The Forum > Article Comments > Julia Gillard’s inability to change political direction: A price we all pay > Comments
Julia Gillard’s inability to change political direction: A price we all pay : Comments
By Bruce Haigh, published 8/9/2011The decline of the Left, the disappearance of the Centre and the bullying of the Right: the modern Australian paradigm.
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
- ...
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Page 8
- 9
-
- All
Posted by imajulianutter, Thursday, 15 September 2011 6:40:55 PM
| |
Oh hell I couldn't resist one final laugh.
'banks generally do best when the economy is ticking along nicely' and of course they did great when they were involved in dud securities and times were ticking along nicely. But how do you explain how well they did during and after the GFC. It seems to me apart from Lehmanns they all benefited greatly from bailouts, the stimulus and the printing of money. And hey whatsmore they seem to be doing even better now, if the share price is any indication, during a time of a sad sack economy? sheesh do you even take notice of what's actually happening in the world? Posted by imajulianutter, Thursday, 15 September 2011 6:50:54 PM
| |
It seems to you, Nutter? You clearly don't bother to inform
yourself too well, just wild claims to try and impress. http://au.finance.yahoo.com/q/ta?s=C&t=5y&l=on&z=l&q=l&p=s&a=&c= That should take you to the Citigroup 5 year price index, ie if you'd invested then and what would be left of your money now. That is despite the various sovereign wealth fund bailouts, despite the Fed propping them up, for the Fed knows if they banks are stuffed, so is the rest of the economy. What about all the US banks which have gone broke? Even Australian bank share prices have never returned to what they were, because they all had to suck up extra capital, which has diluted their unit price. Just stick to silver, Nutter, you can't go far wrong and don't need to think too much. Posted by Yabby, Thursday, 15 September 2011 7:57:11 PM
| |
Which just goes to prove either you don't understand what you've read or you are similarily stuck in the Gillard mode of to thick or pigheaded to change your intrepretations.
Posted by imajulianutter, Monday, 19 September 2011 2:59:31 PM
| |
Sheesh Nutter, I thought that the figures were plain as day.
But if you can't refute them, so just chuck a wobbly, that will solve it. Posted by Yabby, Monday, 19 September 2011 3:51:25 PM
| |
If using words and phrases such as:
'you don't understand what you've read' and 'mode of to thick or pigheaded to change your intrepretations' is throwing a wobbly what do you make of using terms such as: 'don't bother to inform yourself too well, just wild claims to try and impress' 'you would not have a clue as to what people are thinking but its easy to try and pretend that you do.' 'Only some people can be bought, so your post tells us something about you.' and the disrespectful 'Nutter' Finally when you make statements like: 'But this whole debate started when you challenged what I had written.' It makes you sound as though you think your opinions shouldn't be challenged. ie that you are infallible. And after that statement you've gone on to prove it's truth by being as disparagging of me as you possibly can, without incurring the moderators censure I reckon that just goes to show who is throwing a wobbly ... and why. You give me such great belly laughs so often with your illogical irrational and self-undermining positions that sometimes I have to stop and ask myself: Yabby are you trolling? Posted by imajulianutter, Wednesday, 21 September 2011 8:01:26 AM
|
It's the positions you've maintained.
lol