Sorry to be lefty Guardain reading pain but...

[AndyJR 0]

Can people not see what is happening to football.  Murdoch is a one of the biggest reasons for the Premier becoming Elitist and money making.  Pubs can''t afford to show games. So much of this article encompasses what is wrong with football in general and to me the link is obvious. Perhaps I should stop thinking....

 

http://www.eveningnews24.co.uk/content/eveningnews24/norwich-news/story.aspx?brand=ENOnline&category=News&tBrand=ENOnline&tCategory=xNews&itemid=NOED30%20Jul%202010%2015%3A38%3A59%3A963

[William Darby 0]

The problem as I see it is between him, and greedy players and agents.

[Bury Yellow 2]

No excuse Andy. Get you back to the wrath - home of all socialists who want something for nothing

[ron obvious 1,711]

After the Times put its paywall up, I defected to the Guardian & Independent.I''ve given up completely on the Guardian. I''ve never read such a bunch of bitter, twisted, self-pitying, deluded, cliched articles & comments in all my life. It''s like the Daily Mail in reverse.The Indie is a bit better. But not a lot.

[Mr.Carrow 394]

Yeah it`s really annoying.  The Times is by far the best paper but can`t stand giving my money to that t*sser.

[Mello Yello 2,572]

 Daily Star for me....kwality

[Shyster 0]

[quote user="AndyJR"]

Can people not see what is happening to football.  Murdoch is a one of the biggest reasons for the Premier becoming Elitist and money making.  Pubs can''t afford to show games. So much of this article encompasses what is wrong with football in general and to me the link is obvious. Perhaps I should stop thinking....

 

http://www.eveningnews24.co.uk/content/eveningnews24/norwich-news/story.aspx?brand=ENOnline&category=News&tBrand=ENOnline&tCategory=xNews&itemid=NOED30%20Jul%202010%2015%3A38%3A59%3A963

[/quote]

Gordon Brown and Labour allowed the banks to lend tens of thousands of football fans borrowed money to watch the game and Murdoch simply exploited the fact that these people would pay inflated prices to do so. Left-wing policies and the dickheads who bought into them via spending loaned money are primarily the ones to blame for English footballs demise - but the facts shouldn''t stop you from thinking - nay - these facts should prompt you into thinking about getting a better paid job to enable you to view your favourite sport.

[AndyJR 0]

[quote user="Shyster"][quote user="AndyJR"]

Can people not see what is happening to football.  Murdoch is a one of the biggest reasons for the Premier becoming Elitist and money making.  Pubs can''t afford to show games. So much of this article encompasses what is wrong with football in general and to me the link is obvious. Perhaps I should stop thinking....

 

http://www.eveningnews24.co.uk/content/eveningnews24/norwich-news/story.aspx?brand=ENOnline&category=News&tBrand=ENOnline&tCategory=xNews&itemid=NOED30%20Jul%202010%2015%3A38%3A59%3A963

[/quote]

Gordon Brown and Labour allowed the banks to lend tens of thousands of football fans borrowed money to watch the game and Murdoch simply exploited the fact that these people would pay inflated prices to do so. Left-wing policies and the dickheads who bought into them via spending loaned money are primarily the ones to blame for English footballs demise - but the facts shouldn''t stop you from thinking - nay - these facts should prompt you into thinking about getting a better paid job to enable you to view your favourite sport.[/quote]Perhaps I do belong on the Wrath. Ridiculous man.

[Shack Attack 0]

[quote user="Shyster"]Left-wing policies and the dickheads who bought into them via spending loaned money are primarily the ones to blame for English footballs demise.[/quote]You''re funny [:D]

[Shyster 0]

[quote user="AndyJR"][quote user="Shyster"][quote user="AndyJR"]

Can people not see what is happening to football.  Murdoch is a one of the biggest reasons for the Premier becoming Elitist and money making.  Pubs can''t afford to show games. So much of this article encompasses what is wrong with football in general and to me the link is obvious. Perhaps I should stop thinking....

 

http://www.eveningnews24.co.uk/content/eveningnews24/norwich-news/story.aspx?brand=ENOnline&category=News&tBrand=ENOnline&tCategory=xNews&itemid=NOED30%20Jul%202010%2015%3A38%3A59%3A963

[/quote]

Gordon Brown and Labour allowed the banks to lend tens of thousands of football fans borrowed money to watch the game and Murdoch simply exploited the fact that these people would pay inflated prices to do so. Left-wing policies and the dickheads who bought into them via spending loaned money are primarily the ones to blame for English footballs demise - but the facts shouldn''t stop you from thinking - nay - these facts should prompt you into thinking about getting a better paid job to enable you to view your favourite sport.[/quote]Perhaps I do belong on the Wrath. Ridiculous man. [/quote]

You, like anybody else, belongs in the real world - unfortunately, you, like too many others never seem to arrive there.It''s like there''s a cut-off point regarding rational thinking with certain people that comes early with some and later in others.Judging by the completely hopeless reply you''ve offered it would appear your cut-off point came at the stage of conception.

[ncfc4life 0]

Dont know if people have seen but they are introducing sky sports on freeview. £21.99 just for sky sports 1 or £31.99 for sky sports 1 & 2. Thats over £30 a month for just 2 channels! And to top it off the bastards are planning to take sky sports news off freeview and start charging people for that aswell! Im guessing that will be another £20 or so a month

[Simon Lappin, King Of Spain 0]

[quote user="Shyster"][quote user="AndyJR"]

Can people not see what is happening to football.  Murdoch is a one of the biggest reasons for the Premier becoming Elitist and money making.  Pubs can''t afford to show games. So much of this article encompasses what is wrong with football in general and to me the link is obvious. Perhaps I should stop thinking....

 

http://www.eveningnews24.co.uk/content/eveningnews24/norwich-news/story.aspx?brand=ENOnline&category=News&tBrand=ENOnline&tCategory=xNews&itemid=NOED30%20Jul%202010%2015%3A38%3A59%3A963

[/quote]



Gordon Brown and Labour allowed the banks to lend tens of thousands of football fans borrowed money to watch the game and Murdoch simply exploited the fact that these people would pay inflated prices to do so.

Left-wing policies and the dickheads who bought into them via spending loaned money are primarily the ones to blame for English footballs demise - but the facts shouldn''t stop you from thinking - nay - these facts should prompt you into thinking about getting a better paid job to enable you to view your favourite sport.
[/quote]

I''m intrigued as to how exactly you have come to the conclusion that this is a left wing policy? It would appear that you, have in fact failed at the point of conception, insofar as you are equating a decidedly capitalist policy with socialism, surely this is a contradiction in terms? Furthermore Sky''s stranglehold on football began in the early nineties with the formation of the premier league under a conservative government, it has undoubtedly become even more rapacious than ever under Labour, of that there is no doubt, but surely this has come to pass under economic conditions set in motion by Thatcher and espoused by both Labour and the Conservatives right up until and during the recent and continuing financial crisis. So to rephrase my original question; in what respect is the deregulation of the financial system a left wing policy?

Regarding this second rather interesting statement, why must and individual''s worth be calculated in terms of the money they earn? Surely if they are making some contribution to society, working, paying taxes etc this is enough and that the size of their wage should not be criteria for excluding them from what is after all an inherently working class sport. Surely the status quo should be challenged and a more equitable one introduced rather than allowing rampant capitalism to dominate that which should be universal. 

[Shack Attack 0]

[quote user="Simon Lappin King Of Spain"]

I''m intrigued as to how exactly you have come to the conclusion that this is a left wing policy? It would appear that you, have in fact failed at the point of conception, insofar as you are equating a decidedly capitalist policy with socialism, surely this is a contradiction in terms? Furthermore Sky''s stranglehold on football began in the early nineties with the formation of the premier league under a conservative government, it has undoubtedly become even more rapacious than ever under Labour, of that there is no doubt, but surely this has come to pass under economic conditions set in motion by Thatcher and espoused by both Labour and the Conservatives right up until and during the recent and continuing financial crisis. So to rephrase my original question; in what respect is the deregulation of the financial system a left wing policy?

Regarding this second rather interesting statement, why must and individual''s worth be calculated in terms of the money they earn? Surely if they are making some contribution to society, working, paying taxes etc this is enough and that the size of their wage should not be criteria for excluding them from what is after all an inherently working class sport. Surely the status quo should be challenged and a more equitable one introduced rather than allowing rampant capitalism to dominate that which should be universal. 

[/quote]Mr Lappin, let me offer you a little advice for replying to Shyster''s posts in the future. You see the mistake you''ve made above is to apply logic to his ramblings when all you really need to know about how he has come to his conclusion is that "Anything bad = socialist". On the plus side you are only a couple of posts away from the moment when he patronises you to within an inch of your life with the old "I used to share your lefty views as a young man until I grew up" routine.Enjoy [;)]

[ron obvious 1,711]

[quote user="Simon Lappin King Of Spain"][quote user="Shyster"][quote user="AndyJR"]

Can people not see what is happening to football.  Murdoch is a one of the biggest reasons for the Premier becoming Elitist and money making.  Pubs can''t afford to show games. So much of this article encompasses what is wrong with football in general and to me the link is obvious. Perhaps I should stop thinking....

 

http://www.eveningnews24.co.uk/content/eveningnews24/norwich-news/story.aspx?brand=ENOnline&category=News&tBrand=ENOnline&tCategory=xNews&itemid=NOED30%20Jul%202010%2015%3A38%3A59%3A963

[/quote]

Gordon Brown and Labour allowed the banks to lend tens of thousands of football fans borrowed money to watch the game and Murdoch simply exploited the fact that these people would pay inflated prices to do so. Left-wing policies and the dickheads who bought into them via spending loaned money are primarily the ones to blame for English footballs demise - but the facts shouldn''t stop you from thinking - nay - these facts should prompt you into thinking about getting a better paid job to enable you to view your favourite sport.[/quote]

I''m intrigued as to how exactly you have come to the conclusion that this is a left wing policy? It would appear that you, have in fact failed at the point of conception, insofar as you are equating a decidedly capitalist policy with socialism, surely this is a contradiction in terms? Furthermore Sky''s stranglehold on football began in the early nineties with the formation of the premier league under a conservative government, it has undoubtedly become even more rapacious than ever under Labour, of that there is no doubt, but surely this has come to pass under economic conditions set in motion by Thatcher and espoused by both Labour and the Conservatives right up until and during the recent and continuing financial crisis. So to rephrase my original question; in what respect is the deregulation of the financial system a left wing policy?

Regarding this second rather interesting statement, why must and individual''s worth be calculated in terms of the money they earn? Surely if they are making some contribution to society, working, paying taxes etc this is enough and that the size of their wage should not be criteria for excluding them from what is after all an inherently working class sport. Surely the status quo should be challenged and a more equitable one introduced rather than allowing rampant capitalism to dominate that which should be universal. 

[/quote]

I would agree that the previous Labour governments policy on the banks was anything but left wing. However. the major flaw in your argument is to assume there is such a ''thing'' as capitalism. Capitalism is the name we give to the economic system which has evolved in the West; it is not derived from a theory or a religion but is a purely pragmatic approach which arose once society became too complex for bartering to work.Labour''s core belief - that nobody should be richer (in any sense) than anyone else - can only be acheived by divorcing money from goods & services. They attempted to do so by borrowing at ever increasing rates. We have seen the results.The people I value most are far from the richest I know. However, you cannot expect society in general to have any way of knowing their deep intrinsic value to me. Their economic value is the only practical way societycan measure their value - & we all know this is wrong, but continue to pay footballers more than nurses just the same, because human nature is as it is.Hopefully evolution will continue.

[JF 694]

[quote user="ncfc4life"]Dont know if people have seen but they are introducing sky sports on freeview. £21.99 just for sky sports 1 or £31.99 for sky sports 1 & 2. Thats over £30 a month for just 2 channels!

And to top it off the bastards are planning to take sky sports news off freeview and start charging people for that aswell! Im guessing that will be another £20 or so a month
[/quote]That price is a joke! Especially as it looks like they are putting more football on channels 3 and 4. Really disapointed about Sky sports news coming off freeview but i will never give a penny to that company. There are plenty of internet sites to watch the fball and sky sports news for free.

[Simon Lappin, King Of Spain 0]

[quote user="Shack Attack"][quote user="Simon Lappin King Of Spain"]

I''m intrigued as to how exactly you have come to the conclusion that this is a left wing policy? It would appear that you, have in fact failed at the point of conception, insofar as you are equating a decidedly capitalist policy with socialism, surely this is a contradiction in terms? Furthermore Sky''s stranglehold on football began in the early nineties with the formation of the premier league under a conservative government, it has undoubtedly become even more rapacious than ever under Labour, of that there is no doubt, but surely this has come to pass under economic conditions set in motion by Thatcher and espoused by both Labour and the Conservatives right up until and during the recent and continuing financial crisis. So to rephrase my original question; in what respect is the deregulation of the financial system a left wing policy?

Regarding this second rather interesting statement, why must and individual''s worth be calculated in terms of the money they earn? Surely if they are making some contribution to society, working, paying taxes etc this is enough and that the size of their wage should not be criteria for excluding them from what is after all an inherently working class sport. Surely the status quo should be challenged and a more equitable one introduced rather than allowing rampant capitalism to dominate that which should be universal. 

[/quote]

Mr Lappin, let me offer you a little advice for replying to Shyster''s posts in the future. You see the mistake you''ve made above is to apply logic to his ramblings when all you really need to know about how he has come to his conclusion is that "Anything bad = socialist". On the plus side you are only a couple of posts away from the moment when he patronises you to within an inch of your life with the old "I used to share your lefty views as a young man until I grew up" routine.

Enjoy [;)]
[/quote]

All I can say is, given your advice I look forward to the riposte!!!

[king canary 8,757]

[quote user="Simon Lappin King Of Spain"][quote user="Shack Attack"][quote user="Simon Lappin King Of Spain"]

I''m intrigued as to how exactly you have come to the conclusion that this is a left wing policy? It would appear that you, have in fact failed at the point of conception, insofar as you are equating a decidedly capitalist policy with socialism, surely this is a contradiction in terms? Furthermore Sky''s stranglehold on football began in the early nineties with the formation of the premier league under a conservative government, it has undoubtedly become even more rapacious than ever under Labour, of that there is no doubt, but surely this has come to pass under economic conditions set in motion by Thatcher and espoused by both Labour and the Conservatives right up until and during the recent and continuing financial crisis. So to rephrase my original question; in what respect is the deregulation of the financial system a left wing policy?

Regarding this second rather interesting statement, why must and individual''s worth be calculated in terms of the money they earn? Surely if they are making some contribution to society, working, paying taxes etc this is enough and that the size of their wage should not be criteria for excluding them from what is after all an inherently working class sport. Surely the status quo should be challenged and a more equitable one introduced rather than allowing rampant capitalism to dominate that which should be universal. 

[/quote]Mr Lappin, let me offer you a little advice for replying to Shyster''s posts in the future. You see the mistake you''ve made above is to apply logic to his ramblings when all you really need to know about how he has come to his conclusion is that "Anything bad = socialist". On the plus side you are only a couple of posts away from the moment when he patronises you to within an inch of your life with the old "I used to share your lefty views as a young man until I grew up" routine.Enjoy [;)][/quote]

All I can say is, given your advice I look forward to the riposte!!!

[/quote]Also wait for ''I have loads of money.lots of houses/an amazing life/know more than any of you about anything.'' I have always wondered why somebody who constantly tells us how great his life is needs to spend so much time insulting people on message boards....

[7rew 0]

Dear Mr Shyster.

I regret to inform you that the position of Jeremy Clarkson has been filled.

We were however impressed by your application and so would like to invite

you to apply for the position of Glenn Beck. We will require further inform-

ation to proceed with this application. Our first question is are you able to

cry for 6 hours straight and on demand? Secondly, what quantity of Nazi

memorabilia do you have access to?

We look forward to hearing from you in due course.

[Simon Lappin, King Of Spain 0]

[quote user="ron obvious"][quote user="Simon Lappin King Of Spain"][quote user="Shyster"][quote user="AndyJR"]

Can people not see what is happening to football.  Murdoch is a one of the biggest reasons for the Premier becoming Elitist and money making.  Pubs can''t afford to show games. So much of this article encompasses what is wrong with football in general and to me the link is obvious. Perhaps I should stop thinking....

 

http://www.eveningnews24.co.uk/content/eveningnews24/norwich-news/story.aspx?brand=ENOnline&category=News&tBrand=ENOnline&tCategory=xNews&itemid=NOED30%20Jul%202010%2015%3A38%3A59%3A963

[/quote]



Gordon Brown and Labour allowed the banks to lend tens of thousands of football fans borrowed money to watch the game and Murdoch simply exploited the fact that these people would pay inflated prices to do so.

Left-wing policies and the dickheads who bought into them via spending loaned money are primarily the ones to blame for English footballs demise - but the facts shouldn''t stop you from thinking - nay - these facts should prompt you into thinking about getting a better paid job to enable you to view your favourite sport.
[/quote]

I''m intrigued as to how exactly you have come to the conclusion that this is a left wing policy? It would appear that you, have in fact failed at the point of conception, insofar as you are equating a decidedly capitalist policy with socialism, surely this is a contradiction in terms? Furthermore Sky''s stranglehold on football began in the early nineties with the formation of the premier league under a conservative government, it has undoubtedly become even more rapacious than ever under Labour, of that there is no doubt, but surely this has come to pass under economic conditions set in motion by Thatcher and espoused by both Labour and the Conservatives right up until and during the recent and continuing financial crisis. So to rephrase my original question; in what respect is the deregulation of the financial system a left wing policy?

Regarding this second rather interesting statement, why must and individual''s worth be calculated in terms of the money they earn? Surely if they are making some contribution to society, working, paying taxes etc this is enough and that the size of their wage should not be criteria for excluding them from what is after all an inherently working class sport. Surely the status quo should be challenged and a more equitable one introduced rather than allowing rampant capitalism to dominate that which should be universal. 

[/quote]


I would agree that the previous Labour governments policy on the banks was anything but left wing. However. the major flaw in your argument is to assume there is such a ''thing'' as capitalism. Capitalism is the name we give to the economic system which has evolved in the West; it is not derived from a theory or a religion but is a purely pragmatic approach which arose once society became too complex for bartering to work.

Labour''s core belief - that nobody should be richer (in any sense) than anyone else - can only be acheived by divorcing money from goods & services. They attempted to do so by borrowing at ever increasing rates. We have seen the results.

The people I value most are far from the richest I know. However, you cannot expect society in general to have any way of knowing their deep intrinsic value to me. Their economic value is the only practical way society
can measure their value - & we all know this is wrong, but continue to pay footballers more than nurses just the same, because human nature is as it is.

Hopefully evolution will continue.



[/quote]

 

I agree to an extent, but surely we as a society by paying footballers more than nurses are making an implicit statement regarding those individual''s intrinsic worth, if money is they heuristic for an indidual''s value to society etc. Additionally I was not necessarlily making any argument regarding footballer''s worth etc but rather taking issue with the notion that to be able to view a sport which is ultimately a universal entity one should have to change one''s job to be able to afford it. Football is not a commodity in the way that a new TV or Car is and therefore should not be treated as such. Additionally Shyter was not making any point regarding the government''s public spending strategy (and i was not commenting upon that topic), rather the issue I had was with him equating a banking system, whereby individuals without the means to afford certain commodities are allowed to take out unsecured loans, credit card etc which they cannot afford, in order to possess them, and a left wing political ideolody is utterly ridiculous and fundamentally flawed. 

I am actually in agreement with what you are saying to some extent re:capitalism and politics, rather my argument was that the unscrupulous company policies of retail banks and left wing political thought are not linked in any way. That is not to say that left-wing goverments and political theories cannot incorporate elements of capitalist economics, that was not my point, however as you say yourself the core belief of a left wing party such as labour is that no one individual should be significantly richer in monetary value than any other, therefore surely this makes capitalism in it''s current form if not the diametric opposite of socialism then at least a very uncomfortable bedfellow, particulrly in it''s current incarnation, as it were. I would also argue that just because it is not directly based upon any theory or knowledge base, it is still a label applied to the system of western free market economics and therefore one which can be used in concert with or contrast to the political ideolgies which exist alongside it.

With regard to evolution, well, nature abhors unsustainable growth as much as stagnation, the key is to develop the appropriate balance.

 

 

[7rew 0]

[quote user="ron obvious"]I would agree that the previous Labour governments policy on the banks was anything but left wing. However. the major flaw in your argument is to assume there is such a ''thing'' as capitalism. Capitalism is the name we give to the economic system which has evolved in the West; it is not derived from a theory or a religion but is a purely pragmatic approach which arose once society became too complex for bartering to work.Labour''s core belief - that nobody should be richer (in any sense) than anyone else - can only be acheived by divorcing money from goods & services. They attempted to do so by borrowing at ever increasing rates. We have seen the results.The people I value most are far from the richest I know. However, you cannot expect society in general to have any way of knowing their deep intrinsic value to me. Their economic value is the only practical way society can measure their value - & we all know this is wrong, but continue to pay footballers more than nurses just the same, because human nature is as it is.Hopefully evolution will continue.[/quote]It is impressive how someone can be so right and then so wrong all in one go.  Your first paragraph is very interesting and inciteful. The second is hateful and spiteful. The third is simply misguided.Socialism / the Labour Party is historically based on the premise that hard work should be rewarded with a living wage, which is clearly saying that "that nobody should be richer (in any sense) than anyone else".  In fact modern socialism could be summed up as the drive to better align wages and social value.  It is probably doomed to failure, but is a worthy cause.In the third you seem to be making a very basic mistake that is often made by right leaning people.  They confuse worth/social value, wealth/wages and economic value.  For a group of people so keen on market economics they seem to not be able to understand it''s consequences very well. A cynic may feel this is why they are keen on it!   Firstly your economic value actually goes up as your wages/wealth goes down, so this measure is a clear failure!Footballers are not paid more than nurses because of human nature, or because they are considered to be worth more. They are paid more than nurses because footballers are elite athletes, whereas nursing can be done by the majority of the population and the law of supply and demand dictates that although there is greater need for nurses, there is a far greater supply and hence lower wages.  Wages are in no way a reflection of value or worth but of uniqueness of a person''s skill set. Wages don''t even reflect a person''s economic importance to their employer*.  Saying that wealth is a measure of worth is a mistaken viewpoint which has done as much damage to the world as any other, and more than most. Wealth is a measure of uniqueness and nothing else. Even inherited wealth measures uniqueness, what with being the only child of a rich man being a property unique to one individual.You say that wealth/economic value is "the only practical way society can measure their value" and yet you yourself actually use a different one. The best way to measure someone''s social value is the respect that they get. 

[Mello Yello 2,572]

"Lordy! Lordy! Lordy!"..........This bloke is what true socialism''s about!"

[ron obvious 1,711]

LKOSI''m afraid the watching of s football match is as much as a commodity as anything else. How else are you going to determine who gets seats? I really can''t see a better way. Insofar as Mr. Shyster''s comments go, I am afraid I scarcely take any notice of said gentleman - your comments were far more interesting.The problem with the banks arose through an attempt to make sure everyone gets what they want, regardless of what they provide. I believe this to be Labour''s aim - it is certainly their interpretation of socialism. Whether it is one George Orwell would have recognised (I quite literally love George Orwell BTW, particularly for his essays) is another matter.I understand what you''re saying about capitalism being a reasonable name to apply to the situation we are in, but I do feel there is a fundamental differnce between an evolved system & one devolved from a theory, such as Marxism.As far as evolution is concerned, nature will always have the last say - whether we like it or not.REWJust a quibble: it''s ''insightful''. I''m not trying to start a riot or anything! But thank you for the compliment (I think!)I can''t for the life of me see the spitefulness in my second paragraph, & I stand by it. I am afraid that, whatever the intentions of socialism may be, the consequences have been mass abuse of the benefits system & a ludicrous attempt to relativise poverty; I recently saw a programme featuring a poverty stricken family who were living to a (materially) much higher standard than me, all on benefit. This genuinely does not concern me in the slightest - but the fact that there are many hard working families in GENUINE poverty does.You final comments seem to be more about semantics than anything else.  I suppose it''s a truism to say that we pay people according to their worth - because how else can you value them in any material sense? You can applaud them, award them honour & prestige, but these are of no material value. You still can''t buy a football club, for example. Whatever, the question still remains; how do you get to decide who gets to see a football match? Some sort of voucher system? We could call it money perhaps .....Incidentally, uniqueness is not a necessary & sufficient condition for wealth. I know some pretty poor uniquely idiotic people, for example (are you there Nana? (KIDDING!!!)).Thank you both for your instructive & thought provoking comments. It is amazing to find that the level of debate is higher on a footie forum than in the august pages of the press''s finest. Who''d have thunk it!

[7rew 0]

I disagree on the cheap loans system being anything other than a result of greed in the banks. Some very clever men worked out how to reduce the risk of lending... except the didn''t, they just reduced the perception of the risk. Armed with this "lower" risk, Banks could charge lower interest on borrowing, increase borrowing and profits. Nothing to do with government policy and would have happened under government of any shade see the USA where it started under one and continued under the other.

Both this and the crash that followed are fairly inevitable unfortunately.

[Buncey 1]

It''s a bit crazy aint it? I was involved with the student representatives at our hall of residence and in paying for the licence they were shelling out something obscene. The reality is, people will pay to watch it because that''s the only way they get to see "their team". It''s a lot of money, but people are willing to spend it, and advertisers know this. We can lament it as much as we want, but as we live in a free market, it is a choice that we make ourselves. If we, as a collective, really didn''t value the product at that price, nobody would buy it and it''s price would fall, unfortunately that is not the case and I can see more pubs and bars just not bothering anymore.

[Mister Chops 7]

[quote user="Shyster"][quote user="AndyJR"]

Can people not see what is happening to football.  Murdoch is a one of the biggest reasons for the Premier becoming Elitist and money making.  Pubs can''t afford to show games. So much of this article encompasses what is wrong with football in general and to me the link is obvious. Perhaps I should stop thinking....

 

http://www.eveningnews24.co.uk/content/eveningnews24/norwich-news/story.aspx?brand=ENOnline&category=News&tBrand=ENOnline&tCategory=xNews&itemid=NOED30%20Jul%202010%2015%3A38%3A59%3A963

[/quote]

Gordon Brown and Labour allowed the banks to lend tens of thousands of football fans borrowed money to watch the game and Murdoch simply exploited the fact that these people would pay inflated prices to do so. [/quote]And there I was thinking it was Margaret Thatcher''s slavish and unquestioning devotion to unfettered free market economics which allowed a man like Murdoch to buy up all the rights to the best sporting events, build a virtual monopoly and then charge whatever he likes for people to watch them.

[YankeeCanary 0]

[quote user="7rew"]I disagree on the cheap loans system being anything other than a result of greed in the banks. Some very clever men worked out how to reduce the risk of lending... except the didn''t, they just reduced the perception of the risk. Armed with this "lower" risk, Banks could charge lower interest on borrowing, increase borrowing and profits. Nothing to do with government policy and would have happened under government of any shade see the USA where it started under one and continued under the other. Both this and the crash that followed are fairly inevitable unfortunately.[/quote]

7rew, you make some good points and contribution to the thread but I would like like to counter a couple of your thoughts. Firstly, in your earlier post you reacted to the input from Ron Obvious by stating that " the best way to measure someone''s social value is the respect that they get." If individuals are to be respected for their social value then it usually is by others who "know" them and form part of their inner circle. This is important, of course, but it only forms a part of the society that an individual has to function in. The greater society has no knowledge of the social value of an individual or how much respect has been earned, which is why I agree with Ron''s comments in the overall sense.

With respect to your last post I can only tell you what occurred here in the United States. The debt problems were very clearly influenced by government policy. Further it was triggered by the same party, namely the Democrats. They had control of Congress for the last years of the second Bush term. It was the leading Democrats who had the control and applied pressure to the financial institutions to relax further and obviously dangerously what, in my view, was an already loose system that had existed for decades. They "suggested" to the financial institutions who did not go along that they were risking racial claims being made against them. The financial instutions foolishly complied and found other ways of reducing their risk. Thus the descent down the slippery slope began. 

[PurpleCanary 6,386]

[quote user="YankeeCanary"]

With respect to your last post I can only tell you what occurred here in the United States. The debt problems were very clearly influenced by government policy. Further it was triggered by the same party, namely the Democrats. They had control of Congress for the last years of the second Bush term. It was the leading Democrats who had the control and applied pressure to the financial institutions to relax further and obviously dangerously what, in my view, was an already loose system that had existed for decades. They "suggested" to the financial institutions who did not go along that they were risking racial claims being made against them. The financial instutions foolishly complied and found other ways of reducing their risk. Thus the descent down the slippery slope began. 

[/quote]Yankee, one significant factor in the States was that Greenspan was chairman of the Fed for 18 years (serving Reagan, both Bushes and Clinton) and was a self-confessed cheerleader for deregulation of the banks. His reputation has obviously taken a knock now but at the time  he was very highly regarded and his opinions carried a great deal of weight with Republicans as well as Democrats.

[Beauseant 0]

Fundamentally, the lesson that never seems to be learned is that, if you fail to regulate those to whom money and materialism are gods, then you end up with a financial disaster at some point. Sadly, it is too simple to simply treat this as a simple ideological issue. Greed and self interest respect no boundaries, as the expenses scandal quite clearly illustrated. Thatcher has much to answer for, as does Greenspan, but whenever the shackles come off the system there is an ever willing queue of those ready to dive headlong into the trough and fill their boots.

Mankind is inherently greedy, and morals tend to go out of the window when there''s money to be made, with the ill informed being fleeced. This is not a "modern" development, as events like the South Sea Bubble crisis illustrate. Sadly, it will happen again.

[ron obvious 1,711]

Absolutely, Beau, having ideals, i.e. maintaining that there is a set of moral codes to aspire to is good, but to turn it intoan ideology is senseless. Fundamentally it''s because we live in a physical world over which we have limited control. We are fortunate that at the moment our environment is in a benign phase, we can produce food in abundance & thus are able to grant ourselves all sorts of ''natural human rights'' about which Nature doesn''t give a fig.It''s unfortunate, but greed & self-interest are pretty good survival mechanisms, particularly when there really isn''t enough to go round.Political systems & institutions should work so as to bring out the inherent goodness in people. How to work that particular trick has thus far proved elusive.Anyway, bring on the Watford!OTBC!

[Eadienhucks 0]

Ron Obvious" their core belief is that no one should be richer than anyone else" ..I think you will find that labours original core belief,when they were formed in 1887, was the working man should not be exploited by the privilaged classes..And a caring society for all" ...Over the years,factions have split and there are some more radical than others..but the same can be said of the tories....where the spectrum of  their "core" ranges from fascism to capitalism.