For example, Trump wrongly stated that “the Democratic National Committee was totally open to be hacked. They did a very poor job. … And they tried to hack the Republican National Committee, and they were unable to break through.”
Baloney.FBI Director James B. Comey said there was evidence that Republican National Committee computers were also targeted. The critical difference, according to Comey, was that none of the information obtained from the RNC was leaked. Also, according to Comey, the Russians “got far deeper and wider into the [DNC] than the RNC,” adding that “similar techniques were used in both cases.”
Sorek can produce a thousand liters of drinking water for 58 cents.
Works in the sense that it is economic. So, that’s that solved then.
Possibly even one I’ve mentioned before.
We know that Ricardo first got turned on to economics by reading Adam Smith. We even know that this was in 1799 while on holiday. In Bath.
So, do we know where he was staying? The actual address?
We could leave the EU to cut trade to reduce emissions, to bolster local business, reduce trade deficits, close down tax haven activity, cut the tax gap by imposing capital controls, increase wages by favouring UK employment and leading the way in how to make the global economy local.
There’s quite a bit more nationalism to the socialism than usual, isn’t there?
the economy but the reality is that a falling pound, caused by Brexit, whilst there is rising consumption, fuelled by debt, means we will have a growing trade deficit
Trade deficits are caused by declining currencies, are they?
Oxfam has told us all that 8 people have as much wealth as the bottom 50% of humanity and this is an outrage, Something Must Be Done. OK, so, let us think about what must be done then. The most obvious point being that we should reverse the outrage. Take all the money off the rich people and give it to the poor people. At which point that 50% of humanity would each get $100 or so.
This is not actually a solution to anything at all, is it? Thus the original problem being complained of is not a problem, is not an outrage and does not require that something be done.
What counts as employment has fundamentally changed. Gone are the days of wages that would enable a single earner to support a family.
Real wages aren’t any lower than they used to be. So how could this be?
Putrescent guff more likely, no?
When you see a man looking at porn in public (and yes, I know it’s not all men but a minority of them), aside from laughing, or feeling scared, or uncomfortable, you might also experience a sense of awe. Imagine, just imagine, having such a sense of ownership of and entitlement to public space that your need to watch a naked woman being penetrated outweighs the discomfort of the women (and children) in the physical environment around you catching you watching it. The lack of respect is staggering.
I thought we were supposed to celebrate other peoples’ sexuality these days?
At which point we have to ask why Oxfam is perpetrating this drivel upon the public sphere. And I’m afraid that the only answer I can come up with is a very cynical one. Drawn from the insights of that arch-cynic (although he was also right) C. Northcote Parkinson. No bureaucracy is ever ready to go into that long dark night, the aim and purpose of a bureaucracy is simply for the bureaucracy to perpetuate. And anti-poverty campaigners in my native UK back in the 1950s and 60s realised that they had a problem. Absolute poverty was essentially beaten in Britain in the 1930s. Thus they couldn’t really campaign against something that didn’t exist any more. So, some moved to campaigning about the absolute poverty that persisted in other parts of the world (and Oxfam, among others, did some very good work here) and others set about redefining poverty to mean relative poverty. Or as we can also call it, inequality. For while we did manage to prove Jesus wrong, the poor would not always be with us, inequality most certainly would be.
And the current prediction is that we’ll pretty much wipe out global absolute poverty by 2030. One of the few global targets that does in fact look achievable too. At which point, what is a bureaucracy campaigning against poverty, one perhaps called Oxfam, to do? Who will provide that indoor relief for the dimmer scions of the establishment that is a campaigning NGO when there is no poverty to campaign against?
Quite, change the problem from poverty to inequality and the grandchildren of Jocelyn and Jocasta will still have someone to fund their gap yah.
Sam Walton’s heirs have some $100 billion between them, vast piles of cash. But that is a one off sum; they’ve got that wealth the once and the once only. Out here, we consumers are getting over $250 billion a year of value from that same creation, Walmart. Over the past couple of decades we’ve had $5 trillion and they’ve had $100 billion. Surely the bargain of the century?
I’m not talking about whether the rich deserve their spoils. We are not talking rights or morality here, just pure pragmatism. The reason we’re cool with the Walmart heirs having $100 billion is because we’ve had $5 trillion out of the arrangement. And we’d like the next person who has an idea to make us $5 trillion richer to think that their kids, or even they themselves, might be allowed to keep some fraction of it.
Poverty exists and obviously we’d prefer that it didn’t. That’s why we need more rich people not fewer: because we need someone to create value for the rest of us to consume.
Seriously, who cares if they get three per cent of what we do?
It would be one thing if the incoming commander in chief showed any hint of humility, of realizing that his duty to the nation requires showing some respect for the strong majority of Americans who voted against him despite Russian meddling and the F.B.I.’s disinformation dump.
The majority of Americans who voted voted against him but the majority of Americans did not vote against him.
A fairly important distinction there.
Co-op Bank has agreed to pump millions into the pension scheme of the Britannia Building Society.
The struggling lender will hand the group’s pension trustees £50 million over the next seven years, as well as placing a £137 million portfolio of top-rated mortgages or debt into a custodian account with another bank as security for the scheme.
The pension scheme became the responsibility of the Co-op Bank after its disastrous merger in 2009 with the building society and marks the latest financial hit as a result.
Instead of those non-bankers that Ritchie defended so vociferously.
Latham House farm in Wigan has been in Jimmy Morris’s family for more than 80 years. He and his wife, Gillian, use their nine hectares (23 acres) of greenbelt land to graze sheep and cows, and in the winter they welcome Blackpool beach’s donkeys for their holidays.
The first they knew of proposals to build on their land was when a council notice was pinned to a lamppost on their road. A stretch of land next to the Morris’s farmhouse, near the junction between the M6 and the M58, has been marked as a possible site for a new road leading from the motorway, plus 170 houses and 150,000 sq metres of employment space.
The family bought the farm 30 years ago, after renting it for more than half a century, in the hope that they could secure it for future generations.
Is the land being compulsory purchased?
If not, then how are people building on their land without permission?
More than half of millennial fathers want to be demoted into a less stressful job in order to be better fathers, according to a report released on Monday.
As experts warn of a “fatherhood penalty” for men who want to be more involved in the upbringing of their children, 53% of millennial fathers told researchers they wanted to move to a less stressful job, while 48% would take a pay cut to achieve a better work-life balance.
Every dollar of profit given to the shareholders of corporations is
a dollar that could have been spent paying producers or workers more, paying more tax, or
investing in infrastructure or innovation.
The people who receive it do what with it? Err, spend it or invest it, meaning that it goes to workers, producers, tax, investment or infrastructure.
There is no getting away from the fact that the biggest winners in our global economy are
those at the top. Oxfam‟s research has revealed that over the last 25 years, the top 1% have
gained more income than the bottom 50% put together.
Checking their own report as their source:
Since the turn of the century, the poorest half of the world’s population has
received just 1% of the total increase in global wealth, while half of that
increase has gone to the top 1%.
Twats writing about global income and wealth who are not able to distinguish correctly between income and wealth are twats, aren’t they?
In 1990, 35% of the global population lived below the extreme poverty line. After three
decades of poverty reduction, it is estimated that in 2015 less than 10% of the world
lived below this line, calibrated at $1.90 a day.
5 While it is important to celebrate this
progress, we can‟t be complacent. For the world to reach the Sustainable
Development Goal target to have eradicated extreme poverty by 2030, the World
Bank has made it clear that we must see a more equal distribution of growth, with an
associated reduction in inequality.
In order to see a reduction in inequality you need more unequal growth, not more equal growth, you ignorant, ignorant, tosspots.
The incomes of the poor must grow more quickly than those of the rich in order to reduce inequality…..
To end the injustice of extreme poverty, it is clear
that economic inequality must be addressed.
Nope, not at all. to end extreme poverty we need to be creating more wealth, more value add. Because people can only consume value that is created.
The Government has been urged to crack down on health tourism after it emerged that a Nigerian woman cost the NHS £350,000 by flying to Britain to give birth to twins.
Luton and Dunstable University Hospital is said to be chasing payment for the caesarean section the unidentified woman had, followed by intensive care treatment for the two babies.
We know that the NHS won’t pay more than £30k per qualy, or rather than NICE won’t let it for a drug or treatment. But what’s the number for treatment in general, ICU etc?
Tampon sales have fallen by a quarter over the past four years, data has revealed, as more women are using contraception methods which stop their monthly cycles.
Contraceptives are free and tampons cost money – plus VAT – meaning that poverty drives women into cont. pg 94.
You have seen that there really is a campaign about tampon poverty, yes?