Woolworths

[Happy Face 29]

tesco do what woolies should have done. they've paid for being behind the times...

 

Crush all opposition and tactically buy out all land competitors might set up upon and mothball it?

 

The Microsoft of the groceries world. Survival of the fittest and all that....

 

Or do you suggest they should all say "no, after you..."?

 

As much as many on board seems to favour massive companies doing dodgy or even outright illegal things for their own benefit, they have been reprimanded over their block buying policies.

 

 

 

Or do you think "might is right/survival of the biggest" and that's the end of it?

 

No i think you should passivley let your competitors fuck you over just like Woolies did. Oh hang on, that one didnt work out very well for their employees.....

Yes we all know your philosophy; get to the top by any means necessary then do everything and anything you can to stay there.

 

That's a good corporate plan, but it's why Governments need to put some limits corporate greed.

 

I'm sure you'd justify slavery economically if it gave a big enough dividend, but that's not really the point.....

 

No, i meant that Woolies did not act like Tesco, thats why people have lost their jobs. Tesco needs to act within the regulations but it also has to strive to be as competitive as it can or it too will go the same way.

 

My philosophy? Dont be daft lad, i wouldnt bore people with my philosophical ramblings on here.

 

If you're interested, i fall between Rawls and Sen and use this framework to express it.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_welfare_function

 

TESCO has acted outside of regulations (repeatedly), so clearly that's how you think Woolworth's should have gone. Personally I can't see how Woolworth's could have saved itself as is, short of Slavery.

No, i think (stop saying what i think man, its really childish) that Tesco have done some bad things but also represent firstly the preferences of the UK population who are too lazy to shop at independent small retailers and secondly a company competitive enough to penetrate international markets (helping the currency and balance of payments). When you compete in a fierce market like food retail then being aggressive is a way of life. Obviously there are drawbacks, i quite agree but i'd rather have a slightly over-aggressive Tesco than a dead Woolies. Dont you agree on balance that sounds about fair?

Again you're still saying that Woolies should have acted like Tescos and broke rules (I don't understand why you think you aren't saying that when you are)...... but I still don't think that would have saved them as is.

 

Well not unless they had become massively dominant first, in which case Tescos would have been destroyed years ago.

 

You can act like Michael Jackson by putting on a glittery glove and doing the moon walk. You don't have to be a nonce.

[ChezGiven 0]

I cant top that.

[wykikitoon 16598]

Feel sorry for anyone losing their job like. Woolies has shut because it's a shit shop though.

 

Aye, its basically not changed with the times.

[ewerk 26269]

You can act like Michael Jackson by putting on a glittery glove and doing the moon walk. You don't have to be a nonce.

 

[Park Life 70]

tesco do what woolies should have done. they've paid for being behind the times...

 

Crush all opposition and tactically buy out all land competitors might set up upon and mothball it?

 

The Microsoft of the groceries world. Survival of the fittest and all that....

 

Or do you suggest they should all say "no, after you..."?

 

As much as many on board seems to favour massive companies doing dodgy or even outright illegal things for their own benefit, they have been reprimanded over their block buying policies.

 

 

 

Or do you think "might is right/survival of the biggest" and that's the end of it?

 

No i think you should passivley let your competitors fuck you over just like Woolies did. Oh hang on, that one didnt work out very well for their employees.....

Yes we all know your philosophy; get to the top by any means necessary then do everything and anything you can to stay there.

 

That's a good corporate plan, but it's why Governments need to put some limits corporate greed.

 

I'm sure you'd justify slavery economically if it gave a big enough dividend, but that's not really the point.....

 

No, i meant that Woolies did not act like Tesco, thats why people have lost their jobs. Tesco needs to act within the regulations but it also has to strive to be as competitive as it can or it too will go the same way.

 

My philosophy? Dont be daft lad, i wouldnt bore people with my philosophical ramblings on here.

 

If you're interested, i fall between Rawls and Sen and use this framework to express it.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_welfare_function

 

TESCO has acted outside of regulations (repeatedly), so clearly that's how you think Woolworth's should have gone. Personally I can't see how Woolworth's could have saved itself as is, short of Slavery.

No, i think (stop saying what i think man, its really childish) that Tesco have done some bad things but also represent firstly the preferences of the UK population who are too lazy to shop at independent small retailers and secondly a company competitive enough to penetrate international markets (helping the currency and balance of payments). When you compete in a fierce market like food retail then being aggressive is a way of life. Obviously there are drawbacks, i quite agree but i'd rather have a slightly over-aggressive Tesco than a dead Woolies. Dont you agree on balance that sounds about fair?

Again you're still saying that Woolies should have acted like Tescos and broke rules (I don't understand why you think you aren't saying that when you are)...... but I still don't think that would have saved them as is.

 

Well not unless they had become massively dominant first, in which case Tescos would have been destroyed years ago.

 

You can act like Michael Jackson by putting on a glittery glove and doing the moon walk. You don't have to be a nonce.

[Fop 1]

tesco do what woolies should have done. they've paid for being behind the times...

 

Crush all opposition and tactically buy out all land competitors might set up upon and mothball it?

 

The Microsoft of the groceries world. Survival of the fittest and all that....

 

Or do you suggest they should all say "no, after you..."?

 

As much as many on board seems to favour massive companies doing dodgy or even outright illegal things for their own benefit, they have been reprimanded over their block buying policies.

 

 

 

Or do you think "might is right/survival of the biggest" and that's the end of it?

 

No i think you should passivley let your competitors fuck you over just like Woolies did. Oh hang on, that one didnt work out very well for their employees.....

Yes we all know your philosophy; get to the top by any means necessary then do everything and anything you can to stay there.

 

That's a good corporate plan, but it's why Governments need to put some limits corporate greed.

 

I'm sure you'd justify slavery economically if it gave a big enough dividend, but that's not really the point.....

 

No, i meant that Woolies did not act like Tesco, thats why people have lost their jobs. Tesco needs to act within the regulations but it also has to strive to be as competitive as it can or it too will go the same way.

 

My philosophy? Dont be daft lad, i wouldnt bore people with my philosophical ramblings on here.

 

If you're interested, i fall between Rawls and Sen and use this framework to express it.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_welfare_function

 

TESCO has acted outside of regulations (repeatedly), so clearly that's how you think Woolworth's should have gone. Personally I can't see how Woolworth's could have saved itself as is, short of Slavery.

No, i think (stop saying what i think man, its really childish) that Tesco have done some bad things but also represent firstly the preferences of the UK population who are too lazy to shop at independent small retailers and secondly a company competitive enough to penetrate international markets (helping the currency and balance of payments). When you compete in a fierce market like food retail then being aggressive is a way of life. Obviously there are drawbacks, i quite agree but i'd rather have a slightly over-aggressive Tesco than a dead Woolies. Dont you agree on balance that sounds about fair?

Again you're still saying that Woolies should have acted like Tescos and broke rules (I don't understand why you think you aren't saying that when you are)...... but I still don't think that would have saved them as is.

 

Well not unless they had become massively dominant first, in which case Tescos would have been destroyed years ago.

 

You can act like Michael Jackson by putting on a glittery glove and doing the moon walk. You don't have to be a nonce.

 

If you actually sexually abuse kids though it's hard not to be, doesn't matter if you're pretending to be Jackson or Gadd.

Edited December 15, 2008 by Fop