What do you think a bond is? A bond is another name for a loan.
A bond is a promissary-note with an annual yield: Interest is paid annually and, on expiration, the original loan is paid in nominal-costs. Don't - please - encourage the ignorant.
I agree with the post you linked to, but the lunatics are in charge and, after they get the Brexit they so crave, they will blame everyone else for the shambles.
Thanks but it’s immaterial whether one agrees with it or not, the damage to business will be real.
This site is so obsessed with opinion it sometimes forgets that it’s not the be all and end all.
I export all around the world, as do many others on this site.
And actually opinion, or rather, the honouring the way people voted, is more important than the effects on an export business. Otherwise democracy has failed.
Democracy is important, but business and the taxes it generates are what keep people warm, fed, healthy and prosperous. Democracy provides a framework in which people and business can flourish, but it is not a necessary requirement - for example, China is not a democracy.
Besides, given the woeful choice between the abysmal parties and politicians that are on offer, it could be argued that democracy is getting rather pointless around here. Being offered a choice of parties whose rationale appears to be economic destruction is not really a choice.
I guess you need to move to China.
IIRC correctly, you are already abroad so I guess your advice on this topic is good
Except I'm a democrat and choose to live in democracies.
I agree with the post you linked to, but the lunatics are in charge and, after they get the Brexit they so crave, they will blame everyone else for the shambles.
Thanks but it’s immaterial whether one agrees with it or not, the damage to business will be real.
This site is so obsessed with opinion it sometimes forgets that it’s not the be all and end all.
I export all around the world, as do many others on this site.
And actually opinion, or rather, the honouring the way people voted, is more important than the effects on an export business. Otherwise democracy has failed.
Good point. Democracy is more important than economics. We argue all day about economics because nobody really knows the answer. But you can't argue with the result of the vote.
Actually you can argue with the result of the vote, as long as you argue with it and don't ignore it. I'm not particularly minded to do so myself. What this government can't do is deliver the outcome those people voting for the motion presumably intended. The contradictions of that position are unresolvable. Hence the stalemate.
'PRESUMABLY' somewhat destroy an already flimsy argument there.
Remainer wants to Remain and thinks only Remain is possible sounds an awful lot like ignoring the result, to me.
So he’s going to print money to nationiase whole swathes of industry. Fantastic idea john, keep these coming for the next five years!
It's very similar to how the Tories have handled student loans.
The Government borrowed money (by "printing" loans in your terminology) to pay the Universities their fees, then balanced the loans against the asset of the student loan book so it didn't add to the deficit or the debt. It is strictly equivalent to McDonnells plan - except the assets in McDonnells plan would not be flaky like student loans but would be solid income earning assets that more than cover the interest on the loans.
Except why would they be income earning assets if not run as a business ... and if they are run as a business then what's the point?
It would be run as a business in the interests of customers, employees and shareholder (the Government). Its financing costs would be lower (Government debt costs less than commercial debt), top management pay, bonuses and share options would be less, dividends would more than cover interest payments and it would be run in the interests of all of us rather than just shareholders and top management. That's the point.
Anyone with a pension is already "us". "Just shareholders" - you make them sound like memebers of some eighteenth century gentlemens club.
"McDonnell is going to rob your pension fund" is going to be a bugger of a charge to fight off.
With Labour's plans government debt costs would rise like crazy .
I agree with the post you linked to, but the lunatics are in charge and, after they get the Brexit they so crave, they will blame everyone else for the shambles.
Thanks but it’s immaterial whether one agrees with it or not, the damage to business will be real.
This site is so obsessed with opinion it sometimes forgets that it’s not the be all and end all.
I know the damage to business is real. My business has now closed.
I'm sorry to hear that, Beverley. We argue in a sterile way about things but behind them are people's jobs, livelihoods and dreams.
Mr Walker, very good of you to recognise the immigration issue. It is a much more grown up approach than those who just call Leavers bigoted etc.
I suspect Brexit will lead to short term turbulence for import/export businesses. My own included. With likely knock on impacts. But in the long run I suspect little noticeable impact. And yes, I think 5% lower growth over 15 years, for example, would go unnoticed.
Economic directions of travel are impacted more by domestic policies than EU membership; but immigration from the EU cannot be changed whilst we remain members.
Mortimer, I accept that immigration is a major issue for many people (and that I am in a minority as seeing immigration as a generally good thing).
Can I ask you though, do you seriously think it will be curtailed after Brexit? After all, IIRC c.50% of immigration is from outside the EU and despite numerous government pledges to reduce it, non-EU immigration has not noticeably fallen has it?
I suspect the raw numbers will go down, definitely, largely because of the unnatural draw that our (in my mind morally justifiable - we have a duty to care for our own) welfare state provides.
I also suspect that the headroom (both numerical and policital) that this will provide more capacity for more higher paid immigration from outside of the U.K., and more temporary work visas.
Well, we'll see - I suspect in 5-10 years time immigration will still be a big issue for some.
The irony is of course that we could have made the access to welfare benfits much tighter for EU migrants whilst sticking to EU rules, but chose not to. (Though it probably wouldn't have reduced immigration numbers because the myth of EU immigrants coming here for our benefits is largely exactly that, a myth.)
I think the EU rules prevent discrimination in benefits between UK and EU citizens. One big reason Cameron's deal flopped .
I have posted before about the challenge facing the Democrats in taking the Senate on "Betfair terms" - that is, treating the independents, Sanders and King, as if they were true Independents, not Democrats.
We have now had a set of February predictions, so for the purpose of comparing them to January predictions, I have invented a numerical scale whereby a positive score would broadly correlate to a decent chance of winning control whereas a negative score is at best an outside chance.
Cook Political Report moves from -20 to -19 Sabato's Crystal Ball moves from -20 to -19 New York Times moves -20 to -19 (last fortnight only) Inside Elections holds at -23.
A small improvement for the Dems, but not enough.
Remember they have to unseat Ted Cruz (or an even less likely candidate) to win control on Betfair terms.
I have posted before about the challenge facing the Democrats in taking the Senate on "Betfair terms" - that is, treating the independents, Sanders and King, as if they were true Independents, not Democrats.
We have now had a set of February predictions, so for the purpose of comparing them to January predictions, I have invented a numerical scale whereby a positive score would broadly correlate to a decent chance of winning control whereas a negative score is at best an outside chance.
Cook Political Report moves from -20 to -19 Sabato's Crystal Ball moves from -20 to -19 New York Times moves -20 to -19 (last fortnight only) Inside Elections holds at -23.
A small improvement for the Dems, but not enough.
Remember they have to unseat Ted Cruz (or an even less likely candidate) to win control on Betfair terms.
Seems almost impossible for Dems to get majority under those rules.
Well said. Someone on the Remain side who at least seeks to understand the reasons behind the vote to Leave - as opposed to calling Leave voters names.
Thankyou and others for the compliments. However I’m sure I will disappoint you. Brexit still absolutely infuriates me, and the antics of Brexit politicians from Rees-Mogg through Corbyn alternately terrify and disgust me.
To compensate, I take some small delight in bandying about Brexit insults.
But perhaps I will try to be better behaved after the generous response to my post.
I like to think this is a forum, unlike the vast majority, where differences of opinion can be aired in a polite way without personal insult. We all err occasionally, but given the massively polarised opinions on both sides I think that’s understandable.
If a water company is using 80% of cash flow for investment, and is effectively borrowing to invest and pay a good dividend already, then how will the cash stream be available to pay down government bonds?
Are you asking me to make sense of McDonnell's plans? If so I will have to decline to do so.
It's a good point though about the myth that the utilities have been underinvesting and instead chooising to pay a lot of dividends. The railways are one area where it is obivous that a lot of station, track, and signalling work has been done, as well as a lot of new rolling stock. We might need a different level of investment, and their might be a cheaper way of paying for it, and we might have spent money poorly, but we have seen a lot of money spent.
What do you think a bond is? A bond is another name for a loan.
A bond is a promissary-note with an annual yield: Interest is paid annually and, on expiration, the original loan is paid in nominal-costs. Don't - please - encourage the ignorant.
A bond is a securitised loan. And 'securitised' means that it is tradable - think 'a piece of paper', although most bonds aren't actually physically printed.
Almost all bonds have particular terms as to their issuance. Almost all have a redemption arrangement where a fixed sum will be paid to the bond-holder at some point. There are though important exceptions to this - so called "irredeemables" for example (The UK has issued such bonds - 'War Loan' and 'Consuls').
So he’s going to print money to nationiase whole swathes of industry. Fantastic idea john, keep these coming for the next five years!
It's very similar to how the Tories have handled student loans.
The Government borrowed money (by "printing" loans in your terminology) to pay the Universities their fees, then balanced the loans against the asset of the student loan book so it didn't add to the deficit or the debt. It is strictly equivalent to McDonnells plan - except the assets in McDonnells plan would not be flaky like student loans but would be solid income earning assets that more than cover the interest on the loans.
Except why would they be income earning assets if not run as a business ... and if they are run as a business then what's the point?
It would be run as a business in the interests of customers, employees and shareholder (the Government). Its financing costs would be lower (Government debt costs less than commercial debt), top management pay, bonuses and share options would be less, dividends would more than cover interest payments and it would be run in the interests of all of us rather than just shareholders and top management. That's the point.
Anyone with a pension is already "us". "Just shareholders" - you make them sound like memebers of some eighteenth century gentlemens club.
"McDonnell is going to rob your pension fund" is going to be a bugger of a charge to fight off.
I agree with the post you linked to, but the lunatics are in charge and, after they get the Brexit they so crave, they will blame everyone else for the shambles.
Thanks but it’s immaterial whether one agrees with it or not, the damage to business will be real.
This site is so obsessed with opinion it sometimes forgets that it’s not the be all and end all.
I export all around the world, as do many others on this site.
And actually opinion, or rather, the honouring the way people voted, is more important than the effects on an export business. Otherwise democracy has failed.
Good point. Democracy is more important than economics. We argue all day about economics because nobody really knows the answer. But you can't argue with the result of the vote.
Actually you can argue with the result of the vote, as long as you argue with it and don't ignore it. I'm not particularly minded to do so myself. What this government can't do is deliver the outcome those people voting for the motion presumably intended. The contradictions of that position are unresolvable. Hence the stalemate.
'PRESUMABLY' somewhat destroy an already flimsy argument there.
Remainer wants to Remain and thinks only Remain is possible sounds an awful lot like ignoring the result, to me.
No, no and no. I don't think remaining is a particularly good option when people have voted against it. The problem is that the three realistic Leave outcomes all have consequences that many Leavers, let alone Remainers will be very unhappy with. That's why the government can't agree on a way forward.
The mantra from McDonnell is the huge profits go to billionaires when in fact the dividends from these companies are invested by pension funds to provide the future pensions of the many.
Has McDonnell answered how he will deal with the collapse in the value of workers pensions.
Just as Brexiters don’t have any good arguments against the economic problems of Brexit (though It doesn’t stop them trying), Remainers don’t really have an answer to the immigration question.
You can believe, as I do, that EU immigration has massively enriched this country. That it has helped our world-beating industries - Finance, AI, Biotech, and the Creative sector - become successful in part by sucking in the best and brightest from across Europe, in part through access to a continental supply chain, and in part through access to an export market of half a billion.
You can read the research that says that EU migrants consume less benefits, pay more tax, do better in school etc - and that they help balance a quickly ageing population and defuse a demographic timebomb.
But such world class sectors tend to be in London. The benefits of biotech have not yet reached Blackpool. And, you don’t want to hear about the problems of an ageing population of you are 75 and living off a state pension after working every day of your life since you were 16.
The country is now home to over 1 million Poles, and every Uber driver I have seems to be Romanian. And, to some extent, we are subsidising those immigrants (and the employers of immigrants) on lower wages though tax benefits and, even if most don’t use it, access to our universal social security system.
The scale of immigration, and some of the tenets that enable it, seem somehow unfair - not to me, but maybe to those just getting by.
I won’t stop arguing to Remain, or for the softest possible Brexit, because I want prosperity for the country, it’s people, and my family. And because I believe Britain is largely a force for good in the world, and I do not welcome anything that reduces its influence (as Brexit clearly does, as observed by everyone from the NY Times to the Indian Foreign Ministry).
But I don’t have a good answer on the immigration point. And until Remain leaders do - I can’t see a way out of Brexit.
Well said. Someone on the Remain side who at least seeks to understand the reasons behind the vote to Leave - as opposed to calling Leave voters names.
I have yet to see a single Leave supporter seek to engage with why so many Remain supporters find the Leave campaign’s conduct, then and since, disgusting. Perhaps some day.
Buying people out of slavery isn't something to be sniffed at. Wilberforce himself said "thank God I should have lived to witness a day in which England is willing to give twenty millions Sterling for the Abolition of Slavery." He died three days later.
I rather think that his view should be taken as a more legitimate view of the moral forces in play at the time than someone projecting their 21st century opinion back close to 200 years.
The mantra from McDonnell is the huge profits go to billionaires when in fact the dividends from these companies are invested by pension funds to provide the future pensions of the many.
Has McDonnell answered how he will deal with the collapse in the value of workers pensions.
Don't much of the dividend go to the foreign owners, some of them governments?
Well said. Someone on the Remain side who at least seeks to understand the reasons behind the vote to Leave - as opposed to calling Leave voters names.
Thankyou and others for the compliments. However I’m sure I will disappoint you. Brexit still absolutely infuriates me, and the antics of Brexit politicians from Rees-Mogg through Corbyn alternately terrify and disgust me.
To compensate, I take some small delight in bandying about Brexit insults.
But perhaps I will try to be better behaved after the generous response to my post.
I like to think this is a forum, unlike the vast majority, where differences of opinion can be aired in a polite way without personal insult. We all err occasionally, but given the massively polarised opinions on both sides I think that’s understandable.
I agree. Maybe this is the first time I have agreed with you on anything ! But I find everything you post interesting. Who wants their prejudices confirmed? I am perfectly happy with mine already.
A bond is a securitised loan. And 'securitised' means that it is tradable - think 'a piece of paper', although most bonds aren't actually physically printed.
Almost all bonds have particular terms as to their issuance. Almost all have a redemption arrangement where a fixed sum will be paid to the bond-holder at some point. There are though important exceptions to this - so called "irredeemables" for example (The UK has issued such bonds - 'War Loan' and 'Consuls').
A bond may be issued and be tradable as mentioned. A bond is issued for funds with a promissiary that it will yield an income (hence whence Pension/Investment-Funds become involve). An income must be accrued (subject to rho before funds are such invested by said investors)? *
Well said. Someone on the Remain side who at least seeks to understand the reasons behind the vote to Leave - as opposed to calling Leave voters names.
Thankyou and others for the compliments. However I’m sure I will disappoint you. Brexit still absolutely infuriates me, and the antics of Brexit politicians from Rees-Mogg through Corbyn alternately terrify and disgust me.
To compensate, I take some small delight in bandying about Brexit insults.
But perhaps I will try to be better behaved after the generous response to my post.
I have read your posts and they are a credit to you. Your frustrations are understandable, as they are on both sides.
Indeed there does seem to be a move on here to be more civil to one another and to reason their case sensibly, and that is to be encouraged
Even last night I bid an early good night to everyone and BJO said he was going to join me which seemed to catch Ben's humour as it did mine !!!!!
Democracy is important, but business and the taxes it generates are what keep people warm....
Cease-and-Decist: Your IRA blood-banner is now dated.
I understood the Irish Tricolour was white (symbolising peace) between the orange and the green, (symbolising the two traditions on the island). Not a cry for anything blood related.
The mantra from McDonnell is the huge profits go to billionaires when in fact the dividends from these companies are invested by pension funds to provide the future pensions of the many.
Has McDonnell answered how he will deal with the collapse in the value of workers pensions.
Don't much of the dividend go to the foreign owners, some of them governments?
Buying people out of slavery isn't something to be sniffed at. Wilberforce himself said "thank God I should have lived to witness a day in which England is willing to give twenty millions Sterling for the Abolition of Slavery." He died three days later.
I rather think that his view should be taken as a more legitimate view of the moral forces in play at the time than someone projecting their 21st century opinion back close to 200 years.
Had they not been bought out of slavery, opposition to emancipation would have been far stronger. Would the tweeter have been happier if slavery had continued for another generation?
The mantra from McDonnell is the huge profits go to billionaires when in fact the dividends from these companies are invested by pension funds to provide the future pensions of the many.
Has McDonnell answered how he will deal with the collapse in the value of workers pensions.
I do not know BigG , but most people I speak to,think we have already seen the best of the final salary schemes.It seems a downward spiral at the moment for a future retirement for workers in all sectors. Also Spurs beat Corbyn supporting Arsenal with an English strikers goal.
Just as Brexiters don’t have any good arguments against the economic problems of Brexit (though It doesn’t stop them trying), Remainers don’t really have an answer to the immigration question.
You can believe, as I do, that EU immigration has massively enriched this country. That it has helped our world-beating industries - Finance, AI, Biotech, and the Creative sector - become successful in part by sucking in the best and brightest from across Europe, in part through access to a continental supply chain, and in part through access to an export market of half a billion.
You can read the research that says that EU migrants consume less benefits, pay more tax, do better in school etc - and that they help balance a quickly ageing population and defuse a demographic timebomb.
But such world class sectors tend to be in London. The benefits of biotech have not yet reached Blackpool. And, you don’t want to hear about the problems of an ageing population of you are 75 and living off a state pension after working every day of your life since you were 16.
The country is now home to over 1 million Poles, and every Uber driver I have seems to be Romanian. And, to some extent, we are subsidising those immigrants (and the employers of immigrants) on lower wages though tax benefits and, even if most don’t use it, access to our universal social security system.
The scale of immigration, and some of the tenets that enable it, seem somehow unfair - not to me, but maybe to those just getting by.
I won’t stop arguing to Remain, or for the softest possible Brexit, because I want prosperity for the country, it’s people, and my family. And because I believe Britain is largely a force for good in the world, and I do not welcome anything that reduces its influence (as Brexit clearly does, as observed by everyone from the NY Times to the Indian Foreign Ministry).
But I don’t have a good answer on the immigration point. And until Remain leaders do - I can’t see a way out of Brexit.
Well said. Someone on the Remain side who at least seeks to understand the reasons behind the vote to Leave - as opposed to calling Leave voters names.
I have yet to see a single Leave supporter seek to engage with why so many Remain supporters find the Leave campaign’s conduct, then and since, disgusting. Perhaps some day.
If someone finds my political views disgusting, I doubt if he and I will find very much common ground.
I have yet to see a single Leave supporter seek to engage with why so many Remain supporters find the Leave campaign’s conduct, then and since, disgusting. Perhaps some day.
Dominic Cummings perhaps came the closest in admitting that they felt that the ends justified the means. It's interesting that he's now withdrawn from public debate completely after airing his view that there are 'branching histories' in which leaving the EU turns out to be a mistake.
Just as Brexiters don’t have any good arguments against the economic problems of Brexit (though It doesn’t stop them trying), Remainers don’t really have an answer to the immigration question.
You can believe, as I do, that EU immigration has massively enriched this country. That it has helped our world-beating industries - Finance, AI, Biotech, and the Creative sector - become successful in part by sucking in the best and brightest from across Europe, in part through access to a continental supply chain, and in part through access to an export market of
The scale of immigration, and some of the tenets that enable it, seem somehow unfair - not to me, but maybe to those just getting by.
I won’t stop arguing to Remain, or for the softest possible Brexit, because I want prosperity for the country, it’s people, and my family. And because I believe Britain is largely a force for good in the world, and I do not welcome anything that reduces its influence (as Brexit clearly does, as observed by everyone from the NY Times to the Indian Foreign Ministry).
But I don’t have a good answer on the immigration point. And until Remain leaders do - I can’t see a way out of Brexit.
Well said. Someone on the Remain side who at least seeks to understand the reasons behind the vote to Leave - as opposed to calling Leave voters names.
I have yet to see a single Leave supporter seek to engage with why so many Remain supporters find the Leave campaign’s conduct, then and since, disgusting. Perhaps some day.
I can say as a remain voter with the exception of Farage the leave camp campaigned to win and the idea they won through lies is not tenable as there were many lies on the remain side. I clearly recall Cameron, Osborne and others on the remain side saying there will be no second referendum, that leaving will require us to exit the single market and customs union, and that he would serve A50 immediately.
Remember I was following this very carefully as I was trying to be convinced but in the end decided to vote remain. The reason I support leave is because it was a democratic vote and not to do so now would be a betrayal of 17 million plus voters
Just as Brexiters don’t have any good arguments against the economic problems of Brexit (though It doesn’t stop them trying), Remainers don’t really have an answer to the immigration question.
You can believe, as I do, that EU immigration has massively enriched this country. That it has helped our world-beating industries - Finance, AI, Biotech, and the Creative sector - become successful in part by sucking in the best and brightest from across Europe, in part through access to a continental supply chain, and in part through access to an export market of half a billion.
You can read the research that says that EU migrants consume less benefits, pay more tax, do better in school etc - and that they help balance a quickly ageing population and defuse a demographic timebomb.
But such world class sectors tend to be in London. The benefits of biotech have not yet reached Blackpool. And, you don’t want to hear about the problems of an ageing population of you are 75 and living off a state pension after working every day of your life since you were 16.
The country is now home to over 1 million Poles, and every Uber driver I have seems to be Romanian. And, to some extent, we are subsidising those immigrants (and the employers of immigrants) on lower wages though tax benefits and, even if most don’t use it, access to our universal social security system.
The scale of immigration, and some of the tenets that enable it, seem somehow unfair - not to me, but maybe to those just getting by.
I won’t stop arguing to Remain, or for the softest possible Brexit, because I want prosperity for the country, it’s people, and my family. And because I believe Britain is largely a force for good in the world, and I do not welcome anything that reduces its influence (as Brexit clearly does, as observed by everyone from the NY Times to the Indian Foreign Ministry).
But I don’t have a good answer on the immigration point. And until Remain leaders do - I can’t see a way out of Brexit.
Well said. Someone on the Remain side who at least seeks to understand the reasons behind the vote to Leave - as opposed to calling Leave voters names.
I have yet to see a single Leave supporter seek to engage with why so many Remain supporters find the Leave campaign’s conduct, then and since, disgusting. Perhaps some day.
If someone finds my political views disgusting, I doubt if he and I will find very much common ground.
Then you have a bit of a problem if you want people to unite behind your prospectus.
The referendum campaign was largely dominated by wealthy Tories telling lies to the voters. That was to be expected. What I find most unforgiveable is the attitude of the Labour leadership. As he showed last May and June, Corbyn could have galvanised younger voters to come out and vote Remain. He went on holiday instead. That is contemptible.
If true, I would not call Corbyn contemptible, more like bloody marvellous.
Corbyn delivered his party for Remain. Cameron did not, and indeed it was Tory voters who in larger numbers abandoned Remain over the campaign. Theresa May of course went into submarine mode.
He didn't really. Any other Labour leader from the centre of the party would have got an even greater percentage of Labour voters to vote Remain than he did and that would have ensured a Remain victory.
I have yet to see a single Leave supporter seek to engage with why so many Remain supporters find the Leave campaign’s conduct, then and since, disgusting. Perhaps some day.
Dominic Cummings perhaps came the closest in admitting that they felt that the ends justified the means. It's interesting that he's now withdrawn from public debate completely after airing his view that there are 'branching histories' in which leaving the EU turns out to be a mistake.
Given many Remain supporters saw Imperial nostalgia as a major reason for Brexit, despite the lack of any evidence at all, the obvious answer is that a certain type of Remainer perceives what they want to perceive to make themselves feel superior.
I have yet to see a single Leave supporter seek to engage with why so many Remain supporters find the Leave campaign’s conduct, then and since, disgusting. Perhaps some day.
Well I, just about, and after a knife edge of soul-searching, voted leave. The reason that the leave campaign has some undesirable activity is simply because there happens to be some people of that type that chose to vote the way they did.
I really wouldn't want to be associated in any form with many of the people that voted Leave. Nor would I want to be associated in any form with many of the people that voted to remain.
I think you're confusing 'Leave' with a political party. I really don't give a hoot about the reasons that others voted leave, and I'm almost certain that the reasons I voted that way would be anathema to many that voted similarly.
The mantra from McDonnell is the huge profits go to billionaires when in fact the dividends from these companies are invested by pension funds to provide the future pensions of the many.
Has McDonnell answered how he will deal with the collapse in the value of workers pensions.
I do not know BigG , but most people I speak to,think we have already seen the best of the final salary schemes.It seems a downward spiral at the moment for a future retirement for workers in all sectors. Also Spurs beat Corbyn supporting Arsenal with an English strikers goal.
It will be a gift to labours opponents
'McDonnell steals your pension fund' will be far more deadly than the dementia tax.
Kane amazes me - he is in the form of his life and I cannot see Spurs retaining him next year
I have yet to see a single Leave supporter seek to engage with why so many Remain supporters find the Leave campaign’s conduct, then and since, disgusting. Perhaps some day.
Dominic Cummings perhaps came the closest in admitting that they felt that the ends justified the means. It's interesting that he's now withdrawn from public debate completely after airing his view that there are 'branching histories' in which leaving the EU turns out to be a mistake.
Given many Remain supporters saw Imperial nostalgia as a major reason for Brexit, despite the lack of any evidence at all, the obvious answer is that a certain type of Remainer perceives what they want to perceive to make themselves feel superior.
Or perhaps they're just capable of reading have seen frequent articles like this from people like Hannan.
Forget the EU - let's take on the world with our TRUE friends: As the Greek elections threaten to shatter Europe, DANIEL HANNAN says Britain's destiny lies with the booming Commonwealth
A bond is a securitised loan. And 'securitised' means that it is tradable - think 'a piece of paper', although most bonds aren't actually physically printed.
Almost all bonds have particular terms as to their issuance. Almost all have a redemption arrangement where a fixed sum will be paid to the bond-holder at some point. There are though important exceptions to this - so called "irredeemables" for example (The UK has issued such bonds - 'War Loan' and 'Consuls').
A bond may be issued and be tradable as mentioned. A bond is issued for funds with a promissiary that it will yield an income (hence whence Pension/Investment-Funds become involve). An income must be accrued (subject to rho before funds are such invested by said investors)? *
I think you're confusing 'Leave' with a political party.
Bingo. I voted leave but would never vote for UKIP, so I feel no obligation to defend any of the nonsense they have come out with over the years.
I can honestly say I've never cast a vote for any party, cause, or candidate where I agreed with them on more than a handful of things. I've invariably voted for what I considered to be the least bad option. If I wanted a candidate I full agree with I would have to stand myself, and even then I'd have my doubts.
The mantra from McDonnell is the huge profits go to billionaires when in fact the dividends from these companies are invested by pension funds to provide the future pensions of the many.
Has McDonnell answered how he will deal with the collapse in the value of workers pensions.
Pension funds will get Government bonds equal in value to the equity they give up in exchange. It is then up to pension funds to decide whether they want to keep the low risk low return bonds or sell them and purchase higher risk higher return equities in the market to balance their portfolios. Pension funds won't collapse in value!
In general I think the private sector is better placed to run businesses. It is more innovative, and there is more competition and choice. But I am not an idealogue about it. I'm not private good, public bad, (or vice versa). I'm a pragmatist.
Natural monopolies and strategic public goods (like the military, police, health, education, water, electricity and gas) are better run in the public sector for the public good. I don't mind private health or private education (or private water or electricity) for those who can afford it, but I draw the line at private armies and I'm uncomfortable with private police and prisons. I'm a wary pragmatist.
The mantra from McDonnell is the huge profits go to billionaires when in fact the dividends from these companies are invested by pension funds to provide the future pensions of the many.
Has McDonnell answered how he will deal with the collapse in the value of workers pensions.
Pension funds will get Government bonds equal in value to the equity they give up in exchange. It is then up to pension funds to decide whether they want to keep the low risk low return bonds or sell them and purchase higher risk higher return equities in the market to balance their portfolios. Pension funds won't collapse in value!
In general I think the private sector is better placed to run businesses. It is more innovative, and there is more competition and choice. But I am not an idealogue about it. I'm not private good, public bad, (or vice versa). I'm a pragmatist.
Natural monopolies and strategic public goods (like the military, police, health, education, water, electricity and gas) are better run in the public sector for the public good. I don't mind private health or private education (or private water or electricity) for those who can afford it, but I draw the line at private armies and I'm uncomfortable with private police and prisons. I'm a wary pragmatist.
So McDonnell pays market rate to the shareholders - so for water he borrows 90 billion
The mantra from McDonnell is the huge profits go to billionaires when in fact the dividends from these companies are invested by pension funds to provide the future pensions of the many.
Has McDonnell answered how he will deal with the collapse in the value of workers pensions.
Pension funds will get Government bonds equal in value to the equity they give up in exchange. It is then up to pension funds to decide whether they want to keep the low risk low return bonds or sell them and purchase higher risk higher return equities in the market to balance their portfolios. Pension funds won't collapse in value!
In general I think the private sector is better placed to run businesses. It is more innovative, and there is more competition and choice. But I am not an idealogue about it. I'm not private good, public bad, (or vice versa). I'm a pragmatist.
Natural monopolies and strategic public goods (like the military, police, health, education, water, electricity and gas) are better run in the public sector for the public good. I don't mind private health or private education (or private water or electricity) for those who can afford it, but I draw the line at private armies and I'm uncomfortable with private police and prisons. I'm a wary pragmatist.
So McDonnell pays market rate to the shareholders - so for water he borrows 90 billion
Am I missing something
He issues bonds worth £90b in exchange for the equity which sits on the other side of the national balance sheet - just like the Tories have done with student loans. We've been through this.
The mantra from McDonnell is the huge profits go to billionaires when in fact the dividends from these companies are invested by pension funds to provide the future pensions of the many.
Has McDonnell answered how he will deal with the collapse in the value of workers pensions.
Pension funds will get Government bonds equal in value to the equity they give up in exchange. It is then up to pension funds to decide whether they want to keep the low risk low return bonds or sell them and purchase higher risk higher return equities in the market to balance their portfolios. Pension funds won't collapse in value!
In general I think the private sector is better placed to run businesses. It is more innovative, and there is more competition and choice. But I am not an idealogue about it. I'm not private good, public bad, (or vice versa). I'm a pragmatist.
Natural monopolies and strategic public goods (like the military, police, health, education, water, electricity and gas) are better run in the public sector for the public good. I don't mind private health or private education (or private water or electricity) for those who can afford it, but I draw the line at private armies and I'm uncomfortable with private police and prisons. I'm a wary pragmatist.
Government bonds issued under the circumstances McDonnell has outlined would certainly be low return but they would be anything but low risk. They would indeed be in the same bracket as Irish bonds from a decade ago.
Pension funds would therefore in the event of widespread nationalisations be unable to hold them as securities. However it is most unlikely they would be able to sell them. They are already under financial pressure. This would almost certainly leave them insolvent.
I do not think either you or McDonnell appreciate just how dangerous his approach is to the national economy.
The mantra from McDonnell is the huge profits go to billionaires when in fact the dividends from these companies are invested by pension funds to provide the future pensions of the many.
Has McDonnell answered how he will deal with the collapse in the value of workers pensions.
Pension funds will get Government bonds equal in value to the equity they give up in exchange. It is then up to pension funds to decide whether they want to keep the low risk low return bonds or sell them and purchase higher risk higher return equities in the market to balance their portfolios. Pension funds won't collapse in value!
In general I think the private sector is better placed to run businesses. It is more innovative, and there is more competition and choice. But I am not an idealogue about it. I'm not private good, public bad, (or vice versa). I'm a pragmatist.
Natural monopolies and strategic public goods (like the military, police, health, education, water, electricity and gas) are better run in the public sector for the public good. I don't mind private health or private education (or private water or electricity) for those who can afford it, but I draw the line at private armies and I'm uncomfortable with private police and prisons. I'm a wary pragmatist.
So McDonnell pays market rate to the shareholders - so for water he borrows 90 billion
Am I missing something
Welsh Water lost its shareholders in 2001 and became a co ltd by guaranteee without a share capital. This could be done with the others for the princely sum of £0.00.
It appears that very tough regulation led some other water co.s to propose doing likewise. However, Rhodri Morgan in Wales took advantage of the situation and Tony Blair in England didn't.
The world's largest intellectual collaboration, wikipedia, has as a cardinal principle: Assume good faith. It works. As a Remainer I am happy to believe that 100% of the Leavers on this site, and the vast majority overall, are decent people who can see perfectly well that Nigel Farage and all his works are horrible, and were not motivated by him to vote the way they did. As things are, it's as if it had transpired that Myra Hindley voted conservative in 1992, and the PB tories were told on a daily basis that they had not adequately atoned for their complicity (great weasel word) in the fact.
We would all get on better if toys could be left in prams.
The world's largest intellectual collaboration, wikipedia, has as a cardinal principle: Assume good faith. It works. As a Remainer I am happy to believe that 100% of the Leavers on this site, and the vast majority overall, are decent people who can see perfectly well that Nigel Farage and all his works are horrible, and were not motivated by him to vote the way they did. As things are, it's as if it had transpired that Myra Hindley voted conservative in 1992, and the PB tories were told on a daily basis that they had not adequately atoned for their complicity (great weasel word) in the fact.
We would all get on better if toys could be left in prams.
Fair comment. I've often disagreed with you Ishmael, but you're spot on here.
Comments
Remainer wants to Remain and thinks only Remain is possible sounds an awful lot like ignoring the result, to me.
It's a good point though about the myth that the utilities have been underinvesting and instead chooising to pay a lot of dividends. The railways are one area where it is obivous that a lot of station, track, and signalling work has been done, as well as a lot of new rolling stock. We might need a different level of investment, and their might be a cheaper way of paying for it, and we might have spent money poorly, but we have seen a lot of money spent.
https://twitter.com/marcusjdl/status/962263915542425600
Almost all bonds have particular terms as to their issuance. Almost all have a redemption arrangement where a fixed sum will be paid to the bond-holder at some point. There are though important exceptions to this - so called "irredeemables" for example (The UK has issued such bonds - 'War Loan' and 'Consuls').
It's no 'Jezza, the terrorists' pal', but still..
If you are going to be rude, please use correct spelling.
Has McDonnell answered how he will deal with the collapse in the value of workers pensions.
I rather think that his view should be taken as a more legitimate view of the moral forces in play at the time than someone projecting their 21st century opinion back close to 200 years.
In more important news: Thai or meatballs?
* No LatAms where involved in this post.
Indeed there does seem to be a move on here to be more civil to one another and to reason their case sensibly, and that is to be encouraged
Even last night I bid an early good night to everyone and BJO said he was going to join me which seemed to catch Ben's humour as it did mine !!!!!
Dr Faux-Suks:
Trot-on: I know about the "tri-colour". I believe an ex PM from Eire was caught gun-running. When are you going to retire to Arabia?
Remember I was following this very carefully as I was trying to be convinced but in the end decided to vote remain. The reason I support leave is because it was a democratic vote and not to do so now would be a betrayal of 17 million plus voters
I really wouldn't want to be associated in any form with many of the people that voted Leave. Nor would I want to be associated in any form with many of the people that voted to remain.
I think you're confusing 'Leave' with a political party. I really don't give a hoot about the reasons that others voted leave, and I'm almost certain that the reasons I voted that way would be anathema to many that voted similarly.
'McDonnell steals your pension fund' will be far more deadly than the dementia tax.
Kane amazes me - he is in the form of his life and I cannot see Spurs retaining him next year
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2922715/Forget-EU-let-s-world-TRUE-friends-Greek-elections-threaten-shatter-Europe-DANIEL-HANNAN-says-Britain-s-destiny-lies-booming-Commonwealth.html
Forget the EU - let's take on the world with our TRUE friends: As the Greek elections threaten to shatter Europe, DANIEL HANNAN says Britain's destiny lies with the booming Commonwealth
Remain and BrExit where coalitions. Your attempt to pastiche things into simple formulae shows a degree of ineptitude. Cease-and-desist.
I can honestly say I've never cast a vote for any party, cause, or candidate where I agreed with them on more than a handful of things. I've invariably voted for what I considered to be the least bad option. If I wanted a candidate I full agree with I would have to stand myself, and even then I'd have my doubts.
In general I think the private sector is better placed to run businesses. It is more innovative, and there is more competition and choice. But I am not an idealogue about it. I'm not private good, public bad, (or vice versa). I'm a pragmatist.
Natural monopolies and strategic public goods (like the military, police, health, education, water, electricity and gas) are better run in the public sector for the public good. I don't mind private health or private education (or private water or electricity) for those who can afford it, but I draw the line at private armies and I'm uncomfortable with private police and prisons. I'm a wary pragmatist.
Am I missing something
NEW THREAD
Pension funds would therefore in the event of widespread nationalisations be unable to hold them as securities. However it is most unlikely they would be able to sell them. They are already under financial pressure. This would almost certainly leave them insolvent.
I do not think either you or McDonnell appreciate just how dangerous his approach is to the national economy.
It appears that very tough regulation led some other water co.s to propose doing likewise. However, Rhodri Morgan in Wales took advantage of the situation and Tony Blair in England didn't.
We would all get on better if toys could be left in prams.