A final report has not yet been issued - but what we know so far is that:
The report said MH17 crashed due to a "large number of high-energy objects" penetrating the fuselage. "There are no indications that the MH17 crash was caused by a technical fault or by actions of the crew...
Russian authorities have suggested in the past that other theories were possible, including that the plane may have been shot down from the air. However, the report found no military aircraft in the vicinity.
"It's consistent with a hit by a ground missile," said Joris Melkert, a lecturer in aerospace engineering at the Technical University of Delft. "What could cause a pattern of high velocity particles 10 kilometers up in the sky?
The report found no military aircraft in the vicinity - I am not aware of any radar or satellite data covering the scene other than what Russia has provided which indeed shows 'an accelerating object' consistent with a military aircraft. This is also consistent with early eye-witness accounts. And it's also consistent with the holes in the metal being machine gun fire, which is exactly what they look like and is not denied by Reuter's story, rather we are directed to believe they are 'fragments' (a word seemingly not used in the original quote). I think anyone would admit that there is certainly no evidence shown here to disprove the military aircraft theory - if there is some I'd like to read it.
The rebels may or may not have had BUK missiles, but without the radar to help target them (which they conclusively didn't have), they wouldn't have a hope of hitting a barn door at that altitude. Also an aviation expert (I'll dig the link out when I get home) pretty much debunked that the trajectory of where they allegedly launched it from could have worked.
This casts heavy suspicion the Ukrainians either from the ground or the air, who (contrary to that retarded Grauniad article) had ample motive, means, and opportunity, and where the authorities admit they have little to no control over the Neo-nazi paramilitary groups who comprise much of their armed forces.
I'm exceedingly proud of UKIP for speaking sense on Russia. It would be very easy for them to wrap themselves in the flag 'Fox News' style and Russia-bash even more than everyone else to get some positive press. Instead they've decided to speak truth to power and challenge the utter absurdity of our American-dictated posture toward Russia.
While no fan of us being subsurvient to the americans to the degree we often are, it just as easy for people to posture as heroic truthspeakers when backing Russia (and that is thekey here - it's not enough that we too are guilty of playing geopolitical games, too often the Russia defenders must pretend the Russians are purer than pure on such matters. snip
There is no justification either morally or self-interestedly for the Russia-baiting that is going on at the moment
MH17?
I was flying that day.......LHR-HKG
It was the Kiev government that decided to launch a military campaign rather than negotiate, at the behest of the US and the opposition of the major European powers.
You saying Kiev fired the missile that shot down MH17?
Must be a lonely world you inhabit.
I know this must sound other worldly to you living on a malnourished diet of MSM tripe, but it hasn't actually been established who, or what, shot down MH17. A week of Putin bogeyman headlines does not evidence make.
The 'western' version has been pretty consistent from the first few days. BUK missile fired by (or on behalf of) pro-Russia militias.....
The 'Russian' version has had so many iterations I've lost track - do you have a favourite?
Do you really enjoy being patronised by that Buzzfeed style Garbage? Where's any technical info in that article? Where's any form of forensic evidence? Where's any form of cogent reasoning? Where's anything beyond 'Look, let's make any alternative to our story seem silly by bringing up transforming lizards'. It's brain rotting idiot fodder. I don't pretend to know what happened, and since the official reports haven't yet concluded anything, neither can you.
Rebels assisted by Russians with a Russian missile, shoot down an innocent airliner thinking it was a military cargo plane and all of a sudden, just for a change, you do not pretend to know anything.
They killed 49 people on an IL76 military transport a month before.
The rebels had the means, the track record, and the motive to be shooting down aircraft.
One would expect so, not sure why there is so much dissembling by the West. Military jet hiding behind a commercial airline? It is an odd one if the obvious explanation is the correct one. Then again the fact that it has been ruled out that it was a Russian issue BUK seems to be deemed problematic enough.
"The International Monetary Fund is pulling out of negotiations with Greece in Brussels at least temporarily, citing "major differences" and a lack of progress in key areas."
As I said here for the past 4 months, there is no deal and there was never going to be a deal, both sides are pretending to negotiate for political reasons. Now everyone is simply looking how to extend and pretend the negotiations.
Long story short, the Greek problem is the european equivalent of the Palestinian peace process.
I'm exceedingly proud of UKIP for speaking sense on Russia. It would be very easy for them to wrap themselves in the flag 'Fox News' style and Russia-bash even more than everyone else to get some positive press. Instead they've decided to speak truth to power and challenge the utter absurdity of our American-dictated posture toward Russia.
While no fan of us being subsurvient to the americans to the degree we often are, it just as easy for people to posture as heroic truthspeakers when backing Russia (and that is thekey here - it's not enough that we too are guilty of playing geopolitical games, too often the Russia defenders must pretend the Russians are purer than pure on such matters. And please note I said 'too often', not 'always') when putting forth an at best equally foggy version of the truth, and at worse a far more insulting version of it.
There is no justification either morally or self-interestedly for the Russia-baiting that is going on at the moment
MH17?
I was flying that day.......LHR-HKG
It was the Kiev government that decided to launch a military campaign rather than negotiate, at the behest of the US and the opposition of the major European powers.
You saying Kiev fired the missile that shot down MH17?
Must be a lonely world you inhabit.
I know this must sound other worldly to you living on a malnourished diet of MSM tripe, but it hasn't actually been established who, or what, shot down MH17. A week of Putin bogeyman headlines does not evidence make.
Yeah, right.... Thanks for that clear, evidence-based rebuttal.
Wasn't aware you'd posted anything that required one.
not on fire Of course it is ridiculous..the greedy old bastards...who actually built the country...lets kill them all then we can feed the starving kids in west Lothian..
In my experience, the only people that believe MH17 was shot down by anyone other than the pro-Russian militias are the ones that believe 9/11 was an inside job by the US. It's an anti-Americanism that only ever listens to arguments against the United States.
Rebels assisted by Russians with a Russian missile, shoot down an innocent airliner thinking it was a military cargo plane and all of a sudden, just for a change, you do not pretend to know anything.
Assert, assert, don't get bogged down by the evidence, just shout a bit louder, bring a bit of emotion into it, show one of those ugly brutes manhandling a kiddies teddy bear, assert etc.
They killed 49 people on an IL76 military transport a month before.
The rebels had the means, the track record, and the motive to be shooting down aircraft.
One would expect so, not sure why there is so much dissembling by the West. Military jet hiding behind a commercial airline? It is an odd one if the obvious explanation is the correct one. Then again the fact that it has been ruled out that it was a Russian issue BUK seems to be deemed problematic enough.
What sort of 'military jet', and on what mission? MH17 was flying at 33,000 feet, not exactly the best altitude for CAS. Yet airliners were up at that height.
Your view of the 'correct' solution is rather idiotic.
A final report has not yet been issued - but what we know so far is that:
The report said MH17 crashed due to a "large number of high-energy objects" penetrating the fuselage. "There are no indications that the MH17 crash was caused by a technical fault or by actions of the crew...
Russian authorities have suggested in the past that other theories were possible, including that the plane may have been shot down from the air. However, the report found no military aircraft in the vicinity.
"It's consistent with a hit by a ground missile," said Joris Melkert, a lecturer in aerospace engineering at the Technical University of Delft. "What could cause a pattern of high velocity particles 10 kilometers up in the sky?
Rebels assisted by Russians with a Russian missile, shoot down an innocent airliner thinking it was a military cargo plane and all of a sudden, just for a change, you do not pretend to know anything.
Assert, assert, don't get bogged down by the evidence
Sorry, did I miss your non-assertions, or links to evidence?
A final report has not yet been issued - but what we know so far is that:
The report said MH17 crashed due to a "large number of high-energy objects" penetrating the fuselage. "There are no indications that the MH17 crash was caused by a technical fault or by actions of the crew...
Russian authorities have suggested in the past that other theories were possible, including that the plane may have been shot down from the air. However, the report found no military aircraft in the vicinity.
"It's consistent with a hit by a ground missile," said Joris Melkert, a lecturer in aerospace engineering at the Technical University of Delft. "What could cause a pattern of high velocity particles 10 kilometers up in the sky?
"The International Monetary Fund is pulling out of negotiations with Greece in Brussels at least temporarily, citing "major differences" and a lack of progress in key areas."
As I said here for the past 4 months, there is no deal and there was never going to be a deal, both sides are pretending to negotiate for political reasons. Now everyone is simply looking how to extend and pretend the negotiations.
Long story short, the Greek problem is the european equivalent of the Palestinian peace process.
If the Greeks cannot pay the IMF back at the end of this month, then Greece will be in official default.
At this point, Greek bonds become ineligible to be used as collateral for Greek banks, and therefore the Greek banks become - en masse - insolvent.
All other banks will cease dealing with Greek banks.
At this point, because Greece will need a functioning banking system, the Greek government will have no choice but to: (a) declare a three day public holiday, (b) impose capital controls, and (c) introduce the New Drachma with which to recapitalise the banks.
The IMF will continue to chase Greece for its debts, and will demand repayment in Euros (as will all the private sector creditors), effectively doubling the real size of the Greek debt.
Greek businesses with Euro denominated liabilities but Drachma denominated assets will find themselves in serious financial trouble.
The cost of imported goods (near 100% of energy, 60% of food) will double overnight.
There will almost certainly be civil unrest, which is a serious problem if tourism is your major foreign currency earner.
A final report has not yet been issued - but what we know so far is that:
The report said MH17 crashed due to a "large number of high-energy objects" penetrating the fuselage. "There are no indications that the MH17 crash was caused by a technical fault or by actions of the crew...
Russian authorities have suggested in the past that other theories were possible, including that the plane may have been shot down from the air. However, the report found no military aircraft in the vicinity.
"It's consistent with a hit by a ground missile," said Joris Melkert, a lecturer in aerospace engineering at the Technical University of Delft. "What could cause a pattern of high velocity particles 10 kilometers up in the sky?
There is no justification either morally or self-interestedly for the Russia-baiting that is going on at the moment
MH17?
I was flying that day.......LHR-HKG
It was the Kiev government that decided to launch a military campaign rather than negotiate, at the behest of the US and the opposition of the major European powers.
You saying Kiev fired the missile that shot down MH17?
Must be a lonely world you inhabit.
I know this must sound other worldly to you living on a malnourished diet of MSM tripe, but it hasn't actually been established who, or what, shot down MH17. A week of Putin bogeyman headlines does not evidence make.
The 'western' version has been pretty consistent from the first few days. BUK missile fired by (or on behalf of) pro-Russia militias.....
The 'Russian' version has had so many iterations I've lost track - do you have a favourite?
Do you really enjoy being patronised by that Buzzfeed style Garbage? Where's any technical info in that article? Where's any form of forensic evidence? Where's any form of cogent reasoning? Where's anything beyond 'Look, let's make any alternative to our story seem silly by bringing up transforming lizards'. It's brain rotting idiot fodder. I don't pretend to know what happened, and since the official reports haven't yet concluded anything, neither can you.
Rebels assisted by Russians with a Russian missile, shoot down an innocent airliner thinking it was a military cargo plane and all of a sudden, just for a change, you do not pretend to know anything.
Evidence?
There are published accounts from eye witnesses as well as photographic, satellite and video evidence. The best the Russians can come up with is that the plane was shot down by a Ukrainian aircraft - this despite the closeness to Russian airspace and the likelihood such a plane would itself have been a target for missiles. Hiding behind Russian obfuscation is pretty pathetic.
Do you really enjoy being patronised by that Buzzfeed style Garbage? Where's any technical info in that article? Where's any form of forensic evidence? Where's any form of cogent reasoning? Where's anything beyond 'Look, let's make any alternative to our story seem silly by bringing up transforming lizards'. It's brain rotting idiot fodder. I don't pretend to know what happened, and since the official reports haven't yet concluded anything, neither can you.
Rebels assisted by Russians with a Russian missile, shoot down an innocent airliner thinking it was a military cargo plane and all of a sudden, just for a change, you do not pretend to know anything.
Evidence?
I remember that. The russians had a bad strategy of only very slowly increasing their strength on the battlefield as they were afraid of sanctions, but the sanctions came anyway and when their military position collapsed during the summer they became more and more desperate and they gave more and more advanced weapons to the rebels to shoot down the ukranian airforce, that worked in that they grounded the ukranian airforce but at a tremendous PR cost.
The only evidence that the rebels did it was that they claimed that they had shot down a fighter jet at the same time and same place as MH17 and they even posted a video of it on twitter, before they realized it was a jet airliner.
In every war both sides do mistakes, MH17 was the biggest PR blunder of that war.
At a personal level, I'm rather nervous about Osborne announcing swingeing cuts to child tax credits. Having seen my brother in law recently leave my sister and 3 young kids to run off with his fancy woman, and knowing how much she is relying on tax credits and similar to keep them afloat and in their home, reading the reports this morning really brought it home to me thinking about how much she cannot afford to see an axe taken to what she's currently getting. She's in work, a trained professional working part time and raising 3 children. I'd feel very bad if the party I just voted for went and kicked her in the teeth.
And it would be such an open goal for Labour, the Lib Dems and SNP.
There must be other ways of making cuts to the welfare budget?
It's done on family income though isn't it? So if her husband has left, family income goes down if he had a job, so tax credits go up. OR he wasn't working anyway, so they are better off (financially) without him to feed (apologies for flippancy but you know what I mean).
Proposal is only to use a ~£4K lower family gross income as the threshold for stopping payment.
Under Blair and Brown my wife and I got tax credits of over £100 a month with a joint income of around £43K and still £45 a month IIRC even with a JI of ~£50K. Madness. All that extra cash just made people able to afford higher mortgage payments, and given at the time you could borrow what the hell you liked, house prices rocketed.
But i agree with other comments about the state pension. $68bn p.a. isn't it? couple of years of 0% instead of 2.5% would save nearly £2bn a year in perpetuity , and now is the perfect time to do it with zero inflation, and straight after an election as well...
A final report has not yet been issued - but what we know so far is that:
The report said MH17 crashed due to a "large number of high-energy objects" penetrating the fuselage. "There are no indications that the MH17 crash was caused by a technical fault or by actions of the crew...
Russian authorities have suggested in the past that other theories were possible, including that the plane may have been shot down from the air. However, the report found no military aircraft in the vicinity.
"It's consistent with a hit by a ground missile," said Joris Melkert, a lecturer in aerospace engineering at the Technical University of Delft. "What could cause a pattern of high velocity particles 10 kilometers up in the sky?
A final report has not yet been issued - but what we know so far is that:
The report said MH17 crashed due to a "large number of high-energy objects" penetrating the fuselage. "There are no indications that the MH17 crash was caused by a technical fault or by actions of the crew...
Russian authorities have suggested in the past that other theories were possible, including that the plane may have been shot down from the air. However, the report found no military aircraft in the vicinity.
"It's consistent with a hit by a ground missile," said Joris Melkert, a lecturer in aerospace engineering at the Technical University of Delft. "What could cause a pattern of high velocity particles 10 kilometers up in the sky?
A final report has not yet been issued - but what we know so far is that:
The report said MH17 crashed due to a "large number of high-energy objects" penetrating the fuselage. "There are no indications that the MH17 crash was caused by a technical fault or by actions of the crew...
Russian authorities have suggested in the past that other theories were possible, including that the plane may have been shot down from the air. However, the report found no military aircraft in the vicinity.
"It's consistent with a hit by a ground missile," said Joris Melkert, a lecturer in aerospace engineering at the Technical University of Delft. "What could cause a pattern of high velocity particles 10 kilometers up in the sky?
A rather silly argument. Most of the rebel arms will be captured Ukrainian arms ...
...unless you're saying they're getting them from Russia?
I agree, it's the media and politicians who made a big thing that the rebels are not primarily Ukrainian and Ukrainian armed when, of course, they are.
I'm exceedingly proud of UKIP for speaking sense on Russia. It would be very easy for them to wrap themselves in the flag 'Fox News' style and Russia-bash even more than everyone else to get some positive press. Instead they've decided to speak truth to power and challenge the utter absurdity of our American-dictated posture toward Russia.
While no fan of us being subsurvient to the americans to the degree we often are, it just as easy for people to posture as heroic truthspeakers when backing Russia (and that is thekey here - it's not enough that we too are guilty of playing geopolitical games, too often the Russia defenders must pretend the Russians are purer than pure on such matters. And please note I said 'too often', not 'always') when putting forth an at best equally foggy version of the truth, and at worse a far more insulting version of it.
There is no justification either morally or self-interestedly for the Russia-baiting that is going on at the moment
MH17?
I was flying that day.......LHR-HKG
It was the Kiev government that decided to launch a military campaign rather than negotiate, at the behest of the US and the opposition of the major European powers.
You saying Kiev fired the missile that shot down MH17?
Must be a lonely world you inhabit.
I know this must sound other worldly to you living on a malnourished diet of MSM tripe, but it hasn't actually been established who, or what, shot down MH17. A week of Putin bogeyman headlines does not evidence make.
The rebels posted social media posts say "We've stolen a Buk Missle system, look here are pictures" They posted social media posts saying, "We just shot down a Ukraininan military plane with our stolen Buk missle system". They then posted footage of the crash site from a distance saying "Look, here we are approaching the wreckage of the plane we shot down with the stolen Buk Missle system, woo we are awesome"
Abnd then a few minutes later they deleted all of those post.
A final report has not yet been issued - but what we know so far is that:
The report said MH17 crashed due to a "large number of high-energy objects" penetrating the fuselage. "There are no indications that the MH17 crash was caused by a technical fault or by actions of the crew...
Russian authorities have suggested in the past that other theories were possible, including that the plane may have been shot down from the air. However, the report found no military aircraft in the vicinity.
"It's consistent with a hit by a ground missile," said Joris Melkert, a lecturer in aerospace engineering at the Technical University of Delft. "What could cause a pattern of high velocity particles 10 kilometers up in the sky?
A rather silly argument. Most of the rebel arms will be captured Ukrainian arms ...
...unless you're saying they're getting them from Russia?
I agree, it's the media and politicians who made a big thing that the rebels are not primarily Ukrainian and Ukrainian armed when, of course, they are.
If you think the rebels are mostly using arms captured from Ukraine, then your previous post is fallacious; it could have been rebels using stolen Ukrainian kit. Or, in fact, Russian supplied weapons, as noted by your use of 'primarily' above.
You're almost as much fun as the Argentinian nuts who claim that they sunk at British aircraft carrier in the Falklands ...
As I said here for the past 4 months, there is no deal and there was never going to be a deal, both sides are pretending to negotiate for political reasons. Now everyone is simply looking how to extend and pretend the negotiations.
Long story short, the Greek problem is the european equivalent of the Palestinian peace process.
If the Greeks cannot pay the IMF back at the end of this month, then Greece will be in official default.
At this point, Greek bonds become ineligible to be used as collateral for Greek banks, and therefore the Greek banks become - en masse - insolvent.
All other banks will cease dealing with Greek banks.
At this point, because Greece will need a functioning banking system, the Greek government will have no choice but to: (a) declare a three day public holiday, (b) impose capital controls, and (c) introduce the New Drachma with which to recapitalise the banks.
The IMF will continue to chase Greece for its debts, and will demand repayment in Euros (as will all the private sector creditors), effectively doubling the real size of the Greek debt.
Greek businesses with Euro denominated liabilities but Drachma denominated assets will find themselves in serious financial trouble.
The cost of imported goods (near 100% of energy, 60% of food) will double overnight.
There will almost certainly be civil unrest, which is a serious problem if tourism is your major foreign currency earner.
I can totally disagree with everything you wrote above.
1. Greece has the cash to pay the IMF at the end of the month, in fact they have a primary surplus.
2. Even if Greece defaults on the IMF, the credit rating agencies have said that they wont recognize it as a default.
3. Even the bonds held by the ECB, which is the problem here, can be got rid of by either the greek parliament (they are under greek law) or by another mechanism like a debt swap with the ESM or god knows else.
4.Only if the ECB cuts funding there will be a need to go grexit.
5.In the case of grexit most greek private sector liabilities are to the greek banking sector which is in public hands already so the greek government can switch them to drachmas too.
6.The case of Argentina shows that a government can be cut off from international finance and still operate normally even with investors demanding payoffs that they refuse to meet.
7. In case of grexit the devaluation will be smaller that 50% and the impact on inflation will not be much more than a 10% increase due to lack of money supply and lack of demand of products.
And this is only a quick summary of a 20 page report I gave back in February.
In my experience, the only people that believe MH17 was shot down by anyone other than the pro-Russian militias are the ones that believe 9/11 was an inside job by the US. It's an anti-Americanism that only ever listens to arguments against the United States.
I read a brilliant book by David Aaronovitch called Voodoo Histories a few years back on this subject. Highly recommended.
A final report has not yet been issued - but what we know so far is that:
The report said MH17 crashed due to a "large number of high-energy objects" penetrating the fuselage. "There are no indications that the MH17 crash was caused by a technical fault or by actions of the crew...
Russian authorities have suggested in the past that other theories were possible, including that the plane may have been shot down from the air. However, the report found no military aircraft in the vicinity.
"It's consistent with a hit by a ground missile," said Joris Melkert, a lecturer in aerospace engineering at the Technical University of Delft. "What could cause a pattern of high velocity particles 10 kilometers up in the sky?
A rather silly argument. Most of the rebel arms will be captured Ukrainian arms ...
...unless you're saying they're getting them from Russia?
I agree, it's the media and politicians who made a big thing that the rebels are not primarily Ukrainian and Ukrainian armed when, of course, they are.
If you think the rebels are mostly using arms captured from Ukraine, then your previous post is fallacious; it could have been rebels using stolen Ukrainian kit. Or, in fact, Russian supplied weapons, as noted by your use of 'primarily' above.
You're almost as much fun as the Argentinian nuts who claim that they sunk at British aircraft carrier in the Falklands ...
A final report has not yet been issued - but what we know so far is that:
The report said MH17 crashed due to a "large number of high-energy objects" penetrating the fuselage. "There are no indications that the MH17 crash was caused by a technical fault or by actions of the crew...
Russian authorities have suggested in the past that other theories were possible, including that the plane may have been shot down from the air. However, the report found no military aircraft in the vicinity.
"It's consistent with a hit by a ground missile," said Joris Melkert, a lecturer in aerospace engineering at the Technical University of Delft. "What could cause a pattern of high velocity particles 10 kilometers up in the sky?
A rather silly argument. Most of the rebel arms will be captured Ukrainian arms ...
...unless you're saying they're getting them from Russia?
I agree, it's the media and politicians who made a big thing that the rebels are not primarily Ukrainian and Ukrainian armed when, of course, they are.
If you think the rebels are mostly using arms captured from Ukraine, then your previous post is fallacious; it could have been rebels using stolen Ukrainian kit. Or, in fact, Russian supplied weapons, as noted by your use of 'primarily' above.
You're almost as much fun as the Argentinian nuts who claim that they sunk at British aircraft carrier in the Falklands ...
The Guardian is suggesting there will be a huge outcry if tax credits are cut and it will gift Labour the 2020 GE.
But tax credits were cut in 2010 and there wasn't too much fuss.
It is breathtaking that, even now, someone with 2 kids earning £32,900 (family income) is getting child tax credits. Remember that's on top of Child Benefit.
Surely it would not be unreasonable to bring that limit down by £4,000 to just under £29,000?
In my view it is outrageous that a single person earning £15,000 is paying tax and not getting a penny in tax credits - so that someone earning more than double can get child tax credits.
What it boils down to is this - if you have children in this country the state pays to bring them up - unless you earn way above average earnings.
A final report has not yet been issued - but what we know so far is that:
The report said MH17 crashed due to a "large number of high-energy objects" penetrating the fuselage. "There are no indications that the MH17 crash was caused by a technical fault or by actions of the crew...
Russian authorities have suggested in the past that other theories were possible, including that the plane may have been shot down from the air. However, the report found no military aircraft in the vicinity.
"It's consistent with a hit by a ground missile," said Joris Melkert, a lecturer in aerospace engineering at the Technical University of Delft. "What could cause a pattern of high velocity particles 10 kilometers up in the sky?
A rather silly argument. Most of the rebel arms will be captured Ukrainian arms ...
...unless you're saying they're getting them from Russia?
I agree, it's the media and politicians who made a big thing that the rebels are not primarily Ukrainian and Ukrainian armed when, of course, they are.
If you think the rebels are mostly using arms captured from Ukraine, then your previous post is fallacious; it could have been rebels using stolen Ukrainian kit. Or, in fact, Russian supplied weapons, as noted by your use of 'primarily' above.
You're almost as much fun as the Argentinian nuts who claim that they sunk at British aircraft carrier in the Falklands ...
£33k is a low income to be bringing up 2 kids on, especially in the Sputh. And it's not as if the tax credits will cover all the costs of childcare.
Cut child benefits and all you will end up with is a falling birth rate, requiring more immigration to make up for it.
The whole tax credit system is awful - raise the personal allowance to £15k pp and there will be no need to rob Peter (and partner with children) and Paul (and partner without children) to pay Peter. Similarly, child benefit should manifest itself as greater personal allowance in tax code. We need to wean society off stage largesse, and remind ourselves that benefits are the poorly administered outcome of state confiscation of (largely) income.
QT David Dimbleby presents topical debate from Gateshead. He is joined by Conservative Cabinet Office minister Matthew Hancock MP, Labour's shadow culture secretary Chris Bryant MP, SNP MP Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh, Ukip MP Douglas Carswell and Daily Telegraph columnist Cristina Odone
Further cuts in government spending will be needed beyond this parliament in order to bring the national debt under control, the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) has warned.
In its annual report, the OBR said that without further spending cuts or tax rises, the national debt would only increase.
It said a permanent £20bn cut in annual public spending will be needed by 2020.
That would help bring the national debt down to 40% of GDP by 2064, it said.
If achieved, this means it would have taken more than half a century to bring the national debt back to the same level it was before the 2008 financial crisis.
Further cuts in government spending will be needed beyond this parliament in order to bring the national debt under control, the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) has warned.
In its annual report, the OBR said that without further spending cuts or tax rises, the national debt would only increase.
It said a permanent £20bn cut in annual public spending will be needed by 2020.
That would help bring the national debt down to 40% of GDP by 2064, it said.
If achieved, this means it would have taken more than half a century to bring the national debt back to the same level it was before the 2008 financial crisis.
Jeb and Hillary, what a repulsive pair of power hungry freaks. He looks like a castrato village idiot. Her face is a witches' brew of botched assymetric zygomic implants, botox, and a left sided hemiparesis. Grotesques.
Jeb and Hillary, what a repulsive pair of power hungry freaks. He looks like a castrato village idiot. Her face is a witches' brew of botched assymetric zygomic implants, botox, and a left sided hemiparesis. Grotesques.
On topic, no chance of Rand Paul coming in but 50/1 is still a very decent trading bet for someone who'll have staying power. I could easily see him coming in to tens at least, at some point.
As for Hillary, absurd odds. If I were looking for an outsider, it'd be on the Democrat side as her approval ratings are poor and she's there for the taking if someone can make the case.
QT David Dimbleby presents topical debate from Gateshead. He is joined by Conservative Cabinet Office minister Matthew Hancock MP, Labour's shadow culture secretary Chris Bryant MP, SNP MP Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh, Ukip MP Douglas Carswell and Daily Telegraph columnist Cristina Odone
The Guardian is suggesting there will be a huge outcry if tax credits are cut and it will gift Labour the 2020 GE.
But tax credits were cut in 2010 and there wasn't too much fuss.
It is breathtaking that, even now, someone with 2 kids earning £32,900 (family income) is getting child tax credits. Remember that's on top of Child Benefit.
Surely it would not be unreasonable to bring that limit down by £4,000 to just under £29,000?
In my view it is outrageous that a single person earning £15,000 is paying tax and not getting a penny in tax credits - so that someone earning more than double can get child tax credits.
What it boils down to is this - if you have children in this country the state pays to bring them up - unless you earn way above average earnings.
One person earning 32 grand wouldn't get child tax credits, two parents earning 16000 each would though.
The Guardian is suggesting there will be a huge outcry if tax credits are cut and it will gift Labour the 2020 GE.
But tax credits were cut in 2010 and there wasn't too much fuss.
It is breathtaking that, even now, someone with 2 kids earning £32,900 (family income) is getting child tax credits. Remember that's on top of Child Benefit.
Surely it would not be unreasonable to bring that limit down by £4,000 to just under £29,000?
In my view it is outrageous that a single person earning £15,000 is paying tax and not getting a penny in tax credits - so that someone earning more than double can get child tax credits.
What it boils down to is this - if you have children in this country the state pays to bring them up - unless you earn way above average earnings.
One person earning 32 grand wouldn't get child tax credits, two parents earning 16000 each would though.
Oh just ran through the calculator, and you would.
Jeb and Hillary, what a repulsive pair of power hungry freaks. He looks like a castrato village idiot. Her face is a witches' brew of botched assymetric zygomic implants, botox, and a left sided hemiparesis. Grotesques.
What a numskull comment. JEB is being positively strong-armed to run because the rest of the GOP are a bunch of idiots.
Further cuts in government spending will be needed beyond this parliament in order to bring the national debt under control, the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) has warned.
In its annual report, the OBR said that without further spending cuts or tax rises, the national debt would only increase.
It said a permanent £20bn cut in annual public spending will be needed by 2020.
That would help bring the national debt down to 40% of GDP by 2064, it said.
If achieved, this means it would have taken more than half a century to bring the national debt back to the same level it was before the 2008 financial crisis.
I wonder if EdM still thinks that the last Labour govt didn't overspend?
They overspent and destroyed the productive capacity of the economy. Against this background a whole gang of 'repulsive power hungry freakish castralto village idiots' want to turn the economy upside down by walking out of the EU.
QT David Dimbleby presents topical debate from Gateshead. He is joined by Conservative Cabinet Office minister Matthew Hancock MP, Labour's shadow culture secretary Chris Bryant MP, SNP MP Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh, Ukip MP Douglas Carswell and Daily Telegraph columnist Cristina Odone
Not UKIP MP Douglas Carswell again. Couldn't UKIP put up another MP this time?
N O F..Why should pensioners have to take a cut to pay for your kids..
Plus everyone's kids and their parents will be pensioners one day. If pensioners take a pay cut today then that means that todays kids and their parents will have to take a pay cut - today - to save up for their own pay-cutted lives as future pensioners. Do today's children and their parents plan to prepare properly for their old age which they seem happy to agree will be impoverished.
N O F..Why should pensioners have to take a cut to pay for your kids..
Plus everyone's kids and their parents will be pensioners one day. If pensioners take a pay cut today then that means that todays kids and their parents will have to take a pay cut - today - to save up for their own pay-cutted lives as future pensioners. Do today's children and their parents plan to prepare properly for their old age which they seem happy to agree will be impoverished.
At least 68 before any state pension for us youngsters
The Guardian is suggesting there will be a huge outcry if tax credits are cut and it will gift Labour the 2020 GE.
But tax credits were cut in 2010 and there wasn't too much fuss.
It is breathtaking that, even now, someone with 2 kids earning £32,900 (family income) is getting child tax credits. Remember that's on top of Child Benefit.
Surely it would not be unreasonable to bring that limit down by £4,000 to just under £29,000?
In my view it is outrageous that a single person earning £15,000 is paying tax and not getting a penny in tax credits - so that someone earning more than double can get child tax credits.
What it boils down to is this - if you have children in this country the state pays to bring them up - unless you earn way above average earnings.
One person earning 32 grand wouldn't get child tax credits, two parents earning 16000 each would though.
Oh just ran through the calculator, and you would.
Tax credits are based on family income.
So, as I understand it, it makes no difference if one person earns £32k or a couple both earn £16k.
HOWEVER there is, of course, a massive incentive to split up in order to get tax credits - eg if a couple both earn £32k - split up and get tax credits!
N O F..Why should pensioners have to take a cut to pay for your kids..
Plus everyone's kids and their parents will be pensioners one day. If pensioners take a pay cut today then that means that todays kids and their parents will have to take a pay cut - today - to save up for their own pay-cutted lives as future pensioners. Do today's children and their parents plan to prepare properly for their old age which they seem happy to agree will be impoverished.
At least 68 before any state pension for us youngsters
Probably 70+ for my nieces.
I'm happy enough to work to 70. But I undestand the anger of people who contributed on the basis they would receive a pension at, say, 60 - particularly where this was q quid pro quo for lower wages (I believe teachers often saw it that way). As long as the government does not raise similar expectations, I do not have a problem.
6.The case of Argentina shows that a government can be cut off from international finance and still operate normally even with investors demanding payoffs that they refuse to meet. 7. In case of grexit the devaluation will be smaller that 50% and the impact on inflation will not be much more than a 10% increase due to lack of money supply and lack of demand of products.
I had a correspondence around 2011 with a supplier in Buenos Aires (I hasten to add I'm a statistician, not a drugdealer!). She said a rule of thumb is that prices would increase by 10-20% every three months. And that's ten years after the Argentinian crash.
As for the devaluation...let's apply a plausibility check. The Greek government is currently under the control of Syriza, a party further to the left than is usual in the West outside Latin America. It cannot successfully raise taxes nor distribute them to its benefit claimants. It runs a country that produces nothing except people and sunshine. It is about to watch its banking industry collapse overnight and turn down money from the only people willing to lend it any. It then creates a new currency.
Now imagine a crisp New Drachma in front of you. How many pounds would you give for it?
How about none?
We keep thinking of Grexit in terms of the UK experience, or the Argentinian experience: forced devaluations of an existing currency. But we ignore things like the Russian experience when the Roublezone went kaka, or the Confederate dollar when the CSA fell, or Weimar Germany. It's entirely possible nobody at all outside Greece would want a Greek New Drachma. And people in Greece will only do so if forced...and how will you force them?
Jeb and Hillary, what a repulsive pair of power hungry freaks. He looks like a castrato village idiot. Her face is a witches' brew of botched assymetric zygomic implants, botox, and a left sided hemiparesis. Grotesques.
What a numskull comment. JEB is being positively strong-armed to run because the rest of the GOP are a bunch of idiots.
The yanks are notoriously obsessed by the looks and health of their Presidents. A cursory glance at the mug shots that couple of derelicts and one must conclude that they both have no chance of leading the great republic.
I had a correspondence around 2011 with a supplier in Buenos Aires (I hasten to add I'm a statistician, not a drugdealer!).
You have an Argentinian supplier of statistics? Wouldn't drugs be less dodgy?
She was a surgeon. At the time, I was writing a paper on intra-EU trade (which didn't see the light of day because it was unsexy, so I had to switch to human migration patterns: same analysis tools, different goods) and most of her clients came from outside Argentina, so the conversation drifted to crossborder transfers.
If Grexit is effectively ruled out as being too horrible to contemplate (as per the comments here - and I am not trying to contradict them) then what is the alternative?
There is no way that the Greeks will accept decades of austerity that is not entirely of their own making. Its all very well criticising the Greek people for all manner of supposed failings but a large part of their predicament is down to their leaders and the unnatural situation that they found themselves in by being part of the Eurozone (which they should never have been allowed to join)
Believe me - they won't accept the prospect of guaranteed poverty stretching decades into the future and the situation will rapidly escalate. The classic scenario would be for a military government to step in to keep law and order, but juntas are not allowed in the EU, so they presumably would have to kick Greece out on political grounds!
If Grexit is effectively ruled out as being too horrible to contemplate (as per the comments here - and I am not trying to contradict them) then what is the alternative?
There is no way that the Greeks will accept decades of austerity that is not entirely of their own making. Its all very well criticising the Greek people for all manner of supposed failings but a large part of their predicament is down to their leaders and the unnatural situation that they found themselves in by being part of the Eurozone (which they should never have been allowed to join)
Believe me - they won't accept the prospect of guaranteed poverty stretching decades into the future and the situation will rapidly escalate. The classic scenario would be for a military government to step in to keep law and order, but juntas are not allowed in the EU, so they presumably would have to kick Greece out on political grounds!
Perhaps the Germans could send in some forces to keep the peace?
If Grexit is effectively ruled out as being too horrible to contemplate (as per the comments here - and I am not trying to contradict them) then what is the alternative?
I don't know and I don't care. Live, die, prosper, starve: it's their problem. They should go away, stop asking for money, pay their debts or announce they will not, and build whatever life they can with somebody else.
Its all very well criticising the Greek people for all manner of supposed failings but a large part of their predicament is down to their leaders and the unnatural situation that they found themselves in by being part of the Eurozone (which they should never have been allowed to join)
In a democracy, the people are responsible for their government.
I'm despairing about SLAB's "strategy" at the moment, my twitter feed has been melting down today with carpet bombing by Kezia, Blair McD and John McT about Scotland being an economic basket case. They backup their case with endless graphs from IFS and a site called Chokkablog. Suffice to say whatever the facts of the matter, SLAB have been spinning this line for the last 6 months and it has taken them from polling 27% down to 19%, should they continue with "Plan A" they'll be at 15% before long. An IFS graph for 2019/20 showing a few % points difference in debt/GDP ratios is not going to mean anything to SLAB's 190,000 supporters currently on holiday with the SNP.
I think SLAB need a "Plan B" and quick, for starters they need to start being much more positive about Scotland and it's prospects. I don't think Kezia is the answer, particularly if she is seen as Murphy's appointee. As for kicking out SLAB members who voted for the SNP, how is that going to help attract folks back to SLAB?
As for Hillary, absurd odds. If I were looking for an outsider, it'd be on the Democrat side as her approval ratings are poor and she's there for the taking if someone can make the case.
I have always taken the view that if Hilary Clinton is the Democratic nominee, unless the Republican nominee is caught in a compromising situation with five rent boys and a mass of hard drugs or something, this election is the Republicans' to lose. Let's take a cold look at her:
1) She's old. She would be the oldest first-time president for 36 years, the second-oldest ever, and immediately on taking office the third-oldest holder of that office.
2) She's Marmite. Many very vocal people in the media love her. But the editors of the New York Times do not represent the American psyche. Many, many others hate her. True, she would secure the Democratic core vote, probably better than any other candidate. But could she reach the swing vote? Last time, she failed absolutely dismally. She would be more likely to push it away.
3) She's tainted. Leaving aside the innumerable scandals that have dogged her and her husband for over forty years, she has an extremely poor track record in office (can anyone think of any significant achievement she had when she was Secretary of State that happened because of her? I certainly can't) and this silly saga of the private email account, while I think it is overblown, just makes her look even more shifty. Last time, she put out that advert about 'who do you want to pick up the phone at 3am?' The automatic answer is simple - anyone but her. That was the answer in 2008 and I see no reason to think it has changed (or at least, not in her favour).
4) She's rude and arrogant. She simply cannot connect with people and gives off the clear impression that she believes because of her vast intelligence she has a God-given right to rule. This would matter much less if we had hard evidence of such vast intelligence, rather than a wealthy and not (let's face it) terribly successful lawyer who has traded on family contacts to get where she is.
The one thing that I can imagine might just propel her to the White House is if Jeb Bush is the Republican candidate. While I am not aware of any scandals surrounding him, I think it's fairly clear the Americans have tired of the Bush family.
What the Democrats need to win is somebody fresh, daring and not well-known (so they cannot be easily attacked). Somebody like, say, Bill Clinton or Obama. Whether that person would be a good president (neither of those have pulled up any trees) they would surely be likely winners given America's demography and the internal convulsions of the GOP. But Hilary Clinton? No.
When the average wage is £26k and many families need both parents working, a tax credit limit of around 1.5 average earnings is fairly reasonable.
The issue with tax credits and child benefit is primarily the ridiculous excesses that are allowed of limitless numbers of children and vast childcare allowances.
Freeze CHB/CTC until 2020, and limit payouts to three children, and the savings will be many billions per year by that date. Top that up by making each benefit 'contributory' in some way. It may mean X number of years work or state schooling in the UK to permit qualification.
Every time take home pay rises, the tax credit bill falls if frozen.
Once that's done bear down on the Local Housing Allowance bill inside the M25. If you can't let a place at market rent, then you have no right to a full subsidy.
I have always taken the view that if Hilary Clinton is the Democratic nominee, unless the Republican nominee is caught in a compromising situation with five rent boys and a mass of hard drugs or something, this election is the Republicans' to lose. Let's take a cold look at her:
...
The one thing that I can imagine might just propel her to the White House is if Jeb Bush is the Republican candidate. While I am not aware of any scandals surrounding him, I think it's fairly clear the Americans have tired of the Bush family.
What the Democrats need to win is somebody fresh, daring and not well-known (so they cannot be easily attacked). Somebody like, say, Bill Clinton or Obama. Whether that person would be a good president (neither of those have pulled up any trees) they would surely be likely winners given America's demography and the internal convulsions of the GOP. But Hilary Clinton? No.
" Somebody like, say, Bill Clinton or Obama. Whether that person would be a good president (neither of those have pulled up any trees) "
Clinton and Obama may not have pulled up any trees, but they both pulled out Bushes...
Another option is to disqualify children that are born when you have been out of work for most of the previous year from counting towards such credits/benefits.
As for Hillary, absurd odds. If I were looking for an outsider, it'd be on the Democrat side as her approval ratings are poor and she's there for the taking if someone can make the case.
I have always taken the view that if Hilary Clinton is the Democratic nominee, unless the Republican nominee is caught in a compromising situation with five rent boys and a mass of hard drugs or something, this election is the Republicans' to lose. Let's take a cold look at her:
1) She's old. She would be the oldest first-time president for 36 years, the second-oldest ever, and immediately on taking office the third-oldest holder of that office.
2) She's Marmite. Many very vocal people in the media love her. But the editors of the New York Times do not represent the American psyche. Many, many others hate her. True, she would secure the Democratic core vote, probably better than any other candidate. But could she reach the swing vote? Last time, she failed absolutely dismally. She would be more likely to push it away.
3) She's tainted. Leaving aside the innumerable scandals that have dogged her and her husband for over forty years, she has an extremely poor track record in office (can anyone think of any significant achievement she had when she was Secretary of State that happened because of her? I certainly can't) and this silly saga of the private email account, while I think it is overblown, just makes her look even more shifty. Last time, she put out that advert about 'who do you want to pick up the phone at 3am?' The automatic answer is simple - anyone but her. That was the answer in 2008 and I see no reason to think it has changed (or at least, not in her favour).
4) She's rude and arrogant. She simply cannot connect with people and gives off the clear impression that she believes because of her vast intelligence she has a God-given right to rule. This would matter much less if we had hard evidence of such vast intelligence, rather than a wealthy and not (let's face it) terribly successful lawyer who has traded on family contacts to get where she is.
The one thing that I can imagine might just propel her to the White House is if Jeb Bush is the Republican candidate. While I am not aware of any scandals surrounding him, I think it's fairly clear the Americans have tired of the Bush family.
What the Democrats need to win is somebody fresh, daring and not well-known (so they cannot be easily attacked). Somebody like, say, Bill Clinton or Obama. Whether that person would be a good president (neither of those have pulled up any trees) they would surely be likely winners given America's demography and the internal convulsions of the GOP. But Hilary Clinton? No.
But she's a woman. The African-Americans have had their President. Time the women had theirs.
The rebels posted social media posts say "We've stolen a Buk Missle system, look here are pictures" They posted social media posts saying, "We just shot down a Ukraininan military plane with our stolen Buk missle system". They then posted footage of the crash site from a distance saying "Look, here we are approaching the wreckage of the plane we shot down with the stolen Buk Missle system, woo we are awesome"
Abnd then a few minutes later they deleted all of those post.
I'm going to go with Occam's razor here.
Exactly the sort of glib conclusion that you'd do google research on until the wee hours to refute if it were an accusation about the SNP. But when it's not your own pet cause your searchlight switches off and you're not bothered about digging behind the soundbites.
For my money they did exactly what you'd do if you were a rebel and saw a plane come down over your rebel airspace and you knew you had no planes in the sky, rejoiced and claimed the scalp.
The main social media 'evidence' that the US insisted proved Russian and rebel culpability has been proved beyond all doubt to be a spliced table of 3 conversations, one of which was recorded well before the event.
Why was the flightpath diverted by Ukraine to take the jet over rebel held airspace, not just a detour, but told to fly at a lower altitude?
Why did multiple eye witnesses, confirmed by Russian radar, see a military jet following the flight?
Why did Ukraine's security services confiscate recordings of conversations between ATC and MH17, and will they be part of the investigation?
How could the rebel's BUK have targeted and shot down the plane when it takes 5 minutes to set up, and in their small area they would have had one minute of visibility?
When there were at least 3 Ukrainian BUKs in the right area, (they possess 27) with far more ample time to target and shoot down the plane, why is this not considered even a possibility?
And if it isn't a possibility, why did the Ukrainians move these systems into the Donetsk area before the downing (and away afterwards) when the rebels had no aircraft?
Are some or all of these significant? Who knows? But certainly significant enough not to mock the suggestion it was Ukraine.
But then it was PUTIN'S MISSILE so all rational thought goes out of the window.
I have always taken the view that if Hilary Clinton is the Democratic nominee, unless the Republican nominee is caught in a compromising situation with five rent boys and a mass of hard drugs or something, this election is the Republicans' to lose. Let's take a cold look at her:
...
The one thing that I can imagine might just propel her to the White House is if Jeb Bush is the Republican candidate. While I am not aware of any scandals surrounding him, I think it's fairly clear the Americans have tired of the Bush family.
What the Democrats need to win is somebody fresh, daring and not well-known (so they cannot be easily attacked). Somebody like, say, Bill Clinton or Obama. Whether that person would be a good president (neither of those have pulled up any trees) they would surely be likely winners given America's demography and the internal convulsions of the GOP. But Hilary Clinton? No.
" Somebody like, say, Bill Clinton or Obama. Whether that person would be a good president (neither of those have pulled up any trees) "
Clinton and Obama may not have pulled up any trees, but they both pulled out Bushes...
Although it is of course never wise to talk about Clinton and Bushes in the same sentence as the words 'pulling out' unless you have defined the context very carefully.
@viewcode Under the danger of impersonating Ben Stein I give you the following:
Well the value of a currency X relative to currency Y is determined by the supply of money and differences in prices between lets say country A and country B.
In this case let's take Greece and Germany. Greece since joining the euro has accumulated an increase in prices 17% greater than Germany, that means that Greece needs at least a 15% devaluation to become competitive with Germany
The money supply in Greece has barely increased while in Germany it has rapidly increased, even if you take the eurozone as a whole you'll see that Greece has much higher accumulated inflation and a much more reduced money supply growth rate than the rest of the eurozone. That is because the greek current account deficit was no longer financed by government borrowing, private borrowing or hot money inflows by speculators and foreign investors . From a monetarist view there is a shortage of money that causes the depression, a shortage of money would also mean that cash is increasing in value aka deflation not inflation.
From a keynesian view the recession by increasing unemployment reduces demand which also will decrease prices and production, worsening the recession.
So in both metrics Greece is facing currently a massive lack of cash and demand due to an overvalued currency which causes imports to massively outpace exports, with the government or private investors unable or unwilling to finance the shortage.
Therefore the Greek currency would be valued on the following metrics: 1. Money supply growth. (strongly negative so value would rise) 2. Government deficit. (small deficit, around 3% of GDP, value would fall slightly) 3. Current account. (balanced, so no impact) 4. Price differences. (double digit difference, the biggest source of the devaluation)
By my calculations the minimum devaluation would be 15%, but the maximum would depend on the government deficit situation and how smooth the transition is, but 50% is the extreme value, so it will be between 15-50%, but inflation will not rise by much, a 25% devaluation would lead to inflation of about 10% before falling to normal levels.
A final report has not yet been issued - but what we know so far is that:
The report said MH17 crashed due to a "large number of high-energy objects" penetrating the fuselage. "There are no indications that the MH17 crash was caused by a technical fault or by actions of the crew...
Russian authorities have suggested in the past that other theories were possible, including that the plane may have been shot down from the air. However, the report found no military aircraft in the vicinity.
"It's consistent with a hit by a ground missile," said Joris Melkert, a lecturer in aerospace engineering at the Technical University of Delft. "What could cause a pattern of high velocity particles 10 kilometers up in the sky?
Another option is to disqualify children that are born when you have been out of work for most of the previous year from counting towards such credits/benefits.
Another option is to disqualify children that are born when you have been out of work for most of the previous year from counting towards such credits/benefits.
Which parent?
If there are two responsible parents, then if both have been mainly out of work.
I don't know and I don't care. Live, die, prosper, starve: it's their problem. They should go away, stop asking for money, pay their debts or announce they will not, and build whatever life they can with somebody else.
That is a short-sighted view. In an inter-connected world, you may find that THEIR problem creates shock waves that become OUR problem.
In 1914, I'm sure that many people dismissed the idea that an assassination of an Austrian Archduke could set off a sequence of events which culminated in the outbreak of World War 1. After all, previous Balkan crises had been contained. This one wasn't.
@viewcode Under the danger of impersonating Ben Stein I give you the following: [snipped for space reasons]
You state that "...the value of a currency X relative to currency Y is determined by the supply of money and differences in prices between lets say country A and country B..."the Greek currency would be valued on...Money supply growth....Government deficit...Current account...Price differences...".
OK, let's write that as a function. So rXY= fn(mX,mY,pX,pY,gX,gY,eX,eY), where: * rXY = value of currency X relative to currency Y (X if Greece, Y is EZother) * mX and mY = present/future money supply of currency X and Y * pX and pY = present/future prices of goods in area of currency X and Y * gX and gY = present/future government income/expenditure in area of currency X and Y * eX and eY = fudge factors inserted for any other stuff,corruption, level of crime, etc * fn = a function yet to be defined
With me so far? I haven't done anything weird, just written the equation down: no funny stuff, just defining the terms, yes?
OK, first thing: you've defined pX wrong for the *area* of Greece. In the event of a Grexit, you're assuming *all* of Greece changes to New Drachma. I bet you post-Grexit the currency the citizenry buy milk, bread, shoes and taxi fares in will still be Euros and the "area using ND" will be primarily Government work. We have precedents for this in Soviet Union in the 70's
Now, second thing: mX will go up fast. Bank of Greece has a printing press, the head is a Syriza appointee, and with enough zeros you can print a trillion yea fast. Russia did that in the late 90's, Germany in the 20's. Hello, wheelbarrows.
Third thing: gX will go spectacularly wrong. Syriza will go printy-printy, tax income will shrink. Again, Russia in 90's as precedent
Fourth thing: eX will go way wrong: or rather more way wrong (wronger?) Greece is corrupt. A polity with Syriza in government and Golden Dawn in parliament is not sensible.
In short: all the factors for Greece will go bad. It's run by genuine idiots, it produces nothing, its people are jobless, and its accounting practices are fictional.
(incidentally, have you ever heard the phrase "not worth a Continental"?)
Comments
Hope they nail the coffin down well......
The rebels may or may not have had BUK missiles, but without the radar to help target them (which they conclusively didn't have), they wouldn't have a hope of hitting a barn door at that altitude. Also an aviation expert (I'll dig the link out when I get home) pretty much debunked that the trajectory of where they allegedly launched it from could have worked.
This casts heavy suspicion the Ukrainians either from the ground or the air, who (contrary to that retarded Grauniad article) had ample motive, means, and opportunity, and where the authorities admit they have little to no control over the Neo-nazi paramilitary groups who comprise much of their armed forces.
Now everyone is simply looking how to extend and pretend the negotiations.
Long story short, the Greek problem is the european equivalent of the Palestinian peace process.
Your view of the 'correct' solution is rather idiotic.
The Russian Manufacturer have claimed that MH17 was shot down by a BUK:
http://www.smh.com.au/world/mh17-plane-was-shot-down-by-a-buk-missile-russian-weapons-manufacturer-says-20150602-ghfdco.html
At this point, Greek bonds become ineligible to be used as collateral for Greek banks, and therefore the Greek banks become - en masse - insolvent.
All other banks will cease dealing with Greek banks.
At this point, because Greece will need a functioning banking system, the Greek government will have no choice but to: (a) declare a three day public holiday, (b) impose capital controls, and (c) introduce the New Drachma with which to recapitalise the banks.
The IMF will continue to chase Greece for its debts, and will demand repayment in Euros (as will all the private sector creditors), effectively doubling the real size of the Greek debt.
Greek businesses with Euro denominated liabilities but Drachma denominated assets will find themselves in serious financial trouble.
The cost of imported goods (near 100% of energy, 60% of food) will double overnight.
There will almost certainly be civil unrest, which is a serious problem if tourism is your major foreign currency earner.
https://consortiumnews.com/2015/03/14/us-intel-stands-pat-on-mh-17-shoot-down/
Hiding behind Russian obfuscation is pretty pathetic.
The russians had a bad strategy of only very slowly increasing their strength on the battlefield as they were afraid of sanctions, but the sanctions came anyway and when their military position collapsed during the summer they became more and more desperate and they gave more and more advanced weapons to the rebels to shoot down the ukranian airforce, that worked in that they grounded the ukranian airforce but at a tremendous PR cost.
The only evidence that the rebels did it was that they claimed that they had shot down a fighter jet at the same time and same place as MH17 and they even posted a video of it on twitter, before they realized it was a jet airliner.
In every war both sides do mistakes, MH17 was the biggest PR blunder of that war.
Proposal is only to use a ~£4K lower family gross income as the threshold for stopping payment.
Under Blair and Brown my wife and I got tax credits of over £100 a month with a joint income of around £43K and still £45 a month IIRC even with a JI of ~£50K. Madness. All that extra cash just made people able to afford higher mortgage payments, and given at the time you could borrow what the hell you liked, house prices rocketed.
But i agree with other comments about the state pension. $68bn p.a. isn't it? couple of years of 0% instead of 2.5% would save nearly £2bn a year in perpetuity , and now is the perfect time to do it with zero inflation, and straight after an election as well...
...unless you're saying they're getting them from Russia?
Here's Putin standing in front of some of the BUK's Russia does not have.....
https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2015/06/03/evidence-the-russian-military-supplied-the-type-of-missile-used-to-shoot-down-mh17/
They posted social media posts saying, "We just shot down a Ukraininan military plane with our stolen Buk missle system".
They then posted footage of the crash site from a distance saying "Look, here we are approaching the wreckage of the plane we shot down with the stolen Buk Missle system, woo we are awesome"
Abnd then a few minutes later they deleted all of those post.
I'm going to go with Occam's razor here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_airliner_shootdown_incidents
You're almost as much fun as the Argentinian nuts who claim that they sunk at British aircraft carrier in the Falklands ...
1. Greece has the cash to pay the IMF at the end of the month, in fact they have a primary surplus.
2. Even if Greece defaults on the IMF, the credit rating agencies have said that they wont recognize it as a default.
3. Even the bonds held by the ECB, which is the problem here, can be got rid of by either the greek parliament (they are under greek law) or by another mechanism like a debt swap with the ESM or god knows else.
4.Only if the ECB cuts funding there will be a need to go grexit.
5.In the case of grexit most greek private sector liabilities are to the greek banking sector which is in public hands already so the greek government can switch them to drachmas too.
6.The case of Argentina shows that a government can be cut off from international finance and still operate normally even with investors demanding payoffs that they refuse to meet.
7. In case of grexit the devaluation will be smaller that 50% and the impact on inflation will not be much more than a 10% increase due to lack of money supply and lack of demand of products.
And this is only a quick summary of a 20 page report I gave back in February.
A lot there already plus the rebels captured a lot.
http://www.standard.co.uk/sport/football/fifa-communications-chief-walter-de-gregorio-sacked-after-tv-joke-10313582.html
"The FIFA president, secretary general and communications director are in a car. Who's driving? Answer: The police."
Why not just go back to 'It was shot down by a Ukrainian fighter'?
This is getting (even more) embarrassing......
Greece owes the IMF the equivalent of 20% of GDP. They do not have that lying around
But tax credits were cut in 2010 and there wasn't too much fuss.
It is breathtaking that, even now, someone with 2 kids earning £32,900 (family income) is getting child tax credits. Remember that's on top of Child Benefit.
Surely it would not be unreasonable to bring that limit down by £4,000 to just under £29,000?
In my view it is outrageous that a single person earning £15,000 is paying tax and not getting a penny in tax credits - so that someone earning more than double can get child tax credits.
What it boils down to is this - if you have children in this country the state pays to bring them up - unless you earn way above average earnings.
Cut child benefits and all you will end up with is a falling birth rate, requiring more immigration to make up for it.
David Dimbleby presents topical debate from Gateshead. He is joined by Conservative Cabinet Office minister Matthew Hancock MP, Labour's shadow culture secretary Chris Bryant MP, SNP MP Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh, Ukip MP Douglas Carswell and Daily Telegraph columnist Cristina Odone
In its annual report, the OBR said that without further spending cuts or tax rises, the national debt would only increase.
It said a permanent £20bn cut in annual public spending will be needed by 2020.
That would help bring the national debt down to 40% of GDP by 2064, it said.
If achieved, this means it would have taken more than half a century to bring the national debt back to the same level it was before the 2008 financial crisis.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-33092658
He looks like a castrato village idiot.
Her face is a witches' brew of botched assymetric zygomic implants, botox, and a left sided hemiparesis.
Grotesques.
As for Hillary, absurd odds. If I were looking for an outsider, it'd be on the Democrat side as her approval ratings are poor and she's there for the taking if someone can make the case.
Cristina Odone?
Jesus Christ QT looks grim....
If pensioners take a pay cut today then that means that todays kids and their parents will have to take a pay cut - today - to save up for their own pay-cutted lives as future pensioners. Do today's children and their parents plan to prepare properly for their old age which they seem happy to agree will be impoverished.
Probably 70+ for my nieces.
So, as I understand it, it makes no difference if one person earns £32k or a couple both earn £16k.
HOWEVER there is, of course, a massive incentive to split up in order to get tax credits - eg if a couple both earn £32k - split up and get tax credits!
As for the devaluation...let's apply a plausibility check. The Greek government is currently under the control of Syriza, a party further to the left than is usual in the West outside Latin America. It cannot successfully raise taxes nor distribute them to its benefit claimants. It runs a country that produces nothing except people and sunshine. It is about to watch its banking industry collapse overnight and turn down money from the only people willing to lend it any. It then creates a new currency.
Now imagine a crisp New Drachma in front of you. How many pounds would you give for it?
How about none?
We keep thinking of Grexit in terms of the UK experience, or the Argentinian experience: forced devaluations of an existing currency. But we ignore things like the Russian experience when the Roublezone went kaka, or the Confederate dollar when the CSA fell, or Weimar Germany. It's entirely possible nobody at all outside Greece would want a Greek New Drachma. And people in Greece will only do so if forced...and how will you force them?
A cursory glance at the mug shots that couple of derelicts and one must conclude that they both have no chance of leading the great republic.
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-06-10/exclusive-john-kasich-s-super-pac-hires-fred-davis-as-media-strategist
Fred Davis is most famous for making ads like these, 5 minutes of pure laughter:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxJyPsmEask
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wo_Ejfc5hW8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f69VmIgmhOk
There is no way that the Greeks will accept decades of austerity that is not entirely of their own making. Its all very well criticising the Greek people for all manner of supposed failings but a large part of their predicament is down to their leaders and the unnatural situation that they found themselves in by being part of the Eurozone (which they should never have been allowed to join)
Believe me - they won't accept the prospect of guaranteed poverty stretching decades into the future and the situation will rapidly escalate. The classic scenario would be for a military government to step in to keep law and order, but juntas are not allowed in the EU, so they presumably would have to kick Greece out on political grounds!
Perhaps the Germans could send in some forces to keep the peace?
I think SLAB need a "Plan B" and quick, for starters they need to start being much more positive about Scotland and it's prospects. I don't think Kezia is the answer, particularly if she is seen as Murphy's appointee. As for kicking out SLAB members who voted for the SNP, how is that going to help attract folks back to SLAB?
1) She's old. She would be the oldest first-time president for 36 years, the second-oldest ever, and immediately on taking office the third-oldest holder of that office.
2) She's Marmite. Many very vocal people in the media love her. But the editors of the New York Times do not represent the American psyche. Many, many others hate her. True, she would secure the Democratic core vote, probably better than any other candidate. But could she reach the swing vote? Last time, she failed absolutely dismally. She would be more likely to push it away.
3) She's tainted. Leaving aside the innumerable scandals that have dogged her and her husband for over forty years, she has an extremely poor track record in office (can anyone think of any significant achievement she had when she was Secretary of State that happened because of her? I certainly can't) and this silly saga of the private email account, while I think it is overblown, just makes her look even more shifty. Last time, she put out that advert about 'who do you want to pick up the phone at 3am?' The automatic answer is simple - anyone but her. That was the answer in 2008 and I see no reason to think it has changed (or at least, not in her favour).
4) She's rude and arrogant. She simply cannot connect with people and gives off the clear impression that she believes because of her vast intelligence she has a God-given right to rule. This would matter much less if we had hard evidence of such vast intelligence, rather than a wealthy and not (let's face it) terribly successful lawyer who has traded on family contacts to get where she is.
The one thing that I can imagine might just propel her to the White House is if Jeb Bush is the Republican candidate. While I am not aware of any scandals surrounding him, I think it's fairly clear the Americans have tired of the Bush family.
What the Democrats need to win is somebody fresh, daring and not well-known (so they cannot be easily attacked). Somebody like, say, Bill Clinton or Obama. Whether that person would be a good president (neither of those have pulled up any trees) they would surely be likely winners given America's demography and the internal convulsions of the GOP. But Hilary Clinton? No.
The issue with tax credits and child benefit is primarily the ridiculous excesses that are allowed of limitless numbers of children and vast childcare allowances.
Freeze CHB/CTC until 2020, and limit payouts to three children, and the savings will be many billions per year by that date. Top that up by making each benefit 'contributory' in some way. It may mean X number of years work or state schooling in the UK to permit qualification.
Every time take home pay rises, the tax credit bill falls if frozen.
Once that's done bear down on the Local Housing Allowance bill inside the M25. If you can't let a place at market rent, then you have no right to a full subsidy.
" Somebody like, say, Bill Clinton or Obama. Whether that person would be a good president (neither of those have pulled up any trees) "
Clinton and Obama may not have pulled up any trees, but they both pulled out Bushes...
Another option is to disqualify children that are born when you have been out of work for most of the previous year from counting towards such credits/benefits.
For my money they did exactly what you'd do if you were a rebel and saw a plane come down over your rebel airspace and you knew you had no planes in the sky, rejoiced and claimed the scalp.
The main social media 'evidence' that the US insisted proved Russian and rebel culpability has been proved beyond all doubt to be a spliced table of 3 conversations, one of which was recorded well before the event.
Why was the flightpath diverted by Ukraine to take the jet over rebel held airspace, not just a detour, but told to fly at a lower altitude?
Why did multiple eye witnesses, confirmed by Russian radar, see a military jet following the flight?
Why did Ukraine's security services confiscate recordings of conversations between ATC and MH17, and will they be part of the investigation?
How could the rebel's BUK have targeted and shot down the plane when it takes 5 minutes to set up, and in their small area they would have had one minute of visibility?
When there were at least 3 Ukrainian BUKs in the right area, (they possess 27) with far more ample time to target and shoot down the plane, why is this not considered even a possibility?
And if it isn't a possibility, why did the Ukrainians move these systems into the Donetsk area before the downing (and away afterwards) when the rebels had no aircraft?
Are some or all of these significant? Who knows? But certainly significant enough not to mock the suggestion it was Ukraine.
But then it was PUTIN'S MISSILE so all rational thought goes out of the window.
@viewcode
Under the danger of impersonating Ben Stein I give you the following:
Well the value of a currency X relative to currency Y is determined by the supply of money and differences in prices between lets say country A and country B.
In this case let's take Greece and Germany.
Greece since joining the euro has accumulated an increase in prices 17% greater than Germany, that means that Greece needs at least a 15% devaluation to become competitive with Germany
The money supply in Greece has barely increased while in Germany it has rapidly increased, even if you take the eurozone as a whole you'll see that Greece has much higher accumulated inflation and a much more reduced money supply growth rate than the rest of the eurozone. That is because the greek current account deficit was no longer financed by government borrowing, private borrowing or hot money inflows by speculators and foreign investors
.
From a monetarist view there is a shortage of money that causes the depression, a shortage of money would also mean that cash is increasing in value aka deflation not inflation.
From a keynesian view the recession by increasing unemployment reduces demand which also will decrease prices and production, worsening the recession.
So in both metrics Greece is facing currently a massive lack of cash and demand due to an overvalued currency which causes imports to massively outpace exports, with the government or private investors unable or unwilling to finance the shortage.
Therefore the Greek currency would be valued on the following metrics:
1. Money supply growth. (strongly negative so value would rise)
2. Government deficit. (small deficit, around 3% of GDP, value would fall slightly)
3. Current account. (balanced, so no impact)
4. Price differences. (double digit difference, the biggest source of the devaluation)
By my calculations the minimum devaluation would be 15%, but the maximum would depend on the government deficit situation and how smooth the transition is, but 50% is the extreme value, so it will be between 15-50%, but inflation will not rise by much, a 25% devaluation would lead to inflation of about 10% before falling to normal levels.
In 1914, I'm sure that many people dismissed the idea that an assassination of an Austrian Archduke could set off a sequence of events which culminated in the outbreak of World War 1. After all, previous Balkan crises had been contained. This one wasn't.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/19/mh17-changing-course-storms-pilot
OK, let's write that as a function. So rXY= fn(mX,mY,pX,pY,gX,gY,eX,eY), where:
* rXY = value of currency X relative to currency Y (X if Greece, Y is EZother)
* mX and mY = present/future money supply of currency X and Y
* pX and pY = present/future prices of goods in area of currency X and Y
* gX and gY = present/future government income/expenditure in area of currency X and Y
* eX and eY = fudge factors inserted for any other stuff,corruption, level of crime, etc
* fn = a function yet to be defined
With me so far? I haven't done anything weird, just written the equation down: no funny stuff, just defining the terms, yes?
OK, first thing: you've defined pX wrong for the *area* of Greece. In the event of a Grexit, you're assuming *all* of Greece changes to New Drachma. I bet you post-Grexit the currency the citizenry buy milk, bread, shoes and taxi fares in will still be Euros and the "area using ND" will be primarily Government work. We have precedents for this in Soviet Union in the 70's
Now, second thing: mX will go up fast. Bank of Greece has a printing press, the head is a Syriza appointee, and with enough zeros you can print a trillion yea fast. Russia did that in the late 90's, Germany in the 20's. Hello, wheelbarrows.
Third thing: gX will go spectacularly wrong. Syriza will go printy-printy, tax income will shrink. Again, Russia in 90's as precedent
Fourth thing: eX will go way wrong: or rather more way wrong (wronger?) Greece is corrupt. A polity with Syriza in government and Golden Dawn in parliament is not sensible.
In short: all the factors for Greece will go bad. It's run by genuine idiots, it produces nothing, its people are jobless, and its accounting practices are fictional.
(incidentally, have you ever heard the phrase "not worth a Continental"?)