Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - More Than Mortal

Pages: 1 ... 424344 4546 ... 502
1291
Serious / Re: CNN: Donald Trump polling ahead of Clinton
« on: July 26, 2016, 08:01:02 AM »
It's well established that third-parties tend to take votes away from the two main parties
Right, they take away from the other candidate. They don't give anyone anything.

It's just a bad use of language.
Not really.

If you take away one runner's shoe, you're contributing to the win of the other runner. Either way you're at somewhat responsible for the outcome of the race.

1293
The Flood / Re: Really bad anxiety?
« on: July 26, 2016, 06:39:02 AM »
I have an issue like that at night. I always think I see a wendigo like thing run from the corner or my eye, or I feel like something is there.
I hallucinated I saw some scary motherfucker like a wendigo when I was working at night on a golf range, after three days of no sleep.

The guy I worked with also swore he turned and saw a guy sat next to him on his utility vehicle while he was driving alone.

Maybe that golf club was just haunted, come to think of it.

1294
Serious / Re: Post-Brexit UK economic downturn
« on: July 26, 2016, 06:34:34 AM »
Sorry about that. :/
Happens to the best of us.

Quote
I should not be making serious posts after a few drinks at 2 in the morning.
Better than making them sober.


1296
Serious / Re: Post-Brexit UK economic downturn
« on: July 26, 2016, 06:20:02 AM »
UK unemployment is 5.4pc. It was 8.4pc in mid-2011.
I'll respond to some other parts of your post later, but you appear to be right on this one. I wish I hadn't closed all of the tabs I had open when making this post, because I could've sworn there was an article of the IB Times which mentioned unemployment was now at a decade high. I'll see if I can find it again. But yeah, you're right. I stand corrected, unemployment definitely isn't as high as it was a few years ago.
Are you sure you didn't misread the article?

1297
Reuters
Quote
Britain could borrow nearly 65 billion pounds more than planned in the next couple of years as new Chancellor Philip Hammond seeks to 'reset' government budget policy to ease the shock of last month's vote to leave the European Union.

Ratings agencies and economists widely expect borrowing to rise materially next year for the first time since 2010, as Hammond has to call time - temporarily - on the austerity which dominated his predecessor George Osborne's six years in office.

After taking office two weeks ago, Hammond said the darker post-Brexit outlook meant policies the Conservative government had pursued since 2010 needed to change - and economists are now starting to put numbers on what this might mean.

Hammond told reporters on Sunday the scale of any stimulus would hinge on how rapidly the economy was slowing by the time of the Autumn Statement, the half-yearly budget update that usually comes in late November or early December.

"There is going to need to be a rethink," said Paul Johnson, director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, a non-partisan think-tank which scrutinises the public finances.

Just sticking with the plans Osborne set out in March means borrowing is likely to overshoot its target by tens of billions of pounds as tax revenues fall and spending on social security for the low-paid and unemployed rises, Johnson said.

Several economists - working partly off rules of thumb from Britain's budget watchdog - estimate on average that borrowing this tax year and next combined will be almost 65 billion pounds above forecast, even if the economy dodges recession. They did not forecast further out because of uncertainty over the economy and the government's budget plans.

Total public borrowing in 2015/16 was 75 billion pounds - a hefty 4 percent of GDP. The Office for Budget Responsibility forecast in March it would drop to 55.5 billion pounds this year and 38.8 billion in 2017/18.

By contrast, Sam Hill, an economist at Royal Bank of Canada, expects weaker growth alone will stop borrowing falling this year, and see it rise to 85 billion pounds next year - double March's forecast.

"The numbers could get even bigger than that – and I think there's a good chance that they do," Hill said.

Hammond has said the Bank of England will be the first public body to offer stimulus if needed - possibly as soon as its meeting next week - but there will be greater pressure than before on the finance ministry to act too.

Unlike when Britain last entered recession in 2008, interest rates and government bond yields are already at a record low, limiting the BoE's scope to boost growth through rate cuts or quantitative easing.

Britain's situation now has some parallels with Japan, where Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has ordered his government to take advantage of ultra-low interest rates to unveil a large spending package by the end of the month to spur investment.

STIMULUS CHOICES

If Hammond does offer more stimulus, he will have to choose how to spend it.

Long-term public investment offers the biggest boost per pound spent, according to the OBR, giving three times the return of tax cuts, and 50 percent more than general public spending.

Its main downside is that effective projects take more time than tax cuts or public-sector pay rises, which immediately put more money in Britons' pockets.

But Johnson and Hill say the case for investment is stronger than in a normal short-lived downturn, as uncertainty about Britain's EU relations could weigh on the economy for years due to the likely length of exit negotiations.

Public investment has also been squeezed, dropping to 34 billion pounds last year from 51 billion in 2009/10.

In March, the government listed 425 billion pounds of investment projects which needed private involvement, ranging from offshore wind farms to high-speed rail links.

If a more immediate boost was needed, tax measures which rewarded business investment would be a better option than repeating 2009's temporary cut in value-added tax, as business spending appears weaker than consumer sentiment.

NEW RULE, OLD RULE

There is no sense that Hammond or the finance ministry have a fixed figure in mind for how much borrowing would be too much.

Earlier this month, he said the low cost of borrowing meant it had "great attractions" to fund investment, but that Britain needed to be careful about the signal it gave financial markets.

Last week he told parliament he wanted a clear framework to achieve "fiscal balance" in a reasonable time frame.

Hammond may be tempted to revert to the rule Osborne devised in 2010, which gave him a reputation as a fiscal hawk but in practice allowed lots of back-sliding when the recovery faltered in 2011 and 2012.

This rule was monitored by the OBR and required the government to target a budget surplus within five years. But this surplus did not include investment spending - an exemption Osborne made little use of - and also allowed adjustments for economic weakness annual extensions to the surplus deadline.

This could give Hammond upwards of 40 billion pounds a year of discretionary spending to play with - equivalent to an annual stimulus of 2 percent - and still allow Hammond to claim to be as prudent as his predecessor, RBC's Hill said.

"It's got the hallmarks of a political compromise which he might find appealing," Hill said.

Markets were unlikely to baulk at funding a large British budget deficit at a time when even record-low gilt yields were much higher than those for Japanese and German debt, he added.

Higher borrowing, however, could only be a temporary solution until the longer-run impact of leaving the EU became clear, the IFS's Johnson said.

"If you borrow more now, you have to pay it back in the end. That will inevitably extend austerity – but with a break in the middle," he said.

1298
The Flood / I wanna meet this guy
« on: July 26, 2016, 05:07:27 AM »
YouTube

1299
What's wrong with this? Besides your opinion on gun control, this dude is pretty badass.

1301
The Telegraph

Quote
One of the UK’s leading scientists has said he has seen no evidence that European funding bodies are discriminating against British research projects as a result of the vote to leave the EU.

Royal Society President Sir Venki Ramakrishnan yesterday said Britain’s strength as a centre of scientific excellence was distinct from its EU membership.

The Nobel Prize-winning biologist, who is originally from India, Venki Ramakrishnan y to establish a “streamlined, efficient and rapid” visa system that enables academics from all parts of the world to work in the UK.

His intervention contradicts early reports following the referendum last month that British scholars are being overlooked for research funding.

Sir Venki said he did not believe that leaving the union would deter foreign academics from coming to Britain, which he described as “one of the most tolerant places in the world.”

“The reality is the UK is an incredibly strong science country, and its membership in the EU is only one of many considerations that people take into account when they come here,” he said.

1302
Serious / Re: Post-Brexit UK economic downturn
« on: July 26, 2016, 03:38:00 AM »
but I don't see this primarily being the result of poor planning.
I'm saying the strong labour market data was strong because the markets were not at all expecting a leave vote, and we're seeing a correction currently take place as markets belatedly react.

Quote
with many financial institutions and banks preparing for a recession and predicting major falls in economic growth.
This is kind of an overstatement. The only bank I know of which has explicitly said a recession is on the cards is Goldman Sachs--as well as NGOs like the IMF--but the worst they are predicted, which is in line with the most pessimistic, independent research before the referendum, is a mild recession.

And, again, even this kind of forecasting is subject to variables like monetary and fiscal policy which are very much likely to change.

Quote
We're still at least almost half a year away from article 50 being triggered (and that isn't even accounting for the possibility of an expedited general election, the matter of leaving being brought before the UK's court system, achieving a unified approach including Northern Ireland and Scotland, the potential requirement of parliamentary approval
All of these actually seem like auxiliary concerns considering the unexpected big decision has already been made. I would be incredibly surprised if we were to see a second general election, the government has already made its position clear on the Norn Iron-Irish border, and the EU has also been pretty clear about its unwillingness to negotiate with an independent Scotland.

Confidence is not unmanageable, and the thing that will determine how we perform, far and above any other variable, will be how the government takes us forward. There is room for both success and failure, but we're not caught in a death-spiral of overwhelming confidence-busters.

Quote
the EU shaping up to be unforgiving in the negotiations...)
All the more reason to have left.

Quote
And during all that time, the UK cannot enter into new trade agreements with any other countries or break with any other EU rules.
Promising noises (and even legislation) has come out of countries from India and Mexico to Canada and China on trade deals. And the UK government is working towards securing some kind of trade 'framework' with the EU prior to triggering Article 50.

Quote
That means that there will be major uncertainty for years to come, which is bound to be damaging to the economy.
Damaging, but not fatal. Pretty much everybody in my camp of the Brexit debate acknowledged that there would be some economic slowdown to face. The difference between us and the Remainers was magnitude, and so far the evidence is pointing to us being on the correct side of the argument. The doom-and-gloom stories spun by Remain are currently, for the most part, baseless.

Quote
UK unemployment is again on the rise (at the highest it has been in a decade
UK unemployment is 5.4pc. It was 8.4pc in mid-2011.

Quote
and has been expected to rise by another 2% in the next 2 years

Do you have a source for this? The EIC has been predicting a peak of 6pc unemployment. But, I'll say again, this depends heavily on which was monetary and fiscal policy go, and while the BoE kind of has its hands tied, the government has already signalled it will move away from austerity and towards renewed investment, particularly in infrastructure. IIRC, May has effectively co-opted Crabb's leadership pledge to invest £100bn in infrastructure, and Chancellor Hammond has also said it makes sense to fund greater investment at a time when the cost of borrowing is so low.

Quote
How long do you think it will take for those major policy changes to be implemented?
Changes in monetary and fiscal policy can happen on a pretty short time-frame. The next budget statement is set to be delivered in March 2017, so any big reforms should be spelled out then.

1303
Serious / Re: CNN: Donald Trump polling ahead of Clinton
« on: July 26, 2016, 03:15:48 AM »
No, it doesn't.

If Trump has 99 votes, and you vote for a third party, Trump still has 99 votes.
Except winners are determined by having a plurality of the total votes, not the absolute number of votes. . .

It's well established that third-parties tend to take votes away from the two main parties, harming their chance of being elected. The question is whether or not you hate them both enough to vote third party, or whether you think Johnson will be strong enough to take a significant amount of votes from Trump.

1304

1305
Serious / Re: CNN: Donald Trump polling ahead of Clinton
« on: July 25, 2016, 10:26:55 AM »
zero general election debates
Do you think Hillary will be able to beat back Teflon Don in the debates?

1306
Serious / Re: CNN: Donald Trump polling ahead of Clinton
« on: July 25, 2016, 10:11:19 AM »
I'll look a bit more into this later today, but just gonna leave this here

Quote
National polls don't have a large enough sample to accurately reflect the state of play in key battlegrounds, and there is little information thus far on how Trump's convention performance has affected the presidential race state-by-state.
I understand your point, but do you ever worry you're dismissing the evidence because of your own political bias and might end up with egg on your face?

I'm certainly not saying Trump will win, but a lot of Remainers here in the UK had a nasty surprise when the results came out, simply because they couldn't imagine a Leave vote.

1307
Serious / Re: CNN: Donald Trump polling ahead of Clinton
« on: July 25, 2016, 09:55:18 AM »
Somebody fucking move this.

1308
Serious / CNN: Donald Trump polling ahead of Clinton
« on: July 25, 2016, 09:47:27 AM »
CNN
Quote
Donald Trump comes out of his convention ahead of Hillary Clinton in the race for the White House, topping her 44% to 39% in a four-way matchup including Gary Johnson (9%) and Jill Stein (3%) and by three points in a two-way head-to-head, 48% to 45%. That latter finding represents a 6-point convention bounce for Trump, which are traditionally measured in two-way matchups.

There hasn't been a significant post-convention bounce in CNN's polling since 2000. That year Al Gore and George W. Bush both boosted their numbers by an identical 8 points post-convention before ultimately battling all the way to the Supreme Court.

National polls don't have a large enough sample to accurately reflect the state of play in key battlegrounds, and there is little information thus far on how Trump's convention performance has affected the presidential race state-by-state.

The new findings mark Trump's best showing in a CNN/ORC Poll against Clinton since September 2015. Trump's new edge rests largely on increased support among independents, 43% of whom said that Trump's convention in Cleveland left them more likely to back him, while 41% were dissuaded. Pre-convention, independents split 34% Clinton to 31% Trump, with sizable numbers behind Johnson (22%) and Stein (10%). Now, 46% say they back Trump, 28% Clinton, 15% Johnson and 4% Stein.

1309
literally what

1310
The Flood / Re: do we really care about the LAPD beating rodney king
« on: July 25, 2016, 09:36:51 AM »
i will scalp any mod that locks this glorious thread

1311
Serious / Re: Pass the cockroach milk please
« on: July 25, 2016, 08:41:57 AM »
I'll stick with coconut milk
Could you be any gayer?

1312
Serious / Re: Pass the cockroach milk please
« on: July 25, 2016, 06:00:20 AM »
This is why science is cancer.

1313
The Flood / Re: do we really care about the LAPD beating rodney king
« on: July 24, 2016, 11:40:55 AM »
When a cop tells you to do something, you do it.
Jono would suck a cop's dick on command.
who doesnt love a man in uniform

1314
The Flood / Re: do we really care about the LAPD beating rodney king
« on: July 24, 2016, 11:36:46 AM »
To answer that, you have to answer whether it would've happened to that extent if he was white. And no, it wouldn't have.
my answer would be i wouldnt really care either way

like i said in the OP, racism? sure, be outraged

but a criminal getting a beat down, black or white? i don't give a shit. and i can see how the king case is indicative of a wider issue, but im really just looking at the case in isolation here

1315
The Flood / Re: do we really care about the LAPD beating rodney king
« on: July 24, 2016, 11:31:20 AM »
It wasn't rioting over just Rodney King, that was just the straw that broke the camel's back.
yeah fair play

that thought hadn't even crossed my mind

1316
The Flood / Re: do we really care about the LAPD beating rodney king
« on: July 24, 2016, 11:30:36 AM »
Um, I don't know, how about police brutality? It doesn't matter in the slightest what started the incident, what matters is that the police beat him senselessly, even when he wasn't moving at all.
i'm not necessarily saying i agree with the officers' actions

i'm questioning whether it was worth rioting over a dangerous criminal getting his ass beat for being a dangerous criminal

1317
The Flood / do we really care about the LAPD beating rodney king
« on: July 24, 2016, 11:22:15 AM »
we have a man who led the CHP on a high speed chase, with a blood alcohol level twice over the legal limit, because a DUI would violate his parole for a prior robbery conviction and then when they finally stopped him and the LAPD showed up he resisted arrest

the dude then rushes towards an officer, gets beat down and the cops keep hitting him with their paddywhackers every time he tries to get up

being outraged over genuine racism i can understand, but why the fuck did people riot over this dumb cunt getting his ass beat after what he did

1318
Serious / Re: Munich shooting: Several killed in shopping centre
« on: July 24, 2016, 10:40:14 AM »
This thread should serve as a warning against those who would jump to conclusions. It also serves as a warning against how Islamic terrorism is becoming so normal, that we're surprised to see far-right attacks pop up.


1319
Serious / Re: THEY KNOW! SHUT IT DOWN!
« on: July 24, 2016, 01:06:30 AM »
WikiLeaks is cancer.

1320
What you're describing is avarice, which is a personal flaw.
Enabled by capitalism.
What do you think the money of the rich does? Sit under a mattress, or be invested?

As good a system as it is at perpetuating avarice, it's exactly that kind of avarice that led to early funding of things like variolation which eventually led to inoculations and vaccines.

I honestly can't take socialists seriously until they come up with a serious answer as to how important shit should be managed, funded, marketed or distributed. I'm yet to come across an answer that isn't just some vague insinuation that the system sucks.

Of course the system sucks; we just have a lot more concrete information on it than we do socialism, and a lot more answers to possible questions

Pages: 1 ... 424344 4546 ... 502