Britain slides to 7th in world economy league...

[afleitch]

“The Centre for Economics and Business Research (CEBR) says Britain, which was the world’s fourth largest economy as recently as 2005, has slipped to seventh this year behind America, China, Japan, Germany, France and Italy.

By 2015, it predicts, Britain will be outside the world’s top 10, behind Russia, Brazil, India and Canada. Slow growth and a weak pound will be responsible for the slide.”

Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!

[k-onmmunist]

Yup. And it won't get better till we abolish the government and allow free enterprise.

[useful idiot]

Yup. And it won't get better till we abolish the government and allow free enterprise.

Funny considering every economy besides the U.S.'s above the U.K. on the list has more government intervention in the economy than does the U.K.

[Lief 🗽]

Behind Canada and India by 2015? The old imperialists must be rolling in their graves!

[2952-0-0]

Yup. And it won't get better till we abolish the government and allow free enterprise.

I agree. Britain would become like the economic superpower of Somalia, with their per capita GDP of $200 and their life expectancy of 47 years.

[k-onmmunist]

Yup. And it won't get better till we abolish the government and allow free enterprise.

I agree. Britain would become like the economic superpower of Somalia, with their per capita GDP of $200 and their life expectancy of 47 years.

Somalia's problems are largely due to Islam. If they were all atheists/secular humanists, there wouldn't be this problem.

[afleitch]

Yup. And it won't get better till we abolish the government and allow free enterprise.

I agree. Britain would become like the economic superpower of Somalia, with their per capita GDP of $200 and their life expectancy of 47 years.

Somalia's problems are largely due to Islam. If they were all atheists/secular humanists, there wouldn't be this problem.

[k-onmmunist]

Nothing more need be said.

[Bono]

Yup. And it won't get better till we abolish the government and allow free enterprise.

Funny considering every economy besides the U.S.'s above the U.K. on the list has more government intervention in the economy than does the U.K.

Canada doesn't have more government intervention than the UK, and it's arguable Japan and Russia do. Certainly not if you measure it by spending.

[Phony Moderate]

Nothing more need be said.

Inside Job.

[Хahar 🤔]

Yup. And it won't get better till we abolish the government and allow free enterprise.

I agree. Britain would become like the economic superpower of Somalia, with their per capita GDP of $200 and their life expectancy of 47 years.

Somalia's problems are largely due to Islam. If they were all atheists/secular humanists, there wouldn't be this problem.

And if the world looked like Wallace and Gromit, the moon would be made of cheese.

[gregusodenus]

Yup. And it won't get better till we abolish the government and allow free enterprise.

I agree. Britain would become like the economic superpower of Somalia, with their per capita GDP of $200 and their life expectancy of 47 years.

Somalia's problems are largely due to Islam. If they were all atheists/secular humanists, there wouldn't be this problem.

You're attrbuting hunger and poverty to their religion? Does that have any basis in fact, or are you just spewing out anti-religion rants? I'm an atheist, but I hate it when fellow atheists use religion (lack of) to consider themselves superior.

[bgwah]

I don't see a big problem with falling behind countries like China and India--countries that are friggin' huge and are simply catching up.

Falling behind lil ol' Canada seems a bit strange, though.

[JohnFKennedy]

Yup. And it won't get better till we abolish the government and allow free enterprise.

I agree. Britain would become like the economic superpower of Somalia, with their per capita GDP of $200 and their life expectancy of 47 years.

Somalia's problems are largely due to Islam. If they were all atheists/secular humanists, there wouldn't be this problem.

I'm trying to work out whether posts like these should be attributed to your being sixteen, obtuse or simply intellectually dishonest. Do you really believe that? Do you really believe that 'Nothing more need be said' beyond those ridiculous attempts by Dawkins and his ilk to be inflammatory?

(Apologies for continuing this off-topic discussion)

[k-onmmunist]

Yup. And it won't get better till we abolish the government and allow free enterprise.

I agree. Britain would become like the economic superpower of Somalia, with their per capita GDP of $200 and their life expectancy of 47 years.

Somalia's problems are largely due to Islam. If they were all atheists/secular humanists, there wouldn't be this problem.

I'm trying to work out whether posts like these should be attributed to your being sixteen, obtuse or simply intellectually dishonest. Do you really believe that? Do you really believe that 'Nothing more need be said' beyond those ridiculous attempts by Dawkins and his ilk to be inflammatory?

(Apologies for continuing this off-topic discussion)

I'm sixteen yes, but I'm not obtuse or intellectually dishonest. Religion causes all sorts of problems, especially those that encourage decadence and anti-nature, such as Christianity and Islam.

[JohnFKennedy]

Yup. And it won't get better till we abolish the government and allow free enterprise.

I agree. Britain would become like the economic superpower of Somalia, with their per capita GDP of $200 and their life expectancy of 47 years.

Somalia's problems are largely due to Islam. If they were all atheists/secular humanists, there wouldn't be this problem.

I'm trying to work out whether posts like these should be attributed to your being sixteen, obtuse or simply intellectually dishonest. Do you really believe that? Do you really believe that 'Nothing more need be said' beyond those ridiculous attempts by Dawkins and his ilk to be inflammatory?

(Apologies for continuing this off-topic discussion)

I'm sixteen yes, but I'm not obtuse or intellectually dishonest. Religion causes all sorts of problems, especially those that encourage decadence and anti-nature, such as Christianity and Islam.

Firstly, what on earth do you mean by 'anti-nature'? I take it there is some underlying discourse to this that what is natural is inherently good - why is that the case?

Secondly, of course 'religion' can cause problems - so can governments, the free market, businesses, people in general and so on and so forth - but to reduce 'religion' simply to the negatives is certainly to be either intellectually dishonest or else obtuse as is your suggestion that the problems of Somalia are largely due to its population being predominantly Muslim.

'Religion' isn't some monolithic entity that can speak for itself - how can either Christianity or Islam encourage these 'problems' when there are so many differing interpretations of them? I would think the range of doctrinal interpretations that are on show even here should demonstrate that there really isn't a singular interpretation of Christianity and generally those aspects which are universally (or close to universally) agreed upon are those that might be considered good (don't murder, don't steal etc).

[jokerman]

I'm sixteen yes, but I'm not obtuse or intellectually dishonest. Religion causes all sorts of problems, especially those that encourage decadence and anti-nature, such as Christianity and Islam.

Late Islam might be fatalistic, granted, but Plato was much more "anti-nature" than Christianity's overall tenor.

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

[/continuation of the off-topic]

Nature created religion.

Ah, and, outside of the fact that this statement on Somalia can be made inane on so much levels, I don't think that Islam causes economical troubles to KSA.

[Serenity Now]

I don't see how this is bad news - for Britain to stay as high ranked in this regard as it is (considering the population) would require several larger countries to stay much poorer for much longer..

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Oh noes...! Britain has fallen slightly in a league table of all powerful mightyness... I'm very sad now... *cries*

[k-onmmunist]

Yup. And it won't get better till we abolish the government and allow free enterprise.

I agree. Britain would become like the economic superpower of Somalia, with their per capita GDP of $200 and their life expectancy of 47 years.

Somalia's problems are largely due to Islam. If they were all atheists/secular humanists, there wouldn't be this problem.

I'm trying to work out whether posts like these should be attributed to your being sixteen, obtuse or simply intellectually dishonest. Do you really believe that? Do you really believe that 'Nothing more need be said' beyond those ridiculous attempts by Dawkins and his ilk to be inflammatory?

(Apologies for continuing this off-topic discussion)

I'm sixteen yes, but I'm not obtuse or intellectually dishonest. Religion causes all sorts of problems, especially those that encourage decadence and anti-nature, such as Christianity and Islam.

Firstly, what on earth do you mean by 'anti-nature'? I take it there is some underlying discourse to this that what is natural is inherently good - why is that the case?

Secondly, of course 'religion' can cause problems - so can governments, the free market, businesses, people in general and so on and so forth - but to reduce 'religion' simply to the negatives is certainly to be either intellectually dishonest or else obtuse as is your suggestion that the problems of Somalia are largely due to its population being predominantly Muslim.

'Religion' isn't some monolithic entity that can speak for itself - how can either Christianity or Islam encourage these 'problems' when there are so many differing interpretations of them? I would think the range of doctrinal interpretations that are on show even here should demonstrate that there really isn't a singular interpretation of Christianity and generally those aspects which are universally (or close to universally) agreed upon are those that might be considered good (don't murder, don't steal etc).

1. My meaning by calling it 'anti-nature' was that it encourages abstinence and pity, neither of which I believe are natural human attributes. I have a real problem with the first, considering it basically deprives humanity of it's most basic desire.

2. I don't see many positives in religion, other than it being a comforting myth, which is not really a positive at all: it is utter blindness and suicide of reason. People need to be ready to confront the meaninglessness of the world and the complete subjectivity of values and morals.

3. I believe that the above are encouraged by all brands of Christianity and Islam, with the possible exceptions of some philosophical variants, for example Kierkegaard's Christian existentialism.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

You Know Winston... you would have made a very good Leninist.

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

Haha, I thought to answer to Winston's post:

You know, between USA and USSR, USA won.

[k-onmmunist]

You Know Winston... you would have made a very good Leninist.

Haha. I share their disgust for dogmatic religion and their socially liberal policies... and that's about it.

[JohnFKennedy]

1. My meaning by calling it 'anti-nature' was that it encourages abstinence and pity, neither of which I believe are natural human attributes. I have a real problem with the first, considering it basically deprives humanity of it's most basic desire.

That rests on a very specific and universalizing notion of what 'natural human attributes' are; one which I would argue lacks basis in reality and you would have a hard time proving exists (but then I would say that because I don't believe in 'human nature').

2. I don't see many positives in religion, other than it being a comforting myth, which is not really a positive at all: it is utter blindness and suicide of reason. People need to be ready to confront the meaninglessness of the world and the complete subjectivity of values and morals.

3. I believe that the above are encouraged by all brands of Christianity and Islam, with the possible exceptions of some philosophical variants, for example Kierkegaard's Christian existentialism.

You know the wonderful thing about values and morals being subjective is that not everyone has to embrace the same understanding of them that you do; while the world might be meaningless for you, it isn't for others and they find meaning in small things and great things and all sorts of things in between (my use of 'thing' here is pretty vulgar). So you choose not to follow their value system, but that doesn't make their value system inherently wrong and to suggest that their beliefs stem from 'utter blindness and suicide of reason' simply places you on a pedestal upon which you don't belong, unless it is one with the word 'hypocrite' scrawled across its base.

Of course, even accounting for different 'brands of Christianity and Islam' you still miss my point about the diversity of religions, because while there may be an orthodoxy within each particular subgrouping of Christians, that doesn't mean there isn't a high degree of heterodoxy within its membership. Richard Rorty famously wrote that 'the world does not speak, only we do';  'religion' is not something that can 'speak' for its self; 'Christianity' cannot encourage anything, it is only Christians that can and each Christian will have some variation in their degree of adherence to what is generally considered orthodox doctrine.