Nope, but I'll give you 100 for making me laugh.

yay

GDP = C + G + I + (X-M)

G = goverment spending.

I = investment.

By G increasing spending to help out banks with I. GDP rises due to the multiplier effect.

In simple terms, I'm not spending 15 minutes writing a proper explanation. ^ but there's the economics that proves what they did is what they should have done, certainly over the alternatives.

And about footballers, you're not understanding they're earning a fraction of what they could potentially be earning. Sigh.

In context of funding, best and most are the same.

While footballers are earning a fraction of what they could, I really don't think they should personally, but whatever, one of the reasons they got so much is because people are willing to pay so much to watch it, and the amount people watch it (sponsorship).

Also, didn't Thatcher seriously screw us for a bit? I don't really know that much, but I've heard snippets. I've also heard she's the reason we don't have a fibre-optic network in Britain (apparently we were offered the chance in the 80s, to take us ahead of the rest of the world, and she refused, leaving us with possibly the worst telecommunications infrastructure of any first world country).

i believe dad just said thatcher did alot of good with riding out recession etc. But she imposed alot of rules and cracked down on pay increases and such but i didn;t catch it all.....

Thatcher did well in dealing with trade unions.

I do agree with your point met, and people who say sports stars do alot of good work is true, but obviously not as much as they should do on that ammount of money, i dont have a problem with their salarie just because;
a. im a sports fan
b. the whole sporting industry providess lots of jobs and entertainment for a lot of people, and if there wasnt so many fans seeking the 'entertainment' they think football provides, the players wouldnt be paid that much and the whole monopoly wouldnt work, however i do agree with your point that the salary is crazy

ill answer your point about why i tihnk they should get paid more than anyone else when i get home im going out, [that doesnt neccesarily mean i do think they should ]

xx

I suppose there are jobs created for the stadium groundsmen and people who serve drink and food there etc etc so it helps that way i suppose......

Thatcher attempted to introduce the poll tax, and that along with a lot of backstabbing, was her downfall.

Then the Conservatives simply got worse and worse and then Labour came to power. Then made the same mistakes.

Whilst Thatcher still had her wits about her she both brought the country out of recession and presided over the economic boom of the 80s.

I don't know anything about the refusal of fibre-optic cable or anything.



Eh? Those jobs are there anyway what's that got to do with the salaries of sports stars? O-o

if sports stars didn't get paid as much their would be a lower quality of football in general and thus less people to watch the games....

smaller stadiums required along with less job oppertunities.

and to add on the above point, football combats or uprising problem of obesity or wtvr

but anyway,

i dont think the players should be paid as much as this....

http://top--10.blogspot.com/2008/05/top ... rs-in.html

its obviously ridiculous, iff only the whole footballing buisness's [or hoever u spell it] that goes around could get divided by 10, and then cost would be less than this ......

'According to the Sun, top seats at the Bernabeu for the last 16 encounter on Feb 25 will cost a whopping £785'.... this isnt even the quarter final, WTF

But maybe the footballers arnt all selfish and would accept less iff there wasnt such alot of money going into football?? I DUNNO :s?

x