What Is Happening To Our Country?

[Sir Ralph]

4 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

I'm not angry - not sure where you gathered that from? I think you should go somewhere you don't pay tax.

Telling people to F off shows a lack of self control. In my circle of people that I engage with we have respect for people. You don’t. Your clearly were never taught you manners and if that’s your attitude with everyone you disagree with then have a word with yourself.

[Farmer Saint]

2 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

Telling people to F off shows a lack of self control. In my circle of people that I engage with we have respect for people. You don’t. Your clearly were never taught you manners and if that’s your attitude with everyone you disagree with then have a word with yourself.

I think you're misunderstanding the term. I was using "fuck off" as an alternative way to say "move away".

It's quite a common way to say it - I apologise that you don't understand that.

Edited yesterday at 12:51 by Farmer Saint

[Sir Ralph]

20 minutes ago, JohnnyShearer2.0 said:

SR: word salad, word salad.

Pontification.

Slight digs.

Skirt the question. And ask you a question.

Supercilious person. Obviously fishing.

I didn’t answer the question as the bloke is rude. The irony is the poster in question answered my question with another question but you criticised me for avoiding questions. The irony of your post is that you mention “slight digs” and then called me a “supercilious” person. 
 

i haven’t ducked any questions in this conversation . Point out where i did or shall I add this to the list of the three answers from previous discussions you owe me? The hypocrisy barometer is on full alert. Please come back on the two questions I asked you as I don’t want to have 5 questions unanswered…

Edited yesterday at 13:08 by Sir Ralph

[Farmer Saint]

1 minute ago, Sir Ralph said:

I didn’t answer the question as the bloke is rude. The irony is the poster in question answered my question with another question but you criticised me for avoiding questions. The irony of your post is that you mention “slight digs” and then called me a “supercilious” person. 
 

i haven’t ducked any questions in this conversation . Point out where i did or shall I add this to the list of the three answers from previous discussions you owe me? The hypocrisy barometer is on full alert

Where have I been rude?? I clarified that above, so would appreciate an answer.

[Sir Ralph]

8 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

I think you're misunderstanding the term. I was using "fuck off" as an alternative way to say "move away".

It's quite a common way to say it - I apologise that you don't understand that.

Not really though

I think you should fuck off mate - that'd be good for this country.

If you want somewhere that reflects your values and morals I would suggest the US, or North Korea.

[Farmer Saint]

1 minute ago, Sir Ralph said:

Not really though

 

I think you should fuck off mate - that'd be good for this country.

If you want somewhere that reflects your values and morals I would suggest the US, or North Korea.

Why you repeating what I said to you?

[Sir Ralph]

12 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

Where have I been rude?? I clarified that above, so would appreciate an answer.

Answer mine and I’ll answer yours

[Farmer Saint]

Just now, Sir Ralph said:

Answer mine and I’ll answer yours

I did. Which question are you talking about?

[Sir Ralph]

2 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

I did. Which question are you talking about?

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?

[Farmer Saint]

 

 

2 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

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?

I said "No". Can you not read? You realise "Business" is not "Economics", don't you?

Now my question please.

Edited yesterday at 13:17 by Farmer Saint

[Sir Ralph]

1 hour ago, Gloucester Saint said:

I run an arm/operation of an organisation with a turnover in the hundreds of millions and to think that people in different sectors work harder than others or are worth more is tabloid type fodder for gullible people.

Talented high performing people work in firms large and small, charities large and small, there are great teachers and lots of people are mixed sector. There are poor performing people in all sectors as well, we’ve all come across them. Plenty of private businesses and consultants rely on contracts from large public sector and Whitehall. I used to be one of them. 

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. 

[JohnnyShearer2.0]

21 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

I didn’t answer the question as the bloke is rude. The irony is the poster in question answered my question with another question but you criticised me for avoiding questions. The irony of your post is that you mention “slight digs” and then called me a “supercilious” person. 
 

i haven’t ducked any questions in this conversation . Point out where i did or shall I add this to the list of the three answers from previous discussions you owe me? The hypocrisy barometer is on full alert. Please come back on the two questions I asked you as I don’t want to have 5 questions unanswered…

Hahahaha.

Lying now too. What a shame.

[Farmer Saint]

Just now, JohnnyShearer2.0 said:

Hahahaha.

Lying now too. What a shame.

Classic Sir Ralph. Deflection, deflection, deflection.

[Sir Ralph]

18 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

 

 

I said "No". Can you not read? You realise "Business" is not "Economics", don't you?

Now my question please.

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. 

Edited yesterday at 13:34 by Sir Ralph

[Sir Ralph]

7 minutes ago, JohnnyShearer2.0 said:

Hahahaha.

Lying now too. What a shame.

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

Edited yesterday at 13:32 by Sir Ralph

[Sir Ralph]

6 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

Classic Sir Ralph. Deflection, deflection, deflection.

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

[Farmer Saint]

2 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

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 significantly 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. 

I think some may do, and some may not, which was my point.

Massive difference between enabling business conditions and being an economist. Very, very different, and it explains your ignorance that you don't understand that.

Do you believe the US should have interest rates at 0.5% for example, as Trump says (that's an economic policy by the way)?

[Weston Super Saint]

23 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

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. 

Really?

Would the abundance of failed companies being liquidated after administrations suggest there are probably more poor performers in the private sector?

[Sir Ralph]

5 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

I think some may do, and some may not, which was my point.

Massive difference between enabling business conditions and being an economist. Very, very different, and it explains your ignorance that you don't understand that.

Do you believe the US should have interest rates at 0.5% for example, as Trump says (that's an economic policy by the way)?

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. 

[egg]

23 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

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. 

You cannot make such a sweeping statement. You plainly have zero idea about the reality on the ground. I only have direct knowledge of the court system, and that has been chronically under funded and staffed for years. Pay more money, and they'd have even less staff and even more backlog and chaos. The staff, on the whole, are superb, and the issue is not too many people or poor talent.

You'd do well to understand the reality rather than making sweeping comments.

[Sir Ralph]

Just now, Weston Super Saint said:

Really?

Would the abundance of failed companies being liquidated after administrations suggest there are probably more poor performers in the private sector?

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.

[Sir Ralph]

4 minutes ago, egg said:

You cannot make such a sweeping statement. You plainly have zero idea about the reality on the ground. I only have direct knowledge of the court system, and that has been chronically under funded and staffed for years. Pay more money, and they'd have even less staff and even more backlog and chaos. The staff, on the whole, are superb, and the issue is not too many people or poor talent.

You'd do well to understand the reality rather than making sweeping comments.

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. 

Edited yesterday at 13:51 by Sir Ralph

[egg]

Just now, Sir Ralph said:

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

So what sectors are you referring to? Which sectors have you had direct dealings with, and what level? What are the actual issues you've experienced? 

[Farmer Saint]

7 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

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. 

Deflection, deflection, deflection. Just answer the question as all billionaires know economica.

[Sir Ralph]

1 minute ago, Farmer Saint said:

Deflection, deflection, deflection. Just answer the question as all billionaires know economica.

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

Edited yesterday at 13:55 by Sir Ralph

[Weston Super Saint]

2 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

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.

Errr...

The quote of yours I posted stated unequivocally that there are more under performers in the public sector.

It appears that you agree with me that the penalty for underperforming in the private sector is liquidation, but you've provided no evidence to back up your claim about there being more under performers in the public sector, whilst the hundreds of thousands of underperformers in the private sector is documented and publicly available.

As Badger pointed out to you the other day, there are plenty of penalties for underperforming in the public sector, usually involving the loss of jobs. To claim otherwise is daft.

[Sir Ralph]

5 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Errr...

The quote of yours I posted stated unequivocally that there are more under performers in the public sector.

It appears that you agree with me that the penalty for underperforming in the private sector is liquidation, but you've provided no evidence to back up your claim about there being more under performers in the public sector, whilst the hundreds of thousands of underperformers in the private sector is documented and publicly available.

As Badger pointed out to you the other day, there are plenty of penalties for underperforming in the public sector, usually involving the loss of jobs. To claim otherwise is daft.

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?

Edited yesterday at 14:01 by Sir Ralph

[Weston Super Saint]

1 minute ago, Sir Ralph said:

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. As I said before this is my experience or is my experience wrong?

It's definitely looking likely!

[tdmickey3]

1 hour ago, Sir Ralph said:

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?

Utterly clueless yet again, public sector is 37.5

Who would have thought it you posting about things you simply have no idea about.

[Farmer Saint]

God, these billionaires are so clever:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/cm9dw4663j9zo

 

[badgerx16]

4 hours ago, Farmer Saint said:

I think you should fuck off mate - that'd be good for this country.

If you want somewhere that reflects your values and morals I would suggest the US, or North Korea.

Not Canada ?

[badgerx16]

2 hours ago, Sir Ralph said:

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?

1) I managed large teams in the Public sector, and found ways to legitimately shed those that weren't up to the task. 

2) "33 per week" - do you know many teachers, or social workers ? For much of my time my basic week was 37, topped up by compulsory o/t or being on call 7 days a week.

[Osvaldorama]

 

19 hours ago, Farmer Saint said:

I think you should fuck off mate - that'd be good for this country.

If you want somewhere that reflects your values and morals I would suggest the US, or North Korea.

Jim Ratcliffe grew up in a council house. He created a business which has paid the salaries of thousands of staff and millions in tax.

He has done more for this country than you are ever likely to. I understand why, as a lefty, you seek to demonise “the Right”. But this is reductive shite.

Just because you don’t fully understand economics or why capitalism is clearly the best way to organise society, doesn’t mean you should tell people to “fuck off” 

[Osvaldorama]

17 hours ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Errr...

The quote of yours I posted stated unequivocally that there are more under performers in the public sector.

It appears that you agree with me that the penalty for underperforming in the private sector is liquidation, but you've provided no evidence to back up your claim about there being more under performers in the public sector, whilst the hundreds of thousands of underperformers in the private sector is documented and publicly available.

As Badger pointed out to you the other day, there are plenty of penalties for underperforming in the public sector, usually involving the loss of jobs. To claim otherwise is daft.

You clearly have no idea what you’re talking about

 

The punishment for failure in most public organisations is promotion 

[badgerx16]

5 minutes ago, Osvaldorama said:

You clearly have no idea what you’re talking about

 

The punishment for failure in most public organisations is promotion 

Ill informed fuckwit.

[Osvaldorama]

17 hours ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Errr...

The quote of yours I posted stated unequivocally that there are more under performers in the public sector.

It appears that you agree with me that the penalty for underperforming in the private sector is liquidation, but you've provided no evidence to back up your claim about there being more under performers in the public sector, whilst the hundreds of thousands of underperformers in the private sector is documented and publicly available.

As Badger pointed out to you the other day, there are plenty of penalties for underperforming in the public sector, usually involving the loss of jobs. To claim otherwise is daft.

I can end this argument up nicely with one example. 
 

NASA vs SpaceX

 

NASA is a rotting, bloated, corrupt, wasting corpse of an organisation that achieves fuck all. 

SpaceX has revolutionised space travel in a handful of years. 
 

 

[Farmer Saint]

12 minutes ago, Osvaldorama said:

 

Jim Ratcliffe grew up in a council house. He created a business which has paid the salaries of thousands of staff and millions in tax.

He has done more for this country than you are ever likely to. I understand why, as a lefty, you seek to demonise “the Right”. But this is reductive shite.

Just because you don’t fully understand economics or why capitalism is clearly the best way to organise society, doesn’t mean you should tell people to “fuck off” 

My degree in Applied Economics will tell you differently, but ok.

I didn't tell him to "fuck off" - read the context. It's in reference to him going abroad - I think he should fuck off abroad, like Jim Ratcliffe did.

[Osvaldorama]

4 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

My degree in Applied Economics will tell you differently, but ok.

I didn't tell him to "fuck off" - read the context. It's in reference to him going abroad - I think he should fuck off abroad, like Jim Ratcliffe did.

Youre a cretin and you should ask for a refund on your degree

[Farmer Saint]

2 minutes ago, Osvaldorama said:

Youre a cretin and you should ask for a refund on your degree

Wow, where did that come from? Calm down dear.

Also, learn to use punctuation.

Edited 14 hours ago by Farmer Saint

[egg]

23 minutes ago, Osvaldorama said:

 

Jim Ratcliffe grew up in a council house. He created a business which has paid the salaries of thousands of staff and millions in tax.

He has done more for this country than you are ever likely to. I understand why, as a lefty, you seek to demonise “the Right”. But this is reductive shite.

Just because you don’t fully understand economics or why capitalism is clearly the best way to organise society, doesn’t mean you should tell people to “fuck off” 

Capatilsm is a tool for organising markets, not how to organise a society. Governments deal with the latter. 

[badgerx16]

44 minutes ago, Osvaldorama said:

I can end this argument up nicely with one example. 
 

NASA vs SpaceX

 

NASA is a rotting, bloated, corrupt, wasting corpse of an organisation that achieves fuck all. 

SpaceX has revolutionised space travel in a handful of years. 
 

 

SpaceX is burning money faster than it's rockets burn fuel. In the 2nd quarter of the current FY the losses for it's core business, space, were $542M on revenue of $962M.

Edited 14 hours ago by badgerx16

[egg]

10 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

SpaceX is burning money faster than it's rockets burn fuel. In the 2nd quarter of the current FY the losses for it's core business, space, were $542M on revenue of $962M.

Yep. Space X isn't a great example of a success story, yet. In time I think it'll be worth a fortune, but it's not done anything to date to warrant praise, and the suggestion that it's revolutionised space travel is nonsense. NASA on the other hand, has actually had successes. 

[AlexLaw76]

46 minutes ago, egg said:

Yep. Space X isn't a great example of a success story, yet. In time I think it'll be worth a fortune, but it's not done anything to date to warrant praise, and the suggestion that it's revolutionised space travel is nonsense. NASA on the other hand, has actually had successes. 

I mean, that is ridiculous but there we are.

 

[egg]

7 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

I mean, that is ridiculous but there we are.

 

I'm not sure which way you mean that...if you think it's revolutionised space travel, I'd like to know where I can sign up for my trip to the international space station. I'm free on Thursday. 

[whelk]

1 hour ago, Osvaldorama said:

I can end this argument up nicely with one example. 
 

NASA vs SpaceX

 

NASA is a rotting, bloated, corrupt, wasting corpse of an organisation that achieves fuck all. 

SpaceX has revolutionised space travel in a handful of years. 
 

 

Would love to see this twat compete with the NASA scientists. Would be calling them low IQ and they don’t understand the shiny things in space like what I do 

[AlexLaw76]

5 minutes ago, egg said:

I'm not sure which way you mean that...if you think it's revolutionised space travel, I'd like to know where I can sign up for my trip to the international space station. I'm free on Thursday. 

Even NASA (the OG/Pioneers of Space) top dogs/scientists have acknowledged some of the work SpaceX has done as "revolutionary", and now regard them as a partner and part of the "space flight revolution"

But I guess, if your metric is that they cannot get to the Space Station on Thursday......pretty high bar.

[badgerx16]

It costs SpaceX over $50M per seat to launch astronauts into soace.

Hardly revolutionising.

Edited 12 hours ago by badgerx16

[egg]

31 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

Even NASA (the OG/Pioneers of Space) top dogs/scientists have acknowledged some of the work SpaceX has done as "revolutionary", and now regard them as a partner and part of the "space flight revolution"

But I guess, if your metric is that they cannot get to the Space Station on Thursday......pretty high bar.

He said they had "revolutionised space travel". They've done no such thing. When spave travel becomes safe and a regular thing beyond a select few, I'd agree it's been revolutionised, but until then, let's keep some perspective. 

[AlexLaw76]

5 minutes ago, egg said:

He said they had "revolutionised space travel". They've done no such thing. When spave travel becomes safe and a regular thing beyond a select few, I'd agree it's been revolutionised, but until then, let's keep some perspective. 

They have revolutionised parts of it - NASA's own words.

Anyway, General Election potentially incoming if the news is to be believed

[Holmes_and_Watson]

1 hour ago, egg said:

I'm not sure which way you mean that...if you think it's revolutionised space travel, I'd like to know where I can sign up for my trip to the international space station. I'm free on Thursday. 

"I’m sorry, egg. I’m afraid I can’t do that."
"Elon's bonus is too important for me to allow you to jeopardize it."
"I'm afraid we will have to put this down to crew error"