How much stupid can fit in one head?

Even a head fitted with an extension to add an extra stupid lobe to the brain.

Yes, it’s our current Prime Monster once again. Every time he speaks I expect to hear ‘Duuuuh…’ between sentences.

He now believes that supermarkets push up the price of food to subsidise the selling of cheap booze. He does not explain why meat is so much more expensive at the butcher’s who doesn’t sell any booze at all.

He also believes that strong lager can be had for 25p a can. That’s only true if you can get drunk on weasel piss, you Tefal-headed twat. If you drank a whole case of the 25p a can stuff, the only thing you’re likely to be hospitalised with is a burst bladder. Proper strong lager is now seriously expensive stuff, even in the supermarkets. Four cans of Tennent’s Super passed the £6 mark some time ago. I haven’t bought any for ages, it’s not a good combination with getting up to go to work.

So. Let us attempt to explain basic business management to the leader of the Tory party (sigh. Has it really come to this?).

Let’s say I sell two product lines. It doesn’t matter what they are, we can call them A and B.

Product A is selling well but product B isn’t. I need to reduce the price of product B. I will take it down bit by bit until it starts to sell, but I won’t stay in business if I cut my profit to zero. There is a limit. I can put some lines within that product on special offer for a week to try to attract new regular customers, but I’d have to put it back up again or lose money forever.

My competitor down the street sells the same products so we are both already shaving overheads and cutting profits because we are competing for the same customers.

So, if I can’t sell product B and make a profit, do I:

a) stop selling product B and let the competition fight amongst themselves,

b) sell at a loss until bankruptcy hits, or

c) boost the price of product A to subsidise the loss-making product B?

Option C is the one the leader of the Tory Party thinks I would choose. Note that the word ‘thinks’ is applied in its loosest possible sense here.

My competitor would be delighted. Not only am I now making a loss on product B, all my customers are now buying product A from him because I’ve put up my prices. My business will close within a week.

It’s simple. If any shop is making a consistent loss on a product line, they stop selling it. That’s why the beer selection changes – if it’s not popular, it doesn’t get re-stocked. No shop anywhere is going to put up the price of their standard fare (McEwan’s Export in these parts) to subsidise the loss-making craft beer known as Jock McSquirty’s Bowel Purger.

If Morrison’s are putting up the price of food to subsidise booze, why is the Co-op more expensive for both and why are local grocers who don’t stock booze the most expensive of all? Food in supermarkets is cheap – for those of us who aren’t worried about posh labels, it can be incredibly cheap. Their booze isn’t. Not unless you are happy with a tin of ‘water with a hint of beer’. The single malts don’t go below £20 even on special offer, and special offers on those are rare. They can be over £40 a bottle even in a supermarket. You won’t get these in an off-licence because the price a smaller business will have to charge means nobody can afford them. Supermarkets get a discount because they buy by the truckload not by the bottle. That is why they can sell at lower prices.

Proper beers are rarely less than £1 a tin for 4% strength and if you have a hankering for anything stronger, you’ll be laying down more than that. Bring in a price of 45p per unit and those 25p cans will probably be cheaper. They aren’t even any good for slug traps. The slugs can’t get drunk enough to drown in it.

Could someone in government please take this man to one side and explain that he is supposed to be the leader of the party of business and free enterprise? Could you point out that even the Brown Gorgon’s Balls is laughing at his grasp of economics? Where is he getting this rubbish from?

Downing Street told the newspaper Mr Cameron’s comments were based on research by Newcastle University liver specialist Dr Chris Record in 2009.

Ah. Not from anyone with any business experience. Not from anyone in retail. Not from any school of economics.

From a liver specialist, one who thinks that if he can stop everyone drinking anything he can spend all his time on the golf course.

I know people in Newcastle University. Good scientists, who still place the pursuit of knowledge above the pursuit of funding. They are getting older and some might have retired by now, but that was a very good university once.

Shame it’s just an indoctrination centre now. The reason Tiny Blur wanted everyone to go to university now becomes a little clearer.

It’s where he placed all his nannying fussbuckets.

And Cameron is stupid enough to believe anything he is told. He truly is the heir to Blair.

 

 

27 thoughts on “How much stupid can fit in one head?

  1. Leg, what actually is the alcohol content of your 25p beer? I know here in the States we have something called “3.2” beer which, I believe, was legal during Prohibition and is still classified in some states as OK to sell to 18-year-olds despite 21 being the standard drinking age.

    And, if you don’t mind a Yank Question: is 25p equal to one-quarter of a pound?

    😕
    MJM

    Like

    • It’s a long time since I tried it, but it’s trivial. I don’t think it exceeds 2% in any of them. It’s not so much the strength as the taste – there isn’t any. If Cameron wanted to put kids off beer, he’d let them have that stuff for free. If they think that’s what all beer tastes like they’d never drink any again.

      Yes, we now have 100 pennies to the pound. Before 1970 we had 12 pennies to the shilling and 20 shillings to the pound, so after 1970 the pound was worth eight shillings and fourpence.

      Oh, and once everything was simply divisible by ten, the mathematical abilities of subsequent generations nosedived.

      Like

      • 2%? Whew… that’d be four proof. You’d have to drink over two gallons of it to equal a pint of 80 proof whiskey! LOL!

        Y’might as well drink orange juice! :> Did you know that a quart (or was it a gallon?) of orange juice has the equivalent of a teaspoon or so of vodka in it?

        🙂
        MJM

        Like

      • I’ve been out of the Jock McSquirty brewing game for about 2 years now, but IIRC around about the time I was throwing in the towel, the duty rules changed to make the sub 2% stuff completely duty free.

        So it’s far more profitable than the price suggests.

        I actually managed to invent a way of making an alcohol free stout using the standard brewers gear – but I simply couldn’t imagine anyone actually wanting the stuff.

        Like

      • The arithmetical abilitites of the previous generation weren’t all that hot, either.

        Years ago, my father was an amateur bookie, and I his clerk. One fine day, at a point-to-point meeting we encountered one of the aforementioned Great Old Ones. She was a lady of a certain age, who had never quite adapted to the concept of decimalised currency, and still insisted upon converting back to pounds, shillings and pence to work out any financial transaction.

        This may just have been tolerated in a corner shop, but on a racecourse when one is trying to compute the correct sum due from the place half of an each-way bet (1/5 of the odds) where the odds were something like 11/8 and the bet an odd amount like 7 pounds, then this is doomed to failure, mockery and an insistence to bugger off and fetch the Ring inspector if they felt cheated.

        Like

  2. The rhetoric and angle has changed, but the goal (control, or at least an illusion of it, and the resulting feelings of importance) and fundamental methods remain the same:

    “Business and free enterprise,,,” as long as you make or sell or purchase what we tell you to, at prices we determine to be appropriate.

    Like

  3. We can laugh as much as we want. They will repeat it until it’s accepted as being true. Then we will forget a time when it wasn’t true. Like your respiration and your pulse, it’s been there all along. As a boy, I listened to my grandmother in awe as she told me about the things she could buy from the apothecary. Fast forward forty odd years, and my sister describes the humdrum nostrum she could get over the counter here that requires photographic ID and registration in a database in Australia.

    We are doing this for your own good.

    This applies to CCTV, non-smoking flights, any number of taxes and restrictions on your freedom.
    Throwing around any mad theory is fine. Do it enough times and it sounds more and more plausible.

    “Ladies and gentlemen. For your safety and the safety of others, please remember that smoking is not permitted anywhere on the London Underground system”. I hear this mantra every weekday morning on an uncovered platform, often windswept and rainy. Unlike the Brussels Metro, where classical music is played to lift the spirits, I hear the mantra. Everyone hears the mantra again and again. We are doing this for your own good.

    Red wine is bad for you. Have a glass per day during pregancy, says expert. Binge drinking at all-time high. Alcohol use on the wane in Britain. Red wine is good for your heart. Red wine and chocolate may not be good for you. Like going to the toilet in the morning, I like to read the DM to see what comes out. Try this little quiz. Was their last red wine story pro or anti? TBH, I don’t remember any more.

    The Prime Minister reminds me of a spolit brat on Christmas morning playing with the toys given to his younger siblingds. The office of PM used to hold some gravitas, where he’d address matters of importance, not get bogged down in pettifogging trivialities. The narcissist now holding that post wants to make his mark in history.

    I see little doubt in him achieving that. The last Tory PM.

    Like

  4. Some time ago I came to the conclusion that the actions of previous, and present, governments were one of two things. Driven by incredible stupidity, or simply deliberate.

    Stupidity is the attractive option. It is easy to cope with a stupid person, or group of persons. Human nature is to see the good in people rather than the true person. So it is instinct to just say they are stupid, in this case lacking in the basic knowledge the rest of us in the real world understand.
    But clearly this cannot be so. We have 650 well educated, many personally successful and financially secure, politicians. Can they all be stupid? All of them? Take any random group of 650 people and I would guess you would be hard pushed to describe even the majority of that 650 as truly stupid.

    This leads to the more difficult option – deliberate. It must be deliberate. No one in their right mind would continuously bring in legislation which closes businesses, stifles any hope of economic growth, and is bringing this once great country to its knees, unless it was anything but deliberate.

    Why? I can only guess, and I won’t bore you with my more unpleasant thoughts.
    But as a small example: I have a dog. I can have as many dogs as I want. It is a pretty useless addition to the family, and one I could, although I prefer not to, live without. I don’t, any more, have a goat. To keep a goat involves reams of paperwork, and permissions, and registration. A goat would provide much milk and meat – a useful addition to my family.

    Everything small scale is being driven out of existence. Think about how many small businesses, and shops, which existed 30 or 40 (even 10 or 20) years ago are now gone. It is too easy to say that these businesses were just uneconomic. Were they uneconomic, or have they been made uneconomic?

    Is minimum pricing another small step to the removal of more businesses? Is the ultimate goal 100 % PAYE employees? Is it total control? Is it just dressed up as stupidity?

    Like

  5. @smellingas

    I think that Julia recently uncovered the scandal of unlicensed chicken-keeping and the threat to humanity it posed. I suppose if you were into Korean Barbeque your particular choice of animal herding would make perfect sense.

    There are countries masquerading as democracies where alcohol must be bought from Government-controlled franchises. The greatest insult is that many of them refer to themselves as ‘liberal’ and expect us to believe it. A voice in the wilderness can be found here: http://alcoholcultureindenmark.webbyen.dk/ See if you can find some familiar themes:
    * Health service swamped by drunks
    * Old people drink too much
    * Twiddle what a safe ‘unit’ is

    Consider this. The technological revolution that has taken place from about roughly 1800 did so with very little, if any, government intervention. Gentlemen scientists, the great entrepreneurs, the polymaths, the mavericks. What did they owe a sullen diverse nincompoop working in a Ministry?

    A good scientist should always be prepared to say “I don’t understand this”. Have you ever heard a politician say that? About the closest would be Donald Rumsfeld, who stated “There are things we don’t know that we don’t know” – or something like that, and he was vilified for it.

    I happily admit that I am not intelligent enough to know the answer. The closest that I can get is that it is easier to be left wing and control someone than to be right wing and just see what happens. Perhaps in my lifetime, we’ll be able to tar these control freaks as Fritzls. They maintain an air of respectability on the outside and perform outrages on those under their control. “We are doing this for your own good.”

    Like

    • I happily admit that I am not intelligent enough to know the answer. The closest “The closest that I can get is that it is easier to be left wing and control someone than to be right wing and just see what happens.”
      This is exactly right, except that I don’t see it as right wing. When did it become right wing not to want to order others about ? This is the problem though, the left have managed to make their constant meddling in everyones lives the default position of all politics and anyone who acts or, increasingly, even thinks differently is some kind of dangerous wierdo. Well OK if that’s the case then colour me weird and proud of it. Perhaps that what we need, a weird pride movement.

      Like

        • Well, we are kind of stuck with the nomenclature thanks to the Frogs. Thanks, Frogs. Right wing = Hitler, left wing = Owen jones, the only difference being that one of them is a snivelling, skinny shortarse who hates England. In the middle is Nick Clegg, someone too inept to make it into a big party despite his family’s money.

          I think that someone over at Guildo’s was going on about this the other day. “Do you seriously mean that we hand the controls of this island, with finances that make BP look like a pound shop, over to these Knuts?

          David Cameron’s father worked a lifetime, hobbling around on his withered legs (and very bravely, I might add – no DLA for him!) to bequeath the PM £10M, casually spunked into some African shithole in a few seconds. Ah, but hold it a minute. It wasn’t real money. It wasn’t all DC’s, now was it? It was yours, and mine.

          So you see, voting against a goverment that’s done you wrong is the same as belting a dog with a newspaper five years after he (or she, for any bitches who might be reading this) has done a shit on your settee.And my MP was sacked for dissent. This is the reward she gets?

          We need to eradicate the hysteresis in government. We need an Ebay-style feedback system. Did he deliver what he promised? Did it arrive on time? Did he screw me around?

          Like

      • “When did it become right wing not to want to order others about?”

        The French Revolution, when those sitting in the left rows said they were for “reason” and “progress”, and those sitting on the right said they were for tradition and established principles. Note that that was what those on the left SAID they were fore – what they actually gave the French people was the Reign of Terror. They were after control, and satisfying a craving for self-importance.

        Hitler played it the other way around (see the video I posted above). He said he was for German tradition, said he was a Christian (he actually despised Christianity, and the Hitler youth would later be singing songs proclaiming the were no Christians, but proudly pagans), and he told German industries that he would protect them from the more direct, orthodox Marxism of the Communists, when he in fact had every intention of establishing total government control over all economic activity through more underhanded means – again, see the video.above.

        But schools and the media make sure we remain completely ignorant of all that growing up, so that we can develop into good little drones for the left, and scream at those calling for a smaller government with strict limitations placed upon its power “right-wing fascists”.

        Like

  6. I note it is also Newcastle University that has come up with the figures on how many lives will be saved, etc, if we have a minimum unit price for alcohol,
    What I always ask about any research these days is
    1. Who funded the research?
    2. Has it been peer reviewed, and if so by whom?
    On prices, the produce sold at our local farmers’ market is generally dearer than at Tesco and appears to be of poorer quality. And they don’t have much in the way of overheads or middlemen to sell their produce.
    But then Cameron has shown on numerous occasions that he fails to “put his brain into gear before opening his mouth”!

    Like

  7. Well, drinking is not as bad as you might think.

    I have long thought that drinking is apt to cause babies.

    ‘Candy is dandy; but, liquor is quicker.”

    Using the Tobacco Control method of ‘association = causation’, we find that ‘smoking’ causes babies.

    Lower income people have a higher birthrate.

    Most smokers are in the lower income classes.

    Therefore, there is a strong ‘association’ between smoking and having more babies; thus, smoking causes babies!!!!

    Tobacco Control science can explain everything.

    Like

      • Using the methods of newscience, and considering the different birthrates between the affluent and, say, welfare queens, I could “prove” (goodprove? doubleplusprove?) that babies cause people to shop at Walmart, the American equivalent of Tesco. Given the number of people we find shopping there riding around on electric carts, compared to shoppers at higher-end, organic foo-foo food markets or, say, Brooks Brothers and the like for clothing, it therefore follows that there is an undeniable association between babies and your legs not working.

        Like

  8. It may be precisely because the business of drink prices in supermarkets is of no interest to him whatsoever that he comes out with the twaddle. He doesn’t have to think – just say what the ‘experts’ tell him to say. We could think of Lansley when he was health sec. What matters were of really serious interest to him? I would say that the National Health Service and its cost above anything, and, in particular, the new doctors’ contracts he tried to push through. Public Health? Not even on his horizon, and therefore just say what ‘the experts’ tell him. Smoking bans? Not his department…. But to make things worse, provided that he follows advice, he cannot go far wrong. He can never be accused of personal responsibility since he never actually makes a personal decision.
    I don’t think that the politicians even ask themselves, “What is Public Health?” I think that they just accept what they have been told, and that it never crosses their minds that smoking matter be entirely a matter of Private Health. Nor does it cross their minds that for a particular thing to be said to be a matter of public health (like SHS), then a far greater standard of ‘proof’ should be required than the say-so of a few academics.

    Like

  9. Cameron has to squack about trivialities because all the big decisions are made by the big boys. Cameron wasnt put in No 10 to think or do anything except strut around playing big boss whilst 650 lesser hitlers all jostle and backstab for the chance to be like him. But the days when being an MP or cabinet minister gave you power are long disappeared. MPS follow the whip, the whip follows the party leadership and the party leadership takes its orders from the EU and I’m sure the pricks at the top of the EU takes orders from someone and so on. I wouldnt be surprised if the guy who ultimatly controls it all got driven to insanity by the overcompex pontlessness of it all, but like Stalin all who surround him are either also too mad to realise or too scared to mention it.

    Like

  10. iDave has a PPE degree from Oxford, First class one too apparently. Well in my University days (1970-3) we thought anyone doing a Tripartite degree was only there for the booze and the birds, not for serious study; You took a single subject for that. So what iDave actually knows about Economics is probably sub O Level Keynesian crap.
    You can’t get a can of strong lager round here (Bristol) for less than £1.40.

    Like

  11. So. Let us attempt to explain basic business management to the leader of the Tory party (sigh. Has it really come to this?).

    This is easily explained by placing the word “Pink” before the word “Dave”.

    Like

  12. Pingback: Cameron Off With The Fairies Again | The Libertarian Alliance: BLOG

First comments are moderated to keep the spambots out. Once your first comment is approved, you're in.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.