Thank you. Have you been in contact with British social Democrat economist and UK tax expert Richard Murphy ? If not, making the connection may prove mutually helpful. Many of the commentators on his daily newsletter are also experts in their own fields ranging from UK Academia, council planning, environmental development, the Civil Service and the City of London’s financial arena.
I live in newly created Freeport/SEZ much to my amazement and I am baffled as to what they entail. No one where I live was consulted , there was no vote and I don’t recall anything being mentioned by *any* politician.
The only person I can find writing about them is the OP - I can’t even find anyone who will write anything positive about them. If you know something about them why not explain the OP is writing “total drivel”?
One of the biggest reasons the world has become awash with crackpot claims is because those making them rely on people taking them seriously, and debating their fantasies in a “serious” way, thereby creating the impression that they are claims that deserve to be taken seriously. From that, others then conclude that there might be something to be said ‘on both sides’, and suddenly the crackpot claims start to spread everywhere, and be believed. So you can be as sanctimonious as you want, but all Powell’s stuff warrants is a one line dismissal.
Another comment here, from Jez Stevens, apparently also aimed at my post, mentions that Powell is the only person he can find writing about these issues, suggesting that this is a reason I should discuss them. What it actually shows is that they are not worth writing about.
Again, Peter, you’re making a series of claims about what is being said with nothing actually demonstrate the validity of what you’re saying. I moderate on a serious Irish politucsl site and what you’re doing is attempting to discredit something by simply saying it’s questionable. This is the sort of comment we’d remove as failing to add anything of any value to the wider conversation.
Terms like “crackpot” are about your opinion but they are not evidence that the critique holds any validity outside of your own personal imagination.
Can you demonstrate that Powell’s argument is flawed? If you can please do, but in the meanwhile what you’re doing is simply slinging mud….the irony is what you’re arguing clearly applies to what you’re saying yourself more than what I’ve been reading above !
Thank you. Have you been in contact with British social Democrat economist and UK tax expert Richard Murphy ? If not, making the connection may prove mutually helpful. Many of the commentators on his daily newsletter are also experts in their own fields ranging from UK Academia, council planning, environmental development, the Civil Service and the City of London’s financial arena.
I live in newly created Freeport/SEZ much to my amazement and I am baffled as to what they entail. No one where I live was consulted , there was no vote and I don’t recall anything being mentioned by *any* politician.
The only person I can find writing about them is the OP - I can’t even find anyone who will write anything positive about them. If you know something about them why not explain the OP is writing “total drivel”?
One of the biggest reasons the world has become awash with crackpot claims is because those making them rely on people taking them seriously, and debating their fantasies in a “serious” way, thereby creating the impression that they are claims that deserve to be taken seriously. From that, others then conclude that there might be something to be said ‘on both sides’, and suddenly the crackpot claims start to spread everywhere, and be believed. So you can be as sanctimonious as you want, but all Powell’s stuff warrants is a one line dismissal.
Another comment here, from Jez Stevens, apparently also aimed at my post, mentions that Powell is the only person he can find writing about these issues, suggesting that this is a reason I should discuss them. What it actually shows is that they are not worth writing about.
Again, Peter, you’re making a series of claims about what is being said with nothing actually demonstrate the validity of what you’re saying. I moderate on a serious Irish politucsl site and what you’re doing is attempting to discredit something by simply saying it’s questionable. This is the sort of comment we’d remove as failing to add anything of any value to the wider conversation.
Terms like “crackpot” are about your opinion but they are not evidence that the critique holds any validity outside of your own personal imagination.
Can you demonstrate that Powell’s argument is flawed? If you can please do, but in the meanwhile what you’re doing is simply slinging mud….the irony is what you’re arguing clearly applies to what you’re saying yourself more than what I’ve been reading above !
I blocked that person