who are you?

[Red_Polo]

i think he is trying to get at the fact that it was a cockney version of a song that has never been sung before me and the lads also commented on this whatever next championi ole ole ole

Nowt wrong with Campioni Liverpool a la 1977

[rodo]

thats my point there is nothing wrong with campioni liverpool but there is a lot wrong with championi as we pointed out to a few youngsters on the cattleheard back to the airport in istanbul

[Red_Polo]

Oh, I thought you meant the song to any words, I'm with you now bud

[rodo]

paranoia over then mate

[Red_Polo]

You're out to get me, aren't you?!!

[rodo]

me never i am a peaceful chap

[Laz]

Bloody foreigners. Come over here, buy our kits, take up our seats...

...help us win League titles, domestic cups, European cups.

[univofchicago]

hey chicago where are you, peopole over here are riping youre hero appart, i want some reaction, i want a war

Sure. I'm not sure about a war though.

Give me some minutes...this is taking me back to Econ 101

[univofchicago]

The Monetarist sh!te of Milton Friedman was the economic dogma used by the Tories to destroy Liverpool (and elsewhere) in the 1980's. When did he start becoming worthy of veneration?

My goodness....

Where should I start? Since you brought up the "Tories" (I'm guessing you mean Thatcher's administration?), I will talk briefly about Thatcher's economic policies and then go back to your friend's fundamental question about whether the policies allowed the elite to exploit the under-privileged.

Without going into too much detail, I will outline the major economic policies that were behind the so called "Thatcherism":

- Commitment to freeing up the market
- More focus on monetary policy to control inflation
- Allow for more public ownership (in shares and assets)
- De-regulation of certain industries to bring more competition and increase efficiency
- Reduce the size of government
- Reduce the power of trade unions

All the above were ideas strongly advocated by Milton Friedman well before the early 80's when there was a wide polarization of opinion. Now, the above ideas are accepted in almost every economics department in the world. If you disagree with the any of the policies above, then you are disagreeing with virtually the entire economics profession. The ideas should be clear to anyone (Econ major or not) who has taken Econ 101.

Let me know if you disagree with any of the above polices, I'll be more than happy to explain it for you.

[Tinkerbitch]

My goodness....

Where should I start? Since you brought up the "Tories" (I'm guessing you mean Thatcher's administration?), I will talk briefly about Thatcher's economic policies and then go back to your friend's fundamental question about whether the policies allowed the elite to exploit the under-privileged.

Without going into too much detail, I will outline the major economic policies that were behind the so called "Thatcherism":

- Commitment to freeing up the market
- More focus on monetary policy to control inflation
- Allow for more public ownership (in shares and assets)
- De-regulation of certain industries to bring more competition and increase efficiency
- Reduce the size of government
- Reduce the power of trade unions

All the above were ideas strongly advocated by Milton Friedman well before the early 80's when there was a wide polarization of opinion. Now, the above ideas are accepted in almost every economics department in the world. If you disagree with the any of the policies above, then you are disagreeing with virtually the entire economics profession. The ideas should be clear to anyone (Econ major or not) who has taken Econ 101.

Let me know if you disagree with any of the above polices, I'll be more than happy to explain it for you.

They appear less appealing when you've lived through them and the consequences of them though.

[univofchicago]

Thatcher's socially blind, morally bankrupt, elite-serving economic policies can be traced back to Friedman. The 'free' in 'free trade' refers to the 'freedom' it allows the elites to exploit those of lower socio-economic standing for their own gain. I detest Friedman.

I am not exactly sure what happened in Liverpool, but I can assume that Thatcher's policy to de-regulate many of the inefficient nationalised industries such as steel/coal/gas had a negative impact on the city. Before discussing the negatives, let's be clear on what privatization etc has done for the UK as a whole. Share ownership amongst ordinary people increased dramatically and many of the enterprises became efficient profit making organizations. This together with the policies mentioned above enabled UK to enjoy the relative economic stability that we are seeing today - Thatcher was well aware of the actions needed for long term economic growth and took action instead of waiting for someone else to bail the country out of its problems. There should be absolutely no doubt that privatization to increase competition and economic freedom benefits the consumer. A free market with limited government protection means lower prices and better quality for the consumers. This is the heart of Milton Friedman's "free trade" argument.

Therefore, your argument comes down to this: Thatcher's policy had no social and ethical consideration. The under-privileged individual worker was totally sacrificed for the overall LONG TERM good of the economy. In essence, you are asking for protectionism in industries where many of these underprivileged workers work. You are asking for tariffs and quotas. You are asking for trade unions that help protect workers and prevent the elites from exploiting "those of lower socio-economic standing for their own gain".

It's exactly the other way round. The best way to limit the control of a few "elites" is FREE TRADE on a worldwide basis. There is no measure whatsoever that would do more to prevent private monopoly development than complete free trade.

One of the reasons why we hear far more criticisms than praise on this particular issue of displacement is that, as Milton Friedman said, the action of removing protectionist measures is "only in the general interest and in nobody's special interest". Each of us is fundamentally more concerned with our role as a PRODUCER of one product than we are as a CONSUMER of a thousand and one products. The benefits of protectionist measures such as tariffs and quotas are visible. The workers at Liverpool can 'see' that they are protected. HOWEVER, the harm that these protectionist measures does is invisible. It is spread widely. There are many people who don't have jobs because of these protectionist measures but other people don't know because there isn't anybody out there who is willing to organize them in a big group like a trade union. Consumers, normal folks like you and me - we have to pay a little more because of tariffs and quotas. But we don't RECOGNIZE that is the reason for paying that little more do we?

You are are wrong to say that Friedman is putting the interest of society as a whole ahead of the interests of individuals. If there is one element in his social and ethical philosophy that is predominant it is that the ultimate unit is the INDIVIDUAL and that the society is a MEANS by which we jointly achieve our objectives.

[KK07]

My son (10 year old) commented today during the match on seeing :

Two Asian (Japs) blokes with cameras

'Is that why we are struggling for tickets Dad?'

'Yes son, that's why there is no kits available for you or tickets to watch the match'.

Money son, money,

Lovely :whatever:

Great role model.

[KK07]

I could say a lot about the inane nature of this post,
but to be honest there is no point because it speaks for itself.

So you and your son miss out on the occasional game bacause a few people decide to spend thousands of pounds and make a 20,000 mile round trip to fulfil their dreams and go to a game of the team that they love. And when they do they get treated to this kind of attitude.

Obviously the scousers simply want a scouse club supported by scouse fans. But why leave it there? Instead of banning just the wools why stop there? Let's get rid of the non-scousers that make up the playing and coaching staff? Let's see if you scousers will get the club you want then, without the global support and without a global presence within.

When I go to Anfield I'm almost amazed at the vast variety of different kind of people I see there - people from all over the world - makes me realise what a big and special club it really is. Then I read posts like yours and I wonder why people from places like Japan and Singapore bother to follow a club that attracts such a petty and small-minded support like yours.

Best supporters in the world my arse, cant even support our own let alone our club

[KK07]

I like foreigners....especially Keyra Augustina

Hmmmmmm Keyra

[Rich]

All should be welcome except cockneys.....