REFERENDUM RESULTS AND DISCUSSION THREAD

[Paddingtonwolf]

Bollocks:

Looks pretty low to me.



Bollocks.

National debt is created when the government issues bonds that are then bought by the BoE - so you have simultaeneous creation of assets (held by the BoE) and cash (held by the government and used to finance deficit spending.

This can happen almost in perpetuity when you have sovereign currency and a central bank. Thats why the debt doesnt matter from a government perspective.

But you're conflating that perspective with the perspective of pension funds - who hold a significant amount of AAA rated debt (indeed they're not allowed to hold anything other than AAA rated securities). Pension funds use these securities as a hedge against inflation and to provide investment growth to provide income.

Where immigration comes in is when you consider the (public) state pension, which is paid for from the contribution of current taxpayers. No-one has a pot with their name on representing their historical payments. Joe Blogss has a state pension that is paid out from the contributions made by the UK taxpayers.

So you've basically made a ham-fisted effort to mix national debt, private pension funds and the state pension, all to try and make a retarded point about immigrants. You're welcome.

OOOOOFFF

 

[Tredman]

Bollocks:

Looks pretty low to me.



Bollocks.

National debt is created when the government issues bonds that are then bought by the BoE - so you have simultaeneous creation of assets (held by the BoE) and cash (held by the government and used to finance deficit spending.

This can happen almost in perpetuity when you have sovereign currency and a central bank. Thats why the debt doesnt matter from a government perspective.

But you're conflating that perspective with the perspective of pension funds - who hold a significant amount of AAA rated debt (indeed they're not allowed to hold anything other than AAA rated securities). Pension funds use these securities as a hedge against inflation and to provide investment growth to provide income.

Where immigration comes in is when you consider the (public) state pension, which is paid for from the contribution of current taxpayers. No-one has a pot with their name on representing their historical payments. Joe Blogss has a state pension that is paid out from the contributions made by the UK taxpayers.

So you've basically made a ham-fisted effort to mix national debt, private pension funds and the state pension, all to try and make a retarded point about immigrants. You're welcome.

Great post.

 

[Stan Hullis]

Bollocks:

Looks pretty low to me.



Bollocks.

National debt is created when the government issues bonds that are then bought by the BoE - so you have simultaeneous creation of assets (held by the BoE) and cash (held by the government and used to finance deficit spending.

This can happen almost in perpetuity when you have sovereign currency and a central bank. Thats why the debt doesnt matter from a government perspective.

But you're conflating that perspective with the perspective of pension funds - who hold a significant amount of AAA rated debt (indeed they're not allowed to hold anything other than AAA rated securities). Pension funds use these securities as a hedge against inflation and to provide investment growth to provide income.

Where immigration comes in is when you consider the (public) state pension, which is paid for from the contribution of current taxpayers. No-one has a pot with their name on representing their historical payments. Joe Blogss has a state pension that is paid out from the contributions made by the UK taxpayers.

So you've basically made a ham-fisted effort to mix national debt, private pension funds and the state pension, all to try and make a retarded point about immigrants. You're welcome.

 

[thehistorymakers]

Bollocks:

Looks pretty low to me.



Bollocks.

National debt is created when the government issues bonds that are then bought by the BoE - so you have simultaeneous creation of assets (held by the BoE) and cash (held by the government and used to finance deficit spending.

This can happen almost in perpetuity when you have sovereign currency and a central bank. Thats why the debt doesnt matter from a government perspective.

But you're conflating that perspective with the perspective of pension funds - who hold a significant amount of AAA rated debt (indeed they're not allowed to hold anything other than AAA rated securities). Pension funds use these securities as a hedge against inflation and to provide investment growth to provide income.

Where immigration comes in is when you consider the (public) state pension, which is paid for from the contribution of current taxpayers. No-one has a pot with their name on representing their historical payments. Joe Blogss has a state pension that is paid out from the contributions made by the UK taxpayers.

So you've basically made a ham-fisted effort to mix national debt, private pension funds and the state pension, all to try and make a retarded point about immigrants. You're welcome.

Still using debt and immigration when it suits you. There is internal and external debt, pension funds and state pensions. You use immigration to say we need it to pay our debt, then you argue that debt doesn't matter. The problem is you are playing with one debt to use it for your political agenda and at the same time saying other debts don't matter.
Your graph finishes in 2002 and is incomplete. The debt we accumulated in the 2 world wars, we were still paying it back in the 60's. Your graph doesn't show that we have the highest debt that we have had in the last 40 years. So you graph is bollocks and your evidence incomplete.

 

[visage]

Still using debt and immigration when it suits you.

You started it, you melon. Dont get pissy because you've been found out.

There is internal and external debt, pension funds and state pensions. You use immigration to say we need it to pay our debt, then you argue that debt doesn't matter.

Ive never said we need to pay our debt.

The problem is you are playing with one debt to use it for your political agenda and at the same time saying other debts don't matter.

Nope, Im saying that immigration is a net benefit to our economy, so you should stop portraying it as economically bad.

Your graph finishes in 2002 and is incomplete.

Look again. Or get some glasses.

The debt we accumulated in the 2 world wars, we were still paying it back in the 60's.

Actually the loans we got from the US were only paid off in 2006. Facts are important.

Also, long term loans arent always a bad thing - take mortgages for example.

Your graph doesn't show that we have the highest debt that we have had in the last 40 years. So you graph is bollocks and your evidence incomplete.

Yes, you're absolutely right. My graph of historical interest rates does not show historical debt levels. Because its a graph of historical interest rates. FFS.

 

[The Saturday Boy]

Time for someone to dig out the Patrick Stewart facepalm meme I think.

 

[Penk Wolf]

You use immigration to say we need it to pay our debt, then you argue that debt doesn't matter.

:ursofunnyid you read the Wolves score as Wolves 2 Reading 1 this weekend?:facepalm:

 

[thehistorymakers]

You started it, you melon. Dont get pissy because you've been found out.



Ive never said we need to pay our debt.





Nope, Im saying that immigration is a net benefit to our economy, so you should stop portraying it as economically bad.




Look again. Or get some glasses.



Actually the loans we got from the US were only paid off in 2006. Facts are important.

Also, long term loans arent always a bad thing - take mortgages for example.



Yes, you're absolutely right. My graph of historical interest rates does not show historical debt levels. Because its a graph of historical interest rates. FFS.

Yes, but the loans were still from the war effort and we still have the highest debt in 40 years. Talking about facts, I am saying the only time we have had worse debt in the last 100 years is during the war or because of the war. Which is what I originally said and you haven't shown different.

You are saying immigration is a net gain to our economy, well as the low paid and poor are actually worse off with high immigration, we have 4 million working in poverty, our public services are stretched can you tell me how immigration has been of a benifit to the low-paid? if we have record debt that we had in the last hundred years, not counting war debt, of course.
So if immigration has not been of financial benifit to the majority, who has it been an advantage to, the rich, company owners? Etc etc.

 

[Paddingtonwolf]

BECAUSE DEBT IS NOT A BAD THING. SAME AS IMMIGRATION.

 

[Stan Hullis]

THM - what does immigration have to do with the current levels of debt?

I have read through your posts a couple of times now and I still don't get the point you are trying to make.

 

[Deutsch Wolf]

I don't know why you're conflating all these issues. You may as well say broadband internet is the cause of the UK's ills as we've been in a bit of a downward spiral for much of the time that it's become standard for most households.

You can't just take an issue and randomly connect it to another.

 

[ProgWolf]

Looking back over the pages for the last few days, I understand this thread a lot more now. If you don't agree with someone's point of view, or the content of the post or the way it's articulated, it's ok to just resort to ridicule and abuse. For many working class people, this was a big factor for them voting to Leave, fed up of being told that they just were thick, racist bigots. One of my first comments on here was that when we reply to a post, imagine you were sitting across the table in the pub, discussing it over a pint. Many of the comments on here would never get said then. If they did, after a couple of warnings, you would be barred from any decent pub.

Better still though, for 'certain' posters on here, if you are 'Friendly' with the Mods, who probably all voted to Remain, you can be even more abusive to someone just because they voted to Leave, knowing you won't get kicked off ?

 

[Stan Hullis]

Ah, the classic "moderator conspiracy" defence.

Not seen that one for at least 2 weeks.

 

[So Long Architect]

I'm not a mod and it's none of my business, but I just had a quick scoot through the last few pages and the only "abuse" I can see is someone getting called a "melon". If you're upset by someone else being called a melon on the internet, I wonder how you get through the day. The rest just seems to be people patiently and at length explaining the concept of national debt to someone who clearly doesn't understand.

 

[ProgWolf]

BECAUSE DEBT IS NOT A BAD THING. SAME AS IMMIGRATION.

Hi Pad, I don't think many people would consider a certain level of Immigration as a bad thing, but what if it's uncontrollable ? i.e. Freedom of Movement in the EU means that we cannot stop people coming here from within the EU, if they want to come, and regardless of what they have to offer. I have seen on the news on TV, on more than one occasion, where surveys have been carried out with figures suggesting that 70% plus are 'concerned or worried' about the levels of Immigration, particularly over the last ten years or so ?

I wanted to try and substantiate these figures on a website that would not be deemed biased, one way or the other, and came up with this one.


http://www.migrationobservatory.ox....ation-overall-attitudes-and-level-of-concern/


In this article it refers to "a large majority of people, in the 2013 British Social Attitudes survey, endorsed reducing immigration, where 77% chose either ‘reduced a lot’ or ‘reduced a little’, and the same question yielded similar results on the British Social Attitudes survey in 2008, adding confidence that these are reliable estimates".

Perhaps it depends where you live ? Take Wolverhampton, I daresay there are not many people in Wightwick, Tettenhall or Codsall are concerned about Immigration levels in our City, whereas people in the less affluent areas like Bushbury, Whitmore Reans, Heath Town, Fallings Park etc, might be ? Depending on where you live in England, the job you do, your salary potential (plus loads of other factors of course) may determine whether or not you think that Immigration is having a detrimental effect on your life ? Maybe this is why the so-called affluent areas voted to Remain whilst many Industrialised areas in the Midlands and the North voted to Leave ?

 

[ProgWolf]

I'm not a mod and it's none of my business, but I just had a quick scoot through the last few pages and the only "abuse" I can see is someone getting called a "melon". If you're upset by someone else being called a melon on the internet, I wonder how you get through the day. The rest just seems to be people patiently and at length explaining the concept of national debt to someone who clearly doesn't understand.

So you want some examples then ??

 

[Penk Wolf]

Looking back over the pages for the last few days, I understand this thread a lot more now. If you don't agree with someone's point of view, or the content of the post or the way it's articulated, it's ok to just resort to ridicule and abuse. For many working class people, this was a big factor for them voting to Leave, fed up of being told that they just were thick, racist bigots. One of my first comments on here was that when we reply to a post, imagine you were sitting across the table in the pub, discussing it over a pint. Many of the comments on here would never get said then. If they did, after a couple of warnings, you would be barred from any decent pub.

Better still though, for 'certain' posters on here, if you are 'Friendly' with the Mods, who probably all voted to Remain, you can be even more abusive to someone just because they voted to Leave, knowing you won't get kicked off ?

To be fair, if you've read through the last few pages you'll realise the THM has a habit of reading into things (Or making it up) that aren't there and also not answering questions and also going round in circles. You'll also have noticed that when he disappeared the thread flowed a lot better.

p.s. I didn't vote remain.

 

[So Long Architect]

So you want some examples then ??

Whatever floats your boat.

 

[visage]

Looking back over the pages for the last few days, I understand this thread a lot more now. If you don't agree with someone's point of view, or the content of the post or the way it's articulated, it's ok to just resort to ridicule and abuse.

No. If someone makes a point that relies on evidence, and that evidence is flawed, it is pointed out. If someone says that thing A is bad because of B, but there is no evidence that B affects A then it will be pointed out. If someone makes an argument based on a flawed understanding of how something works they will be corrected. There is nothing to fear for anyone who bases their arguments on facts.

For many working class people, this was a big factor for them voting to Leave, fed up of being told that they just were thick, racist bigots. One of my first comments on here was that when we reply to a post, imagine you were sitting across the table in the pub, discussing it over a pint. Many of the comments on here would never get said then. If they did, after a couple of warnings, you would be barred from any decent pub.

If someone is wrong that should be pointed out. We dont censor (and never will) factual arguments.

Better still though, for 'certain' posters on here, if you are 'Friendly' with the Mods, who probably all voted to Remain, you can be even more abusive to someone just because they voted to Leave, knowing you won't get kicked off ?

Every argument I have seen has been based on erroneous facts or faulty logic. If you think someone has been unfairly abused simply because of their beliefs then please report the post.

Thanks.

 

[visage]

To be fair, if you've read through the last few pages you'll realise the THM has a habit of reading into things (Or making it up) that aren't there and also not answering questions and also going round in circles. You'll also have noticed that when he disappeared the thread flowed a lot better.

p.s. I didn't vote remain.

Indeed. Its a fallacy know as the Straw Man - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Someone says X, THM presents an argument against Y. Its either a deliberate misunderstanding or an inability to comprehend what others are saying.