Comments by "boz" (@BOZ_11) on "LBC"
channel.
-
757
-
85
-
77
-
70
-
49
-
49
-
33
-
32
-
28
-
28
-
27
-
26
-
24
-
24
-
23
-
22
-
20
-
For any budding economists reading this, the average UK house price was £30,000 in 1984, and average wages were £9,100 per annum (a multiple of 3.29x). Today, the average house price is £286,000 and the average wage is £31,616, a multiple of 9x. In other words, adjusted for inflation, houses cost nearly three times as much today (2.7x). The Bank of England boss should be fired for hiking interest rates, causing repossessions and mass economic harm
So, no, younger generations have it nearly 3x as hard. Anything he says to the contrary flies in the face of the above fact
20
-
20
-
19
-
19
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@thatguy2608 He fell into the trap of talking about credentials, rather than actual monetary, fiscal, or tax policies that would alleviate poverty and widen the middle class (which means shortening the rich).
There was nothing to dumb down, it was a "rich get richer spiel", but offered no way to stop it.
I'm pasting from an econ channel, but it's my comment:
"You can fix that by firstly raising the income tax allowance, which should be increased to within 75% of the median wage (broken down by county) and then pegged to the RPI. The minimum wage should be inflation adjusted (to say 2007 pounds, right before the crash) and then pegged to the RPI. VAT should be scrapped for everything but luxury goods, at 35%"
Just those policies would help the bottom 90%, but Gary had none.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@jonathandnicholson
--“True regarding no legal compulsion to enact the result from the enacted legislation”
--The poll obviously isn’t legislation and there was no bill tied to the poll; they didn’t even know what the question meant (at the time, which is why the speak of customs union and Swiss deal were bandied about).
--“(50% of the electorate plus one vote because, for a binary vote, that is how democracy works)”
--Major constitutional changes (which leaving the EU, is) ALWAYS require a threshold to add legitimacy to the result. Who told you that constitutional changes don’t require a threshold? From what planet did you glean that?
--“Referendum means a vote on a particular issue to direct policy, so I would regard the result as morally and politically if not legally binding”
--There was no legal binding, that’s how we know it wasn’t a referendum; and morality doesn’t come into it, since these are Tories we’re talking about (they lied to the Queen about proroguing parliament, so spare the morality speak). The winning vote was only 51.8%, a number that would never breach ANY threshold.
--“how would you have felt/what would you have said if Remain won and, say, Boris Johnson said 'Well, the legislation did not compel us to implement the result, so we are going to leave anyway'?”
--That’s not the question to ask. The question to ask, is: “If we were outside the EU, and the public polling showed 51.8% of voters to go into the EU, but UK politicians say we won’t go in, because the poll was advisory and we don’t need to act”? We’re moving from the status quo to a new position.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
"A new book, Not One Inch: America, Russia, and the Making of the Cold War Stalemate, by the prize-winning historian Mary Elise Sarotte, charts all the private discussions within the western alliance and with Russia over enlargement and reveals Russia as powerless to slow the ratchet effect of the opening of Nato’s door. The author concludes the charge of betrayal is technically untrue, but has a psychological truth.
What is the basis of the complaint?
At one level it narrowly focuses both on verbal commitments made by the US secretary of state James Baker under President George HW Bush and the terms of a treaty signed on 12 September 1990 setting out how Nato troops could operate in the territory of the former East Germany.
Putin claims that Baker, in a discussion on 9 February 1990 with the Soviet leader, Mikhail Gorbachev, made the promise that Nato would not expand to the east if Russia accepted Germany’s unification.
The following day Chancellor Helmut Kohl, ambiguous about Germany remaining in Nato after unification, also told Gorbachev “naturally Nato could not expand its territory to the current territory of the GDR”. The promise was repeated in a speech by the Nato secretary general on 17 May, a promise cited by Putin in his Munich speech. In his memoirs, Gorbachev described these assurances as the moment that cleared the way for compromise on Germany.
Were these promises ever written down in a treaty?
No, largely because Bush felt Baker and Kohl had gone too far, or in Baker’s words he had “got a little forward on his skis”.
The final agreement signed by Russia and the west in September 1990 applied only to Germany. It allowed foreign-stationed Nato troops to cross the old cold war line marked by East Germany at the discretion of the German government. The agreement was contained in a signed addendum. Nato’s commitment to protect, enshrined in article 5, had for the first time moved east into former Russian-held territory."
The Guardian - Wed 12 Jan 2022 05.00 GMT
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
"A new book, Not One Inch: America, Russia, and the Making of the Cold War Stalemate, by the prize-winning historian Mary Elise Sarotte, charts all the private discussions within the western alliance and with Russia over enlargement and reveals Russia as powerless to slow the ratchet effect of the opening of Nato’s door. The author concludes the charge of betrayal is technically untrue, but has a psychological truth.
What is the basis of the complaint?
At one level it narrowly focuses both on verbal commitments made by the US secretary of state James Baker under President George HW Bush and the terms of a treaty signed on 12 September 1990 setting out how Nato troops could operate in the territory of the former East Germany.
Putin claims that Baker, in a discussion on 9 February 1990 with the Soviet leader, Mikhail Gorbachev, made the promise that Nato would not expand to the east if Russia accepted Germany’s unification.
The following day Chancellor Helmut Kohl, ambiguous about Germany remaining in Nato after unification, also told Gorbachev “naturally Nato could not expand its territory to the current territory of the GDR”. The promise was repeated in a speech by the Nato secretary general on 17 May, a promise cited by Putin in his Munich speech. In his memoirs, Gorbachev described these assurances as the moment that cleared the way for compromise on Germany.
Were these promises ever written down in a treaty?
No, largely because Bush felt Baker and Kohl had gone too far, or in Baker’s words he had “got a little forward on his skis”.
The final agreement signed by Russia and the west in September 1990 applied only to Germany. It allowed foreign-stationed Nato troops to cross the old cold war line marked by East Germany at the discretion of the German government. The agreement was contained in a signed addendum. Nato’s commitment to protect, enshrined in article 5, had for the first time moved east into former Russian-held territory."
The Guardian - Wed 12 Jan 2022 05.00 GMT
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
America and Ukraine passed about a hundred checkpoints for diplomacy, and decided they wanted a war, at the great cost of Ukrainian lives. Ukraine has as much right to join NATO as James does of walking down an unlit blind alley in Thamesmead at 3am. Part of statehood is negotiating geopolitics, and they failed to err on the side of caution. Stop NATO accession, and end the violence. We don't need another to incorporate these Balkan states; they're more trouble than they're worth.
"A new book, Not One Inch: America, Russia, and the Making of the Cold War Stalemate, by the prize-winning historian Mary Elise Sarotte, charts all the private discussions within the western alliance and with Russia over enlargement and reveals Russia as powerless to slow the ratchet effect of the opening of Nato’s door. The author concludes the charge of betrayal is technically untrue, but has a psychological truth.
What is the basis of the complaint?
At one level it narrowly focuses both on verbal commitments made by the US secretary of state James Baker under President George HW Bush and the terms of a treaty signed on 12 September 1990 setting out how Nato troops could operate in the territory of the former East Germany.
Putin claims that Baker, in a discussion on 9 February 1990 with the Soviet leader, Mikhail Gorbachev, made the promise that Nato would not expand to the east if Russia accepted Germany’s unification.
The following day Chancellor Helmut Kohl, ambiguous about Germany remaining in Nato after unification, also told Gorbachev “naturally Nato could not expand its territory to the current territory of the GDR”. The promise was repeated in a speech by the Nato secretary general on 17 May, a promise cited by Putin in his Munich speech. In his memoirs, Gorbachev described these assurances as the moment that cleared the way for compromise on Germany.
Were these promises ever written down in a treaty?
No, largely because Bush felt Baker and Kohl had gone too far, or in Baker’s words he had “got a little forward on his skis”.
The final agreement signed by Russia and the west in September 1990 applied only to Germany. It allowed foreign-stationed Nato troops to cross the old cold war line marked by East Germany at the discretion of the German government. The agreement was contained in a signed addendum. Nato’s commitment to protect, enshrined in article 5, had for the first time moved east into former Russian-held territory."
The Guardian - Wed 12 Jan 2022 05.00 GMT
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@henrysnowdon7563 "Interest rate hikes lower inflation"
---This present round of inflation was caused by energy price hikes (around 70% increase, which is enormous). Since all goods and services require energy, rising energy costs have increased prices everywhere. The BoE's response should have been to drop rates near zero, instead, they exacerbated the situation by making money, credit, mortgages, loans etc more expensive. Any fall in prices due to decreased consumer spending (from hiked rates) will barely make a dent in the face of higher rates and energy prices, and rich individuals/businesses causing price inflation with housing and rents.
As for your last point, private sector growth can only happen through public sector investment and/or cheap credit to businesses (which require low rates!).
If you go through historical interest rates and inflation, you'll see that more often than not, price inflation tends to proceed rate hikes, not precede.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The 2008-2009 Gaza War (Operation Cast Lead): This 3-week conflict left over 1,000 Palestinians dead, many of whom were civilians.
The 2014 Israel-Gaza conflict: During 50 days of fighting, over 2,100 Palestinians were killed, according to the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. 66 Israeli soldiers and 7 civilians in Israel were also killed.
2021 Israel-Gaza crisis: After clashes in Jerusalem, Palestinian militants fired rockets and Israel carried out airstrikes over 11 days. Over 240 Palestinians were killed, including 66 children. 12 people in Israel also died from rocket fire, including 2 children.
The King David Hotel bombing was an attack carried out by the militant Zionist group Irgun on July 22nd, 1946. This attack killed over 90 people and was one of the deadliest terror attacks during the British Mandate period in Palestine prior to Israeli independence in 1948
Not to mention the Nakba in 1948, when 750,000 Palestinians were driven from their homes by the Zionists
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@snakeplissken526 The 2008-2009 Gaza War (Operation Cast Lead): This 3-week conflict left over 1,000 Palestinians dead, many of whom were civilians.
The 2014 Israel-Gaza conflict: During 50 days of fighting, over 2,100 Palestinians were killed, according to the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. 66 Israeli soldiers and 7 civilians in Israel were also killed.
2021 Israel-Gaza crisis: After clashes in Jerusalem, Palestinian militants fired rockets and Israel carried out airstrikes over 11 days. Over 240 Palestinians were killed, including 66 children. 12 people in Israel also died from rocket fire, including 2 children.
The King David Hotel bombing was an attack carried out by the militant Zionist group Irgun on July 22nd, 1946. This attack killed over 90 people and was one of the deadliest terror attacks during the British Mandate period in Palestine prior to Israeli independence in 1948
Not to mention the Nakba in 1948, when 750,000 Palestinians were driven from their homes by the Zionists
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1