Z
zinger
Guest
!!
Quote”Harkening back to your denunciation of the deregulation/price increase coupling, please explain the operation of ESB.”
Do you have to ask such a self-evident question? , We all are well aware of the operation of the ESB, it’s the potential operation that’s under scrutiny.
“We are facing yet another price rise by a state-controlled, regulated utility. Dearie me! How can that happen? Input costs change. Meteorological factors”.
Again another ridiculous jocular remark at the previous poster , did I hear you say something like sarcasm was an injury no wait it was “Sarcasm, my dears. A self-inflicted injury, 'own goal'.”
Anyone one has the remotest sense of operational management and financial astuteness would understand that a large operation such as the ESB require mammoth planning, forecasting, management, procedural process, union interaction, financial and legal management.
The price rise has been substantiated by ESB and as a matter of educating you by way of advice all these documents and accounts are fully accessible by you, Joe Public.
“The avarice surrounding the first flotation of Eircom was palpable. I was asked my opinion of the initial flotation by several colleagues. My view remains resolute. The telecom market in Ireland is too small to support privatisation. Do not buy this dog of an issue.”
The telecom market in Ireland at the moment has three major players in O2 and Vodafone and a third in Meteor, we also have the onset of 3G and broadband so I cannot see how you could advise someone that the market is too small or restricted.
You have to see Eircom as more of a landline supplier, but I am sure your colleagues could probably debate that all day long.
The problem with Eircom was not the commodity but the price of the share on offer,
The price was disproportionate to the potential growth and the current condition of the company, and it was also during the height of the economic downturn, ergo they where a flop. Your argument about privatisation in the market is redundant, most investors where first time investors, looking for a good return on their Celtic Tiger funds. But the best market of all is the property market and while those that dipped and dabbled with stocks where left far behind by the bricks and mortar appreciations.
I am in complete agreement with the clauses in the Nice Treaty that provide for the costs of ameliorating the environment to be borne by the contaminator ('polluter pays'.) Privatisation must be accompanied by both potential reward and loss.
Ok Max now you are getting tedious, can you concoct some clear concise points and substantiate them please as this is straight from the school of BS waffle "Privatisation must be accompanied by both potential reward and loss."
The idea of privatisation is to explicitly the sell off or part of a state sponsored body in the knowledge that they will become more profitable and streamlined and will make a greater contribution to the state and the economy. All business has risk, reward and loss and privatisation is no exception, but you are actually saying that loss must be an acceptable risk, which it is in every part of life.
Max your manifest seems to indicate that the state should pay for the various issues as above, but how to you think they receive their funding??.
Its all about accountability as you state and in relation to waste and bins charges like you said that you agree with the notion that the “polluter pays”, very contradictory considering you feel that the state should fund our growing mismanagement of household waste and not the polluter?
Res Ipsa Loquitur
Quote”Harkening back to your denunciation of the deregulation/price increase coupling, please explain the operation of ESB.”
Do you have to ask such a self-evident question? , We all are well aware of the operation of the ESB, it’s the potential operation that’s under scrutiny.
“We are facing yet another price rise by a state-controlled, regulated utility. Dearie me! How can that happen? Input costs change. Meteorological factors”.
Again another ridiculous jocular remark at the previous poster , did I hear you say something like sarcasm was an injury no wait it was “Sarcasm, my dears. A self-inflicted injury, 'own goal'.”
Anyone one has the remotest sense of operational management and financial astuteness would understand that a large operation such as the ESB require mammoth planning, forecasting, management, procedural process, union interaction, financial and legal management.
The price rise has been substantiated by ESB and as a matter of educating you by way of advice all these documents and accounts are fully accessible by you, Joe Public.
“The avarice surrounding the first flotation of Eircom was palpable. I was asked my opinion of the initial flotation by several colleagues. My view remains resolute. The telecom market in Ireland is too small to support privatisation. Do not buy this dog of an issue.”
The telecom market in Ireland at the moment has three major players in O2 and Vodafone and a third in Meteor, we also have the onset of 3G and broadband so I cannot see how you could advise someone that the market is too small or restricted.
You have to see Eircom as more of a landline supplier, but I am sure your colleagues could probably debate that all day long.
The problem with Eircom was not the commodity but the price of the share on offer,
The price was disproportionate to the potential growth and the current condition of the company, and it was also during the height of the economic downturn, ergo they where a flop. Your argument about privatisation in the market is redundant, most investors where first time investors, looking for a good return on their Celtic Tiger funds. But the best market of all is the property market and while those that dipped and dabbled with stocks where left far behind by the bricks and mortar appreciations.
I am in complete agreement with the clauses in the Nice Treaty that provide for the costs of ameliorating the environment to be borne by the contaminator ('polluter pays'.) Privatisation must be accompanied by both potential reward and loss.
Ok Max now you are getting tedious, can you concoct some clear concise points and substantiate them please as this is straight from the school of BS waffle "Privatisation must be accompanied by both potential reward and loss."
The idea of privatisation is to explicitly the sell off or part of a state sponsored body in the knowledge that they will become more profitable and streamlined and will make a greater contribution to the state and the economy. All business has risk, reward and loss and privatisation is no exception, but you are actually saying that loss must be an acceptable risk, which it is in every part of life.
Max your manifest seems to indicate that the state should pay for the various issues as above, but how to you think they receive their funding??.
Its all about accountability as you state and in relation to waste and bins charges like you said that you agree with the notion that the “polluter pays”, very contradictory considering you feel that the state should fund our growing mismanagement of household waste and not the polluter?
Res Ipsa Loquitur
