Re: Promise... Yeah, right?
1. Dog ate my homework
2. Cheque's in the post
3. Google we promise not to
Actually the We Promise Not To bit can be seen as a lie if said by pretty much any multinational company.
235 posts • joined 26 Feb 2010
From last nights QI, there's somebody earning about $200,000 a month from playing with slime, and seeing how many chicken nuggets she can cram into her mouth. So I can see why YouTube looks tempting to a kid. Fuck! It looks tempting to me! (as the World circles round the plughole)
Bit OT but, long ago there was a childrens TV program called The Tomorrow People (sometimes credited with showing what now would be called a Tablet for the first time).
In one episode a character says "One law for the rich, another law for the poor" but he gets corrected
"The correct saying is "One law for both rich and poor, to prevent either from stealing bread, or sleeping under bridges"."
Which to my mind is a much more subtle and truthful way to put it.
Setting up artificial barriers to trade rarely works.
After WW2, the US was worried that well made and cheap consumer goods from Japan would cause problems for domestic producers (this was in a time when exchange rates were officially set by govenments - not a mechanism that can be used in these days). So the US overvalued the Yen-$ exchange rate to make Japanese products more expensive in the US. All that happened was Americans still bought the Japanese goods, but now Japan ended up with a lot more $ in their bank accounts than they would have had.
Tariffs are of course different, a direct tax rise on American consumers, so the extra $'s ends up in US Gov. hands, but these seemingly aimed at luxury goods could well end up adding to the cachet of these imports, maybe even increasing sales.
Have no doubt that if the maximum tax rate was only 1% anywhere in the world, most of these Corporations would still be trying to avoid paying.
The UK Gov and companies attitude for many years has been "Why make/produce something expensively here, when we can buy cheaper from abroad?" ignoring the fact that the expensive part (wages/salaries) will now have to be supported by the taxpayer as unemployment benefit etc. It even makes sense if you can say that your carbon footprint has been vastly reduced by exporting your manufacturing and production. The next Big Idea to meet Government promises about becoming carbon neutral is "If we stop producing food here, and plant trees instead, we can meet our carbon reduction promise." This was given pause by Covid-19 showing how important locally produced food is, but no doubt it will be back on the agenda soon. And it's easilly done, just reduce farm support to your local farmers so it becomes economically unviable to produce local food, and instead buy your food from farmers abroad that do enjoy being subsidised by their government (all of Europe and N America for instance). Might have to lower our food standards -chlorinated chicken anyone?- but Hey look how Green we are now! We exported our pollution again to look good.
There is a petition going to keep UK food standards up to the level we enjoy now - https://www.campaigns.nfuonline.com/page/56262/petition/1 - which I emplore you to sign.
If you want to see a farmers view on this, see Harry Medcalf with his Farmers hat on, instead of Petrol Head hat - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7e6lR8R82Ec - and watch from about the 15m 30s mark.
Sorry for a bit of a rant, but idiotic decisions by our "Leaders" get my goat. Can you imagine France or Italy doing anything so idiotic as closing down their farms just to basically Virtue Signal the rest of the World for no point?
Cadbury were bought by Kraft (now called Mondelez) not Hershey. Despite reassurances to the British Government of the day when buying Cadbury (you can guess where this goes when a greedy Multinational Company promises something), they moved production first to Poland, then onto China, India, Brazil and Mexico, closing plants in UK, Canada, New Zealand, USA and Ireland.
It brings up moral questions too. Already some countries are willing to go beyond what not too many years ago would have been considered immoral, if not illegal acts, provided none of "Our Guys" are hurt or killed. Think of drone strikes to wipe out "terrorists" (and the occasional wedding party) in Pakistan for instance. When there's no consequenses to your act, there is less reason not to do it. It is another step towards the "Willing to kill, but not willing to die" doctrine, but the risk of your people dying is one of the great deterrents to using violence to get your political agenda adopted.
Anyway, as that documentary "Terminator" showed us, the first step to Skynet wiping us out was pilotless F117's with a 100% success rate.
It's a damning statement when you say (quite correctly in my opinion) that the unelected House of Lords would be less clueless than the elected House of Commons. FFS, Prince Charles and the Queen could run the bloody country better than the shower in The Commons! I'm pretty sure half the MPs think they know about Personal Protective Equipment cos they all got degrees in PPE.
It used to be that a drink with up to 2% alcohol could be sold as "non alcoholic". I remember as a kid being able to buy Shandy from a sweetshop with nearly 2% alcohol, There was an uproar when it was pointed out that if Watneys Red Barrel got any weaker (I'm guessing to lower Wantneys tax bill) it could be sold to children in sweetshops. Watneys ditched Red Barrel, upped the alcohol and re-branded it as Watneys Red.
However, where there IS extra letter(s) in a word, people that are used to simplified spelling seem to lose the ability to pronounce the word. Listen to the hash you get when some people try to say "bouy". It seems to have become "boo ee" now. I always want to ask them if their "boo ee ancy" tanks are ok, or if their economy is "boo ee ant". Don't get me started on Loughborough...
I'd never trust a billionaire or mega corp that announces how "generous" they are in a crisis. It'll probably turn out to be a PR stunt, with headline numbers but hoping no one will keep track of what is actually spent. Look at the pledges to restore Notre Dame Cathederal after the fire to what was actually donated by these people and companies.
The only good ones give anonomously, with no PR bullshit. One that comes to mind is Sir John Paul Getty Jr. but most of his generosity was secret, only being revealed after his death in 2006. There was a story about him attending a presentation to gather donations for (I think it was) a portable field hospital that could be deployed quickly to places hit by natural disasters. After the presentation he asked how much they cost, and being told £1,000,000, said "I'll buy two of them for you".
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020