The seventies make a comeback
Jan. 27th, 2006 10:57 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
davywavyAs is commonly known, sister and I live in poverty, so it might come as a surprise to you to learn that people often try and sell us financial services. Not of the "Sign here and get our new low credit rate of 57% for the rest of your pathetic, squalid life!" sort as so often appears from people offering loans to the poverty-stricken, but more sophisticated scammers than that, instead offering stock tips and investment advice. The other day, we received a mailshot from these people, offering us unrivalled access to stock market secrets.
Now this sort of thing tends to make me guffaw merrily before adding the letter to the recycling, but not on this occasion. On this occasion these people made two mistakes: one, they make completely wild and unreasonable statements in their literature, and two, they included a reply-paid envelope.
If you want to read a copy of the mailshot they sent us, you can do so here.
And thanks to their kindly inclusion of a reply paid envelope, we got to reply to them:
Dear Sir,
Thank you for your recent letter setting out your reasons for contending that the current economic situation is similar to that prevailing in the early 1970’s.
Although in some ways I would agree that parallels can be drawn between then and now (although there are also notable differences, most obviously an independent Bank of England), one aspect of the 1970’s which I certainly don’t consider due for revival any time soon, and am surprised to see that you apparently do, is that era’s attitude to race. I refer (of course) to your subheading; “6. ASIAN MANUFACTURING IS STEALING OUR JOBS -” beneath which you allude to the problems faced by the Rover car plant in the 1970’s, and draw a present-day parallel with the Chinese manufacturing boom.
Sir, I have spoken to auto engineers working for motor and Diesel companies in Britain and Detroit, and it is the considered opinion of all these (British-born) designers that people did not want to buy Rover cars in the 1970’s because, quite simply, Rover then made a dreadful product.
By comparison, Toyota, for instance, is one of the great car manufacturers of the world. British people did not buy Toyota cars because they were conniving with evil slant-eyed pilferers of work that rightfully belonged to the decent British labourer in a conspiracy to undermine our economy. As you, by using the word ‘stealing’, imply. No. They simply bought Toyota cars because they were better value for money. There was no theft or dishonesty involved, simply global market forces. If you genuinely believe that the Japanese car manufacturers of the ‘Seventies committed some dishonest or underhand act then the British purchasers of the product are also guilty by association and you ought to be including them in your defamatory remarks, unless of course you consider them to be the witless dupes of a cunning and ingenious race, incapable of organising a boycott. In any case, I consider your observation to be distasteful in the extreme, and if this is the sort of thing you feel to have to resort to in order to attract potential customers I trust you will kindly remove my name and address from your mailing list with all due expedience.
Yours sincerely
Well, it passed an evening, anyway.
Now this sort of thing tends to make me guffaw merrily before adding the letter to the recycling, but not on this occasion. On this occasion these people made two mistakes: one, they make completely wild and unreasonable statements in their literature, and two, they included a reply-paid envelope.
If you want to read a copy of the mailshot they sent us, you can do so here.
And thanks to their kindly inclusion of a reply paid envelope, we got to reply to them:
Dear Sir,
Thank you for your recent letter setting out your reasons for contending that the current economic situation is similar to that prevailing in the early 1970’s.
Although in some ways I would agree that parallels can be drawn between then and now (although there are also notable differences, most obviously an independent Bank of England), one aspect of the 1970’s which I certainly don’t consider due for revival any time soon, and am surprised to see that you apparently do, is that era’s attitude to race. I refer (of course) to your subheading; “6. ASIAN MANUFACTURING IS STEALING OUR JOBS -” beneath which you allude to the problems faced by the Rover car plant in the 1970’s, and draw a present-day parallel with the Chinese manufacturing boom.
Sir, I have spoken to auto engineers working for motor and Diesel companies in Britain and Detroit, and it is the considered opinion of all these (British-born) designers that people did not want to buy Rover cars in the 1970’s because, quite simply, Rover then made a dreadful product.
By comparison, Toyota, for instance, is one of the great car manufacturers of the world. British people did not buy Toyota cars because they were conniving with evil slant-eyed pilferers of work that rightfully belonged to the decent British labourer in a conspiracy to undermine our economy. As you, by using the word ‘stealing’, imply. No. They simply bought Toyota cars because they were better value for money. There was no theft or dishonesty involved, simply global market forces. If you genuinely believe that the Japanese car manufacturers of the ‘Seventies committed some dishonest or underhand act then the British purchasers of the product are also guilty by association and you ought to be including them in your defamatory remarks, unless of course you consider them to be the witless dupes of a cunning and ingenious race, incapable of organising a boycott. In any case, I consider your observation to be distasteful in the extreme, and if this is the sort of thing you feel to have to resort to in order to attract potential customers I trust you will kindly remove my name and address from your mailing list with all due expedience.
Yours sincerely
Well, it passed an evening, anyway.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-01-27 11:29 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-01-27 11:40 am (UTC)=======
Since 1938 The Fleet Street Letter has been looking at events behind the news and predicting their effect on the markets. With 62 years experience of looking at stocks and shares, The Fleet Street Letter has developed the knack of anticipating peaks and troughs. 'Never buy at the top of the market nor sell at the bottom.' This simple maxim has been developed into a sophisticated contrarian approach to investment under the current editorship of Lord William Rees Mogg.
========
William Rees-Mogg, Baron Rees-Mogg
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The Right Honourable William Rees-Mogg, Baron Rees-Mogg (born July 14, 1928) is a journalist and politician in the United Kingdom. He began his career at The Financial Times, before moving to The Sunday Times. He was Conservative candidate for the hopeless seat of Chester-le-Street in a by-election on September 27, 1956, losing to Labour candidate Norman Pentland by 21,287 votes.
Rees-Mogg served as editor of The Times newspaper from 1967 to 1981, and still writes comment for the paper. In July 1967 Rees-Mogg wrote the famous editorial Who Breaks a Butterfly on a Wheel defending Mick Jagger following the Redlands arrests and attacking the UK laws on cannabis usage. He also was on the BBC's Board of Governors and a chairman of the Arts Council. He was made a life peer in 1988, and sits in the House of Lords as a cross-bencher. He is currently a member of the European Reform Forum.
Rees-Mogg is author of the Sovereign Individual, the Great Reckoning, and Blood in the Streets, all three co-authored with James Dale Davidson.
Rees-Mogg's stand on drugs led to him being satirised by Private Eye as 'Mogadon Man'.
====
I was just imagining the pool old octagenarian having his hand manipulated to sign this kind of thing off, as its not in keeping with his recorded politics at all.
Oh, and the 83 thing was because you are in favour of the individual, rather than the state, dictating market forces, which although not expressing support for the Ancien Regime, is commonly held to be right wing.
no subject
Date: 2006-01-27 12:27 pm (UTC)That's an unusual concept. Whilst at it perhaps the government could dictate the value of pi? Maybe Plancks' constant?
Does the name 'Cnut' mean anything to you?
no subject
Date: 2006-01-27 12:31 pm (UTC)Ah, now there was me thinking you were just going for a cheap insult!
Of course, CAP isn't merely something you get playing for England.
no subject
Date: 2006-01-27 12:52 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-01-27 01:43 pm (UTC)Incidentally, the reason why the number 3 was chosen was because the line in the Bible "Thirty cubits it was around and ten it was across", clearly indicates that the almighty made Pi 3 and not that the author didn't have a very good ruler to hand.
no subject
Date: 2006-01-27 02:03 pm (UTC)Needless to say, I don't believe technocratic 'solutions' are appropriate to chaotic problems. Since management can't control some things (and by like measure, governments) they should avoid wasting resources on trying, and let people closer to the coalface deal with whatever may come along.
no subject
Date: 2006-01-27 02:06 pm (UTC)BTW: no sign of Far Cry. If you haven't sent it yet, could you give it to H over the weekend as I believe you'll both be at SWM?
no subject
Date: 2006-01-27 02:16 pm (UTC)Oh- and I couldn't fit Far Cry in the post box outside my house, so it'll go tonight.