Support NeoGAF

[Chinner]

thanks for posting that, twas very interesting.

 

[jas0nuk]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...y-suicide-inquiry.html?ITO=1490#ixzz0pvba0OIm

The investigation into the death of weapons inspector David Kelly is likely to be reopened, it has emerged.
The case has 'concerned' Attorney General Dominic Grieve and - as the highest ranking law officer in England - he is considering an inquiry to review the suicide finding, Whitehall sources say.
At the same time, Justice Secretary Ken Clarke is considering a request from campaigning doctors to release medical files relating to the death.
Lord Hutton, whose inquiry into the death was denounced as a whitewash, has indicated the papers should be kept secret for 70 years.
Medical experts have repeatedly questioned whether Dr Kelly could have taken his own life in the circumstances described by Lord Hutton.

Glad they're doing this.

 

[cntr]

wait

why were you reading the daily mail

 

[louis89]

Out of curiosity - those who supported Labour or the Lib Dems and despised the Conservatives - how do you feel about the new government's performance thus far?

 

[cntr]

Ukraine drops Nato membership bid
from EUobserver by Valentina Pop

The Ukrainian Parliament on Thursday (3 June) approved a bill barring the country from joining Nato, a move seen as a further concession to Moscow by the new government in Kiev, which was quick in reversing the pro-Western policies pursued by its predecessor.

The draft law, which is expected to sail through the remaining parliamentary readings and be signed by Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovich in the coming weeks, excludes the goal of "integration into Euro-Atlantic security and Nato membership" from the national security strategy.​

What do you guys think about me posting EU news?

 

[womfalcs3]

nm

 

[cntr]

hnnnnng

*shakes topic*

 

[Mr. Sam]

Immigants - I know it was them! Even when it was the bears, I knew it was them!

Am I doing it right?

 

[Nexus Zero]

Out of curiosity - those who supported Labour or the Lib Dems and despised the Conservatives - how do you feel about the new government's performance thus far?

Lib Dem here, and I think they're doing excellently so far. But they've also focused on civil liberties which is something I though both parties had good policies on - it'll be when we get to decisions on which there was disagreement that I'll make my mind up. Though it goes both ways - I strongly disagree with the Lib Dem stance on nuclear power and agree with the Tories, so the coalition has worked, in some ways, better than a purely Lib Dem government.

 

[Mr. Sam]

Lib Dem here, and I think they're doing excellently so far. But they've also focused on civil liberties which is something I though both parties had good policies on - it'll be when we get to decisions on which there was disagreement that I'll make my mind up. Though it goes both ways - I strongly disagree with the Lib Dem stance on nuclear power and agree with the Tories, so the coalition has worked, in some ways, better than a purely Lib Dem government.

Except they put Chris Huhne as energy and climate change, um, secretary. Yeah, that seems like the right word.

 

[Walshicus]

Ukraine drops Nato membership bid
from EUobserver by Valentina Pop

The Ukrainian Parliament on Thursday (3 June) approved a bill barring the country from joining Nato, a move seen as a further concession to Moscow by the new government in Kiev, which was quick in reversing the pro-Western policies pursued by its predecessor.

The draft law, which is expected to sail through the remaining parliamentary readings and be signed by Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovich in the coming weeks, excludes the goal of "integration into Euro-Atlantic security and Nato membership" from the national security strategy.​

What do you guys think about me posting EU news?

The West really fucked the dog on this one. Georgia and the Ukraine should have been sped through as NATO members.

 

[cntr]

Out with Keynes, in with Hoover?
from BBC News by Jamie Robertson

At the end of each month, BBC World News business presenter Jamie Robertson looks at the world's major stock markets. This month he considers the eurozone's struggle with low growth.​

Pupils are getting thrown to the lions over Christian education
from Liberal Conspiracy by Sarah Ditum

Only 50% of Britons describe themselves as Christian, while 43% say they have no religion. Some people wonder if there shouldn’t be a way of making this ostensibly Christian country a bit more, well, Christian.​

Tackling debt will change everyone's lives, says David Cameron
from The Independent

David Cameron warned today that the Government's deficit was "even worse" than thought - and the action needed to tackle it would change everyone's way of life.​

Ford plans legal services review
from BBC News

Justice minister David Ford announces his intention to reform legal aid services in Northern Ireland.​

MPs face committee chairmen vote
from BBC News

MPs hoping to become chairmen of the influential House of Commons select committees face a secret ballot of colleagues for the first time.

Elections have been brought in for the roles as part of reforms intended to boost MPs' powers via the committees to scrutinise and influence government.​

Deadline near for Labour hopefuls
from BBC News

Three Labour MPs wanting to stand in the contest to become the party's next leader have 48 hours in which to get enough backing to do so.​

Labour leadership candidates slam 'elite' policies
from The Independent

The "elite" and pro-business policies of the last Labour government came under attack from candidates aiming to be the party's next leader today.​

 

[MarshMellow96]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/politics/10261136.stm

'Star Chambers' and public thoughts on cuts people?

 

[Meadows]

Don't worry, the economy is under control

 

[Ushojax]

Out of curiosity - those who supported Labour or the Lib Dems and despised the Conservatives - how do you feel about the new government's performance thus far?

I'm a Lib Dem and I think the coalition is doing very, very well. They seem to be acting in the national interest and Cameron appears genuinely committed to change. It's early days but I'm much more optimistic than I was a few weeks ago.

Pupils are getting thrown to the lions over Christian education
from Liberal Conspiracy by Sarah Ditum

Only 50% of Britons describe themselves as Christian, while 43% say they have no religion. Some people wonder if there shouldn’t be a way of making this ostensibly Christian country a bit more, well, Christian.​

And those people are morons. A more secular/agnostic population is a good thing. Just look at the shit that's going on in the world because of religion.

 

[Mr. Sam]

Of those 50%, I'd imagine a very small number are practising Christians. In fact, I doubt how many would describe themselves as "religious" even.

 

[cntr]

Britons Decidedly Reject Adopting the Euro
from Angus Reid

(Angus Reid Global Monitor) - Very few people in Britain are interested in adopting the euro as the national currency, according to a poll by Angus Reid Public Opinion. 79 per cent of respondents would vote against this idea in a referendum.​

Swedes Join Chorus of Anti-Euro Voices
from Angus Reid

(Angus Reid Global Monitor) - People in Sweden are turning their backs on the idea of joining the eurozone, and with a legislative election due in September, politicians are steering clear of any discussions on whether the krona should be abandoned.​

Poland Not Keen on Euro Adoption Yet
from Angus Reid

(Angus Reid Global Monitor) - While most of the recent discussions related to Poland’s political life have centred on the upcoming presidential election, the country has to make a major decision related to the adoption of the euro. Last month, there was little consensus on whether replacing the zloty should happen soon.​

 

[cntr]

Of those 50%, I'd imagine a very small number are practising Christians. In fact, I doubt how many would describe themselves as "religious" even.

...but they have identified as Christians. >__>

 

[Shanadeus]

Pupils are getting thrown to the lions over Christian education
from Liberal Conspiracy by Sarah Ditum

Only 50% of Britons describe themselves as Christian, while 43% say they have no religion. Some people wonder if there shouldn’t be a way of making this ostensibly Christian country a bit more, well, Christian.​

Hrm, make the country a bit more Christian?
I wonder how that would work out.

 

[Empty]

our christians are pretty rubbish anyway. loads of people who identify as so only go to church like twice a year at maximum (easter, christmas day).

 

[Mr. Sam]

our christians are pretty rubbish anyway. loads of people who identify as so only go to church like twice a year at maximum (easter, christmas day).

Precisement. That's a French word, right? Otherwise, I just made it up.

 

[blazinglord]

Given that this is a predominantly American site, I'm interested to know what posters think about Obama's rhetoric about BP being evidence of an anti-British sentiment? It's not the first time I've heard and read about Obama's supposed anti-British streak. Apparently his book 'Dreams From My Father' was extremely Anglo-phobic (albeit understandably so given Britain's colonial ties with Obama Sr's country). They have even discussed this a bit on Newsnight so it's definitely a newsworthy topic.

So guys, is Obama and America as a whole becoming anti-British? Should Britain be worried or take heart that the new government doesn't want a 'slavish' relationship with America any more and wants to refocus energy on India and China?

 

[Chinner]

i think i read somewhere that obama is just a newer generation of american that doesn't really have the same desire to bond with the uk cause of shit like of cold war and shit. i agree with that.

sorry i'm not posting much, frankly, just can't be arsed really. tired out from the election still and interesting shit aint happening. well, emergency budget on the 22nd will be fun

 

[jas0nuk]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...5282190930932412.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

Who is better informed about the policy choices facing the country—liberals, conservatives or libertarians? According to a Zogby International survey that I write about in the May issue of Econ Journal Watch, the answer is unequivocal: The left flunks Econ 101.

...

How did the six ideological groups do overall? Here they are, best to worst, with an average number of incorrect responses from 0 to 8: Very conservative, 1.30; Libertarian, 1.38; Conservative, 1.67; Moderate, 3.67; Liberal, 4.69; Progressive/very liberal, 5.26.

Americans in the first three categories do reasonably well. But the left has trouble squaring economic thinking with their political psychology, morals and aesthetics.

To be sure, none of the eight questions specifically challenge the political sensibilities of conservatives and libertarians. Still, not all of the eight questions are tied directly to left-wing concerns about inequality and redistribution. In particular, the questions about mandatory licensing, the standard of living, the definition of monopoly, and free trade do not specifically challenge leftist sensibilities.

Yet on every question the left did much worse. On the monopoly question, the portion of progressive/very liberals answering incorrectly (31%) was more than twice that of conservatives (13%) and more than four times that of libertarians (7%). On the question about living standards, the portion of progressive/very liberals answering incorrectly (61%) was more than four times that of conservatives (13%) and almost three times that of libertarians (21%).

 

[blazinglord]

i think i read somewhere that obama is just a newer generation of american that doesn't really have the same desire to bond with the uk cause of shit like of cold war and shit. i agree with that.

Yeah possibly, but it does put Britain's involvement in Afghanistan in perspective. Perhaps Britain should reciprocate the mutual desire to look to emerging powers by immediately withdrawing from Afghanistan and start working towards rebuilding Britain's reputation in the Middle East. But that's another debate for another day.

sorry i'm not posting much, frankly, just can't be arsed really. tired out from the election still and interesting shit aint happening. well, emergency budget on the 22nd will be fun

I haven't been posting much either but as for my verdict for the new government: so far it has all been excellent. I very much welcome having a government that isn't so media-obsessed and constantly unveiling new 'proposals' each week that nobody wanted or needed. And it's also nice to have a PM who is comfortable in his own skin and has mastered the articulation of English satisfactorily.

 

[iapetus]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...5282190930932412.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

"If we take simplistic right-wing answers to questions as 'right', left-wingers get the questions 'wrong' more often."

Duh.

 

[jas0nuk]

They aren't "simplistic right-wing answers". For the first question re regulation on building houses.

Basic economics acknowledges that whatever redeeming features a restriction may have, it increases the cost of production and exchange, making goods and services less affordable. There may be exceptions to the general case, but they would be atypical.

 

[iapetus]

They aren't "simplistic right-wing answers".

Of course they are. In this case it clearly depends on what the restrictions are, and whether they increase the cost of construction and decrease the availability. Not all restrictions would do this. So to make the claim that they do is simplistic, making it reasonable to disagree with the statement. An entirely trivial restriction that doesn't meet their requirements would be one that imposes a maximum price on property.

Some of their 'right' answers are debatable, some of them are outright wrong. The only one that's undebatable is "A company with the largest market share is a monopoly (unenlightened answer: agree)".

Note also that they're all questions rigged so that the kneejerk right-wing position is 'correct'. Make a survey that does the same, but with questions selected and phrased so that the kneejerk left-wing position is 'correct' and you'd see conservatives flunking economy 101, and it wouldn't be because the durn libruls wised up.

 

[slidewinder]

That's slimy stuff even for the WSJ opinion page.

 

[jas0nuk]

Of course they are. In this case it clearly depends on what the restrictions are, and whether they increase the cost of construction and decrease the availability. Not all restrictions would do this. So to make the claim that they do is simplistic, making it reasonable to disagree with the statement. An entirely trivial restriction that doesn't meet their requirements would be one that imposes a maximum price on property.

ANY sort of restriction will increase cost of construction and decrease availability by the sheer fact that ANY sort of restriction prevents the free growth of housing supply.

The thing is an exercise in economic knowledge, not morality. There is nothing wrong (if anything it is to be applauded) with wanting to place restrictions on housing development for whatever reason, like protecting greenbelt land, or preventing "ghettos" from being constructed for mass profit and minimum land area required, or anything. What matters is that IF you want to put in place these restrictions you should understand that they WILL have a demand on the cost of housing in general.

Hence the phrase: "But the left has trouble squaring economic thinking with their political psychology, morals and aesthetics."

 

[iapetus]

ANY sort of restriction will increase cost of construction and decrease availability by the sheer fact that ANY sort of restriction prevents the free growth of housing supply.

As I said, simplistic right-wing dogma. MOST types of restriction will increase cost of construction and decrease availability, but not all, and there are ways to reduce the impact of such restrictions.

The thing is an exercise in economic knowledge, not morality.

No, the thing is an exercise in whether you conform to a specific set of economic beliefs and in some cases whether you see things as black and white or - as is normally the case - more complex than that.

 

[jas0nuk]

It isn't right-wing dogma. It is basic economics of supply and demand.

Can you name any examples of restrictions that would not cause a price increase? Your example of placing a maximum pricing limit on all housing is hilarious because yes it'd work - for about 5 minutes - until all available housing stock was used up, the construction companies went bankrupt and there was no further construction of housing.

 

[Empty]

eat it toryboy.

Mean age 10 IQ scores for people voting in the 2001 general election for various parties were as follows: Green 108.3; Liberal Democrat 108.2; Conservative 103.7; Labour 103.0; Plaid Cymru 102.5; Scottish National 102.2, UK Independent 101.1, British National 98.4; Did not vote/None 99.7.

http://www.mrc.ac.uk/Newspublications/News/MRC005139

Spoiler

see, i can post meaningless data for cheap political point scoring too.

 

[jas0nuk]

Is that at all relevant to what I posted?

I'd suggest that Labour and the Conservatives are so similar because they both have vast numbers of core voters, so their IQs tend to towards the national average, which is 102 for the UK, I believe.

Lib Dems and Greens especially tend to be trendy/urban professionals and have a smaller voting base so they get a significant IQ boost. But there aren't enough of these people to put the party into government.

The data is also 9 years old, from when Labour achieved a 2nd landslide victory by getting massive numbers of the middle classes voting for them. The numbers for the 2010 election would be very different. You'd need to get the numbers from people who call themselves "right-leaning" and "left-leaning" to avoid the skewing factor caused by the fact that the Conservatives were basically divided and unelectable in 2001 and Labour were still riding high after a relatively successful first term (we still had a budget surplus by that point!).

 

[iapetus]

Can you name any examples of restrictions that would not cause a price increase?

I named one. Another would be any restriction reducing the size of individual properties, for a similar reason.

Your example of placing a maximum pricing limit on all housing is hilarious because yes it'd work - for about 5 minutes - until all available housing stock was used up, the construction companies went bankrupt and there was no further construction of housing.

Bzzt. For someone pushing the agenda of the right, you're awfully untrusting of the market's ability to adapt. Such a restriction would push construction companies to build smaller, lower-price housing to maximise profits given the constraints placed on them.

 

[jas0nuk]

I'm sure they'd have a go at trying to 'survive', but what of the effect of placing everyone above the price limit in negative equity, the massive devaluation of existing housing/flats which are still owned by developers, and forcing people to buy houses smaller than they're looking for?
The housing market would descend into chaos and you'd probably have rich people bribing estate agents to give them the big houses which are priced equal to average sized houses, therefore making the limited official list price totally irrelevant and defeating the original objective.
(Getting a bit hypothetical and extreme now.)

 

[Empty]

Is that at all relevant to what I posted?

only in the sense that it doesn't really say anything whatsoever, and would only be posted for stupid pointscoring, like the WSJ study you posted which was written by a libertarian designed to try and get the result he was looking for so he could go 'lol lefties are stupid'.

my point was that to argue the validity of your survey in saying that liberals have a lesser understanding of economics is as silly as arguing the validity of the useless data i just posted to say that conseravtives are stupid.

 

[iapetus]

I'm sure they'd have a go at trying to 'survive', but what of the effect of placing everyone above the price limit in negative equity, the massive devaluation of existing housing/flats which are still owned by developers, and forcing people to buy houses smaller than they're looking for?

Obviously as per the original question the limitations would be on new builds. We're playing with hypotheticals here anyway, and there are increasingly convoluted ways around any knock-on effects, but I think the point has been made, because you've already conceded that this would in some circumstances not have the result that you claim is the only 'right' one.

Here's another trivial example of a restriction that wouldn't have the effect of raising prices automatically: garage doors on new builds can not be painted red or blue.

 

[cntr]

continue arguing over stupid shit, guys. it keeps the topic alive

Precisement. That's a French word, right? Otherwise, I just made it up.

Précisément, yeah.

Given that this is a predominantly American site, I'm interested to know what posters think about Obama's rhetoric about BP being evidence of an anti-British sentiment? It's not the first time I've heard and read about Obama's supposed anti-British streak. Apparently his book 'Dreams From My Father' was extremely Anglo-phobic (albeit understandably so given Britain's colonial ties with Obama Sr's country). They have even discussed this a bit on Newsnight so it's definitely a newsworthy topic.

So guys, is Obama and America as a whole becoming anti-British? Should Britain be worried or take heart that the new government doesn't want a 'slavish' relationship with America any more and wants to refocus energy on India and China?

Anti-British? Not really. Obama doesn't seem very interested in the "special relationship" between the US and the UK, though, and supports the European Union.

 

[Mr. Sam]

Mean age 10 IQ scores for people voting in the 2001 general election for various parties were as follows: Green 108.3; Liberal Democrat 108.2; Conservative 103.7; Labour 103.0; Plaid Cymru 102.5; Scottish National 102.2, UK Independent 101.1, British National 98.4; Did not vote/None 99.7.

I'm going to use this to ruffle some feathers on Facebook.

 

[Walshicus]

Britons Decidedly Reject Adopting the Euro
from Angus Reid

(Angus Reid Global Monitor) - Very few people in Britain are interested in adopting the euro as the national currency, according to a poll by Angus Reid Public Opinion. 79 per cent of respondents would vote against this idea in a referendum.​

Idiots.

 

[Mr. Sam]

I know fuck all about economics, but I despise people that are against the Euro on "cultural grounds" or whatever. Then again, I'd vote yes just to see what designs they came up with for the British notes so I'm no better.

 

[Walshicus]

I know fuck all about economics, but I despise people that are against the Euro on "cultural grounds" or whatever. Then again, I'd vote yes just to see what designs they came up with for the British notes so I'm no better.

Queen's head for the coins. All notes are the same regardless of state. So really not much change to the... change.

 

[Mr. Sam]

Queen's head for the coins. All notes are the same regardless of state.

Serious? That's one more 'No' vote then.

 

[avaya]

It isn't right-wing dogma. It is basic economics of supply and demand.

Economics claims to be a science. It is not. You will be accused of right wing dogma if you cling to economics like it is fact. It is not and does not belong on the same pedestal as the sciences.

Economics has no certifiable proof for the majority of it's claims. The vast majority of the theories proposed exist with the help of fantastic assumptions. Theory in science is solid, Economics is not a science, it is a social science.

It is a social construct beholden to behavioural factors which change over time, are different amongst cultures (wildly divergent) and definitely not set in stone.

Regulation exists because the free market is in a state of perpetual "market failure", the phrase itself a cop out for an instance where the market isn't working as envisioned.

Laissez faire does not work because it is physically impossible to meet the requirements. Information is always asymmetric, rational behaviour is not an absolute but a probability and there is always one side that holds more power than the other so as to encourage an imbalance which leads back to market failure.

The stock market is the best example of the free market at work and also serves as a showcase of the absolute fact that economic theory is more of a faith based approach to the world than a scientific one. See how long an exchange with no regulation is able to sustain itself....the OTC derivatives market in 2008 is all the proof you need.

Approaches to markets in general vary across countries and peoples. For example the traditional Anglo-Saxon free market approach to companies and markets is rejected by what is probably the most resilient economy of the last century, Germany. They do not believe that maximisation of shareholder returns is the primary goal of public companies, there is a recognition of stakeholders far beyond the business itself. This does not exist in the UK and US.

De-regulation of the financial services industry that started in the mid-90s has lost more money and bought more suffering than at any other time other than the last time the financial services industry was able to work no holds barred, hint, Great Depression.

The reason we have Central Banks and regulators is because the exercise in pure free market economics bordered on anarchy.

De-regulation as an absolute is a dangerous faith-based exercise. To subscribe to the idea that regulation will increase price is an admission of faith. There is no shiny veneer of fact to back-up your claim unless you apply far-fetched assumptions which predicate almost every theory. Further to that you have to step back from the precipice and ask yourself if the reduction of price is a good thing. There is never an absolute in this, you can't say cheaper prices are always better. Every action has a reaction. Like iapetus said this is not black and white.

Regulation regularly drives down prices where there are monopolies, oligopolies, predatory practices and dangerous information asymmetries (almost always). There are also an equal number of instances where prices go up. Again price goes up vs. down. Good or bad? That is not black and white.

 

[Jex]

De-regulation of the financial services industry that started in the mid-90s has lost more money and bought more suffering than at any other time other than the last time the financial services industry was able to work no holds barred, hint, Great Depression.

I guess you can look back further and see that Ronald Reagen got the ball starting, with his firm belief that cutting taxes would stimulate the economy, even though he didn't care for the details of how the markets were affected by his reckless policies.

Clinton and George W. Bush just did nothing to stop this trend.

 

[avaya]

I guess you can look back further and see that Ronald Reagen got the ball starting, with his firm belief that cutting taxes would stimulate the economy, even though he didn't care for the details of how the markets were affected by his reckless policies.

Clinton and George W. Bush just did nothing to stop this trend.

It was Greenspan.

 

[jas0nuk]

Hahaha. The euro. A joke currency that was a reasonable success in the boom times and has almost imploded in the bad times. The only way it would ever have survived is with full political union where budgets could have been vetted and controlled by Brussels. Instead you end up with the richest in the EU bailing out the poorest in the EU like Greece, and possibly soon Spain and Portugal. The fact that they went for a full blown single currency after the debacle of ERM is just astonishing.

Now the true face of the EU is revealed - they're already asking for budget control - ultimately they want a federal United States of Europe.

The eurosceptics have convincingly won that argument. And thank god that Gordon Brown was too vain to cede control of the Treasury to the EU, because Blair was absolutely determined to get us into the euro.

avaya: I believe in a mixture of freedom and regulation. We got the balance wrong (too little) with regard to the banking sector, and wrong (too much) with regard to other aspects of business. There is too far too much red tape. As St Vince Cable rightly said the other day "sometimes the best thing the government can do is get out of the way".

Finding the correct balance, is, of course, very difficult.

edit: oh wow

Ex-City minister Lord Myners attacks Labour's economic record

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...d-Myners-attacks-Labours-economic-record.html

The peer said he had been frustrated by his ex-colleagues' ''flawed thinking'' on the economy.

...

''The Government can't create jobs. The Government can create the environment which is conducive to the creation of jobs but it cannot create jobs and we mislead ourselves if we believe it can.''

He added: ''There is nothing progressive about a government that consistently spends more than it can raise in taxation and certainly nothing progressive that endows generations to come with the liabilities incurred with respect to the current generation.''

 

[curls]

Now the true face of the EU is revealed - they're already asking for budget control - ultimately they want a federal United States of Europe.

Am I the only one who likes this idea? :lol

Edit: As someone who likes to travel through the EU I think the Euro is fucking mint.

 

[Walshicus]

Oh fuck off jas0nuk.

The Euro will survive, existing budgetary controls will be better enforced and states will remain eager to join for decades to come. Northern states may have given emergency loans to the South, but you know who's loving the low exchange rate for the Euro? That's right, Northern exporters.

Also, the ERM was a success. Know why we dropped out so hard? Because a fucking Tory government was too stupid to accept the fact that the structural exchange rate was incorrect at the time of entry. That's literally the first thing most economics students study at GCSE level for fuck's sake.