-
Posts
-
Minford and his mates are prime movers of making Britain a Singapore-on-the-Thames. Get rid of unions, get rid of regulations to free up trade and bring back profits. That’s why they’re right-wing. That’s why Rees-Mogg looks to them. That’s why Thatcher looked to them.
They are free market. I’m pro-free trade. I’m not in favour of a totally free market.
The comment by the Moose that all economists are right-wing is bizarre. If you don’t know anything, that’s fine, but why pretend that you do?
Minford and co are seen by most economists as “off-the-wall”, as Martin Wolf, chief economist of the Financial Times calls them
Health, hygiene, safety, the environment are part of the EU as a rules-based order – there are so many rules because 28 countries had to have standardised rules on these things.
That’s why Master Rude Boy’s comment that “60 per cent of regulations originate from the EU and the 28-member Commission in Brussels — none of whom were elected” from his page 1 post doesn’t bother me. The Civil Service which organises regulations here in the UK aren’t elected, either. Another attempt by the liars of Leave to pander to prejudice.
The EU bot is at it again, now he has randomly switched the goal posts from Bootle to Minford, after making unproven allegations against Bootle.
The bot is also quoting random statements made by others without providing any source, we need the source to check if he is telling porkies, or not. Every allegation the EU bot lays at the door of Rees-Mogg and the likes of Thatcher could also be laid at the door of the EU with plenty of evidence to support it. However, as Rees-Mogg will never become leader/chancellor anyway, it is totally irrelvant. The EU bot has also not been programmed to understand that the ECB’s monetary policy is broadly in line with Thatcher and that Thatchers influence played a large part in negotiating the 1986 Single European Act which paved the way for the EU.
Ironic isn’t it, that the EU bot is actually a Thatcherite.
That’s bizarre.
I’m a Thatcherite now!
Ah, well, anything goes with these people.
Oh and one other thing, there is no such thing as “free trade” particularly in the EU and EU rules and regulations and tariffs prevent impoverished African nations from competing on a level playing field. So enjoy those subsidized spanish oranges, you’re paying double what they cost to produce.
”The comment by the Moose that all economists are right-wing is bizarre. If you don’t know anything, that’s fine, but why pretend that you do?”
More lies and misrepresentation , as well as patronising and rude all in one little paragraph,well done you !!!
Did I actually say that all economists are right wing ? Did I ? Please show me where I said that ? If you are referring to me saying this :
”
Economists are, by the nature of the job, going to be seen as leaning to the political right, ”then I suggest you visit Specsavers. The two statements are clearly not the same nor do they mean the same.OK, maybe had I said ”Successful economists ( in a monetary way)..etc etc ” it may have been clearer, but to anyone who isn’t biased to anything I type it was obvious what my meaning was. I’ve never claimed to be an expert on any of this, quite the opposite, unlike you, are you however saying that I know nothing ? Just for clarification please ? Well the fact I mentioned a book Jamie may like certainly got your knickers in a twist didn’t it ?
It’s gone from me recommending a book to Jamie to you jumping in and redirecting the whole show yet again. Minford, to Thatcher …. more false, misleading, wishy washy and unbelievable directions than a bad episode of Crossroads …. Someone get him a green wooly hat please…
I’ll repeat it because it is so apt…. Insufferable Prig. Sorry if you think I’m once again ‘hurling personal insults’ at you, but in my opinion, this is how you behave, your’e just rude in a different way. Funny the way your ‘name ‘ for me changes, depending on what mood you are in , MsM, M , Moosey, Moose, or in a bad and rude mood The Moose, (which I believe you chastised MrQ for doing ….) so if you dish it expect it back.
It’s cold out, put ya hat on.
-
This reply was modified 5 years, 5 months ago by
mooosey88.
1 member liked this post.
Oh and btw Scep, you’ve had a few days now, could possibly answer my question, as silly and unimportant as it is…..
What exactly do you mean by this :
”There is no historical law which says that Britian will avoid the fate of empires like Spain in the past…once the mightiest empire in the world, declining gradually and then quickly into a stagnant economy, desperately poor…..”
Firstly, what do you mean by ‘no historical law’ ? Totally baffling statement
Secondly, what, exactly, are you blaming Spain’s problems on ? When you say ”once the mightiest empire in the world’,’ are you talking 17th century ? the 1600’s ? just for clarification please.
Aye..American spelling is “Prick”.. I hate to admit it, but I fancy the word myself..lol
So unlady like..but gets the meaning across!
No Linda. The words Prig and Prick have totally different meanings, nothing to do with spelling.
Prig – a self-righteously moralistic person who behaves as if they are superior to others.
Prick, well you can put whatever meaning you wish to, however 1 meaning is also apt on this occasion
Minford and his mates are prime movers of making Britain a Singapore-on-the-Thames.
I stopped reading at this, must be now the 50th time you have thrown this ridiculous phrase out zzzzzzzzz
Minford and his mates are prime movers of making Britain a Singapore-on-the-Thames.
I stopped reading at this, must be now the 50th time you have thrown this ridiculous phrase out zzzzzzzzz
It’s not my phrase. I think it’s theirs, but it’s one whihc has become quite fashionable.
It doesn’t surprise me that you fall asleep.
You’re happy to go around throwing out names but I really don’t think you can handle a serious argument.
I started thinking that during the religious debate. I thought well at least the guy is showing a knowledge that science has changed dramatically since the heyday of rational atheism in the 19th century, but then it became clear that you had no idea of what the consequences were for religion.
On this subject, your response to my post on your figures has convinced me.
You can’t hack it. Crude abuse there is a-plenty, but it covers an inability to genuinely confront and debate argument.
You’re not the only one here who does that.
-
This reply was modified 5 years, 5 months ago by
Get involved in this discussion! Log in or register now to have your say!