nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Off Topic Thread 4.0

Zzippy

Thread continued from here

The usual rules apply. Non-rugby talk here. Consider this a social place, but like a pub, things like religion and politics can be divisive, so don't say things here you wouldn't say to someone's face in the pub. Sober

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Neil3030

Don't just give people money, give them a loan, with forgiveness based on this year's taxes.

Tweak it so that if you pay little income tax this year (lower income), you don't pay it back, or pay back very little. While if you pay a lot of income tax (higher income) you pay most or all of it back.

Not perfect, but gets the money out immediately to people who will need to spend it. While those who can afford to save it must give it back in the relatively short term.

jacothelad

Former Former wrote: »

I honestly don't know.

But what's crippling the economy right now is the fact that there isn't really anywhere to spend money. Just speaking personally, my income is the same, but I'm not going to restaurants or pubs, I'm not buying clothes, I'm not taking the kids anywhere, I'm not buying petrol... if the government gives me more money, I literally won't know what to do with it until things open up again.

In previous crashes, you could inject money into the economy knowing it would stay there - now, I'm not so sure.

You could always donate it to poor pensioner with a serious Fender, Gretsch, Martin, Taylor addiction to maintain. I can help you out if that predicament should arrive.....:D:D:D:D:D

mfceiling

prawnsambo wrote: »

I'm still working on how email gets 'mildly' hacked.

Ha badly phrased. It seems like it wasn't a full in house security breach but just her email account in work. She's working from home but according to the IT dept it was cleverly done (my expertise ranges from "turn it off then on again").
Not sure how they would have gotten away with it but the way they worded and signed off the mail made it look exactly like herself had sent it.

prawnsambo

MaybeMaybe wrote: »

she didn't lock her screen when she left her pc. sounds like mfceiling wanted a few quid sent to his dodgy offshore account.

Ah yes "somehow".

[Deleted User]

prawnsambo wrote: »

I'm still working on how email gets 'mildly' hacked.

she didn't lock her screen when she left her pc. sounds like mfceiling wanted a few quid sent to his dodgy offshore account.

prawnsambo

I'm still working on how email gets 'mildly' hacked.

mfceiling

Well the scammers seem to be out in full swing with the covid going on.

Wife's email was somehow mildly hacked in work and a very convincing email was sent from "her" to finance looking for 2 grand to be paid to a certain account. She has a particular way of signing off emails and they had even signed it the same.
The girl in finance just happened to give her a bell asking what the money was to be registered against and then the scam became clear.

I got up this morning to an email from the car rental company that I used in Sicily last august who are "taking" €284 from my credit card with little to no wording as why. I opened the attached document (which handily was in Italian) and they had a few figures adding up to the sum.
Sent it to my brother in law who lives in Rome and is fluent and also handily a solicitor. He said it looks like they didn't charge you at the time for the car. Unfortunately my credit card said differently so he said notify the bank just in case.

Feckers.

irishbucsfan

Former Former wrote: »

I honestly don't know.

But what's crippling the economy right now is the fact that there isn't really anywhere to spend money. Just speaking personally, my income is the same, but I'm not going to restaurants or pubs, I'm not buying clothes, I'm not taking the kids anywhere, I'm not buying petrol... if the government gives me more money, I literally won't know what to do with it until things open up again.

In previous crashes, you could inject money into the economy knowing it would stay there - now, I'm not so sure.

I can’t imagine they would be proceeding with anything like this until the economy is opened up, specifically the hospitality industry. Until discretionary spending ticks back up it won’t happen I’d say, we’d see probably a massive surge in imports as everyone buys new tellys from Amazon

troyzer

Stheno wrote: »

Always struck me as being mad as a box of frogs tbh

I'm not usually one to **** on the media but Christ he was given a bad rap. They just focused on his leather jacket and motorbikes.

He's a serious economist with multiple tenured professorships. A really, really smart guy. Unfortunately, you need to read his books to see that.

His problem was ultimately his communication skills and how he allowed himself to be portrayed a dingbat rockstar trying to save the day instead of what he actually is: a well respected economist with radical views.

Former Former

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Has that happened in any of the real world examples where it’s been implemented?

Was the Australian approach not largely considered a big success when they did it? I can’t remember. Surely it’s been tried enough times now that we’d have a fairly good idea of what consumer behaviour actually would be

I honestly don't know.

But what's crippling the economy right now is the fact that there isn't really anywhere to spend money. Just speaking personally, my income is the same, but I'm not going to restaurants or pubs, I'm not buying clothes, I'm not taking the kids anywhere, I'm not buying petrol... if the government gives me more money, I literally won't know what to do with it until things open up again.

In previous crashes, you could inject money into the economy knowing it would stay there - now, I'm not so sure.

Stheno

troyzer wrote: »

I think he's talking about Yannis Varoufakis.

Really interesting guy, there's a good reason why he resigned. His book called "Adults in the Room" is a fascinating insight into the Eurogroup negotiations over the Greek debt crisis.

Always struck me as being mad as a box of frogs tbh

troyzer

Stheno wrote: »

George Lee?

Now known as Gloomy George due to the apparent delight he gets in catastrophising the daily news about Covid19 on the six o'clock news

He just about stops short of "We are all DOOMED, DOOMED I tells ya"

I think he's talking about Yannis Varoufakis.

Really interesting guy, there's a good reason why he resigned. His book called "Adults in the Room" is a fascinating insight into the Eurogroup negotiations over the Greek debt crisis.

Stheno

swiwi_ wrote: »

Basically Shane Ross, but younger and with better dentition.

Ross yapped away in his newspaper column, once elected he wasn't too great nor a genius.

I'd predict the same thing if McWilliams was made minister of finance.

Without mentioning that guy who was elected to parliament on a wave of popular support as some sort of economic guru, then resigned shortly after (can't remember his name)

.

George Lee?

Now known as Gloomy George due to the apparent delight he gets in catastrophising the daily news about Covid19 on the six o'clock news

He just about stops short of "We are all DOOMED, DOOMED I tells ya"

irishbucsfan

Former Former wrote: »

But how many people will just put that in the bank and let it sit there?

Then you don't help the economy and you cost the exchequer billions.

Has that happened in any of the real world examples where it’s been implemented?

Was the Australian approach not largely considered a big success when they did it? I can’t remember. Surely it’s been tried enough times now that we’d have a fairly good idea of what consumer behaviour actually would be

Squidgy Black

irishbucsfan wrote: »

How often a quarterback gets sacked is not entirely dependent on the quality of the offensive line. The likes of Brady or Manning would get sacked far FAR less than Jameis with all external factors being the same.

Anyway I’m shocked by the Gronk news but i don’t think it makes us much better. A running back who can take the load off Brady and also offer a short option when he’s in trouble should be the real target but supposedly Bruce, the greatest sports coach of all time, is going after exactly that.

Apparently Jameis finally opted to get Lasik done this off-season, and was near-sighted, meaning he was struggling to see receivers open down the field. Which is mental when you think about it for a QB

swiwi_

Squidgy Black wrote: »

He's still living off of the self-given credit of predicting the crash in 2008.

Basically Shane Ross, but younger and with better dentition.

Ross yapped away in his newspaper column, once elected he wasn't too great nor a genius.

I'd predict the same thing if McWilliams was made minister of finance.

Without mentioning that guy who was elected to parliament on a wave of popular support as some sort of economic guru, then resigned shortly after (can't remember his name)

It'd be the same thing if Franno was made coach of the irish rugby team.

Hot air with no substance.

thomond2006

irishbucsfan wrote: »

How often a quarterback gets sacked is not entirely dependent on the quality of the offensive line. The likes of Brady or Manning would get sacked far FAR less than Jameis with all external factors being the same.

Anyway I’m shocked by the Gronk news but i don’t think it makes us much better. A running back who can take the load off Brady and also offer a short option when he’s in trouble should be the real target but supposedly Bruce, the greatest sports coach of all time, is going after exactly that.

Tarik Cohen is wasted at the Bears. They're idiots so they'll trade him to you for peanuts. He's the type of receiving RB that Brady played with for years.

Squidgy Black

swiwi_ wrote: »

Can’t stand that guy. One of those people who never has to practice what he preaches.

He's still living off of the self-given credit of predicting the crash in 2008.

swiwi_

[Deleted User] wrote: »

David McWilliams is heavily pushing for that saying if deflation starts, we'll have a depression on our hands

Can’t stand that guy. One of those people who never has to practice what he preaches.

thomond2006

Former Former wrote: »

But how many people will just put that in the bank and let it sit there?

Then you don't help the economy and you cost the exchequer billions.

I think it was Singapore (open to correction) that issued vouchers during the last economic crisis in order to stimulate spending. The vouchers were valid for a 6-12 month period and couldn't be converted to cash so you had to use/spend them in the local economy and were unable to stash them in an account.

Squidgy Black

Former Former wrote: »

But how many people will just put that in the bank and let it sit there?

Then you don't help the economy and you cost the exchequer billions.

The only way McWilliams' proposal is feasible is if you introduce some sort of promissory note system that means it can be spent in retail stores etc and redeemable by the business from the government.

But the counter argument from a monetary policy point of view would be that income supplements are an alternative to that proposal, as you try to bring people's income back up and give them that breathing space.

Be interesting to see the longer term plans for self-employed though. I'm not really up to speed on that aspect of things, but I'd imagine it's a hell of a lot more daunting for anyone in those shoes, especially if you're reduced down to the 350 a week as a sole earner.

troyzer

irishbucsfan wrote: »

How often a quarterback gets sacked is not entirely dependent on the quality of the offensive line. The likes of Brady or Manning would get sacked far FAR less than Jameis with all external factors being the same.

Anyway I’m shocked by the Gronk news but i don’t think it makes us much better. A running back who can take the load off Brady and also offer a short option when he’s in trouble should be the real target but supposedly Bruce, the greatest sports coach of all time, is going after exactly that.

The counter argument is that Brady is less able to evade sacks if and when the offensive line does break down.

All QBs crumble under repeated sacks but Brady more than most because of his awful mobility. Some of my most enjoyable NFL viewing was seeing my beloved Broncos completely batter him.

They're the only team he has a losing ratio against.

irishbucsfan

Buer wrote: »

Fingers crossed!

I think it will be a good move commercially for them but I'm doubtful as to how much success they're going to have. I'm not sure how compatible a middle aged, declining Brady is going to be with their offence and what we've seen in recent seasons.

Brady is also going to get hit a lot more. They're using their space on guys like Gronk when they were in the bottom 10 in the league for sacks allowed last season and that was with a 26 year old, 105kg QB. Brady isn't going to be able to get out of those situations. I don't know how he's going to be able to prolong his plays to find his receivers unless they're going to play a lot more conservatively and use Gronk as a blocker on a lot of snaps.

How often a quarterback gets sacked is not entirely dependent on the quality of the offensive line. The likes of Brady or Manning would get sacked far FAR less than Jameis with all external factors being the same.

Anyway I’m shocked by the Gronk news but i don’t think it makes us much better. A running back who can take the load off Brady and also offer a short option when he’s in trouble should be the real target but supposedly Bruce, the greatest sports coach of all time, is going after exactly that.

errlloyd

troyzer wrote: »

how this major disruption can lead to positive change such as a proper one tier health system, a global rugby calendar etc.

Former Former

sydthebeat wrote: »

Every citizen should just be given €1000 to spend as they wish.

But how many people will just put that in the bank and let it sit there?

Then you don't help the economy and you cost the exchequer billions.

troyzer

Squidgy Black wrote: »

The NTMA have upped their bonds funding range from 11 billion to 24, which mostly will be pumped back into the exchequer which will be a huge boost considering the central bank have forecast an 8 billion fallout due to the coronavirus.

You'd be surprised at the portfolio of assets the NTMA and the Central Bank have held since the 2008 collapse, as a country we're in a pretty strong place regarding debt security and sovereign credit rating.

Bond issues are massively oversubscribed as well. We're in the German territory of negative bond rates, which is nice.

But I think this is bigger than Ireland. The commission and the ECB need to lead this.

A lot of people have been looking on the bright side and how this major disruption can lead to positive change such as a proper one tier health system, a global rugby calendar etc.

But the biggest positive in my book would be if the Dutch finally woke up and realised that the Euro is ****ed without a fiscal union and much deeper integration of Eurozone debt and spending.

Squidgy Black

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I think we're going to have to engage in some novel ecomonics at this point. Growing number of voices suggesting that the recovery and creating a completely green economy should be done all in the one go.

The NTMA have upped their bonds funding range from 11 billion to 24, which mostly will be pumped back into the exchequer which will be a huge boost considering the central bank have forecast an 8 billion fallout due to the coronavirus.

You'd be surprised at the portfolio of assets the NTMA and the Central Bank have held since the 2008 collapse, as a country we're in a pretty strong place regarding debt security and sovereign credit rating.

[Deleted User]

sydthebeat wrote: »

Every citizen should just be given €1000 to spend as they wish.

David McWilliams is heavily pushing for that saying if deflation starts, we'll have a depression on our hands

Stheno

sydthebeat wrote: »

Every citizen should just be given €1000 to spend as they wish.

New handbag

troyzer

sydthebeat wrote: »

Every citizen should just be given €1000 to spend as they wish.

Straight into savings or debt.

And that's the problem for governments, most people do just that.