Sir Ralph

For people whom I truly respect, like Susie D, to say these things about me really cuts deep. Tell your wife to stay strong. I just hope Susie doesn’t unleash more of his new found vocabulary on us all. Terrifying. He has come a long way from the days when he posted pictures of poos and bums when referring to other posters. I would like to think you and I were, and are, part of his ongoing journey towards intellectual mediocrity 🤣

“Futile” and “despicable”, I’ll have to nickname you “The Thesaurus” or “Susie Dent” instead! I still hold my views on the two child welfare cap, yes.

A few lefties attempting to 'ridicule' me is fine. You will see from my posts over the weekend, some of them can engage properly, others struggle to justify their positions. 'Ridicule' is more evidence of your increasingly expansive vocabulary. The teachers will be moving you up to the 'green' books soon.🤣

@JohnnyShearer2.0 (aka 'the Flake') - have you managed to come up with the responses to the at least 5 questions you havent been able to answer? As you will see I answered all of yours on the basis you would respond but its feeling very much like you are unable to. I appreciate that your in a sticky situation on some of the responses but sometimes you can just agree you might not be absolutely correct. In life generally, you will gain more credibility that way rather than ignoring questions.

You must have noticed other people using the word 'irony' and looked it up in the big book called the 'Dictionary' and now you are using it in real messages to people. Go Mickey! 🤣

Getting sacked in the public sector (other than austerity) there is more chance of an asteroid striking earth. Have you worked in both sectors? There is no evidence publicly available either way. There is evidence that private sector employees work more hours than the public sector (33 per week versus 30 on average). As I said before this is my experience or is my experience wrong?

Not really though is it. It’s just the answer you don’t want where is the deflection?

This would be targeted at specific public sectors. The courts and education for example shouldn’t be. If people commit a crime they need to be processed and kids need to be taught. My statement isn’t sweeping in relation to every sector. I deal with these sectors regularly and within the private sector I can tell you they are not well thought of in terms of the number of people unnecessarily employed and the red tape created. We all speak from personal experience. I also know people in the public sector who would agree with my stance.

And what happens to those businesses - they fail and are liquidated. So there is a serious consequence. im not talking about that anyway. I’m saying that my view is that public sector budgets could be reduced because there are too many bureaucrats justifying their jobs by creating red tape. Deregulate and you make business easier whilst reducing your budget. As I said pay the good public sector workers more to retain them.

But they have less knowledge on these matters than the posters on here? If you genuinely think that then I’m I know the difference between economics and business. However to run a successful business you need to have a knowledge of economics and levers government has, particularly when running a large business or having large investments. This includes the top advisors they have around them. They need to understand economics to make business decisions. im not going to end up in a discussion about trumps policies as this isn’t the thread but his approach is less than 1%. Regardless it would cause inflationary issues.

Again - where have I deflected? Straight answer please. No fudging.

Answers please or are you stuck? You say I’m lying shall I pull out the unanswered questions so we can see who is lying? Two more questions - these should be easy. Cmon you can do it

So you think that billionaires and leading business people know the equivalent or less about economics than posters on this forum for example? If you do that if frankly astounding! Business and economics overlap, particularly when we are talking about large businesses and investors. I think Trump has made some positive decisions such as businesses being able to deduct investment costs and deregulation. I’m not convinced by his tariffs policy nor tax / spending decisions that have resulted in a larger deficit. He seems to be conservative but have got confused with some of his policies that run contrary to conservative ethos.

That’s a fair comment but we all speak from experience. My experience in liaising with the public sector is that the output of low performing individuals is more tolerated and there are more of them than the private sector. Using the contracts that private sector get from the public sector is a great example. They (the public sector)often get ripped off and don’t get the value for money for the taxpayer. In most cases I don’t believe if a private sector company was negotiating a similar contract they would get ripped off like that. As I said we all speak from experience. Personally I think that there should be fewer people in the public sector but pay the fewer more to secure better quality talent.

Would you describe Radcliffe and the other billionaires and high profile businesss people who are making the relevant noises as successful and knowledgeable on economic matters? You didn’t answer the question - you fudged it. Are you saying that these high profile business people and billionaires making these noises as a whole know more about economics than the posters on here for example?