Another Drive4show 'Anything goes' thread

[JAS]

First topic message reminder :

Well done Jas, I've done it a few times and have applied too. Not heard back yet though.

I did it in 2008 Super and was disappointed not to break 4 hours (I ran Glasgow 3 times in the mid 80s with a PB of 2.52) Huge difference in running marathons from early to mid 20's and late 40's/early 50's though. I said in 2008 that I had one more left and it WOULD be sub 4 hours!! I've applied 3 times without success since but I'm in this time.

Nice one JAS...trust all that training won't interfere with the golf schedule too much!

In reality and coupled with the Captaincy it probably will knock my game backwards a bit. C'est la vie :-/. Ideally the day I'd want to be doing my last long training run is the day of the Captains drive in.

Didn't Kirkygolfer run in it - think some of us helped him raise money?

I'm sure somebody from the boards did Kwini, cant remember the name though.

[McLaren]

Great post mysti


Although there is already a lot of evidence to show that obamacare is working very well. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/27/opinion/krugman-the-obamacare-shock.html

[mystiroakey]

I think it's better mac, but not perfect.

[navyblueshorts]

Still the same though, most wealth is held by a small number of people.
I'm not sure that is surprising.

Not sure I agree. The people who would make that claim are almost certainly those with the most wealth. Hardly an unbiased analysis of wealth generation.

[mystiroakey]

"Obamacare closes this gap with a three-part approach. First, community rating everywhere — no more exclusion based on pre-existing conditions. Second, the “mandate” — you must buy insurance even if you’re currently healthy. Third, subsidies to make insurance affordable for those with lower incomes."


however reading that they do seem to be trying to make things 'fairer' for the poor.

[navyblueshorts]

...I have no problem with a capitalist system - but if you dont prop that up with adequate social measures then you will never get as many entrepreneurs coming out of the 'poor' that are the GREATER population.

 

[super_realist]

Still the same though, most wealth is held by a small number of people.
I'm not sure that is surprising.

Not sure I agree. The people who would make that claim are almost certainly those with the most wealth. Hardly an unbiased analysis of wealth generation.

Well, it would be impossible to state that the poorest of society generate the most wealth.
Most wealth is generated by a few sectors of business/industry, you don't have to be wealthy or be one of those to know or realise that.

[mystiroakey]

Still the same though, most wealth is held by a small number of people.
I'm not sure that is surprising.

Not sure I agree. The people who would make that claim are almost certainly those with the most wealth. Hardly an unbiased analysis of wealth generation.

Well, it would be impossible to state that the poorest of society generate the most wealth.
Most wealth is generated by a few sectors of business/industry, you don't have to be wealthy or be one of those to know or realise that.

Its more about the fact that the disparity is growing into more dangerous levels.

This cannot(hopefully!!) happen in europe (western) due to the fact that it is neither capitalist or socialist(in the extreme sense)

The EU try to make things fair for everyone within the EU by making it law that any EU firm can tender for projects, we are much tighter on Monopoly laws and we have an adequate social system in place, so the poor can not be ultra poor.

[McLaren]

Seen as we are being socialist, contribute to this.

http://community.crisis.org.uk/reserve

[super_realist]

NO thanks mac

[mystiroakey]

can i adopted a dog instead of a person?

I allways give when comic relief comes along!

[MontysMerkin]

...I have no problem with a capitalist system - but if you dont prop that up with adequate social measures then you will never get as many entrepreneurs coming out of the 'poor' that are the GREATER population.

 

But that's not a capitalist system mysti. (if it has to be propped up).
My own thoughts are that capitalism can only really work in value adding industries/businesses.

[mystiroakey]

No its not literally speaking.

but you made the point after. It works on an industry level only! you have to be a bit socialist socially to feed industry. You can't make anything without a decent workforce, you can't find the new big thing if 80% of the population is effectively poor and lacks opportunities!

The reality is the USA did have a much larger spread of wealth decades ago and that is when it was the undisputed super power. Today they are outsourcing a lot of the work anyway, and those countries are now making massive strides.

What will our companies do when we have to pay decent wages in india or china??

[MontysMerkin]

So should we give capitalism the full go ahead and let markets decide? Seems to be working wonderfully well at the moment... Can't wait till they start offering to treat your loved ones to the lowest bidder. Gulp.

[mystiroakey]

NOOOOO

[navyblueshorts]

Seen as we are being socialist, contribute to this.

http://community.crisis.org.uk/reserve

Interesting suggestion Mac. Might just do that.

[mystiroakey]

If SR does it i will do 2!

[super_realist]

Not one of my charities Oakey, plus I don't need the guilt trip of it being "christmas" in order to make a charitable donation.

[navyblueshorts]

On another subject and putting aside individual horror stories as a result, I wonder what the Unions involved think of themselves now?:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-24631342

[mystiroakey]

Fair enough..

[SmithersJones]

Here's what I don't get about capitalism. Initial capital buys influence in return for cold, hard cash, that much is clear. Selling the shares on to a third party means that that third party benefits from profits the business makes but it also inherits the influence over the business even though they've not invested a penny into it. They're just taking a punt on the future performance of the company without boosting its coffers like the original purchaser did?

[MontysMerkin]

Here's what I don't get about capitalism. Initial capital buys influence in return for cold, hard cash, that much is clear. Selling the shares on to a third party means that that third party benefits from profits the business makes but it also inherits the influence over the business even though they've not invested a penny into it. They're just taking a punt on the future performance of the company without boosting its coffers like the original purchaser did?

What capitalism ensures is that the people who can afford to buy shares and influence in industry make money. Those that can't, don't. It's the perfect system for ensuring inequality.

[super_realist]

Greed is good

[mystiroakey]

competition is good, greed is not. Its a fine balance

[super_realist]

It's a joke Oakey. Gordon Gecko

[mystiroakey]

[MontysMerkin]

Make your mind up. Shane Lowery has followed his geckoness for years!

[super_realist]

Make your mind up. Shane Lowery has followed his geckoness for years!

     Excellent.

[mystiroakey]

How many chins does lowery have?

[super_realist]

One big tyre sized one. Like a neck brace

[MontysMerkin]

[mystiroakey]

[mystiroakey]

^ thats how you do it!

[MontysMerkin]

HA! 

[incontinentia]

Something going on between Woods and Gwyneth Paltrow?...

http://m.refinery29.com/gwyneth-paltrow-body-issues?

[super_realist]

Something going on between Woods and Gwyneth Paltrow?...

http://m.refinery29.com/gwyneth-paltrow-body-issues?

Fantastic Inco, In the venacular of the yooof of today I actually "LOL'd" at that

[mystiroakey]

9 CHINS PALTROW!!

 

[raycastleunited]

Here's what I don't get about capitalism. Initial capital buys influence in return for cold, hard cash, that much is clear. Selling the shares on to a third party means that that third party benefits from profits the business makes but it also inherits the influence over the business even though they've not invested a penny into it. They're just taking a punt on the future performance of the company without boosting its coffers like the original purchaser did?

It's just risk and reward. The original investor is withdrawing his stake and the 3rd party is taking over the first investor's investment... the capital isn't guaranteed so the 3rd party can just as easily lose as gain.

[SmithersJones]

Here's what I don't get about capitalism. Initial capital buys influence in return for cold, hard cash, that much is clear. Selling the shares on to a third party means that that third party benefits from profits the business makes but it also inherits the influence over the business even though they've not invested a penny into it. They're just taking a punt on the future performance of the company without boosting its coffers like the original purchaser did?

It's just risk and reward. The original investor is withdrawing his stake and the 3rd party is taking over the first investor's investment... the capital isn't guaranteed so the 3rd party can just as easily lose as gain.

But that's just it Ray. They're taking a punt, but the business doesn't benefit from their doing so in the way it did from the original investment. The first guy's decided to give up his shares, which is fine, but the business is no better off for that transaction so why does the new guy have a say in how the business that he's not sunk a single penny into is run?

[pedro]

Eldrick and Gwyneth. Tolkien couldn't have done it better.

[raycastleunited]

Here's what I don't get about capitalism. Initial capital buys influence in return for cold, hard cash, that much is clear. Selling the shares on to a third party means that that third party benefits from profits the business makes but it also inherits the influence over the business even though they've not invested a penny into it. They're just taking a punt on the future performance of the company without boosting its coffers like the original purchaser did?

It's just risk and reward. The original investor is withdrawing his stake and the 3rd party is taking over the first investor's investment... the capital isn't guaranteed so the 3rd party can just as easily lose as gain.

But that's just it Ray. They're taking a punt, but the business doesn't benefit from their doing so in the way it did from the original investment. The first guy's decided to give up his shares, which is fine, but the business is no better off for that transaction so why does the new guy have a say in how the business that he's not sunk a single penny into is run?

But the first guy is withdrawing his equity in the business, and the new investor is putting money in the business to replace it. They make the same commitment.

[raycastleunited]

Anyone see the Ibrahimovic hat-trick tonight? Wow what a piledriver - measured at 122km/h!

He would be incredible in the Prem. If Arsenal wanted to win the league they should have signed him not Ozil.

[pedro]

Zlatan is pretty awesome. And make it 4 goals - of which 2 were just amazing, a third just plain great.

Ozil is not a bad signing. A bit different than Zlatan. But agree he'd probably do well in the Prem.

[JAS]

Interesting stuff re the gait assessment. I pronate more on my left than right (maybe down to recent left calf injury but probably not. I pronate less as I pick up speed as well. Ended up with a nice pair of Asics Gel Kayanos.
Looking forward to building up the miles over the coming weeks

[Roller_Coaster]

I only walk but asics are the best I've had. Only thing I've noticed (akin to Adidas golf shoes) is that the inside around the heel wears away quicker than the rest.

[super_realist]

JAS, I used to do my high mileage in an Asics Kayano, and my quicker paced runs in an Asics DS Trainer (including the actual marathon in the DS Trainer)
Must have had about 15 pairs of DS and use them now on a daily basis, tried Adidas and Mizuno once, but not in the same class and always end up back with Asics.

[McLaren]

What wonderful news

http://www.politics.co.uk/news/2013/10/25/labour-open-to-renationalising-the-railways

lets hope this happens one day.

[super_realist]

Mac,
Do you not remember how bad the railways were when they were publicly owned?
I presume you aren't really old enough to remember.

Also, As much as I loathe New Labour, good to see them beat the awful SNP in Dunfermline.

[McLaren]

Super it works fine in europe. And yes I am too young to remember pre-privatized rail in the UK.

[navyblueshorts]

What wonderful news

http://www.politics.co.uk/news/2013/10/25/labour-open-to-renationalising-the-railways

lets hope this happens one day.

I'm with S_R more or less. BR was truly XXXX before privitisation. Not that they've got it right now by a long chalk but I don't think anyone who remembers travelling by rail back then would want to go back to that.

[kwinigolfer]

I used British Rail for the first 36 yrs of my life (never drove until 30)and used to think it was terrific.
Was in England for a few November days in 2009 and it seemed nothing was running, and no-one to assist. Just awful. London Underground just as bad.

[Sponsored content]