« Previous | Main | Next »

AM Glass Box.

Post categories:

Eddie Mair | 04:52 UK time, Monday, 30 November 2009

glasssunrise1.JPG You may have read your morning paper and listened to the radio, and have some ideas you want to hear on PM tonight.

Perhaps a question about something in the news you would like answered - or better still, direct experience of something topical. Or maybe there's an aspect to a big story you haven't heard explored that you would like to hear.

The PM team will meet in a real glass box at 11am. Why not be part of the meeting by sharing your thoughts in this virtual glass box?

Comments

  • 1. At 07:01am on 30 Nov 2009, JAlexW wrote:

    Brown should be careful trying to blame the failure to capture Bin Laden on the Pakistani Government.

    He has obviously forgotten that Bush junior and his poodle Blair diverted resources to Iraq when they had not finished the job in Afghanistan and that is why we are still in Afghanistan today!

    Complain about this comment

  • 2. At 07:50am on 30 Nov 2009, steelpulse wrote:

    How are you, Mr Woods? I wished more people would ask same.
    "Tiger breaks silence!" was one headline - read on the Internet.
    Why? those words - breaks silence? It adds to the myth no? Of invincibility - not being - er - human? All made up of course by allegedly those who care more whether an alleged tiff with a loved one cause said mishap in motor car.
    So PM - just report the facts please and leave the suppositions to others.
    So would I pay for my news on the Internet - no! I am off to argue with someone else now. Stop The Press! lol
    Subject: Miss Pettigrew live a day
    Anagram: Tiger adapts - Smiley view
    Pettigrew? A film title viewed last night. Other films are available - was it George Sanders or Tom Conway in the Saint Meets the Tiger? Or was it never made - up? lol

    Complain about this comment

  • 3. At 08:15am on 30 Nov 2009, gossipmistress wrote:

    I have heard (unofficially) that another dog has killed a small child in the Northwest, and not of a breed covered by the Dangerous Dogs Act. We see people every day who keep potentially dangerous dogs and have no idea or refuse to accept that they could present a risk.

    Complain about this comment

  • 4. At 09:14am on 30 Nov 2009, Anne P wrote:

    gm (3) do you believe that bringing back dog licensing would solve the problem?

    Complain about this comment

  • 5. At 09:33am on 30 Nov 2009, Big Sister wrote:

    Anne (4): I don't think it's the dogs who should be licensed - it should be the owners ;o)

    Complain about this comment

  • 6. At 10:04am on 30 Nov 2009, Sid wrote:

    I think we ought to go back to the previous style of weather forecast. We may not have been listeneing, but the outcome was a damn sight better!

    Complain about this comment

  • 7. At 10:06am on 30 Nov 2009, CG wrote:

    When Nils Blythe turns up for work this evening, you can tell him from me that he put it a pretty poor effort, when, on Saturday, he tried to convince that financially neurotic wimp that gold wasn't all it's cracked up to be. I'm not impressed with Blythe at the best of times, but Saturday he excelled himself in his complete misunderstanding of economics.

    Complain about this comment

  • 8. At 10:15am on 30 Nov 2009, GotToTheEnd wrote:

    This is a new way to talk up markets:

    http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/q?s=%5EFTSE

    As of NOW, they've got the previous close as what is really Friday opening and today's opening as what is really Friday close.

    So for them instead of the market being 40 points down, it's 10 points up!

    No doubt it'll be corrected soon.

    Complain about this comment

  • 9. At 10:26am on 30 Nov 2009, Sid wrote:

    Should people who declare themselves foreigners for tax purposes be allowed to stand for parliament? (I'm thinking of Zac Goldsmith, well-known resident of the Cayman Islands.)

    Complain about this comment

  • 10. At 10:29am on 30 Nov 2009, GotToTheEnd wrote:

    Well, we don't know the details and I don't know the stats, but round here, the uglier the estate houses the tougher looking the people and their mutts.

    Did you see that arch Tory Roger Scrotam complaing about brutalist architecture, making brutes of us all (and the cut down cafe shack he thought wonderful!!!!(never mind!)).

    Couldn't bring himself to slum it on a 'sink' estate to point out how ugly the hutches we're suppposed to live in are, not fit for a dog, and how THAT ugliness, born of a refusal to fund councils properly and pay for good house designs via increased taxation, makes brutes of us all. And our dogs.

    Complain about this comment

  • 11. At 10:34am on 30 Nov 2009, lucien desgai wrote:

    9 Sid
    He's apparently already said that he'll revoke his non-dom status.
    The question is will he now pay back the tax that he would have paid during the period when he was non-domiciled?

    Complain about this comment

  • 12. At 11:28am on 30 Nov 2009, annasee wrote:

    GM, I did think of you when I heard the story on the news just now.

    I wonder if, in some sort of Utopia, there could ever be a system of licences for the owners of dogs, along the same idea as the driving licence. A test or interview before you got the licence & were allowed to own a dog. Where you had to give a realistic estimate of food costs for various types of dogs, vet's bills for various procedures, possible reproductive consequences for unspayed/ neutered animals, amount of exercise required, normal life expectancy etc. It wouldn't solve every problem, but it does seem to me that it's unfair that an animal's behaviour can be so totally in the hands of people who are not aware of the sometimes tragic consequences of not training and keeping a dog under control.

    Complain about this comment

  • 13. At 11:32am on 30 Nov 2009, Big Sister wrote:

    12: I agree! (see my 5 above)

    Complain about this comment

  • 14. At 11:50am on 30 Nov 2009, gossipmistress wrote:

    Re my (3) - I am incorrect in that the breed hasn't yet been established but otherwise correct

    Anne P (4) - I do believe that bringing back the licence would be a good first step. In Spain I think they also have to have 3rd party insurance for dogs greater than 30Kg - this would at least make Owners think twice about the possible consequences of owning a large dog. many people are simply unaware of the potential to cause harm when they buy a puppy, and if our practice if anything to go by, many people seem to buy puppies at the same time as having a baby or with small children in the house. Quite frankly, it's scarey.

    Complain about this comment

  • 15. At 11:51am on 30 Nov 2009, gossipmistress wrote:

    Annasee - agree entirely.

    Complain about this comment

  • 16. At 11:59am on 30 Nov 2009, Big Sister wrote:

    GM (14) but it isn't only large breeds that can cause serious damage (as I'm sure you already know). Terriers can be viscious and very persistent. I know it may, in theory, be easier to fight off a terrier, but they are very quick and can cause significant injuries.

    Of course, licensing and even compulsory insurance won't do more that reduce incidents given that those tough young men who like to have a staffie, or similar, to use as a weapon, would be unlikely to conform to any laws on the matter. Just as most guns used in shootings aren't licensed.

    Complain about this comment

  • 17. At 12:55pm on 30 Nov 2009, Hawk wrote:

    #2 Does Steelpulse come with subtitles???

    Complain about this comment

  • 18. At 1:11pm on 30 Nov 2009, GotToTheEnd wrote:

    The Ftse has fsllen below the psychologically important 5,200 mark, so undoing the Friday recovery, and so losing its poise, according to the Daily Telegraph's logic.

    Who knows, perhaps more real targets of the credit crash are emerging.

    Japanese, Indian and Chinese capitalisms are reslutely behaving themselves holding on to worthless UK and US IOUs. (China grumbling)

    The fear that the UAE (including Dubai) may refuse to hold UK and US Gilts in order to provide themselves with liquidity is haunting markets.

    However much did Friday's Ftse 'recovery' cost the BoE in Quantitative Dis-Easing money?

    Anyway, that's over now. (But why isn't the usual data supplier for Joe Public supplying trading volumes of figures?)

    Last week the exposure was supposed to be at Lloyds, then HSBC and RBS as per usual.


    Either way, it's a crash rather like the sub-prime one. This time perhaps there is less (even less in some cases!!!!) sympathy for the debtors' plight. But it will still cause unemployment among the poor, world wide, as its unemployment consequences spread.

    Complain about this comment

  • 19. At 1:14pm on 30 Nov 2009, GotToTheEnd wrote:

    And, I should add, the threat to depositors in loser banks if Dubai does default after all and the credit swop lossess/gains prove enormous.

    Complain about this comment

  • 20. At 1:15pm on 30 Nov 2009, eddiemair wrote:

    Thank you for the tip off Gossipmistress. We got onto it.

    Complain about this comment

  • 21. At 1:27pm on 30 Nov 2009, ukpahonta wrote:

    Now here's an interesting idea:

    A Government website allows users to vote on community service schemes for offenders aged between 10 and 17.

    The choices include cleaning graffiti, repairing vandalism and charity work.

    The Making Good scheme is being launched first in northwest England, and could go nationwide from early next year.

    Justice Secretary Jack Straw said: "Youth Crime, no matter how small, can wreck the lives of both victims and the young people involved.

    "Making Good will empower members of the public by giving them a say in how young offenders in their communities should make amends."

    Suggestions can be made at www.yjb.gov.uk/makinggood.

    I wonder if they would accept national service on the list.

    Complain about this comment

  • 22. At 1:43pm on 30 Nov 2009, U14138029 wrote:

    (18) Don't panic. At 13:39 the FTSE has risen above the psychologically important 5,200 mark. 5219.02 to be precise.

    Complain about this comment

  • 23. At 1:43pm on 30 Nov 2009, Sid wrote:

    EtE - a couple of weeks ago, 5,000 was the 'psychologically important' mark for the FTSE - now you say it's 5,200. Why?

    Complain about this comment

  • 24. At 1:47pm on 30 Nov 2009, Sid wrote:

    PF - jinx!

    Complain about this comment

  • 25. At 1:52pm on 30 Nov 2009, Fearless Fred wrote:

    I see also that the FTSE's back over the 'psychologically important' mark of 5200. General movements in the level of the FTSE or any other bourse during the day (precluding major swings due to exceptional circumstances) only really affect day-traders. For the hard workers who have invested in their company's pension scheme, then it is the trend of the bourse over the matter of months and years that is important. I'm sure, mac, that you would want those who have worked hard in their jobs (posties, assembly workers, teachers, nurses and the like) to be able to support themselves and have a reasonable quality of life after they retire, wouldn't you? Or are you actually a day-trader who likes to talk stocks up and down in order to benefit from short-term fluctuations?

    Complain about this comment

  • 26. At 2:05pm on 30 Nov 2009, Fearless Fred wrote:

    PF (22) Sid (23) Oops! I was obviously writing my post at the same time as you were writing yours ;-)

    Complain about this comment

  • 27. At 2:06pm on 30 Nov 2009, The Stainless Steel Cat wrote:

    EtE (18):

    I was just going to ask the same as Sid at (23). Perhaps you can post the next psychologically important mark ahead of time?

    Complain about this comment

  • 28. At 2:12pm on 30 Nov 2009, Sid wrote:

    EtE @ 10 - now that we can see photos of the buildings in question, I'd say you rather jumped the gun. I certainly wouldn't describe these as ugly, brutalist or sink estate houses. Would you?

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/8386023.stm

    Complain about this comment

  • 29. At 2:14pm on 30 Nov 2009, gossipmistress wrote:

    (20) Glad to be of service

    Big Sis (16) but small breeds such as terriers rarely, if ever, kill children. I take your point about the type of people who keep these dogs not conforming to getting a licence/insurance etc, but I think there are 2 obvious advantages. Firstly, it would give the police greater powers to remove the unregistered dogs. Secondly, we see a large number of people who are simply clearly ignorant of even the size of dog their cute puppy might grow into, let alone the possible risks it might pose. These people would at least be made to think twice about what dog they buy.

    The other aspect that frustrates me is that often focus is put onto whether this was actually a 'Dangerous Dog' ie one of the breeds banned under the Dangerous Dogs Act. Since it came into being, people have simply crossbred other large breeds to produce animals which are just as dangerous but not officially classifiable under the act. This dog killed a child - does it really matter exactly what breed it was?

    Complain about this comment

  • 30. At 2:18pm on 30 Nov 2009, Sid wrote:

    Further to my 28 ...

    It looks as though the Guardian let their prejudices show in the same way: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/nov/30/boy-killed-dog-attack

    Complain about this comment

  • 31. At 2:21pm on 30 Nov 2009, GotToTheEnd wrote:

    You think there's only one psychologically important number?


    I beleive in equal pensions for everyone. How can it be right to pay people different pensions in their 60s, 70s, 80s, depending on their social class?

    Pensioners spend their money on current goods produced by real people. If they're our responsibility we should pay for them. If we allcate them more, we must allocate ourselves less.

    The Ftse widows cruse disguises how little the majority of pensioners get.

    Life time income of posties, assembly workers etc is way, way, way below the average .

    Redistributive taxation would sort THAT out!

    Complain about this comment

  • 32. At 2:24pm on 30 Nov 2009, Sid wrote:

    EtE ...

    I suspect most of us just think they're numbers. You're the person who says they are important - I was just wondering why?

    Complain about this comment

  • 33. At 2:25pm on 30 Nov 2009, steelpulse wrote:

    Number 17. leohawk. Yes I do - have a subtitled version of my posts. The subtitled version say exactly what I mean to say but after several years of being monitored off this site - I removed them. But looking at that post above - what is not to understand?
    I detest the Media's fascination with the unimportant facts in a story. There was a car accident seemingly. Celebrities have car accidents too but the first port of call to too many Red Tops etc was - and is where is the scandal? Especially if said celeb is off limits to them mostly.
    Third or fourth party names are mentioned - I could care less about even in my newspaper - which allegedly isn't a Red Top. Enough clarity?
    Oh and allegedly Tiger Woods speaking through lawyers and allegedly further delaying talking to the police isn't really helping himself but hey! I speak for myself mostly.

    Complain about this comment

  • 34. At 2:25pm on 30 Nov 2009, Sid wrote:

    ... and while we're here, I think that someone who works longer or harder deserves more income and a bigger pension than someone who works fewer years or less hard.

    Complain about this comment

  • 35. At 2:27pm on 30 Nov 2009, Sid wrote:

    steelpulse - if all your posts were as clear as this, I'd read them.

    Complain about this comment

  • 36. At 2:29pm on 30 Nov 2009, Big Sister wrote:

    29: I don't disagree with anything you say, GM, but I'm still not sure that licensing dogs is the answer. I tend to prefer the licensing the owner route as this puts the onus fairly and squarely upon them to ensure that (1) they have a dog whose character won't get them into trouble and (2) that they will reap any consequences. Also, when there are more than one dogs in a household, I think it can be useful for them to be linked by a personal licence.

    Incidentally, I've gleaned the following information from the Liverpool Echo website. Neighbours have described the dog in this particular attack as being a bull-terrier or mastiff-type animal, and furthermore the dog is believed to have belonged to the child's uncle, who had just started a career in the army. This has resonances to another dog attack, where the dog was being looked after by family members, a situation in which many dogs won't be feeling at ease and where, quite possibly, they are in very close proximity to children with which they aren't familiar. I'm not excusing anything, by the way, just looking at the context.

    Dog licensing didn't stop this kind of thing from happening (well, we know nothing will rule it out entirely), and I'm not sure that my suggestion is any better, but I do think there needs to be a proper review and discussion about what system might lead to less such attacks. A good starting point will be not to concentrate on specific breeds to the detriment of others, and in particular to cross bred dogs. But above all I think the penalties for irresponsible behaviour on the part of owners have to be looked at. Or, perhaps, it may be that consideration has to be given to muzzling all dogs, except under very particular (and rare) circumstances? That sounds draconian, I know, but, but ...

    Complain about this comment

  • 37. At 2:32pm on 30 Nov 2009, Sid wrote:

    Big Sis - you're right. What this shows is the inadequacy of the Dangerous Dogs Act (which I recall at the time many people said was unworkable).

    Complain about this comment

  • 38. At 2:33pm on 30 Nov 2009, U14138029 wrote:

    Sid (34) - Ah, come on Sid - that's very selfish. Personally, I'm putting money into my pension fund with the expresss intention of sharing it with whoever Mac/EtE thinks should get it! Blimey, I might even ask them to come and live with me. - may as well feed them while I'm at it.

    Complain about this comment

  • 39. At 2:33pm on 30 Nov 2009, steelpulse wrote:

    Sid - if all my posts were as clear as that - there would be NONE at all for you to read. None - I promise you! Two words. Libel Laws - allegedly. OK 3 words! lol

    Complain about this comment

  • 40. At 2:35pm on 30 Nov 2009, Sid wrote:

    steelpulse - can't you post stuff that isn't libellous?

    Complain about this comment

  • 41. At 2:40pm on 30 Nov 2009, Sid wrote:

    PF - stuff Mac - send it to me!

    Complain about this comment

  • 42. At 2:41pm on 30 Nov 2009, lucien desgai wrote:

    I do admire people who can laugh at their own jokes. lol.

    Complain about this comment

  • 43. At 2:50pm on 30 Nov 2009, steelpulse wrote:

    Sid. Now that is a fascinating discussion point.
    I said libel laws - not libellous posts. Well hopefully NOT the latter.
    When does exploring your own life become libel against a second or third party? Freedom of Information - your (or my) information become encroachment on someone elses rights or Freedom to their information?
    I have had three other user names on these sites - in those four years - the first was my real name - and the whole history is on the WWW.
    But I will wait - until certain people get over themselves and an adult discussion can take place on things disagreed on.
    Subject: a river ran through it - sunday best sport
    Anagram: bystanders pouts - Heart! Vain hurt rigor

    Complain about this comment

  • 44. At 4:34pm on 30 Nov 2009, Sid wrote:

    steelpulse: libel laws are only relevant if your posts are libellous.

    Your anagram is, as usual, unfathomable.

    Complain about this comment

  • 45. At 4:43pm on 30 Nov 2009, U14138029 wrote:

    I'm going to try this anagram lark. Now let's see:

    Subject: I'm going to try this anagram lark.
    Anagram: Garth Mitt got rank salami in orgy.

    Complain about this comment

  • 46. At 4:53pm on 30 Nov 2009, Lord Nathan wrote:

    Has anyone considered how much might be gained by getting rid of all pets above, say 5Kg? Since most of our pets live better than half the world's children, isn't this an attractive idea?

    Complain about this comment

  • 47. At 4:55pm on 30 Nov 2009, U14138029 wrote:

    Milord - How much does a Jack Russell weigh? I think you might get yourself into trouble!

    Complain about this comment

  • 48. At 4:58pm on 30 Nov 2009, Lord Nathan wrote:

    Depends upon the Jack Russell. Personally, I would prefer a 1Kg limit, but I was being generous.

    Complain about this comment

  • 49. At 5:02pm on 30 Nov 2009, U14138029 wrote:

    Subject: How much does a Jack Russell weigh?
    Anagram: Whoa! Such a slick jewel. Shrug mode!

    Complain about this comment

  • 50. At 5:30pm on 30 Nov 2009, DoctorDolots wrote:

    46. Lord Nathan - get rid of your own pets. Mind your own business with others. Both of my dogs are over your ludicrous suggested weight, and they are beautiful, sensitive, companionable and entirely non-aggressive animals.

    No, it's an extremely unattractive idea, especially when you think how many hominids are now crowding out all other species on the planet and how humans wiped out the wolf from so many areas.

    If others can't afford to feed their children properly perhaps they should not have children? That would be an attractive idea.

    Complain about this comment

  • 51. At 5:34pm on 30 Nov 2009, mittfh wrote:

    Regarding the design of the estate up in Wavertree, I just had a peek at it using the online mapping site that offers oblique aerial photos (hint: rhymes with Ding!). That particular street is a mix of modern flats, interwar semis and interwar terraces. Perhaps rather ominously is what appears to be the remains of a church in the neighbouring street of Ashfield...

    Regarding the dogs themselves, simply classifying a breed as "Dangerous" is completely erroneous. Take Rottweilers for example - commonly portrayed as vicious guard dogs, but I've met several that are very docile and friendly. A size limit's also completely pointless - the vast majority of assistance dogs would come above it, and I don't think the relevant organisations would appreciate Labs, Retrievers, Collies and Spaniels being banned.

    As for the resources they consume, for large dogs it's far more economical to feed them dry mix (with perhaps a few leftover vegetables from the family's meal added - although for obvious reasons save them on a saucer and feed the dog after the humans) than tins. The dry mix may not look as appetising, but the dog doesn't mind and it probably contains far less fat.

    Larger dogs also convey benefits to their humans - they provide a convenient excuse to get out of the house for an hour's walk each day, regardless of weather conditions! Let's face it, if you didn't have a dog, would you voluntarily go for an hour's walk in the cold, or in pouring rain? Thought not...

    Obviously no scheme would eliminate 'black market' breeding, but as has been suggested earlier, perhaps if the KC (and any other relevant organisations) could establish a framework for interviewing potential buyers to ensure that they're aware of the responsibilities of dog ownership before they commit to the purchase.

    For example the cute "Andrex puppy" will soon grow into a full-sized "Marley" whose tail could be regarded as a WMD (trust me, when they're happy their tail wags all over the place, knocking any loose objects flying - and of course they're blissfully unaware of what's happening 3ft behind their head!) - en-route going through a mad chewing phase (not even walls are safe...)
    Eventually, if treated right, dogs will usually adapt to your daily routine - although at 9yrs old Bessie will still sometimes decide that she'd rather you played with her in the evenings rather than crash out in front of the TV...mercifully a few gentle throws of an indoor ball, or a few dozen laps around the dining room table will usually settle her.

    Complain about this comment

  • 52. At 5:37pm on 30 Nov 2009, gossipmistress wrote:

    Big Sis - I can confirm it was pretty large.

    I believe (I haven't checked this though) that the spanish system does include owner 'testing' so it is basically the owner who is licensed. I think ANY system is better than the complete lack of regulation we have presently!

    As for the Dangerous Dogs Act, well I've waffled on here far too much about that in the past. During the last 'amnesty' we had large Staffordshire Bull terrier types condemned to die with their owners in tears while an almost exactly similar dog in the next kennel was in for routine neutering. All seemed very unfair and not solving very much at all.

    Complain about this comment

  • 53. At 5:43pm on 30 Nov 2009, DoctorDolots wrote:

    The argument about breeds is silly, I knew a German Shepherd who was attacked by two Jack Russels while out walking past their garden and had to be put to sleep, his injuries were so bad. 90% of dog owners are responsible and caring, fully aware of potential dangers and insured, or rich enough not to need to be. The problem is with the ignorant and brutish, and they mistreat dogs even if they don't want to use them for fighting. Many are ill fed and abused by way of 'training' All the time the consideration is about humans; danger to, risk of injury, inconvenience, etc. very little about the animal and ITS needs.

    But the real problem is the breeders who continue to breed for profit and the result is a surplus of dogs, with rescue centres trying to cope with all the abandoned dogs - some are just left tied to trees, others left outside the centre, and they are the lucky ones. Thousands of greyhounds are slaughtered annually as unfit for purpose; at the tender age of three they are past their racing life and many are just shot or clubbed to death.

    No media excitemnet about this disgrace of course, reserve that for one child killed. As tragic as that is, does it really merit a major police 'incident' with streets blocked off and dozens of police cars in the area? Or do the police have so little to do that they just dash to anywhere that might provide a bit of excitement. And pardon my cynicism over the police spokeman saying they had to assess the dog's state and decided it had to be killed. That's always the police' first response, a dog snarls at someone, shoot it.

    National of dog lovers? Hah!

    Complain about this comment

  • 54. At 7:38pm on 30 Nov 2009, GotToTheEnd wrote:

    Sid. My point still stands.

    Those terraced places look very small.

    Round here, it takes families time to adjuist to new circumstances.

    People whose creative and critical aggressions (in the Storr sense) are not allowed their legitimate ethical expressions, turn it on the wrong people in the wrong way.

    Etc.

    While we're here: laziness etc have always been curable conditions to my mind.

    PF Why bother with specualtive booms. Just divi everything up equally, you, your employees, the wretched of the earth - everyone.

    I must say your plan sounds like one of those ideas in a Cohne Bros film. If we take all the world's money and use it to inflate the stock markets, and that equity to inflate it again, and so on, and so on, and then divide it out equally, we'd all wind up as rich as Croesus, with no effort or increased production, at all.


    Something for nothing in the widow's cruse Ftse world is only possible if someone else becomes even worse off.

    Nice thought though, PF. Thanks.

    Both: Its psychologically significant if market participants gain or lose confidence as the indices approach or cross that line.
    What is and isn't changes with time.


    I thought you two had got it by now that markets are IRRATIONAL!!!!!!

    Complain about this comment

  • 55. At 7:44pm on 30 Nov 2009, lucien desgai wrote:

    I have to say that those houses look very big and sumptuous when compared with my piddly little studio flat. Depends on what you're used to, I suppose.

    Complain about this comment

  • 56. At 7:51pm on 30 Nov 2009, Sid wrote:

    "Sid. My point still stands."

    No, it doesn't. Your point was that ugly, brutal surroundings will produce ugly, brutal people with ugly, brutal dogs. The fact that these surroundings are not ugly and brutal destroys your point entirely.

    Complain about this comment

  • 57. At 7:53pm on 30 Nov 2009, Sid wrote:

    "While we're here: laziness etc have always been curable conditions to my mind."

    So the state is going to fix the lazy people, is it? Make us all work exactly the same amount, so we all deserve exactly the same cut of the cake? I hope I'm not around when your utopia arrives.

    (Worth checking the meaning of utopia, by the way.)



    Complain about this comment

  • 58. At 8:26pm on 30 Nov 2009, GeeDeeSea wrote:

    @Stainless #27

    "Perhaps you can post the next psychologically important mark ahead of time?"

    5000 or 5400. But which? It kinda takes the fun out if we knew ahead of time.

    Complain about this comment

  • 59. At 9:04pm on 30 Nov 2009, GeeDeeSea wrote:

    @Sid #9

    Should people who declare themselves...living in a different home...for tax purposes be allowed to stand for parliament? (I'm thinking of home flippers, well known to The Daily Telegraph.)
    #;+)

    Complain about this comment

  • 60. At 9:09pm on 30 Nov 2009, nikki noodle wrote:

    @42

    hahahahahaha!!!!

    Complain about this comment

  • 61. At 9:36pm on 30 Nov 2009, U14138029 wrote:

    This thread has just passed through the psychologically important 60 post mark.

    EtE (54) - I have a plan? News to me!

    Remember this from one of your former aliases??
    "28. At 11:58am on 25 Mar 2009, U13879388 wrote:
    FTSE heading south as usual. Soon back to the low three thousands."


    You got that 100% wrong, didn't you? It has been a pretty steady climb since 25th March value of 3900. Want to bet that by the end of the week the FTSE won't be nearer 5300 than 5200?

    Complain about this comment

  • 62. At 00:55am on 01 Dec 2009, GotToTheEnd wrote:

    PF:
    Up or down, how CAN it be a good way to determine the distribution of wealth?

    Since the Ftse is supposed to be an evaluation of our capital stock, inflating or deflating it for any other purpose than to change that evaluation must be wrong. The booms and crashes in the Ftse are just misrepresentations of the true value of the capital stock of the 100 firms. (That, incidentally, is not the job of a roulette wheel but of a small number of competent honest accountants)


    The BoE had just pumped the best part of three billion into the economy.


    The only way this has worked as a policy is in creating the present speculative bubble you refer to.


    The immorality, imprudence and instability of such bubbles and the political usefulness to capital itself of a credit crash and recovery is what allowed me correctly to predict the crash of October last year.

    I had thought that the experience of the crash would lead us to reconsider the value of such booms and busts.

    Evidently not. And whilst Japan, China and India hold on to our worthless IOUs and so overprice them (so that their only possible price change is a fall in their value) all financial institutions willingly sell them to Mervyn at full price and use the cash to inflate the stock market.

    Even that and 200 billion of Quantitative Dis-Easing money, doesn't keep the Ftse from going straight up as the last fortnight has shown.

    Will there be another crash? Yes, certainly. Alan-Greenspin-guaranteed.


    When?

    Well, I'd say next year, whether Izza Cameron? is in power or not. Will the Ftse go back down to the low three thousands? It's only too possible.

    I had thought, as had, perhaps, U13879388, that the crunch would continue in March. I'd reckoned without Obama's political credibility at that time and hoped against hope that Japan, China and India would free themselves of the post-imperial shackles of economic dependency and of downright military threat and destruction, and tell the UK and the US what they can do with their useless IOUs.
    Then, with the absurd finance industry properly evaluated, the Ftse would be lucky to get into the 3,000s, no matter how many Gilts Mervyn bought.

    In the Equal Society the gains or losses that gambling on the stock exchange result in would be shared equally by us all, and so the gambling in the first place would be pointless.

    And so my points to you in 54 still stand.

    In the Equal Society every penny above the average you receive in income and in wealth would be taxed back. Yuo would be subsidised for every penny under those average figures.
    As do the ones to Sid:

    p implies q (My claim)

    q and ~p (Your assertion which, let's take to be true)

    But q and ~p does NOT imply ~(p implies q).

    For ~(p implies q) to be shoiwn to be true we need to have p and ~q.

    Instead, as I say, we have, at best for your perspective, q and ~p.


    Sid, how CAN you believe that laziness is not a pathological condition?


    To you both:

    In their best endeavours, everyone's foolishnesses and their clevernesses are the best attempt each can make. Their energy and their idleness. Their bravery and their cowardice. Certainly their cunning and their naivity. And so their successes and failures. Why should any of them have to suffer or benefit more than any other for the positions at which, in these and every such continuum between polar opposites, their very being has placed them.

    Complain about this comment

  • 63. At 09:02am on 01 Dec 2009, Sid wrote:

    EtE: three short questions ...

    1) Will the state cure laziness when your utopia comes to pass?

    2) Why should people who work more not earn more than people who work less?

    3) Why is 5200 a psychologically important number? Which other numbers are psychologically important?

    Three short answers please.

    Complain about this comment

  • 64. At 09:15am on 01 Dec 2009, Sid wrote:

    EtE: your logic does not stand up, principally because your claim was not 'p implies q' but 'q implies p'.

    You said "the uglier the estate houses the tougher looking the people and their mutts." (p implies q)

    Your assumption was that because these people had a dangerous dog, they must live on a sink estate. (q implies p)

    Your point therefore falls, by your own logic.

    And yes, I did study symbolic logic at university.



    Complain about this comment

  • 65. At 09:22am on 01 Dec 2009, GeeDeeSea wrote:

    @Sid #63

    "3) Why is 5200 a psychologically important number? Which other numbers are psychologically important?"

    Thats easy. Even I know that. Its every 100 points. 4800, 4900, 5000, 5100, 5200, 5300, 5400. They say it all the time on the news. And in the press. And online. And on FM. And on digital.

    Complain about this comment

  • 66. At 10:11am on 01 Dec 2009, davmcn wrote:

    How about using p)q or q)p if you can't use the real symbol? Now let's see, is that Modus Ponens, Modus Tollens, Hypothetical Syllogism, Disjunctive Syllogism, Constructive Dilemma, Absorption or something else from my Introduction to Logic book? Yes Sid, others here might have taken a course in logic. Of course, we can all Google to look intelligent as well.

    Complain about this comment

  • 67. At 1:16pm on 01 Dec 2009, GeeDeeSea wrote:

    Sailing in Iran. Sailing in Somalia. Hiking in Iran. Hiking in North Korea. Are these people mad? Whos up for orienteering in Afghanistan?
    #;+)

    Complain about this comment

  • 68. At 1:27pm on 01 Dec 2009, U14138029 wrote:

    The FTSE is heading up to the psychologically important 5,300 mark.

    Complain about this comment

  • 69. At 1:32pm on 01 Dec 2009, Fearless Fred wrote:

    Haven't you noticed, Preston, that it's already broken through the psychologically important 5275 mark! ;-)

    Complain about this comment

  • 70. At 1:55pm on 01 Dec 2009, lucien desgai wrote:

    In fairness to Ete i think he is just attempting to mock the over-referencing by financial journalists of ever-shifting 'psychological' markers. I suspect that it's intended as a joke although, as with most jokes, it's only really funny the first time you hear it.

    Complain about this comment

  • 71. At 1:57pm on 01 Dec 2009, Idcam wrote:

    Anyone know what the Official Psychologically Importance Level for the FTSE is now? I note it was 5,000, then someone mention 5,200, now Preston Firmlie writes it is 5,300.

    Was it ever 5,218? 5,246.3712? When will it be 5,341.093?

    Just curious.

    Complain about this comment

  • 72. At 1:59pm on 01 Dec 2009, Idcam wrote:

    Oops! I see Fearless Fred got their first! ;)

    Complain about this comment

  • 73. At 2:04pm on 01 Dec 2009, Idcam wrote:

    Oh. And a zillion others.

    I really must remember to read through all the posts before adding my two bits!



    Complain about this comment

  • 74. At 2:06pm on 01 Dec 2009, U14138029 wrote:

    BBC News site - "(Noon): The market rose on Tuesday as worries over the debt situation in Dubai eased.

    The FTSE 100 was up 90.4 points, or 1.7%, at 5,281.08, with mining firms and banks among the top gainers."

    Complain about this comment

  • 75. At 2:15pm on 01 Dec 2009, GotToTheEnd wrote:

    64 Thank you for your interest

    Again, if I say the more cigarettes you smoke the worse your lung cancer, you can still have lung cancer and never have smoked.


    PF and FF thank you (and your dividends! ((:-))) for your interest.

    I see the Ftse is going ape.

    And apparently PF and FF are raking it in. Which supports my point that capital can itself USE credit crashes to discipline otheres.

    Income form employment lost, aid etc all suffer irretrievably.

    Bubble loot of course reecouperates during the next bubble. Madoff gets released ((:-)) etc!

    Some time, somewhere, somehow, India, Japan nad china will demand what is theirs.

    For certain. The only question is when. That's an UNCERTAINTY, not a risk.

    Complain about this comment

  • 76. At 2:43pm on 01 Dec 2009, Sid wrote:

    EtE @ 74 - no answers to my 63, I notice.

    re your 75: "the more cigarettes you smoke the worse your lung cancer, you can still have lung cancer and never have smoked." Yes indeed. And your original implication was analogous to assuming that because someone has lung cancer, they must have smoked - and falls by the same logic.

    Complain about this comment

  • 77. At 2:45pm on 01 Dec 2009, Sid wrote:

    Ete: no answers to my 63, I note.

    re your 75: 'Again, if I say the more cigarettes you smoke the worse your lung cancer, you can still have lung cancer and never have smoked.' - Yes, indeed. But what you did originally was the equivalent of assuming that because someone has lung cancer, they must have smoked. And as you say, it's not logic, just like your first point.


    Complain about this comment

  • 78. At 4:40pm on 01 Dec 2009, davmcn wrote:

    EtE 75, Don't worry about answering Sid's questions. He rarely answers mine.

    Complain about this comment

  • 79. At 4:55pm on 01 Dec 2009, davmcn wrote:

    Somebody is in a bad mood... Now I know why Looter has decided to leave. Wise choice.

    Complain about this comment

  • 80. At 11:49am on 07 Dec 2009, GotToTheEnd wrote:

    U13879388.

    There was some interset on this poster here.

    Here are all their on that thread for that day.


    A.
    The rise in CPI 'unexpected'???

    No further fiscal stimulus needed?!?!?

    More 'easing' (money printed and given to banks), though!!!

    In this country of Two Nations, again, it is the poor who suffer, and the rich escape unscathed.

    In fact, if they have a mortgage large enough, given the interest rate cuts, the rich are in clover.

    And the poor, those on benefit, without jobs, or on or near the minimum wage, are suffering a decline in their standard of living as those low interest rates (and hence weak pound) push up import prices.
    [I think food prices impact on the poor differentially don't they]
    B.

    14.

    Why save the banking system?

    Why not instead 'quantitatively ease' the real world slump that we are in?

    By
    1. reducing to nothing the money printed to buy banks' best paper

    2. counting the high powered money as
    i. the money the ecologically sound growing economy needs
    and
    ii. the increased cash reserves that banks must hold
    and
    iii. money to be repaid from increased tax receipts generated by its use?


    C.
    14 is one quessie to Nils.

    Another is, since NY closes two and a half hours after he's gone up and down stairs, why doesn't his report START each day with Dow-Jones for the rest of the day before?

    For example, today it closed two percent DOWn. When else can he report that 1/3 retrenchment in the rises of yesterday?

    He didn't seem to make anywhere near half as much noise about London's half-way back down fall today, as he did of the one-off rise yesterday.

    It still seems like 'UPSHARES!!!, downshares.' to me.


    [The claim seems to be that the BBC souts about rises and keeps quiet about falls]

    D.
    I want to use one of Syd's jokes, so I'll be cautious, given his propensities to get modded.

    It's more a turn of phrase than a joke, really. In fact its no joke.

    It concerns a whizz kid who never was.

    He's not even a was-kid now.

    He was the youngest professor we'd ever seen and now he's the oldest out-of-dater I've ever seen.



    He thinks, since the banks are refusing to lend money, that we should reduce the price of lent money......


    well, good, .... but to save a suply and demand market system, where a higher price brings forth more supply?

    Now he's against a fiscal expansion
    'cos otherwise the credit crunch wouldn't work. There'd be no slump and Indai and China would take the leadership of the world away from America and the UK.

    He thinks he's found a way of having a credit crunch and handing huge sums of our money to the banks.

    Is he a loser? No, he's a high flier who hit his ceiling when he was young (he was once)

    We are the losers. We who wanted something different in 1997 but found the Labour Government inheriting not only policies but also placemen from the Tories.

    Who is he? A good question. Who was he? Someone with real promise that he squandered on silly jokes, too many formal business dinners and on trying to make his discipline boring

    At a time when it needed verve, ability and imagination.

    Beware whizz kids, who whizz by being ultra conformist to their sponsors. They tend to run out of inspiration and real ability.

    So ignore them and reflate the economy as I outline in 14
    I want to use one of Syd's jokes, so I'll be cautious, given his propensities to get modded.

    It's more a turn of phrase than a joke, really. In fact its no joke.

    It concerns a whizz kid who never was.

    He's not even a was-kid now.

    He was the youngest professor we'd ever seen and now he's the oldest out-of-dater I've ever seen.



    He thinks, since the banks are refusing to lend money, that we should reduce the price of lent money......


    well, good, .... but to save a suply and demand market system, where a higher price brings forth more supply?

    Now he's against a fiscal expansion
    'cos otherwise the credit crunch wouldn't work. There'd be no slump and Indai and China would take the leadership of the world away from America and the UK.

    He thinks he's found a way of having a credit crunch and handing huge sums of our money to the banks.

    Is he a loser? No, he's a high flier who hit his ceiling when he was young (he was once)

    We are the losers. We who wanted something different in 1997 but found the Labour Government inheriting not only policies but also placemen from the Tories.

    Who is he? A good question. Who was he? Someone with real promise that he squandered on silly jokes, too many formal business dinners and on trying to make his discipline boring

    At a time when it needed verve, ability and imagination.

    Beware whizz kids, who whizz by being ultra conformist to their sponsors. They tend to run out of inspiration and real ability.

    So ignore them and reflate the economy as I outline in 14

    [The unnamed person in the description was apparently libelled persistently by U13879338, surely a bannable offence]

    [And then:]

    E.
    FTSE heading south as usual. Soon back to the low three thousands.


    [which, in context, looks like an ironic aside to me, but who can tell?]

    Complain about this comment

View these comments in RSS

BBC iD

Sign in

BBC navigation

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.