|
Post by followyoudown on Mar 7, 2012 10:14:24 GMT
It's like talking a small child through a tricky sum this ;D So leaving aside the increase in our debt as a result of the banking bailouts etc, which I made direct reference to in my post and you highlighted in bold, I'd say the above pretty neatly demonstrates that Major did indeed leave us with the largest debt of the last 25 years (1983 to 2008). Do I need to put approximately to satisfy the semantic pedants? ;D I'm also talking as usual in % GDP terms not absolute terms, FYD, which I presume (perhaps naively) that you understood since I've said many times that absolute figures mean very little, but feel free to assume the opposite if it makes it easier to score a little point Naive is pretty appropraite considering your belief in percentages ;D I'm pretty sure I could apply percentages to say the population of the UK and prove the average citizen has one breast that produces milk and one ball. But anyway back to your prized graphs and your decree that the way to judge any government is to measure as a percentage the cumulative debt (that said government will to a large extent have had no part in running up) as a percentage of the overall economy (GDP) which even your prized graphs show that any government accounts for around 40% of ??? Seems perfectly sensible to me ;D
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 7, 2012 13:09:20 GMT
Naive is pretty appropraite considering your belief in percentages ;D I'm pretty sure I could apply percentages to say the population of the UK and prove the average citizen has one breast that produces milk and one ball.But anyway back to your prized graphs and your decree that the way to judge any government is to measure as a percentage the cumulative debt (that said government will to a large extent have had no part in running up) as a percentage of the overall economy (GDP) which even your prized graphs show that any government accounts for around 40% of ??? Seems perfectly sensible to me ;D I must apologise for relying on independently sourced evidence to back up my points, how 'naive' when I should just make silly comments like the first one highlighted above in a tragic effort to undermine the numbers. Surely even you know that expressing values as a % of GDP is a standard way of making assessments of the impact of debt, interest payments etc on the economy as a whole? Go on then, I challenge you ;D Produce your independently sourced figures to prove your naff comment about breasts and balls if you think using NAO figures are in some way invalid! I'll hazard a guess that you're a) regretting that daft comment already and b) this is the last we'll ever hear of it ;D Re your third para - I'd have a word with redstriper, RMB72, Squareball, mcf and the rest of the rightwingers on here who are only too desperate to blame the government for exactly what you've now stated was largely outside their control Do you want to draw a line under this thread as your last post has nicely confirmed the title of it. Move on and hope everyone forgets eh?
|
|
|
Post by mermaidsal on Mar 7, 2012 13:28:19 GMT
So in 1950 and 1970 those schematics both start with Labour governments and those are the highest points of the borrowing curve.... in 1950 it was damn near a socialist Labour government, in 1970 less so but the same issue applies surely - that was a commitment to public services and levelling out inequalities. That costs money. Capitalism never, ever logically wants anyone not to be poor because it depends on greedy frightened competition. So, to try and level things out within a capitalist system, you'll always be needing to borrow money you shouldn't naturally get - in effect you're trying to steal from the rich to give to the poor. So you get charged interest. Where's the problem here again???
It just seems totally insane to me that the index of whether a country is worth living in or not is about a fucking bank statement.
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Mar 7, 2012 17:23:54 GMT
Naive is pretty appropraite considering your belief in percentages ;D I'm pretty sure I could apply percentages to say the population of the UK and prove the average citizen has one breast that produces milk and one ball.But anyway back to your prized graphs and your decree that the way to judge any government is to measure as a percentage the cumulative debt (that said government will to a large extent have had no part in running up) as a percentage of the overall economy (GDP) which even your prized graphs show that any government accounts for around 40% of ??? Seems perfectly sensible to me ;D I must apologise for relying on independently sourced evidence to back up my points, how 'naive' when I should just make silly comments like the first one highlighted above in a tragic effort to undermine the numbers. Surely even you know that expressing values as a % of GDP is a standard way of making assessments of the impact of debt, interest payments etc on the economy as a whole? Go on then, I challenge you ;D Produce your independently sourced figures to prove your naff comment about breasts and balls if you think using NAO figures are in some way invalid! I'll hazard a guess that you're a) regretting that daft comment already and b) this is the last we'll ever hear of it ;D Re your third para - I'd have a word with redstriper, RMB72, Squareball, mcf and the rest of the rightwingers on here who are only too desperate to blame the government for exactly what you've now stated was largely outside their control Do you want to draw a line under this thread as your last post has nicely confirmed the title of it. Move on and hope everyone forgets eh? Don't take the piss of little lukeys graphs he gets all precious about it ;D Sorry was it not a serious enough way of saying of saying statistics can be used to prove anything does saying Facts are stubborn things, but statistics are more pliable. Read what I posted again, I said I could apply percentages to the population of the UK and prove the average citizen has one breast that produces milk and one ball (wrong on both counts about regretting it or hearing the last of it). Just to prove it to you, the last figures I saw said the population of the UK was split 51% female 49% male - applying percentages would make the average person 51% female and 49% male - I don't think it was wrong to suggest therefore that would mean every person has 1 ball and 1 milk producing breast (although to be 100% accurate I should have said 0.98 and 1.02 ;D) - obviously complete nonsense but then so is your application of your precious independently resourced figures ;D Your application of them is seriously flawed as I pointed out your new golden rule that debt as a % of GDP is the sole rule of how a government should be judged is well bollocks not to put too fine a point on it. The largest proportion of the debt is what is inherited from the previous government who in turn will have inherited the largest part of that from the previous government (obviously cumulative was too difficult word for you ;D) and will pass on this debt with the extra deficits they've run whilst in government (with Labour you do tend to get bigger deficits ;D). Now to me judging any government on your beloved method doesn't seem to make sense as the debt you'll be including will depending on how long they've been in government be something like 80-95% inherited. I think your third paragraph neatly disproves the title of this thread as you yet again seem to be confusing discussions about debt with those about the deficit - easy mistake to make when you're a not very bright left winger ;D
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 7, 2012 19:50:18 GMT
"Sorry was it not a serious enough way of saying of saying statistics can be used to prove anything does saying Facts are stubborn things, but statistics are more pliable".What the fuck? ;D You appear to have reached the stage of rambling incoherence. You're just embarrassing yourself now, FYD. "Now to me judging any government on your beloved method doesn't seem to make sense as the debt you'll be including will depending on how long they've been in government be something like 80-95% inherited" Again, you might want to have a word with your fellow rightwingers who seem only too desperate to blame our debt solely on the previous government and ignore any inherited debt or the influence of external factors. Seriously, give it up and start again in a while.
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Mar 8, 2012 8:26:14 GMT
"Sorry was it not a serious enough way of saying of saying statistics can be used to prove anything does saying Facts are stubborn things, but statistics are more pliable".What the fuck? ;D You appear to have reached the stage of rambling incoherence. You're just embarrassing yourself now, FYD. "Now to me judging any government on your beloved method doesn't seem to make sense as the debt you'll be including will depending on how long they've been in government be something like 80-95% inherited" Again, you might want to have a word with your fellow rightwingers who seem only too desperate to blame our debt solely on the previous government and ignore any inherited debt or the influence of external factors. Seriously, give it up and start again in a while. I think it's perfectly clear what I'm talking about, still it's much more face saving for you to pretend you don't understand as even you must be realising the graph you've been posting for several pages although mathematically correct is nonsense ;D The only person I'm embarrassing is you by showing you up for the one trick pony you are, posting independently sourced evidence which you either don't understand or choose to deliberately misrepresent as somehow proving your opinion as fact. You truly do prove the quote that "The wise understand by themselves; fools follow post the reports of others" It's good you've finally understood the concept of inherited debt took a while (shame you still don't get the difference between the deficit and the debt) but give it another couple of pages and you might get there ;D
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 8, 2012 12:02:35 GMT
You're sounding a bit desperate, me owd! Perfectly clear what you meant? Have you read that first italicised quote of yours? Only if you've had a stroke does that make any sense! I'm simply looking at the NAO figures from ukpublicspending.co.uk which are available to everyone to interrogate. I would have thought referring to independently sourced material was a sensible approach to backing up a point. A lot more sensible than choosing to see something which is "mathematically correct" as "nonsense" and illustrate this by referring to people with both breasts and bollocks as if this undermines data collected by the NAO. What the fuck? ;D I think you're just after a bit of wriggle room after making a bit of a tit of yourself (pun intended ) with your stunning own goal that "every government increases the national debt". No fucking shit? Things get more expensive you say? But by any sensible standard analytical tool (ie % of GDP) the manageability of that debt varies according to how well or otherwise the government manages its finances (among other things). Keep going though, I enjoy seeing you post stuff like the above and also the fact that that you keep returning this thread to the top of the page, which if nothing else, helps underline its title.
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Mar 8, 2012 14:15:17 GMT
You're sounding a bit desperate, me owd! Perfectly clear what you meant? Have you read that first italicised quote of yours? Only if you've had a stroke does that make any sense! I'm simply looking at the NAO figures from ukpublicspending.co.uk which are available to everyone to interrogate. I would have thought referring to independently sourced material was a sensible approach to backing up a point. A lot more sensible than choosing to see something which is "mathematically correct" as "nonsense" and illustrate this by referring to people with both breasts and bollocks as if this undermines data collected by the NAO. What the fuck? ;D I think you're just after a bit of wriggle room after making a bit of a tit of yourself (pun intended ) with your stunning own goal that "every government increases the national debt". No fucking shit? Things get more expensive you say? But by any sensible standard analytical tool (ie % of GDP) the manageability of that debt varies according to how well or otherwise the government manages its finances (among other things). Keep going though, I enjoy seeing you post stuff like the above and also the fact that that you keep returning this thread to the top of the page, which if nothing else, helps underline its title. Is English not your first language ??? It really couldn't be any clearer, I've pointed out why percentages are not reliable and then gone on to explain to you why your decreed measure of manageability of debt makes no sense, amuse yourself if you like by trying to link two seperate points but its only you who is looking silly ;D The judgement about manageability of debt according to you and to put it crudely is based not on say how much you earn (Tax receipts / revenues) but on how much everyone earns (GDP) - do you think that'll catch on when people go to get mortgages ;D
|
|
|
Post by Tubes on Mar 8, 2012 18:32:16 GMT
It really couldn't be any clearer, I've pointed out why percentages are not reliable and then gone on to explain to you why your decreed measure of manageability of debt makes no sense, amuse yourself if you like by trying to link two seperate points but its only you who is looking silly ;D percentages are as reliable as the figures they are based. Just because you personally don't understand how 51% of the UK population being male doesn't lead to people walking round with a bollock and a tit, it doesn't mean that this figure is in any way inaccurate. It just means you have a terrible grasp of the word "average". I have a masters degree in maths by the way, so if you want to argue statistics with me, I'll quite happily spend the time to point out to you how your wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 8, 2012 19:10:56 GMT
Perhaps if we promise to look after him we might be allowed to keep him, Tubes! ;D
Is English not your first language says the man who wrote this:
"Sorry was it not a serious enough way of saying of saying [two lots of 'of saying' any reason?] statistics can be used to prove anything does saying Facts are stubborn things, but statistics are more pliable". Is that a question or a statement or simply a collection of ramblings? Why the capital for Facts? Is that supposed to be a new sentence? What the fuck are you on about? ;D
And then there's the risible one bollock one tit analogy which can simply stand alone as your legacy to financial analysis. No further comment needed!
And your conclusion is I'm the one who looks silly or struggles with English! Is it any wonder you come to the conclusions about politics, economics and statistics that you do. You're proving this thread all on your own, FYD ;D
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Mar 8, 2012 19:20:54 GMT
It really couldn't be any clearer, I've pointed out why percentages are not reliable and then gone on to explain to you why your decreed measure of manageability of debt makes no sense, amuse yourself if you like by trying to link two seperate points but its only you who is looking silly ;D percentages are as reliable as the figures they are based. Just because you personally don't understand how 51% of the UK population being male doesn't lead to people walking round with a bollock and a tit, it doesn't mean that this figure is in any way inaccurate. It just means you have a terrible grasp of the word "average". I have a masters degree in maths by the way, so if you want to argue statistics with me, I'll quite happily spend the time to point out to you how your wrong. It was 51% female by the way but hey what's a right figure here or there perhaps masters degrees in maths aren't what they were but still very pleased and impressed that you've got one. By the way I did say I could use percentages to prove the average etc etc...., I didn't actually suggest that people do have this, understandable perhaps when you spent so much time on your maths masters degree that you'd probably neglect your english comprehension. I hope my response has managed to come across as patronising and condescending as yours did.
|
|
|
Post by oasis on Mar 8, 2012 19:21:10 GMT
8==D~
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Mar 8, 2012 19:27:56 GMT
Perhaps if we promise to look after him we might be allowed to keep him, Tubes! ;D Is English not your first language says the man who wrote this: "Sorry was it not a serious enough way of saying of saying [two lots of 'of saying' any reason?] statistics can be used to prove anything does saying Facts are stubborn things, but statistics are more pliable". Is that a question or a statement or simply a collection of ramblings? Why the capital for Facts? Is that supposed to be a new sentence? What the fuck are you on about? ;D And then there's the risible one bollock one tit analogy which can simply stand alone as your legacy to financial analysis. No further comment needed! And your conclusion is I'm the one who looks silly or struggles with English! Is it any wonder you come to the conclusions about politics, economics and statistics that you do. You're proving this thread all on your own, FYD ;D How is the economic theory coming along on how bailing out the banks damaged the economy has it gone the same way as your famous IFS report By the way it was a breast producing milk because if I'd said tit it would have been actually correct you tool as all humans have nipples / breast tissue ;D
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 8, 2012 19:29:16 GMT
Weak, weak, weak.
Bring back the tits/bollocks analysis ;D
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Mar 8, 2012 19:43:44 GMT
Weak, weak, weak. Bring back the tits/bollocks analysis ;D Luke is a tit who generally talks bollocks ;D Happy now ;D
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 8, 2012 19:52:01 GMT
;D Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. The mask slips and the true FYD reveals himself.
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Mar 8, 2012 20:11:15 GMT
;D Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. The mask slips and the true FYD reveals himself. Do get over yourself, I could have put always instead of generally
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 8, 2012 21:09:21 GMT
But, let me guess, you weren't sure how to spell it ;D Tits/bollocks genius, mate, genius
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 8, 2012 21:30:27 GMT
But, let me guess, you weren't sure how to spell it ;D Tits/bollocks genius, mate, genius Good lord Sif, for someone who went to some shitty university I did expect better from you. But admire you helping the mumfs of this board
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Mar 8, 2012 21:36:03 GMT
But, let me guess, you weren't sure how to spell it ;D Tits/bollocks genius, mate, genius You started to come across like a slightly retarded tourettes sufferor ;D
|
|
|
Post by philm87 on Mar 8, 2012 22:34:37 GMT
This thread is a bit like the situation between North and South Korea. There is an armistice but officially they're still at war. It just keeps coming back. ;D
What would it take for one side to back down?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2012 10:15:27 GMT
But, let me guess, you weren't sure how to spell it ;D Tits/bollocks genius, mate, genius Good lord Sif, for someone who went to some shitty university I did expect better from you. But admire you helping the mumfs of this board Thanks very much, mate. But a bit harsh on mumf to compare him with Followyoudown ;D We've gone from discussing openly available NAO figures to FYD's attempt to show we've all got one bollock and one milk producing breast! And you expect better from me ??? . He's fucked up bigtime there! I can just imagine the shit I'd be getting from you lot if I'd posted something as daft as that by way of 'analysis'! ;D
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2012 10:30:01 GMT
This thread is a bit like the situation between North and South Korea. There is an armistice but officially they're still at war. It just keeps coming back. ;D What would it take for one side to back down? I think I'm going to have to, Phil. I have enjoyed seeing FYD bring this thread back to the top of the board time after time so we can all at the bizarre idiosyncracies of his analysis and watch him confirm the title over and over again. I've also enjoyed the irony of having my english questioned by a man who struggles to put down coherent sentences. (If you're dyslexic, FYD, I apologise). But I fear he may have shot his bolt finally with the tits/bollocks analysis above and I just find myself laughing instead of taking him seriously. (Cue witty riposte along the lines of "I've never taken you seriously since the day you started posting" or something similar). It's been fun. (Never more so than in the last few posts!) I'll get back to Seoul while FYD tries to break his record of 11 holes-in-one in a single round of golf. ;D
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Mar 9, 2012 12:46:53 GMT
Good lord Sif, for someone who went to some shitty university I did expect better from you. But admire you helping the mumfs of this board Thanks very much, mate. But a bit harsh on mumf to compare him with Followyoudown ;D We've gone from discussing openly available NAO figures to FYD's attempt to show we've all got one bollock and one milk producing breast! And you expect better from me ??? . He's fucked up bigtime there! I can just imagine the shit I'd be getting from you lot if I'd posted something as daft as that by way of 'analysis'! ;D Actually you've gone very quiet on the NAO figures since I pointed out your application of them made no sense and have preferred to concentrate on a made up point you claim I made. It's quite clear, I talked about how percentages could be used to prove something that was not true and were not really any more reliable than absolute figures. Still if it amuses you to put tit / bollocks in every post so be it, the addition of tit at least makes a change to the usual bollocks you post ;D
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2012 12:53:13 GMT
<Sigh> ;D
Yes, and as Tubes pointed out, it simply demonstrated your lack of understanding in that area too ;D
But if I have 'gone quiet' on the NAO figures, it'll be because you came back with some embarrassing guff about having milk producing breasts and bollocks, which does kind of make you think why bother with this clown?!
Keep em coming, I enjoy seeing you taking this thread back up top ;D
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Mar 9, 2012 12:55:19 GMT
This thread is a bit like the situation between North and South Korea. There is an armistice but officially they're still at war. It just keeps coming back. ;D What would it take for one side to back down? I think I'm going to have to, Phil. I have enjoyed seeing FYD bring this thread back to the top of the board time after time so we can all at the bizarre idiosyncracies of his analysis and watch him confirm the title over and over again. I've also enjoyed the irony of having my english questioned by a man who struggles to put down coherent sentences. (If you're dyslexic, FYD, I apologise). But I fear he may have shot his bolt finally with the tits/bollocks analysis above and I just find myself laughing instead of taking him seriously. (Cue witty riposte along the lines of "I've never taken you seriously since the day you started posting" or something similar). It's been fun. (Never more so than in the last few posts!) I'll get back to Seoul while FYD tries to break his record of 11 holes-in-one in a single round of golf. ;D Post it as many times as you like but it's only you who is looking foolish. You've made up a point to try and save face on the fact that you don't really understand the graphs you've been busily reposting for several pages. It's the IFS report all over again and not forgetting how bailing out the banks wrecked the economy ;D
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2012 13:06:05 GMT
Interesting interpretation of foolish by someone who posts an embarrassingly childlike application of stats involving us all having one bollock and one tit, accuses people of having trouble with english while posting incoherent rambling sentences and resorts to his default setting of abuse when he fucks up! ;D
Can see how you form your political opinions!
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Mar 9, 2012 13:06:45 GMT
<Sigh> ;D Yes, and as Tubes pointed out, it simply demonstrated your lack of understanding in that area too ;D Keep em coming, I enjoy seeing you taking this thread back up top ;D Actually it doesn't, I said I could apply percentages I didn't actually say it would be correct to do this. Why don't you post a graph you don't understand or a link to a report based on what some guy thinks and pass it off as facts backing up your opinions.
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Mar 9, 2012 13:16:52 GMT
Interesting interpretation of foolish by someone who posts an embarrassingly childlike application of stats involving us all having one bollock and one tit, accuses people of having trouble with english while posting incoherent rambling sentences and resorts to his default setting of abuse when he fucks up! ;D Can see how you form your political opinions! Oh please that old chestnut, get over yourself it's quite clearly a joke response to you asking for some more tit / bollocks analysis, get a sense of humour
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2012 13:19:53 GMT
I'm quite happy with those graphs, thanks. Why not dazzle us with some more statistical brilliance instead ;D Or bamboozle us with some quality sentence construction while accusing others of struggling with english ;D If it was just 'some guy's opinion', you'll have to ask RMB72 why he chose to post the IFS report (to quote you: "fools post the reports of others" - he's having a go at you now RMB72 ) . Which, ironically, is just your opinion.
|
|