Nor do I want to be rich. That attracts attention and hangers-on. I want comfort and peace.
So I’d say a low six-figure salary for a numbers of years
And you think that wouldn’t make you rich?!!
No.
You'd be rich to me. I guess I'd be rich to the bloke huddled in the shop doorway this morning, waiting to get moved on once the town centre opens.
We can split hairs but you and I both know that’s not rich.
Bloomberg and Trump are rich. Branson is rich.
A medical consultant is just well off.
What does it take to be super-rich on your scale?
I’ve already explained what rich is up thread. Enough that you don’t need to work.
Assets of at least £5m+ and an annual income of £1m+. Ten times that for super rich.
If you’re earning £120k but started with nothing and are paying a big mortgage and cost for your kids education you are well off, but not rich.
Obviously you can have your own definition of rich if you like. But it's a fact that the vast majority of people who don't need to work have less than £5m in assets and an income much smaller than £1m a year.
It’s not my own definition. It’s commonly accepted.
Doesn't seem to be commonly accepted if comments on here (Or public polling) is anything to go by.
Regardless, it is obviously untrue to say you need £5m in assets and a net income of over £1m to not have to work, when the vast majority of retired people in the UK have nothing like that.
Nor do I want to be rich. That attracts attention and hangers-on. I want comfort and peace.
So I’d say a low six-figure salary for a numbers of years
And you think that wouldn’t make you rich?!!
No.
We can split hairs but you and I both know that’s not rich.
Bloomberg and Trump are rich. Branson is rich.
A medical consultant is just well off.
They are all rich to the average earner, just the former are super rich
No. Wrong again.
No, absolutely right and it is very arrogant to average earners and the poor and unemployed to suggest if you are on a 6 figure salary you are not rich
No, absolutely wrong.
I’m not interested in discussing this further. I know I’m right.
You must have this post on cut and paste.
No, it’s a commonly accepted definition and threshold of rich. Look it up. Google is your friend. We’ve even posted it on here and discussed before, last time several weeks ago.
It’s sufficient wealth such that you can ignore the jobs market and vagaries of the economic cycle. You need sufficient assets that a 3-4% yield can provide you with a very good income so you can live a rich lifestyle.
I’m not interested in debating *perceptions* of being rich, just because of the neediness of some on here to score a victory over a minor debating point.
I didn't trouble myself to take a position on the substance. I just noticed, once again, that your debating style reduces to "I am right, go away".
Nope, that isn’t my style.
I just have no interest in pointless debates with needy pedants.
You also being one of them at times.
Lol, classic.
Sometimes I wonder what you get out of being here. It certainly isn't a sense of vindication.
I could say the same about you.
Come back to me when you’ve been a regular for fifteen years, met most of the editorial team, had several articles published and made a lot of money.
(When you can get away from wrapping yourself up in your traitor’s apron that is.)
Remarkable lack of understanding there. They're big, we're small, they're right, we're wrong, they are brilliant and we are stupidly incompetent, they're positions are moral and reasonable and ours are driven by hubris and racism.
Nor do I want to be rich. That attracts attention and hangers-on. I want comfort and peace.
So I’d say a low six-figure salary for a numbers of years
And you think that wouldn’t make you rich?!!
No.
A medical consultant is just well off.
They are all rich to the average earner, just the former are super rich
No. Wrong again.
No, absolutely right and it is very arrogant to average earners and the poor and unemployed to suggest if you are on a 6 figure salary you are not rich
No, absolutely wrong.
I’m not interested in discussing this further. I know I’m right.
You must have this post on cut and paste.
It’s sufficient wealth such that you can ignore the jobs market and vagaries of the economic cycle. You need sufficient assets that a 3-4% yield can provide you with a very good income so you can live a rich lifestyle.
I’m not interested in debating *perceptions* of being rich, just because of the neediness of some on here to score a victory over a minor debating point.
I didn't trouble myself to take a position on the substance. I just noticed, once again, that your debating style reduces to "I am right, go away".
Nope, that isn’t my style.
I just have no interest in pointless debates with needy pedants.
You also being one of them at times.
Lol, classic.
Sometimes I wonder what you get out of being here. It certainly isn't a sense of vindication.
I could say the same about you.
Come back to me when you’ve been a regular for fifteen years, met most of the editorial team, had several articles published and made a lot of money.
(When you can get away from wrapping yourself up in your traitor’s apron that is.)
Dont you know who I am!?
If he’s going to be a personal dickhead (and he seems to have an obsession with me) I’ll respond in kind.
He creeps out of the woodwork whenever he thinks he smells blood, which is a sign of his own personal insecurity.
Nor do I want to be rich. That attracts attention and hangers-on. I want comfort and peace.
So I’d say a low six-figure salary for a numbers of years
And you think that wouldn’t make you rich?!!
No.
You'd be rich to me. I guess I'd be rich to the bloke huddled in the shop doorway this morning, waiting to get moved on once the town centre opens.
We can split hairs but you and I both know that’s not rich.
Bloomberg and Trump are rich. Branson is rich.
A medical consultant is just well off.
What does it take to be super-rich on your scale?
I’ve already explained what rich is up thread. Enough that you don’t need to work.
Assets of at least £5m+ and an annual income of £1m+. Ten times that for super rich.
If you’re earning £120k but started with nothing and are paying a big mortgage and cost for your kids education you are well off, but not rich.
Obviously you can have your own definition of rich if you like. But it's a fact that the vast majority of people who don't need to work have less than £5m in assets and an income much smaller than £1m a year.
It’s not my own definition. It’s commonly accepted.
Doesn't seem to be commonly accepted if comments on here (Or public polling) is anything to go by.
Regardless, it is obviously untrue to say you need £5m in assets and a net income of over £1m to not have to work, when the vast majority of retired people in the UK have nothing like that.
This isn’t about retirement. It’s about not need to work when you’re of working age. In other words, never needing to earn a salary.
Nor do I want to be rich. That attracts attention and hangers-on. I want comfort and peace.
So I’d say a low six-figure salary for a numbers of years
And you think that wouldn’t make you rich?!!
No.
You'd.
.
They are all rich to the average earner, just the former are super rich
No. Wrong again.
No
No, absolutely wrong.
I’m not interested in discussing this further. I know I’m right.
You must have this post on cut and paste.
No, it’s a commonly accepted definition and threshold of rich. Look it up. Google is your friend. We’ve even posted it on here and discussed before, last time several weeks ago.
It’s sufficient wealth such that you can ignore the jobs market and vagaries of the economic cycle. You need sufficient assets that a 3-4% yield can provide you with a very good income so you can live a rich lifestyle.
I’m not interested in debating *perceptions* of being rich, just because of the neediness of some on here to score a victory over a minor debating point.
then it seems that you are interested in 'debating' it.
No, I’m not debating it. I’m clarifying the argument.
HYFUD has a pathological need to be right and it’s pointless arguing with him once he’s set out his stall because, rather than concede, he’ll simply move the goalposts when he senses he’s on weak ground.
It’s a waste of my time.
He’s arguing over perceptions of being rich. I’m arguing what actually defines being rich.
Why not cite your well established definition of being rich?
Given it is inherently subjective I am sceptical there is a consensus on this but let's see what you are referring to.
It’s been posted on here before. I can’t find it quickly enough on google.
It might have been Richard Nabavi who did so.
A common mistake is to slice it by the top 1% of earners (easy to measure) rather than by who is innately rich.
Hopefully you can see the contradiction there. If you cannot find it quickly on google it cannot be a well established definition of being rich.
Nor do I want to be rich. That attracts attention and hangers-on. I want comfort and peace.
So I’d say a low six-figure salary for a numbers of years
And you think that wouldn’t make you rich?!!
No.
You'd be rich to me. I guess I'd be rich to the bloke huddled in the shop doorway this morning, waiting to get moved on once the town centre opens.
We can split hairs but you and I both know that’s not rich.
Bloomberg and Trump are rich. Branson is rich.
A medical consultant is just well off.
What does it take to be super-rich on your scale?
I’ve already explained what rich is up thread. Enough that you don’t need to work.
Assets of at least £5m+ and an annual income of £1m+. Ten times that for super rich.
If you’re earning £120k but started with nothing and are paying a big mortgage and cost for your kids education you are well off, but not rich.
Obviously you can have your own definition of rich if you like. But it's a fact that the vast majority of people who don't need to work have less than £5m in assets and an income much smaller than £1m a year.
It’s not my own definition. It’s commonly accepted.
Doesn't seem to be commonly accepted if comments on here (Or public polling) is anything to go by.
Regardless, it is obviously untrue to say you need £5m in assets and a net income of over £1m to not have to work, when the vast majority of retired people in the UK have nothing like that.
This isn’t about retirement. It’s about not need to work when you’re of working age. In other words, never needing to earn a salary.
Nor do I want to be rich. That attracts attention and hangers-on. I want comfort and peace.
So I’d say a low six-figure salary for a numbers of years
And you think that wouldn’t make you rich?!!
No.
You'd be rich to me. I guess I'd be rich to the bloke huddled in the shop doorway this morning, waiting to get moved on once the town centre opens.
We can split hairs but you and I both know that’s not rich.
Bloomberg and Trump are rich. Branson is rich.
A medical consultant is just well off.
They are all rich to the average earner, just the former are super rich
No. Wrong again.
No, absolutely right and it is very arrogant to average earners and the poor and unemployed to suggest if you are on a 6 figure salary you are not rich
No, absolutely wrong.
I’m not interested in discussing this further. I know I’m right.
You must have this post on cut and paste.
No, it’s a commonly accepted definition and threshold of rich. Look it up. Google is your a victory over a minor debating point.
then it seems that you are interested in 'debating' it.
No, I’m not debating it. I’m clarifying the argument.
HYFUD has a pathological need to be right and it’s pointless arguing with him once he’s set out his stall because, rather than concede, he’ll simply move the goalposts when he senses he’s on weak ground.
It’s a waste of my time.
He’s arguing over perceptions of being rich. I’m arguing what actually defines being rich.
If you earn well over average income, have far more property and assets than average and are perceived by the average person to be rich you are rich, however much you may squeal you are not.
You do not need to be on the Sunday Times Rich list to be rich, super rich maybe but not just rich
FWIW I have a modest lifestyle and am certainly relatively poor compared to most of my friends and family. But I fully accept that’s not how the average person would perceive me
Again, I’m not disputing perceptions. I’m arguing for the actual threshold.
Nor do I want to be rich. That attracts attention and hangers-on. I want comfort and peace.
So I’d say a low six-figure salary for a numbers of years
And you think that wouldn’t make you rich?!!
No.
You'd be rich to me. I guess I'd be rich to the bloke huddled in the shop doorway this morning, waiting to get moved on once the town centre opens.
We can split hairs but you and I both know that’s not rich.
Bloomberg and Trump are rich. Branson is rich.
A medical consultant is just well off.
They are all rich to the average earner, just the former are super rich
No. Wrong again.
No, absolutely right and it is very arrogant to average earners and the poor and unemployed to suggest if you are on a 6 figure salary you are not rich
No, absolutely wrong.
I’m not interested in discussing this further. I know I’m right.
You must have this post on cut and paste.
No, it’s a commonly accepted definition and threshold of rich. Look it up. Google is your a victory over a minor debating point.
then it seems that you are interested in 'debating' it.
No, I’m not debating it. I’m clarifying the argument.
HYFUD has a pathological need me.
He’s arguing over perceptions of being rich. I’m arguing what actually defines being rich.
If you earn well over average income, have far more property and assets than average and are perceived by the average person to be rich you are rich, however much you may squeal you are not.
You do not need to be on the Sunday Times Rich list to be rich, super rich maybe but not just rich
FWIW I have a modest lifestyle and am certainly relatively poor compared to most of my friends and family. But I fully accept that’s not how the average person would perceive me
Well said, if you mix mainly with rich people you might be relatively poor amongst that circle but still clearly rich overall
Remarkable lack of understanding there. They're big, we're small, they're right, we're wrong, they are brilliant and we are stupidly incompetent, they're positions are moral and reasonable and ours are driven by hubris and racism.
Nor do I want to be rich. That attracts attention and hangers-on. I want comfort and peace.
So I’d say a low six-figure salary for a numbers of years
And you think that wouldn’t make you rich?!!
No.
You'd.
.
They are all rich to the average earner, just the former are super rich
No. Wrong again.
No
No, absolutely wrong.
I’m not interested in discussing this further. I know I’m right.
You must have this post on cut and paste.
I’m not interested in debating *perceptions* of being rich, just because of the neediness of some on here to score a victory over a minor debating point.
then it seems that you are interested in 'debating' it.
No, I’m not debating it. I’m clarifying the argument.
HYFUD has a pathological need to be right and it’s pointless arguing with him once he’s set out his stall because, rather than concede, he’ll simply move the goalposts when he senses he’s on weak ground.
It’s a waste of my time.
He’s arguing over perceptions of being rich. I’m arguing what actually defines being rich.
Why not cite your well established definition of being rich?
Given it is inherently subjective I am sceptical there is a consensus on this but let's see what you are referring to.
It’s been posted on here before. I can’t find it quickly enough on google.
It might have been Richard Nabavi who did so.
A common mistake is to slice it by the top 1% of earners (easy to measure) rather than by who is innately rich.
Hopefully you can see the contradiction there. If you cannot find it quickly on google it cannot be a well established definition of being rich.
No, I’m just crap at finding things quickly on google.
Most of the instant hits are top 1% of earners stuff, which I’ve explained isn’t rich.
Nor do I want to be rich. That attracts attention and hangers-on. I want comfort and peace.
So I’d say a low six-figure salary for a numbers of years
And you think that wouldn’t make you rich?!!
No.
You'd.
.
They are all rich to the average earner, just the former are super rich
No. Wrong again.
No
No, absolutely wrong.
I’m not interested in discussing this further. I know I’m right.
You must have this post on cut and paste.
I’m not interested in debating *perceptions* of being rich, just because of the neediness of some on here to score a victory over a minor debating point.
then it seems that you are interested in 'debating' it.
No, I’m not debating it. I’m clarifying the argument.
HYFUD has a pathological need to be right and it’s pointless arguing with him once he’s set out his stall because, rather than concede, he’ll simply move the goalposts when he senses he’s on weak ground.
It’s a waste of my time.
He’s arguing over perceptions of being rich. I’m arguing what actually defines being rich.
Why not cite your well established definition of being rich?
Given it is inherently subjective I am sceptical there is a consensus on this but let's see what you are referring to.
It’s been posted on here before. I can’t find it quickly enough on google.
It might have been Richard Nabavi who did so.
A common mistake is to slice it by the top 1% of earners (easy to measure) rather than by who is innately rich.
Hopefully you can see the contradiction there. If you cannot find it quickly on google it cannot be a well established definition of being rich.
No, I’m just crap at finding things quickly on google.
Most of the instant hits are top 1% of earners stuff, which I’ve explained isn’t rich.
Seems pretty obvious that it's Bernie vs Biden but can Joe catch him? I'm wondering if Obama will intervene for Biden - the one thing that could really give Sleepy Joe the Big Mo.
If it does turn out to be Bernie as Dem candidate, I wonder if Bloomberg may take his billions somewhere else, and fund a run by Mitt Romney as an Independent (with maybe himself as VP choice?)
Nor do I want to be rich. That attracts attention and hangers-on. I want comfort and peace.
So I’d say a low six-figure salary for a numbers of years
And you think that wouldn’t make you rich?!!
No.
You'd be rich to me. I guess I'd be rich to the bloke huddled in the shop doorway this morning, waiting to get moved on once the town centre opens.
We can split hairs but you and I both know that’s not rich.
Bloomberg and Trump are rich. Branson is rich.
A medical consultant is just well off.
What does it take to be super-rich on your scale?
I’ve already explained what rich is up thread. Enough that you don’t need to work.
Assets of at least £5m+ and an annual income of £1m+. Ten times that for super rich.
If you’re earning £120k but started with nothing and are paying a big mortgage and cost for your kids education you are well off, but not rich.
Obviously you can have your own definition of rich if you like. But it's a fact that the vast majority of people who don't need to work have less than £5m in assets and an income much smaller than £1m a year.
It’s not my own definition. It’s commonly accepted.
Doesn't seem to be commonly accepted if comments on here (Or public polling) is anything to go by.
Regardless, it is obviously untrue to say you need £5m in assets and a net income of over £1m to not have to work, when the vast majority of retired people in the UK have nothing like that.
This isn’t about retirement. It’s about not need to work when you’re of working age. In other words, never needing to earn a salary.
Hence the asset threshold.
But £1m assets invested and zero income beyond that would comfortably allow equivalent of around full time median wage post tax income at any age. So £1m is enough to retire on at 18.
Nor do I want to be rich. That attracts attention and hangers-on. I want comfort and peace.
So I’d say a low six-figure salary for a numbers of years
And you think that wouldn’t make you rich?!!
No.
A medical consultant is just well off.
They are all rich to the average earner, just the former are super rich
No. Wrong again.
No, absolutely right and it is very arrogant to average earners and the poor and unemployed to suggest if you are on a 6 figure salary you are not rich
No, absolutely wrong.
I’m not interested in discussing this further. I know I’m right.
You must have this post on cut and paste.
It’s sufle.
I’t.
I didn't trouble myself to take a position on the substance. I just noticed, once again, that your debating style reduces to "I am right, go away".
Nope, that isn’t my style.
I just have no interest in pointless debates with needy pedants.
You also being one of them at times.
Lol, classic.
Sometimes I wonder what you get out of being here. It certainly isn't a sense of vindication.
I could say the same about you.
Come back to me when you’ve been a regular for fifteen years, met most of the editorial team, had several articles published and made a lot of money.
(When you can get away from wrapping yourself up in your traitor’s apron that is.)
Dont you know who I am!?
If he’s going to be a personal dickhead (and he seems to have an obsession with me) I’ll respond in kind.
He creeps out of the woodwork whenever he thinks he smells blood, which is a sign of his own personal insecurity.
He needs to crawl back under his rock.
Bizarre. This is a great site but it does sadly attract a number of dicks.
Unlike some I have no desire to use this forum to boast about my personal circumstances, with which I am entirely happy.
Remarkable lack of understanding there. They're big, we're small, they're right, we're wrong, they are brilliant and we are stupidly incompetent, they're positions are moral and reasonable and ours are driven by hubris and racism.
Seems pretty obvious that it's Bernie vs Biden but can Joe catch him? I'm wondering if Obama will intervene for Biden - the one thing that could really give Sleepy Joe the Big Mo.
If it does turn out to be Bernie as Dem candidate, I wonder if Bloomberg may take his billions somewhere else, and fund a run by Mitt Romney as an Independent (with maybe himself as VP choice?)
No, I’m not debating it. I’m clarifying the argument.
HYFUD has a pathological need to be right and it’s pointless arguing with him once he’s set out his stall because, rather than concede, he’ll simply move the goalposts when he senses he’s on weak ground.
It’s a waste of my time.
He’s arguing over perceptions of being rich. I’m arguing what actually defines being rich.
Great. Could you now clear up how long a piece of string is, please? Always wondered about that.
Incidentally ftse 100 sub 6900.
So the remainers were right. This is the Brexit crashout they were talking about. Vindicated or what?
Nor do I want to be rich. That attracts attention and hangers-on. I want comfort and peace.
So I’d say a low six-figure salary for a numbers of years
And you think that wouldn’t make you rich?!!
No.
You'd be rich to me. I guess I'd be rich to the bloke huddled in the shop doorway this morning, waiting to get moved on once the town centre opens.
We can split hairs but you and I both know that’s not rich.
Bloomberg and Trump are rich. Branson is rich.
A medical consultant is just well off.
What does it take to be super-rich on your scale?
I’ve already explained what rich is up thread. Enough that you don’t need to work.
Assets of at least £5m+ and an annual income of £1m+. Ten times that for super rich.
If you’re earning £120k but started with nothing and are paying a big mortgage and cost for your kids education you are well off, but not rich.
Obviously you can have your own definition of rich if you like. But it's a fact that the vast majority of people who don't need to work have less than £5m in assets and an income much smaller than £1m a year.
It’s not my own definition. It’s commonly accepted.
Doesn't seem to be commonly accepted if comments on here (Or public polling) is anything to go by.
Regardless, it is obviously untrue to say you need £5m in assets and a net income of over £1m to not have to work, when the vast majority of retired people in the UK have nothing like that.
This isn’t about retirement. It’s about not need to work when you’re of working age. In other words, never needing to earn a salary.
Hence the asset threshold.
But £1m assets invested and zero income beyond that would comfortably allow equivalent of around full time median wage post tax income at any age. So £1m is enough to retire on at 18.
Hmm. It would yield between 2-4% a year so about 20-40k before tax.
That’s why I said £5m so you get to 100-200k gross income from rents and assets first.
A peace offering on the debate could be that it’s sufficient assets to generate an income in the top 1% of earners *without working* all life long.
Nor do I want to be rich. That attracts attention and hangers-on. I want comfort and peace.
So I’d say a low six-figure salary for a numbers of years
And you think that wouldn’t make you rich?!!
No.
You'd.
.
They are all rich to the average earner, just the former are super rich
No. Wrong again.
No
No, absolutely wrong.
I’m not interested in discussing this further. I know I’m right.
You must have this post on cut and paste.
I’m not interested in debating *perceptions* of being rich, just because of the neediness of some on here to score a victory over a minor debating point.
then it seems that you are interested in 'debating' it.
No, I’m not debating it. I’m clarifying the argument.
HYFUD has a pathological need to be right and it’s pointless arguing with him once he’s set out his stall because, rather than concede, he’ll simply move the goalposts when he senses he’s on weak ground.
It’s a waste of my time.
He’s arguing over perceptions of being rich. I’m arguing what actually defines being rich.
Why not cite.
It’s been posted on here before. I can’t find it quickly enough on google.
It might have been Richard Nabavi who did so.
A common mistake is to slice it by the top 1% of earners (easy to measure) rather than by who is innately rich.
Hopefully you can see the contradiction there. If you cannot find it quickly on google it cannot be a well established definition of being rich.
No, I’m just crap at finding things quickly on google.
Most of the instant hits are top 1% of earners stuff, which I’ve explained isn’t rich.
Sorry but your line of argument is very poor.
It isn’t, it’s logical and accurate and I stand by it.
Nor do I want to be rich. That attracts attention and hangers-on. I want comfort and peace.
So I’d say a low six-figure salary for a numbers of years
And you think that wouldn’t make you rich?!!
No.
A medical consultant is just well off.
They are all rich to the average earner, just the former are super rich
No. Wrong again.
No, absolutely right and it is very arrogant to average earners and the poor and unemployed to suggest if you are on a 6 figure salary you are not rich
No, absolutely wrong.
I’m not interested in discussing this further. I know I’m right.
You must have this post on cut and paste.
It’s sufle.
I’t.
I didn't trouble myself to take a position on the substance. I just noticed, once again, that your debating style reduces to "I am right, go away".
Nope, that isn’t my style.
I just have no interest in pointless debates with needy pedants.
You also being one of them at times.
Lol, classic.
Sometimes I wonder what you get out of being here. It certainly isn't a sense of vindication.
I could say the same about you.
Come back to me when you’ve been a regular for fifteen years, met most of the editorial team, had several articles published and made a lot of money.
(When you can get away from wrapping yourself up in your traitor’s apron that is.)
Dont you know who I am!?
If he’s going to be a personal dickhead (and he seems to have an obsession with me) I’ll respond in kind.
He creeps out of the woodwork whenever he thinks he smells blood, which is a sign of his own personal insecurity.
He needs to crawl back under his rock.
Bizarre. This is a great site but it does sadly attract a number of dicks.
Unlike some I have no desire to use this forum to boast about my personal circumstances, with which I am entirely happy.
You made a personal comment about me, and you’ve done so before.
So I won’t take any lectures from you, only an apology.
Why is no-one talking about the anti-Muslim pogroms in India right now? Police standing by while innocent victims are beaten. This could easily spiral into genocide.
I’m afraid the honest answer is probably because the British media has little or no interest in India. I only found out about it a few minutes ago, after three days. It certainly sounds extremely grim.
The anti Muslim Modi mobs have going on for months now.
I don’t know why but anyway I meet from Bombay calls it Bombay, not Mumbai.
I’m up for that because I much prefer calling it Bombay as an English speaker anyway, we don’t call Vienna “Wien”, for example.
I’m not sure if it means anything.
I don’t think I’ve ever had a Chicken Chennai for dinner.
The Indians all use use old names, even Mumbai airport is still BOM on your ticket.
That doesn't mean much, Ho Chin Min City is still SGN too.
Nobody calls Harare "Salisbury" any more.
I think there's a distinction between translations and completely different names.
The point that we don't call Vienna "Wien" is sound, there are lots of names we spell and pronounce in English different than the locals. But its a translation into English, its still the same name. Vienna is simply the English name for Wien.
Salisbury is not a translation of Harare, its a completely different name.
I'm not an expert on India so I don't know if Bombay is a translation of Mumbai or a different name altogether. If its a translation then it seems to me appropriate to use it, if its a different name then it seems to me inappropriate to use it.
However there's another factor here and that's respect. Basic respect and common decency is to use the terms people want using. If the locals want us to call it Mumbai, even in English, then we should IMO. Out of respect, not anything else.
In real life (not online) I ask my friends and colleagues to call me Phil, not Philip. As the old joke a lot of people with abbreviated names use, the only people who call me Philip are my parents and only if I'm in trouble! If I ask someone to call me Phil and they persist in calling me Philip then that's just disrespectful even if it is accurate.
It’s OK to be old as well. Indeed, most of us aspire to be old at some point in the future. Or rich. Most people want to be rich. Admittedly, some people get agitated when they’re not and start shooting rich people (hello, Lenin).
Father Lenin, who was correct in all things, came from quite a wealthy family. He was certainly rich by the standards of the Russian Empire at the time.
Shares opened well down again , another £11K plus drop for me.
Don`t worry about it. Forty years of investing experience has taught me that "buy and hold" (or "never sell" if you like) is the best investing technique. The only thing that influences share prices is supply and demand. Unless you have a crystal ball you cannot predict this (unless you are insider trading!). The clients we have who have done the best are those that invest, dump their documents in a drawer somewhere, and don`t look at them again for ten years plus.
Seems pretty obvious that it's Bernie vs Biden but can Joe catch him? I'm wondering if Obama will intervene for Biden - the one thing that could really give Sleepy Joe the Big Mo.
If it does turn out to be Bernie as Dem candidate, I wonder if Bloomberg may take his billions somewhere else, and fund a run by Mitt Romney as an Independent (with maybe himself as VP choice?)
I can't see that winning or even getting anywhere close. The anti-elite atmosphere is far too strong in America at the moment.
Why is no-one talking about the anti-Muslim pogroms in India right now? Police standing by while innocent victims are beaten. This could easily spiral into genocide.
I’m afraid the honest answer is probably because the British media has little or no interest in India. I only found out about it a few minutes ago, after three days. It certainly sounds extremely grim.
The anti Muslim Modi mobs have going on for months now.
I don’t know why but anyway I meet from Bombay calls it Bombay, not Mumbai.
I’m up for that because I much prefer calling it Bombay as an English speaker anyway, we don’t call Vienna “Wien”, for example.
I’m not sure if it means anything.
I don’t think I’ve ever had a Chicken Chennai for dinner.
The Indians all use use old names, even Mumbai airport is still BOM on your ticket.
That doesn't mean much, Ho Chin Min City is still SGN too.
Nobody calls Harare "Salisbury" any more.
I think there's a distinction between translations and completely different names.
The point that we don't call Vienna "Wien" is sound, there are lots of names we spell and pronounce in English different than the locals. But its a translation into English, its still the same name. Vienna is simply the English name for Wien.
Salisbury is not a translation of Harare, its a completely different name.
I'm not an expert on India so I don't know if Bombay is a translation of Mumbai or a different name altogether. If its a translation then it seems to me appropriate to use it, if its a different name then it seems to me inappropriate to use it.
However there's another factor here and that's respect. Basic respect and common decency is to use the terms people want using. If the locals want us to call it Mumbai, even in English, then we should IMO. Out of respect, not anything else.
In real life (not online) I ask my friends and colleagues to call me Phil, not Philip. As the old joke a lot of people with abbreviated names use, the only people who call me Philip are my parents and only if I'm in trouble! If I ask someone to call me Phil and they persist in calling me Philip then that's just disrespectful even if it is accurate.
That’s a fair post.
I think my issue is that Mumbai is basically exactly the same as Bombay just in a different language and I much prefer the sound and spelling of Bombay. All Indians I’ve met here who are from there say the same. Some don’t agree with the renaming.
If I met someone who was offended by it then obviously (out of courtesy) I’d switch.
Romney-Bloomberg. My God - is that a ticket for the 1% or for the 47% ?
Romney-Bloomberg, well it might get the Manhattan and Silicon valley and Palm Beach vote.
Both with Harvard degrees and one a billionaire, the other a multi millionaire, it would be the most elitist ticket ever, a perfect antidote to Trump and Sanders populism
This fall in the stock market is going to hurt Trump. At least he thinks it will by his response.
That was one of the most moronic Tweets ever by the most moronic President ever. He is completely opening himself up there to be a hostage to fortune, if it does become an epidemic let alone a pandemic in America then he's saying he's failed to control it. If people invest in shares based on his advice and they fall then people might blame him. What does he gain from that Tweet? Total idiot! And to think the Democrats are gifting the world 4 more years of this muppet.
He doesn't need to go full eadric, just be professional and dignified on a serious subject. If he feels the need to say anything just say something simple like "the situation is concerning and serious but the CDC & World Health are doing their best and have my full support."
They are all rich to the average earner, just the former are super rich
No. Wrong again.
No, absolutely right and it is very arrogant to average earners and the poor and unemployed to suggest if you are on a 6 figure salary you are not rich
No, absolutely wrong.
I’m not interested in discussing this further. I know I’m right.
You must have this post on cut and paste.
It’s sufle.
I’t.
I didn't trouble myself to take a position on the substance. I just noticed, once again, that your debating style reduces to "I am right, go away".
Nope, that isn’t my style.
I just have no interest in pointless debates with needy pedants.
You also being one of them at times.
Lol, classic.
Sometimes I wonder what you get out of being here. It certainly isn't a sense of vindication.
I could say the same about you.
Come back to me when you’ve been a regular for fifteen years, met most of the editorial team, had several articles published and made a lot of money.
(When you can get away from wrapping yourself up in your traitor’s apron that is.)
Dont you know who I am!?
If he’s going to be a personal dickhead (and he seems to have an obsession with me) I’ll respond in kind.
He creeps out of the woodwork whenever he thinks he smells blood, which is a sign of his own personal insecurity.
He needs to crawl back under his rock.
Bizarre. This is a great site but it does sadly attract a number of dicks.
Unlike some I have no desire to use this forum to boast about my personal circumstances, with which I am entirely happy.
You made a personal comment about me, and you’ve done so before.
So I won’t take any lectures from you, only an apology.
Saying that you regularly resort to "I am right" is simply a fact.
Take a look back at the thread; it's there in black and white, followed by your stream of personal unpleasantness.
This fall in the stock market is going to hurt Trump. At least he thinks it will by his response.
That was one of the most moronic Tweets ever by the most moronic President ever. He is completely opening himself up there to be a hostage to fortune, if it does become an epidemic let alone a pandemic in America then he's saying he's failed to control it. If people invest in shares based on his advice and they fall then people might blame him. What does he gain from that Tweet? Total idiot! And to think the Democrats are gifting the world 4 more years of this muppet.
He doesn't need to go full eadric, just be professional and dignified on a serious subject. If he feels the need to say anything just say something simple like "the situation is concerning and serious but the CDC & World Health are doing their best and have my full support."
You appear to be new to Trump's approach to twitter ;-)
Nor do I want to be rich. That attracts attention and hangers-on. I want comfort and peace.
So I’d say a low six-figure salary for a numbers of years
And you think that wouldn’t make you rich?!!
No.
You'd.
.
They are all rich to the average earner, just the former are super rich
No. Wrong again.
No
No, absolutely wrong.
I’m not interested in discussing this further. I know I’m right.
You must have this post on cut and paste.
I’m not interested in debating *perceptions* of being rich, just because of the neediness of some on here to score a victory over a minor debating point.
This fall in the stock market is going to hurt Trump. At least he thinks it will by his response.
That was one of the most moronic Tweets ever by the most moronic President ever. He is completely opening himself up there to be a hostage to fortune, if it does become an epidemic let alone a pandemic in America then he's saying he's failed to control it. If people invest in shares based on his advice and they fall then people might blame him. What does he gain from that Tweet? Total idiot! And to think the Democrats are gifting the world 4 more years of this muppet.
He doesn't need to go full eadric, just be professional and dignified on a serious subject. If he feels the need to say anything just say something simple like "the situation is concerning and serious but the CDC & World Health are doing their best and have my full support."
You appear to be new to Trump's approach to twitter ;-)
There is something particularly short-sighted and dim-witted about this, though. He's explicitly and unnecessarily tying his fortunes to something that may be very hard to control and to fully identify, and then again, by implication, tying his foolhardy guarantee to the economic fortunes of the country.
Why is no-one talking about the anti-Muslim pogroms in India right now? Police standing by while innocent victims are beaten. This could easily spiral into genocide.
I’m afraid the honest answer is probably because the British media has little or no interest in India. I only found out about it a few minutes ago, after three days. It certainly sounds extremely grim.
The anti Muslim Modi mobs have going on for months now.
I don’t know why but anyway I meet from Bombay calls it Bombay, not Mumbai.
I’m up for that because I much prefer calling it Bombay as an English speaker anyway, we don’t call Vienna “Wien”, for example.
I’m not sure if it means anything.
I don’t think I’ve ever had a Chicken Chennai for dinner.
The Indians all use use old names, even Mumbai airport is still BOM on your ticket.
That doesn't mean much, Ho Chin Min City is still SGN too.
Nobody calls Harare "Salisbury" any more.
I think there's a distinction between translations and completely different names.
The point that we don't call Vienna "Wien" is sound, there are lots of names we spell and pronounce in English different than the locals. But its a translation into English, its still the same name. Vienna is simply the English name for Wien.
Salisbury is not a translation of Harare, its a completely different name.
I'm not an expert on India so I don't know if Bombay is a translation of Mumbai or a different name altogether. If its a translation then it seems to me appropriate to use it, if its a different name then it seems to me inappropriate to use it.
However there's another factor here and that's respect. Basic respect and common decency is to use the terms people want using. If the locals want us to call it Mumbai, even in English, then we should IMO. Out of respect, not anything else.
In real life (not online) I ask my friends and colleagues to call me Phil, not Philip. As the old joke a lot of people with abbreviated names use, the only people who call me Philip are my parents and only if I'm in trouble! If I ask someone to call me Phil and they persist in calling me Philip then that's just disrespectful even if it is accurate.
You know, now that we (PBers in general) are spending less time arguing about Brexit, I've come to realise that @Philip_Thompson and I have much more in common than I thought.
Maybe 'getting Brexit done' really will bring the country back together and heal divisions
From the low-lights I saw of last night's debate and following on from the previous one, Sander's is going full Jezza....when in a hole, just keep digging and get angry while refusing to admit you ever said anything wrong.
And this is before they really throw the full bucket of shit at him.
Did I not forecast that you having to wait a few weeks for a new phone was one of the more extreme likely outcomes of the virus?
Since 2011 the iPhone has been released around my birthday, it has been my birthday treat to myself.
I’ll be bereft if it isn’t released in September.
Just get yourself a far superior Samsung instead.
You mean like the Fold or the exploding Notes?
Galaxy S20 has a better screen than any new Apple will have (because Apple have to buy them from Samsung) and of course new features like the 108 megaPixel camera, which again only 2 companies have again not Apple.
Apple have been overtaken in the smart phone market now, they are now the ones that play catch-up.
This fall in the stock market is going to hurt Trump. At least he thinks it will by his response.
That was one of the most moronic Tweets ever by the most moronic President ever. He is completely opening himself up there to be a hostage to fortune, if it does become an epidemic let alone a pandemic in America then he's saying he's failed to control it. If people invest in shares based on his advice and they fall then people might blame him. What does he gain from that Tweet? Total idiot! And to think the Democrats are gifting the world 4 more years of this muppet.
He doesn't need to go full eadric, just be professional and dignified on a serious subject. If he feels the need to say anything just say something simple like "the situation is concerning and serious but the CDC & World Health are doing their best and have my full support."
You appear to be new to Trump's approach to twitter ;-)
There is something particularly short-sighted and dim-witted about this, though. He's explicitly and unnecessarily tying his fortunes to something that may be very hard to control, and then again, by implication, tying this foolhardy guarantee to the economic fortunes of the country.
Short-sighted and dim-witted Trump tweets, it is predictable as Labour party story about antisemitism and somebody finding an offensive article by Boris.
Romney-Bloomberg. My God - is that a ticket for the 1% or for the 47% ?
Romney-Bloomberg, well it might get the Manhattan and Silicon valley and Palm Beach vote.
Both with Harvard degrees and one a billionaire, the other a multi millionaire, it would be the most elitist ticket ever, a perfect antidote to Trump and Sanders populism
If Romney-Bloomberg picked up a bit of momentum and started to look like they had a chance (and I know that's a big 'if') it could make for an interesting three-way (ahem).
Romney-Bloomberg could peel off the pro-elite votes from the Republicans and Democrats, leaving Trump and Sanders to fight over the larger anti-elite vote.
From the low-lights I saw of last night's debate and following on from the previous one, Sander's is going full Jezza....when in a hole, just keep digging and get angry while refusing to admit you ever said anything wrong.
And this is before they really throw the full bucket of shit at him.
This fall in the stock market is going to hurt Trump. At least he thinks it will by his response.
That was one of the most moronic Tweets ever by the most moronic President ever. He is completely opening himself up there to be a hostage to fortune, if it does become an epidemic let alone a pandemic in America then he's saying he's failed to control it. If people invest in shares based on his advice and they fall then people might blame him. What does he gain from that Tweet? Total idiot! And to think the Democrats are gifting the world 4 more years of this muppet.
He doesn't need to go full eadric, just be professional and dignified on a serious subject. If he feels the need to say anything just say something simple like "the situation is concerning and serious but the CDC & World Health are doing their best and have my full support."
You appear to be new to Trump's approach to twitter ;-)
There is something particularly short-sighted and dim-witted about this, though. He's explicitly and unnecessarily tying his fortunes to something that may be very hard to control, and then again, by implication, tying this foolhardy guarantee to the economic fortunes of the country.
Short-sighted and dim-witted Trump tweets, it is predictable as Labour party story about antisemitism and somebody finding an offensive article by Boris.
Except this time, if the virus becomes a global pandemic, affecting the global economy, the tweet will have a much longer shelf-life.
You know, now that we (PBers in general) are spending less time arguing about Brexit, I've come to realise that @Philip_Thompson and I have much more in common than I thought.
Maybe 'getting Brexit done' really will bring the country back together and heal divisions
The country will be healed two weeks from now when Rishi splashes the cash on infrastructure, nationalisation and hospitals. He will go down in history as a great Keynesian and the wisest Chancellor since Gordon Brown. The floods give more opportunity for massive building projects.
From the low-lights I saw of last night's debate and following on from the previous one, Sander's is going full Jezza....when in a hole, just keep digging and get angry while refusing to admit you ever said anything wrong.
And this is before they really throw the full bucket of shit at him.
Far more 2017 Corbyn than 2019 though.
Well that was the attempt, but it fell apart when it came into contact with the reality of a sustained scrutiny.
You know, now that we (PBers in general) are spending less time arguing about Brexit, I've come to realise that @Philip_Thompson and I have much more in common than I thought.
Maybe 'getting Brexit done' really will bring the country back together and heal divisions
The country will be healed two weeks from now when Rishi splashes the cash on infrastructure, nationalisation and hospitals. He will go down in history as a great Keynesian and the wisest Chancellor since Gordon Brown. The floods give more opportunity for massive building projects.
This fall in the stock market is going to hurt Trump. At least he thinks it will by his response.
That was one of the most moronic Tweets ever by the most moronic President ever. He is completely opening himself up there to be a hostage to fortune, if it does become an epidemic let alone a pandemic in America then he's saying he's failed to control it. If people invest in shares based on his advice and they fall then people might blame him. What does he gain from that Tweet? Total idiot! And to think the Democrats are gifting the world 4 more years of this muppet.
He doesn't need to go full eadric, just be professional and dignified on a serious subject. If he feels the need to say anything just say something simple like "the situation is concerning and serious but the CDC & World Health are doing their best and have my full support."
You appear to be new to Trump's approach to twitter ;-)
There is something particularly short-sighted and dim-witted about this, though. He's explicitly and unnecessarily tying his fortunes to something that may be very hard to control, and then again, by implication, tying this foolhardy guarantee to the economic fortunes of the country.
Short-sighted and dim-witted Trump tweets, it is predictable as Labour party story about antisemitism and somebody finding an offensive article by Boris.
Except this time, if the virus becomes a global pandemic, affecting the global economy, the tweet will have a much longer shelf-life.
You would think so, but how many times has Trump just argues the exact opposite to his previous statements. He has literally done it in the same interview or press conference.
Romney-Bloomberg. My God - is that a ticket for the 1% or for the 47% ?
Romney-Bloomberg, well it might get the Manhattan and Silicon valley and Palm Beach vote.
Both with Harvard degrees and one a billionaire, the other a multi millionaire, it would be the most elitist ticket ever, a perfect antidote to Trump and Sanders populism
Your probably right and electorally may not fly. But in terms of providing the governance of the world's biggest economy and military superpower, I would feel a bit more comfortable with Mitt at the controls than The Donald or Bernie. Who wouldn't?
NB - one of the ironies is that in recent electoral cycles, the competent Republican candidates (Romney, McCain, Dole) have always ended up going out to bat on very sticky wickets with the least competent ones, W and Trump, actually being elected.
They are all rich to the average earner, just the former are super rich
No. Wrong again.
No
.
If 'debating' consists of saying
then it seems that you are interested in 'debating' it.
He’s arguing over perceptions of being rich. I’m arguing what actually defines being rich.
Why not cite.
It’s been posted on here before. I can’t find it quickly enough on google.
It might have been Richard Nabavi who did so.
A common mistake is to slice it by the top 1% of earners (easy to measure) rather than by who is innately rich.
Hopefully you can see the contradiction there. If you cannot find it quickly on google it cannot be a well established definition of being rich.
No,
Sorry but your line of argument is very poor.
It isn’t, it’s logical and accurate and I stand by it.
Think for yourself man.
.
No, I’m not going to withdraw. My facts and argument stands. And it is correct.
You can search google if you don’t believe me.
You do not have facts. You have an opinion. It is neither correct nor incorrect. It is an opinion.
But your argument is very poor because you think your opinion is a fact. That is where you have gone wrong here.
No, I’ve provided the facts upthread. The argument stands on its own merit. You shouldn’t need a 3rd party to validate it. You should be able to rebut it on its own merit.
The fact you’ve nailed your own colours to the mast and are struggling to rebut it is your problem.
Romney-Bloomberg. My God - is that a ticket for the 1% or for the 47% ?
Romney-Bloomberg, well it might get the Manhattan and Silicon valley and Palm Beach vote.
Both with Harvard degrees and one a billionaire, the other a multi millionaire, it would be the most elitist ticket ever, a perfect antidote to Trump and Sanders populism
Your probably right and electorally may not fly. But in terms of providing the governance of the world's biggest economy and military superpower, I would feel a bit more comfortable with Mitt at the controls than The Donald or Bernie. Who wouldn't?
NB - one of the ironies is that in recent electoral cycles, the competent Republican candidates (Romney, McCain, Dole) have always ended up going out to bat on very sticky wickets with the least competent ones, W and Trump, actually being elected.
It seems the process of choosing the nominee really doesn't assist in selecting the most competent candidate. They now end up with 27,000 candidates, and if you aren't bombastic you never get heard and have some humility / shame you are going to get eaten alive.
There is no space for nuance, it is just a circular firing squad of calling each other names, dragging everybody through the mud until one soiled individual emerges.
Why is no-one talking about the anti-Muslim pogroms in India right now? Police standing by while innocent victims are beaten. This could easily spiral into genocide.
I’m afraid the honest answer is probably because the British media has little or no interest in India. I only found out about it a few minutes ago, after three days. It certainly sounds extremely grim.
The anti Muslim Modi mobs have going on for months now.
I don’t know why but anyway I meet from Bombay calls it Bombay, not Mumbai.
I’m up for that because I much prefer calling it Bombay as an English speaker anyway, we don’t call Vienna “Wien”, for example.
I’m not sure if it means anything.
I don’t think I’ve ever had a Chicken Chennai for dinner.
The Indians all use use old names, even Mumbai airport is still BOM on your ticket.
That doesn't mean much, Ho Chin Min City is still SGN too.
Nobody calls Harare "Salisbury" any more.
I think there's a distinction between translations and completely different names.
The point that we don't call Vienna "Wien" is sound, there are lots of names we spell and pronounce in English different than the locals. But its a translation into English, its still the same name. Vienna is simply the English name for Wien.
Salisbury is not a translation of Harare, its a completely different name.
I'm not an expert on India so I don't know if Bombay is a translation of Mumbai or a different name altogether. If its a translation then it seems to me appropriate to use it, if its a different name then it seems to me inappropriate to use it.
However there's another factor here and that's respect. Basic respect and common decency is to use the terms people want using. If the locals want us to call it Mumbai, even in English, then we should IMO. Out of respect, not anything else.
In real life (not online) I ask my friends and colleagues to call me Phil, not Philip. As the old joke a lot of people with abbreviated names use, the only people who call me Philip are my parents and only if I'm in trouble! If I ask someone to call me Phil and they persist in calling me Philip then that's just disrespectful even if it is accurate.
The only people who call me Sandy are PBers. Funny that.
Romney-Bloomberg. My God - is that a ticket for the 1% or for the 47% ?
Romney-Bloomberg, well it might get the Manhattan and Silicon valley and Palm Beach vote.
Both with Harvard degrees and one a billionaire, the other a multi millionaire, it would be the most elitist ticket ever, a perfect antidote to Trump and Sanders populism
Your probably right and electorally may not fly. But in terms of providing the governance of the world's biggest economy and military superpower, I would feel a bit more comfortable with Mitt at the controls than The Donald or Bernie. Who wouldn't?
NB - one of the ironies is that in recent electoral cycles, the competent Republican candidates (Romney, McCain, Dole) have always ended up going out to bat on very sticky wickets with the least competent ones, W and Trump, actually being elected.
Cynics believe this suits the GOP hard men perfectly because it means they can run the show while the president plays golf.
They are all rich to the average earner, just the former are super rich
No. Wrong again.
No
.
If 'debating' consists of saying
then it seems that you are interested in 'debating' it.
He’s arguing over perceptions of being rich. I’m arguing what actually defines being rich.
Why not cite.
It’s been posted on here before. I can’t find it quickly enough on google.
It might have been Richard Nabavi who did so.
A common mistake is to slice it by the top 1% of earners (easy to measure) rather than by who is innately rich.
Hopefully you can see the contradiction there. If you cannot find it quickly on google it cannot be a well established definition of being rich.
No,
Sorry but your line of argument is very poor.
It isn’t, it’s logical and accurate and I stand by it.
Think for yourself man.
.
No, I’m not going to withdraw. My facts and argument stands. And it is correct.
You can search google if you don’t believe me.
You do not have facts. You have an opinion. It is neither correct nor incorrect. It is an opinion.
But your argument is very poor because you think your opinion is a fact. That is where you have gone wrong here.
No, I’ve provided the facts upthread. The argument stands on its own merit. You shouldn’t need a 3rd party to validate it. You should be able to rebut it on its own merit.
The fact you’ve nailed your own colours to the mast and are struggling to rebut it is your problem.
You’re just desperate for a win.
Post your facts again and tell us all where you got them from. Let's have some specificity.
There's many reasons why I would say these Corbyn comparisons are far and potentially treacherously off-base, to use an american phrase, but I think one of the biggest ones is important cultural differences with the US.
Trump's stock-in-trade, for example, apart from megalomania, is a kind of wisecracking, scattergun New York humour. Most of his tweets are suffused with it, or attempts at it. He's a New Yorker of the same generation as Bernie Sanders.
However, this "New York humour" is actually to a large extent New York Jewish humour, and Sanders, while ostensibly more serious and less of a comic than Trump, is closer to this cultural orginating point. He's lightened his campaigning style and decided to take more of the kind of informality he was known for in Burlington, and as soon as he's done that people have started to draw comparison with figures like Larry David - and it then emerged that Larry David was his second cousin. Humour matters very much in American politics, in a different way from Britain, but very much so. This more relaxed face of Sanders is a key reason why he's doing better than 2016.
Humour matters very much in American politics, in a different way from Britain, but very much so.
What an absolute load of gibberish.
Boris Johnson has humour in bucket-loads. Massive dollops of bonhomie, which people love about him: from his days on HIGNFY through to the Olympics and his wiff-waffing.
Trump won because he won middle America, not the two coastal fringes which, as has been observed many times, are a different nation. Sanders will be flayed alive by middle America.
Humour matters very much in American politics, in a different way from Britain, but very much so.
What an absolute load of gibberish.
Boris Johnson has humour in bucket-loads. Massive dollops of bonhomie, which people love about him: from his days on HIGNFY through to the Olympics and his wiff-waffing.
Trump won because he won middle America, not the two coastal fringes which, as has been observed many times, are a different nation. Sanders will be flayed alive by middle America.
Johnson's humour serves a completely different cultural purpose - the bumbling aristocratic, apparently self-ironic dilettante that many english people enjoy.
Trump would never have won without his brand of humour, and it's an example of coastal traits having suffused middle america. He mixes humour and anger, and Sanders now increasingly does the same.
"The coronavirus sweeping the globe has led to the largest mass exercise in remote working in corporate history.
Across China, Japan, South Korea and parts of northern Italy, office blocks are silent and factory floors are abandoned. School is cancelled and blue collar workers are being forced to log into video chats and workplace messenger apps to keep up with their jobs.
The impetus for staff to work from home has spread rapidly, but it has also divided opinion. "
Humour matters very much in American politics, in a different way from Britain, but very much so.
What an absolute load of gibberish.
Boris Johnson has humour in bucket-loads. Massive dollops of bonhomie, which people love about him: from his days on HIGNFY through to the Olympics and his wiff-waffing.
Trump won because he won middle America, not the two coastal fringes which, as has been observed many times, are a different nation. Sanders will be flayed alive by middle America.
Johnson's humour serves a completely different cultural purpose - the bumbling aristocratic, apparently self-ironic dilettante that many english people enjoy.
Trump would never have won without his brand of humour, and it's an example of coastal traits having suffused middle america.
You really don't know what you are talking about. Absolute utter hogwash. You appear to know nothing about American politics nor the U.S. Or else you just live in a NYC metropolitan elitist bubble.
Trump won, if anything, because he tapped into real, visceral, anger. You don't get that, you get nothing.
Why is no-one talking about the anti-Muslim pogroms in India right now? Police standing by while innocent victims are beaten. This could easily spiral into genocide.
I’m afraid the honest answer is probably because the British media has little or no interest in India. I only found out about it a few minutes ago, after three days. It certainly sounds extremely grim.
The anti Muslim Modi mobs have going on for months now.
I don’t know why but anyway I meet from Bombay calls it Bombay, not Mumbai.
I’m up for that because I much prefer calling it Bombay as an English speaker anyway, we don’t call Vienna “Wien”, for example.
I’m not sure if it means anything.
I don’t think I’ve ever had a Chicken Chennai for dinner.
The Indians all use use old names, even Mumbai airport is still BOM on your ticket.
That doesn't mean much, Ho Chin Min City is still SGN too.
Nobody calls Harare "Salisbury" any more.
I think there's a distinction between translations and completely different names.
The point that we don't call Vienna "Wien" is sound, there are lots of names we spell and pronounce in English different than the locals. But its a translation into English, its still the same name. Vienna is simply the English name for Wien.
Salisbury is not a translation of Harare, its a completely different name.
I'm not an expert on India so I don't know if Bombay is a translation of Mumbai or a different name altogether. If its a translation then it seems to me appropriate to use it, if its a different name then it seems to me inappropriate to use it.
However there's another factor here and that's respect. Basic respect and common decency is to use the terms people want using. If the locals want us to call it Mumbai, even in English, then we should IMO. Out of respect, not anything else.
In real life (not online) I ask my friends and colleagues to call me Phil, not Philip. As the old joke a lot of people with abbreviated names use, the only people who call me Philip are my parents and only if I'm in trouble! If I ask someone to call me Phil and they persist in calling me Philip then that's just disrespectful even if it is accurate.
The only people who call me Sandy are PBers. Funny that.
Humour matters very much in American politics, in a different way from Britain, but very much so.
What an absolute load of gibberish.
Boris Johnson has humour in bucket-loads. Massive dollops of bonhomie, which people love about him: from his days on HIGNFY through to the Olympics and his wiff-waffing.
Trump won because he won middle America, not the two coastal fringes which, as has been observed many times, are a different nation. Sanders will be flayed alive by middle America.
Johnson's humour serves a completely different cultural purpose - the bumbling aristocratic, apparently self-ironic dilettante that many english people enjoy.
Trump would never have won without his brand of humour, and it's an example of coastal traits having suffused middle america. He mixes humour and anger, and Sanders now increasingly does the same.
If Coronavirus continues as is, within two months most international travel will basically cease. As nations quarantine themselves and prohibit arrivals from other infected regions.
Just think what that will do to us. To the world. The global economy. A stunning blow.
We need this virus to die out. Fast.
Well at least the eco-fascists will be happy....think of the reduced carbon footprint. Maybe they will stop digging up lawns for a while.
Humour matters very much in American politics, in a different way from Britain, but very much so.
What an absolute load of gibberish.
Boris Johnson has humour in bucket-loads. Massive dollops of bonhomie, which people love about him: from his days on HIGNFY through to the Olympics and his wiff-waffing.
Trump won because he won middle America, not the two coastal fringes which, as has been observed many times, are a different nation. Sanders will be flayed alive by middle America.
Johnson's humour serves a completely different cultural purpose - the bumbling aristocratic, apparently self-ironic dilettante that many english people enjoy.
Trump would never have won without his brand of humour, and it's an example of coastal traits having suffused middle america.
You really don't know what you are talking about. Absolute utter hogwash. You appear to know nothing about American politics nor the U.S. Or else you just live in a NYC metropolitan elitist bubble.
Trump won, if anything, because he tapped into real, visceral, anger. You don't get that, you get nothing.
Trump's anger on its own won nothing. Look at his rallies - the savage humour is continuous. That's how he built his base and made it feel it good about its anger, not from its resentments alone.
If Coronavirus continues as is, within two months most international travel will basically cease. As nations quarantine themselves and prohibit arrivals from other infected regions.
The logic of that doesn't quite work. If there's a global pandemic then travel restrictions and quarantine, surely, serve little or no purpose?
If Coronavirus continues as is, within two months most international travel will basically cease. As nations quarantine themselves and prohibit arrivals from other infected regions.
Just think what that will do to us. To the world. The global economy. A stunning blow.
We need this virus to die out. Fast.
It will be 'interesting' to say the least to see how modern generations cope with this level of crisis. I'd rather not find out, but it looks really bad to me.
Given people were supposedly ringing 999 when KFC ran out of chicken...
Why is no-one talking about the anti-Muslim pogroms in India right now? Police standing by while innocent victims are beaten. This could easily spiral into genocide.
I’m afraid the honest answer is probably because the British media has little or no interest in India. I only found out about it a few minutes ago, after three days. It certainly sounds extremely grim.
The anti Muslim Modi mobs have going on for months now.
I don’t know why but anyway I meet from Bombay calls it Bombay, not Mumbai.
I’m up for that because I much prefer calling it Bombay as an English speaker anyway, we don’t call Vienna “Wien”, for example.
I’m not sure if it means anything.
I don’t think I’ve ever had a Chicken Chennai for dinner.
The Indians all use use old names, even Mumbai airport is still BOM on your ticket.
Begs the question why they renamed all the places and ruined it then.
Kolkata being perhaps the weirdest one.
That's just how it's spelled and correctly transliterated in Bengali as is the case with Mumbai in Marathi.
Most of the city name changes are to correct the spelling invented by half witted Englishmen or to reflect the dominant language of the state in which they are located.
The Indians have shrugged the yoke of imperialism that enslaved and impoverished them for so long. You're going to have to get over it.
Message me again when the Indians who actually live there stop referring to it as Bombay.
The wealthy and well-educated Indians that are the extreme minority do use Bombay in my experience. I have no idea what the majority of Indians who live there call it.
Bombay. They also call the train station VT, not whatever it was renamed to.
We can split hairs but you and I both know that’s not rich.
Bloomberg and Trump are rich. Branson is rich.
A medical consultant is just well off.
What does it take to be super-rich on your scale?
I’ve already explained what rich is up thread. Enough that you don’t need to work.
Assets of at least £5m+ and an annual income of £1m+. Ten times that for super rich.
If you’re earning £120k but started with nothing and are paying a big mortgage and cost for your kids education you are well off, but not rich.
Obviously you can have your own definition of rich if you like. But it's a fact that the vast majority of people who don't need to work have less than £5m in assets and an income much smaller than £1m a year.
It’s not my own definition. It’s commonly accepted.
Doesn't seem to be commonly accepted if comments on here (Or public polling) is anything to go by.
Regardless, it is obviously untrue to say you need £5m in assets and a net income of over £1m to not have to work, when the vast majority of retired people in the UK have nothing like that.
This isn’t about retirement. It’s about not need to work when you’re of working age. In other words, never needing to earn a salary.
Hence the asset threshold.
But £1m assets invested and zero income beyond that would comfortably allow equivalent of around full time median wage post tax income at any age. So £1m is enough to retire on at 18.
Hmm. It would yield between 2-4% a year so about 20-40k before tax.
That’s why I said £5m so you get to 100-200k gross income from rents and assets first.
A peace offering on the debate could be that it’s sufficient assets to generate an income in the top 1% of earners *without working* all life long.
There.
And with a sufficiently large buffer zone to insulate you against market crashes and a new "new normal" that's even worse than the current "new normal".
The precise thresholds are fun to debate, for a while; after that they get boring. The important fundamental point is that wealth is primarily a measure of assets, not salary (because assets allow for a constant passive income stream that means you don't have to structure your entire life around your employment).
As someone pointed out earlier, poverty is the opposite, and is a function of how far into the future you are confident of being able to put food over the table and a roof over your head.
The logic of that doesn't quite work. If there's a global pandemic then travel and quarantine, surely, serve little or no purpose?
If it turns into a proper global pandemic (10 mill+ say infected) then I think things improve economically actually since at that point there's no point in even trying to contain it. Everyone might as well just carry on.
Why is no-one talking about the anti-Muslim pogroms in India right now? Police standing by while innocent victims are beaten. This could easily spiral into genocide.
I’m afraid the honest answer is probably because the British media has little or no interest in India. I only found out about it a few minutes ago, after three days. It certainly sounds extremely grim.
The anti Muslim Modi mobs have going on for months now.
I don’t know why but anyway I meet from Bombay calls it Bombay, not Mumbai.
I’m up for that because I much prefer calling it Bombay as an English speaker anyway, we don’t call Vienna “Wien”, for example.
I’m not sure if it means anything.
I don’t think I’ve ever had a Chicken Chennai for dinner.
The Indians all use use old names, even Mumbai airport is still BOM on your ticket.
Begs the question why they renamed all the places and ruined it then.
Kolkata being perhaps the weirdest one.
That's just how it's spelled and correctly transliterated in Bengali as is the case with Mumbai in Marathi.
Most of the city name changes are to correct the spelling invented by half witted Englishmen or to reflect the dominant language of the state in which they are located.
The Indians have shrugged the yoke of imperialism that enslaved and impoverished them for so long. You're going to have to get over it.
Message me again when the Indians who actually live there stop referring to it as Bombay.
The wealthy and well-educated Indians that are the extreme minority do use Bombay in my experience. I have no idea what the majority of Indians who live there call it.
Bombay. They also call the train station VT, not whatever it was renamed to.
I find this name game intriguing. The PC lobby have caused local derision in places. Saigon is a good example. Almost no one who lives there calls it Ho Chi Minh.
Humour matters very much in American politics, in a different way from Britain, but very much so.
What an absolute load of gibberish.
Boris Johnson has humour in bucket-loads. Massive dollops of bonhomie, which people love about him: from his days on HIGNFY through to the Olympics and his wiff-waffing.
Trump won because he won middle America, not the two coastal fringes which, as has been observed many times, are a different nation. Sanders will be flayed alive by middle America.
Trump did win because he won middle America, but I think part of that was he speaks the less PC more abasive kind of language Joe the Plumber type individuals have all their lives. His mocking and name calling is much more identifiable to many of that demographics.
It reminds me of working in a warehouse as a student, you got the absolute shit ripped out of you. Only if you gave as good as you got would you gain respect.
No, I’m not going to withdraw. My facts and argument stands. And it is correct.
You can search google if you don’t believe me.
You keep telling us that the definition of rich that that you are quoting is the established definition but you can't seem to provide any sort of link to back it up. Until you can do so do I think it's safe to assume that it is just your definition of being rich.
In my opinion, defining "rich" is the obverse of defining "poor" in this sense: poor is best thought of in terms of absolute income, whereas rich is best thought of in terms of relative wealth.
There's many reasons why I would say these Corbyn comparisons are far and potentially treacherously off-base, to use an american phrase, but I think one of the biggest ones is important cultural differences with the US.
Trump's stock-in-trade, for example, apart from megalomania, is a kind of wisecracking, scattergun New York humour. Most of his tweets are suffused with it, or attempts at it. He's a New Yorker of the same generation as Bernie Sanders.
However, this "New York humour" is actually to a large extent New York Jewish humour, and Sanders, while ostensibly more serious and less of a comic than Trump, is closer to this cultural orginating point. He's lightened his campaigning style and decided to take more of the kind of informality he was known for in Burlington, and as soon as he's done that people have started to draw comparison with figures like Larry David - and it then emerged that Larry David was his second cousin. Humour matters very much in American politics, in a different way from Britain, but very much so. This more relaxed face of Sanders is a key reason why he's doing better than 2016.
Humour matters very much in American politics, in a different way from Britain, but very much so.
What an absolute load of gibberish.
Boris Johnson has humour in bucket-loads. Massive dollops of bonhomie, which people love about him: from his days on HIGNFY through to the Olympics and his wiff-waffing.
Trump won because he won middle America, not the two coastal fringes which, as has been observed many times, are a different nation. Sanders will be flayed alive by middle America.
Trump did win because he won middle America, but I think part of that was he speaks the less PC more abasive kind of language Joe the Plumber type individuals have all their lives. His mocking and name calling is much more identifiable to many of that demographics.
It reminds me of working in a warehouse as a student, you got the absolute shit ripped out of you. Only if you gave as good as you got would you gain respect.
Okay, to be more specific, he won because he won the rust-belt. The disaffected largely white working class vote swung right behind him.
I can assure Mr W.O. that had absolutely bugger all to do with humour.
Also, the only Indian person I know who uses Mumbai pronounces it like a white English person and she's terribly woke about things. I can't think of any other Indians who say Mumbai.
Humour matters very much in American politics, in a different way from Britain, but very much so.
What an absolute load of gibberish.
Boris Johnson has humour in bucket-loads. Massive dollops of bonhomie, which people love about him: from his days on HIGNFY through to the Olympics and his wiff-waffing.
Trump won because he won middle America, not the two coastal fringes which, as has been observed many times, are a different nation. Sanders will be flayed alive by middle America.
Trump did win because he won middle America, but I think part of that was he speaks the less PC more abasive kind of language Joe the Plumber type individuals have all their lives. His mocking and name calling is much more identifiable to many of that demographics.
It reminds me of working in a warehouse as a student, you got the absolute shit ripped out of you. Only if you gave as good as you got would you gain respect.
Okay, to be more specific, he won because he won the rust-belt. The disaffected largely white working class vote swung right behind him.
I can assure Mr W.O. that had absolutely bugger all to do with humour.
I genuinely think this shtick of having a nickname for everybody and then the media getting all outraged about this kind of behaviour was to his advantage.
All those rustbelt (former) factory workers I am sure all had a nickname, given to them by coworkers for less than positive reasons. It weirdly makes this billionaire bloke more relatable than the uptight "you are a load of deplorables) Clinton.
In my opinion, defining "rich" is the obverse of defining "poor" in this sense: poor is best thought of in terms of absolute income, whereas rich is best thought of in terms of relative wealth.
Relativity is relevant for rich but not for poor?
Why so?
For Gordon Brown, someone was poor if they fell below a certain percentage of median income. This conveniently allowed him to design a spreadsheet policy aimed at "lifting people from poverty", i.e. juggling them over an arbitrary line. But whatever that did in the spreadsheet their circumstances in reality were not much different. If they were poor before, so they remained. This was a sham. Absolute poverty however is easily recognised.
Humour matters very much in American politics, in a different way from Britain, but very much so.
What an absolute load of gibberish.
Boris Johnson has humour in bucket-loads. Massive dollops of bonhomie, which people love about him: from his days on HIGNFY through to the Olympics and his wiff-waffing.
Trump won because he won middle America, not the two coastal fringes which, as has been observed many times, are a different nation. Sanders will be flayed alive by middle America.
Trump did win because he won middle America, but I think part of that was he speaks the less PC more abasive kind of language Joe the Plumber type individuals have all their lives. His mocking and name calling is much more identifiable to many of that demographics.
It reminds me of working in a warehouse as a student, you got the absolute shit ripped out of you. Only if you gave as good as you got would you gain respect.
Okay, to be more specific, he won because he won the rust-belt. The disaffected largely white working class vote swung right behind him.
I can assure Mr W.O. that had absolutely bugger all to do with humour.
I genuinely think this shtick of having a nickname for everybody and then the media getting all outraged about this kind of behaviour was to his advantage.
All those rustbelt (former) factory workers I am sure all had a nickname, given to them by coworkers for less than positive reasons. It weirdly makes this billionaire bloke more relatable than the uptight "you are a load of deplorables) Clinton.
Exactly
And a not-unreasonable trans-Atlantic synergy occurred with both Vote Leave and the 2019 GE.
If Coronavirus continues as is, within two months most international travel will basically cease. As nations quarantine themselves and prohibit arrivals from other infected regions.
Just think what that will do to us. To the world. The global economy. A stunning blow.
If Coronavirus continues as is, within two months most international travel will basically cease. As nations quarantine themselves and prohibit arrivals from other infected regions.
Just think what that will do to us. To the world. The global economy. A stunning blow.
We need this virus to die out. Fast.
And within two or three more, it would resume again. A six month setback to the world economy, even several percentage points of global GDP, is a historical blip, not the end of the world.
Comments
I’ll be bereft if it isn’t released in September.
Regardless, it is obviously untrue to say you need £5m in assets and a net income of over £1m to not have to work, when the vast majority of retired people in the UK have nothing like that.
Don't say I can't learn from PB.
He creeps out of the woodwork whenever he thinks he smells blood, which is a sign of his own personal insecurity.
He needs to crawl back under his rock.
Hence the asset threshold.
Hence the asset threshold.
Most of the instant hits are top 1% of earners stuff, which I’ve explained isn’t rich.
If it does turn out to be Bernie as Dem candidate, I wonder if Bloomberg may take his billions somewhere else, and fund a run by Mitt Romney as an Independent (with maybe himself as VP choice?)
Unlike some I have no desire to use this forum to boast about my personal circumstances, with which I am entirely happy.
https://twitter.com/TVietor08/status/1232138538453352448?s=20
https://twitter.com/tedstew/status/1231295718213722112?s=20
That’s why I said £5m so you get to 100-200k gross income from rents and assets first.
A peace offering on the debate could be that it’s sufficient assets to generate an income in the top 1% of earners *without working* all life long.
There.
Think for yourself man.
At least he thinks it will by his response.
So I won’t take any lectures from you, only an apology.
The point that we don't call Vienna "Wien" is sound, there are lots of names we spell and pronounce in English different than the locals. But its a translation into English, its still the same name. Vienna is simply the English name for Wien.
Salisbury is not a translation of Harare, its a completely different name.
I'm not an expert on India so I don't know if Bombay is a translation of Mumbai or a different name altogether. If its a translation then it seems to me appropriate to use it, if its a different name then it seems to me inappropriate to use it.
However there's another factor here and that's respect. Basic respect and common decency is to use the terms people want using. If the locals want us to call it Mumbai, even in English, then we should IMO. Out of respect, not anything else.
In real life (not online) I ask my friends and colleagues to call me Phil, not Philip. As the old joke a lot of people with abbreviated names use, the only people who call me Philip are my parents and only if I'm in trouble! If I ask someone to call me Phil and they persist in calling me Philip then that's just disrespectful even if it is accurate.
I think my issue is that Mumbai is basically exactly the same as Bombay just in a different language and I much prefer the sound and spelling of Bombay. All Indians I’ve met here who are from there say the same. Some don’t agree with the renaming.
If I met someone who was offended by it then obviously (out of courtesy) I’d switch.
Both with Harvard degrees and one a billionaire, the other a multi millionaire, it would be the most elitist ticket ever, a perfect antidote to Trump and Sanders populism
He doesn't need to go full eadric, just be professional and dignified on a serious subject. If he feels the need to say anything just say something simple like "the situation is concerning and serious but the CDC & World Health are doing their best and have my full support."
Take a look back at the thread; it's there in black and white, followed by your stream of personal unpleasantness.
1) You have asserted that there is a well established definition of being rich.
2) But you cannot find or cite this well established definition.
Ergo you should withdraw.
Maybe 'getting Brexit done' really will bring the country back together and heal divisions
And this is before they really throw the full bucket of shit at him.
There is nothing personally unpleasant about me, as those who’ve met me will attest to.
You pop out of the woodwork regularly to make snide and sarcastic remarks at my expense and provoke me with personal attacks.
If there’s anyone who’s personally unpleasant on this site, it’s you.
Apple have been overtaken in the smart phone market now, they are now the ones that play catch-up.
You can search google if you don’t believe me.
Romney-Bloomberg could peel off the pro-elite votes from the Republicans and Democrats, leaving Trump and Sanders to fight over the larger anti-elite vote.
But your argument is very poor because you think your opinion is a fact. That is where you have gone wrong here.
NB - one of the ironies is that in recent electoral cycles, the competent Republican candidates (Romney, McCain, Dole) have always ended up going out to bat on very sticky wickets with the least competent ones, W and Trump, actually being elected.
There is no space for nuance, it is just a circular firing squad of calling each other names, dragging everybody through the mud until one soiled individual emerges.
Rich = Richer than the person using the term.
Poor = Poorer than the person using the term.
Its like an irregular verb. You're rich, I'm just about managing, he's impoverished.
Trump's stock-in-trade, for example, apart from megalomania, is a kind of wisecracking, scattergun New York humour. Most of his tweets are suffused with it, or attempts at it. He's a New Yorker of the same generation as Bernie Sanders.
However, this "New York humour" is actually to a large extent New York Jewish humour, and Sanders, while ostensibly more serious and less of a comic than Trump, is closer to this cultural orginating point. He's lightened his campaigning style and decided to take more of the kind of informality he was known for in Burlington, and as soon as he's done that people have started to draw comparison with figures like Larry David - and it then emerged that Larry David was his second cousin. Humour matters very much in American politics, in a different way from Britain, but very much so. This more relaxed face of Sanders is a key reason why he's doing better than 2016.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ArUGafcVlI
Boris Johnson has humour in bucket-loads. Massive dollops of bonhomie, which people love about him: from his days on HIGNFY through to the Olympics and his wiff-waffing.
Trump won because he won middle America, not the two coastal fringes which, as has been observed many times, are a different nation. Sanders will be flayed alive by middle America.
Trump would never have won without his brand of humour, and it's an example of coastal traits having suffused middle america. He mixes humour and anger, and Sanders now increasingly does the same.
"The coronavirus sweeping the globe has led to the largest mass exercise in remote working in corporate history.
Across China, Japan, South Korea and parts of northern Italy, office blocks are silent and factory floors are abandoned. School is cancelled and blue collar workers are being forced to log into video chats and workplace messenger apps to keep up with their jobs.
The impetus for staff to work from home has spread rapidly, but it has also divided opinion. "
Trump won, if anything, because he tapped into real, visceral, anger. You don't get that, you get nothing.
Given people were supposedly ringing 999 when KFC ran out of chicken...
The precise thresholds are fun to debate, for a while; after that they get boring. The important fundamental point is that wealth is primarily a measure of assets, not salary (because assets allow for a constant passive income stream that means you don't have to structure your entire life around your employment).
As someone pointed out earlier, poverty is the opposite, and is a function of how far into the future you are confident of being able to put food over the table and a roof over your head.
Everyone might as well just carry on.
And don't get me started on 'Myanmar' ...
It reminds me of working in a warehouse as a student, you got the absolute shit ripped out of you. Only if you gave as good as you got would you gain respect.
Grim tweet about Guangzhou.
Why so?
I can assure Mr W.O. that had absolutely bugger all to do with humour.
All those rustbelt (former) factory workers I am sure all had a nickname, given to them by coworkers for less than positive reasons. It weirdly makes this billionaire bloke more relatable than the uptight "you are a load of deplorables) Clinton.
The logic of that doesn't quite work. If there's a global pandemic then travel and quarantine, surely, serve little or no purpose?
The idea is to slow the spread, drag it out as much as possible. The results would be a lengthening of the pandemic but a reduction in its severity:
Excess P&I mortality over 1913–1917 baseline in Philadelphia and St. Louis, September 8–December 28, 1918.
From: Public health interventions and epidemic intensity during the 1918 influenza pandemic
And a not-unreasonable trans-Atlantic synergy occurred with both Vote Leave and the 2019 GE.
It would seem the ideal time to cut ourselves off from our continental neighbours...
A six month setback to the world economy, even several percentage points of global GDP, is a historical blip, not the end of the world.
And the subsequent recovery would be rapid.
You need to get a grip.
Incidentally I believe that in Australia it's called WooFlu. Possibly because close contact is the 'best' method of catching it!