SPAM This thread is for random spam!!

[Scouse]

From what i heard a lot of the little companies with amazing deals were never a real viable business. It was short termism getting as many cuustomers as possible so they were attractive to be bought out by one of the big guys and the owners walk away with loadsa money.

seems to have back fired now tho. As they cant hang on long enough with prices as high as they are.

the customer is just a huge opportunity pool for a few companies to exploit.

Nothing has backfired. The objective was for the owners to walk away with loadsa money. Which they've done. Quite handsomly.

 

[Moriath]

Nothing has backfired. The objective was for the owners to walk away with loadsa money. Which they've done. Quite handsomly.

Not as much as if they had stayed afloat long enough to be bought out.

 

[Scouse]

More microplastics in babies’ faeces than in adults’ – study

Researchers say children’s mouthing behaviour and products such as bottles may be to blame

www.theguardian.com

 

[Scouse]

Not as much as if they had stayed afloat long enough to be bought out.

You take home a couple of million quid in dividends, who gives a shit after that?

 

[MYstIC G]

You take home a couple of million quid in dividends, who gives a shit after that?

<Scouse Voice>Must give examples, specifics, etc.</Scouse Voice>

 

[Scouse]

<Scouse Voice>Must give examples, specifics, etc.</Scouse Voice>

Any of the energy companies that have gone under? Pick one?

They're not run as charities you know. If you own and run a private company it's for the money.

 

[DaGaffer]

It doesn't to me. It sounds like the dems vs the republicans. I.E. not much difference between them, preservation of the status quo.

Problem is the status quo means inequality and, crucially, environmental devestation on a global scale.

So for me - we need radical change. It doesn't necessarily have to be leftist either. It just needs to be radically different - and "safe pair of hands" doesn't deliver that - it just delivers more of the same.

No, it delivers "not Boris Johnson". And when has "radical change" been anything other than a disaster in politics?

 

[Gwadien]

No, it delivers "not Boris Johnson". And when has "radical change" been anything other than a disaster in politics?

NHS?

 

[Scouse]

No, it delivers "not Boris Johnson". And when has "radical change" been anything other than a disaster in politics?

I don't recall "radical change" happening in politics in living memory.

I think the creation of the NHS was probably the last time we had radical (ish) change in the UK. And that was pretty great for the previously healthcare-less, no?

 

[Scouse]

NHS?

 

[MYstIC G]

Any of the energy companies that have gone under? Pick one?

They're not run as charities you know. If you own and run a private company it's for the money.

k, so #showmethemoney then

 

[DaGaffer]

NHS?

"Radical" that actually took 40 years and two world wars to achieve. The welfare state and NHS didn't come out of the blue; they were the end point of process that began with National insurance in 1911, and probably the most "radical" aspect was the Beveridge Report that created a dialogue between State and populus that's never really been repeated, probably because the dialogue took place in the middle of the biggest exisentential crisis for Britain in its history; a unique circumstance (and when you read about soldiers in the jungles in Burma discussing Beveridge over their evening char, probably truly our finest hour).

So no, I don't believe in radical change; that's for Russians and Frenchmen who don't mind killing their countrymen in carload lots; we got over that nonsense after Cromwell.

 

[Scouse]

I don't believe in radical change; that's for Russians and Frenchmen who don't mind killing their countrymen in carload lots; we got over that nonsense after Cromwell.

I don't believe in radical change. I believe in necessary change.

 

[Moriath]

You take home a couple of million quid in dividends, who gives a shit after that?

If they have no company they have no dividends. Company going bust means nothing to pay to share holders

 

[Moriath]

Any of the energy companies that have gone under? Pick one?

They're not run as charities you know. If you own and run a private company it's for the money.

And if it goes bust you lose your money. Yr talking shite again.

 

[Moriath]

NHS?

100 years ago. Now mane something else ?

 

[Ormorof]

A lot more hung parliaments which will struggle to pass anything imo

Except that doesn't happen on vast majority of places that have it already (Belgium being obvious outlier, but their whole country is a mess of cultural, linguistic shit). Proportional representation makes a lot of sense to me, 10% of vote = 10% of representation. Now on UK you have cases where a party gets millions of votes but gets no representation at all. That kind of thing festers and causes discontent.

 

[Ormorof]

And if it goes bust you lose your money. Yr talking shite again.

Govt bailouts will protect the shareholders. They are the one donating to the parties after all not Scouse and his eco hippies in the hills

 

[Ormorof]

On the news yesterday:
"Generals from Russian and US military met in secret today in Finland..."

Clearly not that secret if its on the fucking news

 

[Raven]

And if it goes bust you lose your money. Yr talking shite again.

Owners of companies rarely lose out when companies go bust. Well, small firms obviously do, but not the larger ones. For some it's even costed in. Milk customers for a few years, make your profit, who cares after that.

 

[Raven]

Except that doesn't happen on vast majority of places that have it already (Belgium being obvious outlier, but their whole country is a mess of cultural, linguistic shit). Proportional representation makes a lot of sense to me, 10% of vote = 10% of representation. Now on UK you have cases where a party gets millions of votes but gets no representation at all. That kind of thing festers and causes discontent.

If we had PR then UKIP would have won seats

 

[Ormorof]

If we had PR then UKIP would have won seats

As they should if people voted for them.

 

[Scouse]

If they have no company they have no dividends. Company going bust means nothing to pay to share holders

After that @Moriath. They didn't start up this year then go bust. Most of them have been around for a while.

If you had a company run at massive financial risk because you've not got the assets to cope with price rises are you going to give a shit if you have to fold it, lay off your staff, sell all the assets back to your next phoenix company at the princely sum of £1, wait for the storm to pass then open up a new company, hire most of your old staff back, use the customer list you've sold yourself to contact your old customers about your "great new power company" and then start extracting money again?

The shareholders don't have to be stock market shareholders. You can have a single shareholder in small companies. Or just a couple. They declare their own dividends and pension contributions and remuneration. That's the whole point of companies.

And if all these tiny companies are at risk of going bust because of wholesale energy prices - it shows that they're running very lean whilst extracting profit.

And if it goes bust you lose your money. Yr talking shite again.

No. If it goes bust - you lose future earnings from that company. Nothing else.

You've already taken your salary (you decided what that was), dividends (you decided how much they were) and pension (you maxed that the fuck out) every year for your company being open. When your company "goes bust" - you know that's going to happen in advance. So you pay yourself up, make yourself redundant (you decide how much your redundancy payment is) and lay your staff off.

If you can't pay your creditors you put your company into administration (there are companies who handle that for you). And don't have to pay your company's debts - it's tough titties for everyone else.

But you sit pretty. Because you've got your client list, it takes all of an hour to open another company - so you invent a company name "lolz, it's just another day in money extraction.co" - and then wait for wholesale prices to come back down. Rinse = repeat.

Start getting customer cash in. Run at risk. Take dividends. Take salary. Take pension.


Honestly @Moriath. It's clear you've no idea how the world works.

 

[Scouse]

Govt bailouts will protect the shareholders. They are the one donating to the parties after all not Scouse and his eco hippies in the hills

Shareholders for these small companies - @MYstIC G's Green Energy being one - there's 4 of them. They were taking home about £235k/year. 29 staff (including the four shareholders - they had a few more staff in 2019 but laid some customer service guys off).

They won't get a government bailout. But they'll have the customer lists, know how to run an energy business at-risk and know the relationships. When the market conditions change they'll open a new company, new marketing, start again.

Easy.

 

[Raven]

Most of these companies are buying the energy and then selling it at mark-up, it's very risk-free in that they employ low earning customer service reps and that's it, very little in the way of assets except a database that can be held on a USB stick. They can fold and open as much as they like without worrying about losing skills. Very lucrative.

 

[Scouse]

Most of these companies are buying the energy and then selling it at mark-up, it's very risk-free in that they employ low earning customer service reps and that's it, very little in the way of assets except a database that can be held on a USB stick. They can fold and open as much as they like without worrying about losing skills. Very lucrative.

Yep. And they guarantee low prices which is how they get their customers.

If the wholesale market goes up they just fold. Wait. Reopen.

Utilities shouldn't be privately owned. The only thing that happens with privately owned utilities is that private individuals make away with profits. Look at the water companies - it's funny how the amounts paid to shareholders in dividends almost exactly matches the amounts NOT spent on maintaining the infrastructure. It's looking increasingly likely that the government (the taxpayer) will step in and spend that money (our taxes) on fixing this - then they'll re-privatise and shareholders can start making out and not investing again.

It's certainly looking that way when we're talking about them dumping millions of tonnes of raw untreated sewage into our rivers. Because the fines the companies (rarely) get don't add up to the profit they're making - so why would they bother treating sewage?

Funny that Tory-boy thinks that private individuals in these industries stand to lose when companies go bust. I bet half the tory voters thinks it works like that. And the idea of voting for someone who'd nationalise the power or water companies horrifies them.

 

[Tom]

A lot more hung parliaments which will struggle to pass anything imo

It turns out that a balanced debate tends to produce a balanced outcome. So parties that want to execute people for crimes (like Priti Patel) tend to achieve nothing.

 

[Embattle]

I have no problem with water being nationalised since there is no competition, but no to most other services but I want tighter regulation.

 

[Moriath]

View: https://twitter.com/tanisthelesbiab/status/1440470893587623941

 

[Scouse]

Anyone recommend a waterproof solar led light with a timer?

I need one for my chicken coop. Want to put the solar on the roof, LED inside on a timer so it comes on from 4pm > 9pm. The guineas won't go back inside otherwise.