Jeff
CaerMyrddin wrote:Here there's a debate about increasing the electricity cost by 30%. That's hard!
Eurozone debt crisis
Regardless of their salary?
You'd cut by 20% the salary of a junior IT assistant on 13K, who's only barely managing to pay his bills?
I'm not sure why there's so much talk in UK politics about front-line staff, btw. The back office staff aren't all paper shufflers! You might have been able to run a police force in 1850 with officers alone, but these days the non-public facing staff also play a vital role.
Jeff
You'd cut by 20% the salary of a junior IT assistant on 13K, who's only barely managing to pay his bills?
I'm not sure why there's so much talk in UK politics about front-line staff, btw. The back office staff aren't all paper shufflers! You might have been able to run a police force in 1850 with officers alone, but these days the non-public facing staff also play a vital role.
Jeff
superfrank wrote: I'd start with 20% off every non-front line public sector salary
OK but I don't see how beating them with sticks is going to get the deficit downFerru123 wrote:I'd bring back birching & make prison far more austere.
That can only help the economy!
Oh, and I'd take TVs away from prisoners. Give them books if they want to kill time. OK, many of them can't read, but taking away their TVs would give them a hell of an incentive to learn!
Jeff
Simple.
It's a great deterrent. Less crime = Less justice costs = A healthier economy
And it's far cheaper than prison! Rather than sentence someone to 6 weeks in prison - where they get to watch TV, hang out with their mates and get free lessons in the art of crime, all at great expense to the taxpayer - a judge could order them to be publically caned.
In cases like that of the thieves who stole a young boy's 12K wheelchair and sold it to scrap metal merchants for 30 quid, I'd go along and cheer!
Jeff
It's a great deterrent. Less crime = Less justice costs = A healthier economy
And it's far cheaper than prison! Rather than sentence someone to 6 weeks in prison - where they get to watch TV, hang out with their mates and get free lessons in the art of crime, all at great expense to the taxpayer - a judge could order them to be publically caned.
In cases like that of the thieves who stole a young boy's 12K wheelchair and sold it to scrap metal merchants for 30 quid, I'd go along and cheer!
Jeff
hgodden wrote: OK but I don't see how beating them with sticks is going to get the deficit down
I don't know the figures but I think it's a big assumption to make to say that brutalising them will stop crime either as a deterent or cutting reoffending rates. Most of the prison population have at least some form of mental illness. IMO they need to be more proactive and bolder in their approach in terms of finding and using things that actually cut crime in practice. Giving criminals extensive community work rather than short term prison sentances cuts reoffending rates by 10%. There was a study a few years ago where prisoners were given a one week intensive meditation course and it cut reoffending rates by over 20%. Wacking them in public will likely just alienate them further and cause them to want to take vengence back on society, you may as well just execute them 
I'm all for methods that are 'win-win' for society and criminals, providing they work.
But for very serious crime, I'm not opposed to corporal punishment. As for the criminals getting their own back on society, it's possible, but I bet the reoffending rate in Saudi amongst people who have been lashed is a damn site lower than the reoffending rate of people released from prison in this country...
It's time criminals saw the justice system in this country as more than a minor inconvenience...
Jeff
But for very serious crime, I'm not opposed to corporal punishment. As for the criminals getting their own back on society, it's possible, but I bet the reoffending rate in Saudi amongst people who have been lashed is a damn site lower than the reoffending rate of people released from prison in this country...
It's time criminals saw the justice system in this country as more than a minor inconvenience...
Jeff
-
superfrank
- Posts: 2762
- Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2009 8:28 pm
The great euro swindle
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comm ... indle.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comm ... indle.html
Multi-trillion grand plan to save the eurozone is being prepared - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/fina ... pared.html
The markets next week should be interesting...
Jeff
The markets next week should be interesting...
Jeff
The markets are falling faster than Frankel's In-Play odds. There's no stop-loss for this one I think. Not this time. A catastrophic crash in store I'm afraid, with the 4-fold whammy of Euro debt crisis, US debt, Asian stagnation, and over-inflated commodities all producing a devastating rout of the market from which there will be no escape.
-
mulberryhawk
- Posts: 165
- Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2009 12:37 am
i have read that article before mulberryhawk, and the problem with that article and loads like it is, they never state how much as been lost and to who.
if real money is lost, i assume its been lost by someone.
if someone as lost money, who as gained the money. in short who as all the money.
if real money is lost, i assume its been lost by someone.
if someone as lost money, who as gained the money. in short who as all the money.
Let's say that last year you sold a bunch of shares and made a nice profit.
You use the profits to buy a car, which has since decreased in value.
The share you sold has crashed, and the guy you sold it to has lost money.
So you and other other guy are both worse off.
I think that's how economies as a whole can be worse off when equities crash, ie the fact that things people buy often deteriorate in value or are eventually destroyed (or eaten!), meaning wealth disappears. That's just my opinion, but it seems to make sense.
Perhaps the system can easily cope with such shocks if the fall is minor and the economy is bouyant. But neither of those conditions apply at present.
As for who makes money, I guess the answer is lucky people, shrewd investors and trend followers!
Jeff
You use the profits to buy a car, which has since decreased in value.
The share you sold has crashed, and the guy you sold it to has lost money.
So you and other other guy are both worse off.
I think that's how economies as a whole can be worse off when equities crash, ie the fact that things people buy often deteriorate in value or are eventually destroyed (or eaten!), meaning wealth disappears. That's just my opinion, but it seems to make sense.
Perhaps the system can easily cope with such shocks if the fall is minor and the economy is bouyant. But neither of those conditions apply at present.
As for who makes money, I guess the answer is lucky people, shrewd investors and trend followers!
Jeff
to75ne wrote:i have read that article before mulberryhawk, and the problem with that article and loads like it is, they never state how much as been lost and to who.
if real money is lost, i assume its been lost by someone.
if someone as lost money, who as gained the money. in short who as all the money.
-
superfrank
- Posts: 2762
- Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2009 8:28 pm
Money doesn't always get won or lost.
During the 'boom' when property and equity prices shot up that 'wealth' was really created out of thin air based on expectations of future price gains.
The problem was that it was all driven by massive credit expansion, i.e. it was highly leveraged.
When asset prices rise due purely to credit expansion (or deficit spending), and not anything real (e.g. productivity increases) then it obviously leads to big problems because the 'wealth' created is phoney wealth which the market will eventually destroy no matter how much central planners try to protect it.
During the 'boom' when property and equity prices shot up that 'wealth' was really created out of thin air based on expectations of future price gains.
The problem was that it was all driven by massive credit expansion, i.e. it was highly leveraged.
When asset prices rise due purely to credit expansion (or deficit spending), and not anything real (e.g. productivity increases) then it obviously leads to big problems because the 'wealth' created is phoney wealth which the market will eventually destroy no matter how much central planners try to protect it.