[ rss / options / help ]
post ]
[ b / iq / g / zoo ] [ e / news / lab ] [ v / nom / pol / eco / emo / 101 / shed ]
[ art / A / beat / boo / com / fat / job / lit / map / mph / poof / £$€¥ / spo / uhu / uni / x / y ] [ * | sfw | o ]
logo
politics

Return ] Entire Thread ] First 100 posts ] Last 50 posts ]

Posting mode: Reply [Last 50 posts]
Reply ]
Subject   (reply to 82573)
Message
File  []
close
1012336-System__Resources__Image-1197978.jpg
825738257382573
>> No. 82573 Anonymous
8th June 2017
Thursday 6:27 am
82573 2017 General Election polling day/results thread
Morning, lads.

As per .gs tradition, it's time for the separate polling day/results thread.

Results are expected slightly earlier than previous years as there's no local elections at the same time.
262 posts omitted. Last 50 posts shown. Expand all images.
>> No. 82905 Anonymous
12th June 2017
Monday 10:49 pm
82905 spacer
>>82895
They're only making plans for Jimmy.
>> No. 82906 Anonymous
12th June 2017
Monday 11:16 pm
82906 spacer
>>82905

He's got a future, unlike British Steel.
>> No. 82907 Anonymous
12th June 2017
Monday 11:48 pm
82907 spacer
>>82904

The fact that wheat field runner sold weapons to the Saudis is not the biggest story of this election says everything. The Saudis are the biggest funders of terrorism, no more needs to be said. How on earth does that not get her immediately imprisoned? Even fucking America does a, well sometimes does a mental health check on the people they are selling weapons to. Theresa will sell you a shit load and you know what? No mental health check needed because she's nice like that. She's a vicars daughter did you hear? Moral, kind, upstanding, caring and compassionate, with a fuck off gun collection that she needs to shift. If she couldn't shift them to the Saudis she was thinking of trying the urban areas of London because there is definitely a demand for it - her advisers agreed at first but after some debate concluded against it due to noise concerns.
>> No. 82908 Anonymous
13th June 2017
Tuesday 12:06 am
82908 spacer
>>82907
>How on earth does that not get her immediately imprisoned?
For what exactly?

Arming and funding odious regimes and organisations to secure foreign policy objectives isn't exactly a novel policy. It's how the world works and has worked for quite some time.
>> No. 82909 Anonymous
13th June 2017
Tuesday 12:11 am
82909 spacer
>>82907

Arms sales to Saudi Arabia are nothing new. They've been our best customers for decades. The Yanks have sold billions of dollars worth of arms to the Saudis. Like it or not, the western world regards Saudi Arabia as an ally.
>> No. 82910 Anonymous
13th June 2017
Tuesday 1:36 am
82910 spacer
>>82907
We don't sell them anything that daft militant wogs can use.
>> No. 82911 Anonymous
13th June 2017
Tuesday 1:40 am
82911 spacer
>>82910
Are you stupid?
>> No. 82912 Anonymous
13th June 2017
Tuesday 1:55 am
82912 spacer
>>82911
No.
>> No. 82913 Anonymous
13th June 2017
Tuesday 4:39 am
82913 spacer
>>82908
>It's how the world works
I wouldn't go so far as to say it works...
>> No. 82914 Anonymous
13th June 2017
Tuesday 6:46 am
82914 spacer
>>82904
>but we somehow found enough money to fuck up Libya and arm daft militant wogs in Syria.

Have you ever worked in the public sector? Quite often your budget for the year is based on what you've spent in the preceding one, so it isn't uncommon for departments to waste money in order to protect their budget for future years. Let's say you work in the armed forces and you have a budget of 4million shekels, but you've only spent 3.2million shekels; spend the shortfall of 0.8million shekels blowing up some sand people and you're protecting your jobs.
>> No. 82915 Anonymous
13th June 2017
Tuesday 7:17 am
82915 spacer
>>82913
Certainly does for the BAE lads who so generously take our parliamentarians to lavish dinners and give them nice little lobbying jobs once they leave westminster.
>> No. 82916 Anonymous
13th June 2017
Tuesday 10:01 am
82916 spacer
>>82899
>You mean the Tories negotiated a hypothetical deal years before it was needed, that would hinge upon the Tories having the precise number of MPs that would create the need for it?

The Tories and DUP have been working together since at least the last government. Of course they have an alliance to bring through difficult legislation and the only change now is it has been made public which complicates things.

>>82901
>If the government does something illegal, will you go to prison for them?

No. Polity works in a similar fashion to corporate personhood, personal responsibility is removed but collective responsibility does exist and will be accounted for in punishment by the international system. The principles are quite easy to grasp.

Both the bailouts and the war on terror are accounted for in the powers we have conferred to the state. If we don't want the government to interfere by economic necessity or to make war then collectively we need to change how the system comes to operate (although I'd hazard to guess most wouldn't want such changes).

>It means government and financial institutions can fuck around, have their fun pissing money up the wall

It also means we can fund social projects that you might well think are worth taking on debt. Your problem seems to be where the money is spent which is why your are railing against austerity despite in the big picture cutting down on the debt you will have to pay.

I mean sit and have a think about this. You don't like debt so okay the government will stop paying back and step borrowing, now how are we going to pay teachers, doctors and school lunches? This is the dependence that emerges with running a deficit.

>>82907
>The fact that wheat field runner sold weapons to the Saudis is not the biggest story of this election says everything.

It tells that the public doesn't give a fuck about dead Yemenis.
>> No. 82917 Anonymous
13th June 2017
Tuesday 11:15 am
82917 spacer
>>82916
>despite in the big picture cutting down on the debt you will have to pay.
This isn't strictly true though. Borrowing costs were until recently at historic lows. By not borrowing now (when it's cheap) and underinvesting, it's highly possible that we're just driving up long term costs when we later have to borrow when it's expensive to try and rush investment that should've started 10 years ago, leading to outdated infrastructure 20 years late, significantly overbudget, and probably with 3 switches of contractor before the government finally killed the PPP and brought it in-house... I mean, that's British tradition.

But then I'm of the Steve Keen school of "shut up about government debt, it's nothing, private debt will kill us all" anyway, so it doesn't really matter what I say or think. All that matters is that I get to have the smuggest grin in the entire dole queue when I lose my job during the next recession.
>> No. 82918 Anonymous
13th June 2017
Tuesday 5:24 pm
82918 spacer
>>82908
>>82909

I'm well aware this is one of our great traditions, and long may it continue. Makes you proud to be British doesn't it?


>>82916

>No. Polity works in a similar fashion to corporate personhood, personal responsibility is removed but collective responsibility does exist and will be accounted for in punishment by the international system. The principles are quite easy to grasp.

The principles are easy to grasp, it's whether they're barking fucking mad that's the issue.

>It also means we can fund social projects that you might well think are worth taking on debt. Your problem seems to be where the money is spent which is why your are railing against austerity despite in the big picture cutting down on the debt you will have to pay.

Can't we just use something like kickstarter instead?

>I mean sit and have a think about this. You don't like debt so okay the government will stop paying back and step borrowing, now how are we going to pay teachers, doctors and school lunches? This is the dependence that emerges with running a deficit.

How about writing the debt off and trying a different approach? Who is benefiting from this debt exactly?
>> No. 82919 Anonymous
13th June 2017
Tuesday 6:47 pm
82919 spacer
>>82918
>Who is benefiting from this debt exactly?
You are if you want to be able to save. Government deficits are private surpluses. If the government isn't accruing debt, we are.
>> No. 82920 Anonymous
13th June 2017
Tuesday 6:59 pm
82920 spacer

article-2180095-14056383000005DC-891_1024x615_larg.jpg
829208292082920
>>82917
Well I don't think anyone would deny that Gideon is a lunatic. That said neither form of debt can be viewed of as fine or existing in a vacuum. For example if the government goes on a borrowing splurge then it diverts capital from personal lending markets leading to more onerous lending terms and more people who can't for example borrow for their business idea.

My point was that if you hate the very idea of national debt then railing against austerity is rather counter-productive. Of course it is more nuanced than that but on a basic level debt = bad just as we could sit here and agree that PFI = bad.

>>82918
Civilization is barking fucking mad but I'm not sure how to turn it off. Anyway a number of points:

>Can't we just use something like kickstarter instead?

I don't see that going well. For starters the public are tight bastards who can't exactly be relied upon to fund the welfare state directly even if it is rational on the macro level.

>How about writing the debt off and trying a different approach? Who is benefiting from this debt exactly?

I've already told you what impact writing off the debt would have. The second question is more interesting because last time I looked the biggest owners of government debt were pensions and insurance - because it's strong and stable but not exactly profitable.
>> No. 82921 Anonymous
14th June 2017
Wednesday 1:47 am
82921 spacer
>I don't see that going well. For starters the public are tight bastards who can't exactly be relied upon to fund the welfare state directly even if it is rational on the macro level.

The tight bastards are those that are wealthiest, harder to be wealthy otherwise. Wealthy people can be very generous in rare moments, but the obscenely wealthy love to siphon off money out of our economy and stick it in tax free havens. Even our holy celebrities are doing it, but because he can kick a ball about and scored a great goal against those fucking Argies in 2009 we'll forget about it.

>I've already told you what impact writing off the debt would have. The second question is more interesting because last time I looked the biggest owners of government debt were pensions and insurance - because it's strong and stable but not exactly profitable.

Why does writing off the debt have to have that impact? The debt is imaginary when it comes down to it. I know that sounds airy fairy and all the rest of it, but it's true. It doesn't have feelings, it won't be offended if we all tell it to fuck off (the debt won't at least).

The government (and other nefarious groups) benefit from this "debt" and so it's important we go along with it. It's great for the government because they can be both the debt creator, and the debt collector - a constant cycle that helps legitimise their need to exist as an institution.

What this also means is that we owe money to ourselves - this is logically absurd, which is why what we call "ourselves" must be separated into the Bank of England, the government, and the public. Now it doesn't feel so weird that we are actually borrowing and paying back ourselves.
>> No. 82923 Anonymous
14th June 2017
Wednesday 3:41 am
82923 spacer

800px-Zimbabwe_$100_trillion_2009_Obverse.jpg
829238292382923
>>82921

>Why does writing off the debt have to have that impact? The debt is imaginary when it comes down to it.

Except it isn't imaginary. We borrowed real money from real people that we spent on schools and hospitals and bombing the fuck out of brown-eyed people. There's basically nothing stopping us from defaulting on that debt, but people will become very reluctant to lend us money in future. At best, our borrowing costs will skyrocket and it'll cost us a lot more to build schools and hospitals and turn brown-eyed people into pink mist.

A government can of course print money; banknotes are effectively a sort of indefinite IOU. There's nothing stopping you from repaying debt with freshly-printed money. Done well, this is a perfectly healthy practice that is of benefit to both the government and the economy in general. Done to excess, the consequences are disastrous - nobody trusts your money any more and the value of it collapses.
>> No. 82929 Anonymous
14th June 2017
Wednesday 7:54 pm
82929 spacer
>>82923
>We borrowed real money from real people

You might want to go and read up on how quantitative easing and fractional reserve banking work.
>> No. 82930 Anonymous
14th June 2017
Wednesday 8:10 pm
82930 spacer
>>82929

QE is a textbook example of my second paragraph - paying off debt with freshly-printed money. Fractional reserve banking has nothing to do with the "realness" of debt and very little to do with the national debt. Leverage is not a novel concept and is not confined to fractional reserve banking.
>> No. 82937 Anonymous
14th June 2017
Wednesday 11:53 pm
82937 spacer
>>82930
Not him, but leverage is literally magicking money (and with it debt) out of nothing.
>> No. 82938 Anonymous
15th June 2017
Thursday 11:38 am
82938 spacer
>>82930

This term, "printing money" is dangerously disingenuous. It implies the money is simply given away, which it is not- it is leant, at interest. It also borrows a sense of physicality which money does not deserve. Calling it "fudging the numbers" would be more accurate.
>> No. 82939 Anonymous
15th June 2017
Thursday 12:29 pm
82939 spacer
>>82938
If it's leant at a below-inflation interest rate, you're still basically giving it away.
One wonders, off-the-cuff, if moderate (by modern standards, high, perhaps nearing 10%?) inflation wouldn't do society a bundle of good if interest rates were also artificially held down.

Or maybe it'd just exacerbate everything by making mortgaging a house even more attractive.
>> No. 82940 Anonymous
15th June 2017
Thursday 4:33 pm
82940 spacer
>>82938
>>82939
I'm not entirely sure what economic function is supposed to be achieved by leaning money.
>> No. 82941 Anonymous
15th June 2017
Thursday 6:06 pm
82941 spacer
>>82940

Lending is the normal way for a modern economy to create new money. And there has to be a steady supply of new money to allow for growth.
Governments can create new money directly, but it's generally frowned upon by the global markets.
>> No. 82942 Anonymous
15th June 2017
Thursday 6:33 pm
82942 spacer
>>82941
>Lending
No, I said leaning.
>> No. 82943 Anonymous
15th June 2017
Thursday 6:54 pm
82943 spacer
>>82942
My apologies for being a bit thick. It's 6pm on a Thursday and I've still got one more day left.
>> No. 82945 Anonymous
15th June 2017
Thursday 11:08 pm
82945 spacer
>>82923

Let me put it this way, if everyone but you died tomorrow, would you still pay the "national debt" off? Would you pay the deficit a visit and discuss payment plans? How's the stock market doing? It's all imaginary.

Would you still need to eat food? Would you still need to wank? These are the real things.

All they need to call it is the "national debt" and we now accept it as "ours". Are you called nation? Do you feel you are a nation? How the fuck can a concept be owed and paid back a debt? There's a reason we're never told the names of the people who are owed the money.
>> No. 82946 Anonymous
15th June 2017
Thursday 11:12 pm
82946 spacer
>>82945

It's annoying that this sounds tinfoil hatty because it's a completely accurate perception.
>> No. 82948 Anonymous
15th June 2017
Thursday 11:26 pm
82948 spacer
>>82945
Arguably the 'need' to eat food or have a wank are just as imaginary as the debt. We only 'need' to do these things if we want to go in living the best way we can. We could refuse to pay it and we could let ourselves starve to death with an erection.
>> No. 82949 Anonymous
16th June 2017
Friday 12:07 am
82949 spacer
>>82945
Your scenario is specious - everyone isn't going to die tomorrow and therefore the debtors will always still exist.
>> No. 82950 Anonymous
16th June 2017
Friday 1:28 am
82950 spacer
The fascinating thing for me is still negative real interest rates. The option to get paid to borrow is out there and not really being taken up. The only hypothesis I can possibly fire off is that it's being put off until there's another recession and we really need to borrow to get out of it, hoping that - with everything else on fire - real interest rates will get even negativer.

That, or a political preference for reducing state expenditure, regardless of the option for short-mid-term "cost-free" largesse.
>> No. 82951 Anonymous
16th June 2017
Friday 1:47 am
82951 spacer
>>82950
The problem is credit agencies - you need to be a perfect person/company to get those super low rates. Normal people just can't access those.
>> No. 82952 Anonymous
16th June 2017
Friday 1:57 am
82952 spacer
>>82950
I don't know much about the economy, but does negative interest mean that I will have to pay the bank for keeping my savings in the bank?
>> No. 82953 Anonymous
16th June 2017
Friday 2:44 am
82953 spacer
>>82952
Yes - but they'll pay you to borrow money.
>> No. 82954 Anonymous
16th June 2017
Friday 1:39 pm
82954 spacer
>>82945
>How the fuck can a concept be owed and paid back a debt?
Because the "concept" has a government. Governments can borrow money.

You're being extraordinarily silly.

>There's a reason we're never told the names of the people who are owed the money.
Because they aren't by and large people with names. They're the BoE, pension funds, foreign governments etc. etc.
>> No. 82955 Anonymous
16th June 2017
Friday 7:55 pm
82955 spacer
>>82948

>Arguably the 'need' to eat food or have a wank are just as imaginary as the debt. We only 'need' to do these things if we want to go in living the best way we can. We could refuse to pay it and we could let ourselves starve to death with an erection.

True, if the deficit finds out we aren't paying it off any more it will destroy all our food. What a spoil sport. We'd just have to accept the consequences like a terminally ill cancer patient, absolutely nothing we could do about it. Not like the deficit was invented by humans in the first place. What a hopeless species we are.

>>82949

>Your scenario is specious - everyone isn't going to die tomorrow and therefore the debtors will always still exist.

And that proves debt isn't imaginary?

>>82954

>Because the "concept" has a government. Governments can borrow money.

>You're being extraordinarily silly.

The concept has a concept called the government? Well that legitimises it then.

>Because they aren't by and large people with names. They're the BoE, pension funds, foreign governments etc. etc.

So they are magical entities that exist separately to the individual people that populate and control them? Move along, nothing to see here...
>> No. 82956 Anonymous
16th June 2017
Friday 9:19 pm
82956 spacer
>>82955
You should volunteer as a knife thrower's assistant, I've never seen someone miss so many points at once.
>> No. 82957 Anonymous
16th June 2017
Friday 9:40 pm
82957 spacer
>>82956

Please turn me into a knife thrower that can hit all the points and explain where I'm going wrong.
>> No. 82958 Anonymous
16th June 2017
Friday 9:50 pm
82958 spacer
>>82957
All 'needs' are imaginary, they only exist to the degree in which you want something. For example, you don't need to eat, unless you want to stay alive. The need to eat is imaginary. Similarly, the debt is imaginary. We don't need to do anything about it, unless we want to continue to take part in the equally imaginary yet consensual global economic system.
Your employer's obligation to pay you is imaginary too, but you might get upset if they just decided one day that they don't need to pay you.
>> No. 82959 Anonymous
16th June 2017
Friday 10:34 pm
82959 spacer
>>82958

I understand what you're trying to say, but there is a fundamental difference between the need to eat, and the need to pay a "national" debt. If you stop consuming food, you will die, this applies to everyone and it cannot be prevented. You may feel you don't have a need to eat and that it is imaginary, but you will die regardless.

If we all stop paying the "national" debt tomorrow, we don't have to die if we don't want to. It is completely preventable because it is entirely self-inflicted by ourselves, on ourselves, knowingly or not.
>> No. 82960 Anonymous
16th June 2017
Friday 11:01 pm
82960 spacer
>>82959
We don't all pay the national debt, the government does. But yes, the government could decide to not issue gilts and refuse to meet its obligation to its debtors. You've yet to explain why it should though.

Profound though it may be to point out that countries and governments and debts are all just in our mind maaan, the reality is that we have collectively agreed to give these institutions meaning and legitimacy and power. I don't think you're going to convince anyone that we shouldn't if you're not able to even begin to develop your case.

>So they are magical entities that exist separately to the individual people that populate and control them?
I think a large part of your problem is that you think everything that isn't a rock or something is magic.
>> No. 82961 Anonymous
16th June 2017
Friday 11:28 pm
82961 spacer
>>82959
I'm not saying we'll die, it's an analogy. If we stop partaking in the system of which the debt is a part, then there will be non-imaginary repercussions.
>> No. 82962 Anonymous
17th June 2017
Saturday 2:30 am
82962 spacer
>>82951
But governments do have access to that facility, ours doesn't seem to 'really' be making use of it. (Obviously they benefit from lower lending costs on the money borrowed to finance the present deficit, but the policy is to eliminate the deficit, instead of "ignoring" it to pursue other goals with cheap cash.)
>> No. 82963 Anonymous
17th June 2017
Saturday 8:55 am
82963 spacer
>>82962

There's a perfectly legitimate argument that we should have pursued a policy of Keynesian stimulus since the 2008 crash. My only real qualm is with the argument that debt and deficit are irrelevant, the Modern Monetary Theory argument that a sovereign government has effectively unlimited spending power. It may well be possible to spend your way out of recession, but there are clear risks to both austerity and stimulus, particularly when taken to extremes.
>> No. 83013 Anonymous
19th June 2017
Monday 1:04 pm
83013 spacer
>The Scottish champions Celtic will play Northern Ireland’s Linfield or La Fiorita of San Marino in the second qualifying round of the Champions League.

>With Celtic drawn away for the first leg, the possibility of them playing in Belfast on 12 July, a key date in the marching calendar, is potentially problematic for security services given past sectarian tensions.

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2017/jun/19/celtic-linfield-champions-league-draw-marching-day

That's that, then. Troubles 2.0 all but confirmed.
>> No. 83014 Anonymous
19th June 2017
Monday 7:09 pm
83014 spacer
>>83013
Double Troubles.
>> No. 83015 Anonymous
20th June 2017
Tuesday 6:33 pm
83015 spacer
>>82960

>We don't all pay the national debt, the government does. But yes, the government could decide to not issue gilts and refuse to meet its obligation to its debtors.

Government is supposed to be our representative. If the government is in debt, that ultimately means we are too.

>You've yet to explain why it should though.

Because it is stifling human development and benefiting the most power hungry.

>Profound though it may be to point out that countries and governments and debts are all just in our mind maaan, the reality is that we have collectively agreed to give these institutions meaning and legitimacy and power. I don't think you're going to convince anyone that we shouldn't if you're not able to even begin to develop your case.

Less collectively agreed and more just accepted without question how things are or put up with because no alternative is provided.

It's not just the institutions themselves that are the problem though, it's also the people who are given the power to run them (not always elected either). Government offers a type of power that attracts a high percentage of sociopaths/psychopaths/narcissists and all the rest of it.

I think if you want to be in government, you will need to go through a rigorous psychological examination before anything else among other things. Perhaps make them work at a care home for a year on minimum wage, but most importantly they should be physically attractive. We are giving power away far too easily and that's why we get shit in return.

The current application process to become an elected politician requires nothing more than the ability to sell yourself to potential customers/voters using marketing, slogans, logos and your own gift of the gab. And we wonder why politicians are notorious liars?

>I think a large part of your problem is that you think everything that isn't a rock or something is magic.

I don't think ideas are magic, but that doesn't stop them being extremely good at tricking the mind into thinking they're as real as a rock.
>> No. 83016 Anonymous
20th June 2017
Tuesday 7:13 pm
83016 spacer
>>83014
Apparently there's going to be a legal challenge over whether this breaches the Good Friday agreement, so the double trouble may not bubble.
>> No. 83017 Anonymous
20th June 2017
Tuesday 7:56 pm
83017 spacer

fb730b6b10bdb389d6c856da9b809662.jpg
830178301783017
>>83015
Electing people in government isn't always a good idea. Just look at the USA for a good example of this. I don't want public officials afraid of doing the right thing for fear of losing their bid for re-election. It's bad enough they've got us electing police commissioners, but just look at this sample ballot. The majority of the positions there have no business being on it. Elected officials end up wanting to consolidate power, which means either pandering to the voters or working to disenfranchise them, rather than carrying out one's duties without fear or favour.

Return ] Entire Thread ] First 100 posts ] Last 50 posts ]
whiteline

Delete Post []
Password