Election 2019, Week 1

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Pierre

I worked for ntl at the time, and had shares which just before the bubble burst we’re valued at something like $130 per share, within weeks they were worth less than $1.



Yes of course, they had liability of 11billion and in return were given a company worth substantially less than that at the time, and had to be recapitalised with new investments in order to operate.

Many telcos went into Ch11, and their assets once worth 10s of billions sold off for substantially less than their worth.

Worldcom, Global Crossing, 360 networks I could go on and on.

Believe me people lost money.

Don't remind me of that my bum still hurts.

my friend who was a company director lost just over £1,000,000.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by papa smurf

Don't remind me of that my bum still hurts.

my friend who was a company director lost just over £1,000,000.

You sure about that? According to Hugh everybody sailed off into the sunset and didn’t lose a dime.

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Pierre

You sure about that? According to Hugh everybody sailed off into the sunset and didn’t lose a dime.

I was on the inside mate not spouting rubbish from the sidelines with the help of google.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by papa smurf

I was on the inside mate not spouting rubbish from the sidelines with the help of google.

Indeed

Originally Posted by Chris

I’ve tried the Uber app a few times. Regardless of time or location it always says “swarm pricing” is in operation and the price is bumped right up. I’ve long suspected that it only works effectively in London.

It does need critical mass to really work.

Uber's plan is self-driving cars by which time they hope they'll have captured the majority of the market by simply being the app people have installed on their phones. So Uber's investors were happy to see them lose money on every ride simply to feed that aggressive expansion.

It's not working as well because self-driving cars are taking longer than they thought. They keep hitting problems with regulators in Europe and in some American cities over their safety checks and the way they treat drivers e.t.c.

All that said I do really like Uber because it is cheap and the app is good so

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by Damien

It does need critical mass to really work.

Uber's plan is self-driving cars by which time they hope they'll have captured the majority of the market by simply being the app people have installed on their phones. So Uber's investors were happy to see them lose money on every ride simply to feed that aggressive expansion.

It's not working as well because self-driving cars are taking longer than they thought. They keep hitting problems with regulators in Europe and in some American cities over their safety checks and the way they treat drivers e.t.c.

All that said I do really like Uber because it is cheap and the app is good so

Uber have to be get focussed on profitability and quickly, They're performance since they IPO'd has not been great at all. They have no clear route to profitability as yet. And their engineering is something of a shambles. (happens to all companies in the bay area as they transition out of startup. The same can also be said of Lyft....

Markets are wising up to over hyped IPO's look at what has happened to WeWork.(They didnt even IPO, they pulled their filing)

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Pierre

Define “Deserve”

Provide examples of those “Deserving”

Give me details of how much money you will award them, and reasons for attributing those amounts.

If you cannot come up with any of these examples yourself then there is no point debating the point with you ..

I sense your immediate stance is to equate "Deserving" with "Unemployed". There is a whole spectrum of situations between the destitute and the wealthy. What is up for discussion is the shape of this distribution.

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by ianch99

If you cannot come up with any of these examples yourself then there is no point debating the point with you ..

I sense your immediate stance is to equate "Deserving" with "Unemployed". There is a whole spectrum of situations between the destitute and the wealthy. What is up for discussion is the shape of this distribution.

How much will i get ?

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

Uber have to be get focussed on profitability and quickly, They're performance since they IPO'd has not been great at all. They have no clear route to profitability as yet. And their engineering is something of a shambles. (happens to all companies in the bay area as they transition out of startup. The same can also be said of Lyft....

Markets are wising up to over hyped IPO's look at what has happened to WeWork.(They didnt even IPO, they pulled their filing)

Yeah WeWork was pretty funny really. About time these companies had a reality check.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by nomadking

Shouldn't Labour be cheering that somebody, eg Sir Jim Ratcliffe of INEOS, can go from a council house to being a self-made billionaire. Although he did benefit from going to a grammar school.

Why would a party that aims to improve wealth & opportunity equality celebrate such an individual? He represents all that is morally bankrupt the current system: UK's richest man moves to Monaco to 'save £4bn in tax'

---------- Post added at 10:39 ---------- Previous post was at 10:35 ----------

Originally Posted by Mick

People who sit on their arses do not deserve distributed wealth, which is what this Labour clown MP was advocating

You mean like the wealthy who inherit millions/billions so they can just "sit on their arses" and do nothing.

---------- Post added at 10:42 ---------- Previous post was at 10:39 ----------

Originally Posted by jfman

The whole idea of people making billions is a failure of capitalism. If there's that level of income and profits in an industry competition should arise and drive prices down.

Of course we sold nationalised industry on the cheap to allow these profits to arise in markets where no genuine competition exists. Yay!

People making billions is a not a failure of capitalism, rather it is the natural apex in evolutionary terms. With a fully deregulated economy with low taxation, market forces will allow these individuals to appear & prosper.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by ianch99

Why would a party that aims to improve wealth & opportunity equality celebrate such an individual? He represents all that is morally bankrupt the current system: UK's richest man moves to Monaco to 'save £4bn in tax'

Going from a council house to building such an empire is an example of the much vaunted social mobility. Although the grammar school system almost certainly played a part.


Ultimately those businesses have to be owned by somebody, whether an individual or another business. That ownership can be based anywhere in the world.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Damien

I am not advocating stopping the rise of automation but pointing out that the current system will likely cause the benefits of that automation to be largely won by the people who get their first by having the wealth to do so.

The industrial revolution was eventually met with a response in the form of the labor movement and more rights for workers. There is nothing wrong with a governmental and/or societal response to changes in work and wealth creation. The latest challenge we face is the march of automation and how that will radically change our society. I think this particular revolution is different as well because of the speed at which it'll happen.

How do we handle it? Where will the good new jobs come from? Even the jobs made by deliveroo - with low wages and few employment rights - are fleeting until that can be automated. Universal Income, 4 day weeks are at least examples of people thinking about these things rather than dismissing them as if nothing ever changes or the market is a uncontrollable force that never needed to be challenged by government.

The problem you highlight is a good one. The current light touch approach favoured by free market Governments is to observe and not challenge until/unless the change starts to impinge on legal constructs. All the while if the consumer, how you ever define this entity, is content with lower prices, more product choice, more product features, etc. then the Laissez-faire remains.

The issue that is ignored is that this policy has future consequences. These invariably turn out to be negative. Online shopping: convenient and cheaper than visiting the High Street. We all do it and are now reaping the "rewards". Town centres turning into bizarre versions of their former community-centric selves. Do we all miss the corner shop, the sub post office, the local baker, etc. Of course but did we do anything to change their destiny, absolutely not.

The free market must have constraints: these need to be for societal as much as economic reasons. Without boundaries, change will happen .. unchecked. Automation will be a runaway train that future Governments will be playing catch up to. We need impact assessments before these changes get momentum.

---------- Post added at 11:04 ---------- Previous post was at 11:01 ----------

Originally Posted by nomadking

Going from a council house to building such an empire is an example of the much vaunted social mobility. Although the grammar school system almost certainly played a part.


Ultimately those businesses have to be owned by somebody, whether an individual or another business. That ownership can be based anywhere in the world.

You fail to grasp the construct here: social mobility does not equate to immoral wealth. There need to be mechanisms in place to encourage market-driven innovations that benefit society as a whole and penalise the acquisition of disproportionate personal or corporate wealth.

[nomadking]

Competition, more product choice, and more product features, do not work with the High Street. Just try getting the huge choice of products that are available, anywhere on the high street. Even within a big city like London, you would have to search for the more specialist shops. EG HDMI cables. Just look at the range available, hundreds of different kinds available from Amazon, and compare that with what's available on the high street. It's not just physically possible for a high street shop to have such a wide range and at low prices.

[Carth]

More automation leads to fewer workers
Fewer workers leads to more unemployment
More unemployment leads to less wealth
Less wealth leads to decreased spending
Decreased spending leads to fewer goods bought
Fewer goods bought leads to lower production
Lower production leads to less profit
less profit leads to more automation

Very simplistic I know, but if people cannot afford the items/services you provide . . then the market is open for cheap lower quality (probably from abroad)

[nomadking]

More automation leads to cheaper goods, which leads to more demand.


Where would we be if Caxton hadn't invented the printing press, or the spinning jenny invented to make clothes cheaper, Henry Ford making cars cheaper, etc.