First of all a very Merry Christ-mas to you all!
There is so much to write about at the moment I don't know where to begin.
Maybe I'll split it into two?
First stop, Gordon Brown has decided to cut funding to Universities. This is highly amusing and yet altogether quite annoying. It is amusing because it shows just what a load of idiots run Labour. Even if your a labour supporter I'll explain why. If you support Labour you probably do so because you are a 'working man' or consider yourself 'working class'. Amusingly though Labours ruining... er I mean running of the Universities has done everything it can to screw the working man. It has made class mobility more difficult.
Lets consider a simple example to show this. You are 'Dave Smith' your mother is a hairdresser and your father works in a factory, there you go, that is working class (if a bit stereotypical, but that doesn't matter). I've worked in a factory and I know the wages are between about 6k (part time) and 14k per year generally. So lets say Dave's father earns 12k (full time). Dave's mother earns 6k because she doesn't have the time to do anymore (this is well below the quoted average on mysalary.co.uk.) So together they earn 18k. I could say they earn more but that would just make this even easier.
You Dave, are a genius, I mean you are amazing. You are so good that given the chance you would cure cancer, stop the destruction of the rain forest and cause crops to grow in the Sahara ending world hunger. But first you need to get to University.
Under the Tories you would have got a grant gone on to University got a good degree from a good University and then probably got a job and saved the world.
Under Labour, you don't get a grant you get tuition fees, big ones. Much more that a low income family could afford to pay. Even if you could afford it (or didn't mind risking everything on your debt) when you finished Uni (probably a lower Uni since the higher ones can often be more expensive) thanks to labour everyone has a degree, and so you're less distinguished and less likely to get a job. Presumably when everyone has good CVs you have to revert to good old nepotism to cut the pack. Which doesn't favour old 'Davey boy' now does it?
Essentially what Labour has done is tried to get 50% of the population in University, not think about whether it will actually help them, the economy or whether they are actually up to it.
You're not meant to say it (I'm told) but how do you know that 50% of the population is up to going to University? If they are surely they will manage on their own and if they are not surely they will just end up doing pointless degrees that are too easy, have no application, devalue degrees generally and worst of all waste 3 years and several thousand pounds when they could have been doing something useful?
And don't think I'm down on people who aren't 'academics'. As far as I'm concerned having a degree doesn't make you a better person. It is no mark of superiority over someone who just an academic type. After all thanks to this wonderful policy the UK is having to import all their plumbers because we don't have any of our own. No we don't Gordon, because all the people who would make excellent plumbers are doing a film studies degree!
But now the government has decided to cut the Universities budget. Which is great, I believe the phrase needed here regards a rug being swept from beneath ones feet?
Meanwhile the Universities are told not to let this effect their teaching. Presumably they should also try pulling rabbits out of hats and if that works working on a source of perpetual energy! Everyone knows that academics aren't that well paid in Universities anyway. They are there for a labour of love not because they want to hit 80k per year as soon as possible. Where is the space for cuts?
Still at least in all this we can be happy that the working man has benefited from it all... oh now wait, I've already covered that.
Maybe Labours next slogan should be "Labour; keeping our foot on the working class"
--------------------------------------------------------------------
A couple of facts about Universities
- Fees are set to rise... again
- Household income required to be gov' funded through University <£16,00
- Minimum wage of a house with two full time adult parents £22,000
(so the only people realistically who will get funded have unemployed parents)
- Minimum wage before you have to pay back your loans £15,000
(this is at any point in your life, so if you're 55 and you start earning £16,000
for the first time in your life you will have your loans and a life time of interest
to pay off).
Saturday, 26 December 2009
Monday, 21 December 2009
Copenhagen is falling apart, oh dear...
Copenhagen is falling/has fallen apart apparently.
Gutted.
I really thought that for a moment the world would be united in its fight against a common enemy and they humanity would reach out and join together to take a sweeping blow against this powerful foe.
Actually that is codswallop. I didn't think that at all.
But let me explain why:
Lets be honest, climate change is an interesting problem. Most interesting of course because in reality we have no idea whether is anything to do with us and arguably whether it is even happening at all.
No I know that this is heresy to most people and as a result I should be burned at the stake, ok not burned that would release more CO2, they think I'd need to be topped using organically grown cyanide. But let me explain how someone who has done little to no research can be pretty sure we have no idea:
how long have we had the ability to record the temperature of the world accurately? 10 years? 15? 20? 30? It is undoubtedly under 50 years because the first man made satellite was in space in 1957, and that wasn't checking temperatures, it was doing nothing but sending out a ping every now and again to say it had made it.
That means we have a tiny amount of time where we are actually aware of what changes are being made. This means that we have no idea what is going on at all. Imagine measuring my height changes between the ages of 15 and 18. That is three years out of a probable 75. This is more of my age than 40 years is of the earths age. But imagine the conclusions you would have if you made assumptions based on those 3 years of my life. It would mean I'd be 70ft tall by the time I'm 75, it would mean that would expect to be shaving the palms of my hands by 25.
Having a tiny amount of information about the worlds temperatures and drawing conclusions from it is tantamount to making a guess.
That is not to say that I think it isn't happening. I would be a fool to explain that we don't know anything and then draw from that that everything is fine. It just means we don't have the slightest clue.
Next is the small detail that people don't like, the worlds temperature has been falling for the last ten years. Is this conclusive? No, of course not, haven't you been listening to what I just said about short periods of time? What does it mean? Once again, we have no idea what is going on.
Then we get on to what we do know. What we do know is that every human being is liable to use what they know to help their own ends. I'm not saying everyone does do this, but this should always be taken as a possibility.
So why would the world politicians jump on to this? Well everyone knows that smoking is bad for you. It is a drug that gets you addicted and them kills you. However when this was discovered, it had already taken off and everyone was already smoking. This gave the government something wonderful. A cash cow. Every year for years more tax has been added to the cost of tobacco, and alcohol. The government doesn't even need to both justifying itself anymore. It say does it. The fact is smoking is evil and therefore should be taxed to 'help people give up'. Except the government doesn't really care if you give up, on the one hand you'll cost them more via the NHS but in the short term (which is all a present government will care about) it gives you lots of revenue.
But we in the UK have 'big government' which is a nice way of saying the government loves spending our money and thinks it does a better job of it than we do. Which is why it gives money to companies to teach 14 year old joy riders how to drive so that when they steal cars they drive them safely (I kid you not) and they offer Iraqi families £150,000 to go home because it is cheaper than them staying here and being entitled to all the benefits. Neither of these examples come from any paper I've read, they have come from people who were involved or close to those involved.
This means a couple of pence on fags (that is cigarettes not the pejorative term for homosexuals for any Americans out there) and booze just isn't going to pay the bills. Then the knight in shining armour arrives! CLIMATE CHANGE!
Hurrrrah! Now everything is evil and so everything can be taxed until we're penniless!
Everyone who does anything ever, anyone who is useful to society in anyway needs a car (unless you live in London where you can survive without one). If you leave your house anywhere outside the M25 London ring road you are going to need four wheels to get about. The government now has a licence to tax this as much as it wants.
Petrol? Tax it
Roads? Tax them
Cars? Tax them too
Cooking oil (which is carbon neutral when used in a diesel engine) Tax that too!
If people moan because you are taking away what they have worked hard to obtain, just tell them that it is for their own good! You have an excuse now. When they say they need their cars to work, tell them that they need to use more public transport. Public transport isn't a viable alternative (you know that, MP's work in London, the one place they could actually use public transport and they of course have several driven cars to take them around to where they need to go) but who cares about the fact it doesn't work, but it sounds like you have an answer and a 'good' reason for taking people's money off them.
But why stop at cars? Tax flights too! Pretty much anything you like really because at some stage everything has to be transported by something with an engine.
Am I just being cynical though? Well lets think about what actually causes global warming. Releasing CO2. Now just lowering the amount of CO2 we make surely won't make much of a difference because the same effect will be achieved just over a longer period of time. Unless all the trees absorb the lower amount of CO2 being produced... which leads me on to my point. If the gov really give a crap about it why aren't they planting trees?
This is cheap (I bet you could even rope some people into doing it for free if they really care about this stuff) and it would have much greater impact over the years because it would suck in all the CO2 which is being made, taking it straight out of the atmosphere. It would be really pretty too! There are many areas of the UK (and I'm sure every other nation) that cannot be farmed because they are inaccessible or the soil isn't of the right quality. Most of these places used to have trees on them until our ancestors cut them down for various reasons. In fact North Africa was wooded until the Romans arrived. Now if the government really cared about these sorts of things they could easily start afforesting the moors and other grounds.
It would probably increase the tourism in the area and for years to come it would act to absorb tons of CO2 every month. When successful this could be implemented over all of Europe and most of the world.
Of course the government isn't going to do this. You see, you can't tax trees. You can't fly to Denmark drink some good wine argue 'for your cause' and then come home and make money taxing businesses by planting trees and actually helping the environment. All you do is... well help the environment; and what government cares about that?
Gutted.
I really thought that for a moment the world would be united in its fight against a common enemy and they humanity would reach out and join together to take a sweeping blow against this powerful foe.
Actually that is codswallop. I didn't think that at all.
But let me explain why:
Lets be honest, climate change is an interesting problem. Most interesting of course because in reality we have no idea whether is anything to do with us and arguably whether it is even happening at all.
No I know that this is heresy to most people and as a result I should be burned at the stake, ok not burned that would release more CO2, they think I'd need to be topped using organically grown cyanide. But let me explain how someone who has done little to no research can be pretty sure we have no idea:
how long have we had the ability to record the temperature of the world accurately? 10 years? 15? 20? 30? It is undoubtedly under 50 years because the first man made satellite was in space in 1957, and that wasn't checking temperatures, it was doing nothing but sending out a ping every now and again to say it had made it.
That means we have a tiny amount of time where we are actually aware of what changes are being made. This means that we have no idea what is going on at all. Imagine measuring my height changes between the ages of 15 and 18. That is three years out of a probable 75. This is more of my age than 40 years is of the earths age. But imagine the conclusions you would have if you made assumptions based on those 3 years of my life. It would mean I'd be 70ft tall by the time I'm 75, it would mean that would expect to be shaving the palms of my hands by 25.
Having a tiny amount of information about the worlds temperatures and drawing conclusions from it is tantamount to making a guess.
That is not to say that I think it isn't happening. I would be a fool to explain that we don't know anything and then draw from that that everything is fine. It just means we don't have the slightest clue.
Next is the small detail that people don't like, the worlds temperature has been falling for the last ten years. Is this conclusive? No, of course not, haven't you been listening to what I just said about short periods of time? What does it mean? Once again, we have no idea what is going on.
Then we get on to what we do know. What we do know is that every human being is liable to use what they know to help their own ends. I'm not saying everyone does do this, but this should always be taken as a possibility.
So why would the world politicians jump on to this? Well everyone knows that smoking is bad for you. It is a drug that gets you addicted and them kills you. However when this was discovered, it had already taken off and everyone was already smoking. This gave the government something wonderful. A cash cow. Every year for years more tax has been added to the cost of tobacco, and alcohol. The government doesn't even need to both justifying itself anymore. It say does it. The fact is smoking is evil and therefore should be taxed to 'help people give up'. Except the government doesn't really care if you give up, on the one hand you'll cost them more via the NHS but in the short term (which is all a present government will care about) it gives you lots of revenue.
But we in the UK have 'big government' which is a nice way of saying the government loves spending our money and thinks it does a better job of it than we do. Which is why it gives money to companies to teach 14 year old joy riders how to drive so that when they steal cars they drive them safely (I kid you not) and they offer Iraqi families £150,000 to go home because it is cheaper than them staying here and being entitled to all the benefits. Neither of these examples come from any paper I've read, they have come from people who were involved or close to those involved.
This means a couple of pence on fags (that is cigarettes not the pejorative term for homosexuals for any Americans out there) and booze just isn't going to pay the bills. Then the knight in shining armour arrives! CLIMATE CHANGE!
Hurrrrah! Now everything is evil and so everything can be taxed until we're penniless!
Everyone who does anything ever, anyone who is useful to society in anyway needs a car (unless you live in London where you can survive without one). If you leave your house anywhere outside the M25 London ring road you are going to need four wheels to get about. The government now has a licence to tax this as much as it wants.
Petrol? Tax it
Roads? Tax them
Cars? Tax them too
Cooking oil (which is carbon neutral when used in a diesel engine) Tax that too!
If people moan because you are taking away what they have worked hard to obtain, just tell them that it is for their own good! You have an excuse now. When they say they need their cars to work, tell them that they need to use more public transport. Public transport isn't a viable alternative (you know that, MP's work in London, the one place they could actually use public transport and they of course have several driven cars to take them around to where they need to go) but who cares about the fact it doesn't work, but it sounds like you have an answer and a 'good' reason for taking people's money off them.
But why stop at cars? Tax flights too! Pretty much anything you like really because at some stage everything has to be transported by something with an engine.
Am I just being cynical though? Well lets think about what actually causes global warming. Releasing CO2. Now just lowering the amount of CO2 we make surely won't make much of a difference because the same effect will be achieved just over a longer period of time. Unless all the trees absorb the lower amount of CO2 being produced... which leads me on to my point. If the gov really give a crap about it why aren't they planting trees?
This is cheap (I bet you could even rope some people into doing it for free if they really care about this stuff) and it would have much greater impact over the years because it would suck in all the CO2 which is being made, taking it straight out of the atmosphere. It would be really pretty too! There are many areas of the UK (and I'm sure every other nation) that cannot be farmed because they are inaccessible or the soil isn't of the right quality. Most of these places used to have trees on them until our ancestors cut them down for various reasons. In fact North Africa was wooded until the Romans arrived. Now if the government really cared about these sorts of things they could easily start afforesting the moors and other grounds.
It would probably increase the tourism in the area and for years to come it would act to absorb tons of CO2 every month. When successful this could be implemented over all of Europe and most of the world.
Of course the government isn't going to do this. You see, you can't tax trees. You can't fly to Denmark drink some good wine argue 'for your cause' and then come home and make money taxing businesses by planting trees and actually helping the environment. All you do is... well help the environment; and what government cares about that?
Monday, 14 December 2009
eBay: One Madrid Sewer system; unused
Just got back from Madrid, Spain, lovely place, beautiful architechture. It has great tasting food and the people are quite charming.
I few observations however:
1. Everyone smokes.
Really now, I think if Spain wanted to cut its carbon foot print just stop people smoking. The inner city is easy to get around and there isn't much congestion so they won't have much of a carbon foot print through cars. Smoking however must constitute most of their emissions! Whatever it is they smoke also smells about ten times as strong as what they have in the UK, it smells like pipe tobacco. Lovely... I also think maybe this ties in with number 2 which is:
2. Everyone is about 6" shorter than me.
Is this to do with genetics or smoking or something else? I don't know. What I do know is that wondering around I was about 6" taller than the average male. Back in the UK I'm about 2/3" taller but over there I was a giant.
3. The Madrid sewer system is presumably superfluous.
I don't know how any Spaniard has ever passed a single stool. For breakfast they have coffee. For lunch they have great tasting food, but none of it, really contains any fibre! The ratio of bread, rice etc to meat and cheese was about 60/40 meat. The result; great tasting food, and presumably a completely unused sewer system.
4. Very few people actually speak English... or should I say hable inglés.
This isn't a criticism, it is just an observation. I am sure that many have gone to Barcelona and found that everyone speaks English and expects Madrid to be the same. It isn't. Not even slightly. However, I actually prefer this to an extent. It forces me to get off my lazy English speaking back end and learn some of the lingo. It also means I know the magic of instantly, without thought, rememebering; 'one minute, please' when the cleaner starts walking into your room while you're still naked.
5. La Finca de Susana, if you're in Madrid and you can get to it, go.
Restaurant opening time 8:30, time I arrived 8:32... just managed to catch the last tables before it was full. Passing the next day twenty minutes before the place opened, there was a quene stretching down the street. This queue was there for good reason. When you can eat a stunning veal steak for under €10 and a bottle of wine costs the same as a glass over here in the UK you can hardly believe you're eyes. All this in a capital city. Can you imagine having a bill for two people come to about £35 in London? A bill for one maybe... Oh and it tasted ambrosial, just in case you were wondering.
6. Freemarket capitalists, they are not.
I was on my way to park Retiro when I couldn't cross a road. Unfortunately 200,000 people had turned out to support the workers Union the OOCC. At first this was all very interesting and a bit like a festival. There were lots of people drums and banners. Things seemed less friendly with the helicopters flying over head all the time and someone setting off fireworks that sounded like bombs going off. While I took the opportunity to pick up a leaflet and read about the protection of public jobs and so on, strangely I didn't take the time to explain to the crowd the benefits of free market capitalism. Strangely I didn't think it was the ideal time, unless I was in the mood for taking on 200,000 Spaniards in a Matrix revolutions tyle fight. Although one does see a strong correlationg between countries with economies that could do with a bit of a kick and a strong socialist contingent. I mean even before the recession Spain had 10% enemployment and so it isn't a surprise that people aren't happy about it. Although I am not sure what they think socialism is going to do for them.
7. The weather man was wrong.
One day of sunshine and the rest cloudy... that is what you think Mr Weatherman...
I few observations however:
1. Everyone smokes.
Really now, I think if Spain wanted to cut its carbon foot print just stop people smoking. The inner city is easy to get around and there isn't much congestion so they won't have much of a carbon foot print through cars. Smoking however must constitute most of their emissions! Whatever it is they smoke also smells about ten times as strong as what they have in the UK, it smells like pipe tobacco. Lovely... I also think maybe this ties in with number 2 which is:
2. Everyone is about 6" shorter than me.
Is this to do with genetics or smoking or something else? I don't know. What I do know is that wondering around I was about 6" taller than the average male. Back in the UK I'm about 2/3" taller but over there I was a giant.
3. The Madrid sewer system is presumably superfluous.
I don't know how any Spaniard has ever passed a single stool. For breakfast they have coffee. For lunch they have great tasting food, but none of it, really contains any fibre! The ratio of bread, rice etc to meat and cheese was about 60/40 meat. The result; great tasting food, and presumably a completely unused sewer system.
4. Very few people actually speak English... or should I say hable inglés.
This isn't a criticism, it is just an observation. I am sure that many have gone to Barcelona and found that everyone speaks English and expects Madrid to be the same. It isn't. Not even slightly. However, I actually prefer this to an extent. It forces me to get off my lazy English speaking back end and learn some of the lingo. It also means I know the magic of instantly, without thought, rememebering; 'one minute, please' when the cleaner starts walking into your room while you're still naked.
5. La Finca de Susana, if you're in Madrid and you can get to it, go.
Restaurant opening time 8:30, time I arrived 8:32... just managed to catch the last tables before it was full. Passing the next day twenty minutes before the place opened, there was a quene stretching down the street. This queue was there for good reason. When you can eat a stunning veal steak for under €10 and a bottle of wine costs the same as a glass over here in the UK you can hardly believe you're eyes. All this in a capital city. Can you imagine having a bill for two people come to about £35 in London? A bill for one maybe... Oh and it tasted ambrosial, just in case you were wondering.
6. Freemarket capitalists, they are not.
I was on my way to park Retiro when I couldn't cross a road. Unfortunately 200,000 people had turned out to support the workers Union the OOCC. At first this was all very interesting and a bit like a festival. There were lots of people drums and banners. Things seemed less friendly with the helicopters flying over head all the time and someone setting off fireworks that sounded like bombs going off. While I took the opportunity to pick up a leaflet and read about the protection of public jobs and so on, strangely I didn't take the time to explain to the crowd the benefits of free market capitalism. Strangely I didn't think it was the ideal time, unless I was in the mood for taking on 200,000 Spaniards in a Matrix revolutions tyle fight. Although one does see a strong correlationg between countries with economies that could do with a bit of a kick and a strong socialist contingent. I mean even before the recession Spain had 10% enemployment and so it isn't a surprise that people aren't happy about it. Although I am not sure what they think socialism is going to do for them.
7. The weather man was wrong.
One day of sunshine and the rest cloudy... that is what you think Mr Weatherman...
Thursday, 3 December 2009
New York, New York!
I am thinking I should fly to New York with British Airways. After all they are the best airline in the world, and since they are losing money I may not get too many chances to use them again. First class maybe? It would be a nice way to arrive at the beginning of a new chapter living on the other side of the pond.
Now I'm pretty patriotic, so why am I talking about moving state-side. Well this comes with the news that the newly appointed economic minister for the EU is French. Why then is this a reason for me to consider a flat (or should I say apartment) in Manhattan. Well, the new economic minister of the EU is French, this means that the UK is quite possibly screwed.
The problem with this is rooted the the differences between the French and British economy. They are completely different. The French economy is based on government protectionism, a strong leaning towards socialism and of course the desire to strike every five minutes. The French don't seem particularly bothered that their economy is accepted a stagnant. But they why would you when you can stay up until 6 in the morning on warm nights in the South of France sipping an espresso watching the moon light reflect off the sea...
Where was I? Oh yes. So essentially the French economy is stagnant and the government protects it as best as it can from competition from other nations (eg CAP). As a friend of mine from Notts once said 'if you want to get on the good side of French people rememeber how to say "I love to strike".
In contrast the UK has a completely different work ethic. In the provinces, sure, life is quite laid back, you go to work at your customer telephone helpline from 9 until 5 and then you come home and enjoy your life. But that isn't the case in London. London is the free market on cocaine (sometimes literally). If you live in London the next deal/case/contract is your next breath, if you miss it you're going to die. I would say in London people eat and sleep work but that would be misleading, it would imply that they get to sleep occasionally. In London once you've worked for a week with 4 hours of sleep each night to close a contract, you don't finish and then sleep for the next two days, you hit the clubs with your fellow workers and stay awake for another 24 hours, just for the fun of it.
As a result London wages are substantially higher than everywhere else in the UK. Deservedly so too. But the real heart of London, the beating heart of the UK economy is finance. Without it would would have a deficit so big we'd be... well the United States (jk). We don't make anything in the UK after all. We don't do cars (not outside of F1 racing anyway). We don't make ships. We don't make most of the things with a high value, we just make money. This works very well for us and as a result we are the country of finance. We have two rivals (New York and Hong Kong) but we are on the top of the pile. Well, we are right now.
But now we are going to have a man making our regulations who was brought up in a French economy. This will mean that he will want strong regulation for more stability and less profit.
The thing is 'less profit' rings in a bank managers ears like the trumpet of the horsemen of the Apocalypse. It will cause any bank directors hairs to stand on end. They will have a shiver down their spine like the coldest ice and then after being planted on the spot for 10 minutes without a single movement they will reach for their phones call their board and tell them they are moving to New York or Hong Kong, or hades, whichever one has the lowest income tax.
This the French won't care about because they have no banks to lose anyway. Britain on the the other hand have a lot to lose.
So what can be done. Well what should have happened in the first place is that the democratically elected representatives of the British people should have done what they are mean to and represent the people! This would mean that we wouldn't have the Lisbon Treaty in the first place and we wouldn't have to care about Michel Barnier or Sarkozy or anyone else for that matter. But then 'politicians do know best' don't they?
Anyway, I'm focusing too much on the past, to the future!
What is going to happen now? Well thankfully regardless of what the EU thinks it is going to do if it tries to over regulate then the UK hopefully will have the 'stones' to tell them that we've not going to agree to have our country sent back to the stone age. The EU likes making these noises about how they are going to make us suffer but realistically we have a Tory government coming up who would love to have some good ammunition to shoot at the Euro-philes. Europe isn't so stupid as to provide it for them.
Anything damaging to the UK in the next few years will be equally damaging to Europe.
So maybe I won't have to move to New York, maybe there is still hope that I can live in the UK and it won't fall apart in the immediate future, still it does make you wonder what berk thought that two countries were going to get on economically when one is as red as you can be without calling each other comrade and the other is as blue as you can be without calling each other 'dude'.
Now I'm pretty patriotic, so why am I talking about moving state-side. Well this comes with the news that the newly appointed economic minister for the EU is French. Why then is this a reason for me to consider a flat (or should I say apartment) in Manhattan. Well, the new economic minister of the EU is French, this means that the UK is quite possibly screwed.
The problem with this is rooted the the differences between the French and British economy. They are completely different. The French economy is based on government protectionism, a strong leaning towards socialism and of course the desire to strike every five minutes. The French don't seem particularly bothered that their economy is accepted a stagnant. But they why would you when you can stay up until 6 in the morning on warm nights in the South of France sipping an espresso watching the moon light reflect off the sea...
Where was I? Oh yes. So essentially the French economy is stagnant and the government protects it as best as it can from competition from other nations (eg CAP). As a friend of mine from Notts once said 'if you want to get on the good side of French people rememeber how to say "I love to strike".
In contrast the UK has a completely different work ethic. In the provinces, sure, life is quite laid back, you go to work at your customer telephone helpline from 9 until 5 and then you come home and enjoy your life. But that isn't the case in London. London is the free market on cocaine (sometimes literally). If you live in London the next deal/case/contract is your next breath, if you miss it you're going to die. I would say in London people eat and sleep work but that would be misleading, it would imply that they get to sleep occasionally. In London once you've worked for a week with 4 hours of sleep each night to close a contract, you don't finish and then sleep for the next two days, you hit the clubs with your fellow workers and stay awake for another 24 hours, just for the fun of it.
As a result London wages are substantially higher than everywhere else in the UK. Deservedly so too. But the real heart of London, the beating heart of the UK economy is finance. Without it would would have a deficit so big we'd be... well the United States (jk). We don't make anything in the UK after all. We don't do cars (not outside of F1 racing anyway). We don't make ships. We don't make most of the things with a high value, we just make money. This works very well for us and as a result we are the country of finance. We have two rivals (New York and Hong Kong) but we are on the top of the pile. Well, we are right now.
But now we are going to have a man making our regulations who was brought up in a French economy. This will mean that he will want strong regulation for more stability and less profit.
The thing is 'less profit' rings in a bank managers ears like the trumpet of the horsemen of the Apocalypse. It will cause any bank directors hairs to stand on end. They will have a shiver down their spine like the coldest ice and then after being planted on the spot for 10 minutes without a single movement they will reach for their phones call their board and tell them they are moving to New York or Hong Kong, or hades, whichever one has the lowest income tax.
This the French won't care about because they have no banks to lose anyway. Britain on the the other hand have a lot to lose.
So what can be done. Well what should have happened in the first place is that the democratically elected representatives of the British people should have done what they are mean to and represent the people! This would mean that we wouldn't have the Lisbon Treaty in the first place and we wouldn't have to care about Michel Barnier or Sarkozy or anyone else for that matter. But then 'politicians do know best' don't they?
Anyway, I'm focusing too much on the past, to the future!
What is going to happen now? Well thankfully regardless of what the EU thinks it is going to do if it tries to over regulate then the UK hopefully will have the 'stones' to tell them that we've not going to agree to have our country sent back to the stone age. The EU likes making these noises about how they are going to make us suffer but realistically we have a Tory government coming up who would love to have some good ammunition to shoot at the Euro-philes. Europe isn't so stupid as to provide it for them.
Anything damaging to the UK in the next few years will be equally damaging to Europe.
So maybe I won't have to move to New York, maybe there is still hope that I can live in the UK and it won't fall apart in the immediate future, still it does make you wonder what berk thought that two countries were going to get on economically when one is as red as you can be without calling each other comrade and the other is as blue as you can be without calling each other 'dude'.
Tuesday, 1 December 2009
A vote for Scotland, a vote for insignificance.
The SNP (Scottish National Party) has decided that Scotland need to think about full Independence from the UK. (The UK being England N.Ireland Wales and Scotland). Hurray for devolution! How wonderful, if you're into that stuff.
I however am not. In fact I would go so far as to say that anyone who thinks devolution is a good idea has probably let their 'red mist' hatred for the English cloud their judgement to such an extent that it can no longer really be called Judgement... idiocy maybe, but not judgement.
But let me put this in perspective. I have been born in a Celtic country. I am not now, nor will I ever be English. I like all my Celtic countrymen love ribbing the English for not being as good as the Celtic nations.
In addition I love that high power Civil service jobs are being exported out of the South East (mainly London) and being put in the areas they serve, thus allowing people who have an IQ over 15 who want a good job to remain in their local area.
But do I want the Celtic nations to be independent? No, of course not. No more than I want to declare my house to be independent of my street and demand my own post code and street sign.
The most amusing part of this of course is that the Scots cite one of their reasons for considering this as 'influence'. Presumably they mean that with a sense of irony? There is very little that would kill Scottish influence in the world stage quicker than leaving the UK. To have influence you need two things generally:
1. a strong well trained army;
2. a strong economy with a huge GDP.
Lets think this through, army? No, GDP? Not even close!
At this point some who know my views on Europe (the EU) could be so bold as to call me a hypocrite. I don't want the UK in the EU because influence in the EU is nothing to do with UK influence. Also I am I calling the Scots mad for wanting Independence while fighting for my own (as a UK citizen), but let me distinguish these points.
The UK has (like it or not) culturally assimilated. Morality is generally the same in Scotland as it is in Yorkshire which is roughly the same as in Cornwall. There will be some slight disparity between the city and country but that is found anywhere. We speak the same language (regardless of what Welsh nationalists may tell you). Our law is essentially the same. Any problems with the amalgamation of the two were dealt with hundreds of years ago and thus one cannot go back to how it was previously.
Also the UK has influence, it is one of the largest economies in the world, it has big friends and and a heritage that lends itself to good diplomatic links. It may not be an 'empire' as it once was, but it is still a country that you don't want to piddle off, ever.
Scotland does not have one of the largest economies in the world. It doesn't have diplomatic links it doesn't have nuclear weapons, it doesn't have a seat on the UN security council, it has a peat bog on some, admittedly beautiful, mountains. It also has a good name in producing Whiskey.
So surely what they mean when they ask the Scottish public if they want to be independent is: "do you want to so wholly ruin your international influence that you might as well be taken off the map?"
Sounds harsh but lets face it, it is true. I just don't see what possible benefit that they hope to gain from leaving the Union. Less money, greater over heads, less influence.
There is that awesome argument of democratic accountability and the desire for decisions to be made as close to the people whom is will actually effect.
Right, sounds good but lets face it, in practical terms, it is a load of rubbish. For a start look at the US. People in California have decisions made about them in Washington DC, on the other side of an entire continent. Scotland on the other hand is a days journey from London. Second, look at local government, they make decisions for your area and does that mean that you get what you want? Judging my the pointless speed bumps outside my house and the multiplicity of pointless signs that go up at the end of each financial year, it certainly doesn't where I live.
Next problem when you live so close to another country how different can you really make the laws? If you wanted to do something great, for example banning abortions, on a practical level it wouldn't have much effect because people would simply pop across the border and have them done in England (although maybe that would be better?). Any real disparity in the law would just mean that people go else where to do business or else.
What it could do however is increase the number of contentions, squabbles and conflicts and allow local governments to do what they do best; argue about pointless minutia. Lets face it, all they allow is for opinionated and argumentative egotists to indulge themselves by giving them a platform to hear their own voice... on second thoughts, SNP, where do I apply?
I however am not. In fact I would go so far as to say that anyone who thinks devolution is a good idea has probably let their 'red mist' hatred for the English cloud their judgement to such an extent that it can no longer really be called Judgement... idiocy maybe, but not judgement.
But let me put this in perspective. I have been born in a Celtic country. I am not now, nor will I ever be English. I like all my Celtic countrymen love ribbing the English for not being as good as the Celtic nations.
In addition I love that high power Civil service jobs are being exported out of the South East (mainly London) and being put in the areas they serve, thus allowing people who have an IQ over 15 who want a good job to remain in their local area.
But do I want the Celtic nations to be independent? No, of course not. No more than I want to declare my house to be independent of my street and demand my own post code and street sign.
The most amusing part of this of course is that the Scots cite one of their reasons for considering this as 'influence'. Presumably they mean that with a sense of irony? There is very little that would kill Scottish influence in the world stage quicker than leaving the UK. To have influence you need two things generally:
1. a strong well trained army;
2. a strong economy with a huge GDP.
Lets think this through, army? No, GDP? Not even close!
At this point some who know my views on Europe (the EU) could be so bold as to call me a hypocrite. I don't want the UK in the EU because influence in the EU is nothing to do with UK influence. Also I am I calling the Scots mad for wanting Independence while fighting for my own (as a UK citizen), but let me distinguish these points.
The UK has (like it or not) culturally assimilated. Morality is generally the same in Scotland as it is in Yorkshire which is roughly the same as in Cornwall. There will be some slight disparity between the city and country but that is found anywhere. We speak the same language (regardless of what Welsh nationalists may tell you). Our law is essentially the same. Any problems with the amalgamation of the two were dealt with hundreds of years ago and thus one cannot go back to how it was previously.
Also the UK has influence, it is one of the largest economies in the world, it has big friends and and a heritage that lends itself to good diplomatic links. It may not be an 'empire' as it once was, but it is still a country that you don't want to piddle off, ever.
Scotland does not have one of the largest economies in the world. It doesn't have diplomatic links it doesn't have nuclear weapons, it doesn't have a seat on the UN security council, it has a peat bog on some, admittedly beautiful, mountains. It also has a good name in producing Whiskey.
So surely what they mean when they ask the Scottish public if they want to be independent is: "do you want to so wholly ruin your international influence that you might as well be taken off the map?"
Sounds harsh but lets face it, it is true. I just don't see what possible benefit that they hope to gain from leaving the Union. Less money, greater over heads, less influence.
There is that awesome argument of democratic accountability and the desire for decisions to be made as close to the people whom is will actually effect.
Right, sounds good but lets face it, in practical terms, it is a load of rubbish. For a start look at the US. People in California have decisions made about them in Washington DC, on the other side of an entire continent. Scotland on the other hand is a days journey from London. Second, look at local government, they make decisions for your area and does that mean that you get what you want? Judging my the pointless speed bumps outside my house and the multiplicity of pointless signs that go up at the end of each financial year, it certainly doesn't where I live.
Next problem when you live so close to another country how different can you really make the laws? If you wanted to do something great, for example banning abortions, on a practical level it wouldn't have much effect because people would simply pop across the border and have them done in England (although maybe that would be better?). Any real disparity in the law would just mean that people go else where to do business or else.
What it could do however is increase the number of contentions, squabbles and conflicts and allow local governments to do what they do best; argue about pointless minutia. Lets face it, all they allow is for opinionated and argumentative egotists to indulge themselves by giving them a platform to hear their own voice... on second thoughts, SNP, where do I apply?
Sunday, 29 November 2009
A small request of Samsung
Ok I appreciate that this blog is called the 'legal diatribe' and therefore you wouldn't expect a 'mobile phone' (that is cell phone for all the Yanks out there) review on it but today I'm going to run with it anyway. This is just due to one tiny feature of one single phone that I can't work out.
I own a Samsung Tocco Ultra. I chose it for a number of reasons.
1. It is not an iPhone
2. It is a Samsung and my last Samsung was:
- robust
- attractive
- well designed
- not boring
3. It has a camera with more pixels than my last phone
4.It is not an iPhone
5. It doesn't have a touch screen keypad like the Tocca (non-ultra) which means you can text without going insane and having to slap someone.
6. It is not an iPhone.
Now there is probably alot of passionate Apple fans out there who are very angry because I seem to be 'diss-ing' the iPhone phone. I'm not. The reason why I wouldn't have one is because there are a lot of passionate Apple fans out there who care WAAAAY too much about Apple and I sure as hec don't want to be confused for being one. Where a man's heart is there his treasure will be also, and heart is no where near Steve Jobs or any of his creations. I'll leave them for his zealous followers.
I've had the phone for a while and it is fantastic. I can drop it and it works (which is as essential as the ability to call people itself). It does everything I want and probably a million more things besides that I can't be bothered to do (apps anyone?).
So what is my inevitable beef with it?
In my last phone it had a flaw. If you protected messages (because you wanted to keep them) when you tried to 'delete all' it would ask 'Protected message delete?'
Why, why, a thousand times why! If I wanted to delete protected messages I would not have chosen to protect them, would I? What is the point of that function? Do you put a mute button on your alarm clock? Do you have a protective fireproof coating on firewood? A learn German book written entirely in German?
Surely it is on of the only features ever invented that has as its purpose the total ruin of another feature?
How about internet security that doesn't allow ANY traffic? How about an air bag that only goes off after you have pressed a button on the dash board? Maybe in the style of Micro$oft Windows one could hit the brakes of their car and then be asked 'do you really want to brake now?'
This was irriating but then I guess some over enthusiatic technician thought that they were putting in a useful feature. What if you wanted to clear the phone entirely and didn't want to have to unprotect the protected files. It is still the idea of a retard but at least you could just say 'no' and then it would delete all your messages save the ones that were protected.
Then I got my new phone. I thought they would have got rid of the old garbage function after realising it was the creation of someone who obviously had wiskey that morning thinking it was their usual expresso.
No I was wrong. I was also astounded, the had actually managed to make it worse, which frankly, if you had said before, I wouldn't have thought possible.
Now it askes: 'Protected message delete?' but instead of giving the optinons 'yes' or 'no' it now says:
'yes' or 'cancel'.
Now we have already established that I don't want to delete them otherwise I wouldn't have piddled away10 seconds of my life selecting 'protect' in the first place. But now rather than being able to select 'no' I have to select cancel then find and uncheck all the protected messages by going through the whole of my (obviously full) inbox by hand.
Now a question to the fatuous, half witted, knuckle dragging, vacuous, neanderthal who thought of this:
If I wanted to go through my whole inbox looking for the messages I want to keep and un-checking them by hand why would I bother protecting any messages in the first place? It is like buying a house alarm and then when someone breaks in standing on the roof and making 'neeeeenoooorrr' sounds yourself.
Samsung, you're a great company, your phones are the best value for what you get and they provide the best function, but in the interests of profitability, success, your customers sanity and your good name; find the person responsible for this function and have them shot... I mean fired...
I own a Samsung Tocco Ultra. I chose it for a number of reasons.
1. It is not an iPhone
2. It is a Samsung and my last Samsung was:
- robust
- attractive
- well designed
- not boring
3. It has a camera with more pixels than my last phone
4.It is not an iPhone
5. It doesn't have a touch screen keypad like the Tocca (non-ultra) which means you can text without going insane and having to slap someone.
6. It is not an iPhone.
Now there is probably alot of passionate Apple fans out there who are very angry because I seem to be 'diss-ing' the iPhone phone. I'm not. The reason why I wouldn't have one is because there are a lot of passionate Apple fans out there who care WAAAAY too much about Apple and I sure as hec don't want to be confused for being one. Where a man's heart is there his treasure will be also, and heart is no where near Steve Jobs or any of his creations. I'll leave them for his zealous followers.
I've had the phone for a while and it is fantastic. I can drop it and it works (which is as essential as the ability to call people itself). It does everything I want and probably a million more things besides that I can't be bothered to do (apps anyone?).
So what is my inevitable beef with it?
In my last phone it had a flaw. If you protected messages (because you wanted to keep them) when you tried to 'delete all' it would ask 'Protected message delete?'
Why, why, a thousand times why! If I wanted to delete protected messages I would not have chosen to protect them, would I? What is the point of that function? Do you put a mute button on your alarm clock? Do you have a protective fireproof coating on firewood? A learn German book written entirely in German?
Surely it is on of the only features ever invented that has as its purpose the total ruin of another feature?
How about internet security that doesn't allow ANY traffic? How about an air bag that only goes off after you have pressed a button on the dash board? Maybe in the style of Micro$oft Windows one could hit the brakes of their car and then be asked 'do you really want to brake now?'
This was irriating but then I guess some over enthusiatic technician thought that they were putting in a useful feature. What if you wanted to clear the phone entirely and didn't want to have to unprotect the protected files. It is still the idea of a retard but at least you could just say 'no' and then it would delete all your messages save the ones that were protected.
Then I got my new phone. I thought they would have got rid of the old garbage function after realising it was the creation of someone who obviously had wiskey that morning thinking it was their usual expresso.
No I was wrong. I was also astounded, the had actually managed to make it worse, which frankly, if you had said before, I wouldn't have thought possible.
Now it askes: 'Protected message delete?' but instead of giving the optinons 'yes' or 'no' it now says:
'yes' or 'cancel'.
Now we have already established that I don't want to delete them otherwise I wouldn't have piddled away10 seconds of my life selecting 'protect' in the first place. But now rather than being able to select 'no' I have to select cancel then find and uncheck all the protected messages by going through the whole of my (obviously full) inbox by hand.
Now a question to the fatuous, half witted, knuckle dragging, vacuous, neanderthal who thought of this:
If I wanted to go through my whole inbox looking for the messages I want to keep and un-checking them by hand why would I bother protecting any messages in the first place? It is like buying a house alarm and then when someone breaks in standing on the roof and making 'neeeeenoooorrr' sounds yourself.
Samsung, you're a great company, your phones are the best value for what you get and they provide the best function, but in the interests of profitability, success, your customers sanity and your good name; find the person responsible for this function and have them shot... I mean fired...
Thursday, 26 November 2009
Banks; still one of my favourite institutions!
The decision is out! The Supreme Court has decided! The financial regulator cannot decide if bank charges are unfair. Having looked at the case report the court explains at the very start that they cannot decide if the charges are fair merely whether the OFT can decide whether the charges are fair.
Well before we get to that concept lets look to see for amoment whether the charges are fair:
First, the concept that someone is a moron because they let their bank over run by (usually a few pound) is ridiculous. Most people (including myself) have a buffer of about at least £100 but there are some people who by nature of their income do not have this luxury. All it takes is for someone to bank a few cheques late or for a bill to be a little bigger than expected and even the most fustideous financial manager can go a few pounds over.
The second point is that after this they charge you up to £35. In terms of interest this obviously works out as several hundred to thousand per cent APR. Some also change £3 per day for each day you're over. As a figure of interest this is vastly higher than most 'loan sharks'. Who amusingly could have their contract terms struck down by the court under UCTA 1977.
Oh and if you account is empty obviously you don't have £35 to give them in the first place. If you did it would be in your account to pay the bills. Sure some may have just failed to take money from their savings account and put it in their current, but this is higly unlikely.
Third and finally, if one was a complete idiot, took out a huge loan, bought everything on credit card (because one doesn't have dicipline self-control or a brain), then kept getting bigger an bigger loans. Once they'd piddled away £15,000 the governement would step in and help their retarded backend out of trouble with an IVA, which would prevent further interest and force the banks to accept really good terms for their behalf... so basically if you're an utter waste of space to society who needs to get a grip, the government will happily help you out, but if you're just a hard working bloke, who tries to stay in the black and not squander money irresponsibly, but had a unexpected bill come early the government currently will let you hang...
Just to compound this in the current financial crisis we (the public) currently have to bail out the banks because they have gone not £3 overdrawn but several billion pound. Do they get a penalty? No, they are still paying themselves millions and therefore their greater incompetance has resulted in no detriment whatsoever.
If you wanted to define 'injustice' to someone who had no concept of the word, you wouldn't be far off using this example. In fact I think there was a famous historical figure who gave a similar exmaple:
23 Therefore the kingdom of heaven is like a certain king who wanted to settle accounts with his servants. 24 And when he had begun to settle accounts, one was brought to him who owed him ten thousand talents. 25 But as he was not able to pay, his master commanded that he be sold, with his wife and children and all that he had, and that payment be made. 26 The servant therefore fell down before him, saying, ‘Master, have patience with me, and I will pay you all.’ 27 Then the master of that servant was moved with compassion, released him, and forgave him the debt.
28 “But that servant went out and found one of his fellow servants who owed him a hundred denarii; and he laid hands on him and took him by the throat, saying, ‘Pay me what you owe!’ 29 So his fellow servant fell down at his feet[d] and begged him, saying, ‘Have patience with me, and I will pay you all.’[e] 30 And he would not, but went and threw him into prison till he should pay the debt. 31 So when his fellow servants saw what had been done, they were very grieved, and came and told their master all that had been done. 32 Then his master, after he had called him, said to him, ‘You wicked servant! I forgave you all that debt because you begged me. 33 Should you not also have had compassion on your fellow servant, just as I had pity on you?’ 34 And his master was angry, and delivered him to the torturers until he should pay all that was due to him. (The gospel of Matthew 18 NKJV Thomas Nelson Press)
Just incase you don't know the exchange rate Denarii is like pence (cents) and talents is a bit like pounds (dollars).
Hmmm, so if you're not getting this by now I'm not exactly in favour of the bank charges.
So the decision was wrong? The Justices are a bunch of idiots right?
Well not quite. While I was seething when I heard the decision the press is sort of protraying the case incorrectly. All the Supreme Court has decided is that the OFT can't regulate it using the regulation they wanted. If you read the regulation you can see that they have interpreted it accurately...
But then the courts rarely let little things like accuracy get in the way of their decisions before so why are they starting now?
Maybe there is a good reason... I'll be sure to discuss it when the consumers/OFT bring the next case!
Well before we get to that concept lets look to see for amoment whether the charges are fair:
First, the concept that someone is a moron because they let their bank over run by (usually a few pound) is ridiculous. Most people (including myself) have a buffer of about at least £100 but there are some people who by nature of their income do not have this luxury. All it takes is for someone to bank a few cheques late or for a bill to be a little bigger than expected and even the most fustideous financial manager can go a few pounds over.
The second point is that after this they charge you up to £35. In terms of interest this obviously works out as several hundred to thousand per cent APR. Some also change £3 per day for each day you're over. As a figure of interest this is vastly higher than most 'loan sharks'. Who amusingly could have their contract terms struck down by the court under UCTA 1977.
Oh and if you account is empty obviously you don't have £35 to give them in the first place. If you did it would be in your account to pay the bills. Sure some may have just failed to take money from their savings account and put it in their current, but this is higly unlikely.
Third and finally, if one was a complete idiot, took out a huge loan, bought everything on credit card (because one doesn't have dicipline self-control or a brain), then kept getting bigger an bigger loans. Once they'd piddled away £15,000 the governement would step in and help their retarded backend out of trouble with an IVA, which would prevent further interest and force the banks to accept really good terms for their behalf... so basically if you're an utter waste of space to society who needs to get a grip, the government will happily help you out, but if you're just a hard working bloke, who tries to stay in the black and not squander money irresponsibly, but had a unexpected bill come early the government currently will let you hang...
Just to compound this in the current financial crisis we (the public) currently have to bail out the banks because they have gone not £3 overdrawn but several billion pound. Do they get a penalty? No, they are still paying themselves millions and therefore their greater incompetance has resulted in no detriment whatsoever.
If you wanted to define 'injustice' to someone who had no concept of the word, you wouldn't be far off using this example. In fact I think there was a famous historical figure who gave a similar exmaple:
23 Therefore the kingdom of heaven is like a certain king who wanted to settle accounts with his servants. 24 And when he had begun to settle accounts, one was brought to him who owed him ten thousand talents. 25 But as he was not able to pay, his master commanded that he be sold, with his wife and children and all that he had, and that payment be made. 26 The servant therefore fell down before him, saying, ‘Master, have patience with me, and I will pay you all.’ 27 Then the master of that servant was moved with compassion, released him, and forgave him the debt.
28 “But that servant went out and found one of his fellow servants who owed him a hundred denarii; and he laid hands on him and took him by the throat, saying, ‘Pay me what you owe!’ 29 So his fellow servant fell down at his feet[d] and begged him, saying, ‘Have patience with me, and I will pay you all.’[e] 30 And he would not, but went and threw him into prison till he should pay the debt. 31 So when his fellow servants saw what had been done, they were very grieved, and came and told their master all that had been done. 32 Then his master, after he had called him, said to him, ‘You wicked servant! I forgave you all that debt because you begged me. 33 Should you not also have had compassion on your fellow servant, just as I had pity on you?’ 34 And his master was angry, and delivered him to the torturers until he should pay all that was due to him. (The gospel of Matthew 18 NKJV Thomas Nelson Press)
Just incase you don't know the exchange rate Denarii is like pence (cents) and talents is a bit like pounds (dollars).
Hmmm, so if you're not getting this by now I'm not exactly in favour of the bank charges.
So the decision was wrong? The Justices are a bunch of idiots right?
Well not quite. While I was seething when I heard the decision the press is sort of protraying the case incorrectly. All the Supreme Court has decided is that the OFT can't regulate it using the regulation they wanted. If you read the regulation you can see that they have interpreted it accurately...
But then the courts rarely let little things like accuracy get in the way of their decisions before so why are they starting now?
Maybe there is a good reason... I'll be sure to discuss it when the consumers/OFT bring the next case!
Tuesday, 24 November 2009
Koenigsegg doesn't want to take on Saab. Tough break!
So apparently Koenigsegg is pulling out of buying Saab because it does not have the resources to take it on, even with the backing of
This isn’t a big surprise, while I know someone from
The company has been losing money since 2001, not exactly the most impressive record, that means for almost 9 years the company has been nothing but a hole into which GM (which isn’t exactly loaded) has been throwing their ‘hard earned’.
Sadly, I can see why. Why would you buy a Saab? Anyone actually bought one? If so why did you do so? Do you have someone who works there who can get you discount?
If you want a Safe car you get a Volvo, if you want a prestigious fast car you get a BMW, if you want a car that will run for all of time you buy Japanese, if you want to deal cocaine you buy a BMW with the ‘drug dealer’ sports pack. If you have a phobia of trucks then you buy a 4x4. If you are an aging executive with a BMI over 25 then you get a Mercedes. If you’re a graduate fresh out of University and you have two X chromosomes you buy a new mini. If all you need is space for a tiny white middle class woman, then you by a Range Rover. It all makes sense.
But who would buy a Saab? It isn’t particularly fast, reliable, cheap, cheap to run, economical, good to the environment, spacious, prestigious, powerful or good looking.
I’ve just checked the web-page and the starting model is about £19,000. If you have £19k hanging around I am going to bet you are not thinking “what I really, really want, and would be really excited to buy is a brand new Saab!”
It gets worse when you think what it is actually made from, the design has hardly changed much for many years, and that is great if you have what is in essence a classic, like the Porsche 911 or the Aston Martin DB9, but the Saab 9800 is hardly inspiring. Google it, lets face it, you don’t know what it looks like off the top of your head do you?
The new Saab 9-3 looks like an updated 9300 and is based on GM parts. Which gives the horrible feeling that you’re buying a Vauxhall Vectra in drag, hmmm maybe that is harsh; let’s say in a party dress. Either way it doesn’t really inspire.
The difficulty is that while I know this and I bet most other people do too, GM is far too busy with its other problems to care about what happens to a company that produces around 1-2% of the cars it sells per year. It is holding on for dear life itself, let alone worrying about one of its smaller subsidiaries.
So what can be done for the poor people who work for Saab? More so, what can be done for the poor people who buy them?
Well cash investment is what is needed, but we’re in a recession so there is more chance of me personally buying enough of the cars to keep the company going, which is a bit of a pity, because lets face it there is no reason why it can’t be a successful company.
All they need is a hat. They could take that hat and fill it with bits of paper with words on it like ‘fast’, ‘compact’, ‘economic’ and ‘reliable’. Then get a man to pick out two of these pieces of paper and (assuming they are not anonyms) they will have a new business plan! Next stop, bin the 9-3 and anything associated with their previous work and get on with it.
Who knows, in two years there is may be a car on the market that makes Saab actually worth saving.
Wednesday, 11 November 2009
Democracy isn't failing, it just needs a new test...
They say that democracy is failing. Don't ask me who 'they' are, but if you ask any 'international relations' student (the fancy name for politics these days) the student will tell you that democracy is in decline.
I have never believed this, not even slightly. This is not because I think 'they' are lying but more because I think what is considered failing is just wrong. The idea goes that democracy is failing because less people are turning out to vote. This means supposedly that less people believe a difference can be made and more people are becoming disenchanted with the whole system of being lead by those who have been given the all inspiring, all wonderful, all justifying democratic mandate.
This, of course, is a steaming pile. As far as I'm concerned the very fact that people don't vote is evidence that the system IS working. It means that the system is working more efficiently. This is for two reasons:
1. If you don't vote that means you don't really care who is going to lead the country. 'Oh no' I hear you say, 'evidence that people don't trust politicians and that people don't think they can do the job'. Au Contraire. This mean that people think that whoever is elected they are going to do a pretty good job and as a result think that turning up to the polling station is just a waste of their day that could be spent solving the mysteries of life, or whatever it is people in the UK do in their spare time. Don't believe me? Think about it, if you thought the BNP or some other nutters were going to get in power would you be more likely to vote? Unless you really are a shaved chimp the answer is yes. If you thought that the party to get elected was going to turn you out of your home and banish you to work in a factory for the rest of your God-given life would you vote? Of course. Even if there were several parties who were in the running all with such similarly inane, fatuous ideas you would vote for the green party just to try and dilute the power of the others. If there was no party that would allow you to keep your home, you would start your own party.
The fact is the only reason why people don't vote, isn't because 'all politicians are as bad as each other'. It is because they're lazy and don't really think either party is going to do much damage to their way of life. In essence while they tell you it is because they don't trust any of the parties, people don't cote because actually they do trust ALL of the parties, and therefore don't really see a pressing need to bother voting. You can't argue with the logic.
2. The second reason that people don't vote and this I think is never appreciated, is because many many people are either too thick to understand what is going on or don't bother to find out. This, I say hand on heart, is no bad thing. Anyone who thinks that it is a bad thing probably isn't too sharp themselves. Let me put it this way, if you went to hospital and you had to have an operation would you have the Doctor schedule an operation or would you have him bring in several complete strangers and ask them to vote on what operation they think you should have despite the fact they have never read your chart? The fact is there is always going to be a decent section of society that either doesn't have the time or the Witt to learn about the various parties, what they stand for and the policy that they are seeking to promote. In these circumstances why would you want them to vote? They obviously don't care, if they do vote they will be doing it on who they have seen the most of (the tactic I employed in deciding University elections), whose name they like or who looks the 'coolest'. You wouldn't use it to choose your surgeon, so why is it any different in politics.
As if this wasn't bad enough for every numbskulled neanderthal that votes for the one with the nicest tie (which appears often to be Nick Griffin) that means your carefully considered vote means less. Conversely for every vacuous, knuckle dragging, cretin who stays at home your vote counts for more. So why is that a bad thing again?
Sure, I know I'm sounding harsh, we can't expect everyone to take an interest in politics, intellectual or otherwise, human nature will always mean that there will be some who find it interesting and others who cannot tolerate the thought of it for longer than 5 seconds and that didn't bother me, to be honest, those who don't like thinking about it can be lead by those who do, that is what canvasing is for. But then X -factor happened and now I find it all a bit wrong.
I have facebook and of late the status updates have been filled with comments about some creature called 'Jedward' and there has been much support and criticism of this creature. Also apparently the Metro and Yahoo News have seen fit to incorporate headlines using words like 'outrage' not in reference to British soldiers dying because of a lack of supplies but in reference to some sonorous bint being voted off the program. Thankfully the Times has not followed suit, else I would be forced to fly to Afghanistan and tell our boys to come home because Western Democracy is no longer worth saving.
But nonetheless with a petition now being set up to send to Downing street (yes I'm still talking about X -factor at this point) one does begin to wonder what is going on.
Surely if people have the time to get so worked up about some mindless entertainment show where members of the public embarrass themselves for the benefit of the masses surely they can find the time to work out Labour has been about as good to Britain as a serious bout of the flu? As a result of which they can get up and vote for the Tories. Or worse, am I forced to conclude that actually the reason why they can get annoyed about 'X - strictly come skating in the Jungle' is because it takes no intelligence to know if someone is singing out of tune?
If the latter is the conclusion then one could ask the question: does that mean that in front of polling booths in order to protect the nation there should be a five question test.
1. What are the names of three main parties in the UK?
2. Who is the current prime minister?
3. Who is the leader of the opposition?
4. Do you think bombing people is an appropriate way to influence government?
5. Which is more important to you, voting five times in X -Factor or once in the general election?
Anyone who doesn't get these questions right gets sent home with a lolly pop and a pat on the back, the other 1% can go on to vote.
I have never believed this, not even slightly. This is not because I think 'they' are lying but more because I think what is considered failing is just wrong. The idea goes that democracy is failing because less people are turning out to vote. This means supposedly that less people believe a difference can be made and more people are becoming disenchanted with the whole system of being lead by those who have been given the all inspiring, all wonderful, all justifying democratic mandate.
This, of course, is a steaming pile. As far as I'm concerned the very fact that people don't vote is evidence that the system IS working. It means that the system is working more efficiently. This is for two reasons:
1. If you don't vote that means you don't really care who is going to lead the country. 'Oh no' I hear you say, 'evidence that people don't trust politicians and that people don't think they can do the job'. Au Contraire. This mean that people think that whoever is elected they are going to do a pretty good job and as a result think that turning up to the polling station is just a waste of their day that could be spent solving the mysteries of life, or whatever it is people in the UK do in their spare time. Don't believe me? Think about it, if you thought the BNP or some other nutters were going to get in power would you be more likely to vote? Unless you really are a shaved chimp the answer is yes. If you thought that the party to get elected was going to turn you out of your home and banish you to work in a factory for the rest of your God-given life would you vote? Of course. Even if there were several parties who were in the running all with such similarly inane, fatuous ideas you would vote for the green party just to try and dilute the power of the others. If there was no party that would allow you to keep your home, you would start your own party.
The fact is the only reason why people don't vote, isn't because 'all politicians are as bad as each other'. It is because they're lazy and don't really think either party is going to do much damage to their way of life. In essence while they tell you it is because they don't trust any of the parties, people don't cote because actually they do trust ALL of the parties, and therefore don't really see a pressing need to bother voting. You can't argue with the logic.
2. The second reason that people don't vote and this I think is never appreciated, is because many many people are either too thick to understand what is going on or don't bother to find out. This, I say hand on heart, is no bad thing. Anyone who thinks that it is a bad thing probably isn't too sharp themselves. Let me put it this way, if you went to hospital and you had to have an operation would you have the Doctor schedule an operation or would you have him bring in several complete strangers and ask them to vote on what operation they think you should have despite the fact they have never read your chart? The fact is there is always going to be a decent section of society that either doesn't have the time or the Witt to learn about the various parties, what they stand for and the policy that they are seeking to promote. In these circumstances why would you want them to vote? They obviously don't care, if they do vote they will be doing it on who they have seen the most of (the tactic I employed in deciding University elections), whose name they like or who looks the 'coolest'. You wouldn't use it to choose your surgeon, so why is it any different in politics.
As if this wasn't bad enough for every numbskulled neanderthal that votes for the one with the nicest tie (which appears often to be Nick Griffin) that means your carefully considered vote means less. Conversely for every vacuous, knuckle dragging, cretin who stays at home your vote counts for more. So why is that a bad thing again?
Sure, I know I'm sounding harsh, we can't expect everyone to take an interest in politics, intellectual or otherwise, human nature will always mean that there will be some who find it interesting and others who cannot tolerate the thought of it for longer than 5 seconds and that didn't bother me, to be honest, those who don't like thinking about it can be lead by those who do, that is what canvasing is for. But then X -factor happened and now I find it all a bit wrong.
I have facebook and of late the status updates have been filled with comments about some creature called 'Jedward' and there has been much support and criticism of this creature. Also apparently the Metro and Yahoo News have seen fit to incorporate headlines using words like 'outrage' not in reference to British soldiers dying because of a lack of supplies but in reference to some sonorous bint being voted off the program. Thankfully the Times has not followed suit, else I would be forced to fly to Afghanistan and tell our boys to come home because Western Democracy is no longer worth saving.
But nonetheless with a petition now being set up to send to Downing street (yes I'm still talking about X -factor at this point) one does begin to wonder what is going on.
Surely if people have the time to get so worked up about some mindless entertainment show where members of the public embarrass themselves for the benefit of the masses surely they can find the time to work out Labour has been about as good to Britain as a serious bout of the flu? As a result of which they can get up and vote for the Tories. Or worse, am I forced to conclude that actually the reason why they can get annoyed about 'X - strictly come skating in the Jungle' is because it takes no intelligence to know if someone is singing out of tune?
If the latter is the conclusion then one could ask the question: does that mean that in front of polling booths in order to protect the nation there should be a five question test.
1. What are the names of three main parties in the UK?
2. Who is the current prime minister?
3. Who is the leader of the opposition?
4. Do you think bombing people is an appropriate way to influence government?
5. Which is more important to you, voting five times in X -Factor or once in the general election?
Anyone who doesn't get these questions right gets sent home with a lolly pop and a pat on the back, the other 1% can go on to vote.
Tuesday, 3 November 2009
BP has the oil, now lets make sure the money goes to the right place
BP has just been given the contract to exploit the largest oil reservoir in Iraq, not far from Bazra.
The estimate that once fully exploited Iraq may become the third largest oil producing nation in the world after Russia and Saudi Arabia.
So what do we think people?
I suppose I could rave on about how this is essentially the mission of invading Iraq finally coming to fruition. After all these years finally the coalition has what it wanted.
I could write about how terrible it is that the war was about oil. I could talk about how tragic it is that so many service men and women have died in the pursuit of 'black gold'.
I could write about how this is such a shocking infringement of the national sovereignty of Iraq or how the greedy oil companies are wringing their hands with anticipation.
Strangely though those things although significant I am not actually in a rush to condemn.
I'll explain why. Well I'll explain why for most of them.
First I don't care that the war was about oil, anyone who thought that the war was about WMD I can only assume has had a fully frontal lobe lobotomy recently. I mean come on, you really thought that Iraq could launch a nuclear weapon against the west in 45mins? they couldn't get a pizza to you in 45 mins let alone a nuclear weapon!
Even before I'd studied international law and realised that the 45 mins is conveniently just the right amount of time to justify a war legally, I could see that anyone who thought Iraq had such technically and logistical prowess was being very imaginative.
So yes, the war was about oil. But we knew that already.
Is that bad? Well yes and no. Frankly I can understand both lines of thought. On the one hand I may quite possibly have trouble reconciling my conscience with the fact that people are going to have to fight in the pursuit of a natural resource, but at the same pragmatically I know that fighting to ensure that we have oil is only one step behind fighting for food to eat. The fact is the food you eat is carried on a truck (running on petrol) loaded onto a ship (running on oil) unloaded in a dock (by machines running on petrol) carried to a supermarket by a truck (running on diesel) and finally picked up and put in your car to take home (running of petrol). The unhappy fact is oil is no longer just about oil anymore it is about food, health care, the ability of a military to defend a nation, the ability of a nation to function.
If one country can cut off the supply of oil to another nation that is tantamount to being able to cut off the supply of air to a person, the fact is they aren't going to last. So is securing oil really any more than just ensuring your nation has the air it needs to breath for the foreseeable future?
That one... is a tough question, I'll admit.
One that isn't a tough question... taking the oil from Iraq itself. Are we stealing Iraq's natural resources? Yes, do I have a problem with this? No not even slightly.
Looking at the countries in the world that do have oil most of them whether it is Libya or Chile or pretty much most nations you can think of with a major oil output, they all have on thing in common, the oil doesn't go to the people, it does to those at the top, usually to support their corrupt regimes.
The money doesn't filter its way down to the working classes, BP isn't going to be robbing Iraq, it is going to be robbing its dictators, leaders and officials... who frankly will manage to live on.
BP isn't going to be making too much money either, they are going to be paid $2 per barrel that they produce, which while over billions of barrels is a fair amount of money compared to the actual value it is a fraction of the price.
This makes me wonder who is going to get the other $60-100 per barrel, but that is another point.
In fact in all this I care only about two things:
1. That some of the money that is made from the oil goes where it doesn't go in most other nations; the working man. I don't know how they could do it but there is going to be a way whether it is paying for schools, hospitals, paying doctors, whatever. In fact I would love to do the job of being the guy who gets to spend it. Can you imagine? "Here is 700 million pounds, do what you think will benefit the people of this nation most" good work if you can get it (assuming you don't have idiots trying to shoot you).
2. Lots of money must also go to the soldiers and the services generally. Anyone who has been injured should be PROPERLY compensated. None of this half payment job, if someone is maimed they should have their lives made as comfortable as money can make it. Also a few million can be spent on making vehicles that can brush off the blasts of IED's and everyone should patrol in them. Finally; helicopters, lots of them the generals out in Iraq should want for nothing after all they are the ones that secured this resource i the first place and you don't muzzle the ox that treats the corn.
If these two points are followed then the world will be a happier place I feel, it won't be perfect, but it'll be that little bit better
The estimate that once fully exploited Iraq may become the third largest oil producing nation in the world after Russia and Saudi Arabia.
So what do we think people?
I suppose I could rave on about how this is essentially the mission of invading Iraq finally coming to fruition. After all these years finally the coalition has what it wanted.
I could write about how terrible it is that the war was about oil. I could talk about how tragic it is that so many service men and women have died in the pursuit of 'black gold'.
I could write about how this is such a shocking infringement of the national sovereignty of Iraq or how the greedy oil companies are wringing their hands with anticipation.
Strangely though those things although significant I am not actually in a rush to condemn.
I'll explain why. Well I'll explain why for most of them.
First I don't care that the war was about oil, anyone who thought that the war was about WMD I can only assume has had a fully frontal lobe lobotomy recently. I mean come on, you really thought that Iraq could launch a nuclear weapon against the west in 45mins? they couldn't get a pizza to you in 45 mins let alone a nuclear weapon!
Even before I'd studied international law and realised that the 45 mins is conveniently just the right amount of time to justify a war legally, I could see that anyone who thought Iraq had such technically and logistical prowess was being very imaginative.
So yes, the war was about oil. But we knew that already.
Is that bad? Well yes and no. Frankly I can understand both lines of thought. On the one hand I may quite possibly have trouble reconciling my conscience with the fact that people are going to have to fight in the pursuit of a natural resource, but at the same pragmatically I know that fighting to ensure that we have oil is only one step behind fighting for food to eat. The fact is the food you eat is carried on a truck (running on petrol) loaded onto a ship (running on oil) unloaded in a dock (by machines running on petrol) carried to a supermarket by a truck (running on diesel) and finally picked up and put in your car to take home (running of petrol). The unhappy fact is oil is no longer just about oil anymore it is about food, health care, the ability of a military to defend a nation, the ability of a nation to function.
If one country can cut off the supply of oil to another nation that is tantamount to being able to cut off the supply of air to a person, the fact is they aren't going to last. So is securing oil really any more than just ensuring your nation has the air it needs to breath for the foreseeable future?
That one... is a tough question, I'll admit.
One that isn't a tough question... taking the oil from Iraq itself. Are we stealing Iraq's natural resources? Yes, do I have a problem with this? No not even slightly.
Looking at the countries in the world that do have oil most of them whether it is Libya or Chile or pretty much most nations you can think of with a major oil output, they all have on thing in common, the oil doesn't go to the people, it does to those at the top, usually to support their corrupt regimes.
The money doesn't filter its way down to the working classes, BP isn't going to be robbing Iraq, it is going to be robbing its dictators, leaders and officials... who frankly will manage to live on.
BP isn't going to be making too much money either, they are going to be paid $2 per barrel that they produce, which while over billions of barrels is a fair amount of money compared to the actual value it is a fraction of the price.
This makes me wonder who is going to get the other $60-100 per barrel, but that is another point.
In fact in all this I care only about two things:
1. That some of the money that is made from the oil goes where it doesn't go in most other nations; the working man. I don't know how they could do it but there is going to be a way whether it is paying for schools, hospitals, paying doctors, whatever. In fact I would love to do the job of being the guy who gets to spend it. Can you imagine? "Here is 700 million pounds, do what you think will benefit the people of this nation most" good work if you can get it (assuming you don't have idiots trying to shoot you).
2. Lots of money must also go to the soldiers and the services generally. Anyone who has been injured should be PROPERLY compensated. None of this half payment job, if someone is maimed they should have their lives made as comfortable as money can make it. Also a few million can be spent on making vehicles that can brush off the blasts of IED's and everyone should patrol in them. Finally; helicopters, lots of them the generals out in Iraq should want for nothing after all they are the ones that secured this resource i the first place and you don't muzzle the ox that treats the corn.
If these two points are followed then the world will be a happier place I feel, it won't be perfect, but it'll be that little bit better
Monday, 2 November 2009
Professor Nutt... this is why you're fired.
Professor Nutt... (it's all in the name)... the Nutty Professor? Hmmm, no no, it won't do, they are all too easy. And so in contravention of the growing trend the title of this comment will contain no cheesy puns. I will just put it plainly and leave the puns for The Sun to come up with.
As I'm sure you know Prof Nutt, the government's advisor has been sacked after comments about how ecstasy and cannabis is less dangerous than alcohol and tobacco.
There seems to be a bit of an uproar about all this after all he pleads 'I was just giving the truth based in science and now I've been sacked for it'.
The response of the public seems to be that of 'oh, yes, you can't sack a man for just saying what is true' (or is that just the left wing media? I don't know).
But everyone seems to be missing the point a little.
Sure as far as I can tell only a complete idiot would say that cannabis is worse than tobacco because at no point has it been suggested that there is a link between cigarettes and having voices in your head. Now as a threat to society goes smoke may kill you, but psychopaths are a lot more dangerous... and the people they harm much more likely to be innocent. However all this means nothing, because unlike Prof Nutt, I haven't commited my time to working out which is more dangerous... in fact I've probably hardly spend more than 6 hours thinking about it in my whole life when considered as an aggregate. So unless he worked it out like this:
people killed by alcohol 8,000
people killed by ecstasy 80
ergo alcohol is more dangerous than pills
I will happily accept that he knows more about it than me. If he did work it out in terms of absolute numbers and disregarding proportions then he should just be sacked for being retarded... but I'll give him more credit than that.
So while I don't believe what he says I'll give him the benefit of the doubt that he has figures to back up what he is saying.
And so I can get on to my actual point, why was he fired.
To understand this you have to understand only that his comments were not in privacy... they were in a lecture. Essentially that means instead of having a quiet word to the government, he shouted out 'I think that ecstasy is less dangerous than alcohol' to the whole world and it gets worse once you think about the subtext that the moron on the street will hear:
+ to the drug user he said: you're no worse than the man in the pub;
+ to the dealer he said: you're no worse than a publican;
+ to the drinker he said: you've tried alcohol and you were fine, why not try pills? There is no reason not to;
+ to the smoker he said: why not add weed?
He didn't actually say this to anyone of course but sub textually he shouted it from every hill top in the land. Drug users don't need another excuse for their habit, they will think of them on their own, I've sat on a bus while associates argued that weed is better for you than tobacco because there is less material in a 'reefa' than there is in a cigarette to smoke (they didn't take into account the higher level of carcinogens in weed). Surely the idea of society (call me mad) is for people to actually be able to enjoy life without needing to be totally 'out of it' as often as possible? Or did the idea that you can be happy without having your high artificially propped up with chemicals die out with dinosaurs?
People will take drugs whether you want them to or not, they don't need encouragement in the same way that robbery doesn't need encouragement, it always has happened and it always will. The police just try and limit it and punish those responsible.
But I digress, Prof Nutt, if in future you wish not to be fired, a simple rule may be applied;
If you want to make any statement about any recreational drugs check it doesn't encourage their use (even implicitly) and if it does put it in a report, back it with some concrete figures and most of all, don't let the press see it!
As I'm sure you know Prof Nutt, the government's advisor has been sacked after comments about how ecstasy and cannabis is less dangerous than alcohol and tobacco.
There seems to be a bit of an uproar about all this after all he pleads 'I was just giving the truth based in science and now I've been sacked for it'.
The response of the public seems to be that of 'oh, yes, you can't sack a man for just saying what is true' (or is that just the left wing media? I don't know).
But everyone seems to be missing the point a little.
Sure as far as I can tell only a complete idiot would say that cannabis is worse than tobacco because at no point has it been suggested that there is a link between cigarettes and having voices in your head. Now as a threat to society goes smoke may kill you, but psychopaths are a lot more dangerous... and the people they harm much more likely to be innocent. However all this means nothing, because unlike Prof Nutt, I haven't commited my time to working out which is more dangerous... in fact I've probably hardly spend more than 6 hours thinking about it in my whole life when considered as an aggregate. So unless he worked it out like this:
people killed by alcohol 8,000
people killed by ecstasy 80
ergo alcohol is more dangerous than pills
I will happily accept that he knows more about it than me. If he did work it out in terms of absolute numbers and disregarding proportions then he should just be sacked for being retarded... but I'll give him more credit than that.
So while I don't believe what he says I'll give him the benefit of the doubt that he has figures to back up what he is saying.
And so I can get on to my actual point, why was he fired.
To understand this you have to understand only that his comments were not in privacy... they were in a lecture. Essentially that means instead of having a quiet word to the government, he shouted out 'I think that ecstasy is less dangerous than alcohol' to the whole world and it gets worse once you think about the subtext that the moron on the street will hear:
+ to the drug user he said: you're no worse than the man in the pub;
+ to the dealer he said: you're no worse than a publican;
+ to the drinker he said: you've tried alcohol and you were fine, why not try pills? There is no reason not to;
+ to the smoker he said: why not add weed?
He didn't actually say this to anyone of course but sub textually he shouted it from every hill top in the land. Drug users don't need another excuse for their habit, they will think of them on their own, I've sat on a bus while associates argued that weed is better for you than tobacco because there is less material in a 'reefa' than there is in a cigarette to smoke (they didn't take into account the higher level of carcinogens in weed). Surely the idea of society (call me mad) is for people to actually be able to enjoy life without needing to be totally 'out of it' as often as possible? Or did the idea that you can be happy without having your high artificially propped up with chemicals die out with dinosaurs?
People will take drugs whether you want them to or not, they don't need encouragement in the same way that robbery doesn't need encouragement, it always has happened and it always will. The police just try and limit it and punish those responsible.
But I digress, Prof Nutt, if in future you wish not to be fired, a simple rule may be applied;
If you want to make any statement about any recreational drugs check it doesn't encourage their use (even implicitly) and if it does put it in a report, back it with some concrete figures and most of all, don't let the press see it!
Thursday, 22 October 2009
Q: What has a stone axe and striking got in common?
Answer: they're both outdated tools that ought to be bannished to history.
Royal Mail... British Airways... they all think that it is a good idea to stirke. I can only presume that their Union leaders are getting thick brown envolopes from UK mail, TNT and Virgin Airways because anyone who has two brain cells even vaguely in communication will be able to decern that such action will merely speed up the demise/privatisation of their companies.
Lets take the Royal Mail as most of the arguments here apply to both:
You're going to stirke... during the most busy time of the year (run up to Christmas). We know for certain that the Royal Mail isn't going to be making money hand over fist. If it was the the government wouldn't really care about modernising the company. They wouldn't be trying to make the RM take on different terms if they were already massively successful, the reason why they are looking to change the system is because it is not efficient and isn't making much money.
According to their own reports
(ftp://ftp.royalmail.com/Downloads/public/ctf/rmg 200809RM_Group_Accounts_May_2009.pdf)
The Royal mail lost £229,000,000 after tax. Nice.
Obviously this is how the mind of Mr RM Union leader is working:
Our company is loosing a lot of money.
They are now trying to modernise the company
This could lead to jobs losses!
There is only on thing to do stirke.
The workers come first!
The thing is Mr Union leader is labouring under a misapprehension. It appears he still thinks it is the 1970's.
In the 1970's the UK was unsure of what was best Communism or Free Market. We didn't know whether is was best to prop up inefficient companies with goverment money in order to ensure people keep their jobs or whether it was best to let the dying die and put the money to good use in new up coming industries that actually had a hope of turning a profit this side of eternity.
That was then, this is now. The Soviet Union has collapsed, the largest political land mass and all it had to show for it was a few potatoes and a few bags of cement. The country was so hideously ineffient it make 'its a knock out' look like a programme on transport efficiency. China, now one of the worlds largest economies has a backbone of Communism but still really blends in the benefits of free market capatalism. The 70's are over and so is the discussion. The most effective thing to do with companies that can't turn a profit is to modernise them so the can or if that proves impossible take the 'old horse' to the vet and have them put down.
Refusing to modernise when you are getting sub'ed by the government is now little more than saying "I could make the system work but screw it I'm getting a free ride off the tax payer so why bother". It is just not an acceptable scenario anymore and no one will put up with it. The governement know that, the public know that but for some reason the Unions don't. I guess they never got that memo.
I think the character of the RM Unions can be seen best in an interview between Andrew Marr and the CWU general secretary Billy Hayes. Apart from the fact he got every name wrong in the interview, even that of Andrew Marr himself, Mr Hayes made one point that demonstrates a bit of a lack of understanding:
"This is about a culture of management who seem to think in a democracy the workforce just have to do what they're told."
Democracy... work force? There seems to be some confusion Mr Hayes about where democracy applies and where it doens't. We get to choose our leaders in a democracy because being subject to the law of the UK is not optional. You are born here, you live here and therefore you are subject to the law. You cannot declare your house to be a new country and subject to your own laws.
Conversely when you work for an employer you do not choose who leads the company, neither do you tell management what to do, the reason is because if you don't like it, you can get up and quit and join a different company or even set up your own. However as long as you draw a wage, generally you are required to do what management tells you (don't get me wrong every now and again you have to tell them to 'take a long walk off a short pier' but generally if the request is reasonable then you are to do it.
All BA and the Royal Mail will do is cause customers to go else where, which means profit will drop further and will speed up the death of their current situation. To make an analogy these days striking is a fire extinguisher, one that just so happens to be filled with petrol.
Royal Mail... British Airways... they all think that it is a good idea to stirke. I can only presume that their Union leaders are getting thick brown envolopes from UK mail, TNT and Virgin Airways because anyone who has two brain cells even vaguely in communication will be able to decern that such action will merely speed up the demise/privatisation of their companies.
Lets take the Royal Mail as most of the arguments here apply to both:
You're going to stirke... during the most busy time of the year (run up to Christmas). We know for certain that the Royal Mail isn't going to be making money hand over fist. If it was the the government wouldn't really care about modernising the company. They wouldn't be trying to make the RM take on different terms if they were already massively successful, the reason why they are looking to change the system is because it is not efficient and isn't making much money.
According to their own reports
(ftp://ftp.royalmail.com/Downloads/public/ctf/rmg 200809RM_Group_Accounts_May_2009.pdf)
The Royal mail lost £229,000,000 after tax. Nice.
Obviously this is how the mind of Mr RM Union leader is working:
Our company is loosing a lot of money.
They are now trying to modernise the company
This could lead to jobs losses!
There is only on thing to do stirke.
The workers come first!
The thing is Mr Union leader is labouring under a misapprehension. It appears he still thinks it is the 1970's.
In the 1970's the UK was unsure of what was best Communism or Free Market. We didn't know whether is was best to prop up inefficient companies with goverment money in order to ensure people keep their jobs or whether it was best to let the dying die and put the money to good use in new up coming industries that actually had a hope of turning a profit this side of eternity.
That was then, this is now. The Soviet Union has collapsed, the largest political land mass and all it had to show for it was a few potatoes and a few bags of cement. The country was so hideously ineffient it make 'its a knock out' look like a programme on transport efficiency. China, now one of the worlds largest economies has a backbone of Communism but still really blends in the benefits of free market capatalism. The 70's are over and so is the discussion. The most effective thing to do with companies that can't turn a profit is to modernise them so the can or if that proves impossible take the 'old horse' to the vet and have them put down.
Refusing to modernise when you are getting sub'ed by the government is now little more than saying "I could make the system work but screw it I'm getting a free ride off the tax payer so why bother". It is just not an acceptable scenario anymore and no one will put up with it. The governement know that, the public know that but for some reason the Unions don't. I guess they never got that memo.
I think the character of the RM Unions can be seen best in an interview between Andrew Marr and the CWU general secretary Billy Hayes. Apart from the fact he got every name wrong in the interview, even that of Andrew Marr himself, Mr Hayes made one point that demonstrates a bit of a lack of understanding:
"This is about a culture of management who seem to think in a democracy the workforce just have to do what they're told."
Democracy... work force? There seems to be some confusion Mr Hayes about where democracy applies and where it doens't. We get to choose our leaders in a democracy because being subject to the law of the UK is not optional. You are born here, you live here and therefore you are subject to the law. You cannot declare your house to be a new country and subject to your own laws.
Conversely when you work for an employer you do not choose who leads the company, neither do you tell management what to do, the reason is because if you don't like it, you can get up and quit and join a different company or even set up your own. However as long as you draw a wage, generally you are required to do what management tells you (don't get me wrong every now and again you have to tell them to 'take a long walk off a short pier' but generally if the request is reasonable then you are to do it.
All BA and the Royal Mail will do is cause customers to go else where, which means profit will drop further and will speed up the death of their current situation. To make an analogy these days striking is a fire extinguisher, one that just so happens to be filled with petrol.
Wednesday, 21 October 2009
The BNP on BBC question time, next stop savagery and barbarism
Just to boot, in case you haven't grasped how this works yet, my title is sarcastic. I do not think that because the BNP is on question time the world will descend into anarchy.
For some reason people seem convinced that because the BNP are going to be on question time this means that the end of the world in nigh and that we are all soon to be plunged into a neo-Nazi nightmare.
People seem to be missing something however, being put on question time is not being elected, one would precipitate a disaster and the other means practically nothing.
For some reason people think that if you give the BNP the 'legitimacy' of being on a BBC program then everyone in the UK will sit there and think... 'you know what, their obviously not bad guys if the Beeb will have them on their program, I think I'll stop voting labour like I have the last 30 years and start voting for them'.
My goodness people if getting votes was that easy we'd have a new government every five minutes.
There is a fundamental reason why the BNP will never get in... it is not a secret but maybe it will come as a surprise nonetheless;
...the UK will never have a BNP parliament because we're not racist!
The majority of people in the UK are so anti racist it is astounding, I sometimes forget this and then end up choking on my food when I hear someone from another Western European country saying something that, here in the UK, would totally unacceptable. We forget that we are very likely the least racist country in world. As a result there is more likely hood of Katie Price becoming a Nobel Physics prize winner than there being any strong BNP contingent in the UK.
The only way they would ever make head way is if around 50% of the country was racist, and if that was the case the problem would not be that the BNP is in power but that 50% of or country had turned racist over night.
'Ah' you say, 'but it is not the fact their are racist, it is the fact that the BNP can go on the Television and convince people they are actually nice people and not racist and then get votes that way, misleading the public into electing them'.
That could be very true under different circumstances, but lets think about this, which program are they going on? The Jeremy Kyle show? Trisha? No, they are going on question time, what sort of naive retards do you think are going to be watching?
Do you think that will a little demagoguery Nick Griffin is going to have the intellectual class eating out of his hand? If this is the case we better ban him from YouTube too!
At the end of the day sure, if he was going to talk to teenagers in run down areas, if he was talking to those who watch and enjoy Jeremy Kyle, if he was going to talk to those who are borderline mentally handicapped then I would be concerned, but question time? If you think his mind control powers are that good you have been watching a little too much Star Wars.
Oh and just a reminder, the reason why their people got any votes in Europe in the first place is because discussion of immigration (nothing to do with race) was repressed and as a result no one would address or consider what was on the minds of a reasonable amount of people in the UK. These people (rightly or wrongly) then voted for the only people they saw discussing the issue. In short repressing discussion doesn't really help anyone.
When Question time does air, I will not be fretting in my boots. Oh contraire, I will be relaxing in my chair pleased in the knowledge that thanks to freedom of speech these people and their policies are going to be exposed on television for everyone to see in the way nature intended.
For some reason people seem convinced that because the BNP are going to be on question time this means that the end of the world in nigh and that we are all soon to be plunged into a neo-Nazi nightmare.
People seem to be missing something however, being put on question time is not being elected, one would precipitate a disaster and the other means practically nothing.
For some reason people think that if you give the BNP the 'legitimacy' of being on a BBC program then everyone in the UK will sit there and think... 'you know what, their obviously not bad guys if the Beeb will have them on their program, I think I'll stop voting labour like I have the last 30 years and start voting for them'.
My goodness people if getting votes was that easy we'd have a new government every five minutes.
There is a fundamental reason why the BNP will never get in... it is not a secret but maybe it will come as a surprise nonetheless;
...the UK will never have a BNP parliament because we're not racist!
The majority of people in the UK are so anti racist it is astounding, I sometimes forget this and then end up choking on my food when I hear someone from another Western European country saying something that, here in the UK, would totally unacceptable. We forget that we are very likely the least racist country in world. As a result there is more likely hood of Katie Price becoming a Nobel Physics prize winner than there being any strong BNP contingent in the UK.
The only way they would ever make head way is if around 50% of the country was racist, and if that was the case the problem would not be that the BNP is in power but that 50% of or country had turned racist over night.
'Ah' you say, 'but it is not the fact their are racist, it is the fact that the BNP can go on the Television and convince people they are actually nice people and not racist and then get votes that way, misleading the public into electing them'.
That could be very true under different circumstances, but lets think about this, which program are they going on? The Jeremy Kyle show? Trisha? No, they are going on question time, what sort of naive retards do you think are going to be watching?
Do you think that will a little demagoguery Nick Griffin is going to have the intellectual class eating out of his hand? If this is the case we better ban him from YouTube too!
At the end of the day sure, if he was going to talk to teenagers in run down areas, if he was talking to those who watch and enjoy Jeremy Kyle, if he was going to talk to those who are borderline mentally handicapped then I would be concerned, but question time? If you think his mind control powers are that good you have been watching a little too much Star Wars.
Oh and just a reminder, the reason why their people got any votes in Europe in the first place is because discussion of immigration (nothing to do with race) was repressed and as a result no one would address or consider what was on the minds of a reasonable amount of people in the UK. These people (rightly or wrongly) then voted for the only people they saw discussing the issue. In short repressing discussion doesn't really help anyone.
When Question time does air, I will not be fretting in my boots. Oh contraire, I will be relaxing in my chair pleased in the knowledge that thanks to freedom of speech these people and their policies are going to be exposed on television for everyone to see in the way nature intended.
Sunday, 18 October 2009
Geert Wilders is in the UK, hmmm sensitive topic I feel...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8311059.stm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/oct/16/geert-wilders-dutch-far-right
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/wilders-hails-his-arrival-in-uk-as-victory-for-free-speech-1804347.html
Geert Wilders is in the UK, hmmm sensitive topic I feel... but nonetheless one that needs commenting on.
This man claims that Islam is a threat to Western civilisation and so on and so forth. Now I don't want to get involved in a discussion about Islam itself because as far as I'm concerned there is a bigger point to be discussed that covers Islam and a whole lot more. That is freedom of speech.
Now last time I checked most people agreed that freedom of speech is a fundamental tenant of Western democracy. To be honest I believe more in freedom of speech than I do in most of the other elements of a democracy. If anything the other elements are there to ensure that freedom of speech exists.
Don't get me wrong it is not without its problems, you cannot have absolute freedom of speech otherwise you would be able to incite violence and various other crimes. You also have to consider things such as stirring up hatred against racial groups too, but then this should come under the category of stirring up violence.
But there is a balance to be achieved and this balance is fundamental to the Western way of life and without it this country would soon go to pot.
So why is it so important?
Simple, a ban on offence is a ban on criticism. This is why dictators love restricting speech, it is why communist countries love restrictions and but this is not why the governement likes making restictions.
The reason our governement likes restricting speech is not to prevent criticism of the government itself (not in this case anyway) but to prevent the criticism of those who have big mouths. The government doesn't want the Islam to be offended, because whenever they are they take to the streets with banners saying various unpleasant things.
But wait a minute, since when was that a legitimate to supress the expression of opinion?
Really now, since when?
If I decide to pick up some retarded opinion such as apes are in fact superior and must be made to reign in the UK, if I then built a following that would then protest in a very aggressive fashion everytime someone said something against 'ape-ism' it would then be retarded to think 'oh best not offend them, better prevent people saying anything against ape-ism and prevent people coming to the UK to talk about it.
The first thing I was taught regarding freedom of speech in my Human Rights lectures was that it is only offensive opinions that need to be protected in the first place, because if the opinion was not offensive no one would be complaining about it.
If you can't criticise then the whole playing field because un-leveled, can you imagine going to court after being accused of something you did not do, and then once in court you are told that you can defend yourself just as long as you don't criticise the credibility or the storey of the prosecutor. You'd be wondering what exactly you can do and in short, you'd be screwed.
People kicking up a fuss was never a reason to let them get their way or as Winston Churchill once said "An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last." And this is exactly what the government is doing, I mean lets be honest anyone who has signs saying 'freedom go to hell' should be open to a bit of debate and that goes whether the person adheres to a religion, ideology, 'science' or anything else. I, like anyone have things that are important to me, things that I don't like other people making fun of or criticising (especially when the criticisim is from the point of ignorance, which it often is) but I think people should have the freedom to do those things even though it offends me because then I know when I have to say things that offend others (and I will) they will have to accept that I am free to do so just them same. I don't go out of my way to offend and I don't think people should generally, but that doesn't mean for one minute that offence should be prevented at the cost of genuine freedoms.
It is time of the UK to grow up in a way, instead of trying to keep everyone happy and stopping play everytime someone wants to sulk we should accept that we're all adults and that offence is going to happen whether we like it or not. If we don't every aspect of our lives will be controlled by those who tantrum the loudest and most inappropriately whenever something happens they don't like. In a line; freedom will go to hell.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/oct/16/geert-wilders-dutch-far-right
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/wilders-hails-his-arrival-in-uk-as-victory-for-free-speech-1804347.html
Geert Wilders is in the UK, hmmm sensitive topic I feel... but nonetheless one that needs commenting on.
This man claims that Islam is a threat to Western civilisation and so on and so forth. Now I don't want to get involved in a discussion about Islam itself because as far as I'm concerned there is a bigger point to be discussed that covers Islam and a whole lot more. That is freedom of speech.
Now last time I checked most people agreed that freedom of speech is a fundamental tenant of Western democracy. To be honest I believe more in freedom of speech than I do in most of the other elements of a democracy. If anything the other elements are there to ensure that freedom of speech exists.
Don't get me wrong it is not without its problems, you cannot have absolute freedom of speech otherwise you would be able to incite violence and various other crimes. You also have to consider things such as stirring up hatred against racial groups too, but then this should come under the category of stirring up violence.
But there is a balance to be achieved and this balance is fundamental to the Western way of life and without it this country would soon go to pot.
So why is it so important?
Simple, a ban on offence is a ban on criticism. This is why dictators love restricting speech, it is why communist countries love restrictions and but this is not why the governement likes making restictions.
The reason our governement likes restricting speech is not to prevent criticism of the government itself (not in this case anyway) but to prevent the criticism of those who have big mouths. The government doesn't want the Islam to be offended, because whenever they are they take to the streets with banners saying various unpleasant things.
But wait a minute, since when was that a legitimate to supress the expression of opinion?
Really now, since when?
If I decide to pick up some retarded opinion such as apes are in fact superior and must be made to reign in the UK, if I then built a following that would then protest in a very aggressive fashion everytime someone said something against 'ape-ism' it would then be retarded to think 'oh best not offend them, better prevent people saying anything against ape-ism and prevent people coming to the UK to talk about it.
The first thing I was taught regarding freedom of speech in my Human Rights lectures was that it is only offensive opinions that need to be protected in the first place, because if the opinion was not offensive no one would be complaining about it.
If you can't criticise then the whole playing field because un-leveled, can you imagine going to court after being accused of something you did not do, and then once in court you are told that you can defend yourself just as long as you don't criticise the credibility or the storey of the prosecutor. You'd be wondering what exactly you can do and in short, you'd be screwed.
People kicking up a fuss was never a reason to let them get their way or as Winston Churchill once said "An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last." And this is exactly what the government is doing, I mean lets be honest anyone who has signs saying 'freedom go to hell' should be open to a bit of debate and that goes whether the person adheres to a religion, ideology, 'science' or anything else. I, like anyone have things that are important to me, things that I don't like other people making fun of or criticising (especially when the criticisim is from the point of ignorance, which it often is) but I think people should have the freedom to do those things even though it offends me because then I know when I have to say things that offend others (and I will) they will have to accept that I am free to do so just them same. I don't go out of my way to offend and I don't think people should generally, but that doesn't mean for one minute that offence should be prevented at the cost of genuine freedoms.
It is time of the UK to grow up in a way, instead of trying to keep everyone happy and stopping play everytime someone wants to sulk we should accept that we're all adults and that offence is going to happen whether we like it or not. If we don't every aspect of our lives will be controlled by those who tantrum the loudest and most inappropriately whenever something happens they don't like. In a line; freedom will go to hell.
Saturday, 17 October 2009
Goldman Sachs: opps I did it again!
Just a quick thank you to Goldman Sachs. You have done such sterling work in restoring the confidence of the public in the banks.
In such a short time you have proved that you can repent and learn from past mistakes. You have made huge efforts to change a reckless and damaging culture so that it is now so wholely reformed that it can hard be recognised anymore when compared to the original bonus fuelled, risk driven foolishness of yesterday (almost literally yesterday).
http://www.metro.co.uk/news/article.html?Bank_has_%A310bn_for_pay_and_bonuses&in_article_id=752891&in_page_id=34
Oh wait, not I must have been thinking of someone else!
What a bunch of idiots. This does nothing for Bank publicity. Don't get me wrong I'm no fool, I know that if you want the best you have to pay the best, if you want the best to work like dogs then you have to pay them even more. This is the principle that capitalism is based on. In a competitive market the people who need to be in the best jobs are in the best jobs because therein lies the money.
If the banks start paying rubbish wages then the next generation of super intelligent uber hardworking men and women will be going into another less important industry instead... and that does not benefit anyone. Especially the UK where finance is our life blood.
The system works quite well, unless you're incompetant and/or lazy in which case you just resent other people getting money when you don't have it. I don't get million pound bonuses (yet) but then I never slogged my guts out through the whole of GCSE, A-level and finally in Oxbridge so that I could get a job in a bank... in other words I have had some actual enjoyment in my life, and as a result I'm happy with a decent normal wage. Those who did sacrifice the whole of their younger lives however, do deserve a porsche to show for it.
So why do I think that this news is so bad?
Well apart from the fact that they just make the headlines and look like the scum of the earth, apart from the fact that the G20 just signed an agreement to curb the bonus culture.... the whole problem we had was being of the short sightedness of the bonus behaviour.
When one gets their bonus at the end of the year all one cares about is ensuring there is a huge pot of cash coming at the end of the year. This inevitably leads to short sighted dealing. If you want to reward your staff make it so they get their bonuses on a three year delay. That way if your bank goes under three years of bonuses go with it! Quite an incentive to make sure your bank is looking healthy in the long term.
To be honest the boys on the trading floor aren't the ones that make the difference, it is the policy managers on the board... so theirs should be on a 4 year time delay.
If all banks are forced to do this then when you move banks there will be no overlap or gap between payments if you move banks and so everyone is happy and no one has to worry about missing their yacht payments.
Right, now that the world of finance is put right I'm going to shave...
In such a short time you have proved that you can repent and learn from past mistakes. You have made huge efforts to change a reckless and damaging culture so that it is now so wholely reformed that it can hard be recognised anymore when compared to the original bonus fuelled, risk driven foolishness of yesterday (almost literally yesterday).
http://www.metro.co.uk/news/article.html?Bank_has_%A310bn_for_pay_and_bonuses&in_article_id=752891&in_page_id=34
Oh wait, not I must have been thinking of someone else!
What a bunch of idiots. This does nothing for Bank publicity. Don't get me wrong I'm no fool, I know that if you want the best you have to pay the best, if you want the best to work like dogs then you have to pay them even more. This is the principle that capitalism is based on. In a competitive market the people who need to be in the best jobs are in the best jobs because therein lies the money.
If the banks start paying rubbish wages then the next generation of super intelligent uber hardworking men and women will be going into another less important industry instead... and that does not benefit anyone. Especially the UK where finance is our life blood.
The system works quite well, unless you're incompetant and/or lazy in which case you just resent other people getting money when you don't have it. I don't get million pound bonuses (yet) but then I never slogged my guts out through the whole of GCSE, A-level and finally in Oxbridge so that I could get a job in a bank... in other words I have had some actual enjoyment in my life, and as a result I'm happy with a decent normal wage. Those who did sacrifice the whole of their younger lives however, do deserve a porsche to show for it.
So why do I think that this news is so bad?
Well apart from the fact that they just make the headlines and look like the scum of the earth, apart from the fact that the G20 just signed an agreement to curb the bonus culture.... the whole problem we had was being of the short sightedness of the bonus behaviour.
When one gets their bonus at the end of the year all one cares about is ensuring there is a huge pot of cash coming at the end of the year. This inevitably leads to short sighted dealing. If you want to reward your staff make it so they get their bonuses on a three year delay. That way if your bank goes under three years of bonuses go with it! Quite an incentive to make sure your bank is looking healthy in the long term.
To be honest the boys on the trading floor aren't the ones that make the difference, it is the policy managers on the board... so theirs should be on a 4 year time delay.
If all banks are forced to do this then when you move banks there will be no overlap or gap between payments if you move banks and so everyone is happy and no one has to worry about missing their yacht payments.
Right, now that the world of finance is put right I'm going to shave...
Wednesday, 7 October 2009
It is not complicated. The 50% tax is just a dumb idea...
Not long ago the Labour government announced that it was going to introduce a 50% tax rate on those earning more than £150,000.
On the face of it this will instantly seem like a good idea to some people, particularly those of a socialism slant, those who are idealistic but not necessarily partially minded, in short people who should never be allow to run the country. Labour basically.
The idea is that those who are earning lots of money can afford to lose a bit more, after all, they have plenty to lose. Meanwhile those who don’t have much shouldn’t have that which they have taken away from them.
This is often popular because after all you don’t earn over £150,000, do you? So it isn’t going to sting you, and the number of people who do earn that much aren’t really going to carry that many votes, because there are so few of them. So it is a win win situation, right? Piddle on the rich and get the approval of everyone else.
But for anyone with the foresight that goes beyond the end of their nose there is a problem with this: it’s a steaming pile of manure.
First of all let’s tackle the practical element. It holds the most sway for most people and it will lead naturally on to the moral element.
The people who are really rich, I mean seriously, stinking ‘I spend most of my time on my yacht with orange and silicon women’, are in a seriously small minority. They also don’t get ‘pay packets’. They don’t get a cheque paid into their bank account each month for them to pay their mortgage and for their food and gas, they own companies. They get their money through interest in liquid assets, they get it from shares, they get it from buying and selling products across the globe and they get paid dividends, none of which is covered by this new level of income tax.
Even that which is covered by income tax isn’t going to end up in the states pockets because they pay very smart people very good money to make sure that it stays in their own pockets, after all that is what a high price accountant is for.
If by some miracle it was going to hurt them then they would up sticks and move to another country, and then not only would we not get the extra tax, you have just lost all the other tax that they pay too, VAT, Stamp duty etc etc etc. Have a look at the times
1 The
Unlike communist countries like
2 We’re not the
Unlike the
Also you’re only one BA ticket away from the Italian, French and all the other Riveras that the uber rich love so well.
3 Our tax isn’t high
That’s right, the crux of the matter. Living in the UK is expensive but no as much as living in Sweden or many other states with super high taxes… if we put high tax on everything all that will do will make a high demand for movers as all the super rich hop on a plane to the next stable country.
So increase taxes and watch you tax revenue drop like a stone… good plan Gordon.
Now for the moral element. Let’s consider the poor chap who is actually going to have to pay this retarded tax. Generally this is going to cover Barristers, some GP’s and a few other professionals. It won’t cover the Directors of banks of course because they will have moved to
So professionals will get stung. Nice, after all they deserve it don’t they? While you were in University getting lashed to the point you couldn’t remember your name they were in the library boring themselves half to death in order to ensure they get a good job. But now Labour wants to take 25k out of the last 50k they earn to pay for their own cock-ups.
It doesn’t take a genius to work out that eventually they may just stop working so hard in the first place. Why not just work less hours and earn 150k and avoid extra tax altogether?
Or if you are a talented student why would you get a job as a lawyer in the
Pay to train people and then watch them fly abroad… very efficient!
Finally we get to the
Well you have to take into account all the costs they incur. First of all you have the sports car. This is essential; there is no other way to travel in one of the biggest cities in the world than by a Porsche or Ferrari. No other vehicle can really make the most of their performance like a Porsche can when being driven from traffic light to traffic light at 12-25mph. All that German engineering really pays off when speed right up to 35 from the lights and then hit the brakes because there is a speed camera coming up on the left hand side. Of course it is not just the car you have to pay for, there is also the congestion charge and the parking which is currently about £7,000 per day. That 200k job doesn’t seem so much now does it?
That is before of course you have factored in your £5,000 per year coke addiction to compensate for the lack of endorphins in your body because you haven’t had time to have sex with your wife for the past 4 years.
Then you’ll need a substantial pension because you won’t have any children to look after you as you and your wife were too busy chasing your careers to have time for any type of family.
Hmmm guess that 200k doesn’t seem so much now does it? But don’t worry soon it will be less as you work 60-80 hours per week to pay for Mr Browns spending sprees!
N.B. I do appreciate there is on last category of rich person I have not addressed who will be hit by this tax, Mr ‘Daddy paid for me to go to Eton and Oxford/gave me a great big inheritance/got me a job in his company’ and now I have tons of cash even though I’m about as competent as any middle manager who just has to make do with the £20k to £30k that they earn through merit.
This is unfair and these people could be taxed for all I care, however that isn’t going to sort out the inequality of nepotism. That is a different matter altogether which ought to be addressed separately.
Monday, 5 October 2009
Who caused the recession? Who? who? who?
Right here is a quick summary of how the credit crunch and the 08/09 recession happened and who is to blame. Why am I telling you these things? Well everyone likes to rant about these things… or at least I do and if we’re going to rant we might as well do it properly.
After all you can’t go bashing the wrong people, that would be just wrong, wouldn’t it.
1.
2. Thick American mortgage lenders started lending lots of money to people to buy houses that they couldn’t afford.
Now to begin with this doesn’t sound like anything serious, I mean if you lend money to people and they don’t keep up payments that isn’t your fault right? Well usually yes, in this case… seriously no.
First these thick Estate agents (realtors) would give a mortgage on one set of payments and often not really explain that in two years the cost of the payments would go up… now even the thickest most delinquent person can realise that poor people who can only just afford the first payment are not going to be able to pay the new increased rate in two years. As a result they will default.
Second these people cared so little about whether they would actually pay the monthly instalments that they would accept ‘stated income’ which is where you provide no proof of what you earn you would just tell them and they would take word for it. Good to know the system wasn’t open to abuse, idiots.
Third the people who were selling these mortgages would get up to $10,000 in commission so obviously they would give them to anyone who had a pulse. Some people were made millionaires selling these things.
Apparently even the president at the time (GW Bush) thought they were a good idea and endorsed these mortgages in a speech. But then he was never going to be able to criticise them because most of these mortgages were being given to low income Hispanics, which means if he said that they should be more careful he would look like a complete and utter racist/class bigot.
3. These mortgages were bundled together (good ones and bad ones) and the their risk was sold across the world to other banks including the major financial centre of the world….
London’s mistake was that it didn’t bother checking what mortgages were in these risk bundles they were buying so when the American banks when to the wall they didn’t know whether they were holding a bag full of money or a bad full of rabid rats…. As a result everyone freaked out and stopped lending to each other not going what cards they were holding. This freeze on lending prevented everyone getting credit and thus the ‘credit crunch’ began.
4. Who’s fault is it? Well I am never one to start pointing out who is to fault, ha ha ha aha ha ah, ok maybe I am.
Over in the
Over here in the
There is a nice little speech that was made by Gordon Brown to the British financial industry. He said (I paraphrase) ‘I was told to regulate the banking industry and I didn’t and look how well it has all turned out’. This was said a year or two before the crunch kicked off obviously. Opps, poor Gordon now you look like a bit of a burke!
So how to summarise? Hmmmm…
Well if you’re an American I guess you blame the morons who gave money to people who couldn’t afford it and didn’t tell them they were going to be paying a fat lot more in 2 years time, easy enough really!
If you’re British I guess you blame the retards in the banks who thought that it would be a good idea to purchase risk from mortgagors and not check how much of this risk was sub-prime and how much was from people who could actually pay their bills… or blame Gordon Brown for not regulating those banks.
I’m not sure if regulation would have actually stopped the banks cocking the whole lot up but what can I say, I’m just mad at him because he won’t call a election.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
