John Lewis bring back "Never knowingly undersold"

[Hook]

enjoy your weekend guys... pickup on this monday

 

[RegalDomains]

View attachment 179

I hear the "go woke go broke" saying a lot, but can't actually think of a good example of this happening in practice.

Meanwhile X lost all loads of its major advertisers and 40% of its revenue when Musk took over and let the alt right back on.

So a more apt saying might be "go right go shite"

 

[username]

People might hear opposing views now. Serious diddums to those affected.

 

[RegalDomains]

People might hear opposing views now. Serious diddums to those affected.

Brilliant, you couldn't provide an example then.

Let me help you with one.

Bud Light.

You are welcome.

 

[GreyWing]

I hear the "go woke go broke" saying a lot, but can't actually think of a good example of this happening in practice.

I'd switch that around a little, I'd say show me a woke company that's making an operating profit? I can't think of many, and this is the point of why most go DEI or ESG. The reason I switch it around a little is because rather than going broke, companies that adhere to DEI or ESG have access to almost endless credit lines. But those credit lines will only last so long, rising interest rates are garlic to the vampire of DES and ESG, and they will rise. They will go out of business, they can't be turned around when rates return to normal. Then the list of broke companies you requested will be a long one.

Harley Davidson is one currently in a battle with its loyal customers. Again, another company with huge amounts of debt.

Due to money printing over the last 20 years, most corporations are running at losses and to compete for market share. How can you compete with Amazon that doesn't care about making a profit? That means your business won't survive without access to Corporate credit facilities, going through some asset stripping, or being sold to venture capitalists.

When a Corporation goes to the market for funding, most Corporations that need to borrow money have DEI conditions placed upon them in order to get the loans at the cheapest price if anything can be raised at all, I don't think that it is a disputed subject.

John Lewis went through some financial restructuring in 2020, external loans to pay off more expensive bonds. In my opinion I don't think their is a doubt that someone from an ethnic minority would have ticked some boxes for DEI/ESG investors such as Blackrock. John Lewis would have gotten cheaper funding because they ticked the DEI boxes.

But the fact is, they did choose a non-commercial Civil Servant with no experience in retail to run a retail giant, and that's very odd. They set the girl up to fail, she maybe a very talented person, but asking her to go in and run a retail business was an impossible task. You need a lifetime of experience of retail to even think about taking over something like that.

 

[Jeff]

Brilliant, you couldn't provide an example then.

Let me help you with one.

Bud Light.

You are welcome.

@seemly, @username - steady on lads. This sort of thing just makes Helmuts' case for him. How long will it be before he references this thread and says "look, I told you so"?

Regarding "go woke, go broke" versus "go right, go shite", there are examples of customers voting with their wallets in both directions, and as you say, the Bud Light boycott is a good example of the former.

Personally, I make purchasing decisions based solely on the features, quality and price of the product or service. The politics of the manufacturer and retailer, the slogans they use, and the celebrities they pay to endorse their offerings play no part whatsoever.

To give just one example of many, the fact that Persil think featuring Usain Bolt in their ads will boost their sales says a lot about the intelligence of the average consumer. I bet he hasn't had to wash a single item of his own clothing since he found success, so what would he know about the product?

 

[RegalDomains]

@seemly, @username - steady on lads. This sort of thing just makes Helmuts' case for him.

I won't carry on the spat.

However this feels like an appropriate time to say "Helmuts is a snowflake"

If I had an Acorn account what I would point out to him is that nobody knows who owns Namepros. It gets asked now and again, always a vague response, the owner has no interest in revealing his identity.

Namepros is by far the most successful domain forum. Perhaps before buying a domain forum he should have taken some time on reflecting and analysing how successful domain forums operate. It is probably always for the best that the owner of a forum remains firmly in the background, unless there is a drastic need to calm the waters, a great suggestion for a new feature, or a technical issue that needs resolving. What he actually possibly needed was a 'Community Manager', a role which he doesn't have the skillset to do himself.

He should have said "Hi, I'm the new owner of the forum, you won't hear much from me, but if you ever need anything then reach out by DM", and then his only contributions should have been in an 'announcements' forum to announce new features or partnerships. What has since occurred is all his doing, nobody else's.

 

[seemly]

@seemly, @username - steady on lads. This sort of thing just makes Helmuts' case for him. How long will it be before he references this thread and says "look, I told you so"?

Yeah? Well, Helmets is a fucking bellend too.

But I do get your point.

Personally, I make purchasing decisions based solely on the features, quality and price of the product or service. The politics of the manufacturer and retailer, the slogans they use, and the celebrities they pay to endorse their offerings play no part whatsoever.

This was my exact point, and I don't understand the overexcitement that right-wing nut jobs have over seeing a company struggle financially because: "woke".

Does that mean that every company that goes through financial difficulties is woke? No. It's a sign of the incredibly difficult global financial state the elite have created by driving a hateful and divisive wedge into societies and communities, with the only people benefitting being the top 1%.

The word "woke" has been weaponised, and is only ever used in a demeaning tone. Don't want to be called out for it and be called a "fucking bellend"? Don't be a fucking bellend.

Who'd have thought that being considerate to other humans, and how they feel, could ever be deemed a bad thing.

 

[username]

I will not be relying on you to determine what is and isn't considerate to how others feel. You're a man who appears to severely lack self restraint when it comes to discussion. You may wish to look in the mirror.

 

[seemly]

I will not be relying on you to determine what is and isn't considerate to how others feel. You're a man who appears to severely lack self restraint when it comes to discussion. You may wish to look in the mirror.

Thanks for standing up in class and sharing with us today, Mr. Anonymity.

Words mean so much coming from someone who doesn't even have the respect, consideration, or common decency to be open and honest enough to put a real name and face to their account, yet expects anything they say to be given the time to be read by another human being.

It's not that I lack self restraint. It's just that I lack patience with purposely antagonistic dickheads.

I'm the same in "real life". I won't put up with bullshit.

 

[username]

Delusional.

 

[GreyWing]

No. It's a sign of the incredibly difficult global financial state the elite have created by driving a hateful and divisive wedge into societies and communities, with the only people benefitting being the top 1%.

But why not take it out on those 1% mate? The people you call right wing nut jobs want to see these companies fail so that the investments of these 1% also fail.

 

[RegalDomains]

But why not take it out on those 1% mate? The people you call right wing nut jobs want to see these companies fail so that the investments of these 1% also fail.

Suspect the uber-Elite that you refer to @seemly are more like 0.01% or something in a global context.

People would be surprised how little one has to own to be top 1% in the world. Owning a mortgage free house in London would get you much of the way there I suspect.

 

[rob]

People would be surprised how little one has to own to be top 1% in the world. Owning a mortgage free house in London would get you much of the way there I suspect.

Exactly - looks like its about £600k.

A reminder of how privileged a lot of people on here are really in the wider context... !

 

[GreyWing]

I wasn't really trying to pass comment on the numbers involved, but I'd assume the right wing nut jobs and then left wing wing nut jobs are on the same side in wanting to see these people lose their investments because they chose to run discrimatory policies rather than equality through meritocracy?

 

[seemly]

But why not take it out on those 1% mate? The people you call right wing nut jobs want to see these companies fail so that the investments of these 1% also fail.

So the people I am referring to have no need to say anything about "go woke, go broke", then? Which was more of the point I was trying to make. And using a picture of the obviously divisive Trump adds to that tone.

Don't add to the divisiveness in our society - instead, do what you* can to stifle the puppeteers.

*you as in "royal you".

 

[GreyWing]

Don't add to the divisiveness in our society - instead, do what you* can to stifle the puppeteers.

Isn't that a right wing thing to say though? All year we see signs saying Diversity is our strength? Then when people disagree with diversity, diversity is no longer needed and actually conformity is what is required?

Is there a danger that you become what you are trying to battle against?

 

[RegalDomains]

Isn't that a right wing thing to say though? All year we see signs saying Diversity is our strength? Then when people disagree with diversity, diversity is no longer needed and actually conformity is what is required?

Is there a danger that you become what you are trying to battle against?

I'm economically slightly left leaning (centre-left) but currently very wary of state overreach, starting with the last few years of the Tories really with their draconian laws on protest and the smoking ban for people under a certain age.

Murmers from Labour about banning Twitter, ID cards and banning smoking in pub gardens, etc.

I suspect that this government will soon awaken this countries long suppressed love of Liberty and the free world. Those who are economically right leaning have an answer to that, Reform.

I do hope that the Lib Dems can rediscover their past of classical liberalism and perhaps become the party of liberty for those less fiscally conservative, like me.

 

[GreyWing]

My fault for taking it a bit of topic from John Lewis, maybe worth splitting at some point?

Those who are economically right leaning have an answer to that, Reform.

I think those that vote for Reform would be in for a shock if they ever got into power. They'd be no different to the others. Even the Lib Dems would be the same. The bond market controls the country's finances, not Parliament, they threw out Liz Truss because she was a danger to it. Any serious economic reform would crash the pension industry, it's crashing anyway, but nobody wants to do it on their watch.

We need to go back to the way it used to be when the King was in power pre 15th Century, not so much having an active king (this one is bonkers), but pure separation between those that provide policy ideas on how to run the country, and those that provide the money for them to do so. Could get rid of the House of Lords, it's an den of thieves and crackpots now anyway (Charlotte Owen is a case of how corrupt it now is, If Boris Johnson had a daughter, I would expect it to look like her.) . Turn the chamber into a house that is elected and debates only how much the House of Common's can spend. The Common's will have zero power to raise any more cash than what is provided by the assembly that replaced the Lords.

At the moment, the unelected bankers at the bond markets do it. Why not change that to an elected body who are accountable to the people?

One set of people voted in because they are financially competent, the others voted in because they have decent policies. Now we have a system that works. At the moment, we never know if someone's policies are good or bad, because we financially print away those consequences. All that would stop.

I suspect that this government will soon awaken this countries long suppressed love of Liberty and the free world.

I do hope you are right, those under 45 years old don't really know what they have been missing in my opinion.

 

[Jeff]

Who would have thought that a harmless post about an advertising slogan could lead to a major war followed by a new constitution?

This thread has real potential as the basis of a film script, so I think we should sell the rights. Apparently Clooney was up for playing @seemly but baulked because he thought the NSFW lines would damage his image. Perhaps Gordon Ramsey is looking to diversify into acting...