing is a nightmare. It is a hotch potch of treaties, caveats and unclear statements as well as botched compromises. What has NAFTA and ASEAN got to do with it? From what I remember of the consitution this is not in it! (I admit to only having read some but not all of it- I have far too much work on my hands as it is!). Our position within the constitution itself is not even clear right now because our country does not even have its own consittution. IMO this should be first on our agenda. Please do not try an paint me as some europhille, you will be pleasantly surprised to know that I am not. I am skeptical about many areas of Europe, not least the waste of space that is the common agricultural policy. But I am however a realist. 71478[/snapback] Don't be patronising and stupid Cambridge Fox. B&C was in direct agreement with arguments that I formulated without assistance from anyone. Not only that, he fired his own canon load of grapeshot into your tosh about the UK housing market. Having scoured the web for the answers to my queries you have succeeded in making yourself look a little ridiculous. You have confused the EU with the Euro! How ironic! (by the way 'convertibility' is not a reference to the Euro. It is a reference to the 'Snake' the forerunner of the ERM). It should be abundantly obvious why I inserted the red herring of NAFTA and ASEAN 'into' the consitution. It was a trick question to catch you out. The web saved your miserable skin (although you didn't appreciate the irony of my trick. If membership of ASEAN and NAFTA were on the cards there would be very little objection to the proposed constitution). The other thing that escapes your lightweight mind is that by appreciating B&C's sterling contribution in the way that you do it not only makes you case redundant it also completely exposes TT's arguments (which, like yours, are superficial, all phoney moral constructs, and poorly expressed). At 1.38 I am signing off. I will, no doubt, lock horns with others on these issues. But not with you. You are an ignorant poseur. It is abundantly clear that this is a subject of which you know little (and if you had a scintilla of sense it might just occur to you that perhaps this issue might just be related to my occupation). It is also evident that you are unfamiliar with basic debating procedures and protocol . All you want is the last word. And with you, that could be anything (eg 'poo'). Now, do the decent thing and prove me wrong.
Simon Posted 26 February 2005 Posted 26 February 2005 I agree wholeheartedly with Chandler. Not about football, but about the EU.The EU should stick to being a trade area and abandon its political ambitions (which are as Chandler stated based on an inferiority complex to American power). There is huge global imbalance at the moment. This has manifested itself in currency disparities. In due time, these will be corrected, as the economy always returns to its long-run equilibrium (sometimes rather painfully with recession). Sterling is not overvalued. The Asian currencies are UNDERvalued, due to the official and unofficial pegs with the dollar. Thus as the overvalued dollar falls, the Asian currencies also depreciate. I am intrigued as to the argument that the strength of sterling is related to the housing market. Low interest rates and massive liquidity have been the cause of house price growth, not what you would expect to result in a strengthening pound. Essentially, the European Union is a bureaucratic nightmare, devolved from the people it is supposed to serve. Its accounts are so appalling that no auditors have been able to sign them off for the last nine years. Don't worry though, Neil Kinnock has been collecting his fat hefty pension, I mean investigating the accounts. Surprise, surprise, he has found nothing. I think we have integrated as far as we need to. Yes to free trade. No to euro or the European constitution. The best of Europe, best of british. 71469[/snapback] Breadand cheese you know your onions! You credit Cambridge Fox with too much. He is trying to attribute low interest rates to the 'high' pound and not low inflation. Being efficient (and thus very non European) I will put the question again to CF. Why was the Euro proposed (do not prompt him B&C)? And while you are not about this CF is your opposition to the proposed constitution because of the provisions to join NAFTA and ASEAN (North American and Asian trade organisations)? PS Shame I didn't come across you three years ago breadandcheese -might have signed you up for one of my publications. 71471[/snapback] Saved your bacon Mr Bing didnt he? I dont agree with him but he comes up with a far more eloquent argument. Although I would like to know if our world economy is so stable in the long-term why it has been through so many 'descrete systems' and why there always has to be a country or group of countrues which need to underwrite this so called 'natural phenomenon'? And no I am not a communist. You want me to say the following. I'll simply quote the Werner report (1970): In the words of the Report, the economic union was set up for the following reason 'total and irreversible convertibility of currencies, the elimination of fluctuation in exchange rates, the irrevocable fixing of parity rates and the complete liberation of movements of capital.' The actual reason I am at this moment not in favour of the constitution is that the whole thing is a nightmare. It is a hotch potch of treaties, caveats and unclear statements as well as botched compromises. What has NAFTA and ASEAN got to do with it? From what I remember of the consitution this is not in it! (I admit to only having read some but not all of it- I have far too much work on my hands as it is!). Our position within the constitution itself is not even clear right now because our country does not even have its own consittution. IMO this should be first on our agenda. Please do not try an paint me as some europhille, you will be pleasantly surprised to know that I am not. I am skeptical about many areas of Europe, not least the waste of space that is the common agricultural policy. But I am however a realist. 71478[/snapback] Don't be patronising and stupid Cambridge Fox. B&C was in direct agreement with arguments that I formulated without assistance from anyone. Not only that, he fired his own canon load of grapeshot into your tosh about the UK housing market. Having scoured the web for the answers to my queries you have succeeded in making yourself look a little ridiculous. You have confused the EU with the Euro! How ironic! (by the way 'convertibility' is not a reference to the Euro. It is a reference to the 'Snake' the forerunner of the ERM). It should be abundantly obvious why I inserted the red herring of NAFTA and ASEAN 'into' the consitution. It was a trick question to catch you out. The web saved your miserable skin (although you didn't appreciate the irony of my trick. If membership of ASEAN and NAFTA were on the cards there would be very little objection to the proposed constitution). The other thing that escapes your lightweight mind is that by appreciating B&C's sterling contribution in the way that you do it not only makes you case redundant it also completely exposes TT's arguments (which, like yours, are superficial, all phoney moral constructs, and poorly expressed). At 1.38 I am signing off. I will, no doubt, lock horns with others on these issues. But not with you. You are an ignorant poseur. It is abundantly clear that this is a subject of which you know little (and if you had a scintilla of sense it might just occur to you that perhaps this issue might just be related to my occupation). It is also evident that you are unfamiliar with basic debating procedures and protocol . All you want is the last word. And with you, that could be anything (eg 'poo'). Now, do the decent thing and prove me wrong. 71488[/snapback] Read my above post- I never said I knew everything. It was patently obvious that you were trying to catch me out (and finding NAFTA in the constitution is not something I could have done quickly, I know how long it is). It is also patently obvious that this issue is somehow related to what you may do in everyday life. I do not need to spell this out. It does not mean you know it all. You will notice I did say economic union, not euro in my quote, as to be truthful I have no idea why the euro was set up. And as for not knowing about basic debating procedures and protocol you need to look in the mirror. You see I dont always have to be right. I see the different points of view, I agree with some and not with others, but you take this as a great affront that someone (I admit perhaps with less knowledge) may not agree with you. DEAL WITH IT.
Chandler Posted 26 February 2005 Author Posted 26 February 2005 QED. And if that's meant to be a face saving argument you must look like Frankenstein!
Collymore Posted 26 February 2005 Posted 26 February 2005 there's a world out there chandler.. go and explore it one day it will make u happier
Chandler Posted 26 February 2005 Author Posted 26 February 2005 there's a world out there chandler.. go and explore it one day it will make u happier 71498[/snapback] You've been on here longer and have posted more often C. You are also younger than me so go and play outside!
stez Posted 26 February 2005 Posted 26 February 2005 i'm sure theres a finance board somewhere you can discuss this on
Who ate all the pies? Posted 26 February 2005 Posted 26 February 2005 Well I was obviously wrong about this thread being a write off...maybe the season won't be either. Chandler has it ever occured to you that you maybe wrong about some things? after all you're only human...aren't you? To be honest, you all made some interesting points on the EU front etc, but the thing is that this a football forum and I'm more interested in today's game to be honest! You can call me a bonehead or whatever you want, but I think Levein's doing a good job at rebuilding a poor team, I accept that not everyone is going to agree with me on this, but I'm not going to slag anyone off because of it. I will get annoyed though if people make comments and then get abusive when people don't agree, this is not just aimed at Chandler (although he's not really helped himself). Right then back to Footbal put me down for 2-0 city win today...might lob a fiver on it(hey I'm not rich)!
shen Posted 26 February 2005 Posted 26 February 2005 If I'm coming up with the same old stuff that no one is listening too how comes you moronic twats post more nonsense on this thread in a couple of hours than you normally manage in a couple of days?You imbeciles have absolutely no self awareness. You have no powers of reasoning, all your responses are knee jerk reactions. You have no long term memory. All you can do is run as a herd. You are absolutely terrified of THINKING for yourselves. But what else can you expect of fickle boneheads? 71282[/snapback] I hope this is your goodbye-speech... really! What on earth do you get from posting your views to us 'fickle boneheads' huh? You seem intelligent enough Chandler, can't you figure out that it is not possible to reason with 'boneheads'? Or do you just have no friends you can argue with? Clearly, this forum is not made for your type, so why waste your own, and our time, by posting on here any longer? Now leave us 'fickle boneheads' be and find yourself another place to talk about your brilliant views on our football club or politics for that matter...
Collymore Posted 28 February 2005 Posted 28 February 2005 there's a world out there chandler.. go and explore it one day it will make u happier 71498[/snapback] You've been on here longer and have posted more often C. You are also younger than me so go and play outside! 71500[/snapback] What you drinking mate?
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.