Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by PetrosAC)
    I do James xD The one man country that was 1 foot by 3 feet pretty much

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I shared everything in that country.
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by James Milibanter)
    I shared everything in that country.
    With yourself xD

    Can it even be called a country? It was a table

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by United1892)
    well it shouldn't be.
    It depends, as long as we have a system whereby paying it off isn't too difficult then it'd be okay
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by PetrosAC)
    With yourself xD

    Can it even be called a country? It was a table

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    It was stable
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by James Milibanter)
    It was stable
    PRSOM Are you sure though? There were enough wobbly tables in that school

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by James Milibanter)
    It depends, as long as we have a system whereby paying it off isn't too difficult then it'd be okay
    I don't think it should be a lifestyle although the idea of it isn't too disagreeable.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by United1892)
    Surely it would be better for savings if we allowed deflation. In any case people aren't just going to stop spending because of deflation, it lasted a good 150 years in America from the late 1700s to early 1900s and the economy grew well.
    Most of the world had intermittent inflation and deflation before the 20th Century, during the 20th centrury we can see a general upward trend, before that, over any large time span you can't see any strong upward trend, but we do not live in the same world

    If you look at metrics adjusted for inflation growth was very slow until the mid 19th century, even then not great, obvioulsy crashed in the 30s, boomed during the war, dropping a load when the wartime economy ended, and has boomed ever since, bar the expected busts periodically.

    And people don't stop spending, they spend less. With inflation, if there is a big purchase that you want you are more likely to make it, if you have deflation you are more likely to live like our grandparents and make sure that what you have now will last longer so you can replace it even cheaper. Higher inflation also drives higher wages, very simple spiral. Pay people more, they will have more to spend, prices go up, businesses make more, staff demand higher wages, people get paid more, they have more to spend, prices go up etc. in the longer run, inflation drives wages and growth, the boost we have now due to lower oil prices is something that doesn't manifest in the long run, we have low inflation for about a year, at which point the cut in costs due to the lower oil price compared to 12 months prior disappear, in the few months inflation should start heading back up on this basis.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by PetrosAC)
    PRSOM Are you sure though? There were enough wobbly tables in that school

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Very stable, I had long periods of growth.

    (Original post by United1892)
    I don't think it should be a lifestyle although the idea of it isn't too disagreeable.
    You said that people were stupid for getting into debt though, I'm saying that they don't have a choice.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by James Milibanter)
    You said that people were stupid for getting into debt though, I'm saying that they don't have a choice.
    They generally did in the past but not anymore.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by James Milibanter)
    All the metrics, everyone of them. We have a higher minimum wage now than we did under Tony Blair, we have a benefit cap that's more than what a lot of people working earn, we have a very high housing benefit bill, we have a national health service, we have very accessible student loans, there's so much more that I'll have to go in to
    We also have much higer average wages than under Blair, in real terms the minimum wage barely changes. It's real value peaked in 2006 and even with the increase that takes effect in a few weeks will still be below that highest rate, so actually it is lower than under Blair. Even the over 25s rate will barely beat this peak (maybe a few pence) after factoring in the extra 6 months of growth. When you compare it to average wage growth, it falls behind even further.

    We also have a falling benefits cap, it is barely higher than median wages now and will be lower when this first change comes in, may go down even further or may be allowed to stay where it is and just take a real terms hit.

    Housing benefit? 0.14% GDP, half of that of the states.

    We have an NHS which costs just as little as the US state funded healthcare elements and provides one of the best services in the world, and a hardly small private sector

    We have such accessible student loans that everybody still insists on complaining about the cost of them

    More research would be nice.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by United1892)
    They generally did in the past but not anymore.
    There is a great thing called bankrupcy though that will show wonga whats what. Just dont pay them the loan gack and force them out of business. Put it this way i would notput the majority of my money in a bank, actually even if i had 30-40k i would make sure that i hadn,ess then 3k in the bank to claim benefits. Also if you do end up in **** street and going bankrupt the 25 p in the pound rule would no longer apply on youf debts if you had something stupid such as 100 quid in your account free money
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Does TSR Labour support the actions of the Hungarian PM in following international law and closing the border on the basis that Serbia is a safe country.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Does TSR Labour support the actions of the Hungarian PM in following international law and closing the border on the basis that Serbia is a safe country*.
    *Unless you listen to the UN
    But who the **** does that these days?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Does TSR Labour support the actions of the Hungarian PM in following international law and closing the border on the basis that Serbia is a safe country.
    I can't speak for all of Labour but personally while I believe we should let some in we can't have people roaming around Europe so yes. The police brutality against migrants however is not something I support.
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Does TSR Labour support the actions of the Hungarian PM in following international law and closing the border on the basis that Serbia is a safe country.
    It's completely within his rights to do so, with the problem being that Serbia is outside the EU and so it's harder to get them around the negotiating table and give them a quota as well.

    It's slightly strange though given that most of them seem to want to cross Hungary.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by United1892)
    I can't speak for all of Labour but personally while I believe we should let some in we can't have people roaming around Europe so yes. The police brutality against migrants however is not something I support.
    How was that brutality? They were breaking through their fence and throwing stones at the policemen. I think that a bit of pepper spray and water was a very mild reaction. I would have used rubber projectiles.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Life_peer)
    How was that brutality? They were breaking through their fence and throwing stones at the policemen. I think that a bit of pepper spray and water was a very mild reaction. I would have used rubber projectiles.
    Only rubber?
    Break out the hollow point.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Life_peer)
    How was that brutality? They were breaking through their fence and throwing stones at the policemen. I think that a bit of pepper spray and water was a very mild reaction. I would have used rubber projectiles.
    I love that tear gas and water cannons are a bit more than some pepper spray and water.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by United1892)
    I love that tear gas and water cannons are a bit more than some pepper spray and water.
    Effective crowd dispersal

    Anyway, it's only a matter of time until an arrest would be brutality.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by United1892)
    I love that tear gas and water cannons are a bit more than some pepper spray and water.
    Have you seen the videos? Every sane person would consider that an appropriate response. The police and their border were attacked by the force of roughly one thousand angry savages who were throwing rocks and who knows what at them and the only thing between was a rather weak fence that needed to be protected.

    Apart from the fact that the only effective difference between pepper spray and tear gas is the active substance (the effects are roughly the same), I believe that the media might have mixed up the two (some ever report both).

    It isn't my area of expertise but tear gas (which is a broad category of substances with various effects) is usually delivered in the form of grenades and resembles smoke as we can see from this example in Paris:



    On the contrary, pepper spray (active substance capsaicin) is usually delivered from pressurised cans and quickly disperses in the air without leaving visible traces for more than a couple of seconds, very much like on every available photo from yesterday that I've seen:



    Unless the Hungarian government said they used a specific form of tear gas, I wouldn't trust the media who are trying to escalate the story to get more people interested.

    As for the water, of course they didn't use a sprinkler… Those arrogant savages deserve much worse.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: February 17, 2018
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.