Boom Boom

All good and well if your ambition in life is to be a retailer. If you want society to produce doctors, scientists, and engineers, they really require formal training. Just because your line of work requires no formal education at all does not make it so universally.

In theory the grammar school system offered bright children from economically disadvantages backgrounds the opportunity for a much better education than they would otherwise be afforded. In practise children from poor families were still disenfranchised as desperate middle class parents spent money getting their children tutored prior to entrance exams, greasing the palms of admission officers, and generally using their money to buy advantage within the system. In other words, very little actually changed.

In isolation there is likely no benefit, but an economy is a continuum. You seem to have a prejudice towards people in low paid employment, and can summon only spiteful and insulting commentary about their lives. Does being in a low paid job mean that one is a confounded dullard with a greater propensity to smoke, gamble and indulge in alcohol? The pejorative tone is striking, as is how one's income can put an entirely different gloss on behaviour that would otherwise draw scorn. I know plenty of people on high salaries that drink, smoke, and gamble to excess; and yet I cannot imagine you'd ever adopt the same condescending tone when discussing how these people chose to live their lives and dispose of their income.

Right, and your argument is that if every company was like Bentley (a place where the production workers could never afford the cars they build) the economy would tick along unimpeded. A consumer is simply a worker out of uniform, they aren't a seperate species. When they're not slaving away for your benefit, they're spending the pocket money you pay them with other retailers. Contrary to what you may believe (and this seems prevalent amongst employers) your staff do not pop out of existence at the end of each working day, only to rematerialise the next morning; the do actually have an existence outside of working for you.

Given their client base I guess the demand is there.

So using this logic, the economy would be booming if all staff were reclassified as slaves.

Waitrose are actually cheaper than ASDA for quite a few things, and ASDA don't sell poulet d'or, only freakshow intensively bred chickens that taste like plastic.

It's a bit of a myth really. Their staff don't seem to have to work any harder than staff in any other big supermarket.

Ahh, but SNACR solved this problem. You see ASDA can just trade with it's suppliers, and this means they don't need customers outside of other businesses.

Why would they? They brought their banks down, and the state promptly paid off their bad debts, and very accommodatingly allowed them to get back to exactly the same culture of remuneration that created the problem in the first place.

Just read some of the comments, these people really are totally out of touch with reality. Their idea of wealth creation is to get 2 companies to merge, shed half of their collective staff, and share the spoils amongst themselves and the company directors.

What this film seems to miss is that governments act they way they do because they are effectively little more than extensions of corporate boardrooms. The same companies that gunslinger Regan gushed about are amongst the ones that have lined the pockets of corrupt politicians and lobbyists to make this massive transfer of wealth happen.

Your forgot the step between depression and acceptance...VIOLENCE!

If you look at the spec level I think you'll find it is up there with a Lexus.

You seem oblivious to the distinction between the Western industrial revolution, and what is happening in places like Bangladesh. There is no silver lining for countries like Bangladesh, the pennies paid to their workers are not going to seed the growth of higher living standards.

Repeating the same tired mantra won't make it any more true. How did the ancestors of the people working in these workhouses manage without slaving away for Western companies? These cultures prospered for many centuries before any of these corporations existed.

Which is why anything you say on the issue should be disregarded as it is wed to a globalist agenda. You're nothing more than a useful idiot, serving the lie that exporting exploitation is a viable path to economic development.

Right, so the cure for crass exploitation is more crass exploitation? These people would be better off living off the land, as their ancestors did for generations.Being de-facto slaves for immoral Western corporations is a retrograde step in developmental terms.

Almost all B2B trade exists to facilitate the delivery of goods and services to a external consumer base. No consumer base means there is no employee base, and consequently nearly all businesses would be non viable. Now, if your contention is that an individual can keep a few chickens, and swap a few eggs for a pint of milk to someone keeping a few cows, that's fine, but that wasn't the argument you were making. You seemed to be arguing that complex businesses that produce things that would require staff could continue, and clearly this isn't the case. Let's say your guy keeping chickens scales his business up, but this requires employees, as soon as he hires them he's created the seeds of a consumer base, and consequently broken this hypothetical perfect circles of inter business trading.

And here comes the Injin defence which briefly summarised allows one to redefine the nature of any, precept, physical reality or immutable law of nature, in service of the lie that just because something isn't literally impossible it's actually achievable.

And as usual you didn't answer my question. What part of the infantile rubbish you wrote do you feel warrants the utilisation of my time? If you can't see the very implicit flaw in the idea that B2B trade can sustain an economy in the absence of a consumer base external to that chain, well, I just don't see what basis there is for discussion.

Maybe you could suggest it, you never seen to be absent from these threads for long.

And this shows how little you understand economics, and the extent to which you believe yourself to be elevated from 'the salaried PAYE wage slave type'. Would I be right in assuming that you've never told one of your staff (without whom you'd have no business) that they are nothing to you but part of the 'PAYE class'?

And what? You're here under the aegis of civic-minded philanthropy I assume?

Given the extraordinary robustness of SNACR's trading model, I'm surprised he's not expanded his empire to the moon. If the problem of having no customers can't stop him, the vacuum of space should prove no obstacle either.