Discussion:
uk gdp is already above the wreckage levels left by fascist 'new' labour
Add Reply
abelard
2020-09-12 11:01:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Loading Image...
Farmer Giles
2020-09-12 11:06:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by abelard
https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2020/09/11/10/33049630-8722041-image-a-67_1599818170675.jpg
And much of it the result of government borrowing.
JNugent
2020-09-12 11:10:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by abelard
https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2020/09/11/10/33049630-8722041-image-a-67_1599818170675.jpg
Nice point, well-illustrated.

IOW, the output of the UK, as "low" as it currently is with all of our
current difficulties, was never higher under Labour as it is today and
was usually lower.
JNugent
2020-09-12 11:20:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by abelard
https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2020/09/11/10/33049630-8722041-image-a-67_1599818170675.jpg
Nice point, well-illustrated.
IOW, the output of the UK, as "low" as it currently is with all of our
current difficulties, was never higher under Labour as it is today and
was usually lower.
Groan...

Editing error... it should have been:

IOW, the output of the UK, as "low" as it currently is with all of our
current difficulties, was never higher under Labour than it is today and
was usually lower.
Farmer Giles
2020-09-12 12:03:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by JNugent
Post by abelard
https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2020/09/11/10/33049630-8722041-image-a-67_1599818170675.jpg
Nice point, well-illustrated.
IOW, the output of the UK, as "low" as it currently is with all of our
current difficulties, was never higher under Labour as it is today and
was usually lower.
Groan...
IOW, the output of the UK, as "low" as it currently is with all of our
current difficulties, was never higher under Labour than it is today and
 was usually lower.
I'd ask you to define 'output' if I thought your answer would be worth
the candle.
JNugent
2020-09-12 13:17:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by JNugent
Post by abelard
https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2020/09/11/10/33049630-8722041-image-a-67_1599818170675.jpg
Nice point, well-illustrated.
IOW, the output of the UK, as "low" as it currently is with all of
our current difficulties, was never higher under Labour as it is
today and was usually lower.
Groan...
IOW, the output of the UK, as "low" as it currently is with all of our
current difficulties, was never higher under Labour than it is today
and   was usually lower.
I'd ask you to define 'output' if I thought your answer would be worth
the candle.
You could always read the article and perhaps enquire of the author.
abelard
2020-09-12 13:33:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 12 Sep 2020 14:17:33 +0100, JNugent
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by JNugent
Post by abelard
https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2020/09/11/10/33049630-8722041-image-a-67_1599818170675.jpg
Nice point, well-illustrated.
IOW, the output of the UK, as "low" as it currently is with all of
our current difficulties, was never higher under Labour as it is
today and was usually lower.
Groan...
IOW, the output of the UK, as "low" as it currently is with all of our
current difficulties, was never higher under Labour than it is today
and   was usually lower.
I'd ask you to define 'output' if I thought your answer would be worth
the candle.
i'll correct it for you swedehead
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
I'd ask you to define 'output' if could think or could understand
your answer
would be worth the candle.
you can't even afford a candle...your 'thoughts' ain't
even worth a devalued penny, let alone a burnt down
candle
Post by JNugent
You could always read the article and perhaps enquire of the author.
i've got the faker kf'd....he'll have to change his nym again!
Farmer Giles
2020-09-12 13:54:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by abelard
On Sat, 12 Sep 2020 14:17:33 +0100, JNugent
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by JNugent
Post by abelard
https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2020/09/11/10/33049630-8722041-image-a-67_1599818170675.jpg
Nice point, well-illustrated.
IOW, the output of the UK, as "low" as it currently is with all of
our current difficulties, was never higher under Labour as it is
today and was usually lower.
Groan...
IOW, the output of the UK, as "low" as it currently is with all of our
current difficulties, was never higher under Labour than it is today
and   was usually lower.
I'd ask you to define 'output' if I thought your answer would be worth
the candle.
i'll correct it for you swedehead
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
I'd ask you to define 'output' if could think or could understand
your answer
would be worth the candle.
you can't even afford a candle...your 'thoughts' ain't
even worth a devalued penny, let alone a burnt down
candle
Post by JNugent
You could always read the article and perhaps enquire of the author.
i've got the faker kf'd....he'll have to change his nym again!
As if anyone gives a toss about a moron like you and your 'kf' - and
that's leaving aside the fact that you keep replying to me anyway.
Farmer Giles
2020-09-12 13:56:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by JNugent
Post by abelard
https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2020/09/11/10/33049630-8722041-image-a-67_1599818170675.jpg
Nice point, well-illustrated.
IOW, the output of the UK, as "low" as it currently is with all of
our current difficulties, was never higher under Labour as it is
today and was usually lower.
Groan...
IOW, the output of the UK, as "low" as it currently is with all of
our current difficulties, was never higher under Labour than it is
today and   was usually lower.
I'd ask you to define 'output' if I thought your answer would be worth
the candle.
You could always read the article and perhaps enquire of the author.
An 'author' in the Daily Mail - might as well as you or that other idiot
Babbelard.
Keema's Nan
2020-09-12 14:55:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by JNugent
Post by abelard
https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2020/09/11/10/33049630-8722041-image-a-67_1
599818170675.jpg
Nice point, well-illustrated.
IOW, the output of the UK, as "low" as it currently is with all of
our current difficulties, was never higher under Labour as it is
today and was usually lower.
Groan...
IOW, the output of the UK, as "low" as it currently is with all of
our current difficulties, was never higher under Labour than it is
today and was usually lower.
I'd ask you to define 'output' if I thought your answer would be worth
the candle.
You could always read the article and perhaps enquire of the author.
An 'author' in the Daily Mail - might as well as you or that other idiot
Babbelard.
It would appear that Nugent loves the figures; but maybe someone could tell
me how after 200,000 job losses and almost 10,000,000 furloughed at one
point, our GDP figure can even approach the pre-Covid number?
JNugent
2020-09-12 15:08:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by JNugent
Post by abelard
https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2020/09/11/10/33049630-8722041-image-a-67_1
599818170675.jpg
Nice point, well-illustrated.
IOW, the output of the UK, as "low" as it currently is with all of
our current difficulties, was never higher under Labour as it is
today and was usually lower.
Groan...
IOW, the output of the UK, as "low" as it currently is with all of
our current difficulties, was never higher under Labour than it is
today and was usually lower.
I'd ask you to define 'output' if I thought your answer would be worth
the candle.
You could always read the article and perhaps enquire of the author.
An 'author' in the Daily Mail - might as well as you or that other idiot
Babbelard.
It would appear that Nugent loves the figures; but maybe someone could tell
me how after 200,000 job losses and almost 10,000,000 furloughed at one
point, our GDP figure can even approach the pre-Covid number?
The answer is that it doesn't.

But the graph includes the last several years of the period in office of
the final Labour government and at no stage does that graph show that
output was higher during that period than it is now (let alone earlier
this year).

I'd already said that a slightly different way, as: ...the output of the
UK, as "low" as it currently is with all of our current difficulties,
was never higher under Labour as it is today and was usually lower".
JNugent
2020-09-12 15:05:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by JNugent
Post by abelard
https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2020/09/11/10/33049630-8722041-image-a-67_1599818170675.jpg
Nice point, well-illustrated.
IOW, the output of the UK, as "low" as it currently is with all of
our current difficulties, was never higher under Labour as it is
today and was usually lower.
Groan...
IOW, the output of the UK, as "low" as it currently is with all of
our current difficulties, was never higher under Labour than it is
today and   was usually lower.
I'd ask you to define 'output' if I thought your answer would be
worth the candle.
You could always read the article and perhaps enquire of the author.
An 'author' in the Daily Mail - might as well as you or that other idiot
Babbelard.
Sticking a finger in each ear and shouting "La la la la - I can't hear
you" is so much easier than trying to prove that the figures are incorrect.
Farmer Giles
2020-09-12 15:13:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by JNugent
Post by abelard
https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2020/09/11/10/33049630-8722041-image-a-67_1599818170675.jpg
Nice point, well-illustrated.
IOW, the output of the UK, as "low" as it currently is with all of
our current difficulties, was never higher under Labour as it is
today and was usually lower.
Groan...
IOW, the output of the UK, as "low" as it currently is with all of
our current difficulties, was never higher under Labour than it is
today and   was usually lower.
I'd ask you to define 'output' if I thought your answer would be
worth the candle.
You could always read the article and perhaps enquire of the author.
An 'author' in the Daily Mail - might as well as you or that other
idiot Babbelard.
Sticking a finger in each ear and shouting "La la la la - I can't hear
you" is so much easier than trying to prove that the figures are incorrect.
I don't know if they're correct or not, or care - they're just meaningless.
Keema's Nan
2020-09-12 15:33:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by JNugent
Post by abelard
https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2020/09/11/10/33049630-8722041-image-a-67
_1599818170675.jpg
Nice point, well-illustrated.
IOW, the output of the UK, as "low" as it currently is with all of
our current difficulties, was never higher under Labour as it is
today and was usually lower.
Groan...
IOW, the output of the UK, as "low" as it currently is with all of
our current difficulties, was never higher under Labour than it is
today and was usually lower.
I'd ask you to define 'output' if I thought your answer would be
worth the candle.
You could always read the article and perhaps enquire of the author.
An 'author' in the Daily Mail - might as well as you or that other
idiot Babbelard.
Sticking a finger in each ear and shouting "La la la la - I can't hear
you" is so much easier than trying to prove that the figures are incorrect.
I don't know if they're correct or not, or care - they're just meaningless.
Ah, but despite not having any guide to what the numbers on the left hand
axis refer to, the dimwits will think that graph is highly scientific.

They believe everything they read in the Mail, as it couldn’t possibly lie
- or even be biased and/or misleading.
JNugent
2020-09-13 13:18:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by JNugent
Post by abelard
https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2020/09/11/10/33049630-8722041-image-a-67_1599818170675.jpg
Nice point, well-illustrated.
IOW, the output of the UK, as "low" as it currently is with all
of our current difficulties, was never higher under Labour as it
is today and was usually lower.
Groan...
IOW, the output of the UK, as "low" as it currently is with all of
our current difficulties, was never higher under Labour than it is
today and   was usually lower.
I'd ask you to define 'output' if I thought your answer would be
worth the candle.
You could always read the article and perhaps enquire of the author.
An 'author' in the Daily Mail - might as well as you or that other
idiot Babbelard.
Sticking a finger in each ear and shouting "La la la la - I can't hear
you" is so much easier than trying to prove that the figures are incorrect.
I don't know if they're correct or not, or care - they're just meaningless.
That's almost as easy as sticking a finger in each ear.
Farmer Giles
2020-09-13 16:34:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by JNugent
Post by abelard
https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2020/09/11/10/33049630-8722041-image-a-67_1599818170675.jpg
Nice point, well-illustrated.
IOW, the output of the UK, as "low" as it currently is with all
of our current difficulties, was never higher under Labour as it
is today and was usually lower.
Groan...
IOW, the output of the UK, as "low" as it currently is with all
of our current difficulties, was never higher under Labour than
it is today and   was usually lower.
I'd ask you to define 'output' if I thought your answer would be
worth the candle.
You could always read the article and perhaps enquire of the author.
An 'author' in the Daily Mail - might as well as you or that other
idiot Babbelard.
Sticking a finger in each ear and shouting "La la la la - I can't
hear you" is so much easier than trying to prove that the figures are
incorrect.
I don't know if they're correct or not, or care - they're just meaningless.
That's almost as easy as sticking a finger in each ear.
Go on then, tell me all about this 'output of the UK' - what does it
consist of, and how was it measured and by whom?
JNugent
2020-09-13 16:42:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by JNugent
Post by abelard
https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2020/09/11/10/33049630-8722041-image-a-67_1599818170675.jpg
Nice point, well-illustrated.
IOW, the output of the UK, as "low" as it currently is with all
of our current difficulties, was never higher under Labour as
it is today and was usually lower.
Groan...
IOW, the output of the UK, as "low" as it currently is with all
of our current difficulties, was never higher under Labour than
it is today and   was usually lower.
I'd ask you to define 'output' if I thought your answer would be
worth the candle.
You could always read the article and perhaps enquire of the author.
An 'author' in the Daily Mail - might as well as you or that other
idiot Babbelard.
Sticking a finger in each ear and shouting "La la la la - I can't
hear you" is so much easier than trying to prove that the figures
are incorrect.
I don't know if they're correct or not, or care - they're just meaningless.
That's almost as easy as sticking a finger in each ear.
Go on then, tell me all about this 'output of the UK' - what does it
consist of, and how was it measured and by whom?
Have you read the relevant article?

If you have, you know the answer.

If you haven't, why not?
Farmer Giles
2020-09-13 16:42:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by JNugent
Post by abelard
https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2020/09/11/10/33049630-8722041-image-a-67_1599818170675.jpg
Nice point, well-illustrated.
IOW, the output of the UK, as "low" as it currently is with
all of our current difficulties, was never higher under Labour
as it is today and was usually lower.
Groan...
IOW, the output of the UK, as "low" as it currently is with all
of our current difficulties, was never higher under Labour than
it is today and   was usually lower.
I'd ask you to define 'output' if I thought your answer would be
worth the candle.
You could always read the article and perhaps enquire of the author.
An 'author' in the Daily Mail - might as well as you or that other
idiot Babbelard.
Sticking a finger in each ear and shouting "La la la la - I can't
hear you" is so much easier than trying to prove that the figures
are incorrect.
I don't know if they're correct or not, or care - they're just meaningless.
That's almost as easy as sticking a finger in each ear.
Go on then, tell me all about this 'output of the UK' - what does it
consist of, and how was it measured and by whom?
Have you read the relevant article?
If you have, you know the answer.
If you haven't, why not?
Because I don't need to. I was referring to your comments, nothing else
- and they weren't in quotes. Now, about this UK output?
Keema's Nan
2020-09-13 17:30:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by JNugent
Post by abelard
https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2020/09/11/10/33049630-8722041-image-
a-67_1599818170675.jpg
Nice point, well-illustrated.
IOW, the output of the UK, as "low" as it currently is with
all of our current difficulties, was never higher under Labour
as it is today and was usually lower.
Groan...
IOW, the output of the UK, as "low" as it currently is with all
of our current difficulties, was never higher under Labour than
it is today and was usually lower.
I'd ask you to define 'output' if I thought your answer would be
worth the candle.
You could always read the article and perhaps enquire of the author.
An 'author' in the Daily Mail - might as well as you or that other
idiot Babbelard.
Sticking a finger in each ear and shouting "La la la la - I can't
hear you" is so much easier than trying to prove that the figures
are incorrect.
I don't know if they're correct or not, or care - they're just meaningless.
That's almost as easy as sticking a finger in each ear.
Go on then, tell me all about this 'output of the UK' - what does it
consist of, and how was it measured and by whom?
Have you read the relevant article?
If you have, you know the answer.
If you haven't, why not?
Because I don't need to. I was referring to your comments, nothing else
- and they weren't in quotes. Now, about this UK output?
What relevant article is our resident supreme dimwit waffling about?

The link posted here was to a graph, which is why it was a jpg file.

Perhaps he would like to link to a (or any) Daily Mail article which he
considers to be relevant to life in the UK today?
Farmer Giles
2020-09-13 17:37:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by JNugent
Post by abelard
https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2020/09/11/10/33049630-8722041-image-
a-67_1599818170675.jpg
Nice point, well-illustrated.
IOW, the output of the UK, as "low" as it currently is with
all of our current difficulties, was never higher under Labour
as it is today and was usually lower.
Groan...
IOW, the output of the UK, as "low" as it currently is with all
of our current difficulties, was never higher under Labour than
it is today and was usually lower.
I'd ask you to define 'output' if I thought your answer would be
worth the candle.
You could always read the article and perhaps enquire of the author.
An 'author' in the Daily Mail - might as well as you or that other
idiot Babbelard.
Sticking a finger in each ear and shouting "La la la la - I can't
hear you" is so much easier than trying to prove that the figures
are incorrect.
I don't know if they're correct or not, or care - they're just meaningless.
That's almost as easy as sticking a finger in each ear.
Go on then, tell me all about this 'output of the UK' - what does it
consist of, and how was it measured and by whom?
Have you read the relevant article?
If you have, you know the answer.
If you haven't, why not?
Because I don't need to. I was referring to your comments, nothing else
- and they weren't in quotes. Now, about this UK output?
What relevant article is our resident supreme dimwit waffling about?
The link posted here was to a graph, which is why it was a jpg file.
Perhaps he would like to link to a (or any) Daily Mail article which he
considers to be relevant to life in the UK today?
The Daily Mail, and all the other lying rags, were useful when fish and
chips were wrapped in them - and, in some households, cut into squares
and hung up in the smallest room. Nowadays, they rarely even get used
for those purposes.
Keema's Nan
2020-09-13 17:46:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by JNugent
Post by abelard
https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2020/09/11/10/33049630-8722041-imag
e-
a-67_1599818170675.jpg
Nice point, well-illustrated.
IOW, the output of the UK, as "low" as it currently is with
all of our current difficulties, was never higher under Labour
as it is today and was usually lower.
Groan...
IOW, the output of the UK, as "low" as it currently is with all
of our current difficulties, was never higher under Labour than
it is today and was usually lower.
I'd ask you to define 'output' if I thought your answer would be
worth the candle.
You could always read the article and perhaps enquire of the author.
An 'author' in the Daily Mail - might as well as you or that other
idiot Babbelard.
Sticking a finger in each ear and shouting "La la la la - I can't
hear you" is so much easier than trying to prove that the figures
are incorrect.
I don't know if they're correct or not, or care - they're just
meaningless.
That's almost as easy as sticking a finger in each ear.
Go on then, tell me all about this 'output of the UK' - what does it
consist of, and how was it measured and by whom?
Have you read the relevant article?
If you have, you know the answer.
If you haven't, why not?
Because I don't need to. I was referring to your comments, nothing else
- and they weren't in quotes. Now, about this UK output?
What relevant article is our resident supreme dimwit waffling about?
The link posted here was to a graph, which is why it was a jpg file.
Perhaps he would like to link to a (or any) Daily Mail article which he
considers to be relevant to life in the UK today?
The Daily Mail, and all the other lying rags, were useful when fish and
chips were wrapped in them - and, in some households, cut into squares
and hung up in the smallest room. Nowadays, they rarely even get used
for those purposes.
I wouldn’t desecrate my arse with that paper, and even less with the
pro-masonic Telegraph.
Keema's Nan
2020-09-13 19:50:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by JNugent
Post by abelard
https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2020/09/11/10/33049630-8722041-imag
e-
a-67_1599818170675.jpg
Nice point, well-illustrated.
IOW, the output of the UK, as "low" as it currently is with
all of our current difficulties, was never higher under Labour
as it is today and was usually lower.
Groan...
IOW, the output of the UK, as "low" as it currently is with all
of our current difficulties, was never higher under Labour than
it is today and was usually lower.
I'd ask you to define 'output' if I thought your answer would be
worth the candle.
You could always read the article and perhaps enquire of the author.
An 'author' in the Daily Mail - might as well as you or that other
idiot Babbelard.
Sticking a finger in each ear and shouting "La la la la - I can't
hear you" is so much easier than trying to prove that the figures
are incorrect.
I don't know if they're correct or not, or care - they're just
meaningless.
That's almost as easy as sticking a finger in each ear.
Go on then, tell me all about this 'output of the UK' - what does it
consist of, and how was it measured and by whom?
Have you read the relevant article?
If you have, you know the answer.
If you haven't, why not?
Because I don't need to. I was referring to your comments, nothing else
- and they weren't in quotes. Now, about this UK output?
What relevant article is our resident supreme dimwit waffling about?
The link posted here was to a graph, which is why it was a jpg file.
Perhaps he would like to link to a (or any) Daily Mail article which he
considers to be relevant to life in the UK today?
The Daily Mail, and all the other lying rags, were useful when fish and
chips were wrapped in them - and, in some households, cut into squares
and hung up in the smallest room. Nowadays, they rarely even get used
for those purposes.
Isn’t the Daily Mail fronting a campaign to ‘get Britain flying again’
?

That will work wonders for their airline shareholdings and ad revenue - but
what will it do for air pollution and carbon emissions?

Only the totally selfish read that kind of crap.
JNugent
2020-09-14 00:10:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by JNugent
Post by abelard
https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2020/09/11/10/33049630-8722041-image-a-67_1599818170675.jpg
Nice point, well-illustrated.
IOW, the output of the UK, as "low" as it currently is with
all of our current difficulties, was never higher under
Labour as it is today and was usually lower.
Groan...
IOW, the output of the UK, as "low" as it currently is with
all of our current difficulties, was never higher under Labour
than it is today and   was usually lower.
I'd ask you to define 'output' if I thought your answer would
be worth the candle.
You could always read the article and perhaps enquire of the author.
An 'author' in the Daily Mail - might as well as you or that
other idiot Babbelard.
Sticking a finger in each ear and shouting "La la la la - I can't
hear you" is so much easier than trying to prove that the figures
are incorrect.
I don't know if they're correct or not, or care - they're just meaningless.
That's almost as easy as sticking a finger in each ear.
Go on then, tell me all about this 'output of the UK' - what does it
consist of, and how was it measured and by whom?
Have you read the relevant article?
If you have, you know the answer.
If you haven't, why not?
Because I don't need to. I was referring to your comments, nothing else
- and they weren't in quotes. Now, about this UK output?
See the graphic referred to.

It certainly was not something I created.

But you knew that all along.
Farmer Giles
2020-09-14 06:45:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by JNugent
Post by abelard
https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2020/09/11/10/33049630-8722041-image-a-67_1599818170675.jpg
Nice point, well-illustrated.
IOW, the output of the UK, as "low" as it currently is with
all of our current difficulties, was never higher under
Labour as it is today and was usually lower.
Groan...
IOW, the output of the UK, as "low" as it currently is with
all of our current difficulties, was never higher under
Labour than it is today and   was usually lower.
I'd ask you to define 'output' if I thought your answer would
be worth the candle.
You could always read the article and perhaps enquire of the author.
An 'author' in the Daily Mail - might as well as you or that
other idiot Babbelard.
Sticking a finger in each ear and shouting "La la la la - I can't
hear you" is so much easier than trying to prove that the figures
are incorrect.
I don't know if they're correct or not, or care - they're just meaningless.
That's almost as easy as sticking a finger in each ear.
Go on then, tell me all about this 'output of the UK' - what does it
consist of, and how was it measured and by whom?
Have you read the relevant article?
If you have, you know the answer.
If you haven't, why not?
Because I don't need to. I was referring to your comments, nothing
else - and they weren't in quotes. Now, about this UK output?
See the graphic referred to.
It certainly was not something I created.
But you knew that all along.
You said 'article'.

Either way it's all nonsense.

Why don't you tell us about the balance of payments and government
borrowing if you want to boast about how well your gang of crooks is doing?
Keema's Nan
2020-09-14 08:13:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by JNugent
Post by abelard
https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2020/09/11/10/33049630-8722041-imag
e-a-67_1599818170675.jpg
Nice point, well-illustrated.
IOW, the output of the UK, as "low" as it currently is with
all of our current difficulties, was never higher under
Labour as it is today and was usually lower.
Groan...
IOW, the output of the UK, as "low" as it currently is with
all of our current difficulties, was never higher under
Labour than it is today and was usually lower.
I'd ask you to define 'output' if I thought your answer would
be worth the candle.
You could always read the article and perhaps enquire of the
author.
An 'author' in the Daily Mail - might as well as you or that
other idiot Babbelard.
Sticking a finger in each ear and shouting "La la la la - I can't
hear you" is so much easier than trying to prove that the figures
are incorrect.
I don't know if they're correct or not, or care - they're just
meaningless.
That's almost as easy as sticking a finger in each ear.
Go on then, tell me all about this 'output of the UK' - what does it
consist of, and how was it measured and by whom?
Have you read the relevant article?
If you have, you know the answer.
If you haven't, why not?
Because I don't need to. I was referring to your comments, nothing
else - and they weren't in quotes. Now, about this UK output?
See the graphic referred to.
It certainly was not something I created.
But you knew that all along.
You said 'article'.
And now he says graphic.

Which shows just what a slimy little dishonest shit we are dealing with.
Post by Farmer Giles
Either way it's all nonsense.
It is, but I did find this graph which appears to be a little more realistic.

https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2020/09/09/22/32232492-8715817-
Pictured_graph_showing_debt_as_a_percentage_of_gross_national_pr-a-
44_1599688483797.jpg

But, it is buried half way down the page where Mail readers will never reach,
as they soon become distracted by photos of 15 year old girls waiting for
their 16th birthday.
Post by Farmer Giles
Why don't you tell us about the balance of payments and government
borrowing if you want to boast about how well your gang of crooks is doing?
Keema's Nan
2020-09-14 08:24:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by JNugent
Post by abelard
https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2020/09/11/10/33049630-8722041-ima
g
e-a-67_1599818170675.jpg
Nice point, well-illustrated.
IOW, the output of the UK, as "low" as it currently is with
all of our current difficulties, was never higher under
Labour as it is today and was usually lower.
Groan...
IOW, the output of the UK, as "low" as it currently is with
all of our current difficulties, was never higher under
Labour than it is today and was usually lower.
I'd ask you to define 'output' if I thought your answer would
be worth the candle.
You could always read the article and perhaps enquire of the
author.
An 'author' in the Daily Mail - might as well as you or that
other idiot Babbelard.
Sticking a finger in each ear and shouting "La la la la - I can't
hear you" is so much easier than trying to prove that the figures
are incorrect.
I don't know if they're correct or not, or care - they're just
meaningless.
That's almost as easy as sticking a finger in each ear.
Go on then, tell me all about this 'output of the UK' - what does it
consist of, and how was it measured and by whom?
Have you read the relevant article?
If you have, you know the answer.
If you haven't, why not?
Because I don't need to. I was referring to your comments, nothing
else - and they weren't in quotes. Now, about this UK output?
See the graphic referred to.
It certainly was not something I created.
But you knew that all along.
You said 'article'.
And now he says graphic.
Which shows just what a slimy little dishonest shit we are dealing with.
Post by Farmer Giles
Either way it's all nonsense.
It is, but I did find this graph which appears to be a little more realistic.
https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2020/09/09/22/32232492-8715817-
Pictured_graph_showing_debt_as_a_percentage_of_gross_national_pr-a-
44_1599688483797.jpg
And if that link doesn’t work, let me guide you through the graph which
shows UK debt as a percentage of UK GDP through the years.

From 1994-1997 it bumbles along at about 18% of GDP, rises slowly to just
over 30% of GDP under the Labour administration until the 2008 recession. It
then jumps to 40% in 2009, 50% in 2010, 60% in 2012, 70% in 2014, 80% in
2017, 90% in 2019; and now stands at just over 100% of GDP.
Post by Keema's Nan
But, it is buried half way down the page where Mail readers will never reach,
as they soon become distracted by photos of 15 year old girls waiting for
their 16th birthday.
Post by Farmer Giles
Why don't you tell us about the balance of payments and government
borrowing if you want to boast about how well your gang of crooks is doing?
Farmer Giles
2020-09-14 09:27:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by JNugent
Post by abelard
https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2020/09/11/10/33049630-8722041-ima
g
e-a-67_1599818170675.jpg
Nice point, well-illustrated.
IOW, the output of the UK, as "low" as it currently is with
all of our current difficulties, was never higher under
Labour as it is today and was usually lower.
Groan...
IOW, the output of the UK, as "low" as it currently is with
all of our current difficulties, was never higher under
Labour than it is today and was usually lower.
I'd ask you to define 'output' if I thought your answer would
be worth the candle.
You could always read the article and perhaps enquire of the author.
An 'author' in the Daily Mail - might as well as you or that
other idiot Babbelard.
Sticking a finger in each ear and shouting "La la la la - I can't
hear you" is so much easier than trying to prove that the figures
are incorrect.
I don't know if they're correct or not, or care - they're just meaningless.
That's almost as easy as sticking a finger in each ear.
Go on then, tell me all about this 'output of the UK' - what does it
consist of, and how was it measured and by whom?
Have you read the relevant article?
If you have, you know the answer.
If you haven't, why not?
Because I don't need to. I was referring to your comments, nothing
else - and they weren't in quotes. Now, about this UK output?
See the graphic referred to.
It certainly was not something I created.
But you knew that all along.
You said 'article'.
And now he says graphic.
Which shows just what a slimy little dishonest shit we are dealing with.
Post by Farmer Giles
Either way it's all nonsense.
It is, but I did find this graph which appears to be a little more realistic.
https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2020/09/09/22/32232492-8715817-
Pictured_graph_showing_debt_as_a_percentage_of_gross_national_pr-a-
44_1599688483797.jpg
And if that link doesn’t work, let me guide you through the graph which
shows UK debt as a percentage of UK GDP through the years.
From 1994-1997 it bumbles along at about 18% of GDP, rises slowly to just
over 30% of GDP under the Labour administration until the 2008 recession. It
then jumps to 40% in 2009, 50% in 2010, 60% in 2012, 70% in 2014, 80% in
2017, 90% in 2019; and now stands at just over 100% of GDP.
Post by Keema's Nan
But, it is buried half way down the page where Mail readers will never reach,
The link works - and if the slimeballs do reach it, they'll keep quiet
about that one.
Keema's Nan
2020-09-14 10:21:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by JNugent
Post by abelard
https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2020/09/11/10/33049630-8722041-i
ma
g
e-a-67_1599818170675.jpg
Nice point, well-illustrated.
IOW, the output of the UK, as "low" as it currently is with
all of our current difficulties, was never higher under
Labour as it is today and was usually lower.
Groan...
IOW, the output of the UK, as "low" as it currently is with
all of our current difficulties, was never higher under
Labour than it is today and was usually lower.
I'd ask you to define 'output' if I thought your answer would
be worth the candle.
You could always read the article and perhaps enquire of the
author.
An 'author' in the Daily Mail - might as well as you or that
other idiot Babbelard.
Sticking a finger in each ear and shouting "La la la la - I can't
hear you" is so much easier than trying to prove that the figures
are incorrect.
I don't know if they're correct or not, or care - they're just
meaningless.
That's almost as easy as sticking a finger in each ear.
Go on then, tell me all about this 'output of the UK' - what does it
consist of, and how was it measured and by whom?
Have you read the relevant article?
If you have, you know the answer.
If you haven't, why not?
Because I don't need to. I was referring to your comments, nothing
else - and they weren't in quotes. Now, about this UK output?
See the graphic referred to.
It certainly was not something I created.
But you knew that all along.
You said 'article'.
And now he says graphic.
Which shows just what a slimy little dishonest shit we are dealing with.
Post by Farmer Giles
Either way it's all nonsense.
It is, but I did find this graph which appears to be a little more realistic.
https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2020/09/09/22/32232492-8715817-
Pictured_graph_showing_debt_as_a_percentage_of_gross_national_pr-a-
44_1599688483797.jpg
And if that link doesn’t work, let me guide you through the graph which
shows UK debt as a percentage of UK GDP through the years.
From 1994-1997 it bumbles along at about 18% of GDP, rises slowly to just
over 30% of GDP under the Labour administration until the 2008 recession. It
then jumps to 40% in 2009, 50% in 2010, 60% in 2012, 70% in 2014, 80% in
2017, 90% in 2019; and now stands at just over 100% of GDP.
Post by Keema's Nan
But, it is buried half way down the page where Mail readers will never reach,
The link works - and if the slimeballs do reach it, they'll keep quiet
about that one.
The slime balls will still be asleep for a few hours.This is why posting in
the morning is such a bonus.

Apparently they all *live* in the UK but always (i.e. everyday) set their
alarms for 1300 BST, and are still posting at 0200 BST. They deny they are
prostitutes or night club bouncers/uber drivers/just eat moped riders, and so
we are left to guess at their strange professions - or the coincidental-ness
of their collective lies.
abelard
2020-09-14 10:47:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 14 Sep 2020 11:21:29 +0100, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
The slime balls will still be asleep for a few hours.This is why posting in
the morning is such a bonus.
Apparently they all *live* in the UK but always (i.e. everyday) set their
alarms for 1300 BST, and are still posting at 0200 BST. They deny they are
prostitutes or night club bouncers/uber drivers/just eat moped riders, and so
we are left to guess at their strange professions - or the coincidental-ness
of their collective lies.
i run my life on ny time...what is that to you?

you sleep while i work...what a lazy slob you must be!
Farmer Giles
2020-09-14 10:54:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by abelard
On Mon, 14 Sep 2020 11:21:29 +0100, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
The slime balls will still be asleep for a few hours.This is why posting in
the morning is such a bonus.
Apparently they all *live* in the UK but always (i.e. everyday) set their
alarms for 1300 BST, and are still posting at 0200 BST. They deny they are
prostitutes or night club bouncers/uber drivers/just eat moped riders, and so
we are left to guess at their strange professions - or the coincidental-ness
of their collective lies.
i run my life on ny time...what is that to you?
you sleep while i work...what a lazy slob you must be!
You've never done any work. Living off other people's efforts is not
work, it's parasitism.

That's right, you're a parasite.
Keema's Nan
2020-09-14 10:56:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by abelard
On Mon, 14 Sep 2020 11:21:29 +0100, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
The slime balls will still be asleep for a few hours.This is why posting in
the morning is such a bonus.
Apparently they all *live* in the UK but always (i.e. everyday) set their
alarms for 1300 BST, and are still posting at 0200 BST. They deny they are
prostitutes or night club bouncers/uber drivers/just eat moped riders, and so
we are left to guess at their strange professions - or the coincidental-ness
of their collective lies.
i run my life on ny time...what is that to you?
It makes you into a weirdo.
Post by abelard
you sleep while i work...what a lazy slob you must be!
abelard
2020-09-14 10:58:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 14 Sep 2020 11:56:47 +0100, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by abelard
On Mon, 14 Sep 2020 11:21:29 +0100, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
The slime balls will still be asleep for a few hours.This is why posting in
the morning is such a bonus.
Apparently they all *live* in the UK but always (i.e. everyday) set their
alarms for 1300 BST, and are still posting at 0200 BST. They deny they are
prostitutes or night club bouncers/uber drivers/just eat moped riders, and so
we are left to guess at their strange professions - or the coincidental-ness
of their collective lies.
i run my life on ny time...what is that to you?
It makes you into a weirdo.
i'll not contest on that one
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by abelard
you sleep while i work...what a lazy slob you must be!
Keema's Nan
2020-09-14 11:45:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by abelard
On Mon, 14 Sep 2020 11:56:47 +0100, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by abelard
On Mon, 14 Sep 2020 11:21:29 +0100, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
The slime balls will still be asleep for a few hours.This is why posting in
the morning is such a bonus.
Apparently they all *live* in the UK but always (i.e. everyday) set their
alarms for 1300 BST, and are still posting at 0200 BST. They deny they are
prostitutes or night club bouncers/uber drivers/just eat moped riders, and so
we are left to guess at their strange professions - or the coincidental-ness
of their collective lies.
i run my life on ny time...what is that to you?
It makes you into a weirdo.
i'll not contest on that one
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by abelard
you sleep while i work...what a lazy slob you must be!
I sleep when it is dark, which is the whole point of aligning the clocks to
maximise daylight.

Trying to work on a time zone which is 90degs(6 hours) west of where you
live, seems very illogical.
abelard
2020-09-14 11:56:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 14 Sep 2020 12:45:37 +0100, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by abelard
On Mon, 14 Sep 2020 11:56:47 +0100, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by abelard
On Mon, 14 Sep 2020 11:21:29 +0100, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
The slime balls will still be asleep for a few hours.This is why posting in
the morning is such a bonus.
Apparently they all *live* in the UK but always (i.e. everyday) set their
alarms for 1300 BST, and are still posting at 0200 BST. They deny they are
prostitutes or night club bouncers/uber drivers/just eat moped riders, and so
we are left to guess at their strange professions - or the coincidental-ness
of their collective lies.
i run my life on ny time...what is that to you?
It makes you into a weirdo.
i'll not contest on that one
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by abelard
you sleep while i work...what a lazy slob you must be!
I sleep when it is dark, which is the whole point of aligning the clocks to
maximise daylight.
Trying to work on a time zone which is 90degs(6 hours) west of where you
live, seems very illogical.
the sheep are asleep...so they stop bleating and interrupting me

some people wake noisy and run down during the day...
i wake tired and get more energy the longer the day
goes on...

many people never wake up...my problem is difficulty sleeping...
my mind does not like to stop

it's very convenient in a work environment...i do the jobs others
don't want
Keema's Nan
2020-09-14 12:32:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by abelard
On Mon, 14 Sep 2020 12:45:37 +0100, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by abelard
On Mon, 14 Sep 2020 11:56:47 +0100, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by abelard
On Mon, 14 Sep 2020 11:21:29 +0100, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
The slime balls will still be asleep for a few hours.This is why posting
in
the morning is such a bonus.
Apparently they all *live* in the UK but always (i.e. everyday) set
their
alarms for 1300 BST, and are still posting at 0200 BST. They deny they
are
prostitutes or night club bouncers/uber drivers/just eat moped riders,
and
so
we are left to guess at their strange professions - or the
coincidental-ness
of their collective lies.
i run my life on ny time...what is that to you?
It makes you into a weirdo.
i'll not contest on that one
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by abelard
you sleep while i work...what a lazy slob you must be!
I sleep when it is dark, which is the whole point of aligning the clocks to
maximise daylight.
Trying to work on a time zone which is 90degs(6 hours) west of where you
live, seems very illogical.
the sheep are asleep...so they stop bleating and interrupting me
Yes, I suppose you do have a point.
Post by abelard
some people wake noisy and run down during the day...
i wake tired and get more energy the longer the day
goes on...
many people never wake up...my problem is difficulty sleeping...
my mind does not like to stop
it's very convenient in a work environment...i do the jobs others
don't want
JNugent
2020-09-14 12:01:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
[ ... ]
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by abelard
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by abelard
i run my life on ny time...what is that to you?
It makes you into a weirdo.
i'll not contest on that one
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by abelard
you sleep while i work...what a lazy slob you must be!
I sleep when it is dark, which is the whole point of aligning the clocks to
maximise daylight.
That must be rather socially limiting during the winter. Lighting up
time in your neck of the woods - circa 16:30 in late December? Slightly
later? Slightly earlier?
Post by Keema's Nan
Trying to work on a time zone which is 90degs(6 hours) west of where you
live, seems very illogical.
As illogical as going to bed before 17:00?
JNugent
2020-09-14 12:06:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Have you read the relevant article?
If you have, you know the answer.
If you haven't, why not?
Because I don't need to. I was referring to your comments, nothing
else - and they weren't in quotes. Now, about this UK output?
See the graphic referred to.
It certainly was not something I created.
But you knew that all along.
You said 'article'.
And now he says graphic.
Both exist and can be found together in the same place (if you are
prepared to spend 15 seconds looking for them).
Post by Keema's Nan
Which shows just what a slimy little dishonest shit we are dealing with.
Only a graphic (of a graph!) was originally instanced. That is true.

If either half of you wants the derivation of that graph / graphic, it
(the graphic) is associated with an article which is easy to find on the
Daily Mail website.

Bot you will, under both of your identities, prefer to act all prissy
when it is suggested that the information you want is exactly where you
would expect to find it.
Farmer Giles
2020-09-14 12:26:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Have you read the relevant article?
If you have, you know the answer.
If you haven't, why not?
Because I don't need to. I was referring to your comments, nothing
else - and they weren't in quotes. Now, about this UK output?
See the graphic referred to.
It certainly was not something I created.
But you knew that all along.
You said 'article'.
And now he says graphic.
Both exist and can be found together in the same place (if you are
prepared to spend 15 seconds looking for them).
Post by Keema's Nan
Which shows just what a slimy little dishonest shit we are dealing with.
Only a graphic (of a graph!) was originally instanced. That is true.
If either half of you wants the derivation of that graph / graphic, it
(the graphic) is associated with an article which is easy to find on the
Daily Mail website.
Bot you will, under both of your identities, prefer to act all prissy
when it is suggested that the information you want is exactly where you
would expect to find it.
Pathetic. Not worth the candle, has I said originally.

You should try being honest for once, instead of acting like one of
those pathetically immature football supporters clinging to a tawdry
collection of one-sided statistics

You're a waste of time and space.
JNugent
2020-09-14 15:01:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Have you read the relevant article?
If you have, you know the answer.
If you haven't, why not?
Because I don't need to. I was referring to your comments, nothing
else - and they weren't in quotes. Now, about this UK output?
See the graphic referred to.
It certainly was not something I created.
But you knew that all along.
You said 'article'.
And now he says graphic.
Both exist and can be found together in the same place (if you are
prepared to spend 15 seconds looking for them).
Post by Keema's Nan
Which shows just what a slimy little dishonest shit we are dealing with.
Only a graphic (of a graph!) was originally instanced. That is true.
If either half of you wants the derivation of that graph / graphic, it
(the graphic) is associated with an article which is easy to find on
the Daily Mail website.
Bot you will, under both of your identities, prefer to act all prissy
when it is suggested that the information you want is exactly where
you would expect to find it.
Pathetic. Not worth the candle, has I said originally.
You should try being honest for once, instead of acting like one of
those pathetically immature football supporters clinging to a tawdry
collection of one-sided statistics
You're a waste of time and space.
You haven't bothered to seek or read the article you so badly wanted to
see, then?

Didn't think you would.
abelard
2020-09-14 12:28:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 14 Sep 2020 13:06:30 +0100, JNugent
Post by JNugent
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Have you read the relevant article?
If you have, you know the answer.
If you haven't, why not?
Because I don't need to. I was referring to your comments, nothing
else - and they weren't in quotes. Now, about this UK output?
See the graphic referred to.
It certainly was not something I created.
But you knew that all along.
You said 'article'.
And now he says graphic.
Both exist and can be found together in the same place (if you are
prepared to spend 15 seconds looking for them).
Post by Keema's Nan
Which shows just what a slimy little dishonest shit we are dealing with.
Only a graphic (of a graph!) was originally instanced. That is true.
If either half of you wants the derivation of that graph / graphic, it
(the graphic) is associated with an article which is easy to find on the
Daily Mail website.
Bot you will, under both of your identities, prefer to act all prissy
when it is suggested that the information you want is exactly where you
would expect to find it.
what amused me was the economically illiterate swedehead banging on
about the mail while the graph was derived from ons data :-)

you could hardly make it up!
Farmer Giles
2020-09-14 12:34:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by abelard
On Mon, 14 Sep 2020 13:06:30 +0100, JNugent
Post by JNugent
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Have you read the relevant article?
If you have, you know the answer.
If you haven't, why not?
Because I don't need to. I was referring to your comments, nothing
else - and they weren't in quotes. Now, about this UK output?
See the graphic referred to.
It certainly was not something I created.
But you knew that all along.
You said 'article'.
And now he says graphic.
Both exist and can be found together in the same place (if you are
prepared to spend 15 seconds looking for them).
Post by Keema's Nan
Which shows just what a slimy little dishonest shit we are dealing with.
Only a graphic (of a graph!) was originally instanced. That is true.
If either half of you wants the derivation of that graph / graphic, it
(the graphic) is associated with an article which is easy to find on the
Daily Mail website.
Bot you will, under both of your identities, prefer to act all prissy
when it is suggested that the information you want is exactly where you
would expect to find it.
what amused me was the economically illiterate swedehead banging on
about the mail while the graph was derived from ons data :-)
Your link, thicko - which I didn't bother with anyway - was to the Mail.
Post by abelard
you could hardly make it up!
You could make anything up, which is largely what you spend your useless
life doing.
Keema's Nan
2020-09-14 12:44:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by abelard
On Mon, 14 Sep 2020 13:06:30 +0100, JNugent
Post by JNugent
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Have you read the relevant article?
If you have, you know the answer.
If you haven't, why not?
Because I don't need to. I was referring to your comments, nothing
else - and they weren't in quotes. Now, about this UK output?
See the graphic referred to.
It certainly was not something I created.
But you knew that all along.
You said 'article'.
And now he says graphic.
Both exist and can be found together in the same place (if you are
prepared to spend 15 seconds looking for them).
Post by Keema's Nan
Which shows just what a slimy little dishonest shit we are dealing with.
Only a graphic (of a graph!) was originally instanced. That is true.
If either half of you wants the derivation of that graph / graphic, it
(the graphic) is associated with an article which is easy to find on the
Daily Mail website.
Bot you will, under both of your identities, prefer to act all prissy
when it is suggested that the information you want is exactly where you
would expect to find it.
what amused me was the economically illiterate swedehead banging on
about the mail while the graph was derived from ons data :-)
you could hardly make it up!
I searched for the graph on the Mail website, but couldn’t find anything
which even came close to that unscientific nonsense; which is why I posted
the one showing national debt as a % of GDP.

I see no one is falling over themselves to congratulate the government on
that one (as accurately predicted by Giles). Maybe the on-message instruction
is to pretend that the increase from 40% to over 100% between 2010 and 2020
results entirely from Covid?

Or, more than likely, to remain totally silent on the subject of the debt
mountain.
abelard
2020-09-14 12:50:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 14 Sep 2020 13:44:05 +0100, Keema's Nan
Post by abelard
On Mon, 14 Sep 2020 13:06:30 +0100, JNugent
Post by JNugent
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Have you read the relevant article?
If you have, you know the answer.
If you haven't, why not?
Because I don't need to. I was referring to your comments, nothing
else - and they weren't in quotes. Now, about this UK output?
See the graphic referred to.
It certainly was not something I created.
But you knew that all along.
You said 'article'.
And now he says graphic.
Both exist and can be found together in the same place (if you are
prepared to spend 15 seconds looking for them).
Post by Keema's Nan
Which shows just what a slimy little dishonest shit we are dealing with.
Only a graphic (of a graph!) was originally instanced. That is true.
If either half of you wants the derivation of that graph / graphic, it
(the graphic) is associated with an article which is easy to find on the
Daily Mail website.
Bot you will, under both of your identities, prefer to act all prissy
when it is suggested that the information you want is exactly where you
would expect to find it.
what amused me was the economically illiterate swedehead banging on
about the mail while the graph was derived from ons data :-)
you could hardly make it up!
I searched for the graph on the Mail website, but couldn’t find anything
which even came close to that unscientific nonsense; which is why I posted
the one showing national debt as a % of GDP.
I see no one is falling over themselves to congratulate the government on
that one (as accurately predicted by Giles). Maybe the on-message instruction
is to pretend that the increase from 40% to over 100% between 2010 and 2020
results entirely from Covid?
Or, more than likely, to remain totally silent on the subject of the debt
mountain.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8722041/UK-economy-grew-6-6-cent-July-coronavirus-rebound-slows.html

i note swedehead was also on about his arse...c'mon fellow,
just what is it about marxists and arses?

as for debt and mountains, what is the alleged connection between
those and gdp?
why are you connecting them?
Keema's Nan
2020-09-14 13:02:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by abelard
On Mon, 14 Sep 2020 13:44:05 +0100, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by abelard
On Mon, 14 Sep 2020 13:06:30 +0100, JNugent
Post by JNugent
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Have you read the relevant article?
If you have, you know the answer.
If you haven't, why not?
Because I don't need to. I was referring to your comments, nothing
else - and they weren't in quotes. Now, about this UK output?
See the graphic referred to.
It certainly was not something I created.
But you knew that all along.
You said 'article'.
And now he says graphic.
Both exist and can be found together in the same place (if you are
prepared to spend 15 seconds looking for them).
Post by Keema's Nan
Which shows just what a slimy little dishonest shit we are dealing with.
Only a graphic (of a graph!) was originally instanced. That is true.
If either half of you wants the derivation of that graph / graphic, it
(the graphic) is associated with an article which is easy to find on the
Daily Mail website.
Bot you will, under both of your identities, prefer to act all prissy
when it is suggested that the information you want is exactly where you
would expect to find it.
what amused me was the economically illiterate swedehead banging on
about the mail while the graph was derived from ons data :-)
you could hardly make it up!
I searched for the graph on the Mail website, but couldn’t find anything
which even came close to that unscientific nonsense; which is why I posted
the one showing national debt as a % of GDP.
I see no one is falling over themselves to congratulate the government on
that one (as accurately predicted by Giles). Maybe the on-message instruction
is to pretend that the increase from 40% to over 100% between 2010 and 2020
results entirely from Covid?
Or, more than likely, to remain totally silent on the subject of the debt
mountain.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8722041/UK-economy-grew-6-6-cent-July
-coronavirus-rebound-slows.html
Yaaay.

For the first time in 10 years you have posted something useful.

But that article still does not tell anyone what the figures on the left axis
of the graph are supposed to represent and what the units are.

However, if you righties dare scroll down the page little further to the
excellent graph showing quarterly output, you will see the real story.

Suck it up, losers.
Post by abelard
i note swedehead was also on about his arse...c'mon fellow,
just what is it about marxists and arses?
A paid-up marxist loves smearing his/her arse juice all over capitalists.
That is the fascination which marxists have with arses.
Post by abelard
as for debt and mountains, what is the alleged connection between
those and gdp?
why are you connecting them?
Because they can be expressed as a % of GDP.
abelard
2020-09-14 13:11:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 14 Sep 2020 14:02:18 +0100, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by abelard
On Mon, 14 Sep 2020 13:44:05 +0100, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
I see no one is falling over themselves to congratulate the government on
that one (as accurately predicted by Giles). Maybe the on-message instruction
is to pretend that the increase from 40% to over 100% between 2010 and 2020
results entirely from Covid?
Or, more than likely, to remain totally silent on the subject of the debt
mountain.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8722041/UK-economy-grew-6-6-cent-July
-coronavirus-rebound-slows.html
Yaaay.
For the first time in 10 years you have posted something useful.
But that article still does not tell anyone what the figures on the left axis
of the graph are supposed to represent and what the units are.
they are an index

it starts with an arbitrary 100 and then is adjusted over time
a conditions change
Post by Keema's Nan
However, if you righties dare scroll down the page little further to the
excellent graph showing quarterly output, you will see the real story.
what is real(or unreal) about it?
Post by Keema's Nan
Suck it up, losers.
how is less commuting a 'loss'?
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by abelard
i note swedehead was also on about his arse...c'mon fellow,
just what is it about marxists and arses?
A paid-up marxist loves smearing his/her arse juice all over capitalists.
That is the fascination which marxists have with arses.
seems credible!
they'd be better improving their allotments

i'm with freud...it's an indicator of immaturity!
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by abelard
as for debt and mountains, what is the alleged connection between
those and gdp?
why are you connecting them?
Because they can be expressed as a % of GDP.
so can plastic ducks

meanwhile it is a long established 'principle' of lefties that
they renege on their debts
Keema's Nan
2020-09-14 13:41:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by abelard
On Mon, 14 Sep 2020 14:02:18 +0100, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by abelard
On Mon, 14 Sep 2020 13:44:05 +0100, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
I see no one is falling over themselves to congratulate the government on
that one (as accurately predicted by Giles). Maybe the on-message instruction
is to pretend that the increase from 40% to over 100% between 2010 and 2020
results entirely from Covid?
Or, more than likely, to remain totally silent on the subject of the debt
mountain.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8722041/UK-economy-grew-6-6-cent-J
uly
-coronavirus-rebound-slows.html
Yaaay.
For the first time in 10 years you have posted something useful.
But that article still does not tell anyone what the figures on the left axis
of the graph are supposed to represent and what the units are.
they are an index
it starts with an arbitrary 100 and then is adjusted over time
a conditions change
Post by Keema's Nan
However, if you righties dare scroll down the page little further to the
excellent graph showing quarterly output, you will see the real story.
what is real(or unreal) about it?
Post by Keema's Nan
Suck it up, losers.
how is less commuting a 'loss'?
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by abelard
i note swedehead was also on about his arse...c'mon fellow,
just what is it about marxists and arses?
A paid-up marxist loves smearing his/her arse juice all over capitalists.
That is the fascination which marxists have with arses.
seems credible!
they'd be better improving their allotments
i'm with freud...it's an indicator of immaturity!
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by abelard
as for debt and mountains, what is the alleged connection between
those and gdp?
why are you connecting them?
Because they can be expressed as a % of GDP.
so can plastic ducks
What is the plastic duck expressed as a % of GDP?
Post by abelard
meanwhile it is a long established 'principle' of lefties that
they renege on their debts
They will have no choice in 3.5 years time. The debt will be so large that
even a fully functioning UK economy will not be able to afford the interest
payments without doing permanent damage to public spending.

£2.4 trillion and counting (upwards at £5,170 per second, currently).

https://www.nationaldebtclock.co.uk
abelard
2020-09-14 13:53:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 14 Sep 2020 14:41:15 +0100, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by abelard
On Mon, 14 Sep 2020 14:02:18 +0100, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by abelard
On Mon, 14 Sep 2020 13:44:05 +0100, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
I see no one is falling over themselves to congratulate the government on
that one (as accurately predicted by Giles). Maybe the on-message instruction
is to pretend that the increase from 40% to over 100% between 2010 and 2020
results entirely from Covid?
Or, more than likely, to remain totally silent on the subject of the debt
mountain.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8722041/UK-economy-grew-6-6-cent-J
uly
-coronavirus-rebound-slows.html
Yaaay.
For the first time in 10 years you have posted something useful.
But that article still does not tell anyone what the figures on the left axis
of the graph are supposed to represent and what the units are.
they are an index
it starts with an arbitrary 100 and then is adjusted over time
a conditions change
Post by Keema's Nan
However, if you righties dare scroll down the page little further to the
excellent graph showing quarterly output, you will see the real story.
what is real(or unreal) about it?
Post by Keema's Nan
Suck it up, losers.
how is less commuting a 'loss'?
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by abelard
i note swedehead was also on about his arse...c'mon fellow,
just what is it about marxists and arses?
A paid-up marxist loves smearing his/her arse juice all over capitalists.
That is the fascination which marxists have with arses.
seems credible!
they'd be better improving their allotments
i'm with freud...it's an indicator of immaturity!
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by abelard
as for debt and mountains, what is the alleged connection between
those and gdp?
why are you connecting them?
Because they can be expressed as a % of GDP.
so can plastic ducks
What is the plastic duck expressed as a % of GDP?
£1:79
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by abelard
meanwhile it is a long established 'principle' of lefties that
they renege on their debts
They will have no choice in 3.5 years time. The debt will be so large that
even a fully functioning UK economy will not be able to afford the interest
payments without doing permanent damage to public spending.
1. there is virtually no interest
2.governments have absolutely no intention of repaying the
so-called national debt
government debt is just a form of hidden taxation...
the bigger the so-called debt, the more the gov't gains
3.the real value of money is constantly eroding...it has been
for centuries....for government, control of money is about
power, not value
4. after ww2 the uk national debt was nearer 200%...it has
been paid down
Post by Keema's Nan
£2.4 trillion and counting (upwards at £5,170 per second, currently).
https://www.nationaldebtclock.co.uk
you won't understand government debt until you understand
that debt for government is nothing like debt for the citizen
https://www.abelard.org/inflation.php
Keema's Nan
2020-09-14 14:30:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by abelard
On Mon, 14 Sep 2020 14:41:15 +0100, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by abelard
On Mon, 14 Sep 2020 14:02:18 +0100, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by abelard
On Mon, 14 Sep 2020 13:44:05 +0100, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
I see no one is falling over themselves to congratulate the government
on
that one (as accurately predicted by Giles). Maybe the on-message
instruction
is to pretend that the increase from 40% to over 100% between 2010 and
2020
results entirely from Covid?
Or, more than likely, to remain totally silent on the subject of the
debt
mountain.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8722041/UK-economy-grew-6-6-cent
-J
uly
-coronavirus-rebound-slows.html
Yaaay.
For the first time in 10 years you have posted something useful.
But that article still does not tell anyone what the figures on the left axis
of the graph are supposed to represent and what the units are.
they are an index
it starts with an arbitrary 100 and then is adjusted over time
a conditions change
Post by Keema's Nan
However, if you righties dare scroll down the page little further to the
excellent graph showing quarterly output, you will see the real story.
what is real(or unreal) about it?
Post by Keema's Nan
Suck it up, losers.
how is less commuting a 'loss'?
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by abelard
i note swedehead was also on about his arse...c'mon fellow,
just what is it about marxists and arses?
A paid-up marxist loves smearing his/her arse juice all over capitalists.
That is the fascination which marxists have with arses.
seems credible!
they'd be better improving their allotments
i'm with freud...it's an indicator of immaturity!
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by abelard
as for debt and mountains, what is the alleged connection between
those and gdp?
why are you connecting them?
Because they can be expressed as a % of GDP.
so can plastic ducks
What is the plastic duck expressed as a % of GDP?
£1:79
Will we have to wait another 10 years before you supply any more links?
Post by abelard
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by abelard
meanwhile it is a long established 'principle' of lefties that
they renege on their debts
They will have no choice in 3.5 years time. The debt will be so large that
even a fully functioning UK economy will not be able to afford the interest
payments without doing permanent damage to public spending.
1. there is virtually no interest
Can you guarantee that for the next few years?
Post by abelard
2.governments have absolutely no intention of repaying the
so-called national debt
government debt is just a form of hidden taxation...
the bigger the so-called debt, the more the gov't gains
Not according to qualified financial experts (which you are not). A
sustainable level is 65% of GDP, above which production will slow and
eventually the financial markets will take fright.

http://www.na-businesspress.com/JAF/JadhavA_Web12_2_.pdf

Once the currency starts to slide in value, interest rates would have to rise
and that adds to the problem.
Post by abelard
3.the real value of money is constantly eroding...it has been
for centuries....for government, control of money is about
power, not value
Possibly, but not by the amount the UK is borrowing.
Post by abelard
4. after ww2 the uk national debt was nearer 200%...it has
been paid down
How long did it take though, and we had close to full employment - a decent
manufacturing base and a healthy export trade for quite a bit of that time..

Where are we going to get our exports from, unless we continue to start more
wars overseas? (And let’s not pretend the old chestnut of invisible
earnings is going to bail us out if we have interest rates of 5%).

5% of £3 trillion is £150 billion. Care to suggest how we are going to pay
that interest each year in the future?

We may have low interest rates now - but who knows what happens when sterling
begins its nosedive?
Post by abelard
Post by Keema's Nan
£2.4 trillion and counting (upwards at £5,170 per second, currently).
https://www.nationaldebtclock.co.uk
you won't understand government debt until you understand
that debt for government is nothing like debt for the citizen
https://www.abelard.org/inflation.php
I never said it was.

Are you trying to erect yet another strawman?
abelard
2020-09-14 14:49:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 14 Sep 2020 15:30:08 +0100, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by abelard
On Mon, 14 Sep 2020 14:41:15 +0100, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by abelard
On Mon, 14 Sep 2020 14:02:18 +0100, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by abelard
On Mon, 14 Sep 2020 13:44:05 +0100, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
I see no one is falling over themselves to congratulate the government
on
that one (as accurately predicted by Giles). Maybe the on-message
instruction
is to pretend that the increase from 40% to over 100% between 2010 and
2020
results entirely from Covid?
Or, more than likely, to remain totally silent on the subject of the
debt
mountain.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8722041/UK-economy-grew-6-6-cent
-J
uly
-coronavirus-rebound-slows.html
Yaaay.
For the first time in 10 years you have posted something useful.
But that article still does not tell anyone what the figures on the left axis
of the graph are supposed to represent and what the units are.
they are an index
it starts with an arbitrary 100 and then is adjusted over time
a conditions change
Post by Keema's Nan
However, if you righties dare scroll down the page little further to the
excellent graph showing quarterly output, you will see the real story.
what is real(or unreal) about it?
Post by Keema's Nan
Suck it up, losers.
how is less commuting a 'loss'?
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by abelard
i note swedehead was also on about his arse...c'mon fellow,
just what is it about marxists and arses?
A paid-up marxist loves smearing his/her arse juice all over capitalists.
That is the fascination which marxists have with arses.
seems credible!
they'd be better improving their allotments
i'm with freud...it's an indicator of immaturity!
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by abelard
as for debt and mountains, what is the alleged connection between
those and gdp?
why are you connecting them?
Because they can be expressed as a % of GDP.
so can plastic ducks
What is the plastic duck expressed as a % of GDP?
£1:79
Will we have to wait another 10 years before you supply any more links?
links to my site or to others?
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by abelard
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by abelard
meanwhile it is a long established 'principle' of lefties that
they renege on their debts
They will have no choice in 3.5 years time. The debt will be so large that
even a fully functioning UK economy will not be able to afford the interest
payments without doing permanent damage to public spending.
1. there is virtually no interest
Can you guarantee that for the next few years?
no...
1.it depends on whether the gov't borrows on fixed or variable
interest
2.whether they borrow in the uk or abroad
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by abelard
2.governments have absolutely no intention of repaying the
so-called national debt
government debt is just a form of hidden taxation...
the bigger the so-called debt, the more the gov't gains
Not according to qualified financial experts (which you are not). A
sustainable level is 65% of GDP, above which production will slow and
eventually the financial markets will take fright.
you are allowed to believe what you wish

keynes:-
I have done worst in the only two subjects of which I possessed a
solid knowledge – Mathematics and Economics. I scored more marks for
English History than for Mathematics – is it credible? For Economics I
got a relatively low percentage and was eight or ninth in order of
merit – whereas I knew the whole of both papers in a really elaborate
way. On the other hand, in Political Science, to which I devoted less
than a fortnight in all, I was easily first of everybody. I was also
first in Logic and Psychology and in Essay. [1906]

He was later to say: "I evidently knew more about Economics than my
examiners."
Post by Keema's Nan
http://www.na-businesspress.com/JAF/JadhavA_Web12_2_.pdf
can't be bothered
Post by Keema's Nan
Once the currency starts to slide in value, interest rates would have to rise
and that adds to the problem.
no...see above
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by abelard
3.the real value of money is constantly eroding...it has been
for centuries....for government, control of money is about
power, not value
Possibly, but not by the amount the UK is borrowing.
your meaning is unclear to me
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by abelard
4. after ww2 the uk national debt was nearer 200%...it has
been paid down
How long did it take though, and we had close to full employment - a decent
manufacturing base and a healthy export trade for quite a bit of that time..
you really must look at more variables

much of the sso-called production was subsidizing union shirkers
in dying industries
Post by Keema's Nan
Where are we going to get our exports from, unless we continue to start more
wars overseas? (And let’s not pretend the old chestnut of invisible
earnings is going to bail us out if we have interest rates of 5%).
by invisible tends to be meant non-manufactures like insurance...
a business which britain has been profitably active for centuries
Post by Keema's Nan
5% of £3 trillion is £150 billion. Care to suggest how we are going to pay
that interest each year in the future?
the inflation rate is around 5% at present
the debt is around 2 trillion
5% of 2 trillion is 100 billion...thus the real debt will have
dropped by only 50 billion

(can't be bothered to check the actual numbers)
Post by Keema's Nan
We may have low interest rates now - but who knows what happens when sterling
begins its nosedive?
see above
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by abelard
Post by Keema's Nan
£2.4 trillion and counting (upwards at £5,170 per second, currently).
https://www.nationaldebtclock.co.uk
you won't understand government debt until you understand
that debt for government is nothing like debt for the citizen
https://www.abelard.org/inflation.php
I never said it was.
Are you trying to erect yet another strawman?
no erections involved
Farmer Giles
2020-09-14 14:37:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by abelard
On Mon, 14 Sep 2020 14:41:15 +0100, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by abelard
On Mon, 14 Sep 2020 14:02:18 +0100, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by abelard
On Mon, 14 Sep 2020 13:44:05 +0100, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
I see no one is falling over themselves to congratulate the government on
that one (as accurately predicted by Giles). Maybe the on-message instruction
is to pretend that the increase from 40% to over 100% between 2010 and 2020
results entirely from Covid?
Or, more than likely, to remain totally silent on the subject of the debt
mountain.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8722041/UK-economy-grew-6-6-cent-J
uly
-coronavirus-rebound-slows.html
Yaaay.
For the first time in 10 years you have posted something useful.
But that article still does not tell anyone what the figures on the left axis
of the graph are supposed to represent and what the units are.
they are an index
it starts with an arbitrary 100 and then is adjusted over time
a conditions change
Post by Keema's Nan
However, if you righties dare scroll down the page little further to the
excellent graph showing quarterly output, you will see the real story.
what is real(or unreal) about it?
Post by Keema's Nan
Suck it up, losers.
how is less commuting a 'loss'?
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by abelard
i note swedehead was also on about his arse...c'mon fellow,
just what is it about marxists and arses?
A paid-up marxist loves smearing his/her arse juice all over capitalists.
That is the fascination which marxists have with arses.
seems credible!
they'd be better improving their allotments
i'm with freud...it's an indicator of immaturity!
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by abelard
as for debt and mountains, what is the alleged connection between
those and gdp?
why are you connecting them?
Because they can be expressed as a % of GDP.
so can plastic ducks
What is the plastic duck expressed as a % of GDP?
£1:79
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by abelard
meanwhile it is a long established 'principle' of lefties that
they renege on their debts
They will have no choice in 3.5 years time. The debt will be so large that
even a fully functioning UK economy will not be able to afford the interest
payments without doing permanent damage to public spending.
1. there is virtually no interest
2.governments have absolutely no intention of repaying the
so-called national debt
government debt is just a form of hidden taxation...
the bigger the so-called debt, the more the gov't gains
<Chuckle> - what a clown, and a lying dishonest clown at that.
Post by abelard
3.the real value of money is constantly eroding...it has been
for centuries....for government, control of money is about
power, not value
4. after ww2 the uk national debt was nearer 200%...it has
been paid down
<More chuckles) - WW2 is it, what a convenient starting point. How about
starting from somewhere like the late seventies - pre-Thatcher? Go on,
tell us how today compares with that?
Post by abelard
Post by Keema's Nan
£2.4 trillion and counting (upwards at £5,170 per second, currently).
https://www.nationaldebtclock.co.uk
you won't understand government debt until you understand
that debt for government is nothing like debt for the citizen
https://www.abelard.org/inflation.php
It's exactly like it, idiot, except government have to borrow even more
to pay the interest.

You are a dishonest jackal.
Keema's Nan
2020-09-14 15:04:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by abelard
On Mon, 14 Sep 2020 14:41:15 +0100, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by abelard
On Mon, 14 Sep 2020 14:02:18 +0100, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by abelard
On Mon, 14 Sep 2020 13:44:05 +0100, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
I see no one is falling over themselves to congratulate the government
on
that one (as accurately predicted by Giles). Maybe the on-message
instruction
is to pretend that the increase from 40% to over 100% between 2010 and
2020
results entirely from Covid?
Or, more than likely, to remain totally silent on the subject of the
debt
mountain.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8722041/UK-economy-grew-6-6-cen
t-J
uly
-coronavirus-rebound-slows.html
Yaaay.
For the first time in 10 years you have posted something useful.
But that article still does not tell anyone what the figures on the left
axis
of the graph are supposed to represent and what the units are.
they are an index
it starts with an arbitrary 100 and then is adjusted over time
a conditions change
Post by Keema's Nan
However, if you righties dare scroll down the page little further to the
excellent graph showing quarterly output, you will see the real story.
what is real(or unreal) about it?
Post by Keema's Nan
Suck it up, losers.
how is less commuting a 'loss'?
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by abelard
i note swedehead was also on about his arse...c'mon fellow,
just what is it about marxists and arses?
A paid-up marxist loves smearing his/her arse juice all over capitalists.
That is the fascination which marxists have with arses.
seems credible!
they'd be better improving their allotments
i'm with freud...it's an indicator of immaturity!
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by abelard
as for debt and mountains, what is the alleged connection between
those and gdp?
why are you connecting them?
Because they can be expressed as a % of GDP.
so can plastic ducks
What is the plastic duck expressed as a % of GDP?
£1:79
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by abelard
meanwhile it is a long established 'principle' of lefties that
they renege on their debts
They will have no choice in 3.5 years time. The debt will be so large that
even a fully functioning UK economy will not be able to afford the interest
payments without doing permanent damage to public spending.
1. there is virtually no interest
2.governments have absolutely no intention of repaying the
so-called national debt
government debt is just a form of hidden taxation...
the bigger the so-called debt, the more the gov't gains
<Chuckle> - what a clown, and a lying dishonest clown at that.
Post by abelard
3.the real value of money is constantly eroding...it has been
for centuries....for government, control of money is about
power, not value
4. after ww2 the uk national debt was nearer 200%...it has
been paid down
<More chuckles) - WW2 is it, what a convenient starting point.
Yes and that debt was not completely paid off until 2006 - by Gordon Brown.

Even at 1% that is around £30 billion a year simply in interest.

Let’s use the 60 year rule, and assume we will finally pay off this current
debt in 2080.

£3 trillion (I’m being kind here, it could be double that by the time
Cummings steps down) over 60 years means we will have to pay £50 billion per
year to get the debt reduced to zero in 60 years; plus the yearly interest
rate.

If for interest rate purposes we take the debt to be half of what it is at
its maximum - because by 2080 the debt will be 0 and we need an average.
Let’s be (very) generous and work with an average interest rate over the
period of 2%.

That is £30 billion in interest, and £50 billion loan repayment - so £80
billion per year for the next 60 years. And that is equivalent to our entire
annual education budget, (or, if you like it another way - twice our annual
defence budget).
How about
starting from somewhere like the late seventies - pre-Thatcher? Go on,
tell us how today compares with that?
Post by abelard
Post by Keema's Nan
£2.4 trillion and counting (upwards at £5,170 per second, currently).
https://www.nationaldebtclock.co.uk
you won't understand government debt until you understand
that debt for government is nothing like debt for the citizen
https://www.abelard.org/inflation.php
It's exactly like it, idiot, except government have to borrow even more
to pay the interest.
You are a dishonest jackal.
Farmer Giles
2020-09-14 15:17:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by abelard
On Mon, 14 Sep 2020 14:41:15 +0100, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by abelard
On Mon, 14 Sep 2020 14:02:18 +0100, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by abelard
On Mon, 14 Sep 2020 13:44:05 +0100, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
I see no one is falling over themselves to congratulate the government on
that one (as accurately predicted by Giles). Maybe the on-message instruction
is to pretend that the increase from 40% to over 100% between 2010 and 2020
results entirely from Covid?
Or, more than likely, to remain totally silent on the subject of the debt
mountain.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8722041/UK-economy-grew-6-6-cen
t-J
uly
-coronavirus-rebound-slows.html
Yaaay.
For the first time in 10 years you have posted something useful.
But that article still does not tell anyone what the figures on the left axis
of the graph are supposed to represent and what the units are.
they are an index
it starts with an arbitrary 100 and then is adjusted over time
a conditions change
Post by Keema's Nan
However, if you righties dare scroll down the page little further to the
excellent graph showing quarterly output, you will see the real story.
what is real(or unreal) about it?
Post by Keema's Nan
Suck it up, losers.
how is less commuting a 'loss'?
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by abelard
i note swedehead was also on about his arse...c'mon fellow,
just what is it about marxists and arses?
A paid-up marxist loves smearing his/her arse juice all over capitalists.
That is the fascination which marxists have with arses.
seems credible!
they'd be better improving their allotments
i'm with freud...it's an indicator of immaturity!
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by abelard
as for debt and mountains, what is the alleged connection between
those and gdp?
why are you connecting them?
Because they can be expressed as a % of GDP.
so can plastic ducks
What is the plastic duck expressed as a % of GDP?
£1:79
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by abelard
meanwhile it is a long established 'principle' of lefties that
they renege on their debts
They will have no choice in 3.5 years time. The debt will be so large that
even a fully functioning UK economy will not be able to afford the interest
payments without doing permanent damage to public spending.
1. there is virtually no interest
2.governments have absolutely no intention of repaying the
so-called national debt
government debt is just a form of hidden taxation...
the bigger the so-called debt, the more the gov't gains
<Chuckle> - what a clown, and a lying dishonest clown at that.
Post by abelard
3.the real value of money is constantly eroding...it has been
for centuries....for government, control of money is about
power, not value
4. after ww2 the uk national debt was nearer 200%...it has
been paid down
<More chuckles) - WW2 is it, what a convenient starting point.
Yes and that debt was not completely paid off until 2006 - by Gordon Brown.
Even at 1% that is around £30 billion a year simply in interest.
Let’s use the 60 year rule, and assume we will finally pay off this current
debt in 2080.
£3 trillion (I’m being kind here, it could be double that by the time
Cummings steps down) over 60 years means we will have to pay £50 billion per
year to get the debt reduced to zero in 60 years; plus the yearly interest
rate.
If for interest rate purposes we take the debt to be half of what it is at
its maximum - because by 2080 the debt will be 0 and we need an average.
Let’s be (very) generous and work with an average interest rate over the
period of 2%.
That is £30 billion in interest, and £50 billion loan repayment - so £80
billion per year for the next 60 years. And that is equivalent to our entire
annual education budget, (or, if you like it another way - twice our annual
defence budget).
How about
starting from somewhere like the late seventies - pre-Thatcher? Go on,
tell us how today compares with that?
Post by abelard
Post by Keema's Nan
£2.4 trillion and counting (upwards at £5,170 per second, currently).
https://www.nationaldebtclock.co.uk
you won't understand government debt until you understand
that debt for government is nothing like debt for the citizen
https://www.abelard.org/inflation.php
It's exactly like it, idiot, except government have to borrow even more
to pay the interest.
You are a dishonest jackal.
Babbelard, and Nugent and Rowing for that matter, are just bag-carriers
for the money lenders and money creators.

Arguing with them is a waste of time, because they have an agenda which
precludes looking for ways to improve society, and the lives of the
majority. They are only concerned with what is best for them and those
they represent.

Lardy is, of course, raving mad - and the others just dishonest and not
very bright.
Keema's Nan
2020-09-14 15:28:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by abelard
On Mon, 14 Sep 2020 14:41:15 +0100, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by abelard
On Mon, 14 Sep 2020 14:02:18 +0100, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by abelard
On Mon, 14 Sep 2020 13:44:05 +0100, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
I see no one is falling over themselves to congratulate the
government
on
that one (as accurately predicted by Giles). Maybe the on-message
instruction
is to pretend that the increase from 40% to over 100% between 2010
and
2020
results entirely from Covid?
Or, more than likely, to remain totally silent on the subject of the
debt
mountain.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8722041/UK-economy-grew-6-6-c
en
t-J
uly
-coronavirus-rebound-slows.html
Yaaay.
For the first time in 10 years you have posted something useful.
But that article still does not tell anyone what the figures on the
left
axis
of the graph are supposed to represent and what the units are.
they are an index
it starts with an arbitrary 100 and then is adjusted over time
a conditions change
Post by Keema's Nan
However, if you righties dare scroll down the page little further to
the
excellent graph showing quarterly output, you will see the real story.
what is real(or unreal) about it?
Post by Keema's Nan
Suck it up, losers.
how is less commuting a 'loss'?
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by abelard
i note swedehead was also on about his arse...c'mon fellow,
just what is it about marxists and arses?
A paid-up marxist loves smearing his/her arse juice all over
capitalists.
That is the fascination which marxists have with arses.
seems credible!
they'd be better improving their allotments
i'm with freud...it's an indicator of immaturity!
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by abelard
as for debt and mountains, what is the alleged connection between
those and gdp?
why are you connecting them?
Because they can be expressed as a % of GDP.
so can plastic ducks
What is the plastic duck expressed as a % of GDP?
£1:79
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by abelard
meanwhile it is a long established 'principle' of lefties that
they renege on their debts
They will have no choice in 3.5 years time. The debt will be so large that
even a fully functioning UK economy will not be able to afford the interest
payments without doing permanent damage to public spending.
1. there is virtually no interest
2.governments have absolutely no intention of repaying the
so-called national debt
government debt is just a form of hidden taxation...
the bigger the so-called debt, the more the gov't gains
<Chuckle> - what a clown, and a lying dishonest clown at that.
Post by abelard
3.the real value of money is constantly eroding...it has been
for centuries....for government, control of money is about
power, not value
4. after ww2 the uk national debt was nearer 200%...it has
been paid down
<More chuckles) - WW2 is it, what a convenient starting point.
Yes and that debt was not completely paid off until 2006 - by Gordon Brown.
Even at 1% that is around £30 billion a year simply in interest.
Let’s use the 60 year rule, and assume we will finally pay off this current
debt in 2080.
£3 trillion (I’m being kind here, it could be double that by the time
Cummings steps down) over 60 years means we will have to pay £50 billion per
year to get the debt reduced to zero in 60 years; plus the yearly interest
rate.
If for interest rate purposes we take the debt to be half of what it is at
its maximum - because by 2080 the debt will be 0 and we need an average.
Let’s be (very) generous and work with an average interest rate over the
period of 2%.
That is £30 billion in interest, and £50 billion loan repayment - so £80
billion per year for the next 60 years. And that is equivalent to our entire
annual education budget, (or, if you like it another way - twice our annual
defence budget).
How about
starting from somewhere like the late seventies - pre-Thatcher? Go on,
tell us how today compares with that?
Post by abelard
Post by Keema's Nan
£2.4 trillion and counting (upwards at £5,170 per second, currently).
https://www.nationaldebtclock.co.uk
you won't understand government debt until you understand
that debt for government is nothing like debt for the citizen
https://www.abelard.org/inflation.php
It's exactly like it, idiot, except government have to borrow even more
to pay the interest.
You are a dishonest jackal.
Babbelard, and Nugent and Rowing for that matter, are just bag-carriers
for the money lenders and money creators.
Arguing with them is a waste of time, because they have an agenda which
precludes looking for ways to improve society, and the lives of the
majority. They are only concerned with what is best for them and those
they represent.
Lardy is, of course, raving mad - and the others just dishonest and not
very bright.
And yet Nugent insists he has an honours degree.

I’m not sure where he bought it, maybe the University of Misery Bay,
Michigan?
Farmer Giles
2020-09-14 15:36:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by abelard
On Mon, 14 Sep 2020 14:41:15 +0100, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by abelard
On Mon, 14 Sep 2020 14:02:18 +0100, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by abelard
On Mon, 14 Sep 2020 13:44:05 +0100, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
I see no one is falling over themselves to congratulate the government
on
that one (as accurately predicted by Giles). Maybe the on-message
instruction
is to pretend that the increase from 40% to over 100% between 2010 and
2020
results entirely from Covid?
Or, more than likely, to remain totally silent on the subject of the debt
mountain.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8722041/UK-economy-grew-6-6-c
en
t-J
uly
-coronavirus-rebound-slows.html
Yaaay.
For the first time in 10 years you have posted something useful.
But that article still does not tell anyone what the figures on the left
axis
of the graph are supposed to represent and what the units are.
they are an index
it starts with an arbitrary 100 and then is adjusted over time
a conditions change
Post by Keema's Nan
However, if you righties dare scroll down the page little further to the
excellent graph showing quarterly output, you will see the real story.
what is real(or unreal) about it?
Post by Keema's Nan
Suck it up, losers.
how is less commuting a 'loss'?
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by abelard
i note swedehead was also on about his arse...c'mon fellow,
just what is it about marxists and arses?
A paid-up marxist loves smearing his/her arse juice all over capitalists.
That is the fascination which marxists have with arses.
seems credible!
they'd be better improving their allotments
i'm with freud...it's an indicator of immaturity!
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by abelard
as for debt and mountains, what is the alleged connection between
those and gdp?
why are you connecting them?
Because they can be expressed as a % of GDP.
so can plastic ducks
What is the plastic duck expressed as a % of GDP?
£1:79
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by abelard
meanwhile it is a long established 'principle' of lefties that
they renege on their debts
They will have no choice in 3.5 years time. The debt will be so large that
even a fully functioning UK economy will not be able to afford the interest
payments without doing permanent damage to public spending.
1. there is virtually no interest
2.governments have absolutely no intention of repaying the
so-called national debt
government debt is just a form of hidden taxation...
the bigger the so-called debt, the more the gov't gains
<Chuckle> - what a clown, and a lying dishonest clown at that.
Post by abelard
3.the real value of money is constantly eroding...it has been
for centuries....for government, control of money is about
power, not value
4. after ww2 the uk national debt was nearer 200%...it has
been paid down
<More chuckles) - WW2 is it, what a convenient starting point.
Yes and that debt was not completely paid off until 2006 - by Gordon Brown.
Even at 1% that is around £30 billion a year simply in interest.
Let’s use the 60 year rule, and assume we will finally pay off this current
debt in 2080.
£3 trillion (I’m being kind here, it could be double that by the time
Cummings steps down) over 60 years means we will have to pay £50 billion per
year to get the debt reduced to zero in 60 years; plus the yearly interest
rate.
If for interest rate purposes we take the debt to be half of what it is at
its maximum - because by 2080 the debt will be 0 and we need an average.
Let’s be (very) generous and work with an average interest rate over the
period of 2%.
That is £30 billion in interest, and £50 billion loan repayment - so £80
billion per year for the next 60 years. And that is equivalent to our entire
annual education budget, (or, if you like it another way - twice our annual
defence budget).
How about
starting from somewhere like the late seventies - pre-Thatcher? Go on,
tell us how today compares with that?
Post by abelard
Post by Keema's Nan
£2.4 trillion and counting (upwards at £5,170 per second, currently).
https://www.nationaldebtclock.co.uk
you won't understand government debt until you understand
that debt for government is nothing like debt for the citizen
https://www.abelard.org/inflation.php
It's exactly like it, idiot, except government have to borrow even more
to pay the interest.
You are a dishonest jackal.
Babbelard, and Nugent and Rowing for that matter, are just bag-carriers
for the money lenders and money creators.
Arguing with them is a waste of time, because they have an agenda which
precludes looking for ways to improve society, and the lives of the
majority. They are only concerned with what is best for them and those
they represent.
Lardy is, of course, raving mad - and the others just dishonest and not
very bright.
And yet Nugent insists he has an honours degree.
I’m not sure where he bought it, maybe the University of Misery Bay,
Michigan?
Lots of thick people have honours degrees. We have an education system
largely designed for plodders.
abelard
2020-09-14 15:23:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 14 Sep 2020 16:04:27 +0100, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Even at 1% that is around £30 billion a year simply in interest.
at present the is much 'borrowing' at minus interest rates
Post by Keema's Nan
Let’s use the 60 year rule, and assume we will finally pay off this current
debt in 2080.
there is *no* intention of paying it off...
Post by Keema's Nan
£3 trillion (I’m being kind here, it could be double that by the time
Cummings steps down) over 60 years means we will have to pay £50 billion per
year to get the debt reduced to zero in 60 years; plus the yearly interest
rate.
If for interest rate purposes we take the debt to be half of what it is at
its maximum - because by 2080 the debt will be 0 and we need an average.
Let’s be (very) generous and work with an average interest rate over the
period of 2%.
That is £30 billion in interest, and £50 billion loan repayment - so £80
billion per year for the next 60 years. And that is equivalent to our entire
annual education budget, (or, if you like it another way - twice our annual
defence budget).
you are trying to think of it in similar terms to a personal debt...
i've told you, it's about power, not interest rates

meanwhile the value of the money is constantly shrinking
Keema's Nan
2020-09-14 15:32:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by abelard
On Mon, 14 Sep 2020 16:04:27 +0100, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Even at 1% that is around £30 billion a year simply in interest.
at present the is much 'borrowing' at minus interest rates
Post by Keema's Nan
Let’s use the 60 year rule, and assume we will finally pay off this current
debt in 2080.
there is *no* intention of paying it off...
Post by Keema's Nan
£3 trillion (I’m being kind here, it could be double that by the time
Cummings steps down) over 60 years means we will have to pay £50 billion per
year to get the debt reduced to zero in 60 years; plus the yearly interest
rate.
If for interest rate purposes we take the debt to be half of what it is at
its maximum - because by 2080 the debt will be 0 and we need an average.
Let’s be (very) generous and work with an average interest rate over the
period of 2%.
That is £30 billion in interest, and £50 billion loan repayment - so £80
billion per year for the next 60 years. And that is equivalent to our entire
annual education budget, (or, if you like it another way - twice our annual
defence budget).
you are trying to think of it in similar terms to a personal debt...
i've told you, it's about power, not interest rates
meanwhile the value of the money is constantly shrinking
And the mountain of debt is constantly rising.

In fact it has increased by another £3 million since you last posted.
abelard
2020-09-14 15:41:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 14 Sep 2020 16:32:43 +0100, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by abelard
On Mon, 14 Sep 2020 16:04:27 +0100, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Even at 1% that is around £30 billion a year simply in interest.
at present the is much 'borrowing' at minus interest rates
Post by Keema's Nan
Let’s use the 60 year rule, and assume we will finally pay off this current
debt in 2080.
there is *no* intention of paying it off...
Post by Keema's Nan
£3 trillion (I’m being kind here, it could be double that by the time
Cummings steps down) over 60 years means we will have to pay £50 billion per
year to get the debt reduced to zero in 60 years; plus the yearly interest
rate.
If for interest rate purposes we take the debt to be half of what it is at
its maximum - because by 2080 the debt will be 0 and we need an average.
Let’s be (very) generous and work with an average interest rate over the
period of 2%.
That is £30 billion in interest, and £50 billion loan repayment - so £80
billion per year for the next 60 years. And that is equivalent to our entire
annual education budget, (or, if you like it another way - twice our annual
defence budget).
you are trying to think of it in similar terms to a personal debt...
i've told you, it's about power, not interest rates
meanwhile the value of the money is constantly shrinking
And the mountain of debt is constantly rising.
no it isn't

it is rising at this time...eg at present

it is simultaneously shrinking
Post by Keema's Nan
In fact it has increased by another £3 million since you last posted.
that is pocket change
there are 60+ million people to pay that

if your figure is reliable that is 5p per person
Keema's Nan
2020-09-14 17:07:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by abelard
On Mon, 14 Sep 2020 16:32:43 +0100, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by abelard
On Mon, 14 Sep 2020 16:04:27 +0100, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Even at 1% that is around £30 billion a year simply in interest.
at present the is much 'borrowing' at minus interest rates
Post by Keema's Nan
Let’s use the 60 year rule, and assume we will finally pay off this current
debt in 2080.
there is *no* intention of paying it off...
Post by Keema's Nan
£3 trillion (I’m being kind here, it could be double that by the time
Cummings steps down) over 60 years means we will have to pay £50 billion per
year to get the debt reduced to zero in 60 years; plus the yearly interest
rate.
If for interest rate purposes we take the debt to be half of what it is at
its maximum - because by 2080 the debt will be 0 and we need an average.
Let’s be (very) generous and work with an average interest rate over the
period of 2%.
That is £30 billion in interest, and £50 billion loan repayment - so £80
billion per year for the next 60 years. And that is equivalent to our entire
annual education budget, (or, if you like it another way - twice our annual
defence budget).
you are trying to think of it in similar terms to a personal debt...
i've told you, it's about power, not interest rates
meanwhile the value of the money is constantly shrinking
And the mountain of debt is constantly rising.
no it isn't
it is rising at this time...eg at present
it is simultaneously shrinking
Post by Keema's Nan
In fact it has increased by another £3 million since you last posted.
that is pocket change
there are 60+ million people to pay that
That was only in a few minutes.

And children don’t pay tax.
Post by abelard
if your figure is reliable that is 5p per person
Nothing you say is reliable.

Selective interpretation of sensible a post in order to suit your degenerate
agenda, is not logical thinking.
abelard
2020-09-14 17:11:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 14 Sep 2020 18:07:46 +0100, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by abelard
On Mon, 14 Sep 2020 16:32:43 +0100, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by abelard
On Mon, 14 Sep 2020 16:04:27 +0100, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Even at 1% that is around £30 billion a year simply in interest.
at present the is much 'borrowing' at minus interest rates
Post by Keema's Nan
Let’s use the 60 year rule, and assume we will finally pay off this current
debt in 2080.
there is *no* intention of paying it off...
Post by Keema's Nan
£3 trillion (I’m being kind here, it could be double that by the time
Cummings steps down) over 60 years means we will have to pay £50 billion per
year to get the debt reduced to zero in 60 years; plus the yearly interest
rate.
If for interest rate purposes we take the debt to be half of what it is at
its maximum - because by 2080 the debt will be 0 and we need an average.
Let’s be (very) generous and work with an average interest rate over the
period of 2%.
That is £30 billion in interest, and £50 billion loan repayment - so £80
billion per year for the next 60 years. And that is equivalent to our entire
annual education budget, (or, if you like it another way - twice our annual
defence budget).
you are trying to think of it in similar terms to a personal debt...
i've told you, it's about power, not interest rates
meanwhile the value of the money is constantly shrinking
And the mountain of debt is constantly rising.
no it isn't
it is rising at this time...eg at present
it is simultaneously shrinking
Post by Keema's Nan
In fact it has increased by another £3 million since you last posted.
that is pocket change
there are 60+ million people to pay that
That was only in a few minutes.
And children don’t pay tax.
i did wonder if i had to put that in for you

then i wondered if i should also put in 'the government' would
pay you subsidies to raise children

so i left you to play your silly games....
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by abelard
if your figure is reliable that is 5p per person
Nothing you say is reliable.
Selective interpretation of sensible a post in order to suit your degenerate
agenda, is not logical thinking.
go get swedehead to help you
Keema's Nan
2020-09-14 17:29:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by abelard
On Mon, 14 Sep 2020 18:07:46 +0100, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by abelard
On Mon, 14 Sep 2020 16:32:43 +0100, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by abelard
On Mon, 14 Sep 2020 16:04:27 +0100, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Even at 1% that is around £30 billion a year simply in interest.
at present the is much 'borrowing' at minus interest rates
Post by Keema's Nan
Let’s use the 60 year rule, and assume we will finally pay off this
current
debt in 2080.
there is *no* intention of paying it off...
Post by Keema's Nan
£3 trillion (I’m being kind here, it could be double that by the time
Cummings steps down) over 60 years means we will have to pay £50
billion
per
year to get the debt reduced to zero in 60 years; plus the yearly
interest
rate.
If for interest rate purposes we take the debt to be half of what it is
at
its maximum - because by 2080 the debt will be 0 and we need an average.
Let’s be (very) generous and work with an average interest rate over
the
period of 2%.
That is £30 billion in interest, and £50 billion loan repayment - so
£80
billion per year for the next 60 years. And that is equivalent to our
entire
annual education budget, (or, if you like it another way - twice our
annual
defence budget).
you are trying to think of it in similar terms to a personal debt...
i've told you, it's about power, not interest rates
meanwhile the value of the money is constantly shrinking
And the mountain of debt is constantly rising.
no it isn't
it is rising at this time...eg at present
it is simultaneously shrinking
Post by Keema's Nan
In fact it has increased by another £3 million since you last posted.
that is pocket change
there are 60+ million people to pay that
That was only in a few minutes.
And children don’t pay tax.
i did wonder if i had to put that in for you
What you couldn’t manage, because you can’t count, is that it works out
at a *rise* of an extra £13 billion per month.

Even using your incorrect figure of 60 million people, that is £221 per
month *increase* for every UK citizen.
Post by abelard
then i wondered if i should also put in 'the government' would
pay you subsidies to raise children
so i left you to play your silly games....
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by abelard
if your figure is reliable that is 5p per person
Nothing you say is reliable.
Selective interpretation of sensible a post in order to suit your degenerate
agenda, is not logical thinking.
go get swedehead to help you
JNugent
2020-09-14 23:22:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by abelard
On Mon, 14 Sep 2020 16:32:43 +0100, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by abelard
On Mon, 14 Sep 2020 16:04:27 +0100, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Even at 1% that is around £30 billion a year simply in interest.
at present the is much 'borrowing' at minus interest rates
Post by Keema's Nan
Let’s use the 60 year rule, and assume we will finally pay off this current
debt in 2080.
there is *no* intention of paying it off...
Post by Keema's Nan
£3 trillion (I’m being kind here, it could be double that by the time
Cummings steps down) over 60 years means we will have to pay £50 billion per
year to get the debt reduced to zero in 60 years; plus the yearly interest
rate.
If for interest rate purposes we take the debt to be half of what it is at
its maximum - because by 2080 the debt will be 0 and we need an average.
Let’s be (very) generous and work with an average interest rate over the
period of 2%.
That is £30 billion in interest, and £50 billion loan repayment - so £80
billion per year for the next 60 years. And that is equivalent to our entire
annual education budget, (or, if you like it another way - twice our annual
defence budget).
you are trying to think of it in similar terms to a personal debt...
i've told you, it's about power, not interest rates
meanwhile the value of the money is constantly shrinking
And the mountain of debt is constantly rising.
no it isn't
it is rising at this time...eg at present
it is simultaneously shrinking
Post by Keema's Nan
In fact it has increased by another £3 million since you last posted.
that is pocket change
there are 60+ million people to pay that
That was only in a few minutes.
And children don’t pay tax.
They will be doing so by the time it's paid off.
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by abelard
if your figure is reliable that is 5p per person
Nothing you say is reliable.
Selective interpretation of sensible a post in order to suit your degenerate
agenda, is not logical thinking.
"Degenerate"?

That's a bit strong, even for you, Naan/Giles.
Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells
2020-09-14 15:42:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by abelard
On Mon, 14 Sep 2020 14:41:15 +0100, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by abelard
On Mon, 14 Sep 2020 14:02:18 +0100, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by abelard
On Mon, 14 Sep 2020 13:44:05 +0100, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
I see no one is falling over themselves to congratulate the government on
that one (as accurately predicted by Giles). Maybe the on-message
instruction
is to pretend that the increase from 40% to over 100% between 2010 and 2020
results entirely from Covid?
Or, more than likely, to remain totally silent on the subject of the debt
mountain.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8722041/UK-economy-grew-6-6-cent-J
uly
-coronavirus-rebound-slows.html
Yaaay.
For the first time in 10 years you have posted something useful.
But that article still does not tell anyone what the figures on the left axis
of the graph are supposed to represent and what the units are.
they are an index
it starts with an arbitrary 100 and then is adjusted over time
a conditions change
Post by Keema's Nan
However, if you righties dare scroll down the page little further to the
excellent graph showing quarterly output, you will see the real story.
what is real(or unreal) about it?
Post by Keema's Nan
Suck it up, losers.
how is less commuting a 'loss'?
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by abelard
i note swedehead was also on about his arse...c'mon fellow,
just what is it about marxists and arses?
A paid-up marxist loves smearing his/her arse juice all over capitalists.
That is the fascination which marxists have with arses.
seems credible!
they'd be better improving their allotments
i'm with freud...it's an indicator of immaturity!
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by abelard
as for debt and mountains, what is the alleged connection between
those and gdp?
why are you connecting them?
Because they can be expressed as a % of GDP.
so can plastic ducks
What is the plastic duck expressed as a % of GDP?
£1:79
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by abelard
meanwhile it is a long established 'principle' of lefties that
they renege on their debts
They will have no choice in 3.5 years time. The debt will be so large that
even a fully functioning UK economy will not be able to afford the interest
payments without doing permanent damage to public spending.
1. there is virtually no interest
2.governments have absolutely no intention of repaying the
so-called national debt
government debt is just a form of hidden taxation...
the bigger the so-called debt, the more the gov't gains
3.the real value of money is constantly eroding...it has been
for centuries....for government, control of money is about
power, not value
4. after ww2 the uk national debt was nearer 200%...it has
been paid down
Post by Keema's Nan
£2.4 trillion and counting (upwards at £5,170 per second, currently).
https://www.nationaldebtclock.co.uk
you won't understand government debt until you understand
that debt for government is nothing like debt for the citizen
https://www.abelard.org/inflation.php
This could all be solved quite easily by including government
borrowing in GDP. Since the debt will never actually be repaid, it's
equivalent to government spending!
abelard
2020-09-14 16:06:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 14 Sep 2020 16:42:46 +0100, Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells
Post by Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells
Post by abelard
you won't understand government debt until you understand
that debt for government is nothing like debt for the citizen
https://www.abelard.org/inflation.php
This could all be solved quite easily by including government
borrowing in GDP. Since the debt will never actually be repaid, it's
equivalent to government spending!
imv a good way of removing the crap is to examine government
income instead of alleged expenditure

a major number used in macro-economics is the debt as a percentage
of gdp

governments work hard to make sure most people cannot
follow/understand their finagling
Keema's Nan
2020-09-14 14:11:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by abelard
On Mon, 14 Sep 2020 14:02:18 +0100, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by abelard
On Mon, 14 Sep 2020 13:44:05 +0100, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
I see no one is falling over themselves to congratulate the government on
that one (as accurately predicted by Giles). Maybe the on-message instruction
is to pretend that the increase from 40% to over 100% between 2010 and 2020
results entirely from Covid?
Or, more than likely, to remain totally silent on the subject of the debt
mountain.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8722041/UK-economy-grew-6-6-cent-J
uly
-coronavirus-rebound-slows.html
Yaaay.
For the first time in 10 years you have posted something useful.
But that article still does not tell anyone what the figures on the left axis
of the graph are supposed to represent and what the units are.
they are an index
it starts with an arbitrary 100 and then is adjusted over time
a conditions change
Arbitrary?

Not in any way scientific then?
Post by abelard
Post by Keema's Nan
However, if you righties dare scroll down the page little further to the
excellent graph showing quarterly output, you will see the real story.
what is real(or unreal) about it?
It is concerned with what actually happened (or is happening), not arbitrary
fantasy figures.
Post by abelard
Post by Keema's Nan
Suck it up, losers.
how is less commuting a 'loss'?
Is this some kind of strawman you are attempting to erect?
Post by abelard
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by abelard
i note swedehead was also on about his arse...c'mon fellow,
just what is it about marxists and arses?
A paid-up marxist loves smearing his/her arse juice all over capitalists.
That is the fascination which marxists have with arses.
seems credible!
they'd be better improving their allotments
i'm with freud...it's an indicator of immaturity!
Is that why Tories must never speak of their own rectums, but seem to spend
most of their lives up someone else’s?
Post by abelard
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by abelard
as for debt and mountains, what is the alleged connection between
those and gdp?
why are you connecting them?
Because they can be expressed as a % of GDP.
so can plastic ducks
meanwhile it is a long established 'principle' of lefties that
they renege on their debts
abelard
2020-09-14 14:23:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 14 Sep 2020 15:11:40 +0100, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by abelard
On Mon, 14 Sep 2020 14:02:18 +0100, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by abelard
On Mon, 14 Sep 2020 13:44:05 +0100, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
I see no one is falling over themselves to congratulate the government on
that one (as accurately predicted by Giles). Maybe the on-message instruction
is to pretend that the increase from 40% to over 100% between 2010 and 2020
results entirely from Covid?
Or, more than likely, to remain totally silent on the subject of the debt
mountain.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8722041/UK-economy-grew-6-6-cent-J
uly
-coronavirus-rebound-slows.html
Yaaay.
For the first time in 10 years you have posted something useful.
But that article still does not tell anyone what the figures on the left axis
of the graph are supposed to represent and what the units are.
they are an index
it starts with an arbitrary 100 and then is adjusted over time
a conditions change
Arbitrary?
Not in any way scientific then?
depends on your definition of 'science'

science is about measurement

measurements with elastic rulers have problems
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by abelard
Post by Keema's Nan
However, if you righties dare scroll down the page little further to the
excellent graph showing quarterly output, you will see the real story.
what is real(or unreal) about it?
It is concerned with what actually happened (or is happening), not arbitrary
fantasy figures.
there is less commuting...that is real

building more bombs increases gdp

look at the two graphs early on this page
https://www.abelard.org/economics/gross_domestic_product.php
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by abelard
Post by Keema's Nan
Suck it up, losers.
how is less commuting a 'loss'?
Is this some kind of strawman you are attempting to erect?
no...
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by abelard
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by abelard
i note swedehead was also on about his arse...c'mon fellow,
just what is it about marxists and arses?
A paid-up marxist loves smearing his/her arse juice all over capitalists.
That is the fascination which marxists have with arses.
seems credible!
they'd be better improving their allotments
i'm with freud...it's an indicator of immaturity!
Is that why Tories must never speak of their own rectums, but seem to spend
most of their lives up someone else’s?
only for those self-identifying as queers or otherwise involved
in curious investigations
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by abelard
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by abelard
as for debt and mountains, what is the alleged connection between
those and gdp?
why are you connecting them?
Because they can be expressed as a % of GDP.
so can plastic ducks
meanwhile it is a long established 'principle' of lefties that
they renege on their debts
JNugent
2020-09-14 15:08:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by abelard
On Mon, 14 Sep 2020 13:06:30 +0100, JNugent
Post by JNugent
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Have you read the relevant article?
If you have, you know the answer.
If you haven't, why not?
Because I don't need to. I was referring to your comments, nothing
else - and they weren't in quotes. Now, about this UK output?
See the graphic referred to.
It certainly was not something I created.
But you knew that all along.
You said 'article'.
And now he says graphic.
Both exist and can be found together in the same place (if you are
prepared to spend 15 seconds looking for them).
Post by Keema's Nan
Which shows just what a slimy little dishonest shit we are dealing with.
Only a graphic (of a graph!) was originally instanced. That is true.
If either half of you wants the derivation of that graph / graphic, it
(the graphic) is associated with an article which is easy to find on the
Daily Mail website.
Bot you will, under both of your identities, prefer to act all prissy
when it is suggested that the information you want is exactly where you
would expect to find it.
what amused me was the economically illiterate swedehead banging on
about the mail while the graph was derived from ons data :-)
you could hardly make it up!
I searched for the graph on the Mail website, but couldn’t find anything
which even came close to that unscientific nonsense; which is why I posted
the one showing national debt as a % of GDP.
I see no one is falling over themselves to congratulate the government on
that one (as accurately predicted by Giles). Maybe the on-message instruction
is to pretend that the increase from 40% to over 100% between 2010 and 2020
results entirely from Covid?
Or, more than likely, to remain totally silent on the subject of the debt
mountain.
Contrary to expectations, it seems that you (both halves of you) really
want to see the article.

Or are you just saying so in the belief that it doesn't exist and so
cannot be produced?

Either way, less than two seconds searching on the DM website (under the
terms "UK", "output" and "Covid") gave the link, and here it is:

<https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8722041/UK-economy-grew-6-6-cent-July-coronavirus-rebound-slows.html>

Please note that the point that abelard was making was based purely - as
far as I can see - upon the content of the graph which you have already
seen. You might, of course, want to check the origin of the figures (the
Office for National Statistics).

Please feel free to have another rant about the graph and its origin, or
about anything else which takes your fancy. No-one takes any real
notice, after all.
Farmer Giles
2020-09-15 07:52:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by abelard
On Mon, 14 Sep 2020 13:06:30 +0100, JNugent
Post by JNugent
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Have you read the relevant article?
If you have, you know the answer.
If you haven't, why not?
Because I don't need to. I was referring to your comments, nothing
else - and they weren't in quotes. Now, about this UK output?
See the graphic referred to.
It certainly was not something I created.
But you knew that all along.
You said 'article'.
And now he says graphic.
Both exist and can be found together in the same place (if you are
prepared to spend 15 seconds looking for them).
Post by Keema's Nan
Which shows just what a slimy little dishonest shit we are dealing with.
Only a graphic (of a graph!) was originally instanced. That is true.
If either half of you wants the derivation of that graph / graphic, it
(the graphic) is associated with an article which is easy to find on the
Daily Mail website.
Bot you will, under both of your identities, prefer to act all prissy
when it is suggested that the information you want is exactly where you
would expect to find it.
what amused me was the economically illiterate swedehead banging on
about the mail while the graph was derived from ons data :-)
you could hardly make it up!
I searched for the graph on the Mail website, but couldn’t find anything
which even came close to that unscientific nonsense; which is why I posted
the one showing national debt as a % of GDP.
I see no one is falling over themselves to congratulate the government on
that one (as accurately predicted by Giles). Maybe the on-message instruction
is to pretend that the increase from 40% to over 100% between 2010 and 2020
results entirely from Covid?
Or, more than likely, to remain totally silent on the subject of the debt
mountain.
Contrary to expectations, it seems that you (both halves of you) really
want to see the article.
Do we, and how have you come to that conclusion?
Post by JNugent
Or are you just saying so in the belief that it doesn't exist and so
cannot be produced?
Either way, less than two seconds searching on the DM website (under the
<https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8722041/UK-economy-grew-6-6-cent-July-coronavirus-rebound-slows.html>
Please note that the point that abelard was making was based purely - as
far as I can see - upon the content of the graph which you have already
seen. You might, of course, want to check the origin of the figures (the
Office for National Statistics).
You parroted the graph and referred to 'output'. I asked you to define
this output, that is all - and you clearly weren't able to. GDP figures
are not 'output'.
Post by JNugent
Please feel free to have another rant about the graph and its origin, or
about anything else which takes your fancy. No-one takes any real
notice, after all.
No-one takes any notice of this meaningless graph of yours either -
except you and your fellow economic-illiterate Babbelard. And even you
ran away when asked to define aspects of it.
JNugent
2020-09-15 09:43:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by abelard
On Mon, 14 Sep 2020 13:06:30 +0100, JNugent
Post by JNugent
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Have you read the relevant article?
If you have, you know the answer.
If you haven't, why not?
Because I don't need to. I was referring to your comments, nothing
else - and they weren't in quotes. Now, about this UK output?
See the graphic referred to.
It certainly was not something I created.
But you knew that all along.
You said 'article'.
And now he says graphic.
Both exist and can be found together in the same place (if you are
prepared to spend 15 seconds looking for them).
Post by Keema's Nan
Which shows just what a slimy little dishonest shit we are dealing with.
Only a graphic (of a graph!) was originally instanced. That is true.
If either half of you wants the derivation of that graph / graphic, it
(the graphic) is associated with an article which is easy to find on the
Daily Mail website.
Bot you will, under both of your identities, prefer to act all prissy
when it is suggested that the information you want is exactly where you
would expect to find it.
what amused me was the economically illiterate swedehead banging on
about the mail while the graph was derived from ons data :-)
you could hardly make it up!
I searched for the graph on the Mail website, but couldn’t find anything
which even came close to that unscientific nonsense; which is why I posted
the one showing national debt as a % of GDP.
I see no one is falling over themselves to congratulate the
government on
that one (as accurately predicted by Giles). Maybe the on-message instruction
is to pretend that the increase from 40% to over 100% between 2010 and 2020
results entirely from Covid?
Or, more than likely, to remain totally silent on the subject of the debt
mountain.
Contrary to expectations, it seems that you (both halves of you)
really want to see the article.
Do we, and how have you come to that conclusion?
What do you mean, "we"?

Why did you ask about it if you didn't want to read it?
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Or are you just saying so in the belief that it doesn't exist and so
cannot be produced?
Either way, less than two seconds searching on the DM website (under
<https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8722041/UK-economy-grew-6-6-cent-July-coronavirus-rebound-slows.html>
Please note that the point that abelard was making was based purely -
as far as I can see - upon the content of the graph which you have
already seen. You might, of course, want to check the origin of the
figures (the Office for National Statistics).
You parroted the graph and referred to 'output'. I asked you to define
this output, that is all - and you clearly weren't able to. GDP figures
are not 'output'.
Really? What makes you say that?

Do you have some sort of definition of "output" which means that GDP
cannot bear that description?
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Please feel free to have another rant about the graph and its origin,
or about anything else which takes your fancy. No-one takes any real
notice, after all.
No-one takes any notice of this meaningless graph of yours either -
except you and your fellow economic-illiterate Babbelard. And even you
ran away when asked to define aspects of it.
The graph is not "mine".

It is drawn up with figures from the Office for National Sy=tatistics (ONS).

If the figures don't suit your prejudices, take it up with ONS and/or
the Daily Mail.

Let us know how you get on (in either identity).
Farmer Giles
2020-09-15 10:37:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by abelard
On Mon, 14 Sep 2020 13:06:30 +0100, JNugent
Post by JNugent
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Have you read the relevant article?
If you have, you know the answer.
If you haven't, why not?
Because I don't need to. I was referring to your comments, nothing
else - and they weren't in quotes. Now, about this UK output?
See the graphic referred to.
It certainly was not something I created.
But you knew that all along.
You said 'article'.
And now he says graphic.
Both exist and can be found together in the same place (if you are
prepared to spend 15 seconds looking for them).
Post by Keema's Nan
Which shows just what a slimy little dishonest shit we are dealing with.
Only a graphic (of a graph!) was originally instanced. That is true.
If either half of you wants the derivation of that graph / graphic, it
(the graphic) is associated with an article which is easy to find on the
Daily Mail website.
Bot you will, under both of your identities, prefer to act all prissy
when it is suggested that the information you want is exactly where you
would expect to find it.
what amused me was the economically illiterate swedehead banging on
about the mail while the graph was derived from ons data :-)
you could hardly make it up!
I searched for the graph on the Mail website, but couldn’t find anything
which even came close to that unscientific nonsense; which is why I posted
the one showing national debt as a % of GDP.
I see no one is falling over themselves to congratulate the
government on
that one (as accurately predicted by Giles). Maybe the on-message instruction
is to pretend that the increase from 40% to over 100% between 2010 and 2020
results entirely from Covid?
Or, more than likely, to remain totally silent on the subject of the debt
mountain.
Contrary to expectations, it seems that you (both halves of you)
really want to see the article.
Do we, and how have you come to that conclusion?
What do you mean, "we"?
Because you referred to 'both' - whatever that was supposed to mean.
Post by JNugent
Why did you ask about it if you didn't want to read it?
I didn't. I asked you define a term that you used.
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Or are you just saying so in the belief that it doesn't exist and so
cannot be produced?
Either way, less than two seconds searching on the DM website (under
<https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8722041/UK-economy-grew-6-6-cent-July-coronavirus-rebound-slows.html>
Please note that the point that abelard was making was based purely -
as far as I can see - upon the content of the graph which you have
already seen. You might, of course, want to check the origin of the
figures (the Office for National Statistics).
You parroted the graph and referred to 'output'. I asked you to define
this output, that is all - and you clearly weren't able to. GDP
figures are not 'output'.
Really? What makes you say that?
Because they clearly aren't. GDP refers simply to transactions where
money changes hands. It is neither necessarily output nor even
productivity. If you believe otherwise, and think it means output,
perhaps you'd care to say why - which was the question I asked you in
the first place.
Post by JNugent
Do you have some sort of definition of "output" which means that GDP
cannot bear that description?
Nice try. Now give us your definition that says it can and does?
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Please feel free to have another rant about the graph and its origin,
or about anything else which takes your fancy. No-one takes any real
notice, after all.
No-one takes any notice of this meaningless graph of yours either -
except you and your fellow economic-illiterate Babbelard. And even you
ran away when asked to define aspects of it.
The graph is not "mine".
It is drawn up with figures from the Office for National Sy=tatistics (ONS).
If the figures don't suit your prejudices, take it up with ONS and/or
the Daily Mail.
On the contrary, those meaningless figures suit *your* prejudices - and
if you're going to quote and support them you should at least have the
courage to defend them, or admit that you can't. And not resort to your
usual childish games when you get taken to task.
Post by JNugent
Let us know how you get on (in either identity).
I have no intention of taking any notice of the Daily Mail or ONS
concoctions - in any identity.
JNugent
2020-09-15 11:07:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by abelard
On Mon, 14 Sep 2020 13:06:30 +0100, JNugent
Post by JNugent
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Have you read the relevant article?
If you have, you know the answer.
If you haven't, why not?
Because I don't need to. I was referring to your comments, nothing
else - and they weren't in quotes. Now, about this UK output?
See the graphic referred to.
It certainly was not something I created.
But you knew that all along.
You said 'article'.
And now he says graphic.
Both exist and can be found together in the same place (if you are
prepared to spend 15 seconds looking for them).
Post by Keema's Nan
Which shows just what a slimy little dishonest shit we are dealing with.
Only a graphic (of a graph!) was originally instanced. That is true.
If either half of you wants the derivation of that graph / graphic, it
(the graphic) is associated with an article which is easy to find on the
Daily Mail website.
Bot you will, under both of your identities, prefer to act all prissy
when it is suggested that the information you want is exactly where you
would expect to find it.
what amused me was the economically illiterate swedehead banging on
about the mail while the graph was derived from ons data :-)
you could hardly make it up!
I searched for the graph on the Mail website, but couldn’t find anything
which even came close to that unscientific nonsense; which is why I posted
the one showing national debt as a % of GDP.
I see no one is falling over themselves to congratulate the government on
that one (as accurately predicted by Giles). Maybe the on-message instruction
is to pretend that the increase from 40% to over 100% between 2010 and 2020
results entirely from Covid?
Or, more than likely, to remain totally silent on the subject of the debt
mountain.
Contrary to expectations, it seems that you (both halves of you)
really want to see the article.
Do we, and how have you come to that conclusion?
What do you mean, "we"?
Because you referred to 'both' - whatever that was supposed to mean.
Post by JNugent
Why did you ask about it if you didn't want to read it?
I didn't. I asked you define a term that you used.
It was quoted.
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Or are you just saying so in the belief that it doesn't exist and so
cannot be produced?
Either way, less than two seconds searching on the DM website (under
<https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8722041/UK-economy-grew-6-6-cent-July-coronavirus-rebound-slows.html>
Please note that the point that abelard was making was based purely
- as far as I can see - upon the content of the graph which you have
already seen. You might, of course, want to check the origin of the
figures (the Office for National Statistics).
You parroted the graph and referred to 'output'. I asked you to
define this output, that is all - and you clearly weren't able to.
GDP figures are not 'output'.
Really? What makes you say that?
Because they clearly aren't. GDP refers simply to transactions where
money changes hands. It is neither necessarily output nor even
productivity. If you believe otherwise, and think it means output,
perhaps you'd care to say why - which was the question I asked you in
the first place.
Post by JNugent
Do you have some sort of definition of "output" which means that GDP
cannot bear that description?
Nice try. Now give us your definition that says it can and does?
I was *quoting*.

Buy either way, do you have some sort of definition of "output" which
means that GDP cannot bear that description?

If you haven't, what's your problem?
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Please feel free to have another rant about the graph and its
origin, or about anything else which takes your fancy. No-one takes
any real notice, after all.
No-one takes any notice of this meaningless graph of yours either -
except you and your fellow economic-illiterate Babbelard. And even
you ran away when asked to define aspects of it.
The graph is not "mine".
It is drawn up with figures from the Office for National Sy=tatistics (ONS).
If the figures don't suit your prejudices, take it up with ONS and/or
the Daily Mail.
On the contrary, those meaningless figures suit *your* prejudices
Are they right or wrong?

If you think they're wrong, please feel free to take up your complaint
with the office for National Statistics, whose figures they are.
Post by Farmer Giles
I have no intention of taking any notice of the Daily Mail or ONS
concoctions
You don't trust the Office for National Statistics?

Why not?
JNugent
2020-09-15 11:13:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by abelard
On Mon, 14 Sep 2020 13:06:30 +0100, JNugent
Post by JNugent
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Have you read the relevant article?
If you have, you know the answer.
If you haven't, why not?
Because I don't need to. I was referring to your comments, nothing
else - and they weren't in quotes. Now, about this UK output?
See the graphic referred to.
It certainly was not something I created.
But you knew that all along.
You said 'article'.
And now he says graphic.
Both exist and can be found together in the same place (if you are
prepared to spend 15 seconds looking for them).
Post by Keema's Nan
Which shows just what a slimy little dishonest shit we are dealing with.
Only a graphic (of a graph!) was originally instanced. That is true.
If either half of you wants the derivation of that graph / graphic, it
(the graphic) is associated with an article which is easy to find on the
Daily Mail website.
Bot you will, under both of your identities, prefer to act all prissy
when it is suggested that the information you want is exactly where you
would expect to find it.
what amused me was the economically illiterate swedehead banging on
about the mail while the graph was derived from ons data :-)
you could hardly make it up!
I searched for the graph on the Mail website, but couldn’t find anything
which even came close to that unscientific nonsense; which is why I posted
the one showing national debt as a % of GDP.
I see no one is falling over themselves to congratulate the government on
that one (as accurately predicted by Giles). Maybe the on-message instruction
is to pretend that the increase from 40% to over 100% between 2010 and 2020
results entirely from Covid?
Or, more than likely, to remain totally silent on the subject of the debt
mountain.
Contrary to expectations, it seems that you (both halves of you)
really want to see the article.
Do we, and how have you come to that conclusion?
What do you mean, "we"?
Because you referred to 'both' - whatever that was supposed to mean.
Post by JNugent
Why did you ask about it if you didn't want to read it?
I didn't. I asked you define a term that you used.
It was quoted.
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Or are you just saying so in the belief that it doesn't exist and
so cannot be produced?
Either way, less than two seconds searching on the DM website
(under the terms "UK", "output" and "Covid") gave the link, and
<https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8722041/UK-economy-grew-6-6-cent-July-coronavirus-rebound-slows.html>
Please note that the point that abelard was making was based purely
- as far as I can see - upon the content of the graph which you
have already seen. You might, of course, want to check the origin
of the figures (the Office for National Statistics).
You parroted the graph and referred to 'output'. I asked you to
define this output, that is all - and you clearly weren't able to.
GDP figures are not 'output'.
Really? What makes you say that?
Because they clearly aren't. GDP refers simply to transactions where
money changes hands. It is neither necessarily output nor even
productivity. If you believe otherwise, and think it means output,
perhaps you'd care to say why - which was the question I asked you in
the first place.
Post by JNugent
Do you have some sort of definition of "output" which means that GDP
cannot bear that description?
Nice try. Now give us your definition that says it can and does?
I was *quoting*.
Buy either way, do you have some sort of definition of "output" which
means that GDP cannot bear that description?
[NB: See how easy it is to make a typo, or even a spelling mistake? It
really isn't worth it to attack others for trivial typing errors.]
Post by JNugent
If you haven't, what's your problem?
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Please feel free to have another rant about the graph and its
origin, or about anything else which takes your fancy. No-one takes
any real notice, after all.
No-one takes any notice of this meaningless graph of yours either -
except you and your fellow economic-illiterate Babbelard. And even
you ran away when asked to define aspects of it.
The graph is not "mine".
It is drawn up with figures from the Office for National Sy=tatistics (ONS).
If the figures don't suit your prejudices, take it up with ONS and/or
the Daily Mail.
On the contrary, those meaningless figures suit *your* prejudices
Are they right or wrong?
If you think they're wrong, please feel free to take up your complaint
with the office for National Statistics, whose figures they are.
Post by Farmer Giles
I have no intention of taking any notice of the Daily Mail or ONS
concoctions
You don't trust the Office for National Statistics?
Why not?
Farmer Giles
2020-09-15 11:28:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by abelard
On Mon, 14 Sep 2020 13:06:30 +0100, JNugent
Post by JNugent
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Have you read the relevant article?
If you have, you know the answer.
If you haven't, why not?
Because I don't need to. I was referring to your comments, nothing
else - and they weren't in quotes. Now, about this UK output?
See the graphic referred to.
It certainly was not something I created.
But you knew that all along.
You said 'article'.
And now he says graphic.
Both exist and can be found together in the same place (if you are
prepared to spend 15 seconds looking for them).
Post by Keema's Nan
Which shows just what a slimy little dishonest shit we are dealing with.
Only a graphic (of a graph!) was originally instanced. That is true.
If either half of you wants the derivation of that graph / graphic, it
(the graphic) is associated with an article which is easy to find on the
Daily Mail website.
Bot you will, under both of your identities, prefer to act all prissy
when it is suggested that the information you want is exactly where you
would expect to find it.
what amused me was the economically illiterate swedehead banging on
about the mail while the graph was derived from ons data :-)
you could hardly make it up!
I searched for the graph on the Mail website, but couldn’t find anything
which even came close to that unscientific nonsense; which is why I posted
the one showing national debt as a % of GDP.
I see no one is falling over themselves to congratulate the government on
that one (as accurately predicted by Giles). Maybe the on-message instruction
is to pretend that the increase from 40% to over 100% between 2010 and 2020
results entirely from Covid?
Or, more than likely, to remain totally silent on the subject of the debt
mountain.
Contrary to expectations, it seems that you (both halves of you)
really want to see the article.
Do we, and how have you come to that conclusion?
What do you mean, "we"?
Because you referred to 'both' - whatever that was supposed to mean.
Post by JNugent
Why did you ask about it if you didn't want to read it?
I didn't. I asked you define a term that you used.
It was quoted.
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Or are you just saying so in the belief that it doesn't exist and
so cannot be produced?
Either way, less than two seconds searching on the DM website
(under the terms "UK", "output" and "Covid") gave the link, and
<https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8722041/UK-economy-grew-6-6-cent-July-coronavirus-rebound-slows.html>
Please note that the point that abelard was making was based
purely - as far as I can see - upon the content of the graph which
you have already seen. You might, of course, want to check the
origin of the figures (the Office for National Statistics).
You parroted the graph and referred to 'output'. I asked you to
define this output, that is all - and you clearly weren't able to.
GDP figures are not 'output'.
Really? What makes you say that?
Because they clearly aren't. GDP refers simply to transactions where
money changes hands. It is neither necessarily output nor even
productivity. If you believe otherwise, and think it means output,
perhaps you'd care to say why - which was the question I asked you in
the first place.
Post by JNugent
Do you have some sort of definition of "output" which means that GDP
cannot bear that description?
Nice try. Now give us your definition that says it can and does?
I was *quoting*.
Buy either way, do you have some sort of definition of "output" which
means that GDP cannot bear that description?
[NB: See how easy it is to make a typo, or even a spelling mistake? It
really isn't worth it to attack others for trivial typing errors.]
I didn't, and haven't.
JNugent
2020-09-15 14:17:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
[ ... ]
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by JNugent
I was *quoting*.
Buy either way, do you have some sort of definition of "output" which
means that GDP cannot bear that description?
[NB: See how easy it is to make a typo, or even a spelling mistake? It
really isn't worth it to attack others for trivial typing errors.]
I didn't, and haven't.
You can't have already forgotten yesterday's episode where you
criticised another poster for a spelling error - and made an egregious
spelling error of your own in that very message?

It can be reproduced for you if necessary.
Farmer Giles
2020-09-15 14:21:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
[ ... ]
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by JNugent
I was *quoting*.
Buy either way, do you have some sort of definition of "output"
which means that GDP cannot bear that description?
[NB: See how easy it is to make a typo, or even a spelling mistake?
It really isn't worth it to attack others for trivial typing errors.]
I didn't, and haven't.
You can't have already forgotten yesterday's episode where you
criticised another poster for a spelling error - and made an egregious
spelling error of your own in that very message?
It can be reproduced for you if necessary.
I didn't criticise anyone for a spelling error, nor did I make one myself.
JNugent
2020-09-15 14:39:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
[ ... ]
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by JNugent
I was *quoting*.
Buy either way, do you have some sort of definition of "output"
which means that GDP cannot bear that description?
[NB: See how easy it is to make a typo, or even a spelling mistake?
It really isn't worth it to attack others for trivial typing errors.]
I didn't, and haven't.
You can't have already forgotten yesterday's episode where you
criticised another poster for a spelling error - and made an egregious
spelling error of your own in that very message?
It can be reproduced for you if necessary.
I didn't criticise anyone for a spelling error, nor did I make one myself.
You are wrong on both counts as you well know.
JNugent
2020-09-15 14:48:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
[ ... ]
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by JNugent
I was *quoting*.
Buy either way, do you have some sort of definition of "output"
which means that GDP cannot bear that description?
[NB: See how easy it is to make a typo, or even a spelling mistake?
It really isn't worth it to attack others for trivial typing errors.]
I didn't, and haven't.
You can't have already forgotten yesterday's episode where you
criticised another poster for a spelling error - and made an
egregious spelling error of your own in that very message?
It can be reproduced for you if necessary.
I didn't criticise anyone for a spelling error, nor did I make one myself.
You are wrong on both counts as you well know.
Further to that, are you *really* insisting that "loathesome" is a
correct spelling?
Farmer Giles
2020-09-15 14:49:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
[ ... ]
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by JNugent
I was *quoting*.
Buy either way, do you have some sort of definition of "output"
which means that GDP cannot bear that description?
[NB: See how easy it is to make a typo, or even a spelling mistake?
It really isn't worth it to attack others for trivial typing errors.]
I didn't, and haven't.
You can't have already forgotten yesterday's episode where you
criticised another poster for a spelling error - and made an
egregious spelling error of your own in that very message?
It can be reproduced for you if necessary.
I didn't criticise anyone for a spelling error, nor did I make one myself.
You are wrong on both counts as you well know.
So was that a spelling mistake you made a couple of posts ago? If so,
then perhaps you shouldn't comment on these things either.
JNugent
2020-09-15 15:01:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
[ ... ]
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by JNugent
I was *quoting*.
Buy either way, do you have some sort of definition of "output"
which means that GDP cannot bear that description?
[NB: See how easy it is to make a typo, or even a spelling
mistake? It really isn't worth it to attack others for trivial
typing errors.]
I didn't, and haven't.
You can't have already forgotten yesterday's episode where you
criticised another poster for a spelling error - and made an
egregious spelling error of your own in that very message?
It can be reproduced for you if necessary.
I didn't criticise anyone for a spelling error, nor did I make one myself.
You are wrong on both counts as you well know.
So was that a spelling mistake you made a couple of posts ago? If so,
then perhaps you shouldn't comment on these things either.
I don't make many spelling mistakes (I'll give you "maneouvre" - which I
hardly ever spell the same twice), but I do make a lot of typing errors
(because I have a very poor typing technique).

Your "loathesome" was a clear spelling error.

When I was a student, I remember being asked to proof-read a friend's
essay before he submitted it. This was before word-processing was widely
available and essays were still written in longhand.

I read it over and advised correction of a surprisingly large number of
spelling errors. He thought it over and decided against it, handing it
in as it was.

He showed it to me after it had been marked. After a number of comments
on the style and content, the tutor had written: "PS: Your spelling is
abyssmal".

A classic case of a little knowledge being a dangerous thing. Very
similar, in fact, to your "loathesome".

It's easy to see why you thought it was right. But it wasn't. The biter,
bit.
Farmer Giles
2020-09-15 15:09:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
[ ... ]
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by JNugent
I was *quoting*.
Buy either way, do you have some sort of definition of "output"
which means that GDP cannot bear that description?
[NB: See how easy it is to make a typo, or even a spelling
mistake? It really isn't worth it to attack others for trivial
typing errors.]
I didn't, and haven't.
You can't have already forgotten yesterday's episode where you
criticised another poster for a spelling error - and made an
egregious spelling error of your own in that very message?
It can be reproduced for you if necessary.
I didn't criticise anyone for a spelling error, nor did I make one myself.
You are wrong on both counts as you well know.
So was that a spelling mistake you made a couple of posts ago? If so,
then perhaps you shouldn't comment on these things either.
I don't make many spelling mistakes (I'll give you "maneouvre" - which I
hardly ever spell the same twice), but I do make a lot of typing errors
(because I have a very poor typing technique).
Your "loathesome" was a clear spelling error.
When I was a student, I remember being asked to proof-read a friend's
essay before he submitted it. This was before word-processing was widely
available and essays were still written in longhand.
I read it over and advised correction of a surprisingly large number of
spelling errors. He thought it over and decided against it, handing it
in as it was.
He showed it to me after it had been marked. After a number of comments
on the style and content, the tutor had written: "PS: Your spelling is
abyssmal".
A classic case of a little knowledge being a dangerous thing. Very
similar, in fact, to your "loathesome".
It's easy to see why you thought it was right. But it wasn't. The biter,
bit.
You are wrong, but I understand why you need a straw to grasp - however
tiny.

I use the word loathsome a lot in usenet posts, so I challenge you to
find another example of where I have spelled it 'loathesome'.
JNugent
2020-09-15 16:08:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
[ ... ]
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by JNugent
I was *quoting*.
Buy either way, do you have some sort of definition of "output"
which means that GDP cannot bear that description?
[NB: See how easy it is to make a typo, or even a spelling
mistake? It really isn't worth it to attack others for trivial
typing errors.]
I didn't, and haven't.
You can't have already forgotten yesterday's episode where you
criticised another poster for a spelling error - and made an
egregious spelling error of your own in that very message?
It can be reproduced for you if necessary.
I didn't criticise anyone for a spelling error, nor did I make one myself.
You are wrong on both counts as you well know.
So was that a spelling mistake you made a couple of posts ago? If so,
then perhaps you shouldn't comment on these things either.
I don't make many spelling mistakes (I'll give you "maneouvre" - which
I hardly ever spell the same twice), but I do make a lot of typing
errors (because I have a very poor typing technique).
Your "loathesome" was a clear spelling error.
When I was a student, I remember being asked to proof-read a friend's
essay before he submitted it. This was before word-processing was
widely available and essays were still written in longhand.
I read it over and advised correction of a surprisingly large number
of spelling errors. He thought it over and decided against it, handing
it in as it was.
He showed it to me after it had been marked. After a number of
comments on the style and content, the tutor had written: "PS: Your
spelling is abyssmal".
A classic case of a little knowledge being a dangerous thing. Very
similar, in fact, to your "loathesome".
It's easy to see why you thought it was right. But it wasn't. The
biter, bit.
You are wrong, but I understand why you need a straw to grasp - however
tiny.
I use the word loathsome a lot in usenet posts, so I challenge you to
find another example of where I have spelled it 'loathesome'.
I don't have to.

You spelled it wrongly *yesterday* AND that was in a post you made
attacking someone else's spelling!
Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells
2020-09-15 17:26:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 15 Sep 2020 17:08:44 +0100, JNugent
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
[ ... ]
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by JNugent
I was *quoting*.
Buy either way, do you have some sort of definition of "output"
which means that GDP cannot bear that description?
[NB: See how easy it is to make a typo, or even a spelling
mistake? It really isn't worth it to attack others for trivial
typing errors.]
I didn't, and haven't.
You can't have already forgotten yesterday's episode where you
criticised another poster for a spelling error - and made an
egregious spelling error of your own in that very message?
It can be reproduced for you if necessary.
I didn't criticise anyone for a spelling error, nor did I make one myself.
You are wrong on both counts as you well know.
So was that a spelling mistake you made a couple of posts ago? If so,
then perhaps you shouldn't comment on these things either.
I don't make many spelling mistakes (I'll give you "maneouvre" - which
I hardly ever spell the same twice), but I do make a lot of typing
errors (because I have a very poor typing technique).
Your "loathesome" was a clear spelling error.
When I was a student, I remember being asked to proof-read a friend's
essay before he submitted it. This was before word-processing was
widely available and essays were still written in longhand.
I read it over and advised correction of a surprisingly large number
of spelling errors. He thought it over and decided against it, handing
it in as it was.
He showed it to me after it had been marked. After a number of
comments on the style and content, the tutor had written: "PS: Your
spelling is abyssmal".
A classic case of a little knowledge being a dangerous thing. Very
similar, in fact, to your "loathesome".
It's easy to see why you thought it was right. But it wasn't. The
biter, bit.
You are wrong, but I understand why you need a straw to grasp - however
tiny.
I use the word loathsome a lot in usenet posts, so I challenge you to
find another example of where I have spelled it 'loathesome'.
I don't have to.
You spelled it wrongly *yesterday* AND that was in a post you made
attacking someone else's spelling!
Naan/Giles never admits it's wrong.
abelard
2020-09-15 22:52:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 15 Sep 2020 18:26:11 +0100, Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells
Post by Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells
On Tue, 15 Sep 2020 17:08:44 +0100, JNugent
Post by JNugent
You spelled it wrongly *yesterday* AND that was in a post you made
attacking someone else's spelling!
your patience is homeric
Post by Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells
Naan/Giles never admits it's wrong.
that would require even longer and many more posts
Keema's Nan
2020-09-15 15:33:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
[ ... ]
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by JNugent
I was *quoting*.
Buy either way, do you have some sort of definition of "output"
which means that GDP cannot bear that description?
[NB: See how easy it is to make a typo, or even a spelling mistake?
It really isn't worth it to attack others for trivial typing errors.]
I didn't, and haven't.
You can't have already forgotten yesterday's episode where you
criticised another poster for a spelling error - and made an
egregious spelling error of your own in that very message?
It can be reproduced for you if necessary.
I didn't criticise anyone for a spelling error, nor did I make one myself.
You are wrong on both counts as you well know.
So was that a spelling mistake you made a couple of posts ago? If so,
then perhaps you shouldn't comment on these things either.
The whole of this nonsense began when Nugent replied to a link contained in a
post.

Someone pointed out that the article (that the link pointed to) was 8 years
old.

Nugent then realised his mistake - of not looking at the date of the article
before rushing to score points - and (rather than just keeping quiet or
apologising for not noticing the date) replied that he was not replying to an
8 year old *post*.

This puerile attempt to confuse the age of the post with the age of the
article, and therefore try to bluff his way out of a self-made faux pas, is
the reason for 99% of the posts on this thread.

Dear oh dear.
Farmer Giles
2020-09-15 15:42:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
[ ... ]
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by JNugent
I was *quoting*.
Buy either way, do you have some sort of definition of "output"
which means that GDP cannot bear that description?
[NB: See how easy it is to make a typo, or even a spelling mistake?
It really isn't worth it to attack others for trivial typing errors.]
I didn't, and haven't.
You can't have already forgotten yesterday's episode where you
criticised another poster for a spelling error - and made an
egregious spelling error of your own in that very message?
It can be reproduced for you if necessary.
I didn't criticise anyone for a spelling error, nor did I make one myself.
You are wrong on both counts as you well know.
So was that a spelling mistake you made a couple of posts ago? If so,
then perhaps you shouldn't comment on these things either.
The whole of this nonsense began when Nugent replied to a link contained in a
post.
Someone pointed out that the article (that the link pointed to) was 8 years
old.
Nugent then realised his mistake - of not looking at the date of the article
before rushing to score points - and (rather than just keeping quiet or
apologising for not noticing the date) replied that he was not replying to an
8 year old *post*.
This puerile attempt to confuse the age of the post with the age of the
article, and therefore try to bluff his way out of a self-made faux pas, is
the reason for 99% of the posts on this thread.
Dear oh dear.
Furthermore, I did take the ONS to task for the use of the term 'output'
with regard to GDP - which is nonsense. Having searched I can't find
where they use that term in that context - although I could be wong and
they actually might somewhere.

That appears to be the Daily Mail's interpretation - something parroted
by Lardy and Nugent. No wonder they ran away from answering, and
resorted to the usual peurile games.
JNugent
2020-09-15 16:16:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
[ ... ]
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by JNugent
I was *quoting*.
Buy either way, do you have some sort of definition of "output"
which means that GDP cannot bear that description?
[NB: See how easy it is to make a typo, or even a spelling mistake?
It really isn't worth it to attack others for trivial typing errors.]
I didn't, and haven't.
You can't have already forgotten yesterday's episode where you
criticised another poster for a spelling error - and made an
egregious spelling error of your own in that very message?
It can be reproduced for you if necessary.
I didn't criticise anyone for a spelling error, nor did I make one myself.
You are wrong on both counts as you well know.
So was that a spelling mistake you made a couple of posts ago? If so,
then perhaps you shouldn't comment on these things either.
The whole of this nonsense began when Nugent replied to a link contained in a
post.
Someone pointed out that the article (that the link pointed to) was 8 years
old.
Nugent then realised his mistake - of not looking at the date of the article
before rushing to score points - and (rather than just keeping quiet or
apologising for not noticing the date) replied that he was not replying to an
8 year old *post*.
This puerile attempt to confuse the age of the post with the age of the
article, and therefore try to bluff his way out of a self-made faux pas, is
the reason for 99% of the posts on this thread.
Dear oh dear.
Furthermore, I did take the ONS to task for the use of the term 'output'
with regard to GDP - which is nonsense.
What was the ONS's response to your "taking them to task"?

Did they agree with you, apologise and promise to correct the error you
say they'd made?
Post by Farmer Giles
Having searched I can't find
where they use that term in that context - although I could be wong and
they actually might somewhere.
Funny, that.
Post by Farmer Giles
That appears to be the Daily Mail's interpretation - something parroted
by Lardy and Nugent. No wonder they ran away from answering, and
resorted to the usual peurile games.
So you've also put the Mail right, have you?
abelard
2020-09-15 22:54:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 15 Sep 2020 17:16:24 +0100, JNugent
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Having searched I can't find
where they use that term in that context - although I could be wong and
they actually might somewhere.
Funny, that.
he seems more interested in being white!
JNugent
2020-09-15 23:13:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by abelard
On Tue, 15 Sep 2020 17:16:24 +0100, JNugent
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Having searched I can't find
where they use that term in that context - although I could be wong and
they actually might somewhere.
Funny, that.
he seems more interested in being white!
I heroically resisted all urges to refer to the Hong Kong Telephone
Directory too.

JNugent
2020-09-15 16:11:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
[ ... ]
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by JNugent
I was *quoting*.
Buy either way, do you have some sort of definition of "output"
which means that GDP cannot bear that description?
[NB: See how easy it is to make a typo, or even a spelling mistake?
It really isn't worth it to attack others for trivial typing errors.]
I didn't, and haven't.
You can't have already forgotten yesterday's episode where you
criticised another poster for a spelling error - and made an
egregious spelling error of your own in that very message?
It can be reproduced for you if necessary.
I didn't criticise anyone for a spelling error, nor did I make one myself.
You are wrong on both counts as you well know.
So was that a spelling mistake you made a couple of posts ago? If so,
then perhaps you shouldn't comment on these things either.
The whole of this nonsense began when Nugent replied to a link contained in a
post.
That was in an entirely different thread.
Post by Keema's Nan
Someone pointed out that the article (that the link pointed to) was 8 years
old.
...and failed to explain why that had meant that it could or should not
be responded to.
Post by Keema's Nan
Nugent then realised his mistake
There was no mistake. I responded to a very recent post. So what?

But even if I had responded to an 8-yr-old post, that would have been
something I am entitled to do and no-one else's business.

*Not*, of course, that it has anything to do with this thread.
Post by Keema's Nan
- of not looking at the date of the article
before rushing to score points - and (rather than just keeping quiet or
apologising for not noticing the date) replied that he was not replying to an
8 year old *post*.
This puerile attempt to confuse the age of the post with the age of the
article, and therefore try to bluff his way out of a self-made faux pas, is
the reason for 99% of the posts on this thread.
Dear oh dear.
Dear of dear indeed....you're looking at the wrong thread.
Farmer Giles
2020-09-15 11:27:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by abelard
On Mon, 14 Sep 2020 13:06:30 +0100, JNugent
Post by JNugent
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Have you read the relevant article?
If you have, you know the answer.
If you haven't, why not?
Because I don't need to. I was referring to your comments, nothing
else - and they weren't in quotes. Now, about this UK output?
See the graphic referred to.
It certainly was not something I created.
But you knew that all along.
You said 'article'.
And now he says graphic.
Both exist and can be found together in the same place (if you are
prepared to spend 15 seconds looking for them).
Post by Keema's Nan
Which shows just what a slimy little dishonest shit we are dealing with.
Only a graphic (of a graph!) was originally instanced. That is true.
If either half of you wants the derivation of that graph / graphic, it
(the graphic) is associated with an article which is easy to find on the
Daily Mail website.
Bot you will, under both of your identities, prefer to act all prissy
when it is suggested that the information you want is exactly where you
would expect to find it.
what amused me was the economically illiterate swedehead banging on
about the mail while the graph was derived from ons data :-)
you could hardly make it up!
I searched for the graph on the Mail website, but couldn’t find anything
which even came close to that unscientific nonsense; which is why I posted
the one showing national debt as a % of GDP.
I see no one is falling over themselves to congratulate the government on
that one (as accurately predicted by Giles). Maybe the on-message instruction
is to pretend that the increase from 40% to over 100% between 2010 and 2020
results entirely from Covid?
Or, more than likely, to remain totally silent on the subject of the debt
mountain.
Contrary to expectations, it seems that you (both halves of you)
really want to see the article.
Do we, and how have you come to that conclusion?
What do you mean, "we"?
Because you referred to 'both' - whatever that was supposed to mean.
Post by JNugent
Why did you ask about it if you didn't want to read it?
I didn't. I asked you define a term that you used.
It was quoted.
Parroted, you mean, and now you can't defend it.
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Or are you just saying so in the belief that it doesn't exist and
so cannot be produced?
Either way, less than two seconds searching on the DM website
(under the terms "UK", "output" and "Covid") gave the link, and
<https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8722041/UK-economy-grew-6-6-cent-July-coronavirus-rebound-slows.html>
Please note that the point that abelard was making was based purely
- as far as I can see - upon the content of the graph which you
have already seen. You might, of course, want to check the origin
of the figures (the Office for National Statistics).
You parroted the graph and referred to 'output'. I asked you to
define this output, that is all - and you clearly weren't able to.
GDP figures are not 'output'.
Really? What makes you say that?
Because they clearly aren't. GDP refers simply to transactions where
money changes hands. It is neither necessarily output nor even
productivity. If you believe otherwise, and think it means output,
perhaps you'd care to say why - which was the question I asked you in
the first place.
Post by JNugent
Do you have some sort of definition of "output" which means that GDP
cannot bear that description?
See above.
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Nice try. Now give us your definition that says it can and does?
I was *quoting*.
Parroting.
Post by JNugent
Buy either way, do you have some sort of definition of "output" which
means that GDP cannot bear that description?
If you haven't, what's your problem?
I've given you a definition above. Now how about you giving one that
shows that GDP means output?
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Please feel free to have another rant about the graph and its
origin, or about anything else which takes your fancy. No-one takes
any real notice, after all.
No-one takes any notice of this meaningless graph of yours either -
except you and your fellow economic-illiterate Babbelard. And even
you ran away when asked to define aspects of it.
The graph is not "mine".
It is drawn up with figures from the Office for National Sy=tatistics (ONS).
If the figures don't suit your prejudices, take it up with ONS and/or
the Daily Mail.
On the contrary, those meaningless figures suit *your* prejudices
Are they right or wrong?
Neither, they are meaningless.
Post by JNugent
If you think they're wrong, please feel free to take up your complaint
with the office for National Statistics, whose figures they are.
Post by Farmer Giles
I have no intention of taking any notice of the Daily Mail or ONS
concoctions
You don't trust the Office for National Statistics?
Why not?
'There are Lies, damned lies, and statistics'
JNugent
2020-09-15 14:14:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by abelard
On Mon, 14 Sep 2020 13:06:30 +0100, JNugent
Post by JNugent
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Have you read the relevant article?
If you have, you know the answer.
If you haven't, why not?
Because I don't need to. I was referring to your comments, nothing
else - and they weren't in quotes. Now, about this UK output?
See the graphic referred to.
It certainly was not something I created.
But you knew that all along.
You said 'article'.
And now he says graphic.
Both exist and can be found together in the same place (if you are
prepared to spend 15 seconds looking for them).
Post by Keema's Nan
Which shows just what a slimy little dishonest shit we are dealing with.
Only a graphic (of a graph!) was originally instanced. That is true.
If either half of you wants the derivation of that graph / graphic, it
(the graphic) is associated with an article which is easy to find on the
Daily Mail website.
Bot you will, under both of your identities, prefer to act all prissy
when it is suggested that the information you want is exactly where you
would expect to find it.
what amused me was the economically illiterate swedehead banging on
about the mail while the graph was derived from ons data :-)
you could hardly make it up!
I searched for the graph on the Mail website, but couldn’t find anything
which even came close to that unscientific nonsense; which is why I posted
the one showing national debt as a % of GDP.
I see no one is falling over themselves to congratulate the government on
that one (as accurately predicted by Giles). Maybe the on-message instruction
is to pretend that the increase from 40% to over 100% between 2010 and 2020
results entirely from Covid?
Or, more than likely, to remain totally silent on the subject of the debt
mountain.
Contrary to expectations, it seems that you (both halves of you)
really want to see the article.
Do we, and how have you come to that conclusion?
What do you mean, "we"?
Because you referred to 'both' - whatever that was supposed to mean.
Post by JNugent
Why did you ask about it if you didn't want to read it?
I didn't. I asked you define a term that you used.
It was quoted.
Parroted, you mean, and now you can't defend it.
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Or are you just saying so in the belief that it doesn't exist and
so cannot be produced?
Either way, less than two seconds searching on the DM website
(under the terms "UK", "output" and "Covid") gave the link, and
<https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8722041/UK-economy-grew-6-6-cent-July-coronavirus-rebound-slows.html>
Please note that the point that abelard was making was based
purely - as far as I can see - upon the content of the graph which
you have already seen. You might, of course, want to check the
origin of the figures (the Office for National Statistics).
You parroted the graph and referred to 'output'. I asked you to
define this output, that is all - and you clearly weren't able to.
GDP figures are not 'output'.
Really? What makes you say that?
Because they clearly aren't. GDP refers simply to transactions where
money changes hands. It is neither necessarily output nor even
productivity. If you believe otherwise, and think it means output,
perhaps you'd care to say why - which was the question I asked you in
the first place.
Post by JNugent
Do you have some sort of definition of "output" which means that GDP
cannot bear that description?
See above.
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Nice try. Now give us your definition that says it can and does?
I was *quoting*.
Parroting.
Post by JNugent
Buy either way, do you have some sort of definition of "output" which
means that GDP cannot bear that description?
If you haven't, what's your problem?
I've given you a definition above. Now how about you giving one that
shows that GDP means output?
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Please feel free to have another rant about the graph and its
origin, or about anything else which takes your fancy. No-one
takes any real notice, after all.
No-one takes any notice of this meaningless graph of yours either -
except you and your fellow economic-illiterate Babbelard. And even
you ran away when asked to define aspects of it.
The graph is not "mine".
It is drawn up with figures from the Office for National
Sy=tatistics (ONS).
If the figures don't suit your prejudices, take it up with ONS
and/or the Daily Mail.
On the contrary, those meaningless figures suit *your* prejudices
Are they right or wrong?
Neither, they are meaningless.
Post by JNugent
If you think they're wrong, please feel free to take up your complaint
with the office for National Statistics, whose figures they are.
Post by Farmer Giles
I have no intention of taking any notice of the Daily Mail or ONS
concoctions
You don't trust the Office for National Statistics?
Why not?
'There are Lies, damned lies, and statistics'
You'd better tell the Office for National Statistics that their figures
are all wrong (in your opinion(s)).

Tell them that you are much better qualified than they are to make
ruling on such things and that they had better take heed of what you say.
Farmer Giles
2020-09-15 14:23:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by abelard
On Mon, 14 Sep 2020 13:06:30 +0100, JNugent
Post by JNugent
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Have you read the relevant article?
If you have, you know the answer.
If you haven't, why not?
Because I don't need to. I was referring to your comments,
nothing
else - and they weren't in quotes. Now, about this UK output?
See the graphic referred to.
It certainly was not something I created.
But you knew that all along.
You said 'article'.
And now he says graphic.
Both exist and can be found together in the same place (if you are
prepared to spend 15 seconds looking for them).
Post by Keema's Nan
Which shows just what a slimy little dishonest shit we are
dealing with.
Only a graphic (of a graph!) was originally instanced. That is true.
If either half of you wants the derivation of that graph / graphic, it
(the graphic) is associated with an article which is easy to find on the
Daily Mail website.
Bot you will, under both of your identities, prefer to act all prissy
when it is suggested that the information you want is exactly where you
would expect to find it.
what amused me was the economically illiterate swedehead banging on
about the mail while the graph was derived from ons data :-)
you could hardly make it up!
I searched for the graph on the Mail website, but couldn’t find anything
which even came close to that unscientific nonsense; which is why I posted
the one showing national debt as a % of GDP.
I see no one is falling over themselves to congratulate the government on
that one (as accurately predicted by Giles). Maybe the
on-message instruction
is to pretend that the increase from 40% to over 100% between 2010 and 2020
results entirely from Covid?
Or, more than likely, to remain totally silent on the subject of the debt
mountain.
Contrary to expectations, it seems that you (both halves of you)
really want to see the article.
Do we, and how have you come to that conclusion?
What do you mean, "we"?
Because you referred to 'both' - whatever that was supposed to mean.
Post by JNugent
Why did you ask about it if you didn't want to read it?
I didn't. I asked you define a term that you used.
It was quoted.
Parroted, you mean, and now you can't defend it.
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Or are you just saying so in the belief that it doesn't exist and
so cannot be produced?
Either way, less than two seconds searching on the DM website
(under the terms "UK", "output" and "Covid") gave the link, and
<https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8722041/UK-economy-grew-6-6-cent-July-coronavirus-rebound-slows.html>
Please note that the point that abelard was making was based
purely - as far as I can see - upon the content of the graph
which you have already seen. You might, of course, want to check
the origin of the figures (the Office for National Statistics).
You parroted the graph and referred to 'output'. I asked you to
define this output, that is all - and you clearly weren't able to.
GDP figures are not 'output'.
Really? What makes you say that?
Because they clearly aren't. GDP refers simply to transactions where
money changes hands. It is neither necessarily output nor even
productivity. If you believe otherwise, and think it means output,
perhaps you'd care to say why - which was the question I asked you
in the first place.
Post by JNugent
Do you have some sort of definition of "output" which means that
GDP cannot bear that description?
See above.
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Nice try. Now give us your definition that says it can and does?
I was *quoting*.
Parroting.
Post by JNugent
Buy either way, do you have some sort of definition of "output" which
means that GDP cannot bear that description?
If you haven't, what's your problem?
I've given you a definition above. Now how about you giving one that
shows that GDP means output?
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Please feel free to have another rant about the graph and its
origin, or about anything else which takes your fancy. No-one
takes any real notice, after all.
No-one takes any notice of this meaningless graph of yours either
- except you and your fellow economic-illiterate Babbelard. And
even you ran away when asked to define aspects of it.
The graph is not "mine".
It is drawn up with figures from the Office for National
Sy=tatistics (ONS).
If the figures don't suit your prejudices, take it up with ONS
and/or the Daily Mail.
On the contrary, those meaningless figures suit *your* prejudices
Are they right or wrong?
Neither, they are meaningless.
Post by JNugent
If you think they're wrong, please feel free to take up your
complaint with the office for National Statistics, whose figures they
are.
Post by Farmer Giles
I have no intention of taking any notice of the Daily Mail or ONS
concoctions
You don't trust the Office for National Statistics?
Why not?
'There are Lies, damned lies, and statistics'
You'd better tell the Office for National Statistics that their figures
are all wrong (in your opinion(s)).
Tell them that you are much better qualified than they are to make
ruling on such things and that they had better take heed of what you say.
More honest was the term you were searching for - although, on second
thoughts, that wouldn't be anything that you know about.
JNugent
2020-09-15 14:40:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by abelard
On Mon, 14 Sep 2020 13:06:30 +0100, JNugent
Post by JNugent
Post by Keema's Nan
(in
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Have you read the relevant article?
If you have, you know the answer.
If you haven't, why not?
Because I don't need to. I was referring to your
comments, nothing
else - and they weren't in quotes. Now, about this UK output?
See the graphic referred to.
It certainly was not something I created.
But you knew that all along.
You said 'article'.
And now he says graphic.
Both exist and can be found together in the same place (if you are
prepared to spend 15 seconds looking for them).
Post by Keema's Nan
Which shows just what a slimy little dishonest shit we are
dealing with.
Only a graphic (of a graph!) was originally instanced. That is true.
If either half of you wants the derivation of that graph / graphic, it
(the graphic) is associated with an article which is easy to
find on the
Daily Mail website.
Bot you will, under both of your identities, prefer to act all prissy
when it is suggested that the information you want is exactly where you
would expect to find it.
what amused me was the economically illiterate swedehead banging on
about the mail while the graph was derived from ons data :-)
you could hardly make it up!
I searched for the graph on the Mail website, but couldn’t find anything
which even came close to that unscientific nonsense; which is why I posted
the one showing national debt as a % of GDP.
I see no one is falling over themselves to congratulate the government on
that one (as accurately predicted by Giles). Maybe the
on-message instruction
is to pretend that the increase from 40% to over 100% between 2010 and 2020
results entirely from Covid?
Or, more than likely, to remain totally silent on the subject of the debt
mountain.
Contrary to expectations, it seems that you (both halves of you)
really want to see the article.
Do we, and how have you come to that conclusion?
What do you mean, "we"?
Because you referred to 'both' - whatever that was supposed to mean.
Post by JNugent
Why did you ask about it if you didn't want to read it?
I didn't. I asked you define a term that you used.
It was quoted.
Parroted, you mean, and now you can't defend it.
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Or are you just saying so in the belief that it doesn't exist
and so cannot be produced?
Either way, less than two seconds searching on the DM website
(under the terms "UK", "output" and "Covid") gave the link, and
<https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8722041/UK-economy-grew-6-6-cent-July-coronavirus-rebound-slows.html>
Please note that the point that abelard was making was based
purely - as far as I can see - upon the content of the graph
which you have already seen. You might, of course, want to check
the origin of the figures (the Office for National Statistics).
You parroted the graph and referred to 'output'. I asked you to
define this output, that is all - and you clearly weren't able
to. GDP figures are not 'output'.
Really? What makes you say that?
Because they clearly aren't. GDP refers simply to transactions
where money changes hands. It is neither necessarily output nor
even productivity. If you believe otherwise, and think it means
output, perhaps you'd care to say why - which was the question I
asked you in the first place.
Post by JNugent
Do you have some sort of definition of "output" which means that
GDP cannot bear that description?
See above.
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Nice try. Now give us your definition that says it can and does?
I was *quoting*.
Parroting.
Post by JNugent
Buy either way, do you have some sort of definition of "output"
which means that GDP cannot bear that description?
If you haven't, what's your problem?
I've given you a definition above. Now how about you giving one that
shows that GDP means output?
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Please feel free to have another rant about the graph and its
origin, or about anything else which takes your fancy. No-one
takes any real notice, after all.
No-one takes any notice of this meaningless graph of yours either
- except you and your fellow economic-illiterate Babbelard. And
even you ran away when asked to define aspects of it.
The graph is not "mine".
It is drawn up with figures from the Office for National
Sy=tatistics (ONS).
If the figures don't suit your prejudices, take it up with ONS
and/or the Daily Mail.
On the contrary, those meaningless figures suit *your* prejudices
Are they right or wrong?
Neither, they are meaningless.
Post by JNugent
If you think they're wrong, please feel free to take up your
complaint with the office for National Statistics, whose figures
they are.
Post by Farmer Giles
I have no intention of taking any notice of the Daily Mail or ONS
concoctions
You don't trust the Office for National Statistics?
Why not?
'There are Lies, damned lies, and statistics'
You'd better tell the Office for National Statistics that their
figures are all wrong (in your opinion(s)).
Tell them that you are much better qualified than they are to make
ruling on such things and that they had better take heed of what you say.
More honest was the term you were searching for - although,  on second
thoughts, that wouldn't be anything that you know about.
What did ONS say when you told them their figures were all wrong?
Farmer Giles
2020-09-15 14:51:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by abelard
On Mon, 14 Sep 2020 13:06:30 +0100, JNugent
Post by JNugent
Post by Keema's Nan
(in
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Have you read the relevant article?
If you have, you know the answer.
If you haven't, why not?
Because I don't need to. I was referring to your
comments, nothing
else - and they weren't in quotes. Now, about this UK output?
See the graphic referred to.
It certainly was not something I created.
But you knew that all along.
You said 'article'.
And now he says graphic.
Both exist and can be found together in the same place (if you are
prepared to spend 15 seconds looking for them).
Post by Keema's Nan
Which shows just what a slimy little dishonest shit we are
dealing with.
Only a graphic (of a graph!) was originally instanced. That is true.
If either half of you wants the derivation of that graph /
graphic, it
(the graphic) is associated with an article which is easy to
find on the
Daily Mail website.
Bot you will, under both of your identities, prefer to act all prissy
when it is suggested that the information you want is
exactly where you
would expect to find it.
what amused me was the economically illiterate swedehead banging on
about the mail while the graph was derived from ons data :-)
you could hardly make it up!
I searched for the graph on the Mail website, but couldn’t
find anything
which even came close to that unscientific nonsense; which is
why I posted
the one showing national debt as a % of GDP.
I see no one is falling over themselves to congratulate the government on
that one (as accurately predicted by Giles). Maybe the
on-message instruction
is to pretend that the increase from 40% to over 100% between
2010 and 2020
results entirely from Covid?
Or, more than likely, to remain totally silent on the subject of the debt
mountain.
Contrary to expectations, it seems that you (both halves of
you) really want to see the article.
Do we, and how have you come to that conclusion?
What do you mean, "we"?
Because you referred to 'both' - whatever that was supposed to mean.
Post by JNugent
Why did you ask about it if you didn't want to read it?
I didn't. I asked you define a term that you used.
It was quoted.
Parroted, you mean, and now you can't defend it.
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Or are you just saying so in the belief that it doesn't exist
and so cannot be produced?
Either way, less than two seconds searching on the DM website
(under the terms "UK", "output" and "Covid") gave the link, and
<https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8722041/UK-economy-grew-6-6-cent-July-coronavirus-rebound-slows.html>
Please note that the point that abelard was making was based
purely - as far as I can see - upon the content of the graph
which you have already seen. You might, of course, want to
check the origin of the figures (the Office for National
Statistics).
You parroted the graph and referred to 'output'. I asked you to
define this output, that is all - and you clearly weren't able
to. GDP figures are not 'output'.
Really? What makes you say that?
Because they clearly aren't. GDP refers simply to transactions
where money changes hands. It is neither necessarily output nor
even productivity. If you believe otherwise, and think it means
output, perhaps you'd care to say why - which was the question I
asked you in the first place.
Post by JNugent
Do you have some sort of definition of "output" which means that
GDP cannot bear that description?
See above.
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Nice try. Now give us your definition that says it can and does?
I was *quoting*.
Parroting.
Post by JNugent
Buy either way, do you have some sort of definition of "output"
which means that GDP cannot bear that description?
If you haven't, what's your problem?
I've given you a definition above. Now how about you giving one that
shows that GDP means output?
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Please feel free to have another rant about the graph and its
origin, or about anything else which takes your fancy. No-one
takes any real notice, after all.
No-one takes any notice of this meaningless graph of yours
either - except you and your fellow economic-illiterate
Babbelard. And even you ran away when asked to define aspects of
it.
The graph is not "mine".
It is drawn up with figures from the Office for National
Sy=tatistics (ONS).
If the figures don't suit your prejudices, take it up with ONS
and/or the Daily Mail.
On the contrary, those meaningless figures suit *your* prejudices
Are they right or wrong?
Neither, they are meaningless.
Post by JNugent
If you think they're wrong, please feel free to take up your
complaint with the office for National Statistics, whose figures
they are.
Post by Farmer Giles
I have no intention of taking any notice of the Daily Mail or ONS
concoctions
You don't trust the Office for National Statistics?
Why not?
'There are Lies, damned lies, and statistics'
You'd better tell the Office for National Statistics that their
figures are all wrong (in your opinion(s)).
Tell them that you are much better qualified than they are to make
ruling on such things and that they had better take heed of what you say.
More honest was the term you were searching for - although,  on second
thoughts, that wouldn't be anything that you know about.
What did ONS say when you told them their figures were all wrong?
They didn't respond. Like you, they can't answer critical questions.
JNugent
2020-09-15 15:02:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by abelard
On Mon, 14 Sep 2020 13:06:30 +0100, JNugent
Post by JNugent
Post by Keema's Nan
(in
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Have you read the relevant article?
If you have, you know the answer.
If you haven't, why not?
Because I don't need to. I was referring to your
comments, nothing
else - and they weren't in quotes. Now, about this UK
output?
See the graphic referred to.
It certainly was not something I created.
But you knew that all along.
You said 'article'.
And now he says graphic.
Both exist and can be found together in the same place (if you are
prepared to spend 15 seconds looking for them).
Post by Keema's Nan
Which shows just what a slimy little dishonest shit we are
dealing with.
Only a graphic (of a graph!) was originally instanced. That
is true.
If either half of you wants the derivation of that graph /
graphic, it
(the graphic) is associated with an article which is easy
to find on the
Daily Mail website.
Bot you will, under both of your identities, prefer to act
all prissy
when it is suggested that the information you want is
exactly where you
would expect to find it.
what amused me was the economically illiterate swedehead banging on
about the mail while the graph was derived from ons data :-)
you could hardly make it up!
I searched for the graph on the Mail website, but couldn’t
find anything
which even came close to that unscientific nonsense; which is
why I posted
the one showing national debt as a % of GDP.
I see no one is falling over themselves to congratulate the
government on
that one (as accurately predicted by Giles). Maybe the
on-message instruction
is to pretend that the increase from 40% to over 100% between
2010 and 2020
results entirely from Covid?
Or, more than likely, to remain totally silent on the subject
of the debt
mountain.
Contrary to expectations, it seems that you (both halves of
you) really want to see the article.
Do we, and how have you come to that conclusion?
What do you mean, "we"?
Because you referred to 'both' - whatever that was supposed to mean.
Post by JNugent
Why did you ask about it if you didn't want to read it?
I didn't. I asked you define a term that you used.
It was quoted.
Parroted, you mean, and now you can't defend it.
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Or are you just saying so in the belief that it doesn't exist
and so cannot be produced?
Either way, less than two seconds searching on the DM website
(under the terms "UK", "output" and "Covid") gave the link,
<https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8722041/UK-economy-grew-6-6-cent-July-coronavirus-rebound-slows.html>
Please note that the point that abelard was making was based
purely - as far as I can see - upon the content of the graph
which you have already seen. You might, of course, want to
check the origin of the figures (the Office for National
Statistics).
You parroted the graph and referred to 'output'. I asked you to
define this output, that is all - and you clearly weren't able
to. GDP figures are not 'output'.
Really? What makes you say that?
Because they clearly aren't. GDP refers simply to transactions
where money changes hands. It is neither necessarily output nor
even productivity. If you believe otherwise, and think it means
output, perhaps you'd care to say why - which was the question I
asked you in the first place.
Post by JNugent
Do you have some sort of definition of "output" which means that
GDP cannot bear that description?
See above.
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Nice try. Now give us your definition that says it can and does?
I was *quoting*.
Parroting.
Post by JNugent
Buy either way, do you have some sort of definition of "output"
which means that GDP cannot bear that description?
If you haven't, what's your problem?
I've given you a definition above. Now how about you giving one
that shows that GDP means output?
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Please feel free to have another rant about the graph and its
origin, or about anything else which takes your fancy. No-one
takes any real notice, after all.
No-one takes any notice of this meaningless graph of yours
either - except you and your fellow economic-illiterate
Babbelard. And even you ran away when asked to define aspects
of it.
The graph is not "mine".
It is drawn up with figures from the Office for National Sy=tatistics (ONS).
If the figures don't suit your prejudices, take it up with ONS
and/or the Daily Mail.
On the contrary, those meaningless figures suit *your* prejudices
Are they right or wrong?
Neither, they are meaningless.
Post by JNugent
If you think they're wrong, please feel free to take up your
complaint with the office for National Statistics, whose figures
they are.
Post by Farmer Giles
I have no intention of taking any notice of the Daily Mail or ONS
concoctions
You don't trust the Office for National Statistics?
Why not?
'There are Lies, damned lies, and statistics'
You'd better tell the Office for National Statistics that their
figures are all wrong (in your opinion(s)).
Tell them that you are much better qualified than they are to make
ruling on such things and that they had better take heed of what you say.
More honest was the term you were searching for - although,  on
second thoughts, that wouldn't be anything that you know about.
What did ONS say when you told them their figures were all wrong?
They didn't respond. Like you, they can't answer critical questions.
:-)
Keema's Nan
2020-09-15 11:18:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by abelard
On Mon, 14 Sep 2020 13:06:30 +0100, JNugent
Post by JNugent
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Have you read the relevant article?
If you have, you know the answer.
If you haven't, why not?
Because I don't need to. I was referring to your comments,
nothing
else - and they weren't in quotes. Now, about this UK output?
See the graphic referred to.
It certainly was not something I created.
But you knew that all along.
You said 'article'.
And now he says graphic.
Both exist and can be found together in the same place (if you are
prepared to spend 15 seconds looking for them).
Post by Keema's Nan
Which shows just what a slimy little dishonest shit we are
dealing with.
Only a graphic (of a graph!) was originally instanced. That is true.
If either half of you wants the derivation of that graph /
graphic, it
(the graphic) is associated with an article which is easy to find
on the
Daily Mail website.
Bot you will, under both of your identities, prefer to act all prissy
when it is suggested that the information you want is exactly
where you
would expect to find it.
what amused me was the economically illiterate swedehead banging on
about the mail while the graph was derived from ons data :-)
you could hardly make it up!
I searched for the graph on the Mail website, but couldn’t find anything
which even came close to that unscientific nonsense; which is why I posted
the one showing national debt as a % of GDP.
I see no one is falling over themselves to congratulate the government on
that one (as accurately predicted by Giles). Maybe the on-message
instruction
is to pretend that the increase from 40% to over 100% between 2010 and 2020
results entirely from Covid?
Or, more than likely, to remain totally silent on the subject of the debt
mountain.
Contrary to expectations, it seems that you (both halves of you)
really want to see the article.
Do we, and how have you come to that conclusion?
What do you mean, "we"?
Because you referred to 'both' - whatever that was supposed to mean.
Post by JNugent
Why did you ask about it if you didn't want to read it?
I didn't. I asked you define a term that you used.
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Or are you just saying so in the belief that it doesn't exist and so
cannot be produced?
Either way, less than two seconds searching on the DM website (under
<https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8722041/UK-economy-grew-6-6-cent
-July-coronavirus-rebound-slows.html>
Please note that the point that abelard was making was based purely -
as far as I can see - upon the content of the graph which you have
already seen. You might, of course, want to check the origin of the
figures (the Office for National Statistics).
You parroted the graph and referred to 'output'. I asked you to define
this output, that is all - and you clearly weren't able to. GDP
figures are not 'output'.
Really? What makes you say that?
Because they clearly aren't. GDP refers simply to transactions where
money changes hands. It is neither necessarily output nor even
productivity. If you believe otherwise, and think it means output,
perhaps you'd care to say why - which was the question I asked you in
the first place.
Post by JNugent
Do you have some sort of definition of "output" which means that GDP
cannot bear that description?
Nice try. Now give us your definition that says it can and does?
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Please feel free to have another rant about the graph and its origin,
or about anything else which takes your fancy. No-one takes any real
notice, after all.
No-one takes any notice of this meaningless graph of yours either -
except you and your fellow economic-illiterate Babbelard. And even you
ran away when asked to define aspects of it.
The graph is not "mine".
It is drawn up with figures from the Office for National Sy=tatistics (ONS).
If the figures don't suit your prejudices, take it up with ONS and/or
the Daily Mail.
On the contrary, those meaningless figures suit *your* prejudices - and
if you're going to quote and support them you should at least have the
courage to defend them, or admit that you can't. And not resort to your
usual childish games when you get taken to task.
Post by JNugent
Let us know how you get on (in either identity).
Jeez.

You can see why I kf’d him. I think his nonsense attempt to create an
argument around statements he made initially, proves why usenet life is much
more fun without having to read his drivel every day.
Post by Farmer Giles
I have no intention of taking any notice of the Daily Mail or ONS
concoctions - in any identity.
Farmer Giles
2020-09-15 11:32:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by abelard
On Mon, 14 Sep 2020 13:06:30 +0100, JNugent
Post by JNugent
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Have you read the relevant article?
If you have, you know the answer.
If you haven't, why not?
Because I don't need to. I was referring to your comments, nothing
else - and they weren't in quotes. Now, about this UK output?
See the graphic referred to.
It certainly was not something I created.
But you knew that all along.
You said 'article'.
And now he says graphic.
Both exist and can be found together in the same place (if you are
prepared to spend 15 seconds looking for them).
Post by Keema's Nan
Which shows just what a slimy little dishonest shit we are dealing with.
Only a graphic (of a graph!) was originally instanced. That is true.
If either half of you wants the derivation of that graph / graphic, it
(the graphic) is associated with an article which is easy to find on the
Daily Mail website.
Bot you will, under both of your identities, prefer to act all prissy
when it is suggested that the information you want is exactly where you
would expect to find it.
what amused me was the economically illiterate swedehead banging on
about the mail while the graph was derived from ons data :-)
you could hardly make it up!
I searched for the graph on the Mail website, but couldn’t find anything
which even came close to that unscientific nonsense; which is why I posted
the one showing national debt as a % of GDP.
I see no one is falling over themselves to congratulate the government on
that one (as accurately predicted by Giles). Maybe the on-message instruction
is to pretend that the increase from 40% to over 100% between 2010 and 2020
results entirely from Covid?
Or, more than likely, to remain totally silent on the subject of the debt
mountain.
Contrary to expectations, it seems that you (both halves of you)
really want to see the article.
Do we, and how have you come to that conclusion?
What do you mean, "we"?
Because you referred to 'both' - whatever that was supposed to mean.
Post by JNugent
Why did you ask about it if you didn't want to read it?
I didn't. I asked you define a term that you used.
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Or are you just saying so in the belief that it doesn't exist and so
cannot be produced?
Either way, less than two seconds searching on the DM website (under
<https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8722041/UK-economy-grew-6-6-cent
-July-coronavirus-rebound-slows.html>
Please note that the point that abelard was making was based purely -
as far as I can see - upon the content of the graph which you have
already seen. You might, of course, want to check the origin of the
figures (the Office for National Statistics).
You parroted the graph and referred to 'output'. I asked you to define
this output, that is all - and you clearly weren't able to. GDP
figures are not 'output'.
Really? What makes you say that?
Because they clearly aren't. GDP refers simply to transactions where
money changes hands. It is neither necessarily output nor even
productivity. If you believe otherwise, and think it means output,
perhaps you'd care to say why - which was the question I asked you in
the first place.
Post by JNugent
Do you have some sort of definition of "output" which means that GDP
cannot bear that description?
Nice try. Now give us your definition that says it can and does?
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Please feel free to have another rant about the graph and its origin,
or about anything else which takes your fancy. No-one takes any real
notice, after all.
No-one takes any notice of this meaningless graph of yours either -
except you and your fellow economic-illiterate Babbelard. And even you
ran away when asked to define aspects of it.
The graph is not "mine".
It is drawn up with figures from the Office for National Sy=tatistics (ONS).
If the figures don't suit your prejudices, take it up with ONS and/or
the Daily Mail.
On the contrary, those meaningless figures suit *your* prejudices - and
if you're going to quote and support them you should at least have the
courage to defend them, or admit that you can't. And not resort to your
usual childish games when you get taken to task.
Post by JNugent
Let us know how you get on (in either identity).
Jeez.
You can see why I kf’d him. I think his nonsense attempt to create an
argument around statements he made initially, proves why usenet life is much
more fun without having to read his drivel every day.
I agree. That's why I told him initially that his reply 'wouldn't be
worth the candle'. He is a waste of space, and should be ignored - which
I probably will do from now on.
abelard
2020-09-12 17:14:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 12 Sep 2020 16:05:05 +0100, JNugent
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by JNugent
Post by abelard
https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2020/09/11/10/33049630-8722041-image-a-67_1599818170675.jpg
Nice point, well-illustrated.
IOW, the output of the UK, as "low" as it currently is with all of
our current difficulties, was never higher under Labour as it is
today and was usually lower.
Groan...
IOW, the output of the UK, as "low" as it currently is with all of
our current difficulties, was never higher under Labour than it is
today and   was usually lower.
I'd ask you to define 'output' if I thought your answer would be
worth the candle.
You could always read the article and perhaps enquire of the author.
An 'author' in the Daily Mail - might as well as you or that other idiot
Babbelard.
Sticking a finger in each ear and shouting "La la la la - I can't hear
you" is so much easier than trying to prove that the figures are incorrect.
it is his standard response...he's a socialist, facts don't count

praise be to marx
Loading...