Jump to content

Thibault

Members
  • Posts

    557
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Thibault

  1. [quote user="cooperlola"][My economics education ended at O level and it was all Keynes in those days but this seemed to be the crux of the depression argument.  As the wealth is concentrated more and more, thus markets shrink because the uber-rich can only have a finite amount of basic stuff (food, houses, staff, whatever) before they stop spending on them and the residual money is either banked or spent on things which don't require vast numbers of people to produce them (like works of art and old overalls).  Thus the more wealth is concentrated, the deeper the recession.  [/quote]   But there's also this wonderful thing called the "multiplier effect" - rather like a stone being dropped in a pond and the ripples spread out from it.  If the uber-rich, as well as the not-quite-so-rich spend money (on anything - basics, art, cars, holidays) then that money spreads through the economy rather like the ripples in the pond.  This has always been the argument for spending on infra-structure, too.  So, currently, it is important that someone spends and spends quite a bit of money - that will help the general economy.  This is sometimes used as an argument for "big City bonuses" because the money (or at least part of it) goes back into the general economy in the form of spending. One of the current issues is the reduction in government spending (EZ as well as UK) and what the economy needs is spending to fuel growth - so may be it is down to the uber-rich to spend us out of the mire.   [;-)]
  2. I fail to see why David Cameron (or any other British PM from any party) should be accused of "treachery" because he (or she) exercised a given right to have a veto.  It seems to me that the meeting last Friday was well and truly telegraphed in advance.  The EU Heads of Government knew what the UK's position would be regarding the financial sector - Cameron had made no bones about it in advance.  The Franco-German position was equally "solid".  So.....why should the EU HoG be surprised at Cameron's actions?  Perhaps it's because no other British PM had ever vetoed anything before and perhaps they thought he would make a lot of noise then give in.  
  3. [quote user="Araucaria"][quote user="Thibault"] It all started to go horribly wrong post 1945 when the then government decided that a full state pension would be paid to anyone qualifying, rather than their receiving a pension based on their own specific contributions.  Since then, the state pension fund has been playing "catch up".  That, coupled with a falling birth rate and a rising number of state retirement age people has led to the present problems.[/quote] I think quite a lot of people (including my grandparents) would take issue with the idea that "It all started to go horribly wrong post 1945 when the then government decided that a full state pension would be paid to anyone qualifying, rather than their receiving a pension based on their own specific contributions". If you only give pensions to people who were able to afford contributions when they were working, then you condemn many people to follow a low-paid working life with poverty in old age. The government back in 1945 took a conscious decision NOT to have a funded state pension scheme, and all governments subsequently have gone along with this. There never has been a "state pension fund" in the UK. Old age pensions have always been paid out of current taxation and current national insurance contributions. For my part, I find it quite impossible to believe that at a time when visibly we in the west (and not just the UK, obviously) have never been better off, we can't afford to pay a decent pension to those who are too old to work. [/quote]   You misunderstand me, I was not advocating paying pensions according to contributions, merely stating that the State's coffers had to pay out the full pension right from the start, when it was "unfunded" in the sense that few contributions had been paid.  The State has been trying to "catch up" ever since.  This problem is compounded by the increase in life expectancy and the falling birth rate, as well as the recent and current economic conditions.
  4. It all started to go horribly wrong post 1945 when the then government decided that a full state pension would be paid to anyone qualifying, rather than their receiving a pension based on their own specific contributions.  Since then, the state pension fund has been playing "catch up".  That, coupled with a falling birth rate and a rising number of state retirement age people has led to the present problems. Also, it is worth remembering when the "Old Age Pension" was first introduced in (I think) 1906, people rarely lived very long to enjoy it, making it quite affordable, whereas today, people are living 20 plus years after the state retirement age. There are no easy solutions.  However, for some people, there would have been a "Golden Age" of pensions - perhaps around the 1980s-1990s - but that has gone now and it looks increasingly likely that it will never return.  It is also a problem which has to be addressed by all Western Industrialised Nations, including Greece [;-)]
  5. I haven't read all the posts in this thread, so apologies if someone has already raised this........   As I understand it, whether or not pensions were increased in line with UK pensions for those who live abroad (outside EU) depended on whether or not there was a reciprocal agreement.  I lived in Australia in me yoof and at that time there was a reciprocal agreement which was later discontinued.  However, it meant that I could count the years I worked in Australia as contributing years to my UK pension entitlement as I paid into the Australian state pension fund (but I won't get an Aussie pension [:)]).  I believe that these types of reciprocal agreements have been phased out over a number of years, or did not exist in the first place, therefore leading to the position where, for some people, pensions are frozen.
  6. Having just returned from France, the OH turned to the Orange web site to suspend our maison secondaire phone line as usual, only to find the system not working.  The OH spoke to the English Speaking Service who said that the facility has been terminated for British residents because of "....constant abuse of the system...." and now the only way to suspend the phone line is to call Paris and speak to someone. Any thoughts?
  7. Written humour is difficult to quantify - what is side-splittingly funny to one is average to another - I can remember crying with laughter, years ago, when reading one of the James Herriot books where he describes driving a car with no brakes and having to go round and round a farmhouse because he couldn't stop.  The OH didn't think it was that funny at all[8-)]
  8. I agree with your comments, Sweet17, but whilst it is nice to see older people "having a go" and doing things, Brucie is paid a considerable amount of money for his "job".  I forget the exact amount, but it runs into several thousands of pounds an "episode".  I would expect him to be able to do the job, not just "have a go" at it! With regard to what his employers should do, there is a forum called "Digital Spy" which carries comments about programmes in the media.  There has beena significantly large series of posts all saying that Brucie had had his day and should go.  That has been going on for some years now, but it seems the BBC is not listening [:D]
  9. [quote user="sweet 17"] I find it very harsh for people to be labled as "past their sell-by date" purely on the basis of their age.[/quote] If your comment is aimed at me, I do not disregard people purely on the basis of their age.  After all, the Queen at 85 and the Duke at 90 still appear to be coherent and capable.  However, "Brucie" is beginning to find "performing" quite difficult.  He misreads the autocue, gets his timing wrong and generally gives the impression that he IS "past his sell-by date".  I am sure, when he was younger, he was a good performer and he has been in the business for a long time, but he should begin to think about retiring.  His is not a job for life and it is much better to accept retirement than to go on and on, finding things more and more difficult. Andy Williams was a guest on Strictly some time ago and his performance was extremely embarrassing - another performer who should know when it is time to stop.
  10. Hopefully, now having achieved the honour he and others have been banging on about for years, he will retire from all TV appearances.  I found his performance on Strictly so embarrassing, I started recording it so I could fast-forward his bits........then I stopped watching altogether [:D]  He is well past his sell-by date.
  11. [quote user="woolybanana"]So, Mrs E, this could not be used as a means to get rid of a certain Hungarian?[/quote]   What's with this idea that people only have the nationality of their parent(s)?  You will be telling me next that the Queen is German because her gt gt grandfather (Albert) was born in Germany.[:D] If we follow approach to its logical conclusion, none of us will be who we think we are!!!
  12. [quote user="Russethouse"] .....Robin Cooks feelings for Gaynor were obviously deep enough that he walked away from his marriage, .....[/quote]   As I remember it, Robin Cook was hauled away from his wife at an airport by (I think) Alistair Campbell and told he had to make a decision about his wife and his mistress, because something was going to be published in a newspaper.  So there would appear to have been some political pressure applied.  [:)]  
  13. That's excellent news as we will be off to S Burgundy next week!
  14. [quote user="Simon-come-lately"] [quote user="Thibault"]If your last post was addressed to me, I'm afraid I'm a bit slow this morning.  Perhaps you could explain what you mean?[/quote]  Yes, it was addressed to you Saint Thibault. Happy to explain - quite simple really.....Mondeoman came onto this ever-so-friendly forum for help and advice - not to be berrated for his actions - he's done that to himself! Give me strength....Simon :-)[/quote] Thank you for advancing me to the sainthood. [:)], but if you read my post properly it was addressing the point that any post about speeding usually results in respondents being polarised into two camps either for or against speeding.  I did not "berate" the OP.
  15. If your last post was addressed to me, I'm afraid I'm a bit slow this morning.  Perhaps you could explain what you mean?
  16. I have come late to this thread and have read it all.  It is interesting how the topic of speeding soon seems to develop into an argument between people who are very concerned that some people seem to think it is OK to speed and those who come from the "I'm a good driver and the road was empty" camp. Everywhere one sees the signs "Speed Kills".  Presumably those signs are there for a reason.  Presumably speed limits are imposed by governments because they think setting limits is a good thing and reduces the number of accidents etc.  At some point in the on-going argument, someone always mentions the German motorways and their lack of a limit.  The most interesting thing I saw on a German motorway was a traffic policeman walking down the fast lane, facing oncoming traffic,  German drivers were so disciplined that they all managed to move into the middle lane (and the existing middle lane drivers made room for them) and avoided the pedestrian. I don't understand why it is "...walking on water....." or being "holier-than-thou...." to express a view that driving at such excessive speeds as the OP did is completely stupid as well as against the law. There just seems to be something about speeding which polarises people. [:)]   PS In my youth I was fined for driving at 37 miles an hour in a 30 mph zone [:$]
  17.     Papachapa I haven't forgotten the name of the newspaper - I didn't mention it.  I said I had forgotten the name of the town the UK troops were protecting and for which the US are now responsible. You seem to think that any newspaper is incapable of writing well-informed stuff, yet the gossipy style of diplomatic messages are bound to be gospel. You may like to reflect on the fact that the diplomatic messages are some months/years old, whereas the US military opinion quoted in the newspaper reflected the views of the US AFTER they had taken control of the area and perhaps began to realise what the British troops had been trying to achieve.
  18. Can't stand the woman, but I am glad she has won.  It is a bit odd that older men (and their wrinkles) managed to hang on to their jobs, whereas the same doesn't seem to happen to women presenters.  Remember all that fuss about Moira Stewart, who once she got into her middle fifties was "let go" as a TV news reader in spite of a campaign to keep her.  When the BBC finally found a new job for her - it was to read news on the RADIO where her older, but still attractive, face could not be seen. Double standards, anyone?
  19. [quote user="pachapapa"] [quote user="Cathy"]I am quite incensed by Obama's remarks, which are so untrue.  Think Nato?  Think Iraq?  I would be particularly angry if I was a mother of a British soldier.  It really is time to pull out our troops from Afghanistan. [/quote] Pulling the troops out of Afghanistan could be a productive measure. The latest US diplomatic documents released by Wikileaks contain harsh criticism of the UK military effort in Afghanistan from 2007 to 2009. The cables say US officials and Afghan President Hamid Karzai believed UK forces were not up to the task of securing Helmand province on their own. The president reportedly said he was relieved when US Marines were sent to the province. The details have been published in the Guardian newspaper. In one cable, a US general, Dan McNeill, was said to be “particularly dismayed by the British effort” in fighting the drugs trade in Afghanistan. He is quoted as saying that British forces had “made a mess” of counter-narcotics operations in Helmand by employing the “wrong” tactics. http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/WikiLeaks-Afghan-Criticism-Of-UK-Military-Revealed-In-Leaked-Cables/Article/201012115845510 [/quote]   Well there was an interesting report in the paper a week or so ago which said that the US military had suffered heavier losses in Helmand than the British in a similar period of time and that US generals were beginning to think that perhaps the British had not been so "weak" and "cowardly" as previously thought.  The US, it seems, abandoned the UK strategy of capturing and holding areas in a circle around the main town (whose name for the moment escapes me) to protect the citizens of that town and allow "normal" life to continue and, as a result, the town was now coming under attack by the Taliban and "normal" life was becoming impossible again. The tone of the article seemed to imply that perhaps the US had been rather too harsh in its assessment of the British effort.    
  20. [quote user="Gluestick"][OFCOM reports are simply window dressing: the agency has been a toothless lion since inception......... [/quote]  Partial quote only.   That may well be true, however it doesn't alter the case regarding VC's remarks.  It is difficult to see the connection between two "constituents" wishing to discuss child benefit issues and VC's Ministerial role over Murdock and Sky, unless he was hoping to impress two potential voters about himself and what he could or could not do.   
  21. The problem is not that VC dislikes the Murdock Media - many share that view.  The problem is that VC, as a Minister of the Crown, was going to be the final arbiter as to whether or not Murdock could take over the rest of Sky. He even acknowledged during the "interview" that he could not politicise this. So he was aware of his duty but chose to "...speak his mind......" to two complete strangers he thought were potential electors in his constituency.  In doing so, he indicated that his mind was made up before the OFCOM report had arrived, upon which he was supposed to make his decision.
  22. [quote user="idun"]If french politicians would like a little respect, then maybe they should earn it. And Sarkozy, would that I could think of anything even half decent to say about him, but I cannot.[/quote] Disliking a politician for their policies and approach is understandable, as is attacking him/her/them for that.  Using gratuitous personal insults related either to physical characteristics or the media perceptions of past personal behaviour is not. Also unacceptable in the 21st century is the continuation of double standards in relation to men and women.
  23. Like an earlier poster, I am amazed at the personal venom directed at the French Head of State and his wife.  Politicians should be judged on their record, not on things they cannot do anything about such as their height.  There was a similar incident of name-calling regarding Gordon Brown and the fact that he is blind in one eye. 
  24. We are also in 71 and went to the local SPANC meeting.  It was rather heated and the chap from SPANC was terribly patronising to the local farmers who were up in arms at the costs of inspections.  One surprising thing we did learn was that "poor" communes pay MORE for the inspections than "rich" communes.  This seems absolutely crazy but it is linked to the amount of industry/commerce in a commune.  As ours is very small (900 people) and rather poor, we have to pay 150 euros for the inspection - charged at 30 euros per year for five years.
  25. [quote user="Quillan"] Likewise you can't possibly compare Greece to Ireland with regards to their debt problems, Greece run up massive public debt where as Ireland's debt is mainly private/personal debt. Ireland knew this (their finance minster said so on TV tonight) three or four years ago but did nothing to stop house prices and personal debt from spiraling out of control. [/quote] This is one of the reasons why the Euro is in trouble.  If you think of the wide spectrum of countries now in the Euro from Germany (the strongest) to the "PIGS" then the idea of having one central bank setting one interest rate for the whole lot seems crazy.  Added to that, for political reasons, the "economic joining requirements" were waived for some weaker economies like Italy and Greece, so the Eurozone started from a position of weakness.  The Eurocrats cannot even get members to comply with the required percentage of GDP allowable for the public deficit - I think it is around 3% and France has not been complying with this for some time, for example.  There is no tax harmonisation either.  So the whole thing has been rocky from the start.  Anyone hear the deafening sound of chickens coming home to roost?
×
×
  • Create New...