This week's brain-teaser:
Which statement is more irritating:
A. We should have joined the Euro in 2000 while sterling was 'strong'.
B. We should now join the Euro because sterling is 'weak'.
Vote in the side-bar or here.
Notwithstanding that each statement is based on flawed economics and includes the giveaway word 'should' (which usually means that the speaker is confusing his personal opinion with logic), Euro-philes trot out these statements glibly and almost interchangeably, without noticing that actually the two 'arguments' cancel each other out, to the extent that either is a valid argument for anything, of course.
The tricky bit is deciding which statement is more irritating.
Hiring From The 'Mail' Pool, Standard?
22 minutes ago
5 comments:
Sorry, can't decide between two such obvious banalities. Best I can do is blow a raspberry.
What about, "We should never join the Euro?"
Or, "bugger the euro but I wish I'd bought 50000 or so of them to put on deposit about 6 months ago"?
Would have more than paid for this year's bike tour of mountainous bits of Yurp, anyway. Every cloud, as they say.
It has to be the 2nd one becase that's the one wwe hear most.
FT, I did buy some Euros at 59p a few years ago and sold them at 67p, feeling very please with myself! It didn't make much because of the ower interst rate ut slightly more than leaving it in a UK account.
TGS: "It has to be the 2nd one becase .."
.. that is the one gaining currency right now.
Post a Comment