|
Post by Gerard on Dec 6, 2013 0:09:02 GMT -5
is not Paddy the asset-stripper;
nor is it the "business-men" on the board with no knowledge of aero-planes;
nor is it Paddy's new route to London with stop-over in some god-forsaken sandy shaykhdom where homo-sexualists fear to go (instead of the supremely blessed Singapore);
nor is it even that a lot of amercian israelites have in their dubious wisdom given the shares "junk-rating";
no, it is the noisy multitudes of antipodal monster-children who play cricket up and down the aisles for the duration of the flights.
|
|
|
Post by Gerard on Dec 6, 2013 0:10:34 GMT -5
But having said that, were I ever to find myself in a position of authority I would outlaw all "business," and make being a "business-man" a criminal offence.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 6, 2013 3:36:33 GMT -5
But is not a certain busyness a good thing in and of itself, Gerard? Writing in ' The Australian', Steve Creedy reports that S&P cuts Qantas rating to junk. Pressure on Qantas chief executive Alan Joyce intensified yesterday after the airline's investment-grade credit rating was downgraded by Standard and Poor's to junk status and analysts predicted the airline faced up to two years of financial pain. The ratings agency downgraded the airline's BBB-/A3 rating to BB+/B and lowered unsecured debt ratings to BB+ after the company said it would make a first-half underlying pre-tax loss of $250 million to $300m. The warning came as a number of analysts savagely downgraded earnings estimates and predicted underlying pre-tax losses of up to $150m in fiscal 2015 before the airline claws its way back into the black. Qantas shares went into a brief trading halt yesterday before resuming trade and closed at $1.03, down a further 4c. S&P said the downgrade reflected its view that intense competition in the airline industry had weakened Qantas's business risk profile to "fair" from "satisfactory", and its financial risk profile to "significant" from "intermediate". "We don't expect Qantas to recover to a credit profile commensurate with a BBB- rating in the near term," the agency said. "We recognise that Qantas has strong financial flexibility and a good track record of responding to earnings pressures through cost-cutting and other measures. "However, we believe in the current circumstances the benefits would take time to realise and the positive impact would not be sufficient to outweigh the pressure on Qantas's stand-alone credit profile." Moody's has placed the airline's Baa3 rating on review for a possible downgrade unless it receives government support -- which now seems highly unlikely -- or management takes measures to address its problems. Moody's said yesterday the situation had not changed. The loss of the investment-grade credit rating will make borrowing more expensive for Qantas. The downgrade puts Qantas in the same camp as most airlines. Only two other carriers -- Southwest Airlines and Lufthansa Group -- have investment grade ratings. Qantas said yesterday that its structural review and plan to reduce costs by $2 billion over three years would ensure it retained "balance sheet strength and maximum flexibility". Steve concludes thus: I don't actually think that there is any more of a problem with Qantas than with the rest of the airline industry. Competition is tough, and it is difficult for airlines to make money. For the record, I have never flown Qantas, I try and avoid flying, although for intercontinental travel, time constraints usually force me on to a commercial airliner. As for business, well, tourism is arguably the biggest industry of the twenty-first century. Business or first class passengers may be more profitable for the airlines, but most passengers would probably choose to travel economy class, and spend their money elsewhere!
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Dec 6, 2013 9:32:34 GMT -5
But having said that, were I ever to find myself in a position of power I would outlaw all "business," and make being a "business-man" a criminal offence. Those who fly on Quantas or indeed any other airline are not exclusively "businessmen", as is obvious from your own remarks about cricket-playing children; businesswomen also fly (and use other methods of public transport) as do those who travel for leisure purposes. That said, were you successfully to outlaw all business activity, there would be not only be no airlines or other transportation companies, there would also be no work of any kind for anyone - so, problem solved! (if only to be replaced by another one billions of times greater)...
|
|
|
Post by Gerard on Dec 6, 2013 23:36:56 GMT -5
. . . were you successful[l]y to outlaw all business activity, there would be not only be no airlines or other transportation companies, there would also be no work of any kind for anyone . . . Evidently I have been insufficiently explicit. By "business" I intend an activity set up and operated for the purpose of the enrichment of individual persons. I did not mean government-owned corporations and the like such as are described in the Wiki-pædia at: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_EnterpriseSo, contrary to what the esteemed member assumes, it certainly is possible to ban "business" without abolishing air-lines and other forms of public transport.
|
|
|
Post by Gerard on Dec 6, 2013 23:55:07 GMT -5
What an amusing photo-graph kleines c! I have saved it. And in regard to passenger behaviour, I remember when, many years ago - in 1967 to be precise, when I wasn't so fussy - I happened to fly from Beiruit to Karachi on a 707 of Pakistan air-lines, and one or two groups of peasants during that flight lit up little Primus stoves in the aisles to prepare their beverages. For all I know they may still do it! The population of Karachi is estimated now to be twenty-four million souls.
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Dec 7, 2013 2:37:22 GMT -5
. . . were you successful[l]y to outlaw all business activity, there would be not only be no airlines or other transportation companies, there would also be no work of any kind for anyone . . . Evidently I have been insufficiently explicit. By "business" I intend an activity set up and operated for the purpose of the enrichment of individual persons. I did not mean government-owned corporations and the like such as are described in the Wiki-pædia at: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_EnterpriseSo, contrary to what the esteemed member assumes, it certainly is possible to ban "business" without abolishing air-lines and other forms of public transport. Subject to whatever you might mean by "enrichment of individual persons", as I am not aware of any business, whether or not state owned and/or run, that pays no individuals to work within it, it is clear that all employees of such businesses will "enrich" themselves from their salaries (albeit insufficiently in many cases). In any case, no government is going - or would be able - to take over and run every business now in private hands; how would a government find the funds even to acquire every such business in the first place, let alone to run them? How would such a government even know what businesses to start up? The prospect that a government would run every one of its country's airlines and other transortation firms is quite simply a non-starter; you'd end up with a massive reduction in service and consequent unemployment that would cost the state squillions more again. It's just as well that you're not in such a "position of authority"! Wiki isn't hyphenated, incidentally; you seem to be picking up a habit from somewhere...
|
|
|
Post by Gerard on Dec 7, 2013 3:08:56 GMT -5
It should be beyond question that omnibus drivers, school-teachers, and the like are not business-men. They perform their duties for governments local, national, and (sure to come) world. They do not sit on any board of directors! In an ideal world it would be possible for them to perform their valuable duties without "money" exchanging hands at all would it not. Let us work - nay strive - towards that goal! Removing the parasitical business-men from the picture would have no effect upon omnibus drivers and school-teachers.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 7, 2013 5:02:06 GMT -5
What makes money, Gerard?
|
|
|
Post by Gerard on Dec 7, 2013 5:56:01 GMT -5
What makes money, Gerard? "Money" is required not only as a medium of exchange and a measure of values, but as a standard for deferred payments. So long as contracts into which time enters as an element are expressed in terms of money, it is necessary that the standard adopted should possess comparative stability of value. It is at this point that one of the most serious difficulties of the subject arises, for it is now universally admitted that any such thing as a commodity with absolute stability of value is unattainable. What J. S. Mill called the "equation between demand and supply" may be expressed in the following form. In any market, a price is arrived at such that the quantity demanded at that price is equal to the quantity offered. Any increase in the competition of buyers will tend to raise the price, and the rise in the price will drive the poorest and least eager of the competitors from the circle of demanders; whilst, on the other hand, the same rise will tend to induce dealers who had been withholding their stocks to come forward. Is it not heartless and cruel of horrid old Mill to expect poor - but respectable - old ladies to go to the market and enter some "competition" to demonstrate their "eagerness" (which we should rather call "despair")? As Professor Cairnes long ago pointed out, all J. S. Mill's boasted equation amounted to was, that in any market the quantity bought at a price was precisely equal to the quantity sold at that price; no doubt quite true, but also quite useless.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 7, 2013 6:17:57 GMT -5
But what makes it, Gerard?
|
|
|
Post by Gerard on Dec 7, 2013 7:14:14 GMT -5
As I attempted to indicate, it is born of the unholy combination of the desperation of the poor and the greed of the capitalists. Sparked by the haves rubbing off against the have-nots, and vice versa. If there were no such thing as property there would be no capitalists and no money. So the first steps of any principled government must be a) to ban property, and b) to institute absolute fairness and equality of distribution everywhere.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 7, 2013 8:49:59 GMT -5
This is not what makes money, Gerard! On topic, I suppose that Qantas, like any commercial airline, attempts to make money by flying its customers around the world. Or to be more precise, Qantas currently loses money by flying its customers around the world. I suppose that if I were to fly to Australia, I could buy a ticket from Qantas, and if I paid enough for my ticket, Qantas could then make some money out of kleines c. Of course, the travel industry is highly competitive, and there are plenty of other commercial airlines who would be happy to fly me to Australia. So there has to be a good reason for me to choose to fly with Qantas. The only way I can make money from such a transaction is if I can sell something as a result of my journey. I am not sure that many Australians would be keen on kleines c, Gerard, so I suspect that very much like the England cricket team, I would be on to a loser, so to speak!
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Dec 7, 2013 11:20:37 GMT -5
It should be beyond question that omnibus drivers, school-teachers, and the like are not business-men. They perform their duties for governments local, national, and (sure to come) world. They do not sit on any board of directors! In an ideal world it would be possible for them to perform their valuable duties without "money" exchanging hands at all would it not. Let us work - nay strive - towards that goal! Removing the parasitical business-men from the picture would have no effect upon omnibus drivers and school-teachers. Even that is not entirely true. Those who start up their own transport or edcuation service companies are businessmen and businesswomen. However, those who work in the private sector as school teachers and lecturers, bus and train drivers, airline pilots, taxi drivers et al may not run their own businesses and are therefore themselves not strictly speaking businessmen and businesswomen but they work for such people's firms and a few of them may indeed sit on boards of directors (although most will not, of course). Romoving business men and businesswomen from the picture would affect everyone who works for their businesses. That said, the idea that such people - or indeed any people at all - would be expected to work for themselves, other people's private firms or the government without remuneration would be ridiculous; how would they support themselves?
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Dec 7, 2013 11:48:23 GMT -5
As I attempted to indicate, it is born of the unholy combination of the desperation of the poor and the greed of the capitalists. Sparked by the haves rubbing off against the have-nots, and vice versa. If there were no such thing as property there would be no capitalists and no money. So the first steps of any principled government must be a) to ban property, and b) to institute absolute fairness and equality of distribution everywhere. How can you "ban" property"? By destroying it altogether? It exists and will continue to exist unless and until it is wholly and permanently destroyed and not replaced. Is that what you seek to advocate?
|
|