Brexit related recession?
Discussion
///ajd said:
We got there in the end. I notice he calls people an idiot when you prove him wrong.
I'm sure that you think I've been proved wrong, but we know most of what you think is nonsense.Having said that, I never expected you to be suppporting Labour's economic (mis)management!!
///adj said:
Similar happened on the famous train thread where he just couldn't let it go.
I see he is also very sensitive over any criticism of the banking crisis and how that was all everyone else but the banks fault.
Except I've said no such thing and anyone that claimed I did would be an idiot for saying so, as my position (quite different to your claims) has been made crystal clear on numerous occasions.I see he is also very sensitive over any criticism of the banking crisis and how that was all everyone else but the banks fault.
///adj said:
I see that the taxpayer has just nearly broken even with Lloyds after nearly a decade of propping it up with our billions.
The story at RBS is not quite so rosy where billions of our money is still not reflected in the value of that bank.
It is also interesting to see two camps of brexiteer emerge - and sometimes they even get themselves mixed up.
And? Is anyone claiming there was no cost?The story at RBS is not quite so rosy where billions of our money is still not reflected in the value of that bank.
It is also interesting to see two camps of brexiteer emerge - and sometimes they even get themselves mixed up.
///adj said:
Camp A - Sidicks is a member - is in the everything is rosy, no downturn, might be tax cuts not increases, etc. nothing to see here
Except I've said no such thing - once again it's not clear whether you are deliberately misrepresenting things or just an idiot who can't read??///adj said:
Camp B - as on another thread - we all knew there would be hardship, don't mind a decade of being hard up if we get our sovereignty etc.
Both camps are very touchy about any bad news though. The insults against anyone daring to mention it are quite telling.
Simply laughable, as everBoth camps are very touchy about any bad news though. The insults against anyone daring to mention it are quite telling.
Suggest you stick to posting the nonsense about what you believe and not pretending other people have different beliefs than they actually do!
PH XKR said:
WTF are you on about slasher? What famous train thread?
Long story, but the short summary is that I was trying to clarify the diffeeence between xenophobia (i.e. Anti-foreigners regardless of race etc) and racism (while making it unambiguously clear that neither were acceptable), but, in his usual way ///adj was desperate to make me out to be a racist.sidicks said:
PH XKR said:
WTF are you on about slasher? What famous train thread?
Long story, but the short summary is that I was trying to clarify the diffeeence between xenophobia (i.e. Anti-foreigners regardless of race etc) and racism (while making it unambiguously clear that neither were acceptable), but, in his usual way ///adj was desperate to make me out to be a racist.The inference was that Sidicks implied xenophobia "was not as bad as" racism.
Then spent 30+ pages explaining why he didn't say that and the 50 other posters (not just me) who thought he implied that were wrong.
It was absolutely beyond parody - and of course revealing.
sidicks said:
PH XKR said:
WTF are you on about slasher? What famous train thread?
Long story, but the short summary is that I was trying to clarify the diffeeence between xenophobia (i.e. Anti-foreigners regardless of race etc) and racism (while making it unambiguously clear that neither were acceptable), but, in his usual way ///adj was desperate to make me out to be a racist.You simply cannot say something like "Africa has been unable to govern itself successfully since the fall of colonial rule" without it being twisted to "blacks are incapable of ruling a country" which is something completely different to what is being said.
///ajd said:
It is worth finding.
The inference was that Sidicks implied xenophobia "was not as bad as" racism.
I think many sensible people would agree that a phobia (ie fear of something, whether irrational or otherwise) is much less of a problem than racism which actually implies more of an active and harmful prejudice.The inference was that Sidicks implied xenophobia "was not as bad as" racism.
But of course I condemned both, despite what you'd like to pretend.
sidicks said:
///ajd said:
It is worth finding.
The inference was that Sidicks implied xenophobia "was not as bad as" racism.
I think many sensible people would agree that a phobia (ie fear of something, whether irrational or otherwise) is much less of a problem than racism which actually implies more of an active and harmful prejudice.The inference was that Sidicks implied xenophobia "was not as bad as" racism.
But of course I condemned both, despite what you'd like to pretend.
In the context of the train thread, this means you ARE trying to say the hate filled attack was not so bad - or "much less of a problem" to use your words - as it was based on her being "a foreigner" rather than of a different race.
Given that she was actually from Glasgow but "brown" in the eyes of the attacker, such a position is absurd. What on earth were you actually trying to defend?
And you keep moaning that people are pulled up for these things - if you don't like it, stop creating so much material to comment on!
///ajd said:
Amazing - so you are drawing a distinction.
In the context of the train thread, this means you ARE trying to say the hate filled attack was not so bad - or "much less of a problem" to use your words - as it was based on her being "a foreigner" rather than of a different race.
Given that she was actually from Glasgow but "brown" in the eyes of the attacker, such a position is absurd. What on earth were you actually trying to defend?
And you keep moaning that people are pulled up for these things - if you don't like it, stop creating so much material to comment on!
No I'm saying no such thing. In the context of the train thread, this means you ARE trying to say the hate filled attack was not so bad - or "much less of a problem" to use your words - as it was based on her being "a foreigner" rather than of a different race.
Given that she was actually from Glasgow but "brown" in the eyes of the attacker, such a position is absurd. What on earth were you actually trying to defend?
And you keep moaning that people are pulled up for these things - if you don't like it, stop creating so much material to comment on!
As I explained at the time, there can be a difference but there wasn't in that particular case.
You keep trying to pretend I meant something else than I actually meant if it helps you address your other 'issues'.
sidicks said:
///ajd said:
Amazing - so you are drawing a distinction.
In the context of the train thread, this means you ARE trying to say the hate filled attack was not so bad - or "much less of a problem" to use your words - as it was based on her being "a foreigner" rather than of a different race.
Given that she was actually from Glasgow but "brown" in the eyes of the attacker, such a position is absurd. What on earth were you actually trying to defend?
And you keep moaning that people are pulled up for these things - if you don't like it, stop creating so much material to comment on!
No I'm saying no such thing. In the context of the train thread, this means you ARE trying to say the hate filled attack was not so bad - or "much less of a problem" to use your words - as it was based on her being "a foreigner" rather than of a different race.
Given that she was actually from Glasgow but "brown" in the eyes of the attacker, such a position is absurd. What on earth were you actually trying to defend?
And you keep moaning that people are pulled up for these things - if you don't like it, stop creating so much material to comment on!
As I explained at the time, there can be a difference but there wasn't in that particular case.
You keep trying to pretend I meant something else than I actually meant if it helps you address your other 'issues'.
Of the following two statements, slasher would call one of them racist:
The rapist was a white male in his mid 30s, approximately 6' tall.
The rapist was a black male in his mid 30s, approximately 6' tall.
sidicks said:
zygalski said:
Well I might not be the Mr Fancy-pants economist you are, but I do know a hypocrite when I see one.
You keep saying so, but yet you keep claiming I've said something other what I've actually said - it's no wonder you are confused.Suggest you stick to something you actually understand?!
I think I've established the following. Please let me know if I'm misrepresenting your views....
You believe that Labour government deeply damaged the UK economy during the years 1997-2010.
You believe that economic lag is a proven effect of previous governments on present administrations.
You think the UK economy has done rather well in comparison to many of its competitors since 2010.
Seems to me your position doesn't stand up to much scrutiny.
zygalski said:
sidicks said:
zygalski said:
Well I might not be the Mr Fancy-pants economist you are, but I do know a hypocrite when I see one.
You keep saying so, but yet you keep claiming I've said something other what I've actually said - it's no wonder you are confused.Suggest you stick to something you actually understand?!
I think I've established the following. Please let me know if I'm misrepresenting your views....
You believe that Labour government deeply damaged the UK economy during the years 1997-2010.
You believe that economic lag is a proven effect of previous governments on present administrations.
You think the UK economy has done rather well in comparison to many of its competitors since 2010.
Seems to me your position doesn't stand up to much scrutiny.
PH XKR said:
zygalski said:
sidicks said:
zygalski said:
Well I might not be the Mr Fancy-pants economist you are, but I do know a hypocrite when I see one.
You keep saying so, but yet you keep claiming I've said something other what I've actually said - it's no wonder you are confused.Suggest you stick to something you actually understand?!
I think I've established the following. Please let me know if I'm misrepresenting your views....
You believe that Labour government deeply damaged the UK economy during the years 1997-2010.
You believe that economic lag is a proven effect of previous governments on present administrations.
You think the UK economy has done rather well in comparison to many of its competitors since 2010.
Seems to me your position doesn't stand up to much scrutiny.
I'm talking about our overall economic performance vs our competitors. You're picking & choosing criteria to suit your needs.
It seems obvious to me that the Labour government didn't damage the UK economy in the way many on here suggest it did.
I remember seeing many posts on PH suggesting we'd be in recession for a decade when the Tories won in 2010. Didn't happen. Typical right wing nutter economic propaganda swallowed by the sheep that inhabit this forum.
zygalski said:
Irrelevant.
I'm talking about our overall economic performance vs our competitors. You're picking & choosing criteria to suit your needs.
It seems obvious to me that the Labour government didn't damage the UK economy in the way many on here suggest it did.
I remember seeing many posts on PH suggesting we'd be in recession for a decade when the Tories won in 2010. Didn't happen. Typical right wing nutter economic propaganda swallowed by the sheep that inhabit this forum.
I'm sure that plenty of people with no clue whatsoever believe that a structural deficit of £150bn is the sign of a well run economy!I'm talking about our overall economic performance vs our competitors. You're picking & choosing criteria to suit your needs.
It seems obvious to me that the Labour government didn't damage the UK economy in the way many on here suggest it did.
I remember seeing many posts on PH suggesting we'd be in recession for a decade when the Tories won in 2010. Didn't happen. Typical right wing nutter economic propaganda swallowed by the sheep that inhabit this forum.
zygalski said:
You're the one who is being inconsistent.
I think I've established the following. Please let me know if I'm misrepresenting your views....
You believe that Labour government deeply damaged the UK economy during the years 1997-2010.
You believe that economic lag is a proven effect of previous governments on present administrations.
You think the UK economy has done rather well in comparison to many of its competitors since 2010.
Seems to me your position doesn't stand up to much scrutiny.
Seems to me that you don't understand much about the economic cycle, debt, deficits, QE, monetary and fiscal policy or 'austerity'.I think I've established the following. Please let me know if I'm misrepresenting your views....
You believe that Labour government deeply damaged the UK economy during the years 1997-2010.
You believe that economic lag is a proven effect of previous governments on present administrations.
You think the UK economy has done rather well in comparison to many of its competitors since 2010.
Seems to me your position doesn't stand up to much scrutiny.
But keep trying!!
sidicks said:
zygalski said:
You're the one who is being inconsistent.
I think I've established the following. Please let me know if I'm misrepresenting your views....
You believe that Labour government deeply damaged the UK economy during the years 1997-2010.
You believe that economic lag is a proven effect of previous governments on present administrations.
You think the UK economy has done rather well in comparison to many of its competitors since 2010.
Seems to me your position doesn't stand up to much scrutiny.
Seems to me that you don't understand much about the economic cycle, debt, deficits, QE, monetary and fiscal policy or 'austerity'.I think I've established the following. Please let me know if I'm misrepresenting your views....
You believe that Labour government deeply damaged the UK economy during the years 1997-2010.
You believe that economic lag is a proven effect of previous governments on present administrations.
You think the UK economy has done rather well in comparison to many of its competitors since 2010.
Seems to me your position doesn't stand up to much scrutiny.
But keep trying!!
It's lag when it suits & the economic cycle when it doesn't.
PH XKR said:
Its ok, sensible folk can see the distinction you were making.
Of the following two statements, slasher would call one of them racist:
The rapist was a white male in his mid 30s, approximately 6' tall.
The rapist was a black male in his mid 30s, approximately 6' tall.
Oh dear oh dear. I'd recommend you read the thread in question carefully before you start judging.Of the following two statements, slasher would call one of them racist:
The rapist was a white male in his mid 30s, approximately 6' tall.
The rapist was a black male in his mid 30s, approximately 6' tall.
zygalski said:
sidicks said:
zygalski said:
You're the one who is being inconsistent.
I think I've established the following. Please let me know if I'm misrepresenting your views....
You believe that Labour government deeply damaged the UK economy during the years 1997-2010.
You believe that economic lag is a proven effect of previous governments on present administrations.
You think the UK economy has done rather well in comparison to many of its competitors since 2010.
Seems to me your position doesn't stand up to much scrutiny.
Seems to me that you don't understand much about the economic cycle, debt, deficits, QE, monetary and fiscal policy or 'austerity'.I think I've established the following. Please let me know if I'm misrepresenting your views....
You believe that Labour government deeply damaged the UK economy during the years 1997-2010.
You believe that economic lag is a proven effect of previous governments on present administrations.
You think the UK economy has done rather well in comparison to many of its competitors since 2010.
Seems to me your position doesn't stand up to much scrutiny.
But keep trying!!
It's lag when it suits & the economic cycle when it doesn't.
Good job.
///ajd said:
zygalski said:
sidicks said:
zygalski said:
You're the one who is being inconsistent.
I think I've established the following. Please let me know if I'm misrepresenting your views....
You believe that Labour government deeply damaged the UK economy during the years 1997-2010.
You believe that economic lag is a proven effect of previous governments on present administrations.
You think the UK economy has done rather well in comparison to many of its competitors since 2010.
Seems to me your position doesn't stand up to much scrutiny.
Seems to me that you don't understand much about the economic cycle, debt, deficits, QE, monetary and fiscal policy or 'austerity'.I think I've established the following. Please let me know if I'm misrepresenting your views....
You believe that Labour government deeply damaged the UK economy during the years 1997-2010.
You believe that economic lag is a proven effect of previous governments on present administrations.
You think the UK economy has done rather well in comparison to many of its competitors since 2010.
Seems to me your position doesn't stand up to much scrutiny.
But keep trying!!
It's lag when it suits & the economic cycle when it doesn't.
Good job.
You clearly also fail to understand that the impact of various monetary and fiscal policies may have a minimal lag whereas the impact of other issues (e.g. A large structural deficit) might have much longer repercussions.
Edited by sidicks on Sunday 23 April 17:50
Racism......The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, ESPECIALLY so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.
Xenophobia........fear or hatred of foreigners, people from different cultures, or strangers: ... Fear and contempt of strangers or foreign peoples. ... An unreasonable fear, distrust, or hatred of strangers, foreigners, or anything perceived as foreign or different.
BOTH OF THE ABOVE ARE UNDESIRABLE .......
However if one was discussing if there was a difference between the two one might conclude there may well be.
Racism implies that a persons race SPECIFICALLY DETERMINES their inferiority or superiority to another persons race.
Xenophobia however does not imply superiority or inferiority between races and therefore could be taken as a personal point of view.
One might argue that one is entitled to ones point of view and that xenophobia was less destructive than racism.
Let's take a SILLY example.....A xenophobe might dislike his Asian neighbour,just because the smell of cooking curry upsets him,without any reference to superiority or inferiority between the races.
A racist believes that he ,a white European Christian, is superior to another person because he believes that his White European Christian heritage is always and in every way superior to that of an Asian,Jew,Muslim etc.
To be fair to white European Christians racism and xenophobia can exist and does between peoples of all colours and religions.
Xenophobia........fear or hatred of foreigners, people from different cultures, or strangers: ... Fear and contempt of strangers or foreign peoples. ... An unreasonable fear, distrust, or hatred of strangers, foreigners, or anything perceived as foreign or different.
BOTH OF THE ABOVE ARE UNDESIRABLE .......
However if one was discussing if there was a difference between the two one might conclude there may well be.
Racism implies that a persons race SPECIFICALLY DETERMINES their inferiority or superiority to another persons race.
Xenophobia however does not imply superiority or inferiority between races and therefore could be taken as a personal point of view.
One might argue that one is entitled to ones point of view and that xenophobia was less destructive than racism.
Let's take a SILLY example.....A xenophobe might dislike his Asian neighbour,just because the smell of cooking curry upsets him,without any reference to superiority or inferiority between the races.
A racist believes that he ,a white European Christian, is superior to another person because he believes that his White European Christian heritage is always and in every way superior to that of an Asian,Jew,Muslim etc.
To be fair to white European Christians racism and xenophobia can exist and does between peoples of all colours and religions.
Edited by avinalarf on Sunday 23 April 17:49
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff