All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?
I don't care, I didn't do it for likes.
People are getting confusing personalities and celebrities with the actual business and that's easy when it comes to Branson because of how he puts himself front and center.
Point blank refuse to applaud the government for throwing money at million/billion pound companies yet offer those most in need 97 pounds a week.
How much of his personal fortune does he have in spare cash and how much will it cost to keep Virgin afloat?
He's probably got plenty, considering he pays no UK tax.
In all honesty if these banks and companies weren't to give a penny to their shareholders or in bonuses, but instead gave it to food banks or to the care homes that have dwindling provisions - then that would be a positive start IMO. If needs be, let shareholders sell their shares - their needs are still way less than many others and far less than the most in need. I would have thought that much was self evident at a time like this.
So you have no idea how much he has available, how much it would cost him, and continue to confuse wealth with net worth. As I said, probably best to keep your head down.
I came across this today whilst contemplating how cars have developed over my lifetime.
www.google.co.uk
That will cause companies to likely go out of business, if there is a massive run on their shares. Also those most likely to be affected will be pensioners or those just about to take their pensions which they've paid into for 40 odd years.
I know how much it would cost him you fool, I’ve just told you.
Or to put it another way - we're all in it together, but those with shares and wealth are less in it than those without.
I do study history, it's one of my passions, and you are right, it teaches us an enormous amount, though people often think it's pretty worthless. I think your summary is, however, a little over-simplistic and extreme. One thing modern governments have done is attempt to take over the rule of the feudal overlords so that, in principle, "the people" are in charge of themselves. Yet often end up simply replacing one overlord with another, albeit constructed differently.I came across this today whilst contemplating how cars have developed over my lifetime.
According to one survey, Ford was the seventh richest man ever to live, and one of the first of the modern breed of billionaire businessmen (in the days when a billion really was worth boasting about). Before Ford, Carnegie, Mellon and the rest, mankind's super-rich were all feudal types – pharaohs, kings and tsars – who stole or inherited their cash, rather than the hard-working, madly driven visionary sons of immigrants. The obscene differences in economic power we ponder today are older than we suppose.
Model T Ford: The car that changed our world
In 1908, Henry Ford bought motoring to the masses with a revolutionary machine that would define the 20th century – and may yet shape the future of mankind. Sean O'Grady crank-starts an original 'Tin Lizzie' to find out how it all began
It sums it up better than I could. In fact, I suggest that whilst we’ve got a lot of downtime, people read history. Most of it’s quite interesting and it gives you a good idea of how 'the world’ ie humanity, actually works. The bottom line is that we’re peasants, we’re cannon fodder, we’re there to keep rich people wealthy and in return they provide us with some kind of order and protection.
You don't know how much he has available but keep talking about billions. That's not "doing maths", that's guessing. I asked you how much it would cost to keep Virgin afloat and you told me how much it would cost to subsidise the employees wages - two completely different things. What if he spends all his available cash on wages and then needs millions to stop the company going bust? Who saves the company then?
You’ve obviously worked up a temperature here, mate, any other symptoms at all?
Of course it’s simplistic and extreme but it’s a message board, I’m not writing a dissertation for a doctorate in politics and social history.
..because it’s a bad time to buy bankrupt airline businesses
The lessons we learn from history are no doubt subjective. How I understand English history, from Magna Carts, through Dr Montford and Lancaster all the way to emancipation and the Miner's Strike is that the "peasantry" have had to struggle for every right throughout the centuries, but that the rich will use times like this to seize back what power they can - and will do whatever it takes to safeguard their wealth and influence.
Again I think the issue is perception. Shareholders are seen as wealthy individuals or owners when actually it'll be mainly average Joe's, earning average wages but they'll be investing in shares mainly through their pensions managers for their retirement or maybe even in staff share schemes rewarding the workforce for good company performance.
I'd read it.
Yes, subjectivity is a big part of how we view history, which is one of the reasons it interests me. I think it's very easy to apply history to our own ideologies to support them whether they really fit or not. It's true that the poor and lowly have had to struggle to gain their rights, equally let's not forget the many good men and enablers, wealthy and from the upper classes, who helped along the way.
I do wish I’d done a degree in it. I’m pretty good on post Norman England but I’ve gone back to Mesopotamia and started working forwards, chronologically. There’s a lot of it. I think my brain can only cope with Europe and the Levant, there are two other cradles of civilisation that I haven’t even looked at yet.I'd read it.
They won't do that and there is a simple reason why not. If you take more than 50% pay cut then you are effectively put on short-time. There are legal limits around how long a person can be put on short time for (this is different to laying off which is what Furlough is doing - short time would supersede Furlough therefore if you are Furloughed and your wage is less than 50% (ie you earn more than £60,000.01 effectively), then you will be on short time not Furlough. If you exceed the legal limit for short-time - which will almost certainly happen in the current situation - then you are entitled to claim redundancy, even on a fixed term contract (which footballers are). So you have to imagine that these footballers, who cost millions of pounds, are suddenly available for free transfer. Clubs will therefore not Furlough players and no player will be allowed to take more than 50% pay cut.
I’m not sure any of those are particularly good examples, other than the strike, which is possibly a watershed moment in this country and deserves a more detailed analysis than I’m prepared to do.
All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?
