Monday 31 December 2012

Felix Novus Annus,

spero omnes vestra desideria adveho 


From Munguin and from me, Happy New Year. 

I hope 2013 brings us all something good, something we want. But most of all I hope it brings some sort of peace in in the world. Most particularly in Syria, Afghanistan, Palestine/Israel, Mali, but anywhere there is war and the misery it causes.

I hope that the London government isn't temped to offer its 'expertise' in any other conflict areas. I fervently hope that, despite what it tells us, it can see the mess that it has left in its wake in Iraq, and will leave in its wake in Afghanistan.

And in the UK, I hope we can settle to a proper discussion about our future, without so many of the lies and so much of the spite that we have seen in this year. We should remember that, whatever the outcome of the referendum, we are going to have to live together after 2014.

Thank you very much for reading Munguin's Republic throughout the year, and for making it what it is by commenting, by engaging and becoming part of a little community. We really appreciate your input without which there would be no point in the blog

So, have a great time to night if you are celebrating...but be safe... If not, sleep well!

See you in 2013!

*PS: The Latin is for our resident classicist, Niko.


  1. tris

    Happy new year to you and all in the Republic

    Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes


    Saepe creat molles aspera spina rosas

    very true

    Also being a sufferer of tridecaphobia 2013 isn't a year i look forward to

  2. Ha ha, Niko... Yes, probably true for the first part, although what the second part is all about I have no idea. Sounds like something from Gardners' Question Time.

    I'm sorry to hear about your worries for the year to come, but you know it's only a number.

    Keep safe matey.

  3. ch

    Out of the womb of time and dust of the years forgotten,
    Spirit and fire enclosed in mutable flesh and bone,
    Came by a road unknown the thing that is me for ever,
    The lonely soul of a man that stands by itself alone.

    This is the right of my race, the heritage won by my fathers.
    Theirs by the years of fighting, theirs by the price they paid,
    Making a son like them, careless of hell or heaven,
    A man that can look in the face of the gods and be not afraid.

    Poor and weak is my strength and I cannot war against heaven.
    Strong, too strong are the gods; but there is one thing that
    I can
    Claim like a man unshamed, the full reward of my virtues,
    Pay like a man the price for the sins I sinned as a man.

    Now is the time of trial, the end of the years of fighting,
    And the echoing gates roll back on the country I cannot see
    If it be life that waits I shall live for ever unconquered.
    If death I shall die at last strong in my pride and free.


    dinnae ken thats cos I'm a blinking enigma

    here is to a dryish new year see you anon

    The Demon Drink

    Oh, thou demon Drink, thou fell destroyer;
    Thou curse of society, and its greatest annoyer.
    What hast thou done to society, let me think?
    I answer thou hast caused the most of ills, thou demon Drink.

    Thou causeth the mother to neglect her child,
    Also the father to act as he were wild,
    So that he neglects his loving wife and family dear,
    By spending his earnings foolishly on whisky, rum and beer.

  4. Thanks CH... and my fingers.... LOL...

  5. Enigma, Niko... You can say that again.

    Till anon, my unionist friend...

  6. ...and to think that the British Empire was dismantled for no good reason at all.

  7. No no no... they still have the isle of man... for a little longer.

  8. Happy New Year Tris!

    Report from America: The USA goes over the "fiscal cliff" at Midnight. The President and two Houses of Congress couldn't agree on a tax package in time, so all taxes go up at Midnight.

    "Over the Cliff!" An added thrill when we play Auld Lang Syne.

    All my best to everyone at Munguin's Republic!

  9. A Guid New Year tae you and yours Tris and mony o them.

  10. Well, Danny... I never thought that would happen. They must be mad. These idiots are playing with the lives of every single person on the planet if they put America back into recession.

    And because they don't want tax rises on people who earn vast amounts of money.

    They are as mad as the Tories here.

    Well... that's your taxes gone up, so I guess I'll have to send you the fare to come collect your gong from Big Eck.... :)

    Happy New Year Danny. It can only get better...

  11. And to you SR... Bless you, keep well and have a great year.:)

  12. Happy New Year tris. And to all your readers.
    Oh by the way, America hasn't gone 'back into recession'. It's been in a depression since 2007 and is being kept afloat by printing presses. Same as in blighty. Any deficit reductions etc are like a pimple on an elephant. Any serious plan to cut the debt is now impossible as it's too high. Everyone knows that apart from the public.
    But have a Happy New Year anyway ;)

  13. Erm, after that, it might be a little difficult Monty, but I'll try.

    Thanks for the good wishes ...:)

  14. LOL Tris....A further update.

    You should indeed feel free....and having a Happy New Year. Although what Monty wrote about the American economy is factually incorrect in every detail, there would surely have been a place for him on Mr. Romney's recent campaign staff. That sort of analysis was, and is, common currency in the US Republican Party these days. BTW, the problem being addressed here is the budget deficit, not the public debt. The present debt to GDP ratio is at the level it was in 1945, just before it fell to historically low levels. The American government has maintained a national debt in all but ONE year (1835) of its two century plus history. And hasn't done badly as a nation over those years, all things considered. Today, the debt is obviously NOT sustained by "printing press" inflation. It's maintained by the sale of its Treasury Bonds to the countries of the world, which obviously consider those bonds to be a good investment.

    But to the present issue, you'll be pleased to know that the strains of Auld Lang Syne had hardly faded away when the US Senate, in the early morning hours of January 1, voted 89 to 8 to approve a measure which would, among other details, rescind the middle class tax increase. The House is expected to deal with the bill later today or tomorrow.

    Nothing like "Auld Lang Syne" to focus the attention of politicians to prevent a New Year recession, which would certainly have resulted, as you observed. Now the House must act. Stay tuned!

  15. PS Tris: I enjoyed hearing the more traditional version of Auld Lang Syne, the song that makes the whole world Scottish on New Years Eve. It prompted me to look up the text of Burns' poem. I figured out some of the Scots vocabulary from context.

    Robert Burns. 1759–1796


    SHOULD auld acquaintance be forgot,
    And never brought to min'?
    Should auld acquaintance be forgot,
    And days o' lang syne?

    We twa hae rin about the braes,
    And pu'd the gowans fine;
    But we've wander'd monie a weary fit
    Sin' auld lang syne.

    We twa hae paidl't i' the burn,
    Frae mornin' sun till dine;
    But seas between us braid hae roar'd
    Sin' auld lang syne.

    And here 's a hand, my trusty fiere,
    And gie's a hand o' thine;
    And we'll tak a right guid-willie waught
    For auld lang syne.

    And surely ye'll be your pint-stowp,
    And surely I'll be mine;
    And we'll tak a cup o' kindness yet
    For auld lang syne!

    For auld lang syne, my dear,
    For auld lang syne,
    We'll tak a cup o' kindness yet
    For auld lang syne

    LOVELY! But the Scots drove my spell checker crazy. ;-)

  16. I read that later today Danny. I am much relieved to hear it.

    I'm intrigued by 1835 though. How on earth did that manage to balance the books that year and operate without national debt? :)

    I guess the dollar US is still a good bet for foreign buyers, because there is no way in the world we could let it crash. What would happen if we did?

    I must confess to never having understood economics in any way at all. I didn't study it of course, but I can't help feeling that even if I had, I still would have had no more than the barest knowledge of it. None of it seems to make any sense to me. (I seem to be in company there will George Osborne the British Finance secretary and all round buffoon.)

    I'm looking forward to the outcome of the battle in the House...

    I expect that they will manage to come round to sorting it out... but this is not 11th hour stuff, rather 13th hour!!!

  17. Ah Danny... fine words from a fine poet. It's one of my favourites. But I agree the spell checker thinks you have lost the plot when you start typing Scots.

    Maybe when we're a nation again, and our language isn't laughed at as being rough and common, as it was in the 1700s by the English overlords sent to bring Edinburgh in line with London, then Scots will be properly recognised once again, and included as an option on spell checker.

    Ane braw day....

  18. Danny..
    Republican / Democrat are just 'twa cheeks o' the same erse' as we say in Scotland. Both run by the banks/ Fed.. as you must know.

    Your deficit is over $1trillion per year...fact.

    Your countries total debt is over $16trillion...fact.

    Obama nearly doubled your debt since getting elected..fact

    The difference in 1945 was you had an industry and a smaller population. So got growth to help you out. You've shipped most of your industry overseas, have open borders, millions on food stamps living day to day with no chance of a factory job to lift them out of the abyss.
    You have now passed the curve where the debt will go exponential. $22trillion projected for 2020.

    By the way the UK is in the same boat so I'm not criticising your country.

  19.'s the FED that's buying the treasury bonds from your banks and giving them the credit to lend out. The latest QE3 is now open ended at $80Bn a month for the MBS (mortgage backed securities..remember them ?). Total printing now about $3trillion or so.

  20. tris...In 1835 the US currency was backed by gold and there was no federal reserve bank... a private bank that runs the US economy and has the power to create money out of thin air.
    All paper money is debt. Sometimes called 'fiat currency'. Every dollar printed is debt because it has to be paid back with interest.
    Quick explanation of fiat currency...

    You ask for a loan for £10,000.

    Bank types £10,000 on computer and sends it to your account.

    You buy a car.

    Garage banks the £10,000

    Bank lends out that £10,000 to someone else.

    They buy another car.

    Other garage banks that £10,000

    etc....until you can leverage the original £10,000 forever.

    Each loan of £10,000 is debt and has interest coming into the bank for each time it is re loaned or 'leveraged'.

    Of course you can see the problem here. The system relies on the cars or houses being worth something and that the person will be able to pay back the money. The housing crash showed that to be a false assumption.

    Before this strange system all paper money was backed by gold or silver or people ( our birth certificate bonds us to the state and we can be mortgaged as an asset that is expected to pay tax to the system over our lifetime and so is valuable.

    In earlier times all wealth was physical. Hence foreign invasions for plunder. This is the final option before the balloon goes up..perpetual war for resources as a dollar won't buy a gumball as they say in the US.

  21. So Monty, you are against “fiat money?” This is the “printing press” tizzy that you seem to be in? We have a guy over here who runs for president every four years named Ron Paul. He styles himself a libertarian, rails against the Federal Reserve, and yearns for the good old days of the gold standard. He’s generally considered a loon and doesn't get many votes. But I thought that only people in America were that crazy.

    Lordy Monty, I hardly know where to start. You assure me that we’ve been in a “depression” since 2007. Deficit reduction will be insignificant. Cutting the debt is impossible because.….wait for it…’s just “too high.” Republicans and Democrats are “two cheeks o’ the same erse,” since the USA is run by the “banks/Feds.” The Fed is engaging in quantitative easing. And I’m supposed to think that increasing the money supply in a major recession is a bad thing? All money is that damn fiat stuff of course.

    You tell me that America no longer has an industrial base, the borders are open, millions are on food stamps with no hope of employment to “lift them out of the abyss,” and all is lost because the debt will go “exponential,” rising from $16 Trillion to $22 Trillion in a few years. You don’t define exactly the exponential function that applies. Perhaps that’s because the term in this context is much more political than mathematical.

    And after telling me that the American political parties are irrelevant and all is lost, you go to pains to assure me that you are not criticizing the United States. (Now you sure could have fooled me about that.) The same is true for the UK you say. But just for fun, do let me know when you wish to point out to Tris that Scotland is an empty shell, owned by the Bank of England, with worthless currency, hopeless people, and an irrelevant political system that makes Tories, Labour, and the SNP all the same. I sure DO want to hear his response.

    And since you quoted some facts and figures, please see the next comment.

  22. You point out that the US budget deficit is over $1 Trillion per year.

    Yes it is, in round numbers. After the Clinton surpluses, the budget deficit exploded with the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003, followed by the unfunded wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Then, the matter was exacerbated when tax receipts collapsed in the 2008 recession. Since the yearly budget deficit includes the funding of the important Social Security and Medicare entitlement programs, there are important spending issues which must be dealt with in the long term. I would suggest that Mr. Obama is committed to dealing with these issues. The unhelpful response from the Republicans is to label Mr. Obama as simply a “big spender,” as they resist the slightest adjustment in the disastrous Bush tax cuts. You seem to reject the notion widely held by economists, that the “fiscal cliff” tax increases at this point in the recovery would have plunged the US into a new recession. Why? Well you say that America has “been in a depression since 2007, and is being kept afloat by printing presses.” You figure that it just couldn't have gotten any worse I guess. This bizarre state of affairs has apparently slipped by mainstream economists as they apply the usual definition of “recession.”

    You go on to say that the US debt is over $16 Trillion. Yes it is! And you seem to blame this mostly on Mr. Obama, who you say “doubled your debt since getting elected.” You call that a “fact.” NO, it isn't.

    It’s always helpful to actually check the numbers. Anyone who cares to look at the recent history of the US public debt in inflation adjusted dollars, will see that Mr. Obama had a lot of help in bringing the debt to its present level. Ronald Reagan almost tripled the dollar debt in 1981-1989 with a 186% increase. At a much higher base level, George W. Bush in 2001-2009 more than doubled the dollar debt again, with an increase of 105%. By contrast, President Obama, at the dollar level of $16.015 Trillion, has increased the debt by 34.47% from when he took office. So no, at the $16 Trillion level, he hasn't doubled it. In fact, it has increased by about a third.

    It should also be mentioned that the total dollar amount of the public debt is mostly irrelevant. “But surely it must be paid off” I hear people say. No it doesn’t. The US has run a significant public debt throughout 235 years of its 236 year history, and has not been unsuccessful as a nation. The relevant issue in servicing the debt is the debt to GDP ratio, and that now stands at a little over 100%. As I pointed out, this is slightly less than where it stood in 1945, at the end of World War II. No mainstream economist thinks that a public debt currently at this level is not sustainable over time. You apparently don’t think so, what with your consignment of the US economy to the trash heap of history. So which way will I bet? I’ll bet with the economists, central bankers, and assorted Presidents and Prime Ministers who administer the reserve currencies of the western world. But then I’m unencumbered with the ideology that yearns for the bygone days of the gold standard. DAMN those printing presses and that fiat money! You’d LOVE Ron Paul.

  23. Hi Danny. thanks for your long reply. Although you did just seem to repeat everything we have said already ;)

    Ron Paul was probably your last hope but he was trashed in your media that knows there's no difference between Republican and Democrat but reports the charade every four years anyway. As is it's role in the fantasy.

    All the great 'economists' that you rely on have lumbered you with unsustainable debt. And shipped your wealth creation jobs offshore. Who then re sell you the stuff and crash your balance of payments deficit even more.

    The big 'tax cuts' aren't big. $62Bn annual 'cuts' are what the FED prints every month.
    It's the cuts in spending that would have helped you out but that won't happen because there aren't any planned. The the shift from workers to dependents will accelerate affecting voting patterns. The person who promises no cuts will get elected....accelerating the debt further.

    We're in the same boat back here. Whether independent or not.

  24. typo...'big tax cuts' should be 'big tax rises'.....not that it matters with such small numbers.

  25. Oh, Danny I forgot to say. I had a question for you. One that encompasses the whole fiat currency versus gold scenario in a single question....

    Q. In the 100th year of the FED why has the dollar lost 95% of it's original value while gold is worth the same as it was in 1913 ?

  26. Answer ( if you're struggling)....

  27. The history of gold is fascinating. It has actually retained it's value for thousands of years. An ounce of gold would buy you a fine robe, a pair of leather sandals and a well manufactured sword in Roman times. The same as an ounce would buy you today.

  28. Well Monty, you tread a bit back over the same ground yourself. Most particularly your dismissal of the American political process as having become a charade. We do hear this stuff from Ron Paul every four years of course. How else for this loon to explain why nobody wants to vote for him? And it does clarify a lot for me about your views that you apparently have a high regard for him. How IS that "gold standard" thingy working out for you?

    You will note that in my reply I attempted to sharpen the points you raised about the budget deficit and public debt levels. The budget deficit is a genuine problem and must certainly be addressed. But on the spending side, it involves the entitlement program payments to the Social Security pensioners and the Medicare system. Although you seem to disparage the entire American political process, perhaps you can nevertheless appreciate how touchy this is politically and practically.

    The actual dollar level of the public debt on the other hand is largely irrelevant. But the $4 Trillion that Mr. Obama has added to the $12 Trillion that was there when he took office, to make that grand so-called "Obama" total of $16 Trillion, does make wonderful political bul****t. And BTW, you should be ashamed of yourself.

    Always nice to debate politics of course. Although with libertarians, appeals to objectivity and rationality have very little impact. I note, for example, your comment about the "unsustainable" debt. The most casual acquaintance with the history of the public debt shows that view to be absurd. But reality must never intrude on ideology.

    Oh, I see you've posted some things about gold. My God you really are serious about that gold standard idiocy! I didn't think that even Ron Paul believed that. Not enough gold in the world to sustain the modern global economy as I understand it. Anyway, I'm pretty sure that those demonic central bankers laboring over their printing presses turning out that abominable fiat money have probably published a paper or two about it. I'll check that out and let you know.

  29. Tris....You'll have heard that the budget bill passed the House on a 257-176 vote, with the yea votes coming from 172 Democrats and 85 Republicans. A total of 151 Republicans voted no.

    As for that oddball year of 1835 in which the US was not a debtor nation, it seems to have been pretty much an accident. The remaining debts from the revolution and the War of 1812 were paid off by a series of budget surpluses. But by January, 1836, there was once again a debt. Then came the Civil War, the industrialism of America, World War I, etc, etc, and the rest is history.....LOL.

  30. Danny. I don't think you really enjoy to debate. You ignored my question about gold v fiat and then called anyone with a view that opposes yours as a 'loon'.
    I've noticed that this is par for the course unfortunately.
    Your next step will be to stop debating and hope the bad man goes away with all the awkward questions.
    But before you go I'll answer the question I posed to you....

    Q. In the 100th year of the FED why has the dollar lost 95% of it's original value while gold is worth the same as it was in 1913 ?

    A. Because of unlimited printing of new dollars making the dollar worth less. Gold hasn't 'risen' in value. It's just that the dollar has fallen in value so more dollars are required to purchase gold. An ounce of gold was $20 in 1913 and is now around $1650 an ounce.

    There's no fiat currency in history that has ever survived indefinitely. A fall of 96% in the value of the dollar in 100 years ( I said 95% previously but that was from something I read a couple of years ago) means it will reach zero.
    Some previous currencies that went to zero....

    The petro dollar has kept the US dollar afloat longer because most oil sales are in US dollars forcing countries to buy US dollars. Countries that go off message and try to switch from the petro dollar end up in ruins and chaos with their leaders dead and a 'good' tyrant in charge( Iraq, Libya ...Venezuala, Iran and Syria soon ?)

    I appreciate that social security must be maintained but these costs are outnumbered by the costs of perpetual war necessary to maintain the petro dollar and put off the collapse a bit longer. Plus the lockdown at home with the new NDAA powers are expensie. They are now able to lock up anyone in the US ( and some renditioned from abroad or killed in situ) and throw away the key. No judge or jury required. All under your new leader. Oh and how is gitmo or the drone strikes going ? Expanding or stopping ?

    Can you give me a link to your graph showing the rise in debt since Obama came to power being just $4trillion ? The lowest I can find is $6trillion so I'd be grateful for the link ta.

    I doubt if we can go back to the gold standard. I just used that as an example of how money was managed in days gone by. The equivalent today would be a Got controlled bank that only printed when it could be backed by an equal amount in exports etc. Any outgoings would have to be matched with incomings. With borrowing being done only under exceptional circumstances ( WW2 etc...we've only recently finished paying off the US for the loans to fund that war).
    I've watched the US media and this type of conversation is squashed so I hope you don't hide away like the media does.
    It's good to talk.

  31. Monty, I do indeed enjoy debate. And never mind a bit of bit of invective, either giving or receiving. But really now, when you identify with the likes of Ron Paul in a discussion of economics and governance, you’re just asking for “LOON.” I’m a little uncomfortable with such a base rhetorical tactic in the venue of Munguin’s Republic, because Tris is so invariably polite to everyone….including loons. But I’m not nearly as polite as Tris…..sometimes. You can appreciate that Americans have to put up with a lot from Brits and Europeans. But not generally on Munguin’s Republic, as I said.

    Some Brits’ hostility is demonstrated by taking what they learn about America from the media and drawing irrational conclusions. One guy on here, like you apparently, seems to have deeply personalized the predator drone stories, and seems to genuinely believe that Obama is a blood drenched war monger. Now THERE is a man who hasn’t studied Republican vs Democratic war policy and history over the last 20 years or so. And for that matter, doesn’t understand predator drone technology. His hatred should be for war itself, not for an implement of war which is the most precise air strike weapon on the modern battlefield……and has the military advantage that it does not endanger an air crew. I certainly don’t shed any tears for the Al Qaeda leadership who have been killed one by one. But sadly there is collateral damage in warfare. So we need to stop war, not wring our hands about modern weapons technology.

    And you blame OBAMA for gitmo? Are you freekin serious? Did it escape your notice that one of his first presidential acts was to sign an order to close the place and try or release the prisoners? And how the NIMBY politicians (the majority of them Republicans) blocked him at every turn? Can’t have trials in New York City he was told for one example. Too dangerous! So there Gitmo sits. Would you like to deal with it? And contrary to charges on the left, constitutional due process is alive and well for American citizens in the US. But I have no love for the NDAA which has recently been reauthorized with little fanfare. In any event, you would do well to reflect on an attack on American soil which killed 3,000 Americans. I wonder what Her Majesty’s government would have done after attacks which destroyed Whitehall and the Palace and killed 3,000 Londoners – a fully equivalent situation. If a message is sent to the part of the world that so openly hates us (and mounts jihad against us) that you kill Americans at your peril, then it’s OK with me. In any event, if you have a problem with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, you would do well to examine the actions of George W. Bush and the neocon Republicans, and lighten up on the predator drone silliness and the bizarre hostility toward Mr. Obama – who ended one war, and is in the process of ending the second one. With constant opposition and hostility from the war hawk Republicans BTW.

  32. I didn’t answer the gold question which seemed obvious. Gold is historically a better store of value than currency. I’m a coin collector and am very well aware of the bullion price of gold and silver. I also know about the couple of decades or so that gold…..which in the 1970’s had reached about $850 an ounce, fell back to about $350. And about how in that period if you took your big loss on that $350 gold and invested cash, you could have made a fortune. (But the gold bugs DO love their gold, even in that period where they had a huge loss of $500 an ounce.) As for the dollar, it seems to me that it’s in fact done pretty well as a reserve currency over the last century. (But then I have no interest in ideology. I’m just interested in what works for a lifetime or so.) A year or so ago, I went to the Bureau of Labor Statistics website and calculated the average year over year inflation rate since the founding of the Federal Reserve in 1913. For that century of inflation AND deflation, the average year over year inflation rate has been 3.3% (rounded to one decimal place) - a rate that most economists say is sustainable in the larger economy. Recently, it’s been much less than that. By my calculation, that average rate over 100 years yields a net loss in value of 95.24%. So your 95%-96% loss over a century is right. So in 1913, should I have bought gold for a century long portfolio? Then rode the commodity price up and down, paid the storage fees and assay fees (required if I bought or sold), and received no investment return on a relatively illiquid commodity asset? Or should I take the dollar? I would take the dollar!!!!

    As for the rise in the dollar amount of the debt, a good set of numbers is hard to find. Everybody has an opinion about the national debt, but no one much bothers with the numbers. Opinions are easier to spin than facts. In particular, the c**p about Obama as the Big Spender has been everywhere in this election year. Republicans just HATE to be reminded about the debt disasters that were the Reagan and George W. Bush administrations. I finally found this table which agrees with the current Obama numbers and seems otherwise accurate. It gives the “Final Public Debt (millions)” at the end of each fiscal year in current dollars, and the data I quoted are calculated from the current dollar numbers in that column. (It also shows inflation adjusted dollars in the last column on the right.)

    The data are shown for federal government fiscal years which begin October 1 and end the following September 30. It should be remembered that presidential terms begin on January 20, after a leap (election) year, and you can decide when you want to start “counting” an eight year presidential term.

    For Reagan (1981-1989), I took the FY figures for 10/1980 - 9/1981 = $997,855 through 10/88 - 9/1989 = $2,857,430.

    For George W. Bush (2001-2009), I took the FY figures 10/2000 - 9/2001 = $5,807,463 through 10/2008 – 9/2009 = $11,909,829

    Obama (immediately following Bush, 2009-Present) starts with $11,909,829, and extends through the FY which just ended on 9/2012 = $16,015,131.

    The numbers are in millions, so this ends with the infamous and grossly misleading “Obama Debt” of $16 Trillion.

  33. Danny...I keep telling you I don't think there's any difference between Republican and Democrat but you keep trying to pigeon hole me for some reason. I don't support either. I listened to what Ron Paul said and it made more sense to me. Obama seems a good bloke but has surrounded himself with the same bankers etc as Bush so nothing will change.
    Where did I say Obama was responsible for gitmo ?
    I said he promised to close it but hasn't done so. Your excuse is that he can't. Which is a sad indication of his authority after he promised the people so much. All that 'hopey changey' stuff was really just hot air wasn't it ?
    You seem to have forgotten the hundreds of non Americans killed in the twin towers. But that's to be expected. What can you tell me about building 7 and the collapse of building 7 being stated a half hour before it collapsed ? I expect you get all your info from the evening news so you can tell me nothing.
    The drone strikes have killed 1,000 civilians ( hundreds of children) and 2,000 unknowns. How accurate is that ?
    It has also damaged the joy stick controllers in the air con cabins in California who have been mentally damaged. Seeing dead people as bugs being splatted on windscreens in their dreams in infra red and colour.
    So in summing up. You call me a loon. You twist what I say strawman like. Cool debate.
    I watched an interesting youtube video earlier today from some US economics expert who taught students at some top US Uni. She was telling them that they could print money forever because they had their own currency and so could never run out of dollars. Just type in the number of dollars you wanted and away you go.I see where the problem lies. Education.

  34. Oh WOW Monty. I'd forgotten about Building 7 and the 9/11 conspiracy theories. I see that you don't have to be a right wing American to be crazy.

    Sorry I took so much time on this. You really are a loon. Debate over!

  35. Interesting debate guys, which needs no input from me.

    Danny: I was glad to see the House vote, but regretted that all that has happened is that the cliff has moved down the road a bit.

    The interviews with "ordinary people" I was showed the same disappointment.

    Monty: I'm enjoying the debate, but not joining in because economics is way above my pay grade. Much better to leave it to you guys and have people "think" I'm inadequate to the task of moderating, than to put fingers to keyboard and "prove" that they are right (to paraphrase someone... A Lincoln or W Wilson maybe).


  36. tris...he ran I said he would.
    A bit of the usual abuse and then back to his imprisoned mind. Sad.

  37. Monty: Sorry, I have to disagree completely there.

    But when you get to the stage that two people are never going to agree, there seems perhaps little point in hammering out the same arguments over and over again.

    And I have to say Danny has the least imprisoned mind I have had the pleasure to know. It is wide open... wide, and open.

  38. Thanks Tris. Sorry that I used your blog for that absurd "debate."

    You're right about the much vaunted "fiscal cliff." A lot of items got kicked down the road. Budget issues will continue to be a source of contention in Congress for some time. "Cliff" after "cliff" I guess....LOL.

  39. tris... if someone calls me a loon repeatedly and fails to answer my queries when they don't square with his view of the world and then twists what I say then it indicates a closed mind. Someone who can't think outside the box and believes everything that comes out of the other magic box in the corner of the family room.

    But I may be wrong and so would buy him a pint if he turned up in my local and we could thrash things out. He would have to buy his round though. Zombie currency or not ;)

  40. Danny: I ave no problems at all with people debating on MR... I like to think of it as a little room on the net where people can go and talk about what they want to. I never worry about going off topic, or if the debate becomes a little bizarre. That's how discussions are in real life.

    I only bother when things get downright rude... or there is language that is inappropriate for a forum where we haven't a clue who might pop in to read it.

    I guess the important thing is that they had to buckle in the end, and the taxes don't go up on middle class families who can't afford it, but do on the super rich who can.

    It's a pity that sorry excuse for a finance minister in London couldn't come up with the same notion, but just like Bush he was all for cutting the taxes on his friends and family. He did, and would have even further had he not been stopped by, of all people, posh boy Camerfool.

    Still the old, the sick and the poor are paying for the stupidity and greed of the rich and super rich. Homelessness is about to go viral in England.

    One of these days the anger and frustration will burst... and I just hope the stupid prat of a finance manager is in the middle of it when it does.

  41. Ha well Monty. It's not the way I see Danny, and I've known him a long time. But as I said, I'm not bothered by your discussion. I'm simply not intellectually equipped to either join in or adjudicate.

    So I leave you to it.

    I'm sure Danny would appreciate a pint though, and that he buy you some grits and biscuits in return!

  42. fpkgt [url=]beats by dre[/url] jahqc radrs [url=]cheap beats by dre[/url] padff xcgtj [url=]cheap beats by dre[/url] vbhot lgqgu [url=]cheap beats by dre[/url] yoykd sxhzr [url=]beats by dr dre[/url] erkcl rfxoa [url=]beats by dre[/url] zghxy fkss