Why does the word Autumn, have an "n" at the end? Why does "psycho" start with a pee? Why can't we correct these obvious mistakes?
Because language is sacrosanct. That's means you can't change it because "we" won't allow it. There's an unwritten code that as society advances and discovers new advanced things we will keep certain rubishy old things and call it our heritage.
In Iceland they stayed out of the Eurozone and staunchly protected their currency as their Soveriegn Right. Now, their banks have collapsed, their Soveriegn Right is worth fuck-all and they want to join the Eurozone. Denied. Countries with shit loads of debt aren't allowed in (except Italy and Greece). Should have joined when you were doing well and you wouldn't be screwed now.
Is this what it's going to take to make England join the Eurozone? Yes it is. That's all there is to it. You know full well that as soon as the Euro overtakes the Pound all of those macho sovereign posturing media types will be blaming the govevernment for not joining the Euro "when we had it good".
The government knows that it's irrelevant, it's just a trump card. The next time England hits serious finincial problems they'll say "let's join the Euro, that was my idea, I thought of it because I put the country first and I'm in touch with the people".
I can buy Cheddar and HP sauce in Brussels, HP Sauce is made in Holland anyway, they moved last year. They kept the picture of Big Ben on the lable though. The recipe comes from India. Britain needs it's sauce factory but it should be called International Sauce instead of HP and the picture should be an artists sketch of the Solar System.
Why don't we just sack all the politicians and become a global society already? We can still have flags and songs and Olypmics and Football but why do we need these boring twats harping on day after day about the FooTSiE, the Hang Seng, a quarter point off interest rates, the pound against the dollar? Just wipe it all out, one global currency, no interest rates, no inflation, no exchange rates. Do we really need those things? You go to France for a day trip to get cheap fags and booze, swap your pounds for euros and swap euros for pounds on the way back. Isn't it rather pointless? Just use plastic, then there is no currency, you can still get fags and booze. If we used plastic for everything who would care or notice about pounds and euros?
Better still we have to make credit cards out of recycled paper, or even better use a dna scanner to identfy people and take money directly from the bank.
It won't be cheap, you might need a loan to buy a dna scanner.
JJ
Friday, 8 May 2009
Wednesday, 6 May 2009
Famous Last Words
"Dear Valued Customer, In order to improve on the already fantastic service we provide, we moved the helpdesk to a shed in India…"
Banks have been increasing profits and laying people off for years with mergers and acquisitions, barely a season goes by when they don't introduce another great service or product, or announce bigger than ever profits. Until now. Suddenly these bastions of monetarism have been bought by governments to keep them alive.
In the long run then, shouldn't we have left them in government control? Protected the workers rather than the CEO's?
In every story about bankers today there are least 3 "sirs" and 2 "lords" apologising, resigning and forfeiting multi-million pound bonuses. Fortunately for them they've been pocketing the same bonuses for years so they can afford to skip one. It's a nice gesture though, it shows how much they care about ordinary people who are jobless and homeless now and don't have a penny savings but mountains of debt thanks that wonderful "c", Consumerism. Their advice to us is, "you must spend more money to get out of the recession".
We are in the middle of a financial catastrophe, so the best thing is to spend more money. I keep mulling this one over, I just don't get it. They average debt per person in UK is 12,000 pounds, that's why they need to spend more money. Is this a good system? Does it work? Is it good for us? The early eighties saw huge recession, massive job-losses which were all needed to stabilize the economy. Thirty years later we're standing in the biggest shit-pile since The Ark finally hit land. So, shall we keep on with this system? Is it working? You know, I really can't tell, I'm just not qualified in these highly complex financial matters, is there a "sir" or a "lord" nearby?
Sir James Crosby resigned from the FSA. Most people only resign if something serious kicks off and they are forced to, but this guy did it for the good of the financial sector. He was careful to stress that this had nothing with allegations that Paul Moore was now saying "see, I told you" apparently Paul was sacked three years ago after he told Sir James that the banks were stealing money without check. Paul still isn't a "sir", he never will be. If he wanted to be a "sir" he would have traded his information for a promotion and a bonus. But he didn't, he spoke out and lost his job. He would never have been seen again except now that the banks have collapsed people are saying "remember that fella who said this would happen? Why didn't we listen to him instead of this idiot Crosby?".
Oh, is it improper to call a "sir" an idiot? Yes it is, and it should be, but "sir"'s should not behave like this, "sirs"'s should be sent back down the ranks for this. That would be the proper thing to do, otherwise it just promotes the idea that "sir"'s only get their titles by nefarious means and will do anything, no matter how dishonourable, to keep those titles. If that's even half true then we might as well stop wearing wigs in court. I don't want to be melodramatic but I think it really is that serious. Why is it so difficult to tackle institutionalised fraud, theft, racism, sexism, cronyism? Same for taxes, isn't there one single person in the entire civil service whose bonus depends on how much the tax burden is reduced? It seems not. Start a new project, have another party, print another two hundred t-shirts, collect your bonus, pass go and just throw the dice again, there's no harm done.
I was being sarcastic.
JJ
Banks have been increasing profits and laying people off for years with mergers and acquisitions, barely a season goes by when they don't introduce another great service or product, or announce bigger than ever profits. Until now. Suddenly these bastions of monetarism have been bought by governments to keep them alive.
In the long run then, shouldn't we have left them in government control? Protected the workers rather than the CEO's?
In every story about bankers today there are least 3 "sirs" and 2 "lords" apologising, resigning and forfeiting multi-million pound bonuses. Fortunately for them they've been pocketing the same bonuses for years so they can afford to skip one. It's a nice gesture though, it shows how much they care about ordinary people who are jobless and homeless now and don't have a penny savings but mountains of debt thanks that wonderful "c", Consumerism. Their advice to us is, "you must spend more money to get out of the recession".
We are in the middle of a financial catastrophe, so the best thing is to spend more money. I keep mulling this one over, I just don't get it. They average debt per person in UK is 12,000 pounds, that's why they need to spend more money. Is this a good system? Does it work? Is it good for us? The early eighties saw huge recession, massive job-losses which were all needed to stabilize the economy. Thirty years later we're standing in the biggest shit-pile since The Ark finally hit land. So, shall we keep on with this system? Is it working? You know, I really can't tell, I'm just not qualified in these highly complex financial matters, is there a "sir" or a "lord" nearby?
Sir James Crosby resigned from the FSA. Most people only resign if something serious kicks off and they are forced to, but this guy did it for the good of the financial sector. He was careful to stress that this had nothing with allegations that Paul Moore was now saying "see, I told you" apparently Paul was sacked three years ago after he told Sir James that the banks were stealing money without check. Paul still isn't a "sir", he never will be. If he wanted to be a "sir" he would have traded his information for a promotion and a bonus. But he didn't, he spoke out and lost his job. He would never have been seen again except now that the banks have collapsed people are saying "remember that fella who said this would happen? Why didn't we listen to him instead of this idiot Crosby?".
Oh, is it improper to call a "sir" an idiot? Yes it is, and it should be, but "sir"'s should not behave like this, "sirs"'s should be sent back down the ranks for this. That would be the proper thing to do, otherwise it just promotes the idea that "sir"'s only get their titles by nefarious means and will do anything, no matter how dishonourable, to keep those titles. If that's even half true then we might as well stop wearing wigs in court. I don't want to be melodramatic but I think it really is that serious. Why is it so difficult to tackle institutionalised fraud, theft, racism, sexism, cronyism? Same for taxes, isn't there one single person in the entire civil service whose bonus depends on how much the tax burden is reduced? It seems not. Start a new project, have another party, print another two hundred t-shirts, collect your bonus, pass go and just throw the dice again, there's no harm done.
I was being sarcastic.
JJ
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
