RicoS321

Think it's Consi at back, Shinnie left back and McLean into midfield.

But that's what our financial system is - speculation. Given that economic textbooks don't even give the appropriate description of how money is created, and the majority of politicians don't know either (71% in a poll done by Positive Money) - and money creation really is central to the whole system - then it's fair to say that the financial system is essentially hot air.

Yep, that's exactly what we're doing. That's how the system works. The money doesn't need to exist in order to lend it if you're a bank. As part of the Basel II (or is it III? canna mine) agreement, banks were to be forced to have a certain (increased) percentage of reserves held against their lendings. However, that figure didn't include loans to nations/states. In theory, a bank could hold 1000 times loans as it does savings (including loans to states) banking on countries not defaulting on their debts. Like UK debt, Greek debt isn't as a result of benefit cheats and state spending, it's a mixture of non-productive financial derivatives, credit swaps (aye, Goldman, we ken), bailouts and quantitative easing. The best thing they could do is turn on the cryptoDrachma and tell the Eurocunts to go and fuck themselves.

When you deposit your cash in a bank, all you get is an IOU (current account balance) from the bank. Nobody has stolen your money, that cash - and it's a minimal portion of the created balance in existence - has been circulated around the system. You accept that IOU as soon as you deposit your cash in any bank I'm afraid. You should have known. That's just the way it is. Speak to Goldman Sachs. There's a fair chance they've got it. Or if they don't, they'll loan you some other currency at a great rate, and then when it collapses they'll invoke onerous interest payment terms and other ludicrous conditions meaning that you'll struggle to pay any of your other debt. The people you previously thought were your friends will then go onto Facebook and slate you for having a lavish lifestyle where you bought food and other luxuries instead of paying your debts like other hardworking people. They'll tell you to sell your car, your house and your kids or they won't let you be part of their group any more. You want to be part of their group, you really do, but you've grown quite attached to your kids. In the end, they'll let you back in the group, because they need you to pick them up from the parties that you're no longer invited to.

Ring fencing cash from season ticket sales I think. So that Ashley gets his £5M back before any ither chunt. Don't imagine this being granted unless it can be shown that the buns are likely nae to pay up.

Nae Mikhail-Smith (sp?)? Atrocious fitba'r. In the Jamie Mackie school of only kicking the way yer facing. He's an up front Ricky Foster.

I like to watch TV.

How do you randomly get to Barnsley? Roll a dice, and if it's a 3 get on the nearest bus, a 4 take a taxi to the 2nd furthest away train station? That could be an exciting way to travel.

Fuck it, I'm nae watching it then

Into the semi. Any chance of him (or anyone) beating Djokovic?

He's never been pacey, but never particularly slow either at Motherwell anyway. I wonder if McInnes just wants at least one fullback that isn't fleein doon the wings. I think the balance (or imbalance) of Logan on one side and Considine on the other is quite a good setup and gives us good cover at the back. If Logan leaves, then we'll have Shinnie getting forward and Quinn staying reasonably deep. I remember being a very good defender at Motherwell, but don't remember even seeing him for County. Keeping track of County players is more difficult than memorising PI however.

I have BT vision (is this the same thing as BT tv?). Never use it, as the program guide on my TV is far superior. Occasionally watch an on demand film, but that is becoming less and less since I subscribed to Netflix. Might be worth it for the Sport, but I don't get that in my area as my broadband is pish - so basically I'm paying BT a fortune to subsidise English fitba. I will end it all soon like. The BT vision I mean.

I still think there will be an onus to sell, they clearly agreed something with the banks about future player sales and it would seem strange for their not to be a time limit on that. Whilst I don't believe they'd accept something as ridiculous as £500K, they may see £800K or so as acceptable. I have my suspicions that they were hoping for an approach for Jack but didn't get one so made sure he signed another year. From what I heard it was AFC that stalled with Jack's contract and not the other way round. I was surprised that no one asked at the AGM what the details of the future player sales agreement with the bank was. I don't believe that the bank will be pressuring AFC to sell players in the way that would have happened in the past, but I think it's a debt/agreement that they'd want off their back as soon as possible.

The jury is out sofa.

Half a McGinn shape would be weird.

If McGinn would stop hitting the f'n post, that'd help. I reckon he'd be in double figures for woodwork this season. Even half of those converted would have resulted in more game time for Shankland/Smith and perhaps their stats would read a bit better. The number of times we should have been able to give those two a longer run out based on our game domination is significant; we could have killed off several games within the hour that ended 1-0, or 2-0 with a late goal.

I disagree. There's nothing to suggest that Langfield doesn't understand the goalkeeping position. I'm pish at fitba, but I know exactly what I should be doing and I believe I could pass that understanding on to others. Unlike Leighton I suspect (because he was ace in goals), Langfield will be more aware of his weaknesses and may just prove quite good at helping others get over theirs. I've heard in the past that he works hard and has a decent personality, so that may help. The only thing that concerns me is his lack of qualification and his ability to bring something new and forward thinking to the role. He doesn't strike me as a pioneer or big thinker. I'd prefer us just to give him his testimonial and then part ways in order to bring in someone with ideas and a scientific approach to 'keeping.

Shame for Jimmer like, phenomenal goalkeeper. Even in his hibs days he was top drawer. As for his coaching abilities, I'm pretty certain that no one on here (or any other forum) actually has the slightest clue whether he's any good or not. Guys like Bain and Rogers would suggest he does something right, but our goalkeeper purchasing department (we've heard mixed opinions over whether Leighton was responsible or not and, again, I suspect most are guessing) has been horrendous. Langfield's best seasons (2009 and last season) have been when he's looked physically stronger, like he's bulked up a little. On both occasions I remember he mentioned that he did gym work on his own during pre-season to get in shape. After he brought down Samaras for a pen at Pittodrie a couple of seasons back, he clearly worked hard on staying on his feet, and his one-on-ones greatly improved that year, which suggests good coaching. However, Jim never really struck me as the type of person who'd excel at his job (guys like Graham Kirk who are really into their profession). Put in the extra work through watching videos, learning/creating new coaching methods etc. When you've been Scotland's best goalkeeper for most of your career, it must be difficult to have the desire to be Scotland's best goalkeeping coach. Much like many gifted players (or other careers), it isn't that straight forward to analyse what comes completely naturally to you and pass on to others. I often think goalkeeping would be better analysed by someone who hasn't been a 'keeper before where they can break the role down into its constituent parts and build a 'keeper back up. I don't imagine (but I could be wrong) that Jim would be that deep a thinker on the subject. Anyway, good luck Jim min.

Aye, that option would certainly be a vast improvement. My only thought is that transport (food production aside) is probably the most inefficient and resource hungry process we have in the world right now. It's one where none of the current solutions being used is workable, and if we continue to pursue them I think we'll hit an abrupt end. It's also something that could be easily managed without human interaction. I kind of see the equity holders thing just adding unnecessary admin and bureaucracy - a waste of human resource I suppose. It's something that everyone benefits from, so just let everyone benefit from it.

Totally agree like. But I reckon they should look more at what that basic income is for (food, shelter etc). Try to provide those for free, and effectively reduce the basic income as and when the service is provided instead. For example, you pay everyone £30K per year to over food, shelter, travel etc. Once you provide free travel, take the value down to £25K. That way we're reducing the size of the state at the same time. At some stage soon we're going to face a quandary where a company is charging for providing a resource that they don't actually put any physical labour into as it's all done by machine - so it's just a case of who owns the machine.

Nicholas Biddle I think. Venus Project has got some fuckin cool hoose designs too. The glaring omission of the Venus Project is how to transition to that point. My opinion is that our basic public services should be provided for free (shelter, food, health, education, communication and travel), and everything above that is left to the free market. That puts everyone on the same starting point and gives everyone the opt out that capitalism doesn't. We're nearly at a stage where it would be possible to automate the creation of housing and the provision of communication and travel. At that point, why should anyone be able to profit from it? If there are no labour costs, and no on-going maintenance costs, then the state should provide it. I think we should move to a collaborative goal-oriented solution rather than capitalism. For example, a goal for Aberdeen could be to create a city-wide unmanned transportation system that can be run on renewable energy (no on-going cost) and allow every area in the city to be reached from the centre within 15 minutes. Create targets for society, rather than shouting "economic growth" from now until eternity whilst pishing our actual resources up against a wall.

The key here is "companies". I'm suggesting state controlled currency (controlling the issue of it, not the spending), via a BoE style independent (of the government) entity. So it'd be held on BoE servers (multiple). Money isn't stored as cash - only 3% of the current system is backed by cash, so there is no security other than by holding under your mattress. What we have just now is money - mostly debt - held on bank servers and backed up by the tax payer when it always goes tits up. From a libertarian standpoint, fractional reserve doesn't stand up to any scrutiny. With the internet, the velocity of money can be maintained by peer to peer lending and online transactions. Fractional reserve is the antithesis of the free market. It possibly did have a function 20-30 years ago, but not today. Ironically, the last 20-30 years has seen the explosion of new money.

No, it really isn't. They are tapping into future debt, because money is issued as debt. In order to be useful, we have to leave future generations with an asset in return, which we absolutely haven't. We've used half of the world's resources in order to raise those living standards, with a gargantuan level of waste. Value for money? I dinna think so. Don't get me started on GDP as a measurement of anything, at all - politicians measurement to excuse being a cunt.

There is no fractional reserve (required reserve) in the UK. In the EU, 3% doesn't include money loaned to governments (e.g. Argentina) either, so banks in theory can have up to 1000 times as much cash on loan as they do reserves. Although it's irrelevant, as I'm talking GBP. That fractional reserve isn't new doesn't make it right. It's safe to say most people aren't aware of how it works. Banking crashes aren't new either, and they're entirely related to the issue of too much currency by banks. It's a flawed system. There's nothing inherent about crypto currency that makes it complicated to use. Simply that those crypto currencies are set up badly. A properly created system would make currency exchange simple. Far more simple than currently exists. And far, far less expensive. Banks are getting paid for having a software system. Usually a shiite one. Mt Gox. was the failure of a private company (like a bank) holding people's bitcoins for them. There would be no private company holding your money, it would just be a free system that exists. Crypto currencies by nature are entirely transparent. However, the crypto currency piece isn't essential (just the quickest and easiest way to create a new currency, which can prevent the issue of new currency by anyone other than the state), the fact is that we have to remove the power of banks to create new money. You may be happy with your money in a bank, but that has to be weighed up with the fact that the majority of the people in this country have more debt than savings and every tax payer in this country will be charged again when the next banking crash happens. We will never, and can never pay down the debts of our country without changing the system. It's ludicrous that we've chosen a small group of financial institutions to be entirely free from responsibility in their investments by allowing them to print currency and have that currency backed by the tax payer.

One of the biggest issues I had with the independence campaign, was the lack of discussion on currency (believe it or not). Currency was used as a battering ram by both sides, but never fully debated. The role of banks in our society is a far deeper issue than just a Libor or Exchange fraud too. They control the entire direction of our economy and - subsequently - us. The key is the power to create money. If you control that, then you control the economy. And you control democracy (i.e. we're not a democracy). Over 97% of the money in our system was created by the banks, and there is no required reserve ratio in the UK banking system at present. When you go to get a loan, the bank just creates the money at that point, and gives it to you - contrary to what the economics text books say, which is that banks use savings to fund loans (a blatant lie). What this results in is socialism. For the rich. Our entire banking industry, despite its free market mantra, is a big socialist experiment where the tax payer socialises the risks of the banking industry through bailout and QE. The only thing that can be absolutely certain is that it's not possible to avoid another banking crash. When it'll happen is anyone's guess. Fiat currency is a pyramid scheme, essentially, where regulation is essentially irrelevant. The thing is, do we even need banks? I don't believe so. One of the "radical" ideas that was hugely ignored in the independence debate was the creation of a new currency. It was just dismissed as ridiculous by an ignorant media and repeated by the hordes (a bit like the immigration "issue") without investigation. There was (and is) an opportunity to work in a dual currency system, with an electronic currency (think state bitcoin) created by an independent (from government) Scottish Monetary Committee and only issuable by this committee. As long as taxes are collected in this currency, then it will hold value. Traditional banks for this currency are replaced by servers, as there is no physical item, just a number. Peer to peer and bank lending can continue as normal and banks can choose whether they provide that service or not (i.e. a free market). With no creation of money by banks, then there will never need to be a bailout of that currency (the bailout wasn't a banking bailout per se, more a GBP bailout - we were saving the currency, because the banks created too much of it). Banks would be optional, as they should be. Money exchange would be free - as it should be. In the above system, new money is no longer created as debt, but is spent into the economy. The various political parties present a picture of how they would spend tax receipts, as well as how they would approach the money issuer to request funds to be spent into the economy (created). The people vote for that plan. That would be democracy. Instead we get bluster and lies about "growing the economy" and various other balls that our government - Tory, SNP or Labour - have absolutely fuck all control over.