Stevie
|
Tesco announces 4.5 BILLION POUNDS profitPart of me says that's good, a business doing well despite Brown but for some inexplicable reason a much larger part of me says, b******s.
|
Lord Pitsligo
|
Leave it to the Daily Mash 
[url]http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/business/britain's-only-shop-makes-enormous-profit-200904211713[/url]
EDIT: Ok, no idea why that doesn't work 
|
Aventinian
|
Well done Tesco's. I can't say I like what they do myself, but clearly they know their customer base.
|
agentmancuso
|
I'm not sure why we are supposed to be pleased that one giant corporation can crush the opposition. Monopolies are bad for individual customers and bad for society.
|
Stevie
|
Thankyou, that's partly why the "b******s comment but it's not all... truthfully I can't locate the part that's supposed to feel happy that their wallowing in our money.
"See how they smile like pigs in a sty, see how they snied"
(J. Lennon)
|
Stevie
|
B******s
|
linoleum
|
?d
|
Aventinian
|
| agentmancuso wrote: | | I'm not sure why we are supposed to be pleased that one giant corporation can crush the opposition. Monopolies are bad for individual customers and bad for society. |
Tesco is by no manner of means a monopoly. It's just a successful business.
[quote="Bravehand]"truthfully I can't locate the part that's supposed to feel happy that their wallowing in our money.[/quote]
Because any money they had that was once yours is now theirs as the result of a mutually beneficial exchange of goods.
|
Stevie
|
I see, you're being dogmatic, anything big business does is okay in the post Thatcherite wasteland of British 'economics'. Well big bu$iness has just (with Gordo's help) cost taxpayers £170 billion more than Brown's Darling predicted... b******s.
But hey, let's cheer them on, hip hip whoray!
|
Lord Pitsligo
|
| Bravehand wrote: | I see, you're being dogmatic, anything big business does is okay in the post Thatcherite wasteland of British 'economics'. Well big bu$iness has just (with Gordo's help) cost taxpayers £170 billion more than Brown's Darling predicted... b******s.
But hey, let's cheer them on, hip hip whoray! |
Be gentle with him, he's scared of change.
|
Reluctant Hero
|
In fairness, I could make better predictions than Darling! He is forecasting a 1.25% increase in GDP next year! It is just not credible. Unless there is a turnaround as swift as the downturn happened, then there is now way these figures are going to be hit.
And on the state of the finances, we are deep, deep in the **** and the sooner the Labour Govt realise it the better. They should stop making crowd pleasing empty policies on the spur of the moment, like the 50p top rate of tax, reducing the VAT rate etc and actually think out some policies that will have a real effect on people and the countries in the UK.
|
Aventinian
|
| Bravehand wrote: | I see, you're being dogmatic, anything big business does is okay in the post Thatcherite wasteland of British 'economics'. Well big bu$iness has just (with Gordo's help) cost taxpayers £170 billion more than Brown's Darling predicted... b******s.
But hey, let's cheer them on, hip hip whoray! |
Hey, don't pretend that it was somehow altruistic to bail out the banks. The government did that entirely out of institutional self interest.
Personally I don't think you can have fair banking in a system so heavily and artificially regulated by the state. It was after all the government boasting a mere few years ago that they had opened up access to affordable mortgages to massive numbers of people.
They reaped, they sowed.
|
Holebender
|
Are you saying the system we have now is "heavily and artificially regulated by the state"?
|
Lord Pitsligo
|
| Holebender wrote: | | Are you saying the system we have now is "heavily and artificially regulated by the state"? |
We wouldn't be in this situation if it had been.
|
azzuri
|
1.25% GDP increase might be credible, but only after a 9%-odd drop for this financial year. Thing is, although in a year's time the 'economy' might be growing, it will still be tightening and people will still be losing their jobs and houses. Darling might be right, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's a good thing. People don't understand GDP properly. It's a terrible figure to measure a country's economic output by.
|
Stevie
|
| Quote: | | Personally I don't think you can have fair banking in a system so heavily and artificially regulated by the state. |
Well then, you and Brown share the same philosophy that lead to the current financial horror(worst recession since WWII), let's be honest the Tories would have done exactly the same.
Gordon is a ...
|
Stevie
|
| Quote: | | He is forecasting a 1.25% increase in GDP next year! |
The CBI etc, etc are predicting a fall in growth of 3.9%, so he's just gone loopy with the pressure.
It wasn't the poor Darling's fault, he wasn't looking after the banking regulation financial system for the 11 years prior to Brown, it was of course the moronic one to blame.
I know he's a moron.
Good Lord, there's a new story every day that's more ridiculous than the previous one. It would be quite hilarious on a Monty Python sketch but it's not. Alan B'stard we miss your innocent musings.
|
agentmancuso
|
| Aventinian wrote: | | Tesco is by no manner of means a monopoly. It's just a successful business. |
It's a business that has achieved its success by the crushing of countless smaller enterprises.
|
Aventinian
|
| Holebender wrote: | | Are you saying the system we have now is "heavily and artificially regulated by the state"? |
Yes, of course. Let us not forget, it was not banks who came up with the idea of opening up the mortgage market to everyone, it was politicians. A mere couple of years ago, Gordon Brown was boasting about this.
As you should know by now, I am an economic liberal. I believe in keeping the state out of banking. The essence of their business is so corrupted by government that it is impossible to pretend that they are somehow independent or 'deregulated'.
| agentmancuso wrote: | | Aventinian wrote: | | Tesco is by no manner of means a monopoly. It's just a successful business. |
It's a business that has achieved its success by the crushing of countless smaller enterprises. |
Good. That means they were better.
|
Stevie
|
| Quote: | | I am an economic liberal. I believe in keeping the state out of banking. |
The state is now very much into banking thanks to having let the bankers run riot.
You are now saying in effect Gordon Brown is a moron but you support him anyway... ah.
Your thinking seems muddy and confused on this issue, makes me see you in a different light.
|
Lord Pitsligo
|
| Aventinian wrote: |
As you should know by now, I am an economic liberal. I believe in keeping the state out of banking. |
So do you think anyone should be able to print money, or just banks?
|
agentmancuso
|
| Aventinian wrote: | | I am an economic liberal. I believe in keeping the state out of banking |
I agree that the state should not interfere with the operation of the banking system. But what it should do - and singularly failed to do in this case - is ensure that the underlying financial regulation is sound. For example, by insisting that fractional reserves be kept at a reasonable percentage. And by taxing the de facto production of money by banks, as a damper on over speculation and an insurance policy against negative fall out from the same.
| Quote: | | Good. That means they were better. |
No it doesn't. It means they were stronger. Power is a poor gauge of worth.
Genuine liberalism regards monopolies as both dangerous and bad for business. Free markets need choice. Monopolies reduce consumer choice, put suppliers out of business, cut employment and drive down standards.
The government has no business interfering unduly in the operation of an individual business. But it has a moral obligation to prevent the growth of monopolies.
|
Aventinian
|
| Lord Pitsligo wrote: | | So do you think anyone should be able to print money, or just banks? |
Or no-one. Yes, that's right, I'm one of those terrible buggers that doesn't like the idea of fiat currencies at all. However I accept that would entail a major global economic change to bring about; so in the meantime, I am content to blame the government when its own economic planning in responsible for things like this.
| agentmancuso wrote: | | No it doesn't. It means they were stronger. Power is a poor gauge of worth. |
It doesn't have that power, people choose to use its services.
| Quote: | Genuine liberalism regards monopolies as both dangerous and bad for business. Free markets need choice. Monopolies reduce consumer choice, put suppliers out of business, cut employment and drive down standards.
The government has no business interfering unduly in the operation of an individual business. But it has a moral obligation to prevent the growth of monopolies. |
Without getting into the underlying issue of monopoly-politics, I still reject the notion of Tesco as a monopoly.
|
agentmancuso
|
| Aventinian wrote: | | It doesn't have that power, |
Of course it does. Tesco has about a 30% share of the groceries business in the UK. They use that strength to crush suppliers down to subsistence margins or less.
In many small towns, the arrival of a new Tesco store forces all alternatives out of business, thus ensuring a practical monopoly.
|
Lord Pitsligo
|
| Aventinian wrote: | | Lord Pitsligo wrote: | | So do you think anyone should be able to print money, or just banks? |
Or no-one. Yes, that's right, I'm one of those terrible buggers that doesn't like the idea of fiat currencies at all. However I accept that would entail a major global economic change to bring about; so in the meantime, I am content to blame the government when its own economic planning in responsible for things like this. |
But surely for no one to print money would mean we'd need regulations to prevent it?
|
Aventinian
|
| Lord Pitsligo wrote: | | But surely for no one to print money would mean we'd need regulations to prevent it? |
If people want to create monopoly money, vouchers or whatever else, then by all means be my guest.
| agentmancuso wrote: | | Of course it does. Tesco has about a 30% share of the groceries business in the UK. They use that strength to crush suppliers down to subsistence margins or less. |
Good. Actively increasing efficiency.
| Quote: | | In many small towns, the arrival of a new Tesco store forces all alternatives out of business, thus ensuring a practical monopoly. |
Only because, once again, people choose to shop there. Why? Because it caters to their needs better than the competitors.
When someone comes along and does their job better than they do, people will go there.
|
Lord Pitsligo
|
| Aventinian wrote: | | Lord Pitsligo wrote: | | But surely for no one to print money would mean we'd need regulations to prevent it? |
If people want to create monopoly money, vouchers or whatever else, then by all means be my guest. |
Ok, so you don't think no-one should create money. Make your mind up! 
|
agentmancuso
|
| Aventinian wrote: | | Good. Actively increasing efficiency. |
Only increasing their own efficiency. Considerably decreasing our collective efficiency.
| Quote: | | When someone comes along and does their job better than they do, people will go there. |
Which is all very well up to a point. But there will inevitably come a time when, having forced local competition out of business, standards will drop, and many people will have nowhere else to go.
Monopolies are incompatible with a free market.
|
|
|
