mockney piers

They Borrow money from lenders, anyone willing to buy their debt. States usually raise money through the issue of bonds. A bond is basically a bit of paper that states that someone lent the issuer (in the case of your question the UK or US gov't) x amount of money, and it will be repaid to the holder of the paper in n number of years with y amount of interest (hence why they are called Fixed Interest investments). In this fashion bonds are actually tradeable items and work almost like money. Unlike cash however bonds are subject to risk because the issuer can default on the promise to repay the money, which is effectively what may happen if the debt row can't be sorted out. So when you ask who do they borrow the money off you're really asking who buys the bonds. The answer is other countries (These days primarily China), financial institutions (banks, pension funds etc, the low risk character of bonds is useful in helping to offset against higher risk securities like shares, derivatives commodities etc), companies and private investors (think about the war bonds drive of WW2 where they got lots of everyday people to buy gov't bonds in order to quickly raise the money needed to build all those weapons, kit out all those armies and ship them around the world). It's all a bit more complicated than that obviously, but that's the bare bones of it.

I like a bit of good data visualisation. This one shows various facets of US debt in actual dollar bills. Great stuff. http://www.wtfnoway.com/

Oh, thanks. Most people are surprised how young I am when they meet me as I sound like such a miserable old sod on here!! :)

Bleating about a liberal conspiracy - check Ranting about systemic multicultural bias in publically funded broadcasting - check Oh.......my.......god.......

Ridgley Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > MP wrote > -------------------------------------------------- > ------- > "Logan's run had the right idea" > > So when will you be popping off this mortal coil > then I am sure you have passed the age of 30:)) Believe you me, I'm long past that already. It was actual Arftul Dogger who did the above quote, I merely used it as an opportunity to have inappropriate thought about a young Jenny Agutter. There I go again....

And let's bring back fox hunting whilst we're at it. The mocklet almost played with a nice fox log laid on my doorstep this morning.

I thiiiiink this qualifies, ?Obama and rivals trade debt blows?

Oh no, not again.... good luck with this one *dons tin foil helmet and dives for cover*

my moral high horse > your moral high horse *sorry moos*

I remeber reading an article a few years ago that interviewed recreational heroin users that was making the point that there are greyer areas than usually thought with heroin. I'm now hoping it wasn't by Johann Hari ;-)

A friend of mine has recently discovered that his wife is quite severely alcoholic, she has spent two years hiding it very well, most effectively masking it as depression brought about as a result of his terminal cancer. As if it's not bad enough that he won't get to see their daughter beyond her fourth year (or more accurately she won't get to see him I guess), he now has to worry about the state her mother is going to be. She's booked into rehab and is making progress but I dread to think what his death will do to her recovery. Noone should ever trivialise the potentially destructive effects of alcoholism. In fact have we even had it confirmed that the thread in question has come about as a result of a heroin OD or are we all making assumptions?

"There is no scope for moderation with heroin.." It might surprise you to know that just as there are plenty of functional alcholics that there are also functional heroin addicts and recreational users that are perfectly capable of keeping it under control. Just as alcohol problems more often stem from poverty and other social issues (abuse etc) so it is with drug problems, whlst those who use it recreationally can afford better products and fit it in with responsible lives. I agree it's evil stuff, but nothing is quite as black and white as all that. I think the starting point of any sensible discussion on drugs has to consider the given that control of supply has utterly failed, any denial of that position must then be posturing.

thanks for putting words in my mouth there otta, I'm not entirely made of straw you know. I'm to understand from your comment that I'm proposing making heroin as available as alcohol then am i? I'm not, but then if people needed to register to receive safe and pure heroin for their addiction, I'd be mightily surprised if suddenly millions of people would think that a great idea and the streets of Leeds and Croydon would be knee deep in people taking heroin of a friday and saturday night. Of course another way of looking at these figures is that given the 25000 overdoses annually, 150 deaths is pretty low, we could understand that given the criminal nature of heroin that you are far more likely to OD in a situation where help won't be fortchcoming and perhaps less inclined to seek hospitalisation; perhaps decriminalisation might actually help reduce deaths from heroin. - edited following more thoughtful follow up post -

Remeber it too was banned for moral reasons and because it causes harm to society. It's worth remembering too that there are about 500 hospitalisations due to alcohol overdoses every week and 150ish deaths a year, compared to heroins 800ish. This doesn't include the tens of thousands that die due to long term use every year.

I don't. Prohibition made alcohol a criminal drug. During this period it was still freely available if you knew where to look, the quality was uncontrolled, the government lost billions in revenue, people made vast sums from the smuggling and supply of the drug and criminal activity ballooned with ensuing violence of turf wars for control of areas of sale. Masses of police time was wasted, investing huge resources in futile attempts at stopping production, importation and sale of the drug. I would have thought the only issue with the comparison is that it's so blindingly obvious not that it's ridiculous.

I thought she started well, bringing back a sense of dignity* and consideration to the office after the idiocy and excesses respectively of Blunkett and Reid. Clarke was pretty poor too, so to say she was the best of that lot isn't necessarily saying an awful lot. Jack Straw makes my skin crawl and is a self serving shit, but he was at least a moderately capable (if deeply cynical) politician. *up until the porn I guess.

"Logan's run had the right idea" If you're referring to the idea of dressing Jenny Agutter up in a see-through skimpy dress then I'm with you all the way on that one!!

"this principle could result in a man who has been arrested for killing more than 100 people walking free in his late 40s/early 50s, which I imagine would be an insult to the memory of the victims" I have to say statements like this make me feel uncomfortable. an objective judicial system should be as free from emotive concerns as is possible. Law should be applied as drily as possible, that's what makes it law and separates real courts from kangaroo ones, justice from rough justice. If the the system deems someone to have served their time. that they are not a threat and to have some sense of remorse (is remorse a prior condition, I sort of think it is but tbh I haven't a clue) then i guess they should be released regardless of the anger of victims if we consider ourselves to be a culture that believes in the possibility of redemption and rehabilitation rather than one of revenge. The Myra Hindley case was a bit of a classic in that her life tarrif was overturned in the courts and that she was going to be released. THe home secretary effectively fillibustered and tried to trump up something new to prevent her release. As far as I can see he was doing that because her release would have played so badly with the public (and who can blame them) and could have been a vote loser (or at least for Blunkett a career sinker) which meant he was abusing his power in order to interfere with due process for purely political motives, and that stinks of corruption, undermining the values this country stands for. (mind you he was the worst HS of all time and Labour did a lot of undermining of those values but that's another story). That's why I've been so impressed seeing Norwegians who have just lost friends or witnessed the shootings or caught up in the bomb saying that Norway's values will not change as result of this. Stirringly admirable stuff!!

xpost with horsebox

"do you not think it would be rather a good thing to get heroin off the streets?" It's irrelevant whether or not it's a good thing (and I'm pretty sure everyone outside of drug criminals and addicts would agree with the sentiment) as it's an impossible thing. So the question remains how do you minimise the harm? I too am in favour of decriminalisation with tight control. In fact making it available by prescription (as i done on a limited trial locally I believe) will cost the nation a helluva lot less than the futile war on drugs and all the crime associated with the drug trade. I think the comparison Heinz was making was not one of severity but of effectiveness of approach.

Like France? Bring back the good old days I say.

Interestingly China's one child policy is also prematurely giving China the sorts of problems we're facing, with a top heavy ageing population such that the young people can't generate enough wealth to pay for the pensions and care of the old. I'm not sure how much of a safety net India has to be honest. In some rural parts it's definitely zilch.

"and also to know how they deal with people with mental issues who are too dangerous to release" It would seem that those deemed to still be a threat to the public can have their sentences extended indefinitely.

I got new boots.

Actually gotten is English, it's just we more or less ditched it a couple of centuries ago but it lives on in the colonies. I have got new boots. I have gotten new boots. There is no ambiguity in the meaning of the latter, whereas the former can mean either I have taken new boots into my possession or I have them now. Not so terrible is it?