The problem with Capitalism is that eventually it runs out of other
people's money to misappropriate.

On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 22:53:07 -0000, "Rick" wrote:

'The problem with Socialism is that eventually it runs out of other people's
money to spend'.
--
================================================== =======
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

Exactly. And following that argument through, why is so much BBC
material sold off to UK TV and thereafter only available as an
encrypted subscription service?

On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 23:12:22 +0000, Another John
wrote:

Nobody seems to have mentioned that the programmes in the archive have
already been paid for by the licence fee. Why should we have to pay
again to view them?
--
================================================== =======
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

"Java Jive" wrote in message
...


On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 22:53:07 -0000, "Rick" wrote:

'The problem with Socialism is that eventually it runs out of other
people's
money to spend'.


The problem with Capitalism is that eventually it runs out of other
people's money to misappropriate


If only Gordon hadn't sold of 60% of the UK's reserves (against BoE advice)
at $216/oz. Current price: $1710/oz.

In article ,
J G Miller wrote:
On Monday, January 16th, 2012, at 22:34:14h +0000, Silk wrote:

You're quoting one Tory and suddenly there's some great big right-wing
conspiracy. Besides, you're also incorrect as it was a study
"commissioned" buy Iain Duncan Smith.

That is what I stated.

And of which party is Peter Bone a member?

http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2010-11/broadcastingtelevisionlicencefeeabolition.html

QUOTE

Broadcasting (Television Licence Fee Abolition) Bill 2010-11

UNQUOTE

You'll be blaming Thatcher next, for some random thing or another.

Further irrelevant diatribe.

Thatcher 'invented' the poll tax. Where everyone paid the same regardless
of income. Rather like the TV licence fee. (With some exceptions)

So it's nice to see the Tory party heading left.

--
*The only difference between a rut and a grave is the depth.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Martin wrote:

Don't be silly, socialists agree the New Labour is just as bad, and
sometimes worse.

New Labour died long ago.

I'm not going to learn a new names every time they make it worse.

-- Richard

Silk wrote:
On 16/01/2012 20:31, J G Miller wrote:
this could be the start of
BBC pay-per-view that the Conservative and Unionist Party
of Great Britain

What does that have to do with anything? That's the trouble with you
socialists: it's always the fault of the Tories, even when it's not.
Mr Miller can't be labelled like that. He thinks for himself. Possibly
he does it too much, but at least he does it.

Bill

In article ,
Another John wrote:

Nobody seems to have mentioned that the programmes in the archive have
already been paid for by the licence fee. Why should we have to pay
again to view them?

Presumably because we didn't pay enough for repeated viewing on
demand. A few years ago you couldn't watch a program again unless
you had recorded it or they decided to rebroadcast it. There *is*
an extra cost associated with making these programmes available.

I'm not in favour of charging fees for this, but "we've already
paid" isn't the knock-down argument some think it is.

-- Richard

Prices can go down as well as up.

Selling off an asset such as gold which you happen to own is somewhat
like selling off the family silver. So bear with me for a moment
while I reduce the debate to a personal level ...

My mother was from an old family with aristocratic connection, and was
also interested in antiques, etc. Consequently, she thought it her
duty to leave each of us some silver: cutlery, tea things, etc. Silver
needs care and attention, otherwise it tends to go black. Living
unpretentiously in suburbia, I never had a home worthy to be graced by
the stuff, and anyway I prefer the low-maintenance practicality of
stainless steel, so mine sat for years in the same cardbox box into
which she had originally packed it, along with a note of its market
value at the time, around the mid 1970s.

Comparatively recently, being short of money, I decided that it was a
pointlessly impractical burden and thief magnet to keep, and that I
should sell it. Having been given the brush off locally over the
phone, I took it up to the Silver Vaults in London and hawked it
around. I eventually was only able to get a similar price to a dealer
as *trade* as its *market* value in the 1970s when she had originally
boxed it!

As I drove back, I thought ruefully what it would have been worth if
its market value in the 1970s had been invested wisely, and how
devastated my mother would have been had she known how all her
forethought came to so little.

But to return to the national viewpoint, gold ingots sitting in a bank
vault are rather like family silver. Just as the presence of family
silver may only serve to increase one's insurance premium, ingots
consume resources guarding them from being stolen, while not
necessarily doing anything much that is useful for the owner.
Certainly, their presence helps bolster the owner's financial
credibility, but they can't pay dole money, purchase oil for power
stations, etc, except by being sold, and then their financial
credibility is inevitably sold likewise. And what happens if, when
you need to sell them, noone wants to buy them?

Gold reserves are probably a necessary part of the modern financial
system, but they are no substitute for a country earning enough to pay
its way, just as inheriting family silver is no substitute for being
in sufficient health to earn a good income.

On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 23:39:34 -0000, "Rick" wrote:

If only Gordon hadn't sold of 60% of the UK's reserves (against BoE advice)
at $216/oz. Current price: $1710/oz.
--
================================================== =======
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

Another John wrote...

Nobody seems to have mentioned that the programmes in the archive have
already been paid for by the licence fee. Why should we have to pay
again to view them?

Presumable to cover the cost of... Converting the archive to a suitable
streaming format, the storage to store it, the server farm to serve it,
the internet bandwidth to share it, the team to maintain the whole
shebang, the royalty/copyright fees for the performers, presenters,
program makers and incidental music composers plus the army of lawyers
needed to renegotiate all the contracts.

--
Ken O'Meara
http://www.btinternet.com/~unsteadyken/

It's not an argument for it necessarily being totally free, but is
certainly an argument against it disappearing for ever into the black
hole of the commercial subscription domain.

On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 00:35:25 +0000 (UTC),
(Richard Tobin) wrote:

I'm not in favour of charging fees for this, but "we've already
paid" isn't the knock-down argument some think it is.
--
================================================== =======
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html