The Very-Many-Questions-Not-Worth-Their-Own-Thread Thread ΛΕ

[Hrothbern]

It's what I was repeatedly told by them. I don't know anything about history or economics, I guess that shows how stupid I am because they say that economics is the easiest thing to understand in the world. The moment they point to when everything started to go wrong was when Labour were elected after the end of World War II.

In the UK after the end of WW2 Clement Attlee became PM in a Labour government from 1945-1951. He was the leader of the Labour party from 1935-1955, and part of the Churchill war cabinet from 1940-1945 as deputy PM.
Here an article on Attlee in the Daily Mail of 2009 when a new book was writtern about Attlee.
FYI the Daily Mail is anti Labour, just like your friends.
But the Daily Mail did not dare to say that Attlee was bad.
And Attlee as PM nationalised basic industries and utlities.
But the Daily Mail did not dare to say that Attlee was bad. Why would that be ?
Read for yourself

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/...-decency-duty--stark-contrast-todays-MPs.html

 

[Zkribbler]

... they say that economics is the easiest thing to understand in the world...

Nobody understands economics, especially economists.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

As a family we've gotten lazy with gift giving at Christmas time. I guess. There are just all these new kids, and things, people are much busier, and together as a family we decided to do a much more relaxed gift giving thing. It's been working out well enough I think, I think this is going to be year 6 under the new regime (or so).. but I agree that a bit of this personal touch is what is missing.

See, we use a website, which matches you up with someone, and shows you their wishlist. Now that we no longer live in a poor communist country and in the paradise that is Canada, we have all we need, and a lot of luxuries on top of that. Paintings, bikes, glasses with designs on them, and all sorts of things. There aren't many things we need, so we sort of decided to just each year make a list of stuff we need or want.

I have noticed that my parents in particular started adding a personal touch these last couple years, or maybe even since the beginning of the new Christmas regime I suppose, knowing their kind and generous nature and all.. So basically they will buy you stuff on your list but then also other stuff. Nothing big, just personal touches here and there. Parents also buy presents for their kids, spouses, etc.

It works but for the most part, between adults who are not SOs, the gifts are things we know we're getting, etc. I wonder how we can mix it up so that personal touch can be re-gained. Although perhaps it is just a case of everyone being so busy it just can't happen every single year. I wonder if they would accept a "no wishlists allowed every 3 years" compromise. That might actually be something that would be interesting to try, so I will suggest it to the family elders. I can see my sister being against it because she is about to give birth to another child, and 2 seem really crazy so I have no idea how they're going to deal with a 3rd and still have time for anything else

Little surprises are nice. I remember years when my mother would take me shopping and say, "Pick out something you'd like for Christmas" and when I did, I discovered that there was no surprise. So I'd essentially know weeks or months in advance, and what kind of fun is that?

Why do servers in restaurants wait until you've just taken a huge bite before approaching you to ask how things are going? Is it something they're trained to do? Really I've no idea why this happens every single time.

As far as I'm concerned, if they do that to me, they can either wait until I'm finished chewing or come back later. I'm not going to spit my food out or risk choking just to answer them.

Lol this is what I was doing about 12 hours ago as I was in the middle of a bite. Two thumbs up when I was asked "How is it?".

I think I do this about 50-75% of the time. I never really thought about it, but they do seem to more often than not pick inopportune moments to ask you these questions.

I have an idea. If something isn't okay, I will flag you down. Go look after something else for now and leave me alone to eat.

We need to know right away if something is wrong or you won't pay us, and we're not going to watch everyone at the table chew their food to wait for the moment everyone can talk.

How about giving us more than a minute to figure out if there actually is anything wrong?

This is one of the reasons I prefer takeout/delivery. I ordered some stuff from one of my favorite restaurants via Skip the Dishes last night. Sure enough, there was a problem - the coleslaw was left out of one of the entrees. So I logged into the customer service chat, explained the situation to the agent, and got a $5.25 Skip credit toward my next order.

(Funny thing about last night... no sooner had the delivery guy left from my place, when someone else knocked on the door, asking if I'd ordered pizza - seems whoever took the pizza order wrote down the wrong suite number. No, I didn't hijack the pizza.)

I know this is location specific, but in general, do towns have regulations on when .you can use lawn maintenance machines?

There is a commercial building across the street and two times a week a guy shows up around 5am to run a leaf blower through the parking lot.

Most municipalities have noise bylaws. In Red Deer, it's enforceable 24/7, but in places where it isn't, I'd say that 5 am is waaay out of bounds for noise.

What other lawn maintenance machines would they be using in the US that are not associated with cutting the grass.

Some of them might be engaged in applying weed-killer (far too many North Americans have this irrational hatred of dandelions; if they'd quit putting poison on them, they could actually be harvested for food and other uses).

 

[Traitorfish]

(since you can't respond coherently since your mouth is full)

Is that an observation or a challenge?

 

[Chukchi Husky]

When someone points to after world war two as "when everything started to go wrong" I suggest you treat everything they claim as highly suspect.

What they tell me, what should've happened is that Winston Churchill should've been elected again then to follow his plan of re-arming the Germans then to attack the Soviet Union. When Labour was elected, all the problems started, first when they decided to tax the aristocracy, then by extending rationing for almost a decade after the war ended. That's the point they say when Britain began to slide towards Communism.

Tim, you might not have been given a dose of Chukchi's friends, but they are the type who genuinely think that the British Empire taking over the world with drug-and-slave trafficking was the best time in history ever.

Apart from the drug and slave part. Their solution to many problems in the world today is that the British Empire should be reformed. The US should be made a part of Britain, the problem with Ireland can be solved by making Ireland British again. They once told me about how other people around the world hate the English, "they may say they hate us, but they love us really."

That's fine, of course. But with Chukchi fact-checking them here, it likely means he returns to them with retorts or a resisting thought. They would inevitably ask where he got such drivel from (same as we do) and then inevitably denigrate the source of such drivel (same as we do).

They dismiss anything that I find on the internet. They have a low opinion of the internet, calling the internet "an atmosphere of hate", mainly it seems because it lets people criticise and complain about Nintendo. They've gone so far as to call the internet the worst invention in history and call themselves "internet Luddites". Yet anything they find on the internet is right.

In general, anytime anyone says economics is "the easiest thing to understand in the world", you can safely and immediately classify them as either a liar or an idiot.

If you are interested in learning more about post-war economics and the Labour/Tory preference for state-directed capitalism, I recommend you take a look at Barry Eichengreen's The European Economy since 1945: Coordinated Capitalism and Beyond.
https://www.amazon.com/European-Economy-since-1945-Coordinated/dp/0691138486

The tl;dr version of Britain's post-war economic situation is that they were broke with massive domestic issues and wide ranging imperial commitments. The Beveridge Plan was widely popular during the war and even the Tories tried to implement it in their manifesto, but only half heartedly. The preference toward economic planning with full employment lead to Macmillan -a Tory- saying that Britain "never had it so good". It is telling that under Macmillan, Eden, and especially under Heath, the Tories were generally aligned with Labour on the need for state directed capitalism and full employment. They were never super into the worker control boards but Heath's proposal for the trade unions (can't remember what is was called at the moment) was basically a desire to copy the German system. The British economy only started to fall apart with Heath's asinine "dash for growth" which lead to the government jerking the economy around with massive expansionary measures backed up by savage contractionary measures once it looked like the expansionary measures might start doing something. The myth of Labour poor economic policies -exemplified by the 1976 IMF- basically only occurred because the Treasury civil servants lied to Callaghan's government. (In interviews after the fact, Healy all but says the Treasury lied to him and there was no need for the IMF loan.)

Got a bit more than tl;dr, but Labour was fundamentally correct in how to manage the economy, at least prior to their "longest suicide note in history" period.

Is that suicide note what the last Labour government left behind, the one that said "the country has no money, good luck"? They keep bringing that up as a reason why Labour should never have power. Whenever Labour is elected, they spend all the country's money on their wishful thinking, when there's never enough for any of their plans, so a Conservative government is needed to make the country money again.

You could conceivably trace the source of this to Chukchi's reputation here (the low self-esteem, which is self-admitted so I hope this is not seen as an attack), and the solution to that would be empowerment. And, frankly, you don't really empower people by insulting the company they keep.

They've said that I have a problem with being too overconfident and arrogant.

They've been trying to convince him that he's an idiot and he should outsource his thinking to them.

They have university degrees. I failed all of my end of school exams.

In the UK after the end of WW2 Clement Attlee became PM in a Labour government from 1945-1951. He was the leader of the Labour party from 1935-1955, and part of the Churchill war cabinet from 1940-1945 as deputy PM.
Here an article on Attlee in the Daily Mail of 2009 when a new book was writtern about Attlee.
FYI the Daily Mail is anti Labour, just like your friends.
But the Daily Mail did not dare to say that Attlee was bad.
And Attlee as PM nationalised basic industries and utlities.
But the Daily Mail did not dare to say that Attlee was bad. Why would that be ?
Read for yourself

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/...-decency-duty--stark-contrast-todays-MPs.html

They point to nationalisation as one of the mistakes. Nationalisation means no competition so the quality of goods and services drop while the price increases and Nationalisation is one of the early signs of Communism. They point to British Leyland as an example, when the British car industry became Communist.

 

[Arakhor]

Please remember that this is the "... not worth their own thread" discussion.

 

[Hrothbern]

They point to nationalisation as one of the mistakes. Nationalisation means no competition so the quality of goods and services drop while the price increases and Nationalisation is one of the early signs of Communism. They point to British Leyland as an example, when the British car industry became Communist.

No surprise that "they" state that nationalisation is bad.
But let's keep the discussion focused and handle the points made forward one by one and not shift away before one point is properly brought to an end:
below you say they stated: "The moment they point to when everything started to go wrong was when Labour were elected after the end of World War II".

It's what I was repeatedly told by them. I don't know anything about history or economics, I guess that shows how stupid I am because they say that economics is the easiest thing to understand in the world. The moment they point to when everything started to go wrong was when Labour were elected after the end of World War II.

My counter argument to them is that even an anti Labour, and for sure also an anti-nationalisation newspaper did not dare to attack Attlee, the Labour PM directly after WW2, despite the nationalisations he did.
The Daily Mail not dare to say that Labour did it wrong after the end of WW2, because it is not the general opinion of the older generations that experienced the advabtages.
Your friends are ideologigal driven theorists inventing their own history for their own theoretical beliefs.
Agree ?

BTW Attlee did not nationalise British Leyland, that happened much later when Attlee was dead.
Attlee nationalised utilities: gas, electricity, water and nationalised transport like railways, public transport, civil aviation and nationalised basic industries like coal mining, steel and ofc the Bank of England.
I think most citizens of the UK would still prefer that utilities and domestic public transport should be nationalised.
Perhaps your friends are also against the nationalisation of the Bank of England and want it back to be the commercial Bank it was before 1946 ?

 

[Hrothbern]

Please remember that this is the "... not worth their own thread" discussion.

was cross posting
ok
I stop answering

 

[Traitorfish]

Their solution to many problems in the world today is that the British Empire should be reformed. The US should be made a part of Britain, the problem with Ireland can be solved by making Ireland British again.

Wait, hold on: has Chukchi's friend been Boris Johnson this whole time?

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Is that an observation or a challenge?

Sounds like a statement of fact.

 

[Traitorfish]

Sounds like a statement of fact.

Facts are made to be broken!

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Facts are made to be broken!

So if you were a waiter and asked a customer if everything was okay, it would be acceptable if the customer mumbled something with a mouthful of food?

Some of us prefer to exercise our table manners, which say that you should never talk with your mouth full.

 

[Traitorfish]

So if you were a waiter and asked a customer if everything was okay, it would be acceptable if the customer mumbled something with a mouthful of food?

Clearly not. The customer must project and enunciate, or they have failed Warpus' challenge. Any goober and mumble their way through a mouthful of sandwich; only a true champion could give a lecture to the Royal Academy while eating an extra-dough pizza.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Clearly not. The customer must project and enunciate, or they have failed Warpus' challenge. Any goober and mumble their way through a mouthful of sandwich; only a true champion could give a lecture to the Royal Academy while eating an extra-dough pizza.

I think you've managed to wander off the main point by quite a bit here.

 

[Traitorfish]

I think you've managed to wander off the main point by quite a bit here.

Oh, we established that several posts back.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

What they tell me, what should've happened is that Winston Churchill should've been elected again then to follow his plan of re-arming the Germans then to attack the Soviet Union.

Ah. The famous "the only way to end all wars is conquer everyone" theory. In the US this takes the form that instead of building NATO as an alliance European countries, including the USSR, needed to be straight up vassalized, one way or another, and brought under direct rule of the US. We had the bomb, and had demonstrated the will to use it. That was our moment. Fools let the moment pass and stole the world's opportunity for real peace under enlightened American rule.

 

[Ajidica]

What they tell me, what should've happened is that Winston Churchill should've been elected again then to follow his plan of re-arming the Germans then to attack the Soviet Union.

There is a reason that the plan at the time was called "Operation Unthinkable". America would not have gone along with it - Truman was busy trying to set up the United Nations and handle all the brewing decolonization conflicts. The British general staff rejected the plan as militarily unfeasible. Further, there is basically no chance any of the Dominions would have gone along with it. Australia and New Zealand were starting to drift to the American orbit due to the small role the UK played in the Pacific Island campaigns. India had made it clear they were leaving, and it is doubtful Canada would have gone along with it. Britain's strength in the war came from ruling an empire that covered a quarter of the world and a fifth of its population - not because Albion is endowed with some mystical power to emerge victorious is all situations.
As an aside, why should Churchill have been re-elected? The Tories were still closely associated with the interwar period and the mass unemployment - like the Jarrow March- while Labour had distinguished itself in office during the Wartime Coalition. Labour had a plan to rebuild bombed out houses and cities -echoing Lloyd George's "Home for Heroes" campaign- while the Tory manifesto was basically "I guess people like the Beveridge Report". Plus, Churchill put his foot in his mouth on numerous occasions, such as commenting that a Labour government would see Gestapo kicking down your door in five years. That would be a tactless thing to say now, let alone while the Second World War was still raging. Small wonder the Tories wiped out in the 1945 General Election.

When Labour was elected, all the problems started, first when they decided to tax the aristocracy, then by extending rationing for almost a decade after the war ended. That's the point they say when Britain began to slide towards Communism.

Seriously Chukchi, your friends are morons. The taxation of aristocratic estates to fund social welfare policies began in 1910 with the People's Budget. Labour as a mass political party wasn't really a Thing at this stage, so the People's Budget was championed by the Liberals -lead by Lloyd George- and, guess who? Winston Churchill.

Is that suicide note what the last Labour government left behind, the one that said "the country has no money, good luck"?

No, it is a reference to Labour's 1983 manifesto which was very left wing -unilateral nuclear disarmament, withdrawing from the EEC, and mass nationalization. Strong arguments have been put forward that the manifesto was intentionally sabotaged by some on the Labour right who wanted to "discredit" Foot in order to force Labour to swing right. Labour was also hamstrung by the defection of several of its most prominent members to form the SDP, splitting the anti-Thatcher vote. (Fun fact, the anti-Thatcher vote (Labour and SDP) combined got over 50% of the vote -the Tories just got 42%, but somehow the Tories ended up with an over 150 seat majority. Best argument against FPTP I've seen in a while.)

They keep bringing that up as a reason why Labour should never have power.

It is a good argument for why NuLab should never be let anywhere near economic planning.

They have university degrees. I failed all of my end of school exams.

If morons like that god university degrees, I pity the state of the British education system.

 

[Takhisis]

Chukchi, these friends of yours may have university degrees which you do not have, but they are telling you logically flawed arguments that also are based on partially or completely untrue information.

 

[Traitorfish]

Seriously Chukchi, your friends are morons. The taxation of aristocratic estates to fund social welfare policies began in 1910 with the People's Budget. Labour as a mass political party wasn't really a Thing at this stage, so the People's Budget was championed by the Liberals -lead by Lloyd George- and, guess who? Winston Churchill.

I mean, if you want to start hand-wringing about the rise of Bolshevism in Britain, a good place would be to start with that classically revolutionary policy of land redistribution, which began all the way back in 1870 with the Irish Land Acts under Gladstone, a man old enough to have been Lloyd George's grandfather.

 

[Dachs]

If morons like that god university degrees, I pity the state of the British education system.

morons get university degrees all the time