"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...

You are so dumb you can't see the root
problem(s). We pay far too much for
very small homes because of an artificial land
shortage, while the established aristocracy still
own vast tracts of land in the UK. Haven't
you figured it out yet?

The whole debate has been had at least five
times before and all of the possible angles
discussed repeatedly and ad nauseam.

But you learned nothing at all.

Did anyone see the programme last night on property hunting in Texas. A
couple who live in a terraced house in Crewe, can sell up and buy a huge
house in Texas and have lots of change. A house that would be 0.5
million
here was £80,000. And in very nice coastal areas too. About £200,000,
about the average cost of a detached home these days in the UK, gets you
a
full dream house. Literally a house only a lottery win could get you
here.

Why you may ask?

No I wasn't.

Labours cost in the US are no cheaper than here. Land.
Yes, land is the key. In the UK we are crammed into 7,5% of the land
mass.
They will not allow us to build on the land as it is owned by a small
minority or people. The UK is big country, despite propaganda saying we
are
not. An artificial land shortage has been created ramping up land
values
to the point we live in small super expensive boxes.

The whole debate has been had at least five
times before and all of the possible angles
discussed repeatedly and ad nauseam.

I learned that I don't agree with you.

No you do. You had a narrow minded viewpoint. I was explained to you, but
you didn't want to eat humble pie and admit you had been conned all this
time and agree with common sense and logic. Wake up and smell the coffee
Andy.

When are you leaving for Texas?

It is tempting. Far fewer Little Middle Englanders around there. In fact
the programme was centred around Corpus Christi. I spent a week there once.
Nice place. They highlighted homes in Rockport where the Bushes spend
weekends. The people, we stayed at had a huge lovely house. I thought it
was a super expensive, by our standards, house. Now I know how much it
costs.



---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.555 / Virus Database: 347 - Release Date: 23/12/2003

IMM wrote:


Try the economist.


The Economist? The Tory party figures manipulato! My, oh my!




Staggering. Simply staggering.

From teh man who claimed that Business and the City supports Laber...




---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.555 / Virus Database: 347 - Release Date: 23/12/2003

IMM wrote:

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
news

I assume you refer to this consumer debt.
80% is people paying mortgages to
put a super expensive small roof over
their heads. Land ownership and
availability for building is the core of this.

Oh not that again.

You are so dumb you can't see the root
problem(s). We pay far too much for
very small homes because of an artificial land
shortage, while the established aristocracy still
own vast tracts of land in the UK. Haven't
you figured it out yet?

The whole debate has been had at least five
times before and all of the possible angles
discussed repeatedly and ad nauseam.


But you learned nothing at all.

Did anyone see the programme last night on property hunting in Texas. A
couple who live in a terraced house in Crewe, can sell up and buy a huge
house in Texas and have lots of change. A house that would be 0.5 million
here was £80,000. And in very nice coastal areas too. About £200,000,
about the average cost of a detached home these days in the UK, gets you a
full dream house. Literally a house only a lottery win could get you here.

Why you may ask? Labours cost in the US are no cheaper than here.


Wrong.

Land.
Yes, land is the key.



Indeed. Texas has about the population of Wales in an area the size of
France.

Why don't you bugger off there - or Canada, or Australia.

I know, they would make mincemeat of you, and you wouldn't last ten
seconds outside the nanny state.

In the UK we are crammed into 7,5% of the land mass.


Thats about all teh habitable land there is. Have you ever BEEN to the
welsh mountains, or the scottish Highlands? Have you in fact, ever been
south of Watford, or further out of the country than Benidorm?


They will not allow us to build on the land as it is owned by a small
minority or people.


No, its owned by a large majority of private individuals. And regulated
by the planning authority.


The UK is big country, despite propaganda saying we are
not.


Habitable arraes contend with farming and forestry. Population clusters
ariund work. Work clusters around communication.

Its the same in the USA. Fly over it, drive across it, and you will find
vast areas of land with nothing on but crops and animals, or smply
desert. Now you CAN live in teh desert of youi don';t mind spending
$5000 a year on airconditioning, bu there ain't much to do, unless you
are into weapons research...

An artificial land shortage has been created ramping up land values
to the point we live in small super expensive boxes.



---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.555 / Virus Database: 347 - Release Date: 23/12/2003

Andy Hall wrote:



Not true Andy. Dollar is in for a turbulent time.


It was somewhat tongue in cheek.


Just got an e-mail frm (very rich) friend of mine in California "we are
trying to make sure Bush never gets re-elected, if he does we are off to
Canada"


I know a number of people in California with the same view. Is your
friend a Democrat as a matter of interest?



I have no idea. She is a very very old ex girfriend. Her friends used to
refer to her as a Rich Bitch then, last time I saw her she admited to
'still having the odd million or two stashed away'.





Clinton left a whole pile of **** by way of an overblown boom, and GW
and teh boys are tryng desperately to not let it all go bust, BUT a lot
of dirt (Enron, Worldcom et al, plus huge borrowings for the war, plus
tax cuts etc) has been swepot under the carpet: If someone were to
actually go down now, and the whole crony ridden frauduklent nature of
what half of wall street has been up to for the last ten years coudl not
be kept secret anymore, the whle thing COULD come down like a pack of cards.


Mmmm I do know what you mean. There has been more than a little nest
feathering going on, and the line of legality a little blurred.

Certainly the whole issue of corporate governance has ridden high on
the agenda.


And been quietkly removed from it by Bush, who is too close to maost of
em. They are who put him in power. Clinton as getting too close..






Then the money flow out of the dollar into the euro - and the pound -
would be stupendous.

Its perhaps not a foregone conclsuion, but it's more than a slender
possibility.

Ter are signs that its happening in a slow controlled way anyway.



Depending on where you sit, having a weaker dollar is arguably
beneficial.




Market headlines today 'gold price surges as dollar falls heavily
against euro and sterling'




---


.andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl



.andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Tue, 6 Jan 2004 13:13:57 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .


I learned that I don't agree with you.

No you do. You had a narrow minded viewpoint. I was explained to you, but
you didn't want to eat humble pie and admit you had been conned all this
time and agree with common sense and logic.

Common sense and logic is precisely why I don't agree with you.

When are you leaving for Texas?

It is tempting. Far fewer Little Middle Englanders around there.

Do bear in mind that there is no nanny state and no hand outs. Are
you sure that you could cope with that?




---

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 13:47:51 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

:




Market headlines today 'gold price surges as dollar falls heavily
against euro and sterling'


We've been there before as well - gold, the safe haven......


..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 6 Jan 2004 13:13:57 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .


I learned that I don't agree with you.

No you do. You had a narrow minded viewpoint. I was explained to you,
but
you didn't want to eat humble pie and admit you had been conned all this
time and agree with common sense and logic.

Common sense and logic is precisely why I don't agree with you.

I see. You have none.

When are you leaving for Texas?

It is tempting. Far fewer Little Middle Englanders around there.

Do bear in mind that there is no nanny state and no hand outs. Are
you sure that you could cope with that?

I get no handouts. What I do/did get was all paid for in my contributions.


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.555 / Virus Database: 347 - Release Date: 23/12/2003

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
IMM wrote:

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
news

I assume you refer to this consumer debt.
80% is people paying mortgages to
put a super expensive small roof over
their heads. Land ownership and
availability for building is the core of this.

Oh not that again.

You are so dumb you can't see the root
problem(s). We pay far too much for
very small homes because of an artificial land
shortage, while the established aristocracy still
own vast tracts of land in the UK. Haven't
you figured it out yet?

The whole debate has been had at least five
times before and all of the possible angles
discussed repeatedly and ad nauseam.


But you learned nothing at all.

Did anyone see the programme last night on property hunting in Texas. A
couple who live in a terraced house in Crewe, can sell up and buy a huge
house in Texas and have lots of change. A house that would be 0.5
million
here was £80,000. And in very nice coastal areas too. About £200,000,
about the average cost of a detached home these days in the UK, gets you
a
full dream house. Literally a house only a lottery win could get you
here.

Why you may ask? Labour cost in the US are no cheaper than here.

Wrong.

Right!

Land. Yes, land is the key.

Indeed. Texas has about the population of Wales in an area the size of
France.

But they allow people to build where they want to, unlike this country.

Why don't you bugger off there - or Canada, or Australia.


Well people like you aren't around, so that is a plus point.

I know, they would make mincemeat of you, and you wouldn't last ten
seconds outside the nanny state.

What nanny state are you talking about?

In the UK we are crammed into 7,5% of the land mass.

Thats about all teh habitable land there is.

Balls again!!! 90% plus is habitable.

Have you ever BEEN to the
welsh mountains, or the scottish Highlands?

Yes.

Have you in fact, ever been
south of Watford, or further out of the
country than Benidorm?

I live south of Watford. Now south of the river and the fens are the pits.

They will not allow us to build on the land as it is owned by a small
minority or people.

No, its owned by a large majority
of private individuals.

Wrong! 1% of the population own 70% of the land.

And regulated
by the planning authority.

To the benefit of that 1% while we pay extortionate house prices because
land is 2/3 of the value.

The UK is big country, despite propaganda saying we are
not.

Habitable arraes contend with farming and forestry. Population clusters
ariund work. Work clusters around communication.

And your point is? The point is that we can't build on grade 3 agricultural
land, because the big landowners say so.

Its the same in the USA. Fly over it, drive across it, and you will find
vast areas of land with nothing on but crops and animals, or smply
desert.

The same here. Fly over the Uk. Nothing but open green fields. Agriculture
only amounts to 3% of the economy. We can afford to get rid of most of this
pampered, nannied, over subsidised industry for the greater benefit of the
people.

Now you CAN live in teh desert of youi don';t mind spending
$5000 a year on airconditioning, bu there ain't much to do, unless you
are into weapons research...

We have no deserts in the UK.

An artificial land shortage has been created ramping up land values
to the point we live in small super expensive boxes.



---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.555 / Virus Database: 347 - Release Date: 23/12/2003

On Tue, 6 Jan 2004 13:13:57 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .

When are you leaving for Texas?

It is tempting.

PLEASE go,

If you find it to expensive to move I would gladly not lend but give
you the fare for a one way ticket.

Being a cowboy you would fit in there quite well.
---


ATB

Kris

Is that the same as "HOT AIR"?
Capitol

IMM wrote in message ...
Did anyone see the programme last night on property hunting in Texas. A
couple who live in a terraced house in Crewe, can sell up and buy a huge
house in Texas and have lots of change. A house that would be 0.5 million
here was £80,000. And in very nice coastal areas too. About £200,000,
about the average cost of a detached home these days in the UK, gets you a
full dream house. Literally a house only a lottery win could get you here.


Get into the real world. An American house is a short lived, upmarket garden
shed! If it is in the right place; cf "The Heights" in Houston, then the
price is in the $1M region for a pile of CRAP.( because of the high land
costs). Just like London. If it is in a coastal region; cf Clearwater in
Florida, with no local employment or industry, then a new house( shed) with
massive air conditioning running costs is less than £125K. The market price
is determined by supply, demand and the point in the economic cycle. UK
house prices are artificially high because the economy is running on cloud
cuckoo land interest rates( they should be around 6%) in the interest of
avoiding recession. US houses are a disposable product, require massive
amounts of maintenance( decks every 5 years, roofs every 20, boilers every
10) and have absolutely CRAP electrical systems. US houses are cheap to
build and the labour force consists frequently of low standard immigrant
construction workers. If you think the joinery standards are low here,
inspect the frame of a house being constructed in Illinois!

As am American friend said, "your UK houses are built to last!".
Regards
Capitol

On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 18:46:59 +0000, Kris wrote:

If you find it to expensive to move I would gladly not lend but give
you the fare for a one way ticket.

You don't need to suffer the consequences of that cost alone. I think
you would find several around here who would make a reasonable
contribution.

PoP

If you really must use the email address provided
with my newsreader please be aware that the email
is processed with spamcop. As a result your email
to me might be treated as spam!

"Kris" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 6 Jan 2004 13:13:57 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .

When are you leaving for Texas?

It is tempting.

PLEASE go,

If you find it to expensive to move I would gladly not lend but give
you the fare for a one way ticket.

Oh god will you pay for my hols this year too?


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.555 / Virus Database: 347 - Release Date: 23/12/2003

"PoP" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 18:46:59 +0000, Kris wrote:

If you find it to expensive to move I would gladly not lend but give
you the fare for a one way ticket.

You don't need to suffer the consequences of that cost alone. I think
you would find several around here who would make a reasonable
contribution.

Can you all get up enough to buy a house as well?


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.555 / Virus Database: 347 - Release Date: 23/12/2003

"Capitol" wrote in message
...

IMM wrote in message ...
Did anyone see the programme last night on property hunting in Texas. A
couple who live in a terraced house in Crewe, can sell up and buy a huge
house in Texas and have lots of change. A house that would be 0.5
million
here was £80,000. And in very nice coastal areas too. About £200,000,
about the average cost of a detached home these days in the UK, gets you
a
full dream house. Literally a house only a lottery win could get you
here.


Get into the real world. An American house is a short lived, upmarket
garden
shed! If it is in the right place; cf "The Heights" in Houston, then the
price is in the $1M region for a pile of CRAP.( because of the high land
costs).

US houses are better built than over here.

Just like London. If it is in a coastal region; cf Clearwater in
Florida, with no local employment or industry,
then a new house( shed) with massive air
conditioning running costs is less than £125K.

NOWHERE in the UK in a similar house or location will you find such
wonderful houses.

The market price is determined by supply,
demand

But in the UK is rigged by an artificial land shortage. Reaf Who Own
Britain by Cahill.

US houses are a disposable product, require massive
amounts of maintenance( decks every 5 years,
roofs every 20, boilers every 10) and have absolutely
CRAP electrical systems.

Total crap. They are not.

US houses are cheap to
build

They are in the UK too. The US use better more advanced methods than us.
For e.g., they don't have silly cavity walls.

and the labour force consists frequently of low standard immigrant
construction workers. If you think the joinery standards are low here,
inspect the frame of a house being constructed in Illinois!

I did and was very impressed.

As am American friend said, "your UK houses are built to last!".

Which ones?


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.555 / Virus Database: 347 - Release Date: 23/12/2003

On Tue, 6 Jan 2004 23:57:00 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Capitol" wrote in message
...



Get into the real world. An American house is a short lived, upmarket
garden
shed! If it is in the right place; cf "The Heights" in Houston, then the
price is in the $1M region for a pile of CRAP.( because of the high land
costs).

US houses are better built than over here.

Have you seen one under construction? Some of the finishing may be
reasonable, but the basic construction is nothing to write home
about....




US houses are a disposable product, require massive
amounts of maintenance( decks every 5 years,
roofs every 20, boilers every 10) and have absolutely
CRAP electrical systems.

Total crap. They are not.

You're an electrical engineer now? US wiring practice is nothing
less than appalling and with extremely cheap and nasty fittings. Even
the expensive ones are only cosmetically better.




..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 6 Jan 2004 23:57:00 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Capitol" wrote in message
...



Get into the real world. An American house is a short lived, upmarket
garden
shed! If it is in the right place; cf "The Heights" in Houston, then
the
price is in the $1M region for a pile of CRAP.( because of the high
land
costs).

US houses are better built than over here.

Have you seen one under construction? Some of the finishing may be
reasonable, but the basic construction is nothing to write home
about....




US houses are a disposable product, require massive
amounts of maintenance( decks every 5 years,
roofs every 20, boilers every 10) and have absolutely
CRAP electrical systems.

Total crap. They are not.

You're an electrical engineer now?

Yes.

US wiring practice is nothing
less than appalling and with extremely cheap and nasty fittings.

I have seen cheap and nsty fitting in the UK too.

The UK is famous for a cowboy mentality in the building trades. Famous for
it. We have no right to criticise others for workmanship.




---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.555 / Virus Database: 347 - Release Date: 23/12/2003

IMM wrote in message ...

"PoP" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 18:46:59 +0000, Kris wrote:

If you find it to expensive to move I would gladly not lend but give
you the fare for a one way ticket.

You don't need to suffer the consequences of that cost alone. I think
you would find several around here who would make a reasonable
contribution.

Can you all get up enough to buy a house as well?


I didn't think you'd be reduced to begging!

Can't you sell the Ford? It'll buy you a nice trailer in Alabama.


LOL
Capitol

"Capitol" wrote in message
...

IMM wrote in message ...

"PoP" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 18:46:59 +0000, Kris wrote:

If you find it to expensive to move I would gladly not lend but give
you the fare for a one way ticket.

You don't need to suffer the consequences of that cost alone. I think
you would find several around here who would make a reasonable
contribution.

Can you all get up enough to buy a house as well?


I didn't think you'd be reduced to begging!

Begging! I am being offered.

Can't you sell the Ford? It'll buy you a nice trailer in Alabama.

I don't own a Ford. A suave person like me owns an Aston Martin and a Mini
Cooper.


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.555 / Virus Database: 347 - Release Date: 23/12/2003

IMM wrote:


I don't own a Ford. A suave person like me owns an Aston Martin and a Mini
Cooper.

How very 'tory' of you.


Obviously you need to give them boith away to the first pesron on the
dole you find, in order to salve your clarss conscience...

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
IMM wrote:

I don't own a Ford. A suave person like me owns an Aston Martin and a
Mini
Cooper.

How very 'tory' of you.

Since when have these marques been Tory? Connery drove one and he is far
from Tory.


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.555 / Virus Database: 347 - Release Date: 23/12/2003

IMM wrote:

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

IMM wrote:


I don't own a Ford. A suave person like me owns an Aston Martin and a

Mini

Cooper.


How very 'tory' of you.


Since when have these marques been Tory? Connery drove one and he is far
from Tory.


Yiu have been watching too many Bond films.

Hint: A film is NOT real life, IMM.

Who owns Aston Martin!
Capitol
IMM wrote in message ...

"Capitol" wrote in message
...

IMM wrote in message ...

"PoP" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 18:46:59 +0000, Kris wrote:

If you find it to expensive to move I would gladly not lend but give
you the fare for a one way ticket.

You don't need to suffer the consequences of that cost alone. I think
you would find several around here who would make a reasonable
contribution.

Can you all get up enough to buy a house as well?


I didn't think you'd be reduced to begging!

Begging! I am being offered.

Can't you sell the Ford? It'll buy you a nice trailer in Alabama.

I don't own a Ford. A suave person like me owns an Aston Martin and a Mini
Cooper.


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.555 / Virus Database: 347 - Release Date: 23/12/2003

"Capitol" wrote in message
...

Who owns Aston Martin!

Oh good. A Quiz.



---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.555 / Virus Database: 347 - Release Date: 23/12/2003

In article , Andy Hall
writes
On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 11:08:52 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Andy Hall wrote:

On Tue, 6 Jan 2004 09:33:10 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Andrew" wrote in message
...


Problem is - no-one knows, and conveniently, both France and Germany,
where inflation has shot up because of the euro, and whose economies are
on the rocks, also 'cos of the euro have between them decided that the
stability pact and the inevitable fines do not after all apply to them.
I wonder If they will let us off so lightly in the unlikely event that
that Tone manages to dupe enough people to vote for it.

Anyone with half a brain can see we have to go into the euro eventually.



Why not just go straight for the dollar and cut out the middle
step.......




Not true Andy. Dollar is in for a turbulent time.

It was somewhat tongue in cheek.


Just got an e-mail frm (very rich) friend of mine in California "we are
trying to make sure Bush never gets re-elected, if he does we are off to
Canada"

I know a number of people in California with the same view. Is your
friend a Democrat as a matter of interest?


Clinton left a whole pile of **** by way of an overblown boom, and GW
and teh boys are tryng desperately to not let it all go bust, BUT a lot
of dirt (Enron, Worldcom et al, plus huge borrowings for the war, plus
tax cuts etc) has been swepot under the carpet: If someone were to
actually go down now, and the whole crony ridden frauduklent nature of
what half of wall street has been up to for the last ten years coudl not
be kept secret anymore, the whle thing COULD come down like a pack of cards.

Mmmm I do know what you mean. There has been more than a little nest
feathering going on, and the line of legality a little blurred.

Certainly the whole issue of corporate governance has ridden high on
the agenda.





Then the money flow out of the dollar into the euro - and the pound -
would be stupendous.

Its perhaps not a foregone conclsuion, but it's more than a slender
possibility.

Ter are signs that its happening in a slow controlled way anyway.


Depending on where you sit, having a weaker dollar is arguably
beneficial.

It's inevitable if you look at the amount of debt US inc. (corporate +
personal) has run up. However, as long as OIL is priced in dollars and
Japan and China keep on buying dollars, the USD is going to remain the
worlds anchor currency. In 50 years time when Oil runs out, things will
be different. Personally I'm looking 5 years ahead and my prediction
is a period of Democrat benign neglect of the dollar following on from
GWH's huge tax handout experiment = another period of rampant world-wide
inflation. I hope I am wrong but its all looking suspiciously like the
period from the late 60's through into the 70's again. Even the 'low
interest golden scenarios' are coming out again.





---


.andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl



.andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

--
Andrew

"Andrew" wrote in message
...

It's inevitable if you look at the amount of debt US inc. (corporate +
personal) has run up. However, as long as OIL is priced in dollars and
Japan and China keep on buying dollars, the USD is going to remain the
worlds anchor currency.

Before WW2 the pound was the anchor currency, then it was a greed by the
Brits, as the Yanks had us by the balls, that the dollar would be No.1. The
Arabs still used the pound in oil transactions many, many years after as
they trusted the pound.


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.558 / Virus Database: 350 - Release Date: 02/01/2004

Andrew wrote:

However, as long as OIL is priced in dollars


Many contracts are now in Euros.

and
Japan and China keep on buying dollars,


Ther are signs that there is a slow and careful shift out of dollars
into the euro and sterling. from 1.5 dollars to the quid, its now 1.8
dollars. Even more marked against the euro.

the USD is going to remain the
worlds anchor currency.


There is a better than strong possibility that it will not. It will
reamin one of teh main ones, with the yen, and teh euro.

In 50 years time when Oil runs out, things will
be different.


Make that 15 years, not till it runs out, but till the political and
social issues make it relatively much more expensive.

When I used to but petrol in the 70's I copuld fill a tank for a fiver.
And I used to draw maybe 30 quid a week to live on. Today, I draw maybe
100 and 50 quid fuills the tank. Relatively fuel is now - with housing -
very high budget items in anyone's book.

That is a sane policy up to a point: taxing consumption of scarce
resource is perhaps a little better than keeping it cheap until it runs
out altogether...


Personally I'm looking 5 years ahead and my prediction
is a period of Democrat benign neglect of the dollar following on from
GWH's huge tax handout experiment = another period of rampant world-wide
inflation. I hope I am wrong but its all looking suspiciously like the
period from the late 60's through into the 70's again. Even the 'low
interest golden scenarios' are coming out again.


I would not bank on it.

The US economy has deep and serious structural problems. Or to put it
another way, it doesn't live in the real world. That is not an
infinitely sustainable fantasy. GWB has tried to keep it there, but at
huge costs in terms of deficits. And, like anyine who borrows enough
money, the easiest way to avoid paying it back is to let the debt value
slide via exchange rate manipulation. George borrows dollars from saudi,
and pays back dollras, but they are worth much less than the dollars he
borrowed.

You will see inflation in the US up, but it may help the native industry
to be competitive, but the dollar is set for a long long slide now.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
IMM wrote:

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

Jeremy Paxmans book is really fascinatiing. Do you know, teh majority of
pliticians - those who pontficate and pronounce on all weighty matters,
have done nothing more exciting than being school teachers or sochul
wurkahs? Even teh labour party has almost zero members from trades or
manual work, and even the conservatives have almost zero members from
top industrial management?

This old idea that top industrial management only support the Tories.
Get
real please. During Thatcher many top industrialist supported Labour
and
SDLP policies. Many would keep shut as if you showed your true colours
the
gates would close on you and your company. A bad time for freedom under
the
wicked witch.

A bad time for freedom any tme since the last war, and pretty bad befre
that as well.

Its nice word, freedom. Never seen it for real of course...

They are all career politicians, and, a
Jeremy points out the majoriy *arte earning more as MP's than they have,
in any other job they have held*.

Churchill was a career political. he crossed the house twice in order to
be
where the power was. Today he would be in the Labour party.

Funny. I thought he was a journalist and at least something in the
military. Of course he crossed the floor several times. And finally got
lucky. An arsehole of teh nth degree, but usefulk at the time...or was he?

He scuppered peace at various times. Hitler didn't want a fight with the
British and was pretty shocked that Britain declared war on Germany. his
feedback from the UK was that Britain would not declare war. Pre-WW2 there
was a large anti-war lobby.

At various times Hitler attempted peace with the UK. Rudolph Hess came to
Scotland to negotiate peace. He was to land at the Duke of Hamilton's
private air strip, with the Duke of Kent waiting for him there (the royal
family were scared as WW1 saw the end of the Russian and German monarchies).
Hess got lost and parachuted out in the area. The Brits were to refuel Hess
and he was to return to Germany the short way. His plane was allowed to fly
right over northern England and Scotland unmolested, flying towards Glasgow.
It was seen on radar all the way. Normally a fast plane plane like this
would be intercepted and tackled, as lone fast German planes did much damage
around Glasgow. Hess had attempted 2 other missions but had to abort
because of various problems. Messerschmitt adapted the plane with long
range tanks and other equipment for the flight. Churchill locked him up and
refused to speak to him.

By prolonging Britain's involvement in WW2, Britain was utterly bankrupt and
lost an Empire very quickly after WW2. However the standard of living for
the masses rose after WW2, so the people did not suffer the indignities of
pre WW2.


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.558 / Virus Database: 350 - Release Date: 02/01/2004