Oooh, I actually understand the recession.
This whole recession thing... Page 2
The alarming aspect of the current recession is that the collapse of an unsustainable economic boom coincides with rising energy prices, fuelled by the very real prospect of a supply shortfall. It is going to be nasty.
Quote: Timbo @ September 16 2008, 7:14 PM BSTThe alarming aspect of the current recession is that the collapse of an unsustainable economic boom coincides with rising energy prices, fuelled by the very real prospect of a supply shortfall. It is going to be nasty.
And global materialism like has never previously been even imagined.
Quote: zooo @ September 16 2008, 7:11 PM BSTOooh, I actually understand the recession.
Woo hoo!
Quote: Aaron @ September 16 2008, 7:11 PM BSTGordon Brown really f**ked us over. Most Governments would have been putting money into the country's "rainy day fund", to help stabilise this exact kind of situation. He just raided it.
There's an old saying about Prime Ministers (and this probably could apply to US Presidents as well) that what they are considered to be brilliant at is often the cause of their downfall. E.g. GB's strength considered his stewardship of the economy - hence the cause of his downfall.
Quote: Timbo @ September 16 2008, 7:14 PM BSTThe alarming aspect of the current recession is that the collapse of an unsustainable economic boom coincides with rising energy prices, fuelled by the very real prospect of a supply shortfall. It is going to be nasty.
Yes, quite likely. Oil is running out and new and sustainable technologies will eventually take over energy supply. During periods of transition from any change in technology & resources, many people will inevitably suffer badly. It'll be a bumpy yet unfortunately necessary ride.
Quote: Tim Walker @ September 16 2008, 7:23 PM BSTThere's an old saying about Prime Ministers (and this probably could apply to US Presidents as well) that what they are considered to be brilliant at is often the cause of their downfall. E.g. GB's strength considered his stewardship of the economy - hence the cause of his downfall.
Not meant as a pisstake, honestly, but just what exactly is George Dubya brilliant at?
Quote: Huge Bear @ September 16 2008, 7:25 PM BSTNot meant as a pisstake, honestly, but just what exactly is George Dubya brilliant at?
Well, he was at least re-elected on the idea that he was good at fighting the "war on terror". And everyone can see how swimmingly that's going.
No you're quite right, I missed the word "considered"...
Quote: Tim Walker @ September 16 2008, 7:27 PM BSTWell, he was at least re-elected on the idea that he was good at fighting inventing the "war on terror".
And everyone can see how swimmingly that's going.
Yes, it really is!
Quote: ian_w @ September 16 2008, 7:29 PM BSTYes, it really is!
As they used to say, "It'll all be over by Christmas".
Quote: Tim Walker @ September 16 2008, 7:30 PM BSTAs they used to say, "It'll all be over by Christmas".
The world? Currency as a concept?
Dan
Quote: Aaron @ September 16 2008, 7:11 PM BSTGordon Brown really f**ked us over. Most Governments would have been putting money into the country's "rainy day fund", to help stabilise this exact kind of situation. He just raided it.
What governments? I can't think of any in the last thirty years which would have done that. Yeah, you don't like Labour. You don't like Brown. But lets not pretend for a moment that thev Tories would have been any better. Or that that ninny David Cameron and his bumchum George Osborne would have done any better. Or will do any better when they get in 2011.
My point was non-partisan. However much MAY have been saved up is largely irrelevant. The point is that nothing has been added, only raided. The Government shouldn't use the defence of "well our predecessors didn't" for failing to do something, and we shouldn't be offering it to them. No Government before the war established a health service, so why should those after it have done so? Because the country needed it, and it was right to do so.
Just like the country needed cash, but the Government failed to provide. What others may or may not have done before them - or indeed after them - is irrelevant to the current situation.
No?
Quote: Aaron @ September 17 2008, 10:55 AM BSTMy point was non-partisan. However much MAY have been saved up is largely irrelevant. The point is that nothing has been added, only raided. The Government shouldn't use the defence of "well our predecessors didn't" for failing to do something, and we shouldn't be offering it to them. No Government before the war established a health service, so why should those after it have done so? Because the country needed it, and it was right to do so.
Just like the country needed cash, but the Government failed to provide. What others may or may not have done before them - or indeed after them - is irrelevant to the current situation.
No?
I like it when you get pompous.
It's not pomposity. It's explaining a position. 
Quote: Aaron @ September 16 2008, 6:21 PM BSTI used to travel past Lehman Brothers every day on the way to and from uni
They used to be a rather large clients with use too 