Brett Dunbar
@brett-dunbar.bsky.social
"Letting" is giving Israel entirely too much credit.
Israel is deliberately causing the famine. Israel is preventing aid organisations from providing aid.d
Beyond malice there is no rational explanation.for Israel blocking aid.
Israel is deliberately causing the famine. Israel is preventing aid organisations from providing aid.d
Beyond malice there is no rational explanation.for Israel blocking aid.
December 20, 2025 at 6:34 PM
"Letting" is giving Israel entirely too much credit.
Israel is deliberately causing the famine. Israel is preventing aid organisations from providing aid.d
Beyond malice there is no rational explanation.for Israel blocking aid.
Israel is deliberately causing the famine. Israel is preventing aid organisations from providing aid.d
Beyond malice there is no rational explanation.for Israel blocking aid.
It doesn't tell you anything about affordability.
There is no practical effect of a minimum wage below the market rate. As no one will work for it.
There is no practical effect of a minimum wage below the market rate. As no one will work for it.
December 19, 2025 at 2:41 PM
It doesn't tell you anything about affordability.
There is no practical effect of a minimum wage below the market rate. As no one will work for it.
There is no practical effect of a minimum wage below the market rate. As no one will work for it.
Of the minimum wage is so low that it's functionally equivalent to not.having a minimum wage, then comparing it to anything is doesn't tell you anything.
Britain didn't have a minimum wage until 1997, that didn't mean people worked for free.
Britain didn't have a minimum wage until 1997, that didn't mean people worked for free.
December 19, 2025 at 1:45 PM
Of the minimum wage is so low that it's functionally equivalent to not.having a minimum wage, then comparing it to anything is doesn't tell you anything.
Britain didn't have a minimum wage until 1997, that didn't mean people worked for free.
Britain didn't have a minimum wage until 1997, that didn't mean people worked for free.
That's not as bad as writing an entire book because she misunderstood what "Death Recorded" meant.
Specifically it meant not executed she thought it meant excecuted.
Specifically it meant not executed she thought it meant excecuted.
December 19, 2025 at 1:37 PM
That's not as bad as writing an entire book because she misunderstood what "Death Recorded" meant.
Specifically it meant not executed she thought it meant excecuted.
Specifically it meant not executed she thought it meant excecuted.
Honestly, they get to face the consequences of their own hatred.
If they choose to be genocidal racists then they don't deserve protection.
If they choose to be genocidal racists then they don't deserve protection.
December 19, 2025 at 1:17 AM
Honestly, they get to face the consequences of their own hatred.
If they choose to be genocidal racists then they don't deserve protection.
If they choose to be genocidal racists then they don't deserve protection.
The minimum is low enough that very few people are paid that little.
December 15, 2025 at 4:32 PM
The minimum is low enough that very few people are paid that little.
That's not really the correct basis for comparison. The correct comparison is with actual pay rather than the legal minimum. As it would be if the minimum wage did not exist.
The proportion of income spent on food is at a historic low.
The proportion of income spent on food is at a historic low.
December 15, 2025 at 3:16 AM
That's not really the correct basis for comparison. The correct comparison is with actual pay rather than the legal minimum. As it would be if the minimum wage did not exist.
The proportion of income spent on food is at a historic low.
The proportion of income spent on food is at a historic low.
America did it on paper but not in reality, Britain did it in reality but not on paper.
December 14, 2025 at 6:11 AM
America did it on paper but not in reality, Britain did it in reality but not on paper.
He's a genocide denier.
It is as simple as that.
I don't understand why any one admires such an obvious charlatan.
It is as simple as that.
I don't understand why any one admires such an obvious charlatan.
December 13, 2025 at 8:41 PM
He's a genocide denier.
It is as simple as that.
I don't understand why any one admires such an obvious charlatan.
It is as simple as that.
I don't understand why any one admires such an obvious charlatan.
Chomsky is a genocide denier. He denied the Khmer Rouge genocide in Cambodia,which killed a third of the population, and the Serbian genocide in Bosnia.
December 13, 2025 at 6:49 PM
Chomsky is a genocide denier. He denied the Khmer Rouge genocide in Cambodia,which killed a third of the population, and the Serbian genocide in Bosnia.
Leather is essentially a waste product. Like wool the meat industry producers more than there is demand for.
Using leather reduces the amount of hide that is dumped as waste.
Using leather reduces the amount of hide that is dumped as waste.
December 13, 2025 at 6:26 PM
Leather is essentially a waste product. Like wool the meat industry producers more than there is demand for.
Using leather reduces the amount of hide that is dumped as waste.
Using leather reduces the amount of hide that is dumped as waste.
He's an obvious charlatan. I don't understand why Americans take him seriously.
He uses obscurity to conceal the fundamental stupidity of his political conspiracy theories..
Apparently he's as wrong about linguistics as he is about politics. The evidence is inconsistent with his hypothesis.
He uses obscurity to conceal the fundamental stupidity of his political conspiracy theories..
Apparently he's as wrong about linguistics as he is about politics. The evidence is inconsistent with his hypothesis.
December 13, 2025 at 12:24 AM
He's an obvious charlatan. I don't understand why Americans take him seriously.
He uses obscurity to conceal the fundamental stupidity of his political conspiracy theories..
Apparently he's as wrong about linguistics as he is about politics. The evidence is inconsistent with his hypothesis.
He uses obscurity to conceal the fundamental stupidity of his political conspiracy theories..
Apparently he's as wrong about linguistics as he is about politics. The evidence is inconsistent with his hypothesis.
The old republic fell over a millennium earlier.
The galactic republic in the films was the successor formed after the Jedi-Sith war.
The galactic republic in the films was the successor formed after the Jedi-Sith war.
December 12, 2025 at 3:05 AM
The old republic fell over a millennium earlier.
The galactic republic in the films was the successor formed after the Jedi-Sith war.
The galactic republic in the films was the successor formed after the Jedi-Sith war.
If you don't want the tickets at that price don't buy them.
If the price is actually excessive they won't sell and FIFA.might cut prices. If they do sell the price wasn't excessive.
If the price is actually excessive they won't sell and FIFA.might cut prices. If they do sell the price wasn't excessive.
December 11, 2025 at 10:16 PM
If you don't want the tickets at that price don't buy them.
If the price is actually excessive they won't sell and FIFA.might cut prices. If they do sell the price wasn't excessive.
If the price is actually excessive they won't sell and FIFA.might cut prices. If they do sell the price wasn't excessive.
Millisecond trading is attempting to make money from arbitrage. It's not really relevant as they aren't the final customer.
It's people looking for long term investment who matter. They didn't think Truss would be able to pay back the money.
It's people looking for long term investment who matter. They didn't think Truss would be able to pay back the money.
December 9, 2025 at 9:50 PM
Millisecond trading is attempting to make money from arbitrage. It's not really relevant as they aren't the final customer.
It's people looking for long term investment who matter. They didn't think Truss would be able to pay back the money.
It's people looking for long term investment who matter. They didn't think Truss would be able to pay back the money.
You do exactly that.
You borrow by selling bonds. This requires that someone be willing to buy the bonds.
If your policies reduce demand, borrowing becomes more expensive.
You borrow by selling bonds. This requires that someone be willing to buy the bonds.
If your policies reduce demand, borrowing becomes more expensive.
December 9, 2025 at 9:33 PM
You do exactly that.
You borrow by selling bonds. This requires that someone be willing to buy the bonds.
If your policies reduce demand, borrowing becomes more expensive.
You borrow by selling bonds. This requires that someone be willing to buy the bonds.
If your policies reduce demand, borrowing becomes more expensive.
They are the people that you borrow money from. If they don't think you will be able to pay them back they won't lend you money. Reduced supply of credit makes it more expensive.
It's an aggregate of individual decisions. Traders aren't organised.
It's an aggregate of individual decisions. Traders aren't organised.
December 9, 2025 at 9:05 PM
They are the people that you borrow money from. If they don't think you will be able to pay them back they won't lend you money. Reduced supply of credit makes it more expensive.
It's an aggregate of individual decisions. Traders aren't organised.
It's an aggregate of individual decisions. Traders aren't organised.
We don't. Corporatism is a quite distinct model, related to mercantilism. It has legally privileged cartels, akin to guilds under the mercantile system.
It shouldn't be confused with corporate capitalism, despite the similar name.
It shouldn't be confused with corporate capitalism, despite the similar name.
December 8, 2025 at 3:55 PM
We don't. Corporatism is a quite distinct model, related to mercantilism. It has legally privileged cartels, akin to guilds under the mercantile system.
It shouldn't be confused with corporate capitalism, despite the similar name.
It shouldn't be confused with corporate capitalism, despite the similar name.
That is the key question. Not do you think that Ireland will unify. Rather would you vote for a united Ireland.
The most recent polling data on that specific question is that it would lead to a no vote.
The most recent polling data on that specific question is that it would lead to a no vote.
December 8, 2025 at 3:24 PM
That is the key question. Not do you think that Ireland will unify. Rather would you vote for a united Ireland.
The most recent polling data on that specific question is that it would lead to a no vote.
The most recent polling data on that specific question is that it would lead to a no vote.
Mostly that went on operating costs. The energy retailers were operating on very small margins.
December 6, 2025 at 2:37 PM
Mostly that went on operating costs. The energy retailers were operating on very small margins.
It's quite a bit to the left of the previous government. He nationalised British steel, is in the process of creating GB energy. Is reducing the qualifying period for unfair dismissal.
It's definitely a shift to the left.
It's definitely a shift to the left.
December 5, 2025 at 11:08 PM
It's quite a bit to the left of the previous government. He nationalised British steel, is in the process of creating GB energy. Is reducing the qualifying period for unfair dismissal.
It's definitely a shift to the left.
It's definitely a shift to the left.
Blair combined fairly right wing economies with social liberalism. This combination appeals to a good chunk of the electorate.
Starmer is combining fairly left wing economics,with social conservatism. This combination appeals to almost no one.
Starmer is combining fairly left wing economics,with social conservatism. This combination appeals to almost no one.
December 5, 2025 at 10:57 PM
Blair combined fairly right wing economies with social liberalism. This combination appeals to a good chunk of the electorate.
Starmer is combining fairly left wing economics,with social conservatism. This combination appeals to almost no one.
Starmer is combining fairly left wing economics,with social conservatism. This combination appeals to almost no one.
You really need a more competitive ISP market.
Pretty much everyone has a mobile phone. That's quite capable of text messages.
Letter use has declined to a tiny fraction of past use. Which leads to a vicious circle where low use makes it even more expensive which reduces use.
Pretty much everyone has a mobile phone. That's quite capable of text messages.
Letter use has declined to a tiny fraction of past use. Which leads to a vicious circle where low use makes it even more expensive which reduces use.
December 5, 2025 at 12:59 AM
You really need a more competitive ISP market.
Pretty much everyone has a mobile phone. That's quite capable of text messages.
Letter use has declined to a tiny fraction of past use. Which leads to a vicious circle where low use makes it even more expensive which reduces use.
Pretty much everyone has a mobile phone. That's quite capable of text messages.
Letter use has declined to a tiny fraction of past use. Which leads to a vicious circle where low use makes it even more expensive which reduces use.
Physical letter post was an essential means of communication a few decades ago, use has declined precipitously due to being slow and expensive compared to instant free electronic communications.
There are lots of private couriers to deliver physical goods.
There are lots of private couriers to deliver physical goods.
December 4, 2025 at 11:09 PM
Physical letter post was an essential means of communication a few decades ago, use has declined precipitously due to being slow and expensive compared to instant free electronic communications.
There are lots of private couriers to deliver physical goods.
There are lots of private couriers to deliver physical goods.
Why not?
It's a valuable service that users will pay for and not really essential.
Parcel delivery is quite profitable the delivery is included in the price.
Letters have to a large extent been replaced by electronic communications which safe vastly cheaper and quicker. And mostly private.
It's a valuable service that users will pay for and not really essential.
Parcel delivery is quite profitable the delivery is included in the price.
Letters have to a large extent been replaced by electronic communications which safe vastly cheaper and quicker. And mostly private.
December 4, 2025 at 11:04 PM
Why not?
It's a valuable service that users will pay for and not really essential.
Parcel delivery is quite profitable the delivery is included in the price.
Letters have to a large extent been replaced by electronic communications which safe vastly cheaper and quicker. And mostly private.
It's a valuable service that users will pay for and not really essential.
Parcel delivery is quite profitable the delivery is included in the price.
Letters have to a large extent been replaced by electronic communications which safe vastly cheaper and quicker. And mostly private.