cul

Yea because accusing someone of being an ass licker apologist because he doesn't want idiots like you cheering on the destruction of civil liberties is not playing the race card. Because, of course, if you're not a godless communist you must hate your own people. Defensive? Read the thread again and see who started with the ad hominem. I'm representative of the bankers? Really? No, Really?? After I posit that all insovlent banks should have been allowed to fail, that the fractional reserve system be abolished, that margin requirements be raised, that complex derivatives be regulated, that no government should have the right to issue 300% of its GDP as debt in order to spend billions of dollars on fatass idiots that don't want to work for a living and bailout loss making institutions? And you STILL think I'm making an argument FOR the current system? Are you really that stupid? (Don't answer). But of course you disagree, if I had my way you would find your fat ass out of your government issued house on the streets of southall with no government issued paycheck winging its way to your stupid ass to pay your satellite tv bill and finance an endless supply of take away.

Click the damn link, watch the first half hour - it'll describe the banking system, and stop making a fool of yourself, no matter how naturally it comes to you. You want big government and I'm the 'chamcha'? Right. Why do you dumbass Indians play the race card everytime some disagrees with you? Are you that insecure? (this is rhetorical, no need to answer. I'd assume you understood that but you don't exactly have a great track record.) If you have nothing useful to say then say nothing. My lack of bullshit on this forum is infinitely more useful than your constant stream of bile.

Easily the stupidest person I have ever come across. If you were not a retard, which sadly you are, you would have understood that in a truly free market system there is individual accountability and all the idiots that lent more money than they could afford and their counterparty idiots that borrowed more money than they could afford would have had to pay for their own mistakes. Instead, thanks to you and your commie boyfriends the debt has been socialised and we are all on the hook for it. Viva la revolucion. NB I was not talking about models. A capitalist system is capital based, which if you weren't an idiot you could figure out from the term. Our system is based on debt and exponential expansion of output and consumption, an idea first put forward by Keynes. We live in a Socialist-Keynesian system you absolute anus of a person. Ejumacate yourself, sucka

Actually, I was doing the opposite, but you were too stupid to understand. I don't hold it against you, you are just as much (possible more) a victim of your stupidity as we are. Take a guess, Einstein. Ever since you showed up this forum has turned into something to rival the daily mail for content. Bigoted in the other extreme, naturally.

OP all you do is link articles and gossip about people, have you nothing better to do?

is cbc right wing?

citizens of commonwealth countries are allowed to join the british army

Other than that sentence he has a point. There have always been Sikhs of varying degrees along the road to being Amritdhari, you can't draw a line in the sand and say that they are not Sikhs. By definition a Sikh is a student of the Guru, it doesn't have any other requirement. You cannot call them patit on the basis of shorn hair.

meh how is this thread any different from a gossip magazine anyway my comments about the news of the world stand, I said nothing about british people. My point was that if you want to make a point then quoting a shitty tabloid that has been sued multiple times for libelis probably not the best source. kdsingh80 how is this thread relevant to anything other than a desire to act superior

I don't think language is important to the thought process, most analysis is imo comparing and contrasting how you feel about different situations - anbhav if you will

No, I'm saying that 'the news of the world' is a tabloid that caters to the lowest common denominator and is practically a soft porn publication. It lacks any credibility. Remember that 'Brit' is not a race and is not confined to white people only, neither is 'Sikh' a race or confined to punjabis.

which says something about punjabis... given the source of the survey, the methodology probably consisted of interviewing 10 people on a council estate

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jIO5u2MVzs

The thing that annoys me is that if any of these ended up in court the people retaliating would get into more trouble than the chavs. When they get their asses kicked they go straight to the cops. The justice system in the UK is a joke regarding defence of personal space and property.

Indian first? Bunch of sissies. Would you put your country before Guru Sahib? I doubt that she is making a political point by marrying someone, why don't you ninnies mind your own business. She obviously wasn't 'happily engaged'. Make love not war etc

what's a wasp?

You're saying that because you cannot accept something it cannot be true? Deregulation of the markets to push mortgage agencies to make sub prime loans is a fact not an opinion. THe chain of events that have led to the current crisis is documented, it is not opinion. You can keep your racial bias BS to yourself. If you honestly think that the bailout was a result of a 'white power' sentiment then you are, as I said, clinically retarded. This is a GLOBAL recession - go tell Japan your retarded racist theory of finance. A bunch of ignorant jobless rednecks that have leveraged their homes to the hilt via multiple remortgages now have free housing courtesy of the US taxpayer who are now paying off their delinquent debt. It doesn't get any more socialsit. The horrible mindset theory eh, brace yourself for the Nobel. Let me explain this in terms a 5 yr old should understand. There was a line drawn within which banks were allowed to play. In 1999 that line was expanded and they were given more freedom, excessive freedom as is evident. In 2008 everyone realised that, holy crap, we all owe a hell of a lot more money than we are earning and the bottom fell out of the market as they liquidated equity in order to stay afloat. The government responded by saying 'it's ok', we'll buy your bad debt, the taxpayer will fund this bad debt, which is almost entirely composed of delinquent mortgages, and smudged over the line in places that were convenient, forced MORE deregulation of the accounting standards so that losses on bad loans don't need to be reported et voila we magically have profits reported again. Left leaning economic policy is a fact not a theory. Keynesian monetary policy is a fact not an abstract theory. If you don't understand what these things are then you are not in a position to discuss the economy, as evidenced by your arguments based solely on value judgements as opposed to any udnerstanding of economics at any level. I care only for truth, you can take your blind racist pro socialist dogma, put it in your asscrack and smoke it.

microcredit is awesome. It is a great example of how a market approach to a problem i.e. liquidity within poor households can create a sustainable solution as opposed to socialist handouts which create only the incentive to figure out how to get more handouts. People have something at stake - their reputations in the local community (which is how the loans are enforced); they are effectively trading their standing in the community in exchange for some money to start up a business - a market solution. I meant socialist in the sense that private institutions are being subsidised by the government, in teh US not much control has been given to the government, unlike in the UK. did I deny this? the point that you have so staggeringly managed to avoid is that the system is keynesian/socialist NOT classical. Economic policy is made by economists and affects your daily life, if you have a problem with accurate and correct definition of terms then rid yourself of ignorance if you wish to debate. The rest of the world isn't here to pander to your self invented definitions of economic terms. Who said that it was in favour of the common man? Tax funded government subsidies for a failed industry is socialism. period. Also, this crisis has its roots in excessively cheap credit, actively pushed on the market by the clinton administration to give low income households access to credit - A SOCIALIST POLICY with KEYNESIAN justification ie the increase of consumption. Everything else with AIG and the ratings agencies, investment banks and pension funds etc is a knock on effect. where did i say anything about 'soft touch' regulation? this whole mess is rooted in deregulation by the clinton govt in '99 to allow banks to make subprime loans and to allow investment banks to engage in proprietary trading creating a HUGE systemic risk. Of course it's about money, the point that I have made REPEATEDLY is that AS SIKHS we are meant to participate but be DETACHED, that NO external system can enforce morality, that it has to come from within an individual. Maybe you should understand the content of my posts before making a fool of yourself. if you think that my approval of the flushing out of the financial sector by advocating bankruptcy is an excuse for them you are clinically retarded. my comments are on western economics, which are left wing ie socialist; western monetary policy is keynesian NOT classical/capitalist. Why isn't the govt allowing this to happen? because the short term employment and output effects would be brutal, so instead they indebt us up the wazoo and hope to hell the system doesn't implode in our lifetime. There is no reset button on a credit bubble-financed keynesian economy; the ONLY way out is a clean start, but this would be too 'painful' for the people so instead we subsidise and tax - A SOCIALIST REACTION.

'capitalism' is the practice of business in a relatively free economy where the factors of production (capital) are owned privately; so tell me, where does this imply a need for constant growth? If it were so then why are the most hardline free marketeers calling for an end to government support of a busted system and demanding that the economy be allowed to enter recession with privately accountable debt which is the only way out of this mess as opposed to a debt transfer from the private to public sector as as happened which is a socialist policy move NOT a capitalist move that has bailed out corrupt institutions and placed the debt burden on taxpayers' shoulders. A 'capitalist' response would have been to allow the private institutions to go under and suffer for their greed resulting in destruction of old institutions and paving the way for new ones with, one would hope, better regulation. Government interference to (often illegaly) dampen regulation and guarantee debts of private institutions that just happen to be the biggest source of money for their political movements is a sign of a totalitarian regime most akin to left wing poltiics and economics and is anathema to the freedom required to run a fair economy. I'm done with this argument until you educate yourself and quit with the knee jerk marketsareevil™ reactions. The current western economy is SOCIALIST and is running a massive experiment in KEYNESIAN POLICY which is where the constant growth fueled by consumption requirement comes in NOT from neo-classical policy. Until you can understand this you have no basis for your argument.

What system is there to asslick? UK and Europe are socialist entities with Keynesian policies that presume expansion of consumption is the panacea to economic growth, same in the US albeit with less socialism. You need to be responsible for your own principles and ideals and not expect an external system to uphold them for you, my favour for a free system with small government, minarchism if you will, stems from the premise that under such a system individuals will have thre freedom to evince their own principles no matter which dharm they subscribe to. This contradicts the idea of miri/piri and on its own is meaningless - care to explain how we are supposed to implement a spiritual economic system? Peoples' spiritual and moral evolution are a social issue not an economic one, the economic point of view is simply to raise their living standard to a point where they can participate in the economy and contribute to it as a whole. Whether these people decide to be a positive or negative influence or not is up to them - you seem to be labouring under the delusion that an external system of business can make people 'moral'. I may be 'talking rubbish' but I live in a third world country where there is huge divide between rich and poor, it's easy to sit on your ass and claim benefits off the government then drag said fat ass online to make thinly disguised ad hominem arguments on an internet forum. Go live in a slum in asia or africa for a month then come tell me that poverty reduction is an empty idea. If the Gurus wanted us to create a society without money in which everything was paid in kind they would have done it. Any government system is corrupt hence the idea that govt should kept as small as possible and people free to decide their own principles and values. A system that tries to impose 'spiritual wealth' on people with the likes of you in charge will aid kaljug more than any phony investor building a ponzi scheme. Come back when you can articulate an argument that has more substance to it than arrogance and insult...and you lecture about spiritual and moral evolution lol

kdsingh80 You argue that women shouldn't be allowed to fight because they may be raped? You expect war to be risk free? Hell, let's ban the men from joining up, they may get shot don't y'know.

I guess the pure meaning of the term is the investment of or in and trading of capital as a means of production. It has nothing to do with 'hoarding' that dalsingh confuses it with. Idiomatic use of the term refers mostly to free markets and the idea of the survival of the fittest, again, nothing to do with 'hoarding'. It doesn't have anything to do with money, really, given money is not a capital good and in contemporary economies is not even backed by physical 'wealth'. The inequality in India and Brazil is more a function of their rapid growth as emerging economies, it happened everywhere and has a tendency to normalise over time as it has in the US and Europe. The pioneer industrialists and capitalists in these regions that have accumulated on paper this sort of wealth did so becuase of their ability to invest profitably - they are not keeping their millions under their collective mattresses. Capitalism does not preclude social responsibility, indeed a capitalist approach to 3rd world poverty would result real growth and pverty reduction as opposed to the socialist handout system in place at the moment where the worst managed countries get the most money because they are the poorest. This sort of 'aid' makes mismanagement the most lucrative 'industry' in these countries.

Why do you imply that to be capitalist is bad? There is no inherent bias for or against any economic system within Sikhi, the only stipulation is to be unattached to maya.

really? so, in your opinion, it is a 'western ideology' to care about wealth? I suppose the rest of us were all natural sants until the colonials came around. As for your article, it is BS - the 2000 bear market was not linked to the credit bubble, it was more a bubble within a bubble. Ironically given the source of your article, it was a socialist experiment that created the current credit bubble. In terms of content your article is wholly lacking of substance, try again.