Guest Posted 8 July 2005 Posted 8 July 2005 Are you familiar with the phrase `it takes one to know one`? 135023[/snapback] Yes I am; it's traditionally used by someone who hasn't the wit to comeback with an original response.
lush Posted 8 July 2005 Posted 8 July 2005 Are you familiar with the phrase `it takes one to know one`? 135023[/snapback] Yes I am; it's traditionally used by someone who hasn't the wit to comeback with an original response. 135029[/snapback] but darling, `now i know your an idiot` is meant to be interesting sweetheart, anychance WE can stop the hidious slating? shake hands?
lush Posted 8 July 2005 Posted 8 July 2005 Explain HOW theyve taken us to economic growth? The single most important decision was to slash interest rates during 2001. It is also fairly obvious to me that new deal programmes have helped slash unemployment which utilises our workforce and allows us to work closer to full capacity. Cutting unemployment whilst not suffering from serious inflation problems is a rarity in economics. It goes ot show that our supply side has been expanded at the same rate as aggrgate demand. I can specualte this is down to greater flexibility in working hours, de-regulation of buisiness, better transport and encouragemnt of entrepenuerialship through subsidies. 135024[/snapback] Do you know why they slashed interest rates? There are 2 million people on the sick, that wernt there under the tories. That fact was finally admitted by blair about 3 months ago. the new deal has helped, but nowhere near what the media would have us believe. Go to a unemployment bureau, and they`ll explain what a farce it is. How many jobs do you think the mobile phone networks have created?
TrickyTrev Posted 8 July 2005 Posted 8 July 2005 Do you know why they slashed interest rates? To stumulate aggregate Demand, as I said. That is basic economics. There are 2 million people on the sick, that wernt there under the tories. That fact was finally admitted by blair about 3 months ago.the new deal has helped, but nowhere near what the media would have us believe. Go to a unemployment bureau, and they`ll explain what a farce it is. All this would be fine if we were talking about the claimont count that looks at the nyumber of people on the doll. However, the Labour force Survery which takes a random sample of the population, also so unemployment is being reduced. I am always sceptical about claims that people are being moved onto the 'sick' benefits to massage figures. Many people who are suffering from logn term unemployment do suffer from crippling dpression. There is a genuine and honest link there. How many jobs do you think the mobile phone networks have created? There are technological booms all the time. Especially ina n economy which invets heavily into scientific research such as ours. You don't seem to understand that there would not be demand for these phones without a well performing economy. They are a luxury good and effective demand would be latent woithout a healthy perfomring economy with high AD. Again simple economics.
lush Posted 8 July 2005 Posted 8 July 2005 To stumulate aggregate Demand, as I said. That is basic economics.All this would be fine if we were talking about the claimont count that looks at the nyumber of people on the doll. However, the Labour force Survery which takes a random sample of the population, also so unemployment is being reduced. I am always sceptical about claims that people are being moved onto the 'sick' benefits to massage figures. Many people who are suffering from logn term unemployment do suffer from crippling dpression. There is a genuine and honest link there. There are technological booms all the time. Especially ina n economy which invets heavily into scientific research such as ours. You don't seem to understand that there would not be demand for these phones without a well performing economy. They are a luxury good and effective demand would be latent woithout a healthy perfomring economy with high AD. Again simple economics. 135042[/snapback] I would suggest it was to encourage people to spend, which would mean after 4 years of blair government, people were thinking twice before spending their dosh. I cant work out, understand your next point. Can you elaborate for me please? To your next point, people wernt moved due to sick reasons, but encouraged to show the unemployment status as being low. You have to give NL credit there, they did fool alot of voters. Mobile phone technology is a very cheap concept. It blossomed, not due to NL`s political strenths, but because of demand. the mobile phone industry has created thousands upon thousands of jobs, it wouldnt have mattered who was in power. Another form of entertainment/job supply has been tv. Tv has created huge amounts of jobs in the last 10 years, again nothing to do with new labour. Can you imagine how many people run the hundreds of tv channels, the amount of people that earn a living through advertising on those 100`s of channels, the amount of actors and actresses. New labour has been the luckiest power for employment, ever. Its not rocket science dude.
Guest Posted 9 July 2005 Posted 9 July 2005 Are you familiar with the phrase `it takes one to know one`? 135023[/snapback] Yes I am; it's traditionally used by someone who hasn't the wit to comeback with an original response. 135029[/snapback] but darling, `now i know your an idiot` is meant to be interesting sweetheart, anychance WE can stop the hidious slating? shake hands? 135033[/snapback] I'd rather shake my knob, and seeing as I don't have one, I think we can safely call it a 'no'.
TrickyTrev Posted 11 July 2005 Posted 11 July 2005 To stumulate aggregate Demand, as I said. That is basic economics.All this would be fine if we were talking about the claimont count that looks at the nyumber of people on the doll. However, the Labour force Survery which takes a random sample of the population, also so unemployment is being reduced. I am always sceptical about claims that people are being moved onto the 'sick' benefits to massage figures. Many people who are suffering from logn term unemployment do suffer from crippling dpression. There is a genuine and honest link there. There are technological booms all the time. Especially ina n economy which invets heavily into scientific research such as ours. You don't seem to understand that there would not be demand for these phones without a well performing economy. They are a luxury good and effective demand would be latent woithout a healthy perfomring economy with high AD. Again simple economics. 135042[/snapback] I would suggest it was to encourage people to spend, which would mean after 4 years of blair government, people were thinking twice before spending their dosh. I cant work out, understand your next point. Can you elaborate for me please? To your next point, people wernt moved due to sick reasons, but encouraged to show the unemployment status as being low. You have to give NL credit there, they did fool alot of voters. Mobile phone technology is a very cheap concept. It blossomed, not due to NL`s political strenths, but because of demand. the mobile phone industry has created thousands upon thousands of jobs, it wouldnt have mattered who was in power. Another form of entertainment/job supply has been tv. Tv has created huge amounts of jobs in the last 10 years, again nothing to do with new labour. Can you imagine how many people run the hundreds of tv channels, the amount of people that earn a living through advertising on those 100`s of channels, the amount of actors and actresses. New labour has been the luckiest power for employment, ever. Its not rocket science dude. 135058[/snapback] You are not getting it are you? When the government keeps low taxes and cuts interest rates they are increasing aggregate demand or as you put it "encourage people to spend." This creates the demand for luxury products such as mobile phones. Without that demand the phone companies would not be here and there would not be creating jobs and wealth. The government never really creates jobs, just the conditions for economic growth. Which, as I havwe tried to explain is increasing Aggregate demand and supply. They HAVE doen this. No arguements. We have grown as an economy in every year since they took power. FACT. All this has been achieved at LOW levels of inflation. As for my point on the counting of unemployment. I was pointing out that we don't only measure those claiming benefits, the Claimont Count. The Labour Force Survey takes into account everybody and thus it is impossible to manipulate the figures to win voters. Unemployment has decreased and we are close to full employment. These are facts again. The economy is in a good state, there are many other thinsg to moan about this government or but Brown's Economics have been brilliant. Deal With it.
Guest Posted 11 July 2005 Posted 11 July 2005 To stumulate aggregate Demand, as I said. That is basic economics.All this would be fine if we were talking about the claimont count that looks at the nyumber of people on the doll. However, the Labour force Survery which takes a random sample of the population, also so unemployment is being reduced. I am always sceptical about claims that people are being moved onto the 'sick' benefits to massage figures. Many people who are suffering from logn term unemployment do suffer from crippling dpression. There is a genuine and honest link there. There are technological booms all the time. Especially ina n economy which invets heavily into scientific research such as ours. You don't seem to understand that there would not be demand for these phones without a well performing economy. They are a luxury good and effective demand would be latent woithout a healthy perfomring economy with high AD. Again simple economics. 135042[/snapback] I would suggest it was to encourage people to spend, which would mean after 4 years of blair government, people were thinking twice before spending their dosh. I cant work out, understand your next point. Can you elaborate for me please? To your next point, people wernt moved due to sick reasons, but encouraged to show the unemployment status as being low. You have to give NL credit there, they did fool alot of voters. Mobile phone technology is a very cheap concept. It blossomed, not due to NL`s political strenths, but because of demand. the mobile phone industry has created thousands upon thousands of jobs, it wouldnt have mattered who was in power. Another form of entertainment/job supply has been tv. Tv has created huge amounts of jobs in the last 10 years, again nothing to do with new labour. Can you imagine how many people run the hundreds of tv channels, the amount of people that earn a living through advertising on those 100`s of channels, the amount of actors and actresses. New labour has been the luckiest power for employment, ever. Its not rocket science dude. 135058[/snapback] You are not getting it are you? When the government keeps low taxes and cuts interest rates they are increasing aggregate demand or as you put it "encourage people to spend." This creates the demand for luxury products such as mobile phones. Without that demand the phone companies would not be here and there would not be creating jobs and wealth. The government never really creates jobs, just the conditions for economic growth. Which, as I havwe tried to explain is increasing Aggregate demand and supply. They HAVE doen this. No arguements. We have grown as an economy in every year since they took power. FACT. All this has been achieved at LOW levels of inflation. As for my point on the counting of unemployment. I was pointing out that we don't only measure those claiming benefits, the Claimont Count. The Labour Force Survey takes into account everybody and thus it is impossible to manipulate the figures to win voters. Unemployment has decreased and we are close to full employment. These are facts again. The economy is in a good state, there are many other thinsg to moan about this government or but Brown's Economics have been brilliant. Deal With it. 136251[/snapback] Couldn't have put it better myself!
lush Posted 12 July 2005 Posted 12 July 2005 When the government keeps low taxes and cuts interest rates they are increasing aggregate demand or as you put it "encourage people to spend." This creates the demand for luxury products such as mobile phones. Without that demand the phone companies would not be here and there would not be creating jobs and wealth. The government never really creates jobs, just the conditions for economic growth. Which, as I havwe tried to explain is increasing Aggregate demand and supply. They HAVE doen this. No arguements. We have grown as an economy in every year since they took power. FACT. All this has been achieved at LOW levels of inflation. As for my point on the counting of unemployment. I was pointing out that we don't only measure those claiming benefits, the Claimont Count. The Labour Force Survey takes into account everybody and thus it is impossible to manipulate the figures to win voters. Unemployment has decreased and we are close to full employment. These are facts again. The economy is in a good state, there are many other thinsg to moan about this government or but Brown's Economics have been brilliant. Deal With it. 136251[/snapback] It doesnt cost much to buy a phone tricky. the government didnt lower interest rates so we could buy them, that argument is somewhat childish thinking. There are approximately 2 million people cliaming sick benefit, that otherwise would be classed as unemployed. blair has admitted this, meaning unemployment is no different to when he came to power. Mobile phone networks have encouraged possibly a million jobs, and blair gets the credit.
Guest Posted 12 July 2005 Posted 12 July 2005 Mobile phone networks have encouraged possibly a million jobs, and blair gets the credit. 136853[/snapback] Blimey! Seeing as there are 55 million inhabitants, that's a huge percentage working for mobile phone compnies!
TrickyTrev Posted 12 July 2005 Posted 12 July 2005 It doesnt cost much to buy a phone tricky. the government didnt lower interest rates so we could buy them, that argument is somewhat childish thinking. I didn't say they reduced interest rates to buy mobile phones! They reduced interest rates so we would buy things! That is why governments reduce interest rates. Mobile phones are just an example of a luxury good that have been consumed a lot recently. There are approximately 2 million people cliaming sick benefit, that otherwise would be classed as unemployed As I have already pointed out (3 times). Unemployment is down whether you look at the number of people claiming benefits or not. It has nothing to do with cynical manipulation. The economy is doing well and there are lots of jobs available. I would also add that the vast majority of those 2 million probably are genuinly sick. You have to have a good reason to claim benefits in this country and it is not an easy system to maipulate. I don't know why you think the government would want people claimign sick benfit? It costs them money and means we are under utilising our potential labour force. Mobile phone networks have encouraged possibly a million jobs Bollocks.
lush Posted 12 July 2005 Posted 12 July 2005 Mobile phone networks have encouraged possibly a million jobs, and blair gets the credit. 136853[/snapback] Blimey! Seeing as there are 55 million inhabitants, that's a huge percentage working for mobile phone compnies! 136863[/snapback] Im always garaunteed a laugh with you, thanks
lush Posted 12 July 2005 Posted 12 July 2005 I didn't say they reduced interest rates to buy mobile phones! They reduced interest rates so we would buy things! That is why governments reduce interest rates. Mobile phones are just an example of a luxury good that have been consumed a lot recently.As I have already pointed out (3 times). Unemployment is down whether you look at the number of people claiming benefits or not. It has nothing to do with cynical manipulation. The economy is doing well and there are lots of jobs available. I would also add that the vast majority of those 2 million probably are genuinly sick. You have to have a good reason to claim benefits in this country and it is not an easy system to maipulate. I don't know why you think the government would want people claimign sick benfit? It costs them money and means we are under utilising our potential labour force. Mobile phone networks have encouraged possibly a million jobs Bollocks. 136871[/snapback] Ok, so because we could easily buy phones, that encouraged hundreds of thousands of jobs-to a million or maybe more, gordon marxist brown didnt ```make things happen```. Oh come on dude, the REASON the unemployment figures are ```down```, is because they moved alot of them over to sick benefit, blair SAID so himself. `genuinely sick`, so upto 2 million people suddenly became sick, what, did they get sick of looking for work LET ME TELL YOU, IT IS A FACKING DODDLE TO CLAIM SICK BENEFIT, A PIECE OF PIZZZZZZZ The goverment want VOTES!!! They dont give a flying who votes, as long as they keep their highly paid jobs. It DOESNT cost them money, it costs US money to put people on the sick, TAXES.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.