Jeremy Corbyn (Vol. 4)

[Evanivitch]

freakybacon said:

Burwood said:

Kuro, why do you think Nationalising is a good idea? How will the public benefit from it? It's a simple question-can you comment?

Also, how will the Labour government be able to nationalise any industries at all, bearing in mind it would be against European Union competition rules?

Probably the same way Germany and France have national rail operators. Or even how Wales has taken on the Arriva franchise...

[psi310398]

pingu393 said:

With Government Bonds, nobody puts the money up.

SNIP

Come again?

[psi310398]

I generally have little time for James Delingpole but this, apropos the Guardian's endorsement of Corbyn, is amusing and on point:

' Much as we deplore his death camps we are persuaded that Herr Hitler’s mastery of train time tables, his ‘People’s car’ and his progressive environmental policies...’

https://twitter.com/JamesDelingpole/status/1204752...

[pingu393]

psi310398 said:

pingu393 said:

With Government Bonds, nobody puts the money up.

SNIP

Come again?

When Corby "buys" the shares and gives you a Government Bond, when do you think you will see the cash?

[psi310398]

pingu393 said:

When Corby "buys" the shares and gives you a Government Bond, when do you think you will see the cash?

Not being paid back does not mean that money wasn't put up in the first place, even if it was effectively expropriated.

[pingu393]

psi310398 said:

pingu393 said:

When Corby "buys" the shares and gives you a Government Bond, when do you think you will see the cash?

Not being paid back does not mean that money wasn't put up in the first place, even if it was effectively expropriated.

Labour are not intending to put money up at the start. They will issue the bonds with a promise of money in the future, but they will pay an annual "coupon".

They are usually used to build infrastructure...

https://www.ig.com/uk/bonds/what-are-government-bo...

[Dont like rolls]

pingu393 said:

Labour are not intending to put money up at the start. They will issue the bonds with a promise of money in the future, but they will pay an annual "coupon".

They are usually used to build infrastructure...

https://www.ig.com/uk/bonds/what-are-government-bo...

Essentially just THEFT then, oh good.

[pingu393]

Dont like rolls said:

pingu393 said:

Labour are not intending to put money up at the start. They will issue the bonds with a promise of money in the future, but they will pay an annual "coupon".

They are usually used to build infrastructure...

https://www.ig.com/uk/bonds/what-are-government-bo...

Essentially just THEFT then, oh good.

Yep.

[psi310398]

pingu393 said:

Labour are not intending to put money up at the start. They will issue the bonds with a promise of money in the future, but they will pay an annual "coupon".

They are usually used to build infrastructure...

https://www.ig.com/uk/bonds/what-are-government-bo...

Er yes. I do understand how government (and some large corporations) raise money. All bonds (at least outside wartime) that I am aware of repay the capital at their term's expiry as well as the coupon, although the US has been known to sell "zero coupon" bonds in the past where there is a promise of a large lump sum at the end of the term, instead of annual interest or six-monthly payments.

And no, most government (at least UK gilts) and corporate bonds are not usually used to build infrastructure but to make up shortfalls in general government income, whatever bks Brown or Osborne uttered about golden rules - just look at the government accounts and show me where this ring fenced fund is, if you don't believe me.

There is a specific class of infrastructure investment (especially in the developing world where the good faith and creditworthiness of the government might be in doubt) where the future income stream of an asset (e.g. tolls) is securitised through the use of a specific bond. And large contractors might raise an investment bond to fund a portfolio new projects or some specialist investment in infrastructure as an asset class, but most contractors prefer to move on on-stream (and hence largely de-risked) projects at a premium to fund newer ones.

However, I was questioning your assertion that "with Government Bonds, nobody puts the money up." Clearly, someone does. Else that's the point?

[pingu393]

psi310398 said:

pingu393 said:

Labour are not intending to put money up at the start. They will issue the bonds with a promise of money in the future, but they will pay an annual "coupon".

They are usually used to build infrastructure...

https://www.ig.com/uk/bonds/what-are-government-bo...

Er yes. I do understand how government (and some large corporations) raise money. All bonds (at least outside wartime) that I am aware of repay the capital at their term's expiry as well as the coupon, although the US has been known to sell "zero coupon" bonds in the past where there is a promise of a large lump sum at the end of the term, instead of annual interest or six-monthly payments.

And no, most government (at least UK gilts) and corporate bonds are not usually used to build infrastructure but to make up shortfalls in general government income, whatever bks Brown or Osborne uttered about golden rules - just look at the government accounts and show me where this ring fenced fund is, if you don't believe me.

There is a specific class of infrastructure investment (especially in the developing world where the good faith and creditworthiness of the government might be in doubt) where the future income stream of an asset (e.g. tolls) is securitised through the use of a specific bond. And large contractors might raise an investment bond to fund a portfolio new projects or some specialist investment in infrastructure as an asset class, but most contractors prefer to move on on-stream (and hence largely de-risked) projects at a premium to fund newer ones.

However, I was questioning your assertion that "with Government Bonds, nobody puts the money up." Clearly, someone does. Else that's the point?

In the case of Corbyn Bonds, Shares will be exchanged for Bonds.

No money will change hands. This is what McDonnell tells us he is going to do, and who am I not to believe him?

[Camoradi]

pingu393 said:

Dont like rolls said:

pingu393 said:

Labour are not intending to put money up at the start. They will issue the bonds with a promise of money in the future, but they will pay an annual "coupon".

They are usually used to build infrastructure...

https://www.ig.com/uk/bonds/what-are-government-bo...

Essentially just THEFT then, oh good.

Yep.

That should do wonders for foreign investment.

[turbobloke]

Earlier regarding rail nationalisation I said:

Legality: see FT, will it help: see Independent.

For folks without access to the FT, the essence of their point is that unless and until the UK is on the outside of a post-brexit transitionary period, ECHR legal barriers exist. The ECHR upholds the right of individuals and corporate entities to own property, alongside the right to appropriate financial compensation if property is acquired by the state including via nationalisation.

[Dont like rolls]

turbobloke said:

For folks without access to the FT, the essence of their point is that unless and until the UK is on the outside of a post-brexit transitionary period, ECHR legal barriers exist. The ECHR upholds the right of individuals and corporate entities to own property, alongside the right to appropriate financial compensation if property is acquired by the state including via nationalisation.

Fascist Multimillionaires the lot of them !

[anonymous-user]

kuro68k said:

Borrow it. Rates are at a historic low and the profits will more than cover the interest.

Remember that the government subsidises the railways already so basically we are just giving them money for nothing in return now. At least if we own it the money is an investment in stuff we then own.

Dear god.

[Digga]

fblm said:

kuro68k said:

Borrow it. Rates are at a historic low and the profits will more than cover the interest.

Remember that the government subsidises the railways already so basically we are just giving them money for nothing in return now. At least if we own it the money is an investment in stuff we then own.

Dear god.

Potato!

[Camoradi]

Digga said:

fblm said:

kuro68k said:

Borrow it. Rates are at a historic low and the profits will more than cover the interest.

Remember that the government subsidises the railways already so basically we are just giving them money for nothing in return now. At least if we own it the money is an investment in stuff we then own.

Dear god.

Potato!

Cynics... This may help you understand how the nationalisation of the railways will work

[Munter]

Camoradi said:

Digga said:

fblm said:

kuro68k said:

Borrow it. Rates are at a historic low and the profits will more than cover the interest.

Remember that the government subsidises the railways already so basically we are just giving them money for nothing in return now. At least if we own it the money is an investment in stuff we then own.

Dear god.

Potato!

Cynics... This may help you understand how the nationalisation of the railways will work

Just think of the environmental good that happened here. Fossil fuels were extinguished and will no longer be used by that train. The Forrest wasn't burnt down from embers, and water flow was slowed to stop flooding down river. It's all good things from here on in.

[anonymous-user]

Remember that BR was actually decent at one time. The 70s brought problems, and the 80s killed it.

It works well in other countries, there is no reason why it can't work well here... Except for the Tories who periodically get in and try to destroy it.

[vaud]

Camoradi said:

Cynics... This may help you understand how the nationalisation of the railways will work

Legalities aside, I don't think they would fail overnight. ECML was govt owned for a while and it was fine at first, it then lacked investment, refurbishment and the staff seemed get very apathetic.

So it might look okay for half a term or even a full term by which point we would be at the ballot box again. Any major strikes and they would just blame "years of Tory inaction" whilst being held to ransom for massive wage increases and reduced hours.

[Dont like rolls]

kuro68k said:

Remember that BR was actually decent at one time. The 70s brought problems, and the 80s killed it.

It works well in other countries, there is no reason why it can't work well here... Except for the Tories who periodically get in and try to destroy it.

When was BR it better ?