Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!

Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
Show ALL Forums  > UK forums  > Dull economics?      Home login  
Joined: 11/2/2011
Msg: 1
view profile
Dull economics?Page 2 of 2    (1, 2)
Another hugely long dull post that most people aren't interested in I fear...........

There's much talk of a triple dip recession, the figures will be out tomorrow and the politicians will make much cpital out of them either way.

For me we have been in continuous recession since Autumn 2009 . Here in Tewkesbury the floods of 2007 actually increased economic activity locally a bit in 2008.

I am worried that we may never get out of this financial mess, that what is going down in Greece could easily happen here and worse still, I am not at all sure that Greece's current status nor ours is sustainable.

The Bank of England is trying to bribe banks to lend to small/medium enterprises yet as someone said on another thread here there is little demand.

I know that succesful large businesses are wary of investing money, that's the right and proper decision for the directors to make . The reality of course is that the cumulative effect of lots of companies doing the same thing is hugely damaging.

We need to start thinking differently. There is a new world order headed by China. China allows entrepreneurs to make money but only as long as it fits with the global Chinese aims.

Cut to the chase..........................heavily edited....................

Does it matter?By Lewis Goodall, Economics analyst, BBC News

1) Since 2007, the UK economy has been in recession twice, during 2008-09 and 2010-11.
2)In the last quarter of 2012, the UK economy shrank again. All eyes are therefore on the first quarter of 2013. If the Office for National Statistics says the economy shrank again between January and March, the UK will have entered a so-called triple-dip recession.
3)Rather than a triple dip, it would be more accurate to talk about a great recession from which the economy has never recovered”
4)In fact, if the UK economy was a roller coaster, it would the first dip that would attract the punters, everything else would seem rather tame. The truly catastrophic economic period was the first recession, from the second quarter of 2008 to early 2009. In this period the UK economy shrank for five consecutive quarters, the longest period since records began in 1955.Or, to put it another way, the economy shrank by 6.4%. This was longer and deeper than almost any of the UK's competitor economies and worse than any period in modern British economic history.
5)Since then the economy has spluttered, experiencing neither much growth nor that much shrinkage.
6)By contrast with the 6.4% contraction in 2008-09, the recession of 2011-12 saw contraction of a little over 1%
7) When the economy shrank again in the last quarter of 2012, it was by 0.3% and if there is a further contraction on Thursday then that will, in all likelihood, by relatively small.
8)Indeed, any triple dip might even be erased by the ONS revising its figures when more data comes in over the coming months. The fact that a 0.1% contraction could be revised upwards to no change, thus eliminating the dip entirely, says much about its real size or impact in economic terms.

So, rather than a tripleall of the statistics quo dip, it would be more accurate to talk about a great recession from which the economy has never recovered. Indeed, the economy is still around 3% smaller as a result.
Since the end of 2009 then, the UK has essentially been bumping along the bottom.
Little recovery anywhere

In unemployment, we are living with the legacy of that first great recession of 2008-09. Unemployment climbed rapidly in that period, with little substantial change since.

Indeed, firms are hoarding capital instead of investing, by as much as £70bn a month. Consumer confidence too is nowhere near its pre-2008 level.

Back to me. Most of us I think knew and feel the statistics quoted above.

The really scary bit is the individual company decisions adding up to 70 billion a month of hoarding.

That is the difference between us and China.

we need a new way of joined up thinking to benefit us all - answers on a postcard to......
 Jo van
Joined: 5/23/2009
Msg: 2
Dull economics?
Posted: 4/27/2013 7:30:20 AM
Politicians are just 'tinkering around the edges', they are ignoring the 'elephant in the room', (Mainly because of the elephant's influence).
There's still plenty of money about, it's just that as time progresses, fewer and fewer people, have now got most of it.
It's wealth inequality which has spiraled out of control.

"Income inequality in OECD countries is at its highest level for the past half century. The average income of the richest 10% of the population is about nine times that of the poorest 10% across the OECD, up from seven times 25 years ago."[4]
In the United States inequality has increased further from already high levels.[4][5]
"Other traditionally more egalitarian countries, such as Germany, Denmark and Sweden, have seen the gap between rich and poor expand from 5 to 1 in the 1980s, to 6 to 1 today."[4]

A study by the World Institute for Development Economics Research at United Nations University reports that the richest 1% of adults alone owned 40% of global assets in the year 2000. The three richest people possess more financial assets than the lowest 48 nations combined.[6] The combined wealth of the "10 million dollar millionaires" grew to nearly $41 trillion in 2008.[7] In 2001, 46.4% of people in sub-Saharan Africa were living in extreme poverty.[8] Nearly half of all Indian children are undernourished, however, even among the wealthiest fifth one third of children are malnourished.[9][10]
Interesting article, I'd recommend a read.

In this country, we are all "carrying" a privileged few, who's full-time "job", is trying to spend their vast fortunes.
The families of the landed gentry have been taking their "taxes" by owning the land on which your food is grown, for centuries.
They also own the towns and cities, so the end result is the highest land prices anywhere, the highest rents anywhere, -and the smallest homes.

It's not the £72/week people, but the £7 million/week people, -who also aren't working, or 'contributing' in any way, that we should be questioning.
Until people stop seeing abject greed and wealth as "admirable" qualities, nothing will change.

Maybe the world will have to degrade even further, -maybe to the point where it's simply no longer possible to "buy" a good life, anywhere on the planet, maybe then, the very-wealthy will voluntarily take less.

Of course, en-route to that point, many people, perhaps ultimately driven by a combination of hunger and anger, might decide not to wait for their belated realisation.

Also see: "All in this together"
Joined: 11/2/2011
Msg: 3
view profile
Dull economics?
Posted: 4/27/2013 11:39:22 AM
The wealth may be in the hands of the few, nowhere near what you think though.

it's worrying that you should think that confiscating their assets is somehow going to solve the problem.
 Jo van
Joined: 5/23/2009
Msg: 4
Dull economics?
Posted: 4/28/2013 4:23:29 AM

tis pity we disagree how it got like this or what to do. :) or perhaps :(

"Status Quo bias" is how it got to this.
50% of the land in this country has been in the same families for over 500 years, much of it, for close to 1,000 years.
We all "carry" all of those people, and maintain their lifestyles, and very expensive tastes.....

The wealth may be in the hands of the few, nowhere near what you think though.

The Duke of Westminster alone, owns about £6Billon worth of property in Central London alone, everyone with offices there, or who lives there, pays him rent. We all pay for that, in the prices of everything we buy, whether that's food, or goods, or services.
There are literally thousands more, like him.
Just 'google' "stately homes", or "who owns Britain's land". I think people would be surprised if they knew the true extent of the feudal system, and it's cost, to those who do the work.
It's a 'hidden tax' on everything you do, including just being born, if you don't happen to have been born into the "aristocracy".

it's worrying that you should think that confiscating their assets is somehow going to solve the problem.

It's not just a case of confiscating their assets.
Mr Cameraman, and Baronet Boy-George have decided to shine the light of public disapproval on those who don't work, or contribute anything to aid our exodus from our current economic plight.
I am simply extrapolating that.
The real question is: How much is enough...?
Joined: 11/2/2011
Msg: 5
view profile
Dull economics?
Posted: 4/28/2013 6:13:54 AM
JV - please sit down - I think I might be about to agree with you. Are you comfortable?

I've agreed with much of what you've said in other threads. I mentioned some time back that I brought up the subject of the Queen and Prince Charles owning around 300 square miles of the UK between them. Of about ten people in that room I only had one supporter. Everyone else thought the Queen had done a cracking job and earned what she's got.

I disagree completely with leaseholds which is how much of central London is owned. The idea that you buy a property only for it to revert to the original owner 99 years later is to my mind immoral. it should be banned. I doubt it would have any effect on us as individuals though as the rent would still be paid to someone. Maybe just a little more equitable.

If you google the rich list you will find Duke of Westminster is 4th richest in the country. But that's another of those transparent lies that seem to confuse tax authorities. His family trust is the fourth richest. He and his family only get the benefit from the trust. it's just a tax avoidance scheme to ensure no inheritance tax is paid down the generations. Seems to me if someone has to pay inheritance tax on a £300,000 house then it's only fair that someone with 20 billion should pay a bit too.

Another transparent lie is Mr Philip Green who claims his wife owns the business thus allowing him to spend most of his time in the UK running the business and dodging the tax. I've said that before too. Why is so difficult for the taxman to address that issue.

Remember the tale of the Emperor's new clothes. These nonsense remind me of that whereby the lawyers, judges and taxmen can't see the obvious.

Just send him a bill.

I sort of agree with your extrapolation but two wrongs don't make a right. The welfare bill consumes a third of the UK tax take so does need to be addressed.

It's not just Cameron who is shining the light on the non contributing Tony Blair did the same. How many years did labour need to be able to tackle some of these blindingly obvious tax dodges.

Jimmy Carr used a scheme whereby he gave all his earnings to an offhsore company and in return they leant him some non taxable money. Try asking your payroll office to work that one for you. It's obvious to any normal person it's a scam. I exclude lawyer and tax experts from "normal".

Income tax should be made really simple. I can't see why a very simple statement at the head of tax law couldn't be written. Something along the lines of "if you receive a benefit in return for work etc however, wherever and whenever it is paid. it is taxable. If you don't pay tax on it that is tax evasion".

So if you are saying all of these tax schemes, tax dodgers, welfare scroungers should be tackled then I agree. If you are saying it's just the very rich, then I don't.
 Jo van
Joined: 5/23/2009
Msg: 6
Dull economics?
Posted: 4/28/2013 10:09:41 AM
I know people 'hate' "cut'n'paste" posts, but there's no other way, except to answer your points one at a time. -Otherwise, it just becomes a series of long-winded rants, which don't really say anything....

I believe in sound money and a free market any backsliding from the goal of a free market
for goods and services and sound money ends up hurting the poor.

The "free market" sound-bite means, in reality, lots of people in the "food-chain" for commodities, or goods, or anything you buy.
In other words Thatcher's Britain, with the emphasis on the "service sector".
Lots of people "making money", by buying and selling, but very little actual manufacturing, or production.
That's what got us to where we are today, and the collapse of the banks, with the entire "financial services sector" bankrupt, and having to be bailed-out by the state, with public ("Socialist") money.
We make nothing, -other than a very small group of people, incredibly wealthy, for very little that could be described as "work".
- That's not "sound money", at all.
(This same small group of people fund the tory party, and in return, policy is decided in their best interests.)
Despite costing the taxpayers some £1.5TRILLION, so-far, and all of the "cuts" etc., none of those people are now any less wealthy, than they were, before the collapse.
Gambling is not "sound money".

I never confuse the state
with us the people. You do Jo. You cant wait to capture your fellow men and women with
handouts and warm words of community, inane class war or know your place.

I don't want to "capture" anything, except people's thoughts and imaginations.
I'm not an "anything-ist".
I just try to look at things logically, and rationally, and objectively.
Mainly, just without the "centuries of tradition".
"Us", [sic] the people, are the state. The state is whatever we want it to be.

I believe it's the moral right of the poor to undercut the rich. I don't think trade unions believe this.

I have absolutely no idea, what you mean by this.

The US sub-prime housing crisis was a $300 billion problem exacerbated by a $6 trillion derivative
flutter with our money. If you look at the underbelly of it you will see that the state and its interests
wanted to help the poor on to the rigged housing market. Good intentions you see. But as night followed
day working men and women's labour was deployed and destroyed in the process of socialism advancing,

I have no idea what kind of "socialists" you might imagine were behind the "sub-prime" scandal, and it's inception, or who exactly got rich, because of it.
If you truly believe that the interests of large corporations, and financial institutions. or 'brokers', or "fund-managers", are somehow for the "common good", or somehow the "advance of socialism", then I strongly suspect that you are already beyond any further help.
The only involvement of the "State", ("Socialists" or not!) was the further deregulation of the financial sector, which Maggie had begun, (at the behest of that same financial sector, and it's minions in the tory party, who were still bleating about "excessive regulation", right up until the very day of the collapse!!)

Maggie's "legacy" was the privitisation of any profits made by state-owned/run industries,
-but the 'nationalisation' of any privately-owned debts....
It's funny how tories don't seem to like to discuss that..

Joined: 11/2/2011
Msg: 7
view profile
Dull economics?
Posted: 4/28/2013 2:27:04 PM
Pandora, apologies if I sound like a smartass - perhaps I am. Most of what you say I agree with but being in the kitchen and appliance trade I have disagree on this point at least. Manufacturers like Miele have a demonstrated intent to work towards lifetime guarantees on their products. Many like Gorenje have 5 year parts and labour. Of course if you want and need the latest 100 inch TV with 3d that is not the manufacturer's fault - it was your choice.

There is no middle ground. Nice idea that we all look to Bhuddism to solve our problems but while we are doing that China will be buying up the rest of Africa it hasn't already and will be planning on undercutting your job to benefit their citizens.

Aloe. I believe in the idea of what we call capitalism but not unfettered. The stock market started and grew to aid the startup and investment in business. A great idea that idea went by the board maybe 150 years ago or more. Right now it is little more than a casino. We should ban any form of derivative trading, lending stocks and shares, put and place options etc.

The big bust we are having has it's origins with a great idea, or seemingly so at the time.

Clinton (President of the USA) noticing that black and latino people in the US had a much lower ownership of property than their white counterparts, decided to do something about it using the CRA Community Reinvestment Act. Who could fault his desires?

This from the LA times in 1999

<div class="quote">It's one of the hidden success stories of the Clinton era. In the great housing boom of the 1990s, black and Latino homeownership has surged to the highest level ever recorded. The number of African Americans owning their own home is now increasing nearly three times as fast as the number of whites; the number of Latino homeowners is growing nearly five times as fast as that of whites.

And that all looked fine in 1999.

In succeeding years in order for US banks to meet their regulatory targets and keep their licences in all they were pushed to reduce their home loan standards. Brokers, sales people and everyone involved were rewarded by the number of blacks and latinos they sold to and hang the fact the customers could not afford the repayments. Some customers were given mortgages with no visible sign of income. Houses were being mortgaged in towns such as Detroit where motown was closing down. And of course whilst all this easy money was about house prices went up. People who had no income were making paper fortunes until....................

These mortgages are known as sub-prime. Weasel words again. They were packaged up, given the three star rating by Credit rating agencies and flogged to unsuspecting banks around the world who should have known better but could only see and hear the bonuses dropping in to their bank accounts.

The original idea was good but as always, politicians don't think the whole thing through.

Your ideal of communism s never going to happen - each according to his needs? Whole new thread entirely.

Took me so long to write this you've responded again already. Communism - true, who would want the Chinese, Russian or Vietnamese version of communism. Name me one communist country where the people would given the chance rather have something else.
 Jo van
Joined: 5/23/2009
Msg: 8
Dull economics?
Posted: 4/28/2013 3:54:35 PM
I've read it all, and had no problems understanding any of it.
Some great posts IMO.
Especially Aloetune's (sp?) well-reasoned and thoughtful post, and Pandora's delightfully optimistic naivety .

Daver, the T-party inspired allegation that the "Fanny May" (?) and "Freddie Mac" schemes were the root cause of all of this, or that it was based on some form of "socialism", and that they're somehow "proof" that any Govt intervention in the "free market", will always lead to disaster, has to be seen in context, from a USA perspective, where they also think that about the NHS too.

The AAA ratings were given by the credit-ratings agencies, who competed with each other, for business, and also worked on commission.
-Just as the people selling the "sub-prime" mortgages did.
-The faster they could sell them, the more money they, and everyone else made.

The better the ratings the credit-ratings agencies gave to the newly-invented "CDO's", and "SIV's", the more Lehman Bros liked it, and so, the more business they would get from them.
They had every incentive to be very generous with their ratings.
And the faster they rated things, the faster the CDO's and SIV's poured in, to be rated.
This wasn't because of governments, trying to help people, this was because of pure GREED.

Ive no idea if I'm a "socialist" or not, I've never read any Marx, other than a few of Groucho's better quotes....
We are a social animal, we live in societies, we "socialise", and we "socialise" our children.
But the word "socialism" itself, is somehow a taboo.

Even Mr Cameraman talks about "Big Society", though most of us know that it's just a form of camouflage, or a distraction, from cuts to any form of "social spending", which their ideology prohibits.

I think there are too many stigmata (pl?) attached to words, and it shackles debate.
Consequently, (Billy) I think historical comparisons with earlier associations or interpretations, are about as valid as their view of "creation" was, about 100 years ago.

When capitalism expired, in the current era, it was the socialists who shouted "CLEAR", and applied the plates to it's chest.
You'd think they'd show a little gratitude. but no, they're straight back in, on the attack, it's all socialists this, and socialists that, and saying how bad socialism is...
I'm beginning to suspect that capitalists can't perhaps be trusted........
Joined: 11/2/2011
Msg: 9
view profile
Dull economics?
Posted: 4/28/2013 6:08:49 PM
Oldbill - adding a LOL to an insult does not lessen it. If you are unable to follow what are actually extremely simple low level economic discussions then that is your problem not mine.

JV - you need to look at some of the testimonies given by people actually involved in the US mortgage lending. So many senior managers were warning about the problem. Of course greed was involved in the same way that greed is involved when you buy a kitchen at BandQ - the sales person there is on a commission, doing their job. Should they be held responsible for the subsequent collapse in the housing market. Of course not. In the US the plot was set in the Bush era and pushed headlong raceneck speed by Clinton's team. It was US government policy. How can you shift that blame to the Torys who weren't even in power at that time.

We keep on going over old ground. The credit rating agencies were paid to give their gold stamp to certain products. They are as complicit as the people selling them. The people who bought the wraps on behalf of te institutions they worked for are complicit too. None of them seem to have done anything to justify the obscene monies they personally received. Worse still, to my mind anyway, is that the credit rating agencies despite having been shown to be a useless bunch of tossers are still listened to and have such sway as to be able to write up or down a whole countries credit worthiness.

Pandora, thanks for your comments about my tutsie. If you ever want to compare.........? I am probably not as well travelled as yourself. I have lived in Norway, briefly in Holland, a couple of stints in France and I had a house in Spain which was mainly surrounded by Germans. Have been to Thailand on holiday a couple of times. Possibly not enough experience to be really able to comment on different cultures but in the main I have found most people to have the same selfish/unselfish attitudes as myself.
 Jo van
Joined: 5/23/2009
Msg: 10
Dull economics?
Posted: 4/30/2013 12:51:53 PM

Hmmm, not sure how I feel about that remark, I ll perhaps delightfully and optimistically bat my eyelids whilst I think about it, but not in too naive a way!!!!!

Apologies Dora, for any perceived slight, it wasn't perhaps the best choice of word, but it was in response to your "can't we all find a middle way?" post, and sadly, history doesn't show a very good record regarding the very wealthy, voluntarily relinquishing their (excessive) wealth and assets, to feed the poor...

But I completely agree with what you're saying, and I think I completely 'get' what you mean, (apart from the religious references. )) and I think that your fiscal policies are sound, and most prudent, and far better than Billy's, which are frankly, just silly. IMO.

Daver, I'm not "blaming the tories" for the banking crisis, they didn't do it, but their "big bang", and their unwavering belief in "the free market" made it possible.
Also, let's not forget that all of the deregulations were lobbied hard for, by the banks, and financial sector. They literally spent billions on getting what they wanted. But their main "mouth-piece" was the tories, who had their own "Deregulation Task Force" dedicated to the task.

Blair carried it all on, I'm well-aware of that, but the tories were always calling for less regulation, not more.
It always pisses me off that fewer politicians ever seem to point this out, when the tories trot-out their standard line, about "how bad an economy the labour party left".

It was "bad", because they continued to write the regulations, as advised by those they were "regulating"!!. (The banks)- And the tories, the self-proclaimed "party of business".
Which is what the tories always insist is the best way, "for business"!!
They're still saying that, about the press, and we've already seen how that worked out!!!!

I was always enormously nervous about labour making "friends in the city", and friends in the press.
-Those are both tory heartlands.
That's where they get their donations from.
More than 50% of their money comes from people in finance and insurance and banking, and hedge-fund managers.
Check out the new treasurer's CV (Mr Spencer)
Formerly, it was "Lord Ashcroft", another crook. (Allegedly/IMO)

The tories believe that if you look after the interests of the 1%, the business owners, the other 99% will (eventually also) benefit.
Or at least, that's what they publicly saythey believe in!

But the wealth of the 1% has grown, almost exponentially, (in relative terms) during the last 30 years, it's still rising today.
And yet wages are frozen, and living standards, (for the vast majority) are falling.
Poverty is spreading, and there's "much worse, yet to come."
Unemployment has hovered around the 3 million mark, since Maggie first put it there.

It's "treat 'em mean, and keep 'em keen' politics.
Or as "Spinner so eloquently put it, in another thread, it ensures a compliant and "flexible workforce".

A few more years of tory rule will see the abolition of human rights, (already under-way) "-Used by terrorists"
The abolition of worker's rights. (already under-way, "red-tape discourages employment")
The abolition of building regulations. ((already under-way, "get the economy moving")
Finally, the abolition of the minimum wage.
-Well, it's a "global market", and if we're gonna compete with those people in Dhaka, we have to be prepared to work in the same conditions.
380 dead so far, and climbing...
All because of slack building regulations,
and listening to business owners,
about what's "best for them".
and making money, being the most important consideration.
Capitalism is so fundamentally undemocratic.
Joined: 5/21/2008
Msg: 11
view profile
Dull economics?
Posted: 4/30/2013 3:30:32 PM
Next big thing is of course the bailout bubble, all other bubbles pale in comparison.
Joined: 11/2/2011
Msg: 12
view profile
Dull economics?
Posted: 4/30/2013 5:37:20 PM
JV - there is lttle we disagree on, it's just our slant on things.

You want to blame the tories, fine. I think they are slightly less bad than labour.

Maggie T - set it all in motion? Well maybe but she could not have done it without Scargill, Red Robbo et al.

Regulation? Of the banks, water, gas, electricity? Every single one of the regulators has let us down but way above all is the FSA. (my pension fund according to my bank manager 15 or so years ago should have given me £200,000 plus but actually came to just under £29,000 - much less than what I paid in - I've been f@@@ over too).

Vote for me as PM and I will take back every single bonus, pension and at least some of the salary every one of the regulators has received in the last 20 years. And chuck most of them in to gaol.

Capitalism, global market? Call it what you will, we are stuck with it. And that is the problem you are stuck with.

To make the PC you are using to read this email you need rare earths, 100% of which come from China who to gain commercial advantage have restricted exports. Mines are being opened up around the world but not here in the UK, we don't have any resources.

You want to continue buying the next PC, mobile phone, TV - then get used to the idea it isn't going to be made here. China is de facto the worlds largest market for PCs and getting bigger and they ain't going to start making them here when the resources and labour are cheaper there.

Why are Tata (Jaguar Landrover owners) looking to build a production facility in Saudi Arabia. Simple. Because it will be next to the worlds largest aluminium smelting plant which is there because it has access to cheap energy. Smelters in Germany have already shutdown.

Like it or not, because product can now be shipped around the world relatively easily and cheaply, manufacture will move to the cheapest location.

And that cheap location means hourly rates way below what we are used to.
Joined: 11/2/2011
Msg: 13
view profile
Dull economics?
Posted: 5/3/2013 5:42:15 AM
I just don't know where you're coming from. You want fairer redistribtion of wealth and dislike capitalism. According to your profile, you seem to have made lots of money from your property business. You use way more than your fair share of the worlds resources popping down to the south of France for the weekend. Is that your yacht, plane and swimming pool in your photos. For one who preaches peace, what are you shooting at?

But to address your post do you really think China having created a better life for their people and are hell bent on doing it for even more of their population are going it give it all away? Same question re Russia, Brazil and other up and coming countries.

There will be a levelling as the west no longer has a technological edge. We will see the relative income in the west come down and our relative standard of living will fall as their is more competition for resources including food.
 Jo van
Joined: 5/23/2009
Msg: 14
Dull economics?
Posted: 5/3/2013 1:22:04 PM

Like it or not, because product can now be shipped around the world relatively easily and cheaply, manufacture will move to the cheapest location.

And that cheap location means hourly rates way below what we are used to.

It's why I'm always repeating that immigrants haven't "come over here, and taken our jobs", they stayed where they were, and our 'noble leaders' [/sarcasm] have sold the jobs overseas.

The same people who "influence", and "advise" our governments, on economic policy, and lobby hard to have workers' rights removed, (which this govt. is duly doing), like Sir Phillip of Monaco, or Lord Sirloin Sugar-tits, are getting their manufacturing done in places with no Minimum wage, no child-labour, and no health and safety at work laws.

Mr Cameraman wants to "make our country more competitive", so that those people can make the same sort of obscene profits here, that they currently make, by exploiting people overseas.

Audax/ Strangeglove, you occasionally say something with which, I agree .
I like the sound of these "fortified pleasure-domes",
and wish to subscribe to your news-letter.
Joined: 11/2/2011
Msg: 15
view profile
Dull economics?
Posted: 5/3/2013 1:55:22 PM
I have done some sailing and flying, so what.

I let property to young disadvantaged homeless youngsters, who would otherwise have no homes.

I have done some sailing and flying too. Have had a pilots licence since I was17 but no longer practice due to loss of hearing 4 years ago. Have a Norwegian skippers licence up to 130 tonnes. And coastal licence. Have sailed the Atlantic as crew. Was one of the best rifle shooters in the UK up to about the age of 20 (in the top 20-30). Have been on a pheasant shoot once. Hated it. Used to be good at Skeet and DTL. Have trained as a ski boat driver, not the best but not bad. Ex Mountain leader.

So the f@@@ what.

I don't put that on my profile and I don't pretend to own a yacht, house with a pool.

You make money from homeless people. They don't have any money so where does their rent come from?
Show ALL Forums  > UK forums  > Dull economics?