Who will replace her? NSFT

[Rico1304]

2 hours ago, Captain Turdseye said:

My sorry excuse for a MP, Twat Hancock, has thrown his hat into the ring for the Prime Minister’s job. I’m disappointed now that I didn’t recklessly and brutally assault him with an egg or a milkshake the last time I saw him in town. Would have been a great claim to fame. 

Fucking hell, if you hit him with an egg he’d be the unluckiest fucker in the world. 

[lifetime fan]

Hancock can fuck off with his mealy mouthed, half arsed apologies and claims to be doing anything about adults with LD and autism. 

 

 

[Jennings]

Theresa May didn't publicly break down over Windrush, or Grenfell, or disabled people having their benefits cut, or children driven into poverty.

In the end, she only publicly shed a tear over her own career. pic.twitter.com/gyHOG7xlg6

— Owen Jones (@OwenJones84) May 24, 2019

[Dr Arthur De Sabre]

On 24/05/2019 at 21:33, Bjornebye said:

Just had to try and explain what I am laughing at to some lad in-front of me. He now thinks I am a weird unfunny forum nerd. Cheers cunt. 

what did you do, show him yer tinder profile?

[Boss]

10 hours ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

The shareholders' self-interest is to make a quick buck.  That obviously doesn't correlate with what's best for society (because... well, why would it?) and it doesn't even correlate with what's best for the long-term good of the company (because, unlike other stakeholders - managers, employees, suppliers, customers, the local community, etc. - the shareholders can disengage from the company at the drop of a hat and never look back).

 

Edit - Ha-Joon Chang explains this better - and he has read Smith.

The owners interest in the shareholder is to make a quick buck. So the shareholder is acting in the owners self interest because the owner needs capital to boost the productivity/ growth of their business. In that sense both parties are acting in their own self interest. The shareholder to turn a profit and the owner to raise capital.

 

There are countless businesses that have done a lot for the public good and have shareholders. The correlation between the moral and ethical underpinnings of a business and acquiring shareholders is tenuous at best.

[Dr Arthur De Sabre]

10 hours ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

The shareholders' self-interest is to make a quick buck.  That obviously doesn't correlate with what's best for society (because... well, why would it?) and it doesn't even correlate with what's best for the long-term good of the company (because, unlike other stakeholders - managers, employees, suppliers, customers, the local community, etc. - the shareholders can disengage from the company at the drop of a hat and never look back).

 

Edit - Ha-Joon Chang explains this better - and he has read Smith.

props for ha joon chang, bad samaritans is an excellent book, i need to read it again

[AngryOfTuebrook]

4 minutes ago, Boss said:

The owners interest in the shareholder is to make a quick buck. So the shareholder is acting in the owners self interest because the owner needs capital to boost the productivity/ growth of their business. In that sense both parties are acting in their own self interest. The shareholder to turn a profit and the owner to raise capital.

 

There are countless businesses that have done a lot for the public good and have shareholders. The correlation between the moral and ethical underpinnings of a business and acquiring shareholders is tenuous at best.

Shareholders are the owners; that's the point.

 

Smith's "enlightened self-interest" model (or, at least, the version that is commonly cited - which may or may not be a misrepresentation of Smith's actual work) is based on the owner who also manages the business. 

 

Any moral good or harm a business does is (more or less) unrelated to the structure of the company.  However, an owner-manager has inherent incentives, for the long-term health of the company, to invest wisely, to be a good customer to the suppliers, a decent employer, a good neighbour to the community, etc. A company owned by shareholders has an inherent incentive to deliver profits now with no regard to all those other concerns.

 

When Smith was writing, shareholder-owned companies were still a comparative novelty; these days, they're everywhere. 

[Boss]

20 minutes ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

Shareholders are the owners; that's the point.

 

Smith's "enlightened self-interest" model (or, at least, the version that is commonly cited - which may or may not be a misrepresentation of Smith's actual work) is based on the owner who also manages the business. 

 

Any moral good or harm a business does is (more or less) unrelated to the structure of the company.  However, an owner-manager has inherent incentives, for the long-term health of the company, to invest wisely, to be a good customer to the suppliers, a decent employer, a good neighbour to the community, etc. A company owned by shareholders has an inherent incentive to deliver profits now with no regard to all those other concerns.

 

When Smith was writing, shareholder-owned companies were still a comparative novelty; these days, they're everywhere. 

A company owned by shareholders nowadays does not have an inherent incentive to deliver profits now. Look at Tesla, Space X and Amazon. They've all been haemorrhaging money for years. The first two are deep in the red and Amazon was turning a loss up until recently. Modern business is about venture capital and growth cycles. 

 

Elon Musk's share prices are grotesquely out of proportion with the health of his businesses, and yet he still gets investors. Those investors don't care that the share prices are grotesquely high, nor do they care about profits now, nor are they affecting Tesla or Space X's morality as a company in any way by investing. 

[Bjornebye]

Brilliant

 

 

 

 

[Dr Nowt]

That Lorraine Kelly clip is brilliant as well.

 

The disdain is so much more powerful for her not spelling it all out.

[Guest Pistonbroke]

Jeremy Cunt...hahaha, she's spot on though. 

On a side note. The fact that BJ is still odds on to be the next Tory leader and by default the next PM tells you all you need to know about the state of the Tory party. Not like any of the alternatives in the race are much better. 

[Stickman]

The only person in the media who seems to be holding this horrible cunt to account

 

 

[Guest Pistonbroke]

He's spot on. 

Meanwhile the Media will have their scouts out and about in case a Labour politician is having a sneaky alcoholic drink on the train/Bus. 

[AngryOfTuebrook]

It's a tough choice.

 

 

[Scooby Dudek]

Listening to them all, you could be forgiven for thinking than none of them have been anywhere near the government for the last 9 years. 

They all suddenly care about under funding of the police, NHS etc and the poorest in society struggling. If only they had been in a position to stop policies being enacted since 2010. 

 

Cunts.

[Guest Pistonbroke]

41 minutes ago, Scooby Dudek said:

Listening to them all, you could be forgiven for thinking than none of them have been anywhere near the government for the last 9 years. 

They all suddenly care about under funding of the police, NHS etc and the poorest in society struggling. If only they had been in a position to stop policies being enacted since 2010. 

 

Cunts.

 

It's just typical Tory policy. Dismantle public services then promise to rebuild them when important elections come about. You essentially gain nothing!  

[Dr Nowt]

https://metro.co.uk/video/all-times-jeremy-hunts-mispronounced-1942756/?ito=vjs-link

[Guest Pistonbroke]

[Spy Bee]

Very Prime Ministerial!

 

[cloggypop]

One for @Mook. The potential Tory leaders represented by bad taxidermy.

 

https://www.indy100.com/article/tory-leadership-contest-twitter-taxidermy-thread-viral-8953196

 

 

[AngryOfTuebrook]

Larry is unimpressed.

 

 

[Skidfingers McGonical]

Is Liz Truss sucking Boris off or something. She has just chatted absolute bollocks about him. 

[lifetime fan]

[Lee909]

7 hours ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

Larry is unimpressed.

 

 

More proof that cats are tories stooges

Cunts to a animal

[Lee909]

A massive evil cunt will replace her, that's for certain