1. Things you need to know about the new ‘Conversations’ PM system:

    a) DO NOT REPLY TO THE NOTIFICATION EMAIL! I get them, not the intended recipient. I get a lot of them and I do not want them! It is just a notification, log into the site and reply from there.

    b) To delete old conversations use the ‘Leave conversation’ option. This is just delete by another name.
    Dismiss Notice

Pit Opening Program?

Discussion in 'off topic' started by redcogs, Feb 21, 2011.

  1. prowla

    prowla pfm Member

    Nope - I'm saying that you can't pretend it hasn't happened.

    But companies work for their own (selfish - not in a perjorative sense) aims.

    No, never said that there were no countries in Africa where western interests did not play a part; I was pointing it out as an exception to your assertion that it was all the fault of the West and Shell.

    (IMHO, when people start chucking in the f-words, then it generally means they have nothing useful to contribute, and there is no point in further discussion.)
     
  2. redcogs

    redcogs Harbethian Popular Front

    The thread concerns a hypothetical (but far from impossible) situation in which oil as an available energy source rapidly becomes 'uneconomic' for reasons to do with current event in the middle east.

    It is not as crazy as you imply Tim. Each energy crisis of the past has convulsed the world economy. Oil/gas price reductions from about 1957 created massive social upheaval in the UK coalfield, culminating in the enforced and almost total collapse of the industry after 1985 as oil displaced our indigenous coal supplies.
     
  3. redcogs

    redcogs Harbethian Popular Front

    Its a bit frustrating having to repeat the same points over and over Les, and i'm really not sure what it is that is causing you so much difficulty.

    As i clearly indicated in post #202:

    In 1960 the NCB had a total workforce of 583000. "By 1968 (which includes specifically the period you were engaged) more miners had left pitwork than remained. The 1968 figure was down to 318700.."

    i have nowhere used your term 'redundancy'.

    The truth about the contraction of the coal industry in that specific period involves recognising the overall size of the NCB employment role in 1960, and then comparing it to the much lower 1968 figure (above). A further part of the picture indeed involves understanding that many colliers were offered alternative work in other areas when their pit was decommissioned, and it was a commonplace that miners from Scotland relocated to Wales or Yorks for example. But the overall size of the industry was visibly and rapidly collapsing. It is the national picture which has importance in this discussion, not the individual experience of one person from Rotherham, however interesting his story may be.
     
  4. russel

    russel ./_dazed_and_confused


    That seems just like Private Healthcare where they buy super expensive machines and then find excuses to use them. Look at the US healthcare system, most spent per head of population and life expectancy worse than Cubas.

    Prison systems the same, loads spent on Prisons, highest proportion of people incarcerated per head of population in the world and its still crime ridden.

    In both cases well funded lobby groups keep the system running. How this free enterprise system is better than Scargills striking Socialists I am not able to see.
     
  5. prowla

    prowla pfm Member

    If/when that were to happen, people will be praising Maggie for having the foresight to preserve our nation's precious resources.

    OTOH, we may just have a load of nuclear stations and electric cars, and not even notice.
     
  6. redcogs

    redcogs Harbethian Popular Front

    it would be an interesting thought prowla, were it not for her maniacally driven desire to restructure British capitalism in the interests of the paper shuffling financial markets - a task that could only be achieved when traditional trade unionism had been confronted. The elite had determined that coal represented the past, and therefore breaking the NUM became Thatchers central priority, a fact which becomes very clear when you realise that the 1984/85 strike was settled twice, but she pressed on regardless, in order to crush the NUM (revenge for the humiliation the Tory Party endured in 1974 at he hands of the mineworkers). Her real prize though was to emasculate the wider labour movement for at least a generation.
     
  7. MichaelC

    MichaelC pfm Member

    yup on both counts
     
  8. MichaelC

    MichaelC pfm Member

    You really really make me laugh. I just cannot believe that you can truly believe all of this nonsense, you can only be seeking to wind up people.

    In the unlikely event that you do actually believe in what you are saying let's consider for one moment...oh I just can't be bothered. By the way, I'll be in my boardroom tomorrow making key decisions...and guess what, I am seeking to maximise profits.
     
  9. Mullardman

    Mullardman Moderately extreme...


    Yes, it's hilarious isn't it.

    Do you seriously believe that people in this country are comfortable that having supposedly democratically elected a government, they are still condemned to watching helplessly while rich w..bankers continue to enrich themselves on the back of a government subsidy?

    Can you justify that?

    No.. thought not.
     
  10. russel

    russel ./_dazed_and_confused



    I'm sure you will seek to maximise profits. Just as the people at Enron, Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers did. Maybe you will not cause damage on such a massive scale as they did but by just focusing on profits you will not be aware of the system you operate in just as the above did not.
     
  11. Mescalito

    Mescalito pfm Member

    Mull,

    The reason a commercial organisation exists is to maximise profits. End of. They are, by definition amoral entities.

    They are not there to build a better society, to lift the poor out of poverty, to ensure a cleaner environment, to nurture the spiritual health of the nation.

    They exist purely to make money.

    Foprtunately, in pursuit of this aim, they employ people. Those people pay taxes. And their taxes pay for the likes of your good self to earn a crust on the back of their endeavours.

    In many cases, that is a good trade off. In many , it is a totally lousy deal.

    Hopefully, the current cuts will skew the ratio good to bad deals in the good deal side of the distribution.

    Chris
     
  12. Mullardman

    Mullardman Moderately extreme...

    Point missed by massive margin. As usual.

    I have no problem with profit. I have a huge problem with bankers in a publicly subsidised and largely publicly owned bank awarding themselves gigantic bonuses before repaying the country.

    And I'm still waiting for an apology.
     
  13. Mescalito

    Mescalito pfm Member

    Mull,

    Whingeing and moaning about banker's bonuses is pretty pointless. Only the Govt. can do something about them. You can't, I can't.

    These excessive bonuses stick in everybody's craw.

    Presumably, the government dare not attack these bonuses unilaterally, since to do so without similar constraints being applied by other governments will simply drive the businesses away.

    Now, you may argue that we can do without them. You may be right, But if you are wrong......

    Chris
     
  14. Mescalito

    Mescalito pfm Member

     
  15. Still

    Still he said his naim was ralph

    Most financiers happy to stay in UK - survey

    LONDON | Fri Dec 31, 2010 7:42am GMT
    (Reuters) - The majority of people working in financial services industry are happy to stay in the UK, said a survey by the eFinancialCareers.com website, despite fears a clampdown on pay may force top performers overseas.

    The online poll of 415 workers in London's City finance district said only 14 percent were actively seeking a job overseas, with the rest happy to remain in the UK.


    http://uk.reuters.com/article/2010/12/31/uk-britain-finance-jobs-idUKTRE6BU01I20101231
     
  16. Tim Jones

    Tim Jones pfm Member

    Those bonuses are a drop in the ocean compared to our structural deficit btw.
     
  17. redcogs

    redcogs Harbethian Popular Front

    This isn't "our" structural deficit, it was caused by the rich. The bankers having bled the taxpayers continue to cut and run with astronomic bonuses, the other elites dodge their taxes and continue with their exploitative behaviours in the same old way. The corporations continue to stack up profits to distribute to that parasitic and workshy layer called the shareholders, and on it goes. The entire free market financial system is totally discredited in the eyes of every reasonable person. The only ones remaining who continue to make excuses for the whole charade appear to be the extremist scoundrels who financially benefit from it and their sycophantic lackeys.

    The ones who are paying the price for this whole disaster are the very ones who did least to cause it - the impoverished, the ill, the disabled, the low payed, the homeless and jobless, the very old and our youngsters who face unemployment oblivion.
     
  18. sq225917

    sq225917 Bit of this, bit of that

    redcogs, Not so sure I agree.

    I save my wages, don't invest in a 'pension' but buy some shares, I expect a return for my investment, why shouldn't I? Does working hard to give people my money to help make more money make me a parasite? What did you do for charity today, or otherwise do to benefit society that makes you so holy.

    Aren't you just a workshy bludger?
     
  19. prowla

    prowla pfm Member

    Oh you are such a drama queen!
     
  20. MichaelC

    MichaelC pfm Member

    It's all about profit. Actually, correction - it's all about the cash generated by the profit, and some lost sight of that.
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice