Dear Nay-Sayers.... [Archive] - BoLS Lounge : Wargames, Warhammer & Miniatures Forum

Denzark

08-01-2012, 11:55 AM

Mr Mystery

08-01-2012, 12:33 PM

Moros

08-01-2012, 01:20 PM

As always the moronic vocal minority was wrong.

Capt Forsythe

08-01-2012, 05:09 PM

All I see there is growth from models/game stagnating in UK and Europe, GW gets a big boost in North America (presumably from a dollar that gained value versus the falling Euro) that makes up for losses in Australia and Asia, big drop in profits from 'exports' and a mysterious sales category called product/supply that is just...odd, but bumped up the operating profit significantly.

Their liscensing division did extremely well.

The holding group and actually ended up down 200k in cash in hand and banked, but the company cash on hand increased by 2300%. I don't know what to make of that.

Anyhow, that report is far from something you should be take one look at and say nyah nyah nyah, lookie,lookie, revenue is up. It needs someone with a finer toothed comb than I have to really evaluate.

A couple top shareholders ditched some stock though, something else to consider.

lobster-overlord

08-01-2012, 05:15 PM

I just can't find a bank locally that carries stock on the London Exchange without a hefty fee.

....

gendoikari87

08-01-2012, 05:32 PM

This proves one thing. There are a lot of schmucks. Still revenue was up only about as much as their average price increases so, little if no change in sales. GW could triple their prices and these dumb****s would still bow to the company and pay it because it's "a luxury item" People. it's ****ing plastic.

for the record I now I have an army again 30 terminators for less than 100 bucks. With 3rd party bits that's about 150. Black reach, best thing GW's ever done. They need to do more.

Vlad78

08-01-2012, 05:56 PM

Yes, you win £5!!!

Very well said!

And now I've fired up the laptop, I can add more! Hurrah!

So, yeah. GW clearly isn't out pricing itself. Nor did the so-called 'week of terror' do them any harm whatsoever.

For those not aware, these results do NOT include the 40k Launch. So between this annual report, and 2013's, add in 6th Edition AND The Hobbitt. Yeah. You're looking at seriously, seriously big spondooliks heading into GW's account. Following the LotR bubble going (sharper than they expected, by their own admission) they've seriously matured as a company. They run on the necessary staff, and have rejigged their supply chain (fully automated stock replenishment for every store) and trimmed off the fat.

If anything, they were lucky LotR popped when it did, as by the time 2008 came along and basically shafted the world, they were already well into a serious restructuring. And now they're bouncing back. And it's important to remember, they are still taking a good percentage now then pre-LotR. This is a company in rude health, and kicking arse!

Last report shows a very good year indeed.

BUT, it also contains some hints of very serious problems that will need to be addressed within the next 5 years otherwise GW might be in trouble.

- First one, the growth of income does not match the price rises. (take a look at the warseer forum to see what many posters dig within this report)

Therefore, despite the fact that GW did push their main games with rules that favored bigger battles with more minis, despite the huge growth in the various numbers of different armies, miniatures, books and so on, the sale are at best remaining the same but most likely decreasing. and the trend started many years ago.

On the long run, it's very bad because this may be the sign that the player base is shrinking and kids do not replace older players anymore. (at least not on a & for 1 basis)
And 40k main strenght IS the player base and how easy it is to find other players.

- Prices continue to rise. I won't talk about the cost of entry and how people used to have a lot of different armies 10 years ago, this has been talked to death, but I also feel that GW by raising prices so quickly are making the miniature market viable to the competition, be it war machine or others minor producers of bits and small kits.

and a shrinking player base with more competition does not bode well for the next decade.

- Finally, the old lady is doing fine but I'm under the impression that the heads of the company aren't looking forward after their retirement day (Kirby) and are milking the cow before 3D printers begin to create a lot of problems to the miniature industry.

They did a lot of restructuring and did cut the fat with efficiency but they 'll need to fix the problem of the decreasing sale otherwise the situation can change pretty quickly.

the jeske

08-01-2012, 11:10 PM

hmm though the sells would be better in main land europe , considering the whole PP manufacturing problem.
all those cuts and sells in deed seem to not be up , at least not as much as they should have .

I wonder how they counted the out of stock paints . I mean they did have guys drive around all the FLGS and ask how the new stuff is selling and some stuff did not sell at all .

Off topic I loved the part about "Pro painters dont like some of the new products because they are too much in old techniques" makes me lol each time I remember roland gander saying it. But the replacing did happen realy fast , shops didnt have a choice in it . If you wanted to sell GW paints you had to replace the old for the new , so the GW stock should have been gone realy fast considering they knew how many shops/stores were buying paints from them in advance.

daboarder

08-02-2012, 01:08 AM

I beleive Denzark that you will find THIS much more informative,

http://investor.games-workshop.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Final-group-accounts-3-June-2012.pdf

Things of note:

Auzzie market still tanked: its hasn't clawed its way back to its 2009 sales volume so essentially they have still lost a full 5th of the company in OZ.

Interesting note is the large jump in North america sales, possibly due to the Australian online market shifting their place of purchase away form Europe, if this is the case then GW is still in competition with itself.

Production is being consolidated in the UK and US, so GW has decided that China is not worth the liability.

Therefore GW is better off than it was at this time last year, but we should also note that their have been some very large shifts in the way GW does things in this last year.

We've seen a rise in centrepiece kits, digital media, revival of games days, and the Australian market wasn't even extorted with the annual price increase passing us over.

So I stand by what I said this time last year, and that was that GW needed to drastically change the way it does bussiness, and by all accounts they are.

Psychosplodge

08-02-2012, 01:38 AM

Looks to me like they've hidden issues with profitability, I think the mysterious product supply money could be them weighing the metal in as they move over to finecast, can't do that every year.

daboarder

08-02-2012, 01:50 AM

hmm interesting, I assumed they were merely re-smelting the metal and using it for models that had not yet been moved to finecast, but if they are selling it on to other manufacturers....

alshrive

08-02-2012, 02:09 AM

this is actually a very informative article,

plus i have selected my word of the day as Spondoolicks!it was going to be mellifluous but i like spondoolicks more!

Psychosplodge

08-02-2012, 02:11 AM

Or the metal markets, it would fetch a pretty penny weighing it in...

Skandar

08-02-2012, 02:40 AM

Production is being consolidated in the UK and US, so GW has decided that China is not worth the liability.

They should be commended for that if nothing else.

Cap'nSmurfs

08-02-2012, 06:01 AM

People get silly about this stuff. The story is: they're in profit, and have been for several years now. They're increasing their profits. They're doing this by running their business sensibly. The licensed products (videogames, RPGs and boardgames) are doing well, alongside the fringe operations like Black Library and Forge World. The core stuff is also doing well, supplemented by big, successful releases like the new paint range.

All this is in the middle of a recession in which a lot of major UK high street and other retail chains have crashed and burned. That's genuinely pretty impressive.

They're not in any great danger. Things looked much, much worse a few years ago, but the post-2007 restructuring is working.

There are people with a better grasp on the details than I, but it looks like things are going well.

Psychosplodge

08-02-2012, 06:13 AM

People get silly about this stuff. The story is: they're in profit, and have been for several years now.

That's quite naive.
It generally looks stagnant. obviously there's the costs associated with re-tooling and a re-launch, and there's this mystery product surplus cash or whatever it was labelled.

But I've done work for companies before where new management come in, put all maintenance on hold, slash staffing(one man stores anyone?) and the like.

I still think it's clever accounting. See what it looks like in a couple of years once the fincast rollout is complete and they're running on minimum staff levels, then we'll get a clearer view...

Cap'nSmurfs

08-02-2012, 06:52 AM

Psychosplodge

08-02-2012, 07:03 AM

It's not naive. It's not nuanced, sure, but it's not naive. The bottom line is still always the bottom line: is your company making money? Are they continuing to make money? Are they making more money year on year? Yes, yes and yes. The fact they're doing this while A. continuing to adapt their business model and product ranges and B. in the middle of the worst recession in a half-century is fairly impressive. A lot of other companies would kill for those results.

Not least the ones that weren't so well run and now don't exist. It's a lot of big, established brands this has happened to.

Compare to a few years ago when they were in a bit of a state. It's a positive development. I'm not saying they're in THE BEST POSITION EVER! but they sure as hell aren't dying or in danger.
IDK I just don't think something as simple as being in profit says much about the overall health of the company. I do think however they lost something when the became a PLC, as they're too busy trying to look profitable, than being stable.

There's plenty of industries that are pretty much recession proof. I wouldn't see tobacco companies worrying over Johnny Chav being skint, he's not going to stop his twenty a day habit... Same with this hobby, most of the hardcore players/collectors/painters would see themselves go without something else before they give up their plastic crack...

the jeske

08-02-2012, 10:05 AM

hmm I dont understand one thing . hobbies you have to pay for are a luxury item . Luxury item trade almost never suffers from deconiunctur of market .

eldargal

08-02-2012, 10:16 AM

They became a PLC in 1992, though, and they have done nothing but expand since then. Honestly they had far, far more troubles leading up to the revenue crash of 2005 than they do now, the business is far more efficient now than it was then.

IDK I just don't think something as simple as being in profit says much about the overall health of the company. I do think however they lost something when the became a PLC, as they're too busy trying to look profitable, than being stable.

There's plenty of industries that are pretty much recession proof. I wouldn't see tobacco companies worrying over Johnny Chav being skint, he's not going to stop his twenty a day habit... Same with this hobby, most of the hardcore players/collectors/painters would see themselves go without something else before they give up their plastic crack...

Wildeybeast

08-02-2012, 10:18 AM

I still think it's clever accounting. See what it looks like in a couple of years once the fincast rollout is complete and they're running on minimum staff levels, then we'll get a clearer view...

I'm not sure we will. The Hobbit is going to give them a big sales boost over the next three years (now Jackson has confirmed a 3rd film) so the figures are likely to be looking pretty rosy over the next few years.

Mr Mystery

08-02-2012, 10:55 AM

On the subject of price rises creating the increased revenue.....

This is a very narrow view. It's a portion of their products that go up with each rise, not the entire range. For every Finecast type price rise, there are increased numbers of plastic kits bringing the overall cost of an army down. Let's take Necrons, which I believe would have been counted in this report. Lots of new kits. Massive increase in the number of plastic kits. Immortals are a good example. Used to be £8.00 each for a metal mode. Now £20.50 for 5 plastic ones. That's just shy of a 50% price reduction when you're looking at cost per unit in an army. Wraiths are another example. If memory serves, these were £12 a pop (possibly as much as £15?) and are now £28.50 for three. This is also a reduction in cost.

Those claiming the increase is entirely down to price rises never take this into account.

Every army released in any given year has a mixture of new models, and units redone in plastic. Every unit released in plastic is cheaper than it's metal predecessor. But no one ever points this out when complaining about prices.

I worked out a my old Empire army a few years back, just after the plastic Flagellants came out. And it worked out slightly cheaper, including new units and the price rise than it would have been the same time the year before. Same with Chaos in Warhammer. Before the 1997 multi-part plastics (£10 for 12 when they came out) you were paying £3 per Chaos Warrior. And now, 15 years later, you get the same quantity for (checks price quickly...) £20. Yes, the price of the plastics has doubled in that period, but it's still £12 cheaper than it was 15 years ago to buy the metal equivalents. Ditto Marauders (£6 for three in 1997) which are now £20 for 16. So five blisters of metal Marauders would have set me back £30......15 years later the price is subjectively cheaper. Cavalry are massively cheaper than they used to be. Even Monstrous Infantry, boxed into 3's are cheaper in Finecast than their metal equivalents.

The natural counter of course is that the size of the games have increased. Yes, they have. But there's nothing forcing you to keep that pace.

Though this is more an explanation of why the price bothers me not! Your wallet, your decision. But to say the increased takings are down to increased prices simply holds no water.

Quick example....my actual 1,500 point Necron Army.

1 Overlord, 2 Crypteks (£9.50 each), 20 Warriors (needs two boxes at £22.00 each), 20 Immortals (£20.50 per box of 5), 2 Annihilation Barge (£22.50 each, Overlord neatly supplied from this kit), Monolith (41.00) . This would set you back in the present day £231.00. Pre-finecast, Cryptek equivalents would have been what, £7.00 each? The Immortals though...as previously covered £8 a pop.....£160.00. Ouch. The other stuff is plastic, or hasn't existed before, so it's kind of hard to pin the cost. But let's say the Monolith *never* increased in price from it's initial £30.00 price tag way back when, and the Warriors were their original £12 for 12? Let's add that up....£273.00 by my reckoning. Even retconning the price of the Barges back (to say, 2001 Rhino price? Roughly analagous) and that army is STILL cheaper today, thanks to new plastics.

(edit was to swap Predator for Rhino in my example. Just checked the prices!)

the jeske

08-02-2012, 10:25 PM

Every army released in any given year has a mixture of new models, and units redone in plastic. Every unit released in plastic is cheaper than it's metal predecessor. But no one ever points this out when complaining about prices.
wait wait wait. Chaos sm got possessed and had to wait 4 years to get the plastic DP ? an edition switched and chaos sm still didnt get oblits which make 1/3 of freaking chaos army. [that is as if marines had to use metal tacticals] .

DAs got the RW [too bad its sucks like possessed] company vets[good parts source for non DA player] and a new version of samy[look RW].

It's a portion of their products that go up with each rise, not the entire range. For every Finecast type price rise, there are increased numbers of plastic kits bringing the overall cost of an army down.

I am sorry how does the fact of chaos warriors getting theoreticly cheaper [well they arent for me and they arent for a newcomer , but they are for GW] , if armies arent build around them .

thats like your example necron list . you say the cost stays the same but your not using scyths in the list and an odd number of imortals .

to make another examle . who cares if the plastic possessed look better then the metal ones[not a big achivment considering how bad the metal ones were] and how much cheaper they are , when possessed freaking suck and you still need to buy oblits and DPS which didnt get cheaper .

Kawauso

08-02-2012, 10:57 PM

wait wait wait. Chaos sm got possessed and had to wait 4 years to get the plastic DP ? an edition switched and chaos sm still didnt get oblits which make 1/3 of freaking chaos army. [that is as if marines had to use metal tacticals] .

DAs got the RW [too bad its sucks like possessed] company vets[good parts source for non DA player] and a new version of samy[look RW].

I am sorry how does the fact of chaos warriors getting theoreticly cheaper [well they arent for me and they arent for a newcomer , but they are for GW] , if armies arent build around them .

thats like your example necron list . you say the cost stays the same but your not using scyths in the list and an odd number of imortals .

to make another examle . who cares if the plastic possessed look better then the metal ones[not a big achivment considering how bad the metal ones were] and how much cheaper they are , when possessed freaking suck and you still need to buy oblits and DPS which didnt get cheaper .

I think you missed the point of his post, seeing as you`re talking about an army that`s super out of date, and he`s talking about what we saw largely throughout 5th edition, which was a shift to plastic-plastic-plastic that not only saw better sculpts but brought down the cost-per-model of units pretty significantly.

It should be noted, however, that 5th edition books saw the points cost of models drop in many cases, leading to players needing larger and more units in their armies.

It would be interesting to see a price comparison between a 3rd ed. and 5th. ed. Necron army, for example, using competitive or competent lists of the same point size from each, as well as the models that were available at the time with the appropriate costs (i.e. metal Wraiths and Immortals for the 3E army).

Tzeentch's Dark Agent

08-03-2012, 12:54 AM

Couldn't this entire thread have gone in with the thread that Bigred had posted (http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/showthread.php?p=225955#post225955)?

Psychosplodge

08-03-2012, 01:31 AM

I'm not sure we will. The Hobbit is going to give them a big sales boost over the next three years (now Jackson has confirmed a 3rd film) so the figures are likely to be looking pretty rosy over the next few years.

Yeah forgot about that, that'll probably sell regardless of what GW do.

Couldn't this entire thread have gone in with the thread that Bigred had posted (http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/showthread.php?p=225955#post225955)?

Nope.

Tzeentch's Dark Agent

08-03-2012, 01:39 AM

It's the same thing, just with more moaning.

Psychosplodge

08-03-2012, 01:53 AM

It's the same thing, just with more moaning.
Eactly, this ones about the moaning rather than the report...

Vaktathi

08-03-2012, 02:03 AM

How are you all today? Have you seen this at all?

http://investor.games-workshop.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Preliminary-announcement-2012-final.pdf

Just to sum up for you. GW in profit - again. During a recession. Paying dividends to share holders. Selling out of 3 months of new paint stocks in 3 weeks. Apparently single man stores are an improvement. All is good.

Can't hear you singing any more, Nay-Sayers?

I would be delighted to hear a response from anyone who thinks differently - let me know what the stock market code of your blue chip company you are CEO for is, and I'll compare your stock to see if you may be credible.

If not, why don't you follow the link, press print, and stick a copy of this in your pipe and smoke it.

Ta ta for now,
Hooray, we think we know what we're talking about from 1 fiscal year's report's bottom line number...hooray!

A lot of this profit is being driven by singular-instance cost cutting and deferred losses, as well massive one-time releases (e.g. the paints that required *EVERY* store, independent and GW branded, to dump old stock and restock from scratch).

Oh, that and they once again divvied out more in dividends than they ended up making in net profit, burning cash reserves to triple Mr.Kirby's salary through dividend payments.

Relative to the overall market, they're losing share, and basically simply recovered to 2010 levels in terms of revenue.

This is why we do more than just look at the big pretty numbers GW prints in big distracting bold.

Mr Mystery

08-03-2012, 02:27 AM

Hooray, we think we know what we're talking about from 1 fiscal year's report's bottom line number...hooray!

A lot of this profit is being driven by singular-instance cost cutting and deferred losses, as well massive one-time releases (e.g. the paints that required *EVERY* store, independent and GW branded, to dump old stock and restock from scratch).

Oh, that and they once again divvied out more in dividends than they ended up making in net profit, burning cash reserves to triple Mr.Kirby's salary through dividend payments.

Relative to the overall market, they're losing share, and basically simply recovered to 2010 levels in terms of revenue.

This is why we do more than just look at the big pretty numbers GW prints in big distracting bold.

And which other Companies results are you comparing market share with?

Denzark

08-03-2012, 03:46 AM

It's the same thing, just with more moaning.

Dear TDA, this thread is berating them that have been complaining for 2-odd years about GW performance saying their business practises are going to bring a crash - clearly these results mid recession are good.

It is not a discussion of the results themselves. However, as no-one has been able to answer my challenge in OP, ie tell me what blue chip company they are CEO of and THEN criticise GW policy, if you don't like this running slightly nuanced from Mr Red's thread, feel free to use your Mod pistol and one round...

Psychosplodge

08-03-2012, 03:48 AM

Tzeentch's Dark Agent

08-03-2012, 03:57 AM

Dear TDA, this thread is berating them that have been complaining for 2-odd years about GW performance saying their business practises are going to bring a crash - clearly these results mid recession are good.

It is not a discussion of the results themselves. However, as no-one has been able to answer my challenge in OP, ie tell me what blue chip company they are CEO of and THEN criticise GW policy, if you don't like this running slightly nuanced from Mr Red's thread, feel free to use your Mod pistol and one round...

No, because that would be an improper use of power.
I'll leave you to your conversation, provided that it doesn't get out of hand.

Have fun.

EDIT: Note, I do not disagree with how GW runs their company, and I am not the CEO of any company.

Denzark

08-03-2012, 06:20 AM

I run BP and we are doing.....oh right nevermind...

I'm far too lazy to actually run a company, doesn't mean I couldn't actually do it, I just like my working day to end when I leave the office...
But paying the dividend at a higher rate than net profits using cash reserves seems very sensible... even to me not running a blue chip company. Better?

Better yes - but I confess I don't understand a word of it.

My slightly facetious ask - is an attempt to deter the business equivalents of armchair generals, from passing fatuous comments about how if GW slashed prices in half everyone would buy 18x more product, etc.

Cos as I restate, GW is doing bloody well for a recession, in making a profit.

Psychosplodge

08-03-2012, 06:23 AM

It's how they've made that profit this year, through non-repeatable cuts and stuff that's the issue though...

Tzeentch's Dark Agent

08-03-2012, 06:25 AM

Indeed, and I do not dispute this, I believe I agreed earlier in the thread.

I wasn't saying that you were moaning, but there are posters in this thread who are moaning about GW's prices.

Psychosplodge

08-03-2012, 06:33 AM

Also that has been shown to work on steam, they see an exponential increase in sales during their two major sales throughout the year. that more than makes up for the 75% off most games reach, whether you could translate that to GW I don't know, but maybe it'd be worth trying, or having random sales on kit throughout the year, potentially everybody wins, people buy stuff they wouldn't have and GW shifts more product...

Rapture

08-03-2012, 06:48 AM

Mr Mystery

08-03-2012, 07:44 AM

Psychosplodge

08-03-2012, 07:52 AM

That's what the exponential means, I think the figures I saw was a 40fold increase at 75% off on steam, hence why they do it.

Vaktathi

08-03-2012, 10:01 AM

And which other Companies results are you comparing market share with?

While I'm not a fan of the game personally, PP's Warmahordes already exceeds Warhammer Fantasy and LoTR combined in terms of sales, and there's a ton of other companies in the miniatures gaming market that have established presence in the last few years that were much smaller or nonexistent 5 years ago, Spartan Games, Infinity, Flames of War, etc.

Now, I'm generally not a raving anti-GW lunatic, I want GW to stay around, I like their universes, I like their models, I think they make great kits in most instances, their plastics are years ahead of what anyone else is doing without having to resort to resin or metals, and they typically have great customer service.

But...back when I was in college 6 years ago, 40k or Fantasy was the only game in town, PP started showing up in dribs a couple year later with some Flames of War, now I go into a shop and while 40k is still the biggest game in town, LoTR is nonexistent, and I see more games of Firestorm Armada or Heavy Gear than I do Fantasy.

Mr Mystery

08-03-2012, 10:46 AM

While I'm not a fan of the game personally, PP's Warmahordes already exceeds Warhammer Fantasy and LoTR combined in terms of sales, and there's a ton of other companies in the miniatures gaming market that have established presence in the last few years that were much smaller or nonexistent 5 years ago, Spartan Games, Infinity, Flames of War, etc.

Now, I'm generally not a raving anti-GW lunatic, I want GW to stay around, I like their universes, I like their models, I think they make great kits in most instances, their plastics are years ahead of what anyone else is doing without having to resort to resin or metals, and they typically have great customer service.

But...back when I was in college 6 years ago, 40k or Fantasy was the only game in town, PP started showing up in dribs a couple year later with some Flames of War, now I go into a shop and while 40k is still the biggest game in town, LoTR is nonexistent, and I see more games of Firestorm Armada or Heavy Gear than I do Fantasy.

Sadly it's just anecdotal evidence. PP are a private business, thus any talk of their market share is purely conjecture. They are credible competition though, and this can be seen in GW pulling their socks up in terms of production value.

Vaktathi

08-03-2012, 11:34 AM

The data has been out for some time from ICv2's market research

http://www.icv2.com/articles/news/23501.html Q2 sales 2012

Denzark

08-03-2012, 12:05 PM

Without an actual analysis, your opinion of a financial report is less than meaningless. Remember that Enron, to a layman, looked pretty skippy before its fall.

Duke usually gives an analysis of the GW financials. Obnoxious threads like this one will be much more effective after he supports your opinion.

Edit:
As an aside, the idea that someone has to be in a comparable position to criticize the work or another (a corporation, in this case) is sin against the intelligence of mankind. Reasonable people in the real world certainly do not support such an idea.

You're right and I like some of Duke's analysis. However who is to say the analysis of some 'internet personality' is valid? Who knows if the financial qualifications he claims to have, he actually has? At the end of the day the only measure of success in a business is to make profit.

So unless someone can prove themselves more successful by this measure, ie be responsible for a business that makes more profits, than how can they possibly claim their cunning plan would be better than GW's business model?

As to reasonable people in the real world, they do not use such histrionic language as the word 'sin' with all it implies, against something as inconsequential as an idea.

Actually I find commentators of all sorts - be they art critics, football commentators, etc to have little credibility unless they have a proven track record in said field. I would be surprised if many people didn't think the same. Because commentary without backing is subjective -profits are a measurable metric therefore objective. Fact against opinion.

Denzark

08-03-2012, 12:12 PM

The data has been out for some time from ICv2's market research

http://www.icv2.com/articles/news/23501.html Q2 sales 2012

Are these figures multi-national?

Sainhann

08-03-2012, 01:34 PM

Wildeybeast

08-03-2012, 01:49 PM

Two words

PRICE INCREASES

Price increases people were obviously happy to pay given the profits.

Vaktathi

08-03-2012, 02:19 PM

Price increases people were obviously happy to pay given the profits.

Hrm, not necessarily, the price increases were 10-30%, on top of huge mandatory restocking of paints for every store that sells GW stuff, and their increase in revenue over the previous years was less than 5% ;)

That is more indicative of fewer people purchasing at higher prices.

This is why we look at something more than just the fact that the number is different than it was last year.

Rapture

08-03-2012, 03:19 PM

You're right and I like some of Duke's analysis. However who is to say the analysis of some 'internet personality' is valid? Who knows if the financial qualifications he claims to have, he actually has? At the end of the day the only measure of success in a business is to make profit.

So unless someone can prove themselves more successful by this measure, ie be responsible for a business that makes more profits, than how can they possibly claim their cunning plan would be better than GW's business model?

As to reasonable people in the real world, they do not use such histrionic language as the word 'sin' with all it implies, against something as inconsequential as an idea.

Actually I find commentators of all sorts - be they art critics, football commentators, etc to have little credibility unless they have a proven track record in said field. I would be surprised if many people didn't think the same. Because commentary without backing is subjective -profits are a measurable metric therefore objective. Fact against opinion.
I am not sure that you could be more obtuse if you tried.

First, human beings are intelligent and reasonable (most of us, anyway). We can reach conclusions regarding things we have not done through a variety of different logical avenues. A veterinarian previous caused my parents' dog to suffer brain damage during a basic surgical procedure. Anyone with an IQ over 70 can arrive at the objective (and correct) conclusion that the vet in question did a very poor job. For a more timely example, turn on the Olympics. When you see a gymnast hit their face into the ground, you should have no problem making an objective commentary even if you have never competed in the vault.

Second, Profit does not necessarily indicate success. Success is dictated by the goals of the business. GW, like any business, has several goals. These goals likely include staying in business and making money. These two are never bound by an unbreakable direct relationship. Plenty of businesses take on short term profits at the cost of long term viability. One of the biggest problems with the corporate model is that CEOs, through pursuit of high profits, damage a corporation out of greed.

Finally, people use whatever language they prefer. There is quite a bit of freedom in word choice. 'Sin' was chosen because the patent stupidity of the idea the one must be hold a position in order to make intelligent commentary on the actions of one in such a position is almost biblical.

It might be fun and exciting to post vitriol, but at least think first.

Denzark

08-03-2012, 03:40 PM

Rapture it is my understanding that (admittedly very simply put) British corporate law requires companies to act responsibly on behalf of their shareholders. This is in effect their primary goal - how they acheive this is their business model.

This basically means making profits. GW is a success by this metric, no matter what the nay-sayers say. Especially in the current financial climate - GB is in a double dip recession.

As to your vet example, this indicates why yourself in this discussion, and the nay-sayers regarding GW business model, are lacking credibility - it is weak first order analysis, not looking at all possibilities.

It COULD have been the vet's fault. However it could have been his attendant nurse who he was banging on the side and he took the blame for - or maybe he thinks as 'captain of the ship' it was his fault. You've made the assumption that it was a simple surgical procedure. Maybe he told you this as his bedside manner did not want to stress you out. In the litigious 'sue everyone' US society you will never know the absolute truth hence your trite assumptions.

You trot out assumptions willy-nilly and accuse other positions of patent biblical stupidity. You then encourage me not to use vitriol.

C- try harder.

I suppose GW could be springing a Hollywood style cover up of shoite results. But actually having turned around from a profit warning (remember the nay-sayers saying then was the time to boycott GW as that would bring the company to its knees and result in price decreases?) and now bringing home the bacon in a double dip recession looks a lot like a vindication to me.

Rapture

08-03-2012, 04:34 PM

I address you line by line to avoid missing out on some of your more interesting comments.

Rapture it is my understanding that (admittedly very simply put) British corporate law requires companies to act responsibly on behalf of their shareholders. This is in effect their primary goal - how they acheive this is their business model.

This basically means making profits. GW is a success by this metric, no matter what the nay-sayers say. Especially in the current financial climate - GB is in a double dip recession.
So what? Profits are meaningless if they come at the long term cost of the business. Maintaining a function business over time is part of the duty owed to the shareholders.

As to your vet example, this indicates why yourself in this discussion, and the nay-sayers regarding GW business model, are lacking credibility - it is weak first order analysis, not looking at all possibilities.

It COULD have been the vet's fault. However it could have been his attendant nurse who he was banging on the side and he took the blame for (irrelevant as a vet is responsible for the actions of their employees) - or maybe he thinks as 'captain of the ship' it was his fault. You've made the assumption that it was a simple surgical procedure (no I did not). Maybe he told you this as his bedside manner did not want to stress you out (no he did not). In the litigious 'sue everyone' US society you will never know the absolute truth hence your trite assumptions.
Trite assumptions? The dog was being neutered. The vet used too much anesthesia and temporarily shut the dog down completely without checking on the animal in any way until his assistant noticed the dog's lips turning blue. I fail to see how your opinion of American's propensity for legal resolution has anything to do with this discussion. Try addressing the actual idea instead of looking for faults in an anecdote clearly meant to help you wrap you head around a simply fact that you seem to be having some trouble with.

You trot out assumptions willy-nilly and accuse other positions of patent biblical stupidity. You then encourage me not to use vitriol.
Read it again if you are having trouble following along. I did not discourage you from using vitriol, I discourage you from not thinking. Clearly my efforts were in vain.

C- try harder.
You are clearly confused.

I suppose GW could be springing a Hollywood style cover up of shoite results. But actually having turned around from a profit warning (remember the nay-sayers saying then was the time to boycott GW as that would bring the company to its knees and result in price decreases?) and now bringing home the bacon in a double dip recession looks a lot like a vindication to me.
Hollywood? 'Cover ups' and detrimental short term business strategies are part of everyday life. Bringing home the bacon at what cost? You don't know and neither do I. Again, profit is not a guaranteed indicator of health.

Read the post you responded to again. It has two key points. I will say them as clearly as possible for you:
1) Human beings can make reasonable criticisms of decisions or actions of an individual in a position that they themselves do not hold.
2) Profit does not necessarily indicate the success or health of a business.

Vaktathi

08-03-2012, 04:49 PM

Rapture it is my understanding that (admittedly very simply put) British corporate law requires companies to act responsibly on behalf of their shareholders. This is in effect their primary goal - how they acheive this is their business model.

This basically means making profits. GW is a success by this metric, no matter what the nay-sayers say. Especially in the current financial climate - GB is in a double dip recession. Again, a lot of that is illusory and dependent on one time events they can't repeat year after year after year. Having *every* business that sells GW products dump its stock of paints and have to restock entirely from scratch is going to make a huge boost in sales. Having massive price increases even with decreasing sales volume can also increase profits in the short term if the increase in profit per sale outweighs the lost volume. The problem is that its sustainability is highly questionable, especially if it leads to market share loss in the long run that dictates so much of GW's market power and standing in the industry to do what it pleases.

They also are not bound to pay dividends, especially not in years where they didn't make money, yet they have. This year they made money, and still aren't bound to pay dividends, but they paid out more in dividends than they made in free and clear profit.

GW has been borrowing money and burning cash reserves every year to pay dividends. There's no rational business reason to do this, and investors normally would not expect such dividends. In fact in years the company didn't make money, borrowing money to pay dividends is something that is absolutely bonkers from a business perspective and for anything but the most short term of investors. They are damaging the company by incurring borrowing costs and reducing cash available for investments by doing so. The only possible reason for paying such dividends is for large shareholders to reap a large reward at the expense of the company's operations and long term viability, namely Mr.Kirby who conveniently made twice his salary in dividend payments this year.

Denzark

08-03-2012, 04:53 PM

I address you line by line to avoid missing out on some of your more interesting comments.

Read the post you responded to again. It has two key points. I will say them as clearly as possible for you:
1) Human beings can make reasonable criticisms of decisions or actions of an individual in a position that they themselves do not hold.

Yes surely. The whole point of this thread is that I don't find the criticisms of the GW business model reasonable given the evidence points to the opposite.

2) Profit does not necessarily indicate the success or health of a business.

Unless you are stating that profit in and of itself indicates a business is unsuccessful or unhealthy, by your argument, 'not necessarily' you have acknowledged that in some circumstances profit can indicate the success of a business.

Rapture you are clearly mistaking you being confused for me being confused. This whole thread is predicated on my opinion that in the current UK financial climate the GW figures are a sign of success. I will go further and state that this is also sustainable. We will not see a lowering of price structure or even a freezing of, ever with GW. In case you doubt this, let me leave you with the words of Mark Wells from the report:

As for the future, our objective is simple: we will continue to make the best fantasy miniatures in the world and sell them globally at a profit. We intend to do this forever.

Again your lack of analysis leaves you failing to understand the premise this thread is based on - this GW report is a vindication of their business model.

Rapture

08-03-2012, 05:15 PM

[COLOR="red"]Again your lack of analysis leaves you failing to understand the premise this thread is based on - this GW report is a vindication of their business model.
I don't know if you remember writing the OP, but this thread has two obvious goals:

1) To point out that GW reported a profit and, as a result, "all is good."
2) To be obnoxious.

The second is not directly stated, but is clearly implied by the title of the thread and the content of the OP. The first is simply not true.

The other ridiculous ideas and statements being addressed were added by you throughout your 'argument.'

Wildeybeast

08-03-2012, 05:53 PM

Hrm, not necessarily, the price increases were 10-30%, on top of huge mandatory restocking of paints for every store that sells GW stuff, and their increase in revenue over the previous years was less than 5% ;)

That is more indicative of fewer people purchasing at higher prices.

This is why we look at something more than just the fact that the number is different than it was last year.

But surely whether 1000 people purchase at a lower price or 100 purchase at higher price is irrelevant so long as you still turn a profit on the number of customers you do have? And any 'evidence' that the number of active GW gamers has decreased is as anecdotal as the claim that the big improvement in plastic models has increased their customer base over the last 12 months.

gendoikari87

08-03-2012, 07:35 PM

Rapture it is my understanding that (admittedly very simply put) British corporate law requires companies to act responsibly on behalf of their shareholders. This is in effect their primary goal - how they acheive this is their business model.
We have those laws too, and we need, beyond any other law, to strike them down or outright re write them. That **** is the cause of 99% of the worlds problems. Greed is the other 1%

Vaktathi

08-03-2012, 07:39 PM

But surely whether 1000 people purchase at a lower price or 100 purchase at higher price is irrelevant so long as you still turn a profit on the number of customers you do have? It all depends on the market you're in. GW gains a lot from it's position in that market as the big dog. If they lose share, that's going to cause a whole lot of problems eventually as their ability to price as they want and charge independents as they want and conduct "embargos" as they have with Australia and the like, will all become less and less viable.

And with more and more companies coming out with more and more games with more and more sophisticated models and flashy books, that's going to hurt. 6 years ago it was pretty much "GW or nothing" in most places, sometimes "yeah, we also have a PP group that shows up every couple of weeks". This is not the case anymore as games like Flames of War, Dystopian Wars, Infinity, and others are becoming bigger and bigger.

It also means they may price themselves out of range of their target market, something that's already occurring in some places, as evidenced by the collapse in sales in Australia, or my gaming store as new people pick up Heavy Gear, Firestorm Armada, or Infinity instead of 40k because a complete armies costs less than basic 2 troops+HQ+Rulebook for 40k, and the models are beautiful, just not plastic (rather, metal or resin).

And any 'evidence' that the number of active GW gamers has decreased is as anecdotal as the claim that the big improvement in plastic models has increased their customer base over the last 12 months.Did they say that? I don't recall that exact phrase, I'll have to double-check it, but they can say pretty much anything they want, they've made questionable statements in the past on such releases that their shareholders (primarily Hedge Funds) either don't care to check or aren't in a position to check.

Mr Mystery

08-04-2012, 02:36 AM

Vakathi, the point I was trying to make (and I did go off at a tagent. I usually do!) is that the whole 'increased profit from increased prices' is fundamentally flawed for two reasons...

1) The price rises do not affect the entire range in any given year. If memory serves, it's around 25%. One year it will be infantry, the next tanks, the year after that paint and bikes etc (these are made up breakdowns, purely for illustration purposes)

2) Many items were transferred to plastic, with a lower equivalent price. It doesn't matter that comparitive boxes used to be cheaper, this is now the cheapest the newly plastic units have even been.

Between these two, you simply cannot pin any increase in profitability on the price rises. Do they help? Of course they do, otherwise why do it?

I can add further largely anecdotal evidence by my previous comparissons. The best selling armies are the newest armies, far and away. This is slightly more solid, as it's from my (now two year out of date) knowledge from working in a GW Store. Tyranids sold incredibly well on release, and steadily there after in the Store I was working in. Your big releases count for a solid chunk of monthly sales (more or less confirmed in the annual report). It is the new ranges that see the biggest fluctuation in prices, and many of them are downwards. For Nids, the main switching units were of course Raveners and Gargoyles, available in plastic for the first time. These sold incredibly well, as existing players had been wanting them for some time, and went nuts.

Good example for new stuff? Chaos Daemons. Plaguebearers, Screamers and Flamers all in plastic, with shiny new rules. These three units just got cheaper to buy, and given a general scepticism towards boxed Finecast, they are more appealing as a plastic kit.

Hopefully I've made my contribution to the discussion less confusing!

On a side note, about the new paints. Yes, they did redo the range. Yes, it would involve 3rd party sellers to restock. But then GW aren't daft. They stopped sending out the old paints as the batches sold through. Therefore any seller with a reasonable painting community would be left with fewer unsold old colours. And the 'forced restock' would only be a problem if you bought in the complete range, and it then failed to sell. Given the popularity of the paints, this would likely be a failing of vendor, not product. But clearly the paints sold, and sold well to the point where it seemingly took GW by surprise. Yes this is a mildly less than repeatable feat, but the new paint system is good, and helps people to get better results (painting for idiots if you like. And yes, I am one of those idiots!) thus, people are arguably going to use their paints up faster, and thus need to buy more. And contrary to interwebular claims, the volume of paint didn't drop. And if I'm right in thinking, the price didn't go up either? (could be wrong!)

Psychosplodge

08-06-2012, 01:50 AM

But surely whether 1000 people purchase at a lower price or 100 purchase at higher price is irrelevant so long as you still turn a profit on the number of customers you do have? And any 'evidence' that the number of active GW gamers has decreased is as anecdotal as the claim that the big improvement in plastic models has increased their customer base over the last 12 months.
Surely you're in a better position with a greater number of customers, because you have to piss more of them off before it adversely effects your business, as opposed to if you have 100 and annoy ten of them you've lost potentially 10% your income...

Mr Mystery

08-06-2012, 03:05 AM

But what percentage have they pissed off? How does one in our position quantify this?

Psychosplodge

08-06-2012, 03:09 AM

I've no idea how many they've pissed off, anecdotal evidence suggests a fair few, unfortunately you can't quantify it easily.

My position is based on observations from the steam sale, how it would translate to model sales unsure, but as I said before the increase in sales more than offsets the lower price at a certain point.

Wolfshade

08-06-2012, 03:45 AM

There are some fundamental truths that I think all should agree with.

GW continue to make profit in a time of economic downturn
GW have been in business for a long time and have been profitable and growing for the majority of that time

I would suggest that because of 2, they are able to achieve 1. There are many who say that the price hikes have been just short term gains, but looking at the previous annual statements I would suggest that this isn't a short term gain, but a calculated gain based on past experiance and knowledge of GW's customer base.
I am not sure how you would judge any companies sucess other than in terms of profit. If it is profitable it is sucessful, if it is not then it is not sucessful.

Duke wrote a very good article awhile back which looked at the price tolerances, the basic long and short of it is that:

Increased prices does not necessarily lead to decreased sales
Increased prices and decreased sales does not necessarily lead to decreased profits
Decreased prices does not necessarily lead to increased sales

The issue is if GW gets their price rises correctly, they will increase profitability, but by decreasing the price it does not mean that there will be an up turn in sales.
Take Aston Martin (yes my favourite luxury example), their cheapest car the Cygnet (read toyota iQ) is a mere £31k, they could slash the price by a third but that would not make it any more likely that I would buy such a thing (for £20k I'd buy a BMW M 1 sport instead...). Certainly, if the land raider I brought was £15 cheaper, I wouldn't then spend that additional £15 on extra GW stuff, there are people that would. But I would suggest most people buy models/units for what they are rather than having an allocation of funds to spend.
In terms of GW annoying us by this is this enough annoyance to push us away from the hobby? Well that comes to the individual, I would suggest however, that as far as profitablitly is effecting GW it is not a significant proportion.

Psychosplodge

08-06-2012, 03:51 AM

Wolfie what are you doing wanting anything with a BMW badge on it? they don't even come with indicators!
and you pay £5-£10k for the badge!

Wolfshade

08-06-2012, 04:13 AM

Since they stopped making the Defender 25 I kinda lost interest

I thought it was Audi that had no indicators, I know they have the special Ghost Car Detection System, which is why you see them in lane 3 with nothing on the inside of them...

Psychosplodge

08-06-2012, 04:31 AM

That's seem to be a standard failure in german engineering, neither seem able to navigate a roundabout correctly either cause of their dodgy steering...

Also...

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m83qxlcszo1qm3a1jo1_1280.jpg

Or drive overpriced silly cars with no indicators... (ignore the geography that's a different argument, i'm working with the available material lol)

Wolfshade

08-06-2012, 04:52 AM

Wasn't there a couple of cars that had the handbrake as an additional pedal?
Also, real men use two pedals, one on either side of their bike ;)

Psychosplodge

08-06-2012, 04:56 AM

idk, but that sounds a stupidly dangerous thing to do, then again have you drove a new car recently? they seem to be coming with these stupid electronic handbrakes...

Wolfshade

08-06-2012, 05:02 AM

Yeah, I was driving a 1m sport for the past month while my regular car was in the garage getting a new door. First time I drove it, stopped at the traffic lights the engine turned off I thought I had stalled the bloody thing.

Psychosplodge

08-06-2012, 05:42 AM

Oh one of them, they're even worse...

Wolfshade

08-06-2012, 05:44 AM

It made a nice change from my toyota I usually drive.
Though most journeys I make, I do so on my bike.

Psychosplodge

08-06-2012, 05:53 AM

I don't get on with most toyoto seats, they seem to have somat that digs in right on level with my kidneys

Tzeentch's Dark Agent

08-07-2012, 01:16 AM

Guys, I've received a complaint. Could we try to get back on topic? Ta

EDIT: Could we also tone the argument down a touch? I'm looking at you two (Denzark and Rapture)

Psychosplodge

08-07-2012, 01:24 AM

A complaint? I told zem we already got one, now go away or I will taunt you a second time.

Tzeentch's Dark Agent

08-07-2012, 01:27 AM

Yes, I receive complaints. I'm not sure if this is a good thing.

Psychosplodge

08-07-2012, 01:33 AM

With a tiny bit of power come unlimited responsibility?

Tzeentch's Dark Agent

08-07-2012, 01:37 AM

I'd flip that.
I don't receive many complaints.

Psychosplodge

08-07-2012, 01:43 AM

Why would you? There's very little to complain about here, unless you venture into the rules forums...

Tzeentch's Dark Agent

08-07-2012, 01:48 AM

That's where I get my Hammer of Thread Closing out.

Psychosplodge

08-07-2012, 01:50 AM

You need an appropriate graphic to close threads with...

Tzeentch's Dark Agent

08-07-2012, 01:51 AM

What do you suggest?

Psychosplodge

08-07-2012, 01:55 AM

Dunno, maybe scour deviantart for something pretty...

Tzeentch's Dark Agent

08-07-2012, 02:01 AM

I'll post it on the off-topic thread.

Psychosplodge

08-07-2012, 02:12 AM

That's not really a thread closing tool though is it?

Tzeentch's Dark Agent

08-07-2012, 02:16 AM

Let's discuss this in the off-topic thread, lest I be declared a hypocrite.

As you were gentlemen.

Psychosplodge

08-07-2012, 02:17 AM

Only took a page and half for you to catch on lmao

Tzeentch's Dark Agent

08-07-2012, 02:22 AM

As a Moderator I must answer questions that are asked of me.

Psychosplodge

08-07-2012, 02:24 AM

What is the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow?

Learn2Eel

08-07-2012, 04:20 AM

Oh dear.

Mr Mystery

08-07-2012, 05:45 AM

Right. Hauling back on topic with my salient points..

1) annual price rise only applied to a portion of range.
2) Each new army comes with units switched to plastic kits, reducing the price
3) It is not possible from available data to say how many gamers drop out, comeback or start each year.

So, off we go again!

Psychosplodge

08-07-2012, 05:53 AM

gendoikari87

08-07-2012, 08:57 AM

As someone pointed out, Enron was showing a profit on paper.
They've paid out dividends larger than the annual net profit, so basicly they're counting on The Hobbit to be a major success for the next several years, at which point the CEO will probably jump ship before the major issues come to light.

This. Specifically the bolded part.

Also the world should not revolve around profits.

Wolfshade

08-07-2012, 09:06 AM

This. Specifically the bolded part.

Also the world should not revolve around profits.

While it perhaps shouldn't, not to do so would be quite illegal...

Psychosplodge

08-07-2012, 09:10 AM

Well you see it time and time again in high street clothing retailers...

eldargal

08-07-2012, 09:20 AM

You've got it backwards. The LOTR bubble masked serious issues and inefficiencies in GWs business structure until 2005/5 when their revenue halved. Since then they have been restructuring and re-examining how they do business in order to do so efficiently and sustainable. Because this meant abandoning some things which were more trouble than they were worse and pushing their prices to see what they could get away with it made them very unpopular. But the fact is GW have never been this healthy before even if sales are declining slowly at the moment. There is no guarantee they will continue to decline indefinitely, they may plateau, they may go up. What is important is that they have little dead weight, little debt and are making a profit. The Hobbit will give them a big boost, but unlike LOTR it is not going to be masking inefficiencies in the corporation.

Psychosplodge

08-07-2012, 09:25 AM

But this year there's an unknown "stock sale" profit or whatever it was labelled as, and they've paid more in dividends than they've made in net profit.
They're clearly relying on the hobbit to provide the boost that LOTR did to give them a good margin for a few years, then after that bubble bursts the shareholders are going to be expecting a dividend that's no longer feasible.
And as they already appear to be cutting to the minimum staffing levels they can't cut costs again a couple of years down the road without store closures...

eldargal

08-07-2012, 09:48 AM

I don't see the problem, given that they suspended dividends at least once in the past couple of years, was it when they announced that overly pessimistic profit warning perhaps?

Denzark

08-07-2012, 10:34 AM

This. Specifically the bolded part.

Also the world should not revolve around profits.

He's been around for years - he did the management buyout from the good ole' days. He is already past UK retirement age i believe, betcha he retires on a high.

Also, whilst I agree with you morally: the world shouldn't - actually, the business world does and this probably ain't a bad thing - a business that can lose money and achieve its aims is called a charity.

And GW don't owe anybody anything.

gendoikari87

08-07-2012, 10:34 AM

While it perhaps shouldn't, not to do so would be quite illegal...

The law is often on the opposite side of what is right.

gendoikari87

08-07-2012, 10:36 AM

He's been around for years - he did the management buyout from the good ole' days. He is already past UK retirement age i believe, betcha he retires on a high.

Also, whilst I agree with you morally: the world shouldn't - actually, the business world does and this probably ain't a bad thing - a business that can lose money and achieve its aims is called a charity.

And GW don't owe anybody anything.

You can run a business at a net zero. Profits to shareholders is nothing more than outright theft from the working class. (no i'm not having that discussion again, i've proved it mathematically, it's generally accepted, if you choose to still support it for it's benefits and take it's downsides that's your deal)

Mr Mystery

08-07-2012, 01:38 PM

As someone pointed out, Enron was showing a profit on paper.
They've paid out dividends larger than the annual net profit, so basicly they're counting on The Hobbit to be a major success for the next several years, at which point the CEO will probably jump ship before the major issues come to light.

Yet GW are not Enron.

The majority of people claiming things are bad are doing so based on assumptions I has addressed.

The facts are that GW are turning a profit, and there is every expectation they will continue to do so.

Denzark

08-07-2012, 03:24 PM

You can run a business at a net zero. Profits to shareholders is nothing more than outright theft from the working class. (no i'm not having that discussion again, i've proved it mathematically, it's generally accepted, if you choose to still support it for it's benefits and take it's downsides that's your deal)

Here is a copy of the UK theft act. Under Sect 2a - GW operates under the belief that it is legal for it to make profit. Actually it is! Therefore no theft from the 'working class' has taken place.

Definition of “theft”

1 Basic definition of theft..

(1)A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it; and “thief” and “steal” shall be construed accordingly. .

(2)It is immaterial whether the appropriation is made with a view to gain, or is made for the thief’s own benefit. .

(3)The five following sections of this Act shall have effect as regards the interpretation and operation of this section (and, except as otherwise provided by this Act, shall apply only for purposes of this section). .

Annotations:

Modifications etc. (not altering text)

C1S. 1(1) applied (25.8.2000) by 2000 c. 6, ss. 148(8), 168

2“Dishonestly”.

(1)A person’s appropriation of property belonging to another is not to be regarded as dishonest— .

(a)if he appropriates the property in the belief that he has in law the right to deprive the other of it, on behalf of himself or of a third person; or

Mr Mystery

08-07-2012, 04:12 PM

Wolfshade

08-08-2012, 02:01 AM

The law is often on the opposite side of what is right.

The law defines what is right or wrong.
Unless you are talking morally, in which case I would argue that the law should be amoral, since you and I might share opposite view points on a certain topic , which may not cause any harm to anyone so why should the law define what is morally correct?
I believe that is the job of religions and philosphy

Mr Mystery

08-08-2012, 03:09 AM

The law is right. The law is just. Because you happen not to agree is not grounds to flount it. Lobby your local MP or national equivalent by all means. Just don't go disobeying it in the mean time.

gendoikari87

08-08-2012, 02:48 PM

Yeah. I've never got the 'profit = evil' thing. I mean, why do you think I work?

My incomings each month exceed my outgoings (hurrah!) which means each and every month, as an employee, I make my own personal profit.

Without profit, how does a company invest and expand, thus creating jobs? Now don't get me wrong, I think it's utterly immoral when a company making billions in profit cut staff, but to say all profit is theft is just....weird.

Hold on there, personal income/wages, are a vastly different thing from profits. Profits, aren't even the extra left over they use to expand. Profits are what is left over after paying all bills, and investing in your future, I.E. ALL business related expenses. These profits go to people who do nothing but "own" imaginary stake in a business and don't necessarily work at all.

Hell, even money the company puts away for a rainy day aren't what you'd naturally consider profits. Profits are strictly what go to the share holders.

http://bibliomania.com/2/1/261/1294/frameset.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3wkO3qsZY_U

Mr Mystery

08-08-2012, 04:46 PM

No I'm pretty sure any money taken in excess of running costs are ipso facto profit....

And this is a bad thing because?

wittdooley

08-08-2012, 06:01 PM

Hold on there, personal income/wages, are a vastly different thing from profits. Profits, aren't even the extra left over they use to expand. Profits are what is left over after paying all bills, and investing in your future, I.E. ALL business related expenses. These profits go to people who do nothing but "own" imaginary stake in a business and don't necessarily work at all.

Hell, even money the company puts away for a rainy day aren't what you'd naturally consider profits. Profits are strictly what go to the share holders.

http://bibliomania.com/2/1/261/1294/frameset.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3wkO3qsZY_U

You do understand that without publicly held companies that sell share, many of those companies would not have been afforded their growth opportunities, right?

Not to mention the stock market is how pretty much everyone funds their retirement because social security is broken.

And if company doesn't make any profits, no one gets any raises.

gendoikari87

08-08-2012, 06:44 PM

You do understand that without publicly held companies that sell share, many of those companies would not have been afforded their growth opportunities, right?

There are alternative methods. Many alternative methods. Some that have been put in practice and worked, and some that are strictly theoretical.

And if company doesn't make any profits, no one gets any raises.

that's bull****. Wages are part of costs not profits. if you are making a surplus you can do one of three things expand in R&D or infrastructure, Pay your employees more (lol, yeah never happens the goal is to keep costs down), or give that extra to share holders.

gendoikari87

08-08-2012, 06:46 PM

No I'm pretty sure any money taken in excess of running costs are ipso facto profit....

And this is a bad thing because?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7G4WIa-HAk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJikG-p_nho

It's been spelled out by people better able to communicate it than me, in a less dull format as well.

wittdooley

08-08-2012, 07:44 PM

There are alternative methods. Many alternative methods. Some that have been put in practice and worked, and some that are strictly theoretical.

Such as and including? Companies go public when they need an influx of cash flow to promote growth. Where else is that money supposed to come from If they shouldn't be public and they shouldnt have any profits?

that's bull****. Wages are part of costs not profits. if you are making a surplus you can do one of three things expand in R&D or infrastructure, Pay your employees more (lol, yeah never happens the goal is to keep costs down), or give that extra to share holders.

Right. But to even consider increasing costs you have to account for financial growth, ie profits.

gendoikari87

08-09-2012, 07:16 AM

Profit motive in action
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sib-bKfAmMc

Mr Mystery

08-09-2012, 08:38 AM

Profit motive in action
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sib-bKfAmMc

And that right there is the best reason for a national health service...

And also quite incredibly one sided. Could be that the guy was an arse at work, but not to a sackable extent. So you find the reason and good bye.

Rapture

08-09-2012, 08:53 AM

And that right there is the best reason for a national health service...

And also quite incredibly one sided. Could be that the guy was an arse at work, but not to a sackable extent. So you find the reason and good bye.

One man (supposedly) getting screwed is not a reason to provide every leach too dumb or lazy to get their own insurance with free healthcare. This event shows that corporate controls are required - not national socialist programs.

Mr Mystery

08-09-2012, 10:43 AM

One man (supposedly) getting screwed is not a reason to provide every leach too dumb or lazy to get their own insurance with free healthcare. This event shows that corporate controls are required - not national socialist programs.

Let me put this to you with a list of my various injuries and ailments, with approximate age...

2 weeks - Stomach had a covering of skin, preventing digestion. NHS saved my life.
Aged 4 - Playmobil violently inserted into ear by elder Brother - NHS took it out
Aged 6 - elder brother throws large cuddly toy under my feet, leading to me smashing my face off my bed. NHS stitched me up.
Aged 14 - Arm goes through window. Massive laceration. NHS save my life.
Aged 14 - Tendon damage from laceration, previously missed, repaired by NHS
Aged 16 - Appendix ruptures - NHS save my life.
Aged 18 - Contract glandular fever. Doctor prescribes Penicilin, which produces blood poisoning. NHS sort me out.
Aged 24/25 - Head starts going wibbly. Lots of tests (MRI, EEG etc) conducted by NHS.

So yeah. Tell me again how this is a bad thing? No massive debts for events beyond my control. What if you physically cannot afford a good level of healthcare? Should these people just be left to suffer/die?

Compulsory charging people for healthcare is downright immoral. Take my Mum, who has recently been given the all clear following cancer and chemo. Now she has a history, I'd have to declare that to an insurance company. This would make any possible policy more expensive, and possibly lead to some refusing cover. See why it's immoral? Tell me, how much does your healthcare cost you? Give my list of various life threatening ailments and injuries, how much do you reckon it would cost me for a decent level of cover? With a national service, there is no wheedling out of it. In, healed, out. THAT is the mark of a civilised society in my eyes. Check my pulse, not my wallet.

Rapture

08-09-2012, 02:29 PM

Everyone has suffered their share of ailments. I have insurance - mine will be covered. I do not need a NHS style program and I certainly don't want to pay for other people to have it.

There is nothing immoral about charging people for healthcare. It is a cost of living that should be accounted for or ignored at each individual's own peril. Healthcare is a service - not a right. Society charges for healthcare in the same way that society charges for food, homes, or legal services. The fact that something is important to a long or happy live does not mean that society has to provide it to people without any compensation.

When people cannot afford things that support a long life, they are left to die. And that is fine. No one jumps to hand out multivitamins or high quality organic food. A long, healthy life is a luxury. One that each person can choose to work toward and invest in or to ignore completely.

You should pay more for insurance as you are likely to cost the insurance company more than another person without such a history. All insurance operates in the same manner. Those most likely to cost the company money simply pay the most. I don't hear you complaining that someone with a history of speeding, drunk driving, and wrecks has to pay more for car insurance. Everyone pays what they should. Some are lucky enough to pay low premiums. Others are not. It is not unfair - it is simply life.

The issue demonstrated by the video has to do with the government's control/influence over corporate greed.

Mr Mystery

08-09-2012, 02:37 PM

Everyone has suffered their share of ailments. I have insurance - mine will be covered. I do not need a NHS style program and I certainly don't want to pay for other people to have it.

There is nothing immoral about charging people for healthcare. It is a cost of living that should be accounted for or ignored at each individual's own peril. Healthcare is a service - not a right. Society charges for healthcare in the same way that society charges for food, homes, or legal services. The fact that something is important to a long or happy live does not mean that society has to provide it to people without any compensation.

Your mom should pay more for insurance as she is likely to cost the insurance company more than another person without such a history. All insurance operates in the same manner. Those most likely to cost the company money simply pay the most. I don't hear you complaining that someone with a history of speeding, drunk driving, and wrecks has to pay more for car insurance. Everyone pays what they should. Some are lucky enough to pay low premiums. Others are not. It is not unfair - it is simply life.

The issue demonstrated by the video has to do with the government's control/influence over corporate greed.

So because my Mother has had and survived cancer, she should have to pay more. As do I, seeing as I now have a family history of it. Riiiiight. And what if that prices me out the market? Sod off and die Mr Mystery?

As for not wanting to pay for anyone else....you do understand the basic concept of insurance underwriting yes? You are ALREADY paying for someone elses care. Just as when you fall ill, someone else is contributing to your care. Only having private health care is immoral, pure and simple.

Rapture

08-09-2012, 02:58 PM

So because my Mother has had and survived cancer, she should have to pay more. As do I, seeing as I now have a family history of it. Riiiiight. And what if that prices me out the market? Sod off and die Mr Mystery?
Yes. Just like someone who is born into a poor family will have a hard time paying for a degree, you will have a hard time paying for health insurance. Everyone plays with the hand that they are dealt. The fact that you think that your burden is too heavy does not mean that anyone should help you carry it.

As for not wanting to pay for anyone else....you do understand the basic concept of insurance underwriting yes? You are ALREADY paying for someone elses care. Just as when you fall ill, someone else is contributing to your care. Only having private health care is immoral, pure and simple.
The type of socialist programs you are advocating do not allow individuals to choose to cover themselves by paying into a pool that will go where needed - they force people to cover others who are not also putting in.

Mr Mystery

08-09-2012, 04:41 PM

There is nothing stopping me taking out private medical insurance.

But the NHS means no matter how badly mangled, crushed, shattered and generally knackered I get, or how often, I don't end up paying more.

When it comes to a persons health, risk assessment should play no part in helping them. And please don't throw out Socialist like it's something abhorrent. It's not. It's the hallmark of a responsible government. One that you actually get your monies worth out of. Rather than one that just spends on it's military.

wittdooley

08-09-2012, 04:56 PM

When it comes to a persons health, risk assessment should play no part in helping them. And please don't throw out Socialist like it's something abhorrent. It's not. It's the hallmark of a responsible government. One that you actually get your monies worth out of. Rather than one that just spends on it's military.

Why not? Should someone that routinely exercises and competes in Cross Fit competitions have to pay as much as some diabetic fat *** that orders take out every night?

Mr Mystery

08-09-2012, 05:11 PM

wittdooley

08-09-2012, 06:28 PM

You mean someone who intentionally damages their body by pushing beyond it's design parameters, and knackering their ligaments and joints? Yep. They should pay the same. And what if said cross training healthy person happens to have a history of Cancer in their family? Is it in anyway fair that they have to pay more than an otherwise identical person with no history of cancer?

And you are aware that Tax on earnings in the UK isn't that much more than the US yes? Indeed, I'm willing to bet that my 32% deduction, after my basic rate, is less than your Tax and Healthcare payments combined yes?

P.S. Sorry for the derailment folks! I'm just really rather fond of the NHS, and feel every country should have one.

So how do you determine if their obesity is their fault? Are we supposed to monitor what people are eating? We can't and we shouldn't. And that's why insurance companies have to mitigate their risk by utilizing risk based pricing. If they get rid of it in Heath care, it sets the precedent to get rid of it everywhere. So that multiple DUI driver? Get rid of risk based pricing and he's paying the same as someone with a clean driving record. Is THAT fair?

Considering my tax deductions alone are more than 32% before I pay for my health care, yes it's more.

gendoikari87

08-10-2012, 07:23 AM

Yes. Just like someone who is born into a poor family will have a hard time paying for a degree, you will have a hard time paying for health insurance. Everyone plays with the hand that they are dealt. The fact that you think that your burden is too heavy does not mean that anyone should help you carry it.

The type of socialist programs you are advocating do not allow individuals to choose to cover themselves by paying into a pool that will go where needed - they force people to cover others who are not also putting in.

Holy **** are you a psychopath, a misinformed one at that. Not everybody has the ability to do so. But I could craft the best argument in the world and it wouldn't matter to you, because you are completely devoid of any empathy. Please do us all a favor and go John Galt like you guys are always crying about doing, really we won't miss you. there will be people to take your place that have empathy. Social Darwinian is about as ****ed up as it comes and puts people into a place where they can't afford healthcare, it's feudalism all over again.

Rapture

08-10-2012, 02:32 PM

How could you possibly surmise, from what I have said, that I do not feel empathy? It takes a bold person to state that someone else is misinformed and then make such a silly claim. Empathy does not mean pity and nothing that I have poster here suggests that I lack the ability to understand the feelings of others.

I will gladly consider your argument with an open mind - but you have to make one first. I will not bother responding unless you put some thought into it.

Kyban

08-10-2012, 02:37 PM

Well Rapture, you clearly drank the Kool-aid. Not surprising given your user name.

Rapture

08-10-2012, 02:39 PM

Feel free to elaborate.

Kyban

08-10-2012, 02:47 PM

Feel free to elaborate.

Sorry, being vague is sometimes fun. :p

I just meant that you have bought into the system and no amount of convincing will change that. The crack about your user name is in reference to the origin of the "Drank the Kool-aid" metaphor. I'd respond more thoroughly if I had the time, maybe later. ;)

Rapture

08-10-2012, 02:51 PM

Capt Forsythe

08-11-2012, 07:24 AM

Rapture you started so strong this thread and fell apart so completely I thought I was watching Adam Scott at The Open all over again.

The big difference I suppose is that Adam Scott knew when he had lost it. The travesty is that you'll still think your kung-fu is the best.

Mr Mystery

08-11-2012, 09:14 AM

I have not bought into anything - especially a 'system.' I believe in letting people succeed and in letting people fail. I also believe in fairness. Socialism, in my opinion, is generally not fair. People hide behind the idea that they think socialism is moral or inherently right, but fail to adequately support it.

Socialism is far more fair and just than pure capitalism. In capitalism, people at the top abuse the system, and it exposes the poorest to exploitation of the worst kind. Socialism, whilst far from perfect or free from abuse ensures a minimum standard of life is available to all. With the NHS, more people are treated and cured of minor but otherwise debilitating ailments. Sure, some choose not to work, and that is a problem, but far fewer people are prevented from being productive members of soceity for want of medical attention or treatment.

eldargal

08-11-2012, 09:41 AM

I am not a fan of socialism. Not at all, I am a devoted capitalist. But I love the NHS even though I don't need to rely on it. Why? Because it is a relatively efficient way of keeping the populace healthy and that is a moral responsibility of any civilised state. I do not believe that the poor should suffer simply because they are poor, while the wealthy do not simply because they are wealthy. We could rely on philanthropy or we could choose to use government funds, the outcome is the same.

wittdooley

08-11-2012, 04:30 PM

Socialism is far more fair and just than pure capitalism. In capitalism, people at the top abuse the system, and it exposes the poorest to exploitation of the worst kind. Socialism, whilst far from perfect or free from abuse ensures a minimum standard of life is available to all. With the NHS, more people are treated and cured of minor but otherwise debilitating ailments. Sure, some choose not to work, and that is a problem, but far fewer people are prevented from being productive members of soceity for want of medical attention or treatment.

I have to be honest. I don't think you'll understand this from an American viewpoint until you see how the American system is abused first hand. It's embarrassing. In the united states, those that chose not to work have more kids so they can get more money, don't pay taxes, and cause the most crime.

In capitalism, people at the top WORK TO GET THERE. Sure, there are examples of nepotism, but there are every where. They are not the prevailing majority. Those that don't want shouldn't be rewarded by being babysat by the system. IMO, if you're getting gov'ment chedda, the gov should be regulating every damn thing you get. Sorry. No Oreos. Sorry. No Kraft Mac and Cheese. You get store brand. And definitely no tobacco or alcohol. Remember, we live in a country where a huge hubbub was made over wanting to drug test people on assistance. What a joke. Drug test them every month. You fail, you're cut off.

Mr Mystery

08-11-2012, 05:03 PM

Social Healthcare is a different kettle of fish.

For instance. A child is born with either a hereditary condition, or a deficiency. In the UK, that child gets the same level of healthcare as is available to all others, provided by society. In the US, try getting that kid medical insurance. The kid hasn't done anything wrong. It's entirely possible it's disabilities will preclude it from many jobs, and have a negative impact on their education. At this point is it or is it not possible they would not be able to afford decent, if any healthcare? That is in itself morally wrong.

How many people in the US are rendered incapable of fully contributing to society by some health complaint, from a knackered joint to epilepsy etc? These require treatment, perhaps an expensive, one off (hopefully) operation, or constant medication. If their job for whatever reason doesn't provide enough of an income to purchase suitable medical cover, that person is less likely to be working, and thus become a burden on the state through precisely no fault of their own. Take my Mumsie as an example. Not only has the tough old bird just been given the all clear after Cancer (sorted by the NHS) but has severe epilepsy. She has to take a veritable cocktail of drugs every single day. Failure to do so WILL result in a fit. If she suffers a fit, on the meds or not, then she is automatically disqualified from driving. Not being able to drive, prior to her retirement would have meant she'd have to give up work...see where this is going?

Yes, in the short term setting up a national health service is expensive, and puts taxes up. But it enables far, far more people to work. The money saved on the need for private healthcare is likely to be spent on other things, further contributing to the economy, both local and national. Worried those unable or unwilling to control their eating will be taking the mick? Put a fatty tax on their fave scoffs. For instances, I'm a smoker. Tax on smoking is high. And ringfenced for the NHS. If you like, I'm paying in advance for any treatment I will receive should my idiotic addiction result in bad things. In Scotland, and now in England, plans are afoot to introduce a minimum price-per-unit for booze, to help pay for the cost of treating alcoholics, and also as a way to tackle people drinking too much.

Remember. Your insurance premium is indeed a gamble. Your insurer is betting that the money they make from people who don't claim will cover the costs incurred of treatment provided. Your premium will go up if they get this formula wrong, through no fault of your own. Your private insurance is also higher than my national insurance..... And with Social Healthcare, there's nobody looking for a reason NOT to pay for your treatment, no matter that you've kept up to date with your premiums and selected the appropriate cover...

Rapture

08-12-2012, 10:15 AM

Capitalism is not defined by abuse. That is a dumb thing to say. Capitalism can be abused. So cansocialism (and it certainly is). As far as I am aware, the only system that is not subject to abuse is total anarchy, pointing out the flaws that every current system is susceptible to is a complete waste of energy.

Socialism is inherently unfair. People are supported by others with no compensation to those supporters. In capitalism, everyone is thrown into the same competitive pot. Some people have advantages, but that is always the case. Genetics alone - something completely out of everyone's direct control - is the reason for the biggest advantages and disadvantages that can exist. Everyone works with their disadvantages and makes the most of their advantages. There is nothing unfair about it.

Regarding morals, it is an absolute crap-shoot and anyone claiming otherwise simply has not thought about it enough yet. There is nothing moral about being altruistic - it is simple an evolutionary trait. It does not mean that you are better or more enlightened than anyone else. Being altruistic is no more impressive than enjoying the taste of sugar. The fact that morals are so subjective entirely prevents them from being applied. Unless you would subject yourself to the morals of any other person living on the planet, the suggestion that others must subject themselves to yours is well beyond ridiculous.

In the end, any logically driven thought boils it down to the point that there is no such thing as a correct moral stance. All morals are arbitrary. The best way to decide if a 'moral' issue is right or wrong is to use something that drives every human being - narcissism. Ask: If I was in that person's position, how would I want to be treated? Regarding socialism, my answer is always in the negative. If I cannot support myself through my assets and hard work, then I would much rather suffer than leech.

Rapture you started so strong this thread and fell apart.
Feel free to present an argument or at least give us your judging criteria.

eldargal

08-12-2012, 10:42 AM

Filthspew

08-12-2012, 04:15 PM

Except the dichotomy is not between suffer and leech.

Contrary to some peoples belief, very few people start juggling chainsaws just because they have access to tax funded healthcare :)

And I would like to add another reason for why you should pay for someone elses healthcare:

It might be someone you care about.

gendoikari87

08-12-2012, 05:03 PM

Why should everyone have access to the same level of free healthcare?

Because it's the year 2012 not 1012.

What a joke. Drug test them every month. You fail, you're cut off.

This is fiscally stupid, it costs the system more than you save. less than 2% of welfare recipients were found to be using drugs when they tried this.

Socialism, whilst far from perfect or free from abuse ensures a minimum standard of life is available to all.

No, that's communism, which has some very serious requirements such as a previous socialist state and high technology. Socialists will let you starve. It was us who first started using the phrase "he who will not work, neither shall he eat" which was taken from the bible. Because after capitalism, in a socialist society, if you don't have a well paying job, it's because you're lazy.

Contrary to popular belief (and it's glaringly obvious that none of you know what socialism is) socialism is not government handouts. Socialism, is the people in control of the means of production. If you want a real world example, there isn't one, never has been one, and the closest thing we have is public utilities, but since the people running those aren't elected, you can't really call it socialism, especially since our democracy has quit working.

Rapture

08-12-2012, 06:15 PM

Except the dichotomy is not between suffer and leech. By providing people with medical care they may not be able to afford on their own it often allows them to recover and return to work and continue contributing.

I also get quite canky when people say things like 'Why should I pay for some hobo to get medical services'. Two reasons:

1) It may not be a hobo, it could equally be hard-working person who had an accident. You don't know.
2) By providing subsidies medical services to the entire populace you get access to it too.

It's like arguing your tax money shouldn't be used to fund infrastructure because some idiot might use the roads. This isn't aimed at you Rapture, just something that irritates me in these sorts of debates. It's the wost kind of false economy, save a few dollars in tax when it could save you tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical expenses, just because you might not need it or someone you consider undeserving might use it too.

Not to mention that when you get older you will need it. What you save in taxes you will spend on medical care and medicine and then some.
Understandable. However:

For me, being a leech is taking out more than you put in. Someone who cannot afford health insurance that suffers from a serious medical situation can withdraw more from society than they will ever contribute the equivalent of.

Regarding the 'hobo' thing, which I acknowledge is very popular, I think it is the right idea for, generally, the wrong reason. I do not want to provide healthcare for anyone who is not working for it. A hobo is just as undeserving of free healthcare as a self-employed business owner who goes on a ski trip instead of getting medical insurance for the year. They both know the stakes and they both fail to provide for themselves.

Regarding the road example, it is not quite the same. Society has created a means for individuals to protect themselves from their expensive medical requirements. It has not created a means to allows individuals to utilize their own private roads (and for good reasons).

Personally, I plan on never needing government support. I will work hard and invest in my retirement. This is just as much out of disgust in handouts as it is wanting to live a reasonable comfortable life up until the end.

Because it's the year 2012 not 1012.
So by 3012 will society be responsible for providing every individual with equal housing? The passage of time and the burden imposed on the working and capable members of society are not locked in a direct relationship.

eldargal

08-12-2012, 10:33 PM

Fair enough, and I realise the way the system works is different but here with the NHS you aren't just providing subsidised medical care for someone who doesn't work, you're providing it for everyone, including yourself. In the end it is much the same as medical insurance, except it is compulsory and as the profit motive is removed some people aren't excluded unfairly simply because of their age.

Mr Mystery

08-13-2012, 12:24 AM

Tzeentch's Dark Agent

08-13-2012, 12:53 AM

BTW.
I moved this thread to The Oubliette, because it's about as OFF-TOPIC as humanly possible.
And I was barely involved. Well done. :)

Denzark

08-13-2012, 05:02 AM

As to health care, I mean please?

You bummers! Getting my thread oublietted! Bloody nay-sayers!

Still can't and won't admit GW is doing well keeping their heads above water during a recession!

I tell you, buy the shares before 6th ed hits the streets!

Sorry too late Muhahahahahahah!

Tzeentch's Dark Agent

08-13-2012, 05:05 AM

I did warn you that I'd step in if it got out of hand. :p

Rapture

08-13-2012, 05:26 AM

Nobody should get out more than they put in? So that's every cancer patient claiming on their insurance yes? Or indeed anyone who utilises their policy for any medical procedure? Again, basic function and intent of insurance.

Think first. They are not getting more than they put in because of the way insurance works. Those making insurance payments are putting in for a gamble. As with any gamble, they might get absolutely nothing, or they might get a serious windfall. The group of gamblers is feeding the pot and someone wins. Everyone knows the rules going in and the price to play means that everyone has to put in for protection.

eldargal

08-13-2012, 05:53 AM

But national health care is exactly the same, except premiums are replaced with tax and instead of the money also being used to make the insurance company shareholders/owners lots of money, all of it is earmarked for health services. Meaning they don't have to worry about particularly unhealthy patients costing them extra money. No poor old retirees being cut off at 60 and being unable to pay for basic medical expenses despite paying taxes and contributing all their life.

gendoikari87

08-13-2012, 06:56 AM

So by 3012 will society be responsible for providing every individual with equal housing? The passage of time and the burden imposed on the working and capable members of society are not locked in a direct relationship.

It will be responsible for whatever is technologically possible. This idea that the advancements of society belong only to the rich is one that is sickening, and unsustainable, otherwise we'd all be back to using outhouses or chamber pots. And technology itself would be no where near as advanced. The gains of society, belong to society, not solely to the rich financiers.

wittdooley

08-13-2012, 07:55 AM

It will be responsible for whatever is technologically possible. This idea that the advancements of society belong only to the rich is one that is sickening, and unsustainable, otherwise we'd all be back to using outhouses or chamber pots. And technology itself would be no where near as advanced. The gains of society, belong to society, not solely to the rich financiers.

I'm sorry...I'm certainly not rich, and we have health insurance. Where did this fallacy that only the "rich" are getting health insurance come from?

eldargal

08-13-2012, 08:44 AM

If you are rich you don't really need health insurance. Become a benefactor of one of the better private hospitals and then see if you have any problems receiving top quality medical attention.

gendoikari87

08-13-2012, 10:31 AM

I'm sorry...I'm certainly not rich, and we have health insurance. Where did this fallacy that only the "rich" are getting health insurance come from?

Do you live in america? If you don't have really good health insurance they check you in and spit you out without any real work being done. I've seen this over, and over, and over and over, and over, and over again to many people I know. Some of whom have died because of it, and some who were left with avoidable life altering conditions. These are not lazy people, they are people who work their ***** off, often 6 or 7 days a week and barely manage to get by. And no they don't live like kings, they live in very modest homes.

Capt Forsythe

08-13-2012, 10:41 AM

Feel free to present an argument or at least give us your judging criteria.

Ridiculous assumptions not based on fact.

Juvenile (Or intentionally simplistic) understanding of how both socialism and capitalism operate in modern America.

A simply absurd level of elitism.

Classic What's Good for the Goose isn't Good for the Gander argument.

You play both sides of a point to try and make yourself look reasonable, when you clearly are not.

You benefit from a society that is a mix of socialized services and privately owned businesses but draw an arbitrary line around health care.

You've ignored TO A FAULT how crony capitalism has corrupted the current health care system.

You're a liar.

You mentioned that you had insurance, is it provided by your employer? Is it subsidized? Does the insurance company receive subsidies? If your insurer's subsidies through taxation benefits were to go away would you still have insurance? No, because they would no longer offer employer sponsored health insurance.

Don't bother to respond to this, as It's clear your previous responses that they will not be honest ones, but instead the correct talking points you believe will best defend your position. Besides, I know the responses already. They're garbage.

Kyban

08-13-2012, 11:18 AM

wittdooley

08-13-2012, 12:25 PM

In the end I believe it comes down to who it is that should be taking care of a country's citizens, a company who only cares about profit or the government who has a moral obligation to care for it's citizens? I have no illusions about corruption in either case but I certainly feel that the government is the more appropriate caretaker.

That sorta seems to be the problem to me. Isn't it the citizenry that should be obligate to TAKE CARE OF THEMSELVES? I've never once thought it was the government's obligation to take care of me. It's that "the gub'ment should be taking care of me attitude" that is so prevalent in the United States that creates all people that live off the system and forces other people to pay for them. That seems more ethically wrong to me than the other side.

@Gendo-- Yes, I live in the US, and I had Cobra during the year I was laid off. I never had any problems with any doctors appointments then.... We have good insurance now (I guess; I honestly dont know how we're quantifying what "good health care is vs "bad" health care), but we still pay a fairly stiff premium every month, despite the fact that my company pays half. As for the people "left worse than when they went in, or died to negligence;" if that actually happened, it seems like that'd be a pretty easy thing to sue over....

Mr Mystery

08-13-2012, 12:52 PM

Think first. They are not getting more than they put in because of the way insurance works. Those making insurance payments are putting in for a gamble. As with any gamble, they might get absolutely nothing, or they might get a serious windfall. The group of gamblers is feeding the pot and someone wins. Everyone knows the rules going in and the price to play means that everyone has to put in for protection.

It's absolutely no different in principle to the NHS, except there's no company doing their best to get out of providing cover when it's called on.

Witt, again the people do take care of themselves. The NHS just ensures everyone CAN take care of themselves, and get treatment when they need it.

I get the general reserves regarding socialism, but social healthcare is an excellent idea.

Kyban

08-13-2012, 12:56 PM

That sorta seems to be the problem to me. Isn't it the citizenry that should be obligate to TAKE CARE OF THEMSELVES? I've never once thought it was the government's obligation to take care of me. It's that "the gub'ment should be taking care of me attitude" that is so prevalent in the United States that creates all people that live off the system and forces other people to pay for them. That seems more ethically wrong to me than the other side.

That's not exactly what I meant, I guess I didn't express it correctly. There's a difference between "the government should take care of me" and "the gub'ment should be taking care of me". The government provides many services that are payed for through taxes, if you don't pay your taxes you shouldn't get those services just like a company but with services that shouldn't be in the hands of private companies, things that are essential for a country to run correctly. I don't want to be paying into a company that takes care of my health that is actively trying to screw me over.

Psychosplodge

08-13-2012, 01:14 PM

Here I was making the effort to catch up so I could jump straight back in tomorrow, and I've now realised I'm far too tired for this argument....

I'm summarising my involvement in this thread.

I personally believe the GW reports possibly hides underlying issues, but that is merely my opinion, and also you're all mean derailing this this completely without my input :p

Kyban

08-13-2012, 01:22 PM

I personally believe the GW reports possibly hides underlying issues, but that is merely my opinion, and also you're all mean derailing this this completely without my input :p

:eek: Clearly GW is responsible for the US Healthcare debate. ;)

Psychosplodge

08-13-2012, 01:54 PM

They dont have health care, you buy treatment or die

Mr Mystery

08-13-2012, 02:02 PM

I think it's time to ask exactly what provision the US has for healthcare.

I hear things of Medicare and Medicaid, which I understand apply to the poorer demograph? What are these, and how (broadly speaking) do they work?

wittdooley

08-13-2012, 03:01 PM

That's not exactly what I meant, I guess I didn't express it correctly. There's a difference between "the government should take care of me" and "the gub'ment should be taking care of me". The government provides many services that are payed for through taxes, if you don't pay your taxes you shouldn't get those services just like a company but with services that shouldn't be in the hands of private companies, things that are essential for a country to run correctly. I don't want to be paying into a company that takes care of my health that is actively trying to screw me over.

Can you really do that in a country, though, where something like 40% of the population doesn't pay taxes in the first place? The people a socialzed health care system help the most aren't paying taxes into the system in the first place. They will literally be getting a better free ride than they currently are.

Medicaid -- For the poor and disable
Medicare -- For the Elderly (over 65)

I dont know the specifics of either, however, except to say that I have a few disabled friends that have medicaid help pay a great deal of their medical expenses (cochlear implants for a hearing impaired friend, wheelchair for a friend with muscular distrophy).

Rapture

08-14-2012, 06:08 AM

It's absolutely no different in principle to the NHS, except there's no company doing their best to get out of providing cover when it's called on.

I get the general reserves regarding socialism, but social healthcare is an excellent idea.
It is very different. People are forced to participate in NHS. They are not forced to purchase insurance. More importantly - everyone pays for private insurance. Those who do pay are not forced to cover those who cannot.

@ Capt Forsythe
That post is such an argumentative abomination I can barely stand reading it. If you want to present your position, you have to do something more than make overgeneralized, ridiculous claims without any explanation.

eldargal

08-14-2012, 06:18 AM

Capt Forsythe

08-14-2012, 06:23 AM

@ Capt Forsythe
That post is such an argumentative abomination I can barely stand reading it. If you want to present your position, you have to do something more than make overgeneralized, ridiculous claims without any explanation.

By all means keep to the 'moral' high ground. All that heavenly backlighting makes you a real easy target.
But I know you're not an honest actor in this game.

Wolfshade

08-14-2012, 06:30 AM

Rapture

08-14-2012, 06:30 AM

The difference is that the absence of profit motive means it can deliver its services to those unable to afford private health insurance. In other words its performance is superior. Compulsory involvement is irrelevent, the methods and system are exactly the same but you aren't punishing poor people just for being poor. Plus if you wanted you could have an opt-out system for those who would rather pay for private health insurance.
Compulsory involvement in anything is far from irrelevant. You have to ask why involvement is compulsory. The answer is that so the people who are working and are successful can pay for the people who are not. There is no opt-out system because that would mean the removal of the tax dollars which keep national healthcare alive.

Not granting someone to someone for free is hardly a punishment. Not having insurance is no more a punishment than not having anything else. Health insurance is not something that people are born with. It is a service. An important one? Of course. But so are a large amount of other services.

People are not punished for being poor, they simply have a lower quality of life for being poor. This is true across the entire income spectrum. Bill Gates probably has a lower quality of life that several Middle Eastern princes. Humanity has never been a stranger to the idea that work and success can lead to a higher quality of life. As long as there is room to work and find success, then letting people deal with the consequences of their success or failure is perfectly fine.

Edit:
To be honest, effectively comparing the health care systems of two incredibly different countries would require significantly more research than I am willing to undertake. I can only speak to the fundamentals and ideals behind each type of system. Regarding ranking, the measuring criteria would have to be discussed.

By all means keep to the 'moral' high ground. All that heavenly backlighting makes you a real easy target.
But I know you're not an honest actor in this game.
Have you been drinking?

Psychosplodge

08-14-2012, 06:39 AM

I would suggest though that perhaps the NHS does not provide good value for money. For instance the computer projects that go vastly over budget and are delay inordinately. Though this is not necessarily just a complaint against the NHS, moreover a good deal of public projects.

That's symptomatic of project management for pretty much anything publicly funded in this country though isn't it?

eldargal

08-14-2012, 06:43 AM

Wolfshade

08-14-2012, 06:43 AM

That's symptomatic of project management for pretty much anything publicly funded in this country though isn't it?

Yes certainly hence:

Though this is not necessarily just a complaint against the NHS, moreover a good deal of public projects.

Psychosplodge

08-14-2012, 07:03 AM

I know but some rabid yank might have overlooked that and needed it spelling out

Capt Forsythe

08-14-2012, 07:10 AM

Have you been drinking?

Better...but it still smacks of condescension. People here are making a mistake. They think you deserve enough respect that they will offer you their opinions and you will be a resonable chap and address them cordially as they have addressed you. But that isn't your game. You've made an argument devoid of fact, riddled with hyperbole, and you're using it as a thinly veiled shield for your disdain for the misfortuned and your rascism. You will deny it, of course. But I've had to deal with hundreds of you. You just think if you package your hate in a gentleman's attire that no one will recognize it.

When I hear your argument, all I see is this guy:

Wolfshade

08-14-2012, 07:22 AM

As part of my job I work alongside public sector workers and when our guys make a mistake we get fined, when the public sector collegues do an almost identical thing nothing happens. A worrying trend that the issues I observe are identical to those that I was seeing almost 10 years ago and nothing changes because there is no incentive for change

Rapture

08-14-2012, 07:28 AM

Of course it punishes someone, not everyone can afford even if they are hardworking. You have 8% unemployment right now, that is a lot of hardworking people out of work who may have to cut things like health insurance just to put food on the table. What happens to them and their family if they then get hit by a car or contract some horrible disease through no fault of their own? In our system that doesn't occur, and all that is is a compulsory health insurance system at its core.

The simple fact is our system is cheaper and vastly superior. Any objection to it can only be ideological and not grounded in reality.
Not being able to afford something is not a punishment. Plenty of people do not own their own car/house/retirement fund/ipod - they are not being punished.

Working hard is not good enough. People work hark daily cooking french fires at McDonalds. Other people work hard over their lifetime building a career with education/training. Both are capable of failing and ending up with nothing. Both deserve to deal with that failure if it occurs.

What happens to them if they are not prepared for the very realistic possibility of a common misfortune? They suffer the consequences of being unprepared. I don't care what happens to them anymore than I care what happens to someone who jumps out of a plane without a parachute. They are responsible for themselves and should be responsible in their choices.

Regarding "cheaper and better," I doubt that you are qualified to make a meaningful statement regarding those two things with reference to economic and healthcare needs of both the United States and Great Britain. Besides, something that forces successful, working people to prop up the failures and dregs of society certainly does not sound better to me.

Better...but it still smacks of condescension. People here are making a mistake. They think you deserve enough respect that they will offer you their opinions and you will be a resonable chap and address them cordially as they have addressed you. But that isn't your game. You've made an argument devoid of fact, riddled with hyperbole, and you're using it as a thinly veiled shield for your disdain for the misfortuned and your rascism.
Racism? You have certainly stepped off the deep end at this point. If you are sensing some condescension when I respond to you it is because you are deserving of it.

Capt Forsythe

08-14-2012, 07:40 AM

Racism? You have certainly stepped off the deep end at this point. If you are sensing some condescension when I respond to you it is because you are deserving of it.

Deflector shields at full, captain!

Tzeentch's Dark Agent

08-14-2012, 07:55 AM

Right. Everyone chill out.

eldargal

08-14-2012, 08:03 AM

Regarding "cheaper and better," I doubt that you are qualified to make a meaningful statement regarding those two things with reference to economic and healthcare needs of both the United States and Great Britain. Besides, something that forces successful, working people to prop up the failures and dregs of society certainly does not sound better to me.
You mean in the same way you do when you pay your insurance premium and some drug dealer gets the benefits because he can afford to pay the premiums? Sorry but this is a nonsense argument. You can't condemn a system based on a hypothetical situation where someone you deem unworthy gets to benefit. Why let your tax money go to fund a military which defends failures and dregs (or uses them as cannon fodder)? Especially when you have the right to bear arms so you don't need a military. Why fund an education system which educated the failures and dregs? Why fund a judicial system that provides legal representation to the dregs.Why fund a democratic electoral system which gives failures and dregs the right to vote etc.

Psychosplodge

08-14-2012, 08:06 AM

Why fund a judicial system that provides legal representation to the dregs.Why fund a democratic electoral system which gives failures and dregs the right to vote etc.

Well I do object that my vote only counts for as much as somebody who views/appears on Jeremy Kyle...

eldargal

08-14-2012, 08:14 AM

Well no one said democracy was perfect.:rolleyes:

Psychosplodge

08-14-2012, 08:15 AM

Well no one said democracy was perfect.:rolleyes:
True, I did overlook that...

Rapture

08-14-2012, 08:36 AM

You mean in the same way you do when you pay your insurance premium and some drug dealer gets the benefits because he can afford to pay the premiums? Sorry but this is a nonsense argument. You can't condemn a system based on a hypothetical situation where someone you deem unworthy gets to benefit. Why let your tax money go to fund a military which defends failures and dregs (or uses them as cannon fodder)? Especially when you have the right to bear arms so you don't need a military. Why fund an education system which educated the failures and dregs? Why fund a judicial system that provides legal representation to the dregs.Why fund a democratic electoral system which gives failures and dregs the right to vote etc.

No. I condemn a system where someone who is not paying benefits from me paying. In the case of insurance, I do not decide who is worthy - we simply participate on the same terms.

Your examples, other than education, are all off. I can only assume that you wrote them without really thinking. The right to bear arms does not mean that a military is not necessary. That is a dumb thing to say as having a gun and having a fully funded, trained, and ready army are two very different things. Regarding paying for the military, it does not protect individuals, it protects national interests. Regarding the others, I am not advocating for them. However, the legal system question does not make sense as we do not pay for poor people to be represented out of the kindness of our hearts, we do it so that the system stays functional. It is a necessity - not a gift.

Psychosplodge

08-14-2012, 08:39 AM

No. I condemn a system where someone who is not paying benefits from me paying. In the case of insurance, I do not decide who is worthy - we simply participate on the same terms.

Your examples, other than education, are all off. I can only assume that you wrote them without really thinking. The right to bear arms does not mean that a military is not necessary. That is a dumb thing to say as having a gun and having a fully funded, trained, and ready army are two very different things. Regarding paying for the military, it does not protect individuals, it protects national interests. Regarding the others, I am not advocating for them. However, the legal system question does not make sense as we do not pay for poor people to be represented out of the kindness of our hearts, we do it so that the system stays functional. It is a necessity - not a gift.
That was pretty much the principle behind an armed populace, to 1) not need a large standing army, and 2) to not be able to use said army to oppress the people...

The modern use of the US military is to project power globally, which is at odds with early US isolationist policies.

Wolfshade

08-14-2012, 08:39 AM

Well I do object that my vote only counts for as much as somebody who views/appears on Jeremy Kyle...

And for this reason I object to trial by jury

Psychosplodge

08-14-2012, 08:42 AM

And for this reason I object to trial by jury
That too, twelve chavs in burbury caps are not what I consider a jury of my peers...

Kyban

08-14-2012, 08:43 AM

And for this reason I object to trial by jury

It's supposed to be a trial by a jury of peers. I don't consider them "peers"! :p

eldargal

08-14-2012, 08:55 AM

No, my examples are quite accurate. Your degree of knowledge is off. Go read what the Founding Fathers said about standing armies and an armed citizenry. It was one or the other. The principles are all exactly the same. Your tax dollars are going to all those things which benefit the same people you object to when it comes to health care. It is hypocritical and silly.

No. I condemn a system where someone who is not paying benefits from me paying. In the case of insurance, I do not decide who is worthy - we simply participate on the same terms.

Your examples, other than education, are all off. I can only assume that you wrote them without really thinking. The right to bear arms does not mean that a military is not necessary. That is a dumb thing to say as having a gun and having a fully funded, trained, and ready army are two very different things. Regarding paying for the military, it does not protect individuals, it protects national interests. Regarding the others, I am not advocating for them. However, the legal system question does not make sense as we do not pay for poor people to be represented out of the kindness of our hearts, we do it so that the system stays functional. It is a necessity - not a gift.

It is a necessity - not a gift.
The exact same principle applies to a health care system. The chance of someone you deem unworthy benefiting isa necessary evil of having a functioning medical system. Which at presentyou do not have.

Capt Forsythe

08-14-2012, 08:59 AM

Actually, I'll indulge you, Rapture, and inject facts into your argument. Here are the median household worth of families in America in 2009 and 2005. This is according to the Pew Reasearch Center:

2009:
WHITES: $113,149
BLACKS: $5,677
HISPANICS: $6,325

2005:
WHITES: $134,992
BLACKS: $12.124
HISPANICS: $18,359

Wow, Whites lost 16%, Hispanics 66%, Blacks 53%.
It's a lot harder to pay for things like insurance when your median household worth is about 1/20th that of the average white household. Clearly there is a general downward trend due to the general economy, but why the is there such a disproportionate effect of the black and hispanic households when they clearly had much less to begin with? According to you it is because every black and hispanic household is America isn't trying hard enough to be successful, and it is ok to let them burn since they cannot afford privatized health care. According to you our society gave them all the same opportunities to succeed as you have, right? So they must all be leeches.

So who am I to believe you are talking about when you are yourself are characterizing individuals as 'leeches' and 'dregs' when you talk about them not providing more to society than they pull out? I will stand by my assumptions of your character.

Wolfshade

08-14-2012, 09:23 AM

The trouble with these stats is that there are a number of questions which need to be answered to provide some context.

One needs to consider employment rates and how they have been effected, also what sectors they are employed in. Obviously if we find that the majority of one group works in industry and because of the economic downturn industry is hit more than service sectors then those who work their are going to get hit worse and therefore by extension that group is going to be showing a more significant downturn.

You also need to consider the rate of which these groups are growing over that period.

For instance if we look at this demographic from Pew
http://www.pewhispanic.org/files/2012/03/2012-phc-labor-report-01.png

We see that Hispanics (though how many are actually Portuguese I'm not sure) have had the best employment change, and infact the white group has had the smallest increase in employment.

I'm not saying that anything is fair, just that stats can be a tricky thing indeed