Of course uncontrolled external influences play a part in someones success (and failures). If I didn't come from a middle class family that helped me through college I wouldn't be where I am. I can't control to whom I was born. On the other hand, the right mindset allows you to overcome failures and try again. The right mindset allows you to see and seize opportunities. Without the right mindset you may not even see the luck as it is passes you by.
The problems did vary from country to country. The real problem for the UK wasn't the cost of bailing out a couple of banks, but that the budget was over-dependant on tax revenues from the banking sector and we were running a excessive budget deficit in the boom prior to the crash. Thus when it happened out budget deficit headed out to levels the Greeks didn't reach. Sure Gordon was willing to spend whatever it took........but that is rarely the hardest political choice to make, is it?
Yep this sounds exactly like like the path I've just started (2 years ago) adventuring on. My previous mindset was one of spending 5% of my time enjoying my life, and 95% hating people, employers, the governments, authority, etc etc. Back then everything seemed to go wrong. Now its 5% awesome 20% great 50% fine and 25% that I need to make good. All that has changed is ME! Depending on where people are with their own lives, what is being said on this subject may completely pass them by, but only because it is not the right time for them to accept it. On topic - austerity only mainly affects those in the firing line. Ask any politician (party irrelevant, because right now they would all be making cuts), they would personally say to you all that they want you all to be educated freely, working in jobs you love, creating a life you love. The question is not: Why does D Cameron want me to fail, want me to be poor, want me to hate my life?? But rather: How can I lift myself out of the firing line? How can I change focus from hating life, to enjoying what I already have, and encouraging more into my life?
So having to bail out the banks to the cost of £1,162 billion wasn't the problem? Or that a sustained period of instability in the banking sector had the knock on effect of raising unemployment by 3% increasing spending on unemployment benefit, and reducing tax receipts? Because these charts seem to show that they did, first the unemployment rate shot up. And tax receipts fell. Also saying there was a boom before the crash was at the time incorrect, both the IMF, OECD, and the OBR said in 2007 that the UK was not experiencing a boom, it was only some 6-7 years later that they revised those figures...(source) "Their change of mind just reflects how they calculate trend output, which is strongly influenced by the subsequent recession. As none of these organisations, or indeed almost anyone, was suggesting at the time that the UK economy was experiencing a large boom, it makes no sense to criticise policy based on these numbers." Lastly to say we had a "budget deficit headed out to levels the Greeks didn't reach" is also false, that piece of spin was based on forecasts and although we came close to matching the Greek budget deficit it never actually happened... What other choice was there?
And to suggest that Gordon Brown just threw money at the problem is a gross oversimplification of what he actually did. It was his decision on 8 October 2008 to take a controlling interest in three major banks that prompted Europe, followed quickly by the US to do likewise. Indeed a few days later when Brown was invited to address the Eurozone heads of government the French President Sarkozy, introduced him with: "My friend Gordon has the right plan, we must do it in Europe,". Which they did, and the Americans the next day. The following April Brown, chairing the G20 summit, would also take the lead in persuading world leaders to inject an unprecedented trillion dollars into the IMF and the World Bank with a view to stabilising the global economy. Remember: it was Mad Max apocalypse time and everyone was floundering. If Gordon Brown had any leadership potential he was showing it then. But again, although abroad the importance of what was achieved and of Brown's pivotal role in this was noted, the British population remains oblivious.
I don't wanna sound all doom and gloom here but a financial system that depends on permanent growth and one that discards of humans as it makes it self more efficient is hardly serving mankind. I bet that when they are done with abusing us and done with raping the planet of her resources having turned her into a wasteland to support their economic system, they will look towards other planets to exploit just so that they can balance their books. I don't remember having employed government to do this.
Excellent post, and well done! Positive Mental Attitude is hugely important and often completely overlooked. Sir Edmund Hillary didn't scale Everest by complaining how steep it was, how much his legs hurt or how cold his toes were. "It's not the mountain we conquer, but ourselves." - Edmund Hillary.
I think it is worth noting the tone of Camerons speech today. All leaders want to leave office with people remembering something positive, something that can be mentioned later as helping the country/people. No one wants to be remembered as in it for themselves, or a war monger. I 'feel' after hearing most of the speech, that instead of expecting major cuts still to come as we've been led to believe are incoming, we will see much more investment over the next years. This is something we would never have seen with Miliband without massively increasing borrowing, therefore increasing our deficit, therefore increasing our huge unmanageable debts - and for no justifiable returns. Well ... this is what I 'feel'. Perfect quote!
Here's what stayed with me about Cameron's speech: "We cannot let that man inflict his security-threatening, terrorist-sympathising, Britain-hating ideology on the country we love." --David Cameron, about Jeremy Corbyn I cannot take seriously any politician who resorts to slanderous, emotive extremist rhetoric when referring to a political opponent. Whatever credibility he had left with me, he lost it there. Rather I feel that he has revealed his true nature, not as the competent statesman we need but a the mediocre demagogue he tries to be. He sounds scared of Jeremy Corbin, and this is the best political and ideological response he can muster? Pathetic. You need to get your head around this: it was not Labour that caused the credit crunch. It was not socialism, nor public services that plunged this country into a recession. It wasn't the NHS, it wasn't councils, it wasn't immigration, illegal or otherwise. It was capitalism red in tooth and claw: the private sector doing its thing when it is let off the regulatory leash. And it was Gordon Brown, a Labour PM, who saved the day in the end. Realise that if Cameron is not your enemy, he is not your friend either.
The 1st bit you mention is fine because I get your hate of the conservatives. It doesn't help that public sector constantly bangs on about how the conservatives are spending 99% of their time trying to privatise the NHS. If you think in terms of Gangs of New York, then these thoughts are quite natural - everyone likes to protect their own interests. But I think I'm more open to selecting who I see fit enough to run the country - not guided by hate of a party - hence why I said I liked some of what Jeremy Corbin says (and a few of his ideoligies too). I think water/gas/electric/NHS are ours by right, and should not be controlled by share holders. Even if they may be run more efficiently. The 2nd bit I don't need to get my head around. I mentioned Miliband in reference to the conservatives (thankfully) gaining a second term. And I previously told you I agree, Labour did not CAUSE the credit crunch. Don't try to get my head around something for me Nexxo. I have my views, and I really think I'm more open to what is best for the country than you. Without trying to be personal, I get the impression your links to the NHS maybe gives you a slightly blinkered view. Whether my views are right or wrong, this is my problem not yours (Added) Oh, and as I previously mentioned - Corbin never came across to me like a chap who will be bolstering businesses, or creating opportunity for people to work - or growing the British economy to provide the housing and jobs needed for the migrants we could let in. If he didn't mention the fundamental thing that funds the public sector - then maybe he IS a danger to our security, and our economy.
A lot of people would be 'scared' of the damage that would be done if an extremist such as Corbyn became Prime Minister. Though unlikely it's a bit complacent not to consider that danger.
Die hard tory here, and to a degree I think it was a bit of a low blow from Cameron, but I think it was more opinion politics, trying to win back a few of the UKIP voters. Nevertheless, if what he is quoting about Corbyn has any merit and isn't just taken out of context, then no, I don't want him any where near government.
Quote from the Guardian (I know not an ardent Tories favourite paper but it's a good way to wind you lot up [emoji14]) In a clip from the Press TV show the Agenda, Corbyn is heard complaining that there had been “no attempt whatsoever that I can see to arrest him and put him on trial, to go through that process”. He went on: “This was an assassination attempt, and is yet another tragedy, upon a tragedy, upon a tragedy. “The World Trade Center was a tragedy, the attack on Afghanistan was a tragedy, the war in Iraq was a tragedy. Tens of thousands of people have died. Torture has come back on to the world stage, been canonised virtually into law by Guantánamo and Bagram. “Can’t we learn some lessons from this? Are we just going to sink deeper and deeper? “The next stage will be an attempted assassination on Gaddafi and so it will go on. This will just make the world more dangerous and worse and worse and worse.” The irony that he was right about Gaddafi...
That's probably because they are. Or a slightly more informed one. Fact is: the NHS is the most efficient system of health care in the world. No country has come up with anything better. Moreover its cost as a percentage of GDP is stable and increasing less over time than health care costs in Europe and the US. So why are we still hearing it is inefficient and expensive? Where do those myths come from? And why is the government still cutting its funding and messing with its organisational structure? So far, it is deregulated banks that have been the danger to our economy, and the Bush and Blair combo --driven by oil industry interests-- the danger to our security. So unchecked capitalism, not socialist ideology. But while we're on the subject, what have the Conservatives done to create opportunities for work, business or housing exactly? I'm curious: what makes you think he is an extremist? Why don't you find out for yourself if it was taken out of context? I mean, those are some pretty strong assertions there. Isn't it worth checking out their basis of truth? As Isitari points out, Corbyn's statement was pulled out of context and distorted. I imagine that Cameron is a bright guy and fully well understood what Corbyn really was saying, and that his distortion was wilful and deliberate. So what does it say about the PM when he deliberately distorts reality and makes statements that are arguably a bit extremist for a bit of cheap political point scoring? Is that the mature, balanced and wise statesman we want to be in charge of the country?
That's what rhetoric is meant to do, make you feel good, while Cameron talks the talk hes failed to walk the walk (imho) so far, the talk doesn't match the actions. That may well change in the next 4-5 years so it's probably best to reserve judgement and see if, by the time of the next election, if the facts backup the rhetoric, if this age of supposed austerity benefits the whole of society and not just the upper echelons as it has so far. To be frank, and this is just my own personal feeling/opinion, but what you describe is fairly typical for a lot of politicians, mainly Conservatives (IMO), talk the talk and hope people don't notice you're not walking the walk.
Good point. Rhetoric and spin are all about weaving narratives that distract from, distort or obfuscate the reality, by appealing to beliefs, prejudice and emotion. All political parties are guilty of it. Things like: Saddam has WMD. immigrants take away jobs from the British. The NHS is untenably expensive and inefficient. Labour caused the recession. The EU is taking away British rights. The EU takes away British money. Unions are bad for the economy. The City is good for the economy. Socialism hates business. Jeremy Corbyn is an extremist. All these things are incorrect or at best unproven, but ask people in the street, and it is what they believe. And they don't question it. We think in story, so it is natural to construct narratives around what we experience to make sense of it. But that also means that we are vulnerable to narrativistic thinking; our own and that of others. Always question story... especially if it evokes strong feelings. Totally agree (it does happen! ).
So after having done plenty of reading on austerity I'm still no clearer if it's an economic policy or politically motivated, understandably people have said it's an economic one but everything I've read seems to indicate it's a failed policy. Can an economic policy that's failed still be a policy?
Why do you insist that an economic policy and politically motivated actions are mutually exclusive? Can something not hold both states concurrently?
