Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.os.development > #8747 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "Rod Pemberton" <boo@fasdfrewar.cdm> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-09-11 19:11 -0400 |
| Last post | 2015-11-01 09:07 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 142 — 9 participants |
Back to article view | Back to alt.os.development
C parser ramblings, language design, etc "Rod Pemberton" <boo@fasdfrewar.cdm> - 2015-09-11 19:11 -0400
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc "Alexei A. Frounze" <alexfrunews@gmail.com> - 2015-09-12 05:10 -0700
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc "Rod Pemberton" <boo@fasdfrewar.cdm> - 2015-09-13 04:41 -0400
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc "Alexei A. Frounze" <alexfrunews@gmail.com> - 2015-09-13 02:37 -0700
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc "Rod Pemberton" <boo@fasdfrewar.cdm> - 2015-09-13 07:20 -0400
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc "James Harris" <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2015-09-13 18:37 +0100
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc "Alexei A. Frounze" <alexfrunews@gmail.com> - 2015-09-13 21:03 -0700
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc "James Harris" <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2015-09-12 13:49 +0100
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc "Rod Pemberton" <boo@fasdfrewar.cdm> - 2015-09-13 06:27 -0400
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc "James Harris" <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2015-09-13 19:02 +0100
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc "Alexei A. Frounze" <alexfrunews@gmail.com> - 2015-09-13 15:10 -0700
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc "Rod Pemberton" <boo@fasdfrewar.cdm> - 2015-09-13 20:30 -0400
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc "Alexei A. Frounze" <alexfrunews@gmail.com> - 2015-09-13 20:07 -0700
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc "James Harris" <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 22:29 +0100
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc "Rod Pemberton" <boo@fasdfrewar.cdm> - 2015-09-20 18:48 -0400
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc "James Harris" <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2015-09-22 20:04 +0100
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc "Rod Pemberton" <boo@fasdfrewar.cdm> - 2015-09-30 20:32 -0400
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-27 13:51 +0000
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc "Rod Pemberton" <boo@fasdfrewar.cdm> - 2015-12-27 17:35 -0500
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-16 17:09 +0000
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-01-16 14:30 -0500
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-16 21:40 +0000
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-01-18 07:34 -0500
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-01-18 08:37 -0500
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-18 23:35 +0000
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc "wolfgang kern" <nowhere@never.at> - 2016-01-19 12:52 +0100
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-19 13:09 +0000
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc "wolfgang kern" <nowhere@never.at> - 2016-01-19 21:46 +0100
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-21 11:15 +0000
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc "wolfgang kern" <nowhere@never.at> - 2016-01-21 21:48 +0100
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-22 15:16 +0000
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc "wolfgang kern" <nowhere@never.at> - 2016-01-22 23:02 +0100
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc Bernhard Schornak <schornak@web.de> - 2016-01-23 17:04 +0100
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-27 15:27 +0000
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc Bernhard Schornak <schornak@web.de> - 2016-02-29 09:26 +0100
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 19:02 +0000
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 20:48 +0000
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc Bernhard Schornak <schornak@web.de> - 2016-03-09 22:29 +0100
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 16:41 +0000
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc Bernhard Schornak <schornak@web.de> - 2016-03-29 09:00 +0200
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc Bernhard Schornak <schornak@web.de> - 2016-03-09 22:29 +0100
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 17:36 +0000
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc Bernhard Schornak <schornak@web.de> - 2016-03-29 09:01 +0200
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-02 10:13 +0100
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc Bernhard Schornak <schornak@web.de> - 2016-04-10 19:33 +0200
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc Bernhard Schornak <schornak@web.de> - 2016-04-15 16:27 +0200
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-26 08:10 +0100
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc Bernhard Schornak <schornak@web.de> - 2016-05-03 20:14 +0200
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-04 09:17 +0100
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc Bernhard Schornak <schornak@web.de> - 2016-05-21 21:10 +0200
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-29 08:44 +0100
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc Bernhard Schornak <schornak@web.de> - 2016-05-29 12:05 +0200
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-29 12:28 +0100
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc Bernhard Schornak <schornak@web.de> - 2016-06-01 19:22 +0200
OT: Obama in the UK (was: C parser ramblings, language design, etc) James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-26 08:46 +0100
Re: OT: Obama in the UK (was: C parser ramblings, language design, etc) Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-04-26 23:58 -0400
Re: OT: Obama in the UK (was: C parser ramblings, language design, etc) Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-04-27 00:08 -0400
Re: OT: Obama in the UK James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-27 06:40 +0100
Re: OT: Obama in the UK Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-04-27 05:25 -0400
Re: OT: Obama in the UK James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-27 17:45 +0100
Re: OT: Obama in the UK Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-04-27 18:25 -0400
Re: OT: Obama in the UK James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-02 23:44 +0100
Re: OT: Obama in the UK Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-05-03 16:56 -0400
Re: OT: Obama in the UK James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-04 09:23 +0100
Re: OT: Obama in the UK Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-05-04 17:22 -0400
Re: OT: Obama in the UK James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-06 11:47 +0100
Re: OT: Obama in the UK Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-05-06 19:34 -0400
Re: OT: Obama in the UK "James Harris" <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-07 12:51 +0100
Re: OT: Obama in the UK Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-05-07 19:20 -0400
Re: OT: Obama in the UK James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-08 01:46 +0100
Re: OT: Obama in the UK Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-05-07 21:43 -0400
Re: OT: Obama in the UK James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-08 09:36 +0100
Re: OT: Obama in the UK Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-05-08 15:34 -0400
Re: OT: Obama in the UK James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-10 11:25 +0100
Re: OT: Obama in the UK Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-05-10 17:32 -0400
Re: OT: Obama in the UK Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-05-10 18:25 -0400
Re: OT: Obama in the UK James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-15 00:06 +0100
Re: OT: Obama in the UK Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-05-07 21:32 -0400
Re: OT: Obama in the UK James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-06-02 07:41 +0100
Re: OT: Obama in the UK Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-06-02 16:21 -0400
Re: OT: Obama in the UK James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-20 14:59 +0100
Re: OT: Obama in the UK "wolfgang kern" <nowhere@never.at> - 2016-05-20 21:13 +0200
Re: OT: Obama in the UK "wolfgang kern" <nowhere@never.at> - 2016-05-20 21:17 +0200
Re: OT: Obama in the UK James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-21 08:04 +0100
Re: OT: Obama in the UK Bernhard Schornak <schornak@web.de> - 2016-05-21 21:10 +0200
Re: OT: Obama in the UK "wolfgang kern" <nowhere@never.at> - 2016-05-21 11:16 +0200
Re: OT: Obama in the UK Bernhard Schornak <schornak@web.de> - 2016-05-21 21:11 +0200
Re: OT: Obama in the UK Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-05-20 22:51 -0400
Re: OT: Obama in the UK James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-21 07:29 +0100
Re: OT: Obama in the UK James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-06-02 08:33 +0100
Re: OT: Obama in the UK Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-06-02 16:21 -0400
UK pronunciation was, [Re: OT: Obama in the UK, was C lang parser ramblings] Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-06-11 14:34 -0400
Re: UK pronunciation was, [Re: OT: Obama in the UK, was C lang parser ramblings] James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-07-24 18:28 +0100
Re: UK pronunciation was, [Re: OT: Obama in the UK, was C lang parser ramblings] Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfrze.cam> - 2016-07-25 21:54 -0400
Re: OT: Obama in the UK James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-07-24 18:21 +0100
Re: OT: Obama in the UK Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfrze.cam> - 2016-07-25 21:54 -0400
Re: OT: Obama in the UK James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-07-26 10:02 +0100
Re: OT: Obama in the UK Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfrze.cam> - 2016-07-26 07:56 -0400
Re: OT: Obama in the UK James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-07-30 12:26 +0100
Re: OT: Obama in the UK Bernhard Schornak <schornak@web.de> - 2016-05-03 20:14 +0200
Re: OT: Obama in the UK James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-04 09:25 +0100
Re: OT: Obama in the UK Bernhard Schornak <schornak@web.de> - 2016-05-21 21:11 +0200
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-26 07:59 +0100
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-04-27 00:01 -0400
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-27 09:28 +0100
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-04-27 05:42 -0400
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-27 17:16 +0100
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-04-27 18:05 -0400
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-27 09:29 +0100
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-27 09:42 +0100
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc Bernhard Schornak <schornak@web.de> - 2016-05-03 20:14 +0200
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-07 14:34 +0100
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc Bernhard Schornak <schornak@web.de> - 2016-05-21 21:10 +0200
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-29 11:27 +0100
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc Bernhard Schornak <schornak@web.de> - 2016-06-01 19:22 +0200
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-07 16:34 +0100
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc Bernhard Schornak <schornak@web.de> - 2016-05-21 21:10 +0200
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-29 12:10 +0100
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc Bernhard Schornak <schornak@web.de> - 2016-06-01 19:22 +0200
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-01-25 18:29 -0500
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc "wolfgang kern" <nowhere@never.at> - 2016-01-26 11:47 +0100
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-27 17:08 +0000
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc "wolfgang kern" <nowhere@never.at> - 2016-01-28 11:54 +0100
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-28 11:47 +0000
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-21 10:13 +0000
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-01-25 18:29 -0500
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-27 17:15 +0000
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-01-27 17:31 -0500
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-28 11:07 +0000
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-01-19 22:28 -0500
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-22 15:04 +0000
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-01-25 17:48 -0500
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-27 17:16 +0000
Re: cows and bulls game, was [Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc] "Rod Pemberton" <boo@fasdfrewar.cdm> - 2015-12-27 21:19 -0500
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc "Rod Pemberton" <boo@fasdfrewar.cdm> - 2015-09-30 20:32 -0400
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2015-10-05 15:13 +0100
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc "Rod Pemberton" <boo@fasdfrewar.cdm> - 2015-10-05 21:56 -0400
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-27 13:56 +0000
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc "Rod Pemberton" <boo@fasdfrewar.cdm> - 2015-10-21 19:46 -0400
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc "James Harris" <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2015-09-12 15:38 +0100
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc "Rod Pemberton" <boo@fasdfrewar.cdm> - 2015-09-13 07:10 -0400
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc "s_dubrovich@yahoo.com" <s_dubrovich@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-01 09:07 -0800
Page 5 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 Next page →
| From | James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-20 14:59 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: OT: Obama in the UK |
| Message-ID | <nhn518$1fk$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #9499 |
On 07/05/2016 00:34, Rod Pemberton wrote: > On Fri, 6 May 2016 11:47:38 +0100 > James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 04/05/2016 22:22, Rod Pemberton wrote: ... >>> The common currency lowers transaction costs, >> >> Yes, that is a benefit of the single currency. >> >> Unfortunately, it also locks participating countries into two things: ... >> 2. An unmodifiable exchange rate. This prevents countries devaluing >> in times of crisis. That, in turn, reduces their chances of >> attracting the foreign money they need to help them out of the >> crisis. I just read something on this that I hadn't thought of. It concerns how the EU single currency helps Germany by preventing their currency from floating high. Germany has long had a strong manufacturing sector and is economically powerful just now. If they had kept the deutschmark (DM) then Germany's strong economic performance would have driven the DM high. That, in turn, would have reduced the competitiveness of their goods to other countries and so damped down their economy. Having a single currency across multiple economies, however, keeps the euro relatively low, especially as some of the economies are in the doldrums. The low euro, in turn, makes German goods highly competitive internationally, and so adds even more to the strength of the German economy. Thus the cycle continues. Germany continues to get stronger. Greece and Spain continue to get weaker than they would have been if they had kept their own currencies. It's a fairly scary prospect because of the disparity it is creating. I am not sure what what will bring this cycle to an end. Greece is coming up to the date of a loan repayment in July. Word is that they won't be able to meet this one, either. They have missed such dates in the past and the powers that be - the IMF, Germany, big banks, and others - have insisted that, as a condition of receiving further loans, they restructure their economy and sell off assets. They already sold off some of their regional airports - as it happens, they apparently went to German firms: http://www.france24.com/en/20150820-germany-firm-run-greece-airports-sell-off-begins-fraport-privatisation-bailout Last time this happened there was talk of Greece selling some of their islands too: http://time.com/3956017/greece-bailout-selloff/ I don't know if they did sell some islands last time but, if not, and if they cannot make the repayment in July there will be renewed pressure to sell off more of their assets this time. It is a really sad situation. Greece is called the home of democracy. And yet, because of the single currency, Greece's own government is being controlled by non-democratic and non-Greek agencies. The borrower is the servant of the lender. The lenders, in this case, are calling the shots. The point being, AISI, that the single currency sounds like a good idea because it reduces transaction costs in the short term. But in the long term it does two things: 1) it increases economic disparities between different economies, hurting some countries a lot on the way (e.g. with very high youth unemployment), and 2) it takes power away from elected governments and thus takes power away from the citizens, and places it in the hands of international banks and other bodies. The more I find out about this European project idea the less I like it. -- James Harris
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "wolfgang kern" <nowhere@never.at> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-20 21:13 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: OT: Obama in the UK |
| Message-ID | <nhnnjv$hg9$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #9524 |
James Harris wrote: ... > The more I find out about this European project idea the less I like it. Dont you remember the US unition war (back then ..) We Europeans are still within such a war, even our ammunition are Euro's instead of 7.62 (caliber 30mil) bullets ... I once (before 2000) told my vision about this and it contained some detailes: * this union-war may end about march 2026... * Italy will be (for the first time since ever) on the looser side and will be governed together with Greece, Spain and all the other inable countries by the EU-parliament in Bruxeless further on. But another part of my visions show that all the turkish folks which live already for several generations within Europe, plan to takeover whole Europe before their 500th year of shame. 1583: first attempt to conquer Europe (siege Vienna) failed by disease. 1629: second try to siege Vienna (failed, thanks to a Polish army). So questions are: are we strong enough to avoid Osamnism in Europe ? can we teach all the young immigrants our western culture in time ? I'm afraid, we already lost this fight. It was a common saying that when Vienna falls, then all EUrope falls. Meanwhile there are already muslim Burgomasters in nordern Germany. So something went went wrong during our high times when we needed immigrants to work for us. But now we want to get rid of 'em as fast and as far as possible ! __ wolfgang
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "wolfgang kern" <nowhere@never.at> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-20 21:17 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: OT: Obama in the UK |
| Message-ID | <nhnnsk$hvd$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #9525 |
I posted: ... > 1583: first attempt to conquer Europe (siege Vienna) failed by disease. > 1629: second try to siege Vienna (failed, thanks to a Polish army). and I added one century by error! so I correct myself to: 1483: 1st 1529: 2nd __ wolfgang
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-21 08:04 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: OT: Obama in the UK |
| Message-ID | <nhp13i$35n$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #9525 |
On 20/05/2016 20:13, wolfgang kern wrote: > > James Harris wrote: > .... > >> The more I find out about this European project idea the less I like it. > > Dont you remember the US unition war (back then ..) You mean the US civil war? Not personally. ;-) > We Europeans are still within such a war, even our ammunition are > Euro's instead of 7.62 (caliber 30mil) bullets ... > > I once (before 2000) told my vision about this and it contained some > detailes: * this union-war may end about march 2026... > * Italy will be (for the first time since ever) on the looser side and > will be governed together with Greece, Spain and all the other inable > countries by the EU-parliament in Bruxeless further on. I had naively been thinking that EU countries should either merge or separate, considering that the current half-way house is just a cause of problems. My thought was that a single government would be responsible for the welfare of everyone, and could transfer money from Germany to Greece, say, without any political barriers to doing so. But now I am not so sure. That would only increase dependency in Greece and resentment in Germany. Because the two economies are so different (not to mention the languages) I cannot see them ever being part of a single country. Instead, going back to the old scheme of each country having its own currency may be better. It is not perfect but varying exchange rates allow countries to adjust to changing conditions for the benefit of their people. > But another part of my visions show that all the turkish folks which > live already for several generations within Europe, plan to takeover > whole Europe before their 500th year of shame. I don't know about Turkey but there are some from the east who, it turns out, do not tend to integrate with the indigenous populations of their new homes. Instead, they form separate communities. And some from among them see it as their holy purpose to conquer new land for their religion. > 1583: first attempt to conquer Europe (siege Vienna) failed by disease. > 1629: second try to siege Vienna (failed, thanks to a Polish army). > > So questions are: > are we strong enough to avoid Osamnism in Europe ? I cannot find your word on Google. https://www.google.com/#q=Osamnism > can we teach all the young immigrants our western culture in time ? > I'm afraid, we already lost this fight. > It was a common saying that when Vienna falls, then all EUrope falls. > Meanwhile there are already muslim Burgomasters in nordern Germany. > > So something went went wrong during our high times when we needed > immigrants to work for us. > But now we want to get rid of 'em as fast and as far as possible ! IMO immigrants are fine if they integrate and are needed. But letting people in without checking whether they will live by your laws is irresponsible, especially if they come in in great numbers and fail to integrate with the local people. It can only end up hurting the local people. I once saw a map of Jewish vs Muslim territory. This isn't the map but it is similar: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d4/Muslim_Percent_Population.svg Jewish territory is the tiny country of Israel to the east of the Mediterranean. The surrounding vast swathe of dark green is Muslim territory. Yet some feel they should conquer more. Puts things in perspective, doesn't it. -- James Harris
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bernhard Schornak <schornak@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-21 21:10 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: OT: Obama in the UK |
| Message-ID | <nhqbkp$jto$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #9531 |
James Harris wrote: >> are we strong enough to avoid Osamnism in Europe ? > > I cannot find your word on Google. > > https://www.google.com/#q=Osamnism Probably "Ottomanism" which is "Osmanismus" in German: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottomanism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Ottomanism Greetings from Augsburg Bernhard Schornak
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "wolfgang kern" <nowhere@never.at> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-21 11:16 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: OT: Obama in the UK |
| Message-ID | <nhp91u$b2n$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #9525 |
I posted: ... > and I added one century by error! > so I correct myself to: > 1483: 1st > 1529: 2nd Sorry, I messed it up again, lets blame a sixpack on friday evening which make it hard to remember what we learned 60 years ago ;) the correct siege dates are: 1st: 1529 (Turkish Siege force went home heavy diseased) 2nd: 1683 (Polish army defeated the agressors) __ wolfgang
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bernhard Schornak <schornak@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-21 21:11 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: OT: Obama in the UK |
| Message-ID | <nhqbkt$jto$5@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #9525 |
wolfgang kern wrote:
> can we teach all the young immigrants our western culture in time ?
Can *they* teach *us* to react less biased (= more human) in
time?
> I'm afraid, we already lost this fight.
We shouldn't start another religious war in the 21st century
- didn't we kill enough "pagans" in Africa, the Americas and
many other places around the globe?
> It was a common saying that when Vienna falls, then all EUrope falls.
> Meanwhile there are already muslim Burgomasters in nordern Germany.
What's your problem with them? What about atheist mayors or,
in other words: Why should the personal beliefs of *someone*
be a problem for *anyone else*? Isn't it a basic human right
to believe (or not to believe!) in anything you want as long
as no one else's freedom is violated?
> So something went went wrong during our high times when we needed immigrants to work for us.
In this context we could replace "immigrants" with "slaves".
Or did you mean "alien employees" ("Gastarbeiter"), who were
hired to work where "human resources" just were required for
a limited time?
> But now we want to get rid of 'em as fast and as far as possible !
Who is "we"?
Pfüat'Di
Bernhard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-20 22:51 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: OT: Obama in the UK |
| Message-ID | <20160520225144.0ebacb6b@_> |
| In reply to | #9524 |
On Fri, 20 May 2016 14:59:22 +0100 James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> wrote: > On 07/05/2016 00:34, Rod Pemberton wrote: > > On Fri, 6 May 2016 11:47:38 +0100 > > James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 04/05/2016 22:22, Rod Pemberton wrote: > Greece is coming up to the date of a loan repayment in July. Word is > that they won't be able to meet this one, either. They have missed > such dates in the past and the powers that be - the IMF, Germany, big > banks, and others - have insisted that, as a condition of receiving > further loans, they restructure their economy and sell off assets. If that is what happened, that makes the IMF, Germany, and big banks appear to be very greedy. I.e., this looks like an asset grab for rich countries. As Greece's base of assets declines, it'll be increasingly more difficult for them to make loan repayments. So, it appears to be induced indebtedness or forced poverty for the benefit of greedier countries. In a union, that those in the U.S. see as much more socialist than here, the larger, more powerful countries should have stood up and said they'll finance Greece long-term, providing a minimum level of support, without financially "pillaging" Greece's asset base. > They already sold off some of their regional airports - as it > happens, they apparently went to German firms: > [...] > Last time this happened there was talk of Greece selling some of > their islands too: > If such activity continues on a large scale and including government assets, Germany will end up owning Greece. That may be the way of the markets or a harsh lesson for Greece, but it's definitely not neighborly or nice. I don't see how any of this would help to keep Greece within the E.U. > The borrower is the servant of the lender. ... > The point being, AISI, that the single currency sounds like a good > idea because it reduces transaction costs in the short term. But in > the long term it does two things: 1) it increases economic > disparities between different economies, hurting some countries a lot > on the way (e.g. with very high youth unemployment), and 2) it takes > power away from elected governments and thus takes power away from > the citizens, and places it in the hands of international banks and > other bodies. Was this a direct cause of an integrated currency or of other market forces or of financial mismanagement? ... I wasn't following this closely, but I was under the impression that Greece had badly mismanaged their finances. Rod Pemberton
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-21 07:29 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: OT: Obama in the UK |
| Message-ID | <nhov15$tl1$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #9529 |
On 21/05/2016 03:51, Rod Pemberton wrote: > On Fri, 20 May 2016 14:59:22 +0100 > James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 07/05/2016 00:34, Rod Pemberton wrote: >>> On Fri, 6 May 2016 11:47:38 +0100 >>> James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On 04/05/2016 22:22, Rod Pemberton wrote: > >> Greece is coming up to the date of a loan repayment in July. Word is >> that they won't be able to meet this one, either. They have missed >> such dates in the past and the powers that be - the IMF, Germany, big >> banks, and others - have insisted that, as a condition of receiving >> further loans, they restructure their economy and sell off assets. > > If that is what happened, that makes the IMF, Germany, and big banks > appear to be very greedy. I.e., this looks like an asset grab for rich > countries. As Greece's base of assets declines, it'll be increasingly > more difficult for them to make loan repayments. So, it appears to be > induced indebtedness or forced poverty for the benefit of greedier > countries. In a union, that those in the U.S. see as much more > socialist than here, the larger, more powerful countries should have > stood up and said they'll finance Greece long-term, providing a minimum > level of support, without financially "pillaging" Greece's asset base. I should say that I don't in any way think that Germany set out to pillage Greece's assets, or even to be greedy. From the German point of view, Germany is lending money that has come from German taxpayers to a cause that might collapse. It, therefore, imposes conditions on the loans to try to ensure that it gets its money back. Whether German-style fiscal restraints are good for Greece or not is another matter. The root problem, as I say, seems to me to be due to having the two economies locked into the same currency. Sharing the currency helps the German economy and harms the Greek one. So I don't see any malice, merely a consequence of the naive financial decision to share a currency. >> They already sold off some of their regional airports - as it >> happens, they apparently went to German firms: >> [...] >> Last time this happened there was talk of Greece selling some of >> their islands too: >> > > If such activity continues on a large scale and including government > assets, Germany will end up owning Greece. That may be the way of the > markets or a harsh lesson for Greece, but it's definitely not > neighborly or nice. I don't see how any of this would help to keep > Greece within the E.U. The former Greek finance minister, Yanis Varoufakis, is an interesting character. He speaks English eloquently and, at least to a non-economist like me, seems to know what he is talking about. AIUI his view is that if it became known that Greece was going to ditch the euro then that, in itself, would increase the financial stress in Greece and thereby make their problems even worse. They are thus stuck with the euro. He wanted a 'restructuring' of the Greek loans - by which I think he meant that some of Greece's debt should be written off and the rest re-lent at a lower rate of interest. On the other hand, a number of people have said that Greece _should_ take the pain of dropping out of the euro so that it can then recover; if it doesn't then its austerity measures will go on for years. I don't know what's best. Greece may even go on for some years trying to keep the euro but eventually ditch it. >> The borrower is the servant of the lender. > > .... > >> The point being, AISI, that the single currency sounds like a good >> idea because it reduces transaction costs in the short term. But in >> the long term it does two things: 1) it increases economic >> disparities between different economies, hurting some countries a lot >> on the way (e.g. with very high youth unemployment), and 2) it takes >> power away from elected governments and thus takes power away from >> the citizens, and places it in the hands of international banks and >> other bodies. > > Was this a direct cause of an integrated currency or of other market > forces or of financial mismanagement? ... I wasn't following this > closely, but I was under the impression that Greece had badly > mismanaged their finances. I think there are two parts to this: 1. AIUI Greece has long had a fairly relaxed attitude to taxation and spending, e.g. low taxation, early retirement, and generous state pensions. Its government wasn't keen on changing these things too much. Greeks had become accustomed to those benefits and didn't want to lose them. 2. Whatever they do to reform their tax and spend approach it is unlikely they will be able to be competitive with some other eurozone countries. Tourism is unlikely to be suitably competitive with goods manufacture. As we've discussed before, the eurozone as a whole is in trouble. Economists say the problems are structural rather than temporary. I don't know for sure but I think that means that the problems in the zone are due to the way it is structured rather than just a short-term response to financial winds of change. As said, Greece's next payment is due in July. If Greece makes that payment then things will continue. If it fails to make that payment that may bring matters to a head. Only time will tell how this gets worked out. -- James Harris
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-02 08:33 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: OT: Obama in the UK |
| Message-ID | <nionfs$hk7$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #9499 |
On 07/05/2016 00:34, Rod Pemberton wrote: ... > Well, I know you guys don't seem to care for Trump, > but he basically encouraged Brexit. That is surprising > to me as well. I.e., I seem him as businessman who > would support trade agreements. I wouldn't doubt it > that he merely opposing Obama's position. I am not sure whether I said much about this. Trump, as a businessman, may be thinking of the UK's financial wellbeing post Brexit. I think that _every_ big organisation here has predicted bad financial consequences for the UK if it leaves the EU: the IMF, the OECD, the Government, the G20, and the IFS. But when you dig in to the details it seems their forecasts are skewed, even skewed deliberately! I am by no stretch of the imagination a conspiracy theorist. IMO the truth is usually far more mundane than any conspiracy theory and people go for conspiracy theories because the stories are more appealing to the imagination. But in this case, there is a lot of info building up that, even if they are not colluding, they are at least using their own views to influence their predictions. All of those making these negative predictions have become used to their lives as they have them. Their lives consist of: * privileged positions * high income levels * satisfaction/complacency with their lives as they are now * a shared social scene * associated groupthink Because of this they have nothing to lose from staying as they are. The head of the IMF even said it was her _personal_ preference that the UK remain in the EU. Perhaps the most corrosive evidence is that, even though the headlines of a report are for dire economic consequences of Brexit, when one looks at the detail of the report the opposite is the case. Even the pro-Remain reports forecast good growth if we don't Remain. For example, http://pensites.com/politics/article-1130/Treasury-economic-forecast-for-Brexit It shows that what was spun as a 6% loss by 2030 is actually a 30% gain! As in the article, the predictions are roughly 36% gain if we stay in the EU and 30% gain if we leave it. Brits were only told they would be "permanently 6% poorer" by 2030. That was taken as saying that we would all lose money compared to where we are now. Furthermore, I have found since that, in order to keep the post-Brexit prosperity projections low, they had to assume that Britain would make no new trade deals in the next 14 years. That is obviously unrealistic. Even the pro-Remain government says new deals could take up to ten years. In reality I think most would take between one year and four years. There is certainly no reason for the UK not to do plenty of trade deals by 2030. Naturally, Brits have not been told the assumptions on which the forecasts were made. It has taken some astute journalists to dig out the reality from behind the spin. Here is a brilliant journalistic takedown of economic predictions about Brexit though I don't know if it will be accessible from the USA: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p03wftdw Given all of the above, and plenty similar, I am satisfied that Brexit is a good choice for the UK's economy - as well as for democracy, accountability and border control. Trump may have been right on the economic side. I have never really got into political issues before but I have always believed in fairness and honesty. Is politics always this devious? And would one expect an elected government to indulge in this much blatant deception? It has been the Prime Minister and the Chancellor behind much of the deception. -- James Harris
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-02 16:21 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: OT: Obama in the UK |
| Message-ID | <20160602162118.07747720@_> |
| In reply to | #9597 |
On Thu, 2 Jun 2016 08:33:12 +0100 James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> wrote: > On 07/05/2016 00:34, Rod Pemberton wrote: > > Well, I know you guys don't seem to care for Trump, > > but he basically encouraged Brexit. That is surprising > > to me as well. I.e., I seem him as businessman who > > would support trade agreements. I wouldn't doubt it > > that he merely opposing Obama's position. > > I am not sure whether I said much about this. Trump, as a > businessman, may be thinking of the UK's financial wellbeing post > Brexit. > > I think that _every_ big organisation here has predicted bad > financial consequences for the UK if it leaves the EU: the IMF, the > OECD, the Government, the G20, and the IFS. Didn't the former CEO of HSBC just say the opposite? > I am by no stretch of the imagination a conspiracy theorist. IMO the > truth is usually far more mundane than any conspiracy theory and > people go for conspiracy theories because the stories are more > appealing to the imagination. I think that people realize that sometimes events are far more complicated than led to believe especially with the option of a political cover-up, or perceived interference from Biblical good or evil, or the actions of a dark, sinister "invisible hand." For any good conspiracy theory, Sherlock Holmes "must be the truth" concept applies instead of Murphy's law. > But in this case, there is a lot of info building up that, even if > they are not colluding, they are at least using their own views to > influence their predictions. All of those making these negative > predictions have become used to their lives as they have them. Their > lives consist of: > > * privileged positions > * high income levels > * satisfaction/complacency with their lives as they are now > * a shared social scene > * associated groupthink You missed older and/or established. E.g., reports of online polls here always indicate a Brexit while other polls and your oddsmakers or bookmakers like Ladbrokes don't. That would indicate that younger people are more in favor of a Brexit, as younger people use the internet more via their smartphones, Facebook, etc. So, this might be indicative of a conservative older population saying "No" to Brexit, with a younger more liberal population saying "Yes" to Brexit. But, I'm not that up to date on what goes on or is going on over there. I just see a handful of articles thrown in where I get my news. > Because of this they have nothing to lose from staying as they are. > > The head of the IMF even said it was her _personal_ preference that > the UK remain in the EU. From your comments and the articles I've seen, it definitely seems as divisive and perhaps as hostile as our current presidential primaries. The contest for the hearts and minds of Americans hasn't really even begun yet, and it is already real ugly. I wouldn't doubt it if it becomes one of the most vicious in U.S. history. Ladbrokes puts Hillary at 1/2 and Trump at 15/8. I'm not real sure how to convert fractional odds into percentages, but I think that's 67% Hillary 35% Trump, e.g., 2/(1+2) and 8/(15+8). But, my perception and many articles and even some recent polls are saying it is closer to 47%:47%. Both candidates are really hated by people in the opposing party. All I know is that this country needs to shift in the opposite direction to stay on an even keel. Too much of either party for too long is a bad thing. If the country doesn't shift for this election, it would also be an exception that I haven't seen in my lifetime. > Perhaps the most corrosive evidence is that, even though the > headlines of a report are for dire economic consequences of Brexit, > when one looks at the detail of the report the opposite is the case. > Even the pro-Remain reports forecast good growth if we don't Remain. Opportunity is what you make of it. Obviously, a Brexit will enrich someone at the expense of someone else. You know the money men will be evaluating every option to make another fortune. There is a large amount of money to be made from change, any change, in financial markets. Markets going up, makes money. Markets going down, makes money. Markets exiting industries, makes money. Markets entering industries, makes money. > Furthermore, I have found since that, in order to keep the > post-Brexit prosperity projections low, they had to assume that > Britain would make no new trade deals in the next 14 years. That is > obviously unrealistic. Even the pro-Remain government says new deals > could take up to ten years. In reality I think most would take > between one year and four years. There is certainly no reason for the > UK not to do plenty of trade deals by 2030. Do you guys want change or not? In recent years, there is a cliche of a phrase known as "analysis paralysis" being bandied about in the U.S. It means that you're spending too much time thinking about an issue, can't come to a solid either for or against some decision, and so you don't make a decision at all. People fear change which represents the unknown. Some people embrace it because for them things can only become better. > Naturally, Brits have not been told the assumptions on which the > forecasts were made. It has taken some astute journalists to dig out > the reality from behind the spin. The media here which is dominated by liberals spins every story. Conservatives take such spins to be lies. Liberals take such spins to be truth. > Here is a brilliant journalistic takedown of economic predictions > about Brexit though I don't know if it will be accessible from the > USA: > > http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p03wftdw It's not blocked. Yes, the intro is funny, but as Prof. Tony Yates mentions, economics is not precise as a science. The fact that there has been a low correlation with predictions doesn't necessarily mean that the economic predictions are wrong in general. The odds of flipping 1000 heads in a row are low, but it's not impossible, just improbable. Prof. Tony Yates brought up the same issue on restraint of trade which I mentioned. He mentioned short term costs of leaving too. He mentioned something I didn't, i.e., size of U.K. economy not growing as fast if leave. I tend to be in agreement with what he said. Short-term: stay means no recession, leave means recession. Long-term: stay could mean more growth, leave could mean less growth due to restraint of trade. Of course, I also mentioned ways that trade could provide for more growth, e.g., find more markets, make some good, new trade treaties, use abundance of American speaking countries and British territories to your advantage. India, surprisingly, just had a year of massive growth. India could (still) be Britain's equivalent of U.S.' Mexico. Another to add to the U.K. to U.S. word list: Pensioners Retirees How many accents do you guys have? ;-) I'm joking. We have many that I'm sure you guys have difficulty with too. I had a little bit of a hard time understanding the older guy who is the host. I'd say he has an Irish type of accent, maybe Gaelic? Speaks fast. Swallows vowels (not pronounced or deep in throat). His pronunciation of certain words changes each time he says them. He changes the rate of his speech too. He holds vowel 'u' 'o' 'a' sounds for a long time, e.g. the word "hanged" pronounced "haawnged" instead of "hainged", or E.U. with a 3 to 5 second 'u'. The tall guy who spoke second was much easier to understand, but he doesn't pronounce the letter 'r', i.e., almost all are silent except the second 'r' in "February." He swallows some vowels too. The woman's voice at the table was slightly "muddy" or slurred. Prof. Tony Yates was easy for me to understand, almost an American pronunciation. He's not as hard on consonants though. He speaks at the same speed as us. The heavier set guy at the table, not Prof. Tony Yates or the host, was very easy to understand too, but has a deeper voice than most and over-pronounces a bit. If you mixed in a bit of the second guy's (tall, standing) slightly harder pronunciation of consonants, with Prof.'s more accurate and complete pronunciation of consonants and vowels, you'd have an typical American voice. Or, if the heavy set guy was so over-pronounced and deep, you'd have typical American voice. Obviously, "typical" is relative to many but not all areas of the U.S., as New Yorkers have a strong nasal accent and don't pronounce things the way the rest of the country does. And, many southerners have accents especially if in an area with French ancestry. And, there are too many others list. > Given all of the above, and plenty similar, I am satisfied that > Brexit is a good choice for the UK's economy - as well as for > democracy, accountability and border control. You know what being in the E.U. is like. Is the desire to embrace a new type of freedom uplifting or not? Majority rules. > I have never really got into political issues before but I have > always believed in fairness and honesty. ... > Is politics always this devious? Everyone has something to protect, something to gain. In the case of politics, money and power are strongly intertwined. E.g., if a Brexit hurts the power or donations of one party, then they'll be opposed and the other side will be for it. Just because someone sees themselves as a good person who never attacked anyone in life, doesn't mean others aren't attacking you behind your back for their own motivations and reasons which have nothing to do with you and done without you being aware of the attacks. > And would one expect an elected government to indulge in this much > blatant deception? A government has to protect it's own interest too. Without a doubt, that line of logic was used to justify or rationalize spying on the American people by the U.S. government. They don't say power corrupts completely for no reason. A government is a type of business, so are churches, and other organizations you wouldn't suspect. The "profit" a government makes isn't currency from rent-seeking taxation, but power and control, e.g., land boundaries, economy, military, treaties, etc. > It has been the Prime Minister and the Chancellor behind much of the > deception. ... Rod Pemberton
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-11 14:34 -0400 |
| Subject | UK pronunciation was, [Re: OT: Obama in the UK, was C lang parser ramblings] |
| Message-ID | <20160611143401.0aaf79cc@_> |
| In reply to | #9603 |
On Thu, 2 Jun 2016 16:21:18 -0400 Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> wrote: > On Thu, 2 Jun 2016 08:33:12 +0100 > James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 07/05/2016 00:34, Rod Pemberton wrote: > > Here is a brilliant journalistic takedown of economic predictions > > about Brexit though I don't know if it will be accessible from the > > USA: > > > > http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p03wftdw > > [...] > > How many accents do you guys have? ;-) I'm joking. We have many that > I'm sure you guys have difficulty with too. > > I had a little bit of a hard time understanding the older guy who is > the host. I'd say he has an Irish type of accent, maybe Gaelic? > Speaks fast. Swallows vowels (not pronounced or deep in throat). His > pronunciation of certain words changes each time he says them. He > changes the rate of his speech too. He holds vowel 'u' 'o' 'a' sounds > for a long time, e.g. the word "hanged" pronounced "haawnged" instead > of "hainged", or E.U. with a 3 to 5 second 'u'. The tall guy who > spoke second was much easier to understand, but he doesn't pronounce > the letter 'r', i.e., almost all are silent except the second 'r' in > "February." He swallows some vowels too. The woman's voice at the > table was slightly "muddy" or slurred. Prof. Tony Yates was easy for > me to understand, almost an American pronunciation. He's not as hard > on consonants though. He speaks at the same speed as us. The > heavier set guy at the table, not Prof. Tony Yates or the host, was > very easy to understand too, but has a deeper voice than most and > over-pronounces a bit. If you mixed in a bit of the second guy's > (tall, standing) slightly harder pronunciation of consonants, with > Prof.'s more accurate and complete pronunciation of consonants and > vowels, you'd have an typical American voice. Or, if the heavy set > guy was so over-pronounced and deep, you'd have typical American > voice. Obviously, "typical" is relative to many but not all areas of > the U.S., as New Yorkers have a strong nasal accent and don't > pronounce things the way the rest of the country does. And, many > southerners have accents especially if in an area with French > ancestry. And, there are too many others list. > I wonder where, if any place, an American would fit on an United Kingdom pronunciation map. That question is prompted by this article: "An increasing number of British people don't pronounce the word 'three' properly — these maps explain why" http://www.businessinsider.com/maps-english-dialect-pronunciation-regional-variations-2016-6 We say "three" with the "th," not as in "free." We say "scone" like "bone," not like "gone." We use "splinter." We say "arm" with an 'r' sound, not 'ah' like perhaps someone from Boston might say. We say "butter," like "put." We say "last" like "asp." We say "new" like "noo." We say "tongue" with the "ng," I think, as in "king" not like a hard 'g' in "go." We say "himself" instead of "hisself." We've never said "hern" for "hers," AFAIK. We generally say "fall" for "autumn," but we do use both. I'd say in the 70:30 or 80:20 range. Generally, "autumn" is more formal, or when fall hasn't arrived, yet, and will be a while before it does. "Fall" is when autumn is here and the leaves are falling, or soon to arrive. Of course, this may express my own regional U.S. dialect. That article links to a Cambridge article with smartphone apps. http://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/cambridge-app-maps-decline-in-regional-diversity-of-english-dialects Unfortunately, I don't think I can install either app on my smartphone. And, I don't see an online version. Rod Pemberton
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-24 18:28 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: UK pronunciation was, [Re: OT: Obama in the UK, was C lang parser ramblings] |
| Message-ID | <nn2tsd$j8a$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #9653 |
On 11/06/2016 19:34, Rod Pemberton wrote: > On Thu, 2 Jun 2016 16:21:18 -0400 > Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> wrote: > >> On Thu, 2 Jun 2016 08:33:12 +0100 >> James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On 07/05/2016 00:34, Rod Pemberton wrote: > >>> Here is a brilliant journalistic takedown of economic predictions >>> about Brexit though I don't know if it will be accessible from the >>> USA: >>> >>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p03wftdw >> >> [...] >> >> How many accents do you guys have? ;-) I'm joking. We have many that >> I'm sure you guys have difficulty with too. >> >> I had a little bit of a hard time understanding the older guy who is >> the host. I'd say he has an Irish type of accent, maybe Gaelic? >> Speaks fast. Swallows vowels (not pronounced or deep in throat). His >> pronunciation of certain words changes each time he says them. He >> changes the rate of his speech too. He holds vowel 'u' 'o' 'a' sounds >> for a long time, e.g. the word "hanged" pronounced "haawnged" instead >> of "hainged", or E.U. with a 3 to 5 second 'u'. The tall guy who >> spoke second was much easier to understand, but he doesn't pronounce >> the letter 'r', i.e., almost all are silent except the second 'r' in >> "February." He swallows some vowels too. The woman's voice at the >> table was slightly "muddy" or slurred. Prof. Tony Yates was easy for >> me to understand, almost an American pronunciation. He's not as hard >> on consonants though. He speaks at the same speed as us. The >> heavier set guy at the table, not Prof. Tony Yates or the host, was >> very easy to understand too, but has a deeper voice than most and >> over-pronounces a bit. If you mixed in a bit of the second guy's >> (tall, standing) slightly harder pronunciation of consonants, with >> Prof.'s more accurate and complete pronunciation of consonants and >> vowels, you'd have an typical American voice. Or, if the heavy set >> guy was so over-pronounced and deep, you'd have typical American >> voice. Obviously, "typical" is relative to many but not all areas of >> the U.S., as New Yorkers have a strong nasal accent and don't >> pronounce things the way the rest of the country does. And, many >> southerners have accents especially if in an area with French >> ancestry. And, there are too many others list. >> > > I wonder where, if any place, an American would fit on an United > Kingdom pronunciation map. That question is prompted by this article: > > "An increasing number of British people don't pronounce the word > 'three' properly — these maps explain why" > http://www.businessinsider.com/maps-english-dialect-pronunciation-regional-variations-2016-6 > > We say "three" with the "th," not as in "free." I have a cousin who used to pronounce "th" as "f". I guess he was never made to say it properly when he was young. There are many examples of 'lazy' speech. I remember a German woman when I was on holiday (vacation) saying she never said "th" and thought it was always pronounced in English in the soft form - as in "thin", not appreciating that there was a hard version as in "this". I don't know if "th" is used in German. > We say "scone" like > "bone," not like "gone." We use "splinter." We say "arm" with an 'r' > sound, not 'ah' like perhaps someone from Boston might say. We say > "butter," like "put." We say "last" like "asp." We say "new" like > "noo." We say "tongue" with the "ng," I think, as in "king" not like > a hard 'g' in "go." We say "himself" instead of "hisself." We've never > said "hern" for "hers," AFAIK. We generally say "fall" for "autumn," > but we do use both. I'd say in the 70:30 or 80:20 range. Generally, > "autumn" is more formal, or when fall hasn't arrived, yet, and will be > a while before it does. "Fall" is when autumn is here and the leaves > are falling, or soon to arrive. Of course, this may express my own > regional U.S. dialect. That was especially interesting to read you comments about "autumn". And, having been there, I know what you mean about the Boston "r". To hear a Bostonian speak about a "car" is strange! -- James Harris
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfrze.cam> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-25 21:54 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: UK pronunciation was, [Re: OT: Obama in the UK, was C lang parser ramblings] |
| Message-ID | <20160725215452.66423e17@_> |
| In reply to | #9760 |
On Sun, 24 Jul 2016 18:28:36 +0100 James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> wrote: > On 11/06/2016 19:34, Rod Pemberton wrote: > > "An increasing number of British people don't pronounce the word > > 'three' properly — these maps explain why" > > http://www.businessinsider.com/maps-english-dialect-pronunciation-regional-variations-2016-6 > > > > We say "three" with the "th," not as in "free." > > I have a cousin who used to pronounce "th" as "f". I guess he was > never made to say it properly when he was young. There are many > examples of 'lazy' speech. > > I remember a German woman when I was on holiday (vacation) saying she > never said "th" and thought it was always pronounced in English in > the soft form - as in "thin", not appreciating that there was a hard > version as in "this". I don't know if "th" is used in German. From the sound (in my head), I can't tell which. From the tongue position, I'd say it's almost a hard "th" as in "this" when I say "three" but not quite as hard. > > We say "scone" like > > "bone," not like "gone." We use "splinter." We say "arm" with an > > 'r' sound, not 'ah' like perhaps someone from Boston might say. We > > say "butter," like "put." We say "last" like "asp." We say "new" > > like "noo." We say "tongue" with the "ng," I think, as in "king" > > not like a hard 'g' in "go." We say "himself" instead of > > "hisself." We've never said "hern" for "hers," AFAIK. We > > generally say "fall" for "autumn," but we do use both. I'd say in > > the 70:30 or 80:20 range. Generally, "autumn" is more formal, or > > when fall hasn't arrived, yet, and will be a while before it does. > > "Fall" is when autumn is here and the leaves are falling, or soon > > to arrive. Of course, this may express my own regional U.S. > > dialect. > > That was especially interesting to read you comments about "autumn". > And, having been there, I know what you mean about the Boston "r". To > hear a Bostonian speak about a "car" is strange! New Yorkers (city of) do it too, but with a strong nasal pronunciation. Instead of "noo yourK" it's "naH yaHk" for New York. For some reason, they talk through their head or nose, instead of mouth, throat and neck. They sound like they have a head cold. A "neutral" accent is why phone companies formerly used people in western states like Iowa or Nebraska for their call centers. Many American actors have to be taught a neutral accent. Rod Pemberton
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-24 18:21 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: OT: Obama in the UK |
| Message-ID | <nn2tf3$htc$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #9603 |
On 02/06/2016 21:21, Rod Pemberton wrote: > On Thu, 2 Jun 2016 08:33:12 +0100 > James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 07/05/2016 00:34, Rod Pemberton wrote: > >>> Well, I know you guys don't seem to care for Trump, >>> but he basically encouraged Brexit. That is surprising >>> to me as well. I.e., I seem him as businessman who >>> would support trade agreements. I wouldn't doubt it >>> that he merely opposing Obama's position. >> >> I am not sure whether I said much about this. Trump, as a >> businessman, may be thinking of the UK's financial wellbeing post >> Brexit. >> >> I think that _every_ big organisation here has predicted bad >> financial consequences for the UK if it leaves the EU: the IMF, the >> OECD, the Government, the G20, and the IFS. > > Didn't the former CEO of HSBC just say the opposite? IIRC HSBC and various businesses have said they would stay in the UK irrespective of the Brexit vote. Other businesses have said they might leave. I don't remember any business such as HSBC saying that Brexit would be good for the UK economy. Maybe the former CEO said something positive but I don't remember hearing it. ... >> But in this case, there is a lot of info building up that, even if >> they are not colluding, they are at least using their own views to >> influence their predictions. All of those making these negative >> predictions have become used to their lives as they have them. Their >> lives consist of: >> >> * privileged positions >> * high income levels >> * satisfaction/complacency with their lives as they are now >> * a shared social scene >> * associated groupthink > > You missed older and/or established. E.g., reports of online polls > here always indicate a Brexit while other polls and your oddsmakers or > bookmakers like Ladbrokes don't. In general, the online polls were more favourable for Brexit than the telephone polls but both varied - probably putting Remain ahead most of the time. Now we are past the Brexit vote, it seems that all the polls were all slightly too favourable for Remain. > That would indicate that younger > people are more in favor of a Brexit, as younger people use the > internet more via their smartphones, Facebook, etc. So, this might be > indicative of a conservative older population saying "No" to Brexit, > with a younger more liberal population saying "Yes" to Brexit. If anything it has been the other way round. Young folks (at least those who voted) mostly wanted In while older folks mostly wanted Out. > But, I'm > not that up to date on what goes on or is going on over there. I just > see a handful of articles thrown in where I get my news. > >> Because of this they have nothing to lose from staying as they are. >> >> The head of the IMF even said it was her _personal_ preference that >> the UK remain in the EU. > > From your comments and the articles I've seen, it definitely seems as > divisive and perhaps as hostile as our current presidential primaries. As you say below, your upcoming election between Trump and Clinton looks as though it will be both hostile and divisive. Perhaps more so than any similar election in living memory? BTW, your election processes seem to take an incredibly long time and must be very expensive. Not a criticism. Just an observation. > The contest for the hearts and minds of Americans hasn't really even > begun yet, and it is already real ugly. I wouldn't doubt it if it > becomes one of the most vicious in U.S. history. Ladbrokes puts > Hillary at 1/2 and Trump at 15/8. I'm not real sure how to convert > fractional odds into percentages, Nor am I. > but I think that's 67% Hillary > 35% Trump, e.g., 2/(1+2) and 8/(15+8). But, my perception and many > articles and even some recent polls are saying it is closer to 47%:47%. > Both candidates are really hated by people in the opposing party. > All I know is that this country needs to shift in the opposite > direction to stay on an even keel. Too much of either party for too > long is a bad thing. If the country doesn't shift for this election, > it would also be an exception that I haven't seen in my lifetime. ... >> Furthermore, I have found since that, in order to keep the >> post-Brexit prosperity projections low, they had to assume that >> Britain would make no new trade deals in the next 14 years. That is >> obviously unrealistic. Even the pro-Remain government says new deals >> could take up to ten years. In reality I think most would take >> between one year and four years. There is certainly no reason for the >> UK not to do plenty of trade deals by 2030. > > Do you guys want change or not? In recent years, there is a cliche of > a phrase known as "analysis paralysis" being bandied about in the U.S. > It means that you're spending too much time thinking about an issue, > can't come to a solid either for or against some decision, and so you > don't make a decision at all. People fear change which represents the > unknown. Some people embrace it because for them things can only become > better. I think most people fear change. In an issue like this there has to be a fairly strong natural advantage in favour of what looks like the status quo. Whichever option has the least change has to be favoured. We were asked if we wanted to stay in (no change) or leave (change). As evidence of that fear, in the event, the vote was close: 48% to 52%. If we were already Out of the EU and had been asked if we wanted to join, I think that vote would have been something like 20% to 80% (and that's being generous). So, yes, I think people feared the change. Put another way, the Remain side of the argument were in the much stronger position. But thankfully they still lost. :-) >> Naturally, Brits have not been told the assumptions on which the >> forecasts were made. It has taken some astute journalists to dig out >> the reality from behind the spin. > > The media here which is dominated by liberals spins every story. > Conservatives take such spins to be lies. Liberals take such spins to > be truth. Interesting. Here it is the politicians who spin whenever they can. The journalists (at least on the mainstream media) try to show balance. >> Here is a brilliant journalistic takedown of economic predictions >> about Brexit though I don't know if it will be accessible from the >> USA: >> >> http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p03wftdw > > It's not blocked. Yes, the intro is funny, but as Prof. Tony Yates > mentions, economics is not precise as a science. The fact that there > has been a low correlation with predictions doesn't necessarily mean > that the economic predictions are wrong in general. The odds of > flipping 1000 heads in a row are low, but it's not impossible, just > improbable. > > Prof. Tony Yates brought up the same issue on restraint of trade which > I mentioned. He mentioned short term costs of leaving too. He > mentioned something I didn't, i.e., size of U.K. economy not growing as > fast if leave. I tend to be in agreement with what he said. > Short-term: stay means no recession, leave means recession. Long-term: > stay could mean more growth, leave could mean less growth due to > restraint of trade. Of course, I also mentioned ways that trade could > provide for more growth, e.g., find more markets, make some good, new > trade treaties, use abundance of American speaking countries and > British territories to your advantage. India, surprisingly, just had a > year of massive growth. India could (still) be Britain's equivalent of > U.S.' Mexico. There were lots of "coulds" in all the predictions. Everyone who tried to scare the public - from analysts to business leaders - said that bad things could happen if we left. That's true but meaningless. And they avoided saying that bad things could happen if we stayed. Or if they did admit such things they did so sotto-voce hoping no one would notice. Since I researched the EU, and the UK's relationship with it, my view has been unchanged. Brexit would likely cost us in the short to medium term but be better for us economically in the long term. You mention a recession. I would expect Brexit to produce downward pressure on growth but not necessarily a recession. That is not from my own analysis. I wouldn't be able to work out that much detail. It is from the 'experts' on the other side. My logic: Since they don't want is to vote for Brexit, and they have shown clear biasses, the cost of Brexit is likely to be no worse than their analyses. My view on the long-term economic benefits of Brexit is based on logic. For example, the EU has a very poor record of making trade deals and we have already missed out because of being in the EU. Although it has more overall weight, and that should be acknowledged, it is far too cumbersome and unmotivated. And that's just about making deals. Don't even think of trying to change a deal! Outside the EU we can make our own trade deals. The EU is also highly protectionist. It protects the status quo of its businesses - especially the larger ones - but by doing so tends to make those businesses lazy and unresponsive. So, as I say, ISTM Brexit will lead to a short-term reduction but will be better for our economy in the long term. And that's just about the economy. Brexit, as long as it is delivered properly, will also give us border control - yay! - democratic accountability - yay! - and lots of other welcome effects like greater security. All good. > Another to add to the U.K. to U.S. word list: > > Pensioners Retirees I'm sure there are many more. Mainly nouns and spelling, it seems. IIRC someone once said that Britain and America were two nations divided by a common language! > How many accents do you guys have? ;-) I'm joking. We have many that > I'm sure you guys have difficulty with too. Your accents seem more similar to each other - maybe varying in degrees. Even on this side of the pond _we_ can struggle with the accents of country folk. They vary so much. > I had a little bit of a hard time understanding the older guy who is > the host. I'd say he has an Irish type of accent, maybe Gaelic? I think he (Andrew Neil) was born in Scotland. ... >> Given all of the above, and plenty similar, I am satisfied that >> Brexit is a good choice for the UK's economy - as well as for >> democracy, accountability and border control. > > You know what being in the E.U. is like. Is the desire to embrace a > new type of freedom uplifting or not? Majority rules. The whole idea of freedom is uplifting. I've been surprisingly emotional about this. You will be unaware of how oppressive the EU has been for us. Getting out really does feel like being set free. And the thought of that freedom can bring a tear to the eye! ... >> And would one expect an elected government to indulge in this much >> blatant deception? > > A government has to protect it's own interest too. Without a doubt, > that line of logic was used to justify or rationalize spying on the > American people by the U.S. government. They don't say power corrupts > completely for no reason. A government is a type of business, so are > churches, and other organizations you wouldn't suspect. The "profit" a > government makes isn't currency from rent-seeking taxation, but power > and control, e.g., land boundaries, economy, military, treaties, etc. Well, IMO in a referendum the government should effectively say to the people: "This is your choice. We won't try to persuade you. We will do what you tell us to do". They should then moderate the campaigns so that the people get fair and balanced information on which to make a decision. That requires humility on the part of the government. Did the Government do that? No. In fact, there is irony here in that there are _European_ guidelines on how referenda should be conducted (though they are not EU guidelines): http://pensites.com/politics/article-1107/Has-UK-government-contravened-European-referendum-guidelines Did our Government follow those guidelines? No. They went full on to try to get us to vote to Remain in the EU. As I said in the above article, our Government used its officers against us, spent our money on the Remain cause, hid information from the other side and basically did everything it could to 'win'. They still lost. The people spoke. And they rejected the propaganda of Government, financial 'experts', company bosses, political parties and all the rest. This was a wonderful victory for the people against the elite. -- James Harris
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfrze.cam> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-25 21:54 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: OT: Obama in the UK |
| Message-ID | <20160725215421.499f626d@_> |
| In reply to | #9759 |
On Sun, 24 Jul 2016 18:21:30 +0100 James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> wrote: > On 02/06/2016 21:21, Rod Pemberton wrote: > > On Thu, 2 Jun 2016 08:33:12 +0100 > > James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> On 07/05/2016 00:34, Rod Pemberton wrote: >>>> ... >>> ... >> ... > As you say below, your upcoming election between Trump and Clinton > looks as though it will be both hostile and divisive. Perhaps more so > than any similar election in living memory? Yes. But, I also don't usually follow elections that closely. > BTW, your election processes seem to take an incredibly long time and > must be very expensive. Not a criticism. Just an observation. I usually just ignore all of it, then vote. However, this election is rather interesting as the party outsiders ran under each party, not as independents. Independents "never" win. The outsiders have scared the core of each party. Socialist Sanders basically halted Democrat Clinton's progress. It was revealed that the DNC so feared Sanders recent gains that the DNC actually plotted in secret to stop Sanders ... Trump is more fringe Republican than core, and was a Democrat for many years, but his core supporters are still part of the Republican party. Technically, he might be somewhat of a Libertarian as he has beliefs from both parties. Democrats decry him as a fascist among other insults. By demographics, voting is usually split fairly evenly between both parties, except for black votes. The vast majority of African Americans vote Democrat. Women tend to vote slightly more Democrat and men slightly more Republican. Whites, Hispanics, Asians are all fairly evenly split. > >> Naturally, Brits have not been told the assumptions on which the > >> forecasts were made. It has taken some astute journalists to dig > >> out the reality from behind the spin. > > > > The media here which is dominated by liberals spins every story. > > Conservatives take such spins to be lies. Liberals take such spins > > to be truth. > > Interesting. Here it is the politicians who spin whenever they can. > The journalists (at least on the mainstream media) try to show > balance. The politicians do that too, but it is pushed further by the "unbiased" liberal media. For many decades there wasn't any conservative news shows in the U.S. Now, there is FOX cable news channel, and some conservative radio talk shows. The vast majority of both TV/cable/satellite channels and radio stations are liberal. Their main market is urban (liberal), followed by suburban. Then, they expand into rural areas (conservative). The primary markets for the radio talk shows are rural and strongly Christian. All of the comedy TV shows use liberal humor. They're popular amongst youth and spread liberal views. So, yes, there is a strong bias among media companies towards the left. TV shows and movies are much the same. Hollywood is in California which is a very liberal state as compared to the rest of the nation. Even other liberal urban areas are far more conservative than California. The San Francisco CEOs would probably fit well into the left of the E.U. or U.K. political spectrum. So,they're a slightly radical far left here compared to the rest of the country. That's why they're just screaming bloody murder about Trump. You'd think the sky was falling. > The EU is also highly protectionist. It protects the status quo of > its businesses - especially the larger ones - but by doing so tends > to make those businesses lazy and unresponsive. ... > So, as I say, ISTM Brexit will lead to a short-term reduction but > will be better for our economy in the long term. > > And that's just about the economy. Brexit, as long as it is delivered > properly, will also give us border control - yay! - democratic > accountability - yay! - and lots of other welcome effects like > greater security. All good. With Brexit, there is no reason why the U.K. can't add more states to it's union. If you can get a neighbor in Europe to join you, that would be a great wedge into the E.U., at least symbolically, perhaps economically too. You never know what might happen. Someday, the U.K. might replace the E.U. Long-term it's possible the tables might turn. > >> Given all of the above, and plenty similar, I am satisfied that > >> Brexit is a good choice for the UK's economy - as well as for > >> democracy, accountability and border control. > > > > You know what being in the E.U. is like. Is the desire to embrace a > > new type of freedom uplifting or not? Majority rules. > > The whole idea of freedom is uplifting. I've been surprisingly > emotional about this. You will be unaware of how oppressive the EU > has been for us. Getting out really does feel like being set free. > And the thought of that freedom can bring a tear to the eye! Um, we had the American Revolution which supposedly was to eliminate British oppression. Yes, I haven't personally experienced oppression (AFAIK), but the lore is enshrined in our history here and our Constitution, e.g., right to bear arms after the British banned the importation of gunpowder and firearms, then attempted to confiscate the gunpowder and firearms by force. So, there is a tiny pinch of humorous irony from my perspective ... ;-) > Well, IMO in a referendum the government should effectively say to > the people: "This is your choice. We won't try to persuade you. We > will do what you tell us to do". > > They should then moderate the campaigns so that the people get fair > and balanced information on which to make a decision. That requires > humility on the part of the government. > > Did the Government do that? No. :-) Rod Pemberton
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-26 10:02 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: OT: Obama in the UK |
| Message-ID | <nn790e$hs4$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #9775 |
On 26/07/2016 02:54, Rod Pemberton wrote: > On Sun, 24 Jul 2016 18:21:30 +0100 > James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 02/06/2016 21:21, Rod Pemberton wrote: >>> On Thu, 2 Jun 2016 08:33:12 +0100 >>> James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On 07/05/2016 00:34, Rod Pemberton wrote: ... > It was revealed that the DNC so feared Sanders > recent gains that the DNC actually plotted in secret to stop Sanders ... I know. The US campaigns have been reported here in some detail and we've had multiple reports of the Democrat insider plot against Sanders. Given the bias against him he came close to defeating Clinton. Might he have won in a fair fight? > Trump is more fringe Republican than core, and was a Democrat for many > years, That he was a Democrat is a surprise. > but his core supporters are still part of the Republican party. > Technically, he might be somewhat of a Libertarian as he has beliefs > from both parties. Speaking of Libertarians, do you think Johnson has a chance? > Democrats decry him as a fascist among other > insults. By demographics, voting is usually split fairly evenly > between both parties, except for black votes. The vast majority of > African Americans vote Democrat. Women tend to vote slightly more > Democrat and men slightly more Republican. Whites, Hispanics, Asians > are all fairly evenly split. Most US vox pops I have seen on this are of people saying they will vote for X because they don't like Y (not because they want X to win). ... > With Brexit, there is no reason why the U.K. can't add more states to > it's union. If you can get a neighbor in Europe to join you, that would > be a great wedge into the E.U., at least symbolically, perhaps > economically too. You never know what might happen. Someday, the U.K. > might replace the E.U. Long-term it's possible the tables might turn. You raise lots of interesting issues there. Have you noticed how, in life, zeitgeists alternate between two extremes much as a pendulum alternates between two limits of travel? Companies sometimes do that: centralise then distribute then centralise then .... You get the idea. After living with an extreme for a while people start to head in the other direction and the cycle is maintained. In the political case in point, the extremes are political unions and small nations. Unions of the sort you are referring to were set up to counter the problems of nationalism. That idea of union was one extreme. But there is now a rising tide of preference for nationalism because of the problems of unionism, heading for the other extreme. Similar applies to trade deals. Did you hear that Pelosi attacked TPP yesterday? Do you think TPP will now ever be ratified? And TTIP is even further from ratification. I doubt it will see the light of day, especially if Trump gets in. Trump has reportedly said that he doesn't favour large-bloc trade deals and would rather go back to national ones. Again, the pendulum seems to be swinging back from nations pooling decisions to the nations making their own choices. That having been said ... you mooted a UK-based union. At the moment, at least, I would want to avoid such an outcome. I think there is a better way forward. Rather than complex and comprehensive trade deals I would like to see nations trade with each other under global WTO rules and tariffs EXCEPT for specific lines that they agree to handle under non-default terms. The idea is to make the trade deals simpler and quicker to form and change, and to boost open competition. Basically, the trade deals would set terms for just those goods and services that needed to be protected from global markets. Other lines would not be part of a trade deal and would be traded on free-market terms. Hopefully the days of comprehensive and complex trade deals are coming to an end. I say that because the world has changed. In the 1970s the idea was protectionism: global tariffs were high (say avg 15% - anecdotally as I cannot find the data I want to back that up). Since the 70s a lot of work has been done to open up competition around the world and global tariffs are low (say avg 4%). Those global tariffs could drop even lower. There is now less need for trade deals than there was. However, some countries have industries that could not compete on the world stage. For those, if they are to be preserved, protectionist tariffs would still be needed. That is what trade deals could focus on. The best result would be zero tariffs (along with suitable global agreements on non-tariff barriers). Then goods and services could be traded without customs controls. Hopefully the WTO will continue to push in that direction. So, to finally respond to your comments about a UK-based union: If possible I would rather see the UK trade on WTO terms but with specific short and simple trade deals with other countries. Simple trade deals would be easier to modify as global trading conditions vary. I also wonder whether Ireland could reunify as a separate nation, remaining linked closely to Britain as a friend and partner but not having one part of it in a union with Britain. Of course, that would be up to the people of Northern Ireland. I don't know that they have been asked if recent decades what they would prefer. -- James Harris
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfrze.cam> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-26 07:56 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: OT: Obama in the UK |
| Message-ID | <20160726075629.3ae5f923@_> |
| In reply to | #9778 |
On Tue, 26 Jul 2016 10:02:58 +0100 James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> wrote: > On 26/07/2016 02:54, Rod Pemberton wrote: > > It was revealed that the DNC so feared Sanders > > recent gains that the DNC actually plotted in secret to stop > > Sanders ... > > I know. The US campaigns have been reported here in some detail and > we've had multiple reports of the Democrat insider plot against > Sanders. Given the bias against him he came close to defeating > Clinton. Might he have won in a fair fight? > I don't know. I still don't why anyone would actually support a socialist in a capitalist country like ours. My best guess is that it is that they disliked Hillary, much like the "Never Trump" movement in the Republican party. Apparently, Bernie also supported some environmental protections that Hillary didn't, but Democrats basically support all these things. So, I have to believe it was just a message to Hillary. But, younger Americans (millennials) are somewhat different, so maybe somebody convinced them that socialism is the solution despite massive failures like Venezuela and Brazil and ... > > Trump is more fringe Republican than core, and was a Democrat for > > many years, > > That he was a Democrat is a surprise. > Yes, apparently, up until about 2000. Usually, people shift to Republican from Democrat as they make more money. Poor want more free money. Democrats give it to them via social programs. Better off want fewer taxes. Republicans protect their money. Millennials have been having a hard time economically, so it's understandable that they're a bit more Democrat than other generations. But, I read it's nothing like in the E.U. where there is a large amount of unemployment, average around 20%. Certain countries are very high. > > but his core supporters are still part of the Republican party. > > Technically, he might be somewhat of a Libertarian as he has beliefs > > from both parties. > > Speaking of Libertarians, do you think Johnson has a chance? Who? ... Chance? No. No chance. OK. It seems he's a Libertarian candidate. If you're not on a party ticket, either Republican or Democrat, you basically have no chance. About 37% of the U.S. is Democrat. 37% of the U.S. is Republican. Other sources say 43% Democrat, 39% Republican, etc. So, a Libertarian would have to grab ALL independents, say 26%, plus a large chunk (25%) of either Republicans or Democrats, or a decent chunk of both (say 13%). I can't see that happening. It's possible, but I haven't even seen any mention of this guy so far. The most promising third party in my lifetime was H. Ross Perot and he got nothing: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781450.html From that, there are only a few years where both Republicans and Democrats weren't in the two leading positions: 1912, 1864. Prior to 1852, the Republican party doesn't appear to be established. The odds are really against him. > Most US vox pops I have seen on this are of people saying they will > vote for X because they don't like Y (not because they want X to win). ... I think there are plenty of people who want both Trump and Hillary to win, but the don't constitute enough of a majority to win on good intentions alone. Hillary has many scandals in her past. Trump has a lot of negative rumors. This season really seems to be about who can throw the most dirt and who can wash the most of it off. Of course, with Hillary involved, there could even be some illegal activity. We won't know until a scandal breaks. > > With Brexit, there is no reason why the U.K. can't add more states > > to it's union. If you can get a neighbor in Europe to join you, > > that would be a great wedge into the E.U., at least symbolically, > > perhaps economically too. You never know what might happen. > > Someday, the U.K. might replace the E.U. Long-term it's possible > > the tables might turn. > > You raise lots of interesting issues there. ... > Have you noticed how, in life, zeitgeists alternate between two > extremes much as a pendulum alternates between two limits of travel? I had to look up zeitgeist as I've not seen used it in many years. Yes, most people are easily shifted. They go one direction, then go another. I don't usually notice it in terms of people. I notice it in terms of their effect on something, such as the stock market or rent. > Similar applies to trade deals. Did you hear that Pelosi attacked TPP > yesterday? Do you think TPP will now ever be ratified? Apparently, Sanders and Trump both spoke against TPP. I'm not sure about Hillary. Sanders supporters want Hillary to reject it. > And TTIP is even further from ratification. I doubt it will see > the light of day, especially if Trump gets in. Well, there is a general dour mood in much of the U.S. that the U.S. proceeded far too quickly with a number of free trade agreements, like NAFTA, and with globalization. This is blamed for the destruction of many jobs available to the middle class because it was done too rapidly. So, many people are in favor of a correction that limits some trade to restore jobs for the middle class. On the one hand, free trade reduces costs which makes it easier to live. On the other, you can't buy anything without a job. So, some protectionism is probably not all that bad. A mix of some free trade and some protectionism would be better suited to our current economic needs. There is simply no way the world can compete with billions of people being paid pennies per day. The world population is expected to explode soon. Even China has started robotization of their factories because wages have risen so much there. Jobs they can't do with robots they're exporting to even lower cost countries in Asia. They earn 1/30th of the U.S. labor market and that's too expensive. People have to have jobs or there is no economy. I think the world is being driven by the economic forces of globalization to the extremes: either embrace socialism or embrace protectionism. The equalization of labor costs throughout the world via globalization only leads to socialism, which is an economic failure as Venezuela demonstrates. Rod Pemberton
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-30 12:26 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: OT: Obama in the UK |
| Message-ID | <nni2tc$dgi$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #9782 |
On 26/07/2016 12:56, Rod Pemberton wrote: > On Tue, 26 Jul 2016 10:02:58 +0100 > James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 26/07/2016 02:54, Rod Pemberton wrote: > >>> It was revealed that the DNC so feared Sanders >>> recent gains that the DNC actually plotted in secret to stop >>> Sanders ... >> >> I know. The US campaigns have been reported here in some detail and >> we've had multiple reports of the Democrat insider plot against >> Sanders. Given the bias against him he came close to defeating >> Clinton. Might he have won in a fair fight? >> > > I don't know. I still don't why anyone would actually support a > socialist in a capitalist country like ours. My best guess is that it > is that they disliked Hillary, much like the "Never Trump" movement in > the Republican party. Apparently, Bernie also supported some > environmental protections that Hillary didn't, but Democrats basically > support all these things. So, I have to believe it was just a message > to Hillary. But, younger Americans (millennials) are somewhat > different, so maybe somebody convinced them that socialism is the > solution despite massive failures like Venezuela and Brazil and ... That reminds me of something Margaret Thatcher said in her last Prime Minister's Questions. In asking her a question, a left-wing MP said he hated her right-wing capitalist policies. Her response was interesting. To paraphrase, she said: "I would like the gentleman to know that I, in return, hate HIS left-wing socialist policies - as do all those around the world who have been unfortunate enough to have had to live under them"! >>> Trump is more fringe Republican than core, and was a Democrat for >>> many years, >> >> That he was a Democrat is a surprise. >> > > Yes, apparently, up until about 2000. Usually, people shift to > Republican from Democrat as they make more money. Poor want more free > money. Democrats give it to them via social programs. Better off want > fewer taxes. Republicans protect their money. Millennials have been > having a hard time economically, so it's understandable that they're > a bit more Democrat than other generations. But, I read it's nothing > like in the E.U. where there is a large amount of unemployment, average > around 20%. Certain countries are very high. Yes, there is high unemployment in some EU countries. It has not been caused by socialism in this case but, arguably, still by a big-government approach. ISTM that interventionist governments do better for people only in the short term and in the minutiae. In the long run, they cause more problems than they solve. To illustrate that, AIUI since about 1900 when the Labour Party (left wingers) was founded, every Labour government has ended with higher unemployment than when it came to power. ... >> And TTIP is even further from ratification. I doubt it will see >> the light of day, especially if Trump gets in. > > Well, there is a general dour mood in much of the U.S. that the U.S. > proceeded far too quickly with a number of free trade agreements, like > NAFTA, and with globalization. Such deals do allow the populations of poorer countries to increase beyond the ability of that country and its inhabitants to pay for their own people. That leads to pressures on immigration to richer countries, adding competition for jobs in the destination country and leading to resentment. > This is blamed for the destruction of > many jobs available to the middle class because it was done too rapidly. > So, many people are in favor of a correction that limits some trade to > restore jobs for the middle class. On the one hand, free trade reduces > costs which makes it easier to live. On the other, you can't buy > anything without a job. So, some protectionism is probably not all > that bad. A mix of some free trade and some protectionism would be > better suited to our current economic needs. Countries which cut themselves off can end up in far worse positions. As you suggest, a balance between openness and protectionism is probably best. IMO there is a problem with gigantic trade deals such as TPP or TTIP in that, apart from being incredibly difficult to set up, they are extremely inflexible. World conditions vary. Countries need to be able to adjust their trade deals over time. IMO Trump is right that two-country trade deals are better, especially for a large country like America. Even better, though, would be to continue to reduce impediments to global trade. Then there will be pressure to reduce international tariffs further, and trade deals can refer only to those trade items which are not left to default conditions. -- James Harris
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bernhard Schornak <schornak@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-03 20:14 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: OT: Obama in the UK |
| Message-ID | <ngapjt$plg$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #9455 |
James Harris wrote: > Have you seen much about President Obama's visit to Europe? Queen Elisabeth's birthday attracted much more attention in German TV than Obama's short stop at Downing Street. Seems he is eager to push TTIP as last political act before leaving the scene... Greetings from Augsburg Bernhard Schornak
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.os.development
csiph-web