Jump to content
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Sign in to follow this  
mrsmelly

COVID>>>THE PLUS POINTS

Featured Posts

14 hours ago, Machpoint005 said:

(3) Public investment for the benefit of all is demonstrably the way to go

An investment (spending tax payers' money) is a transaction that comes with a realistic plan to deliver a return above the amount spent, either in the short or longer term.

 

Spending on day to day expenses and emergencies are not investments.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, The Welsh Cruiser said:

An investment (spending tax payers' money) is a transaction that comes with a realistic plan to deliver a return above the amount spent, either in the short or longer term.

 

Spending on day to day expenses and emergencies are not investments.  

Surely that's an investment in public health? It's not all just about monetary returns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Athy said:

Surely that's an investment in public health? It's not all just about monetary returns.

That's the language some might use but it's not accurate. It's spending to overcome a short term problem with no vision as to how it might be repaid. That's not an investment. That's not to say it's wrong, it certainly isn't in my opinion, just that the language is loose. 'Investment' is generally viewed positively by the electorate whereas 'spending', less so. Those who support tax and spend governments regularly misuse these words in order to further their agenda.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, system 4-50 said:

1. We'll be better prepared for when the real biggy comes.

 

What else are you expecting to happen?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Ray T said:

Not spending £££'s on eating out.

 

I am spending the same on Take Aways though as I don't want our local Indian to go bust - while they stay open I'll support them...…….

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Halsey said:

 

I am spending the same on Take Aways though as I don't want our local Indian to go bust - while they stay open I'll support them...…….

Usually eat in The Greyhound on Wednesday’s, shut.

Usually eat in The Town Wall Tavern on Friday’s with friends, shut.

I would support them if I could.

Just hope they are able to reopen as and when.

Edited by Ray T

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Naughty Cal said:

I must admit it is a nice change to not have the gremlins face plastered all over the news and the internet. 

 

Perhaps when this is all over people instead of following some swedish sock puppet will instead look at what has improved in their own lives recently and find their own ways to cut down on travel, litter and pollution.

In a nutshell. I dont need some schoolkid explaining every eighteen seconds what we need to do, unlike her for instance I NEVER use air travel and havnt for many years.

Edited by mrsmelly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, The Welsh Cruiser said:

That's the language some might use but it's not accurate. It's spending to overcome a short term problem with no vision as to how it might be repaid. That's not an investment. That's not to say it's wrong, it certainly isn't in my opinion, just that the language is loose. 'Investment' is generally viewed positively by the electorate whereas 'spending', less so. Those who support tax and spend governments regularly misuse these words in order to further their agenda.   

You are probably right. The correct economic response is probably just let it run its course. Acheive for no expenditure at all, a state of community immunity. Actually for this scenario, herd immunity,  is a more appropriate term. Survival of the fittest, is that not, pure economics in practice? And a one off, way to wipe the slate clean of so many expensive ongoing liabilities. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, DandV said:

You are probably right. The correct economic response is probably just let it run its course. Acheive for no expenditure at all, a state of community immunity. Actually for this scenario, herd immunity,  is a more appropriate term. Survival of the fittest, is that not, pure economics in practice? And a one off, way to wipe the slate clean of so many expensive ongoing liabilities. 

It probably be would be the right response, if the economy was the top priority. It's not something I'd support though, as I stated in my previous post. Better to spend public money now to try to overcome the virus. Spend the money, there's no investment going on at the moment, that's all on hold. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Welsh Cruiser said:

It probably be would be the right response, if the economy was the top priority. It's not something I'd support though, as I stated in my previous post. Better to spend public money now to try to overcome the virus. Spend the money, there's no investment going on at the moment, that's all on hold. 

 

Investment in people. That used to appear all over the place as a slogan, on many pieces of business stationary. It wasn't really a sentiment that ever struck me as used in earnest. But, it is obvious, without people, the means to generate profit is severely scuppered. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, The Welsh Cruiser said:

It probably be would be the right response, if the economy was the top priority. It's not something I'd support though, as I stated in my previous post. Better to spend public money now to try to overcome the virus. Spend the money, there's no investment going on at the moment, that's all on hold. 

Good on you, 

I think we are in agreement that spending money now to save lives, keep people housed and fed, and to reduce the inevitable business damage, is very justifiable spending in the circumstances, in fact it is the only responsible human thing to do. F**** pure economics. Humanity is more important in my book. But it is spending money not to hand , therefore that has to be borrowed, and eventually repayed,  by following generations just like war debt incurred last century.. Investment is just a word to make this more palatable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

Investment in people. That used to appear all over the place as a slogan, on many pieces of business stationary. It wasn't really a sentiment that ever struck me as used in earnest. But, it is obvious, without people, the means to generate profit is severely scuppered. 

 

 

I remember that, 20 or so years ago? If my memory serves me right it was more than a slogan; firms could gain an accreditation as 'investors in people'. 

2 minutes ago, DandV said:

Good on you, 

I think we are in agreement that spending money now to save lives, keep people housed and fed, and to reduce the inevitable business damage, is very justifiable spending in the circumstances, in fact it is the only responsible human thing to do. F**** pure economics. Humanity is more important in my book. But it is spending money not to hand , therefore that has to be borrowed, and eventually repayed,  by following generations just like war debt incurred last century.. Investment is just a word to make this more palatable.

And now we agree completely :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Welsh Cruiser said:

I remember that, 20 or so years ago? If my memory serves me right it was more than a slogan; firms could gain an accreditation as 'investors in people'. 

 

There you go, it was insincere. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, mrsmelly said:

In a nutshell. I dont need some schoolkid explaining every eighteen seconds what we need to do, unlike her for instance I NEVER use air travel and havnt for many years.

 

You might not but everybody else does. 

 

How much progress had been made in reducing CO2 emissions by aviation until last week? NONE. 

 

Also illustrates how ineffective her messages were.... then The Gaia Principle stepped in to fix the problem.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Higgs said:

 

There you go, it was insincere. 

 

 

The company I worked for at the time had this plastered all over their advertising propaganda. They were a terrible employer. They didn't last long, unsurprisingly. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Welsh Cruiser said:

The company I worked for at the time had this plastered all over their advertising propaganda. They were a terrible employer. They didn't last long, unsurprisingly. 

 

It's marketing. Don't believe a word of it, for the vast majority of time. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Higgs said:

 

It's marketing. Don't believe a word of it, for the vast majority of time. 

 

 

The concept is a good one. If an employer looks after its staff they will be more productive, that's generally accepted as being a fact. 'Investors in people' was simply a long tick list that any employer could achieve if they gave a bit of time to it. So for example, if an employee thought they were being treated badly there had to be a path to air their concerns. The firm could tell him or her to bugger off, that was OK for 'investors in people', as long as the path existed. And then training, everyone had to have access to it. But, the firm could say, you don't need any training for your job, please get on with it. That was fine as well. All 'investors in people' achieved was to increase a firm's costs and ultimately, the cost of living. Oh, no doubt the bods who created the scheme were on fat salaries too.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Welsh Cruiser said:

The concept is a good one. If an employer looks after its staff they will be more productive, that's generally accepted as being a fact. 

 

The other alternative is to treat them as slaves - more common. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

You might not but everybody else does. 

 

How much progress had been made in reducing CO2 emissions by aviation until last week? NONE. 

 

Also illustrates how ineffective her messages were.... then The Gaia Principle stepped in to fix the problem.

 

 

It wasn’t her message that was ineffective, it was all the people in power running around with their fingers in their ears singing lalalala.

Now, those with eyes can see for themselves that she is right.

 

  • Greenie 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Higgs said:

Investment in people. That used to appear all over the place as a slogan, on many pieces of business stationary.

 

I think you'll find that the businesses that were investing in people were not the ones standing still.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

You might not but everybody else does. 

 

How much progress had been made in reducing CO2 emissions by aviation until last week? NONE. 

 

Also illustrates how ineffective her messages were.... then The Gaia Principle stepped in to fix the problem.

 

 

I heard that David Attenborough had a word with Gaia to get it sorted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, DandV said:

It does nothing to convince me that middle aged white englishmen should be let anywhere near positions of world influence.

 

 

What the same "middle aged white englishmen" that created the politically stable, prosperous nation that allows you the opportunity to virtue signal/self flagellate from ?  :)

 

Aside from that, how is your statement not  1. ageist  (middle aged) 2. racist (white)  2. sexist (men)?

 

Or have you bought into the "intersectionality" nonsense where only white people can be racist because reasons? 

 

 

Edited by bagginz
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having just been shopping the absence of brats in the supermarket was almost worth the queue outside....hopefully when this is over we can continue to ensure they are left at home and not cluttering up the aisles....and totally agree that not having the whining swede is a massive plus point too....maybe she can use the time to grow up. 

  • Greenie 2
  • Haha 2
  • Unimpressed 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, frangar said:

maybe she can use the time to grow up.

 

I think we can readily discern which of you has the more grown-up views on the future of the planet.

  • Greenie 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.