Got a spare €400m ?

Stevo_666

pinarello001 wrote:

I wasn't referring to the 'Holiday' period, I was referring to investment by foriegn companies on the whole, underlining a lack of home grown industries (service or otherwise).
It still makes no sense - a foreign company does not set up to add value to the economy - it is there to take profits out.
So answer the question, if they are taking more out of the country than they are putting in, then it is a net loss to the UK? Full stop. No argument there.

Well now you've asked the question clearly...

"If they are taking more out than they are putting in" - it's a bit tricky to take out more than you put in without leaving the company unable to pay what it owes - usually not possible on anything other than a short term basis due to rules on solvency and the need to pay bill to be able to continue trading. Dividends can only be paid out of what's left after everything has been paid and there are legal limits on what can be paid out as a dividend.

Obviously companies set up here to make money. The return on investment is usually over a period of year, often measured as a % of capital invested. The company has to generate profits before they can be extracted - and after paying staff, suppliers, tax etc. So there is a net benefit to the UK.

pinarello001 wrote:

Service sector jobs by their nature do not support a network of other related industry (other than the service sector - which is fickle). This goes back to Germany - at least half of their economy is industrial. The strongest economies have big industry, our service sector is not only fickle and far too susceptible to global economic changes, it is not balanced and supported by the volume of British owned industrial production.
Lack if investment in infrastructure. Lack of forward thinking from education to mis-management.
P1ss poor Britain. P1ss poor performance. P1ss poor economy with Cameroon begging foreign compaies to invest in. He even asked the Chinese for investment money in our new power stations?!? So when we buy energy in the future, half the profits go out of the door.
Great future for us - half of the UK owned by foreign companies leeching money out of the system and you can justify that because they pay corporation tax, VAT and employ people.?
We can't and have never been able to run a p1ss up in a brewery so we go begging for inward investment. It is a no brainer.
"It's the best we got".[Ref: Stevo 666, 2014)
UK PLC, a ship with a weak hull run by half wits.

I think your grasp of accounting and company law is nearly as good as your grasp of tax Companies cannot just leech money out of the country anyhow they like. There is bucketloads of corporate and tax law round this but it would send people to sleep iof I tried to explain it all here and now.

This 'manufacturing = good , services = bad' assumption is simplistic and wrong. Who gives a stuff whether we are selling widgets, contents of our brains or anything else? Its the same end effect - you do something to earn money. Service companies generate a trickle down effect of other companies that support them just like manufacturing companies. And often earn better margins - in the business I am in (which just happens to be a foreign owned multinational), products are becoming increasingly commoditised and services are seen as a big growth area. Manufacturing is just as susceptible to economic changes, sometimes in different ways.

What you also don''t take into account is that the UK is a very large outward investor. UK overseas investments are huge and at least as large as the inward flows - so we benefit from these investments in the same way as overseas companies benefit from investing in the UK. Works both ways... Globally, the UK has the third largest level of inward investment but the second largest level of outward investment. We are rather good at being the 'foreign leech' as you might put it...

Germany (and France) would love to have a service sector like ours - that's why the EU keeps trying to add more regulation to financial services. 'The City' - whether you like it or not - one of our biggest revenue earners and export generators. Fickle services eh?

Protectionist thinking like yours is harmful to the economy. Also seems borderline jingoistic to say that people can't invest here just because they're foreign. Would you ban it?

Also this very negative view of the UK economy to me is not borne out by the facts - sounds more like the sort of propaganda peddled by those who don't just like the current system.

pinno

"This 'manufacturing = good , services = bad' assumption is simplistic and wrong. "

I did not say that. I said that the service sector has to be balanced with the foundations of a good industrial base. Strong economies are commensurate with a good industrail base. Strong industry survives recession generally, whereas service struggles with resession.

"Germany (and France) would love to have a service sector like ours - that's why the EU keeps trying to add more regulation to financial services."

I have never read so much bollox. Maybe, those in the EU don't want a repeat of the banking crisis? That's a good subject to get on to - A perfect example of capitalism going unchallenged and then the consequences are felt by millions of people who have to pick up the tab and suffer as a result.

@PBlakeney - No one has said that there is a Utopian ideal. Both Nathancom and the one's on the other side have talked about fairness and better distribuition of wealth - never a Utopia. By saying that we think that there is a Utopia to be found in Socialism mean that you are going to gloss over glaring and unfair inequalities in Capitalism?

Human Nature to be oppressive? It has been answered by d87francis quite eloquently.

It is quite apparent so far, that the Capitalits in this thread are blind to the problems that capitalism throws up, nonchalant and dismissive of the problems you reluctantly accept and dissmissive of a counter argument.
Every time someone throws some very credible cards on the table, you either dismiss it a socialist bollox or try to accuse us of being unrealistic. Citing East Germany, Russia and other dictatorships as examples of Socialism gone wrong, is a weak argument which implies that we espouse the virtues of those regimes and that the only alternative to capitalism is one that is enforced socialism.
I will not respond to those who veer in that direction everytime a point is thrown up - it is a weak line and one that is incorrect.

The core of this thread is about inequality, excesses of the rich and poor distribution of wealth.

pblakeney

pinarello001 wrote:

@PBlakeney - No one has said that there is a Utopian ideal. Both Nathancom and the one's on the other side have talked about fairness and better distribuition of wealth - never a Utopia. By saying that we think that there is a Utopia to be found in Socialism mean that you are going to gloss over glaring and unfair inequalities in Capitalism?

Human Nature to be oppressive? It has been answered by d87francis quite eloquently.

They may not be calling their solutions Utopia and I may be remiss in using that term for their solutions but they are presenting their solutions as if they were flawless. I happen to disagree. Surely this is allowed?

d87francis may have answered eloquently, but not adequately.
Human nature is nurtured, not natural? And who nurtures it? Humans. Full circle.
The majority of humans may not be evil (for want of a better word) but enough people are to make a significant difference. And they are not all old money rich people either.

nathancom

PBlakeney wrote:

pinarello001 wrote:

@PBlakeney - No one has said that there is a Utopian ideal. Both Nathancom and the one's on the other side have talked about fairness and better distribuition of wealth - never a Utopia. By saying that we think that there is a Utopia to be found in Socialism mean that you are going to gloss over glaring and unfair inequalities in Capitalism?

Human Nature to be oppressive? It has been answered by d87francis quite eloquently.

They may not be calling their solutions Utopia and I may be remiss in using that term for their solutions but they are presenting their solutions as if they were flawless. I happen to disagree. Surely this is allowed?

d87francis may have answered eloquently, but not adequately.
Human nature is nurtured, not natural? And who nurtures it? Humans. Full circle.
The majority of humans may not be evil (for want of a better word) but enough people are to make a significant difference. And they are not all old money rich people either.

Culture is remarkably varied and prone to change for something that you believe to be the product of our nature.

pblakeney

nathancom wrote:

Culture is remarkably varied and prone to change for something that you believe to be the product of our nature.

That would depend entirely on what aspects of human nature or culture to which you are referring, and to what detail.

I am referring to humans being a tribal beast, and those tribes have leaders and followers as a broad outline.
Some of those followers are voluntary and some are forced.

I am not painting this as an ideal situation, merely the reality.

AlexMac1973

SloppySchleckonds wrote:

Jesus wept….

He's not the only one!! And that was only by page 5 I'd given up. :roll:

nathancom

PBlakeney wrote:

nathancom wrote:

Culture is remarkably varied and prone to change for something that you believe to be the product of our nature.

That would depend entirely on what aspects of human nature or culture to which you are referring, and to what detail.

I am referring to humans being a tribal beast, and those tribes have leaders and followers as a broad outline.
Some of those followers are voluntary and some are forced.

I am not painting this as an ideal situation, merely the reality.

What about radically democratic small scale societies that do not have any clear hierarchy. They exist. Are they somehow unnatural societies going against human nature or do humans just make it up as they go along. d87francis suggested that kinship is the only cross culturally consistent feature of cultures though the variety and complexity of these relationships in a variety of societies precludes a one-size-fits-all, natural organization. I am not even sure that ancient Sparta had clearly defined kin relationships as children were held in common.

Stevo_666

AlexMac1973 wrote:

SloppySchleckonds wrote:

Jesus wept….

He's not the only one!! And that was only by page 5 I'd given up. :roll:

I'm enjoying myself, stop spoiling the fun We haven't had a good leftiebollox thread in ages.

tlw1

Stevo 666 wrote:

AlexMac1973 wrote:

SloppySchleckonds wrote:

Jesus wept….

He's not the only one!! And that was only by page 5 I'd given up. :roll:

I'm enjoying myself, stop spoiling the fun We haven't had a good leftiebollox thread in ages.

You haven't got a good leftie in you......

VTech

nathancom wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

nathancom wrote:

Culture is remarkably varied and prone to change for something that you believe to be the product of our nature.

That would depend entirely on what aspects of human nature or culture to which you are referring, and to what detail.

I am referring to humans being a tribal beast, and those tribes have leaders and followers as a broad outline.
Some of those followers are voluntary and some are forced.

I am not painting this as an ideal situation, merely the reality.

What about radically democratic small scale societies that do not have any clear hierarchy. They exist. Are they somehow unnatural societies going against human nature or do humans just make it up as they go along. d87francis suggested that kinship is the only cross culturally consistent feature of cultures though the variety and complexity of these relationships in a variety of societies precludes a one-size-fits-all, natural organization. I am not even sure that ancient Sparta had clearly defined kin relationships as children were held in common.

Human nature is survival, by gaining a position, chance of survival is greater.
Not I personally wouldn't put these two arguments together but the above was in answer to your point.

I personally thrive on making things, developing things, the failures, the success etc etc and I know you hate this kind of life but likewise I hate the fact some people choose not to work and get up after 9am which I can't fathom.
I bet some of them people hate both mine and your personal choices so its swings and roundabouts.

Stevo_666

matthew h wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

AlexMac1973 wrote:

SloppySchleckonds wrote:

Jesus wept….

He's not the only one!! And that was only by page 5 I'd given up. :roll:

I'm enjoying myself, stop spoiling the fun We haven't had a good leftiebollox thread in ages.

You haven't got a good leftie in you......

Just as well really . He did try though.

tlw1

Stevo 666 wrote:

matthew h wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

AlexMac1973 wrote:

SloppySchleckonds wrote:

Jesus wept….

He's not the only one!! And that was only by page 5 I'd given up. :roll:

I'm enjoying myself, stop spoiling the fun We haven't had a good leftiebollox thread in ages.

You haven't got a good leftie in you......

Just as well really . He did try though.

Would that be 'sticking one up the rich & sharing the spoils'?

Stevo_666

pinarello001 wrote:

"It's the best we got".[Ref: Stevo 666, 2014)

It's probably better than this:
Pinno's manifesto

As you're quoting me, I thought I'd return the favour

Stevo_666

matthew h wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

matthew h wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

AlexMac1973 wrote:

SloppySchleckonds wrote:

Jesus wept….

He's not the only one!! And that was only by page 5 I'd given up. :roll:

I'm enjoying myself, stop spoiling the fun We haven't had a good leftiebollox thread in ages.

You haven't got a good leftie in you......

Just as well really . He did try though.

Would that be 'sticking one up the rich & sharing the spoils'?

I couldn't comment...just as well I'm not rich.

Unfortunately when given a free shot at goal he went all 'Jason Puncheon'

pinno

My Manifesto was quite good actually. You have been doing your research Stevo, one day some bloke is going to tw4t you in a dark alleyway with a baseball bat and i'll call the act 'Survival of the Fittest'.

Back to the plot.
Vtech wrote:
"Human nature is survival, by gaining a position, chance of survival is greater."

Humans like apes and other pack animals require co-operation to survive.

VTech

pinarello001 wrote:

My Manifesto was quite good actually. You have been doing your research Stevo, one day some bloke is going to tw4t you in a dark alleyway with a baseball bat and i'll call the act 'Survival of the Fittest'.

Back to the plot.
Vtech wrote:
"Human nature is survival, by gaining a position, chance of survival is greater."

Humans like apes and other pack animals require co-operation to survive.

You mix the two key features of life, together with all the issues it brings in that single statement.

Human nature is to survive, to survive at all costs.

Human survival needs cooperation otherwise we are doomed.

They may sound similar but couldn't be more different.

Paulie W

Anyone read the Evolution of Cooperation by Axelrod? He basically used game theory (repetition of the Prisoner's Dilemma game) to demonstrate that a "tit-for-tat" or reciprocal strategy was in the long run the most successful strategy, i.e. you play nice until someone fecks you over then your feck them over and continue doing so until they stop at which point you go back to being nice again - you cooperate until someone doesnt cooperate with you then you punish them for as long as they dont cooperate. All other strategies, although potentially successful in the short term, proved less successful in the mid to long term of the game. From an evolutionary perspective then the tit-for-tat strategy was the most robust (and the one most likely to survive and flourish) - the book showed some examples from genetics, history, etc as way of demonstrating this in action.

The book had a big impact on me as it suggested that people could have self interest at heart but still would work together to get the greatest benefits.

VTech

Paulie W wrote:

Anyone read the Evolution of Cooperation by Axelrod? He basically used game theory (repetition of the Prisoner's Dilemma game) to demonstrate that a "tit-for-tat" or reciprocal strategy was in the long run the most successful strategy, i.e. you play nice until someone fecks you over then your feck them over and continue doing so until they stop at which point you go back to being nice again - you cooperate until someone doesnt cooperate with you then you punish them for as long as they dont cooperate. All other strategies, although potentially successful in the short term, proved less successful in the mid to long term of the game. From an evolutionary perspective then the tit-for-tat strategy was the most robust (and the one most likely to survive and flourish) - the book showed some examples from genetics, history, etc as way of demonstrating this in action.

The book had a big impact on me as it suggested that people could have self interest at heart but still would work together to get the greatest benefits.

Just ordered that.
Good info sir.