Because The United Kingdom?

[rmgill]

4 minutes ago, Murph said:

LOL!  Nope H&K MP-5 compact all the way in 10mm!  

You suck and they hate you!

I'd have thought you'd gone with something made in Texas!

[Murph]

H&K makes good submachine guns, but SIG makes excellent pistols.  

[Stuart Galbraith]

Here Murph, you might find this interesting. This guy has some really interesting guns on his channel, including Mac10s that were built in Britain and used by gangsters.

 

[Stuart Galbraith]

3 hours ago, rmgill said:

Maybe if you returned to Victorian values that built what you have as an aging sewage system you'd be better off? 

Ryan, you really do talk the most epic nonsense sometimes.

[rmgill]

1 hour ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Ryan, you really do talk the most epic nonsense sometimes.

I'm not the one thinking the state can save me from everything and give me what I need. 

Your nation's heighday was the industrialization during the Victorian era and up through the 1st world war. Those values are what your nation is coasting on now. 

[bojan]

8 hours ago, Murph said:

H&K makes good submachine guns, but SIG makes excellent pistols.  

But unlike full MP-5, MP-5K sucks quite a bit. I could see it's appeal for very secret squirrels who needed weapon as compact as possible, while capable of full auto, but for anyone else regular MP-5 was better.

[Stuart Galbraith]

It was interesting to learn that President Amin of Afghanistan's guard detail were all using MP5's.  Dont seem to have been able to shoot worth a damn though.

[Stuart Galbraith]

9 hours ago, rmgill said:

I'm not the one thinking the state can save me from everything and give me what I need. 

Your nation's heighday was the industrialization during the Victorian era and up through the 1st world war. Those values are what your nation is coasting on now. 

Once again, you invest my words with things I havent been saying. Because apparently Im not a good enough Socialst for the 2 minutes hate. Or something.

As far as Im concerned, Im perfectly content if private enterprise saves the country. Its had 40 years to do so, and prefers to save other countries instead. So, Im damned if its not about time dragged them by the hair till they do the right thing.

Clear enough? Or should I get the 40 high neon letters out to elucidate further?

 

[sunday]

9 hours ago, bojan said:

But unlike full MP-5, MP-5K sucks quite a bit. I could see it's appeal for very secret squirrels who needed weapon as compact as possible, while capable of full auto, but for anyone else regular MP-5 was better.

Regular, and full stocked, for Larry Vickers.

[rmgill]

9 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Once again, you invest my words with things I havent been saying. Because apparently Im not a good enough Socialst for the 2 minutes hate. Or something.

2 minutes of Hate? You’ve been going on and on with hate for private enterprise fucking up dear old England for years now. Privitisation screwed up the railroads. Who built the railroads? 

9 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

As far as Im concerned, Im perfectly content if private enterprise saves the country. Its had 40 years to do so, and prefers to save other countries instead.
 

Government has to encourage and enable it. As well as punish malfeasance, consistently. Try that first. 
 

Again, watch Clarkson farm. The laws on crayfish is interesting. American crayfish are invasive, but killing them or catching them is a stiff fine and a prison sentence? 

 

[Stuart Galbraith]

Once again, read what I said. I've no problem with Private enterprise, whether it's Bentley, the Great Western Railway, Hawker Siddley, Gloster, Vickers or Avro.

The problem is we don't create companies like that today, because we prefer to invest in the success of other countries than our own. Perhaps you find that something  to cheer. I don't.

Truth be told Ryan, you are very good at going off on one on things I don't say. You are hard wired to equate socialist with Communist, and nothing I say will ever dissuade you from that limited thinking.And frankly if you are taking Jeremy Clarkson as some kind of guru, then I'm not sure I'm that bothered.

Edited May 12 by Stuart Galbraith

[rmgill]

 

9 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

The problem is we don't create companies like that today, because we prefer to invest in the success of other countries than our own.
 

So change that. 

9 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Perhaps you find that something  to cheer. I don't.

No, its a problem to solve. Not to bloody whinge about. 

9 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Truth be told Ryan, you are very good at going off on one on things I don't say. You are hard wired to equate socialist with Communist,

I am very apt to note that command economies that try to control everything control Nothing. And cause all manner of problems. 
 

And I would note you have not explained the state levying a 100% tax and controlling all investment would not be workable. 

 

Edited May 13 by rmgill

[Stuart Galbraith]

How do we change that? That means meddling in the market which is your marker of pure Communism. You have told me off about that before.

Its a problem we cant solve, because its 180 degrees away from the way the economy has been evolving the 1970's. And If you dont want to know the answers, why ask the question?

So now you are saying we shouldnt change anything, despite telling me we should change it. Make your mind up, either we make changes to the economy through Government intervention, or we dont. If we dont, we are whiners, if we do, we are Communists. Seems pretty clear, right?

There you go again, 100 percent tax. Have I ever advocated such a thing? No. I said higher taxes, I didnt say make the rich classes bleed for the proletariat.

There are YOUR expectations Ryan, not mine.

 

Edited May 13 by Stuart Galbraith

[Ssnake]

3 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

How do we change that? That means meddling in the market

If meddling means direct interference, then yes, that's the kind of micromanagement that governments should the hell keep their hands off.

But it's by far not the only tool in the box. You're too intelligent and knowledgable to pretend that you didn't know this.

 

Deregulation rather than overregulation could be an option. Tax incentives might be another. Maybe it's a matter of employee education, or infrastructure quality. Could be a combination of these.

I don't know which of these is "it", but the alternative is not "doing nothing" vs "communism"

[Stuart Galbraith]

45 minutes ago, Ssnake said:

If meddling means direct interference, then yes, that's the kind of micromanagement that governments should the hell keep their hands off.

But it's by far not the only tool in the box. You're too intelligent and knowledgable to pretend that you didn't know this.

 

Deregulation rather than overregulation could be an option. Tax incentives might be another. Maybe it's a matter of employee education, or infrastructure quality. Could be a combination of these.

I don't know which of these is "it", but the alternative is not "doing nothing" vs "communism"

But I cant envisage the Government investing in infrastructure projects as meddling in the economy. I really dont.  Every time an Asian economy hits the doldrums, they build an airport or a high speed line. The Chinese have something like 20 high speed lines at this point. We have one and a half. We have spent something like 20 years talking about building the 3rd Runway at Heathrow. Boris Johnson was talking about building an entirely new Airport in the Thames estuary in 2010. What happened to all this? Go and do a search for 'Northern Powerhouse'. The Conservatives have been talking about 'levelling up' the deindustialized North of Britain since 2010. Belatedly they have at the 11th hour unlocked funding that may make some of this happen. By cancelling the rest of the high speed line....

Deregulation, we have done that. This is seemingly part the reason why Grenfell tower caught fire, because Cameron deregulated fire safety legislation to try and get the housebuilding economy going again. Financial regulation, did that in the 1980's, which is why we handle Russian Dirty money. There is at this point, precious little regulation left that hasnt been ditched. 

Well exactly. Im not advocating Communism, and if Socialism it is, its Socialism lite. If the Government does not invest in the Infrastructure the country needs for this century then who is going to? All im advocating is a South Korean approach. The Government invests heavily in roads, railways, electronic infrastructure, which then encourages investors from abroad to come in and do the rest. Investing in training, you Germans under Bismark setup the worlds first technical training schools.  Well known commie he was. Is it really beyond us to build our own version of CALTECH? Is it really beyond us to try to get chip manufacturing here, like the Americans have talked the Taiwanese into doing? When are we going to evolve the economy beyond shoeshops and Costa coffee?

To Ryan, his kneejerk response is that this Socialism. It absolutely isnt. Its how all the Asian Tiger economies got going, and its about damn time rather than bleating about just trading with them, we tried very hard to be more like them.

Edited May 13 by Stuart Galbraith

[seahawk]

To meddle in a market, there has to be a real market. Fresh water and sewage infrastructure (or electric grind, or landline telecommunications, train lines or roads) have no real market. There will not be 3 sewage systems in the streets, giving customers a choice.

[Stuart Galbraith]

All toilets should be equipped with a handle, so you can choose what sewage line you flush into. I demand the right to access of 3 sewage companies, dammit!

Alright, so this sounds absurd. And it is. But this literally is how they privatized the railway. There is a book called broken rails by Christian Wolmar, that illustrated the mentality of the Government department that organized it. They literally had the idea that they would have a top tier train operating company that would charge top fairs for the business leaders, and their secretaries or workers could follow in other trains on the same tracks that were more bargain basement, so he wouldnt have to spend too much money.

Nobody was much worried whom got the job of maintaining rail infastructure, which is why the 6 years following privatization had increasingly awful railway accidents. Which is a story in itself. Ill leave you this link. When they say the railways in the UK ground to a halt, for weeks, they were really not joking.

https://www.hertfordshiremercury.co.uk/news/hertfordshire-news/hatfield-rail-crash-how-devastating-4620580

Now with that kind of muddled thinking, you might wonder how our railways work at all. And here is the neat thing, nearly 30 years since privatization, they still dont!

https://www.ft.com/content/e2844ae9-dd66-45c3-a747-f84f10078c64

 

All that said, im not against privatization, when it leads to better services for the public. When it doesnt, and as far as the railways, and the water companies in the UK, it really didnt, the answer is probably re-nationalization. Or at the very least, far sterner regulation of those industries whom seem more concerned about their shareholders than they do the public they are supposed to serve.

This is what profoundly irritates me about Britain. Not that we make mistakes. All nations do. Its just having made them, they invariably take 20 to 30 years before anyone admits to it.

 

 

[rmgill]

7 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

How do we change that? That means meddling in the market which is your marker of pure Communism.

You're already meddling in the market. The state has it's FIST on the scales. On the pivots, on the weights. The works are so gummed up that anyone starting a business has a high cost just to get started and worse to keep running given those costs. 

The point is to take the objects OUT Of the gears, not put more sand and spanners and clogs in the gears. 

7 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Its a problem we cant solve, because its 180 degrees away from the way the economy has been evolving the 1970's. And If you dont want to know the answers, why ask the question?

You ENCOURAGE business by:
reducing and/or eliminating 

 a. Permits

 b. Licenses

 c. Inspection costs

 d. Compliance costs

 e. conflicting regulations

7 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

So now you are saying we shouldnt change anything, despite telling me we should change it.

You've really not run anything larger than a model train set have you? 

 

7 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

There you go again, 100 percent tax. Have I ever advocated such a thing? No. I said higher taxes, I didnt say make the rich classes bleed for the proletariat.

I am making you understand a point. You've argued that the only good investment is government investment in the infrastructure. ONLY government can and will invest in infrastructure. Thats been your position for some time no? 

 

[rmgill]

3 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

But I cant envisage the Government investing in infrastructure projects as meddling in the economy. I really dont.  Every time an Asian economy hits the doldrums, they build an airport or a high speed line.

For that to work well, you have to have 
1. Construction that is efficient

2. Corruption that is NOT baked into such a large degree you get tofu buildings or projects out of it. 

 

3 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

The Chinese have something like 20 high speed lines at this point. We have one and a half.

China ALSO has cheap energy and is still using coal to generate it. China is well past developing the smog problem the UK used to have. They also build entire cities for the slave population that build our smart phones. 

3 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

We have spent something like 20 years talking about building the 3rd Runway at Heathrow.

You have probably 1000 more pages of regulations for building runways. You're also dealing with the fact that  your citizens have a right to the land they live on. So you can't just bulldoze people's houses and move em off to east Chislington. 

Also, Heathrow used to have 7 runways. 
 

3 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

 

Boris Johnson was talking about building an entirely new Airport in the Thames estuary in 2010. What happened to all this?

 

Why is that a national thing? This has been done in Atlanta and by the state. 

This is what Hartsfield looked like in the 60s. Note the high from 12 OC and the cloverleaf entry at top for reference. That old style terminal was mostly razed, but you can see the orientation of ramp space still extant for part of that. The half cloverleaf and East west road is Virginia Avenue. It's still there for reference. 

This is what Harts field looks like now. Note, more terminals, more runways. The 5th large runway was built OVER I285 with a massive project to conveyor belt gravel from quarries from south east of the project, rather than just truck it in. There was an over the road conveyor across Riverdale Road here. And there's plans for a 6th Runway. 

So, if us yokels in Georgia can do it, why can't you Brits? 

 

3 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Go and do a search for 'Northern Powerhouse'. The Conservatives have been talking about 'levelling up' the deindustialized North of Britain since 2010. Belatedly they have at the 11th hour unlocked funding that may make some of this happen. By cancelling the rest of the high speed line....

I don't know. Again, maybe you have too many Vogons in your bureaucracy? You know, maybe Douglas Adams was making a point people need to listen to? 

 

3 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Deregulation, we have done that.

And CO2 Emissions targets. The insulation/cladding was done to match CO2 Emissions and increase "efficiency". But doing so while being GREEN!

From the BBC. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-59550680

In her opening statement, victims' barrister Ms Barwise said Grenfell was a "predictable, yet unintended consequence of a combination of the laudable desire to reduce carbon emissions coupled with an unbridled passion for deregulation."

 

She alleged that the coalition government allowed itself to become a "junior partner" to the building industry, ignoring "exploitation" of the building regulations for profit. 

"Government's response on realising the extent of the problem was to react by concealment instead of candour," she said. 

 

And arguably, since the government itself was concealing the fire risk, that points to something other than deregulation, malfeasance and incompetence. If there's a risk of burning in building materials, then you bloody well sort them out. 

3 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

This is seemingly part the reason why Grenfell tower caught fire, because Cameron deregulated fire safety legislation to try and get the housebuilding economy going again. Financial regulation, did that in the 1980's, which is why we handle Russian Dirty money. There is at this point, precious little regulation left that hasnt been ditched. 

No, Grenfell tower burned because the people involved were corrupt and noone checked and noone expected to be caught. 

Does Health and safety come into your house to be sure you're wiping your backside? Or do you do it becuase you know you need to do it? 

 

3 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Well exactly. Im not advocating Communism, and if Socialism it is, its Socialism lite. If the Government does not invest in the Infrastructure the country needs for this century then who is going to?

See, there you go. Only government can do it. So, I ask again. Why'd Brunel do it last Century? Why was he able to do it? Why can't it be done now? 

3 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Is it really beyond us to build our own version of CALTECH?

You realize California is in bad a shape as the UK is if not worse right? They had a water development plan. They abandoned in in the 80s. Now they've got a major issue and have rolling brownouts in mid summer. 

 

3 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Is it really beyond us to try to get chip manufacturing here, like the Americans have talked the Taiwanese into doing? When are we going to evolve the economy beyond shoeshops and Costa coffee?

You know why so much semi-conductor fab has moved off shore to Taiwan, Singapore and South Korea? The environmental regulations are so onorous it's nearly impossible to do the manufacturing. The US has this issue, but it's somewhat been addressed, but folks like Biden keep reversing it. 

 

[R011]

As far as I can tell, most of North America's water systems are regulated or owned by government entities, like municipal water services and have been since  the century before last.

[Ssnake]

10 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

cant envisage the Government investing in infrastructure projects as meddling in the economy.

Neither do I.

10 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

The Conservatives have been talking about 'levelling up' the deindustialized North of Britain since 2010. Belatedly they have at the 11th hour unlocked funding that may make some of this happen.

...and I guess they'll get their just rewards for doing nothing at the next election.

10 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Deregulation, we have done that.

Some of it, yes, but citing Grenfell Tower as the sole example why it's bad is as disingenious as pointing out that murders happen despite being illegal. The conclusion isn't to strike murder from the code. I'm sure that there's planty of stupid regulation in all kinds of places that are holding the country, and investors back. You need to be careful about what can go. As a start, there's a lot of reporting duties levied on companies that satisfy but the curiosity of statisticians. Maybe the shifts of the regional distribution of fried haddock over the decades isn't of such supreme national interest after all. There are probably a lot more examples.

10 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

There is at this point, precious little regulation left that hasnt been ditched.

a. I don't believe you

b. it's not a binary thing. It's about good regulation that keeps in place what's essential, modifies what's overly bureaucratic but still important, and kills paternalistic and inconsequential BS.

10 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

To Ryan, his kneejerk response is

I wrote it before, I'll write it again: You're not writing for Ryan. His is one opinion among dozens. Why you value his so much that your kneejerk reaction is to immediately respond with a wall of text every time he writes something is beyond me.

[Ssnake]

6 hours ago, rmgill said:

I am making you understand a point.

Ryan, do you really think that you do?

If so, you're not very successful, are you? Maybe the way you're doing this is less than optimal. And as a result, the constant Stu and Ryan show is, frankly, making Tanknet less enjoyable for the rest of us (and I suspect not even you two like it).

[rmgill]

Many are authorities with quasi government status. 

[rmgill]

1 hour ago, Ssnake said:

Ryan, do you really think that you do?

Trying to at least. 

1 hour ago, Ssnake said:

If so, you're not very successful, are you? Maybe the way you're doing this is less than optimal. And as a result, the constant Stu and Ryan show is, frankly, making Tanknet less enjoyable for the rest of us (and I suspect not even you two like it).

How to adjust then? 

[NickM]

2 hours ago, R011 said:

As far as I can tell, most of North America's water systems are regulated or owned by government entities, like municipal water services and have been since  the century before last.

Cali happens to be governed by bone heads who reportedly said there was no sense in expanding the state's reservoirs because rain will never fall in Cali again--usually just before a storm dumps a few trillion gallons of water that goes running off into the Pacific