Camilla and Carla : Who gives a st*ff?

Gluestick · March 30, 2008

[quote user="Logan"][quote user="Gluestick"]te]

Correctly and despite the exploitative price hikes by the controlling majors, French prices ought to be far lower!

[/quote]

The 'controlling majors' are making hay whilst the sun shines. In fact I believe they sell less fuel as a concequence of high prices. However profit levels are maintained and remaining larger stocks preserved, bought with greater margins. The banks in the UK are putting up mortgage rates to discourange customer applications. They want to preserve their liquidity. I suppose these tactics make managerial sense but the consumer always pays in the end. The market economy giveth and taketh away.

[/quote]

Excepting the core reality that heating and road fuel etc is rapidly becoming unaffordable for an increasing number.

And that the real villains of the piece, greedy and profligate western governments, are suffering revenue decline, as Laffer's Curve (Law of Diminishing Returns) takes over. Market economy; hmmmmmm.........

Excepting this example is a contrived situation, not a free market circumstance, as there is no shortage in reality, thus the laws of supply and demand ought to apply: but don't. Which is precisely why the current incarnation of the oft quote "Market Economy" is total nonsense!

Russethouse · March 30, 2008

Gluey - we have moved on - years ago women routinely gave up work when they got married and bank statements came handwritten, sometimes in copper plate script !.

In my late teens early twenties I was very fashion conscious - (aren't we all) I had a reputation for never wearing the same outfit twice, which was because I cared and I 'mixed and matched' clothes and accessories till I was blue in the face. I would NEVER have have used a black hand bag if I had brown shoes etc.

Frankly there are more important things in life - classic, quality clothes are fine, but you get a lot more mileage out of them with a few well chosen budget accessories.

They also act as an indicator of a rather out moded class system that most younger people are not so keen to buy into.

What you personally find attractive is up to you - but it may just be that the young woman who cares enough to go to the trouble of putting on what is the current 'face' is the one who cares enough about other things to do something about them.

Never assume !

cooperlola · March 30, 2008

I am not fashion conscious now, but I was in my teens. But I certainly never dyed my hair or wore makeup or jewelery for that matter. And I've never been able to do the accessories thing. When I had a senior job in a big company, I probably bought more clothes than I ever had before or since because I was representing other people, and it was important. But I just could not wait to get out of those horrible (often uncomfortable) fashionable shoes when I got home. It's a huge relief to me that I will never have to wear a skirt ever again. Yippee!

Nowadays, happily, dressing up just means putting a smart sweater or t-shirt on with a pair of smart trousers and it's such an enormous relief to me not to have to care what I look like. I am what I am and other people's opinions of what I look like are totally irrelevant. I care what they think of me as a person, but if they don't like my looks and judge me on that basis, then they're probably the kind of people I wouldn't care for anyway. The problem has always seemed to me, that we set far too much store by what is outside a person, than what is within, and this obsession with looks just serves to reinforce this.

I have a very good friend who is, shall I say, somewhat overweight. She is very aware (and I've watched this happen) that people write her off when they meet her, purely on this basis. What in god (or whoever)'s name, does this say about us as a society if we judge people on such superficial values as these? What I know, is that those who judge her on this basis have seriously missed out on knowing a kind, warm-hearted, generous and intelligent woman, and that that is their loss. But in the meantime, they are often offensive and unpleasant to somebody who has done nothing wrong, except not to look the way others think is acceptable.

mint · March 30, 2008

Coops, I agree with every word you have written. In the days when I was studying and working with some seriously brainy people, I noticed that the most intelligent women were also the ones who least cared about their appearance.

This is not to say that appearance is unimportant; of course, it is and women particularly continue to be judged on their looks.

As you say, Coops, I can't tell you how glad I am that I never have to coordinate clothes, shoes, handbags, accessories ever again. As for the "evening" outfits, praise the Lord they can now all be consigned to the charity bin.

Look at that ridiculous woman, Victoria Beckham. One look is sufficient to tell me that here is one person who is seriously intellectually challenged! And I don't care who disagrees with my judgement!!!

Hoddy · March 30, 2008

I think Coops and Sweet 17 have probably described most women's experience with fashion, like them I had to be smart for too long at work to want to worry about it now. If things come out of the drawer in the wrong order I tell myself that at least I'm clean !

The kind of fashion that I'm still interested in though is the kind of haute couture that I've never been able to afford. The kind of clothes that could be worn by the overweight and still be fashionable and look good.

As for the Victoria Beckham's of this world I simply don't understand the kind of mentality that brings you close to anorexia and then an operation for false boobs to make up for the fact.

Hoddy

Logan · March 30, 2008

Excepting this example is a contrived situation, not a free market circumstance, as there is no shortage in reality, thus the laws of supply and demand ought to apply: but don't. Which is precisely why the current incarnation of the oft quote "Market Economy" is total nonsense!

I can't agree that the present economic circumstances are contrived. The high price of oil is due to the weak dollar and sustained demand. The weak dollar has been caused by a catastrophic lending policy by US institutions and in part by the US budget deficit caused by military spending and poor leadership. The markets have responded accordingly. I agree there is no shortage of supply but demand is now weakening. Is that not market forces in play? The ECB in my view are exasperating the current situation in Europe by not reducing interest rates. Unless they do so soon the economy of France and Germany will be tipped over a cliff. The recent data released on the French economy looks dire. Stagflation is looming. Markets? It's all markets Gluey.[:D]

Val_2 · March 30, 2008

Yes they have summed it all up perfectly. I do wonder if all these false boobs are going to plague the wearers later on in life or even cause terrible cancers, all I know is they must be totally vain or brain damaged to have their bodies mutilated in this way just to look good for other people and look how it influences the young girls into following them. In my opinion whether you weigh 30 stone or 10 ten stone, its the person inside that matters not their bodies or clothes.

Gluestick · March 30, 2008

[quote]

Gluey - we have moved on - years ago women routinely gave up work when they got married and bank statements came handwritten, sometimes in copper plate script !.[/quote]

I agree: things have moved on. Most "characters" tended to stand out simply because of their very individuality. Then come the 70s, both males and females wore denim in the stated cause of "fashion" and simply looked like clones, mass produced in a factory.

Then things moved on again: until men, women and children all slump about in scruffy trainers. We'll forget the Shell Suit fad meanwhile!

OK, I'm old enough and probably old fashioned enough to believe ladies were the ones who wore lace and silk, had long lustrous hair and smelled nice: whereas the rugger playing blokes like me sweated. Personally, I do not find young women with pierced bodies, tattoes, bare midriffs (pierced navel, natch), ridiculously extended nails with Union Jacks (Honest! I've seen them!) either attractive or a fashion statement. I do, however find such examples of sartorial eccentricity (as my old Headmaster once said) repulsive and wholly indicative of mental deficiency.

As I do overweight women crammed into clothes suitable for a 15 year old passing through the usual stage of rebellion.

Mrs Gluey who still works here and there in the City, in her most interesting career, always dressed extremely well and fashionably yet with understatement. Ladies can wear a pinstripe suit and still look yummy!

If one ventures into W H Smith, as I did with half an hour to kill at Eurotunnel recently, one is greeted by racks of "Magazines" each and every one emblazoned with gawkish pictures of the frog-faced anorexic mentally challenged muppet, Victoria Beckham, who has become an icon of style - of a sort - and behaviour.

That's not fashion: it's brainwashing by mass media in the slavish service of the corporate interests who desire hordes of silly girlies with an open wallet to buy their tawdry wares.

Perhaps current Western society might be expressed as epitomised by the rather sad young lady, Amy Winehouse, who looks like a Japanese Yakuza member!

And is fêted................................................

Gluestick · March 30, 2008

[quote user="cooperlola"]

I have a very good friend who is, shall I say, somewhat overweight. She is very aware (and I've watched this happen) that people write her off when they meet her, purely on this basis. What in god (or whoever)'s name, does this say about us as a society if we judge people on such superficial values as these? What I know, is that those who judge her on this basis have seriously missed out on knowing a kind, warm-hearted, generous and intelligent woman, and that that is their loss. But in the meantime, they are often offensive and unpleasant to somebody who has done nothing wrong, except not to look the way others think is acceptable.

[/quote]

Bang on again JE.

Oscar Wildes said it all in the Importance of being Ernest.

"There are many people who know the price of everything; and the value of nothing."

Sums up modern society pretty well for me.

Russethouse · March 30, 2008

Perhaps current Western society might be expressed as epitomised by the rather sad young lady, Amy Winehouse, who looks like a Japanese Yakuza member!

And is fêted................................................

For her voice, not her 'lifestyle'

What you see on the cover is a picture of Amy, what you often read inside are articles debating how she could be helped, the cause of her problems and related stuff.

Perhaps one thing the likes of Amy Winehouse, Jade Goody and Kerry Katona illustrate is the influence and need for a stable family background. Yes Amy's parents are supportive, but they are married to other people.

I'm afraid to say its people in what I will broadly call 'our generation' that may be the root cause of some of these girls problems.

Gluestick · March 30, 2008

[quote user="Logan"]

Excepting this example is a contrived situation, not a free market circumstance, as there is no shortage in reality, thus the laws of supply and demand ought to apply: but don't. Which is precisely why the current incarnation of the oft quote "Market Economy" is total nonsense!

I can't agree that the present economic circumstances are contrived. The high price of oil is due to the weak dollar and sustained demand. The weak dollar has been caused by a catastrophic lending policy by US institutions and in part by the US budget deficit caused by military spending and poor leadership. The markets have responded accordingly. I agree there is no shortage of supply but demand is now weakening. Is that not market forces in play? The ECB in my view are exasperating the current situation in Europe by not reducing interest rates. Unless they do so soon the economy of France and Germany will be tipped over a cliff. The recent data released on the French economy looks dire. Stagflation is looming. Markets? It's all markets Gluey.[:D]

[/quote]

I didn't suggest they were: I was writing in terms of the oil and gas biz. Which is an effective monopoly, as the Seven Sisters (who acted in concert) have contracted to three, now really.

However, I would also argue that the global financial market breaks any number of the rules of a textbook free market economic ideal, however that's another argument.

just john · March 30, 2008

I couldn't put these in the same bag; Amy's got her problems lord knows but she drips talent,
the others lol [8-|]

Framboise · March 30, 2008

There is a lot of pressure on girls to wear this, do this, pierce bits of your anatomy, or extend this and that in order to be accepted by their peers, not to mention all manner of influences urging them to become clones of the idiots we see emblazoned across the newpapers.

Paris Hilton is another one. What exactly has she done to earn such fame and adulation when all she is notorious for is being filmed in a dodgy home movie making whoopee with the bloke who casually sold the film for vast profit? She pops up all over the media, she would attend the opening of an envelope if it got her into the news and yet this shallow, vacuuous creature is feted by the Hello Generation as a goddess alongside Jordan, Jodie Marsh, Chantelle, Kerry Katona, Jade Goody et al. Why? My gran would have called them "Tarts".......... or worse.[:-))]

I seem to recall that it was said that when the economy is on the up, the hemlines do likewise as in the 1960s with the miniskirt. What on earth does this mean in the Noughties then?? Everthing is throwaway, nothing built to last any more - even marriage it seems - then the fashion is to pierce yourself all over your body so you clank about like a chav in a scrapyard. What parallel does that give the economy?

I must be getting old................[kiss]

powerdesal · March 30, 2008

The USA seem to me to playing a very dangerous game in respect of the value of the dollar.

It certainly suits US industry to have a low dollar as it makes imports very expensive and hence stimulates demand for home produced stuff.

In parallel it makes US exports very much cheaper to the rest of the World, the problems with Airbus vs Boeing illustrate this quite clearly.

The dangerous part is deciding how low and for how long the rest of the World will accept. It is fact that the OPEC countries are giving serious thought to pricing oil in a currency other than the USD. Similarly the GCC countries are studying how to de-link their currencies from the USD, note thats "how to" not "should they". In the UAE there is presently a Govt financial committee studying the situation with a view to actual action at the end of 2008. Only time will tell if it happens.

There is also the danger that the many international investors will decide to pull out of USD, most of these are major major players, Govts like China for example. What do you imagine the effect would be on the value of the USD then.

The low USD is a large factor in the very high inflation being experienced in the UAE in particular as the UAE Dirham is pegged at 3.675 and any non-US imports are thus costing a hell of a lot more, 30% inflation in 2007 forcasted at 40% in 2008. Apart from some cars and power machinery the majority of imports are not US. We dont eat a lot of cars!!!!!!!

As I personally have to buy pounds and Euros with (effectively) USD I am obviously quite concerned about the value.

The recent well publicised (locally) pay rise for "All" UAE Govt employees of 70% is an indication of the problem. Especially a problem for those Govt employees who, inexplicably, did not "qualify" for the rise, and yes I work for the Govt and yes, I didn't "qualify" [:@]

cooperlola · March 30, 2008

I have to say, that when I joined this forum I did not expect to be chatting about world finance, but I find this stuff absolutely riveting. (Much more so than the aforementioned C&C.) And not a little scary at times!

The most interesting facet of this is the number of different views on what might and might not happen and why. In the very dim and distant past I did Economics at "O" level. One thing that did not go totally over my head, was the stuff about the huge influence which business and consumer confidence have on the markets, and all that implies. Unsurprising then, that few people can ever make solid predictions about things, when so much depends upon something as nefarious as that!

Gluestick · March 30, 2008

Anyone wanting further scary news, look here!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/portal/main.jhtml?xml=/portal/2008/03/19/ftstars119.xml

If this is how the financial "Experts" earn their zillions in bonus payments, then it's time to really worry!

[:'(]

Logan · March 31, 2008

Interesting article here which should meet with Gluey's approval.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/economist-stiglitz-blames-crunch--on-flawed-city-bonuses-system-799869.html

When considering world economics I believe it’s important to consider which side of the debate you support. Like politics the subject is vast and there are always two opposing poles to consider.

John Maynard Keynes was the founder of the mixed economy practised by governments like France since the end of world war two. He believed that governments and the private sector should have an equal hand in the running of economies. The Labour Party practised such policies especially during the Wilson years.

When Margaret Thatcher came to power she changed everything and adopted the ideas of Milton Friedman. He advocated minimizing the role of government in the running of the economy and allowing the market to influence political and social policy.

I don’t want to write an essay here on the merits of these two towering giants of economics but it is important to consider their ideas when deciding where your opinions stand. There are acres of their ideas on the web.

I am firmly in the camp of Friedman. That should come as no surprise to regulars on these forums. I do not believe in the state running economies. Politicians are the last people qualified to run a company. They simply do not understand markets or their complexity. When governments try intervention it usually ends in a disaster.

In recent times Northern Rock is a prime example of that process going wrong. When private management fails the company should pay a price. Banks are no different. Folks loose their money. It’s not the job of government to rescue investors. It is not the job of government to prop up ailing firms with taxpayer’s money. Economic confidence is in any event shaken. Governments bailing out failed firms makes things worse.

The world economy is entering a downturn at the moment. I prefer the word correction. Periods of correction are very important. It allows the market to shed the wheat from the chaff. Some markets have become too bloated and need to be trimmed. It is a natural process and part of the economic cycle. When this present downturn is over markets will be fitter and leaner to move forward for the benefit of us all. Yes there will be casualties. That also is part of the natural rhythm of life.

When Governments try to be defiant in the face of the inevitable they end up with egg all over their face.

As Mrs T. once said, “you cannot buck the market, try it and the market will buck you”.

mint · March 31, 2008

Logan, I'm totally with you on this one. As for Northern Rock, even my OH (ever the socialist do-gooder) agrees with me that it should have been left to sink (appropriate for a rock).

Framboise · March 31, 2008

Probably find that a bunch of MP's had their nesteggs stashed in Northern Rock, hence why they decided to bale it out rather than let it collapse. Sceptical, moi???? [:-))]

Weedon · March 31, 2008

Apologies in advance for any offence caused, but it ocurred to me that a whole different view on things could be generated from a simple change of the missing letter in the thread title[:-))]

dragonrouge · March 31, 2008

Do not forget (ever) shareholder value that has sunk without trace but of course the market can go both up and down. This morning Northern Rock said it would repay all Govt loans by 2010. How do you do that quite simple and its not rocket science.

You do not lend much in new mortgages and shrink the business get rid of people slash overheads and just watch the existing loan book come in. The say they have billions in a loan book. Take say a 50% good book with the rest rubbish and each month the good ones pay their installments and that is just amassed over two years and then repaid to HMG. HMG knew that and its the way that major institutions approach a business investment pay this for this asset sell that leave the rump of the business overall we will make money.

Gluestick · March 31, 2008

[quote user="Logan"]

Interesting article here which should meet with Gluey's approval.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/economist-stiglitz-blames-crunch--on-flawed-city-bonuses-system-799869.html

[/quote]

Without wishing to appear to be a smart a***, Logan, a point I've made over and over again: dealers are gambling on a No Stake Bet!

If they win then their bnous is huge: if they lose, then they seek out another job.