Grendel
Well-Known Member
Actually it says a lot about you and your selective views on oppression
Says a lot about you that.
Care to elaborate?Actually it says a lot about you and your selective views on oppression
Care to elaborate?
Not really other than to say if the 1947 UN action had allocated treaties in reverse and the occupations had then occurred I don’t think guys be that bothered - and we all know Mr Livingston and his love child Mr Corbyn most certainly would not have been calling Hamas their buddies then
Taking that to one aside Christ knows the situation in Gaza and the violation of international law in the West Bank is very well known-though Mr Netanyahu threatened New Zealand into trying to back down from declaring it so. Though your 'side' has been using anti-Semitism to shut down criticism of Israel for years
Your entire argument is based on whataboutery. Clearly you’re happy at turning a blind eye to an apartheid state.Deflection and whataboutery - always the same
Your entire argument is based on whataboutery. Clearly you’re happy at turning a blind eye to an apartheid state.
You said no economic growth resulted in everyone getting poorer, thereby implying economic growth resulted in everyone getting richer. I've showed that isn't necessarily the case.
You can have a situation where you could have an overall economic retraction but most people becoming richer because they'd have more spending power because of who the retraction happens to.
It is an issue of equality but the statement that no economic growth will result in everyone getting poorer is not necessarily true.
So is yours and if Jews were on the receiving end your outrage would be very diluted because as we know racism is only defined by the left
Thinking he’s crying because they didn’t call the baby Dominic.Anyone seen dom
Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk
Yes because if the economy does not grow the population still does and thus there are more people for the same amount of wealth.
You can not have an economic retraction and have most people rich as pet capita the wealth of the nation will.be smaller.
This is GCSE level stuff
Reed-Mogg seems very anti Semitic having called Jewish members of his own party the illuminati. How many Tory MP’s are currently under investigation for anti Semitism?So is yours and if Jews were on the receiving end your outrage would be very diluted because as we know racism is only defined by the left
You did it to degree level? I doubt it but I did at Warwick.Shame I did it to degree level then
Where does it say a population HAS to grow? Again, obsession with growth. Well known fact that population growth is the root cause of pretty much every single problem facing the world and reaches far far deeper than monetarily. So the issue shouldn't be focused on
economic growth for a growing population (which invariably ends up in the hands of the already wealthy and so the disparity makes society as a whole a worse place, or put another way 'poorer') it should focus on maintaining population levels (or in our case over time reducing them a bit to manageable levels).
The best times for improved pay/conditions/rights for the majority come right after massive population decrease like plague and wars because those that are left have a better bargaining position and are more valuable to the economy.
Take a disease. If it remains in your system at a low level so it doesn't overwhelm it it can stay alive in you indefinitely. It stays alive, you stay alive - everybody happy. If it goes mad and tries to grow exponentially it will end up killing you and thus itself unless it can spread to even further areas but eventually it's going to run out of hosts and die out anyway.
I'll break it down into easier numbers for you.
Say 10 people constitute a economy. 1 of them over the period in question loses £10k. The other nine gain £1k.
90% of the population have gained wealth yet the overall economy shrank by £1k. If that 1 person was also much richer than the rest already and could comparatively afford to lose that £10k it also improves the others wealth comparatively speaking as it is likely to increase their relative purchasing power and lead to a better more even society. You might even say it would enrich society
Grendel and the right in general don’t give a shit about anti-semitism. They just use it as a device to attack the ‘lefties’.Reed-Mogg seems very anti Semitic having called Jewish members of his own party the illuminati. How many Tory MP’s are currently under investigation for anti Semitism?
Then 6 people vote for the Conservatives and 1 person has 9 apples, everyone else has to share 1 between them. :joyful:There are 5 people in a group and between them they have 2 apples each meaning they have 10 apples. 5 more people join but do not bring any new new apples. This means 10 people now have to share 10 apples between them meaning they now only have 1 apple each.
Guess what, not all Jews are supportive of Israel’s actions and the country’s treat of Palestinians.So is yours and if Jews were on the receiving end your outrage would be very diluted because as we know racism is only defined by the left
Grendel and the right in general don’t give a shit about anti-semitism. They just use it as a device to attack the ‘lefties’.
Must be pretty boring now jam jam boomerang is shut though ey?Yeah I’m here, I just don’t sit on this all day cause I actually have a life
63,667 people tested yesterday, way off the 100K a day target.20k less tests, 9k less people tested. We continue to succeed
The minute Jews invented Zionism other Jews invented anti Zionism. Most Orthodox Jews see creation of a Jewish state in the holy land as a direct threat to god.Guess what, not all Jews are supportive of Israel’s actions and the country’s treat of Palestinians.
How anyone can claim a country’s actions are reflective of the belief of millions of people is actually quite strange.
You did it to degree level? I doubt it but I did at Warwick.
I'll make it really simple for you as you seem to not grasp the basics of population growth and per capita calculations.
There are 5 people in a group and between them they have 2 apples each meaning they have 10 apples. 5 more people join but do not bring any new new apples. This means 10 people now have to share 10 apples between them meaning they now only have 1 apple each.
The population will continue to grow even without immigration as birth rates are larger than death rates. So you need keep making the wealth in a country larger.
So basically you need to keep growing the economy and making it larger. To make it fairer you need to look at the distribution of the countries wealth.
This is without taking into account inflation that will make the economy worth less in real terms each year.
so we agree overall.The issue is that GDP growth has become tired and rather outdated as a sole indicator of economic prosperity.
We could survive with less than we currently take at the rate we take it .Which only highlights how the way we work the economy (which I brought up somewhere else) is hugely flawed and people keep falling for it. Why do we use a mean average? Why not median or modal? Or just the overall figure? You can have a situation where there is less monetary value in an economy overall (i.e. negative growth/contraction) yet 99% of people, including any population growth, end up with more. So the sentence "Economic growth is needed or we all get poorer" is not actually true, even if you're only taking poorer in the very narrow sense of monetarily. It only becomes 'true' because of the use of a very limited equation in how we measure it as you pointed out.
Perhaps if they spent less time obsessing over economic growth and actually dealt with the root of the problem (population growth) they might actually make some inroads because the road they're working on is doomed to failure - the world and it's resources are not growing with us.
To be fair looking back at your original quote you did say
so we agree overall.
They emailed 50,000 people about getting a test so that 113K - top work!!63,667 people tested yesterday, way off the 100K a day target.
No what you are failing to grasp is you can not stop population growth and inflation.Which only highlights how the way we work the economy (which I brought up somewhere else) is hugely flawed and people keep falling for it. Why do we use a mean average? Why not median or modal? Or just the overall figure? You can have a situation where there is less monetary value in an economy overall (i.e. negative growth/contraction) yet 99% of people, including any population growth, end up with more. So the sentence "Economic growth is needed or we all get poorer" is not actually true, even if you're only taking poorer in the very narrow sense of monetarily. It only becomes 'true' because of the use of a very limited equation in how we measure it as you pointed out.
Perhaps if they spent less time obsessing over economic growth and actually dealt with the root of the problem (population growth) they might actually make some inroads because the road they're working on is doomed to failure - the world and it's resources are not growing with us.
To be fair looking back at your original quote you did say
so we agree overall.
A target they have never hit as of yet63,667 people tested yesterday, way off the 100K a day target.
The Matt Hancock versionThen 6 people vote for the Conservatives and 1 person has 9 apples, everyone else has to share 1 between them. :joyful:
They emailed 50,000 people about getting a test so that 113K - top work!!
Priti is doing the numbers tomorrow so it should be smashed and then some...
No what you are failing to grasp is you can not stop population growth and inflation.
So if the economy doesn't grow everyone will be poorer in real terms as population growth and interest don't stop.
Basically even of you have a perfectly equal society where everyone takes on the same about this amount will get smaller with out economic growth as the pot will be the same but there will be more people to share it with and the cost of goods will still increase with inflation.
Yes society is unfair but the economy growing yearly isn't the issue.
Deflection and whataboutery - always the same
Did they give you any indication of turn around time when you did it?It’s ok doing the test but they are failing to get the results back to you quickly enough, I had my test on Friday night at 6pm and I am still waiting for the results
Did they give you any indication of turn around time when you did it?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?