Webbo Posted 26 October 2013 Posted 26 October 2013 Of course it can , but why doesn't it ? Why are they propping up a supposedly ailing privately owned company with our money?What are we the taxpayer going to get back in return ?How come the owner has got so rich if he owns a flagging company ? I think these are reasonable questions to ask and there very well may be good answers . Wouldn't you be outraged if the govt. was giving money to prop up public owned industry.if the managers were making themselves extremely wealthy at the same time? The owner was prepared to close the company, which wouldn't have been a cost free option, if he was making money why would he do that? I believe that now he'll be investing £300 million in that business. The country needs petrol and gas, if it's not made here we'd have to buy it from somewhere else. If the govt decides that it's in our interest to keep production in this country and therefore secure our supply then maybe that's a wise decision and worth paying a bit for, who knows?
Rincewind Posted 26 October 2013 Posted 26 October 2013 And if a minister in charge receives a surprise cheque in the post wishing him a Happy Birthday it can only be good for Joe Public.
Zingari Posted 26 October 2013 Posted 26 October 2013 The owner was prepared to close the company, which wouldn't have been a cost free option, if he was making money why would he do that? I believe that now he'll be investing £300 million in that business. The country needs petrol and gas, if it's not made here we'd have to buy it from somewhere else. If the govt decides that it's in our interest to keep production in this country and therefore secure our supply then maybe that's a wise decision and worth paying a bit for, who knows? it doesn't really answer the question as to why any taxpayer's money needs to go in and what's in it for us ? Why is it any different from any propping up other ailing businesses .Yes the public need oil and gas so basically it's him that's holding the nation to ransom with his threats of closure
The God Emperor Posted 26 October 2013 Posted 26 October 2013 Goddam Gubbermint propping up failed businesses and getting there police force to deny me my constitutional rights. It was none of their damn business what was in my car!
MooseBreath Posted 26 October 2013 Posted 26 October 2013 why not ask why the taxpayer is bailing it out if it's losing money ? Why isn't the billionaire owner using his own money.? If you were losing money in your business would the gov give you huge grants or would they expect you to dip into your savings to tide you over a bad period ? Where does the tax payer bailing it out come from? That article states that they've received a loan (not a bail out) and then a much smaller grant from the Scottish government which is obviously to protect what they see as valuable business which not only employs Scottish people both directly and indirectly but which could also bring in a significant amount of money to Scotland through sales. It's more of an investment than a bail out.
Strokes Posted 26 October 2013 Posted 26 October 2013 And if a minister in charge receives a surprise cheque in the post wishing him a Happy Birthday it can only be good for Joe Public. It must be a liberal then ken.
Webbo Posted 26 October 2013 Posted 26 October 2013 it doesn't really answer the question as to why any taxpayer's money needs to go in and what's in it for us ? Why is it any different from any propping up other ailing businesses .Yes the public need oil and gas so basically it's him that's holding the nation to ransom with his threats of closure Well I did actually, I said (guessing) it was to guarantee supply, and as Moose says it protects lots of jobs. Would you consider that the govt had done the right thing if it let all those jobs disappear?
Zingari Posted 27 October 2013 Posted 27 October 2013 Well I did actually, I said (guessing) it was to guarantee supply, and as Moose says it protects lots of jobs. Would you consider that the govt had done the right thing if it let all those jobs disappear? Why didn't they seem to bother about all the jobs disappearing in the mines ?
MooseBreath Posted 27 October 2013 Posted 27 October 2013 Why didn't they seem to bother about all the jobs disappearing in the mines ? Because those jobs were dying anyway
leicsmac Posted 27 October 2013 Posted 27 October 2013 Because those jobs were dying anyway And these ones are not? Failing business is failing business, right? Or is it a matter of degrees?
Harry - LCFC Posted 27 October 2013 Posted 27 October 2013 A slightly crude calculation but global GDP divided by global population works out to about £6,800 per person per year. Little over 50% of what you'd earn on minimum wage in this country. So well done, now everyone is poor. What next? Find some way of valuing an appropriate level of reward for different occupations based on something other than supply and demand I suppose. Firemen risk their lives to save others. They should be paid the most. Business owners just do nothing and skim profits. They should be paid the least. Now everyone wants to be a fireman, but nobody wants to risk their own capital to start up a business. So we have lots of firemen but no businesses and therefore no other jobs. I'm not sure a society can function on firemen alone. We've removed the concept of risk vs reward so now we have no-one taking any risk. Who's building houses? Nobody. So now we have nowhere to live. Is anyone manufacturing cars? Of course not. Why would you? So now we have no cars. Is anyone going to risk building a power station? No. Ok now we have now electricity. This doesn't seem to be going very well so far, does it? Global GDP has reduced to pretty much zero, but at least we all have a more equal share, of nothing? Major slippery slope there. I think most people are putting forward a significantly diluted version of what you've written. I know redistribution is less economically efficient as it does indeed move away from supply and demand somewhat but it does feel a lot fairer for those who do work hard but get comparatively small pay in return. An example, CEOs can get paid over 300 times more than the average worker in America but perhaps only work ten times as hard (and I think I'm being pretty generous to the CEO with the disparity in effort there) then it's hardly surprising to find the man lower down a little disappointed with the reward he gets for his efforts. Even if you disagree with me on redistribution surely you must empathise with the worker who sees the man above work a little harder but receive an enormously large wage in comparison. EDIT: There's actually a great video about wealth distribution in the US which I shall endeavour to find.
Webbo Posted 27 October 2013 Posted 27 October 2013 Why didn't they seem to bother about all the jobs disappearing in the mines ? That was 30 years ago.
Zingari Posted 27 October 2013 Posted 27 October 2013 That was 30 years ago. i know. but since then , the received wisdom on the right has been to let failing industries / businesses collapse When was the U turn in policy that says it's now OK to prop to them up by giving them loans /grants etc Why take into consideration job losses and other such effects now ? Could this be an back door admission that maybe this stubborn ideology could be slightly flawed ?
MooseBreath Posted 27 October 2013 Posted 27 October 2013 i know. but since then , the received wisdom on the right has been to let failing industries / businesses collapse When was the U turn in policy that says it's now OK to prop to them up by giving them loans /grants etc Why take into consideration job losses and other such effects now ? Could this be an back door admission that maybe this stubborn ideology could be slightly flawed ? I might be wrong here but isn't the Scottish Government basically the SNP? They want Scottish independence and so keeping major Scottish businesses running is of high importance to their goal. I don't think the Tories had much if anything to do with it.
Zingari Posted 27 October 2013 Posted 27 October 2013 I might be wrong here but isn't the Scottish Government basically the SNP? They want Scottish independence and so keeping major Scottish businesses running is of high importance to their goal. I don't think the Tories had much if anything to do with it. You could be right , I really don't know . I'm really just asking questions because the whole thing looks really dodgy to me , but then again I'm always a suspicious old git But; as far as i can tell the UK govt. did give them loans , Loans have a risk element , is that correct? Why is the govt taking risks with our money to use it as loans for a business supposedly losing millions every week? Why didn't they go to the banks for a loan?
MooseBreath Posted 27 October 2013 Posted 27 October 2013 Major slippery slope there. I think most people are putting forward a significantly diluted version of what you've written. I know redistribution is less economically efficient as it does indeed move away from supply and demand somewhat but it does feel a lot fairer for those who do work hard but get comparatively small pay in return. An example, CEOs can get paid over 300 times more than the average worker in America but perhaps only work ten times as hard (and I think I'm being pretty generous to the CEO with the disparity in effort there) then it's hardly surprising to find the man lower down a little disappointed with the reward he gets for his efforts. Even if you disagree with me on redistribution surely you must empathise with the worker who sees the man above work a little harder but receive an enormously large wage in comparison. EDIT: There's actually a great video about wealth distribution in the US which I shall endeavour to find. Depends how you define and measure hard work I suppose. Business owners take on a much larger risk and are also responsible for other people's jobs. That's a lot of responsibility. Is it 300 or 10 times as much responsibility? Who knows, how do you measure it? Ultimately I think if you want people to earn more you should concentrate on helping those people up, rather than bringing other people down. Lots of ways you can do that, having some of the best education establishments in the world is a good start. Giving businesses financial incentives to take on and train up apprentices and trainees. Having an open and free market so that anyone who wants to have a go at starting up their own business can do so easily, and so on.
Webbo Posted 27 October 2013 Posted 27 October 2013 i know. but since then , the received wisdom on the right has been to let failing industries / businesses collapse When was the U turn in policy that says it's now OK to prop to them up by giving them loans /grants etc Why take into consideration job losses and other such effects now ? Could this be an back door admission that maybe this stubborn ideology could be slightly flawed ? I think Moose is right it's the SNP that's given them a grant, the UK govt has given them a loan. As I understand it the amount of gas coming from the North Sea is declining so the current business model is no longer sustainable. The new idea is to import shale gas by ship from America, maybe it's something to do with that. Who knows maybe with new supplies becoming available it will bring down prices, but I'm sure you don't believe that .
Zingari Posted 27 October 2013 Posted 27 October 2013 I think Moose is right it's the SNP that's given them a grant, the UK govt has given them a loan. As I understand it the amount of gas coming from the North Sea is declining so the current business model is no longer sustainable. The new idea is to import shale gas by ship from America, maybe it's something to do with that. Who knows maybe with new supplies becoming available it will bring down prices, but I'm sure you don't believe that . I suppose I've become very mistrusting of the govt. / media etc in the last decade or so . and I doubt I'll ever be trustful of them again . Actually more and more people i speak to since Iraq WMDs Dr Kelly etc etc are less trusting than they were before. Maybe it's an effect the internet ? i'll just repeat the last question though Loans have a risk element , is that correct? Why is the UK govt taking risks with our money to use it as loans for a business supposedly losing millions every week? Why didn't they go to the banks for a loan? Although it doesn't matter what you say I still won't trust the bastrads
Webbo Posted 27 October 2013 Posted 27 October 2013 Scepticism is healthy, cynicism is poison. sometimes thing are exactly what they seem.
Zingari Posted 27 October 2013 Posted 27 October 2013 Scepticism is healthy, cynicism is poison. sometimes thing are exactly what they seem. no no no .its not cynicism, its cyanide that's poison easy mistake i suppose
Smudge Posted 27 October 2013 Posted 27 October 2013 I suppose I've become very mistrusting of the govt. / media etc in the last decade or so . and I doubt I'll ever be trustful of them again . Although it doesn't matter what you say I still won't trust the bastrads Good job they don't run our businesses then
Smudge Posted 27 October 2013 Posted 27 October 2013 What's wrong with loaning a company money. I assume that it will be repaid and with interest. The alternative is to let the business close along with all those operations who rely on it for their income. You are now faced with the loss of tax revenue from a number of areas - Income, VAT, corporate, social security etc. Plus the cost of unemployment benefits to thousands
Rincewind Posted 27 October 2013 Posted 27 October 2013 I suppose I've become very mistrusting of the govt. / media etc in the last decade or so . and I doubt I'll ever be trustful of them again . Actually more and more people i speak to since Iraq WMDs Dr Kelly etc etc are less trusting than they were before. Maybe it's an effect the internet ? i'll just repeat the last question though Loans have a risk element , is that correct? Why is the UK govt taking risks with our money to use it as loans for a business supposedly losing millions every week? Why didn't they go to the banks for a loan? Although it doesn't matter what you say I still won't trust the bastrads Could be old age. The more Governments you go through in life the less you tend to believe or trust. Overall I do not see a lot between the politics. At one time politicians came about because someone cared about something and wanted to make a change. Now it seems the only credentials you need is to be a Oxbridge graduate
Zingari Posted 27 October 2013 Posted 27 October 2013 What's wrong with loaning a company money. I assume that it will be repaid and with interest. The alternative is to let the business close along with all those operations who rely on it for their income. You are now faced with the loss of tax revenue from a number of areas - Income, VAT, corporate, social security etc. Plus the cost of unemployment benefits to thousands There's nothing wrong with it , I just can't see why they didn't loan money from the banks.That's what they do isn't it. What is the UK Govt. doing loaning out taxpayer's money to a company if it's supposedly losing millions. It sounds a very risky strategy to me. Unless of course they knew the said company wasn't actually losing millions at all .
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.