Virgil Caine

Members
  • Content Count

    2,875
  • Joined

  • Last visited


Reputation Activity

  1. Agree
    Virgil Caine got a reaction from PatronizingGit in A Corbyn Goverment   
    This is something I have mentioned a number times on this site and TOS.
    I have yet to meet a single campaigner on the Remain side who is prepared to set out their vision for Britain in the EU. Do they support all or only part of the EU's agenda for political and financial convergance. If not how do they propose to stop it. When ever I ask them what they think about joining the Euro or what they think the impact of the EU financial stability pact would be on taxes or public spending all I ever hear is deathly silence. 
    I am quite happy to admit that a lot of Brexit voters have probably not fully explored all the consequences of leaving the EU but I am bloody sure that most have thought more about it than Remainers have considered the consequences of staying.
     
  2. Agree
    Virgil Caine got a reaction from The Generation Game in The second referendum - question   
    The last referendum was not binding so what makes people think another one will be any different.  UK politicians did not like the 2016 result they could have ignored it then if they had the balls to face the consequences. What is the point of invoking Article 50,  passing a Withdrawal Bill and entering negotiations if you are simply going to give up when it gets a bit sticky.
    It is Parliament that is being judged here not the voters. If they back down and simply kick the matter back to the public then what is the point of  having 600 plus MPs and more than 800 Lords poncing about Westminster all day. They are paid to make these decisions. If they cant then Brussels will simply send us a Gauleiter to do it for them.
    So my question would be 
    If the British Parliament can not deliver on the EU Withdrawal Bill that itself passed is there any point in its existence ? Yes/No
     
     
     
     
  3. Agree
    Virgil Caine got a reaction from The Generation Game in The second referendum - question   
    The last referendum was not binding so what makes people think another one will be any different.  UK politicians did not like the 2016 result they could have ignored it then if they had the balls to face the consequences. What is the point of invoking Article 50,  passing a Withdrawal Bill and entering negotiations if you are simply going to give up when it gets a bit sticky.
    It is Parliament that is being judged here not the voters. If they back down and simply kick the matter back to the public then what is the point of  having 600 plus MPs and more than 800 Lords poncing about Westminster all day. They are paid to make these decisions. If they cant then Brussels will simply send us a Gauleiter to do it for them.
    So my question would be 
    If the British Parliament can not deliver on the EU Withdrawal Bill that itself passed is there any point in its existence ? Yes/No
     
     
     
     
  4. Agree
    Virgil Caine got a reaction from The Generation Game in The second referendum - question   
    The last referendum was not binding so what makes people think another one will be any different.  UK politicians did not like the 2016 result they could have ignored it then if they had the balls to face the consequences. What is the point of invoking Article 50,  passing a Withdrawal Bill and entering negotiations if you are simply going to give up when it gets a bit sticky.
    It is Parliament that is being judged here not the voters. If they back down and simply kick the matter back to the public then what is the point of  having 600 plus MPs and more than 800 Lords poncing about Westminster all day. They are paid to make these decisions. If they cant then Brussels will simply send us a Gauleiter to do it for them.
    So my question would be 
    If the British Parliament can not deliver on the EU Withdrawal Bill that itself passed is there any point in its existence ? Yes/No
     
     
     
     
  5. Agree
    Virgil Caine got a reaction from Durabo in The Big Short is on at 9pm on BBC2   
    All this is true and has all been talked about many , many times.
    But the ramifications run far wider than Gordon Brown or UK banks.
    Capitalism by its nature it does not preclude asset booms and bust as creative destruction is part of the process whereby it maximises the best use of resources. If investors get it right they get to keep all the money and if they get it wrong they lose it all. The markets were meant to be self regulating in that risk was priced in by the system via bankruptcy and interest rates. This was used to justify the butchering of whole swathes of manufacturing industry in the west in the 1980s and 1990s. Unfortunately, when it looked  it like the same market rigour was going to be applied in a big way to the financial institutions in Wall Street, the City of London etc the song suddenly changed and  it was revealed that they were as keen on state intervention to prop them up as any Soviet era politbureau member.
    I think one of the interesting parts of the film itself is that the protagonists were participants in the system and initially believed in it. At the start they thought they had spotted a flaw in the way mortgage finance was being managed that would allow them to make a financial killing. This is exactly how the financial market was supposed to function. As the movie proceeds they begin to understand that the whole way risk was being managed and sold was a giant fraud perpetrated by institutions and individuals who had little skin in the game gambling with other peoples money, pensions, jobs etc. Their final disillusionment occurs when the crash happens. The protagonists win their bets  but Wall Street etc gets its arse saved by the politicians and the central banks using the money of the little people. In the end proving to being right and making money does not entirely compensate for their loss of faith in free market capitalism. 
    To my mind that was the key point of the whole film and why it is more than just a trite morality tale. It was about faith as much as it was about money. And that is what essentially has changed since 2008. All the old edifices are still there. Money is still being made. People at top of the financial institutions still live like Renaissance princes. But like pre Reformation Catholic Europe or the Soviet bloc in the 1980s all the belief in the system has gone. The mantras spouted by all the Masters of the Universe to justify their existence turned out to be lies. It was a rigged game. As a consequence all faith in the market as an independent arbiter of success and failure has gone. You see that on this site. You see it on TOS. You see it reflected in everything that is happening in the world now.
     
     
  6. Agree
    Virgil Caine got a reaction from Frank Hovis in The new Doctor should be a woman   
    To be honest I have not watched it much after the first reboot series with Ecclestone so I can't judge the decline. I only catch it now because I am visiting someone who has it on the telly.
    I think the word that comes to my mind is that the current episodes come across as 'breathless gibberish'. It seems all the participants know it is rubbish but think if they can rattle though the script at a million miles an hour perhaps no one will notice how bad it is.
  7. Agree
    Virgil Caine got a reaction from Frank Hovis in The new Doctor should be a woman   
    I have watched a few rather against my will. Much has been made about the relentless virtue signalling female Doctor etc but to be honest you can't really blame the cast when it is the stories that are so dire. The writers should be taken out and shot.
  8. Agree
    Virgil Caine got a reaction from Durabo in The Big Short is on at 9pm on BBC2   
    All this is true and has all been talked about many , many times.
    But the ramifications run far wider than Gordon Brown or UK banks.
    Capitalism by its nature it does not preclude asset booms and bust as creative destruction is part of the process whereby it maximises the best use of resources. If investors get it right they get to keep all the money and if they get it wrong they lose it all. The markets were meant to be self regulating in that risk was priced in by the system via bankruptcy and interest rates. This was used to justify the butchering of whole swathes of manufacturing industry in the west in the 1980s and 1990s. Unfortunately, when it looked  it like the same market rigour was going to be applied in a big way to the financial institutions in Wall Street, the City of London etc the song suddenly changed and  it was revealed that they were as keen on state intervention to prop them up as any Soviet era politbureau member.
    I think one of the interesting parts of the film itself is that the protagonists were participants in the system and initially believed in it. At the start they thought they had spotted a flaw in the way mortgage finance was being managed that would allow them to make a financial killing. This is exactly how the financial market was supposed to function. As the movie proceeds they begin to understand that the whole way risk was being managed and sold was a giant fraud perpetrated by institutions and individuals who had little skin in the game gambling with other peoples money, pensions, jobs etc. Their final disillusionment occurs when the crash happens. The protagonists win their bets  but Wall Street etc gets its arse saved by the politicians and the central banks using the money of the little people. In the end proving to being right and making money does not entirely compensate for their loss of faith in free market capitalism. 
    To my mind that was the key point of the whole film and why it is more than just a trite morality tale. It was about faith as much as it was about money. And that is what essentially has changed since 2008. All the old edifices are still there. Money is still being made. People at top of the financial institutions still live like Renaissance princes. But like pre Reformation Catholic Europe or the Soviet bloc in the 1980s all the belief in the system has gone. The mantras spouted by all the Masters of the Universe to justify their existence turned out to be lies. It was a rigged game. As a consequence all faith in the market as an independent arbiter of success and failure has gone. You see that on this site. You see it on TOS. You see it reflected in everything that is happening in the world now.
     
     
  9. Agree
    Virgil Caine got a reaction from Band in No Confidence Motion   
    Precisely.
    Without Brexit the Tories will be confronting the electorate on the basis they failed to deliver the central plank of their 2017 manifesto. Why on earth would anyone want to vote for a party that called an EU referendum, invoked Article 50,  passed a Withdrawal Bill and then simply gave up. Even a Second Referendum that reversed the decision of the 2016 one would not change those facts.
    Incidentally if it came to a choice of Jeremy Hunt or Jeremy Corbyn as PM I think I would prefer the latter.
     
  10. Agree
    Virgil Caine got a reaction from Band in No Confidence Motion   
    Precisely.
    Without Brexit the Tories will be confronting the electorate on the basis they failed to deliver the central plank of their 2017 manifesto. Why on earth would anyone want to vote for a party that called an EU referendum, invoked Article 50,  passed a Withdrawal Bill and then simply gave up. Even a Second Referendum that reversed the decision of the 2016 one would not change those facts.
    Incidentally if it came to a choice of Jeremy Hunt or Jeremy Corbyn as PM I think I would prefer the latter.
     
  11. Agree
    Virgil Caine got a reaction from Durabo in The Big Short is on at 9pm on BBC2   
    All this is true and has all been talked about many , many times.
    But the ramifications run far wider than Gordon Brown or UK banks.
    Capitalism by its nature it does not preclude asset booms and bust as creative destruction is part of the process whereby it maximises the best use of resources. If investors get it right they get to keep all the money and if they get it wrong they lose it all. The markets were meant to be self regulating in that risk was priced in by the system via bankruptcy and interest rates. This was used to justify the butchering of whole swathes of manufacturing industry in the west in the 1980s and 1990s. Unfortunately, when it looked  it like the same market rigour was going to be applied in a big way to the financial institutions in Wall Street, the City of London etc the song suddenly changed and  it was revealed that they were as keen on state intervention to prop them up as any Soviet era politbureau member.
    I think one of the interesting parts of the film itself is that the protagonists were participants in the system and initially believed in it. At the start they thought they had spotted a flaw in the way mortgage finance was being managed that would allow them to make a financial killing. This is exactly how the financial market was supposed to function. As the movie proceeds they begin to understand that the whole way risk was being managed and sold was a giant fraud perpetrated by institutions and individuals who had little skin in the game gambling with other peoples money, pensions, jobs etc. Their final disillusionment occurs when the crash happens. The protagonists win their bets  but Wall Street etc gets its arse saved by the politicians and the central banks using the money of the little people. In the end proving to being right and making money does not entirely compensate for their loss of faith in free market capitalism. 
    To my mind that was the key point of the whole film and why it is more than just a trite morality tale. It was about faith as much as it was about money. And that is what essentially has changed since 2008. All the old edifices are still there. Money is still being made. People at top of the financial institutions still live like Renaissance princes. But like pre Reformation Catholic Europe or the Soviet bloc in the 1980s all the belief in the system has gone. The mantras spouted by all the Masters of the Universe to justify their existence turned out to be lies. It was a rigged game. As a consequence all faith in the market as an independent arbiter of success and failure has gone. You see that on this site. You see it on TOS. You see it reflected in everything that is happening in the world now.
     
     
  12. Agree
    Virgil Caine got a reaction from Frank Hovis in Bank notes not celebrating diversity   
    Lloyd George was a crook and a womanizer. He was also the greatest British statesman of the 20th century being both a war leader like Churchill and a social reformer like Atlee. Surely he should appear on a bank note.
  13. Informative
    Virgil Caine got a reaction from crashmonitor in A Corbyn Goverment   
    Helpfully the Washington post has set out many of the issues that Remainers are in denial about.
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/opinions/brexit-would-be-hard-for-britain-staying-in-the-eu-would-be-worse/2018/12/14/18932c5a-ffd4-11e8-862a-b6a6f3ce8199_story.html?noredirect=on
    Don't expect any similar articles in the British press
  14. Informative
    Virgil Caine got a reaction from crashmonitor in A Corbyn Goverment   
    Helpfully the Washington post has set out many of the issues that Remainers are in denial about.
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/opinions/brexit-would-be-hard-for-britain-staying-in-the-eu-would-be-worse/2018/12/14/18932c5a-ffd4-11e8-862a-b6a6f3ce8199_story.html?noredirect=on
    Don't expect any similar articles in the British press
  15. Agree
    Virgil Caine got a reaction from Durabo in The Big Short is on at 9pm on BBC2   
    All this is true and has all been talked about many , many times.
    But the ramifications run far wider than Gordon Brown or UK banks.
    Capitalism by its nature it does not preclude asset booms and bust as creative destruction is part of the process whereby it maximises the best use of resources. If investors get it right they get to keep all the money and if they get it wrong they lose it all. The markets were meant to be self regulating in that risk was priced in by the system via bankruptcy and interest rates. This was used to justify the butchering of whole swathes of manufacturing industry in the west in the 1980s and 1990s. Unfortunately, when it looked  it like the same market rigour was going to be applied in a big way to the financial institutions in Wall Street, the City of London etc the song suddenly changed and  it was revealed that they were as keen on state intervention to prop them up as any Soviet era politbureau member.
    I think one of the interesting parts of the film itself is that the protagonists were participants in the system and initially believed in it. At the start they thought they had spotted a flaw in the way mortgage finance was being managed that would allow them to make a financial killing. This is exactly how the financial market was supposed to function. As the movie proceeds they begin to understand that the whole way risk was being managed and sold was a giant fraud perpetrated by institutions and individuals who had little skin in the game gambling with other peoples money, pensions, jobs etc. Their final disillusionment occurs when the crash happens. The protagonists win their bets  but Wall Street etc gets its arse saved by the politicians and the central banks using the money of the little people. In the end proving to being right and making money does not entirely compensate for their loss of faith in free market capitalism. 
    To my mind that was the key point of the whole film and why it is more than just a trite morality tale. It was about faith as much as it was about money. And that is what essentially has changed since 2008. All the old edifices are still there. Money is still being made. People at top of the financial institutions still live like Renaissance princes. But like pre Reformation Catholic Europe or the Soviet bloc in the 1980s all the belief in the system has gone. The mantras spouted by all the Masters of the Universe to justify their existence turned out to be lies. It was a rigged game. As a consequence all faith in the market as an independent arbiter of success and failure has gone. You see that on this site. You see it on TOS. You see it reflected in everything that is happening in the world now.
     
     
  16. Agree
    Virgil Caine got a reaction from Durabo in The Big Short is on at 9pm on BBC2   
    All this is true and has all been talked about many , many times.
    But the ramifications run far wider than Gordon Brown or UK banks.
    Capitalism by its nature it does not preclude asset booms and bust as creative destruction is part of the process whereby it maximises the best use of resources. If investors get it right they get to keep all the money and if they get it wrong they lose it all. The markets were meant to be self regulating in that risk was priced in by the system via bankruptcy and interest rates. This was used to justify the butchering of whole swathes of manufacturing industry in the west in the 1980s and 1990s. Unfortunately, when it looked  it like the same market rigour was going to be applied in a big way to the financial institutions in Wall Street, the City of London etc the song suddenly changed and  it was revealed that they were as keen on state intervention to prop them up as any Soviet era politbureau member.
    I think one of the interesting parts of the film itself is that the protagonists were participants in the system and initially believed in it. At the start they thought they had spotted a flaw in the way mortgage finance was being managed that would allow them to make a financial killing. This is exactly how the financial market was supposed to function. As the movie proceeds they begin to understand that the whole way risk was being managed and sold was a giant fraud perpetrated by institutions and individuals who had little skin in the game gambling with other peoples money, pensions, jobs etc. Their final disillusionment occurs when the crash happens. The protagonists win their bets  but Wall Street etc gets its arse saved by the politicians and the central banks using the money of the little people. In the end proving to being right and making money does not entirely compensate for their loss of faith in free market capitalism. 
    To my mind that was the key point of the whole film and why it is more than just a trite morality tale. It was about faith as much as it was about money. And that is what essentially has changed since 2008. All the old edifices are still there. Money is still being made. People at top of the financial institutions still live like Renaissance princes. But like pre Reformation Catholic Europe or the Soviet bloc in the 1980s all the belief in the system has gone. The mantras spouted by all the Masters of the Universe to justify their existence turned out to be lies. It was a rigged game. As a consequence all faith in the market as an independent arbiter of success and failure has gone. You see that on this site. You see it on TOS. You see it reflected in everything that is happening in the world now.
     
     
  17. Agree
    Virgil Caine got a reaction from PatronizingGit in A Corbyn Goverment   
    This is something I have mentioned a number times on this site and TOS.
    I have yet to meet a single campaigner on the Remain side who is prepared to set out their vision for Britain in the EU. Do they support all or only part of the EU's agenda for political and financial convergance. If not how do they propose to stop it. When ever I ask them what they think about joining the Euro or what they think the impact of the EU financial stability pact would be on taxes or public spending all I ever hear is deathly silence. 
    I am quite happy to admit that a lot of Brexit voters have probably not fully explored all the consequences of leaving the EU but I am bloody sure that most have thought more about it than Remainers have considered the consequences of staying.
     
  18. Agree
    Virgil Caine got a reaction from PatronizingGit in A Corbyn Goverment   
    This is something I have mentioned a number times on this site and TOS.
    I have yet to meet a single campaigner on the Remain side who is prepared to set out their vision for Britain in the EU. Do they support all or only part of the EU's agenda for political and financial convergance. If not how do they propose to stop it. When ever I ask them what they think about joining the Euro or what they think the impact of the EU financial stability pact would be on taxes or public spending all I ever hear is deathly silence. 
    I am quite happy to admit that a lot of Brexit voters have probably not fully explored all the consequences of leaving the EU but I am bloody sure that most have thought more about it than Remainers have considered the consequences of staying.
     
  19. Agree
    Virgil Caine got a reaction from PatronizingGit in A Corbyn Goverment   
    This is something I have mentioned a number times on this site and TOS.
    I have yet to meet a single campaigner on the Remain side who is prepared to set out their vision for Britain in the EU. Do they support all or only part of the EU's agenda for political and financial convergance. If not how do they propose to stop it. When ever I ask them what they think about joining the Euro or what they think the impact of the EU financial stability pact would be on taxes or public spending all I ever hear is deathly silence. 
    I am quite happy to admit that a lot of Brexit voters have probably not fully explored all the consequences of leaving the EU but I am bloody sure that most have thought more about it than Remainers have considered the consequences of staying.
     
  20. Agree
    Virgil Caine got a reaction from PatronizingGit in A Corbyn Goverment   
    This is something I have mentioned a number times on this site and TOS.
    I have yet to meet a single campaigner on the Remain side who is prepared to set out their vision for Britain in the EU. Do they support all or only part of the EU's agenda for political and financial convergance. If not how do they propose to stop it. When ever I ask them what they think about joining the Euro or what they think the impact of the EU financial stability pact would be on taxes or public spending all I ever hear is deathly silence. 
    I am quite happy to admit that a lot of Brexit voters have probably not fully explored all the consequences of leaving the EU but I am bloody sure that most have thought more about it than Remainers have considered the consequences of staying.
     
  21. Agree
    Virgil Caine got a reaction from PatronizingGit in A Corbyn Goverment   
    The loon is still hoping to be President of Europe.
    May a thousand demons and jinn take him to Shaitan
  22. Agree
    Virgil Caine got a reaction from PatronizingGit in A Corbyn Goverment   
    This is something I have mentioned a number times on this site and TOS.
    I have yet to meet a single campaigner on the Remain side who is prepared to set out their vision for Britain in the EU. Do they support all or only part of the EU's agenda for political and financial convergance. If not how do they propose to stop it. When ever I ask them what they think about joining the Euro or what they think the impact of the EU financial stability pact would be on taxes or public spending all I ever hear is deathly silence. 
    I am quite happy to admit that a lot of Brexit voters have probably not fully explored all the consequences of leaving the EU but I am bloody sure that most have thought more about it than Remainers have considered the consequences of staying.
     
  23. Cheers
    Virgil Caine reacted to dgul in A Corbyn Goverment   
    That's the missing point of the current argument, IMO.
    Just as we're arguing what 'leave' means, we should have an understanding of what 'stay' means.
    Does it include (over a lifetime timescale as that's the level that the young are allegedly worrying over -- that we've destroyed their future -- let's call it 30 years or so):
    Effectively-mandated adoption of the Euro in the UK A European army, with only limited militia per country. Forced Europe-wide immigration targets EU wide financial sector shared risk (eg, we carry the risk of Italian banks mucking up their lending) The formation of Eurobonds to remove the need for Gilt issuance Centralisation of powers to Brussels, leaving UK parliaments/assemblies to only cover a limited subset of domestic duties. Centralisation of laws to Brussels, removing the influence of UK lawmakers. The harmonisation of welfare systems across Europe The harmonisation of healthcare provision across Europe The mandatory education of 'European Harmony Studies' for all of the EU's youth And the list goes on.  Will any of these things happen?  Will all of them happen?  It is what is wanted by some?  The majority?  I just don't know.  But what I do know is, the EU seems to be on a trajectory of being a USEurope, and I'd bet that that thing looks more like the list above than the status quo.
    See, as far as I can tell, the argument that is being had currently is exactly the opposite argument that should be made.  We're being told that the choice is between a certain status quo vs an uncertain, different world.  This is playing into TPTB 'remainer's' hands -- people are usually scared of change -- indeed, I'd suggest that the Brexit vote two years ago was amazing, in that the majority voted for an uncertain future.  But that's because the masses can see through the smokescreen -- if the future controlled by London is bad we can vote them out, but if the future in the EU is bad it isn't clear what could be done -- it has certainly proven difficult to remove ourselves from the. 
    So, I'd say we've actually got two uncertains to choose between, one which is in the UK's control, the other which is in the hands of Brussels.
     
     
  24. Agree
    Virgil Caine got a reaction from Long time lurking in The Big Short is on at 9pm on BBC2   
    I had read the book and enjoyed the film.
    Most of the main characters were working in the financial system themselves.
    The key point I took from it was that Marxists had spent decades trying to destroy western capitalism but the banks almost achieved it the period 2000-2007. It was not just fraud but a massive exercise in financial cannibalism where the sheer greed of the participants led to the system essentially eating itself.  
    The downbeat conclusion was that those responsible got away with it but in my opinion the financial sector was holed below the waterline and has been sinking ever since. The fallout is now manifesting itself politically and economically rather than just financially as events in France and elsewhere have shown.
  25. Agree
    Virgil Caine got a reaction from twocents in OMG the bad man hurt my feelings   
    Top tip for discomforting SJW is to brush up on the vocabulary of Marxism Leninism of the Cold War era and to spew that back at them.
    Accuse them of being revanchist liberal puppets of globalist American imperialism and enemies of the working class or some other bollox. Back in the day different strands of communism developed some quite esoteric language for insulting each other particularly when the Russians and Chinese fell out with each other in the 1960's and spent most of the time purging each other's cadres
    Incidentally, I have been reading up of the Vietnam war lately and one of the things that is noticeable is how much the Stalinist leaders of the communist North such as Le Tuan despised the American anti war liberals who slavishly promoted their cause from the mid 1960s. God knows what they would have thought about the current SJW crowd.
    BTW Jo Cox pronouncements on Syria show that she was very much on the side of revanchist globalist imperialism so if the hat fits use it.