Originally Posted by
AerialPerspective
Agreed. What was that big controversy years back about talking up companies and getting paid for it... was that him?
This bloke is just a windbag. He is the first to complain about people's 'freedom of speech' and people being 'offended' and 'PC gone mad'. Yet, when Alan Joyce, whether one likes him or not, simply states a fact Jones immediately jumps on the band wagon and pontificates about it.
I have listened to and read what AJ said more than once. What I took from it was if a strong company or one with a decent balance sheet (putting aside various opinions about how it was arrived at, etc.) has reserves to weather this sort of crisis and another which has not been profitible hasn't, then that other company should not be bailed out but rather, the industry should be helped as a sector, not company specific. That is a perfectly rational comment to make. It's akin to having a neighbour who never mows their lawn, let's the grass grow 6 feet, refuses requests or directions from the council to clean it up, doesn't bother getting insurance where, say, their mortgage requires it. The person who they are next to does all the right things, insures their house, keeps their property clean, clears out their guttering, etc.
Both houses burn down or are substantially damaged by a fire, a natural occurrence. The good neighbour claims on their insurance and has to have their insurance premiums go up and pay a hefty excess.
The lazy neighbour who broke all the rules cries poor and gets his/her house rebuilt by the government or the government takes the re-building as equity in their house.
Is that fair?
If not, what's different about what Joyce said?
In this terrible analogy, did the rebuilding of the country's economy depend on the bloke's house who had the long grass?