On Fri, 5 Nov 2004 22:56:09 -0000, ":::Jerry::::"
wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 5 Nov 2004 20:44:21 -0000, ":::Jerry::::"
wrote:
snip

Sorry but it is a "I'm all right, sod you" attitude, just the same as
people
not voting for a government that would (say) put 1p in the pound on tax
so
HMG can pay for more hospitals or schools etc. Think about it...

If that's your definition of that criterion, then fine, but I have to
say that it isn't mine so I don't accept your conclusion.. I
certainly wouldn't vote for anybody proposing to increase taxation in
any form because fundamentally I don't think that governments should
be in the businesses of health care or education, or anything beyond a
bare minimum of activities.

So you ARE very much of a "I'm all right, sod you" attitude then, how do you
expect people who can't afford to feed and house themselves to afford health
care (let alone education for any kids) if it's not supplied by HMG - re
open the work houses perhaps ?!...

You didn't read what I said. I didn't say that government should
not make *provision* for health care and education, only that it
should not be in the *business* of doing so.

In other words it should not own and operate either system but simply
collect the minimum necessary taxation in order to provide vouchers
for healthcare and education that people can spend at facilities of
their choosing.

This provides a safety net for those who are unable to afford their
own services as it does today - any civilised society should do that.,
It then gives those who wish to supplement what the state provides
with their own investment, savings, insurance etc. the ability to do
so without additional financial penalty.

As it is today, if I want to educate my children privately, I have to
pay for the state system and then for school fees out of net income.

If I want good quality healthcare at a time that fits my requirements
rather than those of the government, I have to pay for private health
insurance and probably top that up. On top of this I have to pay
ridiculous sums in national insurance, as does my employer, and then
if he pays for health insurance that is taxed as a benefit with
further national insurance on top of that.

Both are an iniquitous situation. I am by no means saying that
there should not be provision for those who need it - I am quite happy
to contribute to that. I would simply like to have a choice of
service supplier and receive back a contribution to it from the
government equal to anybody else. I'm not even asking for a return
proportional to my contribution. I simply want to have freedom of
choice without being financially penalised for doing so.



Sorry but you are either clueless or living on Mars. :~(

Neither, actually. The cluelessness is with governments being in
the services business and with the belief that they should be. The
British NHS is the largest employer in western Europe. A total
nonsense.



Next time you visit the USA, go 'Down Town' and open your eyes, but be
careful not to get yourself mugged for the shirt off your back.

Any city anywhere in the world has "down town" issues. I visit
enough of them.




--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

:::Jerry:::: wrote:

Yes, because their customer base is lower, but therir costs are the same if
1 person uses the shop or a 1000 use it, the fact that they have less
customers means that they *have* to charge more to those who either don't
worry about price or those who can't use a 'shed' for what ever reason.

That attitude is why Screwfix was set up in competition with small
retailers in the first place, to provide goods at a reasonable price. As
Andy said,if you want to grow your business you need to provide your
customer base with the goods they require at a price they are prepared
to pay and when they want them. Any market trader knows that 2% of
something is much better than 100% of nothing. Tesco's grew to their
present size by recognising this and because Jack Cohen knew that he
needed help and wasn't afraid to hire it and give the guy his backing.
Small retail businesses stay small because the people running them
believe that they can get to a stage where they don't have to satisfy
the customer and frequently don't survive.

Regards
Capitol

Andy Hall wrote:

The bricks and mortar retail trade needs to realise that the writing
has been on the wall for it for at least five years and to react
accordingly. This means either stocking goods that people do want to
buy at a price they will pay or items where there is value in going
and seeing and touching.

If the retail trade can't see that and react to it, then I'm sorry but
it deserves to die.

To which I would add, that if they haven't adequate, easy, free car
parking, then I'm going to use mail order wherever possible.

Regards
Capitol

:::Jerry:::: wrote:

Socialist whinge etc!/

If you want to live in a Scottish communist state, please feel free to
vote for it. I've seen it close up and note that the most able Scottish
inhabitants are all leaving with great speed, many for the south of
England. The rest seem to prefer heading for the US which is a
capitalist enterprise society which rewards effort, with equal speed. If
you wish to spend other peoples hard earned money, don't be surprised
when they decide to stop earning. This is now happening in the UK,
income tax receipts are dropping and pension contributions are now
regarded as a no no.

Tax increases are now predominantly being used other than for the NHS.
I note that MPs expenses rose again last month. The sooner we get back
to educating our youngsters that if they work hard enough they can get
rich, the better and if they don't, they have a very low standard of
living. Yes, I do believe in Victorian values!

regards
Capitol

"IMM" wrote in message ...
"N. Thornton" wrote in message
om...

Reminds me of an unusual business I once visited. From the outside it
looked as if the building was at risk of collapse. Half of it was
boarded up. Inside it was like walking 40 years into the past, they
stocked paraffin cookers, distemper, whiting, paraffin, and the sort
of household appliances I doubt anyone has bought in a very long time.
Tin baths were one example. Anyway, the distemper was 70p for 2.5l,
and most of the colours were sold out. It was nearly half a century
old. Not the best policy on stock rotation then.

The sales person was dressed in tattered and torn clothes, smelt of
paraffin, and seemed more interested in a long chat than anything.

Had these premises been closed for 40-50 years and then someone re-opened
the place to sell off the old stock?

The sad thing is no, theyd been open all the time. The people lived
like they were in the 40s, bills must have been minimal, maintance
spend was near zero, and I guess the lines they did sell kept them
going just about. Anyone in their right mind would have auctioned the
distempter off decades ago, and used the space for something that did
sell. Same with the tin baths. I think probably half their stock was
good to sell, the other half no sane person would buy. ISTR they still
had 1970s lino in stock, and this was in the 90s. It did not look
good.


I remember those sort of places here. Everything was loose and they put it
in brown paper bags for you. Self serve was unheard of. You had to know what
you wanted, or asked the man, or told him of your problem, and then he
leaned into a deep bin pulled it out and put it in a brown paper bag.

There still are a few like that about.


NT

"N. Thornton" wrote in message
m...
"IMM" wrote in message
...
"N. Thornton" wrote in message
om...

Reminds me of an unusual business I once visited. From the outside it
looked as if the building was at risk of collapse. Half of it was
boarded up. Inside it was like walking 40 years into the past, they
stocked paraffin cookers, distemper, whiting, paraffin, and the sort
of household appliances I doubt anyone has bought in a very long time.
Tin baths were one example. Anyway, the distemper was 70p for 2.5l,
and most of the colours were sold out. It was nearly half a century
old. Not the best policy on stock rotation then.

The sales person was dressed in tattered and torn clothes, smelt of
paraffin, and seemed more interested in a long chat than anything.

Had these premises been closed for 40-50 years and then someone
re-opened
the place to sell off the old stock?

The sad thing is no, theyd been open all the time. The people lived
like they were in the 40s, bills must have been minimal, maintance
spend was near zero, and I guess the lines they did sell kept them
going just about. Anyone in their right mind would have auctioned the
distempter off decades ago, and used the space for something that did
sell. Same with the tin baths. I think probably half their stock was
good to sell, the other half no sane person would buy. ISTR they still
had 1970s lino in stock, and this was in the 90s. It did not look
good.

You probably find film companies buy quite a bit from those places.

Andy Hall wrote in message . ..

I find that buying good power tools works out cheaper in terms of
total cost of ownership over time


I think capital is the main issue. A full set of dewalt /bosch /makita
kit is kind of expensive, and that capital can sometimes find better
uses. In such cases one can end up better off from buying the cheaper
tools, even when the tools themselves cost more per human life time.

I think its also fair to say that cheap tools do sometimes last longer
per pound cost than the quality brands, I'm not sure its entirely
clear cut. If the £50 dangle grinder lasts 6 years and the £16 Ferm
lasts 3 then the Ferm works out cheaper per year. Unless youre making
a living out of it of course.


NT

"N. Thornton" wrote in message
om...
Andy Hall wrote in message
. ..

I find that buying good power tools works out cheaper in terms of
total cost of ownership over time


I think capital is the main issue. A full set of dewalt /bosch /makita
kit is kind of expensive, and that capital can sometimes find better
uses. In such cases one can end up better off from buying the cheaper
tools, even when the tools themselves cost more per human life time.

I think its also fair to say that cheap tools do sometimes last longer
per pound cost than the quality brands, I'm not sure its entirely
clear cut. If the £50 dangle grinder lasts 6 years and the £16 Ferm
lasts 3 then the Ferm works out cheaper per year. Unless youre making
a living out of it of course.

good post.

On 6 Nov 2004 02:04:32 -0800, (N. Thornton) wrote:

Andy Hall wrote in message . ..

I find that buying good power tools works out cheaper in terms of
total cost of ownership over time


I think capital is the main issue.

That's a matter of personal choice. I don't consider capital to be
the main issue at all - it goes some way down the list as far as I am
concerned..

A full set of dewalt /bosch /makita
kit is kind of expensive, and that capital can sometimes find better
uses.

One should always consider which factors are the most important.
Before I buy something like a tool I consider performance, quality,
accuracy, comfort and service. Then I look at total cost of
ownership, including the cost of time that would be spent in the event
of issues. Finally I consider the capital cost. If at the end of
that I feel that the capital could be better employed somewhere else I
will reconsider to what extent I am willing to compromise on my five
initial criteria. In most cases the answer is not by very much.
If I then still feel that the capital is better employed elsewhere,
then I won't buy the tool. I would rather go without than buy a
piece of junk.

In such cases one can end up better off from buying the cheaper
tools, even when the tools themselves cost more per human life time.

This depends on whether you view capital cost as more important than
time. Personally I rate time as being far more valuable in most
cases than capital cost.


I think its also fair to say that cheap tools do sometimes last longer
per pound cost than the quality brands, I'm not sure its entirely
clear cut. If the £50 dangle grinder lasts 6 years and the £16 Ferm
lasts 3 then the Ferm works out cheaper per year. Unless youre making
a living out of it of course.


I don't think that this is the point - it certainly isn't for me.
I think that it is too simplistic to only consider purchase cost and
longevity.

I don't subscribe to the assumption that DIY time is free, so if
something needs to be replaced three times as many times then that
adds up to three lost periods of time which could be an hour to half a
day. To me, that wasted time is very expensive.

An angle grinder is not a good example because it doesn't need to be a
precision tool. If I consider tools where quality, accuracy,
performance and comfort are also important such as with certain types
of saw, planes, drills, sanders etc. then the situation is completely
different.


--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On 6 Nov 2004 02:04:32 -0800, (N. Thornton) wrote:

Andy Hall wrote in message
. ..

I find that buying good power tools works out cheaper in terms of
total cost of ownership over time


I think capital is the main issue.

That's a matter of personal choice. I don't consider capital to be
the main issue at all - it goes some way down the list as far as I am
concerned..

A full set of dewalt /bosch /makita
kit is kind of expensive, and that capital can sometimes find better
uses.

One should always consider which factors are the most important.
Before I buy something like a tool I consider performance, quality,
accuracy, comfort and service. Then I look at total cost of
ownership, including the cost of time that would be spent in the event
of issues. Finally I consider the capital cost. If at the end of
that I feel that the capital could be better employed somewhere else I
will reconsider to what extent I am willing to compromise on my five
initial criteria. In most cases the answer is not by very much.
If I then still feel that the capital is better employed elsewhere,
then I won't buy the tool. I would rather go without than buy a
piece of junk.

In such cases one can end up better off from buying the cheaper
tools, even when the tools themselves cost more per human life time.

This depends on whether you view capital cost as more important than
time. Personally I rate time as being far more valuable in most
cases than capital cost.


I think its also fair to say that cheap tools do sometimes last longer
per pound cost than the quality brands, I'm not sure its entirely
clear cut. If the £50 dangle grinder lasts 6 years and the £16 Ferm
lasts 3 then the Ferm works out cheaper per year. Unless youre making
a living out of it of course.


I don't think that this is the point - it certainly isn't for me.
I think that it is too simplistic to only consider purchase cost and
longevity.

I don't subscribe to the assumption that DIY time is free, so if
something needs to be replaced three times as many times then that
adds up to three lost periods of time which could be an hour to half a
day. To me, that wasted time is very expensive.

An angle grinder is not a good example because it doesn't need to be a
precision tool. If I consider tools where quality, accuracy,
performance and comfort are also important such as with certain types
of saw, planes, drills, sanders etc. then the situation is completely
different.

Bad post.

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 5 Nov 2004 17:02:38 -0000, "IMM" wrote:



If using pipe a lot get a Monument, they last and last
and work out cheaper in the long run, unlike buying power tools.

I find that buying good power tools works out cheaper in terms of
total cost of ownership over time

Only if you use them every day. Well you got that wrong.

For my use, the economics work out perfectly.

Bad post.

On Sun, 7 Nov 2004 00:24:35 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message


I don't subscribe to the assumption that DIY time is free, so if
something needs to be replaced three times as many times then that
adds up to three lost periods of time which could be an hour to half a
day. To me, that wasted time is very expensive.

An angle grinder is not a good example because it doesn't need to be a
precision tool. If I consider tools where quality, accuracy,
performance and comfort are also important such as with certain types
of saw, planes, drills, sanders etc. then the situation is completely
different.

Bad post.


Coming from someone who is incapable of even selecting the correct
tools for a job, let alone the quality; and who is frequently barely
able to string a sentence together, that is rich indeed.



--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 00:42:12 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:

Bad post.

Coming from someone who is incapable of even selecting the correct
tools for a job, let alone the quality; and who is frequently barely
able to string a sentence together, that is rich indeed.

Unbelievable. I let IMM out of the twit filter because I think he's
served his penance, and he almost immediately responds with lots of
diatribe to waste everyones bandwidth.

Plonk. There, I won't have to read his drivel any more.

Andrew

--

If you need help with those general DIY projects
you can give me a call. More information about
what I can help with can be found on my web site:

http://www.handymac.co.uk

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 7 Nov 2004 00:24:35 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message


I don't subscribe to the assumption that DIY time is free, so if
something needs to be replaced three times as many times then that
adds up to three lost periods of time which could be an hour to half a
day. To me, that wasted time is very expensive.

An angle grinder is not a good example because it doesn't need to be a
precision tool. If I consider tools where quality, accuracy,
performance and comfort are also important such as with certain types
of saw, planes, drills, sanders etc. then the situation is completely
different.

Bad post.


Coming from someone who is incapable of even selecting the correct
tools for a job

What tools would these be?

"Andrew McKay" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 00:42:12 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:

Bad post.

Coming from someone who is incapable of even selecting the correct
tools for a job, let alone the quality; and who is frequently barely
able to string a sentence together, that is rich indeed.

Unbelievable. I let IMM out of the twit filter

Please put me in your kill file. You are a man of limited intelligence.

On Sun, 7 Nov 2004 11:45:15 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 7 Nov 2004 00:24:35 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message


I don't subscribe to the assumption that DIY time is free, so if
something needs to be replaced three times as many times then that
adds up to three lost periods of time which could be an hour to half a
day. To me, that wasted time is very expensive.

An angle grinder is not a good example because it doesn't need to be a
precision tool. If I consider tools where quality, accuracy,
performance and comfort are also important such as with certain types
of saw, planes, drills, sanders etc. then the situation is completely
different.

Bad post.


Coming from someone who is incapable of even selecting the correct
tools for a job

What tools would these be?

If plumbing tools are indicative, almost certainly *any* tools.



--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 7 Nov 2004 11:45:15 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 7 Nov 2004 00:24:35 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message


I don't subscribe to the assumption that DIY time is free, so if
something needs to be replaced three times as many times then that
adds up to three lost periods of time which could be an hour to half
a
day. To me, that wasted time is very expensive.

An angle grinder is not a good example because it doesn't need to be
a
precision tool. If I consider tools where quality, accuracy,
performance and comfort are also important such as with certain
types
of saw, planes, drills, sanders etc. then the situation is
completely
different.

Bad post.


Coming from someone who is incapable of even selecting the correct
tools for a job

What tools would these be?

If plumbing tools are indicative, almost certainly *any* tools.

Would have to be very expensive power tools?

On Sun, 7 Nov 2004 13:11:16 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message

I don't subscribe to the assumption that DIY time is free, so if
something needs to be replaced three times as many times then that
adds up to three lost periods of time which could be an hour to half
a
day. To me, that wasted time is very expensive.

An angle grinder is not a good example because it doesn't need to be
a
precision tool. If I consider tools where quality, accuracy,
performance and comfort are also important such as with certain
types
of saw, planes, drills, sanders etc. then the situation is
completely
different.

Bad post.


Coming from someone who is incapable of even selecting the correct
tools for a job

What tools would these be?

If plumbing tools are indicative, almost certainly *any* tools.

Would have to be very expensive power tools?


No, just appropriate ones for the purpose and the criteria for the
purchaser.



--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl