Tottenham Riots

[NineOneFour]

Is it worth mentioning that I would not have more sympathy fort the looters and rioters if they were White?
I wouldn't be want to be thought of as a racist.

Why not?

You are a racist. Why don't you just own it instead of being a coward about it?

It's not like Rationalia is capable of doing anything to you other than telling you how naughty you've been.

All of humanity is racist. The sooner people admit that and make accommodations for that the sooner there can be peace.

Citation needed.

[Pensioner]

Is it worth mentioning that I would not have more sympathy fort the looters and rioters if they were White?
I wouldn't be want to be thought of as a racist.

Why not?

You are a racist. Why don't you just own it instead of being a coward about it?

It's not like Rationalia is capable of doing anything to you other than telling you how naughty you've been.

All of humanity is racist. The sooner people admit that and make accommodations for that the sooner there can be peace.

Citation needed.

You can get the Citation on this site. I'maracistfuckpig@naziworld.com

[Exi5tentialist]

When I said ‘public sector to the rescue’ I wasn’t talking about monetary policy. I meant that every pound spent buying a bank share is a pound that can’t be spent paying a policeman, an engineering lecturer, a primary school teacher, fireman or other public sector worker. We can have a philosophical conversation about the definition of money, but that seems to have the effect of confusing the issue rather than clarifying it. The process that has happened appears to be that the State spent a lot of money in 2008/9 rescuing banks in the private sector, and now they are trying to recoup it. Obviously public sector employees are a target for cuts to pay for this through budget rebalancing. In this way the transaction has been straightforward. The public sector is paying the price for rescuing the private sector.

Yes I do know that public sector money must be generated somehow, and taxation is ultimately the only source (I say ultimately deliberately: there is a lot involved before we get to that point i.e. at times the creation of public debt). But we have to make decisions. Either you want teachers for everyone or just for a few. The private sector never will provide enough teachers for everyone, let alone enough doctors or care workers. Never. That is the first failing of the private sector: capitalism demands scarcity in everything, and if we let them, capitalists will make doctors, teachers, social workers and policemen very, very scarce and then demand a price for their services that only the wealthy few can afford.

The second failing of the private sector I want to refer to was its spectacular collapse in 2008. The cacophony of baying that ensued from the private sector to get the government to limit the contagion to the banking sector and not let it spread to the rest of the economy was deafening. Save our house prices, our consumer shopping and our lovely wars, they said. Of course the government capitulated quickly: all governments did of all political persuasions – they spent trillions. When the bulldozer of capitalism is on the road nothing can stop it, not even the government.

The cuts are therefore to the police, education, welfare and youth services. Hence the riots. It may be fun to say teenage angsty things like money is the theft of value from the dead (value from the dead? What Bram Stoker School of Economics is that?) or attention-seeking nonsense like all humanity is racist, but it clarifies nothing. It might help if some people tried to relate their posts to the topic heading, we might have a chance of a conversation that way.

I said earlier in this post what the process appears to be: bank bailout followed by decimating the public sector to pay for the bailout. But in reality that’s only how it appears on the surface. What I think is really going on is that the wealthy class, who get their wealth from the labour of millions, are using the debt bubble, the bank collapse and the consequent recession opportunistically to screw down state budgets much further than they need to be screwed. That’s what the US debt ceiling crisis was all about: a whingeing super-wealthy class screaming “we don’t want to pay!” for a State they have already under-funded and virtually bankrupted. The drivers in this game are almost anarchic, and I think it will take another colossal economic crisis before governments are allowed to do the sensible thing to balance budgets, i.e. raise taxes.

[Pensioner]

When I said ‘public sector to the rescue’ I wasn’t talking about monetary policy. I meant that every pound spent buying a bank share is a pound that can’t be spent paying a policeman, an engineering lecturer, a primary school teacher, fireman or other public sector worker. We can have a philosophical conversation about the definition of money, but that seems to have the effect of confusing the issue rather than clarifying it. The process that has happened appears to be that the State spent a lot of money in 2008/9 rescuing banks in the private sector, and now they are trying to recoup it. Obviously public sector employees are a target for cuts to pay for this through budget rebalancing. In this way the transaction has been straightforward. The public sector is paying the price for rescuing the private sector.

Yes I do know that public sector money must be generated somehow, and taxation is ultimately the only source (I say ultimately deliberately: there is a lot involved before we get to that point i.e. at times the creation of public debt). But we have to make decisions. Either you want teachers for everyone or just for a few. The private sector never will provide enough teachers for everyone, let alone enough doctors or care workers. Never. That is the first failing of the private sector: capitalism demands scarcity in everything, and if we let them, capitalists will make doctors, teachers, social workers and policemen very, very scarce and then demand a price for their services that only the wealthy few can afford.

The second failing of the private sector I want to refer to was its spectacular collapse in 2008. The cacophony of baying that ensued from the private sector to get the government to limit the contagion to the banking sector and not let it spread to the rest of the economy was deafening. Save our house prices, our consumer shopping and our lovely wars, they said. Of course the government capitulated quickly: all governments did of all political persuasions – they spent trillions. When the bulldozer of capitalism is on the road nothing can stop it, not even the government.

The cuts are therefore to the police, education, welfare and youth services. Hence the riots. It may be fun to say teenage angsty things like money is the theft of value from the dead (value from the dead? What Bram Stoker School of Economics is that?) or attention-seeking nonsense like all humanity is racist, but it clarifies nothing. It might help if some people tried to relate their posts to the topic heading, we might have a chance of a conversation that way.

I said earlier in this post what the process appears to be: bank bailout followed by decimating the public sector to pay for the bailout. But in reality that’s only how it appears on the surface. What I think is really going on is that the wealthy class, who get their wealth from the labour of millions, are using the debt bubble, the bank collapse and the consequent recession opportunistically to screw down state budgets much further than they need to be screwed. That’s what the US debt ceiling crisis was all about: a whingeing super-wealthy class screaming “we don’t want to pay!” for a State they have already under-funded and virtually bankrupted. The drivers in this game are almost anarchic, and I think it will take another colossal economic crisis before governments are allowed to do the sensible thing to balance budgets, i.e. raise taxes.

Spot on post.

[Ronja]

Two words: Shock Doctrine

[Cormac]

When I said ‘public sector to the rescue’ I wasn’t talking about monetary policy. I meant that every pound spent buying a bank share is a pound that can’t be spent paying a policeman, an engineering lecturer, a primary school teacher, fireman or other public sector worker. We can have a philosophical conversation about the definition of money, but that seems to have the effect of confusing the issue rather than clarifying it. The process that has happened appears to be that the State spent a lot of money in 2008/9 rescuing banks in the private sector, and now they are trying to recoup it. Obviously public sector employees are a target for cuts to pay for this through budget rebalancing. In this way the transaction has been straightforward. The public sector is paying the price for rescuing the private sector.

Yes I do know that public sector money must be generated somehow, and taxation is ultimately the only source (I say ultimately deliberately: there is a lot involved before we get to that point i.e. at times the creation of public debt). But we have to make decisions. Either you want teachers for everyone or just for a few. The private sector never will provide enough teachers for everyone, let alone enough doctors or care workers. Never. That is the first failing of the private sector: capitalism demands scarcity in everything, and if we let them, capitalists will make doctors, teachers, social workers and policemen very, very scarce and then demand a price for their services that only the wealthy few can afford.

The second failing of the private sector I want to refer to was its spectacular collapse in 2008. The cacophony of baying that ensued from the private sector to get the government to limit the contagion to the banking sector and not let it spread to the rest of the economy was deafening. Save our house prices, our consumer shopping and our lovely wars, they said. Of course the government capitulated quickly: all governments did of all political persuasions – they spent trillions. When the bulldozer of capitalism is on the road nothing can stop it, not even the government.

The cuts are therefore to the police, education, welfare and youth services. Hence the riots. It may be fun to say teenage angsty things like money is the theft of value from the dead (value from the dead? What Bram Stoker School of Economics is that?) or attention-seeking nonsense like all humanity is racist, but it clarifies nothing. It might help if some people tried to relate their posts to the topic heading, we might have a chance of a conversation that way.

I said earlier in this post what the process appears to be: bank bailout followed by decimating the public sector to pay for the bailout. But in reality that’s only how it appears on the surface. What I think is really going on is that the wealthy class, who get their wealth from the labour of millions, are using the debt bubble, the bank collapse and the consequent recession opportunistically to screw down state budgets much further than they need to be screwed. That’s what the US debt ceiling crisis was all about: a whingeing super-wealthy class screaming “we don’t want to pay!” for a State they have already under-funded and virtually bankrupted. The drivers in this game are almost anarchic, and I think it will take another colossal economic crisis before governments are allowed to do the sensible thing to balance budgets, i.e. raise taxes.

I'd say the following in response to this:

1. States require banking systems in order than money can be efficiently moved to produce useful work out of it. Of necessity, this requires entities that resemble banks and other financial institutions. States guarantee the activities of banks, explicitly or implicitly, because without this kind of ultimate backing, otherwise effective transactions could not happen - and this includes state expenditure. Money couldn't transfer between states without this kind of backing.

2. It is an illusion of both the left and right that banks are private entities operating for shareholder benefit, and risking ONLY the capital of investors, shareholders, and joe-soap depositors. Banks can only really transact on a large scale because of the overt or covert public guarantee. This means that banks should not be given a free hand by the state in how they operate, as to do so would be to risk the stability of the state - as we've seen

3. Many states were called upon to deliver upon their explicit and implicit guarantees over the last few years and will continue to be called upon to do so. For the most part, these bail outs were either by money loaned to banks, or by "investment" through share purchase. (Remember this for a moment).

4. Strictly speaking, there is no guarantee that there will ever be a market recovery. Strictly speaking, there is no particular reason to believe it will get worse, or that it will stay the same. (Despite what doom-mongers and optimists would have you believe - predicting market behaviour is pretty much a nonsensical idea, for the reasons set out by Nassim Nicholas Taleb in his two books: "Fooled by Randomness" and "Black Swan".

5. It is true that one of the consequences of the shoring up of the banks is that states have less to spend on "social services". However, the failure of a country's banking system would have a more catastrophic effect, because vast amounts of money would simply cease to exist, and businesses would no longer be able to operate as there'd no longer be any method of clearing payments.

6. Banks that the government has "invested" in, are now subject to strict objectives and controls imposed by governments.

7. Presuming that the economy will eventually recover (a presumption, but not a prediction!), then in that case, bank shares will, for the most part, recover. Where they recover, the state will recoup ALL monies "invested", plus a profit. For example, at the last time I saw the RBS share price, it was about 40p a share. Over the last two years it has nearly hit 50p more than once. 50p is the break-even level for the public's investment in RBS. Every 1cent thereafter represents a 1 billion profit to the state.

The same will apply to the other banks.

The chances are that the state will ultimately make a small profit on the money spent in shoring up the banks.

8. It is a disgrace that things were allowed to get to this stage, and it is morally wrong. But it isn't just down to financial institutions, the "wealthy" (who I've yet to see defined, or ennumerated). A HUGE part of why things went wrong was governments saw banks as cash cows, and saw their extraordinary profits as fantastic windfalls for tax revenue, instead of seeing it as a major symptom that something had gone badly wrong with governance, supervision, and leadership in these extremely important institutions.

You should note that many people who were formerly wealthy are absolutely stony broke now. Lots of them.

States borrow money to operate. Lenders will want to understand the risk inherent in lending to any customer, including a state. Just like a private individual borrowing, states have to present a statement of income v expenditure. At this time, many countries have to do this, until such time as the economic situation recovers sufficiently.

The other thing is that taxpayers are squeezed already, and don't particularly like being required to pay more, when they can see the appallingly incompetent and greedy manner in which it is spent by public servants. I can't agree that a state is underfunded, when you see more money being spent on the bureaucracy between purse and front-line, which is endemically and direly corrupt - by greedy, lazy, and jobsworth-type approaches to work and actual delivery of public services.

While being full up of this kind of dreadful practice, the public service cannot claim to be underfunded. When the public service cleans house, and is recognised for having delivered historical changes in culture and cost, THEN, it might credibly claim to be underfunded.

And for the most part, it will be ordinary tax-payers who will object to tax increases. The largest part of the tax burden falls on these taxpayers.

[Thinking Aloud]

There are so many roads needing repair over here, that would never apply. We're still waiting for repairs to potholes created last winter.

Your potholes are brand new, Geoff. Why do you want them replacing already? We've got some here that go back decades. Give yours a chance to develop a little, before you pour more tarmac into them.

[Robert_S]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... other.html

A London 2012 Olympics ambassador who has met Boris Johnson and Lord Coe has been revealed as a riot suspect, after she was reported to the police by her own mother.

Chelsea Ives, 18, allegedly threw bricks at a police car during the violence in Enfield on Sunday.

She even boasted she had had “the best day ever”, Westminster Magistrates Court heard.

But the teenager was caught after her mother, Adrienne, saw her on a television news report and called the police.

Mrs Ives, 47, yesterday said her decision was “gut wrenching” but insisted she only did what any “honest” parent could.

She added: "I had to do what was right. Roger (her husband) and I were watching the news and it was absolutely sickening. And then we saw our daughter among the crowds.

[Atheist-Lite]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... other.html

A London 2012 Olympics ambassador who has met Boris Johnson and Lord Coe has been revealed as a riot suspect, after she was reported to the police by her own mother.

Chelsea Ives, 18, allegedly threw bricks at a police car during the violence in Enfield on Sunday.

She even boasted she had had “the best day ever”, Westminster Magistrates Court heard.

But the teenager was caught after her mother, Adrienne, saw her on a television news report and called the police.

Mrs Ives, 47, yesterday said her decision was “gut wrenching” but insisted she only did what any “honest” parent could.

She added: "I had to do what was right. Roger (her husband) and I were watching the news and it was absolutely sickening. And then we saw our daughter among the crowds.

"The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for
authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place
of exercise. Children are now tyrants, not the servants of their
households. They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They
contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties
at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannize their teachers.

- Attributed to Socrates by Plato, circa somewhat BC.

Also, somewhat before Plato.

I see no hope for the future of our people if they are dependent on
the frivolous youth of today, for certainly all youth are reckless
beyond words. When I was a boy, we were taught to be discrete and
respectful of elders, but the present youth are exceedingly wise and
impatient of restraint.
- Hesiod, Eighth Century BC.

[PsychoSerenity]

"The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for
authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place
of exercise. Children are now tyrants, not the servants of their
households. They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They
contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties
at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannize their teachers.

- Attributed to Socrates by Plato, circa somewhat BC.

Also, somewhat before Plato.

I see no hope for the future of our people if they are dependent on
the frivolous youth of today, for certainly all youth are reckless
beyond words. When I was a boy, we were taught to be discrete and
respectful of elders, but the present youth are exceedingly wise and
impatient of restraint.
- Hesiod, Eighth Century BC.

Sadly, it seems neither of those are of correctly attributed - however the Socrates one at least, has been miss-attributed for over a century now, so it's certainly gaining validity in its point.

[Tyrannical]

Is it worth mentioning that I would not have more sympathy fort the looters and rioters if they were White?
I wouldn't be want to be thought of as a racist.

Why not?

You are a racist. Why don't you just own it instead of being a coward about it?

It's not like Rationalia is capable of doing anything to you other than telling you how naughty you've been.

All of humanity is racist. The sooner people admit that and make accommodations for that the sooner there can be peace.

Citation needed.

Well, I'll remind you of that neighborhood of "scary dark skinned people" of poor Blacks and Hispanics near where you live.
Now you know it is dangerous, and you wisely don't go near there especially after dark. But you blame it not on race, but on socioeconomic status. How ever they would rob you because you are white, hence racism.
I don't advocate acting in a rude racist demeanor, I just acknowledge that racism is part of human behavior as demonstrated by it's worldwide practice throughout history. Peaceful coexistence requires understanding and accommodating these aspects of human nature as failure to do so creates racial strife

[Cormac]

Is it worth mentioning that I would not have more sympathy fort the looters and rioters if they were White?
I wouldn't be want to be thought of as a racist.

Why not?

You are a racist. Why don't you just own it instead of being a coward about it?

It's not like Rationalia is capable of doing anything to you other than telling you how naughty you've been.

All of humanity is racist. The sooner people admit that and make accommodations for that the sooner there can be peace.

Citation needed.

Well, I'll remind you of that neighborhood of "scary dark skinned people" of poor Blacks and Hispanics near where you live.
Now you know it is dangerous, and you wisely don't go near there especially after dark. But you blame it not on race, but on socioeconomic status. How ever they would rob you because you are white, hence racism.
I don't advocate acting in a rude racist demeanor, I just acknowledge that racism is part of human behavior as demonstrated by it's worldwide practice throughout history. Peaceful coexistence requires understanding and accommodating these aspects of human nature as failure to do so creates racial strife

Utter nonsense. Such areas do arise simply because of socioeconomic status and politics, and nothing to do with race.

[PsychoSerenity]

I saw this while walking through town today.



Kids these days, and the things they get up to.

[Tyrannical]

I saw this while walking through town today.



Kids these days, and the things they get up to.

Minding the sheep in the field dear

[Tyrannical]

[quote=cormac"]
Utter nonsense. Such areas do arise simply because of socioeconomic status and politics, and nothing to do with race.[/quote]

You missed the point
The residents in that area are racist, as whites are wary to go to that area.