BBC Blog Network

User Profile

SergeantDigby

Listed below are comments made by SergeantDigby between Monday, 2nd February 2009 and Tuesday, 3rd February 2009.

«Newer
Older»

Confusion on the wildcat strikes (2) 4:45pm on 03 Feb 2009 I think that strikers only course of action left is to complain to the government regarding heavy-handed moderation. Possibly.
We've lent £185bn to banks 2:15pm on 03 Feb 2009 "So the best way of seeing all this is as a three-year loan of £185bn to the banks, made by all of us as taxpayers, for which we've received £287bn of assets."

I reckon you should have added this:

"The worst way of seeing this is that we've given the banks £185bn for pretty much worthless assets and we still have a maniac running the country."
Confusion on the wildcat strikes (2) 1:57pm on 03 Feb 2009 The other quote I liked was:

"Having the flag upside down historically was a sign of distress. You might have it put it up on a fort to warn those in the know - other British forces - that there was trouble from the enemy."

Mandelson does look distressed in the picture....
Confusion on the wildcat strikes (2) 1:56pm on 03 Feb 2009 Check out this story:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7866938.stm

I have picked out a quote that i think is inflammatory:

"Many places in government these days have people working from overseas and maybe they don't understand."

Admittedly it's from Mike Kearsley, director general of the Flag Institute, so what'd he know? But I'm going to run with it.

Does anyone actually know how many people from overseas are actually working in our government?

It'd be interesting to find out. The word on the street is 'many'...
Confusion on the wildcat strikes (2) 12:01pm on 03 Feb 2009 #103 hobbehod

We should not say that one man's hour is worth another man's hour, but rather that one man during an hour is worth just as much as another man during an hour.

Time is everything, man is nothing: he is at the most time's carcass.

Do you see?

The meaning of peace is the absence of opposition to socialism.
Confusion on the wildcat strikes (2) 11:52am on 03 Feb 2009 There's revolution in the air on this here blog...

Gordon is fond of pointing out that this is now a Global Age and blah blah blah de blah.

The interesting thing about this story is that it shows how people care more about their local environment than the global one.

I don't think people care much for the Global Age. It's been pretty cruel to them so far.

Are our employees trained for the Global Age?

Are our children educated for the Global Age?

Is our infrastructure prepared for the Global Age?

Are our financial systems prepared for the Global Age?

I think the answer is "no, apparently not".

Given that, you'd have to be a right numpty to be running around playing at Architect of the Global Age when your own house isn't in order.
The pressure for protectionism 11:13am on 03 Feb 2009 U9461192

That's really what I was asking. Thanks for the answer.

With regards to Gordon Brown, I cannot assess how culpable he is. I am no economist, that's for certain.

However, I know that out of the entire UK, Gordon Brown is the only person who can take responsibility for the current position.

I am not saying "take the blame". Responsibility is a much wider attribute.

By diverting blame to "America", he is denying people the opportunity to vent their grievances and denying his responsibility. I cannot see how UK citizens can feel "in control" with such a response.

We have no control over "America", but we do have control over our elected representatives.

This is where the issue of morality hits home a bit, because I think that confidence could be partially restored by somebody taking responsibility. And that does mean accepting criticism for what has gone before.

If Gordon Brown will not do it, who else can?

I am not saying he should resign, but I don't think he has much else to offer right now.

I think at this point in time he cannot see it, but if he doesn't put the country's need above his desire to be PM, he will continue to pay the price with both our well-being and his own reputation.
The pressure for protectionism 09:49am on 03 Feb 2009 Cheers for the replies Mr Tweedy, Foredeckdave and e2toe4. Just been reading them.

I am feeling very existential this very moment in time, everything being dependent on confidence alone.

However, there must be some sort of systemic friction which prevents prices fluctuating on the whim of whatever somebody is willing to pay?

I mean, businesses have profit margins they cannot survive outside of and people cannot sell their houses if they cannot pay off the mortgage.

Now, a lot of the government action has been to attempt to prevent repossessions, administration and receiverships. This has been a stalling tactic to buy time for credit to start moving again.

Now, is this helping the situation or making it worse? Is this, metaphorically, putting a brake on it or procrastinating?

If the natural value of things needs to be found before we things will get better, aren't we better allowing this to happen?

I mean, this is a form of "survival of the fittest" at the moment. By helping the weak structures, businesses and individuals survive (financially speaking) are we actually building structural flaws into our economy?

Should we actually be letting natural selection take place?

From the government's perspective, is doing nothing actually the right thing to do?
The pressure for protectionism 1:36pm on 02 Feb 2009 #107 and #109

Thanks for the replies.

So, if I have it right, you're saying that the property market is an example of the issue, as opposed to the cause. I can accept that, but I had thought that property was the main asset class within the group of assets which have excessive finance raised against them.

I had heard an estimate on the radio of the total worth of the UK, in terms of assets. I can't remember the figures but I had thought that property (realty) was the largest class. I can't seem to find it on the internet.

Anyway, I understand that (but not how) that debt has been created against value in assets that doesn't exist. It only existed because the availability of credit meant that people would be willing to pay that price for it.

But, if there is no real definitive value to any asset, how do you value the bottom at which the situation has unwound? Wouldn't this be the point at where there is sufficient debt to sustain the value of the products? And surely then the answer is to create the capacity for debt that is needed to support the value of the assets?

Also, I wonder how gold has risen in value. Is this a different sort of asset?

I think I ought to take a course in economics rather than ask questions on here, but I am interested if you have any (simple) answers.
Confusion on the wildcat strikes 12:58pm on 02 Feb 2009 #52 kingloneranger

I was reading the article waiting for the punchline. Can anything that fawning be genuine? I think not.

The phrase I liked was "Mr Brown and other genuine world leaders". Who are these nameless "other genuine world leaders"?

The bit where the saviour's logic fell down for me was "Much of this investment could — and should — be financed by printing money at no cost to taxpayers at all."

Except for the complete devaulation of the pound, I agree that it won't cost us a thing.

"Oh yeah, because we're all in debt, we should devalue the pound. Because then I can pay off my mortgage with the change that I have left over from my last holiday!"

Apologies to those with savings, debt-laden Britain doesn't need you!

«Newer
Older»

^ Back to top

BBC MMVI

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites

BBC.co.uk

BBC Blog Network

Find and talk to the BBC's bloggers.

User Profile

SergeantDigby