In general terms for a betting site it is important to know a broad range of information including any falsehoods out there from BOTH sides.
Although this information can be dissected here by the politically astute this is quite simply not the case in the general public. They normally take a view based on their own beliefs and prejudices on whichever side of the political spectrum they stand. To a point, we all do it consciously or sub consciously it's in the nature of the human mind. We have seen this recently in our own referendum from both sides so from a betting prospective only, its better to have a full overview.
It quite simply doesn't matter if that which is in circulation is true or untrue, it's in circulation and its what people believe rightly or wrongly to be true that can determine the election outcome and of course most importantly, the difference between a winning or a losing bet.
Pasty Tax was an excellent example of this nonsense - bringing warm cooked pastries in line with fish and chips IIRC. But it all got lost in the froth.
Mr Robert, Mr Max, interested in your views on the place of ideology in modern economic issues - a clever mate of mine who reads the Economist like a Bible likes to think technocracy is the way forward and ideology has had its day. Putting aside the democracy issues for a minute, I disagree and suggest that the synthesis of competing governing ideologies (or I suppos different policies) is the only way to avoid stagnation. Thoughts?
I am neither of those illustrious posters, but I tend to dislike ideology: like battle plans, they rarely survive first contact with the enemy (in this case reality).
As an engineer, what matters is what works. Test if it works, fix, then repeat.
The problem is economic (and to some extent political) theory cannot be well tested IMO. There are far too many variables: what worked in the 1990s might not work today as the background has changed. There can be no control subject. This means ideology has fertile ground to grow: if something failed before, it was the situation back then, which does not apply in the here and now).
(Except Venezuela, which has been a very god example of what doesn't work).
For my part, rule by technocracy tends towards the anti-humane because based on two flaws:
1. That the needs of the many outweigh the needs of few (ie a reductive utilitarianism)
2. That the needs of the many are even knowable.
Ultimately we cannot be reduced to numbers or equations.
Ideology is vital as a reflection of morality, whether held individually or communally. Whether one prefers equality over liberty simply has to be ideological, and necessarily has to inform a great deal of political decisionmaking.
I have only had a chance to glance at the threads and follow events.
But the willingness of people to overlook or excuse Trump's appalling behavior and comments is simply astonishing and really quite appalling.
Trump is no gentleman. He behaves like an uncivilized uncouth boor. It is no excuse to say that people used to behave like that 30 years ago or may do so still in private. Boasting about sexual assault, about humiliating another person is gross behavior and it was 30 years ago as well. Men were perfectly well able to know the difference between right and wrong, between what it is to behave in a gentlemanly manner and what it is to behave like a brute. They know this now and we do a great disservice to those men who do know how to behave and control themselves and treat others with courtesy and politeness and respect to assume that they are really like Trump and only behaving well out of political correctness or fear of being criticized.
If we rightly criticize migrants from certain countries/cultures for their boorish/criminal/insulting/misogynistic behavior to women, then we should also do so when white middle class rich men with an overweening sense of indispensability or entitlement do the same. Or indeed when any man who is not a migrant behaves in such a way. Sexual assault is an abhorrent crime, no matter who does it.
Trump's behavior shows his unfitness for public office. IMO.
Just because he claims to speak for those who feel excluded does not excuse him from expectations of civilized behaviour. The problems of the "left behind" classes are not served (well or at all) by people who condescend to them, who use them for their own purposes and who show, by the way they talk about and treat those who are more vulnerable than they are, that they have no regard for the weak, the abandoned, the isolated, but simply see them as people to be used to advance their own ambitions.
That's all.
Trump is just a male Carrie Bradshaw – haven't you heard?
I have only had a chance to glance at the threads and follow events.
But the willingness of people to overlook or excuse Trump's appalling behavior and comments is simply astonishing and really quite appalling.
Trump is no gentleman. He behaves like an uncivilized uncouth boor. It is no excuse to say that people used to behave like that 30 years ago or may do so still in private. Boasting about sexual assault, about humiliating another person is gross behavior and it was 30 years ago as well. Men were perfectly well able to know the difference between right and wrong, between what it is to behave in a gentlemanly manner and what it is to behave like a brute. They know this now and we do a great disservice to those men who do know how to behave and control themselves and treat others with courtesy and politeness and respect to assume that they are really like Trump and only behaving well out of political correctness or fear of being criticized.
If we rightly criticize migrants from certain countries/cultures for their boorish/criminal/insulting/misogynistic behavior to women, then we should also do so when white middle class rich men with an overweening sense of indispensability or entitlement do the same. Or indeed when any man who is not a migrant behaves in such a way. Sexual assault is an abhorrent crime, no matter who does it.
Trump's behavior shows his unfitness for public office. IMO.
Just because he claims to speak for those who feel excluded does not excuse him from expectations of civilized behaviour. The problems of the "left behind" classes are not served (well or at all) by people who condescend to them, who use them for their own purposes and who show, by the way they talk about and treat those who are more vulnerable than they are, that they have no regard for the weak, the abandoned, the isolated, but simply see them as people to be used to advance their own ambitions.
That's all.
Trump is just a male Carrie Bradshaw – haven't you heard?
So do you think Bill is suited to be "First Husband" or should he sit it out given his colourful past ?
Followed by the longest boom the country has ever seen.
We have seen it all before. .
Yes, when we were in the single market and had barrier free trade with europe. I imagine all the immigration we had during that time also helped with gdp growth figures.
Immigration would have had little effect on GDP in the 1990s when the economy was performing strongly - it only became a significant factor from 2004 onwards when the economy has done much worse.
You might also consider how strongly the economy performed during the 1980s when net migration was often negative and sterling more than halved in value against the dollar between 1981 and 1985.
I would have hoped that after 1992 we had seen the last of the sterling value fetishists.
If you want to have a higher sterling exchange rate then:
1) Create more wealth 2) Live within your means 3) Increase your savings ratio
"Live within your means" is an interesting one. I remember back to the mid-1980s, when as a child I was lucky when I got a computer costing about £400. Some friends had to make do with lesser non-Acorn computers from the likes of Commodore or Atari.
Now, it seems like everyone has to have expensive smartphones (and the call tariffs), large TVs, game consoles, etc, etc. Whilst the price comparison doesn't take inflation into account, it does seem as if we're getting a lot more (ahem) tat being seen as essentials.
Have wages really increased to cover these expenses, or is the majority of it going on debt?
Excellent question. And it's even worse in Ireland, where ordinary cheddar cheese usually costs at least 25 euros a kilogram and I've seen a litre of orange juice for 3.5 euros. I asked myself the same question: how do people afford these prices? The answer must be by borrowing money.
Consumerism, advertising and debt are all closely bound up with each other.
Scott Adams Realistically, no one on Earth could get elected if we had access to their private thoughts. (Except me. I'm 100% pure. You're terrible.) https://t.co/XAiHrIW2Or
Comments
1. That the needs of the many outweigh the needs of few (ie a reductive utilitarianism)
2. That the needs of the many are even knowable.
Ultimately we cannot be reduced to numbers or equations.
Ideology is vital as a reflection of morality, whether held individually or communally. Whether one prefers equality over liberty simply has to be ideological, and necessarily has to inform a great deal of political decisionmaking.
Realistically, no one on Earth could get elected if we had access to their private thoughts. (Except me. I'm 100% pure. You're terrible.) https://t.co/XAiHrIW2Or
“The UK economy is rebalancing amazingly well. It is a stunning achievement that a once-in-fifty-year event should have gone to smoothly,”.