Taxi Driver Online

Fundamentally flawed, if you wish. The problem with economics and economists, is, that comparable with jazz musicians, say, or students of theology, or philosophers, is that it is impossible to disprove their theories, unless you allow them to put their theories in to practise. When, for instance, a musician writes a piece of music, he or she naturally thinks it to be the most wonderful thing ever written. Listeners though may take an opposite view. Philosophers will argue over how many angels will dance on the head of a pin, and who would be able to prove or disprove such a philosophical theory? Me? I directly filched an article from monday's Daily Telegraph, written by the highly respected economist, Ruth Lea, but, because you thought it was all my own work, you sniffily dismiss it, in the way you dismiss the views of just about every correspondent on this site. The site is called "Taxi Driver Online", not "The Economist" So, shall we cut the crap about "macro/microeconomics?, and get back to taxi talking?

You started it.

I kept well clear.

_________________
IDFIMH

There's a first time for everything, Sussex!

In fact if you look back at the thread, I didn't 'sniffily dismiss' Ruth Lea's work, I endorsed it and/or asked a few questions of clarification, and it was your failure to answer these questions that confirmed to me that the writings weren't your own work.

Indeed, the questions were intended to be less a case of questioning Ruth Lea's work than confirming my suspicions that it wasn't your own work, and your failure to even attempt to address the questions confirmed this.

But I often think that you disagree just for the sake of it jimbo, and your machinations in this thread add credence to that view, and thus is it any wonder that I and others often dismiss your views?

When you first appeared on the site I mentioned the fact that I strongly agreed with a couple of points you made and which hadn't been made by others, but since then you just seem to disagree with anything I say for the sake of an argument.

But thanks for being honest enough to confirm what I thought anyway

_________________
Taxi Driver Online
www.taxi-driver.co.uk

Absolutely.

If anyone cares to go back up the thread, they'll see that it was Jimbo who raised the macro economic factors in the first place. I made the point that trade regulation clearly couldn't influence these things (ie interest rates, unemployment, economic growth) etc, then Jimbo got things going with his pasted article. And it wasn't even as if they had anything to do with the points being made anyway - the lump of labour fallacy, for Cliff's sake

So you might try following your own advice jimbo, instead of lecturing others

_________________
Taxi Driver Online
www.taxi-driver.co.uk

I don't suppose there is a smilie of a head stuck up it's own arse is there? At least I could see the world from your point of view. I wasn't at any time lecturing anyone, merely poking fun at the sheer pomposity of some of the published articles on here. Macro, micro, who gives a stuff...but you said macroeconomics, microeconomics, first...so na na na na na naa...

And to think the author of this has the cheek to accuse others of being pompous

Or did you 'filch' that one as well Jimbo?

_________________
Taxi Driver Online
www.taxi-driver.co.uk

Err, perhaps I could summarise what's happened?

- Jimbo raised issues relevant to the trade like recession, unemployment and price levels (ie macroeconomics)

- TDO underlined the fact that whatever else we can do as regards trade regulation, we can't influcence the above factor

- then Jimbo replies with a 'filched' and largely irrelevant article about labour markets and public spending/taxation - ie macroeconomic issues

- TDO asks him several questions and he completely ignores them

- Then Jimbo says, inter alia: "The site is called "Taxi Driver Online", not "The Economist" So, shall we cut the crap about "macro/microeconomics?, and get back to taxi talking?"

- Thus TDO then tells him to follow his own advice rather than lecturing others

- Then Jimbo says 'who gives a stuff' and that TDO mentioned macroeconmics first.

Err, not quite Jimbo, perhaps I introduced the terminology, but you started the ball rolling, then posted hundreds of words of filched irrelevance, then blame me!!

_________________
Taxi Driver Online
www.taxi-driver.co.uk

I would send him a PM.

_________________
IDFIMH

do you even know what a "filcher" is? your sick

First mention of macro/micro here...

Err, I think it means the same as 'pinch', at least in this context.

And since it was jim that used the term and admitted that he'd filched the documents, are you saying he's sick?

A bit strong, innit?

So could you perhaps explain yourself mr 187 ums?

_________________
Taxi Driver Online
www.taxi-driver.co.uk

First mention of macro/micro here...[/quote]

So what's your point Jimbo? I just don't get it.

You first used the term 'filch', but I'm not making a song and dance about it.

Instead, why don't you email Ruth Lea and ask her what she thinks of restricted taxi numbers

_________________
Taxi Driver Online
www.taxi-driver.co.uk

filch. abstract, crib (informal) embezzle,half inch,lift missapropriate, nick, pilfer, pinch, purloin, rip off, snaffle, steal, swipe, take, walk off with. (Collins dictionary). What is your interpretation?

"Inter alia" amongst other things. ( I thought they were an Italian football team!)

As written in the Busines section of the Sunday Times. May 28th 2006.

Fair Air Trades.

Irishman John Fingleton hasn’t wasted any time in facing down vested interests since taking over as head of the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) in Britain last October. He has already fired shots across the bows of Britain’s biggest supermarket chains, pharmacies and even taxi companies, threatening to implement radical changes in their industries.

He has now drawn the wrath of the British Airports Authority with his announcement last week that the OFT planned to investigate the airport industry.

This could lead to a break-up of BAA, which owns Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted airports among others, and is currently the subject of a bid by Ferrovial of Spain.

BAA’s airports handle about 63% of all airline passengers in Britain.

Fingleton’s move initially caught BAA on the hop, wiping £500m (€730m) off its market value. BAA has since warmed to the idea, with some analysts predicting that a break-up could add 100p a share to the value of the group. This might be nothing more than wishful thinking. Analysts at JP Morgan slammed the move. It argued that a break-up of BAA’s London airports would result in the duplication of cost overheads and lead to a reduction in its ability to innovate. This would be bad news for Ryanair and Aer Lingus.

Judging by the Irish experience, where the formal separation of the state-owned Dublin, Cork and Shannon airports has become bogged down in a number of legal and technical issues, JP Morgan could have a point. Fingleton can expect plenty of flak to be hurled his way as the investigation progresses.

Regards

JD