As you two seem to be lacking the identical braincells I'll address both you comments in the same post
Oh right - so now your economic "argument" has been trashed blah blah blah
Explain to me how my economic argument is flawed please.
Whilst doing so please pay attention that the economic argument I am presenting is
NOT my argument.Its is a based of the basic laws applied in economics taught to economist throughout the world.
If you or your scholar
SMITHS have managed to rebuke this theory and find a flaw in it then we are wasting our time here.
Somebody better get on the phone to the
FT or
Economist news paper and let them know a member of a
UK Punting has crashed your theories that has taken hundreds of years for you to develop.
Sadgit is flip flopping all over the place, blah blah blah...he hasnt replied to my post where i asked him to explain the £150 an hour he mentioned in his post 18.
Oh is this the answer your looking for that I posted ages ago ?
Im talking about the price structure and how it is formulated.
No matter where you are or what you pay the price is based on what the agencies and WG's think is the maximum they can extract.Not sure why your focusing on a price and not the principle of economics, that its a buyers market not a sellers.
The punters are the buyers....Do you really not understand something as basic as this.
Really sorry but your answer is there and I really dont know how to explain it in more simple terms that are clearly required for you to understand.
Seems that many but especially the both of you cant grasp the concept of a
PRINCPLE and seemed to have not done your home work.
Instead of reading what
I actually said you took the replies from others and applied them to me, Unfortunately your sources made tiny mistakes and you built your whole argument on those mistakes and created one huge mistake for yourselves....nice job boys
You need to understand although a
principle can be 100% correct bringing that
principle to fruition may not be realistic in reality for various reasons but that doesn't mean the principle is incorrect does it now ??
The road tax scenario someone gave is a perfect example.
In theory you could workout how many vehicles are in London and how many holding centers, car parks , staff, clamps, cost of administration etc are available to the government and come up with a theory that in
PRINCIPLE if nobody paid the government couldn't administrate towing and storing all the vehicles.
In
PRINCIPLE you would be correct and only an idiot (or maybe two) would try and disprove the
PRINCIPLE.
The fact that some people may be happy to pay and others think its good value, or they can afford it etc, or it will never happen has
SWEET FA to do with the
PRINCIPLE…do you get it now.
I have always been putting forward the principle and used kindergarden level economics to try and explain this to you.
Its not my fault that the brain cell you both share couldn't workout I was putting forward a "economic principle" despite me repeatedly saying so.
Nobody has presented an economics answer to a economic problem.
Its a BUSINESS…its as simple as that a BUSINESS that can run on an unskilled workforce force, has no USP in an over crowded market paying staff far more than they could get TAX FREE in any other legitimate employment.
It works for one reason only…MEN think with their dicks so pay above the odds.
If they could control their dicks they could control the market.