Key.Aero Network
Register Free

Page 4 of 29 FirstFirst 1234567814 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 120 of 860

Thread: GE2017 take 2

  1. #91
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    9,396
    I was aware of the global success of ARM, Cambridge being fairly local to me, and also their recent (rather distressing) sale to the Japanese SoftBank Group.
    WA$.

  2. #92
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Cambridge, Duxfordshire
    Posts
    3,079
    Don't you mean 'our glorious wealth-creating betters', CD?

  3. #93
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    9,396
    You really have lost me now?
    WA$.

  4. #94
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    9,396
    It takes a lot to create wealth rather than just move it in a particular direction - even if that means paying a worker - and claim to have created it. It has come from somewhere else...
    Yes, but why do I suspect your disdain is reserved mostly for those in the financial services sector?

    'Financial advisors' don't only help people with 'tax avoidance'; I used one to get the mortgage on my current house. Was I wrong to? Did I somehow 'cheat' somebody out of something? I probably pay less interest because I used a financial advisor or is that acceptable because I only 'cheated' another financial entity out of some of their 'free lunch'?

    Nobody who works in retail 'makes' anything, except money, nor does anybody who works in warehousing, nor shipping, nor marketing and not advertising either. That's a pretty large section of the working population who you've labelled as 'parasitic' and consigned to the 'B-Ark'!
    WA$.

  5. #95
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Cambridge, Duxfordshire
    Posts
    3,079
    It's pretty simple. You said the sale to SoftBank was distressing. So.. why? The same stuff is done by ARM whether it is owned by its own UK management or an acquisitional Japanese conglomerate. Why do they buy it? Because if they put 'x' in, they will get 'y' out. And yet a big employer like SoftBank is surely what a right-thinking prole would call a 'wealth creator'.. right?

    So don't you see the doublethink involved in thinking they are both a wealth creator and 'distressing'?

    And can you not see that, despite being expressed in 150 year-old language, all SoftBank are doing is buying the means of production?

  6. #96
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    9,396
    Distressing only because ARM has passed out of British ownership, and I believe, perhaps erroneously, that a British owner will be more likely to keep highly-skilled jobs in Britain.
    WA$.

  7. #97
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Cambridge, Duxfordshire
    Posts
    3,079
    I don't have distain, and you know that the 'A' ark all died from a disease spread by shared telephones, as they arrogantly put telephone sanitisers on the 'B' ark. No, services are what they are. I am just introducing a bit of cold logic about where wealth (not clean telephones) comes from. Not goes to, comes from. It doesn't make me an anything-ist. But it does make me despise the conservatives for peddling fallacies as fact to justify ideological actions that affect my family's future. It is not an ancient grudge or a class chip. It is not the rashness of youth or a spirit of causeless rebellion. It is seeing the arrogantly and cynically peddled nonsense for what it is.

  8. #98
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    9,396
    But it does make me despise the Conservatives for peddling fallacies as fact to justify ideological actions that affect my family's future...
    What fallacies do the Conservatives peddle exactly, that the other parties (in power) have not?
    WA$.

  9. #99
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    6,065
    This is supposed to be about the next General Election, not the paranoid meanderings of some thwarted Trotskyite trying desperately to convert us all to some imaginary golden era of Socialism !

    CD batten down the hatches, the storm will pass.

  10. #100
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Cambridge, Duxfordshire
    Posts
    3,079
    John, I have suffered from many things, but paranoia ain't one of them. It's a curious phenomenon how often those who don't take their philosophies from the letters page of the Telegraph are called 'Paranoid' by those who do. It's almost like it's all you have.

    I also wasn't aware I'd been 'thwarted' (I'm doing ok), I probably know less than you about Trotsky never mind being an 'ist'.. and you do realise you are screaming 'don't listen to him' from the sidelines, don't you, rather than joining with a coherent argument?
    Last edited by Beermat; 15th May 2017 at 11:11.

  11. #101
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Cambridge, Duxfordshire
    Posts
    3,079
    CD - maybe no difference in recent years. Any analysis of what is fiction is shouted down with 'Trotskyist' and 'Back to the seventies'.

    We are in the middle of something at the moment - a sort of 'emperors new clothes' hysteria about 'wealth creation' and 'economic activity' - so many of us want it to be true that if we move money around fast enough, privatise enough services and open enough hairdressers the money pot magically gets bigger that we won't hear of anything else.

    Similarly, it is easy for a Government to claim that the reason we don't feel as well off as we should be after all this 'wealth creation' is because a treasury balance sheet shows less. Or because filthy foreigners have stolen it. Anything other than saying we haven't actually created all that much wealth. Sounds Trotskyist when you point out why, apparently.

    Look, I am not trying to convert anyone to socialism - I am not even a socialist myself - and I know I have gone on too much. Just put down my own personal thoughts in the context of the forthcoming election. 'Wind' and 'p***ing' would come to mind if attempting to convert!
    Last edited by Beermat; 15th May 2017 at 12:09.

  12. #102
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Posts
    9,879
    John, this is absolutely the point when it comes tot he election. Trying to work out who stands for what. It isn't particularly easy.

    BM - I agree with your second para above - there does need to be some understanding of where the money comes from. The problem is that those who need a social agenda the most just trust the politician they support to know where the money is 'hidden', and they put their faith in some of that money finding its way to them. We see this every time - people being energised by arguably unrealistic policies, and then, when it is all over, the death of hope. As I said elsewhere, this is the cycle that needs to be broken.

  13. #103
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Henlow, England
    Posts
    635
    BM rest assured you haven't gone on too much, as always you've presented your thoughts and views and in a well written manner and joined the debate constructively. The readers can agree or form their own views.

    As you say, to shout Trotsky, leftie, Project Fear etc etc from the side lines without actually adding to the discussion in mature way says it all.

  14. #104
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    6,065
    If I could find some 'meat' in the discussion that I could readily understand and that wasn't so interwoven with political slant, then I might be happy to add my tuppence worth.

    I think that it must be something to do with me !

  15. #105
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    6,065
    Bruce,

    I've never had much of a problem in sorting out the political wheat from the political chaff - at election time or, otherwise.

  16. #106
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    9,396
    One man's wheat is another man's poison!
    WA$.

  17. #107
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Black Six
    Posts
    20,165
    Tax. Borrow. Spend. Repeat.
    Tax. Borrow. Spend. Repeat.
    Tax. Borrow. Spend. Repeat.
    Tax. Borrow. Spend. Repeat.
    Tax. Borrow. Spend. Repeat.
    Tax. Borrow. Spend. Repeat.
    Tax. Borrow. Spend. Repeat.
    Tax. Borrow. Spend. Repeat.
    Tax. Borrow. Spend. Repeat.
    Tax. Borrow. Spend. Repeat.
    Tax. Borrow. Spend. Repeat.
    Tax. Borrow. Spend. Repeat.
    Tax. Borrow. Spend. Repeat.
    Tax. Borrow. Spend. Repeat.
    Tax. Borrow. Spend. Repeat.
    Tax. Borrow. Spend. Repeat.
    Tax. Borrow. Spend. Repeat.
    Tax. Borrow. Spend. Repeat.
    Tax. Borrow. Spend. Repeat.
    Tax. Borrow. Spend. Repeat.
    Tax. Borrow. Spend. Repeat.
    Tax. Borrow. Spend. Repeat.
    Tax. Borrow. Spend. Repeat.
    Tax. Borrow. Spend. Repeat.
    Tax. Borrow. Spend. Repeat.
    Tax. Borrow. Spend. Repeat.
    Tax. Borrow. Spend. Repeat.
    Tax. Borrow. Spend. Repeat.
    Tax. Borrow. Spend. Repeat.
    Tax. Borrow. Spend. Repeat.
    Tax. Borrow. Spend. Repeat.
    Tax. Borrow. Spend. Repeat.
    Tax. Borrow. Spend. Repeat.
    Tax. Borrow. Spend. Repeat.
    Tax. Borrow. Spend. Repeat.
    Tax. Borrow. Spend. Repeat.
    Tax. Borrow. Spend. Repeat.
    Tax. Borrow. Spend. Repeat.
    Tax. Borrow. Spend. Repeat.
    Tax. Borrow. Spend. Repeat.
    Tax. Borrow. Spend. Repeat.
    Tax. Borrow. Spend. Repeat.
    Tax. Borrow. Spend. Repeat.
    Tax. Borrow. Spend. Repeat.
    Tax. Borrow. Spend. Repeat.
    Tax. Borrow. Spend. Repeat.
    Tax. Borrow. Spend. Repeat.
    Tax. Borrow. Spend. Repeat.
    Tax. Borrow. Spend. Repeat.
    Tax. Borrow. Spend. Repeat.
    Tax. Borrow. Spend. Repeat.
    Tax. Borrow. Spend. Repeat.
    Tax. Borrow. Spend. Repeat.
    Tax. Borrow. Spend. Repeat.
    Tax. Borrow. Spend. Repeat.
    Tax. Borrow. Spend. Repeat.
    Tax. Borrow. Spend. Repeat.
    Tax. Borrow. Spend. Repeat.
    Tax. Borrow. Spend. Repeat.
    Tax. Borrow. Spend. Repeat.
    Tax. Borrow. Spend. Repeat.
    Tax. Borrow. Spend. Repeat.
    Tax. Borrow. Spend. Repeat.
    Tax. Borrow. Spend. Repeat.
    Tax. Borrow. Spend. Repeat.
    Tax. Borrow. Spend. Repeat.
    Tax. Borrow. Spend. Repeat.
    Tax. Borrow. Spend. Repeat.
    Tax. Borrow. Spend. Repeat.
    Tax. Borrow. Spend. Repeat.
    Tax. Borrow. Spend. Repeat.
    Tax. Borrow. Spend. Repeat.
    Tax. Borrow. Spend. Repeat.
    Tax. Borrow. Spend. Repeat.
    Tax. Borrow. Spend. Repeat.
    Tax. Borrow. Spend. Repeat.
    Tax. Borrow. Spend. Repeat.
    Tax. Borrow. Spend. Repeat.
    Tax. Borrow. Spend. Repeat.
    Tax. Borrow. Spend. Repeat.
    Tax. Borrow. Spend. Repeat.
    Tax. Borrow. Spend. Repeat.
    Tax. Borrow. Spend. Repeat.
    Tax. Borrow. Spend. Repeat.
    Tax. Borrow. Spend. Repeat.
    Tax. Borrow. Spend. Repeat.
    Tax. Borrow. Spend. Repeat.
    Tax. Borrow. Spend. Repeat.
    Tax. Borrow. Spend. Repeat.
    Tax. Borrow. Spend. Repeat.
    Tax. Borrow. Spend. Repeat.
    Tax. Borrow. Spend. Repeat.
    Tax. Borrow. Spend. Repeat.
    Tax. Borrow. Spend. Repeat.
    Tax. Borrow. Spend. Repeat.
    Tax. Borrow. Spend. Repeat.
    Tax. Borrow. Spend. Repeat.
    Tax. Borrow. Spend. Repeat.
    Tax. Borrow. Spend. Repeat.
    "What you must remember" Flip said "is that nine-tenths of Cattermole's charm lies beneath the surface." Many agreed.

  18. #108
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Posts
    9,879
    Or, if you want the full version, its here:

    http://www.labour.org.uk/page/-/Imag...sto%202017.pdf

  19. #109
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Black Six
    Posts
    20,165
    What's angering me is his slogan

    "For the many, not The Few"

    I know there aren't huge numbers of them left, but I still think we should look after our Battle of Britain veterans.

    Moggy
    "What you must remember" Flip said "is that nine-tenths of Cattermole's charm lies beneath the surface." Many agreed.

  20. #110
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    6,065
    To use a military comparison in a political setting: JC & Co. are still fighting wars dating from previous centuries.

  21. #111
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Cambridge, Duxfordshire
    Posts
    3,079
    S'right. We shall never surrender

  22. #112
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Cambridge, Duxfordshire
    Posts
    3,079
    ..actually, in his opposition to nuclear proliferation JC is somewhat against fighting the last century's wars.

    So.. anybody pick up on the 'wealth creation' bit? And can anyone point to anything in what it actually says that is the 'terrifying prospect' the Telegraph was referring to?
    Last edited by Beermat; 16th May 2017 at 16:19.

  23. #113
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Posts
    9,879
    Havent read it fully yet.

    For me, there is one good, 'big idea', which is the National Education Service. Details are a bit scanty, but in principle, I like this one. Overall however, it 'feels' like a manifesto from a party that know they aren't going to win, but are advancing a quite different agenda to the other party, to see if anything resonates.

    I will read it in full later on.

  24. #114
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    9,396
    So.. anybody pick up on the 'wealth creation' bit?
    Which bit exactly?

    There was an awful lot about 'development funds' and 'infrastructure projects', even to the point of indicating that Labour would take advantage of 'historically low interest rates', but this seemed to be contradicted by an assurance to both eliminate the deficit and lower national debt by the end of the next parliament...

    ...and, of course, end all that nasty Conservative austerity!

    But, overall, this was my favourite part:

    We will set up a national review of local pubs to examine the causes for their large-scale demise, as well as establishing a joint taskforce that will consider future sustainability.
    Well, just so long as they've got their priorities in order!
    WA$.

  25. #115
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Cambridge, Duxfordshire
    Posts
    3,079
    Early in the document - just slipped in there. Unusually recognising that workers are required to create wealth, rather than just self-styled wealth creators. Very seventies. Lock 'em up.

    I am all for keeping my local pub - aren't you?

    Seriously, it is dodgy ground to talk of big society, supporting middle England, building communities and supporting local enterprise and employment while presiding over the decimation of English pubs.

    Not higher priority than anything else, just another reasonable initiative.
    Last edited by Beermat; 17th May 2017 at 08:05.

  26. #116
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    9,396
    [Labour's] manifesto - published on Tuesday - did not set out how plans to nationalise the National Grid and the water industry would be funded.

    But the party, which has also pledged to nationalise the railways and Royal Mail, said it could be done at no net expense to the public purse and that consumers would see their bills come down by as much as £220 a year.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-39944331

    It is those sorts of statements of economic 'alchemy' that really need to be explained in a manifesto surely?
    WA$.

  27. #117
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Posts
    9,879
    There is much there that cannot be easily explained. Whilst there are some good, headline grabbing policies in there, the economic nous seems to be missing. Its easy to claim that your policies are fully funded when you pick the figures out of the air. So when reducing the corporation tax rate from 26% to 20% has been demonstrated to raise the tax take, its a bit of a stretch to assume that by reversing that, it will also raise it.

    Similarly, if you assume that those figures do add up, there is no provision within the manifesto for eliminating the structural deficit over and above a statement of intent to do so over five years. If the tax receipts don't match the estimates, then the deficit will increase, assuming all of the manifesto commitments are legislated to begin within the first year or so.

    I am especially mistrustful of the nationalisation policies - anything that would simply be reversed by a change in government is a wasted commitment, and plays the electorate for fools.

    So, all in all - some good, some bad. For me, they needed to concentrate more on supporting the worst off, and less on ideology. Lets see what the Liberals bring us today.

  28. #118
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Cambridge, Duxfordshire
    Posts
    3,079
    I would imagine 'no net expense' - though the phrasing is the BBC's, refers to the public gaining an asset to the value of the cost of the shares.

    I agree that's a bit of a stretch of language as when you buy something of equal or greater future value to the current cost it isn't normally referred to as incurring 'no net expense'. Then again, that is the principle behind both the property market and the stock market.

    You know, Bruce, if the next tory government were to reverse things and sell off our shares again, as long as they gained value in the intervening period and are not undersold this time then in fact we will have gained something.

    I would be jnterested to see the original claim, not the BBC version.
    Last edited by Beermat; 17th May 2017 at 09:04.

  29. #119
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    8,134
    I do wonder if the paper version of the Labour manifesto came with a hole punched up in the top left hand corner so I can hang it on the nail in the toilet.

    It just reads as desperation, if we are having to cut XYZ to get the borrowing under control, how can spending XYZ squared do anything but do the opposite. Increasing the Tax burden on the higher paid or companies may well be the nail in the coffin that will simply drive those already pondering over Brexit abroad where their costs are lower.

    As for Nationalisation that is a fools errand, just look at the likes of the MOD to see how much of a cash drain, poorly planned expenditures and crippling foul ups, that can be be produced by a Government run "company" You would be far better legislating to control any concerns than taking on the lot...
    Last edited by TonyT; 17th May 2017 at 09:34.

  30. #120
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Posts
    9,879
    Oh dear, looking for BBC Bias? Careful with that. Its a common cry, from both sides of the argument.

    But, going back to the BBC for a minute, and bear with me on this; I am reminded of the show 'Bargain Hunt', where they buy 'antiques' at retail price, then attempt to sell them at auction, essentially at cost price. Many wonder why they don't make any money. The nationalisation thing is a direct corollary - if Labour's fortunes begin to change, I will guarantee that share prices in all of the companies they look to nationalise will rise. If they get into power, they will rise a lot. This then makes the value of the asset artificially high when the government comes to buy it. So 10, or 15 years down the line, and adjusting for inflation, would it be sold at a profit or at a loss? Of course, it depends if there has been any value added to the business in that time, but nationalised companies tend to be under invested in, rather than the other way around.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

- Part of the    Network -

KEY AERO AVIATION NEWS

MAGAZINES

AVIATION FORUM

SHOP

 

WEBSITES