The wondrous adventures of Sinn Fein (part 3) Mod Notes and Threadbanned List in OP

Bruce, you have repeated the same line on here for months and months

"Building is cheaper than buying"

Who is to say that if a LA hires a developer like BAM to build them 2000 houses that BAM will turn around the screw the LA after the tender has been awarded?

"Building is cheaper than buying" is not some universal law of physics you like to believe, in fact, we are all laughing and bemused at your inability to grasp very fundamental rationale here.

You won't fool ol Marko though.

(1) Conor Foley (@ConorFoley32) / Twitter

another shinnerbot caught out telling lies , and spreading the false narrative party lies ......

I didn't see any link to a developer forsaking profits, maybe you would point me in that direction (though I am sure that some of them do good work for charity).

Can you please post what you think profit means.

a) At market rates, the owner is no worse or better off than if they rented to someone else.

b) There are lots of reasons why an authority wouldn't want to tie up capital in an asset, mostly what else they can do with that money within the budget within the year

I don't have any details of what the deal around those apartments were, but just trying to get some facts about why leases are used over buying in a lot of cases.

And that still doesn't answer the question of how SF will convince planning to go ahead with their plans.

And if that was a bad deal, why the authority would be able to build on time and on budget, it is literally an argument for them not to do so.

This is very interesting.

My understanding of profit is when the revenue generated (money paid to a business) from a business activity (sales or service), exceeds the expenses, costs, and taxes involved in sustaining the activity (including salaries and wages), the difference is the profit. So, if you pay someone to build something for you, and their costs (including salaries and wages) are less than what you paid, the difference is profit.

Now, the opposite is true for a business loss, if you pay someone to build something for you, and their costs (including salaries and wages) and more than what you paid them, then they will incur a loss.

This is broadly in line with what you claim profit to be, yet here are some questions that you posted:

"When you upgrade someone's office block where is this profit coming from? When you build a tunnel where is this profit coming from? When you build houses for someone to live in where is that profit coming from?"

and then there was this:

"No they get paid. Payment is not profit. You don't know what profit means.

Where is the profit coming from in any scenario I asked about? 

If I pay you to build me a bridge, or lay pipe, where's the profit? 

If I pay architects and engineers to build me a holiday home where is the profit? They'll be paid for their work."

Now, I have to agree with you that "payment is not profit", but if we look at your definition of profit, if the payment received is more than the cost incurred, there is a profit. One could also say there is a profit when, to quote you, "revenue generated from a business activity exceeds the expenses, costs, and taxes involved in sustaining the activity in question."

I don't know many businesses that stay in business when they keep making a loss, and I don't know many businesses that stay in business when they only ever break even, but I am sure that there are some out there, just not many.

It does seem to me that your definition of what profit is does not agree with a lot of what you have posted.

You have now changed your mind on what profit is. Can you please post your new definition of profit.

This is still wrong.

If I built a house and it cost 300,000 all in, with myself paid for my time, and I sell it for 250,000, who covers the 50,000?