Of the 56 "brave, patriotic" men who signed the Declaration of Independence - which avows that "all men are created equal" - 41 of the signatories owned slaves, including Thomas Jefferson, who actually wrote the document. Indeed Jefferson used his slaves for sex
Depends if Africans were defined as human beings ("men"), though [edit: not that it makes it any better if they weren't, obvs]. I don't know enough about the thinking of Jefferson et al. But in the mid-19th century, many Americans always showed a worrying interest in taxonomies which regarded Homo sapiens as being more than one species.
Ben Chu @BenChu_ This interesting analysis from Bloomberg suggests the income *boost* to UK households, in aggregate, from higher interest rates has so far outstripped the income *hit* to all households from higher mortgage rates...
Ben Chu @BenChu_ · 1h ...The Bloomberg article suggests this aggregate boost to UK household incomes from rate rises could be one of the reasons inflation is proving hard to tame here - i.e. the rate rises are *helping* households more than they're *hurting* and *supporting* consumption..
I assume the boost will be on pension annuities. Not bank savings accounts. So good news for the boomers. Everything is good news for the boomers.
This point is underappreciated imo. If you're risk averse and cash rich, so your income is mainly interest, you've had a payrise of 300% in the space of a couple of years. You've got triple the money coming in now compared to before. Yes, inflation erodes everything etc, but you're doing much better than most and you're arguably better off now than you were, or at least it will probably feel that way.
Must be a very miniscule amount of people who live on interest, lottery winners and a few billionaires at best.
Yes. But I think there's quite a few for whom interest is a big chunk of their income. Eg me in fact.
I'm puzzled by this 'interest' of which you speak.
Most bank accounts offer roughly 0%.
You can chase better rates - but I don't think there are any examples out there of interest which exceeds the rate of inflation. So if you have £1m in cash and you're getting an interest rate of 4% on that, you get an 'income' of £40k, but that doesn't even cover the depreciation of that £1m.
Interest basically covers the depreciation of your cash. Or goes some way towards it, at least.
Under what circumstances can it represent actual income?
You can get 6% on a fixed-term savings account at the moment. There's a good chance that inflation will fall below that in the no-too-distant future.
How do you live during the fixed term with no income
By either having interest paid out monthly or having multiple fixed-term accounts maturing at different times (or a combination of both strategies).
Edit: But as I say, bank interest isn't my main source of income; my savings aren't that big!
Interesting Janan Ganesh piece in the FT, arguing that Starmer is both underrated as a politician and less likely to win a majority than people think he is. His argument for the second proposition (the first should be less controversial I think) is twofold: that the country only gives Labour a big majority when it feels comfortable about its prospects, and that the public will weigh both main parties' faults more equally at an election, whereas currently they are mostly focused on the government's faults. I subscribe to his second argument but the first feels more of a reach. Personally I think Labour will win a moderate working majority, which has been my opinion for a while.
I sense a big majority but I'm trying to quell it because I don't want to find myself feeling 'meh' if it's only 25 or 30. Any Labour outright GE win has to be celebrated all guns blazing. They don't happen too often, let's face it.
The Tories certainly deserve to lose big but I think their grip on a certain portion of the electorate is so strong thanks to Brexit and other mad culture wars nonsense that it will prevent them getting routed. Plus people don't really trust Labour either. I think the mood is to give them the benefit of the doubt but it is sufficiently grudging that the Tories will hold on in places like the Midlands and Essex and Kent. Labour at 340 +/-30 seats feels about right to me.
Reassembling the warp and weft of the brexit coalition is now impossible. Before it happened it could be gilded with the roseate glow of paradise by the pack of jackals that conceived it and the easily gulled would believe. Now we've all seen how fucking shit it is.
Ben Chu @BenChu_ This interesting analysis from Bloomberg suggests the income *boost* to UK households, in aggregate, from higher interest rates has so far outstripped the income *hit* to all households from higher mortgage rates...
Ben Chu @BenChu_ · 1h ...The Bloomberg article suggests this aggregate boost to UK household incomes from rate rises could be one of the reasons inflation is proving hard to tame here - i.e. the rate rises are *helping* households more than they're *hurting* and *supporting* consumption..
I assume the boost will be on pension annuities. Not bank savings accounts. So good news for the boomers. Everything is good news for the boomers.
This point is underappreciated imo. If you're risk averse and cash rich, so your income is mainly interest, you've had a payrise of 300% in the space of a couple of years. You've got triple the money coming in now compared to before. Yes, inflation erodes everything etc, but you're doing much better than most and you're arguably better off now than you were, or at least it will probably feel that way.
Must be a very miniscule amount of people who live on interest, lottery winners and a few billionaires at best.
Yes, I'm puzzled by this. I'm not saying Ben Chu is wrong - but it's a long way from the experience of anyone I come across. Even those who live of income from their wealth (like the billionaires Malc alludes to and, I guess, many retirees) will mostly get income from investments, rather than just have it trickle in from a bank account. And investments won't be doing well because interest rate rises.
Not necessarily a 'bank account' but if you're wealthy and risk averse you'll have a lot in 'cash' category assets, eg NSI, term depos, gilts etc. Such a person will have seen their aggregate income boosted massively. Maybe as much as tripled.
OK, take NS&I. Take a person who has £50k of premium bonds, and is getting, I dunno, £500 a year from them. The rate of return then triples. He's now getting £1500 a year from them. But he's still getting poorer because his £50k of premium bonds is worth 10% less than what it was last year. He had an asset worth £50k in 2022 prices, he now has an asset worth £45k in 2022 prices, plus £1500. He's £3,500 poorer than he was last year. This doesn't amount to getting richer, just getting poorer more slowly. Whereas when inflation was 2% and interest rates were 1% he would have lost £1000 in depreciation against which he would be £500 up in interest. He will only have been £500 poorer.
Neither are ideal - you don't want big wads of cash around in any sort of investment: interest will rarely beat depreciation. But those with cash were surely better off when inflation and interest rates were low.
You're not wrong but (per my post 2.58) it depends how they view things. We have a real hard cash net income & expenditure account gain whereas the balance sheet 'loss' comes from a PV inflation accounting adjustment.
So we have consumption driven by people transferring capital to income without really meaning to! There's nothing about this which strikes me as in any way a good thing.
Persistent high inflation is a very bad thing. It's the pits. But as we go through this painful (and inevitable but too rapid) transition from cheap money to normal money, there are lots of people benefiting (in hard 'now' cash terms) and I think this is a little bit under-appreciated. Although maybe not now since I've banged on about it for the best part of an afternoon.
But the benefits are all an illusion! Indeed, it’s those with lots of cash savings who lose out most from inflation.
Ben Chu @BenChu_ This interesting analysis from Bloomberg suggests the income *boost* to UK households, in aggregate, from higher interest rates has so far outstripped the income *hit* to all households from higher mortgage rates...
Ben Chu @BenChu_ · 1h ...The Bloomberg article suggests this aggregate boost to UK household incomes from rate rises could be one of the reasons inflation is proving hard to tame here - i.e. the rate rises are *helping* households more than they're *hurting* and *supporting* consumption..
I assume the boost will be on pension annuities. Not bank savings accounts. So good news for the boomers. Everything is good news for the boomers.
This point is underappreciated imo. If you're risk averse and cash rich, so your income is mainly interest, you've had a payrise of 300% in the space of a couple of years. You've got triple the money coming in now compared to before. Yes, inflation erodes everything etc, but you're doing much better than most and you're arguably better off now than you were, or at least it will probably feel that way.
Must be a very miniscule amount of people who live on interest, lottery winners and a few billionaires at best.
Yes. But I think there's quite a few for whom interest is a big chunk of their income. Eg me in fact.
I'm puzzled by this 'interest' of which you speak.
Most bank accounts offer roughly 0%.
You can chase better rates - but I don't think there are any examples out there of interest which exceeds the rate of inflation. So if you have £1m in cash and you're getting an interest rate of 4% on that, you get an 'income' of £40k, but that doesn't even cover the depreciation of that £1m.
Interest basically covers the depreciation of your cash. Or goes some way towards it, at least.
Under what circumstances can it represent actual income?
Say you have £2m in cash. 2 years ago it paid you £30k. Now it pays you £90k. That's triple the annual income you used to have. A 300% increase. But your expenses have only gone up say 20%. You are much better off on an 'income and expenditure account' basis. You're rolling in it.
Ok so if you're in the habit of doing your personal balance sheet on an inflation adjusted basis, ie you adjust the 'present value' of your principle (the £2m) using the now higher discount rate, you've 'lost' significant value there.
So it depends how you look at it. But that income gain is perfectly real (compared to not having it) and most people don't do the NPV balance sheet adjustment for the higher discount rate. So they'll feel richer and they aren't wrong. They're not 100% right either, but they're not wrong.
Country is full of people with £2M in readies right enough.
Ok ok. So divide by 5. Now you have a 'comfortable' individual whose interest income has tripled from £6k per annum to £18k per annum. That is not to be sneered at with a wet fish.
Ben Chu @BenChu_ This interesting analysis from Bloomberg suggests the income *boost* to UK households, in aggregate, from higher interest rates has so far outstripped the income *hit* to all households from higher mortgage rates...
Ben Chu @BenChu_ · 1h ...The Bloomberg article suggests this aggregate boost to UK household incomes from rate rises could be one of the reasons inflation is proving hard to tame here - i.e. the rate rises are *helping* households more than they're *hurting* and *supporting* consumption..
I assume the boost will be on pension annuities. Not bank savings accounts. So good news for the boomers. Everything is good news for the boomers.
This point is underappreciated imo. If you're risk averse and cash rich, so your income is mainly interest, you've had a payrise of 300% in the space of a couple of years. You've got triple the money coming in now compared to before. Yes, inflation erodes everything etc, but you're doing much better than most and you're arguably better off now than you were, or at least it will probably feel that way.
Must be a very miniscule amount of people who live on interest, lottery winners and a few billionaires at best.
Yes. But I think there's quite a few for whom interest is a big chunk of their income. Eg me in fact.
I'm puzzled by this 'interest' of which you speak.
Most bank accounts offer roughly 0%.
You can chase better rates - but I don't think there are any examples out there of interest which exceeds the rate of inflation. So if you have £1m in cash and you're getting an interest rate of 4% on that, you get an 'income' of £40k, but that doesn't even cover the depreciation of that £1m.
Interest basically covers the depreciation of your cash. Or goes some way towards it, at least.
Under what circumstances can it represent actual income?
You can get 6% on a fixed-term savings account at the moment. There's a good chance that inflation will fall below that in the no-too-distant future.
How do you live during the fixed term with no income
By either having interest paid out monthly or having multiple fixed-term accounts maturing at different times (or a combination of both strategies).
Edit: But as I say, bank interest isn't my main source of income; my savings aren't that big!
Indeed. Normally I'd leave it in to reinvest and get compound interest. But the change of HMRC practice makes me realise that paying out (where possible) is the safer option tax wise.
Of the 56 "brave, patriotic" men who signed the Declaration of Independence - which avows that "all men are created equal" - 41 of the signatories owned slaves, including Thomas Jefferson, who actually wrote the document. Indeed Jefferson used his slaves for sex
Ben Chu @BenChu_ This interesting analysis from Bloomberg suggests the income *boost* to UK households, in aggregate, from higher interest rates has so far outstripped the income *hit* to all households from higher mortgage rates...
Ben Chu @BenChu_ · 1h ...The Bloomberg article suggests this aggregate boost to UK household incomes from rate rises could be one of the reasons inflation is proving hard to tame here - i.e. the rate rises are *helping* households more than they're *hurting* and *supporting* consumption..
I assume the boost will be on pension annuities. Not bank savings accounts. So good news for the boomers. Everything is good news for the boomers.
This point is underappreciated imo. If you're risk averse and cash rich, so your income is mainly interest, you've had a payrise of 300% in the space of a couple of years. You've got triple the money coming in now compared to before. Yes, inflation erodes everything etc, but you're doing much better than most and you're arguably better off now than you were, or at least it will probably feel that way.
Must be a very miniscule amount of people who live on interest, lottery winners and a few billionaires at best.
Yes. But I think there's quite a few for whom interest is a big chunk of their income. Eg me in fact.
I'm puzzled by this 'interest' of which you speak.
Most bank accounts offer roughly 0%.
You can chase better rates - but I don't think there are any examples out there of interest which exceeds the rate of inflation. So if you have £1m in cash and you're getting an interest rate of 4% on that, you get an 'income' of £40k, but that doesn't even cover the depreciation of that £1m.
Interest basically covers the depreciation of your cash. Or goes some way towards it, at least.
Under what circumstances can it represent actual income?
Say you have £2m in cash. 2 years ago it paid you £30k. Now it pays you £90k. That's triple the annual income you used to have. A 300% increase. But your expenses have only gone up say 20%. You are much better off on an 'income and expenditure account' basis. You're rolling in it.
Ok so if you're in the habit of doing your personal balance sheet on an inflation adjusted basis, ie you adjust the 'present value' of your principle (the £2m) using the now higher discount rate, you've 'lost' significant value there.
So it depends how you look at it. But that income gain is perfectly real (compared to not having it) and most people don't do the NPV balance sheet adjustment for the higher discount rate. So they'll feel richer and they aren't wrong. They're not 100% right either, but they're not wrong.
Country is full of people with £2M in readies right enough.
Ok ok. So divide by 5. Now you have a 'comfortable' individual whose interest income has tripled from £6k per annum to £18k per annum. That is not to be sneered at with a wet fish.
Very true but would still suggest a small minority have that amount in bank savings. Perhaps investments but they have been pretty crap last year or so.
Ben Chu @BenChu_ This interesting analysis from Bloomberg suggests the income *boost* to UK households, in aggregate, from higher interest rates has so far outstripped the income *hit* to all households from higher mortgage rates...
Ben Chu @BenChu_ · 1h ...The Bloomberg article suggests this aggregate boost to UK household incomes from rate rises could be one of the reasons inflation is proving hard to tame here - i.e. the rate rises are *helping* households more than they're *hurting* and *supporting* consumption..
I assume the boost will be on pension annuities. Not bank savings accounts. So good news for the boomers. Everything is good news for the boomers.
This point is underappreciated imo. If you're risk averse and cash rich, so your income is mainly interest, you've had a payrise of 300% in the space of a couple of years. You've got triple the money coming in now compared to before. Yes, inflation erodes everything etc, but you're doing much better than most and you're arguably better off now than you were, or at least it will probably feel that way.
Must be a very miniscule amount of people who live on interest, lottery winners and a few billionaires at best.
Yes, I'm puzzled by this. I'm not saying Ben Chu is wrong - but it's a long way from the experience of anyone I come across. Even those who live of income from their wealth (like the billionaires Malc alludes to and, I guess, many retirees) will mostly get income from investments, rather than just have it trickle in from a bank account. And investments won't be doing well because interest rate rises.
Not necessarily a 'bank account' but if you're wealthy and risk averse you'll have a lot in 'cash' category assets, eg NSI, term depos, gilts etc. Such a person will have seen their aggregate income boosted massively. Maybe as much as tripled.
OK, take NS&I. Take a person who has £50k of premium bonds, and is getting, I dunno, £500 a year from them. The rate of return then triples. He's now getting £1500 a year from them. But he's still getting poorer because his £50k of premium bonds is worth 10% less than what it was last year. He had an asset worth £50k in 2022 prices, he now has an asset worth £45k in 2022 prices, plus £1500. He's £3,500 poorer than he was last year. This doesn't amount to getting richer, just getting poorer more slowly. Whereas when inflation was 2% and interest rates were 1% he would have lost £1000 in depreciation against which he would be £500 up in interest. He will only have been £500 poorer.
Neither are ideal - you don't want big wads of cash around in any sort of investment: interest will rarely beat depreciation. But those with cash were surely better off when inflation and interest rates were low.
You're not wrong but (per my post 2.58) it depends how they view things. We have a real hard cash net income & expenditure account gain whereas the balance sheet 'loss' comes from a PV inflation accounting adjustment.
So we have consumption driven by people transferring capital to income without really meaning to! There's nothing about this which strikes me as in any way a good thing.
Persistent high inflation is a very bad thing. It's the pits. But as we go through this painful (and inevitable but too rapid) transition from cheap money to normal money, there are lots of people benefiting (in hard 'now' cash terms) and I think this is a little bit under-appreciated. Although maybe not now since I've banged on about it for the best part of an afternoon.
But the benefits are all an illusion! Indeed, it’s those with lots of cash savings who lose out most from inflation.
Not necessarily. If you're paying a mortgage (or, indeed, rent), have no savings and are only just managing to keep your head above water, rising inflation and interest rates could lead to you losing your house unless your wages also rise quickly.
Of the 56 "brave, patriotic" men who signed the Declaration of Independence - which avows that "all men are created equal" - 41 of the signatories owned slaves, including Thomas Jefferson, who actually wrote the document. Indeed Jefferson used his slaves for sex
Depends if Africans were defined as human beings ("men"), though [edit: not that it makes it any better if they weren't, obvs]. I don't know enough about the thinking of Jefferson et al. But in the mid-19th century, many Americans always showed a worrying interest in taxonomies which regarded Homo sapiens as being more than one species.
I've read a lot of American history in the last years, and I reckon at least some of the signatories - the Founding Fathers - sincerely meant all mankind by the phrase "all men are created equal". They just didn[t want to give up the profitable, easeful convenience of slaves any time soon, it was something they would get round to. Eventually. Like Augustine and celibacy
They also realised that extending freedom to slaves would have kicked off civil war as soon as Independence was achieved, as the slave owning south entirely depended on slaves for its riches
Other Founding Fathers were out and out racists and misogynists and surely believed true freedom was only meant for white men (probably men of property)
Other facts I've learned in my recent travels. Lincoln never meant for the freed slaves, post bellum, to stay in the USA. His idea was they could all go live in central America. He envisaged they would be either a burden or a menace, he was quite racist himself
Ben Chu @BenChu_ This interesting analysis from Bloomberg suggests the income *boost* to UK households, in aggregate, from higher interest rates has so far outstripped the income *hit* to all households from higher mortgage rates...
Ben Chu @BenChu_ · 1h ...The Bloomberg article suggests this aggregate boost to UK household incomes from rate rises could be one of the reasons inflation is proving hard to tame here - i.e. the rate rises are *helping* households more than they're *hurting* and *supporting* consumption..
I assume the boost will be on pension annuities. Not bank savings accounts. So good news for the boomers. Everything is good news for the boomers.
This point is underappreciated imo. If you're risk averse and cash rich, so your income is mainly interest, you've had a payrise of 300% in the space of a couple of years. You've got triple the money coming in now compared to before. Yes, inflation erodes everything etc, but you're doing much better than most and you're arguably better off now than you were, or at least it will probably feel that way.
Must be a very miniscule amount of people who live on interest, lottery winners and a few billionaires at best.
Yes, I'm puzzled by this. I'm not saying Ben Chu is wrong - but it's a long way from the experience of anyone I come across. Even those who live of income from their wealth (like the billionaires Malc alludes to and, I guess, many retirees) will mostly get income from investments, rather than just have it trickle in from a bank account. And investments won't be doing well because interest rate rises.
Not necessarily a 'bank account' but if you're wealthy and risk averse you'll have a lot in 'cash' category assets, eg NSI, term depos, gilts etc. Such a person will have seen their aggregate income boosted massively. Maybe as much as tripled.
OK, take NS&I. Take a person who has £50k of premium bonds, and is getting, I dunno, £500 a year from them. The rate of return then triples. He's now getting £1500 a year from them. But he's still getting poorer because his £50k of premium bonds is worth 10% less than what it was last year. He had an asset worth £50k in 2022 prices, he now has an asset worth £45k in 2022 prices, plus £1500. He's £3,500 poorer than he was last year. This doesn't amount to getting richer, just getting poorer more slowly. Whereas when inflation was 2% and interest rates were 1% he would have lost £1000 in depreciation against which he would be £500 up in interest. He will only have been £500 poorer.
Neither are ideal - you don't want big wads of cash around in any sort of investment: interest will rarely beat depreciation. But those with cash were surely better off when inflation and interest rates were low.
You're not wrong but (per my post 2.58) it depends how they view things. We have a real hard cash net income & expenditure account gain whereas the balance sheet 'loss' comes from a PV inflation accounting adjustment.
So we have consumption driven by people transferring capital to income without really meaning to! There's nothing about this which strikes me as in any way a good thing.
Persistent high inflation is a very bad thing. It's the pits. But as we go through this painful (and inevitable but too rapid) transition from cheap money to normal money, there are lots of people benefiting (in hard 'now' cash terms) and I think this is a little bit under-appreciated. Although maybe not now since I've banged on about it for the best part of an afternoon.
But the benefits are all an illusion! Indeed, it’s those with lots of cash savings who lose out most from inflation.
So you would be OK with redirecting all your interest payments to the bank details I am about to pm you, with it all being illusory anyway?
Of the 56 "brave, patriotic" men who signed the Declaration of Independence - which avows that "all men are created equal" - 41 of the signatories owned slaves, including Thomas Jefferson, who actually wrote the document. Indeed Jefferson used his slaves for sex
Depends if Africans were defined as human beings ("men"), though [edit: not that it makes it any better if they weren't, obvs]. I don't know enough about the thinking of Jefferson et al. But in the mid-19th century, many Americans always showed a worrying interest in taxonomies which regarded Homo sapiens as being more than one species.
I've read a lot of American history in the last years, and I reckon at least some of the signatories - the Founding Fathers - sincerely meant all mankind by the phrase "all men are created equal". They just didn[t want to give up the profitable, easeful convenience of slaves any time soon, it was something they would get round to. Eventually. Like Augustine and celibacy
They also realised that extending freedom to slaves would have kicked off civil war as soon as Independence was achieved, as the slave owning south entirely depended on slaves for its riches
Other Founding Fathers were out and out racists and misogynists and surely believed true freedom was only meant for white men (probably men of property)
Other facts I've learned in my recent travels. Lincoln never meant for the freed slaves, post bellum, to stay in the USA. His idea was they could all go live in central America. He envisaged they would be either a burden or a menace, he was quite racist himself
"Never" is incorrect. His views evolved considerably over the course of the war.
Donald Tusk has reinvented himself as Donald Trump. He’s warning about the “shocking” increase of Muslim immigration into Poland and says that they need to regain control of their borders.
Related to the topic: In the US, three recent presidents, Clinton, Obama, and Trump have presided while their parties lost talented leaders -- and made the US worse off because of that loss. (One can argue about how much blame each should receive for those losses, but presidents typically receive credit when things go well, and blame when they don't.)
So I think it likely that the UK may be worse off, if OGH is right about those MPs deciding not to stand for election. No doubt you will be better off without some of them, but surely not without all.
Of the 56 "brave, patriotic" men who signed the Declaration of Independence - which avows that "all men are created equal" - 41 of the signatories owned slaves, including Thomas Jefferson, who actually wrote the document. Indeed Jefferson used his slaves for sex
Depends if Africans were defined as human beings ("men"), though [edit: not that it makes it any better if they weren't, obvs]. I don't know enough about the thinking of Jefferson et al. But in the mid-19th century, many Americans always showed a worrying interest in taxonomies which regarded Homo sapiens as being more than one species.
I've read a lot of American history in the last years, and I reckon at least some of the signatories - the Founding Fathers - sincerely meant all mankind by the phrase "all men are created equal". They just didn[t want to give up the profitable, easeful convenience of slaves any time soon, it was something they would get round to. Eventually. Like Augustine and celibacy
They also realised that extending freedom to slaves would have kicked off civil war as soon as Independence was achieved, as the slave owning south entirely depended on slaves for its riches
Other Founding Fathers were out and out racists and misogynists and surely believed true freedom was only meant for white men (probably men of property)
Other facts I've learned in my recent travels. Lincoln never meant for the freed slaves, post bellum, to stay in the USA. His idea was they could all go live in central America. He envisaged they would be either a burden or a menace, he was quite racist himself
"Never" is incorrect. His views evolved considerably over the course of the war.
He also espoused the "colonisation" plan before he had actually met many (if any) black people.
Actual black people who knew him, said that he wasn't racist and treated them as equals.
The last speech he gave, which triggered Booth to murder him, included advocating black people voting. Which implied office holding as well - one the reasons that set Booth off.
Of the 56 "brave, patriotic" men who signed the Declaration of Independence - which avows that "all men are created equal" - 41 of the signatories owned slaves, including Thomas Jefferson, who actually wrote the document. Indeed Jefferson used his slaves for sex
Depends if Africans were defined as human beings ("men"), though [edit: not that it makes it any better if they weren't, obvs]. I don't know enough about the thinking of Jefferson et al. But in the mid-19th century, many Americans always showed a worrying interest in taxonomies which regarded Homo sapiens as being more than one species.
I've read a lot of American history in the last years, and I reckon at least some of the signatories - the Founding Fathers - sincerely meant all mankind by the phrase "all men are created equal". They just didn[t want to give up the profitable, easeful convenience of slaves any time soon, it was something they would get round to. Eventually. Like Augustine and celibacy
They also realised that extending freedom to slaves would have kicked off civil war as soon as Independence was achieved, as the slave owning south entirely depended on slaves for its riches
Other Founding Fathers were out and out racists and misogynists and surely believed true freedom was only meant for white men (probably men of property)
Other facts I've learned in my recent travels. Lincoln never meant for the freed slaves, post bellum, to stay in the USA. His idea was they could all go live in central America. He envisaged they would be either a burden or a menace, he was quite racist himself
"Never" is incorrect. His views evolved considerably over the course of the war.
He also espoused the "colonisation" plan before he had actually met many (if any) black people.
Actual black people who knew him, said that he wasn't racist and treated them as equals.
The last speech he gave, which triggered Booth to murder him, included advocating black people voting. Which implied office holding as well - one the reasons that set Booth off.
I am happy to rephrase. For long parts of his career Lincoln wanted to pack all the freed slaves off to central America, he didn't want them to stay, once they were emancipated
Donald Tusk has reinvented himself as Donald Trump. He’s warning about the “shocking” increase of Muslim immigration into Poland and says that they need to regain control of their borders.
That's not so much as a re-invention as banging the same drum he's been banging for quite a while. Just a slightly different rhythm today. But it is one he has played before.
Of the 56 "brave, patriotic" men who signed the Declaration of Independence - which avows that "all men are created equal" - 41 of the signatories owned slaves, including Thomas Jefferson, who actually wrote the document. Indeed Jefferson used his slaves for sex
Depends if Africans were defined as human beings ("men"), though [edit: not that it makes it any better if they weren't, obvs]. I don't know enough about the thinking of Jefferson et al. But in the mid-19th century, many Americans always showed a worrying interest in taxonomies which regarded Homo sapiens as being more than one species.
I've read a lot of American history in the last years, and I reckon at least some of the signatories - the Founding Fathers - sincerely meant all mankind by the phrase "all men are created equal". They just didn[t want to give up the profitable, easeful convenience of slaves any time soon, it was something they would get round to. Eventually. Like Augustine and celibacy
They also realised that extending freedom to slaves would have kicked off civil war as soon as Independence was achieved, as the slave owning south entirely depended on slaves for its riches
Other Founding Fathers were out and out racists and misogynists and surely believed true freedom was only meant for white men (probably men of property)
Other facts I've learned in my recent travels. Lincoln never meant for the freed slaves, post bellum, to stay in the USA. His idea was they could all go live in central America. He envisaged they would be either a burden or a menace, he was quite racist himself
"Never" is incorrect. His views evolved considerably over the course of the war.
He also espoused the "colonisation" plan before he had actually met many (if any) black people.
Actual black people who knew him, said that he wasn't racist and treated them as equals.
The last speech he gave, which triggered Booth to murder him, included advocating black people voting. Which implied office holding as well - one the reasons that set Booth off.
I am happy to rephrase. For long parts of his career Lincoln wanted to pack all the freed slaves off to central America, he didn't want them to stay, once they were emancipated
And he changed his mind in less time than it took Senator Byrd to leave the KKK....
"Abraham Lincoln was a proponent of colonization (funding the removal of freed African Americans to Africa or the Caribbean) from sometime in the 1840s until, though we cannot be certain but most likely, the end of his life"
"In 1877 William Seward wrote that Lincoln “by no means abandoned his policy of [voluntary] deportation and emancipation, for the two were in his mind indispensably and indissolubly connected. Colonization in fact had precedence with him.”"
Of the 56 "brave, patriotic" men who signed the Declaration of Independence - which avows that "all men are created equal" - 41 of the signatories owned slaves, including Thomas Jefferson, who actually wrote the document. Indeed Jefferson used his slaves for sex
Depends if Africans were defined as human beings ("men"), though [edit: not that it makes it any better if they weren't, obvs]. I don't know enough about the thinking of Jefferson et al. But in the mid-19th century, many Americans always showed a worrying interest in taxonomies which regarded Homo sapiens as being more than one species.
I've read a lot of American history in the last years, and I reckon at least some of the signatories - the Founding Fathers - sincerely meant all mankind by the phrase "all men are created equal". They just didn[t want to give up the profitable, easeful convenience of slaves any time soon, it was something they would get round to. Eventually. Like Augustine and celibacy
They also realised that extending freedom to slaves would have kicked off civil war as soon as Independence was achieved, as the slave owning south entirely depended on slaves for its riches
Other Founding Fathers were out and out racists and misogynists and surely believed true freedom was only meant for white men (probably men of property)
Other facts I've learned in my recent travels. Lincoln never meant for the freed slaves, post bellum, to stay in the USA. His idea was they could all go live in central America. He envisaged they would be either a burden or a menace, he was quite racist himself
"Never" is incorrect. His views evolved considerably over the course of the war.
That's right, Lincoln's views evolved a lot reflecting the experience of the war - seeing black soldiers fighting for the union - and his interactions with figures such as Frederick Douglass. His views reflected the times he lived in but by the standards of those times he was woke in the extreme. Lincoln is in my opinion the greatest political leader in the history of the English speaking world. To have come from where he came from, to have basically taught himself everything he knew, and to have led his country through such difficult times and effected such positive change while remaining so kind and humble in his dealings with everyone he encountered is simply extraordinary. I really can't think of a single other political leader I admire as much as Lincoln.
Of the 56 "brave, patriotic" men who signed the Declaration of Independence - which avows that "all men are created equal" - 41 of the signatories owned slaves, including Thomas Jefferson, who actually wrote the document. Indeed Jefferson used his slaves for sex
Depends if Africans were defined as human beings ("men"), though [edit: not that it makes it any better if they weren't, obvs]. I don't know enough about the thinking of Jefferson et al. But in the mid-19th century, many Americans always showed a worrying interest in taxonomies which regarded Homo sapiens as being more than one species.
I've read a lot of American history in the last years, and I reckon at least some of the signatories - the Founding Fathers - sincerely meant all mankind by the phrase "all men are created equal". They just didn[t want to give up the profitable, easeful convenience of slaves any time soon, it was something they would get round to. Eventually. Like Augustine and celibacy
They also realised that extending freedom to slaves would have kicked off civil war as soon as Independence was achieved, as the slave owning south entirely depended on slaves for its riches
Other Founding Fathers were out and out racists and misogynists and surely believed true freedom was only meant for white men (probably men of property)
Other facts I've learned in my recent travels. Lincoln never meant for the freed slaves, post bellum, to stay in the USA. His idea was they could all go live in central America. He envisaged they would be either a burden or a menace, he was quite racist himself
"Never" is incorrect. His views evolved considerably over the course of the war.
That's right, Lincoln's views evolved a lot reflecting the experience of the war - seeing black soldiers fighting for the union - and his interactions with figures such as Frederick Douglass. His views reflected the times he lived in but by the standards of those times he was woke in the extreme. Lincoln is in my opinion the greatest political leader in the history of the English speaking world. To have come from where he came from, to have basically taught himself everything he knew, and to have led his country through such difficult times and effected such positive change while remaining so kind and humble in his dealings with everyone he encountered is simply extraordinary. I really can't think of a single other political leader I admire as much as Lincoln.
"Woke in the extreme" seems a tad generous
"In a debate, at Charleston, Illinois, on September 18, 1858, Lincoln made his position clear. “I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and Black races,” he began, going on to say that he opposed Black people having the right to vote, to serve on juries, to hold office and to intermarry with whites. "
There have been calls for Orkney to become part of Norway
Orkney councillors have voted to investigate alternative methods of governance amid deep frustrations over funding and opportunities. Council leader James Stockan said the island had been "held down" and accused the Scottish and UK governments of discrimination. His motion led to media speculation that Orkney could leave the UK or become a self-governing territory of Norway.
It was supported by 15 votes to six.
It means council officers have been asked to publish a report to Orkney's chief executive on options of governance.
This includes looking at the "Nordic connections" of the archipelago and crown dependencies such as Jersey and Guernsey.
A further change which would see the revival of a consultative group on constitutional reform for the islands was accepted without the need for a vote.
Of the 56 "brave, patriotic" men who signed the Declaration of Independence - which avows that "all men are created equal" - 41 of the signatories owned slaves, including Thomas Jefferson, who actually wrote the document. Indeed Jefferson used his slaves for sex
Depends if Africans were defined as human beings ("men"), though [edit: not that it makes it any better if they weren't, obvs]. I don't know enough about the thinking of Jefferson et al. But in the mid-19th century, many Americans always showed a worrying interest in taxonomies which regarded Homo sapiens as being more than one species.
I've read a lot of American history in the last years, and I reckon at least some of the signatories - the Founding Fathers - sincerely meant all mankind by the phrase "all men are created equal". They just didn[t want to give up the profitable, easeful convenience of slaves any time soon, it was something they would get round to. Eventually. Like Augustine and celibacy
They also realised that extending freedom to slaves would have kicked off civil war as soon as Independence was achieved, as the slave owning south entirely depended on slaves for its riches
Other Founding Fathers were out and out racists and misogynists and surely believed true freedom was only meant for white men (probably men of property)
Other facts I've learned in my recent travels. Lincoln never meant for the freed slaves, post bellum, to stay in the USA. His idea was they could all go live in central America. He envisaged they would be either a burden or a menace, he was quite racist himself
"Never" is incorrect. His views evolved considerably over the course of the war.
That's right, Lincoln's views evolved a lot reflecting the experience of the war - seeing black soldiers fighting for the union - and his interactions with figures such as Frederick Douglass. His views reflected the times he lived in but by the standards of those times he was woke in the extreme. Lincoln is in my opinion the greatest political leader in the history of the English speaking world. To have come from where he came from, to have basically taught himself everything he knew, and to have led his country through such difficult times and effected such positive change while remaining so kind and humble in his dealings with everyone he encountered is simply extraordinary. I really can't think of a single other political leader I admire as much as Lincoln.
Although if you were being provocative, you might contrast Lincoln freeing slaves by winning the American civil war at a cost of half a million lives, with Wilberforce doing much the same with a couple of petitions.
One of the most brutal inequities of the pandemic was the enormous levels of saving that people WFH on decent salaries were able to manage. Most of their cash went on Pret, petrol and holidays to the Med - that all got slung into their £20k per year ISAs instead.
Having got screwed on furlough/UC during the pandemic, younger people (still renters or now high LTV mortgage holders) are getting smacked again by interest rates and/or cost of living.
Inflation is being turbo-charged by the pandemic savers unleashing cash - "this is why we saved up, after all. This is the rainy day". Doesn't help that saving rates are nowhere near high enough to flip the incentive: inflation is eroding the value of those savings so you might as well spend it all.
Ben Chu @BenChu_ This interesting analysis from Bloomberg suggests the income *boost* to UK households, in aggregate, from higher interest rates has so far outstripped the income *hit* to all households from higher mortgage rates...
Ben Chu @BenChu_ · 1h ...The Bloomberg article suggests this aggregate boost to UK household incomes from rate rises could be one of the reasons inflation is proving hard to tame here - i.e. the rate rises are *helping* households more than they're *hurting* and *supporting* consumption..
I assume the boost will be on pension annuities. Not bank savings accounts. So good news for the boomers. Everything is good news for the boomers.
This point is underappreciated imo. If you're risk averse and cash rich, so your income is mainly interest, you've had a payrise of 300% in the space of a couple of years. You've got triple the money coming in now compared to before. Yes, inflation erodes everything etc, but you're doing much better than most and you're arguably better off now than you were, or at least it will probably feel that way.
Must be a very miniscule amount of people who live on interest, lottery winners and a few billionaires at best.
Yes, I'm puzzled by this. I'm not saying Ben Chu is wrong - but it's a long way from the experience of anyone I come across. Even those who live of income from their wealth (like the billionaires Malc alludes to and, I guess, many retirees) will mostly get income from investments, rather than just have it trickle in from a bank account. And investments won't be doing well because interest rate rises.
Not necessarily a 'bank account' but if you're wealthy and risk averse you'll have a lot in 'cash' category assets, eg NSI, term depos, gilts etc. Such a person will have seen their aggregate income boosted massively. Maybe as much as tripled.
OK, take NS&I. Take a person who has £50k of premium bonds, and is getting, I dunno, £500 a year from them. The rate of return then triples. He's now getting £1500 a year from them. But he's still getting poorer because his £50k of premium bonds is worth 10% less than what it was last year. He had an asset worth £50k in 2022 prices, he now has an asset worth £45k in 2022 prices, plus £1500. He's £3,500 poorer than he was last year. This doesn't amount to getting richer, just getting poorer more slowly. Whereas when inflation was 2% and interest rates were 1% he would have lost £1000 in depreciation against which he would be £500 up in interest. He will only have been £500 poorer.
Neither are ideal - you don't want big wads of cash around in any sort of investment: interest will rarely beat depreciation. But those with cash were surely better off when inflation and interest rates were low.
You're not wrong but (per my post 2.58) it depends how they view things. We have a real hard cash net income & expenditure account gain whereas the balance sheet 'loss' comes from a PV inflation accounting adjustment.
So we have consumption driven by people transferring capital to income without really meaning to! There's nothing about this which strikes me as in any way a good thing.
Persistent high inflation is a very bad thing. It's the pits. But as we go through this painful (and inevitable but too rapid) transition from cheap money to normal money, there are lots of people benefiting (in hard 'now' cash terms) and I think this is a little bit under-appreciated. Although maybe not now since I've banged on about it for the best part of an afternoon.
But the benefits are all an illusion! Indeed, it’s those with lots of cash savings who lose out most from inflation.
They aren't (!) all an illusion. There's a big boost to your (net of expenditure) regular income. That's real. You can spend it or save it or give it away. As against this there's a reduction in the calculated purchasing power of your liquid capital. The latter 'loss' is also real but it's real in a slightly less real, more theoretical way. It might be arithmetically bigger but it's an estimated number (influenced by assumptions). The first is a hard 100% factual objective number, which can justifiably be given a higher weighting. You don't have to, but it isn't 'wrong' if you do.
Of the 56 "brave, patriotic" men who signed the Declaration of Independence - which avows that "all men are created equal" - 41 of the signatories owned slaves, including Thomas Jefferson, who actually wrote the document. Indeed Jefferson used his slaves for sex
Depends if Africans were defined as human beings ("men"), though [edit: not that it makes it any better if they weren't, obvs]. I don't know enough about the thinking of Jefferson et al. But in the mid-19th century, many Americans always showed a worrying interest in taxonomies which regarded Homo sapiens as being more than one species.
I've read a lot of American history in the last years, and I reckon at least some of the signatories - the Founding Fathers - sincerely meant all mankind by the phrase "all men are created equal". They just didn[t want to give up the profitable, easeful convenience of slaves any time soon, it was something they would get round to. Eventually. Like Augustine and celibacy
They also realised that extending freedom to slaves would have kicked off civil war as soon as Independence was achieved, as the slave owning south entirely depended on slaves for its riches
Other Founding Fathers were out and out racists and misogynists and surely believed true freedom was only meant for white men (probably men of property)
Other facts I've learned in my recent travels. Lincoln never meant for the freed slaves, post bellum, to stay in the USA. His idea was they could all go live in central America. He envisaged they would be either a burden or a menace, he was quite racist himself
"Never" is incorrect. His views evolved considerably over the course of the war.
That's right, Lincoln's views evolved a lot reflecting the experience of the war - seeing black soldiers fighting for the union - and his interactions with figures such as Frederick Douglass. His views reflected the times he lived in but by the standards of those times he was woke in the extreme. Lincoln is in my opinion the greatest political leader in the history of the English speaking world. To have come from where he came from, to have basically taught himself everything he knew, and to have led his country through such difficult times and effected such positive change while remaining so kind and humble in his dealings with everyone he encountered is simply extraordinary. I really can't think of a single other political leader I admire as much as Lincoln.
Although if you were being provocative, you might contrast Lincoln freeing slaves by winning the American civil war at a cost of half a million lives, with Wilberforce doing much the same with a couple of petitions.
Wilberforce had the small advantage of needing only to obtain a majority in the House of Commons and the Lords.
In addition there was a large, growing and powerful faction against the political interests of the slave holders. Who never commanded a majority, themselves. Unlike in the US, where the slaveholders were formerly controlled the system of government and were watching it eye away.
I’m off to Boston now. How much, including interest, should I charge them for the tea?
Could you not just drink some of the harbour water ?
Probably taste better than the tea at work TBF.
I expect if I was used to having tea made by 90-odd degree water I'd be angry about it too.
Americans and Europeans: you need to use BOILING water for the little cup of brown joy.
What's your view on putting the milk in the teapot?
That is madness. I know, and don't mind either way about, the argument between tea first and milk first in the cup. Personally I'm tea first, but that's purely force of habit. But who puts milk in the teapot? Who does that help? That would mean you would then have to properly wash the teapot afterwards, which is hard to do.
I’m off to Boston now. How much, including interest, should I charge them for the tea?
Could you not just drink some of the harbour water ?
Probably taste better than the tea at work TBF.
I expect if I was used to having tea made by 90-odd degree water I'd be angry about it too.
Americans and Europeans: you need to use BOILING water for the little cup of brown joy.
What's your view on putting the milk in the teapot?
That is madness. I know, and don't mind either way about, the argument between tea first and milk first in the cup. Personally I'm tea first, but that's purely force of habit. But who puts milk in the teapot? Who does that help? That would mean you would then have to properly wash the teapot afterwards, which is hard to do.
I did like the story that journalists, in Ukraine, were told that proving they weren't Russian spies by putting milk in the tea was taking it too far.
There have been calls for Orkney to become part of Norway
Orkney councillors have voted to investigate alternative methods of governance amid deep frustrations over funding and opportunities. Council leader James Stockan said the island had been "held down" and accused the Scottish and UK governments of discrimination. His motion led to media speculation that Orkney could leave the UK or become a self-governing territory of Norway.
It was supported by 15 votes to six.
It means council officers have been asked to publish a report to Orkney's chief executive on options of governance.
This includes looking at the "Nordic connections" of the archipelago and crown dependencies such as Jersey and Guernsey.
A further change which would see the revival of a consultative group on constitutional reform for the islands was accepted without the need for a vote.
what percentage of UK/Scottish oil and gas is in Shetland and Orkney waters (both have discussed independence)? I guess @Richard_Tyndall might know?
There have been calls for Orkney to become part of Norway
Orkney councillors have voted to investigate alternative methods of governance amid deep frustrations over funding and opportunities. Council leader James Stockan said the island had been "held down" and accused the Scottish and UK governments of discrimination. His motion led to media speculation that Orkney could leave the UK or become a self-governing territory of Norway.
It was supported by 15 votes to six.
It means council officers have been asked to publish a report to Orkney's chief executive on options of governance.
This includes looking at the "Nordic connections" of the archipelago and crown dependencies such as Jersey and Guernsey.
A further change which would see the revival of a consultative group on constitutional reform for the islands was accepted without the need for a vote.
Total bollox by a small bunch of unionist halfwits.
One of the most brutal inequities of the pandemic was the enormous levels of saving that people WFH on decent salaries were able to manage. Most of their cash went on Pret, petrol and holidays to the Med - that all got slung into their £20k per year ISAs instead.
Having got screwed on furlough/UC during the pandemic, younger people (still renters or now high LTV mortgage holders) are getting smacked again by interest rates and/or cost of living.
Inflation is being turbo-charged by the pandemic savers unleashing cash - "this is why we saved up, after all. This is the rainy day". Doesn't help that saving rates are nowhere near high enough to flip the incentive: inflation is eroding the value of those savings so you might as well spend it all.
Ben Chu @BenChu_ This interesting analysis from Bloomberg suggests the income *boost* to UK households, in aggregate, from higher interest rates has so far outstripped the income *hit* to all households from higher mortgage rates...
Ben Chu @BenChu_ · 1h ...The Bloomberg article suggests this aggregate boost to UK household incomes from rate rises could be one of the reasons inflation is proving hard to tame here - i.e. the rate rises are *helping* households more than they're *hurting* and *supporting* consumption..
I assume the boost will be on pension annuities. Not bank savings accounts. So good news for the boomers. Everything is good news for the boomers.
This point is underappreciated imo. If you're risk averse and cash rich, so your income is mainly interest, you've had a payrise of 300% in the space of a couple of years. You've got triple the money coming in now compared to before. Yes, inflation erodes everything etc, but you're doing much better than most and you're arguably better off now than you were, or at least it will probably feel that way.
Must be a very miniscule amount of people who live on interest, lottery winners and a few billionaires at best.
Yes, I'm puzzled by this. I'm not saying Ben Chu is wrong - but it's a long way from the experience of anyone I come across. Even those who live of income from their wealth (like the billionaires Malc alludes to and, I guess, many retirees) will mostly get income from investments, rather than just have it trickle in from a bank account. And investments won't be doing well because interest rate rises.
Not necessarily a 'bank account' but if you're wealthy and risk averse you'll have a lot in 'cash' category assets, eg NSI, term depos, gilts etc. Such a person will have seen their aggregate income boosted massively. Maybe as much as tripled.
OK, take NS&I. Take a person who has £50k of premium bonds, and is getting, I dunno, £500 a year from them. The rate of return then triples. He's now getting £1500 a year from them. But he's still getting poorer because his £50k of premium bonds is worth 10% less than what it was last year. He had an asset worth £50k in 2022 prices, he now has an asset worth £45k in 2022 prices, plus £1500. He's £3,500 poorer than he was last year. This doesn't amount to getting richer, just getting poorer more slowly. Whereas when inflation was 2% and interest rates were 1% he would have lost £1000 in depreciation against which he would be £500 up in interest. He will only have been £500 poorer.
Neither are ideal - you don't want big wads of cash around in any sort of investment: interest will rarely beat depreciation. But those with cash were surely better off when inflation and interest rates were low.
You're not wrong but (per my post 2.58) it depends how they view things. We have a real hard cash net income & expenditure account gain whereas the balance sheet 'loss' comes from a PV inflation accounting adjustment.
So we have consumption driven by people transferring capital to income without really meaning to! There's nothing about this which strikes me as in any way a good thing.
Persistent high inflation is a very bad thing. It's the pits. But as we go through this painful (and inevitable but too rapid) transition from cheap money to normal money, there are lots of people benefiting (in hard 'now' cash terms) and I think this is a little bit under-appreciated. Although maybe not now since I've banged on about it for the best part of an afternoon.
But the benefits are all an illusion! Indeed, it’s those with lots of cash savings who lose out most from inflation.
They aren't (!) all an illusion. There's a big boost to your (net of expenditure) regular income. That's real. You can spend it or save it or give it away. As against this there's a reduction in the calculated purchasing power of your liquid capital. The latter 'loss' is also real but it's real in a slightly less real, more theoretical way. It might be arithmetically bigger but it's an estimated number (influenced by assumptions). The first is a hard 100% factual objective number, which can justifiably be given a higher weighting. You don't have to, but it isn't 'wrong' if you do.
I post a link to "money illusion". Nobody read the link. Nobody remembers it from the 70's and 80's. I'll just have to go back to making Star Trek jokes...
There have been calls for Orkney to become part of Norway
Orkney councillors have voted to investigate alternative methods of governance amid deep frustrations over funding and opportunities. Council leader James Stockan said the island had been "held down" and accused the Scottish and UK governments of discrimination. His motion led to media speculation that Orkney could leave the UK or become a self-governing territory of Norway.
It was supported by 15 votes to six.
It means council officers have been asked to publish a report to Orkney's chief executive on options of governance.
This includes looking at the "Nordic connections" of the archipelago and crown dependencies such as Jersey and Guernsey.
A further change which would see the revival of a consultative group on constitutional reform for the islands was accepted without the need for a vote.
what percentage of UK/Scottish oil and gas is in Shetland and Orkney waters (both have discussed independence)? I guess @Richard_Tyndall might know?
I would be interested in his reply as I do think it could be influencing this
There have been calls for Orkney to become part of Norway
Orkney councillors have voted to investigate alternative methods of governance amid deep frustrations over funding and opportunities. Council leader James Stockan said the island had been "held down" and accused the Scottish and UK governments of discrimination. His motion led to media speculation that Orkney could leave the UK or become a self-governing territory of Norway.
It was supported by 15 votes to six.
It means council officers have been asked to publish a report to Orkney's chief executive on options of governance.
This includes looking at the "Nordic connections" of the archipelago and crown dependencies such as Jersey and Guernsey.
A further change which would see the revival of a consultative group on constitutional reform for the islands was accepted without the need for a vote.
Total bollox by a small bunch of unionist halfwits.
My nationalism is completely rational Your nationalism is ugly populism His/Her/It's nationalism is absurd - and doesn't really exist.
Of the 56 "brave, patriotic" men who signed the Declaration of Independence - which avows that "all men are created equal" - 41 of the signatories owned slaves, including Thomas Jefferson, who actually wrote the document. Indeed Jefferson used his slaves for sex
Depends if Africans were defined as human beings ("men"), though [edit: not that it makes it any better if they weren't, obvs]. I don't know enough about the thinking of Jefferson et al. But in the mid-19th century, many Americans always showed a worrying interest in taxonomies which regarded Homo sapiens as being more than one species.
I've read a lot of American history in the last years, and I reckon at least some of the signatories - the Founding Fathers - sincerely meant all mankind by the phrase "all men are created equal". They just didn[t want to give up the profitable, easeful convenience of slaves any time soon, it was something they would get round to. Eventually. Like Augustine and celibacy
They also realised that extending freedom to slaves would have kicked off civil war as soon as Independence was achieved, as the slave owning south entirely depended on slaves for its riches
Other Founding Fathers were out and out racists and misogynists and surely believed true freedom was only meant for white men (probably men of property)
Other facts I've learned in my recent travels. Lincoln never meant for the freed slaves, post bellum, to stay in the USA. His idea was they could all go live in central America. He envisaged they would be either a burden or a menace, he was quite racist himself
"Never" is incorrect. His views evolved considerably over the course of the war.
That's right, Lincoln's views evolved a lot reflecting the experience of the war - seeing black soldiers fighting for the union - and his interactions with figures such as Frederick Douglass. His views reflected the times he lived in but by the standards of those times he was woke in the extreme. Lincoln is in my opinion the greatest political leader in the history of the English speaking world. To have come from where he came from, to have basically taught himself everything he knew, and to have led his country through such difficult times and effected such positive change while remaining so kind and humble in his dealings with everyone he encountered is simply extraordinary. I really can't think of a single other political leader I admire as much as Lincoln.
"Woke in the extreme" seems a tad generous
"In a debate, at Charleston, Illinois, on September 18, 1858, Lincoln made his position clear. “I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and Black races,” he began, going on to say that he opposed Black people having the right to vote, to serve on juries, to hold office and to intermarry with whites. "
But as OLB says, those views changed. How many of them did he still hold in 1864? I genuinely don't know but it certainly seems like he had shifted a great deal.
Edit: I have just checked and 3 days before his assassination he gave a speech supporting votes for blacks. Indeed it is claimed that it was Wilkes' presence at this speech which finally decided him on assassination.
Ben Chu @BenChu_ This interesting analysis from Bloomberg suggests the income *boost* to UK households, in aggregate, from higher interest rates has so far outstripped the income *hit* to all households from higher mortgage rates...
Ben Chu @BenChu_ · 1h ...The Bloomberg article suggests this aggregate boost to UK household incomes from rate rises could be one of the reasons inflation is proving hard to tame here - i.e. the rate rises are *helping* households more than they're *hurting* and *supporting* consumption..
I assume the boost will be on pension annuities. Not bank savings accounts. So good news for the boomers. Everything is good news for the boomers.
This point is underappreciated imo. If you're risk averse and cash rich, so your income is mainly interest, you've had a payrise of 300% in the space of a couple of years. You've got triple the money coming in now compared to before. Yes, inflation erodes everything etc, but you're doing much better than most and you're arguably better off now than you were, or at least it will probably feel that way.
Must be a very miniscule amount of people who live on interest, lottery winners and a few billionaires at best.
Yes. But I think there's quite a few for whom interest is a big chunk of their income. Eg me in fact.
I'm puzzled by this 'interest' of which you speak.
Most bank accounts offer roughly 0%.
You can chase better rates - but I don't think there are any examples out there of interest which exceeds the rate of inflation. So if you have £1m in cash and you're getting an interest rate of 4% on that, you get an 'income' of £40k, but that doesn't even cover the depreciation of that £1m.
Interest basically covers the depreciation of your cash. Or goes some way towards it, at least.
Under what circumstances can it represent actual income?
Say you have £2m in cash. 2 years ago it paid you £30k. Now it pays you £90k. That's triple the annual income you used to have. A 300% increase. But your expenses have only gone up say 20%. You are much better off on an 'income and expenditure account' basis. You're rolling in it.
Ok so if you're in the habit of doing your personal balance sheet on an inflation adjusted basis, ie you adjust the 'present value' of your principle (the £2m) using the now higher discount rate, you've 'lost' significant value there.
So it depends how you look at it. But that income gain is perfectly real (compared to not having it) and most people don't do the NPV balance sheet adjustment for the higher discount rate. So they'll feel richer and they aren't wrong. They're not 100% right either, but they're not wrong.
Country is full of people with £2M in readies right enough.
Ok ok. So divide by 5. Now you have a 'comfortable' individual whose interest income has tripled from £6k per annum to £18k per annum. That is not to be sneered at with a wet fish.
Very true but would still suggest a small minority have that amount in bank savings. Perhaps investments but they have been pretty crap last year or so.
Yes, many many people have little or no savings to speak of, sadly.
Of the 56 "brave, patriotic" men who signed the Declaration of Independence - which avows that "all men are created equal" - 41 of the signatories owned slaves, including Thomas Jefferson, who actually wrote the document. Indeed Jefferson used his slaves for sex
Depends if Africans were defined as human beings ("men"), though [edit: not that it makes it any better if they weren't, obvs]. I don't know enough about the thinking of Jefferson et al. But in the mid-19th century, many Americans always showed a worrying interest in taxonomies which regarded Homo sapiens as being more than one species.
I've read a lot of American history in the last years, and I reckon at least some of the signatories - the Founding Fathers - sincerely meant all mankind by the phrase "all men are created equal". They just didn[t want to give up the profitable, easeful convenience of slaves any time soon, it was something they would get round to. Eventually. Like Augustine and celibacy
They also realised that extending freedom to slaves would have kicked off civil war as soon as Independence was achieved, as the slave owning south entirely depended on slaves for its riches
Other Founding Fathers were out and out racists and misogynists and surely believed true freedom was only meant for white men (probably men of property)
Other facts I've learned in my recent travels. Lincoln never meant for the freed slaves, post bellum, to stay in the USA. His idea was they could all go live in central America. He envisaged they would be either a burden or a menace, he was quite racist himself
"Never" is incorrect. His views evolved considerably over the course of the war.
That's right, Lincoln's views evolved a lot reflecting the experience of the war - seeing black soldiers fighting for the union - and his interactions with figures such as Frederick Douglass. His views reflected the times he lived in but by the standards of those times he was woke in the extreme. Lincoln is in my opinion the greatest political leader in the history of the English speaking world. To have come from where he came from, to have basically taught himself everything he knew, and to have led his country through such difficult times and effected such positive change while remaining so kind and humble in his dealings with everyone he encountered is simply extraordinary. I really can't think of a single other political leader I admire as much as Lincoln.
"Woke in the extreme" seems a tad generous
"In a debate, at Charleston, Illinois, on September 18, 1858, Lincoln made his position clear. “I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and Black races,” he began, going on to say that he opposed Black people having the right to vote, to serve on juries, to hold office and to intermarry with whites. "
But as OLB says, those views changed. How many of them did he still hold in 1864? I genuinely don't know but it certainly seems like he had shifted a great deal.
He publicly spoke in favour of black voting - which also meant black office holding - before his death.
There have been calls for Orkney to become part of Norway
Orkney councillors have voted to investigate alternative methods of governance amid deep frustrations over funding and opportunities. Council leader James Stockan said the island had been "held down" and accused the Scottish and UK governments of discrimination. His motion led to media speculation that Orkney could leave the UK or become a self-governing territory of Norway.
It was supported by 15 votes to six.
It means council officers have been asked to publish a report to Orkney's chief executive on options of governance.
This includes looking at the "Nordic connections" of the archipelago and crown dependencies such as Jersey and Guernsey.
A further change which would see the revival of a consultative group on constitutional reform for the islands was accepted without the need for a vote.
what percentage of UK/Scottish oil and gas is in Shetland and Orkney waters (both have discussed independence)? I guess @Richard_Tyndall might know?
Next to nothing, dumbass, if they were not part of Scotland as they would only get 12 miles of water. Neither have discussed independence from Scotland either , only UK.
One of the most brutal inequities of the pandemic was the enormous levels of saving that people WFH on decent salaries were able to manage. Most of their cash went on Pret, petrol and holidays to the Med - that all got slung into their £20k per year ISAs instead.
Having got screwed on furlough/UC during the pandemic, younger people (still renters or now high LTV mortgage holders) are getting smacked again by interest rates and/or cost of living.
Inflation is being turbo-charged by the pandemic savers unleashing cash - "this is why we saved up, after all. This is the rainy day". Doesn't help that saving rates are nowhere near high enough to flip the incentive: inflation is eroding the value of those savings so you might as well spend it all.
Ben Chu @BenChu_ This interesting analysis from Bloomberg suggests the income *boost* to UK households, in aggregate, from higher interest rates has so far outstripped the income *hit* to all households from higher mortgage rates...
Ben Chu @BenChu_ · 1h ...The Bloomberg article suggests this aggregate boost to UK household incomes from rate rises could be one of the reasons inflation is proving hard to tame here - i.e. the rate rises are *helping* households more than they're *hurting* and *supporting* consumption..
I assume the boost will be on pension annuities. Not bank savings accounts. So good news for the boomers. Everything is good news for the boomers.
This point is underappreciated imo. If you're risk averse and cash rich, so your income is mainly interest, you've had a payrise of 300% in the space of a couple of years. You've got triple the money coming in now compared to before. Yes, inflation erodes everything etc, but you're doing much better than most and you're arguably better off now than you were, or at least it will probably feel that way.
Must be a very miniscule amount of people who live on interest, lottery winners and a few billionaires at best.
Yes, I'm puzzled by this. I'm not saying Ben Chu is wrong - but it's a long way from the experience of anyone I come across. Even those who live of income from their wealth (like the billionaires Malc alludes to and, I guess, many retirees) will mostly get income from investments, rather than just have it trickle in from a bank account. And investments won't be doing well because interest rate rises.
Not necessarily a 'bank account' but if you're wealthy and risk averse you'll have a lot in 'cash' category assets, eg NSI, term depos, gilts etc. Such a person will have seen their aggregate income boosted massively. Maybe as much as tripled.
OK, take NS&I. Take a person who has £50k of premium bonds, and is getting, I dunno, £500 a year from them. The rate of return then triples. He's now getting £1500 a year from them. But he's still getting poorer because his £50k of premium bonds is worth 10% less than what it was last year. He had an asset worth £50k in 2022 prices, he now has an asset worth £45k in 2022 prices, plus £1500. He's £3,500 poorer than he was last year. This doesn't amount to getting richer, just getting poorer more slowly. Whereas when inflation was 2% and interest rates were 1% he would have lost £1000 in depreciation against which he would be £500 up in interest. He will only have been £500 poorer.
Neither are ideal - you don't want big wads of cash around in any sort of investment: interest will rarely beat depreciation. But those with cash were surely better off when inflation and interest rates were low.
You're not wrong but (per my post 2.58) it depends how they view things. We have a real hard cash net income & expenditure account gain whereas the balance sheet 'loss' comes from a PV inflation accounting adjustment.
So we have consumption driven by people transferring capital to income without really meaning to! There's nothing about this which strikes me as in any way a good thing.
Persistent high inflation is a very bad thing. It's the pits. But as we go through this painful (and inevitable but too rapid) transition from cheap money to normal money, there are lots of people benefiting (in hard 'now' cash terms) and I think this is a little bit under-appreciated. Although maybe not now since I've banged on about it for the best part of an afternoon.
But the benefits are all an illusion! Indeed, it’s those with lots of cash savings who lose out most from inflation.
They aren't (!) all an illusion. There's a big boost to your (net of expenditure) regular income. That's real. You can spend it or save it or give it away. As against this there's a reduction in the calculated purchasing power of your liquid capital. The latter 'loss' is also real but it's real in a slightly less real, more theoretical way. It might be arithmetically bigger but it's an estimated number (influenced by assumptions). The first is a hard 100% factual objective number, which can justifiably be given a higher weighting. You don't have to, but it isn't 'wrong' if you do.
I post a link to "money illusion". Nobody read the link. Nobody remembers it from the 70's and 80's. I'll just have to go back to making Star Trek jokes...
Giving something a name, doesn't make it a fact. Money illusion is a bad name anyway, value illusion or work illusion would be better.
There have been calls for Orkney to become part of Norway
Orkney councillors have voted to investigate alternative methods of governance amid deep frustrations over funding and opportunities. Council leader James Stockan said the island had been "held down" and accused the Scottish and UK governments of discrimination. His motion led to media speculation that Orkney could leave the UK or become a self-governing territory of Norway.
It was supported by 15 votes to six.
It means council officers have been asked to publish a report to Orkney's chief executive on options of governance.
This includes looking at the "Nordic connections" of the archipelago and crown dependencies such as Jersey and Guernsey.
A further change which would see the revival of a consultative group on constitutional reform for the islands was accepted without the need for a vote.
what percentage of UK/Scottish oil and gas is in Shetland and Orkney waters (both have discussed independence)? I guess @Richard_Tyndall might know?
Next to nothing, dumbass, if they were not part of Scotland as they would only get 12 miles of water. Neither have discussed independence from Scotland either , only UK.
Why would an EEZ not apply? - every other state, with a sea board, I can think off has to negotiate the clashes between their EEZ claims and the EEZ claims of others.
There have been calls for Orkney to become part of Norway
Orkney councillors have voted to investigate alternative methods of governance amid deep frustrations over funding and opportunities. Council leader James Stockan said the island had been "held down" and accused the Scottish and UK governments of discrimination. His motion led to media speculation that Orkney could leave the UK or become a self-governing territory of Norway.
It was supported by 15 votes to six.
It means council officers have been asked to publish a report to Orkney's chief executive on options of governance.
This includes looking at the "Nordic connections" of the archipelago and crown dependencies such as Jersey and Guernsey.
A further change which would see the revival of a consultative group on constitutional reform for the islands was accepted without the need for a vote.
Total bollox by a small bunch of unionist halfwits.
My nationalism is completely rational Your nationalism is ugly populism His/Her/It's nationalism is absurd - and doesn't really exist.
As I said yesterday more chance of the Isle of Wight wanting and getting Independence. It is only for fools.
Of the 56 "brave, patriotic" men who signed the Declaration of Independence - which avows that "all men are created equal" - 41 of the signatories owned slaves, including Thomas Jefferson, who actually wrote the document. Indeed Jefferson used his slaves for sex
Depends if Africans were defined as human beings ("men"), though [edit: not that it makes it any better if they weren't, obvs]. I don't know enough about the thinking of Jefferson et al. But in the mid-19th century, many Americans always showed a worrying interest in taxonomies which regarded Homo sapiens as being more than one species.
What I hadn’t realised, but found very disturbing, was that they bred slaves to sell the children. If you see them as economic units of production rather than people that makes sense. But still… urrgh!
There have been calls for Orkney to become part of Norway
Orkney councillors have voted to investigate alternative methods of governance amid deep frustrations over funding and opportunities. Council leader James Stockan said the island had been "held down" and accused the Scottish and UK governments of discrimination. His motion led to media speculation that Orkney could leave the UK or become a self-governing territory of Norway.
It was supported by 15 votes to six.
It means council officers have been asked to publish a report to Orkney's chief executive on options of governance.
This includes looking at the "Nordic connections" of the archipelago and crown dependencies such as Jersey and Guernsey.
A further change which would see the revival of a consultative group on constitutional reform for the islands was accepted without the need for a vote.
what percentage of UK/Scottish oil and gas is in Shetland and Orkney waters (both have discussed independence)? I guess @Richard_Tyndall might know?
I would be interested in his reply as I do think it could be influencing this
Answer is next to none as per my other post they would only get 12 miles of waters.
One of the most brutal inequities of the pandemic was the enormous levels of saving that people WFH on decent salaries were able to manage. Most of their cash went on Pret, petrol and holidays to the Med - that all got slung into their £20k per year ISAs instead.
Having got screwed on furlough/UC during the pandemic, younger people (still renters or now high LTV mortgage holders) are getting smacked again by interest rates and/or cost of living.
Inflation is being turbo-charged by the pandemic savers unleashing cash - "this is why we saved up, after all. This is the rainy day". Doesn't help that saving rates are nowhere near high enough to flip the incentive: inflation is eroding the value of those savings so you might as well spend it all.
You not left for Australia yet
I was one of the savers.
Well done , I spent all mine but then I worked from home before the pandemic.
There have been calls for Orkney to become part of Norway
Orkney councillors have voted to investigate alternative methods of governance amid deep frustrations over funding and opportunities. Council leader James Stockan said the island had been "held down" and accused the Scottish and UK governments of discrimination. His motion led to media speculation that Orkney could leave the UK or become a self-governing territory of Norway.
It was supported by 15 votes to six.
It means council officers have been asked to publish a report to Orkney's chief executive on options of governance.
This includes looking at the "Nordic connections" of the archipelago and crown dependencies such as Jersey and Guernsey.
A further change which would see the revival of a consultative group on constitutional reform for the islands was accepted without the need for a vote.
Total bollox by a small bunch of unionist halfwits.
My nationalism is completely rational Your nationalism is ugly populism His/Her/It's nationalism is absurd - and doesn't really exist.
As I said yesterday more chance of the Isle of Wight wanting and getting Independence. It is only for fools.
Of the 56 "brave, patriotic" men who signed the Declaration of Independence - which avows that "all men are created equal" - 41 of the signatories owned slaves, including Thomas Jefferson, who actually wrote the document. Indeed Jefferson used his slaves for sex
Depends if Africans were defined as human beings ("men"), though [edit: not that it makes it any better if they weren't, obvs]. I don't know enough about the thinking of Jefferson et al. But in the mid-19th century, many Americans always showed a worrying interest in taxonomies which regarded Homo sapiens as being more than one species.
What I hadn’t realised, but found very disturbing, was that they bred slaves to sell the children. If you see them as economic units of production rather than people that makes sense. But still… urrgh!
And they would breed them "themselves"
A plantation owner would deliberately impregnate a few choice female slaves to "up the quality" of the livestock he could then sell on
Another thing I discovered is that plantations would rent out slaves to factories - there were slaves in the mid 19th century working in big factories and foundries and the like. I don't know why, but that is an another extra level of creepy evil. Feels even more Nazi
There have been calls for Orkney to become part of Norway
Orkney councillors have voted to investigate alternative methods of governance amid deep frustrations over funding and opportunities. Council leader James Stockan said the island had been "held down" and accused the Scottish and UK governments of discrimination. His motion led to media speculation that Orkney could leave the UK or become a self-governing territory of Norway.
It was supported by 15 votes to six.
It means council officers have been asked to publish a report to Orkney's chief executive on options of governance.
This includes looking at the "Nordic connections" of the archipelago and crown dependencies such as Jersey and Guernsey.
A further change which would see the revival of a consultative group on constitutional reform for the islands was accepted without the need for a vote.
what percentage of UK/Scottish oil and gas is in Shetland and Orkney waters (both have discussed independence)? I guess @Richard_Tyndall might know?
Next to nothing, dumbass, if they were not part of Scotland as they would only get 12 miles of water. Neither have discussed independence from Scotland either , only UK.
I think the idea they will become independent is fanciful.
BUT. You are wrong. If they became independent then they would not only get the 12 mile limit rights. They would get the same median line rights that apply to all the other North Sea Nations.
This means that they would get a great deal of the Northern North Sea fields - effectively everything from the Beryl Field northwards and also everything West of Shetlands. Probably somewhere around a third of all UKCS oil production at a very rough estimate. .
There have been calls for Orkney to become part of Norway
Orkney councillors have voted to investigate alternative methods of governance amid deep frustrations over funding and opportunities. Council leader James Stockan said the island had been "held down" and accused the Scottish and UK governments of discrimination. His motion led to media speculation that Orkney could leave the UK or become a self-governing territory of Norway.
It was supported by 15 votes to six.
It means council officers have been asked to publish a report to Orkney's chief executive on options of governance.
This includes looking at the "Nordic connections" of the archipelago and crown dependencies such as Jersey and Guernsey.
A further change which would see the revival of a consultative group on constitutional reform for the islands was accepted without the need for a vote.
what percentage of UK/Scottish oil and gas is in Shetland and Orkney waters (both have discussed independence)? I guess @Richard_Tyndall might know?
Next to nothing, dumbass, if they were not part of Scotland as they would only get 12 miles of water. Neither have discussed independence from Scotland either , only UK.
Why would an EEZ not apply? - every other state, with a sea board, I can think off has to negotiate the clashes between their EEZ claims and the EEZ claims of others.
It has been discussed ad nauseum and under International law they get 12 miles rest remains with Scotland.
There have been calls for Orkney to become part of Norway
Orkney councillors have voted to investigate alternative methods of governance amid deep frustrations over funding and opportunities. Council leader James Stockan said the island had been "held down" and accused the Scottish and UK governments of discrimination. His motion led to media speculation that Orkney could leave the UK or become a self-governing territory of Norway.
It was supported by 15 votes to six.
It means council officers have been asked to publish a report to Orkney's chief executive on options of governance.
This includes looking at the "Nordic connections" of the archipelago and crown dependencies such as Jersey and Guernsey.
A further change which would see the revival of a consultative group on constitutional reform for the islands was accepted without the need for a vote.
what percentage of UK/Scottish oil and gas is in Shetland and Orkney waters (both have discussed independence)? I guess @Richard_Tyndall might know?
Next to nothing, dumbass, if they were not part of Scotland as they would only get 12 miles of water. Neither have discussed independence from Scotland either , only UK.
You really are a very thick obnoxious twat. Read the articles that are out there thicko. They might even have them with pictures so you can understand them better.
Anyways, haven't you got a shift to do at Halfords? And please, they have asked me, do make sure you take the medication before you go to stop the incontinence.
Of the 56 "brave, patriotic" men who signed the Declaration of Independence - which avows that "all men are created equal" - 41 of the signatories owned slaves, including Thomas Jefferson, who actually wrote the document. Indeed Jefferson used his slaves for sex
Depends if Africans were defined as human beings ("men"), though [edit: not that it makes it any better if they weren't, obvs]. I don't know enough about the thinking of Jefferson et al. But in the mid-19th century, many Americans always showed a worrying interest in taxonomies which regarded Homo sapiens as being more than one species.
What I hadn’t realised, but found very disturbing, was that they bred slaves to sell the children. If you see them as economic units of production rather than people that makes sense. But still… urrgh!
Yes. For some reason, the following picture shocks people, in a different way.
One of the most brutal inequities of the pandemic was the enormous levels of saving that people WFH on decent salaries were able to manage. Most of their cash went on Pret, petrol and holidays to the Med - that all got slung into their £20k per year ISAs instead.
Having got screwed on furlough/UC during the pandemic, younger people (still renters or now high LTV mortgage holders) are getting smacked again by interest rates and/or cost of living.
Inflation is being turbo-charged by the pandemic savers unleashing cash - "this is why we saved up, after all. This is the rainy day". Doesn't help that saving rates are nowhere near high enough to flip the incentive: inflation is eroding the value of those savings so you might as well spend it all.
"Captain Tom's daughter 'used hero veteran's name to build spa and pool complex at home'
Captain Tom's daughter, Hannah Ingram-Moore, and her husband Colin reportedly put forward the planning application in their own names, but then used the charity's name in their design and access statement"
Of the 56 "brave, patriotic" men who signed the Declaration of Independence - which avows that "all men are created equal" - 41 of the signatories owned slaves, including Thomas Jefferson, who actually wrote the document. Indeed Jefferson used his slaves for sex
Depends if Africans were defined as human beings ("men"), though [edit: not that it makes it any better if they weren't, obvs]. I don't know enough about the thinking of Jefferson et al. But in the mid-19th century, many Americans always showed a worrying interest in taxonomies which regarded Homo sapiens as being more than one species.
I've read a lot of American history in the last years, and I reckon at least some of the signatories - the Founding Fathers - sincerely meant all mankind by the phrase "all men are created equal". They just didn[t want to give up the profitable, easeful convenience of slaves any time soon, it was something they would get round to. Eventually. Like Augustine and celibacy
They also realised that extending freedom to slaves would have kicked off civil war as soon as Independence was achieved, as the slave owning south entirely depended on slaves for its riches
Other Founding Fathers were out and out racists and misogynists and surely believed true freedom was only meant for white men (probably men of property)
Other facts I've learned in my recent travels. Lincoln never meant for the freed slaves, post bellum, to stay in the USA. His idea was they could all go live in central America. He envisaged they would be either a burden or a menace, he was quite racist himself
"Never" is incorrect. His views evolved considerably over the course of the war.
That's right, Lincoln's views evolved a lot reflecting the experience of the war - seeing black soldiers fighting for the union - and his interactions with figures such as Frederick Douglass. His views reflected the times he lived in but by the standards of those times he was woke in the extreme. Lincoln is in my opinion the greatest political leader in the history of the English speaking world. To have come from where he came from, to have basically taught himself everything he knew, and to have led his country through such difficult times and effected such positive change while remaining so kind and humble in his dealings with everyone he encountered is simply extraordinary. I really can't think of a single other political leader I admire as much as Lincoln.
"Woke in the extreme" seems a tad generous
"In a debate, at Charleston, Illinois, on September 18, 1858, Lincoln made his position clear. “I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and Black races,” he began, going on to say that he opposed Black people having the right to vote, to serve on juries, to hold office and to intermarry with whites. "
But as OLB says, those views changed. How many of them did he still hold in 1864? I genuinely don't know but it certainly seems like he had shifted a great deal.
Edit: I have just checked and 3 days before his assassination he gave a speech supporting votes for blacks. Indeed it is claimed that it was Wilkes' presence at this speech which finally decided him on assassination.
I am willing to believe he moved on black voting, but the evidence is that he did NOT change his mind on colonisation. He wanted freed blacks to be "repatriated" to Africa or be sent to central America/Caribbean. He only piped down about it as it made others angry - the more pure abolitionists and the black soldiers he wanted to recruit
He was a great man, but a man of his time, and "Woke in the extreme" sounds like nonsense
One of the most brutal inequities of the pandemic was the enormous levels of saving that people WFH on decent salaries were able to manage. Most of their cash went on Pret, petrol and holidays to the Med - that all got slung into their £20k per year ISAs instead.
Having got screwed on furlough/UC during the pandemic, younger people (still renters or now high LTV mortgage holders) are getting smacked again by interest rates and/or cost of living.
Inflation is being turbo-charged by the pandemic savers unleashing cash - "this is why we saved up, after all. This is the rainy day". Doesn't help that saving rates are nowhere near high enough to flip the incentive: inflation is eroding the value of those savings so you might as well spend it all.
I'm a bit fed up with the age narrative on this, when it's probably more to do with class, education, etc.
There have been calls for Orkney to become part of Norway
Orkney councillors have voted to investigate alternative methods of governance amid deep frustrations over funding and opportunities. Council leader James Stockan said the island had been "held down" and accused the Scottish and UK governments of discrimination. His motion led to media speculation that Orkney could leave the UK or become a self-governing territory of Norway.
It was supported by 15 votes to six.
It means council officers have been asked to publish a report to Orkney's chief executive on options of governance.
This includes looking at the "Nordic connections" of the archipelago and crown dependencies such as Jersey and Guernsey.
A further change which would see the revival of a consultative group on constitutional reform for the islands was accepted without the need for a vote.
what percentage of UK/Scottish oil and gas is in Shetland and Orkney waters (both have discussed independence)? I guess @Richard_Tyndall might know?
I would be interested in his reply as I do think it could be influencing this
Answer is next to none as per my other post they would only get 12 miles of waters.
Wrong . As you are on everything thicko. Why do you bother coming to this site? You are so clearly completely out of your depth on everything you pronounce on.
I’m off to Boston now. How much, including interest, should I charge them for the tea?
Could you not just drink some of the harbour water ?
Probably taste better than the tea at work TBF.
I expect if I was used to having tea made by 90-odd degree water I'd be angry about it too.
Americans and Europeans: you need to use BOILING water for the little cup of brown joy.
What's your view on putting the milk in the teapot?
That is madness. I know, and don't mind either way about, the argument between tea first and milk first in the cup. Personally I'm tea first, but that's purely force of habit. But who puts milk in the teapot? Who does that help? That would mean you would then have to properly wash the teapot afterwards, which is hard to do.
Just a quick rinse will do it for the pot. And the benefit? Obvious surely - you reduce the total operations required for the job.
Milk in pot. Bags in pot, Water in pot. Leave. Pour out 4 cups of total tea.
Better than, bags in pot, water in pot, pour out 4 cups of 'work in progress' tea and THEN 4 lots of milk.
In fact, now I think about it, if all your guests take sugar you can do worse than put that in the pot too. Pour out 4 cups of *sugared* tea.
There have been calls for Orkney to become part of Norway
Orkney councillors have voted to investigate alternative methods of governance amid deep frustrations over funding and opportunities. Council leader James Stockan said the island had been "held down" and accused the Scottish and UK governments of discrimination. His motion led to media speculation that Orkney could leave the UK or become a self-governing territory of Norway.
It was supported by 15 votes to six.
It means council officers have been asked to publish a report to Orkney's chief executive on options of governance.
This includes looking at the "Nordic connections" of the archipelago and crown dependencies such as Jersey and Guernsey.
A further change which would see the revival of a consultative group on constitutional reform for the islands was accepted without the need for a vote.
what percentage of UK/Scottish oil and gas is in Shetland and Orkney waters (both have discussed independence)? I guess @Richard_Tyndall might know?
Next to nothing, dumbass, if they were not part of Scotland as they would only get 12 miles of water. Neither have discussed independence from Scotland either , only UK.
Why would an EEZ not apply? - every other state, with a sea board, I can think off has to negotiate the clashes between their EEZ claims and the EEZ claims of others.
It has been discussed ad nauseum and under International law they get 12 miles rest remains with Scotland.
No they don't. I don't know who you have been discussing it with but that is completely wrong. All oil and gas rights are decided on median lines between neighbouring states.
As I say, it won't happen in my vview but if it did then Scotland would lose a significant amount of their UKCS assets.
Of course England loses a lot more if and when Scotland gains independence for the same reason. They would be left with the Southern North Sea gas fields and a big argument about where the median line should run heading out from Berwick.
One of the most brutal inequities of the pandemic was the enormous levels of saving that people WFH on decent salaries were able to manage. Most of their cash went on Pret, petrol and holidays to the Med - that all got slung into their £20k per year ISAs instead.
Having got screwed on furlough/UC during the pandemic, younger people (still renters or now high LTV mortgage holders) are getting smacked again by interest rates and/or cost of living.
Inflation is being turbo-charged by the pandemic savers unleashing cash - "this is why we saved up, after all. This is the rainy day". Doesn't help that saving rates are nowhere near high enough to flip the incentive: inflation is eroding the value of those savings so you might as well spend it all.
You not left for Australia yet
I was one of the savers.
I saved up enough for a knee operation.
Investing is health care and the NHS*? How noble of you.
*Money spent in the private healthcare generally doesn't go to corporations - BUPA etc - but to the doctors and other medical staff. Who are nearly all working for the NHS as well. So you are topping up their wages.
Ben Chu @BenChu_ This interesting analysis from Bloomberg suggests the income *boost* to UK households, in aggregate, from higher interest rates has so far outstripped the income *hit* to all households from higher mortgage rates...
Ben Chu @BenChu_ · 1h ...The Bloomberg article suggests this aggregate boost to UK household incomes from rate rises could be one of the reasons inflation is proving hard to tame here - i.e. the rate rises are *helping* households more than they're *hurting* and *supporting* consumption..
I assume the boost will be on pension annuities. Not bank savings accounts. So good news for the boomers. Everything is good news for the boomers.
This point is underappreciated imo. If you're risk averse and cash rich, so your income is mainly interest, you've had a payrise of 300% in the space of a couple of years. You've got triple the money coming in now compared to before. Yes, inflation erodes everything etc, but you're doing much better than most and you're arguably better off now than you were, or at least it will probably feel that way.
Must be a very miniscule amount of people who live on interest, lottery winners and a few billionaires at best.
Yes, I'm puzzled by this. I'm not saying Ben Chu is wrong - but it's a long way from the experience of anyone I come across. Even those who live of income from their wealth (like the billionaires Malc alludes to and, I guess, many retirees) will mostly get income from investments, rather than just have it trickle in from a bank account. And investments won't be doing well because interest rate rises.
Not necessarily a 'bank account' but if you're wealthy and risk averse you'll have a lot in 'cash' category assets, eg NSI, term depos, gilts etc. Such a person will have seen their aggregate income boosted massively. Maybe as much as tripled.
OK, take NS&I. Take a person who has £50k of premium bonds, and is getting, I dunno, £500 a year from them. The rate of return then triples. He's now getting £1500 a year from them. But he's still getting poorer because his £50k of premium bonds is worth 10% less than what it was last year. He had an asset worth £50k in 2022 prices, he now has an asset worth £45k in 2022 prices, plus £1500. He's £3,500 poorer than he was last year. This doesn't amount to getting richer, just getting poorer more slowly. Whereas when inflation was 2% and interest rates were 1% he would have lost £1000 in depreciation against which he would be £500 up in interest. He will only have been £500 poorer.
Neither are ideal - you don't want big wads of cash around in any sort of investment: interest will rarely beat depreciation. But those with cash were surely better off when inflation and interest rates were low.
You're not wrong but (per my post 2.58) it depends how they view things. We have a real hard cash net income & expenditure account gain whereas the balance sheet 'loss' comes from a PV inflation accounting adjustment.
So we have consumption driven by people transferring capital to income without really meaning to! There's nothing about this which strikes me as in any way a good thing.
Persistent high inflation is a very bad thing. It's the pits. But as we go through this painful (and inevitable but too rapid) transition from cheap money to normal money, there are lots of people benefiting (in hard 'now' cash terms) and I think this is a little bit under-appreciated. Although maybe not now since I've banged on about it for the best part of an afternoon.
But the benefits are all an illusion! Indeed, it’s those with lots of cash savings who lose out most from inflation.
They aren't (!) all an illusion. There's a big boost to your (net of expenditure) regular income. That's real. You can spend it or save it or give it away. As against this there's a reduction in the calculated purchasing power of your liquid capital. The latter 'loss' is also real but it's real in a slightly less real, more theoretical way. It might be arithmetically bigger but it's an estimated number (influenced by assumptions). The first is a hard 100% factual objective number, which can justifiably be given a higher weighting. You don't have to, but it isn't 'wrong' if you do.
Yes, but if you wanted a bigger income in a low interest/low inflation scenario and weren't bothered about your capital shrinking, you could just chisel some of your capital and call it income. And be less poorer than in the high interest high inflation scenario.
There have been calls for Orkney to become part of Norway
Orkney councillors have voted to investigate alternative methods of governance amid deep frustrations over funding and opportunities. Council leader James Stockan said the island had been "held down" and accused the Scottish and UK governments of discrimination. His motion led to media speculation that Orkney could leave the UK or become a self-governing territory of Norway.
It was supported by 15 votes to six.
It means council officers have been asked to publish a report to Orkney's chief executive on options of governance.
This includes looking at the "Nordic connections" of the archipelago and crown dependencies such as Jersey and Guernsey.
A further change which would see the revival of a consultative group on constitutional reform for the islands was accepted without the need for a vote.
what percentage of UK/Scottish oil and gas is in Shetland and Orkney waters (both have discussed independence)? I guess @Richard_Tyndall might know?
Next to nothing, dumbass, if they were not part of Scotland as they would only get 12 miles of water. Neither have discussed independence from Scotland either , only UK.
Why would an EEZ not apply? - every other state, with a sea board, I can think off has to negotiate the clashes between their EEZ claims and the EEZ claims of others.
It has been discussed ad nauseum and under International law they get 12 miles rest remains with Scotland.
I was wrong it is 6 miles However, if Shetland decided to breakaway, under International law and United Nations convention (UNCLOS) regarding small islands / enclaves they would only be entitled to six miles of territorial waters meaning no oil and not much fish.
Of the 56 "brave, patriotic" men who signed the Declaration of Independence - which avows that "all men are created equal" - 41 of the signatories owned slaves, including Thomas Jefferson, who actually wrote the document. Indeed Jefferson used his slaves for sex
Depends if Africans were defined as human beings ("men"), though [edit: not that it makes it any better if they weren't, obvs]. I don't know enough about the thinking of Jefferson et al. But in the mid-19th century, many Americans always showed a worrying interest in taxonomies which regarded Homo sapiens as being more than one species.
I've read a lot of American history in the last years, and I reckon at least some of the signatories - the Founding Fathers - sincerely meant all mankind by the phrase "all men are created equal". They just didn[t want to give up the profitable, easeful convenience of slaves any time soon, it was something they would get round to. Eventually. Like Augustine and celibacy
They also realised that extending freedom to slaves would have kicked off civil war as soon as Independence was achieved, as the slave owning south entirely depended on slaves for its riches
Other Founding Fathers were out and out racists and misogynists and surely believed true freedom was only meant for white men (probably men of property)
Other facts I've learned in my recent travels. Lincoln never meant for the freed slaves, post bellum, to stay in the USA. His idea was they could all go live in central America. He envisaged they would be either a burden or a menace, he was quite racist himself
"Never" is incorrect. His views evolved considerably over the course of the war.
That's right, Lincoln's views evolved a lot reflecting the experience of the war - seeing black soldiers fighting for the union - and his interactions with figures such as Frederick Douglass. His views reflected the times he lived in but by the standards of those times he was woke in the extreme. Lincoln is in my opinion the greatest political leader in the history of the English speaking world. To have come from where he came from, to have basically taught himself everything he knew, and to have led his country through such difficult times and effected such positive change while remaining so kind and humble in his dealings with everyone he encountered is simply extraordinary. I really can't think of a single other political leader I admire as much as Lincoln.
"Woke in the extreme" seems a tad generous
"In a debate, at Charleston, Illinois, on September 18, 1858, Lincoln made his position clear. “I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and Black races,” he began, going on to say that he opposed Black people having the right to vote, to serve on juries, to hold office and to intermarry with whites. "
But as OLB says, those views changed. How many of them did he still hold in 1864? I genuinely don't know but it certainly seems like he had shifted a great deal.
Edit: I have just checked and 3 days before his assassination he gave a speech supporting votes for blacks. Indeed it is claimed that it was Wilkes' presence at this speech which finally decided him on assassination.
I am willing to believe he moved on black voting, but the evidence is that he did NOT change his mind on colonisation. He wanted freed blacks to be "repatriated" to Africa or be sent to central America/Caribbean. He only piped down about it as it made others angry - the more pure abolitionists and the black soldiers he wanted to recruit
He was a great man, but a man of his time, and "Woke in the extreme" sounds like nonsense
Yep, as I say I don't know and my knowledge expanded considerably today because I bothered to go and look. So I am certainly not in a position to argue one way or the other on the detail.
There have been calls for Orkney to become part of Norway
Orkney councillors have voted to investigate alternative methods of governance amid deep frustrations over funding and opportunities. Council leader James Stockan said the island had been "held down" and accused the Scottish and UK governments of discrimination. His motion led to media speculation that Orkney could leave the UK or become a self-governing territory of Norway.
It was supported by 15 votes to six.
It means council officers have been asked to publish a report to Orkney's chief executive on options of governance.
This includes looking at the "Nordic connections" of the archipelago and crown dependencies such as Jersey and Guernsey.
A further change which would see the revival of a consultative group on constitutional reform for the islands was accepted without the need for a vote.
what percentage of UK/Scottish oil and gas is in Shetland and Orkney waters (both have discussed independence)? I guess @Richard_Tyndall might know?
Next to nothing, dumbass, if they were not part of Scotland as they would only get 12 miles of water. Neither have discussed independence from Scotland either , only UK.
I think the idea they will become independent is fanciful.
BUT. You are wrong. If they became independent then they would not only get the 12 mile limit rights. They would get the same median line rights that apply to all the other North Sea Nations.
This means that they would get a great deal of the Northern North Sea fields - effectively everything from the Beryl Field northwards and also everything West of Shetlands. Probably somewhere around a third of all UKCS oil production at a very rough estimate. .
Not according to every other discussion ever published on the matter , they would get Hee Haw
"The RNC has said that to qualify for the first debate, scheduled for Aug. 23 in Milwaukee, candidates must be polling at a minimum of 1 percent in at least three national polls, or in two national polls and one early state poll from two of Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina.
Candidates also must satisfy a fundraising requirement, having a minimum of 40,000 unique donors and at least 200 unique donors each from 20 or more states or territories."
The Hill
Looking forward to tsunami of "small" donors (in one way, anyway) from American Samoa, giving to GOP 2024 hopefuls.
There have been calls for Orkney to become part of Norway
Orkney councillors have voted to investigate alternative methods of governance amid deep frustrations over funding and opportunities. Council leader James Stockan said the island had been "held down" and accused the Scottish and UK governments of discrimination. His motion led to media speculation that Orkney could leave the UK or become a self-governing territory of Norway.
It was supported by 15 votes to six.
It means council officers have been asked to publish a report to Orkney's chief executive on options of governance.
This includes looking at the "Nordic connections" of the archipelago and crown dependencies such as Jersey and Guernsey.
A further change which would see the revival of a consultative group on constitutional reform for the islands was accepted without the need for a vote.
what percentage of UK/Scottish oil and gas is in Shetland and Orkney waters (both have discussed independence)? I guess @Richard_Tyndall might know?
Next to nothing, dumbass, if they were not part of Scotland as they would only get 12 miles of water. Neither have discussed independence from Scotland either , only UK.
Why would an EEZ not apply? - every other state, with a sea board, I can think off has to negotiate the clashes between their EEZ claims and the EEZ claims of others.
It has been discussed ad nauseum and under International law they get 12 miles rest remains with Scotland.
No they don't. I don't know who you have been discussing it with but that is completely wrong. All oil and gas rights are decided on median lines between neighbouring states.
As I say, it won't happen in my vview but if it did then Scotland would lose a significant amount of their UKCS assets.
Of course England loses a lot more if and when Scotland gains independence for the same reason. They would be left with the Southern North Sea gas fields and a big argument about where the median line should run heading out from Berwick.
All seems rather fucking academic given everyone seems to want to stop extracting oil from there.
Of the 56 "brave, patriotic" men who signed the Declaration of Independence - which avows that "all men are created equal" - 41 of the signatories owned slaves, including Thomas Jefferson, who actually wrote the document. Indeed Jefferson used his slaves for sex
Depends if Africans were defined as human beings ("men"), though [edit: not that it makes it any better if they weren't, obvs]. I don't know enough about the thinking of Jefferson et al. But in the mid-19th century, many Americans always showed a worrying interest in taxonomies which regarded Homo sapiens as being more than one species.
What I hadn’t realised, but found very disturbing, was that they bred slaves to sell the children. If you see them as economic units of production rather than people that makes sense. But still… urrgh!
This may be apocryphal (I hope so) but I read once that breeding practises within slave breeding camps gave rise to the term 'motherf****r'.
Of the 56 "brave, patriotic" men who signed the Declaration of Independence - which avows that "all men are created equal" - 41 of the signatories owned slaves, including Thomas Jefferson, who actually wrote the document. Indeed Jefferson used his slaves for sex
Depends if Africans were defined as human beings ("men"), though [edit: not that it makes it any better if they weren't, obvs]. I don't know enough about the thinking of Jefferson et al. But in the mid-19th century, many Americans always showed a worrying interest in taxonomies which regarded Homo sapiens as being more than one species.
I've read a lot of American history in the last years, and I reckon at least some of the signatories - the Founding Fathers - sincerely meant all mankind by the phrase "all men are created equal". They just didn[t want to give up the profitable, easeful convenience of slaves any time soon, it was something they would get round to. Eventually. Like Augustine and celibacy
They also realised that extending freedom to slaves would have kicked off civil war as soon as Independence was achieved, as the slave owning south entirely depended on slaves for its riches
Other Founding Fathers were out and out racists and misogynists and surely believed true freedom was only meant for white men (probably men of property)
Other facts I've learned in my recent travels. Lincoln never meant for the freed slaves, post bellum, to stay in the USA. His idea was they could all go live in central America. He envisaged they would be either a burden or a menace, he was quite racist himself
"Never" is incorrect. His views evolved considerably over the course of the war.
That's right, Lincoln's views evolved a lot reflecting the experience of the war - seeing black soldiers fighting for the union - and his interactions with figures such as Frederick Douglass. His views reflected the times he lived in but by the standards of those times he was woke in the extreme. Lincoln is in my opinion the greatest political leader in the history of the English speaking world. To have come from where he came from, to have basically taught himself everything he knew, and to have led his country through such difficult times and effected such positive change while remaining so kind and humble in his dealings with everyone he encountered is simply extraordinary. I really can't think of a single other political leader I admire as much as Lincoln.
"Woke in the extreme" seems a tad generous
"In a debate, at Charleston, Illinois, on September 18, 1858, Lincoln made his position clear. “I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and Black races,” he began, going on to say that he opposed Black people having the right to vote, to serve on juries, to hold office and to intermarry with whites. "
But as OLB says, those views changed. How many of them did he still hold in 1864? I genuinely don't know but it certainly seems like he had shifted a great deal.
Edit: I have just checked and 3 days before his assassination he gave a speech supporting votes for blacks. Indeed it is claimed that it was Wilkes' presence at this speech which finally decided him on assassination.
I am willing to believe he moved on black voting, but the evidence is that he did NOT change his mind on colonisation. He wanted freed blacks to be "repatriated" to Africa or be sent to central America/Caribbean. He only piped down about it as it made others angry - the more pure abolitionists and the black soldiers he wanted to recruit
He was a great man, but a man of his time, and "Woke in the extreme" sounds like nonsense
If you were to plot the spectrum of views that white people in America held towards black people and the issue of slavery at the time then Lincoln's views were at the extreme liberal/progressive end without a doubt, especially as they evolved during the course of the war. I spent a year studying the US Civil War in CSYS history at school, and came away quite in awe of Lincoln.
SNP 37% (-1) LAB 34% (+2) CON 17% (-1) LD 9% (nc) OTH 4% (nc)
F/w 23rd - 28th June. Changes vs. 27th April - 3 May.
24 SNP seats would go Labour on that swing since 2019, giving Labour most seats in Scotland again, albeit only by 1 MP.
However it could be more if Conservatives and LDs tactically vote Labour to beat the SNP. Zero swing between SNP and Tories so the Tories would hold all their Scottish seats
"Captain Tom's daughter 'used hero veteran's name to build spa and pool complex at home'
Captain Tom's daughter, Hannah Ingram-Moore, and her husband Colin reportedly put forward the planning application in their own names, but then used the charity's name in their design and access statement"
There have been calls for Orkney to become part of Norway
Orkney councillors have voted to investigate alternative methods of governance amid deep frustrations over funding and opportunities. Council leader James Stockan said the island had been "held down" and accused the Scottish and UK governments of discrimination. His motion led to media speculation that Orkney could leave the UK or become a self-governing territory of Norway.
It was supported by 15 votes to six.
It means council officers have been asked to publish a report to Orkney's chief executive on options of governance.
This includes looking at the "Nordic connections" of the archipelago and crown dependencies such as Jersey and Guernsey.
A further change which would see the revival of a consultative group on constitutional reform for the islands was accepted without the need for a vote.
what percentage of UK/Scottish oil and gas is in Shetland and Orkney waters (both have discussed independence)? I guess @Richard_Tyndall might know?
Next to nothing, dumbass, if they were not part of Scotland as they would only get 12 miles of water. Neither have discussed independence from Scotland either , only UK.
Why would an EEZ not apply? - every other state, with a sea board, I can think off has to negotiate the clashes between their EEZ claims and the EEZ claims of others.
Here's a rough idea of the absolute maximum an independent Orkney could expect purely in terms of what is closer to Orkney as opposed to Shetland, mainland Scotland, or the Faroes.
Note that Fair Isle, not visible at this level of zoom, is part of Shetland and is the reason the north-east boundary dips so steeply to the south.
This was done by eye and is very rough, so could be profoundly wrong if I've forgotten something.
I think a bit much ,
The Continental Shelf Act 1964 and the Continental Shelf (Jurisdiction) Order 1968 defines the UK North Sea maritime area to the north of latitude 55 degrees north as being under the jurisdiction of Scots law meaning that 94% of the UK’s oil resources are under Scottish jurisdiction. In addition, section 126 of the Scotland Act 1998 defines Scottish waters as the internal waters and territorial sea of the United Kingdom as are adjacent to Scotland.
However, if Shetland decided to breakaway, under International law and United Nations convention (UNCLOS) regarding small islands / enclaves they would only be entitled to six miles of territorial waters meaning no oil and not much fish.
What if, for example, Whalsay and Foula declared independence or elected to stick with Scotland? Unionists should note that the Isle of Man and Channel Islands only have rights up to six miles offshore.
Even under the hypothetical circumstance that this occurred, Westminster wouldn’t be able to retain control of the oil fields anyway. These matters are regulated by the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, to which the UK is a signatory. International law specifies that a state controls the continental shelf and associated mineral and fishing rights up to 200 nautical miles (230 miles or 370 km) off its shores. When another state possesses an island within the continental shelf of this state, special rules apply.
This matter was discussed in detail in a legal paper published by the European Journal of International Law: Prospective Anglo-Scottish Maritime Boundary Revisited
Of the 56 "brave, patriotic" men who signed the Declaration of Independence - which avows that "all men are created equal" - 41 of the signatories owned slaves, including Thomas Jefferson, who actually wrote the document. Indeed Jefferson used his slaves for sex
Depends if Africans were defined as human beings ("men"), though [edit: not that it makes it any better if they weren't, obvs]. I don't know enough about the thinking of Jefferson et al. But in the mid-19th century, many Americans always showed a worrying interest in taxonomies which regarded Homo sapiens as being more than one species.
What I hadn’t realised, but found very disturbing, was that they bred slaves to sell the children. If you see them as economic units of production rather than people that makes sense. But still… urrgh!
Yes. For some reason, the following picture shocks people, in a different way.
All together now. "If it's legal you should be able to advocate for it". If cannibalism was legal, people'd be boasting about eating the poor and how teens should be overfed and beaten to marbleize the flesh. Normal is highly situational (duh) and PB finds it very difficult to understand on a gut level that the past was different.
Of the 56 "brave, patriotic" men who signed the Declaration of Independence - which avows that "all men are created equal" - 41 of the signatories owned slaves, including Thomas Jefferson, who actually wrote the document. Indeed Jefferson used his slaves for sex
Depends if Africans were defined as human beings ("men"), though [edit: not that it makes it any better if they weren't, obvs]. I don't know enough about the thinking of Jefferson et al. But in the mid-19th century, many Americans always showed a worrying interest in taxonomies which regarded Homo sapiens as being more than one species.
I've read a lot of American history in the last years, and I reckon at least some of the signatories - the Founding Fathers - sincerely meant all mankind by the phrase "all men are created equal". They just didn[t want to give up the profitable, easeful convenience of slaves any time soon, it was something they would get round to. Eventually. Like Augustine and celibacy
They also realised that extending freedom to slaves would have kicked off civil war as soon as Independence was achieved, as the slave owning south entirely depended on slaves for its riches
Other Founding Fathers were out and out racists and misogynists and surely believed true freedom was only meant for white men (probably men of property)
Other facts I've learned in my recent travels. Lincoln never meant for the freed slaves, post bellum, to stay in the USA. His idea was they could all go live in central America. He envisaged they would be either a burden or a menace, he was quite racist himself
"Never" is incorrect. His views evolved considerably over the course of the war.
That's right, Lincoln's views evolved a lot reflecting the experience of the war - seeing black soldiers fighting for the union - and his interactions with figures such as Frederick Douglass. His views reflected the times he lived in but by the standards of those times he was woke in the extreme. Lincoln is in my opinion the greatest political leader in the history of the English speaking world. To have come from where he came from, to have basically taught himself everything he knew, and to have led his country through such difficult times and effected such positive change while remaining so kind and humble in his dealings with everyone he encountered is simply extraordinary. I really can't think of a single other political leader I admire as much as Lincoln.
"Woke in the extreme" seems a tad generous
"In a debate, at Charleston, Illinois, on September 18, 1858, Lincoln made his position clear. “I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and Black races,” he began, going on to say that he opposed Black people having the right to vote, to serve on juries, to hold office and to intermarry with whites. "
But as OLB says, those views changed. How many of them did he still hold in 1864? I genuinely don't know but it certainly seems like he had shifted a great deal.
Edit: I have just checked and 3 days before his assassination he gave a speech supporting votes for blacks. Indeed it is claimed that it was Wilkes' presence at this speech which finally decided him on assassination.
Which if true would mean that Lincoln died for his progressive views.
Much as I admire Lincoln though, I'd suggest FDR is by quite some margin the greatest political leader in the history of the English speaking world.
He saved the free world, he transformed America from the despair of Great Depression into the world's leading economic, cultural and military power, he won twice as many Presidential elections as anyone else. And all as a disabled man at a time when the taboos and prejudices surrounding disability meant he could never be photographed or filmed in a wheelchair.
Of the 56 "brave, patriotic" men who signed the Declaration of Independence - which avows that "all men are created equal" - 41 of the signatories owned slaves, including Thomas Jefferson, who actually wrote the document. Indeed Jefferson used his slaves for sex
Depends if Africans were defined as human beings ("men"), though [edit: not that it makes it any better if they weren't, obvs]. I don't know enough about the thinking of Jefferson et al. But in the mid-19th century, many Americans always showed a worrying interest in taxonomies which regarded Homo sapiens as being more than one species.
What I hadn’t realised, but found very disturbing, was that they bred slaves to sell the children. If you see them as economic units of production rather than people that makes sense. But still… urrgh!
Yes. For some reason, the following picture shocks people, in a different way.
All together now. "If it's legal you should be able to advocate for it". If cannibalism was legal, people'd be boasting about eating the poor and how teens should be overfed and beaten to marbleize the flesh. Normal is highly situational (duh) and PB finds it very difficult to understand on a gut level that the past was different.
I recently stood in front of this building. The fact it is still there is disturbing in itself, weirdly
Comments
Edit: But as I say, bank interest isn't my main source of income; my savings aren't that big!
Indeed, it’s those with lots of cash savings who lose out most from inflation.
Maybe he should go into PR instead. Oh, but wait ...
They also realised that extending freedom to slaves would have kicked off civil war as soon as Independence was achieved, as the slave owning south entirely depended on slaves for its riches
Other Founding Fathers were out and out racists and misogynists and surely believed true freedom was only meant for white men (probably men of property)
Other facts I've learned in my recent travels. Lincoln never meant for the freed slaves, post bellum, to stay in the USA. His idea was they could all go live in central America. He envisaged they would be either a burden or a menace, he was quite racist himself
https://unherd.com/2023/07/who-should-starmer-sack/
https://twitter.com/donaldtusk/status/1676234188914061312
So I think it likely that the UK may be worse off, if OGH is right about those MPs deciding not to stand for election. No doubt you will be better off without some of them, but surely not without all.
Actual black people who knew him, said that he wasn't racist and treated them as equals.
The last speech he gave, which triggered Booth to murder him, included advocating black people voting. Which implied office holding as well - one the reasons that set Booth off.
According to this:
"Abraham Lincoln was a proponent of colonization (funding the removal of freed African Americans to Africa or the Caribbean) from sometime in the 1840s until, though we cannot be certain but most likely, the end of his life"
"In 1877 William Seward wrote that Lincoln “by no means abandoned his policy of [voluntary] deportation and emancipation, for the two were in his mind indispensably and indissolubly connected. Colonization in fact had precedence with him.”"
https://www.essentialcivilwarcurriculum.com/lincoln-and-colonization.html
Lincoln is in my opinion the greatest political leader in the history of the English speaking world. To have come from where he came from, to have basically taught himself everything he knew, and to have led his country through such difficult times and effected such positive change while remaining so kind and humble in his dealings with everyone he encountered is simply extraordinary. I really can't think of a single other political leader I admire as much as Lincoln.
"In a debate, at Charleston, Illinois, on September 18, 1858, Lincoln made his position clear. “I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and Black races,” he began, going on to say that he opposed Black people having the right to vote, to serve on juries, to hold office and to intermarry with whites. "
Orkney votes to explore 'alternative governance'
There have been calls for Orkney to become part of Norway
Orkney councillors have voted to investigate alternative methods of governance amid deep frustrations over funding and opportunities. Council leader James Stockan said the island had been "held down" and accused the Scottish and UK governments of discrimination. His motion led to media speculation that Orkney could leave the UK or become a self-governing territory of Norway.
It was supported by 15 votes to six.
It means council officers have been asked to publish a report to Orkney's chief executive on options of governance.
This includes looking at the "Nordic connections" of the archipelago and crown dependencies such as Jersey and Guernsey.
A further change which would see the revival of a consultative group on constitutional reform for the islands was accepted without the need for a vote.
Having got screwed on furlough/UC during the pandemic, younger people (still renters or now high LTV mortgage holders) are getting smacked again by interest rates and/or cost of living.
Inflation is being turbo-charged by the pandemic savers unleashing cash - "this is why we saved up, after all. This is the rainy day". Doesn't help that saving rates are nowhere near high enough to flip the incentive: inflation is eroding the value of those savings so you might as well spend it all.
NEW Scotland Polling
Westminster Voting Intention:
SNP 37% (-1)
LAB 34% (+2)
CON 17% (-1)
LD 9% (nc)
OTH 4% (nc)
F/w 23rd - 28th June. Changes vs. 27th April - 3 May.
In addition there was a large, growing and powerful faction against the political interests of the slave holders. Who never commanded a majority, themselves. Unlike in the US, where the slaveholders were formerly controlled the system of government and were watching it eye away.
I know, and don't mind either way about, the argument between tea first and milk first in the cup. Personally I'm tea first, but that's purely force of habit.
But who puts milk in the teapot? Who does that help?
That would mean you would then have to properly wash the teapot afterwards, which is hard to do.
Oh, wait. What's that? There is no commonly agreed value for "X"? Oh, as you were then...
Your nationalism is ugly populism
His/Her/It's nationalism is absurd - and doesn't really exist.
Edit: I have just checked and 3 days before his assassination he gave a speech supporting votes for blacks. Indeed it is claimed that it was Wilkes' presence at this speech which finally decided him on assassination.
Rather sad
He doesn’t have time to read everything
What was the report about anyway?
A plantation owner would deliberately impregnate a few choice female slaves to "up the quality" of the livestock he could then sell on
Another thing I discovered is that plantations would rent out slaves to factories - there were slaves in the mid 19th century working in big factories and foundries and the like. I don't know why, but that is an another extra level of creepy evil. Feels even more Nazi
BUT. You are wrong. If they became independent then they would not only get the 12 mile limit rights. They would get the same median line rights that apply to all the other North Sea Nations.
This means that they would get a great deal of the Northern North Sea fields - effectively everything from the Beryl Field northwards and also everything West of Shetlands. Probably somewhere around a third of all UKCS oil production at a very rough estimate. .
Anyways, haven't you got a shift to do at Halfords? And please, they have asked me, do make sure you take the medication before you go to stop the incontinence.
Captain Tom's daughter, Hannah Ingram-Moore, and her husband Colin reportedly put forward the planning application in their own names, but then used the charity's name in their design and access statement"
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/captain-toms-daughter-used-hero-30383681
He was a great man, but a man of his time, and "Woke in the extreme" sounds like nonsense
Milk in pot. Bags in pot, Water in pot. Leave. Pour out 4 cups of total tea.
Better than, bags in pot, water in pot, pour out 4 cups of 'work in progress' tea and THEN 4 lots of milk.
In fact, now I think about it, if all your guests take sugar you can do worse than put that in the pot too. Pour out 4 cups of *sugared* tea.
https://order-order.com/2023/07/04/breaking-metropolitan-police-launch-investigation-into-bernard-jenkin/
Will it turn out to be Partygate or Currygate?
As I say, it won't happen in my vview but if it did then Scotland would lose a significant amount of their UKCS assets.
Of course England loses a lot more if and when Scotland gains independence for the same reason. They would be left with the Southern North Sea gas fields and a big argument about where the median line should run heading out from Berwick.
*Money spent in the private healthcare generally doesn't go to corporations - BUPA etc - but to the doctors and other medical staff. Who are nearly all working for the NHS as well. So you are topping up their wages.
However, if Shetland decided to breakaway, under International law and United Nations convention (UNCLOS) regarding small islands / enclaves they would only be entitled to six miles of territorial waters meaning no oil and not much fish.
All the local tories hate her.
I spent a year studying the US Civil War in CSYS history at school, and came away quite in awe of Lincoln.
However it could be more if Conservatives and LDs tactically vote Labour to beat the SNP. Zero swing between SNP and Tories so the Tories would hold all their Scottish seats
The Continental Shelf Act 1964 and the Continental Shelf (Jurisdiction) Order 1968 defines the UK North Sea maritime area to the north of latitude 55 degrees north as being under the jurisdiction of Scots law meaning that 94% of the UK’s oil resources are under Scottish jurisdiction. In addition, section 126 of the Scotland Act 1998 defines Scottish waters as the internal waters and territorial sea of the United Kingdom as are adjacent to Scotland.
However, if Shetland decided to breakaway, under International law and United Nations convention (UNCLOS) regarding small islands / enclaves they would only be entitled to six miles of territorial waters meaning no oil and not much fish.
What if, for example, Whalsay and Foula declared independence or elected to stick with Scotland? Unionists should note that the Isle of Man and Channel Islands only have rights up to six miles offshore.
Even under the hypothetical circumstance that this occurred, Westminster wouldn’t be able to retain control of the oil fields anyway. These matters are regulated by the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, to which the UK is a signatory. International law specifies that a state controls the continental shelf and associated mineral and fishing rights up to 200 nautical miles (230 miles or 370 km) off its shores. When another state possesses an island within the continental shelf of this state, special rules apply.
This matter was discussed in detail in a legal paper published by the European Journal of International Law: Prospective Anglo-Scottish Maritime Boundary Revisited
Much as I admire Lincoln though, I'd suggest FDR is by quite some margin the greatest political leader in the history of the English speaking world.
He saved the free world, he transformed America from the despair of Great Depression into the world's leading economic, cultural and military power, he won twice as many Presidential elections as anyone else. And all as a disabled man at a time when the taboos and prejudices surrounding disability meant he could never be photographed or filmed in a wheelchair.
As I say, the greatest by some margin.