On Mon 30 Oct at 9:25am Green Sleeves wrote:
I'm not quite sure I followed your point - yes armed conflicts and deaths have fallen, life expectancy broadly increases etc etc, that is great and i hope a sign of human progress. I get all that, so those of us in the world fortunate to live in relative peace and prosperity shouldn't be looking away at those who aren't. Grateful of course to not have been born in Gaza, Yemen, Syria or Libya, but its perfectly ok to understand and have compassion for them and criticise the failings of our world for letting these things still occur in the 21st century.
You do wonder though with all these flashpoints around the world, in the middle east, eastern europe and korea and taiwan/china, are leading up to a catastrophic global conflict, as well as of course the issue of climate change and diminishing resources as you point out. There is a dread that its about to get worse, before it hopefully gets MUCH better, and we're not all squabbling for resources. I bet Tom Pain would make a good "prepper".
On Mon 30 Oct at 2:26pm Nevillman wrote:
There are still flashpoints and conflicts around the world but fewer than there used to be and affecting fewer people relative to the world population. You can of course still feel guilty about the ones that continue if you wish. How could "our world" have prevented them happening. Blair tried to calm Iraq by removing a murderous leader in the hope it would prevent more bloodshed and he gets labelled as toxic. Maybe you should be the one that decides when and how we should intervene.
Although I am pessimistic about the medium term future of humanity I am aware that that belief is partly a result of evolution. It was the humans who feared the worst who were the ones that survived and passed on their genes, at least in enough crucial times in history to affect our gene pool. Maybe technology will come to our rescue and we will solve the problem of energy without pollution. Maybe the leaders involved in all the places you mention will be wise enough to resolve the conflicts. Maybe none of the people with fingers on the button will push it for the rest of history. Maybe a new Messiah will come forward and lead us all to peace and prosperity forever. And behold his name is Tom.
On Mon 30 Oct at 3:52pm Green Sleeves wrote:
These flash points we discuss almost always have some connection back to the west, relating to either colonisation, proxy wars or sanctions. Its not about guilt, its about concern for fellow humans that are potentially suffering as a consequence of western policies. I choose to pay attention and take note, has nothing to do with guilt as I am not one who takes national pride or patriotism seriously. I'm more proud of being a vegetarian than being British and the chance/accident of my location of birth!
Tom Pain is the second coming. We thought it might have been David Icke, but it almost certainly will be TP. I'm a believer and we need a good cult leader like him.
I appreciate the irony of your Blair/Saddam comment. That made me laugh.
On Tue 31 Oct at 9:47am Nevillman wrote:
It's a global interconnected world and to say that the conflict in Yemen comes back to the west means very little. A quick read up on their history shows a country that has been fought over throughout it's history by various empires, countries and religious factions. There is now a civil war in which indigenous rivals are fighting it out. Anyone with any humanity must feel for the poor innocent people caught up in it and empathise with them as they try to get on with their lives. What Western policies would you suggest for solving it or helping? I'm pleased the are fewer conflicts than there have been in the past. Is that down to better diplomacy and leadership of luck?
Like you, I feel no great pride in being British but unlike you I don't particularly feel shame either. Nation states seem to be a fact of life and this is the one we happen to have been born into. Some of its inhabitants have done some great things, some have done some horrible things. I support England at football, cricket etc but that doesn't make me a rabid nationalist. I'm not sure it's pride I feel when "we" win but it does make me happy.
I am happy enough for the royal family to continue, mainly because the circumstances in which they could be replaced are scary and I don't want to run the risk of President farage.
It's a shame Tom doesn't contribute. I hope he isn't hurt as I genuinely like the guy and have reasons to be very grateful to him.
Please argue with any of the above or try to raise my hackles with any new points. I'm feeling quite mellow today though.
On Tue 31 Oct at 11:05am Green Sleeves wrote:
I feel neither pride nor shame, just like to understand the world outside of national propaganda and our version of history. A critical look all all events, rather than just through one biased perspective.
The west suppling Saudi Arabia with billions of dollars of weapons, including the UK, is a policy causing huge death tolls in Yemen. There's a good starter for becoming a better country. Don't sell weapons to head chopping regimes who are going to use then on a vastly poorer and ill equipped country. Same with Israel basically. Kind of common sense, avoid profiting from causing the misery to millions of brown people.
On Tue 31 Oct at 6:26pm Nevillman wrote:
I think we can take pride in the UK arms industry being one of the most successful in the world. We are the second largest exporter of arms despite our justified reputation as only exporting to stable governments who will ensure that the arms are used for peaceful purposes.
Saudi Arabia is doing it's utmost to ensure there is peace in the region and that the rebels in Yemen are quashed allowing the country to return to being the haven of peace it has traditionally been. Although Saudi Arabia has a reputation for repressing it's own citizens it is important to emphasize that no evidence of UK arms being used against homosexuals or women has been proven. They use rocks from other Arabic countries if they are needed or locally produced swords if their fully accountable legal system decides it is necessary to set an example by humanely executing people.
Too many Trotskyists like you try to put down one of our leading industries. Why don't you go to Russia where I'm sure you will find a far inferior arms industry which is what your type seem to want.
On Tue 31 Oct at 7:06pm Green Sleeves wrote:
Couldn't we be proud instead of big cool, ethical and decent industries like green technology, renewables, the premier league, plant based foods, cancer cures and robots?? Why do we have to be proud of our doomsday machines and weapons that will ultimately chew through poor peoples flesh in the wrong place at the wrong time.
On Tue 31 Oct at 8:05pm Nevillman wrote:
It's a shame we couldn't get in quickly and successfully in the renewables industry. I guess that countries with better infrastructure for manufacturing did. To be fair, we do have the biggest football league in the world and I think we're not to bad for medical research and very good for finance of course.
No good expecting an arms company to turn to making wind generators and they make a good profit of arms. I once knew someone who worked for a company making tanks. Nice bloke as it happened. He would probably have preferred making something else but fought in the war and thought tanks were important and it's hard to change career like that anyway.
I'm interested in the productivity of UK workers. Often seen presented as a fault of the workers when of course productivity is a direct result of investment which is down to owners.
On Wed 1 Nov at 7:32am Green Sleeves wrote:
British taxpayers subsidise much of our arms industry, you can't help but feel we could put that to subsidising more ethical and humanitarian projects. Ones that still turn a profit for the capitalists hung up on that stuff, but also doesn't ultimately get used to blow innocent civilians up. Green tech is pretty lucrative and no limbs were lost as a result of that industry.
On Wed 1 Nov at 9:10am Nevillman wrote:
I couldn't get to the bottom of the figures but presumably the government thinks that the arms industry is a net benefit to the country through tax and foreign currency received. Much of the subsidy seems to be indirect eg through export credit guarantee and none of the figures looked high as a percentage of the total. Please correct me on that if you have more of a grasp on this.
There will also be the strategic consideration that the UK should have a developed arms industry in the event of war.
Wouldn't it be lovely if the whole effort of everyone could be to be improve the lot of everyone in the world. Sadly my parents fought in a world war and their parents did too. We can get lured into thinking that it will never happen again because we have been so lucky to live in peace. I'm afraid people and the world haven't changed that much. As a boomer I was brought up believing that when my generation was in charge it would all be different. People are still the same. We didn't get to be the only species of hominid or of the most dominant species in the world by being peaceful.
On Wed 1 Nov at 9:52am Tom Pain wrote:
What does it take to develop an industry? Money. Governments have the power to creat money for domestic needs, why don't they use it instead of borrowing and creating an unnecessary debt?
On Wed 1 Nov at 10:41am Green Sleeves wrote:
I'm sure the arms industry is profitable and would never suggest otherwise, just as oil and gas fossil fuel industries are. Doesn't mean we should throw all our eggs into it or its the right path. I'm certain there are far more benign and more profitable and safer industries to support, such as the cannabis industry That generates billions, and kills basically nobody and when i say nobody, it really is almost literally nobody and is now used by the NHS as medicine to further justify it. But its far too dangerous and risky for the UK government to go big on plants and herbs, when instead they could be selling weapons to drop on poor brown people without a shred of guilt and extracting more fossils from the sea for limited finite energy.
The first and second world wars were financially costly for Britain, but ultimately, we suffered very little compared to other countries in the world in those wars by comparison. Plenty of other nations who sacrificed more, lost more than Britain did, and don't spend huge amounts on defence or the defence industry afterwards and are ultimately benefiting from it. We never have lived in a peaceful world, and by creating more weapons it doesn't make it more peaceful, it just makes it more likely and more deadly when it inevitably goes off again, and even being well-armed might not be as useful as one would initially think, it just makes us a bigger target. Its like America and its guns, its so over the top that the "gun industry" now is effectively killing tens of thousands of americans every year. These are genuine excess deaths that unarmed countries aren't suffering. Of course they'll be laughing when that Zombie apocalypse comes, but those 300m guns in american homes are currently a major liability.
On Wed 1 Nov at 10:53am Green Sleeves wrote:
As for government subsidies to unethical industries, its essentially corporate welfare. Most of it enriches those at the top and those that are willing to donate to those in power. We're better off subsidising genuinely helpful and beneficial industries, and if you're going make a few elites rich, better they aren't elites that profit from death, misery and/or the end of the world.
Still, good to see Tom Pain is still alive and kicking.
On Wed 1 Nov at 4:19pm Nevillman wrote:
I don't really know much about subsidies to the arms industry. One hopes it is for the long term benefit of people within the UK either as workers or recipients of the tax it raises but for all I know it goes to Tory party donors. My only access to media, private eye, comes up with stories about inefficiency and payouts to dodgy people and companies in the arms industry regularly but I don't know the facts and to be honest I'm not particularly comfortable defending the UK arms industry on the whole.
My observation of the cannabis industry is that it is more what could be described as a cottage industry. Many countries have far better climates for growing it and if it was grown on a large scale we would actually be better off letting countries with the better climate grow it and import it. Look up the law of comparative advantage for the economic theory behind that.
As for subsidising industries, governments that create money are only fuelling inflation so the value of all the money goes down. I guess with the arms industry the government would say that the subsidies are transferring tax raised from the arms industry to other parts of the arms industry so they are not just creating the money as such.
Many governments have tried to start industries in their country Tom with varying success. You also need expertise and infrastructure as well as investment. As we can see from the UK productivity figures, there is already too little investment in established industries anyway.
On Wed 1 Nov at 10:59pm Tom Pain wrote:
Weapons of destruction don't suggest much of a domestic flavour to me. I don't know what you get up to in your garden shed but remember your neighbours have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of a measure of joy. Perhaps the gov could create money to build hospitals and suchlike mundane domestic projects not such a blaze as your blood and thunder, but useful and much cheaper than public private partnerships. I really hope it's not an atom bomb.
On Thu 2 Nov at 2:18pm Green Sleeves wrote:
I'm more of a consumer of the herb rather than a grower so i cant comment with too much certainty on that part. I'm sure due to our mild climate most home grown weed is done indoors. I guess one positive of climate change and a warming British Isles is that we will soon be able to successfully have an outdoor industry for wine...already starting to take shape on the South Coast. Certain cannabis strains can already grow outdoors in UK climate, but the warmer weather will help.
I believe medicinal cannabis is already a major export for the UK, so perhaps its not that difficult to do. Guess it's not all that energy efficient with the uvb lamps.
On Thu 2 Nov at 4:23pm Nevillman wrote:
I've never had English wine as it always looks more expensive than imported. Presumably that is due to economies of scale for foreign producers. Weed can be grown outside here but there is an increased chance of mould and I'm not sure the quality is very high although that may be due to the strains ( I'm told).
I presume it's like tomatoes. They will be more expensive if grown commercially here as there will probably be heating costs and the growing season is much shorter than southern Spain or North Africa. I once met a South African who was going over to weed growing commercially. I imagine it would be very hard for a UK grower to compete if trying to produce industrial strength dope. Is medicinal use weed the same as recreational? It might be different and not requiring the same weather. Same THC?
Maybe I should glass over my shed Tom and look at what medicine I can produce.
On Thu 2 Nov at 7:58pm Green Sleeves wrote:
The THC is significantly lower for UK medicinal weed "products", its predominantly CBD (with THC being almost just trace amounts). Not sure whether THC requires more UVB/sunlight/energy, but they certainly make sure to take the fun bit out of the medicine, in THC. Which is a shame, since THC has its own unique medicinal properties, beyond just bringing out the giggles and a penchant for Dr Pepper and mars bars.
Still, if you plan on growing some in your greenhouse, as least you got one local customer ready and waiting to sign up!
On Fri 3 Nov at 4:41pm Tom Pain wrote:
I don't think you are interested in medicine or the NHS.
On Fri 3 Nov at 7:18pm Nevillman wrote:
Can this possibly be true green? No doubt he would be injecting it as soon as was he could Tom.
On Fri 3 Nov at 8:10pm Tom Pain wrote:
Money created for productive purposes doesn't cause inflation. It's a pity you lost interest in economics before it became interesting. Modern forensic research is discovering that many of the old theories are inaccurate and misleading. The hurry to introduce CBDCs is the last gasp of the central banks to retain control before it's too late and the truth is exposed.
On Fri 3 Nov at 11:11pm Green Sleeves wrote:
Of course I care about the NHS. I will desperately need them for my cannabis overdose I may put myself through to get through Tom Pains posts.
On Sat 4 Nov at 11:31am Nevillman wrote:
Impressive Tom. It's a question of if and when the investment became productive. You were talking about creating money to build hospitals though. State investment in industry is often unsuccessful.
Which old theories are inaccurate and misleading? Please don't bring up Werner again.
What are CBDCs? Do I want to know?
I'm wondering if shrooms might help you more green. Maybe some of it will make sense then.
On Sat 4 Nov at 6:08pm Tom Pain wrote:
Perhaps the one you quoted might spring to mind nev. I wonder what The Science says about the weed ,sleeves? Is it true that it is responsible for myocarditis and the current spike in excess deaths?
On Sun 5 Nov at 12:08pm Nevillman wrote:
If you mean the Werner theory as an example of a new economic theory replacing an established theory I thought I gave you my reasons for rejecting his theory and why most other economists reject it on at least 2 occasions. In my view money supply generally follows demand. Not the other way round as Werner says. What other theories do you regard as inaccurate and misleading?
I've seen nothing linking myocarditis with weed Tom. BHF says it could be caused by a reaction to cocaine so it might be a good idea for you and green to avoid. People I've seen who have had cocaine can tend to be a bit self obsessed and go on a bit, certain they are right. Perfect for forum participants.
There are many possible causes of the rise in excess deaths but as Maria has reassured us, it is not due to deficiencies in the health service.
On Sun 5 Nov at 5:07pm Tom Pain wrote:
You must have misunderstood him then nev, the way you do me. Sometimes I think it's deliberate or an unconscious habit but you twist things like sleeves does to give them a negative slant to discredit them. Obviously money is not going to be supplied if there is no demand but what if there is a demand and the banks find that it's to their advantage not to satisfy it as they did in the great depression? I'm talking about the BIG banks not the small ones which they also drive out of business.
On Sun 5 Nov at 6:40pm Nevillman wrote:
I'm just not sufficiently interested in this theory to investigate it further. Money supply is a niche area of economics and it's not like it's fundamental to understanding the economy.
He was easier to understand than you Tom.
On Sun 5 Nov at 11:54pm Tom Pain wrote:
Without money there would be no economy. I quite understand your lack of interest.
On Mon 6 Nov at 9:54am Nevillman wrote:
Economics is the study of how resources (things) are distributed within society. Who produces and how things are produced and distributed. Money is a medium of exchange. People produced and consumed things long before money was invented so there was most definitely an economy without money.
I've explained this before Tom. If you want to read and learn more about this and then come back I will be happy to respond. If you just want to make another stupid point then don't expect a response.
On Mon 6 Nov at 2:33pm biggles wrote:
Why don't you 3 get a room and leave the rest of us in peace.
On Mon 6 Nov at 3:15pm Green Sleeves wrote:
If the three of us kept it private, the forum would have no activity beyond some spamming of online degree courses and guttering in the Dublin area.
Be careful for what you wish for. Peace on a forum doesn't always lend itself well to discussion and debate!
On Mon 6 Nov at 7:10pm Nevillman wrote:
I'd be too worried about losing your valuable contributions if we did that biggles
On Mon 6 Nov at 9:28pm Tom Pain wrote:
I wish, nev.