HIJACK
October 22, 2019, 07:07:33 *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
Main Forum.Faces Gallery.Tunes and Mixes.The Desk
 
  Home Help Login Register  
Share this page
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 ... 24
101  General / The Forum / Re: Ben Goldacre explains how the NHS is being privatised on: February 05, 2012, 17:37:15

What a load of shit, parts of the health bill are of course extremely worrying but it's shit like this that gives all the campaigners a bad name, they just recite Ben Goldacre who in my opinion has straight up lied here to score some politics points. Mind you he is clearly pining for a job at the Labour Party, so it would make sense for him to lie for them and cover up the terrible mess they have made of the NHS.

Here are the real facts...

1) GP's aren't responsible for commissioning, they are just being made a part of the process as they should have always been to begin with, who better to relay their needs, the GP practices themselves, or centrally?

2) It's not like they're doing it on their own either, they are all getting specialist support from their Primary Care Trusts, who are transferring some staff to clinical commissioning groups, which are groups of GP practices who will do the commissioning.

3) There will be a national commissioning board of around 1000 staff who will oversee the whole thing and manage procurement and give policy advice, the buck stops with them, and if any CCG's aren't ready to go by April 2013 they will take the lead.

It makes me angry when people with credentials like Goldacre manipulate the truth like this, because it makes it so easy for the Tories to get what they want. If anything these changes make things too centralised still, because the CCG's have to answer to the bureaucracy of the National Commissioning Board. In the end, more power will be devolved to the CCG's because there will be still too much bureaucracy, not the other way round!
102  General / The Forum / Re: 3rd wrongest thing on the web? on: February 02, 2012, 21:36:59
My mate went to a night we did dressed in a red dress with a madeleine mccann mask on a few years ago, nobody protested that much, being a Young Conservative though is inexcusable
103  General / The Forum / Re: Everything is one on: January 31, 2012, 14:41:50
Cannot prove such a thing, however the book I'm reading at the moment discusses such a theory. I would be interested to hear people's views on this theory:

I think that sounds utterly ridiculous, I don't see any need for particles to exist for consciousness, and from that short passage it doesn't seem like they do either, or that any of the assertions will be qualified during the course of the book. Also, relatons are consciousness-particles, yet are themselves conscious, what are they made of!?

It's pretty funny how they said earlier in the passage that "Self-consciousness arises when there is a discordance between an inner template and an outer pattern of stimulation", and then in the next paragraph that this might be caused by relatons. "Yes it's caused by our brain, but also relatons"

Biochemical theories of consciousness exist already, I would much prefer a theory based on solid scientific method than a "hypothesis" based on new age beliefs - for instance this lecture looks very interesting - http://www.bris.ac.uk/science/events/2012/34.html

104  General / The Forum / Re: Insider Reveals the Illuminati's Plan for 2012... on: January 30, 2012, 19:36:14
Because they are just that - theories. TBH though I was more referring to the constant feed of generally paranoid dribble on here, not specifically the illuminati.

The Illuminati are an organisation that factually exist - hence my question. Their influence is the thing that is theorised.

Carry on.

Claim! where are the facts proving their existence in the 21st century?
105  General / The Forum / Re: Feds shut down Megaupload, arrest executives on: January 21, 2012, 19:30:09
http://www.prefixmag.com/news/megaupload-launches-music-service-megabox/60024/

According to Digital Music News, Megaupload's new venture, MegaBox, is a "cloud-based music locker, download store, and do-it-yourself artist service." So far, partners of MegaBox include 7digital, Gracenote, Rovi and Amazon, the world's largest online retailer. Megaupload founder Kim Schmitz said Universal "knows that we are going to compete with them via our own music venture called Megabox.com, a site that will soon allow artists to sell their creations directly to consumers while allowing artists to keep 90 percent of earnings."

Sounds like this might be the reason they took megaupload down over anyone else
106  General / The Forum / Re: Is Hijack on anti-Sopa strike on wednesday? on: January 19, 2012, 16:27:24
Instinct, I think you're painting yourself into a corner here (and god knows I've done it plenty of times), but you need to realise this and quit before you say even more silly things.

Terrorism of all forms is abhorrent, of that there can be no doubt and no justification. To actively seek to harm innocent people, the old, young and infirm, is cowardly and evil. Yes America is big and dumb, and yes they do a lot that is bad, but they don't actively seek out to harm the innocent. Indeed they are so unsubtle that many people are accidentally harmed by their actions, and that is to be vilified in the strongest possible terms, but it is usually in the pursuit of the enemy, people with guns in their hands or bombs on their bodies.

Any fool who cheered when those towers came down has no idea what they are doing, and are horribly ignorant and naive.

Sorry but that little bit about America is absurd.

USA don't actively seek to harm the innocent? Neither do terrorists, they just happen to think that civilians living normal lives are viable targets, the same way that the USA, in the past 60 years, among other things...

1) Gave active military and financial support to a regime that killed 200,000 civilians in Guatemala.

2) Trained and armed paramilitaries and carried out operations to suppress left-wing revolutionaries in Nicaragua in the 80's, killing tens of thousands and was found guilty in the international courts (the definition of the charge would have been terrorism but the US vetoed a proposal to include states as possible perpetrators of terrorism)

3) Detonated a car bomb outside the house of a cleric in Beirut in 1985, killing 60 people.

I don't know about you, but detonating car bombs outside mosques sounds pretty much like terrorism and deliberately killing innocents to me, but then if you're an American they aren't innocents, they're collateral damage, depends on your definition.

Anybody that thinks that America won't deliberately kill "innocent people" when it suits them is also ignorant and naive and is proven wrong by history on many occasions.


Pah, what you're talking about there, covert operations, EVERY fucking country does that!! WE DO THAT!!!

But we don't shout and jump and cheer

EDIT: Unless you're American and it's Osamah Bin Laden

That's my point, but when its done by a group collecting taxes for it as well we call it "covert operations" instead of terrorism. I just thought the bit about not deliberately harming innocents couldn't be further from the truth, they will if they can get away with it and it's not hard to if you're America, which is why they're the worst of all
107  General / The Forum / Re: Is Hijack on anti-Sopa strike on wednesday? on: January 19, 2012, 13:23:32
Instinct, I think you're painting yourself into a corner here (and god knows I've done it plenty of times), but you need to realise this and quit before you say even more silly things.

Terrorism of all forms is abhorrent, of that there can be no doubt and no justification. To actively seek to harm innocent people, the old, young and infirm, is cowardly and evil. Yes America is big and dumb, and yes they do a lot that is bad, but they don't actively seek out to harm the innocent. Indeed they are so unsubtle that many people are accidentally harmed by their actions, and that is to be vilified in the strongest possible terms, but it is usually in the pursuit of the enemy, people with guns in their hands or bombs on their bodies.

Any fool who cheered when those towers came down has no idea what they are doing, and are horribly ignorant and naive.

Sorry but that little bit about America is absurd.

USA don't actively seek to harm the innocent? Neither do terrorists, they just happen to think that civilians living normal lives are viable targets, the same way that the USA, in the past 60 years, among other things...

1) Gave active military and financial support to a regime that killed 200,000 civilians in Guatemala.

2) Trained and armed paramilitaries and carried out operations to suppress left-wing revolutionaries in Nicaragua in the 80's, killing tens of thousands and was found guilty in the international courts (the definition of the charge would have been terrorism but the US vetoed a proposal to include states as possible perpetrators of terrorism)

3) Detonated a car bomb outside the house of a cleric in Beirut in 1985, killing 60 people.

I don't know about you, but detonating car bombs outside mosques sounds pretty much like terrorism and deliberately killing innocents to me, but then if you're an American they aren't innocents, they're collateral damage, depends on your definition.

Anybody that thinks that America won't deliberately kill "innocent people" when it suits them is also ignorant and naive and is proven wrong by history on many occasions.
108  General / The Forum / Re: So it was Korn that invented dubstep then... on: January 16, 2012, 19:46:20


109  General / The Forum / Re: Miss or Mrs? on: January 13, 2012, 18:38:22
Capitalization is how the man keeps your name oppressed.


Are you referring to the corporation that is set up for each of us when we are born?

And how statutory or contract law only applies to a corporation not a human being? And why when authorities are addressing our corporation it is capatalised but when it is addressing us the person it is not capitalised? And the real reason for using Mr & Mrs, not the 'etiquette' reason most people believe.

Anyone who believes all that it is retarded.

For some reason people think the bank account and the redemption stuff applies here even though the scams and subsequent retardation started in the states and are well documented.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redemption_movement
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_protester_conspiracy_arguments#.22Capital_letters.22_argument

I once had a conversation with some old guy who ran a website promoting all that stuff telling me they were "on our side" and that his uncle, once was a director at the bank of england, told him he ruled the world, I didn't believe him.
110  General / The Forum / Re: Adverts on BBC on: January 07, 2012, 14:31:09
I don't know about the rest of you, but I'd much rather switch channels when the adverts come on than be forced to pay £120 a year to the BBC for poor and biased government journalism/propaganda and mostly boring shows I don't even watch to begin with. Oh and I also resent the idea of paying Jeremy Clarkson 2 million quid a year with tax money to be a cunt, drive cars and tell us how much people like him who are paid by the government suck.

Maybe if they chucked him they might be able to bring iplayer in line with 4od 5 years ago and keep the shows on for longer than two weeks.
111  General / The Forum / Re: Christopher Hitchens on: December 18, 2011, 22:10:00
I think you're misreading his reasons for supporting the war though, which makes you think he is an imperialist. It was precisely because he thought people should be able to determine their own destiny, and that they'd never get a chance to do that under a ruler as brutal as Hussein. I think this took primacy over combatting terrorism in his eyes.

I think his reasons for holding an interventionist view in Iraq wouldn't have changed whatever the stated goals were for going in, terrorism, WMD's, or even resources. They also wouldn't have changed regardless of who's fault it was that Hussein was doing what he was doing. He was a cosmopolitan and thought that wherever there are tyrants there should be action taken to overthrow them.

I didn't agree with him, but I think it's unfair to say he was supporting the war out of a character flaw or in aid of the greater good, he thought it was the duty of all nations to get rid of people like Saddam.
112  General / The Forum / Re: Christopher Hitchens on: December 18, 2011, 07:24:58
good riddance      The world is a better place without him

How so?

In Iraq Hitchens supported a terrible war US military action against a defenseles≠s nation...  he was a warmonger who hitched (no pun intended here) a ride on the Bush and the neo-cons agenda.  He has gone to his grave saying the war was justified and the deaths of hundreds of thousands was worth it.

I don't know about you but His tenacity in clinging to that view, even after all the facts around the Bush Co. lies were revealed, suggested to me an inability to admit a mistake, to fallibilit≠y.
And I doubt Hitch would have wanted to actually be infallible because that would have been god-like. Bad Teeth



I have to disagree. I think from his point of view, he was an interventionist, a pragmatist and a utilitarian, he was never under any illusions as to the nationalistic ideology of the neocons who he saw as a temporary ally, he knew full well they'd get what they wanted out of a transition away from dictatorship in Iraq. He, quite rightly in my opinion, blamed the violence and response on insurgents who wanted either a islamic, non-democratic state, or earlier in the conflict, a return to military dictatorship for the coalition violence proceeding the invasion.

This reciprocal violence from the west causing so many civilian deaths was a foregone conclusion once the insurgency began taking civilian lives willingly, and the institutions that represent an invading country cannot back down in achieving democracy violently once this level of terrorist activity against civilians begins - (obviously they want democracy on their own terms, but isn't that better and in the long-run more beneficial to one who values self-determination than siding with the non-democratic alternatives, who use indiscriminate terrorism to win their war, what do they offer in return for them winning? we will stop murdering you at random?)

I believe he was far too smart to think that the bush administration wanted Saddam gone for the same reasons he did, but he made a utilitarian judgement about the lesser of two evils relative to the status quo, not letting his ideology getting in the way of a pragmatic desire to make the best out of a bad situation where the only willing actors are in it for themselves. There was no mistake made, he knew what would happen to Iraq the same way the rest of us knew, he just thought that was better than a military dictatorship or an Islamic dictatorship because of what ultimately could come of Iraq, and believed it was still the duty of the international community to intervene because their use of force to attain self-serving goals, justified by attaining fair elections, would be far less detrimental to the iraqi people than allowing radical islamists to achieve their goals.

Ultimately it all comes down to his views on the state in general, to what degree interventionism to spread democracy is actually just a ploy, he clearly believed in interventions but i think it's naive to think that he wasn't aware or at least suspicious of the motives. He knew they could do it better, put more money in instead of the collateral damage, but recognised that the institutions at play wouldn't allow it, so the end, long term result was justified in his opinion.

tl:dr - he knew the neocons wanted iraq's exports for themselves, and knew they could only justify it politically by implementing democracy, he thought this was much better than saddam or radical islamists, and it's not the fault of the coalition that the radicals fight against the wishes of the majority of iraqis to force their own ideology upon them, and he was very critical of the self-serving and brutal way in which the coalition worked, still ever the pragmatist.
113  General / The Forum / Re: Serato help please on: December 02, 2011, 18:12:51
so I use an external hard drive, obviously use it on my own laptop a lot and I also connect it to other peoples when available at gigs to save messing about and my crates come up fine.

I have a new laptop for home use only so I buy and download all my tracks on that one and then have to put them on the external hard drive and transfer them over to my other laptop to put them on Serato.

I downloaded the programme onto my new laptop in the hope that I could just put all the tracks in and they would all be there when I put the drive into my 'playing out' laptop but for some reason none of tracks I put in on the home lappy save to serato

why? what am I missing here?

You probably need to copy all the other scratch library files over as well? On mac they are in music/scratchlive

114  General / The Forum / Re: So my people are going on strike next weds on: December 02, 2011, 16:50:18
When the government secures their wages by forcefully stealing them from the rest of the population?

They don't steal it. They tax it. And taxing is not the same as stealing. It's far more lucrative.

Just like how water boarding isn't torture and collateral damage isn't murder, far more lucrative!

This purple woman with the nice sweater knows how it is

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/IErlI34-0so" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/v/IErlI34-0so</a>




115  General / The Forum / Re: So my people are going on strike next weds on: December 02, 2011, 15:28:48
Surely Public Sector working conditions should be the benchmark?

When the government secures their wages by forcefully stealing them from the rest of the population? Surely as the conditions by which wages are secured in the private sector don't involve any threats of violence, we should be getting as much bang for our buck as possible in the public sector?
116  General / The Forum / ustreaming some tunes with arkist right now on: December 01, 2011, 19:51:56
http://www.ustream.tv/channel/arkist-asylum
117  General / The Forum / Re: So my people are going on strike next weds on: December 01, 2011, 14:58:14
Divison of labour invented by feminists?

Wasn't it in the Wealth of Nations before anybody even thought of feminism?
118  General / The Forum / Re: So my people are going on strike next weds on: December 01, 2011, 12:23:04
Seeing as that the civil service doesn't really add to the economy in the same way a business does

WTF? No mate, no economic benefit from schools, roads or other public services.

 Laugh



Lrn 2

Economists have been trying to calculate how much the civil service adds to the economy in definable terms since time immemorial.

It's called the - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiscal_multiplier and tells you the change in national income caused by a given amount of spending.

Of course it's an inherently statist concept, nothing says we wouldn't get the same benefit from infrastructure if it was all privatised, and nothing says that efficiency gains wouldn't in fact increase from doing away with state education, healthcare etc, not to mention the economic gains from being free of being locked up for disagreeing with the government.

119  General / The Forum / Re: So my people are going on strike next weds on: December 01, 2011, 12:17:23
It's just like the anti war protests and the riots, 50% of them
Turn up to have a look around.
20,000 civil servants?!!? Certainly not 20,000 unionised civil servants...

Bristol's population, c. 400,000, wider metropolitan area 1.1 million. UK population is about 70 million.

About 9% of the population employed in the public sector (6 million), meaning that in Bristol and surroundings there should be about 100,000, given an even distribution (in reality there are more in cities)

No doubt some of the surrounding area will have gone into bath or wherever else to picket if they did at all.

So all in all, 20,000 sounds about right for bristol, and there are probably more than 20k unionised ones I would imagine, given that Unison alone has 2 million members out of a total 6 million public sector workers.
120  General / The Forum / Re: occupy bristol on: November 26, 2011, 15:43:08
This is a really good article from Naomi Wolf, trying to find a reason why OWS is experiencing an unusual level of violence from the police...

Some things I didn't know about, congressmen and women using legislation to engage in insider trading, legislating on companies that they invest in and earning millions from it, the mayor of oakland talked about a conference call he had with 18 other mayors from Homeland Security about suppressing the movement, something very, very illegal and which could only have come about with congressional and Whitehouse support.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/nov/25/shocking-truth-about-crackdown-occupy?newsfeed=true
121  General / The Forum / Re: So my people are going on strike next weds on: November 25, 2011, 17:22:33
Pretty good article here (i think left foot forward is actually right footed by nature but thats just my opinion)

http://www.leftfootforward.org/2011/11/daniel-hannan-question-time-fail/

I went and met them once in a tiny sandwich shop, very nice guy, didn't seem like there was anything untoward and he was ostensibly very lefty.

Their offices are in Westminster directly above the Fabian Society HQ though, I think they gave it to them for free and all of them are Fabians I believe, so if you have any opinions about them they probably apply to LFF as well.
122  General / The Forum / Re: So my people are going on strike next weds on: November 25, 2011, 17:05:54
well I don't know much about how pensions work for the holder, but...

It's PROPORTION of total contributions paid by employees, so if you're wondering about which employees are better off, then surely this is the only figure that matters, as somebody else (govt. or employer?) is paying the rest in both cases?

So for Teachers, they pay 31% of the contributions towards their pension, whereas the average private sector pays either 27% or 32% depending on type of pension.

doesn't this mean you're about as well off as each other when it comes to the percentage of your pensions that you contributed to?
123  General / The Forum / Re: So my people are going on strike next weds on: November 25, 2011, 16:43:24

Isn't the total % paid by employees more meaningful, as the government are making up for what your employer doesn't pay?
124  General / The Forum / Re: So my people are going on strike next weds on: November 25, 2011, 16:14:29
tell them to stop being fucking lazy cnuts and consider themselves lucky they have a job. If they feel they are being treated unfairly man up and find another, dont just sit on your arse and whine about it! (Cue flaming..)

 Roll Eyes

They aren't sitting on their arses whining about it, they're striking. You come across as a small government type, forgive me if I'm wrong.

Has it ever occurred to you the scale of industrial action that would take place in the private sector, and the subsequent levelling of wages, were striking not regulated by the state?

Ben, me and you actually agree on something, small government = big business = massive inequality, would that be fair?

In the traditional meaning of small government, yes that's exactly what it means! But what the Conservatives mean when they say "small government", is keep regulating private businesses to be responsible for creating money, keep protecting big business and bolstering director wages by regulating industrial action, but to stop redistributing wealth to the poor, keep preventing them from looking after themselves, and to keep locking them up for whatever they feel is immoral this week, as you know!

If they really meant small government, really really... they'd cut public sector jobs, but also cut banking regulation and let them live by the sword and die by the sword. the Basel 3 regulations which have been touted as "the answer" don't come into effect until 20-fucking-19, and don't affect leverage in any meaningful way whatsoever, ie. business as usual, typical Tory protectionist bullshit.

I met a Libertarian Tory MP once, a "real" small government type, he fully supported strike action of all kinds, he feels that directors are massively overpaid because striking is so regulated, I feel the same. If they really meant small government, they'd lose all their cash, which is why you should never trust a Tory!

125  General / The Forum / Re: So my people are going on strike next weds on: November 25, 2011, 15:59:21
tell them to stop being fucking lazy cnuts and consider themselves lucky they have a job. If they feel they are being treated unfairly man up and find another, dont just sit on your arse and whine about it! (Cue flaming..)

 Roll Eyes

They aren't sitting on their arses whining about it, they're striking. You come across as a small government type, forgive me if I'm wrong.

Has it ever occurred to you the scale of industrial action that would take place in the private sector, and the subsequent levelling of wages, were striking not regulated by the state?
126  General / The Forum / Re: So my people are going on strike next weds on: November 25, 2011, 15:51:19
I dont see why public sector workers should pay for the mistakes the financial sector has made.

Well quite, but I don't really see why they shouldn't either seeing as everyone else is taking some pain.

Why should the public sector be immune to this?

In the last 2 years I have had 1 redundancy (no redundancy payout) and recently our whole company had a 10% across the board paycut, I am sure many in the private sector have similar stories, many probably have no jobs at all.

I just doubt how much sympathy/support this strike will get from people who are already feeling the squeeze hard.


If your company was heavily unionised those cuts would be coming out of the directors' salaries / expense accounts as well, or maybe even not at all...

Are you saying the public sector shouldn't be allowed to strike? If so, why?
127  General / The Forum / Re: So my people are going on strike next weds on: November 25, 2011, 15:41:25
Where do you stand if you aren't part of a union but want to strike?

with all the other striking people!

Not the sort of sarcastic answer I expect from you ben! I meant legally you can strike even when not part of a union yeah?

Legally you can do whatever you want, but legally your employer can sack you without unfair dismissal, as long as he or she sacks everyone else involved in the strike at that time.

For that you can thanks the Employment Act 1982, which the TUC fought hard but didn't overturn. Nazi Norman Tebbit considers it his proudest achievement.
128  General / The Forum / Re: So my people are going on strike next weds on: November 25, 2011, 13:50:45
Where do you stand if you aren't part of a union but want to strike?

with all the other striking people!
129  General / The Forum / I need a rug! on: November 23, 2011, 08:54:52
About 2x4 metres would be perfect.

Don't mind a few stains etc as long as it's not completely fucked, can come and collect if from your place if it's in Bristol.

PM me if you have something I could grab!
130  General / The Forum / Re: GAMERS! on: November 21, 2011, 21:42:20
Which graphics card?

My 5450 is SHIT with a capital SHIT.

I wanna play games (not worried about super prettyness high end graphics, just want to play newish games with half-decent framerate). Budget is £100 or under. Clueless.

Anyone know what i should be looking for second hand or have one kicking about that'll improve things for me?

Cheers

Not gonna get fuck all for under a ton mate. Save up £250 and get a GTX 570.

Of course you can get something alright for around a ton, I bought a gtx 470 for 110 second hand and thats fine for gta4 at max settings, they're great for overclocking as well.

It should be around 6-8 times better than what you've got now if you can get one. There's one going for 150 buy it now.
131  General / The Forum / Re: occupy bristol on: November 16, 2011, 21:51:35
Couple of factual points there...

Positive money is not concerned with local currencies in any way, It's about reforming the national currency, local currencies will be unaffected as they are currently all pound-backed anyway. Positive Money and Local Currencies are different things.

Nef was actually set up by James Robertson and the other members of The Other Economic Summit, which was originally the idea of someone who set up the Green Party. James Robertson being the author of "creating new money" with Joseph Huber, both also supporters of our ideas. It has nothing to do with LSE and if anything they are the most vocal critics of free markets within the UK economic think-tanks, setting up things like the Happy Planet Index as replacements for GDP, campaigning for a 21 hour week etc.

LSE, it tends to be free marketeers who associate with them, people such as Toby Baxendale and Steve Baker MP of the Cobden Centre are looking towards replacing fractional reserve with gold backed currencies coming from a libertarian perspective host talks like the Hayek Lecture there. They had a good one in the big LSE theater with Jesus De Soto a while back, if you can find a video of it well worth a watch for a right-wing/free market perspective on banking reform.


Although I appreciate that wes thinks there is a conspiracy behind it all and i'm not going to comment on that, these are the official lines and the ones I can validate with my own experiences founding PM and working with nef.

132  General / The Forum / Re: occupy bristol on: November 16, 2011, 18:40:23

Can you tell us who the "various well-credentialled supporters of Positive Money" that you mentioned earlier are?  If there are any I'm genuinely interested to hear about them.

As for supporter credentials -

The New Economics Foundation, we co-authored a report with them called "where does money come from" - you can get it from their site. The foreword was written by Charles A. E. Goodhart, who is very well respected and a Professor Emeritus at LSE. There will be another one coming out where nef look at options for reform including ours.

Michael Meacher MP & Steve Baker MP are supportive and are in the process of setting up a cross-party group in parliament to discuss the problems (Steve is a gold bug so we only agree on the problems)

Professor Richard Werner, head of the banking and finance school at Southampton University with many years experience working for the Bank of Japan.

Milton Friedman was critical of Fractional Reserve Banking, as was Galbraith, although they can't be called supporters

The proposals are actually very closely based on some written by Irving Fisher in the 30's and very well endorsed by hundreds of prominent economists at the time, see - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Program_for_Monetary_Reform

Neal Lawson and Compass in general are supportive but don't hold particular economic qualifications.

If you want the academic stuff it's there to see, the legislation is there in a form it could be read in Parliament, you could read our submission to the Independent Commission on Banking, or the aforementioned book co-authored with nef.

We're gaining recognition now amongst policy circles and have been invited to present directly to the ICB, to the treasury, recently to host a discussion in parliament, at Oxford University on a panel discussion with the head of the BBA and a member of the MPC,

I've gone back to University to finish my degree before it becomes out of my price range, so I don't work for PM anymore in a paid capacity, but I'm happy to answer any questions any of you have.

Yes the site is glossy because it's a campaign and the goal is to attract supporters to an ostensibly dull cause from it, some things have changed since I left and I'd like to see the technical stuff being a bit easier to get hold of, but it's all there, and if you want to go a little bit deeper just read the nef guide!

Also to whoever it was who mentioned the bank of england act, things have come on a very long way since then, I would read this - http://www.positivemoney.org.uk/draft-legislation/ for a refresh, elements of the transition have changed and there are extensive notes on each section, it will take several hours to get through the lot.


133  General / The Forum / Re: GAMERS! on: November 15, 2011, 22:25:31
Skyrim is crap, it's like oblivion with better lighting and worse textures, some of it is so bad it made me laugh. Like looking at super high resolution ants running across a tree stump from the megadrive era, maybe if it all looked like megadrive graphics I'd feel like I was playing an old game, but a mishmash of good and bad textures just makes it look crap, i can't believe that they can release stuff like this and get 10/10's....

Oh and the voice acting is still terrible and they still all look like wax models, just a bit less so, don't waste your money.
134  General / The Forum / Re: occupy bristol on: November 15, 2011, 19:34:58

Used to work very closely with Simon, he's a good dude, always room for business solutions to our problems!
135  General / The Forum / Re: Not a fan of the EDL, ...BUT on: November 14, 2011, 17:46:15
http://englishdefenceleague.org/pointless-police-brutality-the-beginning-of-the-police-state-in-britain/

"It is now officially a crime to walk the streets of Britain unless the police give the okay, itís a crime to drink quietly in a public hostelry. Itís not a crime however to burn poppies during one of the most important times of the year for service personnel and their families.  Itís also not a crime to burn the Union flag or the Stars and Stripes. Itís further evidence that the state, the government and the police care little for equal justice before the law for all citizens of Great Britain.  If you are an immigrant, if you are a Muslim, you can walk the streets freely spouting racist and religious hatred for the people of this country and the police will not disturb you one bit. In all probability the police will provide an escort and protection.  However, if ordinary people gather in a pub to have a drink to celebrate a good day and the commemoration of the fallen, that is a serious crime akin to a riot."

is it really?

stretching my tolerance it might possible be able to sympathise somewhat with this one specific incident, that's if they didn't keep coming up with complete bullshit like this all the time!

idiots I'M SO ANGRY!

Lolz @  "If you are an immigrant, if you are a Muslim, you can walk the streets freely spouting racist and religious hatred for the people of this country and the police will not disturb you one bit"

From the EDL facebook.....

"Oops somebody releasing MAC statements on www.muslimagainstcrusades.org 1hour after MAC were made illegal. We suspect its abu izzadeen as hes been posting on his blogs. Please give him 10years in jail"


136  General / The Forum / Re: Not a fan of the EDL, ...BUT on: November 14, 2011, 17:37:54
Just because you don't agree with their particular views doesn't make them stupid or wrong.

Yeah totally, it's the stupidity of their views that makes them stupid and the factual incorrectness that makes them wrong.
137  General / The Forum / Re: Not a fan of the EDL, ...BUT on: November 13, 2011, 22:01:55
Come off it....

Read EDL news and see the specific threats for yourself, and then ask yourself whether this is reasonable suspicion of violence. Then compare this with the arrests of left-wing protestors before recent demonstrations, where there has been no reasonable suspicion.

Are you as equally outraged that MAC has been banned?

I'm not saying that we shouldn't be concerned about police power and repression of freedom of speech in general, but if you agree police are necessary to prevent violence, do they really need to wait until a punch has been thrown?

I think the arrests of nonviolent protestors before demonstrations on the left without any reasonable suspicion are far more worrying than arresting a bunch of fascists on their way to a fight, don't you?
138  General / The Forum / Re: occupy bristol on: October 28, 2011, 20:23:12
I love the look on an mps face after their cuntishness gets exposed by hislop, and they always try and pull back with a totally shit response, this time mumbling about Paul Merton being a rich tv star. Who was the other hot Tory who made a dick out of herself recently?
139  General / The Forum / Re: occupy bristol on: October 28, 2011, 17:49:01
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/3252FSW7OC4" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/v/3252FSW7OC4</a>

140  General / The Forum / Re: Can anybody give me some landlord / letting agent advice? on: October 22, 2011, 15:54:40
Keys through the letterbox and fuck off.  Two Thumbs

This is what I was thinking, but as my deposit is held with one of the schemes can't they just claim for the extra month off them if I do that?
141  General / The Forum / Can anybody give me some landlord / letting agent advice? on: October 21, 2011, 14:00:34
I'm about to move out of a place, we're 2 months past the end of the contract so it has defaulted onto a month by month rolling contract.

I asked if it would be ok to give our notice on 5th October to move out on the end of the month, (all over the phone so no evidence of this) - they said it would be fine.

We then received a letter on 11th October saying that unless they find someone to move in, we are liable until the 30th November to pay rent.

They said this is the case because of some part of the housing act (it doesn't say anything about it on the contract except that we go onto a rolling month by month contract) that states on a rolling month by month contract you have to give full notice for the end of a rent period or be liable until the end of the next one.

I can handle having to pay rent up until 5h November, but until 30th November isn't going to happen, I don't have anywhere near that kind of money to pay rent twice.

These guys are asshole and tried to charge us 30 quid for a reference which is apparently illegal, so I don't trust them, and I just wanted some advice on whether I will have to pay until 30th November, and if I let them take it to small claims whether this would likely be upheld or we'd just have to pay until the 5th? And does this part of the housing act actually exist or are they just trying to bully me?



142  General / The Forum / Re: Methoxetamine - Synthetic Ketamine on: October 16, 2011, 20:34:08
that was very interesting!

So it is, from the horses mouth (hurhur) supposedly comparatively not as bad for the bladder because the dosage is lower.
143  General / The Forum / Re: Methoxetamine - Synthetic Ketamine on: October 16, 2011, 19:51:40
Who suggested it's designed not to do as much damage to the urinary tract? Is there a source for that or just something people are saying?
144  General / The Forum / Re: occupy bristol on: October 16, 2011, 18:33:19
If we all had degrees in economics we might all actually believe the bullshit the governments and banks come up with instead of just being apathetic.
145  General / The Forum / Re: occupy bristol on: October 16, 2011, 18:15:47
there's gotta be a lot more to it than that tho? does anyone on this board have a degree in economics or something similar?

A lot more to what? The early 2k recession? Not really, all periods of growth fuelled by debt, ie. all periods of growth with modern monetary systems, have to be followed by a period of depression, as more people take on more debt and the economy "grows", bubbles start to form, because the system is pro-cyclical, and more people take on more credit, leading to even more credit being available. Eventually there's nowhere useful left for the credit to go, so it goes into, for example, speculative housing in sub-prime america, tech startups, or most recently precious metals, fuelled by investment banks like Goldman Sachs (or in the case of dot-com Citibank and Merrill Lynch, who naturally hedge themselves against the inevitable fuckup, get fined a pathetic amount for breaking the rules and conning all their customers and then get bailed out next time round) then suddenly it all fucks up when the only people left to lend to are incapable of paying anything back.

So in the case of the early 2000's all this surplus credit went into dot-com because the investors were seeing such major leaps in technology that they felt they didn't need to worry about the traditional metrics of success, and they needed somewhere to invest their cash. Eventually the economy becomes so saturated with debt and there isn't enough new business to invest it to keep it ticking over, so it crashes, the CEO's rinse their companies for everything they can, lay off the employees, and hooray the ratio goes more in favour of the "1%".

This then triggers other difficulties for other companies as the banks start posting losses and tighten up credit, so suddenly your butcher closes down because he can't afford the increase in overdraft to buy tasty, tasty sausages.

Hopefully that made sense.

I do, not sure who else does - the degree that is, not that you actually learn anything useful or correct.
146  General / The Forum / Re: occupy bristol on: October 16, 2011, 17:05:39
Quote
That is all

well...not really. it's not very specific and doesn't explain what happened between '99 - '03

Does it matter? For anyone who doesn't know it was the dot com bubble bursting and 9/11, incidentally. It didn't have much to do with housing.

What matters is they went back to being as disproportionally rich as they were in 97, which is still richer than they were before the start of the boom that began a couple of years earlier.

The ratio of CEO to worker wages in the states is much, much higher than in other parts of the world, a more meaningful placard would have made this comparison.



Bear in mind that this is wages, it doesn't count unemployment which went up by about 2% during those years, about 5 million people.

In Japan, which has the best ratio (if you're a worker) in the developed world, it's about 16-20:1

They also don't have even a slight problem with national debt in Japan despite it being very very high, because they mostly owe it to themselves. Personally I'm glad the economic imperialism of America is going to come to an end, because everybody else owns all their debt and the rich keep so much money for themselves that the poor can't spend enough to keep the rich in business.




147  General / The Forum / Re: Post your SoundCloud tracks - October on: October 13, 2011, 15:20:27
<a href="http://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http%3A%2F%2Fapi.soundcloud.com%2Ftracks%2F25376600" target="_blank">http://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http%3A%2F%2Fapi.soundcloud.com%2Ftracks%2F25376600</a>


One I just finished t'other day
148  General / The Forum / Re: Post your SoundCloud tracks - October on: October 03, 2011, 20:04:19
<a href="http://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http%3A%2F%2Fapi.soundcloud.com%2Ftracks%2F24169817" target="_blank">http://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http%3A%2F%2Fapi.soundcloud.com%2Ftracks%2F24169817</a>
149  General / The Forum / Re: Er...WTF? on: September 30, 2011, 13:01:32
Not bad, but DIY music vids don't come any more wtf than this

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/pw42uhVUY0M" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/v/pw42uhVUY0M</a>
150  General / The Forum / Re: BBC news interview with Alessio Rastani...lol on: September 27, 2011, 22:35:33
so has it been confirmed whether it was real or not yet?
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 ... 24
Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

HIJACK is part of purplelight Media
and is hosted by purplelight Hosting Services. | Privacy Policy

Tickets powered by The Ticket Fairy and Bristol Tickets