Delbert

No supportive evidence eh! Have you? My dictionary says: data on which to base proof or to establish truth or falsehood. So, unless you're in there at the sharp end, I suggest the sure and certain likelihood is you haven't data other than what we all read and hear in the media either. As for you considered and reasoned response of shutting up, it sounds more like I've touched and twanged a nerve! Anyway, returning to Greece. According to reports the IMF think this 'agreement' is all fudged fairyland economics. I'm still banking on one of my two options in my reply #65.

Again, I think you're missing the point. It was allowed, encouraged or whatever word one prefers, by the politicians - you know, the ones we vote for. Indeed, among the ones you mention you suggest a few others, another like Lehman mayhap? You know that bank where our socialist chancellor opened a London branch and reportedly praised it to the extent that he would like to be able to run the UK economy like they run their bank! As I said, it's the age old story, when it appears to be running okay it's wonderful - clearly a view a previous UK socialist government took. But when it eventually goes wrong, it's the nasty whatever. But this topic is about Greece. So, we've thrown another load of money at the problem, which as sure as eggs are eggs, won't be repaid. Something, which, I for one, is not happy about, because it will take money from my county's budget. You know, money that could be spent on the things people keep complaining the government aren't spending enough on. So the UK for one will be experiencing the consequences. And does anyone seriously believe they will adhere to the terms of the agreement? And of course, if the situation reoccurs (nay I'm placing money on it that it will), it will be even more difficult for the EU to do the right thing and pull the plug. Again, it's the age old story whereby if you owe the bank a hundred pounds, you're in trouble. But should you owe the bank a million pounds the bank's in trouble. No sorry, that should be: if you owe the bank a several hundred billion pounds a whole continent is in a deep, dark, slippery sided cesspit without climbing equipment.

I terms of making physical things (which I presume is what you mean), clearly not. But although they are apparently vilified by various elements of the populous (presumably the reason for your question), I suggest they do noting more than those that criticize. For example: hands up anyone that doesn't expect interest from a saving account, play the lottery, buy shares, enter competitions for a prize, anything similar or simply buy and sell anything for profit whereby the building or construction of said anything is not involved; in other words, expect to obtain money without physical labour (except that in filling out forms, walking and shoe leather). This is all very interesting. Perhaps you've overlooked the fact that for every lender there has to be a borrower. What do I hear regularly in the news about people complaining about banks and the like restricting lending? You know, I can't get a mortgage; the business owner complaining about he can't get a loan; it's the nasty banks not opening up and lending they seem to say. Indeed, they should be lending more to boost the recovery, is something I seem to have heard. And to obtain the money to lend they have to somehow obtain the stuff. Indeed, a recent socialist government here in the UK relaxed the banking regulations, which was clearly intended to encourage what is apparently now referred to as risky practice - furthermore, referred to as 'predatory international moneylenders and financiers that buggered things up' by your good self. It's the oldest story in the word, and is enacted day-after-day, when whatever appears to be working, it's considered to be wonderful; but when it eventually fails, it's those nasty people in control. Anyway, to return to Greece. It now appears from reports that EU countries are to cough-up cash (apparently, 1billion for my fellow citizens here in the UK), before the Greek government have even voted to accept it or not! And apparently the Greek government have to vote on something that reportedly is worse than the NO vote a week or so back! So, we are to cough-up. Now, that will have an undoubted effect on us with some of our hard-earned taxes not going on our hospitals, pensions and all the other things. And we don't have a vote on all this! All before the Greeks have voted to abide by the agreement. And even if they do, hands up all those who'll place money on them continuing so to do for more than a year? I'm sorry, I just can't get my head around any of it.

Well, of course I wouldn't be happy to starve - who would. But the fault would still be mine for not being astute enough to spot that the person was an idiot and or a liar. I'm sorry, but that is, and must be, the facts. That's called taking responsibility for decisions we make. I'm sorry, but we cannot divorce ourselves from the consequences of what we do. Although and in contrast, from what I seem to see and read in the media, divorcing ourselves from the consequences of what we do seems fashionable these days.

Both. I'm sorry, but they voted for a liar (your word). If we vote a lunatic into power and the lunatic makes a complete Horlicks of everything, who is to blame? I say the voters. That is the power of democracy. Voting is a serious business. We get what we vote for. On a side issue. I believe some say we (UK) had a warmonger as PM a while ago. But he was voted in with a significant majority three times, two of which while he was doing his - what I believe has been called - warmongering!!

If I've understood that correctly, I would agree wholeheartedly. If seems we are forgetting we live in a democracy. If the people elect a government that takes them to purgatory then, I'm sorry, but they can't complain. Don't know what you're taking about. Sounds like gobbledygook to me. I'm wedded to the principle that money has to be earned. If I've understood what you mean by 'ordinary protection of bankruptcy', presumably the answer would be to write-off part if not all the debt because they are unlikely to repay, and lend them a further shedload? Like I understand has happened previously, and sure to happen again and again, as sure as night follows day should the EU acquiesce. Clearly ludicrous. There has to be a halt. In other words there is no protection from bankruptcy - and rightly so. But to return to democracy. The Greeks had a referendum a week or so back which said NO. So I presume the Greek politicians will adhere to that result. No! Do you mean they won't keep a promise?

Yes, that's the fundamental difference. We of a particular persuasion have this strange approach that money has to be earned, agreements have to be adhered to and money borrowed has to be repaid. Whereas those of the contradictory persuasion, seem to take the view that money doesn't have to earned, agreements unhonoured (the current situation is because they failed to honour one previously made) and money borrowed left unpaid and should be written-off. If that makes we of a particular persuasion prepubescent, giggly and a falsifier of comparisons of something so elevated and inviolate as national economies where elementary arithmetic plainly doesn't apply, I for one am perfectly satisfied to be prepubescent and giggly. What's more, if anyone of the contradictory persuasion came to me for work in or any business association whatsoever, I would ask them to be kind enough to turn around and close the door as they leave - indeed, I would avoid them like the plague. But to the business at hand. News reports I've heard seem to suggest that the new proposals put forward by Greece are more draconian than those of the NO outcome of the referendum! And if I heard the reporter correctly, there's concern they may not keep to the proposals. Do they mean like the last time? Like outcome 2 of my reply #65 above, mayhap?

Yes, I'm rethinking what I've been doing all these years. You know, working (hard I like to think), paying taxes and bills, repaying with interest any money I borrowed, living within my means and generally keeping a tight ship. Clearly, I would've been far better off by borrowing shedloads which I couldn't repay.

It seems we have a different approach. Your approach seems to be to forgive them and write-off the debt and all will be well. Oh, sorry, also give them some more money. Whereas my approach is to perhaps accept we've been stupid enough to acquiesce to numerous requests for regular amounts of money and haircuts on previous loans over the years (about ten years, I believe), which apparently they've now spent. And upon now asking a further haircut and some more money, my view is okay we probably won't get the money back until hell freezes over, so cancelation might - but only might - be in order (but I'd reserve judgement on that). And certainly following accusations of blackmail for not coughing up without question, I would not lend them any more money. What will happen? Probably a fudge with a 'new' offer of conditions depending upon a haircut (haircut seems the new word) and a further loan. This may result in a couple of possible outcomes. 1) The Greek PM may have to resign because he has gone against the NO outcome of the referendum. An election is called which results in a far-left PM materialising who cancels the agreement! You know, like the current one did after he was elected. 2) Once haircuts and new loans start, the conditions are never implemented or subsequently cancelled if they were because of the effect on the people.

Yes perhaps a milkshake would be more advantageous, the direction of transit is back out! My view is that gut biota might play a significant part in our general health and state of mind. Anecdotal I know, but a friend of mine that suffers from diabetes was questioned by a nurse about how often he performs a number 2. He said every three days! The nurse firmly said: that's not right. He replied: but that's normal for me! Perhaps there's a connection there with his diabetes. That's interesting.

It's not! Now that's an interesting conclusion. If you're trying somehow to separate spending shedloads with the need for shedloads I say you're attempting a magic trick. Brilliant if one could pull-off such an illusion. In contrast to your view, the problem is spending shedloads of borrowed money. In today's world we do whatever is necessary to obtain money. Some of us need to work hard to obtain it (and have to pay taxes for the privilege), but if one takes advantage of cheap borrowed money on tap, work probably isn't such a necessity - and no, I'm not for one moment suggesting it's the fault of the lenders. Anyway, I'm sure I've no need to continue with the consequences of work not being such a necessity has been written and spoken about since the beginning of time - but humans being human, we have to relearn these things every now and again.

Absolutely. Although I'd delete the word 'moral'. Don't think I've made any comments about lenders thus far. But since you've introduced it I would agree that lending too much is dangerous and stupid which, of course, leads to the same problems as over borrowing. You haven't mentioned that following your forgiveness and happy feeling, you've now got to lend them another shedload of money to keep their wheels rotating! Which, I would place money on, they won't be able to repay either. So doubtlessly you'll have another opportunity to offer forgiveness and experience a happy feeling! It's nothing to do with forgiving, and indeed, being happy about it. It's the consequences. Because as I've said above and just mentioning merely one aspect, what do you say to others that have taken the medicine and done the right thing to correct their economy? And then there's the danger of what view other countries playing by the rules and keeping their head above water might make of it all. And as I've said before, especially their working force whose taxes have probably be flushed down the toilet to pay for it all? What they will do, I suggest, is exercise the power of democracy. Indeed and coincidentally, just such controlling force was mentioned during a radio discussion program just a few minutes ago, which apparently is placing a controlling hand on the leaders. I have every confidence in the power of democracy. Democracy has no truck with morals, forgiveness, concepts and all the other mumbo jumbo. As I believe someone once said: it's the economy, stupid. Or how I would express it: it's the money in the voters' pocket, stupid.

Morals or moral hazard! I never mentioned morals at all. It's more to do with ending up with destitution and chaos - possibly even anarchy. Morals don't enter the equation. And nothing to do with economics!! Now I've heard it all. Different concepts!! Now we're into gobbledygook with concepts. It's money, if you haven't spotted the point. You know, that stuff one has to work hard for, and pay taxes for the privilege. And what might happen to those taxes you've worked hard to pay? Your government might on this occasion, after writing-off loans already made, give some of this hard earned as further loans - which, in the fullness of time, may also never get repaid. With luck, any leaders that undertake a policy of writing-off and lending more feel the power of democracy when seeking a plebiscite when the people speak at the next election. It's got nothing to do with politic speak like 'concepts' and 'morals'.

Vanishes! Au Contraire, the issue would only just begin. Money represents labour, and others hard work just being effectively thrown into the dustbin would create a significant precedence, for starters. You know, one lot working hard and paying taxes that go to others as a loan, and in the fullness of time that loan is written-off! What on earth are we doing they might say; let's all go on the razzle, to express it simply. In other words the likelihood is - nay, the certain likelihood is - things degenerate, possibly into chaos. And what example would it be to those countries that have done the right thing in sorting out their past profligacy? Anyway, I'm a great believer in democracy, and in the power of democracy. Yes, democracy can lead to robbing Peter to pay Paul situation, with the robbers always being able to rely on Paul's support. But perhaps in the current situation it may be that the Peters' may be able to turn the tables by exercising their power should their leader acquiesce to Paul. I repeat the question I asked previously - which, apart from one suggestion that it's different from personal debt, which it isn't, because national debt is someone else's taxed hard work, didn't appear to be answered. Would those in favour of writing-off said debt be quite happy to write-off a loan they may have lent someone because they couldn't repay?

I would go along with the view that lenders lent too much, for whatever reason - probably for the same old reason of the way dealers or sales people are paid. But that's just one side of the equation, the other side is (as I've indicated) the leaders were voted for. The candidates' mantra probably being something like: we can fix this and that by throwing money about if you vote for me - which, as we know, is usually misrepresented as justified borrowing for investment. You're probably right, as national debt doubtlessly only ends up in destitution and chaos with workers from another country or countries probably paying for it from their tax burden by providing further loans. On the other hand, personal debt probably ends in bankruptcy, sequestration of assets and the inability to obtain credit in future. In other words personal borrowing and debt is terminated with no further donations for a considerable period. Whereas national debt probably goes on and on and on in cycles. Each cycle consisting of borrowing a shedload and then, in the fullness of time, resulting a in debt right-off. The cycle then repeats with borrowing restarting. The painful bit is when one cycle comes to an end, with lots of brinkmanship and poker playing as we can see, before the next cycle starts. Anyway, a borrowing restart following a fudge about agreed fiscal changes (but in reality there'll be no changes), is what my money is on in regard to Greece.

I'm sorry, but it is. They took out the money and spent it. Booze is not the only thing one can blow money on. Had no say! Yes they did and do, as in case you've missed the point, it is a democracy. The people get the government they vote for. How did you work that one out? They did see the money, they saw it in the form of the level or lack of taxation and the result of state spending. And as for this business of printing money, money is a representation of human labour. And printing the stuff is nothing more than undermining labour; which like death and taxes, a certain way to descend into chaos and destitution - similar to borrowing.

So, if you lent someone a shedload of money that you subsequently discover they can't payback, you'd be quite happy to right-off most - if not all - of the loan? And if they retain the present currency, lend them another shedload of money? Try that one with your local Bank.

Sounds like a classic case of: If you owe the bank a hundred pounds, you are in trouble; but if you owe the bank a million pounds, the bank's in trouble. And as for the voting business: by robbing Peter to pay Paul, Paul will always be on your side. Frankly, I find it laughable. Even as far as the politics of the madhouse.

In cats during the reproductive part of its lifecycle, I believe. At other times it is on the ground or thereabouts waiting to be picket up by rodents and the like. And the mind altering factor then comes into play, which makes the rodent undertake risky manoeuvres so the parasite can get back into a cat or similar, i.e. the rodent 'places itself on offer' to use the vernacular. Apparently we might have a similar penchant for risky activity, should we be infected. A passing comment might be that perhaps there's no such thing as a 'good mouser', when referring to a pet cat. It may simply be all the mice in the vicinity are infected with T. Gondii!! As for drifting off subject, perhaps, but I mentioned the infection business as a possible consequence of biota transplants to those who apparently take the view that it's no big deal. So I wouldn't have thought it to be too far off subject.

Well, I don't think I said it was chaotic, but rather the radio4 prog. And not only that I said 'bordering on chaotic'. But after all, what else would one call or refer to a system where an outcome would be totally different each time from identical starting conditions? Because a different outcome is what I recall the interviewee said. Think I said I agree with the birth business. As for antibiotics re-arranging, perhaps that's one way of expressing it. I would say that killing some - if not all - gut bacteria is another way of expressing it. Anyway, going back organ transplants possibly having a mind altering effect, Toxoplasma Gondii has just wandered through my mind. Seem to recall that there's a suggestion that some 25% of the human population are infected - without knowing it! It apparently affects the mind or personality with the result that we may be inclined to take slightly more risky actions in life. Also, I understand a high number of road traffic victims have been found to be infected - I further understand it is apparently one of the things they test victims for. Now, if the transplant donor was thus infected would the recipient then possess a different approach to risk? In other words his or her mind has been altered. And doubtless there are other such infections.

Thought I was saying exactly that!! Clearly as I said, my contribution might be clumsy. Constant interactions as you say. And as the radio4 interviewee reported interactions are so complex - possibly bordering on the chaotic - that with exactly the same starting point and conditions, in the fullness of time one ends up with a different outcome. She was referring to evolution on Earth mentioning that any other such outcome we wouldn't be here. Which with the changes we have clearly made, represents a significant difference in the biota on Earth with what it doubtlessly would've been without us. As I mentioned, she outlined the relatively trivial aspect of allowing pigs to forage on a few nuts (in areas where pigs wouldn't normally be) could end up with a highly infectious disease in humans. I seem to recall she even inferred that HIV was as a consequence of something similar! And also Ebola. I quite understand that in the event of someone suffering from a problem whereby a biota transplant would be viewed as beneficial to the point of lifesaving, it should be done. But that's not the question as I understand it, but rather the possible biological or bacterial consequences. I think the natural world is full of disadvantageous consequences from what we've done, which at the time seemed a pretty good idea. Unless I've totally misunderstood your comments, it seems we agree on just about all.

Perhaps the point I'm trying to make (in my clumsy way), which perhaps is something like the program I mentioned, is the interactions between living organisms or bacteria is highly complex possibly bordering on the chaotic. To the effect that as mentioned in the radio prog, even starting with the same - nay, exactly the same - conditions and ingredients, any outcome would be different each time. And I'd suggest the machinations within our guts of countless bacteria would be subject to the same. Rendering any suggestion that gut contents would be exchangeable like (say) a new engine in a car is false. In contrast, I'd refer to it like changing or swapping the unique fauna of two jungles between each other. They probably wouldn't survive very long even with only a small difference in environment. Why is it we think we are detached from nature with all its intricate and fragile interactions; with the certainty that most of them are so vastly complex that we'll never fully understand them.

Thanks for the info. Well, presumably that's following your considered, reasoned and scientific evaluation. Anyway, just a couple I've found on the jolly old interweb: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8084936.stm and http://www.namahjournal.com/doc/Actual/Memory-transference-in-organ-transplant-recipients-vol-19-iss-1.html to select just two. It seems to me on a non-scientific evaluation that this is another one of those quick-fix scenarios without due diligence to any time affected consequence. Doubtless it all seems to work wonderfully on a short term evaluation. Drifting off a tad back to the radio4 prog I mentioned the other day (Tuesday evening) still ringing in my ears (it's doubtless on website replay), when I think she mentioned one particular interaction. This being some highly infectious disease similar to Ebola (can't recall what it was) carried by bats. And it's now likely to jump to humans because of farmers grazing their pigs to feed on acorn like nuts - similar to what I understand others do when grazing their pigs on acorns here in the UK. I recall her saying the infection is transferred via contamination - droppings etc, not necessarily from the nuts but the general fauna. In other words it is simply humans introducing pigs to an area where they wouldn't have been naturally.

I presume you mean faecal transplants, because I'm unable to locate fecal in my dictionary. Sorry to be picky, but I don't want to misunderstand anything. Up till now I was under the impression that it was a good idea to keep faecal matter away from re-ingesting, to apprehend a reproductive path for parasites, if nothing else. Also, I understand we can probably obtain valuable bacteria from the birth process etc. But then what do we do? Probably flush the lot out - some possibly irreplaceable - after a visit to the doctors for an antibiotic after a minor cough or cold! As for replacing the lot, there was quite an interesting prog on the radio4 (UK) the other evening whilst I was travelling home in which a researcher remarked about interaction. I recall she said that if life on Earth started again with exactly the same starting conditions as it was at the beginning, life would've taken a different path with the undoubted certainty that we wouldn't be here. I would've thought a similar - possibly chaotic - process may well take place with the bacteria within us such that our internal interactions probably results in a different outcome inside us for each one of us. And the consequence of changing the lot might be significant. On a slightly different tack, I recall a report in the news a while back where someone had had a replacement organ (can't recall what it was, but it might have been a kidney), whereby he experienced a changed personality or something different about his mental state or interests or even ability to that similar to that of the donor!!!!! If that can do that what on earth would a complete bacterial change do? Dismissing such a change as "If we were that sensitive to bacterial load, any amount outside of a sterile room would kill us." I think is a somewhat simplistic view.

Since I understand that our own cells are outnumbered by a factor of ten to one by foreigners, any change (like a complete swap with someone else) would doubtless have a significant effect - like we may drop dead! Ten foreigners to one of us! So who or what are we, just somewhere for a load of bacteria to live?