Banks, Privatised Companies, Supermarkets, Media, etc.

Discussion in 'Time Out' started by Rhyl Lightworks, Jul 1, 2012.

?

Is there something wrong with banks, privatised companies, media companies, supermark

Poll closed Jul 8, 2012.
  1. Nothing is wrong with these companies.

    1 vote(s)
    20.0%
  2. They should all have some form of state ownership

    1 vote(s)
    20.0%
  3. They should be left as they are but regulation of them should be increased.

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  4. There is something wrong but I do not know what the solution is.

    1 vote(s)
    20.0%
  5. There is something wrong and I would propose another solution (in the thread)

    2 vote(s)
    40.0%
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Rhyl Lightworks

    Rhyl Lightworks UKBF Ace Free Member

    2,536 425
    I believe most of these are tarred with the same brush, using any means at all (even if illegal) to increase their value of shares so their shareholders make lots of money at the expense of their customers, to whom they pay lip service only. (Privatised companies include energy companies, telecommunication companies, etc. who Thatcher privatised in the 80s and 90s)

    Do you agree with me, and if so what is to be done? Or do you not and is everything in the garden lovely?

    Barrie
     
    Posted: Jul 1, 2012 By: Rhyl Lightworks Member since: Aug 16, 2006
    #1
  2. Subbynet

    Subbynet UKBF Legend

    6,066 1,101
    You just described every company listed on any stock market.

    Solutions are hard to find really, but I think forcing more longer term trades is probably the best idea.

    If shares had to be held for a minimum of 7 days, the speculation that exists and which causes so many issues would decrease surely. I just can't see how millisecond trading helps in the real world.
     
    Posted: Jul 1, 2012 By: Subbynet Member since: Aug 1, 2005
    #2
  3. sirearl

    sirearl UKBF Legend Free Member

    29,807 6,643
    Putting the essentials of life into the hands of a small group of privately owned cartels many being owned by foreign financial institutes never seemed like a good idea to me.

    Having witnessed the huge increases in prices of essential services after privatisation.

    I suspect I may be right for once.:)
     
    Posted: Jul 1, 2012 By: sirearl Member since: Apr 23, 2007
    #3
  4. Rhyl Lightworks

    Rhyl Lightworks UKBF Ace Free Member

    2,536 425
    I agree with all of this except the first sentence - I have described about half the companies in the FT100 - for example no pharmacuetical companies are included - they cleaned their act up by increasing regulation after the thalidomide debacle. Also the stock exchange lists far more than 100 companies.

    Quote by SirEarl; 'Putting the essentials of life into the hands of a small group of privately owned cartels many being owned by foreign financial institutes never seemed like a good idea to me.

    Having witnessed the huge increases in prices of essential services after privatisation.

    I suspect I may be right for once.'

    I agree with this also and I think a form of state ownership (e.g. the BBC model) may be the way to go, but this is very unlikely under the present government, which is Conservative with a small 'c' as well as a large one. It is equally unlikely I feel under the other major parties. I was looking for some very much more radical proposals, such as abolishing the stock exchange altogether, but none have been forthcoming yet, either here or elsewhere.

    Shakespeare had something to say about most situations, and I feel his quote from Hamlet 'Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.' is apposite here.
     
    Posted: Jul 1, 2012 By: Rhyl Lightworks Member since: Aug 16, 2006
    #4
  5. internetspaceships

    internetspaceships Banned Full Member

    6,981 2,328
    The reason service prices went up was as much to do with the the appallingly bad way they were run at a loss by beaurocrats who had no idea about running a business within its costs, as the need to make profits.
     
    Posted: Jul 1, 2012 By: internetspaceships Member since: Sep 7, 2009
    #5
  6. sirearl

    sirearl UKBF Legend Free Member

    29,807 6,643
    Is there a need to make a profit out of the essentials of life.?

    There may have been no profits but there was certainly a better and more affordable quality of life.IMHO

    Then we subsidised on a small scale ,now the subsidies are on a huge scale,:eek:
     
    Posted: Jul 1, 2012 By: sirearl Member since: Apr 23, 2007
    #6
  7. hmmm

    hmmm UKBF Newcomer Free Member

    1,722 127
    oh yes sirearl i feel your right twice. how cool

    but then those words appear .you know the ones. the ones that scare people.
    the ones that make it ok to be making the big profit from need.you know the ones.
    if there was no profit no one would do it.we would have no food or power or homes we would be living in trees .we need them
     
    Last edited: Jul 2, 2012
    Posted: Jul 2, 2012 By: hmmm Member since: Apr 14, 2011
    #7
  8. sirearl

    sirearl UKBF Legend Free Member

    29,807 6,643
    Not quite sure how you come to that conclusion ?

    By far the majority of people work to earn a living which is somewhat different to making a profit.

    Yer but if the company did not make a profit then they would have no jobs.:p

    logic of the dim.Man has survived long before business became popular way to get richer than the next guy.:)
     
    Posted: Jul 2, 2012 By: sirearl Member since: Apr 23, 2007
    #8
  9. hmmm

    hmmm UKBF Newcomer Free Member

    1,722 127
    i didnt say about making NO profit. its the amount.
    only big counts.this has to be true because im being told if certain top scale areas get taxed or taxed more then they will leave.to jupiter venus or some place.not sure where i can only guess .this tells me profit size counts only.this cannot be true bwanna
     
    Posted: Jul 2, 2012 By: hmmm Member since: Apr 14, 2011
    #9
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.