Even though I'm bouncing off the walls with prog withdrawal, I must admit I fully support the current postal strikes.
It's fairly obvious that management are trying to drive the business into the ground so they can reap rewards after the service is inevitably privatised.
Our local office has seen sackings for petty offences like failing to wear cycle helmets (which is pretty stupid considering how dangerous the things are). It's a disgraceful way to treat employees.
"A.Cow" <A....@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:hchiqq$3v7$1@aioe.org... > Even though I'm bouncing off the walls with prog withdrawal, I must admit > I fully support the current postal strikes.
> It's fairly obvious that management are trying to drive the business into > the ground so they can reap rewards after the service is inevitably > privatised.
> Our local office has seen sackings for petty offences like failing to wear > cycle helmets (which is pretty stupid considering how dangerous the things > are). It's a disgraceful way to treat employees.
I support a sound business and well regulated environment. Difficult to say more than that without setting some mouth off.
The statistics for wearing cycle helmets weigh heavily in their favour so an odd sacking may be to an attempt to break a backward canteen culture.
If these issues can be satisfactorily resolved to everyone's satisfaction I don't see how privatisation is an issue.
Digital downloads are a reality Royal Mail et al have to face. Better competition and access to the net infrastructure can help.
It's all a sign of a deeper underlying problem, and that problem is that the Bank of England is a private bank.
The Prime Minister goes to the Bank of England and asks for $1 billion to pay for hospitals or something. The private BoE PRINTS the money, then LENDS it to the government at interest. This interest was never printed, so where does it come from? You guessed it: Tax.
Take back control of the BoE and then, when the Prime Minister needs £1 billion, the Bank prints it and then gives it to the Government. No need to pay anything back. Taxes eased. Lives improved. So long as the Government doesn't have too much money printed there's no problem.
Put all banking into the hands of the Government and, as the Government doesn't have to make a profit, all loans and mortgages could be offered at just one or two percent.
Still, we'll never change it because those bankers just love printing their own money. Also, why should common people be well off when it's obviously so much more satisfying for the rich to get richer?
*puts away soapbox and wanders off to shout at lamp posts*
The Prime Minister goes to the Bank of England and asks for $1 billion to pay for hospitals or something. The private BoE PRINTS the money, then LENDS it to the government at interest. This interest was never printed, so where does it come from? You guessed it: Tax.
Take back control of the BoE and then, when the Prime Minister needs £1 billion, the Bank prints it and then gives it to the Government. No need to pay anything back. Taxes eased. Lives improved. So long as the Government doesn't have too much money printed there's no problem.
Put all banking into the hands of the Government and, as the Government doesn't have to make a profit, all loans and mortgages could be offered at just one or two percent.
Still, we'll never change it because those bankers just love printing their own money. Also, why should common people be well off when it's obviously so much more satisfying for the rich to get richer?
*puts away soapbox and wanders off to shout at lamp posts*
Alas if only they could do that. But that just causes a simple form of inflation.
Back in the day..( when I studied economics at school)..they give you this example.
A king owed 100 gold coins...he levied a tax ..got 100 gold coins
he then split the gold coins into 200 gold-ish coins. which looked like the old coins but contained only 1/2 the gold.
Initially he pays off the bills to his debtors and all is well. but he has increased the amount of money in the system. which leads to inflation.
the_legendary_shark wrote: > So long as the Government doesn't have too much
> money printed there's no problem.
That's where your scheme falls down -- they would be too tempted to print as much money as they need for short-term gain. Too many governments run at permanent deficit. There has to be some disincentive.
"Back in the day..( when I studied economics at school)..they give you this example."
And who writes the economics books, I wonder? And, once written, who decides they're fit for scholastic use?
"A king owed 100 gold coins," is a good example, but we don't use gold coins any more, we use a fiat currency. Paper money that is, in itself, worthless.
And it's not just governments that do this. When you apply for a mortgage, the bank you go to presses a button and creates the money to pay for your house out of thin air. It had not existed before you asked for it. Then you owe this money to the bank. Plus interest. Now, I'm not saying that this is an intrinsically bad system - when you use a fiat currency the money has to come from somewhere - what I am saying is that the system needs to be recalibrated so that the vast bulk of the money stays in the system and isn't constantly hoovered up by rich bankers.
> "Back in the day..( when I studied economics at school)..they give you > this example."
> And who writes the economics books, I wonder? And, once written, who > decides they're fit for scholastic use?
> "A king owed 100 gold coins," is a good example, but we don't use gold > coins any more, we use a fiat currency. Paper money that is, in > itself, worthless.
> And it's not just governments that do this. When you apply for a > mortgage, the bank you go to presses a button and creates the money to > pay for your house out of thin air. It had not existed before you > asked for it. Then you owe this money to the bank. Plus interest. Now, > I'm not saying that this is an intrinsically bad system - when you use > a fiat currency the money has to come from somewhere - what I am > saying is that the system needs to be recalibrated so that the vast > bulk of the money stays in the system and isn't constantly hoovered up > by rich bankers.
> Just my two penn'orth.
Good comment. To be fair, most of the more savvy politicians and people get this. Sure, some mistakes were made but I don't buy into the calculated cynicism you get from some quarters.
My general view is that competition and fair incomes have failed in the British economy which is why trimming some power at the top and raising wages at the bottom is helpful.
Personally, I don't think Labour tearing itself apart or the Tories opportunism helps but that's the state of politics for you.
the_legendary_shark wrote: > When you apply for a mortgage, the bank you go to
> presses a button and creates the money to pay for your house > out of thin air. It had not existed before you asked for it.
Call me "Mr Thicky, the thickest man in all thickdom" but I thought that the mortgage loan came from other people's savings, and that your repayments are then split between the bank (as profit) and the original saver (as interest on their savings).
> Well, whoever or whatever is responsible for my prog not being here is an > utter, utter bastard.....
It's a good week to offer everyone a free download. Retail might bitch but there's probably something in the locker that can be given out if there's a risk it could fuck up sales.
|
