eh... sort of... In the case of AIG, the American government now owns 80% of its stock. We've all but nationalized them.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Exactly. It's bollocks. You can't "partly nationalise". You either nationalise (full, outright, ownership) or you don't.usmarine wrote:
"partly nationalize"
i dont know what that means.
Nah m8 it's just a loan the American public will get a good return on investment from that one.Turquoise wrote:
eh... sort of... In the case of AIG, the American government now owns 80% of its stock. We've all but nationalized them.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Exactly. It's bollocks. You can't "partly nationalise". You either nationalise (full, outright, ownership) or you don't.usmarine wrote:
"partly nationalize"
i dont know what that means.
Whoa... Can't believe these forums are still kicking.
Shareholders no longer have any say in a business? I think not...Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Exactly. It's bollocks. You can't "partly nationalise". You either nationalise (full, outright, ownership) or you don't.usmarine wrote:
"partly nationalize"
i dont know what that means.
In this instance, no they don't.Vilham wrote:
Shareholders no longer have any say in a business? I think not...Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Exactly. It's bollocks. You can't "partly nationalise". You either nationalise (full, outright, ownership) or you don't.usmarine wrote:
"partly nationalize"
i dont know what that means.
If you don't believe me - you're a UK tax-payer, right?
So, according to those that don't know what they're talking about, you're now a shareholder in various UK banks.
How far d'u think you'd get if you tried to attend the AGM of one of them?
(assuming, that is, you're not real shareholder, that is)
What the government has done, even in the case of Northern Rock, is not the same as, say, an individual owning 80% of a given banks shares.
It just doesn't work like that.
Why not? The Government bought the shares and they represent the people right?Scorpion0x17 wrote:
In this instance, no they don't.Vilham wrote:
Shareholders no longer have any say in a business? I think not...Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Exactly. It's bollocks. You can't "partly nationalise". You either nationalise (full, outright, ownership) or you don't.
If you don't believe me - you're a UK tax-payer, right?
So, according to those that don't know what they're talking about, you're now a shareholder in various UK banks.
How far d'u think you'd get if you tried to attend the AGM of one of them?
(assuming, that is, you're not real shareholder, that is)
What the government has done, even in the case of Northern Rock, is not the same as, say, an individual owning 80% of a given banks shares.
It just doesn't work like that.
Whoa... Can't believe these forums are still kicking.
Exactly what im thinking. Surely the government can send a representative.Flecco wrote:
Why not? The Government bought the shares and they represent the people right?Scorpion0x17 wrote:
In this instance, no they don't.Vilham wrote:
Shareholders no longer have any say in a business? I think not...
If you don't believe me - you're a UK tax-payer, right?
So, according to those that don't know what they're talking about, you're now a shareholder in various UK banks.
How far d'u think you'd get if you tried to attend the AGM of one of them?
(assuming, that is, you're not real shareholder, that is)
What the government has done, even in the case of Northern Rock, is not the same as, say, an individual owning 80% of a given banks shares.
It just doesn't work like that.
You mean the sort of representative you elected?Vilham wrote:
Exactly what im thinking. Surely the government can send a representative.
Not all 'shares' give you the right to attend the company AGM, for example, or any of the other things we normally associate with 'shares'.Flecco wrote:
Why not? The Government bought the shares and they represent the people right?Scorpion0x17 wrote:
In this instance, no they don't.Vilham wrote:
Shareholders no longer have any say in a business? I think not...
If you don't believe me - you're a UK tax-payer, right?
So, according to those that don't know what they're talking about, you're now a shareholder in various UK banks.
How far d'u think you'd get if you tried to attend the AGM of one of them?
(assuming, that is, you're not real shareholder, that is)
What the government has done, even in the case of Northern Rock, is not the same as, say, an individual owning 80% of a given banks shares.
It just doesn't work like that.
Some are issued purely to raise money, on the understanding that the company will buy them back (with interest) at some point in the future.
It is this later type of 'share' that the government has bought.
Ah k, that is different then.
And if the company folds or continues to fail to turn a profit for several years?Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Not all 'shares' give you the right to attend the company AGM, for example, or any of the other things we normally associate with 'shares'.Flecco wrote:
Why not? The Government bought the shares and they represent the people right?Scorpion0x17 wrote:
In this instance, no they don't.
If you don't believe me - you're a UK tax-payer, right?
So, according to those that don't know what they're talking about, you're now a shareholder in various UK banks.
How far d'u think you'd get if you tried to attend the AGM of one of them?
(assuming, that is, you're not real shareholder, that is)
What the government has done, even in the case of Northern Rock, is not the same as, say, an individual owning 80% of a given banks shares.
It just doesn't work like that.
Some are issued purely to raise money, on the understanding that the company will buy them back (with interest) at some point in the future.
It is this later type of 'share' that the government has bought.
Whoa... Can't believe these forums are still kicking.
I didn't say soon.Bertster7 wrote:
And I thought you were making perfect sense until you said that.AussieReaper wrote:
Wait until you see the result of the G20 meeting before thinking Britain will change to the Euro (although I think it is inevitable that they make the switch).
It's not gonna happen. Not in the next 20 years at the very least.
No, not in this caseVilham wrote:
Shareholders no longer have any say in a business? I think not...Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Exactly. It's bollocks. You can't "partly nationalise". You either nationalise (full, outright, ownership) or you don't.usmarine wrote:
"partly nationalize"
i dont know what that means.
Learn2economics.Preferred stock usually carries no voting rights, but may carry superior priority over common stock in the payment of dividends and upon liquidation.
I doubt that. AIG looks like it's incapable of running anything without fucking it up. We should've let it crash and burn.Flecco wrote:
Nah m8 it's just a loan the American public will get a good return on investment from that one.Turquoise wrote:
eh... sort of... In the case of AIG, the American government now owns 80% of its stock. We've all but nationalized them.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Exactly. It's bollocks. You can't "partly nationalise". You either nationalise (full, outright, ownership) or you don't.
k...next wrong statement pls scorpion.
Was sarcasm.Turquoise wrote:
I doubt that. AIG looks like it's incapable of running anything without fucking it up. We should've let it crash and burn.Flecco wrote:
Nah m8 it's just a loan the American public will get a good return on investment from that one.Turquoise wrote:
eh... sort of... In the case of AIG, the American government now owns 80% of its stock. We've all but nationalized them.
Whoa... Can't believe these forums are still kicking.
Hey, I cherry picked the one statement I knew to be wrong, what more do you want???usmarine wrote:
k...next wrong statement pls scorpion.
More seriously, cba to watch it again, but from what I remember, the rest is just a rant, very few arguable facts and lots of quite shaky analysis.
Some of the stuff he said about our level of debt and how we're positioned economically are very very debatable, for example.
I'd disagree that he's wrong on that point. He was just highlighting the contradictory stuff Brown has been doing - which he's right about. He does take one line in Europe and another in the UK.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Hey, I cherry picked the one statement I knew to be wrong, what more do you want???usmarine wrote:
k...next wrong statement pls scorpion.
More seriously, cba to watch it again, but from what I remember, the rest is just a rant, very few arguable facts and lots of quite shaky analysis.
Some of the stuff he said about our level of debt and how we're positioned economically are very very debatable, for example.
The stuff about debt and how the UK is economically positioned is rubbish - but it's his party line. What do you expect?
My bad... lolFlecco wrote:
Was sarcasm.Turquoise wrote:
I doubt that. AIG looks like it's incapable of running anything without fucking it up. We should've let it crash and burn.Flecco wrote:
Nah m8 it's just a loan the American public will get a good return on investment from that one.
How is that, if the corporations have to pay back the govt loans with interest? Additionally, since some of the bailout has been via stock purchases, wouldn't dividends go to the govt on a per-share basis, just like with any other stockholder?Turquoise wrote:
Here, we've lent to corporations but not nationalized, which means that we're essentially socializing losses while privatizing gains.
Via nationalization, more money is given back to the government, so that more of a payoff is available for taxpayers.
It's hardly a perfect solution, but it might prove to be a better move than ours.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
I can't see GM paying anything back, ever, any more than a corpse is likely to work off the cost of his last IV drip.
Same for a number of other outfits.
Same for a number of other outfits.
Fuck Israel
People have said the same thing about a number of companies (Chrysler being one of them back in the 80's). It happens, but it normally requires bankruptcy and restructuring to do it.Dilbert_X wrote:
I can't see GM paying anything back, ever, any more than a corpse is likely to work off the cost of his last IV drip.
Same for a number of other outfits.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
...because the interest the government is charging these companies is considerably less than what they'll charge to make their own money.FEOS wrote:
How is that, if the corporations have to pay back the govt loans with interest? Additionally, since some of the bailout has been via stock purchases, wouldn't dividends go to the govt on a per-share basis, just like with any other stockholder?Turquoise wrote:
Here, we've lent to corporations but not nationalized, which means that we're essentially socializing losses while privatizing gains.
Via nationalization, more money is given back to the government, so that more of a payoff is available for taxpayers.
It's hardly a perfect solution, but it might prove to be a better move than ours.
At this point, it would actually make more sense to just switch over completely to a central government bank, since corporate banks have abused their right to create money.
Interest rates are low for everyone...the govt isn't making much money on interest at all, regardless of the lendee.Turquoise wrote:
...because the interest the government is charging these companies is considerably less than what they'll charge to make their own money.FEOS wrote:
How is that, if the corporations have to pay back the govt loans with interest? Additionally, since some of the bailout has been via stock purchases, wouldn't dividends go to the govt on a per-share basis, just like with any other stockholder?Turquoise wrote:
Here, we've lent to corporations but not nationalized, which means that we're essentially socializing losses while privatizing gains.
Via nationalization, more money is given back to the government, so that more of a payoff is available for taxpayers.
It's hardly a perfect solution, but it might prove to be a better move than ours.
At this point, it would actually make more sense to just switch over completely to a central government bank, since corporate banks have abused their right to create money.
There's still the question of stock dividend payments, which would be the same as any other stockholder, except the govt gets their share first.
And corporate banks don't create money and don't have the right to. Only the Fed can do that. And boy are they doing it.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
yay
"Mortgage finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac plan to pay more than $210 million in bonuses through next year to give workers the incentive to stay in their jobs at the government-controlled companies."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090403/ap_ … ts_bonuses
"Mortgage finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac plan to pay more than $210 million in bonuses through next year to give workers the incentive to stay in their jobs at the government-controlled companies."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090403/ap_ … ts_bonuses
no worries, i dont expect any answers from the obama supporters