The rise of Extremism in Economically tough times

setmefree2

Bantex wrote: »

and the decendents of those that did survive are still treated like !!!!!!.

Some 44,000 Native Americans stood shoulder to shoulder with us in the United States military during World War II: at the time, one-third of all able-bodied Indian men from 18 to 50 years of age.

So, they can't hate us that much.

Bantex_2

setmefree2 wrote: »

Some 44,000 Native Americans stood shoulder to shoulder with us in the United States military during World War II: at the time, one-third of all able-bodied Indian men from 18 to 50 years of age.

So, they can't hate us that much.

I believe they were conscripted.

BillJones

prowla wrote: »

Nothing to worry about here; UKIP aren't extremists and the economy is in growth.

Do you seriously believe that we are not experiencing strong growth across the economy now?

Why? What leads you to believe that the ONS, and others, are colluding to lie?

Do you think that there is "real" shadow data, that people such as me, working in high finance get to see, or are we being duped too? In that case, who has the real data, and what are they doing with it?

setmefree2

Bantex wrote: »

I believe they were conscripted.

For every ten drafted, fifteen others volunteered. Their experiences in the war mirrored the general population.

CLAPTON

setmefree2 wrote: »

All that is terrible.

However, I'm not understanding your point. Are you arguing that the USA's economy today would be better with a population of 3 million than a population of 343 million?

If the British hadn't colonized the US do you think the native Indians would have had to have had an immigration policy eventually?

the simple point is that you seem to think that economic growth is the only think that matters which is clearly a nonsense.

whatever do you mean by 'better' : will USA be a better place to live when it has a population of 3,4300 million?

I don't think that Sweden or Switzerland or the UK and are worse places to live than USA because their GDP and population is smaller

you don't even seem to acknowledge per capita gdp let alone real living conditions and standards.

setmefree2

CLAPTON wrote: »

the simple point is that you seem to think that economic growth is the only think that matters which is clearly a nonsense.

What Economic measure would you like to discuss? I'm game.

CLAPTON wrote: »

I don't think that Sweden or Switzerland or the UK and are worse places to live than USA because their GDP and population is smaller

And you base your opinion on what?

Using UN HDI US is 3rd, Sweden 8th and the UK 27th.

The Economists "Were to be Born Index" - Sweden 4th, US 16th, UK 27th.

What measure do you suggest we use?

CLAPTON wrote: »

you don't even seem to acknowledge per capita gdp let alone real living conditions and standards.

????when did you raise them as issues????

Anyway, see above.

BACKFRMTHEEDGE

Conrad wrote: »

it just takes a bit of imaginative policy on pension planning.

So what's your imaginative plan for this aging population? This instantly older society with fewer young people in it? Obviously, less immigration would have serious consequences, because obviously the young are paying into the tax system and the old are generally taking [money] out through pensions. We’d have a worse demographic time bomb situation than we have even now. That would, over time, accelerate.

So what's your great plan? or are you like Nigel Farage - you can pose with a pint, drink loads of beer and smoke loads of cigarettes, till you keel over, for the benefit of the cameras, but you don't actually you have the solutions to these problems?

BACKFRMTHEEDGE

Conrad wrote: »

Furthermore many of us do not want ever more roads, congestion, building and intensive farming. Sure there are plenty of fields but already far too much impact from mankind with roads criss crossing the land. GDP at all costs is not for me and we can perfectly well manage with the population size we now have, it just takes a bit of imaginative policy on pension planning.

Furthermore, many of us grew up long enough ago to remember a place where people were overwhelmingly white, British-born and British in their attitudes, outlooks, eating habits, and what have you. It was boring compared with now. I wouldn’t want to live in a world like that. I very much doubt that even Nigel Farage wants to. His German wife would find it very alien.

CLAPTON

BACKFRMTHEEDGE wrote: »

Furthermore, many of us grew up long enough ago to remember a place where people were overwhelmingly white, British-born and British in their attitudes, outlooks, eating habits, and what have you. It was boring compared with now. I wouldn’t want to live in a world like that. I very much doubt that even Nigel Farage wants to. His German wife would find it very alien.

yes it was very boring then

a couple at 30 could reasonably buy a property in London and have a family

now of course you can't do that but you can eat out every day for a year and never have to eat the same food.

all a matter of priorities

antrobus

setmefree2 wrote: »

....If the British hadn't colonized the US do you think the native Indians would have had to have had an immigration policy eventually?

I'd bet you, that with the benefit of hindsight, many Indians wish that they had been able to operate an immigration policy.

Just as I imagine, things would have turned out differently had the Roman-British administration of the 5th century here on the island of Brtain been able to operate an effective immigration policy.