Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » A year to go until Brexit day and punters think there’s a 57%

2

Comments

  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392

    I just don't understand the schizophrenic attitude towards capitalism, it starts to make me question my opposition to the horse shoe theory..

    The Daily Mail is going to end up way to the left of me pretty soon and then my feelings are just going to become very confused.

    I'm a very firm believer in the horse shoe theory - I think it's self evidently true

    I think so as well. I recall a DailyMash piece taking the piss out of the theory, but even for a comedic piece it seemed predicated on accepting that what the far left and far right claim about themselves is true, vs the practical reality of how they manifest, which to my mind seems so much more important than any claimed difference, and which seems to share a great deal of similarity.
  • MyBurningEarsMyBurningEars Posts: 3,651
    edited March 2018
    Foxy said:


    I would agree. After a certain point, money is just a way of keeping score. ...

    I have been married 28 years, and there have certainly been bad patches, but I am glad I stuck it out.

    Congrats Foxy! You are also, in your own way, giving hope and inspiration to some of the rest of us. As a late starter I have to admit to considerable disappointment that Sean's last couple of attempts haven't come to such fruition (the amazing young wifey, the Lib Dem policewoman, wasn't there even some bird he ended up feeling more serious with at the end of his dating (factual?) autobiography, available at all good online retailers?)... if a chap that loaded can't find a nice girl, what chance a far more moderately loaded one?

    I'm not even sure if the money is a way of keeping score, at least for me. When I was starting up my business I was an eager spreadsheeting beaver, keen on any landmark with even a couple of zeros on the end. For the last few of years I've been making more income from my investment portfolio than from my business/job, and that means getting used to things going up and down without getting too excited or downhearted about each rise or fall (which is the main reason I don't even see the money as a score-keeper anymore), but I was surprised just how much of a "meh, okay" moment that cross-over from primarily active to primarily passive income was. I'd thought becoming - or hitting a significant milestone along the path to becoming - "financially independent" might be quite exciting, bearing in mind it was what I'd been working and counting the pennies for.

    On the other hand, it did have significant psychological effects in terms of reducing money-related stress, making me less eager to pour excessive extra hours in the business, and significantly change the way I thought about any future career change (in particular, considerations of salary or jobs I'd only be doing for the money went completely out of the window). I'd recommend it, and it's good really, just good in a rather more dull way than I'd expected. But I do find, online at least, quite a few people who seem really fired up about the whole concept of financial independence and I wonder they will find more excitement in their bean-counting than I.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,765
    viewcode said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    And to think that being an expert on something implies an ability to predict the future of that thing. A true touchstone for invincible stupidity.

    Oddly I plowing thru "Superforecasters" at the moment (somebody here recommended it. It's a damn fine read, tbh). The qualities of a good forecaster are: an ability to research the issue, update one's forecast frequently, present one's forecast to others for critical examination, break the problem into subproblems, constant practice, track your predictions and recognise past errors, mix with other people who wish to predict accurately, avoid wishful thinking.

    I recall again that PB meets some of these criteria but not all and is actively hostile to one of them ("mix with people who wish to predict accurately"). @BlackRook, @isam and @RodCrosby were good but have been either banned or chased off.

    Pinning one's mistakes on others, denying what one has said in the past, and ad hominem attacks on critics are surely desirable characteristics.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392
  • steve_garnersteve_garner Posts: 1,019
    Foxy said:
    And your point is?
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,195
    Seriously - is this really Britain today?

    Come on decent Labour people - do something
  • ReggieCideReggieCide Posts: 4,312

    but no Yvette Cooper, Harriet Harman, Ben Bradshaw or Dromey on that list....
    I'm sure they can't have been asked
  • steve_garnersteve_garner Posts: 1,019
    Floater said:

    Seriously - is this really Britain today?

    Come on decent Labour people - do something
    Don't hold your breath.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    edited March 2018
    Floater said:

    Seriously - is this really Britain today?

    Come on decent Labour people - do something
    I remember the day when it was a scandal that the CoE had his car parked in the disabled parking bay, now we have the shadow CoE having a plague commemorating terrorists, including one who burned another human alive, hanging on his wall and it gets little more than P28 of the newspaper.
  • ReggieCideReggieCide Posts: 4,312

    Charles said:

    Foxy said:

    Charles said:

    I see economic nationalism/protectionism is sadly still back in fashion.

    https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/979471364489928705

    I wish people would come up with a new cliche

    There have been so many “unacceptable faces of capitalism” that I’ve completely lost count. And Tiny was not a good man - the Melrose guys just get paid very very well if they make money for their shareholders
    Greed is good...
    They’re not actually that greedy (I’ve met 1 although don’t know him well).

    They don’t take a salary but instead get a cut of the profits from their work. They are very good so make lots of profits - which makes pensions bigger for people like you and me
    I've no idea about the GKN takeover but I don't think there's much trust in 'investors' anymore.

    What odds would you give on them either building a new UK factory or closing a present UK factory ?
    Depends on what's profitable
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392
    Corbyn Jnr, a prominent Labour activist, uploaded a post asking: ‘Why is it that I can critique my own, or any government, but criticism of the Israeli state is immediately branded anti-Semitic?

    Ah, the old classics.

    You can, son, you just do so without being an asshat about it. And if you do want to suggest that people cannot criticise Israel without unfairly being branded anti-semitic, maybe take note of the people who respond with an image which you later say this about:

    He also described the Star of David image as a ‘disgusting anti-Semitic image

  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 18,231
    @SeanT

    Firstly, my great and genuine sympathies on your situation. It is not nice what you are going thru and I sympathise.

    Secondly, if there is any concievable way you can make it up with your wife, do so, regardless of financial cost.

    Thirdly if you are certain that a divorce is on the cards, you need to start taking basic precautions. Contact the best divorce lawyer you know, explain the situation. It's better to sue for divorce rather than be sued, so you might have to take the initiative and do that. There are limits on what you can do (and should do: she is your wife after all) but some things can make the situation less fraught.

    Fourthly: recognise the enormous amount of shit you are in. Divorce is traumatic and expensive and you need to start dealing with that soonly.

    Fifthly: good luck.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 15,545

    FF43 said:

    FF43 said:

    Omnium said:

    FF43 said:


    This sounds right to me:

    As in the previous survey, most respondents said bigger moves could be in store in a decade or more, however.

    “I doubt there will be a mass migration overnight, but my guess is in 5, if not 10 years, London will be down quite a lot,” said one executive at a large U.S. bank, who asked not to be named because he is not authorized to speak to the press.

    “London was the only game in town, at least in Europe, and now it won’t be.”

    You've nailed it in terms of 'This sounds right to me'. Aside from the chance that someone has a working crystal ball any and all of these numbers are just guesses. Economic predictions are at best very poor (some would say just guessed, and I personally know of at least one instance where that's been literally true). The idea that someone can make anything other than a total guess surrounding a figure that isn't well documented and where the forces at work are unknown is poppycock.

    Of course the guess could prove to be right, but it was still a guess to start off with.

    However Brexit is unusual in that essentially all the known unknowns are downside. For example we know that the City of London will lose out to the EU. The question is how much. Typically a change comes with a mixture of upside and downside so you don't know whether you will end up ahead or behind. Brexit will definitely be behind and as there are lots of factors accumulating, likely by quite a bit.
    Yet a 'know unknown' before the referendum was that a Leave win would lead to huge job losses.

    Its amazing to me that after the last few years that people still are willing to make 100% predictions.

    And on a betting associated site as well.
    If you expose your assumptions, making predictions is sensible. Better than the alternative of blind faith. FWIW most, but not all, of what I predicted about Brexit a year ago has panned out so far in quite concrete terms and in broad terms.since the referendum. This isn't clairvoyance. It's a question of being informed on the topic, somewhat sceptical and expecting people to behave the way they normally behave.
    How lucky PB is.

    All its Remainers tell us that they've been proved right by events since the referendum.

    Whereas the official Remainers from Cameron downwards were all proved wrong.
    That's a case of being over invested in your project. We've all been there. The more contentious it is the more you tend to double down. Tony Blair and the case for the Iraq war is a classic case of this. You need a degree of detachment.

    To be fair wishful thinking affected Leavers more than Remainers.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 24,967

    Charles said:

    Foxy said:

    Charles said:

    I see economic nationalism/protectionism is sadly still back in fashion.

    https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/979471364489928705

    I wish people would come up with a new cliche

    There have been so many “unacceptable faces of capitalism” that I’ve completely lost count. And Tiny was not a good man - the Melrose guys just get paid very very well if they make money for their shareholders
    Greed is good...
    They’re not actually that greedy (I’ve met 1 although don’t know him well).

    They don’t take a salary but instead get a cut of the profits from their work. They are very good so make lots of profits - which makes pensions bigger for people like you and me
    I've no idea about the GKN takeover but I don't think there's much trust in 'investors' anymore.

    What odds would you give on them either building a new UK factory or closing a present UK factory ?
    Depends on what's profitable
    Profitable for whom though ?

    The new investors
    Shareholders
    Employees
    Taxpayers
    Suppliers
    Customers
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,065
    I suppose the point is to look at results on the ground, in order to forecast more accurately, and to bet more effectively.

    Isn't that what this website is for?
  • ReggieCideReggieCide Posts: 4,312

    Charles said:

    Foxy said:

    Charles said:

    I see economic nationalism/protectionism is sadly still back in fashion.

    https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/979471364489928705

    I wish people would come up with a new cliche

    There have been so many “unacceptable faces of capitalism” that I’ve completely lost count. And Tiny was not a good man - the Melrose guys just get paid very very well if they make money for their shareholders
    Greed is good...
    They’re not actually that greedy (I’ve met 1 although don’t know him well).

    They don’t take a salary but instead get a cut of the profits from their work. They are very good so make lots of profits - which makes pensions bigger for people like you and me
    I've no idea about the GKN takeover but I don't think there's much trust in 'investors' anymore.

    What odds would you give on them either building a new UK factory or closing a present UK factory ?
    Depends on what's profitable
    Profitable for whom though ?

    The new investors
    Shareholders
    Employees
    Taxpayers
    Suppliers
    Customers
    Shareholders, GKN initially as it's they who approve takeover, then, if approved, Melrose.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,603

    Charles said:

    Foxy said:

    Charles said:

    I see economic nationalism/protectionism is sadly still back in fashion.

    https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/979471364489928705

    I wish people would come up with a new cliche

    There have been so many “unacceptable faces of capitalism” that I’ve completely lost count. And Tiny was not a good man - the Melrose guys just get paid very very well if they make money for their shareholders
    Greed is good...
    They’re not actually that greedy (I’ve met 1 although don’t know him well).

    They don’t take a salary but instead get a cut of the profits from their work. They are very good so make lots of profits - which makes pensions bigger for people like you and me
    I've no idea about the GKN takeover but I don't think there's much trust in 'investors' anymore.

    What odds would you give on them either building a new UK factory or closing a present UK factory ?
    As I said in the previous thread, Melrose will do a better job with GKN than the existing board. The new CEO was proposing to sell 53% of its biggest revenue driver to an American outfit in a cut price deal that would have hugely benefited her previous employer.

    What Melrose are saying makes a lot of sense too. There is enough synergy between the currently disparate parts of GKN to make the whole greater than the value of the sum. The key will be making those parts work together, I've been at a company where that was very difficult to achieve (Sony) and I don't envy the job of the new GKN CEO.

    Even so, this is definitely a much better proposition than the managed decline and break up that current management were looking at.

    My prediction is that Melrose will hold GKN, push through a management and business restructuring, make the company work as one and then float it for double what they have paid. At least that is what the Melrose plan looks like on paper.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 18,231
    Sean_F said:

    viewcode said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    And to think that being an expert on something implies an ability to predict the future of that thing. A true touchstone for invincible stupidity.

    Oddly I plowing thru "Superforecasters" at the moment (somebody here recommended it. It's a damn fine read, tbh). The qualities of a good forecaster are: an ability to research the issue, update one's forecast frequently, present one's forecast to others for critical examination, break the problem into subproblems, constant practice, track your predictions and recognise past errors, mix with other people who wish to predict accurately, avoid wishful thinking.

    I recall again that PB meets some of these criteria but not all and is actively hostile to one of them ("mix with people who wish to predict accurately"). @BlackRook, @isam and @RodCrosby were good but have been either banned or chased off.

    Pinning one's mistakes on others, denying what one has said in the past, and ad hominem attacks on critics are surely desirable characteristics.
    Depends on whether it's business or pleasure... :)
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 3,840

    Foxy said:


    I would agree. After a certain point, money is just a way of keeping score. ...

    I have been married 28 years, and there have certainly been bad patches, but I am glad I stuck it out.

    On the other hand, it did have significant psychological effects in terms of reducing money-related stress, making me less eager to pour excessive extra hours in the business, and significantly change the way I thought about any future career change (in particular, considerations of salary or jobs I'd only be doing for the money went completely out of the window). I'd recommend it, and it's good really, just good in a rather more dull way than I'd expected. But I do find, online at least, quite a few people who seem really fired up about the whole concept of financial independence and I wonder they will find more excitement in their bean-counting than I.
    The journey is more exciting than the destination...
    kle4 said:

    Corbyn Jnr, a prominent Labour activist, uploaded a post asking: ‘Why is it that I can critique my own, or any government, but criticism of the Israeli state is immediately branded anti-Semitic?

    Ah, the old classics.

    You can, son, you just do so without being an asshat about it. And if you do want to suggest that people cannot criticise Israel without unfairly being branded anti-semitic, maybe take note of the people who respond with an image which you later say this about:

    He also described the Star of David image as a ‘disgusting anti-Semitic image

    Umm...

    He wrote that underneath a cartoon described as anti-semitic, here is the full quote.

    ____________________________________________
    Under the 'Nazi cartoon' he wrote: 'That's a disgusting anti-Semitic image.

    'Jewish people don't rule the world, rich and powerful people do. Suggesting or claiming that they do is anti-Semitic.'
    __________________________________________

    I realise by questioning this or countering the story I am now a conspiracy theorist and am by extension suggesting that any accusations of anti-semitism about Labour members are lies as absolutely none exists...

    Maybe his first line does have some relevance after all?
  • AndreaParma_82AndreaParma_82 Posts: 4,714
    Only council by-election of the day

    Knowsley - Page Moss

    Lab 657
    Greens 74
    UKIP 68
    Con 41


    Lab hold
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 24,967
    FF43 said:

    FF43 said:

    FF43 said:


    However Brexit is unusual in that essentially all the known unknowns are downside. For example we know that the City of London will lose out to the EU. The question is how much. Typically a change comes with a mixture of upside and downside so you don't know whether you will end up ahead or behind. Brexit will definitely be behind and as there are lots of factors accumulating, likely by quite a bit.

    Yet a 'know unknown' before the referendum was that a Leave win would lead to huge job losses.

    Its amazing to me that after the last few years that people still are willing to make 100% predictions.

    And on a betting associated site as well.
    If you expose your assumptions, making predictions is sensible. Better than the alternative of blind faith. FWIW most, but not all, of what I predicted about Brexit a year ago has panned out so far in quite concrete terms and in broad terms.since the referendum. This isn't clairvoyance. It's a question of being informed on the topic, somewhat sceptical and expecting people to behave the way they normally behave.
    How lucky PB is.

    All its Remainers tell us that they've been proved right by events since the referendum.

    Whereas the official Remainers from Cameron downwards were all proved wrong.
    That's a case of being over invested in your project. We've all been there. The more contentious it is the more you tend to double down. Tony Blair and the case for the Iraq war is a classic case of this. You need a degree of detachment.

    To be fair wishful thinking affected Leavers more than Remainers.
    I think that's about right.

    Though I'd say that while the Leave leadership had plenty of wishful thinking many Leave voters didn't. The difference being that while the Leave leadership were supporting change for optimistic reasons Leave voters wers supporting change to avoid the current negative path.
  • ElliotElliot Posts: 1,516
    kle4 said:

    SeanT said:

    Had drinks with a smart, lefty friend tonight. 50-something. Definitely more left than centre-left.

    He expressed absolute contempt for Corbyn ("he's either stupid or anti-Semitic, probably both") combined with an unexpected despair at Labour's long term future.

    He thinks the racist, hard left anti-Semitic wing of the party can simply never reconcile with the Blairite "mainstream". A split (or some similarly dreadful and apocalyptic rupture) is now inevitable, to his mind.

    I found it all most encouraging.

    We're you pissed or was he.

    Either way he was spouting bollocks
    What the last few years have taught us, as if we needed teaching, is that tribal instincts are very very entrenched all over, and people can put up with a hell of a lot before they will contemplate become an active opponent of their tribe. They'll moan, they'll grumble, they'll scream, they'll leak how they can only take so much and they'll even occasionally speak up in public...then when the storm passes they can justify to themselves why it isn't the time, or that the cost is too high, or maybe it wasn't so bad after all, or at least not as bad as the other lot, or that they'll be able to fix it from within. And then nothing will happen.

    Frankly I don't know how the Tories usually manage to seem less divided, given their own troubles.
    Finally leaving your tribe is strangely liberating though.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 24,967
    MaxPB said:

    Charles said:

    Foxy said:

    Charles said:

    I see economic nationalism/protectionism is sadly still back in fashion.

    https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/979471364489928705

    I wish people would come up with a new cliche

    There have been so many “unacceptable faces of capitalism” that I’ve completely lost count. And Tiny was not a good man - the Melrose guys just get paid very very well if they make money for their shareholders
    Greed is good...
    They’re not actually that greedy (I’ve met 1 although don’t know him well).

    They don’t take a salary but instead get a cut of the profits from their work. They are very good so make lots of profits - which makes pensions bigger for people like you and me
    I've no idea about the GKN takeover but I don't think there's much trust in 'investors' anymore.

    What odds would you give on them either building a new UK factory or closing a present UK factory ?
    As I said in the previous thread, Melrose will do a better job with GKN than the existing board. The new CEO was proposing to sell 53% of its biggest revenue driver to an American outfit in a cut price deal that would have hugely benefited her previous employer.

    What Melrose are saying makes a lot of sense too. There is enough synergy between the currently disparate parts of GKN to make the whole greater than the value of the sum. The key will be making those parts work together, I've been at a company where that was very difficult to achieve (Sony) and I don't envy the job of the new GKN CEO.

    Even so, this is definitely a much better proposition than the managed decline and break up that current management were looking at.

    My prediction is that Melrose will hold GKN, push through a management and business restructuring, make the company work as one and then float it for double what they have paid. At least that is what the Melrose plan looks like on paper.
    I hope you're right - it would be good if they can create a positive image for this sort of investment.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709

    Only council by-election of the day

    Knowsley - Page Moss

    Lab 657
    Greens 74
    UKIP 68
    Con 41


    Lab hold

    So no change there then to the universally Labour Knowsley Council
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,195

    Floater said:

    Seriously - is this really Britain today?

    Come on decent Labour people - do something
    Don't hold your breath.
    after reading the posts of posters I thought were decent human beings on here recently, I am not holding out much hope.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392
    edited March 2018


    Umm...

    He wrote that underneath a cartoon described as anti-semitic, here is the full quote.

    ____________________________________________
    Under the 'Nazi cartoon' he wrote: 'That's a disgusting anti-Semitic image.

    'Jewish people don't rule the world, rich and powerful people do. Suggesting or claiming that they do is anti-Semitic.'
    __________________________________________

    I realise by questioning this or countering the story I am now a conspiracy theorist and am by extension suggesting that any accusations of anti-semitism about Labour members are lies as absolutely none exists...

    Maybe his first line does have some relevance after all?

    I don't think so, and nor would I suggest countering a story would make you dismissing everything about issues that exist - but the central point remains the same unconnected to the other part. You can criticise Israel without being branded anti-semitic. He is categorically wrong about that. That when you ask that question people start being anti-semitic (I did not say he had been anti-semitic), is a good example of why some people think you cannot raise the question without being labelled as such, because when you criticise Israel, anti-semites come out.

    I never said he was anti-semitic. I said he was wrong to say that you cannot criticise Israel without being called anti-semitic, and that image shows the problem is that when you criticise them (without being anti-semitic) you immediately get anti-semites in the vicinity. Their criticisms are invalid, but if he has valid ones as long as he is not anti-semitic he can do so just fine.

    The asshat remark was because it is nonsense you cannot criticise Israel, so what he was saying is not 'I want to criticise Israel', which he can do just fine, but 'I want to criticise Israel, but I don't want to deal with any criticism of my criticism, so I am setting up now that it will be fake'. In essence, he was posturing.

    If that was not clear I apologise, but I never meant to imply he was anti-semitic, just that he posited a false piece of information about what he could or could not do, which was then apparently surrounded by people who were anti semitic, thus kind of pointing out why someone might well be wary of criticism of Israel in a justified way, thus undermining his whine about how unfair it was someone might get the wrong impression.

    Night all. Another day, another day of anti-semitism debates.
  • ElliotElliot Posts: 1,516

    Foxy said:


    I would agree. After a certain point, money is just a way of keeping score. ...

    I have been married 28 years, and there have certainly been bad patches, but I am glad I stuck it out.

    Congrats Foxy! You are also, in your own way, giving hope and inspiration to some of the rest of us. As a late starter I have to admit to considerable disappointment that Sean's last couple of attempts haven't come to such fruition (the amazing young wifey, the Lib Dem policewoman, wasn't there even some bird he ended up feeling more serious with at the end of his dating (factual?) autobiography, available at all good online retailers?)... if a chap that loaded can't find a nice girl, what chance a far more moderately loaded one?
    I.
    When you go on the internet and boast about how young your wife is, it probably isn't a good sign.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,065
    Floater said:

    Floater said:

    Seriously - is this really Britain today?

    Come on decent Labour people - do something
    Don't hold your breath.
    after reading the posts of posters I thought were decent human beings on here recently, I am not holding out much hope.
    Yes, I think that we are an increasingly polarised society, with allegiance defined by who you hate or despise rather than anything positive. I don't blame Brexit though, I see it as a symptom rather than a causation.

    Not much room in the middle ground anymore.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,603

    I hope you're right - it would be good if they can create a positive image for this sort of investment.

    Me too, though when I say synergy it really means job losses, and I expect at least 5-7k of job losses. GKN is carrying a lot of fat. When Kaz arrived as Sony CEO he cut 10k jobs and used it as an opportunity for cross pollination between business divisions. Given the similarity of the situation the new GKN CEO will likely do the same.

    I remember when I joined Sony in 2008 there were almost 200,000 employees. In 2017 there were 125,000, but no one would even try to argue that Sony was better off in 2008. Similarly GKN will do more with less. In that time investment at Sony increased, productivity increased and profitability is higher than it's ever been and the market value has followed. If Melrose can pull off what Kaz did at Sony, make the company work as one, then it will be some achievement and they will deserve to double their investment.
  • notmenotme Posts: 3,293

    Floater said:

    Seriously - is this really Britain today?

    Come on decent Labour people - do something
    I remember the day when it was a scandal that the CoE had his car parked in the disabled parking bay, now we have the shadow CoE having a plague commemorating terrorists, including one who burned another human alive, hanging on his wall and it gets little more than P28 of the newspaper.
    There’s a story about him at university in York. All the staff had to go through anti Semitism training because of him.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,574

    Cook gone....

    I think we need to move on and find a new opener.

    Should have moved on a while back, I think. Cook, despite his admirable qualities and notwithstanding the occasional century, hasn't being doing the essential job of an opener for some time. That there are no obvious replacements doesn't mean we should be trying out alternatives.

    With some luck, Hameed's form will return this year.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,770
    viewcode said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    And to think that being an expert on something implies an ability to predict the future of that thing. A true touchstone for invincible stupidity.

    Oddly I plowing thru "Superforecasters" at the moment (somebody here recommended it. It's a damn fine read, tbh). The qualities of a good forecaster are: an ability to research the issue, update one's forecast frequently, present one's forecast to others for critical examination, break the problem into subproblems, constant practice, track your predictions and recognise past errors, mix with other people who wish to predict accurately, avoid wishful thinking.

    I recall again that PB meets some of these criteria but not all and is actively hostile to one of them ("mix with people who wish to predict accurately"). @BlackRook, @isam and @RodCrosby were good but have been either banned or chased off.

    It was me who recommended it, and its advice is excellent.

    It should be required reading on here.
  • Foxy said:

    Incidentally Die Hard is on Film4, conclusively proving that it is not a Christmas movie, but rather an Easter one. :)

    https://www.empireonline.com/movies/features/empire-30-best-christmas-movies/

    Arguably the greatest action movie ever made, and now the greatest Christmas movie ever made, too. Bruce Willis’ John McClane may seem like an unlikely Santa Claus – he doesn’t have enough hair for one – but what better Christmas present is there than the gift of terrorists getting taken down as they try to take Nakatomi Plaza hostage during a Christmas party in order to carry out an elaborate theft? Not for Empire readers the cutesy Christmas trees of other Christmas movies, or the sight of people in ill-advised knitwear drinking eggnog. For you guys, nothing says deck the halls like jumping off a roof tied to a fire hose, and nothing says season of goodwill like a machine gun. Ho ho ho.
    Oh dear God, not again. I also misread Nakatomi Plaza hostage as Nakatomi Pizza hostage and had a combined Die Hard / Pineapple moment. I'm off for a lie down.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,574
    rcs1000 said:

    viewcode said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    And to think that being an expert on something implies an ability to predict the future of that thing. A true touchstone for invincible stupidity.

    Oddly I plowing thru "Superforecasters" at the moment (somebody here recommended it. It's a damn fine read, tbh). The qualities of a good forecaster are: an ability to research the issue, update one's forecast frequently, present one's forecast to others for critical examination, break the problem into subproblems, constant practice, track your predictions and recognise past errors, mix with other people who wish to predict accurately, avoid wishful thinking.

    I recall again that PB meets some of these criteria but not all and is actively hostile to one of them ("mix with people who wish to predict accurately"). @BlackRook, @isam and @RodCrosby were good but have been either banned or chased off.

    It was me who recommended it, and its advice is excellent.

    It should be required reading on here.
    Required ?
    Next it will be compulsory Radiohead....

  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,770

    Charles said:

    Foxy said:

    Charles said:

    I see economic nationalism/protectionism is sadly still back in fashion.

    https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/979471364489928705

    I wish people would come up with a new cliche

    There have been so many “unacceptable faces of capitalism” that I’ve completely lost count. And Tiny was not a good man - the Melrose guys just get paid very very well if they make money for their shareholders
    Greed is good...
    They’re not actually that greedy (I’ve met 1 although don’t know him well).

    They don’t take a salary but instead get a cut of the profits from their work. They are very good so make lots of profits - which makes pensions bigger for people like you and me
    I've no idea about the GKN takeover but I don't think there's much trust in 'investors' anymore.

    What odds would you give on them either building a new UK factory or closing a present UK factory ?
    Depends on what's profitable
    Profitable for whom though ?

    The new investors
    Shareholders
    Employees
    Taxpayers
    Suppliers
    Customers
    A company's job is to make money for its shareholders: nothing more, nothing less.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Ishmael_Z said:

    Charles said:

    Foxy said:

    Charles said:

    I see economic nationalism/protectionism is sadly still back in fashion.

    https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/979471364489928705

    I wish people would come up with a new cliche

    There have been so many “unacceptable faces of capitalism” that I’ve completely lost count. And Tiny was not a good man - the Melrose guys just get paid very very well if they make money for their shareholders
    Greed is good...
    They’re not actually that greedy (I’ve met 1 although don’t know him well).

    They don’t take a salary but instead get a cut of the profits from their work. They are very good so make lots of profits - which makes pensions bigger for people like you and me
    Could you please reword that to make it sound more patronising, and then explain how you can tell 4 men are not greedy when you have met one of them, once?
    It wasn’t meant to be patronising so sorry if you thought it was. They have an unusual comp structure which I thought you might be unaware of (the Mail’s “they could make £285m” is true... if they make £2.85bn of profit for the shareholders)

    The greedy comment was based on their reputation in the market as being down to earth
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,770
    MaxPB said:

    My prediction is that Melrose will hold GKN, push through a management and business restructuring, make the company work as one and then float it for double what they have paid. At least that is what the Melrose plan looks like on paper.

    I think that's fair. I suspect they'll do quite a good job of it, and I suspect their timing - as defence budgets start to rise in the Western world - is impeccable.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Foxy said:

    Charles said:

    Foxy said:

    Charles said:

    I see economic nationalism/protectionism is sadly still back in fashion.

    https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/979471364489928705

    I wish people would come up with a new cliche

    There have been so many “unacceptable faces of capitalism” that I’ve completely lost count. And Tiny was not a good man - the Melrose guys just get paid very very well if they make money for their shareholders
    Greed is good...
    They’re not actually that greedy (I’ve met 1 although don’t know him well).

    They don’t take a salary but instead get a cut of the profits from their work. They are very good so make lots of profits - which makes pensions bigger for people like you and me
    Very much the Gordon Gekko speech summarised.

    I'm not complaining, I turned a nice profit on the takeover. I bought at 175p some years ago, and have good dividends in the meantime. I sold in Feb at 408p.

    I prefer to hold shares in companies doing something socially useful, and regarded British engineering manufacturing as part of that.

    GKN was going to sell to the Canadians...
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,770
    Elliot said:

    Foxy said:


    I would agree. After a certain point, money is just a way of keeping score. ...

    I have been married 28 years, and there have certainly been bad patches, but I am glad I stuck it out.

    Congrats Foxy! You are also, in your own way, giving hope and inspiration to some of the rest of us. As a late starter I have to admit to considerable disappointment that Sean's last couple of attempts haven't come to such fruition (the amazing young wifey, the Lib Dem policewoman, wasn't there even some bird he ended up feeling more serious with at the end of his dating (factual?) autobiography, available at all good online retailers?)... if a chap that loaded can't find a nice girl, what chance a far more moderately loaded one?
    I.
    When you go on the internet and boast about how young your wife is, it probably isn't a good sign.
    It's an excellent sign of how young your wife is.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 24,967
    rcs1000 said:

    Charles said:

    Foxy said:

    Charles said:

    I see economic nationalism/protectionism is sadly still back in fashion.

    https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/979471364489928705

    I wish people would come up with a new cliche

    There have been so many “unacceptable faces of capitalism” that I’ve completely lost count. And Tiny was not a good man - the Melrose guys just get paid very very well if they make money for their shareholders
    Greed is good...
    They’re not actually that greedy (I’ve met 1 although don’t know him well).

    They don’t take a salary but instead get a cut of the profits from their work. They are very good so make lots of profits - which makes pensions bigger for people like you and me
    I've no idea about the GKN takeover but I don't think there's much trust in 'investors' anymore.

    What odds would you give on them either building a new UK factory or closing a present UK factory ?
    Depends on what's profitable
    Profitable for whom though ?

    The new investors
    Shareholders
    Employees
    Taxpayers
    Suppliers
    Customers
    A company's job is to make money for its shareholders: nothing more, nothing less.
    Some companies seem rather more interested in making money for their directors rather than for their shareholders.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,770

    Floater said:

    Seriously - is this really Britain today?

    Come on decent Labour people - do something
    I remember the day when it was a scandal that the CoE had his car parked in the disabled parking bay, now we have the shadow CoE having a plague commemorating terrorists, including one who burned another human alive, hanging on his wall and it gets little more than P28 of the newspaper.
    How did he put the plague on the wall? Was it in a test tube?
  • MyBurningEarsMyBurningEars Posts: 3,651
    edited March 2018
    rcs1000 said:



    Profitable for whom though ?

    The new investors
    Shareholders
    Employees
    Taxpayers
    Suppliers
    Customers

    A company's job is to make money for its shareholders: nothing more, nothing less.
    For any of the directors here, what practical difference has this made to you? Many must find a philosophical attraction to the idea of "just make money for the shareholders" (after all, it's their company) and I wonder at just how enforceable it is, but I also wonder whether it might reflect a changing mindset, perhaps especially among a newer generation of managers.

    Companies Act 2006

    Section 172 Duty to promote the success of the company
    (1) A director of a company must act in the way he considers, in good faith, would be most likely to promote the success of the company for the benefit of its members as a whole, and in doing so have regard (amongst other matters) to—
    (a) the likely consequences of any decision in the long term,
    (b) the interests of the company's employees,
    (c) the need to foster the company's business relationships with suppliers, customers and others,
    (d) the impact of the company's operations on the community and the environment,
    (e) the desirability of the company maintaining a reputation for high standards of business conduct, and
    (f) the need to act fairly as between members of the company.
    (2) Where or to the extent that the purposes of the company consist of or include purposes other than the benefit of its members, subsection (1) has effect as if the reference to promoting the success of the company for the benefit of its members were to achieving those purposes.
    (3) The duty imposed by this section has effect subject to any enactment or rule of law requiring directors, in certain circumstances, to consider or act in the interests of creditors of the company.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,574
    rcs1000 said:

    Elliot said:

    Foxy said:


    I would agree. After a certain point, money is just a way of keeping score. ...

    I have been married 28 years, and there have certainly been bad patches, but I am glad I stuck it out.

    Congrats Foxy! You are also, in your own way, giving hope and inspiration to some of the rest of us. As a late starter I have to admit to considerable disappointment that Sean's last couple of attempts haven't come to such fruition (the amazing young wifey, the Lib Dem policewoman, wasn't there even some bird he ended up feeling more serious with at the end of his dating (factual?) autobiography, available at all good online retailers?)... if a chap that loaded can't find a nice girl, what chance a far more moderately loaded one?
    I.
    When you go on the internet and boast about how young your wife is, it probably isn't a good sign.
    It's an excellent sign of how young your wife is.
    Can't be that young if Foxy has been married for 28 years...
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 24,967
    What's happened to Gary Ballance ?
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 3,840
    edited March 2018
    @rcs1000

    Lol! both of them got me.

    @kle4

    Fair enough.

    I'm happy for any criticism he makes of Israel to be criticised just not with an anti-semitism comment, unless of course he does say something anti-semitic.

    Whilst it is possible to be critical of Israel without getting accused of anti-semitism is is also possible to get accused of anti-semitism for criticism of Israel which doesn't contain anti-semitism.

    Edit: I'm just slightly annoyed that I had to go on to the Daily Mail website to find out the story.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,574

    What's happened to Gary Ballance ?

    Reluctance (or inability) to play forward against the test quicks undid him.
    Talented bat who can make heaps of runs at county level, but failed to show that he could change his game to meet the sterner examination in tests.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    rcs1000 said:

    Charles said:

    Foxy said:

    Charles said:

    I see economic nationalism/protectionism is sadly still back in fashion.

    https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/979471364489928705

    I wish people would come up with a new cliche

    There have been so many “unacceptable faces of capitalism” that I’ve completely lost count. And Tiny was not a good man - the Melrose guys just get paid very very well if they make money for their shareholders
    Greed is good...
    They’re not actually that greedy (I’ve met 1 although don’t know him well).

    They don’t take a salary but instead get a cut of the profits from their work. They are very good so make lots of profits - which makes pensions bigger for people like you and me
    I've no idea about the GKN takeover but I don't think there's much trust in 'investors' anymore.

    What odds would you give on them either building a new UK factory or closing a present UK factory ?
    Depends on what's profitable
    Profitable for whom though ?

    The new investors
    Shareholders
    Employees
    Taxpayers
    Suppliers
    Customers
    A company's job is to make money for its shareholders: nothing more, nothing less.
    Wrong. But very Goldman. It’s that attitude that has done so much to corode society. Companies have stakeholders, not just shareholders
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    James vince = mark ramprakash
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 24,967
    Nigelb said:

    What's happened to Gary Ballance ?

    Reluctance (or inability) to play forward against the test quicks undid him.
    Talented bat who can make heaps of runs at county level, but failed to show that he could change his game to meet the sterner examination in tests.
    But he was in the squad this winter and doesn't seem to have played IIRC.

    Yet James Vince has been given another opportunity to fail.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,574

    Nigelb said:

    What's happened to Gary Ballance ?

    Reluctance (or inability) to play forward against the test quicks undid him.
    Talented bat who can make heaps of runs at county level, but failed to show that he could change his game to meet the sterner examination in tests.
    But he was in the squad this winter and doesn't seem to have played IIRC.

    Yet James Vince has been given another opportunity to fail.
    Indeed.
    But England's problem of finding a number 3 is if anything worse than that of replacing Cook. Ballance would probably do better at 5, but there isn't a vacancy.

    Considering that Broad and Anderson must be nearing the end of their careers (Broad particularly), and we just dropped the spinner we've persisted with for a long time, there are a lot of opportunities for ambitious youngsters over the next year

  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,574
    Apple appears to be serious about letting its customers manage their own data:
    https://www.macrumors.com/2018/03/29/apple-launching-revamped-apple-id-website/
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,958
    Foxy said:
    A Tory has the balls to stand.

    In Knowsley.

    That is the news here.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,787

    Foxy said:
    A Tory has the balls to stand.

    In Knowsley.

    That is the news here.
    Big swing from the Greens to UKIP and the Tories.
  • David_EvershedDavid_Evershed Posts: 6,506

    rcs1000 said:

    Charles said:

    Foxy said:

    Charles said:

    I see economic nationalism/protectionism is sadly still back in fashion.

    https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/979471364489928705

    I wish people would come up with a new cliche

    There have been so many “unacceptable faces of capitalism” that I’ve completely lost count. And Tiny was not a good man - the Melrose guys just get paid very very well if they make money for their shareholders
    Greed is good...
    They’re not actually that greedy (I’ve met 1 although don’t know him well).

    They don’t take a salary but instead get a cut of the profits from their work. They are very good so make lots of profits - which makes pensions bigger for people like you and me
    I've no idea about the GKN takeover but I don't think there's much trust in 'investors' anymore.

    What odds would you give on them either building a new UK factory or closing a present UK factory ?
    Depends on what's profitable
    Profitable for whom though ?

    The new investors
    Shareholders
    Employees
    Taxpayers
    Suppliers
    Customers
    A company's job is to make money for its shareholders: nothing more, nothing less.
    Some companies seem rather more interested in making money for their directors rather than for their shareholders.
    Investment banks are better described as workers co-operatives rather than stockholder companies.
  • David_EvershedDavid_Evershed Posts: 6,506
    Stoneman does seem to be a proper test match opening batsman, doing the job of seeing off the best bowlers so the lower orders can make good runs.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,770
    Charles said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Charles said:

    Foxy said:

    Charles said:

    I see economic nationalism/protectionism is sadly still back in fashion.

    https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/979471364489928705

    I wish people would come up with a new cliche

    There have been so many “unacceptable faces of capitalism” that I’ve completely lost count. And Tiny was not a good man - the Melrose guys just get paid very very well if they make money for their shareholders
    Greed is good...
    They’re not actually that greedy (I’ve met 1 although don’t know him well).

    They don’t take a salary but instead get a cut of the profits from their work. They are very good so make lots of profits - which makes pensions bigger for people like you and me
    I've no idea about the GKN takeover but I don't think there's much trust in 'investors' anymore.

    What odds would you give on them either building a new UK factory or closing a present UK factory ?
    Depends on what's profitable
    Profitable for whom though ?

    The new investors
    Shareholders
    Employees
    Taxpayers
    Suppliers
    Customers
    A company's job is to make money for its shareholders: nothing more, nothing less.
    Wrong. But very Goldman. It’s that attitude that has done so much to corode society. Companies have stakeholders, not just shareholders
    I disagree. This is something I've thought long and hard about over the years, and I have come to the conclusion that a company's job is to serve its shareholders: nothing more, nothing less.

    This does not mean it does not have responsibilities. Personally, I am responsible for behaving within the law, and it is the same with companies. It is the job of society, the legislature and government to ensure that a company acting in the best interests of its shareholders takes full account of society's broader interests. But the duty of Directors should be simple and single: to serve shareholders.
  • David_EvershedDavid_Evershed Posts: 6,506
    Lord Levy (Labour) on Newsnight saying how the labour party is anti-semitic and Corbyn not acting strongly enough.

    Lord Robert Winston (Labour) on This Week with Andrew Neil saying how the Labour party is anti-semitic and Corbyn not acting strongly enough.

  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 12,880
    SeanT said:

    Elliot said:

    Foxy said:


    I would agree. After a certain point, money is just a way of keeping score. ...

    I have been married 28 years, and there have certainly been bad patches, but I am glad I stuck it out.

    Congrats Foxy! You are also, in your own way, giving hope and inspiration to some of the rest of us. As a late starter I have to admit to considerable disappointment that Sean's last couple of attempts haven't come to such fruition (the amazing young wifey, the Lib Dem policewoman, wasn't there even some bird he ended up feeling more serious with at the end of his dating (factual?) autobiography, available at all good online retailers?)... if a chap that loaded can't find a nice girl, what chance a far more moderately loaded one?
    I.
    When you go on the internet and boast about how young your wife is, it probably isn't a good sign.
    True... but I did have a year of AMAZING sex. And nothing is forever. So there is that.

    If you date young, it ends quickly. Truth. Personally (having had all my kids and done my parental, social, genetic and TAXATIONAL duty) I am now prepared to accept the caprice that comes with carnal nubility, in my sexual partners. Each to his or her own.
    So did you pre-nup her or has she fucked you figuratively as well as literally?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,770
    Dura_Ace said:

    SeanT said:

    Elliot said:

    Foxy said:


    I would agree. After a certain point, money is just a way of keeping score. ...

    I have been married 28 years, and there have certainly been bad patches, but I am glad I stuck it out.

    Congrats Foxy! You are also, in your own way, giving hope and inspiration to some of the rest of us. As a late starter I have to admit to considerable disappointment that Sean's last couple of attempts haven't come to such fruition (the amazing young wifey, the Lib Dem policewoman, wasn't there even some bird he ended up feeling more serious with at the end of his dating (factual?) autobiography, available at all good online retailers?)... if a chap that loaded can't find a nice girl, what chance a far more moderately loaded one?
    I.
    When you go on the internet and boast about how young your wife is, it probably isn't a good sign.
    True... but I did have a year of AMAZING sex. And nothing is forever. So there is that.

    If you date young, it ends quickly. Truth. Personally (having had all my kids and done my parental, social, genetic and TAXATIONAL duty) I am now prepared to accept the caprice that comes with carnal nubility, in my sexual partners. Each to his or her own.
    So did you pre-nup her or has she fucked you figuratively as well as literally?
    Pre nups are not legally binding in the UK.
  • MTimT2MTimT2 Posts: 48
    rcs1000 said:

    Charles said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Charles said:

    Foxy said:

    Charles said:

    I see economic nationalism/protectionism is sadly still back in fashion.

    https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/979471364489928705

    I wish people would come up with a new cliche

    There have been so many “unacceptable faces of capitalism” that I’ve completely lost count. And Tiny was not a good man - the Melrose guys just get paid very very well if they make money for their shareholders
    Greed is good...
    They’re not actually that greedy (I’ve met 1 although don’t know him well).

    They don’t take a salary but instead get a cut of the profits from their work. They are very good so make lots of profits - which makes pensions bigger for people like you and me
    I've no idea about the GKN takeover but I don't think there's much trust in 'investors' anymore.

    What odds would you give on them either building a new UK factory or closing a present UK factory ?
    Depends on what's profitable
    Profitable for whom though ?

    The new investors
    Shareholders
    Employees
    Taxpayers
    Suppliers
    Customers
    A company's job is to make money for its shareholders: nothing more, nothing less.
    Wrong. But very Goldman. It’s that attitude that has done so much to corode society. Companies have stakeholders, not just shareholders
    I disagree. This is something I've thought long and hard about over the years, and I have come to the conclusion that a company's job is to serve its shareholders: nothing more, nothing less.

    This does not mean it does not have responsibilities. Personally, I am responsible for behaving within the law, and it is the same with companies. It is the job of society, the legislature and government to ensure that a company acting in the best interests of its shareholders takes full account of society's broader interests. But the duty of Directors should be simple and single: to serve shareholders.
    rcs2000 - that is a very corporatist view of the world, and I think one that will linger long, but will eventually be seen as a relic from which we have evolved onwards.

    I highly recommend Frederick Laloux's Reinventing Organizations to anyone interested in these issues.
  • MTimT2MTimT2 Posts: 48
    rcs1000 said:

    viewcode said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    And to think that being an expert on something implies an ability to predict the future of that thing. A true touchstone for invincible stupidity.

    Oddly I plowing thru "Superforecasters" at the moment (somebody here recommended it. It's a damn fine read, tbh). The qualities of a good forecaster are: an ability to research the issue, update one's forecast frequently, present one's forecast to others for critical examination, break the problem into subproblems, constant practice, track your predictions and recognise past errors, mix with other people who wish to predict accurately, avoid wishful thinking.

    I recall again that PB meets some of these criteria but not all and is actively hostile to one of them ("mix with people who wish to predict accurately"). @BlackRook, @isam and @RodCrosby were good but have been either banned or chased off.

    It was me who recommended it, and its advice is excellent.

    It should be required reading on here.

    rcs - finally read it an agree, excellent and mandatory reading.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
  • JohnLoonyJohnLoony Posts: 1,790
    edited March 2018
    Johan van Hulst, former leader of the Christian Democratic Party in the Netherlands, has died aged 107. He died on 22nd March but his death seems to have been reported only in the last day or two. I was watching an interview he did on TV only a few weeks ago.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-43569049
  • old_labourold_labour Posts: 3,238

    but no Yvette Cooper, Harriet Harman, Ben Bradshaw or Dromey on that list....
    The usual suspects.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,717
    JohnLoony said:

    Johan van Hulst, former leader of the Christian Democratic Party in the Netherlands, has died aged 107. He died on 22nd March but his death seems to have been reported only in the last day or two. I was watching an interview he did on TV only a few weeks ago.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-43569049

    Amazing story. A hero.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,745
    Scott_P said:
    Len McCluskey looks eerily like Harvey Weinstein in that cartoon.

    Cue jokes about Jennie Formby's career being due to the casting couch?
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,765
    rcs1000 said:

    Charles said:

    Foxy said:

    Charles said:

    I see economic nationalism/protectionism is sadly still back in fashion.

    https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/979471364489928705

    I wish people would come up with a new cliche

    There have been so many “unacceptable faces of capitalism” that I’ve completely lost count. And Tiny was not a good man - the Melrose guys just get paid very very well if they make money for their shareholders
    Greed is good...
    They’re not actually that greedy (I’ve met 1 although don’t know him well).

    They don’t take a salary but instead get a cut of the profits from their work. They are very good so make lots of profits - which makes pensions bigger for people like you and me
    I've no idea about the GKN takeover but I don't think there's much trust in 'investors' anymore.

    What odds would you give on them either building a new UK factory or closing a present UK factory ?
    Depends on what's profitable
    Profitable for whom though ?

    The new investors
    Shareholders
    Employees
    Taxpayers
    Suppliers
    Customers
    A company's job is to make money for its shareholders: nothing more, nothing less.
    In general, it is.

    There are, however, occasions when that is not so. Paying dividends in preference to making contributions to the company's pension fund; or in preference to settling debts; offloading responsibility for the pension fund to a subsidiary whose business is risky; selling products which you know to be dangerous into jurisdictions where you won't be prosecuted for it; bribing foreign governments. None of those can be justified by reference to making money for shareholders.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Good morning, everyone.

    Aren't there just two credible ways this doesn't happen? Either the EU negotiations break down utterly, or the Commons votes down the deal in Grieve's 'meaningful vote'.

    Knowing what would happen in terms of the latter would be helpful. I suggest the Grievance MPs would try to get a second referendum.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Sean_F said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Charles said:

    Foxy said:

    Charles said:

    I see economic nationalism/protectionism is sadly still back in fashion.

    https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/979471364489928705

    I wish people would come up with a new cliche

    There have been so many “unacceptable faces of capitalism” that I’ve completely lost count. And Tiny was not a good man - the Melrose guys just get paid very very well if they make money for their shareholders
    Greed is good...
    They’re not actually that greedy (I’ve met 1 although don’t know him well).

    They don’t take a salary but instead get a cut of the profits from their work. They are very good so make lots of profits - which makes pensions bigger for people like you and me
    I've no idea about the GKN takeover but I don't think there's much trust in 'investors' anymore.

    What odds would you give on them either building a new UK factory or closing a present UK factory ?
    Depends on what's profitable
    Profitable for whom though ?

    The new investors
    Shareholders
    Employees
    Taxpayers
    Suppliers
    Customers
    A company's job is to make money for its shareholders: nothing more, nothing less.
    In general, it is.

    There are, however, occasions when that is not so. Paying dividends in preference to making contributions to the company's pension fund; or in preference to settling debts; offloading responsibility for the pension fund to a subsidiary whose business is risky; selling products which you know to be dangerous into jurisdictions where you won't be prosecuted for it; bribing foreign governments. None of those can be justified by reference to making money for shareholders.
    Disagree. Take debt for example.

    Debt financed share buybacks may increase shareholder value.

    But by weakening the balance sheet that weakens the covenants that protect pensioners, employees, debt provides and - via the interest shield - reduce tax payments.

    Shareholders benefit but everyone else loses. That’s not right
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,958
    edited March 2018
    ydoethur said:

    Scott_P said:
    Len McCluskey looks eerily like Harvey Weinstein in that cartoon.

    Cue jokes about Jennie Formby's career being due to the casting couch?
    Through bleary eyes, I did wonder what Michael Gove was doing in there...
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,717
    O/t (yet again) but there’s a story on BBC Sport which I find concerning, viz:
    'About £60,000 of taxpayers' money will be used to pay for increased security at West Ham's home Premier League match against Southampton on Saturday.’

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/43584859

    Shouldn’t it be the clubs responsibility to fund security?
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517
    It gets worse than that: there are also 'Corbyn Head public toilets'. I mean, decapitating him is bad enough, but couldn't they just put his head on a pike? ;)
  • nielhnielh Posts: 1,307
    edited March 2018
    Charles said:

    Sean_F said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Charles said:

    Foxy said:

    Charles said:

    I see economic nationalism/protectionism is sadly still back in fashion.

    https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/979471364489928705

    I wish people would come up with a new cliche

    There have been so many “unacceptable faces of capitalism” that I’ve completely lost count. And Tiny was not a good man - the Melrose guys just get paid very very well if they make money for their shareholders
    Greed is good...
    They’re not actually that greedy (I’ve met 1 although don’t know him well).

    They don’t take a salary but instead get a cut of the profits from their work. They are very good so make lots of profits - which makes pensions bigger for people like you and me
    I've no idea about the GKN takeover but I don't think there's much trust in 'investors' anymore.

    What odds would you give on them either building a new UK factory or closing a present UK factory ?
    Depends on what's profitable
    Profitable for whom though ?

    The new investors
    Shareholders
    Employees
    Taxpayers
    Suppliers
    Customers
    A company's job is to make money for its shareholders: nothing more, nothing less.
    In general, it is.

    There are, however, occasions when that is not so. Paying dividends in preference to making contributions to the company's pension fund; or in preference to settling debts; offloading responsibility for the pension fund to a subsidiary whose business is risky; selling products which you know to be dangerous into jurisdictions where you won't be prosecuted for it; bribing foreign governments. None of those can be justified by reference to making money for shareholders.
    Disagree. Take debt for example.

    Debt financed share buybacks may increase shareholder value.

    But by weakening the balance sheet that weakens the covenants that protect pensioners, employees, debt provides and - via the interest shield - reduce tax payments.

    Shareholders benefit but everyone else loses. That’s not right
    Thats correct. Capitalism has to constantly reinvent itself to survive, and there is no guarantee that it will. People don't have any inherent interest in maintaining a capitalist system, because it enriches a minority at the expense of everyone else.

    Edit: Although, I did smile at the headline 'an abuse of capitalism'. It isn't an abuse of capitalism, its just the reality of capitalism.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 30,846

    O/t (yet again) but there’s a story on BBC Sport which I find concerning, viz:
    'About £60,000 of taxpayers' money will be used to pay for increased security at West Ham's home Premier League match against Southampton on Saturday.’

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/43584859

    Shouldn’t it be the clubs responsibility to fund security?

    Yep absolutely. And I say that as a life long West Ham fan.

    In fact I would say football clubs should pay all the additional policing and security costs associated with games.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517

    O/t (yet again) but there’s a story on BBC Sport which I find concerning, viz:
    'About £60,000 of taxpayers' money will be used to pay for increased security at West Ham's home Premier League match against Southampton on Saturday.’

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/43584859

    Shouldn’t it be the clubs responsibility to fund security?

    Another Boris f'up.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    King Cole, it absolutely should be and they can damned well afford it. I have vague memories of a story about Leeds United not having to pay those fees any more a few years ago because the taxpayer would from now on, ending the longstanding and very sensible arrangement, so it may well be a nationwide rather than local piece of idiocy.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,745

    O/t (yet again) but there’s a story on BBC Sport which I find concerning, viz:
    'About £60,000 of taxpayers' money will be used to pay for increased security at West Ham's home Premier League match against Southampton on Saturday.’

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/43584859

    Shouldn’t it be the clubs responsibility to fund security?

    Yep absolutely. And I say that as a life long West Ham fan.

    In fact I would say football clubs should pay all the additional policing and security costs associated with games.
    Why are the big clubs not asked to pay a 'security levy' of some description,like the banks and their bailout scheme? £4 million a year would be loose change for a premiership side but would make a huge difference to our policing budgets.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517

    King Cole, it absolutely should be and they can damned well afford it. I have vague memories of a story about Leeds United not having to pay those fees any more a few years ago because the taxpayer would from now on, ending the longstanding and very sensible arrangement, so it may well be a nationwide rather than local piece of idiocy.

    Sounds like it was a court case and was about reduced costs, not removing them:
    https://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/news/fears-over-growing-cost-of-policing-leeds-united-1-7457489

    Unless there were later developments.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 11,183
    edited March 2018
    Nielh - I'd say the populatiopn of South Korea - whom capitalism has moved, in a generation and a half, from subsisting on rice to one of the most comfortable standards of living in the world, would disagree with you. They were enriched rather more than their cousins in North Korea.

    Or you could compare the extent to which the East and West Germans were enriched while taking the capitalist/non-capitalist routes. Or the populations of Puerto Rico and Cuba,

    It wasn't just a tiny minority dragging the mean numbers up. Almost everybody's living standards increased under capitalism more than taking the other approach from the same starting point.

  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,958
    ydoethur said:

    O/t (yet again) but there’s a story on BBC Sport which I find concerning, viz:
    'About £60,000 of taxpayers' money will be used to pay for increased security at West Ham's home Premier League match against Southampton on Saturday.’

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/43584859

    Shouldn’t it be the clubs responsibility to fund security?

    Yep absolutely. And I say that as a life long West Ham fan.

    In fact I would say football clubs should pay all the additional policing and security costs associated with games.
    Why are the big clubs not asked to pay a 'security levy' of some description,like the banks and their bailout scheme? £4 million a year would be loose change for a premiership side but would make a huge difference to our policing budgets.
    Total cost of policing football should be a first call on the TV money, before it ever gets dispersed down to club level.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Mr. Jessop, cheers for that. Could've been the start of a shift in a stupid direction. The problem of needing more police wouldn't exist without the football, and there's vast amounts of money swimming around in it. It's not an unreasonable idea that the clubs should pay.
  • nielhnielh Posts: 1,307
    Cookie said:

    Nielh - I'd say the populatiopn of South Korea - whom capitalism has moved, in a generation and a half, from subsisting on rice to one of the most comfortable standards of living in the world, would disagree with you. They were enriched rather more than their cousins in North Korea.

    Or you could compare the extent to which the East and West Germans were enriched while taking the capitalist/non-capitalist routes. Or the populations of Puerto Rico and Cuba,

    It wasn't just a tiny minority dragging the mean numbers up. Almost everybody's living standards increased under capitalism more than taking the other approach from the same starting point.

    Capitalism on its own does not raise living standards. It is a question of how it is managed.

    Geopolitics feature heavily in your two main examples.

    Lots of other counter examples. We were discussing post USSR recently.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,881
    Charles said:



    Disagree. Take debt for example.

    Debt financed share buybacks may increase shareholder value.

    But by weakening the balance sheet that weakens the covenants that protect pensioners, employees, debt provides and - via the interest shield - reduce tax payments.

    Shareholders benefit but everyone else loses. That’s not right

    I quite agree that it's not right.
    But arguably the flaw is in the system which encourages such an action?
    We need regulations and taxes to redress the balance.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614

    King Cole, it absolutely should be and they can damned well afford it. I have vague memories of a story about Leeds United not having to pay those fees any more a few years ago because the taxpayer would from now on, ending the longstanding and very sensible arrangement, so it may well be a nationwide rather than local piece of idiocy.

    Sounds like it was a court case and was about reduced costs, not removing them:
    https://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/news/fears-over-growing-cost-of-policing-leeds-united-1-7457489

    Unless there were later developments.
    That’s mad, I can’t be the only one who thought the cost of policing football matches was already bourne by the clubs. Football is a massive drain on police resources.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,958
    On topic, the Betfair tracker does feel like it mirrors how the media attitude towards Brexit has changed. Remain as the right and proper line to pursue now seems to have been supplanted by Brexit is happening, so let’s stop fighting it.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    edited March 2018
    rkrkrk said:

    Charles said:



    Disagree. Take debt for example.

    Debt financed share buybacks may increase shareholder value.

    But by weakening the balance sheet that weakens the covenants that protect pensioners, employees, debt provides and - via the interest shield - reduce tax payments.

    Shareholders benefit but everyone else loses. That’s not right

    I quite agree that it's not right.
    But arguably the flaw is in the system which encourages such an action?
    We need regulations and taxes to redress the balance.
    The theoretical flaw was always there but it’s more the cultural impact of a narrow focus on shareholder value (it’s the same as the proposed Aviva preference share cancellation which was just wrong).

    Amending remuneration systems would be a good start. I’d also look at limiting the tax shield on interest (and certainly for shareholder loans). More general tax or regulation probably not needed
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    Yet another poll giving a consistent message about how the public views Brexit:

    https://twitter.com/skydata/status/979314986588737537?s=21
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,574
    Cookie said:

    Nielh - I'd say the populatiopn of South Korea - whom capitalism has moved, in a generation and a half, from subsisting on rice to one of the most comfortable standards of living in the world, would disagree with you. They were enriched rather more than their cousins in North Korea.

    Or you could compare the extent to which the East and West Germans were enriched while taking the capitalist/non-capitalist routes. Or the populations of Puerto Rico and Cuba,

    It wasn't just a tiny minority dragging the mean numbers up. Almost everybody's living standards increased under capitalism more than taking the other approach from the same starting point.

    But the foundation for Korea's remarkable growth was laid during a lengthy dictatorship with what was effectively a mixture of crony capitalism and state dirigism. It's an interesting story, as although corruption was (and to some extent still is) endemic, the dictator of nineteen years, Park Chung-he, didn't appear to have been particularly interested in personal gain.
    Whether there can be such a thing as an enlightened dictator is extremely doubtful, but you could make some sort of a case for Park.

    US support, and the Korean obsession with education were essential elements.

    Capitalism doesn't guarantee prosperity, but there is certainly a very strong coincidence between the two things.
  • prh47bridgeprh47bridge Posts: 441
    rcs1000 said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    SeanT said:

    Elliot said:

    Foxy said:


    I would agree. After a certain point, money is just a way of keeping score. ...

    I have been married 28 years, and there have certainly been bad patches, but I am glad I stuck it out.

    Congrats Foxy! You are also, in your own way, giving hope and inspiration to some of the rest of us. As a late starter I have to admit to considerable disappointment that Sean's last couple of attempts haven't come to such fruition (the amazing young wifey, the Lib Dem policewoman, wasn't there even some bird he ended up feeling more serious with at the end of his dating (factual?) autobiography, available at all good online retailers?)... if a chap that loaded can't find a nice girl, what chance a far more moderately loaded one?
    I.
    When you go on the internet and boast about how young your wife is, it probably isn't a good sign.
    True... but I did have a year of AMAZING sex. And nothing is forever. So there is that.

    If you date young, it ends quickly. Truth. Personally (having had all my kids and done my parental, social, genetic and TAXATIONAL duty) I am now prepared to accept the caprice that comes with carnal nubility, in my sexual partners. Each to his or her own.
    So did you pre-nup her or has she fucked you figuratively as well as literally?
    Pre nups are not legally binding in the UK.
    No they are not, but the courts generally uphold them these days provided it was executed at least 21 days before the marriage, both parties received independent legal advice, there was full financial disclosure, neither party was pressured into signing and there have been no changes since marriage rendering the agreement inappropriate (e.g. the arrival of children). If those safeguards have been met the courts will only interfere if the agreement is manifestly unfair.

    As SeanT's marriage has been short it is unlikely his wife would be entitled to anything like 50% of his assets even if there is no prenuptial agreement.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 13,921

    ydoethur said:

    O/t (yet again) but there’s a story on BBC Sport which I find concerning, viz:
    'About £60,000 of taxpayers' money will be used to pay for increased security at West Ham's home Premier League match against Southampton on Saturday.’

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/43584859

    Shouldn’t it be the clubs responsibility to fund security?

    Yep absolutely. And I say that as a life long West Ham fan.

    In fact I would say football clubs should pay all the additional policing and security costs associated with games.
    Why are the big clubs not asked to pay a 'security levy' of some description,like the banks and their bailout scheme? £4 million a year would be loose change for a premiership side but would make a huge difference to our policing budgets.
    Total cost of policing football should be a first call on the TV money, before it ever gets dispersed down to club level.
    +1

    2nd should be an infrastructure levy to help newly promoted clubs.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,881
    Charles said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Charles said:



    Disagree. Take debt for example.

    Debt financed share buybacks may increase shareholder value.

    But by weakening the balance sheet that weakens the covenants that protect pensioners, employees, debt provides and - via the interest shield - reduce tax payments.

    Shareholders benefit but everyone else loses. That’s not right

    I quite agree that it's not right.
    But arguably the flaw is in the system which encourages such an action?
    We need regulations and taxes to redress the balance.
    The theoretical flaw was always there but it’s more the cultural impact of a narrow focus on shareholder value (it’s the same as the proposed Aviva preference share cancellation which was just wrong).

    Amending remuneration systems would be a good start. I’d also look at limiting the tax shield on interest (and certainly for shareholder loans). More general tax or regulation probably not needed
    I agree on the tax shield (and should have been more precise that I mean we need to adjust the balance of taxes which privileges x rather than y) - but I'm not that convinced that remuneration system changes will be that effective.

    Feels like ignoring the more fundamental problem.
  • prh47bridgeprh47bridge Posts: 441
    rcs1000 said:

    Charles said:

    Foxy said:

    Charles said:

    I see economic nationalism/protectionism is sadly still back in fashion.

    https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/979471364489928705

    I wish people would come up with a new cliche

    There have been so many “unacceptable faces of capitalism” that I’ve completely lost count. And Tiny was not a good man - the Melrose guys just get paid very very well if they make money for their shareholders
    Greed is good...
    They’re not actually that greedy (I’ve met 1 although don’t know him well).

    They don’t take a salary but instead get a cut of the profits from their work. They are very good so make lots of profits - which makes pensions bigger for people like you and me
    I've no idea about the GKN takeover but I don't think there's much trust in 'investors' anymore.

    What odds would you give on them either building a new UK factory or closing a present UK factory ?
    Depends on what's profitable
    Profitable for whom though ?

    The new investors
    Shareholders
    Employees
    Taxpayers
    Suppliers
    Customers
    A company's job is to make money for its shareholders: nothing more, nothing less.
    Every board of directors I have been on or close to has taken the view that its job is to balance the interests of all stakeholders (shareholders, employees, customers, the community, etc.), not to serve the shareholders to the exclusion of everyone else.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,574
    Can anyone explain just what it is that highly paid Academy trustees are bringing to the table that school governors (mainly unpaid) didn't/don't' ?
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-43569932

    ('Professionalism' is not an adequate answer.)
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,745
    Nigelb said:

    Can anyone explain just what it is that highly paid Academy trustees are bringing to the table that school governors (mainly unpaid) didn't/don't' ?
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-43569932

    ('Professionalism' is not an adequate answer.)

    In my experience the answer is 'fuck all.'
This discussion has been closed.