Taking on the currency cranks
- Thread starter Jean-Luc
- Start date
free spirit
more tea vicar?
perhaps they don't own the store, and the cleaning company is part of the contract with the building owners.
I've no idea, you clearly don't either, so unless you're going to find out, this conversations is a little pointless.
free spirit
more tea vicar?
one thing's for sure though, if the cleaners were to put together a proposal for the cleaning work to be taken in house, they'd stand a chance of having that proposal voted on by the staff* they work alongside instead of shareholders who really don't give a toss about anything other than profits.
*I don't know the exact membership rules involved, but would expect something like this could go to a vote of the membership.
*I don't know the exact membership rules involved, but would expect something like this could go to a vote of the membership.
Blagsta
Minimum cage, maximum cage
They wouldn't be John Lewis cleaners then would they. That was desperate!
No, I don't know the reasons for sure, but I can have an informed guess!
Blagsta
Minimum cage, maximum cage
For sure is it? Yet you won't hazard a guess as to why they were outsourced?
free spirit
more tea vicar?
is this the difference between us then blagsta?
You're happy to guess why something might have happened, whereas I'd want to actually research it before commenting, and if I don't know then I'd prefer not to comment.
It's completely in the nature of business that things are outsourced. There are surely no large companies that have no expenses or overheads to other suppliers because they take care of it all themselves.
They aren't John Lewis cleaners.
Blagsta
Minimum cage, maximum cage
Now its my turn to tell you you're being a dick.
One can make informed guesses on things - which is what I said I did. You're making guesses only when it suits your argument.
Blagsta
Minimum cage, maximum cage
No, they're fucking outsourced. Pay attention.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Marvelous, a faltering step into the the hidden abode of production and he's hopelessly lost.
free spirit
more tea vicar?
you think so?
I've offered you the opportunity to find the evidence if you want to discuss this. You appear to be declining that invitation then attempting to force me into guessing about a situation I know sod all about. Seems pretty dick like behaviour to me, given that you'd just spent the last page demanding people found evidence to support their POV.
If you can be arsed to find the evidence I'll discuss it, but if you can't be arsed then neither can I.
Blagsta
Minimum cage, maximum cage
I don't have any evidence for my assertion other than it makes sense given my understanding of economics. I said as much. It seems that being honest about the limits of my knowledge is being a dick too!
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
free spirit
more tea vicar?
right, well if you're not willing to find evidence to support your guess either, then there's fuck all point us discussing this further is there.
considering your demands last page for LBJ to supply evidence to support his position, this is pretty weak, or does the need for evidence only apply to those you disagree with?
btw, as I have no interest in discussing this further, and you have no interest in finding anything else out about it, I don't know why you keep pushing this. It does seem to be serving as a distraction from this point, which you seem to be ignoring.
Blagsta
Minimum cage, maximum cage
Right, so making an educated guess and saying so is being dickish, but insisting you are right but refusing to back it up isn't?
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Well, this goes back to my original point. Changing banks into state-owned/cooperatives and requiring them by statute only to lend to businesses that incorporate themselves as cooperatives is not such a far-fetched idea as the current crisis unfolds. Just as the Depression of the 30s opened up new space for the Keynesian reforms of the post-war period, which made a real difference to people across Western Europe and even in the US, so the prolonged failure of the current model to provide investment can also open up space for new ideas.
A necessary first step along that route would be the nationalisation of banking in one form or another. Again, not such a far-fetched idea. It's already part-happened. It could be a far more ambitious and radical programme than the German landesbank schemes.
I knew I'd be ridiculed for suggesting this. But I stand by it as a possible way to get from where we are now to somewhere better.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
I didn't refuse to back it up. I provided you with a fucking link, you dick.
Blagsta
Minimum cage, maximum cage
Wow, you don't like being challenged! You did show that JL provide a share of profits yes. You also claimed conditions (this means things like annual leave etc) were better. Based on...what? I'm not disagreeing with you, just wondering what you base this on? I'd guess they might be too, but I don't actually know for sure!
free spirit
more tea vicar?
I've just spotted this gem.
So let me get this straight. Your argument isn't about the impact of QE on increasing liquidity in the market, and bolstering the banks cash reserves, it's about whether or not this was an intended impact of the scheme.
So your contention is that despite the lack of liquidity in the market being the subject of several panicked international meetings and stop gap solutions over the previous couple of years that had only partially solved the problem on a temporary basis, the policy they eventually agreed upon that actually solved the problem long term and led virtually immediately to a sustained period of extremely low libor rates, and high levels of liquidity was what? Just a happy accident?
I know I'm generally cynical about the level of competence in government, but seriously this is a ridiculous position.
It's also no wonder I've been struggling to understand you position if this actually is what you've been trying to say.
If it is what you've been trying to say, then I still think you're wrong btw.
free spirit
more tea vicar?
who's done that?
and again, why are you continuing this crap and ignoring anything of any substance on this thread?
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Well you've now seen the basic JL conditions that I found for you. At every point, they will be better than tesco. And you clearly didn't read the original link as it talked at length about conditions.
Blagsta
Minimum cage, maximum cage
I'm not disbelieving you, I'm just asking you to provide a comparison with Tesco. Accuracy is being a dick apparently.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Which I have done. You think tesco gives 6 weeks holiday to all employees after 3 years? Or a final salary, non-contributory pension scheme to all staff? Or subsidised holidays and other activities to all staff? Or 6 months full-pay sick leave after 5 years to all staff?
of course they fucking don't and you know it.
Sorry, but this faux naive stance is becoming incredibly tiresome.
Blagsta
Minimum cage, maximum cage
I don't know it, no. Neither do you it seems, you're just guessing.
It irritates me when you pretend to know stuff, its your main MO and its annoying.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Pretend to know stuff? Pretend to know that tesco don't give all their staff 6 weeks holiday after 3 years? Really? Come the fuck off it. Yes, I know that tesco don't give all their staff what amounts to a well above average set of working conditions, which is what that JL list amounts to - well above average.
I've provided you with links to this which you haven't read. Still haven't read the Steve Keen stuff either, I'm guessing. Go on, give them a read. You might start to understand some of the stuff you've been questioning on this thread about what I've been saying.
free spirit
more tea vicar?
I've just found the figures to counter this assertion, and they're pretty conclusive.
Prior to the interbank lending market seizing up in August 2007 the total amount owed between the UK banks was £639 billion.
After August 2007 this dropped almost immediately to below £200 billion, and was still at approximately this level in early 2009 prior to QE kicking in, at the point the SLS was closing, and you're claiming that the situation had already resolved itself
By the end of 2009 after QE had kicked in the rate of interbank lending had more than doubled to £424 billion, so QE had achieved what the previous loan / loan protection schemes hadn't.
You attacked my understanding of the timeline earlier. I'd contend that it's actually you who's got the timeline mixed up here.
figures
free spirit
more tea vicar?
btw, the QE proposal was actually announced in mid January of 2009, before opening in March 2009, so it pretty much immediately took over as soon as the SLS closed.
free spirit
more tea vicar?
To pick up on the earlier discussion around bank runs, the following are the monthly figures for the total UK site liabilities for the period around the northern rock melt down.
So £68 billion cash was removed from the banks in one month at a time at which their average total cash reserves between them had been in the region of £30 billion.
Still, I'm sure LD must be right, and that this wasn't in any way a significant factor in the loss of liquidity in the banks.
figures
So £68 billion cash was removed from the banks in one month at a time at which their average total cash reserves between them had been in the region of £30 billion.
Still, I'm sure LD must be right, and that this wasn't in any way a significant factor in the loss of liquidity in the banks.
figures
pay attention? It was, if you recall, me that pointed the fact out.
Blagsta
Minimum cage, maximum cage
pay attention? It was, if you recall, me that pointed the fact out.
Yes Jazzz, that's right, you sent the IWW email to me months ago.
Similar threads
