BBC Blog Network

User Profile

julesgreen

Listed below are comments made by julesgreen between Thursday, 2nd July 2009 and Thursday, 16th July 2009.

«Newer
Older»

Teenagers' listening habits 4:08pm on 16 Jul 2009 I am struggling to understand what all the fuss is about, and why this is suddenly so novel, or why wall-street cares (given teenagers have no money according to the report).
Why is it that we "adults" insist on viewing those "teenagers" as some foreign land, when we have all been there ourselves; do we develop amnesia at 20?
Further, if we "adults" were all teenagers now, we would do the same thing, no doubt. This is nothing to do with teenage years as such, and everything to do with context.
Comparing to my experience in the 80's:-
1. Teenagers have no money
It was ever thus; some are rich, most are poor.
In reality, teenagers (via their parents) have access to vastly more products than previous generations.
I recall saving for a portable radio with earphones in the 80's for 6 months, and then allowing 28 days for delivery.
2. Teenagers don't read newspapers
Shocking ..... ly, unsurprising.
I'm sure some do, some don't.
I'm sure that the proportions of who do and don't are probably the same as they were in the 90's, the 80's, the 70's etc
3. Teenagers (male at least) talk to their friends when playing computer games
Again, as a youth, I used to cycle to see friends, and play computer games at their homes; an vice versa.
All the internet does is save the cycling part.
Making phone calls was rare, because local calls were expensive back then.
And yes, you would still call a girlfriend on the phone (land-line of course).
4. Teenagers don't buy music
Some do, and others borrow. With the casset in the 80's most teenagers would have a huge network for exchanging tape to tape music. Again, nothing new there.
5. They don't bother listening to the radio
In the 80's, again, you just taped what you wanted from the radio, and then listened to that. You never made time for listening to the radio as such.
6. Cinema
Again, sometimes you went, mostly you didn't. The video casset recorder saw to that in the 80's, as the DVD does today.
7. Sony Erricson is the superior
... as was the Sony Walkman in the 80's.
So again, why all the fuss?
Express exit 09:11am on 02 Jul 2009 My guesses are as follows:-
1. The East Coast Franchise is viable, just not as profitable as once thought.
2. The problem is simply the amount of money National Express promised to pay the government out of the forecasted profits for the business. The promise was based presumably on the economic forecasts made in the good times. So now there are not enough profits to meet that promise, presumably, by a very long margin. I.e. National Express said, when the times are good, we will give you, the government, lots of money - how can they be critised for that?
3. Private companies are there to make a profit and minimise their risk, so they cannot be critised for this. If the government (or the people) do not want that for the railways, then you know what to do (vote). Moaning about it is just naieve and selfish.
4. The profit of private companies is what pays your pension, because your pension is likely to be invested in, among other things, the shares of National Express. So paradoxically, the "taxpayer" also wants private companies to be profitable, as well as paying vast (potentially business breaking) sums to the government : you cannot have it both ways.
5. National Express also pays taxes, so if you want to accuse it of "profiteering", just remember that the more National Express makes, the government gets in taxes the end, so the government wins either way.
6. Private companies have to ensure that they protect their investors (including your pension). As a result, it is right and proper that they should limit their risk when bidding for business which itself is inherantly risky.
7. The government picked National Express becaused presumably it made the best overall offer, in terms of potential pay-back, and in terms of *risk* compared to the other operators. If the National Express offer contained limits on liability, then just imagine the limits other operators must have asked for in their bid.
8. Lord Adonis is being economical with the truth if he critises NX for going back on a promise. Lord Adonis mus have known the tender (and limits on risk) NX put forward, and accepted it at the time. The NX bid would presumably have been (a) in the good times we will share lots of money with you, and (b) in the bad times, we will take the risk up to £72 million, and then hand back the franchise. If this was not good enough for Lord Adonis, then he should not have accepted it. As noted above, NX does not owe a public duty, when making a tender, to turn itself into a sacrifice to the taxpayer.
9. If you want to complain about loss of jobs, don't forget jobs at National Express as well.

«Newer
Older»

^ Back to top

BBC MMVI

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites

BBC.co.uk

BBC Blog Network

Find and talk to the BBC's bloggers.

User Profile

julesgreen