How do the Britons feel? [Archive]

omnirook

2 Jun 2006, 01:28 PM

Madrigal

2 Jun 2006, 02:01 PM

against allowing in all sorts of foreigners to take jobs and drive up the crime rate
Interesting hypothesis. So the country's unemployment is due to foreigners taking jobs? And I suppose the only thing the government is doing wrong is to let them past the borders, huh? I can't believe how many people still fall for this trick. Conveniently, the government gets to blame their ineptitude on foreign elements and divert society's attention from the economic policies that are truly to blame. Oh, no, it's just the immigration policy. Hate your neighbour, don't hate the government. That's how fascism is bred.

Unemployment = higher crime levels? There is a relation. But are you saying that immigrants are to blame for the escalating crime in the country?

Is there anything else your government has done wrong that you'd like to pin on the immigrants while you're at it?

omnirook

2 Jun 2006, 02:11 PM

Interesting hypothesis. So the country's unemployment is due to foreigners taking jobs? And I suppose the only thing the government is doing wrong is to let them past the borders, huh? I can't believe how many people still fall for this trick. Conveniently, the government gets to blame their ineptitude on foreign elements and divert society's attention from the economic policies that are truly to blame. Oh, no, it's just the immigration policy. Hate your neighbour, don't hate the government. That's how fascism is bred.

Unemployment = higher crime levels? There is a relation. But are you saying that immigrants are to blame for the escalating crime in the country?

Is there anything else your government has done wrong that you'd like to pin on the immigrants while you're at it?

I think that the situation in the United Kingdom is somewhat different from that in the United States (my country, by the way).

Apparently, a goodly percent of the "immigrants" who have gone to the UK have not gone there, looking for work, but have gone w/the idea of committing crimes in mind. People that were gangsters in countries that are a lot more repressive than the United Kingdom have had a "field day" in the United Kingdom. "The Firm" - ie, the UK mafia - has never had a reputation for being especially brutal, but the brutality has escalated w/the addition of Russians and Poles and others to the mix - people who come from places where organized crime is very brutal indeed.

Biff_Loman

2 Jun 2006, 02:15 PM

Moved to World.

We can always move it back if we have to.

Dom

2 Jun 2006, 02:24 PM

Since I'm likely to wind up in the dust-bin, I figured I'd start there.

I'm an American (US). However, as I've noted elsewhere, I'm half-English. (The other half is Italian-American, my father having been the first of his family to be born in the United States; his elder sister was born in Sorrento, Italy.)

Because I'm half-English and have spent a good amount of time in the UK, I have always taken a keen interest in Britain and, of course, have a particular love for the English - not always a liking, mind you, but a love. (I learned early that the English have a talent for being nasty in the politest possible way - you might not even realize that you've been insulted until days have passed. The English - many of them - despise Americans, see us as crass and backwards, as children who are likely to make a mess of things (I can't say that I disagree).)

Anyway, I fell in w/my mother's family as far as politics go - Tory, royalist, unionist, etc. As a result, I've opposed devolution (Yes - as an American, I have got the "cheek" to mind other people's business) - and did take it upon myself to write several letters to Tony Blair on the matter. (Despite the promise at least to acknowledge the receipt of all letters, mine were utterly ignored.) Also, I am against the EU, against giving up the pound, against surrendering British sovereignity as far as the courts go, and against allowing in all sorts of foreigners to take jobs and drive up the crime rate (No, I never sought work in the UK, felt that UK jobs should go to Britons, and I never asked for the refund of the VAT once I had left the UK, felt that I should help support my mother's homeland).

Anyway, how do you Britons feel? What about the EU? What about the pound? What about "open borders"? How about Lords Reform?

As I have noted elsewhere, I'm half English, 1/4 Italian, 1/4 French. And my politics are almost entirely opposite yours except that I don't like Tony, but only for what he has done to parlimentary democracy, and his whole sale abandoning of principal, too concered with what history will record rather than whats good for the country.

As for foreign labour, generaly it's good for our economy, the imigrant workers tend to do the jobs us Brits don't want to do, manual labour, agricultural and in the health service. The idea that they put us out of jobs is ridiculous, generally the migrant workers will work in these undesirable jobs, for less money than a Brit would. Listen to employers and they'll tell you thats the case. Without the migrant workforce we'd have a huge labour shortage. AS for driving up the crime rate, I don't know the statistics off the top of my head but the vast majority of crimes are commited by British Nationals.

I do not fear the EU as you do and acknowledge that 60%-70% of our exports enjoy the benefits of the EU free market. Sure the CAp needs to go, sure the dice are loaded but you do gain from beign in europe and it's nonsense left over imperialist nationalism to suggest we can survie outside this power bloc, the only other option would be to attempt to become the 53rd state.

I agree that devolution is the wrong way, nations should be banding together to better the lot of their people not disintergrating into national assemblies some of which now exist where nations never did.

The soverignty of our courts is absolute and not subject to anything, parliment is suppreme, so yes our courts are limited by statue and by international treaty, however the prinicpal that the British parliment is suppreme remains intact. In other words if we wanted to undo any piece of treaty or legislation we can. Of course there would be reprocussions, as there always are when you break agreements, but our courts and parliment has not surrendered any part of absolute soverignty at all.

I agree that the Euro is having problems and that a common fiscal policy for the whole of europe, is impractical without unifying the economy. I.E the german economy and french economy are still sepperate, and so one fiscal policy to govern them is unweildy, so out we should stay. Although the addition of the pound would help prop up and support the Euro, sadly britian decided not to engage fully with the European experiement and thus gave up the opportunity to be one of the driving nations. The EU could do with some Anglo-Saxon fiscal policy.

;)

cafe

2 Jun 2006, 02:27 PM

:offtopic: When I read the thread title, my first thought was, "I don't know. Bring me one and I'll feel them and tell you.":p

Dom

2 Jun 2006, 02:28 PM

Madrigal

2 Jun 2006, 02:40 PM

I think that the situation in the United Kingdom is somewhat different from that in the United States (my country, by the way).

Apparently, a goodly percent of the "immigrants" who have gone to the UK have not gone there, looking for work, but have gone w/the idea of committing crimes in mind. People that were gangsters in countries that are a lot more repressive than the United Kingdom have had a "field day" in the United Kingdom. "The Firm" - ie, the UK mafia - has never had a reputation for being especially brutal, but the brutality has escalated w/the addition of Russians and Poles and others to the mix - people who come from places where organized crime is very brutal indeed.
I actually thought you might try to justify this in a less outlandish way, but no, you are now stating that it is organized crime imported from Poland and Russia that is responsible for the escalating crime rate in the country.

I am not denying that organized crime exists or even that some of it can be "imported", but is that to blame for the general increase in crime? Don't you think that crime levels are in connection with an ineptly managed economy leading to the loss of jobs, a youth without a future, the swelling ranks of lumpen-proletarians, and consequently more people turning to illegality to earn a living? It is ridiculous that you'd blame increasing crime levels on imported organized crime.

By the way, organized crime rarely exists without the collaboration of local elements, and by this I mean from people in positions of power and authority, such as sectors of the police, the government and business, who obviously keep a good slice of the cake. I sincerely doubt that mafias could exist in any other way. If you are so obsessed with the influence of organized crime, maybe you should reflect on the corruption within the very system that allows such associations to flourish.

omnirook

2 Jun 2006, 02:49 PM

As I have noted elsewhere, I'm half English, 1/4 Italian, 1/4 French. And my politics are almost entirely opposite yours except that I don't like Tony, but only for what he has done to parlimentary democracy, and his whole sale abandoning of principal, too concered with what history will record rather than whats good for the country.

As for foreign labour, generaly it's good for our economy, the imigrant workers tend to do the jobs us Brits don't want to do, manual labour, agricultural and in the health service. The idea that they put us out of jobs is ridiculous, generally the migrant workers will work in these undesirable jobs, for less money than a Brit would. Listen to employers and they'll tell you thats the case. Without the migrant workforce we'd have a huge labour shortage. AS for driving up the crime rate, I don't know the statistics off the top of my head but the vast majority of crimes are commited by British Nationals.

I do not fear the EU as you do and acknowledge that 60%-70% of our exports enjoy the benefits of the EU free market. Sure the CAp needs to go, sure the dice are loaded but you do gain from beign in europe and it's nonsense left over imperialist nationalism to suggest we can survie outside this power bloc, the only other option would be to attempt to become the 53rd state.

I agree that devolution is the wrong way, nations should be banding together to better the lot of their people not disintergrating into national assemblies some of which now exist where nations never did.

The soverignty of our courts is absolute and not subject to anything, parliment is suppreme, so yes our courts are limited by statue and by international treaty, however the prinicpal that the British parliment is suppreme remains intact. In other words if we wanted to undo any piece of treaty or legislation we can. Of course there would be reprocussions, as there always are when you break agreements, but our courts and parliment has not surrendered any part of absolute soverignty at all.

I agree that the Euro is having problems and that a common fiscal policy for the whole of europe, is impractical without unifying the economy. I.E the german economy and french economy are still sepperate, and so one fiscal policy to govern them is unweildy, so out we should stay. Although the addition of the pound would help prop up and support the Euro, sadly britian decided not to engage fully with the European experiement and thus gave up the opportunity to be one of the driving nations. The EU could do with some Anglo-Saxon fiscal policy.

;)

Thank you for clearing up a few matters - about the immigrant labor and the courts. At least I understand the "other side" a bit better. Of course, I've spent my time in the UK among my own family and w/people who agree w/them, which, no surprise, leads to one having a rather one-sided view.

omnirook

2 Jun 2006, 03:04 PM

I actually thought you might try to justify this in a less outlandish way, but no, you are now stating that it is organized crime imported from Poland and Russia that is responsible for the escalating crime rate in the country.

I am not denying that organized crime exists or even that some of it can be "imported", but is that to blame for the general increase in crime? Don't you think that crime levels are in connection with an ineptly managed economy leading to the loss of jobs, a youth without a future, the swelling ranks of lumpen-proletarians, and consequently more people turning to illegality to earn a living? It is ridiculous that you'd blame increasing crime levels on imported organized crime.

By the way, organized crime rarely exists without the collaboration of local elements, and by this I mean from people in positions of power and authority, such as sectors of the police, the government and business, who obviously keep a good slice of the cake. I sincerely doubt that mafias could exist in any other way. If you are so obsessed with the influence of organized crime, maybe you should reflect on the corruption within the very system that allows such associations to flourish.

Actually, the point of this thread was to get varied view-points. I know that my view of the United Kingdom is skewered - I have vacationed there many times, mostly among Tory relatives, arch-conservatives, very pro-Monarchy, very pro-Anglican Church, etc. I do not mind what you have said; I do not even disagree w/you - however, I would prefer it if you would limit the vitriol. I'm not into censorship, so I'm not likely to tear into you ... Let's not argue. You've made some very good points, and you've made them well.

I don't even mind organized crime - it's as essential as organized government! I was merely responding w/the sentiments that I have heard my family express. Yes, I should have noted that. (I hated Mayor Guilianni because of his oppurtunistic prosecutions of the New York Mafia. Until that self-righteous prig came along, there was actually a well-moderated detente between the underworld and the overworld. That and Rudy helped destroy New York City, making it into a Disney-esque themepark where yuppies could push their ergonomically-correct baby carriages w/o having to see the homeless - who didn't just disappear as the tourists believed, but who had been shoved to Far Rockaway by Rudy's storm-troopers.)

Dom

2 Jun 2006, 03:10 PM

Thank you for clearing up a few matters - about the immigrant labor and the courts. At least I understand the "other side" a bit better. Of course, I've spent my time in the UK among my own family and w/people who agree w/them, which, no surprise, leads to one having a rather one-sided view.

Naturally it does, it;s one of the few reasons I still engage in political debate, to understand the otherside. Sadly it seems that the other side is often based on old sterrotypes.

Of course someone else will come and argue differently to me the moment they realise this thread is here!

;)

Dom

2 Jun 2006, 03:13 PM

Actually, the point of this thread was to get varied view-points. I know that my view of the United Kingdom is skewered - I have vacationed there many times, mostly among Tory relatives, arch-conservatives, very pro-Monarchy, very pro-Anglican Church, etc. I do not mind what you have said; I do not even disagree w/you - however, I would prefer it if you would limit the vitriol. I'm not into censorship, so I'm not likely to tear into you ... Let's not argue. You've made some very good points, and you've made them well.

I don't even mind organized crime - it's as essential as organized government! I was merely responding w/the sentiments that I have heard my family express. Yes, I should have noted that. (I hated Mayor Guilianni because of his oppurtunistic prosecutions of the New York Mafia. Until that self-righteous prig came along, there was actually a well-moderated detente between the underworld and the overworld. That and Rudy helped destroy New York City, making it into a Disney-esque themepark where yuppies could push their ergonomically-correct baby carriages w/o having to see the homeless - who didn't just disappear as the tourists believed, but who had been shoved to Far Rockaway by Rudy's storm-troopers.)

You care about the homeless??? Not keeping to your strick arch-Tory background then......

I remember when Major shut most of the night shelters for the homeless here, I'm also appalled that Tony didn't reopen them.

headfonez

2 Jun 2006, 03:23 PM

I hibernate in the words of the above post.

omnirook

2 Jun 2006, 03:52 PM

You care about the homeless??? Not keeping to your strick arch-Tory background then......

I remember when Major shut most of the night shelters for the homeless here, I'm also appalled that Tony didn't reopen them.
LOL! How could I not feel for people who have nothing and who are punished for not having anything?

Most of the homeless in the US are restricted to urban areas. The sub-urban and rural areas simply will not tolerate their presence - will either jail them or beat them, so that they "move on". Years back, it was a scandal that even other urban areas were putting the homeless onto New York City-bound buses w/one-way tickets and instructions for how to apply for help in New York. New York's shelters were such a disgrace and so dangerous that many of the homeless would not go there, even on freezing nights. The courts had to step in and start imposing huge fines. As a result, there has been some improvement, and the city has finally started to re-habilitate the thousands of abandoned buildings in upper Manhattan and in the South Bronx. But, as always, the newly fixed-up buildings have attracted people w/money who are fiendishly plotting to drive the poor out. This is done by raising property taxes and driving up the local prices for food and services. That, and "emminent domain" is being invoked - ie, "us rich folks want this property - our wanting it is equal to progress - therefore, the poor folks have to be kicked out" - and the courts uphold it. Ah, well ...

omnirook

3 Jun 2006, 12:08 PM

I have always felt that the United States' Founding Fathers made several mistakes in drawing up the nation's Constitution, the worst mistake having been combining the roles of Head of State and Head of Government into one office, President of the United States.

Yes, I realize that the English and Scottish monarchs had filled both roles throughout most of the histories of England and Scotland.

However, by the time of the American Revolution, the united British Monarchy had begun to evolve along a more enlightened path.

King George III did indeed try to be an executive ruler, but he found it increasingly difficult to do so, was several times forced to accept prime ministers whom he did not like, w/whom he did not agree.

The king's "madness" - he was never truly insane but suffered from porphyria, a very physically painful disease that causes alterations in its victims' behavior - and his eventual blindness and deafness - only accelerated the process of decline in the monarch's executive power, did not cause it.

Eventually, even if George III had remained healthy, I believe that effective exercise of the royal power (prerogative) would have devolved onto the prime minister and cabinet, who, as constituent parts of the Crown, would have carried out their policies in the monarch's name - as, indeed, they do now.

At any rate, as I said, when the Founding Fathers assembled to draw up a new constitution for the United States, I believe that it was a mistake to combine the roles of Head of State and Head of Government into one office.

Had they been truly clever, I think that they might have anticipated what the British were already well-underway in developing - ie, a system wherein the 2 roles were separate - as, indeed, I think they should be.

The neutral Head of State should represent the country in a non-politicized manner - that is, should be a symbolic leader, who carries out the nation's ceremonial forms and rituals, regardles of which faction is in power.

The partisan Head of Government should represent the majority of the people - either by true majority or coalition - in carrying out the nation's executive functions, including setting a national agenda.

As in the United Kingdom, it would have been better to make it at least possible if not likely to get rid of an unpopular Head of Government by having the Head of Government be a member of the legislature who would have to keep the confidence of the legislature.

Having made the US Head of Government separate from the legislature w/a definite term in office has made it very difficult to remove the Head of Governenment from office, which has allowed several US Presidents to act very much like uncrowned kings!

I realize that a significant minority of Britons question the need for the Monarchy. As an outsider looking in, I cannot help but feel that getting rid of the institution would be a terrible mistake.

1200 years of history is not something to be tossed away lightly - and the reigning monarch, Elizabeth II, is indeed descended from rulers who ante-dated Alfred the Great and is, in one way or another, related to all of the Kings and Queens Regnant of both England and Scotland. That's an amazing continuity!

Besides, looking the monarchs over as a group, the British people have not done too badly at their hands. Several of the monarchs were great indeed, and few of them were truly bad. From the time of George III forward, the crop of monarchs has been particularly good. Even George IV was not so bad, and the monarchs in the 20th Century were surely nothing to be ashamed of - Edward VII, George V, Edward VIII, George VI, and Elizabeth II - yes, Edward VIII - he at least understood that he had to step down.

Well, what do you think?

distraction tactics

3 Jun 2006, 12:50 PM

sbw

3 Jun 2006, 02:49 PM

Just to clear this up, the unemployment level here is relatively low (one of the lowest in Europe) and has been stead for almost 10 years.

this seems to refute part of the OP and also madrigal's attack on the government.

my question, moridin or anybody else--is england going to be bankrupted by pension/retirement issues?

Scott

sbw

3 Jun 2006, 02:50 PM

Well, it happened in Canada. Whitey came over, starting farming the land, and before you know it, starting shooting each other.

isn't this how every country developed?

Scott

distraction tactics

3 Jun 2006, 08:35 PM

isn't this how every country developed?

Scott

Yes, but not how anyone frames a serious argument.

Madrigal

3 Jun 2006, 08:42 PM

this seems to refute part of the OP and also madrigal's attack on the government.
lol

From what I know, Britain is facing a manufacturing crisis in which hundreds of thousands of workers have lost their jobs in recent years. Studies suggest that unemployment is actually at 3 times the official figures, particularly in industrial cities. Hidden unemployment is estimated to be affecting 2 million people or more. There is a large number of people who are unemployed, yet, are not registered as such for a variety of reasons. Also, when examining Britain's youth, you might find it interesting to note that the number of underaged young people with unemployed parents doubled during Thatcher's government, and at PRESENT, that figure still remains higher than when she left office. That means that over the long term, a portion of Britain's youth has been progressively pushed into conditions of poverty.

I'm not too surprised by the anti-immigrant sentiment being inculcated in Britain right now. It isn't just the likes of the Daily Express and the Sun that are insisting on these stories about being flooded with criminals from former Warsaw pact countries. Even the BBC is joining in with the scape-goating.

But I read Socialist Worker.

Omnirook, I take these discussions personally and always will - if I sound excessively vitriolic, it isn't against you individually, it is against what those ideas represent.

tinribz

3 Jun 2006, 10:32 PM

But I read Socialist Worker.
- not sure whether to laugh or cry.

There is not an unemployment or immigration problem in the UK, but it serves some peoples needs to pretend there is, whether it is selling news papers or political potshots. The UK people are very insular and insecure, much like the US. The rest of Europe has totally shamed us recently with the Euro.

As for devolution, while I hate borders in any form, I believe that ironically it will actually help the cause, not just by divide and conquer, but because it is a step in the right direction towards regionalisation and local power / federation, which is what Europe is all actually all about.

Anyone would think there was a strategy in play...

omnirook

3 Jun 2006, 10:37 PM

lol

Omnirook, I take these discussions personally and always will - if I sound excessively vitriolic, it isn't against you individually, it is against what those ideas represent.
OK, then, you get a pass. No hard feelings. Thank you.

Madrigal

3 Jun 2006, 10:40 PM

- not sure whether to laugh or cry.

By the way, I'm not in agreement with the SWP or Cliffites in general, I find them to be condescending towards the working class and politically reformist. Sometimes they have some interesting articles, though. I remember one in particular about employment in Iraq. The articles are usually too 'dumbed down' for me, however.

- There is not an unemployment or immigration problem in the UK, but it serves some peoples needs to pretend there is, whether it is selling news papers or political potshots.

Whatever.

sbw

4 Jun 2006, 02:52 AM

sbw

4 Jun 2006, 02:53 AM

- not sure whether to laugh or cry.

There is not an unemployment or immigration problem in the UK, but it serves some peoples needs to pretend there is

damn, this some complicated shit

Scott

Architectonic

4 Jun 2006, 04:28 AM

thank you--various sources indicate that the actual unemployment rate here in the U.S. is also higher than advertised;

'Advertised'? You make the government sound like a business. :ph34r:

Madrigal

4 Jun 2006, 04:37 AM

thank you--various sources indicate that the actual unemployment rate here in the U.S. is also higher than advertised; I'm not really familiar with what's going on in england (except there's a new primal scream album coming out). thanks for the update.

Scott
It's the same way here, it must be at least 50 percent higher than the figures the government mentions. Anyway, I don't really follow British news much, I was expecting more British people would post here. But then again, these discussions are always related to your political ideas. Even when you live in the same country as someone, your views on things such as unemployment, its causes and consequences, could be radically different.

I'm glad you changed your user title. :D

Superstring

4 Jun 2006, 07:55 AM

sbw

4 Jun 2006, 02:23 PM

'Advertised'? You make the government sound like a business. :ph34r:

and...?

Scott

Dom

5 Jun 2006, 02:48 PM

this seems to refute part of the OP and also madrigal's attack on the government.

my question, moridin or anybody else--is england going to be bankrupted by pension/retirement issues?

Scott

No we're not they jsut cahnged the bloody rule I now have to work till I'm 3098 and I'll be forced to save moeny if the company I work for dosen't do me right....

You know I'm sure national insurance was susposed to pay for my retirement. Now I'll be forced to a save another 5%? hurumph.... DOn't they realise I could get hit by a bus tomorrow?

Dom

5 Jun 2006, 02:55 PM

lol

From what I know, Britain is facing a manufacturing crisis in which hundreds of thousands of workers have lost their jobs in recent years. Studies suggest that unemployment is actually at 3 times the official figures, particularly in industrial cities. Hidden unemployment is estimated to be affecting 2 million people or more. There is a large number of people who are unemployed, yet, are not registered as such for a variety of reasons. Also, when examining Britain's youth, you might find it interesting to note that the number of underaged young people with unemployed parents doubled during Thatcher's government, and at PRESENT, that figure still remains higher than when she left office. That means that over the long term, a portion of Britain's youth has been progressively pushed into conditions of poverty.

I'm not too surprised by the anti-immigrant sentiment being inculcated in Britain right now. It isn't just the likes of the Daily Express and the Sun that are insisting on these stories about being flooded with criminals from former Warsaw pact countries. Even the BBC is joining in with the scape-goating.

But I read Socialist Worker.

Omnirook, I take these discussions personally and always will - if I sound excessively vitriolic, it isn't against you individually, it is against what those ideas represent.

Ahh but Socialist Worker is hardly what one would call fair or unbais reporting either. Our manufactoring industries are in trouble but thats plain and simple, they can't possible compete. They really can't. As for the youth part yes I see a lot of problem growing for the future, and it concerns me, and I'm well aware of offical unemployment figures be well rather restrictive. It's hard to know what the true scale fo the problem is, some people include people on incapacity benefit as unemployed, yet to be on incap you're not supposed to be able to work! The only figure I pay attention too is how many have signed on for unemployment benefit, if they ain't on that then there are other reason for them not working.

It's curious would you consider a parent staying at home to raise children as unemployed? It's difficult to know how to measure fairly. I do however HATE the "it's them immigrants fault" mentaility, seriously important parts of our economy are reliant on immigrant workers.

Dom

5 Jun 2006, 03:01 PM

Briton joining the EU makes about as much sense as America ceding its property to the Bahamas. The English have spent hundreds of years taking over the world, why let that accomplishment go to waste? A united Anglosphere nation would double the EU's GDP.

And the Spainish, and French and Portugese and Dutch didn't? And I even think Germany had ago even though they joined the game a little late. Yep taking over the world by force of arms has defo done some great things for it don't you think?

I'm not sure what you mean by Angloshpere, but being fair, Britian will not integrates it's economy with EUropes unless there is soem major overhaul on found money is run in the EU.... and I don't see that happening for a good while and certainyl not while Chirac is there.

omnirook

5 Jun 2006, 05:13 PM

And the Spainish, and French and Portugese and Dutch didn't? And I even think Germany had ago even though they joined the game a little late. Yep taking over the world by force of arms has defo done some great things for it don't you think?

I'm not sure what you mean by Angloshpere, but being fair, Britian will not integrates it's economy with EUropes unless there is soem major overhaul on found money is run in the EU.... and I don't see that happening for a good while and certainyl not while Chirac is there.
I know that it's very politically incorrect even to suggest that imperialism did any good - ah, well, so I'm a politcally incorrect monster. But, really, overall, wherever the British went, there was a marked improvement in the lives of the "conquered" - schools, hospitals, good government, fair courts. Nothing at all to appreciate, not when you had blood-thirsty tyrants and lived in backwards squalor. What really amazes me is that not even a nod is given to the fact that nobody would have the means to complain if it weren't for the common law and its history of redress for wrongs.

omnirook

5 Jun 2006, 05:17 PM

And the Spainish, and French and Portugese and Dutch didn't? And I even think Germany had ago even though they joined the game a little late. Yep taking over the world by force of arms has defo done some great things for it don't you think?

I'm not sure what you mean by Angloshpere, but being fair, Britian will not integrates it's economy with EUropes unless there is soem major overhaul on found money is run in the EU.... and I don't see that happening for a good while and certainyl not while Chirac is there.
Actually, the Spanish and the Portuguese started "the game" well ahead of the British. The Dutch, well, they and the British got started at about the same time. The Germans came later. The Italians came much later. Now the United States is working to rule the world w/o having to take much territory - economic empire.

Dr. Haight

5 Jun 2006, 05:23 PM

Now the United States is working to rule the world w/o having to take much territory - economic empire.

True, although you need to consider US international military bases in this analysis.

omnirook

5 Jun 2006, 05:28 PM

True, although you need to consider US international military bases in this analysis.
It's not quite the same as colonizing, but, yes. But the goal remains controlling markets as opposed to putting the flag on other people's land.

Dr. Haight

5 Jun 2006, 05:42 PM

It's not quite the same as colonizing, but, yes. But the goal remains controlling markets as opposed to putting the flag on other people's land.
It is post-modern colonization. And, it is precisely what helps the US control markets through maintaining an underlying sense of military intimidation. I think we are on the same page here, however, my understanding of Manifest Destiny vis-a-vie the modern day usage of military bases, as opposed to simply conquering and taking over residence in the capital building, is perhaps a little different; same result, different tactic.

Psy-goat

5 Jun 2006, 05:51 PM

omnirook

5 Jun 2006, 05:51 PM

It is post-modern colonization. And, it is precisely what helps the US control markets through maintaining an underlying sense of military intimidation. I think we are on the same page here, however, my understanding of Manifest Destiny vis-a-vie the modern day usage of military bases, as opposed to simply conquering and taking over residence in the capital building, is perhaps a little different; same result, different tactic.
Exactly. Americans - and I am one - often voice this curious notion that we are not appreciated by all the foreigners whom we "help" - "They take our money, then complain about us!" :shock:

omnirook

5 Jun 2006, 06:03 PM

Read John Perkins Confessions of an Economic Hit Man - to get more insight into the means of controlling the American Empire. Military actions are very expensive, bribing and coercing a small elite isn't.
Perhaps you should send a copy - a children's version w/accompanying cartoons - to the White House ... God, I despise Bush - I'm SO ashamed of our so-called "President" - he thinks he's John Wayne, for god's sake, damn!

Dr. Haight

5 Jun 2006, 06:11 PM

Read John Perkins Confessions of an Economic Hit Man - to get more insight into the means of controlling the American Empire. Military actions are very expensive, bribing and coercing a small elite isn't.
Good book. Read it and would say, that is only the first stage in securing American Foreign Policy initiatives. And Military bases would be one that would follow CIA tactics, although not always the immediate choice.

Dom

5 Jun 2006, 11:03 PM

It's not quite the same as colonizing, but, yes. But the goal remains controlling markets as opposed to putting the flag on other people's land.

Similar to Venice and Genoa?

I quite agree that imperialism did some good things, also allowed the huge slave trade too though...

omnirook

5 Jun 2006, 11:09 PM

Similar to Venice and Genoa?

I quite agree that imperialism did some good things, also allowed the huge slave trade too though...
Very much like Venice
Sometimes I wonder if the detractors of "Uncle Tom's Cabin" did not have a point when they railed that northern abolitionists should look closer to home and see to the abuses heaped upon "free workers," before worrying about the slaves in the south. I like substance - just because someone is not called a slave does not mean that he is not one.

Dom

6 Jun 2006, 08:28 AM

Very much like Venice
Sometimes I wonder if the detractors of "Uncle Tom's Cabin" did not have a point when they railed that northern abolitionists should look closer to home and see to the abuses heaped upon "free workers," before worrying about the slaves in the south. I like substance - just because someone is not called a slave does not mean that he is not one.

Well it is the nature of capitalism to take as much from a person for as little in return. As for Slavery in south, how well you got on depended entirely upon the individual owner.

Every nation abused some people group at some stage or another, except perhaps the notable exception of Seaworld? lol (An old british Sea fort bought by an eccentrix couple back in the sixties and now set up as an independent state! rofl)

No one is perfect, but it did always make me smile that one of the factors in the American civil war, over in the land of the free, was the aboluition of Slavery, a thing the Evil British empire pulled off 30 years earlier without a fight?

sbw

6 Jun 2006, 02:55 PM

Well it is the nature of capitalism to take as much from a person for as little in return.

oh, is it? really? is that how every individual operates, or does this definition only apply to nation-states?

Scott

omnirook

6 Jun 2006, 03:28 PM

oh, is it? really? is that how every individual operates, or does this definition only apply to nation-states?

Scott
AMAP for ALAP/FNAAIP - as much as possible for as little as possible in return, for nothing at all, if possible. That's capitalism.

Capitalism is the art and science of collecting the profits from other people's work; capitalism is the art and science of generating economic inequities, so that wealth can be relative, rather than absolute - so long as one person has more than another person, the person w/the more can exploit the person w/the less.

In the end, capitalism is about sitting on your fat, lazy, pampered ass, collecting, while others bust their asses doing all the heavy lifting.
I understand that - and I accept it because it's what people want. People prefer having a microdot of a chance of becoming rich and powerful to all the social justice that socialism could ever dream up.

Dom

6 Jun 2006, 03:44 PM

AMAP for ALAP/FNAAIP - as much as possible for as little as possible in return, for nothing at all, if possible. That's capitalism.

Capitalism is the art and science of collecting the profits from other people's work; capitalism is the art and science of generating economic inequities, so that wealth can be relative, rather than absolute - so long as one person has more than another person, the person w/the more can exploit the person w/the less.

In the end, capitalism is about sitting on your fat, lazy, pampered ass, collecting, while others bust their asses doing all the heavy lifting.
I understand that - and I accept it because it's what people want. People prefer having a microdot of a chance of becoming rich and powerful to all the social justice that socialism could ever dream up.

Sadly true.. imho.

sbw

6 Jun 2006, 04:00 PM

Dom

6 Jun 2006, 04:02 PM

I was gonna type a big long story, but this is better:

mises: "the standard of living of the common man is highest in those countries which have the greatest number of wealthy entrepreneurs."

isn't that the goal?

Scott

No it's a side effect.

The goal is for the wealth entrepreneurs to get richer, the fac tthat the common man in their country may improve too is merely a side effect.

However we don't live in closed systems, and the trade system that keeps said entrepreneurs and said nations wealthy keeps others very very poor!!!

sbw

6 Jun 2006, 04:09 PM

No it's a side effect.

so fucking what? I meant, isn't that the best we can hope for, since all the other systems are demonstrably worse, by this standard? or do you think the standard itself is meaningless?

The goal is for the wealth entrepreneurs to get richer, the fact that the common man in their country may improve too is merely a side effect.

every single person has different goals.

However we don't live in closed systems, and the trade system that keeps said entrepreneurs and said nations wealthy keeps others very very poor!!!

this is changing; I haven't researched the GDP numbers or anything, but china and india are getting richer, and I would guess malaysia, indonesia, etc. along with them. (big money in cell phones in indonesia--they are building infrastructure so that everyone in their increasingly rich populace can have a cell phone as is already the case with their neighboring countries capitalism WOW)

do you mean it keeps those people in those countries poor? or do you mean that it keeps a permanent underclass in western countries?

Scott

sbw

6 Jun 2006, 04:10 PM

is that how every individual operates, or does this definition only apply to nation-states?

Scott

you guys didn't riddle me this yet.

Scott

omnirook

6 Jun 2006, 04:43 PM

you guys didn't riddle me this yet.

Scott
The state is a human creation. There is nothing in the state that is not (first) in us. States do what people do, on a grander scale, yes, but, essentially, for the same reasons, good and bad, that people do what they do. The state can be no better and no worse than the people.

sbw

6 Jun 2006, 04:49 PM

The state is a human creation. There is nothing in the state that is not (first) in us. States do what people do, on a grander scale, yes, but, essentially, for the same reasons, good and bad, that people do what they do. The state can be no better and no worse than the people.

just checkin, because I disagree that every single person "takes as much from a person for as little in return [as possible]" (moridin)

Scott

omnirook

6 Jun 2006, 04:58 PM

just checkin, because I disagree that every single person "takes as much from a person for as little in return [as possible]" (moridin)

Scott
No, not every single person - or even most people. Most people are basically good-natured and kind - as hard as that might be to believe at times. Here, I am discussing an aspect of human nature and behavior. We could just as easily discuss the good that people do - and there is quite a lot of it.

omnirook

6 Jun 2006, 05:28 PM

I was gonna type a big long story, but this is better:

mises: "the standard of living of the common man is highest in those countries which have the greatest number of wealthy entrepreneurs."

isn't that the goal?

Scott

:rofl:
Give me a break!

Some US stats ...
60% of the nation's wealth - in the hands of ONE percent of its citizens
90% of the nation's wealth - in the hands of that top one percent and the next 9% of the people
10% of the nation's (left-over) wealth - well, that's what 90% of us get to enjoy
These statistics are freely available, the UN has them, the President of France had them when he shut Clinton's bragging mouth about the US economy.

87% of US citizens = WORKING CLASS - yet the working class is hardly seen in the media. When they are, they are either portrayed as hopeless, hapless boobs, deserving of their poverty, or else they are dolled up w/life-styles that they cannot afford, ala shows like "Friends" or "NYPD Blue" or even "The Simpsons."

In "Friends," the friends have plenty of time to sit around in coffee shops, enjoying themselves; in reality, the combined incomes of the friends would not cover the costs of their Manhattan apartments, given the crap jobs that they supposedly have. They would have to do so much ot that they'd not sleep, let alone have time to sit around bullshitting.

In "NYPD Blue," we have cops who can afford large, multi-roomed apartments in TRIBECA. A cop's salary wouldn't cover renting a cubby-hole in Tribeca!

The wealth, the well-being, etc - all an illusion, one that is wearing thin now that the nation is BANKRUPT, deeply in debt, and the moron in the White House keeps cutting taxes for that top 10%, while blowing billions on a criminal war.

sbw

6 Jun 2006, 06:34 PM

omnirook

6 Jun 2006, 07:27 PM

I know cops (and teachers, and construction workers, and waiters and golf course workers etc)...in spite of your cited statistics, these very same people live in nice houses. this is the 90% that 'only' gets to 'enjoy' 10% of the total wealth.

Scott
It's one thing to live in a nice house; it's another to own the nice house. Unlike most people, I consider my nice house a liability - it takes money out of my pocket every month, does not put money into my pocket (which would make it an asset).

I'm sorry, I think that Americans are very deluded. As long as people can ride around in suv's that they don't own, as long as they can watch 60 inch tv's that they don't own, well, everything is fine, isn't it? I don't think so. Americans on average are saving less than 1% of their income annually - many sink further into debt every year.

Let's talk about this paradise ...

Of the world's ten richest countries -

The United States has the highest rate of personal debt;
The United States has the shortest average life-span;
The United States has the highest rates of infant mortality;
The United States has the highest crime rate;
The United States has more people in prison than - get this - the rest of the WORLD combined;
The United States has the highest rate of highschool (or equivalent) drop out;
The United States has the highest illiteracy rate - Cuba has a much higher literacy rate;
The United States has the lowest rate of personal savings;
The United States has the highest rates of teen and unwed parenthood;
The United States has the highest incidence of death due to heart disease ...

The list goes on and on. But we have the suv's - those'll keep us from realizing that the US ranks behind Roumania academically - that China and India are graduating 100's of math and science majors for every ONE that we graduate. The country is BANKRUPT - it's sinking! Is anyone out there? Hello?

Dom

7 Jun 2006, 12:49 PM

this is changing; I haven't researched the GDP numbers or anything, but china and india are getting richer, and I would guess malaysia, indonesia, etc. along with them. (big money in cell phones in indonesia--they are building infrastructure so that everyone in their increasingly rich populace can have a cell phone as is already the case with their neighboring countries capitalism WOW)

Yes for India and China it is, but for the worst and poorest peoples on earth in Africa etc it's not changing, and lets face it there is much concern that as China and India get richer we will have to 'take action' to secure our western wealth.

The system cannot make everyone wealthy, thats the problem.

And yes it's sad that it is the only system to demonstratable not have failed yet. Doesn't mean it wont! I hope it doesn't cos if/when it does man is that gonna hurt.

Dom

7 Jun 2006, 12:57 PM

It's one thing to live in a nice house; it's another to own the nice house. Unlike most people, I consider my nice house a liability - it takes money out of my pocket every month, does not put money into my pocket (which would make it an asset).

I'm sorry, I think that Americans are very deluded. As long as people can ride around in suv's that they don't own, as long as they can watch 60 inch tv's that they don't own, well, everything is fine, isn't it? I don't think so. Americans on average are saving less than 1% of their income annually - many sink further into debt every year.

Let's talk about this paradise ...

Of the world's ten richest countries -

The United States has the highest rate of personal debt;
The United States has the shortest average life-span;
The United States has the highest rates of infant mortality;
The United States has the highest crime rate;
The United States has more people in prison than - get this - the rest of the WORLD combined;
The United States has the highest rate of highschool (or equivalent) drop out;
The United States has the highest illiteracy rate - Cuba has a much higher literacy rate;
The United States has the lowest rate of personal savings;
The United States has the highest rates of teen and unwed parenthood;
The United States has the highest incidence of death due to heart disease ...

The list goes on and on. But we have the suv's - those'll keep us from realizing that the US ranks behind Roumania academically - that China and India are graduating 100's of math and science majors for every ONE that we graduate. The country is BANKRUPT - it's sinking! Is anyone out there? Hello?

Whether these 'facts' are true or not I can not verifiy, I'd accept that UN researchers are good at their jobs and that therefore, if that is the source of said facts, that these may be accurate, the other fact is that most Americans wont believe them and thus will argue it's un propaganda to aid yank bashing.

omnirook

7 Jun 2006, 01:04 PM

Whether these 'facts' are true or not I can not verifiy, I'd accept that UN researchers are good at their jobs and that therefore, if that is the source of said facts, that these may be accurate, the other fact is that most Americans wont believe them and thus will argue it's un propaganda to aid yank bashing.
Time Magazene
US News and World Report
and Business Week (for which my sister works) -
have all reported extensively on how America is falling behind, becoming a debt-ridden, bankrupt society of illiterates who are not going to college, who are having children out of wedlock at an unprecidented rate, and who are are increasingly uninterested in politics.

Dom

7 Jun 2006, 01:10 PM

Time Magazene
US News and World Report
and Business Week (for which my sister works) -
have all reported extensively on how America is falling behind, becoming a debt-ridden, bankrupt society of illiterates who are not going to college, who are having children out of wedlock at an unprecidented rate, and who are are increasingly uninterested in politics.

Like here then but worse.....

:rofl:

I never said I disagreed with the stats just that many 'head in the sand' yanks would....

Too many think that the US is just plain awesome, so few even realise that it's possible for the US's might and hegenomy to fall. We, when we had an empire, thought the same....... <_<

omnirook

7 Jun 2006, 01:14 PM

My comments about the blue-collar, working-class realiites of America versus the media-represented affluence come from the April edition of "American Scholar Magazene."

omnirook

7 Jun 2006, 01:19 PM

Like here then but worse.....

:rofl:

I never said I disagreed with the stats just that many 'head in the sand' yanks would....

Too many think that the US is just plain awesome, so few even realise that it's possible for the US's might and hegenomy to fall. We, when we had an empire, thought the same....... <_<
All empires do. I doubt that 3rd Century Romans could have dreamed that their empire would fall apart.

The British at least managed to recover. I've always marveled at that - no other historical empire ever managed such a recovery. Yes, Japan did well, but it was never really an empire, not like the British Empire. I attribute this recovery - Britain is still an economic power and a player on the world stage - to British culture, which is why I get alarmed when I see it suggested that the British should become "more like everybody else" - ridiculous, when people all over the world emulate the British, down to having tea-time.

omnirook

7 Jun 2006, 01:27 PM

Some British, especially English, ex-pats, living in the US have realized that their "British-ness" is an advantage. Witness the recent victory of the British ex-pat over the native New Yorker on Trump's show, "The Apprentice." The guy was gifted, yes - Trump is no dummy! - but his "British charm" had won over the audience, especially the women, but even the men, so that most were rooting against the native son. In the US, you could sell dog turds so long as your representative on tv spoke in a British accent.

Neppy

7 Jun 2006, 01:38 PM

Dom

7 Jun 2006, 02:06 PM

I live in Britain, but I've never really been "clued-in" as far as this country's politics go, so this post might sound a bit ah, uninformed, to say the least. Giving up the pound would make us more dependant on Europe's economy as a whole, and I quite like the UK being more seperate and self-sufficient when it comes to our economy. Our economy is of course, helped by all the immigrants who come here, but there has to be a limit, since we are an island and we simply don't have room for unmonitored immigration.

The problem with Lords is that they're born into it. I think politicians should be people who actually want to be politicians. People who work hard to recieve their status, to assume responsibility of the country. The House of Lords is long overdue for reassessment. We live in an age where aristocracy is no longer the answer. I don't think we should completely get rid of the House of Lords, but it shouldn't have as much power. Every MP, every single politician should be elected by the people. I'm not a royalist or an imperialist, but I don't oppose or dislike the royal family by any means. I mean, c'mon, the Queen is so loveable. XD I bet she's quite a nice lady. I wouldn't mind sitting down and having a spot of tea with her. I'll be sad when she dies and we get a King.

Ehhh. *wanders off*

Hello!

Fristly immigration is monitored and our population isn't growing. it's steady so overcrowding isn't getting any worse.

Secondly there are no heriditary peerages left. Meaning that although soem current Lords got the right to sit in the lords by birth this wont happen anymore (or only about 10% are left that way) so pretty soon all the Lords will be appointed in the honors lists, which are controlled by Government.

The Lords has currently been fiddled with far far too much and certainly the current government seems to have forgotten what the upper house is for. It should not be the government of any particular time that dictates who sits in the lords, it should simply be people picked for their merit, and picked for life. It must not be elected or not on short terms. The upper house should be able to revise legislation without pandering to public opinion. The Lords aren't as aristocratic as it once was (or was even 10 years ago). The lords isn't too powerful, in fact the balance is going to far th eother way. THe Lords as a house, should sit to revise legislation. It's there to say sorry son no way should you do that. Such as pass legislation which would allow the Home Sec to lock up whomever he likes without charge or judical review. The Lords is there to stop that sort of thing, make it elected on say the standard 4 year term and blame our consititution loses some of that protection.

And I think exactly the opposite to you, it is exactly those people who want power who should be denied it and the ones who reluctantly wield it, as part of thier responibilities, who you want to do so.

sbw

7 Jun 2006, 05:09 PM

It's one thing to live in a nice house; it's another to own the nice house. Unlike most people, I consider my nice house a liability - it takes money out of my pocket every month, does not put money into my pocket (which would make it an asset).

several of the people I was referring to DO own their houses. (perhaps half; I really don't know that many people) I think ownership is such a good idea that I own 3.

I'm sorry, I think that Americans are very deluded. As long as people can ride around in suv's that they don't own, as long as they can watch 60 inch tv's that they don't own, well, everything is fine, isn't it? I don't think so. Americans on average are saving less than 1% of their income annually - many sink further into debt every year.

I never disputed this; most people are stupid.

Let's talk about this paradise ...

Of the world's ten richest countries -

The United States has the highest rate of personal debt;
The United States has the shortest average life-span;
The United States has the highest rates of infant mortality;
The United States has the highest crime rate;
The United States has more people in prison than - get this - the rest of the WORLD combined;
The United States has the highest rate of highschool (or equivalent) drop out;
The United States has the highest illiteracy rate - Cuba has a much higher literacy rate;
The United States has the lowest rate of personal savings;
The United States has the highest rates of teen and unwed parenthood;
The United States has the highest incidence of death due to heart disease ...

The list goes on and on.

to speak to a few of those items quickly: the personal debt load is high because of lower lending standards, driven by lower fed rates, within the past 5-7 years; the high crime rate and incarceration rate are ONLY because of the drug war, which itself exists (as recently discussed) mostly because of the pharmaceutical lobby; heart disease is because america is the only country where even the poor people are fat--which, incidentally, makes it a very desirable locale from an immigration standpoint.

essentially, many (not all) of those negative statistics derive from americans having more choices, greater economic liberty because of greater wealth (and/or greater efficiency of the debt mechanisms). the items to which this does not apply--illiteracy, infant mortality, etc.--are highly correlated to dense urban areas with bad schools. using property tax revenue to fund schools seems terribly unjust; people should move.

I agree with you that its all goin' down, man; I've said so in numerous other threads. (I've usually said "buy gold" along with this message.) but to portray that everybody's life sucks ignores a very large sector of society.

Scott

sbw

7 Jun 2006, 05:21 PM

My comments about the blue-collar, working-class realiites of America versus the media-represented affluence come from the April edition of "American Scholar Magazene."

my comments about the blue-collar, working-class realities of america come from my observations of actual humans with whom I interact...I didn't even know there WAS a media-represented affluence...EVERYbody has the same thought process when watching friends:

thought #1: this show sucks ass
thought #2: why is their crib so nice
thought #3: thats just another reason why this show sucks ass

its called willing suspension of disbelief, or something...

Scott

omnirook

7 Jun 2006, 05:42 PM

several of the people I was referring to DO own their houses. (perhaps half; I really don't know that many people) I think ownership is such a good idea that I own 3.

I never disputed this; most people are stupid.

to speak to a few of those items quickly: the personal debt load is high because of lower lending standards, driven by lower fed rates, within the past 5-7 years; the high crime rate and incarceration rate are ONLY because of the drug war, which itself exists (as recently discussed) mostly because of the pharmaceutical lobby; heart disease is because america is the only country where even the poor people are fat--which, incidentally, makes it a very desirable from an immigration standpoint.

essentially, many (not all) of those negative statistics derive from americans having more choices, greater economic liberty because of greater wealth (and/or greater efficiency of the debt mechanisms). the items to which this does not apply--illiteracy, infant mortality, etc.--are highly correlated to dense urban areas with bad schools. using property tax revenue to fund schools seems terribly unjust; people should move.

I agree with you that its all goin' down, man; I've said so in numerous other threads. (I've usually said "buy gold" along with this message.) but to portray that everybody's life sucks ignores a very large sector of society.

Scott

I never said that everyone's life "sucks."

What I've been trying to say - and I see that you and I do have some common ground - is that this country is in trouble ... Go back 30 years, to the end of the Ford Adminstration. The US was the world's largest creditor nation w/the largest trade surplus. We manufactured virtually everything. That held true for much of the Carter Administration. Then came Reagan w/his "voodoo economics," his "trickle-down" nonsense. Let the rich do as they please, and everybody will benefit. And it seemed to be that way. It wasn't. Now the US is the world's largest debtor nation w/the largest trade defecit. Foreign ownership of the US is astounding - see US News and World Report - we DON'T own this country anymore. The UK, Japan, Germany, France, the Netherlands, and Saudi Arabia own it - in that order; China and India are starting to own it. (Why do you think that ass-wipes was going to let Dubai control our ports? We owe them money that we can't pay back!) ... People have this, people have that - in their hands but on their credit cards; they own SHIT. We are BROKE. BROKE. BROKE. BROKE. Reagan and Bush # 2 - DAMN! Talk about figureheads for raping America! Reagan slept while the country was being looted; baby Bush is actively shoveling it overseas. The rich - I mean the really rich, not some piker, nobody, piss-ant millionaire (such as myself) - don't give a damn about this country. They're global. The country, the flag, the apple pie - all just "smoke and mirrors" for the suckers.

omnirook

7 Jun 2006, 05:44 PM

A country's health is measured by its middle-class. America's middle-class is debt-ridden and on the run.

It's getting so that all we "manufacture" in this country anymore is more Americans.

sbw

7 Jun 2006, 05:54 PM

Word.

I think we do agree about most everything--hyperinflationary depression is going to ruin the party for all but the most clever (and the medium-clever amongst the asset-rich professionals before the fit hits the shan.)

Scott

sbw

7 Jun 2006, 05:58 PM

The rich - I mean the really rich, not some piker, nobody, piss-ant millionaire (such as myself) - don't give a damn about this country. They're global. The country, the flag, the apple pie - all just "smoke and mirrors" for the suckers.

damn, I'm not even a millionaire--I better leave the country before inflation kills me too. that being said, I have trouble sympathizing with the suckers. I wasn't priveleged with anything different than probably 70% of america--and the only difference between me and the debt-ridden suckers is reading.

Scott

Geoff

7 Jun 2006, 10:11 PM

I would post my impression about my country, but it appears the thread has mutated to an american one :)

sbw

8 Jun 2006, 01:11 AM

oops sorry

Scott

omnirook

8 Jun 2006, 05:26 AM

I would post my impression about my country, but it appears the thread has mutated to an american one :)
No, no, no - please go right ahead.

Conversations do that often - drift and take strange turns. (Personally, I love that quality.) But, no, I started the thread to get the sentiments of the British. So, if you are British, this is YOUR thread.

zhang_bob

10 Jun 2006, 03:30 AM

As promise to omnirook and as I said to Dr. Haight, I would make my first post here on re-entry into the main forum.

Omnirook

What part of the U.K do you spent most of your time when you are here?

learned early that the English have a talent for being nasty in the politest possible way - you might not even realize that you've been insulted until days have passed.

We are a reserved and tolerant nation probably has to do with the Second World War. But when a British person does not like you, you will know about it.

The English - many of them - despise Americans, see us as crass and backwards, as children who are likely to make a mess of things (I can't say that I disagree).

No, we just despise the people who run your country.

Anyway, I fell in w/my mother's family as far as politics go - Tory, royalist, unionist, etc. As a result, I've opposed devolution.

I hate the Conservative Party and I am not a monarchist. I am a unionist so I opposed devolution.

What about the EU? I think the E.U does good and bad things so I am not for or against.

What about the pound? I think we should keep the pound.

(No, I never sought work in the UK, felt that UK jobs should go to Britons, and I never asked for the refund of the VAT once I had left the UK, felt that I should help support my mother's homeland).

The first thing I would do if I was in power is get rid of VAT and increase income tax. I would make the higher rate of 40% up to 55 % for people who make £100,000 a year, to pay for the lost VAT money, and if I had my way I would make it higher.

What about "open borders"? We have open borders wtf?

United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland are the only two EU members not to have signed Schengen Agreement. The UK wishes to maintain its own borders and Ireland has a free movement arrangement with the UK (called the Common Travel Area) similar to the Schengen Agreement, so in order to maintain this it can only sign the Schengen Agreement if the UK does. Because of the island nature of the British Isles and also because neither country issues ID cards to their nationals, there would be relatively few benefits to joining the agreement (Denmark issues CPR (Central Person Register) numbers to its citizens for the government-provided services instead of national ID cards). Also the UK has historically been reluctant to relax border controls because of its strict rules on bringing live animals into the country?the British Isles are free of rabies unlike much of Europe.

How about Lords Reform? It does not go far enough.

Edward VIII - he at least understood that he had to step down.
So what do you think of Charles and Camilla? You seem to have forgot that the Church of England was founded on divorce.

against allowing in all sorts of foreigners to take jobs and drive up the crime rate.

Immigration has defined and strengthened every country. It makes us strong and it is what fuels this country. Much of what has kept the UK going in the last few decades has been immigration from hardworking ethnic minorities and it is certainly what keeps the health service going.

The cultural argument is nonsense as well - the culture of any western nation is fluid and subject to change. These changes can be caused by immigration certainly; but they are also caused by technology, media, art, entertainment, social and political pressures - and many more besides. Any attempt to "freeze" a culture results in its death, in the same way that frozen languages are dead languages. So should I get rid of my television and not use the Internet because it homogeneous our culture?

Immigration does need to be controlled - if nothing else so that the infrastructure (including education/health/physical) of a country is not overwhelmed. Controlled, not stopped: that simply causes stagnation and decline.

(No, I never sought work in the UK, felt that UK jobs should go to Britons, and I never asked for the refund of the VAT once I had left the UK, felt that I should help support my mother's homeland).

As for competition, it is a good thing, it stimulates economic growth . I think one of the main reasons communism did not work is because it did not have any internal (political or economic) competition.

zhang_bob

10 Jun 2006, 03:51 AM

Moridin

I remember when Major shut most of the night shelters for the homeless here, I'm also appalled that Tony didn't reopen them.

I did not know this but I can say Labour has not done much better; or people would not come to Oxford because it has better facilities. A fact about Oxford, Oxford has the most homeless people per thousand people in the U.k.

Yes for India and China it is, but for the worst and poorest peoples on earth in Africa etc it's not changing.

Yes, Africa is changing but it does not seem to be for the better. I think it is worse off now than it was 40 years ago.

tinribz

As for devolution, while I hate borders in any form, I believe that ironically it will actually help the cause, not just by divide and conquer, but because it is a step in the right direction towards regionalisation and local power / federation, which is what Europe is all actually all about.

I thought you northern monkeys voted against Two Jags regional assemblies. A referendum was held in the North East region of England on November 4, 2004; in it the voters rejected the proposal that this region should have an elected regional assembly. The Government had dubbed the referendums the Great North Vote, or what I like to call The Great North No Vote.

Madrigal.

But I read Socialist Worker.

The Socialist Workers Party is full of shit.

From what I know, Britain is facing a manufacturing crisis in which hundreds of thousands of workers have lost their jobs in recent years.

Yes, it has for the last 30 years. The U .k is now a post-industrial society, she has gone from a secondary sector of industry (manufacturing sector of industry) to a service industry (Tertiary Industry ),The service sector consists insurance, tourism, banking, retail , education. Franchising, Restaurants, Retailing, Entertainment( including the Record industry, Music industry, Radio, Television and Movies),News media ,Leisure industry, Transport, Healthcare, Consulting, Investment and Legal advice.

Economies tend to follow a developmental progression that takes them from a heavy reliance on agriculture, toward the development of industry (e.g. automobiles, textiles, shipbuilding, steel, mining) and finally toward a more service based structure. Where as the first economy to follow this path in the modern world was the United Kingdom, the speed at which other economies have later made the transition to service-based, sometimes called post-industrial, has accelerated over time.

Hidden unemployment is estimated to be affecting 2 million people or more. There is a large number of people who are unemployed, yet, are not registered as such for a variety of reasons.

What is wrong with that? I do not work, am not on welfare benefits and do not commit crime, so does that make me a bad person because of it?

By the way how can you put a figure on hidden unemployment? It would not be called hidden unemployment if it was not hidden.

Also, when examining Britain's youth, you might find it interesting to note that the number of underaged young people with unemployed parents doubled during Thatcher's government, and at PRESENT, that figure still remains higher than when she left office. That means that over the long term, a portion of Britain's youth has been progressively pushed into conditions of poverty.

I will tell why that is, it is because since the Labour Party has been in power they have put up taxes 66 times in 9 years and Council tax up 10% in the last few years and at the same time increase welfare benefits. So it means if your parents are not in full time work and on at least ?17000, they may as not work.

Ask everyone who lives where I do (well according to the government but for some strange reason Royal Mail say I live somewhere else) with children why they do not work and they would say the samething. I do supposed live on one of the largest council estates in Europe, one of the most deprived estates in the country and has has the biggest number of children living in poverty, so I think I should know about this sort of thing.

I'm not too surprised by the anti-immigrant sentiment being inculcated in Britain right now. It isn't just the likes of the Daily Express and the Sun that are insisting on these stories about being flooded with criminals from former Warsaw pact countries. Even the BBC is joining in with the scape-goating.

Michael Howard the Ex -Conservative leader started all that shit. Howard was criticised by some commentators for alleged hypocrisy in conducting a campaign which addressed the issues of immigration, asylum seekers and travellers, when he was himself the descendant of immigrants, his Romanian Jewish shopkeeper father Bernard Hecht had moved as an asylum seeker His mother, Hilda Kershion, was Welsh-born Eastern European. Although part of a broader campaign some critics perceived this as the main focus. Others point out that the continued media coverage of such issues created most of the controversy.

It also not been helped by Home Office, Charles Clarke or the fact; the first of the 1,023 foreign nationals at the centre of the row is freed after serving their sentence. However, the offender does not face a hearing for deportation, as required of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate. Over the next seven years, more than 1,000 more also escape scrutiny on release from jail. But it has died down since Charles Clarke has been sacked.

omnirook

10 Jun 2006, 05:52 AM

As promise to omnirook and as I said to Dr. Haight, I would make my first post here on re-entry into the main forum.

Wow! Looks like a lot of steam was getting let off after a week in Purgatory - no offense meant ... I'll have to answer your post later this morning, when I get up. I just got home, and I'm tired, and I'm ending my day as I always end my day, by going over my "To Do" list while relaxing on line for a few minutes.

I can answer one of your questions quickly and easily enough: Mom's family are from Sussex. But, really, I 've spent a lot of time in England - all over - and a fair amount of time elsewhere in Britain, Wales especially. I've been to London a lot ... I'll get back to you. Sorry for the delay, but I'm nodding.

omnirook

10 Jun 2006, 03:24 PM

What part of the U.K do you spent most of your time when you are here? Naturally w/relatives, in Sussex, not a terribly urbanized or crowded part of England. Do you know Sussex?

We are a reserved and tolerant nation probably has to do with the Second World War. But when a British person does not like you, you will know about it.

Not always true. Not in my experience. Then, I'm 6 feet, 3 inches tall and weigh 250 pounds; I'm quite muscular from my work, and I can run like a rabbit. Maybe my size shuts mouths in England. It does in the United States ... That said, w/o realizing it - as is the case w/any child - I learned a great deal quickly about how to "read" either one of my parents. When I spent my summers w/my maternal grandparents, I soon realized that many of my mother's facial expressions, hand gestures, and colloquialisms were to be found and heard in Sussex, not just w/my grandparents but w/most of the other English people I came across.

For instance, an audibly drawn in and momentarily held breath, a parting of lips w/a sigh at exhale, a slight grimmace, then a tounge touching upper front teeth, followed by a tilting back of the head, followed by a narrow squint as the head came forward again - this was a sign of a person's being mightily ticked off. As soon as the eyes opened wide again, another grimmace, maybe even gritting of the teeth as the complaint was made - in tolerant but clearly annoyed tones, rather like a teacher explaining to a stupid student. Problem was, this was the reaction at the first offense, not after months of being patient w/the same stupid mistake. I got this display quite often. One time, I got it in London, at one of the theatres on Shaftesbury Avenue. It was intermission, and I had drunk a bottle of soda. Not knowing better, I simply placed the empty bottle in the garbage. One of the other attendees, a middle-aged woman, reached into the garbage, took up my bottle as though it were the root of all evil, and then went on to lecture me about recycling. "You are an American, no doubt" were the first words out of her mouth.

No, we just despise the people who run your country.

Funny, that's what the French say ... I've gotten to know some French people. In getting to know them, I've realized that offense at French "rudeness" is an unfair reaction: the French are rude, but they are rude to everybody, especially to each other. It's just their way, nothing personal ... I don't know - if the English do not dislike Americans, do not have a contempt for us, do not see us as brutes, louts, ignoramouses, then the English need to change their way of showing how much they like and admire us.

"That's typical, isn't it?" "You common bastard, that there is worser than I would expect from a dog!" "You lot are all alike!" "Get him!" "As bold as brass." "Bigger than church bells, they are, the bollocks on these yanks." "Irma [my grandmother], you'll be needing to teach that boy a few things - he'll be learning nothing but bad to home (meaning the US)!" "Nary a one of em is different, all alike, think they own the world ..." "Boy, this isn't America - here you don't call a man by his given name if'n he's older than you, that's Mr Chandler to you, when you're talking about the man acrost the road! - he's your grandfather's age." ... All this to show that I DO know what the English are like when they openly display anger and loathing. But the subtle signs are more common.

I hate the Conservative Party and I am not a monarchist. I am a unionist so I opposed devolution. Why do you hate the Conservative Party? It's your right to be opposed to the monarchy. W/what would you replace it?

I think the E.U does good and bad things so I am not for or against. Shit or get off the pot!

I think we should keep the pound.

I agree.

The first thing I would do if I was in power is get rid of VAT and increase income tax. I would make the higher rate of 40% up to 55 % for people who make ?100,000 a year, to pay for the lost VAT money, and if I had my way I would make it higher. All I said was that I didn't ask to have a refund of the VAT when I left the country ... I'm what many would consider a "rich" man, though I disagree. I'm comfortable, which is a long way off from the perks that get accorded to a truly rich man. I, for instance, could not buy the office of Mayor of New York City, as its present incumbent did - and almost blatantly so. Even so, I was against Bush's tax cuts. The wealthy SHOULD pay more taxes. The wealthy benefit most from all that the society has to offer. But, then, this country was founded by a pack of rich bastards who didn't want to pay FAIR taxes, so there you go.

We have open borders wtf?

United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland are the only two EU members not to have signed Schengen Agreement. The UK wishes to maintain its own borders and Ireland has a free movement arrangement with the UK (called the Common Travel Area) similar to the Schengen Agreement, so in order to maintain this it can only sign the Schengen Agreement if the UK does. Because of the island nature of the British Isles and also because neither country issues ID cards to their nationals, there would be relatively few benefits to joining the agreement (Denmark issues CPR (Central Person Register) numbers to its citizens for the government-provided services instead of national ID cards). Also the UK has historically been reluctant to relax border controls because of its strict rules on bringing live animals into the country? the British Isles are free of rabies unlike much of Europe. Again, you are entitled to your opinion. I was aware that not every Englishman agreed w/my family, who are very xenophobic.

So what do you think of Charles and Camilla? You seem to have forgot that the Church of England was founded on divorce. I did not forget. I was happy that Prince Charles finally got to marry his love. In fact, I was slightly annoyed that the Queen did not attend the civil ceremony.

Immigration has defined and strengthened every country. It makes us strong and it is what fuels this country. Much of what has kept the UK going in the last few decades has been immigration from hardworking ethnic minorities and it is certainly what keeps the health service going.

The cultural argument is nonsense as well - the culture of any western nation is fluid and subject to change. These changes can be caused by immigration certainly; but they are also caused by technology, media, art, entertainment, social and political pressures - and many more besides. Any attempt to "freeze" a culture results in its death, in the same way that frozen languages are dead languages. So should I get rid of my television and not use the Internet because it homogeneous our culture?

Immigration does need to be controlled - if nothing else so that the infrastructure (including education/health/physical) of a country is not overwhelmed. Controlled, not stopped: that simply causes stagnation and decline. I started the thread to get British views. Thank you.

zhang_bob

11 Jun 2006, 12:19 AM

Naturally w/relatives, in Sussex, not a terribly urbanized or crowded part of England. Do you know Sussex?I been there a few times but I don`t know it that well.

I don't know - if the English do not dislike Americans, do not have a contempt for us, do not see us as brutes, louts, ignoramouses, then the English need to change their way of showing how much they like and admire us. I think you are right.

Even so, I was against Bush's tax cuts. The wealthy SHOULD pay more taxes. The wealthy benefit most from all that the society has to offer. But, then, this country was founded by a pack of rich bastards who didn't want to pay FAIR taxes, so there you go.:wtf: So why do you like Conservative Party?<_<

"That's typical, isn't it?" "You common bastard, that there is worser than I would expect from a dog!" "You lot are all alike!" "Get him!" "As bold as brass." "Bigger than church bells, they are, the bollocks on these yanks." "Irma [my grandmother], you'll be needing to teach that boy a few things - he'll be learning nothing but bad to home (meaning the US)!" "Nary a one of em is different, all alike, think they own the world ..." "Boy, this isn't America - here you don't call a man by his given name if'n he's older than you, that's Mr Chandler to you, when you're talking about the man acrost the road! - he's your grandfather's age." ... All this to show that I DO know what the English are like when they openly display anger and loathing. But the subtle signs are more common.You need to spend less time with snobs.

Why do you hate the Conservative Party?

Because I oppose most of the things they stand for. But saying that the only difference with Labour Party and the Conservative Party is Labour will tax you more but increase public finance (Spending).

It's your right to be opposed to the monarchy. W/what would you replace it?Why do you need anything to replace it?

I don`t see what they do for me. Give me the job and I will do it for a lot less money and I would do a better job.Tony Blair acts as we are a republic so I don `t think it would be much difference.

I did not forget. I was happy that Prince Charles finally got to marry his love. In fact, I was slightly annoyed that the Queen did not attend the civil ceremony. :wtf: How is it different?

Dom

16 Jun 2006, 09:00 AM

One time, I got it in London, at one of the theatres on Shaftesbury Avenue. It was intermission, and I had drunk a bottle of soda. Not knowing better, I simply placed the empty bottle in the garbage. One of the other attendees, a middle-aged woman, reached into the garbage, took up my bottle as though it were the root of all evil, and then went on to lecture me about recycling. "You are an American, no doubt" were the first words out of her mouth.

Sorry chap, but that just made me laugh!

All I said was that I didn't ask to have a refund of the VAT when I left the country ... I'm what many would consider a "rich" man, though I disagree. I'm comfortable, which is a long way off from the perks that get accorded to a truly rich man. I, for instance, could not buy the office of Mayor of New York City, as its present incumbent did - and almost blatantly so. Even so, I was against Bush's tax cuts. The wealthy SHOULD pay more taxes. The wealthy benefit most from all that the society has to offer. But, then, this country was founded by a pack of rich bastards who didn't want to pay FAIR taxes, so there you go.

This is so true, part of the problem with the Brits at the time was shock, the parliment had little to no idea that this would be so objected, especially as it was designed to rasie and maintain a standing army in the colonies.

The amazing thing is that it was an extremly light tax too, Your average jo over here was paying much worse at the same time!

I was happy that Prince Charles finally got to marry his love. In fact, I was slightly annoyed that the Queen did not attend the civil ceremony.

She had this conflict, between being the Head of the Church and being a Mum. She probably didn't go to the civil service as she felt this would compromise her postion has head of the Anglican Church. She did go to the church blessing! She has a juggling act to keep up, she's done pretty well with it so far.