In article <595285b366noise@audiomisc.co.uk>, Jim Lesurf
<noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <im8vdeF7821U1@mid.individual.net>, JNugent
> <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> > >> If you knew of any wrongdoing by Maudling (of course you don't and
> > >> are attempting smear tactics), you would say what it was. But you
> > >> don't say what you think it was because you know there wasn't any.
> > >>
> > >> You sound like a Guardian reporter: "XXX "has links to YYY" (they
> > >> have the same milkman or something).

> > > No, that's what you do in ignoring Tory corruption while trumpeting
> > > endlessly on about Labour corruption, ~I'm just providing a more
> > > balanced view.

> > You are "providing a ...balanced view" by trying to malign and impugn a
> > blameless man against whom there isn't a scintilla of evidence?

> Was Maudling the minister who (perhaps via close family) had a
> significant relationship with a large cement/concrete company and who:

> 1) Was enthusiastic about building motorways.

> 2) Fan of Beeching cutting the railways.

> If so, curious co-incidences, I guess...

> Jim

It was Ernest Marples - who was Minister for Transport who had interests in
road building .

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

On 28/07/2021 12:04 pm, Max Demian wrote:
> On 27/07/2021 19:30, JNugent wrote:
>> On 27/07/2021 06:56 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>
>>> AIUI, 'Advertising Tax' merely means that proportion of the price of
>>> their products that goes on advertising them.  It may not be a term
>>> you like, indeed I don't think it's a good choice of name myself, but
>>> it is used as such, so there's not much point in attempting to deny
>>> the existence of either the term itself or the real fraction of
>>> purchase price that it refers to.
>>
>> It's a ridiculous term devised so as to pretend that goods in the
>> shops are dearer than they would be if there were no advertising on
>> television.
>>
>> They aren't dearer. They're cheaper than they would be in a less
>> competitive market because competition keeps prices down, not up.
>
> Not true of supermarket brands of goods which are up to 50% less than
> the named brands as they don't have to advertise each product separately.

Nothing to do with advertising (and not every blue chip brand item is
advertised on its own merits anyway).

That's just the supermarket making as much on the look-alike as on the
blue chip because they can get it made as cheaply as they can buy the
known brand at wholesale prices. They thereby acquire more market-share
in that micro-market because more people will buy than would only buy
the (more expensive when marked-up) big name brand.

On Wed, 28 Jul 2021 12:04:49 +0100, Max Demian
<max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:

>On 27/07/2021 19:30, JNugent wrote:
>> On 27/07/2021 06:56 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>
>>> AIUI, 'Advertising Tax' merely means that proportion of the price of
>>> their products that goes on advertising them.  It may not be a term
>>> you like, indeed I don't think it's a good choice of name myself, but
>>> it is used as such, so there's not much point in attempting to deny
>>> the existence of either the term itself or the real fraction of
>>> purchase price that it refers to.
>>
>> It's a ridiculous term devised so as to pretend that goods in the shops
>> are dearer than they would be if there were no advertising on television.
>>
>> They aren't dearer. They're cheaper than they would be in a less
>> competitive market because competition keeps prices down, not up.
>
>Not true of supermarket brands of goods which are up to 50% less than
>the named brands as they don't have to advertise each product separately.

And they're often just as good, or better than the big name brands.

Rod.

On 28/07/2021 01:01 pm, Roderick Stewart wrote:

> Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>> On 27/07/2021 19:30, JNugent wrote:
>>> On 27/07/2021 06:56 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>
>>>> AIUI, 'Advertising Tax' merely means that proportion of the price of
>>>> their products that goes on advertising them.  It may not be a term
>>>> you like, indeed I don't think it's a good choice of name myself, but
>>>> it is used as such, so there's not much point in attempting to deny
>>>> the existence of either the term itself or the real fraction of
>>>> purchase price that it refers to.
>
>>> It's a ridiculous term devised so as to pretend that goods in the shops
>>> are dearer than they would be if there were no advertising on television.
>
>>> They aren't dearer. They're cheaper than they would be in a less
>>> competitive market because competition keeps prices down, not up.
>
>> Not true of supermarket brands of goods which are up to 50% less than
>> the named brands as they don't have to advertise each product separately.
>
> And they're often just as good, or better than the big name brands.

Particularly so with pharmaceutical products, including patent medicines.

On 27/07/2021 15:15, JNugent wrote:
>
> I don't follow that.
>
> Is advertising income (real or potential) attributable to a transmitter?

The commercial TV companies have access to Ofcom derived population
figures for each of the muxes, and any appropriate regional breakdowns

In fact one of Ofcom's excuses for not having coverage maps available
anymore is because they are 'commercially' sensitive !

As far as relays were concerned, when the analogue network was built it
was Public Service infrastructure.
Remember pre 1991 the IBA were a public service broadcaster.
They and the BBC built the UHF network, in a 50:50 Landlord/Tenant
relationship.

The provision of any transmitter, whether it was Crystal Palace or a 1
watt realy in the middle of the wilderness was not governed by any
commercial revenue concerns, only  that it was economic for the Beeb or
IBA to build in terms of cost per viewers served. As said, that
threshold of 200 people was agreed between the Home Office (?)  and the
BBC/IBA.

On 28/07/2021 02:32 pm, Mark Carver wrote:

> On 27/07/2021 15:15, JNugent wrote:
>
>> I don't follow that.
>> Is advertising income (real or potential) attributable to a transmitter?
>
> The commercial TV companies have access to Ofcom derived population
> figures for each of the muxes, and any appropriate regional breakdowns

> In fact one of Ofcom's excuses for not having coverage maps available
> anymore is because they are 'commercially' sensitive !

> As far as relays were concerned, when the analogue network was built it
> was Public Service infrastructure.
> Remember pre 1991 the IBA were a public service broadcaster.
> They and the BBC built the UHF network, in a 50:50 Landlord/Tenant
> relationship.

> The provision of any transmitter, whether it was Crystal Palace or a 1
> watt realy in the middle of the wilderness was not governed by any
> commercial revenue concerns, only  that it was economic for the Beeb or
> IBA to build in terms of cost per viewers served. As said, that
> threshold of 200 people was agreed between the Home Office (?)  and the
> BBC/IBA.

Thank you.

So advertising revenue, potential or empirical, was not a factor?

[TBH, it's difficult to see how it could be, there would be so many
variables to TIA.]

On 28/07/2021 15:44, JNugent wrote:
> On 28/07/2021 02:32 pm, Mark Carver wrote:
>
>> On 27/07/2021 15:15, JNugent wrote:
>>
>>> I don't follow that.
>>> Is advertising income (real or potential) attributable to a
>>> transmitter?
>>
>> The commercial TV companies have access to Ofcom derived population
>> figures for each of the muxes, and any appropriate regional breakdowns
>
>> In fact one of Ofcom's excuses for not having coverage maps available
>> anymore is because they are 'commercially' sensitive !
>
>> As far as relays were concerned, when the analogue network was built
>> it was Public Service infrastructure.
>> Remember pre 1991 the IBA were a public service broadcaster.
>> They and the BBC built the UHF network, in a 50:50 Landlord/Tenant
>> relationship.
>
>> The provision of any transmitter, whether it was Crystal Palace or a
>> 1 watt realy in the middle of the wilderness was not governed by any
>> commercial revenue concerns, only  that it was economic for the Beeb
>> or IBA to build in terms of cost per viewers served. As said, that
>> threshold of 200 people was agreed between the Home Office (?)  and
>> the BBC/IBA.
>
> Thank you.
>
> So advertising revenue, potential or empirical, was not a factor?
>
No. And remember the ITV companies were charged 'Transmitter Rental' but
that bore no relation to the actual number of allocated transmitters,
but instead their potential advertising revenue (which was a function of
total population coverage in their region).

So Thames TV, with basically Crystal Palace, very accessible relays, 
and a very simple distribution network paid far more than Grampian and
HTV with their multiple main stations, scores of remote relays, and
complex distribution. (And Thames were only on air for 4.5 days a week !)

On 27/07/2021 23:47, JNugent wrote:
> On 27/07/2021 11:10 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>> Overlooked this in my main reply ...
>>
>> On 27/07/2021 22:40, Java Jive wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I repeat they list several examples of types of corruption, some of
>>>> which involved Tory politicians.
>>>
>>> That is not a proof of an undetected crime. It's just speculation.
>>> And in truth, speculation would have to involve Labour more than any
>>> other party.
>>
>> More false claims based on denial and bigotry:
>>
>> p16 Bribery:  "In March 2013, East Devon County councillor Graham
>> Brown was suspended from the East Devon Conservative Party after
>> claiming to undercover reporters posing as overseas investors that he
>> could obtain planning permission in return for payment.  Mr Brown,
>> himself the owner of a planning consultancy business, was filmed
>> telling newspaper reporters that, “I don’t come cheap. If I’m turning
>> a greenfield into a housing estate and I’m earning the developer two
>> or three millions, then I’m not doing it for peanuts – especially if
>> I’m the difference between winning and losing it”.  Cllr Brown
>> vehemently denied the claims and stated that his duties as a
>> councillor were appropriately declared and “completely separate” from
>> his business role. [9]
>>
>> p47 Homes for Votes: In 1987, Westminster Council, led by Shirley
>> Porter, the Conservative leader of the council, devised a policy of
>> manipulating the sale of council houses in marginal wards in an effort
>> to improve the Conservative Party’s chances in the next local
>> elections. [60]  The designated properties were sold at heavily
>> discounted prices to tenants in areas perceived to be favourable to
>> the Conservatives.
>>
>> p50 Resignation of Leicestershire County Council Leader David Parsons:
>> Eventually, the Conservative group announced a vote of no confidence
>> in Parsons, prompting him to resign from his position.  However, the
>> party only took this step when Parsons’ reputation had become badly
>> damaged by extensive and sustained media coverage of both the
>> allegations and the evidence uncovered by the standards committee.
>>
>> So when you claimed to have read the articles in question, you were
>> clearly lying, and, as usual, whenever anything you claim is
>> investigated, it nearly always turns out to be a lie.
>
> Literal trivia (even if true).

Literal denial of facts you don't like.

> Nowhere near in the same league as Newcastle City Council and T. Dan
> Smith (Labour).

As has already been pointed out to you more than once, the Poulson
corruption case involved politicians from *ALL THREE* major parties, so
you singling out Labour is simply bigotry.

> And nowhere near equivalent to London Borough of Lambeth (Labour) and
> its seven hundred rapes of vulnerable children.
>
> For some reason, you seen most unwilling to even react to
> <https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/jul/27/like-hell-what-former-lambeth-childrens-home-residents-told-abuse-inquiry>
>
> Let alone (of course) the systematic sexual abuse by "certain people" of
> children in care in South Yorkshire and various other places, with even
> the usually-very-vocal South Yorkshire Police going all quiet.
>
> Why is that, one wonders?

Firstly, you are lying, because I've already deplored it, secondly it's
irrelevant to a discussion about financial corruption, and I'm not going
to let you try and move the goalposts away from a losing argument just
because you're too childish and juvenile to admit when you are wrong.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 27/07/2021 23:42, JNugent wrote:
> On 27/07/2021 10:49 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>
>> On 27/07/2021 19:30, JNugent wrote:
>>> On 27/07/2021 06:56 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>>>> On 27/07/2021 14:02, JNugent wrote:
>>>>> On 27/07/2021 01:14 pm, MB wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Advertising Tax" is just a convenient way of describing the XX%
>>>>>> of the cost of a product that goes on advertising.  It must be the
>>>>>> most inefficient way of funding anything because there are so many
>>>>>> middle men wanting a cut.
>>>>>
>>>>> If the price of a product was set by taking basic irreducible
>>>>> factor cost then adding a slice for this, that and the other
>>>>> process, there would be something in that.
>>>>>
>>>>> But it isn't, so there isn't.
>>>>
>>>> Advertising isn't free, and the firms purchasing advertising are
>>>> making a profit, therefore the cost of that advertising must be part
>>>> of the price of what they themselves sell.
>>>
>>> Faulty reasoning. Prices are set by the (competitive) market.
>>
>> Faulty reasoning, the competitive markets has to take account of
>> costs, including those of advertising.
>
> If you cannot sell at your chosen price, competition dictates that you
> must reset the price so as to reflect other available prices.
>
> This is Economics 101.

But is irrelevant to my point above, so is another attempt to move the
goalposts away from a losing argument.

>> Your mistake is to confuse competition with advertising, neither is an
>> inherent part of the other.  Two stores can compete with each other
>> because they are on opposite sides of the same road, but no
>> advertising need be involved.  A firm can advertise a new type of
>> product on TV in order to launch it successfully, but as it's a new
>> type of product it has no competition.
>>
>> Which brings us nicely back to the real world that the rest of us
>> inhabit, but not apparently you: advertising has a real cost, and the
>> firms who use it have to make a profit, therefore there must be an
>> element of the retail price of their products that covers the cost of
>> that advertising, otherwise they would not be making a profit, and
>> would sooner or later go out of business.
>
> Simply wrong.

Simple arithmetic logic proves that it must be correct, otherwise a
profit would not be being made.

> I advise you to read: <https://tinyurl.com/fytdre5d>

'Economics for Dummies' is obviously way too advanced for you, next time
I advise you to try 'Economics for juveniles too bigoted and stupid to
learn"

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 28/07/2021 03:54 pm, Java Jive wrote:
> On 27/07/2021 23:47, JNugent wrote:
>> On 27/07/2021 11:10 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>>> Overlooked this in my main reply ...
>>>
>>> On 27/07/2021 22:40, Java Jive wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I repeat they list several examples of types of corruption, some of
>>>>> which involved Tory politicians.
>>>>
>>>> That is not a proof of an undetected crime. It's just speculation.
>>>> And in truth, speculation would have to involve Labour more than any
>>>> other party.
>>>
>>> More false claims based on denial and bigotry:
>>>
>>> p16 Bribery:  "In March 2013, East Devon County councillor Graham
>>> Brown was suspended from the East Devon Conservative Party after
>>> claiming to undercover reporters posing as overseas investors that he
>>> could obtain planning permission in return for payment.  Mr Brown,
>>> himself the owner of a planning consultancy business, was filmed
>>> telling newspaper reporters that, “I don’t come cheap. If I’m turning
>>> a greenfield into a housing estate and I’m earning the developer two
>>> or three millions, then I’m not doing it for peanuts – especially if
>>> I’m the difference between winning and losing it”.  Cllr Brown
>>> vehemently denied the claims and stated that his duties as a
>>> councillor were appropriately declared and “completely separate” from
>>> his business role. [9]
>>>
>>> p47 Homes for Votes: In 1987, Westminster Council, led by Shirley
>>> Porter, the Conservative leader of the council, devised a policy of
>>> manipulating the sale of council houses in marginal wards in an
>>> effort to improve the Conservative Party’s chances in the next local
>>> elections. [60]  The designated properties were sold at heavily
>>> discounted prices to tenants in areas perceived to be favourable to
>>> the Conservatives.
>>>
>>> p50 Resignation of Leicestershire County Council Leader David Parsons:
>>> Eventually, the Conservative group announced a vote of no confidence
>>> in Parsons, prompting him to resign from his position.  However, the
>>> party only took this step when Parsons’ reputation had become badly
>>> damaged by extensive and sustained media coverage of both the
>>> allegations and the evidence uncovered by the standards committee.
>>>
>>> So when you claimed to have read the articles in question, you were
>>> clearly lying, and, as usual, whenever anything you claim is
>>> investigated, it nearly always turns out to be a lie.
>>
>> Literal trivia (even if true).
>
> Literal denial of facts you don't like.
>
>> Nowhere near in the same league as Newcastle City Council and T. Dan
>> Smith (Labour).
>
> As has already been pointed out to you more than once, the Poulson
> corruption case involved politicians from *ALL THREE* major parties, so
> you singling out Labour is simply bigotry.

Two major parties (plus a third, whatever that third might have been)
conspired together?

Really?

>> And nowhere near equivalent to London Borough of Lambeth (Labour) and
>> its seven hundred rapes of vulnerable children.
>>
>> For some reason, you seen most unwilling to even react to
>> <https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/jul/27/like-hell-what-former-lambeth-childrens-home-residents-told-abuse-inquiry>
>>
>> Let alone (of course) the systematic sexual abuse by "certain people"
>> of children in care in South Yorkshire and various other places, with
>> even the usually-very-vocal South Yorkshire Police going all quiet.
>>
>> Why is that, one wonders?
>
> Firstly, you are lying, because I've already deplored it, secondly it's
> irrelevant to a discussion about financial corruption, and I'm not going
> to let you try and move the goalposts away from a losing argument just
> because you're too childish and juvenile to admit when you are wrong.

On 28/07/2021 04:01 pm, Java Jive wrote:
> On 27/07/2021 23:42, JNugent wrote:
>> On 27/07/2021 10:49 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>>> On 27/07/2021 19:30, JNugent wrote:
>>>> On 27/07/2021 06:56 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>>>>> On 27/07/2021 14:02, JNugent wrote:
>>>>>> On 27/07/2021 01:14 pm, MB wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Advertising Tax" is just a convenient way of describing the XX%
>>>>>>> of the cost of a product that goes on advertising.  It must be
>>>>>>> the most inefficient way of funding anything because there are so
>>>>>>> many middle men wanting a cut.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If the price of a product was set by taking basic irreducible
>>>>>> factor cost then adding a slice for this, that and the other
>>>>>> process, there would be something in that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But it isn't, so there isn't.
>>>>>
>>>>> Advertising isn't free, and the firms purchasing advertising are
>>>>> making a profit, therefore the cost of that advertising must be
>>>>> part of the price of what they themselves sell.
>>>>
>>>> Faulty reasoning. Prices are set by the (competitive) market.
>>>
>>> Faulty reasoning, the competitive markets has to take account of
>>> costs, including those of advertising.
>>
>> If you cannot sell at your chosen price, competition dictates that you
>> must reset the price so as to reflect other available prices.
>>
>> This is Economics 101.
>
> But is irrelevant to my point above, so is another attempt to move the
> goalposts away from a losing argument.

It isn't possible for anyone to "win" an argument on the existent of a
non-existent "tax". It doesn't exist. That really is all there is to it.

Even you were agreeing with that a day or two back.

So there is no argument to lose.

>>> Your mistake is to confuse competition with advertising, neither is
>>> an inherent part of the other.  Two stores can compete with each
>>> other because they are on opposite sides of the same road, but no
>>> advertising need be involved.  A firm can advertise a new type of
>>> product on TV in order to launch it successfully, but as it's a new
>>> type of product it has no competition.
>>>
>>> Which brings us nicely back to the real world that the rest of us
>>> inhabit, but not apparently you: advertising has a real cost, and the
>>> firms who use it have to make a profit, therefore there must be an
>>> element of the retail price of their products that covers the cost of
>>> that advertising, otherwise they would not be making a profit, and
>>> would sooner or later go out of business.
>>
>> Simply wrong.
>
> Simple arithmetic logic proves that it must be correct, otherwise a
> profit would not be being made.
>
>> I advise you to read: <https://tinyurl.com/fytdre5d>

I advise you to read the first chapter of any GCSE Economics text.

> 'Economics for Dummies' is obviously way too advanced for you, next time
> I advise you to try 'Economics for juveniles too bigoted and stupid to
> learn"

The weird thing is that you "think" that that's how to press an argument!

Now... what about Labour Lambeth and its traditions in respect of
children in its "care"?

And the Labour authorities (including police authorities) in certain
other parts of the country, and their policy of turning a blind eye to
the systematic abuse of female children in their "care"?

On 28/07/2021 16:18, JNugent wrote:
> On 28/07/2021 03:54 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>> On 27/07/2021 23:47, JNugent wrote:
>>> On 27/07/2021 11:10 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>>>> Overlooked this in my main reply ...
>>>>
>>>> On 27/07/2021 22:40, Java Jive wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I repeat they list several examples of types of corruption, some
>>>>>> of which involved Tory politicians.
>>>>>
>>>>> That is not a proof of an undetected crime. It's just speculation.
>>>>> And in truth, speculation would have to involve Labour more than
>>>>> any other party.
>>>>
>>>> More false claims based on denial and bigotry:
>>>>
>>>> p16 Bribery:  "In March 2013, East Devon County councillor Graham
>>>> Brown was suspended from the East Devon Conservative Party after
>>>> claiming to undercover reporters posing as overseas investors that
>>>> he could obtain planning permission in return for payment.  Mr
>>>> Brown, himself the owner of a planning consultancy business, was
>>>> filmed telling newspaper reporters that, “I don’t come cheap. If I’m
>>>> turning a greenfield into a housing estate and I’m earning the
>>>> developer two or three millions, then I’m not doing it for peanuts –
>>>> especially if I’m the difference between winning and losing it”.
>>>> Cllr Brown vehemently denied the claims and stated that his duties
>>>> as a councillor were appropriately declared and “completely
>>>> separate” from his business role. [9]
>>>>
>>>> p47 Homes for Votes: In 1987, Westminster Council, led by Shirley
>>>> Porter, the Conservative leader of the council, devised a policy of
>>>> manipulating the sale of council houses in marginal wards in an
>>>> effort to improve the Conservative Party’s chances in the next local
>>>> elections. [60]  The designated properties were sold at heavily
>>>> discounted prices to tenants in areas perceived to be favourable to
>>>> the Conservatives.
>>>>
>>>> p50 Resignation of Leicestershire County Council Leader David Parsons:
>>>> Eventually, the Conservative group announced a vote of no confidence
>>>> in Parsons, prompting him to resign from his position.  However, the
>>>> party only took this step when Parsons’ reputation had become badly
>>>> damaged by extensive and sustained media coverage of both the
>>>> allegations and the evidence uncovered by the standards committee.
>>>>
>>>> So when you claimed to have read the articles in question, you were
>>>> clearly lying, and, as usual, whenever anything you claim is
>>>> investigated, it nearly always turns out to be a lie.
>>>
>>> Literal trivia (even if true).
>>
>> Literal denial of facts you don't like.
>>
>>> Nowhere near in the same league as Newcastle City Council and T. Dan
>>> Smith (Labour).
>>
>> As has already been pointed out to you more than once, the Poulson
>> corruption case involved politicians from *ALL THREE* major parties,
>> so you singling out Labour is simply bigotry.
>
> Two major parties (plus a third, whatever that third might have been)
> conspired together?
>
> Really?

No, stop being deliberately childish and read the fucking facts I linked
to for yourself: politicians from all three major political parties were
corrupted by Poulson, so your implied description of it as only being
about Labour corruption is just plain wrong.

Now fuck off back to infants school where you belong, and don't come
back until you've learned:
+ To base your opinions on fact rather than bigotry;
+ To fact-check claims before making them;
+ To apologise when, as so very often, you are wrong;
+ To behave like an adult.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 28/07/2021 16:22, JNugent wrote:
>
> On 28/07/2021 04:01 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> But is irrelevant to my point above, so is another attempt to move the
>> goalposts away from a losing argument.
>
> It isn't possible for anyone to "win" an argument on the existent of a
> non-existent "tax". It doesn't exist. That really is all there is to it.

The 'tax', however misnamed it may be, provably exists by simple
mathematical logic that even a retarded child like you should be able to
grasp:

A = Cost of advertising per item of product sold
P = Cost of production of item of product excluding advertising
R = Retail price of product.

If R is not greater than P + A, then a profit is not being made,
therefore for the firm advertising to make a profit, there MUST be an
element of the price of the product which covers the cost of
advertising, in other words, an advertising tax.

> Even you were agreeing with that a day or two back.

No, I was expressing doubt about the usefulness of the concept, not
about whether it actually exists, because plainly it does.

> So there is no argument to lose.

Except the one that you're too childish to admit to losing.

>>>> Your mistake is to confuse competition with advertising, neither is
>>>> an inherent part of the other.  Two stores can compete with each
>>>> other because they are on opposite sides of the same road, but no
>>>> advertising need be involved.  A firm can advertise a new type of
>>>> product on TV in order to launch it successfully, but as it's a new
>>>> type of product it has no competition.
>>>>
>>>> Which brings us nicely back to the real world that the rest of us
>>>> inhabit, but not apparently you: advertising has a real cost, and
>>>> the firms who use it have to make a profit, therefore there must be
>>>> an element of the retail price of their products that covers the
>>>> cost of that advertising, otherwise they would not be making a
>>>> profit, and would sooner or later go out of business.
>>>
>>> Simply wrong.
>>
>> Simple arithmetic logic proves that it must be correct, otherwise a
>> profit would not be being made.
>>
>>> I advise you to read: <https://tinyurl.com/fytdre5d>
>
> I advise you to read the first chapter of any GCSE Economics text.

Make up your mind. I've heard it said that if all the economists in the
world were laid end to end, they would reach ... no conclusion, but
however that may be, no economist, no matter how 'creative', can trump
the simple mathematical logic above.

>> 'Economics for Dummies' is obviously way too advanced for you, next
>> time I advise you to try 'Economics for juveniles too bigoted and
>> stupid to learn"

[Irrelevant attempt to move the goalposts away from a losing argument
snipped again]

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 28/07/2021 13:01, Roderick Stewart wrote:
> And they're often just as good, or better than the big name brands.

They always claim that but you can taste the difference.

On Wed, 28 Jul 2021 18:49:20 +0100, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:

>On 28/07/2021 13:01, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>> And they're often just as good, or better than the big name brands.
>
>
>
>They always claim that but you can taste the difference.

Sometimes you can taste the difference and sometimes it's better, or
it's different but just as acceptable. It's nearly always cheaper.

If you think that, for example, it's worth paying 3.10gbp for a 560g
packet of Shreddies instead of 0.85p for a 750g pack of Asda's own
brand "Malted Wheaties", it's your money...

Rod.

On 28/07/2021 07:19 pm, Roderick Stewart wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Jul 2021 18:49:20 +0100, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>> On 28/07/2021 13:01, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>>> And they're often just as good, or better than the big name brands.
>>
>>
>>
>> They always claim that but you can taste the difference.
>
> Sometimes you can taste the difference and sometimes it's better, or
> it's different but just as acceptable. It's nearly always cheaper.
>
> If you think that, for example, it's worth paying 3.10gbp for a 560g
> packet of Shreddies instead of 0.85p for a 750g pack of Asda's own
> brand "Malted Wheaties", it's your money...

Kellogg's, for instance, have always insisted that they don't make
cornflakes to be sold as retailers' "own brands" and I'm sure they're
telling the truth.

It is true that some other brands have a different taste which you
either like or don't like. But most UK own-brand cornflakes taste just
the same as the blue chip brand, likewise the "lookalikes" for Weetabix,
Shredded Wheat and others.

I think that in many, if not most, cases, buyers of the high-priced
branded product are paying the extra for the name.

"JNugent" <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:imd8q7F3ngjU2@mid.individual.net...
> On 28/07/2021 02:32 pm, Mark Carver wrote:
>
>> On 27/07/2021 15:15, JNugent wrote:
>>
>>> I don't follow that.
>>> Is advertising income (real or potential) attributable to a transmitter?
>>
>> The commercial TV companies have access to Ofcom derived population
>> figures for each of the muxes, and any appropriate regional breakdowns
>
>> In fact one of Ofcom's excuses for not having coverage maps available
>> anymore is because they are 'commercially' sensitive !
>
>> As far as relays were concerned, when the analogue network was built it
>> was Public Service infrastructure.
>> Remember pre 1991 the IBA were a public service broadcaster.
>> They and the BBC built the UHF network, in a 50:50 Landlord/Tenant
>> relationship.
>
>> The provision of any transmitter, whether it was Crystal Palace or a 1
>> watt realy in the middle of the wilderness was not governed by any
>> commercial revenue concerns, only that it was economic for the Beeb or
>> IBA to build in terms of cost per viewers served. As said, that threshold
>> of 200 people was agreed between the Home Office (?) and the BBC/IBA.
>
> Thank you.
>
> So advertising revenue, potential or empirical, was not a factor?
>
> [TBH, it's difficult to see how it could be, there would be so many
> variables to TIA.]

I don't imagine anyone would analytically calculate this

it would just be based upon a count of heads

On 29/07/2021 07:19, tim... wrote:
> I don't imagine anyone would analytically calculate this
>
> it would just be based upon a count of heads

How else could it be done? A case would be made for each possible site
and a committee will make the decision. There will be other factors but
all will weighed up.

In the days of Band I TV, there were several where factors like having
the PMG as MP was said to have played a part in he choice of building a
relay, probably a few UHF relays with similar considerations influences
decisions.

In article <sdtpop$erc$1@dont-email.me>,
MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
> On 29/07/2021 07:19, tim... wrote:
> > I don't imagine anyone would analytically calculate this
> >
> > it would just be based upon a count of heads

> How else could it be done? A case would be made for each possible site
> and a committee will make the decision. There will be other factors but
> all will weighed up.

> In the days of Band I TV, there were several where factors like having
> the PMG as MP was said to have played a part in he choice of building a
> relay, probably a few UHF relays with similar considerations influences
> decisions.

certainly someone high up in the IBA had a holiday home in Wales ......

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

In article <sdra23$5g5$2@dont-email.me>, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
> On 28/07/2021 10:27, Andy Burns wrote:
> > Jim Lesurf wrote:
> >
> >> Was Maudling the minister who (perhaps via close family) had a
> >> significant relationship with a large cement/concrete company and who:
> >>
> >> 1) Was enthusiastic about building motorways.
> >>
> >> 2) Fan of Beeching cutting the railways.
> > Confusion with Ernest Marples?
> >

> Would there be any railway left now if Beeching had not trimmed them
> down?

Yes. AIUI the demand for rail travel has risen over the decades. The
problem is that the commercial operators use this as a reason to hike
prices, and crowd trains, not expand rail coverage/provision.

In effect, Beeching acted like a medic who examined the human body and
decided: "There are loads of tiny capillairies and each of them only
carries a tiny amount of blood. So we can remove them to save the bother."
Blythly ignoring the way they connected into the larger conduits and the
systematic role. And the reality that as population and activity grew, more
people would have used what was lost.

But it served those with a financial interest in road building and
associated companies very well. So from then POV of the goverment of the
day he was a 'useful idiot'.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <595314e5afcharles@candehope.me.uk>, charles
<charles@candehope.me.uk> wrote:
> > Was Maudling the minister who (perhaps via close family) had a
> > significant relationship with a large cement/concrete company and who:

> > 1) Was enthusiastic about building motorways.

> > 2) Fan of Beeching cutting the railways.

> > If so, curious co-incidences, I guess...

> > Jim

> It was Ernest Marples - who was Minister for Transport who had interests
> in road building

Yes. Thanks. I got the 'M' right. :-) Might have called him 'Motorway', so
got closer than that, anyway. :-)

The key point was that he carefully chose a useful idiot as a means to
distance himself from the pre-baked decision to take an axe to railways,
thus 'encouraging' the public to move to what he and his chumocracy could
profit from.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <imd4ijF2tpkU1@mid.individual.net>, Mark Carver
<mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> The commercial TV companies have access to Ofcom derived population
> figures for each of the muxes, and any appropriate regional breakdowns

> In fact one of Ofcom's excuses for not having coverage maps available
> anymore is because they are 'commercially' sensitive !

That seems like code for "OfCom can make money from this"? Or is this
simply OfCom having a political opinion when it is meant to be a public
body?

I wonder if it might be possible to set up a group of people who decided to
collect data on field strengths to generate an 'open source' set of
coverage maps.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <imcp1gFhm7U2@mid.individual.net>, JNugent
<jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> On 28/07/2021 11:02 am, MB wrote:

> > On 27/07/2021 10:07, Jim Lesurf wrote:

> >> It would be interesting to mandate that all payments above a set
> >> minimum by all TV/radio companies to all 'production companies' and
> >> everyone who appears before camera/mic must be made public. Then set
> >> that amount to about the average UK wage.
> >
> > But would it be like the FOIA and only apply to the BBC and not to ITV
> > and newspapers?

> Would it also include the amounts paid to (say) American, Canadian,
> French, German, "Nordic" or Australian production companies, whose drama
> output provides such a significant part of BBC schedules these days?

> Genuine question, because they all have the same sort of rights to
> commercial confidentiality.

FWIW my wording said "all". Matter of making a requirement of UK business
law. If some companies don't like it, no doubt others would step forwards.

At present, these areas facilitate tax-dodging, and distort our scrutiny of
the (claimed) 'market', etc. Much like the way Tory (of all colours)
governments have enabled tricks like 'Private Equity' companies based
abroad to 'husk' UK companies and walk away with a profit, virtually tax
free. Leaving people here to pick up the costs. Something our current
Chancellor seems keen to encourage.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <imcuejF1lqgU1@mid.individual.net>, JNugent
<jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:

> Nothing to do with advertising (and not every blue chip brand item is
> advertised on its own merits anyway).

> That's just the supermarket making as much on the look-alike as on the
> blue chip because they can get it made as cheaply as they can buy the
> known brand at wholesale prices.

The underlying picture is often that the same company manufactures the
supermarket "own brand" produce on the *same production line* as their
'premium' version.

Part of a wider picture where many of the 'different brand names and
biscuit types' are all made by the same company, but branded and presented
as 'competing' on the shelves. The makers profit either way. The
supermarket profits either way. The 'competiton'is largely
smoke-and-mirrors.

Basically, this is a now-standard trick of 'segmenting the market' by
presentation. People who may more for a nice brand name provide more profit
per pack, but perhaps fewer of those packs get run off the same line.

Coffee shops apparenty play the same tricks with what you want in your
coffee. etc, etc.

Free choice, eh? 8-]

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

On 29/07/2021 10:17, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> That seems like code for "OfCom can make money from this"? Or is this
> simply OfCom having a political opinion when it is meant to be a public
> body?

Many years ago (pre-DSO) I tried to get a complete list of offsets but
was told it was "commercially sensitive".