Something may increase risk of Bad Things
A study published yesterday shows a possible link between Something and Bad Things. Researchers at the Institute of Somewhere found that Something is often associated with Something Else, which shows a correlation with Bad Things.
Bad Things are considered undesireable by most of the population. Death, cancer, obesity, pollution, ugliness and boredom have all been considered Bad Things by many people. Over 80% of the population do Something each year.
Steve Smith, 14, died last year in an incident that can only be described as a Bad Thing. He had recently been doing Something. His mother, Janet Smith, said last week "Our Steve was a loving, popular boy; with his whole future ahead of him. His life was snatched away from him horribly. I had heard of him doing Something, and I tried to tell him to stop. he wouldn't listen.." [Mrs. Smith weeps] "I worry for all the other mothers out there, how many children have to die?"
Bob Fluster, of Action Against Bad Things said "this study is just another in a torrent of evidence against Something. When will people wake up and realise that Something causes Bad Things?"
Many previous studies also show the correlation. A report by SomethingWatch found that over 75% of people who will eventually experience Bad Things have done Something, or been near someone who has done Something.
Jack De'Ladd has a different view. He claimed "everybody does Something at least every day- banning Something could end up with banning everything". A SomethingWatch spokesman said "Jack De'Ladd is proven to financially benefit from industries that produce Something. His wild claims are discredited by every scientist working to prove the danger of Something".
It is estimated that last year 839 million people suffered from Bad Things, including constipation, blindness and not being able to find a seat on the train. MegaCorp PLC made profits of £49 Billion last year from the sale of Something. The Chairman of MegaCorp refused to comment.
Postal gold-buying services
There has been much wittering today about the 'poor value' given by the postal gold-buying services that have sprang up recently, such as "Cash4Gold", famously advertised by DJ Goldie.
When I saw the headline "Cash for gold firms advertising on TV offer 'shockingly bad value'" I expected to read about the differential between the price per ounce paid by these services and the 'spot price'; the price of gold on the open market. I was very wrong.
Consumer magazine 'Which' bought various items of 'gold' jewelry brand new, and then got prices from the postal gold buyers for said items. Lo and behold they were offered considerably less than they had paid for the jewelry.
WHAT DID THEY FRIGGING EXPECT??????
I have a thought experiment for you: Go and buy a brand new car (for say, £15,000) and see how much a scrapyard offers you for the steel in the car. It'll be about £200. Do the same with any metal product you can imagine and the result would be the same. When you buy any manufactured good brand new, you are paying for the effort of making the thing, the perceived value to you, and for the raw materials. You cannot reasonably expect (unless you're a complete fucking moron) to get as much money for the raw materials as for a finished product.
Jewelry is massively overpriced anyway, the prices are based almost entirely on "OOH SHINY!" and have little to do with the cost of the materials or workmanship. That's why Argos charges £30-or so for a thin crappy pair of 9ct earrings. 9ct 'gold' is hardly gold anyway, it's mostly whatever cheap metal was lying around at the factory with a bit of gold melted in to make it look a bit 'golden'. 9ct 'gold' is only 37.5% actual GOLD.
"One of the poorest deals from CashMyGold was at just under £10 for a £215 9ct gold bangle"
No shit.
This is more a case of "gold bangle massively overpriced and contains little gold" than "CashMyGold ripping people off"
Of course from either article it's impossible to say whether these services actually ARE ripping people off, since they give no indication of how much any of them are paying per unit weight of pure gold. Without that figure the whole thing is meaningless.
All I can say is if a company with a decidedly niche market (like gold buying, as opposed to say washing powder or cars) can afford to advertise on TV, they are unlikely to offer superb value.
Links:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/investing/gold/7036987/Cash-for-gold-firms-advertising-on-TV-offer-shockingly-bad-value.html
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/retailing/article6996590.ece
Minimum alcohol pricing
As we mentioned on our last show, there was a propaganda push last week in support of 'minimum alcohol pricing', the idea whereby if alcohol was made a little/much more costly, problems such as 'binge drinking' etc would disappear overnight..
The push took the form of reports that alleged close government links 'to the drinks industry', implying that any perceived lack of support for the proposals would be due to backroom deals or somesuch. It's the same bullshit thats been applied to many other issues, such as "anybody who disagrees with my authoritarian proposals to combat global warming is in bed with OMG BIG OIL!".
Minimum pricing won't work; its yet another situation where supporters are claiming that prices will rise very little (so as not to affect the price of YOUR pint) but will also rise massively (and only affect OTHER people). Its exactly the same as for Road Pricing (driving will still be cheap for you, but so expensive for everybody else that the roads will be clear). As well there is a very real 'slippery slope' effect, whereby once price controls are introduced there will ALWAYS be pressure for prices to increase a little more. After all, it's only a little more, isn't it? Add to this the fact that elsewhere in the world very high taxes/prices for booze haven't done anything to reduce problem drinking or alcoholism (Norway being a case in point).
The Devil's Kitchen covers the issue wonderfully here.