You can always tell armed conflict's in the offing when you see economic illiterate

[redgunamo]

I think there's a rather bigger picture, tbh. This isn't about Assad. Nobody really cares if middle Eastern savages slaughter their populace by whatever means. It's simply what This is about showing Iran and Russia that the West is sick of their sh1t; that that limp-wristed fanny Obama is no longer in charge and that red lines will not be crossed with impunity.

Not just the West, imo

[Sir C]

Sure, but the principle was the same. The Russians were pushing their luck by encroaching on Turkish airspace, the Turks weren't having it, shot the bugger down and the Russians backed off. This is their gameplan - it's based on the idea that the West won't react. When it does, they'll back down.

K. If you're sure.

[Burney]

Not just the West, imo

Oh, sure. But he's one of us now. Kind of.

[Burney]

K. If you're sure.

The alternative is giving Putin and Iran a free hand to do what they want in the region. There seems little point in the US being the world's only military and economic superpower if it's going to pussy out every time Vlad waves his little willy.

[redgunamo]

The alternative is giving Putin and Iran a free hand to do what they want in the region. There seems little point in the US being the world's only military and economic superpower if it's going to pussy out every time Vlad waves his little willy.

Yes, everyone does appear to have assumed the Donald was on about American missiles ..

[Peter]

You should take that up with the people who actually voted for that, p. If you can find one.

Why cant I take it up with the people who campaigned on it, including the current Foreign Secretary? I mean, if he doesnt understand the basics of how the economy works......

[Burney]

Why cant I take it up with the people who campaigned on it, including the current Foreign Secretary? I mean, if he doesnt understand the basics of how the economy works......

Feel free. However, if you're going to take personal issue with every silly, simplistic claim made with the intention of winning election or referendum campaigns, it's going to take a while.

[Peter]

Feel free. However, if you're going to take personal issue with every silly, simplistic claim made with the intention of winning election or referendum campaigns, it's going to take a while.

True. Perhaps I should just sit on here and use these examples every time you pour scorn on people for expressing views that are slightly less silly than those we are presented with by our politicians.

In a sense, by the way, it IS how economies work. When you have a taxation ceiling, precipitated by a post THatcher consensus on the basic rate of income tax and an unwillingness to enforce corporation tax, public spending has a ceiling as well. With finite resources each area of expenditure constitutes a choice- a pound spent here is a pound less available there.

Guns and butter, b. Was always thus.

[Burney]

True. Perhaps I should just sit on here and use these examples every time you pour scorn on people for expressing views that are slightly less silly than those we are presented with by our politicians.

In a sense, by the way, it IS how economies work. When you have a taxation ceiling, precipitated by a post THatcher consensus on the basic rate of income tax and an unwillingness to enforce corporation tax, public spending has a ceiling as well. With finite resources each area of expenditure constitutes a choice- a pound spent here is a pound less available there.

Guns and butter, b. Was always thus.

Of course there's a ceiling. If there weren't, socialist economic policies would actually work. However, the point is that in a complex economy, spending a million here does not mean that there is not a million elsewhere. Indeed, by spending that million on a missile whose design and manufacture involves the employment of thousands (who then provide tax revenue with their wages) by a company that is also contributing to the public purse, that is a much wiser investment of public money than p1ssing it up the wall by keeping a bunch of winos in hostels for a week, which achieves nothing other than to make a few people feel better about themselves.

[Peter]

Of course there's a ceiling. If there weren't, socialist economic policies would actually work. However, the point is that in a complex economy, spending a million here does not mean that there is not a million elsewhere. Indeed, by spending that million on a missile whose design and manufacture involves the employment of thousands (who then provide tax revenue with their wages) by a company that is also contributing to the public purse, that is a much wiser investment of public money than p1ssing it up the wall by keeping a bunch of winos in hostels for a week, which achieves nothing other than to make a few people feel better about themselves.

Possibly. The alternative is that the missile is being built anyway, the people employed anyway and if we didnt buy it the company would sell it abroad thus helping with exports. We could then spend the money we saved on hostels for winos, or crystal healing centres for gypsies- or to replace Britain's ageing collection of traffic cones, some of which have been in service since the 80s.