Zebedee Tring

Loz, I mentioned my education level re economics because I was accused by another poster of "ignorant ramblings", which was bloody insulting and patronising. However, since my 6th Form days, I have also read extensively on the subject of economics and have made a particular interest of British political history since WW2. Furthermore, I read daily the financial pages in my papers of choice. So I'm not an ignoramus on the subject - far from it. Very often I read the views of people online with whom I profoundly disagree. However, I would never accuse them of perpetrating "ignorant ramblings".

Please don't patronise me, titch juicy. You and those other people who have tried to dismiss my arguments should read the article in today's Guardian on Thomas Piketty's book "Capital in the 21st Century" which has topped the bestseller lists in that notorious socialist country the USAS.

Just because you disagree with me, Jeremy, you don't have to be rude and patronising. As I told El Phibe I studied Economics in the 6th Form and would suspect that I am better educated than you.

How dare you patronise me, El Phibe. Just because you don't agree with me, you don't have to be rude. I studied Economics in the 6th Form and would suspect that I am better educated than you.

So sorry to hear that you are suffering from Pre Menstrual Strain in the Loins, unlurked. I suggest that you seek medical advice pdq. I'm logging off now and I won't looking at my computer for another day or so; I wouldn't therefore waste your time posting on this thread.

I'm glad you find this funny, unlurked. I always like to bring a little joy into other people's lives.

But you are a troll, unlurked. You fit the definition perfectly. And don't tell me I can't think for myself. I'd be very surprised if I wasn't better educated than you are.

Sad troll posters who post on threads in which they are not interested so that they can be gratuitously rude to other posters and try to wind them up. But they don't cause me irrational rage - I just feel very, very sorry for them because they don't have a life.

Seabag, when you say that the poster's view is "measured", I assume that you are being ironic.

It gambles with its money, rips off its shareholders by paying excessive bonuses and provides lousy service to its customers. And if we are really unlucky, the government has to bale them out when they go bust.

All those selfish bastards in East London who demanded a tube extension to the Central Line in the 30s. They wrecked places like Gants Hill and Redbridge. Er... actually they asked for this because the transport in the area was very overcrowded. Which is the reason that many people in ED would like to have a tube here, unlikely though this may.

I have to disagree re The Archers. Hearing Moany Tony at last telling Sausage Boy Tom in no uncertain terms what he thought of him and Kirsty giving Ms Entitlement Hellin an earful were two of the finest moments that I've heard in the programme for years. If it had been in Stenders, on hearing of the jilting Roy would have said "I don't believe I'm 'earing this!" and Kirsty's dad would have tried to punch Tom, only for Kirsty to cry "Leave him Dad, 'e ain't worf it!"

France is not the only country with higher taxation. Scandinavian countries have had high taxation, and much better social services, for decades, without the massive inequalities of wealth than we have. But of course if we had followed the Norwegian example of investing our North Sea oil revenue in retooling industry rather than squandering it on enormous tax cuts, then we might be in a better position now. It's not too late for us to become more like a Scandinavian country. It would however help if we stopped spending so much money on defence and stopped kidding ourselves that the British Empire still exists. This regrettably seems unlike whoever is in government after 2015.

Rather than further massive benefit cuts, how about raising taxes, especially the top rate of tax, plus a property tax as we had until the 60s? Q: Who was the PM who presided over a 60% top rate of tax for most of the 1980s. A. Not Harold Wilson, not Jim Callaghan - but that famous socialist Margaret Thatcher. If it was good enough for Thatcher (as was a nationalised British Rail), then true Tories should embrace this with open arms. And good riddance to the RBS bankers. They wrecked the economy and it was the Government who had to bail them out. People who claim benefits are "scroungers" but banks who demand massive hand outs from the Government of course aren't. Or are they? And I do know something about economics. However, unlike so many economists these days, I'm not a monetarist but more of a Keynesian, a philosophy which is coming back into fashion at long last.

No, it won't affect my finances. And that's just the kind of special pleading used by the finance industry to justify ginormous bonuses. This led in due course to the crash of 2008 and the mess that the world is in today. A bit more investment in industry than in the glorified gambling trade that is the finance industry would make a helluva difference

It's a scandal. All those Barclays bankers (choose your own rhyming slang) who want to spend last year's bonus on a nice car and not a Lamborghini showroom in sight in ED. Please do your best to persuade them not to leave the country to buy one for under ?250k - we need their skills so much.

????, I will defend to the death your right to think differently from me. Detection of irony is clearly not one of your strong points.

Yeah, the "vibe" in Ponders End, one of those areas of North London "lucky" enough not to be on the Tube, is something else.

Ageist as well as insulting. Standards have slipped so much since the rise of the internet Like you I don't give a toss what happens to the value of the home that I live in as it's my home; it's expensive enough already and I don't sit there gleefully calculating how much it's gone up in value every week. It's just that I would prefer better public transport. Not too much to ask really, but clearly unacceptable to you.

Perhaps you could translate this into English for me because I have no idea what you're talking about. You really must calm down. It must be bad for your health.

????, I have never called you an "evil capitalist banker" (whether on my high horse or low horse) and I have no idea whether you are indeed an evil capitalist banker or a dustman. Or indeed a rock star in disguise. I have no idea how many times you have posted on EDF that the tube would spoil the vibe of SE22, because it may surprise you to learn that I don't spend my day studying your EDF posts in detail. I do have a life. "Chippy assumptionist". That's a phrase I haven't heard before. I'll remember to use that in the future when the occasion arises.

Are you being ironic, edcam, or deadly serious? If you're being serious, why do you think it is "nicer" not to have the Tube than to have it?

What don't you want, ????? A bonus? A Mercedes? If you're talking about the tube, what about those people who are clearly less fortunate than you and who have inferior public transport? Don't you care about them? After all, we're all in this together. And why the capital letters? There's no need to shout.

The fact that I would like a tube line to be built near me doesn't mean that I want it enough to move near an existing tube line. Your argument is a non sequitur.

I find this hard to believe. Why should Bromley not want their borough to be linked into the Underground? The Hayes line is already a commuter line, but at the moment commuters can't go any further than Charing X, whereas they would be able to travel to Oxford Circus and Baker Street on the Tube. However, Bromley Council have always had a very negative attitude to public transport, as they were the local authority that challenged the GLC's Fairs Fair policy in the early 80s