|
http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2017/02/01/by-backing-the-brexit-bill-labour-is-writing-the-tories-a-blank-cheque/ This summarises my thoughts on why labour are morons nicely.
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2017 13:13
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 16:04 |
|
|
JFairfax posted:Tony Blair is a war criminal and the labour party should not be supported until they as a group call for his arrest. He's literally not. Unfortunately acting immorally isn't actually against the law.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2017 17:32
|
|
|
JFairfax posted:he literally is, and he's responsible for a thousand times more rapes than the SWP He's not by any legal definition of war crime. You could pay a hundred million quid assemble the best legal team in the world and he'd still walk. I can get into the aspects of international law that mean I'm right, or you can just admit that being immoral is not against the law.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2017 18:20
|
|
|
JFairfax posted:he is a war criminal simple as that, I know that technically they didn't ratify that nuremberg judgement thing until 2010 which means technically he's not a war criminal. So what you're saying is that he's literally not a war criminal by any definition but your own opinion. Given this you think it's a good idea for the labour party to call for his arrest, despite knowing that he hasn't done anything illegal because reasons?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2017 18:24
|
|
|
Fangz posted:As a lazy hypothetical, is there actually a point at which Corbyn would be perceived to have crossed some kind of red line for people? At this point he could probably murder babies in their sleep and people would claim that these are babies being brought up under the oppressive yoke of capitalism and that killing them is a mercy.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2017 18:22
|
|
|
learnincurve posted:Well then I don't understand why people are saying Labour should attempt to thwart Brexit, surely this is just herding the core voter base towards the Tory party. A lot of the 70% come from regions that would vote to leave but would rather die than vote Tory. With UKIP imploding a lot of those votes are safe labour even if they oppose Brexit. The issue comes from a lot of the remain 30% where Labour could conceivably lose votes to the Lib Dems who aren't imploding at the moment. But more importantly than all of that, a supermajority of the country supports soft brexit. The labour party should be fighting tooth and nail to get that and unfortunately conceding an unamended Brexit bill is not seen as taking part in that fight. Natural 20 fucked around with this message at 15:30 on Feb 26, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Feb 26, 2017 15:27
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Okay, do you understand what the mislabelling of debt represents? It represents people in the US packaging stuff like subprimes into apparently safe assets that are then sold on. The result is that banks, including UK banks, bought these 'toxic assets' that were labelled as safe when they weren't. How exactly does UK government policy change that? When the issue is literally financial products being mislabelled? I can't really see how without literally banning financial transactions with the US. My impression of the financial crisis was one where the debts weren't even being mislabelled, but were packaged with non-toxic debts and then correctly labelled by the regulator given the strength of the banks that were buying and selling them. Unfortunately this ignored the systemic risk from the sheer numbers of these things being bandied about. The problem wasn't one of anyone doing anything illegal so much as stretching the bounds of legality using flaws within the system. The question then is what Brown could have done and my thought is "Push for Dodd Frank but ahead of the thing that made Dodd Frank exist." The key to the financial crisis was a bunch of failings at the regulators alongside the banks acting in a way to maximise profit. How are you meant to prepare for a crisis that literally involves you consistently being told everything is fine? JFairfax posted:As for the Financial Crisis of 2008 it is important to note that there was regulation put in place after the crash of 1929 called the Glass-Stegal act which: I mean, this ignores that there were recessions with Glass-Steagall in play. A lot of people go to Glass-Steagall as the magic bullet that would have stopped the financial crisis and to an extent they're right, the contagion resulting from the financial crisis would have been more limited with a seperation of investment and saving banks. However, the reason it was considered sensible to get rid of Glass-Steagall is that in allowing investment banks to diversify their operations, each investment bank became individually more stable. What I'm basically leading up to is this: Given that the failure to classify subprime correctly was a result of failings at the regulator, investment banks would have almost certainly have fallen into this trap with or without Glass-Steagall. In a world with Glass-Steagall, each investment bank would have been smaller, so Lehman's collapse for example would have been less bad on an individual basis. But equally, given each investment bank would be less diverse, they would be more liable to collapse from a smaller shock. So I guess the question is do you want one big collapse or lots of small collapses and how does one quantify what's worse than the other. To be clear, my understanding of the financial crisis is limited (everyone's is and will be for a long time), but I think this is a fair assessment.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2017 12:35
|
|
|
Jose posted:Good thing trump has repealed this while being helpfully watched by a former Goldman Sachs COO It's honestly really depressing. Dodd Frank is overblown as hell, don't get me wrong, but it's well intentioned and has decent fundamental principles behind it. It just needed tweaking to be a genuinely good piece of regulation for the promotion of financial stability.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2017 12:42
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:Things did get better. A lot better. We spent a fucktonne of money on a really stupid war. And things still got better.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2017 16:45
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 16:04 |
|
|
No, the entire point is that the British people loving love austerity. It plays into the weird attitude that saving is always necessarily better than spending that's built up in British culture.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2017 15:39
|
|