Sebrof Posted April 5, 2009 Share Posted April 5, 2009 There are also other ways of going bust than running out of cash, some very good businesses have been hit in this recession and not because they have run out of cash but because, for example, their loan to value of assets has meant that they cannot obtain the necessary credit. Not being able to get credit means you run out of cash. S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sebrof Posted April 5, 2009 Share Posted April 5, 2009 Read the question. There is all the difference in he world between saving the bank (taking it over with no compensation to shareholders) and "bailing out" the shareholders; which means lending/giving the bank money to keep it afloat so that eventaully the shareholders will see the value of their investment go up again. S Read it yourself, in the context of what he was saying. So now you are pretending that the question you quoted was not the question you answered. God help anybody who asks you to write a computer program. "I know this doesn't accord with your specification, but I was writing the program to a different specification." S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sebrof Posted April 5, 2009 Share Posted April 5, 2009 It is quite widespread, and it is not stock insurance, it is credit insurance. It is relevant as it affects many big chains; from memory, Do It All were one that were affected. If companies cannot get the stock then they cnnot sell it and generate revenue. Are you saying that in order to get credit they must take out insurance against their suppliers going bust? And please don't assume that I am going to "carp" about businesses using credit. Almost all do. S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted April 5, 2009 Share Posted April 5, 2009 So now you are pretending that the question you quoted was not the question you answered. God help anybody who asks you to write a computer program. "I know this doesn't accord with your specification, but I was writing the program to a different specification." S I'm not pretending to do anything, I was responding in context of the thread rather than taking a single quote out of context in some kind of "I'm smarter than everyone" smug know it all points scoring competition. Read PK's quote, he's not talking about protecting shareholders, he's talking about rescuing banks vs other businesses. Why is this kind of petty hair splitting is so important to you Sebrof? Are you really that intellectually insecure? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sebrof Posted April 5, 2009 Share Posted April 5, 2009 I'm not pretending to do anything, I was responding in context of the thread rather than taking a single quote out of context in some kind of "I'm smarter than everyone" smug know it all points scoring competition. Read PK's quote, he's not talking about protecting shareholders, he's talking about rescuing banks vs other businesses. So why did you quote just that one question in your reply? Seems a bit bizare to quote one question and answer another. Or don't you think so?. "Hello, Slim, "Do you know what time it is?" "It's raining in Spain." "Oh! Thanks." S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slinkydevil Posted April 5, 2009 Share Posted April 5, 2009 So why did you quote just that one question in your reply? Seems a bit bizare to quote one question and answer another. Or don't you think so?. OMFG Sebrof pointing out a quoting error. Have a look up this page why does is take you 3 posts in a row to answer Gladys, then Slim, then Gladys? Personally I think you're senile. Before you point it out, no I don't have anything to add to the debate. [mods - can't you take the quote function off Sebrof, he sucks at it.] S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sebrof Posted April 5, 2009 Share Posted April 5, 2009 OMFG Sebrof pointing out a quoting error. Have a look up this page why does is take you 3 posts in a row to answer Gladys, then Slim, then Gladys? Personally I think you're senile.S It's for clarity. I operate a different system from Slim. He quotes something at random, then answers something completely different, whilst I quote the point I am responding too. I know it's boring, but it avoids confusion. I do like your big Ess. However, a psychiatrist might say that the use of big letters is a form of compensation for a deficiency in another area. But I'm sure that's not true in your case. S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Declan Posted April 5, 2009 Share Posted April 5, 2009 I quote the point I am responding too. But you don't, you quote the entire post. Even, as with your most recent post, if it is the post immediately preceding your own. It makes the thread cluttered and confusing. But you don't care. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evil Goblin Posted April 5, 2009 Share Posted April 5, 2009 It is quite widespread, and it is not stock insurance, it is credit insurance. It is relevant as it affects many big chains; from memory, Do It All were one that were affected. If companies cannot get the stock then they cnnot sell it and generate revenue. Are you saying that in order to get credit they must take out insurance against their suppliers going bust? And please don't assume that I am going to "carp" about businesses using credit. Almost all do. S Sebrof - it's the supplier who wants the credit insurance on the buyer. Most goods are sold on 30 days credit so the supplier needs assurance that if they part with the goods they will get paid. If the retailer can't get the requisite insurance the wholesaler won't supply the goods unless they get cash up front - if the retailer can't produce the cash but needs the credit they don't get the goods, and can't sell them i.e. they're out of business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted April 5, 2009 Share Posted April 5, 2009 So why did you quote just that one question in your reply? Seems a bit bizare to quote one question and answer another. Or don't you think so?. No I don't think so. I was replying to PK, who I expect can remember the point he made. More accurate would be: "Hello Slim, do you now what time it is?" "The time? It's 3pm" You don't need to quote the whole post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sebrof Posted April 5, 2009 Share Posted April 5, 2009 It is quite widespread, and it is not stock insurance, it is credit insurance. It is relevant as it affects many big chains; from memory, Do It All were one that were affected. If companies cannot get the stock then they cnnot sell it and generate revenue. Are you saying that in order to get credit they must take out insurance against their suppliers going bust? And please don't assume that I am going to "carp" about businesses using credit. Almost all do. S Sebrof - it's the supplier who wants the credit insurance on the buyer. Most goods are sold on 30 days credit so the supplier needs assurance that if they part with the goods they will get paid. If the retailer can't get the requisite insurance the wholesaler won't supply the goods unless they get cash up front - if the retailer can't produce the cash but needs the credit they don't get the goods, and can't sell them i.e. they're out of business. Thanks for the explanation, Goblin. I couldn't get my head around why the buyer would need insurance. I presume that this relates to situations where the supplier has only a handful of customers, the collapse of one of which would bring down the business. It wouldn't make sense otherwise. S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sebrof Posted April 5, 2009 Share Posted April 5, 2009 Oh dear, Slim, you're distorting things again. Here is your post in full, showing the quote that you were (though you claim you weren't) replying to. Why should Joe Taxpayer bail out the RBS shareholders and not those of Woollies? Because it'll theoretically save more money than letting it fail. You really must try harder to stick to the truth, Slimbo. S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Declan Posted April 5, 2009 Share Posted April 5, 2009 Sebrof you have a point, you've highlighted an inconsistency in Slim's response to PK. Strange then that when Chinahand earlier in the thread fails to make the same distinction between "rescuing RBS" and "bailing out RBS shareholders" you don't comment. Why's that? Is it because you knew Slim would bite? Or because you feared Chinahand would swat you away? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
triskelion Posted April 5, 2009 Share Posted April 5, 2009 Surely Sebrof fears no man? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sebrof Posted April 5, 2009 Share Posted April 5, 2009 Sebrof you have a point, you've highlighted an inconsistency in Slim's response to PK. Strange then that when Chinahand earlier in the thread fails to make the same distinction between "rescuing RBS" and "bailing out RBS shareholders" you don't comment. Why's that? Is it because you knew Slim would bite? Or because you feared Chinahand would swat you away? Simple. Chinahand is a rational person. He would acknowledge the point and move on. Slim, however, is incapable of ever admitting he is wrong, and it entertains me to see him dig himself into all sorts of holes when a normal human being would just have said "Fair point". House prices, risk and reward, KSF, regulation of advocates, causes of the crisis, the list goes on. In every case, Slim makes some silly claims, and then turns himself inside out to avoid admitting his error. It's really very funny. And before you accuse me of schadenfreude, permit me to remind you that Slim is the first person to jump down people's throats, call them names, and generally make a damn nuisance of himself. I'm simply repaying him in kind. Petty? Probably, but I'm sick of his rudeness. He is one of a small gang of nitwits on here who are far too ready to behave oafishly. Look at the responses to the person from Gibralter who enquired about moving here. It's really quite embarassing. In fairness to Slim, he didn't contribute to that one, and is in fact reasonably liberal on the issues that rouse the neanderthal element. Personally, I think this forum would be a better place if there were an effort made on the part of the mods to enforce the rules. But we have to live with what we have. As for "swatting", it's another example of the gratuitous offensiveness that mars the user experience here. S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.