₦airaland Forum

doyin13:
Well funny how her party is shaped more in the image of New Labour rather than on a not too distant Thatcherite era

New Labour(what do you think the 'New' was for)was clearly modeled on many of Thatcher's ideas.Labor moved away from its socialist redistributionist idealism to a more free market philosophy.

Thatcher's case was one of familiarity breeding contempt.She didn't lose her grip on power because of her neo-liberal economic policies-her biggest setback was when she instituted a new tax,the poll tax!-it was because as she stayed longer in power,her reign became more autocratic.The nation grew tired of her as a person not the ideas she represented many of which were adopted by Blair under the guise of "New Labor."When she strayed away from neo-liberal economics,for instance with the poll tax,her popularity suffered.

The 80's are now considered the era of City Yuppy excess, lax FSA regulation, where coporate raiders made out like
highway bandits and the current Labour government has had to spend through its nose to make up for the shortfall
in investments in education, the health service, railways, housing etc.

What are you talking about?Britain was one of the poorest countries in Western Europe in the 70s,taking aid from the EU and the IMF.Thatcher nearly doubled the nation's income per capita and most people experienced major rises in income.If things were so bad,why did the Tories get 18 years in office?

Lax FSA regulation?My friend,it was Thatcher that actually created this financial services regulator in 1985.

The irony is. . .despite all the cutbacks- - -- - - - - - -she spent more than the Governments that came before her Shocked Shocked Go Figure

and don't equate Militant Unionism with social democracy.

She didn't spend more.What matters is Govt spending as a percentage of GDP.Using your logic,when the US GDP totalled $1trillion and Govt spending was 10% of that,a Govt that spends 8% of GDP when the economy is now $1.5trillion is spending more money.

James Callaghan's weaknesses as a leader and his lack of cahoonies in fighting the unions should not be seen
as a weakness of social democracy

The biggest sign of the weakness of social democracy is the rare number of people who lived in that era who want a return to such leftist utopia of the 70s.Its easy for young people who never experienced having to wait 3 months for a BT line or living in one of Western Europe's poorest countries to wax lyrical about social democracy.History tells us it was an abject failure.

Unfortunately,since the campaign heated up,Obama and Clinton have chosen to pander to the baseless fears of Americans about trade.

Many Americans think free trade,as symbolised by NAFTA,represents one of the major ills of the American economy.This is clearly wrong.

This is one of the areas I fault Obama.His demagoguery on this issue is appalling. He is calling for the US's trade pact with Mexico and Canada to be re-negotiated as if NAFTA hasn't benefited the US.Is this how he intends to improve relations with America's allies?By going back on agreements already entered into by the US.

doyin13:
But this is the koko. . . .

Which Government has the strength of character to sit out a bust and do nothing while voters see their homes foreclosed or their livelihoods lost
abroad.

Politicians are not in the business of losing elections. . . .whether of the GOP or Democrat kind

Of course,economic logic often has to give way to political pragmatism but that doesn't negate the logic of the economics.However,like I noted earlier,certain types of politicians-those of leftist leanings-are more prepared to dip into the Govt's purse in pursuit of hare-brained populist policies.

doyin13:
So because Exxon pays that much in taxes. . . .we should not condemn them
if they go wrong. . . .

Even that Scion of Conservative America, Bill O'Reilly has cried wolf over the punishment which higher gas prices
have wreaked on the ordinary folks while they are making record setting profits.

The question is whether Exxon has gone wrong.They have paid their taxes and comply with the law,what else do people want them to do?Higher gas prices are the inevitable result of higher crude oil prices.Is it Exxon that put up crude prices?

What about US politicians that have prevented the construction of refineries in the US for decades or drilling in many parts of the US?

The ironic thing is that Big Oil hasn't even passed the full costs of higher crude prices to consumers.Think of it,around 99,oil prices were $9p/b,today they are around $100p/b-more than a 10 fold increase. Have gas prices gone up more than 10 fold since then?No.So what else do they want Big Oil to do?

It is with the profits that Big Oil makes today that it can make the necessary investments to keep up with America's future energy demands.Start taking away that money from them and they will have less to invest for the future.

Kobojunkie:
I don't mean to be one who does not like to research the oil industries much but last I heard these companies made about 128 billion dollars, combined, in profits alone last year. How can they make that much profit on just 7 or 8 cents per gallon of gas??

Most of their profits comes from the upstream sector-extraction.Very little comes from retail in gas stations.

doyin13:
Hmmm. . . .what they are willing to do is a lot different than what they actually do

Thatcher made her Cabinet read Hayek's tome but her government largely went the way of those before hers.

She spent money and alas on fewer social programmes. . . .The rich got richer, investments in Public services suffered despite all the
privatisations and people generally felt worse off.

Before Thatcher,when you wanted a phone line,it was a Govt enterprise that was responsible-BT.If you wanted to travel,you almost always used a Govt airline-BA.If you went to fill up your car with fuel,you bought from a Govt owned outlet often run by BP. If you think life was better in those days,fair enough.

What is clear is that by any measure,living standards and general income levels rose remarkably under Thatcher.If you want to live in era when the unions were always on strike-refuse littered the streets-you obviously don't appreciate how bad it used to be.

That is why the Brits kept the Tories in power for 18 years.Nobody want to go back to the late 70s when Britain had to go cap in hand to beg the IMF for money

doyin13:
but I am increasingly wary of this connect between lesser taxes and availaibility of capital.

Not all taxes reduce capital but much of Obama's tax planning calls for increase in taxes on corporations and investors.

So what say you 4play about solutions to the present Credit Crunch. . . . . .Reduce taxes further to
so that the Rich would feel more inclined to release their capital. . . .

Of course that is disastrous. , . . .Sentiments ultimately determine economic performance.

Sentiments usually follow economic developments.No period of strong economic growth has ever been achieved through tax hikes.

With regards to the credit crunch,nothing has to be done by the Govt.If the Govt bails out the debtors it rewards both them and their creditors for their bad judgment which increases this risk of future re-occurrence because many would always expect the Govt to bail them out in the event of a crash.

While tax reduction might leave some people undoubtedly feeling a bit wealthier, if there is a prevailing sense
of uncertainty, parting with their cash will be the last thing on their mind. . . .

In addition. . . .people are willing to part with more cash as taxes as long as they feel economic prospects are steady.

Its quite simple,in an economic downturn,people's moods are not going to be improved by seeing higher deductions from their paychecks every month.

doyin13:
I don't knw what kind of laissez faire Valhalla you want your government to be.

Governments want to leave legacies. . .it is a non academic generalisation but i contend a historical truism.

Too many egos involved.

Thus they will spend your money anyway. . . .

You are missing the point when you keep talking of spending.Some politicians are prepared to spend more than others.Of course,Govt must spend money,how else will it function? But there are certain limits as to how much the Govt should spend at any given time or for what purposes.

The way leftist politicians demonise businesses.One may easily forget that its those businesses and the entrepreneurial class in general that constitute the financial lifeline of the Govt.

Kobojunkie:
WHAT !!!!!

I found this link to WSJ's Steve Moore's analysis of Obamanomics

Also:http://www.babalublog.com/archives/007427.html

doyin13:
But what I don't understand is why someone like Reagan is not indicted in the same
manner for his errant spending.

it seems overblown expenditures on 'nationalistic' schemes are okay
but for social programs, there are a no-no.

Overblown?Reagan's defense spending quickened the demise of the Soviet Union.You cannot put a price to national security.

Even then,looked at as a percentage of GDP,Reagan did cut spending in addition to cutting taxes,thus ushering a period of economic growth in the 80s.

doyin13:
That is what I don't understand with you libertarians. . . . . .

If you imagine that there is a government out there that would not spend, then you are naive.
Governments love to spend. . . .it is the method by which they raise their spending money that differs.

Even the GOP legend Reagan spent more than most.
Small Government is a fallacy. . . .Jeez

Clearly,some Govts spend more than others.That is stating the obvious.The indictment against Obama is based on a spending pledge that puts him firmly in the "Big Govt" camp

4Him:
boiled onions usually go very well with salads. Boiled onions with steamed irish potatoes and eggs . . . add some peas, corn and baked beans . . . AH!!!

like my mum would say . . . you people are bush people.

You sure say no be you Bright Chimezie dey sing about way back? About a Nigerian man in the West who prompted his white neighbors to dial the emergency services because the food he was eating made them think he was suicidal

@Tayo-D

Obama's spending plans will add an extra $800bn to the FG's spending.Some guy at the WSJ did the maths on Obama's spending plans:It will add up to a '39.6 percent personal income tax, a 52.2 percent combined income and payroll tax, a 28 percent capital-gains tax, a 39.6 percent dividends tax, and a 55 percent estate tax.'

[quote author=D-reloaded link=topic=116343.msg2010605#msg2010605 date=1204323062]I thought the thought of admitting black students in was actually what caused the video?? [/quote]Could you imagine,their hostel residences are segregated along racial lines and it was against attempts to end such segregation that the Whites were protesting.

Culled from the Times:

The video, which was made to protest against moves to integrate blacks and whites in the same residences, shows the students forcing the women cleaners to drink beer and perform athletic tasks.

More clashes are expected as the university accelerates plans for integration among the 25,000 students - 55 per cent of whom are black.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/africa/article3455796.ece

Na James Peters,abi Shina Peters?

The man is a reputable coach in the domestic league. . . . .don't know whether he can do it at international level but I guess he is there on a temporary basis.

Btw a janitor isnt above a student eps in that kind of environment. Seeing that it's an all white school, those workers arent above anything;

Read somewhere that the school is 55% black

Kobojunkie:
Hold up!!!! LMAO!!!! the Blacks involved knew it was Urine stew and ate it cause they felt they were going to be on FEAR FACTOR The motive can be racism for the whites and I do not question it but can the blacks in this case cry racism is my deal??

What is essential is the motive of the Whites in this case.What the Blacks were thinking is irrelevant.If a mental retard is racially abused,would it matter that the retard thought he was actually being praised?

@doyin

I once saw an obituary,this was the coolest name I have ever seen,from an Igbo perspective though-Sir Joseph Olatoto!. . . . . .bleeping brilliant!

Are there any more Yorubas with such a name? Olatoto. . . . .what a name!

Barack Hussein Obama _{Love that middle name} is taking heat for purportedly making the following comment ,[url=http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=I+will+stand+with+the+Great Ones+should+the+political+winds+shift+in+an+ugly+direction&hl=en&start=0&sa=N]"I will stand with them(M'uslims) should the political winds shift in an ugly direction." [/url] in his book,The Audacity Of Hope.

[quote author=D-reloaded link=topic=116574.msg2010082#msg2010082 date=1204312554]Lmao the myth is actually the bigger the HANDs then. . .

not the ears [/quote]Its the index finger versus "ring" finger that tells you how much testosterone a baby was exposed to at birth or something to that effect.By extension,this tells us something about the size of a man's abunna. . . . .the shorter your index finger vis-a-vis your ring finger,the higher your pre-birth testosterone level and the bigger your abunna.

Conversely,women with shorter index fingers vis-avis ring fingers are more likely to be lesbian or bi-sexual.

http://www.viewzone.com/fingers.html

spoilt:
he says she was a flirt ! he'll just insist it was consensual. and the classical argument, he's a minor too.

A 5 year old flirt?

I'm sure they mean some residents,not all,of the aforementioned states.

spoilt:
we've seen this scenario playing out over and over again. when the child is older and conscience has pricked him to kingdom come he comes back haggard and ravaged begging for time with the child.

Good choice of word. Prick. . . . .that should describe the man in this story.

Tornadoz:
Isn't this the very reason you hate Cuba?

I hate Castro because he is a thieving,murderous,sit-tight dictator who is responsible for jailing and killing thousands of Cubans merely for the sin of exercising their freedom of conscience.

Am against injustice anywhere in the world but unlike you, am not ignorant of the 50yrs aggression the US has waged against tiny Cuba for removing the American puppet govt of Baptista

Where is the logical correlation between the latter part of your statement and the former?Once again,do you tell relatives of jailed or murdered Cubans that they have to endure such outrages simply because "Castro defied the US"?Its as if your dislike of injustice is merely an aside to the more blinding prejudice of the US which you bring to your analysis.

Put simply,you can dislike the US's misguided foreign policies while also disliking the Castro regime.The two are not, by the slightest bit of the imagination,logically incompatible.

Whilst you're rebuking Castro for his human rights record, care to say a few words about other friendly American dictators like those in Pakistan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia? Visit the residents of New Orleans and preach this utopia called America.

Isn't the hallmark of the clueless to refer to irrelevant matters?The day you will see me putting in a good word for the Egyptian,Pakistani and Saudi regimes,please get back to me.

That Castro's regime has been one of the most repressive regimes in the Western hemisphere is irrefragable.What that has to do with the M'uslim world including countries such as Egypt and Pakistan beggars belief.

Nobody has said that the US is utopia but referring to the downtrodden in the US simply doesn't explain why this supposedly "brilliant" Castro regime has prompted its citizens to risk life and limb fleeing to their less than utopian Northern neighbor.

almondjoy:
Women get pregnant, not men. They should take better care of themselves instead of being used as an exit ramp rest stop area. It is a big lesson! I do not blame the man at all. He is married with his own family. He should have protected himself too. But guess what? Women get pregnant not men!

Unless its a case of the immaculate conception,it takes a man to get a woman pregnant so the man is just as blameworthy.

RichyBlacK:
Or, are you going to question Desmond Tutu's assertion? You may think that those of us who feel this way are a bunch of Nairaland activists, but you just have to stop and wonder when people like Desmond Tutu speak on our side.

This is the hallmark of the booboisie. They think a point is valid because its ipso facto supported by folks like Tutu.That would,for instance,entail that those who support ordaining openly homosexual Christians as clergy are right because,mirabile dictu,Tutu supports it!!

Tutu equated Israel with apartheid South Africa,so? Tutu seems to have a knack for such asinine equations.He equated prohibiting gay clergy men to racism.

Always argue your own points and don't hide behind fallible men.

@JustGood

The message not the messenger,please.

Yet another Obama thread,apologies to SabiSabi.

I saw this interesting article in the Times(the real Times not the Yank version)

One of Britain’s most influential black figures today accused Barack Obama of cynically exploiting America’s racial divide and gave warning that he could prolong, rather than heal the rift.Writing in Prospect, the monthly current affairs magazine, Mr Phillips suggested that guilt over transatlantic slavery was behind Mr Obama’s support from middle class whites.

"If Obama can succeed, then maybe they can imagine that [Martin Luther] King's post-racial nirvana has arrived. A vote for Obama is a pain-free negation of their own racism. So long as they don't have to live next door to him; Obama has yet to win convincingly in white districts adjacent to black communities," he wrote.

I fail to see how an Obama victory makes matters worse.

Mr Phillips compared Mr Obama to Bill Cosby and Oprah Winfrey, prominent black “bargainers” – those who strike a deal with white America not to make an issue of historical racism if their own race is not used against them.

But, in a warning to the Democratic candidate, he added that Cosby now cut a “sad and lonely figure” because he had abandoned the moral weapon used by figures such as Marcus Garvey, Malcolm X and Jesse Jackson in insisting that “in the end, salvation for blacks won’t depend on the actions of whites.”

"In truth, Obama may be helping to postpone the arrival of a post-racial America and I think he knows it," Mr Phillips wrote. "If he wins, the cynicism may be worth it to him and his party. In the end he is a politician and a very good one: his job is to win elections."

He added: "If he fulfils the hopes of whites, he must disappoint blacks – and vice versa."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article3451323.ece

Tornadoz:
I see I-man/4play still don't get it.

What is obvious to most adults and even the less discerning people in the world, is Cuba withstood everything the mighty US threw at it. Be it the disastrous attempt at invassion or the economic strangulation, Castro emerged stronger.

Therein lies the nub of the pro-Castro twaddle.Castro is feted by the anti-US mob not because of how he has treated the Cuban people but on one sophomoric ground-he defied the US.But is "defying" the US an end in itself? To what purpose was this defiance conducted?

Tornadoz notes that Castro "emerged stronger" Unless Tornadoz is a member of the Castro family accruing personal benefits from Castro's dictatorship,how does Castro emerging stronger justify his failure to improve the pitiable lot of the Cuban people as was vividly noted in this article?

Yet,these Castro apologists miss a very important point-very little of the US's policy excuses Cuba's current situation.Is it because of the US trade embargo that Castro locks up journalists,critics and human rights activists?Does US policy excuse Castro's embezzlement of Cuban money,his sit-tight dictatorship,Cuba's abject lack of respect for the human rights of its own citizens?For all the thousands of Cubans who have been executed or jailed on flimsy grounds,is Tornadoz telling their relatives that they deserve their lot because Castro "defied the US"?

Castro runs a communist central-planned economy,anybody with an iota of knowledge of history knows that such an economic philosophy has,without exception,proven a failure in every single nation on the planet throughout history.For 4 decades,Cuba was a vassal state of the Soviet Union,no one needs a reminder of what happened to that country.Perhaps,these economic illiterates believe that Cuba would have proved an exception in what has been a litany of failures for communist central planning.

It is not the US's trade embargo that is responsible for Cuba's dire economic situation,it is Castro's belief in a communist economic model that has never worked anywhere on the planet.

You wonder why the people of Mexico,India or Nigeria don't wax lyrical about their leaders, it may shock you but they do. Next time you meet an Indian ask him about a man named Mahatma Gandhi and whilst you are at it ask any Nigerian about Murtala.

Its obvious Tornadoz's ignorance is encyclopedic.Ghandi was never a leader of what we today know as India.It will be the height of folly to waste time arguing whether Nigerians,Indians and Mexicans have held their various leaders in high regard.If Tornadoz thinks Nigerians love our leaders,he needs to stay off that Benin liquor.

America may attract lots of immigrants by virture of its wealth but there are other reasons why people emigrate. For example there are between 600000 and 700000 Americans living in Canada and about 150 to 200000 living in Britain (to name just 2 countries).

What does the above drivel address? Isn't one of the fundamental responsibilities of a nations leaders,nay the one template by which they can be objectively assessed,the wealth and living standards of its citizenry?What good is a nation's leadership if its citizens feel the best way they can fulfill their God-given potentials is to risk life and limb by fleeing on boat to other countries? All the Castro apologists have succeeded in showing is that the Castro regime is only better than the motley collection of looters that have ruled Nigeria.However,praising any Western country's leaders by favorably comparing it with an African country is quite telling.

I remember advising you to stop gorging yourself in rascist pamphlets but you won't. Seems you still dash to known rascist archives to lift ideas and regurgitate their hate-filled fiction here. Shame on you.

This is coming from a recidivist nitwit who regularly cites White supremacists like Frank Weltner to buttress his point about Israel.

Bawss1:
Its high time the Senate moves a bill to outlaw extravagant weddings!

This will prompt an uprising from women that will make the Aba women's riot look like child's play

Afam:
The US has taught Turkey well, invade any country you like and explain your actions to the birds.

This is the problem with those who see the world through the prism of anti-Americanism.To the extent that there are victims of Turkey's policy,it is the Kurdish inhabitants of Northern Iraq first and foremost and not the US.So the sophomoric twaddle about "teaching the US well" is absurd.

Tornadoz:
Reading the posts on this thread, its any one's guess what three shallow minded people can produce. To argue how many boats are leaving Cuba is to argue why Indians hide in luggage compartments to "flee" to the UK, or why most Mexicans would risk limbs to emigrate to the US. The Cuban boat people was over hyped for political reasons and we all know it. There are close to 12million Mexicans in the US and Mexico is not a communist country. The fact is the US has the largest economy in the world and so tend to attract immigrants.
The laughable thing about the posts on this thread is that most of the people bashing this boat people are themselves "plane people" from Nigeria. Was 4play/I-man fleeing from communist Nigeria? Faced with an invassion Castro did for Cuba what any patriotic leader would do for his country. He will forever remain a hero to most people around the world.

Certainly,that puts to rest any suggestion that Cuba is somewhat an oasis of success from which very few of its inhabitants,except the so called elitist anti-revolutionaries,will seek to flee. Cuba is just like many decrepit 3rd world nations,the citizens of which regularly seek an escape.

This leaves the question,what then is the hoopla about Castro? You certainly don't get the people of Mexico,India or Nigeria waxing lyrical about their leaders.The little we hear from Cuban escapees tells us that they are sick of Castro and one can deduce that Cubans are similarly minded.Disagree?There is one simple way to find out-hold multi-party elections for the 1st time since 1959

Any person who isn't a knuckle head will realise one thing-no successful leader will desist from putting his popularity to a vote.What is he afraid of since 1959?Surely,if he is such an accomplished leader,why not allow the people of Cuba organise a regular multi-party political system.Why stop ordinary people from freely voicing their opinion?Why stop Cubans from exercising their rights to movement,free speech,religion or many other personal liberties?

The best the Castro apologists can muster is effectively,Cuba isn't as bad as Nigeria.Such talk in itself tells you something.When Nigeria has now become a template for measuring success,their viewpoint is obviously on life support.