Jump to content
Manx Forums, Live Chat, Blogs & Classifieds for the Isle of Man


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2,310 Excellent

About pongo

  • Rank
    the centre cannot hold

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. pongo

    Manx Radio

    No. The BBC services are delivered free to air via SES. Sky could take them off their EPG - but customers could still manually add the BBC services or just use a non Sky box. Provided a customer is within the footprint of the satellite they can receive the BBC.
  2. pongo

    Manx Radio

    That tax helps pay for the infrastructure which delivers non BBC services. And helps to pay for the investment and training which benefits the UK's media businesses in general. The independent production houses which benefit from BBC money also make non BBC output. Also - that bandwidth which currently delivers TV and radio is currently made available at way under market price. If the whole lot were switched of and privatised the BBC brand would not be the one which went out of business. The BBC is actually a solid brand. Can you imagine many of the ITV companies surviving? Or crappy local radio?
  3. pongo

    Manx Radio

    Here's an idea. Shut down Manx Radio and spend the money on improving BBC Radio 3 coverage. It's one of the few remaining old fashioned (broadcast) radio stations which is actually intelligent. Also shut down 3FM and Energy because they're really annoying in shops and offices. BBC Radios 1, 2 & 6 can go too as far as I'm concerned. And BBC 1 TV. Ahead of abolishing all of them and just providing links to the content.
  4. pongo

    We are not alone.

    I'm actually from the future.
  5. So what in this context? The central idea that money can now have a central ledger is unaffected by fads like Bitcoin. Bitcoin could go away completely but the fact would remain that money is a technology ripe for technological development. It's only ever been an instrument. You're wrong to see this as having much to do with wealth. Money is a terrible way of storing or building wealth (unless you are a currency trader or a money changer, obviously)
  6. Not at all. That's a very shrill reaction to what I am saying. It's just that money should be updated to include metadata about how it has been used throughout its lifecycle - from being created via lending to being destroyed via taxation. In many ways, a logical extension of bank notes being numbered. Money is not an end in itself. It's largely an instrument of exchange - less and less a store of value (its not an effective store of value). Technology has the potential to make it a more useful instrument. Cancelling money with a dubious transaction history (or putting it on hold at least) would be no different conceptually from cancelling numbered bank notes which are known to have been stolen. It makes sense for governments and Central Banks to have better data and instrumentation with respect to optimising money supply.
  7. Private companies already do most of that. The state, by contrast, is us - all of us, working in concert. Money isn't an end in itself - it certainly shouldn't be. Only a way of enabling transactions. Controlling the money supply is a large part of how the economy is shaped - which is one of the main functions of a modern government.
  8. pongo

    Sir Jeremy Heywood...

    Equally though - it always seems a silly affectation that British stories end up in the International section. I'm sure that people in Liverpool don't think of London as 'international'. In the same way as nobody sensible here thinks of Britain as abroad. Perhaps there should be a different section for hyper local stories.
  9. And think how useful it would be to the society if specific money could be blacklisted / invalidated / withdrawn - if necessary.
  10. What don't you like about him? Seems like a good guy to me. Nice, bright and often very funny and understated. Tried his best to point out that voting for Brexit would be economically and politically stupid. What else could he do? He was right. Britain had the best of both worlds - part of the Single Market but outside of the Euro. Should have just carried on being Eurosceptic and waiting to see what would happen. Instead of creating all of this stupid uncertainty.
  11. Making money and therefore transactions trackable via a ledger (like Bitcoin for example) is subtly different from making people's private affairs public. And it's actually potentially much more useful. Think of it as financial metadata. The lifecycle and history of every pound issued could be tracked without that being any sort of privacy concern. It's not just about the proceeds of crime or about trying to clamp down on shadow economies. More importantly it would enable governments and Central Banks to build much better models. A currency belongs to the country which issues it. Therefore to the electorate. We just get to use it.
  12. It's weird you not liking Cameron. He seems like a good guy to me. Bright, nice, team player etc. Genuinely cared. Him and Osborne were excellent. Got the economy back on track - close to full employment etc. They seem like good examples of the One Nation ethos which has been at the heart of Conservative politics more or less since Churchill quit the Liberal Party. What don't you like about him?
  13. If that's the "democratic will of the people" then presumably you and the rest of Camp Brexit will support it. Demand support for it even. I don't have to because I take a more nuanced view of democracy.
  14. I'm not avoiding any question. Corbyn isn't going to introduce the tax measures you are suggesting. But, if he did, then it would be the democratic "will of the people". And you would have no business, as a keen Brexiteer, defying the democratic "will of the people" and trying to dodge your taxes.
  15. If Corbyn is elected then it will be "the will of the people". Something your hard Brexit allies are constantly banging on about. Whatever policies introduced will be because of the "will of the people". Would you go against the "will of the people" ?