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

pickarooney

Can't wait for the Romania game

Squidgy Black

Clegg wrote: »

Did you hear that Umaga is retiring?

Neil Back didn't make the England squad either, that's the biggest sporting news of 2020

Clegg

Synode wrote: »

Is Boards creaking for anyone else. I use Touch site and getting errors, ancient threads and taking ages to load and post

Did you hear that Umaga is retiring?

sydthebeat

Synode wrote: »

We'll be lucky if we can afford the social welfare bill never mind giving everyone free money. I understand the sentiment behind it though. For it to have an effect the money involved would be huge imo

the theory however is that it actually costs nothing.

in a deflationary shock, money is wiped out.... so all you are doing is actually creating that money to the point that deflation doesnt happen.
it doesnt have to balanced against an asset anywhere.

Thats the theory anyway... and in this unprecedented crisis id be willing to look at outside the box thinking rather than walking meekly into a depression.

anyway, its happened already

https://ftalphaville.ft.com/2020/02/26/1582705518000/Helicopter-money-is-here/

ECB discussion here
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/23/could-europe-opt-for-helicopter-money-to-deal-with-coronavirus.html

FACECUTTR

Synode wrote: »

Is Boards creaking for anyone else. I use Touch site and getting errors, ancient threads and taking ages to load and post

Yes for about a week now. Mostly the threads from 14 years ago.

Synode

Is Boards creaking for anyone else. I use Touch site and getting errors, ancient threads and taking ages to load and post

Synode

They're also kind of doing it already via the wage subsidy

Synode

We'll be lucky if we can afford the social welfare bill never mind giving everyone free money. I understand the sentiment behind it though. For it to have an effect the money involved would be huge imo

sydthebeat

Synode wrote: »

No, there's no additional spend. In the situation noted you're replacing a spend that was going to happen anyway.

the whole point is for the people "who dont have it to spend" are the ones who spend it.....

if an economic shock hits the country and we go from 4.7% to 23% unemployment rate in 6 months, the cost of living doesnt have a chance to adjust with the same rate.

Therefore people who had been paying mortgages, childcare, utility bills etc out of their weeks wages, and were still spending their disposable income on socialising, luxery goods, entertainment etc suddenly stop all of this to try to meet their necessities.

The idea of this 'free cash' is to crank the economny into moving transactions again.

and hey, if even a proportion of those who have it anyway to spend, decide to spend it (maybe i should get that garden wall painted that i had planned to, or i should still go ahead with that 50th birthday bash for my better half etc) then all the better. its a 'use it or lose it' payment.

the whole idea is to keep money moving in the economy. A free 1€ could be worth €10 to the economy.

Buer

Deleted User wrote: »

That stimulates the economy regardless no?

The point being that they're putting money in the bank they'd have used to buy their essential items (and put money into the economy) regardless. They may as well have not been given the money as they're just hoarding it and it is out of circulation.

Some people would do this. I'd like to think that a chunk of people would put it into the economy through other means i.e. one off spends such as a new appliance or home improvement, weekends away (hopefully within Ireland) etc.

I'd buy beer. All the beer.

swiwi_

Synode wrote: »

No, there's no additional spend. In the situation noted you're replacing a spend that was going to happen anyway.

I reckon most people given free money tend to spend it rather than put it in the bank. Maybe not Singaporeans though.

thomond2006

The NFL draft starts at 1am.

Sports content. Actual sports content.

Synode

Deleted User wrote: »

That stimulates the economy regardless no?

No, there's no additional spend. In the situation noted you're replacing a spend that was going to happen anyway.

Panda Killa

Bundesliga football back on May 9th they hope..

[Deleted User]

pickarooney wrote: »

Won't people just use them to buy food and put their actual cash in the bank?

That stimulates the economy regardless no?

pickarooney

thomond2006 wrote: »

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.

Won't people just use them to buy food and put their actual cash in the bank?

prawnsambo

Oxford professor on James O'Brien's show this morning saying that they will be injecting the first volunteer with their newly developed vaccine for COVID-19. They have 500 volunteers lined up in Oxford and in the process of adding more in London and Southampton. Still four or five months to manufacture, assuming trials work out fine.

troyzer

My job implemented a sort of shift work before the lockdown.

Half in the office, half WFH. We need to have people in the office for when our operations are allowed to start up again.

I think it was a pretty good setup. Best of both worlds.

DGRulz

I guess theres a different between being able to go back to work and having to go back to work. My workplace allows us to WFH whenever we need to so I had been taking a day a week most weeks as a way of saving a little bit before any of this happened. I started fully WFH before the original lockdown started, once its lifted I'm going to continue WFH for a while, maybe gradually going in Tuesdays and Thursday but obviously that isn't the situation for everyone.

Buer

errlloyd wrote: »

Is anyone else anxious about when this is quasi lifted.

I am not looking forward to going back to work, but still not being able to go the pub or watch live sports. Seems like the downsides to normal life are gonna return before the upsides.

It was always going to be the way but the question is for how long.

Some live sports are going to return sooner rather than later, I suspect. , I can see matches and events taking place behind closed doors in June for some sports and even sooner. The PGA has already stated their intention to return to play in the USA in early-mid June. Bundesliga teams have been training in small groups since early April and matches could recommence in May as per a statement from the league this week in line with the German government comments.

Once a couple of major sporting leagues return, I think we'll see a huge amount of pressure on other fixtures to look at their situations.

The T14 have announced they will not be holding playoffs or finals this season which were due in late June. However, they do still have hopes of completing their regular season, pending French government announcements. There are 9 matches left for them. If they do, then that is more than likely the end of any hopes for the Champions Cup taking place unless they wanted to hold it in August at the expense of a pre-season which is massively unlikely.

Synode

As long as they let us play golf again I'll be happy

errlloyd

Is anyone else anxious about when this is quasi lifted.

I am not looking forward to going back to work, but still not being able to go the pub or watch live sports. Seems like the downsides to normal life are gonna return before the upsides.

[Deleted User]

The ban on some politics has been lifted, religion is still not allowed so cut it out please

Buer

swiwi_ wrote: »

Cut out the Israel Palestinian crap. Otherwise you’ll get politics banned again.

Cop the f*ck on I’d be tempted to say.

Switzerland, showing Ireland how to actually be neutral since 1939.

swiwi_

Cut out the Israel Palestinian crap. Otherwise you’ll get politics banned again.

Cop the f*ck on I’d be tempted to say.

troyzer

prawnsambo wrote: »

Zionism existed long before the state of Israel. It's very hard to separate Jewishness and Jews from religion because they are indivisible, so you could say that it's religiously motivated, but literally everything related to Jews and Jewishness is by definition religious. The primary motivation for Zionism was as a direct response to the pogroms and discrimination endured by Jews all over the world.

Your definition is very narrow and relates to the government of Israel's expansionist policies over the years. The problem with this definition is that it allows for anti-semitism to exist in a quasi-legitimate anti-Israeli government policy disguise, whilst actually being just a dog whistle.

So, yes. Words matter. Which is why it's far better to express distaste for, and opposition to, Israeli government expansionist and other policies (that would also be echoed by many Israelis) in the specific terms rather than the broader brush of zionism. Which is (and was) a legitimate movement.

My definition isn't narrow. It's the religiously held belief that Israel belongs to the Jews. That's not narrow at all.

I'm talking about the political consequences of that belief, which are much narrower.

I do agree that anti-zionism is often a front for genuine anti-semitism. Which is a scourge. And it should be noted that there are plenty of anti-zionists who themselves are Jews. Chomsky is a famous example. He originally considered himself a zionist. But he believed in a secular, one state solution which is now considered anti-zionist by the hardliners.

It's difficult to divorce the religious roots from the political bull**** that goes on now.

prawnsambo

troyzer wrote: »

Words matter and it's important to remember where Zionism comes from.

It's a religiously motivated belief that Israel BELONGS to the Jews. This belief has led to multiple breaches of international law.

I am opposed to that. But I'm not opposed to Israel existing. I'm opposed to them using their religion to keep expanding at the expense of the people already living there.

I don't care if it's religiously motivated, that's just blatant annexation. I'm equally opposed to Russia chopping bits off their neighbour.

But Israel has the right to exist.

Zionism existed long before the state of Israel. It's very hard to separate Jewishness and Jews from religion because they are indivisible, so you could say that it's religiously motivated, but literally everything related to Jews and Jewishness is by definition religious. The primary motivation for Zionism was as a direct response to the pogroms and discrimination endured by Jews all over the world.

Your definition is very narrow and relates to the government of Israel's expansionist policies over the years. The problem with this definition is that it allows for anti-semitism to exist in a quasi-legitimate anti-Israeli government policy disguise, whilst actually being just a dog whistle.

So, yes. Words matter. Which is why it's far better to express distaste for, and opposition to, Israeli government expansionist and other policies (that would also be echoed by many Israelis) in the specific terms rather than the broader brush of zionism. Which is (and was) a legitimate movement.

troyzer

prawnsambo wrote: »

Well not exactly. Anti-zionism means you are opposed to the establishment and continued existence of the Jewish state of Israel.

Words matter and it's important to remember where Zionism comes from.

It's a religiously motivated belief that Israel BELONGS to the Jews. This belief has led to multiple breaches of international law.

I am opposed to that. But I'm not opposed to Israel existing. I'm opposed to them using their religion to keep expanding at the expense of the people already living there.

I don't care if it's religiously motivated, that's just blatant annexation. I'm equally opposed to Russia chopping bits off their neighbour.

But Israel has the right to exist.

prawnsambo

Rigor Mortis wrote: »

Not sure how that post muddied waters. The three items I mentioned were distinct.

Well not exactly. Anti-zionism means you are opposed to the establishment and continued existence of the Jewish state of Israel.

Rigor Mortis

prawnsambo wrote: »

Well there's some of those muddy waters right there. Zionism is the movement to establish and support a Jewish state in Israel.

Not sure how that post muddied waters. The three items I mentioned were distinct.