|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Feb 16, 2024 12:05:32 GMT
That's strange, you're usually someone who strongly endorses the principle of sovereign nation states and the importance of not permitting uninvited intruders to slip in and plunder national resources (I agree, of course).
But now you appear to be arguing that the extent to which a state has the physical resources (aka 'biocapacity') to sustain its own population without having to rely on external suppliers is a trivial matter. And anyway, there's always the possibility of deus ex machina type solutions in the future so she'll be alright on the night.
Most curious.
|
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Feb 16, 2024 19:08:16 GMT
That's already the case for many young people. Hasn't bothered you before. Oh - I thought that the young were complaining about being worse off, but if you are saying that they now want to be worse off then everyone is happy. They're not as simply as you. They don't mind being a bit worse off for the right reasons. They do mind being worse off to make the rich even richer. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Feb 16, 2024 22:13:52 GMT
Oh - I thought that the young were complaining about being worse off, but if you are saying that they now want to be worse off then everyone is happy. They're not as simply as you. They don't mind being a bit worse off for the right reasons. They do mind being worse off to make the rich even richer. I wish the rich were getting richer - we might have some growth in the economy then. But hey - if your sure that the yoof are happy with a lower standard of living to burnish their virtue signalling who am I to argue. Just don't come crying about how hard up people are and the explosion of foodbanks, fuel poverty and crime... ..it's what the yoof want after all..  |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Feb 17, 2024 8:30:25 GMT
They're not as simply as you. They don't mind being a bit worse off for the right reasons. They do mind being worse off to make the rich even richer. I wish the rich were getting richer - we might have some growth in the economy then. But hey - if your sure that the yoof are happy with a lower standard of living to burnish their virtue signalling who am I to argue. Just don't come crying about how hard up people are and the explosion of foodbanks, fuel poverty and crime... ..it's what the yoof want after all.. Yes I'm happy. There is a point at which more money becomes meaningless. I don't mind people achieving wealth, I would be a hypocrite if I did. I do mind people obtaining obscene wealth and then claiming they are unable to contribute a bit more tax to the country they live in. There is no reason for food banks and fuel poverty in this country. No excuse. There's shitloads of money here. But greedy gits have it all and accuse anyone who suggests it should be shared out a bit better as virtue signallers. A putrid cowardly argument. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Feb 17, 2024 8:44:25 GMT
We currently have the highest tax burden since WW2 - if people are struggling now with no growth in the economy, then arguing that the solution is higher taxes is fantasy island economics..
|
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Feb 17, 2024 9:05:09 GMT
We currently have the highest tax burden since WW2 - if people are struggling now with no growth in the economy, then arguing that the solution is higher taxes is fantasy island economics.. And don't you miss the NHS of those days. Where life expectancy was 64 years. How long would you be dead by now? Just think what that would save. As ever you want more more more for less less less. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Feb 17, 2024 9:56:51 GMT
That's strange, you're usually someone who strongly endorses the principle of sovereign nation states and the importance of not permitting uninvited intruders to slip in and plunder national resources (I agree, of course). But now you appear to be arguing that the extent to which a state has the physical resources (aka 'biocapacity') to sustain its own population without having to rely on external suppliers is a trivial matter. And anyway, there's always the possibility of deus ex machina type solutions in the future so she'll be alright on the night. Most curious. If i thought there were any chance whatsoever, that the management fad to reduce net carbon emissions to zero would somehow result in immigration dropping to zero, i might support it. We might have a carbon emission allowance that we gain by cutting down trees and burying the trunks (really), people in the UK might be going hungry and they would still use that allowance to transport in yet more homeless people from Somalia and Bangladesh. One of the reasons i don't take these people seriously is the glaring inconsistencies in their message. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Feb 17, 2024 10:07:19 GMT
That's strange, you're usually someone who strongly endorses the principle of sovereign nation states and the importance of not permitting uninvited intruders to slip in and plunder national resources (I agree, of course). But now you appear to be arguing that the extent to which a state has the physical resources (aka 'biocapacity') to sustain its own population without having to rely on external suppliers is a trivial matter. And anyway, there's always the possibility of deus ex machina type solutions in the future so she'll be alright on the night. Most curious. If i thought there were any chance whatsoever, that the management fad to reduce net carbon emissions to zero would somehow result in immigration dropping to zero, i might support it. We might have a carbon emission allowance that we gain by cutting down trees and burying the trunks (really), people in the UK might be going hungry and they would still use that allowance to transport in yet more homeless people from Somalia and Bangladesh. One of the reasons i don't take these people seriously is the glaring inconsistencies in their message. How about if it reduced our reliance on third party countries for our power? It often argued we can't build on greenbelt to provide homes for those we invited to live here, because we are to reliant on importing food already. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Feb 17, 2024 10:15:42 GMT
If i thought there were any chance whatsoever, that the management fad to reduce net carbon emissions to zero would somehow result in immigration dropping to zero, i might support it. We might have a carbon emission allowance that we gain by cutting down trees and burying the trunks (really), people in the UK might be going hungry and they would still use that allowance to transport in yet more homeless people from Somalia and Bangladesh. One of the reasons i don't take these people seriously is the glaring inconsistencies in their message. How about if it reduced our reliance on third party countries for our power? It often argued we can't build on greenbelt to provide homes for those we invited to live here, because we are to reliant on importing food already. If part of your plan for energy independence is to relentlessly flood us with unlimited numbers of homeless people from around the world and use energy capture that requires extensive land use, then It seems obvious to me you are speaking out of both sides of your mouth. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Feb 17, 2024 11:19:02 GMT
How about if it reduced our reliance on third party countries for our power? It often argued we can't build on greenbelt to provide homes for those we invited to live here, because we are to reliant on importing food already. If part of your plan for energy independence is to relentlessly flood us with unlimited numbers of homeless people from around the world and use energy capture that requires extensive land use, then It seems obvious to me you are speaking out of both sides of your mouth. Do tell, how is part of the plan for clean energy to flood the country with unlimited numbers of homeless people from around the world. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Feb 17, 2024 11:54:39 GMT
We currently have the highest tax burden since WW2 - if people are struggling now with no growth in the economy, then arguing that the solution is higher taxes is fantasy island economics.. And don't you miss the NHS of those days. Where life expectancy was 64 years. How long would you be dead by now? Just think what that would save. As ever you want more more more for less less less. The NHS is a cost - it does not lead to growth in the economy. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Feb 17, 2024 12:31:33 GMT
If part of your plan for energy independence is to relentlessly flood us with unlimited numbers of homeless people from around the world and use energy capture that requires extensive land use, then It seems obvious to me you are speaking out of both sides of your mouth. Do tell, how is part of the plan for clean energy to flood the country with unlimited numbers of homeless people from around the world. I'm pointing out an inconsistency between your positions. You want your cake and eat it too. A big reason for that inconsistency is your motives |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Feb 17, 2024 15:07:09 GMT
Charging an EV may be more expensive than you think but buying a used EV is getting cheaper. According to data from Auto Trader, new electric cars bought in 2022 have lost 21% of their value already, a dramatic drop for one year of depreciation, especially at a time when the values of petrol and diesel models have remained solid - link Motoring journalist Quentin Wilson who is a fan of EV's, has just been interviewed on GB News. He said a two year old Tesla (apologies cant remember the model) can be picked up for as little as £15k. The presenter asked him how much it was new, Wilson almost sheepishly said, £45k. Which is incredible depreciation. As I said Quentin Wilson is a fan of EV's and in an attempt to promote them he said he's had one for years and has put 40,000 miles on it. He seemed to think this was particularly good. I suppose for an EV, it may be. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Feb 17, 2024 15:22:14 GMT
And don't you miss the NHS of those days. Where life expectancy was 64 years. How long would you be dead by now? Just think what that would save. As ever you want more more more for less less less. The NHS is a cost - it does not lead to growth in the economy. The £150 billion or so that it costs is counted as part of GDP though. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Feb 17, 2024 15:37:30 GMT
... Motoring journalist Quentin Wilson who is a fan of EV's, has just been interviewed on GB News. He said a two year old Tesla (apologies cant remember the model) can be picked up for as little as £15k. The presenter asked him how much it was new, Wilson almost sheepishly said, £45k. Which is incredible depreciation. ... I thought that sounded a little too good to be true so I took a look on Auto Trader to see what 2021 Model 3s are going for, The lowest price asked was £19K for a high-mileage base spec car while the highest was £59K for fully-specced two motor model with low-mileage.
I'd say the average asking price was somewhere in the high 20s/low 30s.
Sometimes you EV-phobes let the side down by recounting these sorts of fairy-tales.
|
|
