Lol. Genius post.

Come on Yasin, this bit is nonsense - "It seems the only people sticking by are those who would stay regardless for want of a career with UKIP or those who agree with their new BNP policy love affair."

The reason libertarians like me are staying is because we believe the party is bigger than one person, even the leader, and that the membership is still largely anti-statist and broadly does not have hang-ups on the Islam issue.

It is not a requirement to agree with all the policies of a party, as the existence of Hannan and Carswell on the eurosceptic libertarian wing, Ken Clarke on the liberal europhile wing, and Edward Leigh on the social conservative Christian wing, in the Conservative party demonstrate.

UKIP has lost a few good people of late over various issues, true. However a lot of good people remain. And while the Conservative party continues to equivocate on the EU, and pursues a statist agenda, and while LPUK continues to pursue a purist libertarian agenda incapable of gaining sufficient electoral support to even begin to bring about libertarian changes, I and others will stick with UKIP as the best vehicle for doing so.

Greg, economics is essentially logic in academic form. Yes, economies are complex and so following throught e consequeces of various actions are hard, and ultimately it is mroe of an art than a science. I certainly don't profess to understand economics wholly and fully, but I do have a decent grasp of key concepts.
The problem we are in globally is fundamentally about credit being too cheap for too long. Why? Well I would say because we were getting the 'one-off' and sudden benefit of China - i.e. globalisation. This freed up £s and $s to be spent on other things. Inflation in consuer goods was kept low by offshoring, thus keeping central bank rates low and reducing the cost of debt. Money supply growth shot through the roof and decoupled from nominal GDP. There was too much money chasing too few goods, and ultimately it showe ditself in asset prices rather than consumer prices which were being kept artificially low.

The Tobin tax would reduce volatility in markets which is a good thing, but it also reduces liquidity which is a abd thing. It is a trade-off. That is all economics is. One has to make a choice about whether the trade off is worth it. I don't think so. A tobin tax would effect market interest rates, and thus business expansion, etc. To what extent I cannot say, but there is empirical evidence for it.

As for Caroline Lucas not understanding economics I stand by my statement. She has been saying we should have a "green new deal" and switch to green energy because it "will create 1m green-collar jobs". What she doesn't also relaise is taxing the private sector to pay for these jobs will cost jobs elsewhere. And also that jobs are a cost of delivering a service, and habing job intensive energy is not great. Having energy prioduced with zero jobs would be great - then we could all have free energy, and people could be employed elsewhere in the economy, business would have lower operatings costs, wages and investment returns would be higher, etc, etc.

Bryan, just use this link and email it to your friends - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SyNnlyIVjhU

Can you email me the comment and I will post it on your behalf.

Bryan, not sure i understand what you are saying. I cant find your 'lost' comment anywhere. I dont censor the site other than spam or libelous stuff.

yep

I haven't seen any other comments from you. Not sure why its not working, but I haven't deleted it.

On which post? It's possible i accidentally deleted a handful by accident the other day but i'm not entirely sure.

Well Pfizer developed it i gather, so it is probably part of their 'social responsibility' which they no doubt pledged to avoid costly legislation?!