Forum menu
molgrips - Member
You know some other reason?
Yes! The cost of living is far lower, and the standard of living is also far lower.
Er it's the same thing, the standard of living is defined basically by the cost of an hour of mans labour, wether that be gathering the crops to feed him, or to do battle in defence of the state, whatever.
We've simply inflated our costs in relation to theirs.
Ultimately, rice, bread, water, meat, brick, stone, have no value other than what we place upon them and market economics take over, what one man will pay over another.
Reduce it to barter economics if you want to catch my drift here.
The exception that rules the West and is now increasingly influencing the East, is the oil economy, which screws all of us, without it, the differentials would not be as extreme.
I am really going to have to ration this to maybe 3 or 4 times per year, but not for the first time in recent weeks...I agree with TJ.
I am reading an interesting book at the moment called cradle to cradle and in there (almost as a throw away section) it talks about the role of state and the role of the market.
Basically it says when the state tries to be involved in the market, it ****s up. But when the market tries to regulate itself (see media, ratailers, banks etc etc) then they **** up.
So the solution is a free market with a suitable (heavy or light as applicable) regulation from a state with no vested interests.
This model fits with me for one that works.
The supermarkets are predators and need regulating.
BT is crap and needs to be left to market forces.
Medical care is crucial and needs to be done right...erm not sure what to do here...but as it is it tests the above model, but at the same time allowing doctors to control it clearly is against the separation of market and control.
We've simply inflated our costs in relation to theirs.
Caused by improvements in the standard of living.
High street retailers I've spoken to have two main complaints
i) Sky high business rates (ie. Tax)
ii) Traffic restrictions, reduction in on street parking and expensive (council) car parks, with the associated fear of (council) parking fines
Interesting. I wonder if there's a correlation between how good parking is and how popular a high st is.
High street retailers I've spoken to have two main complaints
High street retailers never complain to me.
You should avoid high street retailers who moan and complain Z-11 ........ very poor PR in my opinion.
molgrips - Member
We've simply inflated our costs in relation to theirs.
Caused by improvements in the standard of living.
No, caused by the equalisation of that standard, by the welfare system and socialism. I can assure you that many Chinese & Indians have a far greater standard of living than us. There is however a bigger differential between their have nots and ours.
We like to molly coddle ours, with free cash and a health service, for which large proportions of them contribute nothing, we also like to offer these favours to anyone who turns up on these shores, from anywhere in the world, thereby depriving our earners of the sort of standard of living their labour could achieve through excessive taxation, we have also taken of late to borrowing huge sums of money to fund our generosity.
No, caused by the equalisation of that standard, by the welfare system and socialism. I can assure you that many Chinese & Indians have a far greater standard of living than us. There is however a bigger differential between their have nots and ours.We like to molly coddle ours, with free cash and a health service, for which large proportions of them contribute nothing, we also like to offer these favours to anyone who turns up on these shores, from anywhere in the world, thereby depriving our earners of the sort of standard of living their labour could achieve.
😀 Thanks, that put a smile on my face ........ normally I have to trawl through the comments to a Daily Mail article to find amusement comments like that.
No, caused by the equalisation of that standard, by the welfare system and socialism
That's the same as what I said.
But that's quality right-wing poison there, I don't think there's much point in me debating this because it doesn't look like you have the sensitivity to understand what I'd say.
I want some magic beans
To be taken individually of course.
Im sick of reading 'right' or 'left' on practically every thread. So tedious.
Don't put me in a box man.
I prefer 'right' or 'wrong'
Tata.
That probably means you.
[img] 
[/img]
And we finish off with a bit of Daily Mail sneering from Ernie.
I could set my watch by this.
molgrips - Member
No, caused by the equalisation of that standard, by the welfare system and socialism
That's the same as what I said.But that's quality right-wing common sense there, I don't think there's much point in me debating this because it looks like you have the sensitivity to agree what I'd say.
FTFY
[i]BT is crap and needs to be left to market forces.[/i]
I've never understood this stance - if BT weren't so heavily bound by the regulator they would wipe out every other telco and revert to being a monopoly. All the privatisation of BT did was to screw with a natural monopoly - every other telco only exists in the UK because of the restrictions put on BT - they have been forced to open up their network to other providers.
Telecoms infrastructure is a natural monopoly - personally I would renationalise the infrastructure and allow private telcos to sell bandwidth and services on it at a guaranteed minimum price, with a guaranteed cut being paid back in to a fund that maintains and upgrades the infrastructure.
The current situation means that nobody can afford to invest in widescale fibre rollouts apart from BT (Virgin don't count, they haven't laid fibre for at least a decade and won't do now). Even given this, BT are forced by the regulator to offer their fibre services to other ISPs in order that they can resell them. This removes a lot of the incentive to perform expensive fibre rollouts.
TL;DR? - Don't blame BT for the crap state of broadband in the UK , blame a fake market created by regulation of a natural monopoly.
Actually mcboo we finished off with someone flouncing and declaring that they would never look at the chat forum again. And all because of 'the usual suspects' which, he announced in an all embracing declaration, as "That probably means you". However he apparently thought better of it and decided to heavily edit his post.
BTW I'm touched that you can set your watch to my predictably mcboo, consistency and predictably are things which I value and nurture. I would be mortified to learn that anyone might be unsure what to expect.
And yes, Daily Mail fueled rants provide me with an endless source of amusement (unlike TJ who appears to get wound up by them) and I find them quite irresistible. Although it would be fair to point out that they tend to prompt an expression probably best described as a 'stupefied grin' rather than a sneer 🙂
Daily Mail fueled rants provide me with an endless source of amusement
They make me depressed 🙁
You don't appreciate the comic value of an ill-informed narrow minded rant molgrips ? I take it you weren't a fan of Alf Garnet then - an ill-informed narrow minded ranter much loved by the British public. And of course Rigsby - the quintessential Daily Mail reader who was equally much loved by the British public.
Not for nothing Ernie, but could you just give it it a rest with all this Daily Mail stuff? You aren't alone in doing it, anyone that doesn't take the approved left of centre line you label as such. It's such a cliche, and massively patronising. You know who reads the Mail? Working class and lower middle class women.
What's this "approved left of centre line" mcboo ? I haven't made any left/right comments on this thread at all. I am perfectly entitled to be critical of what the Daily Mail churns out on a daily basis, which imo is a mixture of misinformation and myths. The Daily Mail imo, is the 'Fox News' of British newspapers, I will continue to be critical of it as I see fit, whether or not that meets with your approval. I also reserve the right to be critical of the Guardian, something which I regularly do, even though I'm a Guardian a reader myself. And the Telegraph. And the Sun - despite having an unfashionable admiration for Sun readers (they often have imo a healthy disrespect for their newspaper) And any other newspaper, TV channel, radio station, political party, government, whatever.
And I am well acquainted with Daily Mail readers btw (including relatives of mine) but thanks for your tip anyway. A former g/f of mine was a Daily Mail reader, although she was indisputably liberal and left of centre. None of that however detracts from the fact that there is often heard misinformed comments which are clearly inspired by the likes of Richard Littlejohn in the Daily Mail. Pretending it doesn't exist might suit you, but I'm not you. Besides as I've already mentioned, the comic value of such comments has long been recognised in British comedy.
Quentin Letts writes for the mail as I recall, not the worse hack on the street of shame.
Grauniad readers and the PC left are the reason we're in this mess and it gets me reading the jobs still advertised there, outreach counsellors ffs.
Ernie - comedy of the week for you on BBC1 in a few minutes. [b]Ann Leslie[/b] on QT along with Campell, Williams, Hammond and Alan Partridge.
The Beeb seem to like having Wail journo's on QT. Still if Paxo has Katie Price on Newsnight.......
Grauniad readers and the PC left are the reason we're in this mess and it gets me reading the jobs still advertised there, outreach counsellors ffs.
😀 Keep it up mate !
.
I don't mind a laugh teamhurtmore, but not if it involves looking at Annie Leslie.
[img] 
[/img]
Sounds like she's been on the Gordon's! Almost a send up of the Wail!!