Brexit related recession?
Discussion
avinalarf said:
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 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 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.
I know that, you know that, but ///adj will suggest something entirely different!
sidicks said:
///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.
JawKnee said:
You seem to think national debt running at over 90% of GDP is acceptable.
You don't understand the first thing about debt and deficit.Remind us which government spending Labour were proposing to get the deficit under control - was it the NHS or Education or Pensions or Benefits?
Edited by sidicks on Sunday 23 April 17:54
sidicks said:
JawKnee said:
You seem to think national debt running at over 90% of GDP is acceptable.
You don't understand the first thing about debt and deficit.Remind us which government spending Labour were proposing to get the deficit under control - was it the NHS or Education or Pensions or Benefits?
Edited by sidicks on Sunday 23 April 17:54
JawKnee said:
Most predictable and unoriginal post of the year award goes, yet again, to Sidicks. Stopped reading after "You don't understand..."
2nd most predictable post of the year goes to JawKnee making claims about the economy and demonstrating (once again) he doesn't have the first clue about the impact of spending, GDP and deficits on the accumulation of debt.Every time you post about debt and GDP you fully demonstrate that you don't understand a thing, which is the reason you never respond to the questions posed to you.
Q. Who caused the £150bn structural deficit inherited by the Coalition?
Q. What were Labour's plans to remove the deficit (immediately) and thus avoid debt continuing to increase year after year?
Q. Which of the key areas of spending would you have cut to address the deficit (NHS, Pensions, Education, Welfare, Defence)??
That's a start...
Edited by sidicks on Sunday 23 April 19:02
Don't be silly, the government and BoE have found a new wonder cure that ensures we'll NEVER have any kind of recession or economic downturn EVER again... whenever things start to look a bit iffy they just print off another few hundred billion and turn interest rates down another notch and hey presto everything is fine again, it's brilliant and works every time. What could possibly go wrong?
avinalarf said:
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.
I liked Kahn's analysis on Friday. To roughly paraphrase;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
There are people in some parts of the country who need immigration but don't like it. And people in other parts who need it and like it.
JawKnee said:
sidicks said:
///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.
sidicks said:
zygalski said:
He's mine now & I say leave him alone.
Aligning yourself with JawKnee makes perfect sense given you both share a total lack of knowledge about economics!zygalski said:
sidicks said:
zygalski said:
He's mine now & I say leave him alone.
Aligning yourself with JawKnee makes perfect sense given you both share a total lack of knowledge about economics!
cookie118 said:
PH XKR said:
Likes Fast Cars said:
PH XKR said:
sidicks said:
nadger said:
Of course, Britain hasn't benefitted from being part of the EU at all either!
At a cost.Bombadier - Derby, lost contract after Germans secretly funded Simens to run a bid at a loss
Rover - Needed govt intervention for support, illegal under EU rules, Rover bust. BMW, Porsche, VAG, PSA all supported by illegal loans. French never intended to pay loans back.
Britain has applied the EU rules the most rigorously over the years and it has been to our loss.
Again-any sources or evidence to back up the assertion above or the assertion about Siemens and the automakers?
king up big time with massive over-runs on other nuclear projects. Whenever Areva is mentioned so are French government bail-outs they have been given (State Aid). This is just one example, but it's one with which I'm very well acqauinted.Auto-makers have the subject for a number of years, again a lot press out there especially when investment decisions were being made for new production lines and factories.
Likes Fast Cars said:
I'm surprised no-one has mentioned Gordon "Goldie" Brown and his massive screw-up in shorting the gold reserves when prices were kicking around at the bottom end of the price curve 
I did, a few pages back but at least you are almost up to speed. Is it 2006 there 
PH XKR said:
But, but, but, under labour during the growth time we were given working tax credits. These are not like benfits, they don't make people into benefits addicts and they certainly don't help companies to force wages down at the cost of the tax payer subsidising them. Also under Labour we didn't sell off assets at a loss by announcing a mass sale directly ahead of selling off said assets nor did we see an invasive introduction of poorly managed private investment initiatives in local schooling and health. Also under labour we saw very little in the way of two illegal wars or the abandonment of the military covenant nor did we see the UK sign away its rights under an EU treaty that was renamed to avoid the question of a referendum, nor did we sign away our important veto's.
The tory bds.
The tory b
ds.zygalski said:
Well done for not answering the question.
If the economy was left in a shambles when Labour left office, how come the economy had +ve economic growth between 2010 & 2012? .
Following a decade of economic decline, and not forgetting hyperinflation during 2007–08, Zimbabwe’s economy started to grow in 2010. Presumably this was the result of the same level of economic genius which afflicts the UK Labour Party.If the economy was left in a shambles when Labour left office, how come the economy had +ve economic growth between 2010 & 2012? .
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff