Bob Diamond resigns

[mjdgreg]

This proves you right about the economy how, exactly?

Not sure what you mean about 'This'. If you would care to elaborate, then I'll do my best to answer you.

Mjdgreg/Marydene Rover/Mick, please stop. You're thoroughly embarrassing yourself to the point where I and probably everyone else will never take you seriously again, and resorting to arguing about the length of Billy's holiday and miniscule semantic matters is not helping at all.

Billy was the one that said he hadn't had a 3 week holiday and asked me the question where had I got the 3 weeks from. I merely did him the courtesy of replying to his question. You'll notice I always do readers the courtesy of answering their questions.

No, incompetences is not a word, but it is acceptable to coin a word in situations where everyone is fully aware what it means.

I hope Billy now stops arguing the toss over that one now. You are totally wrong saying it is acceptable to coin a word in situations where everyone is fully aware what it means. What a load of hogwash. You can't just make up words when you feel like it. I'm glad I didn't get taught grammar at your school. There are rules of grammar and they are needed to stop people like you and Billy debasing the English language. I was merely trying to stop him using the non-word again to save him from further embarrassment. 

For someone who claims to be always right you're fairly insecure, so this will hopefully settle you down. You were right about something, it isn't a word, no need to go making clone accounts to agree with yourself or picking internet fights with people then insisting copying swathes of text from Wikipedia is "pugnacious" of you. You have one small victory to put next to your enormous pile of failures.

Rest assured I am not insecure. I am totally confident. If you had said I was over confident then I may have considered your point of view for a nano-second before dismissing it. You also seem to be jealous of my photographic memory. If you would like to list my alleged enormous pile of failures I will go through them one by one to prove you totally wrong. I'm not holding my breath.

I'm not going to humour you anymore, though why I did when you call experts of their fields who were proven 100% right on matters of economics "cranks" I'll never know.

I think you'll find that they have not been proven to be 100% right on matters of economics. Far from it. Governments following their views is what's got us in this mess. That's why they are cranks and they are usually trying to sell a book. I am the only person I know that is 100% right about the economy and I am not trying to sell a book so you can take my views far more seriously than the cranks. 

[MachoMadness]

You know what, I'm a mug. I said I wouldn't post, but I stupidly clicked back into the thread while enjoying this little game of tennis on the telly and lo and behold, I'm like a moth drawn to Mick's exceptionally dim bulb. Mick, feel free to quote this, with the "I'm a mug" part in bold text so you can get a cheap shot in. That's a free one for you.

Not sure what you mean about 'This'. If you would care to elaborate, then I'll do my best to answer you.

"This" is obviously this stupid f**king argument over some bloke's holiday or lack thereof, and subsequent argument over meaningless semantics.

Billy was the one that said he hadn't had a 3 week holiday and asked me the question where had I got the 3 weeks from. I merely did him the courtesy of replying to his question. You'll notice I always do readers the courtesy of answering their questions.

Irrelevant. You're still arguing over his holiday/break/whatever for no reason.

I hope Billy now stops arguing the toss over that one now. You are totally wrong saying it is acceptable to coin a word in situations where everyone is fully aware what it means. What a load of hogwash. You can't just make up words when you feel like it. I'm glad I didn't get taught grammar at your school. There are rules of grammar and they are needed to stop people like you and Billy debasing the English language. I was merely trying to stop him using the non-word again to save him from further embarrassment. 

See, I'll take the fall on this one. This is the main reason I'm bothering to reply, as I should have clarified what I meant. It wouldn't be acceptable to just make up a word in a formal environment such as school or work. You wouldn't use contractions or first-person pronouns, either. However, in an informal environment, such as, say, debating with an imbecile on an internet messageboard, it's perfectly acceptable. By the way, I do have a degree in English, but I'm probably just a leftie crank so feel free to ignore this.

Rest assured I am not insecure. I am totally confident. If you had said I was over confident then I may have considered your point of view for a nano-second before dismissing it. You also seem to be jealous of my photographic memory. If you would like to list my alleged enormous pile of failures I will go through them one by one to prove you totally wrong. I'm not holding my breath.

Who cares whether you've got a photographic memory or not? It doesn't matter if you've got a photographic memory or if you're Guy Pearce in Memento, you're still copying verbatim from other websites (and not particularly effectively, either)!

I think you'll find that they have not been proven to be 100% right on matters of economics. Far from it. Governments following their views is what's got us in this mess. That's why they are cranks and they are usually trying to sell a book. I am the only person I know that is 100% right about the economy and I am not trying to sell a book so you can take my views far more seriously than the cranks.

Again, just feel I should clarify on this one. 100% right is probably not totally accurate as nobody is 100% right. However, the Keynesian model has proven effective in dragging economies out of deep recessions before (Google Franklin D Roosevelt unless he's just a leftie crank too, and the New Deal, and copy and paste what you find on Wikipedia if you like) and all empirical evidence suggests that it is what is required in this recession. Cutting the deficit too harshly leads to Weimar Germany, which you can also Google. Admittedly the situations aren't exactly alike as Germany was forced into paying off their debts by the Treaty of Versailles, instead of doing it out of choice as you would do, but the principle is the same: dedicating an entire economy to cutting national debt leads to disaster. I'm no expert (although clearly, neither are you) but I know an economy requires some stimulation to be kick-started. You seem to lack a simple grasp of the most basic economic laws.

Anyway, I feel like I've clarified a little more, I really am done with this ridiculous thread now. Enjoy making more strawman arguments out of it Mick, the tennis has finished now so I'm going to do something productive with my Sunday afternoon. Try and do the same, yeah?

[mjdgreg]

You know what, I'm a mug.

Fair play to you for admitting that. I totally agree.

"This" is obviously this stupid f***ing argument over some bloke's holiday or lack thereof, and subsequent argument over meaningless semantics.

I fail to see why you would think this important clarification of whether Billy had a 3 week holiday and his poor grasp of grammar meant I thought I was right about the economy. Way off at a tangent on that one I'm afraid.

Billy was the one that said he hadn't had a 3 week holiday and asked me the question where had I got the 3 weeks from. I merely did him the courtesy of replying to his question. You'll notice I always do readers the courtesy of answering their questions.

Irrelevant. You're still arguing over his holiday/break/whatever for no reason.

I don't think it's irrelevant to answer questions. That would be very impolite of me.

I hope Billy now stops arguing the toss over that one now. You are totally wrong saying it is acceptable to coin a word in situations where everyone is fully aware what it means. What a load of hogwash. You can't just make up words when you feel like it. I'm glad I didn't get taught grammar at your school. There are rules of grammar and they are needed to stop people like you and Billy debasing the English language. I was merely trying to stop him using the non-word again to save him from further embarrassment.

See, I'll take the fall on this one. This is the main reason I'm bothering to reply, as I should have clarified what I meant. It wouldn't be acceptable to just make up a word in a formal environment such as school or work. You wouldn't use contractions or first-person pronouns, either. However, in an informal environment, such as, say, debating with an imbecile on an internet messageboard, it's perfectly acceptable. By the way, I do have a degree in English, but I'm probably just a leftie crank so feel free to ignore this.

I like a man who admits he's wrong. Well done. However you then backtrack and say it's OK to debase the English language in informal environments. I bet your lecturer wouldn't agree with you. It's more important in an informal environment to maintain high standards or we would be well and truly on the slippery slope. The standard of grammar on this forum really does make my piss boil.

Rest assured I am not insecure. I am totally confident. If you had said I was over confident then I may have considered your point of view for a nano-second before dismissing it. You also seem to be jealous of my photographic memory. If you would like to list my alleged enormous pile of failures I will go through them one by one to prove you totally wrong. I'm not holding my breath.

Who cares whether you've got a photographic memory or not? It doesn't matter if you've got a photographic memory or if you're Guy Pearce in Memento, you're still copying verbatim from other websites (and not particularly effectively, either)!

Just like Billy you contradict yourself. You say  I copy verbatim from other websites then in the next breath say that I don't do it particularly effectively so how can it be verbatim? pmsl. I notice you don't list any of my alleged enormous pile of failures. That's because there aren't any.

I think you'll find that they have not been proven to be 100% right on matters of economics. Far from it. Governments following their views is what's got us in this mess. That's why they are cranks and they are usually trying to sell a book. I am the only person I know that is 100% right about the economy and I am not trying to sell a book so you can take my views far more seriously than the cranks.

Again, just feel I should clarify on this one. 100% right is probably not totally accurate as nobody is 100% right. However, the Keynesian model has proven effective in dragging economies out of deep recessions before (Google Franklin D Roosevelt unless he's just a leftie crank too, and the New Deal, and copy and paste what you find on Wikipedia if you like) and all empirical evidence suggests that it is what is required in this recession. Cutting the deficit too harshly leads to Weimar Germany, which you can also Google. Admittedly the situations aren't exactly alike as Germany was forced into paying off their debts by the Treaty of Versailles, instead of doing it out of choice as you would do, but the principle is the same: dedicating an entire economy to cutting national debt leads to disaster. I'm no expert (although clearly, neither are you) but I know an economy requires some stimulation to be kick-started. You seem to lack a simple grasp of the most basic economic laws.

Well done for admitting you were wrong again! We'll just have to disagree about Keynes the crank.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Mick

Bizarrely, this issue about the duration of my holiday actually IS germane to the rest of this thread.

See, it's really all about whether YOU Mick are capable of reading simple words, processing simple concepts and drawing robust conclusions.

Or whether you are an obsessive gobshite who makes up his mind then violently argues his position regardless of evidence.

Let's start with clearly identifiable facts. I appreciate that this is not usually your modus operandi, but it IS the way that the rest of the world tends to approach things.

So, I said the following, explaining why I wasn't going to carry on getting deeply involved in your obsessive argument:
"Off on holiday later this week and am too busy making sure that everyone in my company knows what they are doing before I leave...I'm off the scene for the thick end of three weeks."

From that, you drew the conclusion that I was taking a three week holiday. That ignored the term "thick end of" and the clear comment that I was too busy dealing with my employees before I left to be on the scene.

For the record (not that it is any if your f***ing business, but just for the record) I was away from home for exactly two weeks. One week visiting very ill relatives and one at a beach holiday.

The key point is that you took very simple facts and drew an entirely erroneous conclusion. Your mistake was compounded by later suggesting that I must have a public sector job, in blithe ignorance of what I had posted earlier about "my company". For the record (not that it is any of your f***ing business, but just for the record) I am Managing Director of a very successful SME that I founded 9 years ago and that now has a turnover of over £1million and employs a dozen high able, motivated and hard working staff.

So, there we have it. From very simple evidence, you drew entirely incorrect conclusions. You drew the conclusions that you WANTED to be correct.

One of the best lessons in logic I ever had was gained from reading that great scientific educator Carl Sagan when I was 10 or 11. He said that when he was a young NASA scientist, a well known scientist desperately wanted life to be found on Venus. He developed the following theory:

When we look at Venus through a telescope, there is nothing to be seen. Why? Because it is covered in cloud. What are clouds made of? Water. What comes out of water clouds? Rain. What does rain produce on the surface? Rivers, oceans and swamps. What do we find in oceans, rivers and swamps? Life in abundance.

Observation - there is nothing to be seen on Venus. Conclusion - Venus is teeming with life. Of course it isn't though. The clouds are sulphuric acid and the surface temperature would melt lead.

It's a very powerful little parable. It says that if you read into things what you want to see, you will invariably be wrong and in the process will make a right f***ing tit of yourself. It's a lesson I heartily recommend.

You, however, start off by deciding what you think is correct, then taking only observations and assumptions that support your pre-conceived opinions. Anything that goes against those opinions is ignored or results in imbecilic comments such as calling the two greatest economic philosophers of the 20th Century "cranks".

That sort of approach probably works with your mates. They probably think you are a really, really intelligent bloke. But you're not Mick. You are the archetype of the clever gobshite. You are good at crafting an argument against people who are not good at crafting arguments. When faced with someone who points out your errors in a methodical and calm way, you look like a fool.

You made a bit of a prick of yourself over this 3 week issue. Down inside, you know that of course. You realise that if you can draw incorrect conclusions on something so simple, your entire credibility as someone whose opinion has any worth on more complex issues is shot.

So, you do what Internet trolls the world over do. You obfuscate, ignore the issue and focus on some insignificant grammatical minutiae.

You are a buffoon Mick. You had some comic value a few months ago, but that rapidly evaporated. Now, you are simply an annoying embarrassment.

[mjdgreg]

mjdgreg

Bizarrely, this issue about the duration of my holiday actually IS germane to the rest of this thread.

See, it's really all about whether YOU Mick are capable of reading simple words, processing simple concepts and drawing robust conclusions.

Or whether you are an obsessive gobshite who makes up his mind then violently argues his position regardless of evidence.

Let's start with clearly identifiable facts. I appreciate that this is not usually your modus operandi, but it IS the way that the rest of the world tends to approach things.

So, I said the following, explaining why I wasn't going to carry on getting deeply involved in your obsessive argument:
"Off on holiday later this week and am too busy making sure that everyone in my company knows what they are doing before I leave...I'm off the scene for the thick end of three weeks."

From that, you drew the conclusion that I was taking a three week holiday. That ignored the term "thick end of" and the clear comment that I was too busy dealing with my employees before I left to be on the scene.

For the record (not that it is any if your f***ing business, but just for the record) I was away from home for exactly two weeks. One week visiting very ill relatives and one at a beach holiday.

The key point is that you took very simple facts and drew an entirely erroneous conclusion. Your mistake was compounded by later suggesting that I must have a public sector job, in blithe ignorance of what I had posted earlier about "my company". For the record (not that it is any of your f***ing business, but just for the record) I am Managing Director of a very successful SME that I founded 9 years ago and that now has a turnover of over £1million and employs a dozen high able, motivated and hard working staff.

So, there we have it. From very simple evidence, you drew entirely incorrect conclusions. You drew the conclusions that you WANTED to be correct.

The issue about whether you had a 3 week holiday or not is not relevant to the debate. It is an assumption that I made and gave you the opportunity to refute but you didn't. At the end of the day I couldn't care less whether you had a 3 week holiday or not. I do wish you'd stop going on about it. It's getting very boring.

All I know is that when I go on holiday I don't need a full week working until bedtime to get my employees up to speed before I go. They are always up to speed because I run my businesses like well-oiled machines. I could drop dead tomorrow and my businesses would be able to carry on without me. I would suggest you may benefit from time management training and a course in the art of delegation. 

Then to try and use this pointless spat as evidence that all my arguments on the economy are wrong because you had a 2 week holiday not a 3 week one is laughable in the extreme. If that's the best you can do then I wouldn't bother.

You are the one that is incapable of reading simple words. You prove it again in this post. You say that I stated you must have a public sector job. I didn't say that. I said I suspect you must have a job that is related to the public sector. I suspect your business is heavily involved with the public sector and that you have previously worked in the public sector.

I draw these conclusions because you are unlike any prosperous businessman that I have ever come across in that you are a leftie socialist that is happy to pay higher taxes. I suspect the irretrievable damage done to the way you view business life was done earlier on in your working life when all you ever knew was the public sector. I suspect that your business has only kept going for so long because you deal predominantly with the public sector and as everyone knows they are a soft touch.

I am very unimpressed with a turnover of over £1million with 12 employees after 9 years. The net profit can't be very much on such a low turnover with those kind of overheads. In fact I'd be surprised if there was any net profit at all. 

[mjdgreg]

employs a dozen high able, motivated and hard working staff.

You do know that you could get into trouble for supplying drugs to your employees don't you. They may well perform well in the short-term but long-term they are going to be a liability.

[mjdgreg]

One of the best lessons in logic I ever had was gained from reading that great scientific educator Carl Sagan when I was 10 or 11. He said that when he was a young NASA scientist, a well known scientist desperately wanted life to be found on Venus. He developed the following theory:

When we look at Venus through a telescope, there is nothing to be seen. Why? Because it is covered in cloud. What are clouds made of? Water. What comes out of water clouds? Rain. What does rain produce on the surface? Rivers, oceans and swamps. What do we find in oceans, rivers and swamps? Life in abundance.

Observation - there is nothing to be seen on Venus. Conclusion - Venus is teeming with life. Of course it isn't though. The clouds are sulphuric acid and the surface temperature would melt lead.

It's a very powerful little parable. It says that if you read into things what you want to see, you will invariably be wrong and in the process will make a right f***ing tit of yourself. It's a lesson I have totally ignored.

I think you have summed yourself up perfectly in the emboldened bit of your ramble.

[mjdgreg]

You, however, start off by deciding what you think is correct, then taking only observations and assumptions that support your pre-conceived opinions. Anything that goes against those opinions is ignored or results in imbecilic comments such as calling the two greatest economic philosophers of the 20th Century "cranks".

I start off by weighing  up the pros and cons of all the arguments and then form my opinion. I then state my opinion and give everyone the chance to question it. I answer any question that is thrown at me and don't change my mind on the deficit every few weeks because I've forgotten that what I previously posted totally contradicts what I have recently said. I also don't totally slag off the IMF and then shortly afterwards try and use one of their reports to back up my latest change of mind.

I also don't decide what my point of view is just because some crank economist has written a book. You are the one that views everything with a leftie perspective which makes you incapable of weighing up the pros and cons. Hence you come up with a weak argument that is very easy for me to totally destroy.

[mjdgreg]

That sort of approach probably works with your mates. They probably think you are a really, really intelligent bloke. But you're not mjdgreg. You are the archetype of the clever gobshite. You are good at crafting an argument against people who are not good at crafting arguments. When faced with someone who points out your errors in a methodical and calm way, you look like a fool.

My mates don't think I'm a really, really intelligent bloke, they know I am. As do the readers of this forum.

I'm the one that points out the errors in your arguments in a calm, methodical way. You're the one that has been made to look like a fool. pmsl. You're the one that regularly resorts to insults not me. Methodical and calm is not a description that can be applied to you.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Bzzzzz



Bzzzzz


Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[BillyStubbsTears]

Mick

You "couldn't care less whether I had a3 week holiday"?
And yet you mentioned it in no fewer than 5 different posts before I pulled you up?

Why did you mention it so often (once with numerous exclamation marks) if you couldn't care less about it?

As you say, you made an assumption. You were wrong. You have made equally incorrect assumptions about my business and my previous professional experience. Wrong, wrong, wrong on every score. But it won't stop you coming back and being wrong again tomorrow, I'm sure. You are attracted to making foolish, imbecilic, unsubstantiated and unsubstantiable comments as a bluebottle is attracted to a pile of shit.

[jucyberry]

Mick, I don't want to be rude and I would not want to assume that I speak for anyone other than my self but I have to say, you don't impress me.
I can honestly say I don't think oh goody another post by Mick..
Being the one who shouts loudest by voice or keyboard doesn't make you the best. Your inability to do anything but argue and your opinion of yourself Isn't exactly attractive to read to be honest.

You make every post a battle and have taken the joy completely out of this forum for most except yourself. Now I know you are having a complete blast at your posting, but Lord you have depressed the life out of me...

[mjdgreg]

mjdgreg

You "couldn't care less whether I had a3 week holiday"?
And yet you mentioned it in no fewer than 5 different posts before I pulled you up?

Why did you mention it so often (once with numerous exclamation marks) if you couldn't care less about it?

I'll let you into a secret. Quite a few of my posts are designed to have a bit of humour in them. I am hilarious. You are obviously not picking up on this and instead of laughing are getting increasingly annoyed instead!!!!

This is why this thread has attracted so many views. It's not because people are interested in the economy and politics. Most of them couldn't care less. People are pissing themselves laughing at the way I've danced rings around you. Trust me, I know this to be a fact. I'd get to the doctor's and get that humour bypass operation reversed if I was you.

[mjdgreg]

mjdgreg, I don't want to be rude and I would not want to assume that I speak for anyone other than my self but I have to say, you don't impress me.
I can honestly say I don't think oh goody another post by mjdgreg..
Being the one who shouts loudest by voice or keyboard doesn't make you the best. Your inability to do anything but argue and your opinion of yourself Isn't exactly attractive to read to be honest.

You make every post a battle and have taken the joy completely out of this forum for most except yourself. Now I know you are having a complete blast at your posting, but Lord you have depressed the life out of me...

I'm not out there to impress anyone. In fact I couldn't care less what people think. As long as I know I am always right, that will do for me. I hope Billy takes on-board your advice, 'Being the one who shouts loudest by voice or keyboard doesn't make you the best'. It's obvious that I am the best.

You are entitled to your opinion and you don't have to read or respond to my posts so your loss won't be missed. It would seem there are plenty of people out there that do enjoy reading my posts. If I were you I'd get to the doctor's with Billy and get that humour bypass operation reversed.

[BillyStubbsTears]

I'll let you into a secret. Quite a few of my posts are designed to have a bit of humour in them. I am hilarious.

I'll give you your due Mick. You've certainly excelled at keeping this particular secret well hidden. You had me totally fooled.

In fact, having gone through this thread again, I am in awe of the way that you kept your comedic genius so well hidden.

My congratulations.

 If we are now able to work on the premise that nothing you say should be taken seriously, the world will be that tiny bit better for it.

[mjdgreg]

I'll give you your due mjdgreg. You've certainly excelled at keeping this particular secret well hidden. You had me totally fooled.

In fact, having gone through this thread again, I am in awe of the way that you kept your comedic genius so well hidden.

My congratulations.

Thank you. You can see why I have recommended you get yourself along to the doctor and get that humour bypass operation reversed.

[The L J Monk]

Mick - given your views on the NHS would you trust a doctor in this country to carry out a humour bypass reversal operation? Or would you recommend going private?

[mjdgreg]

mjdgreg - given your views on the NHS would you trust a doctor in this country to carry out a humour bypass reversal operation? Or would you recommend going private?

I'm pleased you agree Billy and Jucyberry need the reversal operation and I would recommend going to the doctors that did the original operations as they did such a good job they would probably be the best ones to do the reversal.

With regards to my views on the NHS I would definitely go private every time if I could afford it (which I can). Due to my healthy lifestyle though, I've never had to make the choice.

[mjdgreg]

However, the Keynesian model has proven effective in dragging economies out of deep recessions before (Google Franklin D Roosevelt unless he's just a leftie crank too, and the New Deal, and copy and paste what you find on Wikipedia if you like) and all empirical evidence suggests that it is what is required in this recession.

I can't allow this re-writing of history to go unchallenged. Here's a link that people like Billy don't want you to see. It proves conclusively that Keynes was a crank.

http://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2011/12/12/new-video-punctures-myths-about-great-depression-exposes-damaging-impact-of-statist-policies-by-hoover-and-fdr/

[mjdgreg]

Billy is constantly asking for examples of where austerity has worked claiming that it never has. He didn't like my offering of the UK under Maggie. Maybe he'll like this one that also shows that austerity does work and proves that his hero Krugman is a crank that uses data selectively to try and back up his ludicrous theories.

http://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2012/06/07/estonia-and-austerity-another-exploding-cigar-for-paul-krugman/

[Marydene Rover]

Mjdgreg/Marydene Rover/Mick, please stop. You're thoroughly embarrassing yourself to the point where I and probably everyone else will never take you seriously again, and resorting to arguing about the length of Billy's holiday and miniscule semantic matters is not helping at all.

Keep me out of this I don't even know mjdgreg. Marydene Rover

[jucyberry]

I'm flattered to be put into the same catagory as BST, he is a man I have always admired very much, so thank you for that.. 

[Filo]

Mjdgreg/Marydene Rover/Mick, please stop. You're thoroughly embarrassing yourself to the point where I and probably everyone else will never take you seriously again, and resorting to arguing about the length of Billy's holiday and miniscule semantic matters is not helping at all.

Keep me out of this I don't even know mjdgreg. Marydene Rover

Yes you do! pretty well! does n`t he Mick? ;-)

[mjdgreg]

I'm flattered to be put into the same catagory as BST, he is a man I have always admired very much, so thank you for that.. 

You're welcome. If I was a leftie I would also admire him.

[Marydene Rover]

Mjdgreg/Marydene Rover/Mick, please stop. You're thoroughly embarrassing yourself to the point where I and probably everyone else will never take you seriously again, and resorting to arguing about the length of Billy's holiday and miniscule semantic matters is not helping at all.

Keep me out of this I don't even know mjdgreg. Marydene Rover

Yes you do! pretty well! does n`t he Mick? ;-)


As I have said I do not know Mjdgreg though I do admire his pugnacious debating style which does have some similarities to that used by Madmick when he was on the forum.
I have been accused a few times on this forum of being Madmick for the record that is not correct.

[Filo]

Mjdgreg/Marydene Rover/Mick, please stop. You're thoroughly embarrassing yourself to the point where I and probably everyone else will never take you seriously again, and resorting to arguing about the length of Billy's holiday and miniscule semantic matters is not helping at all.

Keep me out of this I don't even know mjdgreg. Marydene Rover

Yes you do! pretty well! does n`t he Mick? ;-)


As I have said I do not know Mjdgreg though I do admire his pugnacious debating style which does have some similarities to that used by Madmick when he was on the forum.
I have been accused a few times on this forum of being Madmick for the record that is not correct.

I see mjdgreg (Mick) has avoided answering or confirming that he knows you very well and you know him equally well, if he did deny he knew you he would be telling porkies, unfortunately there`s no way he can confirm he does n`t know you by trawling the internet for something for him to copy and paste. I know you know each other, Mick knows it, and so do you, come on Mick, cat got yer tongue?

[BillyStubbsTears]

I knew you wouldn't disappoint me Mick when I expectec you to continue to post selective, partisan garbage to support your opinions. You've just done it again.

Estonia. Four weeks of searching and you've come up with Estonia. Nice one.

I'll pass on the fact that you ignored a crucial part of my challenge - that you find an example of a MATURE capitalist economy which has grown out of a depression through austerity. That is actually a critical aspect of the debate, in that developing capitalist economies have very high innate growth capacity, because they can work at very low wages to service other markets. The very link you posted shows this - Estonia's GDP doubled in 10 years to 2007. Their economy is still immature with bags of growth potential due to low wages relative to strong Western economies and, all things being equal, would be expected to grow much more strongly than ours, France's or Germany's until they caught up with our standard of living and lost that competitive advantage.

But we'll ignore that issue and take on the figures at face value.

So, an indisputible fact is that Estonia experienced one of the deepest collapses in the world, with GDP collapsing by nearly 20% in 08-09. Your website writer by the way says that this occurred despite Estonia increasing Government expenditure by 18% in 2008, and implies that the depth of their economic collapse was due to this profligacy. He strongly implies that Keynesian approaches put them in trouble and Austerity pulled them out. Let's have a look at the figures then.

 He gives a website which claims to support his claim. I am entirely unable to find the information which says that Estonian Government expenditure increased by 18% in 2008 on that website. Being the sort of person who takes claims as being nothing but piss and wind unless they are clearly backed up, I'd appreciate it Mick if you would point out the data to me. Otherwise, I'll assume that it is a mistake at best, or a partisan lie at worst.

What is thoroughly clear from that link is that Estonia actually ran a very, very small deficit as the crisis exploded - 2.9% of GDP in 08 and 2.0% of GDP in 2009. By comparison, the figures for the UK (which really DID run a Keynesian stimulus) were 5.0% and 11.4%. By no sensible standard can it be suggested that Estonian went Keynes-mad in 08-09. In the teeth of the hurricane of 08-09, they were effectively running Austerity from Day One. To claim otherwise is partisan mendacity.

Now. What happened as a result of those decisions in Estonia and the UK in 08-09? Well, in the UK, things were bad. We lost 6% or so of GDP and unemployment went up by about half. Not good certainly. But a f***ing cakewalk compared to Estonia. There, they lost 20% of GDP and unemployment went up four-fold. If we in the UK had done in 08-09 what Estonia did, our unemployment would have increased from 1.5M to SIX MILLION in 12 months. That is a Depression of epic proportions.

Since the depths of that self-inflicted Depression, Estonia has weakly bounced back, then stalled. The graph in the very same website that you link to show, by early 2012, their GDP growth had tailed off and their GDP was something like 25-30% below their long-term trend. Oh, and by the way, their unemployment is still three times what it was in 2007.

You call that an example of success? Really?

[BillyStubbsTears]

By the way Mick. Remember yesterday's parable? The one that said that if you make your mind up first, then trawl round for supporting evidence and argue that black really IS white because you really, really, REALLY want it to be, then you end up looking like a right f***ing tit?

Remember that lesson. Because the writer of the website that you linked to doesn't seem to be aware of it.

He says that Estonia shows the success of Austerity. That is Estonia with an economy still 10% down on its pre-slump position and perhaps 25% down on its long-term growth position. That's Estonia that has unemployment still THREE TIMES what it was in 2007.

He says that Estonia shows Austerity works because he really, really, really wants Austerity to work. So, he's given us a standard for what he considers to be success.

But hang on a moment Mick. Because the same writer says this about the USA where a weak Keynesian stimulus was implemented in 08-09.


"It’s been nearly three years since the recession officially ended in June 2009, yet jobs are still well below their pre-recession levels. And overall economic output, or gross domestic product, has just now finally gotten back to where it was when the downturn began. This is an anemic record. Especially since an economy normally enjoys a strong bounce when coming out of a deep recession. The problem is that Obama has tried all the wrong policies. He tried a big-spending Keynesian package that was supposed to be a “stimulus,” but it's a failed approach."

http://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2012/03/14/the-big-debate-for-u-s-news-have-obamas-policies-helped-or-hurt-the-economy/

As I say, when you start out by making your mind up, then argue against all logic that facts which show you to be incorrect are actually supporting you, you make a right f***ing tit of yourself.

And when you stupidly link to a fool like this to support your own argument, you look an even bigger tit.

I don't doubt for a moment that you'll take the opportunity to continue making a right f***ing tit of yourself tomorrow.

[mjdgreg]

Look, you mistake me for someone that believes austerity is the only way forward. I don't. You ask for examples where austerity has worked and I've given them to you just to keep you happy. I've not given them to you because I believe solely in austerity. You have gone off at a tangent and I am merely humouring you. To keep you even happier here's another one. The USA!

Here's the evidence that can be found in the link above in one of my earlier posts:

'America suffered a harsh depression after World War I, with GDP falling by a staggering 24 percent.

But we don’t read much about that downturn in the history books, in large part because it ended so quickly.

The key question, though, is why did that depression end quickly while the Great Depression dragged on for a decade?

One big reason for the different results is that markets were largely left unmolested in the 1920s. This meant resources could be quickly redeployed, minimizing the downturn.

But this doesn’t mean the crowd in Washington was completely passive. They did do something to help the economy recover. As Ms. Fields explains in the video, President Harding, unlike Presidents Hoover and Roosevelt, slashed government spending'.

There you have it. A rapid recovery because the government kept it's nose out and slashed government spending. Game set and match.

[Filo]

Mjdgreg/Marydene Rover/Mick, please stop. You're thoroughly embarrassing yourself to the point where I and probably everyone else will never take you seriously again, and resorting to arguing about the length of Billy's holiday and miniscule semantic matters is not helping at all.

Keep me out of this I don't even know mjdgreg. Marydene Rover

Yes you do! pretty well! does n`t he Mick? ;-)


As I have said I do not know Mjdgreg though I do admire his pugnacious debating style which does have some similarities to that used by Madmick when he was on the forum.
I have been accused a few times on this forum of being Madmick for the record that is not correct.

I see mjdgreg (Mick) has avoided answering or confirming that he knows you very well and you know him equally well, if he did deny he knew you he would be telling porkies, unfortunately there`s no way he can confirm he does n`t know you by trawling the internet for something for him to copy and paste. I know you know each other, Mick knows it, and so do you, come on Mick, cat got yer tongue?

Still waiting Mick, confirm or deny that you know Marydenerover very very well, and he knows you equally well!