Bloody Libertarians, Imagine the Mess if they Ran Government

Sir_Humphrey

Generali wrote: »

No you are wrong.

Big Bang worked in favour of consumers as it got rid of minimum charges.

Nothing in the Big Bang legislation mandated any group to take over. Companies with low costs and good service thrived. The others failed.

You don't understand what happened and so you can't explain what resulted from those changes. If you understood you could give some detail rather than these silly "New School Tie" lines.

I really enjoy arguing with you normally as you have a deep understanding of loads of Philosophical stuff that I just don't know about. You're out of your depth here though - you don't have a clue what you're talking about.

Did Big Bang work in favour of many banks? Are those banks vested interests? Vested interests can conflict with each other. I do not dispute that some vested interests were damaged by removing minimum charges.

I am not arguing the toss over whether it was a good idea or not (that is another argument) but whether it was in the interests of some powerful people.

I concede that a better example would have been some of the other examples of 1980s deregulation.

I presume you concede the example of Murdoch BTW.

Generali

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

Did Big Bang work in favour of many banks? Are those banks vested interests? Vested interests can conflict with each other. I do not dispute that some vested interests were damaged by removing minimum charges.

I am not arguing the toss over whether it was a good idea or not (that is another argument) but whether it was in the interests of some powerful people.

I concede that a better example would have been some of the other examples of 1980s deregulation.

I presume you concede the example of Murdoch BTW.

Let's sort out Big Bang (which I know realise you don't understand) and then we can cover Mr Murdoch.

As all you have said about Mr M is his name, I don't really know what point you're trying to make. I'd like to cover your first point first and then move on although I realise you'd rather move on from discussing what you clearly don't understand as you refuse to explain your point!

Sir_Humphrey

Generali wrote: »

Let's sort out Big Bang (which I know realise you don't understand) and then we can cover Mr Murdoch.

As all you have said about Mr M is his name, I don't really know what point you're trying to make. I'd like to cover your first point first and then move on although I realise you'd rather move on from discussing what you clearly don't understand as you refuse to explain your point!

I think you are skirting around the issue here, blinding by pointing out specifics that are not relevant to the wider argument. Of course you know a lot more about Big Bang than I do. Even if you won that point, I can come up with plenty of other, better examples.

I do not dispute that Thatcher stood up to many vested interests. I also point out that she also promoted many vested interests. This is the case for any politician, so I am not even saying that Thatcher is even any worse than PMs I admire in that respect. That is the extent of my position on this.

Generali

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

I think you are skirting around the issue here, blinding by pointing out specifics that are not relevant to the wider argument. Of course you know a lot more about Big Bang than I do. Even if you won that point, I can come up with plenty of other, better examples.

You started the Big Bang thing. My advice to you (as it was to a colleague this week) is if you don't know what you're on about, don't argue the toss because I will find you out.

I didn't blind by pointing out specifics and I didn't really get into technical detail. You stated as fact (again) something that was BS and I called you on it and you couldn't back up your own arguments. It's hardly my fault that you can't back up your own arguments!

Now's your chance. I have changed nappies and am really off to bed so you have 8 clear hours to come up with a good example without me annoyingly calling your BS.

Wanna try on Murdoch or Westland (I have no idea what stunt you are looking to pull there) or do you just want to start again?

FWIW, I hate rowing (as opposed to arguing) with you as when we met I found you to be a very likeable person.

I'll still always call BS when I find it however.

;-)

Sir_Humphrey

Generali wrote: »

I'll still always call BS when I find it however.

;-)

The original contention was that Thatcher stood up to vested interests. I disputed that picking out examples where she did the opposite. You picked on the weakest of the three examples. That is good debating practice.

lostinrates

Its like watching the tango.

ninky_2

more a paso doble lir. only with both sides waving the red rags.

MissMoneypenny

Generali wrote: »

No you are wrong.

Big Bang worked in favour of consumers as it got rid of minimum charges.

True. It was quite amazing what we were able to charge pre Big Bang.

MissMoneypenny

Generali wrote: »

I have changed nappies and am really off to bed

Got a problem there Gen?

purch

Big Bang worked in favour of consumers as it got rid of minimum charges

Didn't work in favour of me.

Couldn't get a seat on the bloody train once those Stockbroker 'types' started getting in early :eek: