As Dawkins said this morn.

Discussion in 'Just Talk' started by Deleted member 33931, Jul 28, 2017.

  1. Soz about 'brains - I hadn't noticed.

    I have said on many a post that these 'Brexit' folk down here - many of whom I know well and are colleagues in one respect or another - are not stupid. Many are retired professionals, were in the armed services or police force, owned or ran businesses etc. But, my god, when it comes to the EU and Brexit, their starting point is one of suspicion and cynicism or little Englander or worse.

    Their reasoning: "The EU wants to start its own army - so that's enough for me - I want out." "It's political correctness gone mad - like that criminal who couldn't be deported because he owned a cat" (honest - that old chestnut was one of the lines) and most of the others revolved around 'too many immigrants'. Then there were the sprinklings of "Better off on our own" and "It's worth a go - it can't be worse than it is" etc etc.

    Here's the thing - almost to a person these folk aren't 'suffering' in any way from 'too much immigration' (we're in bludy Devon, for pity's sakes) or even from the credit crunch - many are retired, and comfortably so. Sometimes I couldn't help but be a bit pointed - when one moaned about Britain's condition and the current pressure put on 'us pensioners', I pointed out that pensioners are about the only group who are better off in the current climes - what about youngsters starting off, I asked? And I then had to point out - how many youngsters also own a second home in Spain? Yes, he looked abashed.

    Not ONE - not ONE SINGLE intelligent, informed or thoughtful remark was made as to how the UK would be better off 'out' and why being 'in' was a problem they could genuinely relate to. I do not exaggerate - not ONE.

    And that is from normal, bright people.
  2. P J Thompson

    P J Thompson Active Member

    See, that reads like this is fairly intelligent folk who are able to make decisions but who have duff information and duff 'conditioning' to me.

    I think we all know that the media blathers on about things like 'too many immigrants' and likes to create waves on subjects they'd like us all to focus on. I think we've probably all seen how the media will use big snappy headlines that say 'here's an in your face fact' and then only in the latter half of the article actually give you some sense that this may not actually be a fact, more of an opinion....or a complete twisting of a fact. They seem to rely on people being too busy or too lazy to get to the meat of an article....Just read the headline, think what we want you to and then go spread it!

    Look at your 'average' news reader on things like breakfast telly. They just read what they're told to and when interviewing the politicos, how deep do they get with their questioning? Not blinking very. Even Question Time just lets people offer their opinions without every really seriously challenging them. A certain level of challenge yes but then it's, 'now we have to move onto a question from Granny Steggles'. Ok on Newsnight there's more of an obstacle to blatant propaganda and some R4 programmes but these are not exactly mainstream listening. Main stream TV and radio news is just tabloid repeating of propaganda. When did Susanna Reid ever do a bit on the ins and outs of FR banking and currency as debt?

    I'm picking on the news media of course but this stuff is everywhere. From TV soaps through reality docs about benefits recipients and on to to banal celeb worshipping magazines, people are given a diet of info crud and social conditioning to chew on.

    The secondary education system does not cover any of the core issues. None of them. Never has. Even at university level, the norm is for things to be treated as if they are writ in stone....

    I could go on and on and on about this manipulation of information and herding of thought. It's by design. It would do the status quo no good whatsoer for 'the masses' to have all the relevant info they need to use our brains and make informed choices.

    Yes of course, we are all free to do our own research. We're not blameless but even this is now being targeted. Google algorithims are in the process of being changed, the UK gov is pushing for a clamp down on the alternative media....

    And this isn't something party political. Corbyn gets called a proper leftie and compared to the last incarnation of Labour, he is. But by golly gosh he aint upsetting any apple carts. If Labour won it'd be business as usual with the odd populist tinkering. He wouldn't be repealing the snooper's charter or smashing the media monopoly that's been created....or offering an informed referendum on the creation of currency!

    We can't just say all this happens because people are dumb or lack critical thought or anything like it. We live in a culture and system that demands the very things we see. It's a fault that's designed in and is getting ever more perfected.

    And I would contend that stuff like falling out with folk over Brexit or them being Polish or on benefits or a Tory or a Corbynista or a Junior doctor demanding higher pay or whatever, just enforces it. It's playing into the hands of the system of control that lies behind a veil called democracy but which is anything but democracy.

    And yes, I'll repeat...we need more democracy, not less.
    We also do indeed need clear and accurate information.
    Jord86, btiw2, longboat and 1 other person like this.
  3. P J Thompson

    P J Thompson Active Member

    So what is the difference in somewhere like Switzerland, which practices semi direct democracy? Or even Ireland which regularly has referenda?

  4. Fab, and there's the rub - people aren't 'stupid' as such, but that they don't have the critical faculties to know when they are being fed a line. It's like that to behave cynically (which means being critical or negative) is the same as 'having an opinion'. There's no kudos in saying things like "Well, I'm still better off being alive now that 20, 30, 40, 50 years ago." Or "Thank god I live in GREAT Britain where I have all this freedom and safety and can do pretty much what I want!".


    For a HUGE swath of the British electorate, they are being effectively dictated to by Messrs Murdoch and Dacre. Even if those feeding on this don't actually 'believe' it, they are still influenced by it. It does work.

    My mum-in-law still comes out with all the beauts - "At least Trump says what he means - he isn't being 'bought'". "Well, Trump might not be perfect, but Hillary is a crook, isn't she?"

    Only this morning she forwarded on (to many - I was only one (I really must add her to my 'block' list...) an email that describes the "true" and "hidden" and "what the media doesn't see!' or "Doesn't WANT to see" reality of our vacuous 'First Lady'. Apparently - gasp - when meeting with Pres Rivlinlin (yeah, I didn't know either...) the wonderful Melania actually - gasp - held back to keep in pace with Nechama, the Pres's wife. Melania actually - ACTUALLY! - walked at the same pace, and even - ooooooohhh! - held her hand.

    This pile of utter carp actually works - the email is headed "This is truly a First LADY" - and is churned out by Trump supporters and right-wing sites as pitiful propaganda. Who soaks it up? Those who already like Trump and what he says.

    My mum in law ain't 'stupid' - she's as sharp as a button, and effectively ran the trades union as an employee, representing her fellow workers and tackling - full on - her bosses.

    But, she ain't - how shall I put this? - very sophisticated. She is a wee bitty racist. She sees things 'her' way - and that is the 'right' way. When I point out glaring contradictions in what she says (not so subtly any more) about how things refer to her and the SAME things refer to 'others', she just tells me "I'm not discussing this..." and walks away.

    Had it not been for her daughter telling her "The EU referendum is about the future of our CHILDREN!", she would have voted out.

    Why? Because she is a wee bitty bigoted. A wee bitty ignorant. A wee bitty unsophisticated. A wee bitty 'set in her ways'.

    But most of all because she has no critical faculties. And she certainly doesn't like any suggestion that she's 'wrong' about anything. (No irony there, honestly...:rolleyes:)
  5. P J Thompson

    P J Thompson Active Member

    It's not just Murdoch and Dacre though is it. I don't disagree about the crud they spew but you'll struggle to find any mainstream media that isn't as bad, just different. Guardian, Independent, BBC, ITV all of it exists in such a teeny tiny box of thought. None of it offers any potential alternative to....more of the same. (Although Newsnight did have a 2 minute bit by an ex diplomat who has become convinced that Anarchy is the only way forward last night :D )
    I'm sure I'm not alone in noticing just how 'dumbed' down the BBC is nowadays in general. Have you seen their 'reality check' stuff? Good grief.

    I wouldn't disagree about critical thought but again it's not exactly encouraged is it. It's flirted with in education but to no great extent. Though saying that, my progeny and their friends constantly impress me with their ability to think for themselves and not take media spin at face value.....maybe there's hope? I dunno, I wasn't born with the internet as my placenta like they were....My first language wasn't computer code!
  6. P J Thompson

    P J Thompson Active Member

    An example of the narrow range in the media. Was there any branch of it that didn't just throw out the line that Assad had used chemical weapons earlier this year (sorry to revisit this, DA :D ) without any actual evidence? Nope. All of it just parroted the US line that was also parroted by the European governments. It was Assad wot dun it. A media furore.

    Did Carla Del Ponte get any coverage when she originally countered the narrative way back?
    Did Seymour Hersch get any big media furore when he showed that it was likely a twist of the truth and that rebels may well have been involved?

    No, neither did. The story was just left as Assad dun it and then the media started up again the other day when the US said, Assad's planning another attack.
  7. btiw2

    btiw2 Screwfix Select

    Again with plea for full reserve banking (with a splash of evil corporate paranoia for the kick)!

    I like our economic system, but I really admire your passion for this cause. You crazy diamond.

    I wonder whether I have duff information, duff conditioning. Am I dumb or do I lack critical thought?
    Duff information, duff conditioning, dumb, lack of critical though... I know! I'll take them all!
    Why? Because that's what us evil capitalists are like - take, take, take.
  8. P J Thompson

    P J Thompson Active Member

    You've misunderstood me.
    There was no plea for full reserve. Have a look back :) I think I've spoke before that my view is that there is no need for any form of currency and that using a currency is holding the species back and lies behind an awful lot of our 'issues'. But this is for another thread. I'm not advocating for any particular alternative here, not trying to convince anyone that my way is the right way. (Though of course it is. And the Scummers go straight to the firing squad come the glorious day). This is all me commenting on the topic of the thread. What Dawkins said about people making political choices based on reason and solid information. My view is where is this solid information???

    Anyway, my point was that the system, even as it currently really is, doesn't get the attention it requires for people to understand how it works. So where is the necessary information coming from?
    If Susanna Reid were to do a piece at 8:15 AM describing what really happens when you take out a bank loan, not many would be too happy about paying the interest on their loans would they. Of course some would still argue that it's fine and dandy and say things like, they like our economic system. That would be their prerogative. But many would not be best pleased. If they knew. If they knew that they were paying interest on something that didn't exist until they signed the document that created it, which will cease to exist when they make the last payment and that it's only the bank's charter, issued by the State, that allows them to charge interest for typing some numbers on a screen.

    Who's responsibility is it to impart the information on a subject like FR banking? Is it just up to the individual to go out and research it? Or is it something that's so fundamental that it should be fully out in the open? In plain view for all to see.

    If we are to say that people should make choices rationally and based on sound info, we need sound info don't we. And that isn't exactly forthcoming in the mainstream. And yes, we can hold up Brexit as a very good example....
    Last edited: Aug 2, 2017
  9. fillyboy

    fillyboy Screwfix Select

    Life were a lot simpler with straight forward 3-6-12 banking.
  10. btiw2

    btiw2 Screwfix Select

    Sorry. I did know that. We don't have currency at all. My mistake. I forgot.

    I think most people do know how fractional reserve banking works.
    They may not know that's what it's called, but I don't think that people think that when they make a deposit their money gets put under the bank's mattress!
    I also think most people know that their loans come from other people's deposits (and via interest, money is created).

    Perhaps I overestimate my fellow citizens. I hope not.
    I argue that people aren't dumb, and therefore we should give them (informed) control - but doesn't that make us the same on this issue?

    It's interesting to me that so many people on the internet are against fractional reserve banking, despite it being the standard in all countries (that I know of).
    I wonder whether this is down to the fact that the internet literate (internetati?) tend to have views that are.... I don't know how to say this, economically heretical?

    The reason I say this is that there seem to be whole sections of internet technology that have abandoned capitalism and adopted an open source anarcho-communist model (that you seem loosely aligned with).
    GNU/Linux: the most common web-server operating system - open source.
    Apache : the most common web-server - open source.
    jQuery: one of the most common javascript libraries on the web - open source.
    Bootstrap: one the most common css libraries on the web - open source.
    OpenSSL: The thing responsible for the heartbleed bug (a problem because everyone used it) - open source.
    There are probably others, but the internet does seem to have a lot of people giving their stuff away - i.e. not using currency.

    It's like the geeks are already in your "money, that's just like your opinion, maaaaan" world.

    Perhaps I'm just behind the curve eh?
  11. P J Thompson

    P J Thompson Active Member

    And there you have it illustrated perfectly.
    That is not what happens when you take out a loan. That is the common idea of what happens for sure but it's not the reality in an FR system. So even your good self appears to labour under a misconception of the reality of it. The bank doesn't lend your deposits to other consumers. The deposits go straight into algorithims and markets to be turned over and over more or less at light speed, with no concern as to the ethics of the companies who they trade in/with. Unless you're with the co-op or some mutuals. Then ethics may come into it.

    The loan is agreed, the agreement gets signed and that creates the principal. Interest is then added and over time you pay the total off. At which point the principal is gone. It ceases to exist. That principal is taken out of the system completely. The BofE website has info on this.

    I kind of struggled to read the rest of your post after that bit but no, i don't look towards anarcho communism. I guess the closest would be anarcho syndicalism but even that would only be a stepping stone and perhaps not even a necessary step.
    Last edited: Aug 2, 2017
    Deleted member 164349 likes this.
  12. fillyboy

    fillyboy Screwfix Select

    I don't know of anyone who's against it per se, but surely it has to depend on the size of the 'fractions'. Lehman Bros were leveraged to the tune of over 30-1 when they went broke, last I heard Deutschbank are leveraged higher than that.
    I like to dabble in the stock market, small stuff, but I buy a few shares and very occasionally they go up, but the number of instruments now where you can leverage to ten times, scary.
    btiw2 likes this.
  13. btiw2

    btiw2 Screwfix Select

    ....and the word "fractional" corresponds to....?
  14. P J Thompson

    P J Thompson Active Member

    It refers to the notion that a bank should hold a certain proportion of their 'liabilities' in reserve. In theory a government sets a ratio. In the UK for example though, no such regulation exists. A bank can create and lend 20 times what they hold in reserve if they like. 30 times. They would be incredibly vulnerable though and nowadays, since 2008 banks, are holding more reserves than they used to in proportion to their liabilities. This will resort to the norm at some point though.
  15. fillyboy

    fillyboy Screwfix Select

    Do mortgage bonds count as reserves? Doh!
  16. To be fair, the media I watched - and that includes the BBC - did not claim it was Assad, but that the available evidence made it most likely. They also explored the alternatives, and found it barely credible.

    Just because there are two - or more - sides to a story, it doesn't mean they should get equal billing.

    For every financial expert who warned about the potential consequences of Brexit, the BBC foolishly felt obliged - in the name of 'fairness' - to allow a Faragist loon to spout their far-from-expert alternative views.
  17. P J Thompson

    P J Thompson Active Member

    Why not? Especially when there is no actual evidence? And given that now the claim has largely been busted why has the media not gone full on about it?
    longboat likes this.
  18. P J Thompson

    P J Thompson Active Member

  19. fillyboy

    fillyboy Screwfix Select

    The Governor of the Bank of England and the Chancellor of the Exchequer are two such financial experts that spring to mind. That didn't end well for either did it?
  20. longboat

    longboat Screwfix Select

    I would think it's your trusted financial experts who are looking a bit foolish at this point.

    Sorry, you used the exonerating term 'potential'.
    What happened to the emergency budged that was promised?

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice