Corbynomics: A Dystopia

Alan_Brown

westernpromise wrote: »

The beneficiary is the consumer who gets goods that have been sourced and distributed efficiently. I love the way your attitude is that it's all about the producers - supermarkets should be run for the benefit of the farmers and others whom they pay, rather than for the benefit of the paying customer.

What is wrong with everyone making a fair profit and the customer getting a fair price? They are not all mutually exclusive.

If you believe that supermarkets are run for the benefit of the paying customer instead of for the benefit of themselves and their shareholders, then you need to think again.

mwpt

Alan_Brown wrote: »

What is wrong with everyone making a fair profit and the customer getting a fair price? They are not all mutually exclusive.

If you believe that supermarkets are run for the benefit of the paying customer instead of for the benefit of themselves and their shareholders, then you need to think again.

When I go to so called cheap independent food stores, they are far from cheap. Produce in supermarkets is cheap and in my casual observation prices seem static at worst or down at best (real terms) over the last few years. There was a graph floating around showing how little we spend as a percentage of income on food these days. Supermarkets compete with each other for our business, and we benefit.

Of course they are sharks and always try to trick the customer with obscure non-deals and suppliers shrink the size of certain goods, but in general I feel that I get good value from supermarkets and because they can put pressure on suppliers to innovate, we get the benefit.

But yes, they also have to benefit their shareholders.

westernpromise

Alan_Brown wrote: »

Companies can be funded by bond issues.

Nobody would buy a bond unless they knew they could sell it. The debt markets are as essential as the equity markets.

I cashed out and banked the money having done nothing to earn it.

Then give it back. The point is that nobody would have capitalised BP in the first place if they had not known there was a way to sell their stake should they wish to. If a company underperforms the value of its equity will fall to the point where it gets bid for and taken over by someone who turns it around.

As to your comment about benefits, I would like to see some proof as your figures seem incredible (incredulous?)

Here you go: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1511253/Labours-bulging-client-state-now-employs-44pc-of-people.html

more than 60 per cent of people work for or live off the State in some of Britain's poorer areas. The highest was the Labour-held constituency of Cynon Valley in South Wales where 70.8 per cent of local adults were heavily dependent on the public sector in one way or another. The lowest is Conservative-held Horsham in West Sussex where the proportion was 35.8 per cent.

There has been some progress in turning this around but it remains the case that only two regions contribute net tax and everyone else takes out: 50% of adults pay no income tax at all.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/02/13/article-2100345-11B789BE000005DC-890_468x383.jpg

You seem to have deluded yourself that you are wealthy and the benefit system is for 'the poor people'. You're not and it's not.

Go on then. How much do I earn?

You're definitely rich, by the way. You can afford to pay a lot more tax.

westernpromise

MobileSaver wrote: »

Keep digging that hole...

No doubt the police, armed forced, county court judges and lets not forget politicians are all parasites by your absurd definition? Especially that Corbyn bloke although for many people he's the gift that keeps on giving and at least produces some entertainment value.

Doctors and nurses are absolutely filthy parasitical barstewards as well - they mercilessly demand a salary for looking after sick people!

Everyone is a parasite - let's have higher taxes on everyone and then everything will be great!

Alan_Brown

westernpromise wrote: »

Doctors and nurses are absolutely filthy parasitical barstewards as well - they mercilessly demand a salary for looking after sick people!

Everyone is a parasite - let's have higher taxes on everyone and then everything will be great!

What is amusing is that you're trying to undermine my point with your humour, but you've just shot yourself in the foot. You're the one who is saying that Doctors, nurses and anyone else who works in the Public sector is a parasite...

westernpromise wrote: »

Here you go: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1511253/Labours-bulging-client-state-now-employs-44pc-of-people.html

more than 60 per cent of people work for or live off the State in some of Britain's poorer areas. The highest was the Labour-held constituency of Cynon Valley in South Wales where 70.8 per cent of local adults were heavily dependent on the public sector in one way or another. The lowest is Conservative-held Horsham in West Sussex where the proportion was 35.8 per cent.

Or did you think that Nurses, Doctors, (and bringing in Mobile Savers earlier point) "police, armed forced, county court judges and lets not forget politicians " are not public sector employees?

This is exactly the point I was making (thanks for helping me). Benefit/public servcie bashers like yourself forget that your 'scatter gun' rhetoric also hits yourself because you also use public services and usually you're the first to jump up and down when that service is poor due to cuts that you have been insisting on.

The wealth delusion in a nutshell. You knock the state, you knock benefits supplied by the state and argue for a smaller state in order to reduce taxation. This benefits the rich and, because of the wealth delusion, you're convinced it therefore benefits yourself. It doesn't because you're not rich enough to not use the public services you want cut.

Alan_Brown

mwpt wrote: »

Of course they are sharks and always try to trick the customer with obscure non-deals and suppliers shrink the size of certain goods, but in general I feel that I get good value from supermarkets and because they can put pressure on suppliers to innovate, we get the benefit.

There is very little 'innovation' occurring. The supermarkets put the squeeze on the suppliers who put the squeeze on the producers (such as farmers), who feel the squeeze and either go under or they employ destructive practices such as battery farming or intensive agriculture to cut their bottom line. The result is that the consumer ends up with vegetables and grain that contains little or no nourishment and is poisoned by pesticides and meat that is pumped full of steroids and antibiotics. The ultimate result is an increase in cancers and neurological damage (Parkinsons and Alzheimers) in consumers and those living near farms.

We put up with this because the wealth delusion makes us think that company profits are more important than public health and that we 'as wealthy people or prospective wealthy people' gain from these increased profits.

Eric_the_half_a_bee

Alan_Brown wrote: »

The result is that the consumer ends up with vegetables and grain that contains little or no nourishment.

Which specific nutrients are lacking from supermarket vegetables and grains?

Conrad

Alan_Brown wrote: »

There is very little 'innovation' occurring. The supermarkets put the squeeze on the suppliers who put the squeeze on the producers (such as farmers), who feel the squeeze and either go under or they employ destructive practices such as battery farming or intensive agriculture to cut their bottom line. The result is that the consumer ends up with vegetables and grain that contains little or no nourishment and is poisoned by pesticides and meat that is pumped full of steroids and antibiotics. The ultimate result is an increase in cancers and neurological damage (Parkinsons and Alzheimers) in consumers and those living near farms.

We put up with this because the wealth delusion makes us think that company profits are more important than public health and that we 'as wealthy people or prospective wealthy people' gain from these increased profits.

For me personally I put the blame at my own feet, as my value hunting real world behaviours privilege best value ecosystems which then have to keep costs down. Tesco has been closing stores and there's no guarantee any firm will make profit in the future.


So yes I blame myself as a consumer, but I am tempted to place the blame on supermarkets as that would allow be to virtue signal by implying its not my fault, but I cant live that lie


Also I expect my ISA / pension which of course owns the shares in these Supermarkets, to deliver healthy returns


It would be nice to pretend my consumption choices did not lead to sweat shop shoe producers in Vietnam, but I have to face the fact its down to me

westernpromise

Alan_Brown wrote: »

Or did you think that Nurses, Doctors, (and bringing in Mobile Savers earlier point) "police, armed forced, county court judges and lets not forget politicians " are not public sector employees?

So are there twice as many "police, armed forced, county court judges and lets not forget politicians" in Cynon Valley as in Horsham?

Benefit/public servcie bashers like yourself forget that your 'scatter gun' rhetoric also hits yourself because you also use public services and usually you're the first to jump up and down when that service is poor due to cuts that you have been insisting on.

Yawn. Labour Party football chant. Give me an example of when I have "jump[ed] up and down when that service is poor due to cuts that you have been insisting on".

It doesn't because you're not rich enough to not use the public services you want cut.

Remind me again what I earn.

Conrad

Alan_Brown wrote: »

You knock the state, you knock benefits supplied by the state


.

I knock the endemic sponging all around me. Another classic yesterday, guy, on paper poor, owns a caf! in N London. Takes his cash earnings over to Turkey where he's from. Later transfers it back to UK. Showed me his UK account with £180k in it, never taxed.


Looking to buy yet another property.


I was guessing everything he said to me before he said to include - 'and we wont want the Missus benefits coming up anywhere will we' and of course as if the most normal thing in the world he replied 'oh yes, must keeping wife benefits on the quiet'