Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room

UK amateur photographers: if you're good, don't use Boots!

<< < (4/6) > >>

Dormouse:
I personally dont understand e.g. not joining in with the Euro)
-tomos (April 14, 2010, 08:04 AM)
--- End quote ---

It means that the UK is freer to decide its economic policies in its own interests rather than having to be limited by the needs/preferences of other countries.

Of course, the PIIGS were allowed to fly - but now that other countries will have to pay to save their bacon, they might not be so keen to allow it again.

And if some countries (ie Ireland) had not been in the Euro, then they would not have had such a big bubble in the first place.

tomos:
It means that the UK is freer to decide its economic policies in its own interests rather than having to be limited by the needs/preferences of other countries.-Dormouse (April 14, 2010, 08:27 AM)
--- End quote ---

thanks Dormouse, I'm not so good on the details (i.e. I simply didnt know)

wraith808:
And I disagree with your disagreement. ;) How do the store employees distinguish between "child pornography" and a parent taking pics of their kids having fun swimming, which just happens to be naked (as kids often are), or in the bath, or whatever? Not to mention, do you really think a child pornographer would be stupid enough to go and print something at a shop like that? How many people doing malicious things are really going to use a public service like that and risk getting caught? Do you think more criminals would be caught than innocents? Do you want the FBI knocking on your door one morning with a warrant after you drop off photos of your kids at the local printer? Sure it's an "innocent mistake" and you would eventually be cleared of any wrongdoing, but is it reasonable to go through that kind of ordeal just on the outside chance that it might possibly catch someone who could be doing something illegal? Surely there are better ways of finding and incriminating these people that will have less "collateral damage".
-JavaJones (April 13, 2010, 04:37 PM)
--- End quote ---

I totally agree with this view, and have a specific personal example that illustrates the result of the same sort of thinking.  My mom was a 4th grade teacher for a long time until she retired - 30 years or so.  During her last years there, her principal didn't like her- it seems that it was a problem of insecurity, as it seems that she (being young and female in a position that old men usually held) didn't get along with any teacher older than she, or any male teachers.  But back to the subject, my mom saw physical evidence on a child on one occasion- the kid had a welt on the side of his face.  He had never had any evidence of abuse before then- this was not a systematic thing, and she talked to him, and he said he'd smarted off to his mom, and she'd smacked him.  This incident got back to the principal, and she called child services... and in addition, the police so that my mom got carted away from the classroom in cuffs in front of her kids.  It turned out with investigation it was just that... he'd called his mom quite the bad word, and she'd smacked him across the mouth on the way to school.  Child services found no fault in my mom's actions, nor the actions of the mom.  It wasn't a regular occurrence at all.  They tried to cover up their actions by saying it was better to err on the side of caution, but it's very telling that they tried to settle monetarily with my mom out of court for the whole police thing.  My mom just got them to pay the attorney's fees and dropped it at that, even though the attorney had advised her that she could get a lot more, and indeed they were offering a lot more.

While it's true that we have civic responsibility, to prosecute someone because they don't police some other person's life seems very wrong.

bgd77:
The problem of the Euro is that you cannot have a monetary union without some kind of common economic governance.

It means that the UK is freer to decide its economic policies in its own interests rather than having to be limited by the needs/preferences of other countries.
-Dormouse (April 14, 2010, 08:27 AM)
--- End quote ---

This is true, from what I know the UK saved its economy by undervaluing its currency. It would not have been able to do that if it used the euro.

And if some countries (ie Ireland) had not been in the Euro, then they would not have had such a big bubble in the first place.
-Dormouse (April 14, 2010, 08:27 AM)
--- End quote ---

I don't think this is correct. Can you give a source, a analysis that demonstrates this? If every country from the eurozone would have respected the EU rules probably the problems would not have been so great for them (but of course, the EU cannot take action against those that behave bad because some fear loosing their independence).
Take into account the fact that Iceland wants to join EU just because it would have been less severe hit by the economic downturn if it would have been a member of the eurozone.

Of course, being a member of eurozone has both advantages and disadvantages. It is up to every country to weight both and to make a decision if to join or not this zone. For the continental countries, I think that the advantages are greater than the disadvantages.

tomos:
Re Ireland, I thought it was the policies in the 80's of focusing on reducing debt that laid a good foundation for the boom times (I'm not saying joining the euro currency didnt help!) -
then when people who had emigrated (in the 80's there wasnt much else to do) returned as things got better, they needed houses or flats. So the initial 'boom' caused another boom - but like in the US the banks got greedy and were giving huge mortgages to people who could only pay them back as long as things kept getting better... so you calling it a bubble is pretty apt.
Corruption didnt help :-(

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page