The Last One
Comments
-
I believe I have made my position clear. Major manufacturing should (if neccassary) receive state support in order to give the free enterprise surrounding it, to have a chance to flourish. If those businesses fail the state cannot be expected to bail them out. Unless of course YOU are advocating a totally state run economy. Don't think you are Stevo.
A massive steel works provides the engine of the community The services/businesses/shops run by free marketeers, well they know the rules of the free market, if you enter the race be prepared to lose.
I hold no torch for tesco, McDonalds or the like. I feel it a real shame their employees have no substantial job/career in a proper manufacturing industry.Tail end Charlie
The above post may contain traces of sarcasm or/and bullsh*t.0 -
Answer my question then about which industries you would support and which you would not. Third time of askimg...after all, you said that you dislike hypocrisyyou choose the Q's you are willing to answer so will i
though tbh it is fairly obvious.
back to your private funds public statement.......More of a merry go round isnt it?
private sector pay is lower so employees more likely to claim WTC HB etc etc paid for out of general taxation, public pensions higher, paid for by the greater contribution of private sector, which in turn, is more likely to get means tested retirement benefits and so on!
Private companies of course contribute greatly to the public purse BUT they couldnt do this without the public sector, roads for example enable private companies to carry goods from a to b or their workers get to work even!, healthcare for them and their workers or schools so they have a reasonably well educated workforce to pick from.
Oh, and while you're at it, can you post a link to a pro business statement (any pro business statement) that you made on this forum before I challenged you to do so
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Frank, you seem to be rooted firmly in the past with this view that any business is only any good if it is a traditional heavy manufacturing or extractive business. There are plenty of perfectly worthy businesses that produce profits that are just as good quality, and jobs that are every bit as worthwhile and in turn support other businesses. Take the British media and high tech software industries for example. Or the finacial services industry - just look at all those high paid workers in the CityI believe I have made my position clear. Major manufacturing should (if neccassary) receive state support in order to give the free enterprise surrounding it, to have a chance to flourish. If those businesses fail the state cannot be expected to bail them out. Unless of course YOU are advocating a totally state run economy. Don't think you are Stevo.
A massive steel works provides the engine of the community The services/businesses/shops run by free marketeers, well they know the rules of the free market, if you enter the race be prepared to lose.
I hold no torch for tesco, McDonalds or the like. I feel it a real shame their employees have no substantial job/career in a proper manufacturing industry.
The world has moved on Frank."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Quite good in some ways but they promised too much that they did not deliver on so I left. Also found the US dominance a bit annoying, but that's because I prefer to be in chargeIs...you.
OK...will.
You... sector.
There is no doubt that part of the state performs valuable services - valuable in the non financial sense. But the point I am making is the state cannot fund itself - it need the private sector for that. The existence of the tax system is proof of that.
Than there has to be recognition of the fact that:
A. Some parts of the public sector are essential and they need government support/finance/legislative powers.
B. The trickle down effect has to be tangible and has to reach the 'ground floor'.
C. Road sweepers, refuse disposal, sewerage, water, hospitals, education services etc etc are fundamental to business and corporate activity - it cannot function without these services and visa versa.
The state does have some financial wealth producing parts, sure. But these are small compared to the private sector and in any case sometimes result from formerly private businesses that have been nationalised - purchased with tax revenues from the private sector. The general rule is that the private sector funds the public sector.
So, you worked for Andersen consulting Stevo - was it a good company to work for?
@Bally, no Methadone does not work but that is a thread all of it's own. "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Correct.The world has moved on Frank.
It has moved to the far East.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
I believe in manufacturing whether it be heavy or light engineering or hi tech/ IT/whatever but manufacturing. The German economy is in better shape than our IMHO because they didn't turn their back on manufacturing our gov did partly to crush unions IMHO.
Frank, you seem to be rooted firmly in the past with this view that any business is only any good if it is a traditional heavy manufacturing or extractive business. There are plenty of perfectly worthy businesses that produce profits that are just as good quality, and jobs that are every bit as worthwhile and in turn support other businesses. Take the British media and high tech software industries for example. Or the finacial services industry - just look at all those high paid workers in the CityI believe I have made my position clear. Major manufacturing should (if neccassary) receive state support in order to give the free enterprise surrounding it, to have a chance to flourish. If those businesses fail the state cannot be expected to bail them out. Unless of course YOU are advocating a totally state run economy. Don't think you are Stevo.
A massive steel works provides the engine of the community The services/businesses/shops run by free marketeers, well they know the rules of the free market, if you enter the race be prepared to lose.
I hold no torch for tesco, McDonalds or the like. I feel it a real shame their employees have no substantial job/career in a proper manufacturing industry.
The world has moved on Frank.
I believe there needs to be state run concerns to help provide work/opportunities for the free marketeers.Tail end Charlie
The above post may contain traces of sarcasm or/and bullsh*t.0 -
I believe I have made my position clear. Major manufacturing should (if neccassary) receive state support in order to give the free enterprise surrounding it, to have a chance to flourish. If those businesses fail the state cannot be expected to bail them out. Unless of course YOU are advocating a totally state run economy. Don't think you are Stevo.
A massive steel works provides the engine of the community The services/businesses/shops run by free marketeers, well they know the rules of the free market, if you enter the race be prepared to lose.
I hold no torch for tesco, McDonalds or the like. I feel it a real shame their employees have no substantial job/career in a proper manufacturing industry.
So it's ok to use tax payers money to what amounts to subsidising private companies who are sub contracting to a steel works. Where is the fairness in that? What about the competing companies that don't get the buffer of what amounts to a state hand out? I assume you are content for them to go to the wall.
So that's it is it Frank, manufacturing good, service industry bad? Subsidise one, cast the other adrift.
Just for the record, I and I assume Stevo, are not advocating state bale outs for failing businesses like Tesco but that is a logical consequence of the model you espouse.
BTW I deliberately chose Tesco as I believed it to be a business held in particular low esteem by lefties.0 -
There is no doubt that part of the state performs valuable services - valuable in the non financial sense. But the point I am making is the state cannot fund itself - it need the private sector for that. The existence of the tax system is proof of that.
All governments rely on business because this is ultimately where the money comes from. And here lies the great leftie conundrum. They dislike business but the more intelligent ones realise that business is the goose that lays the golden egg. The hard left treat business as an enemy and try to punish it. Now that really is stupid because it is biting the hand that feeds you.Is it that the government are so reliant on the corporations and the people who hold the real power and the key to financial stability, not only are they complicit but are powerless and unwilling to actually do something? Osborne's hard talk about punishment and regulation was just lip service.
OK, I'll bite here (and there goes one of my New Year resolutions on the 4th January). You seem to think that this is a one-way street, that private businesses are the only vehicles of wealth creation. This is where I disagree with you. You're employed in a private business as a tax account. I'm self-employed as a translator, proof reader and editor, so also in the private sector. There are many, many people working in the public sector whose work is of far greater economic value than that created by either of us. Just a quick example that is relevant at the moment - meteorologists. Their work is of massive value. Improved forecasting can help to reduce damage from extreme weather events, can aid farmers in deciding when to harvest and thus avoid loss of crops, the value to the fishing industry doesn't need any elaboration, it can also help planning for civil engineering, construction, aviation and shipping etc. How much is meteorology worth to our economy every year? Hundreds of millions? Billions? I couldn't put a figure on it, but these public sector workers are contributing far more to the economy than I ever will.
You could go through a whole list of professions in the public sector and make a similar case for the economic value of their work, rather than just the social or human value.
It's a symbiotic relationship, not a parasitic one. Without production, there would be no public services, but without public services, private enterprise would be more or less impossible. There is no easy dividing line between public sector work and wealth-creating private sector work. Both sectors create value - economic and otherwise - it's just that some types of economic activity could/should only be carried out by the public sector.
The state does have some financial wealth producing parts, sure. But these are small compared to the private sector and in any case sometimes result from formerly private businesses that have been nationalised - purchased with tax revenues from the private sector. The general rule is that the private sector funds the public sector.
How do you quantify this? Let's take another example - education. Considering labour as a commodity for exchange on the market, then what is the value added to labour by the education system? This is what I mean by saying that the public sector creates MASSIVE economic value. I could go on and on with the examples, but I'm sure you get the picture.
As I say, it comes across as if you believe that the public sector is living off the private sector (apologies if I misrepresent your position, but from this and other posts you have made elsewhere, this is the impression I get). This is quite simply wrong. Just because a service is funded by taxation instead of being sold on the market doesn't mean that wealth hasn't been generated.0 -
So I assume you would see all British industry go to the wall sooner than the state help out (if required). Alternatively have the state run every industry and service industry. All or fark all in your book Bally, is it?I believe I have made my position clear. Major manufacturing should (if neccassary) receive state support in order to give the free enterprise surrounding it, to have a chance to flourish. If those businesses fail the state cannot be expected to bail them out. Unless of course YOU are advocating a totally state run economy. Don't think you are Stevo.
A massive steel works provides the engine of the community The services/businesses/shops run by free marketeers, well they know the rules of the free market, if you enter the race be prepared to lose.
I hold no torch for tesco, McDonalds or the like. I feel it a real shame their employees have no substantial job/career in a proper manufacturing industry.
So it's ok to use tax payers money to what amounts to subsidising private companies who are sub contracting to a steel works. Where is the fairness in that? What about the competing companies that don't get the buffer of what amounts to a state hand out? I assume you are content for them to go to the wall.
So that's it is it Frank, manufacturing good, service industry bad? Subsidise one, cast the other adrift.
Just for the record, I and I assume Stevo, are not advocating state bale outs for failing businesses like Tesco but that is a logical consequence of the model you espouse.
BTW I deliberately chose Tesco as I believed it to be a business held in particular low esteem by lefties.
I think the model I espouse is fair and reasonable.Tail end Charlie
The above post may contain traces of sarcasm or/and bullsh*t.0 -
You can't quantify it.
There is no doubt that part of the state performs valuable services - valuable in the non financial sense. But the point I am making is the state cannot fund itself - it need the private sector for that. The existence of the tax system is proof of that.
All governments rely on business because this is ultimately where the money comes from. And here lies the great leftie conundrum. They dislike business but the more intelligent ones realise that business is the goose that lays the golden egg. The hard left treat business as an enemy and try to punish it. Now that really is stupid because it is biting the hand that feeds you.Is it that the government are so reliant on the corporations and the people who hold the real power and the key to financial stability, not only are they complicit but are powerless and unwilling to actually do something? Osborne's hard talk about punishment and regulation was just lip service.
OK, I'll bite here (and there goes one of my New Year resolutions on the 4th January). You seem to think that this is a one-way street, that private businesses are the only vehicles of wealth creation. This is where I disagree with you. You're employed in a private business as a tax account. I'm self-employed as a translator, proof reader and editor, so also in the private sector. There are many, many people working in the public sector whose work is of far greater economic value than that created by either of us. Just a quick example that is relevant at the moment - meteorologists. Their work is of massive value. Improved forecasting can help to reduce damage from extreme weather events, can aid farmers in deciding when to harvest and thus avoid loss of crops, the value to the fishing industry doesn't need any elaboration, it can also help planning for civil engineering, construction, aviation and shipping etc. How much is meteorology worth to our economy every year? Hundreds of millions? Billions? I couldn't put a figure on it, but these public sector workers are contributing far more to the economy than I ever will.
You could go through a whole list of professions in the public sector and make a similar case for the economic value of their work, rather than just the social or human value.
It's a symbiotic relationship, not a parasitic one. Without production, there would be no public services, but without public services, private enterprise would be more or less impossible. There is no easy dividing line between public sector work and wealth-creating private sector work. Both sectors create value - economic and otherwise - it's just that some types of economic activity could/should only be carried out by the public sector.
The state does have some financial wealth producing parts, sure. But these are small compared to the private sector and in any case sometimes result from formerly private businesses that have been nationalised - purchased with tax revenues from the private sector. The general rule is that the private sector funds the public sector.
How do you quantify this? Let's take another example - education. Considering labour as a commodity for exchange on the market, then what is the value added to labour by the education system? This is what I mean by saying that the public sector creates MASSIVE economic value. I could go on and on with the examples, but I'm sure you get the picture.
As I say, it comes across as if you believe that the public sector is living off the private sector (apologies if I misrepresent your position, but from this and other posts you have made elsewhere, this is the impression I get). This is quite simply wrong. Just because a service is funded by taxation instead of being sold on the market doesn't mean that wealth hasn't been generated.
But you are missing the point. The necessity of these things are not in question. However the state cannot do most of these things without private sector funding. That is the only point I was making in my earlier post to mamba."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
You can't quantify it.
But you are missing the point. The necessity of these things are not in question. However the state cannot do most of these things without private sector funding. That is the only point I was making in my earlier post to mamba.
i guess if you went back to the first taxes raised, then yes private enterprise came first but over 100's of years, they have come to need each other.
Private business cannot flourish with out the services the state provides but as you rightly say, these services are in no small part funded by private business through forced taxation,
But lets face it, as has been shown repeatedly, private companies would nt pay a cent if they didnt have too 0 -
You can't quantify it.
But you are missing the point. The necessity of these things are not in question. However the state cannot do most of these things without private sector funding. That is the only point I was making in my earlier post to mamba.
i guess if you went back to the first taxes raised, then yes private enterprise came first but over 100's of years, they have come to need each other, roads schools, hospitals etc didnt just appear.
Private business cannot flourish with out the services the state provides but as you rightly say, these services are in no small part funded by private business through forced taxation,
But lets face it, as has been shown repeatedly, private companies would nt pay a cent if they didnt have too[/quote] 0 -
You can't quantify it.
But you are missing the point. The necessity of these things are not in question. However the state cannot do most of these things without private sector funding. That is the only point I was making in my earlier post to mamba.
I'm not missing the point. I understand what you're saying, but I think that you're oversimplifying the relationship between the state and the private sector and underestimating the economic value created by the state as well as the social necessity.0 -
FFS Finchy, don't mention the word soc... shhh, better say Jehovah again and again instead. We all remember what Mrs T said about society.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0
-
Ah the oft quoted and usually completely without context so as to suit the quoters agenda - "no such thing as society" line.
I could rant away here, but.....
http://www.thecommentator.com/article/3276/no_such_thing_as_societyCS7
Surrey Hills
What's a Zwift?0 -
Yes. Ask any accounting type. As long as you have a reasonable probability of converting it into cash/money in your account in future, it is an asset on the balance sheet. It is only a cost in the profit & loss if it can't be recovered.The debt owed to the taxpayer (government) is an 'asset' ?!
Here''s another example. When a bank lends to a customer, that''s an asset for the bank because they should get the money back. It only becomes and expense (I. e.. a cost) if it is clear it won't be repaid, in other words a bad debt. Same principle for companies selling things on credit.
The shareholdings in the banks is a no brainer because the govt controls when it sells the shares back to back to the private sector: the only question is the timing which is likely to be driven by the share price. The loans have a reasonable expectation of being repaid otherwise they would have to write off/write down the bad ones. I don't have enough info on what makes up the loans but they typically have fixed repayment schedules/dates. What we are talking about here is the timing of conversion into cash.
Think about it another way - if banks or companies treated every loan or credit transaction as a cost, almost every business that gives any format of credit would never make a profit.
That''s how the report I linked above can correctly claim that the ultimate cost of the bailouts should be close to zero. It is looking at the end result of everything paid out vs everything received.
but lets not forget the problem was that the banks were showing a pile of bad debt as an asset, and it was when that bad debt was unable to be repaid banks ran out of money and the government had to supply money to keep them going. Now, given that the very model of banking was to borrow short term and lend long term it was obviously either a business model that did not work, or if it did work, run by people who were incapable of doing it properly. The markets said no more lending to banks and they collapsed. However the government decided the market was wrong and invested regardless. That is why the special case irks so much - it is not applied to other failed industries.
I just hope you are right about the bank loans being an asset, with such a large trade deficit and upcoming referendum the interest rate shocks that might be needed to defend the pound could very much change that perception.
The reason being, it was vital that we retained a viable banking industry. Coal, steel, shipbuilding etc were not vital everyone's interests at the time. These industries were failing and producing a product that nobody wanted.
A bank collapses and every saver becomes a creditor chasing their money. Every borrower sees their loan sold off to whoever and the resultant upwards pressure on interest rates.
I think it is vital we have a viable banking industry - the problem was retaining one that was not viable. If it was viable it would not have collapsed.
In the capitalist world you make products that people want and value or go the the wall. Banks are no different, they deal in a product. All sectors that fail plead they are a special case.
However if you are arguing that the taxpayer should intervene to finance products that people want, surely that applies to the public sector too.0 -
I wonder how much truth there is to this report.
http://www.ewao.com/a/first-they-jailed-the-bankers-now-every-icelander-to-get-paid-in-bank-sale/
If any, it makes you wonder how things could be here.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Beat me to it.Ah the oft quoted and usually completely without context so as to suit the quoters agenda - "no such thing as society" line.
I could rant away here, but.....
http://www.thecommentator.com/article/3276/no_such_thing_as_society
Not sure if Pinno hasn't read the whole thing, or has read it and just not understood it? Or understood it and chose to quote it out of context anyway, hoping that we wouldn't call him out? "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
[/quote]
You can't quantify it.
But you are missing the point. The necessity of these things are not in question. However the state cannot do most of these things without private sector funding. That is the only point I was making in my earlier post to mamba.
i guess if you went back to the first taxes raised, then yes private enterprise came first but over 100's of years, they have come to need each other, roads schools, hospitals etc didnt just appear.
Private business cannot flourish with out the services the state provides but as you rightly say, these services are in no small part funded by private business through forced taxation,
But lets face it, as has been shown repeatedly, private companies would nt pay a cent if they didnt have too
As I am party to the HMRC risk review classification stats and have read quite a few of the published tax policies of quoted companies, it's safe to call BS on that last claim of yours. A massive generalisation and simply wrong. The large majority of private companies are not regarded as bad corporate citizens by HMRC. There are number who still go in for aggressive tax avoidance, sure but they are in the minority.
there is a realisation in the corporate world of the quid pro quo. Differences may arise on where what constitutes a fair share (which nobody here can define) but overall it is miles away from the picture you are trying to paint.
Unless you want to try to demonstrate to me why I am wrong. I could do with a good laugh, it's been a long day "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
The economic value you state is largely indirect, such as the benefits of an educated workforce (although some of the more productive ones may be privately educatedYou can't quantify it.
But you are missing the point. The necessity of these things are not in question. However the state cannot do most of these things without private sector funding. That is the only point I was making in my earlier post to mamba.
I'm not missing the point. I understand what you're saying, but I think that you're oversimplifying the relationship between the state and the private sector and underestimating the economic value created by the state as well as the social necessity. ). But the funding provided by the private sector via taxes is direct and can be quantified - in the region of £700bn per year IIRC. And the state needs that funding to be able to produce its value. "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
So, your saying that the same amount of corporation tax would still be collected IF it was made voluntary?
and i never mentioned aggresive tax avoidance did i?
but after a hard days work, it always good to read what you have to say.0 -
The economic value you state is largely indirect, such as the benefits of an educated workforce (although some of the more productive ones may be privately educatedYou can't quantify it.
But you are missing the point. The necessity of these things are not in question. However the state cannot do most of these things without private sector funding. That is the only point I was making in my earlier post to mamba.
I'm not missing the point. I understand what you're saying, but I think that you're oversimplifying the relationship between the state and the private sector and underestimating the economic value created by the state as well as the social necessity. ). But the funding provided by the private sector via taxes is direct and can be quantified - in the region of £700bn per year IIRC. And the state needs that funding to be able to produce its value.
Are you unfamiliar with the concept of symbiosis?0 -
There is no doubt that Mrs T evoked, promoted and fostered an individualism and a hedonism to which John Major and T Blair perpetuated. Perhaps that was not her intention but the cultural and social attitude still remains.
I have no doubt that the Unions had too much power and it is arguable that some of the moves against certain sectors of industry were simply an attack on those areas that had strong union backing. We needed change but Thatcher swung the pendulum too far in the other direction, obliterating employment rights for example and deeply dividing society which broke the fabric of a lot of communities. She got rid of the GLC, the Milk Marketing Board, Rent Authorities, the Highlands and Islands Development Board and other institutions that were doing a great job. The MMB probably would have been dismantled because of EU laws but Mrs T didn't try to defend it though hypocritically, she did try to defend other British interests.
Getting rid of Parish councils, the 4th tier of Government and centralising Power was a mistake and has only served to alienate the public from politics and is the antithesis of Thatchers push for 'empowerment'. Councils, ever since Thatchers reduction of the state, (other reasons are relevant) have since been enablers and not legislators. They have to tow the Central Governments line far more than they used to, no longer do they have legislative autonomy. Again, empowerment of the people in power but not of the people.
It is only thanks to the EU, that we have regained some basic employment rights but the political landscape and the pendulum, I feel, is still too far off centre, too imbalanced.
Her legacy is one which could be considered as a legacy of a society which has lost some of the best elements of being British and so, although in it's miss quoted essence, has an element of truth to it.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
No matter the whys, whens, and whos. That is where we are today.There is no doubt that Mrs T evoked, promoted and fostered an individualism and a hedonism to which John Major and T Blair perpetuated. Perhaps that was not her intention but the cultural and social attitude still remains.
I have no doubt that the Unions had too much power and it is arguable that some of the moves against certain sectors of industry were simply an attack on those areas that had strong union backing. We needed change but Thatcher swung the pendulum too far in the other direction, obliterating employment rights for example and deeply dividing society which broke the fabric of a lot of communities. She got rid of the GLC, the Milk Marketing Board, Rent Authorities, the Highlands and Islands Development Board and other institutions that were doing a great job. The MMB probably would have been dismantled because of EU laws but Mrs T didn't try to defend it though hypocritically, she did try to defend other British interests.
Getting rid of Parish councils, the 4th tier of Government and centralising Power was a mistake and has only served to alienate the public from politics and is the antithesis of Thatchers push for 'empowerment'. Councils (other reasons are relevant) have since been enablers and not legislators.
It is only thanks to the EU, that we have regained some basic employment rights but the political landscape and the pendulum, I feel, is still too far off centre, too imbalanced.
Her legacy is one which could be considered as a legacy of a society which has lost some of the best elements of being British and so, although in it's miss quoted essence, has an element of truth to it.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
I called you out for spouting BS, that's all. Unless you can demonstrate otherwise - you made the point, you demonstrate it...So, your saying that the same amount of corporation tax would still be collected IF it was made voluntary?
and i never mentioned aggresive tax avoidance did i?
but after a hard days work, it always good to read what you have to say.
Now where's rhat link to your pro business post? "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
I know exactly what you mean. But my statement that the state relies on the private sector to funding is correct and that is the only point that I wanted to make. Are ypu familiar with the concept of an argument focused on one specific issue?
The economic value you state is largely indirect, such as the benefits of an educated workforce (although some of the more productive ones may be privately educatedYou can't quantify it.
But you are missing the point. The necessity of these things are not in question. However the state cannot do most of these things without private sector funding. That is the only point I was making in my earlier post to mamba.
I'm not missing the point. I understand what you're saying, but I think that you're oversimplifying the relationship between the state and the private sector and underestimating the economic value created by the state as well as the social necessity. ). But the funding provided by the private sector via taxes is direct and can be quantified - in the region of £700bn per year IIRC. And the state needs that funding to be able to produce its value.
Are you unfamiliar with the concept of symbiosis?"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Anyway. Getting back OT.
Who thinks football managers are worth the money? Mourinho and LVG come to mind.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
I know exactly what you mean. But my statement that the state relies on the private sector to funding is correct and that is the only point that I wanted to make. Are ypu familiar with the concept of an argument focused on one specific issue?
I never said that the state gets its funding from the private sector, and neither did anyone else. What I'm saying is that the language you have used on this thread and others makes it sound like you believe that it's a one-way street. You talk about "biting the hand that feeds you", in other threads you've said that socialism has a "parasitic" relationship with capitalism (seeing as you wouldn't actually define what you mean by socialism, I'm going to have to assume you are talking about government spending, especially on welfare, health, etc.). That's why I'm making these points - it's because of the things that you've said.0 -
Anyway. Getting back OT.
Who thinks football managers are worth the money? Mourinho and LVG come to mind.
For the comedy value, yes.0 -
Bloody expensive jokes!Anyway. Getting back OT.
Who thinks football managers are worth the money? Mourinho and LVG come to mind.
For the comedy value, yes.
But then I don't have Sky so what should I care?The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0
