I urge those of you interested in this topic to watch this documentary before commenting,not easy viewing for those on the left or the right......but with an interesting solution to Britain's debt towards the end of the documentary;
QUOTE;Film maker Martin Durkin explains the full extent of the financial mess we are in: an estimated £4.8 of national debt and counting. It's so big that even if every home in the UK was sold it wouldn't raise enough cash to pay it off.
Durkin argues that to put Britain back on track we need to radically rethink the role of the state, stop politicians spending money in our name and introduce, among other measures, flat taxes to make Britain's economy boom again.
This polemical film presented by Martin Durkin, brings economic theory to life and makes it hit home. It includes interviews with academics, economic experts, entrepreneurs, no less than four ex-Chancellors of the Exchequer and the biggest stack of £50 notes you'll never OF QUOTE
Sadly medway, I can't view it as my IP address is outside the UK but whether left or right, I totally agree that there is one almighty debt crisis to address which can only begin to be handled once the deficit has been dealt with. This seems to be the point that most people just can't get their heads round.
I believe the ConDem Alliance have taken the right initial steps to protect and even reduce the rates at which interest is currently being paid. Whether it works in the long term is yet to be proven but I certainly hope that it will. Although Eire is currently saying they don't need foreign assistance in handling their financial crisis, it was interesting to note this week that their star rating has been downgraded and like Greece and Portugal, are going to find life increasingly more difficult should they need to turn to the financial markets for help.
As for Kaz's stance on Friedman not holding water, I can only assume she also subscribes to the theory that "property is theft" as much as she does that students have the right to terrorise innocent people going about their everyday working lives to which she alluded in the Student Protest thread. Milton Friedman has consistently shown himself to be an acknowledged authority on these matters and he should not be discounted so easily by those with scant experience in international monetary affairs.
The £50 note throwing away every second was an interesting analogy to try and put an understandable dimension on the size of the debt Brown has saddled the UK with.
I'm a bit disadvantaged on commenting but I can only think that the reference to cutting taxes refers to direct tax. Indirect tax such as VAT is more acceptable if there is such a thing because it directly relates to choice perhaps?
In both cases I agree GnV that they deliberately set fire to the building and threw the fire extinguisher off the roof. The problem arises on that one word.......intent. If that cannot be proved that they intended to kill someone then the act is manslaughter not murder.
The police would have to show that they intended to do it by confession or show beyond all reasonable doubt that they planned to do this prior to the act. If they cannot then it is reduced to manslaughter, that is a violent criminal act that resulted in taking of a life.
The comparison is there in both cases. they both threw an item off a roof knowing there was somebody under the bridge and under the building. In one case case it resulted in death and the other it didn't. That is just a fortunate anomaly in life for those under the fire extinguisher.
If the police can show that the individuals went there armed with a petrol can to set fire then, I believe, they could show intent.
It was premeditated Bluefish, but only in as much that they were going to block the road. The criminals were found not gulty of murder as they did not confess to planning to kill the driver and the police/CPS could not prove this point. However, the law found them guilty of a violent criminal act, manslaughter, and this is what they were at that time.
Dave_Notts
To jump back to topic, I saw the program and my thoughts are;
If Richard Branson was doing a program about our dept and how we got into it and how to get out of it, I'd take lots of notice as he is a successful businessman. But for a film-maker / economist to spout off.................I'll have an extra-large potion of salt with that please !!
John
sadly medway, although i have'nt watched the documentary, i can only presume that the commentators and supposed economists accept the fraudulent ponzi scheme created by the private central banks and their underlings as legitimate and therefore the debts as legitimate and real. watch the financial news closely this week as the irish crisis unfolds followed by portugal, spain and greece. as merkel, the heads of the e.c.b etc insist on lower leverage of credit default swaps and holders try to gain liquidity.
the conflicts created by the feds q.e. will force protectionism and actions to preserve markets and margin calls to rise exponentially. the collapse has been only been temporarily defered by the tranfere of private debt to soveriegn but its too great. look out, many british banks and hedge funds are holding enormous amounts of irish bonds that, no matter how much austerity the irish government imposes on its people, can never be repaid and everyone knows it. thats why the euro is under pressure but the talk behind the smoke about ireland is probably britain. regards
