Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 45678
Results 211 to 226 of 226

Thread: UK Politics Thread

  1. #211

    Default Re: UK Politics Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by rory_20_uk View Post
    Hell yes. His plans are so half baked and unfunded I wonder how much damage he'd cause before he was stopped. Barring a significant war, few other events would have quite such catastrophic effects to the UK. His front bench appears to be selected for their slavish devotion to him rather than their ability (a trait increasingly shared with all major parties). He is far and away (for me) the best reason to vote for a Conservative candidate with the resigned view of "lesser of two evils".

    It is not specifically his vision of the future I have issue with, it is the complete lack of any practical ways of getting there. Presidential candidates in the USA are advocating wealth taxes that would cause a slow transfer of money from the rich to the state. Corbyn appears to want to Nationalise half a dozen industries, increase taxes, take shares from the FTSE 100 and also massively increase borrowing - almost all of this as an opening gambit.
    We really need to talk about this. You're operating under some misconceptions. You say that Corbyn's government would have catastrophic effects on the UK - but why? Leaving aside personal leadership qualities, your primary anxieties have been focused on his proposed reforms. To show that these anxieties are not misguided you need to specify projected cause and effect.

    Nationalization: Didn't I already post this?
    Analysts have valued the regulated asset values of water and energy networks potentially facing nationalisation at around 125 billion pounds [...] Labour campaigned in the 2017 election on a manifesto to bring rail companies, energy supply networks, water systems and mail delivery into public ownership.
    You can disagree or disagree, or adjust the priorities, but where's the looming catastrophe? Even if you are convinced nationalized sectors or enterprises will be less efficient in delivering services (which shouldn't be taken for granted), there's no apocalypse there.

    Taxation: So US Democratic tax proposals are good, but UK Labour tax proposals are horrid? Why? Maybe you think the promise not to raise taxes on the bottom 95% is short-sighted or limiting, but... It's not clear, do you think Labour should propose more, fewer, or different taxes?

    "Take shares": You have definitely badly misunderstood the nature of the workers' ownership proposal. There is no intent to buy shares, the law would create a requirement for certain companies to issue new shares. At a rate of 1% a year for 10 years. This would have a direct fiscal impact of Zero. I'm sure there are many quibbles to be had with the plan. For example, is it wise to cap workers' dividends and divert the excess as taxation to the government in the form of a 'hidden' corporate tax? But again, something that can be rationally debated - not apocalyptic.

    Borrowing: What I can find is, in effect, that Labour's current tax proposals could only in theory fund most of its proposed agenda without violating its promise to keep "public debt lower as a proportion of national income at the end of a parliament than at the start." From a neutral perspective that should, uh, how do I put this - sound pretty good. It suggests the Labour manifesto is on sound footing and only can't necessarily satisfy the most radical or extravagant desires of the left. But even if Labour did violate this rule and borrowed a few billion extra a year, increasing debt-to-GDP ratio by a couple points would likely not cause the disintegration of the UK economy - there would to my awareness be minimal historical or factual basis for such a claim. The ratio has already been gradually rising for years anyway, so what's a failed promise to arrest its rise? If you think this is a serious problem (again, no basis for it) you must think so irrespective of who would be in office.

    And unlike the USA, if he had a majority of one vote in the Commons he could get that lot into law extremely quickly.
    Theoretically a 1-vote majority in the Senate here could pass whatever it pleases. In reality, there is no party unity in the world that can pass major legislation on a party line. Think, that's the very story of May's Brexit isn't it? The overhwelming majority Labour would need to garner to comfortably unilaterally proceed with its whole agenda in an unprecedented fashion would be its own cushion against any capital reaction.

    One last difficulty may be that you think Corbyn would want to implement reforms "extremely quickly" in the sense of without an appreciable transition. Why do you think that? As we saw with the workers' ownership plan, Corbyn has at least some deference to reasonable time tables. It is obvious to anyone that a reform smoothly implemented over years could drive the system into paroxysms if on immediate order. (This is why everyone understands that minimum wage increases are to be phased in gradually, for example.)
    Last edited by Montmorency; 10-29-2019 at 05:21.
    Vitiate Man.

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

  2. #212
    Darkside Medic Senior Member rory_20_uk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Taplow, UK
    Posts
    8,341

    Default Re: UK Politics Thread

    I have to demonstrate cause and effect on theoretical future plans? Wow. High bar.

    Economics and economies are based as much on sentiment and emotions as reality. Things fail if people think they will and can succeed against all the odds if enough people believe they should. There are many who are very fearful of Corbyn before he has done anything Him merely being in charge would make a bear market more likely due to if nothing else irrational fear.

    So, time to build up trust and stability? Well, no...

    First off, Nationalization to start off with, the cost has been estimated by some to be not far off £200 billion. Labour has also occasionally said they'd just not bother with paying the market price and just pay the nominal value. So either this is spending money the country doesn't have, or is undermining trust in the UK. Either way, this would mean the UK would be even more dependant on the Markets right at the time they have cause a massive upset to them. Does this end up in the Courts, does the UK government have to pay over the odds to get people to sell or are there some archaic King Henry VIII powers to just basically force things along?

    Taxation The Democrats taxation proposals are better, not perfect and Corbyn has said he'll increase the maximum tax band. Which by itself in the 1970's managed to decrease taxation since those earning this much didn't just sit around and pay, they left. When political parties talk of closing tax loopholes there are invariably high hopes of the money rolling in but historically this has rarely happened. Perhaps this time its different...

    Take shares Yeah, if I have a company and you tell me to make new shares to dilute down what I have and then give them to the state that is taking. Dress it up as you like, my dividends will be lower by the 10% - unless you think companies will restructure their shares to offset this decrease in dividend of 10%. Companies do not have to be listed in the UK and given others do not require this tax, why not go elsewhere? And this is happening as companies are Nationalised.

    Borrowing Ah, the old "increase GDP so debt is a low percentage". Labour has previously undertaken this wheeze under Brown and the only problem is if the economy shrinks, then the debt balloons. With guaranteed spending with a vague promise that the money will come from somewhere and sort it all out that again is very worrying. Again, the only concrete facet is the increase in requirement for money. Borrowing tends to become more expensive the more that is required.

    Create a National Pharmaceutical company This is my favourite idea, given how it demonstrates his almost utter lack of understanding of the industry and indeed most things outside of the Communist Manifesto. Either he really thinks he can just magic a company that is better at discovering drugs than everyone else, or he is just going to invalidate patents for existing products and then manufacture them for UK use and the rest of the world will just be cool with that. The problems with this just go on and on (mainly as I work in this industry so I have a greater understanding).

    Corbyn's plans are together changes we have not seen for decades. Either he won't finish in 5 years (and risk the grand vision not working) or he'll be all talk and no trousers. He says he would do all of this slowly and so we have to take the chap at his word? Potentially the ongoing mess that is Brexit hasn't ended, and on the Civil Service will then be tasked with a vast number of new activities. Will he just increase the numbers to sort this out? Not to mention how does one nationalise an industry slowly? Dragging things out tends to make things even worse than a quick change due to the ongoing uncertainty.

    Each aim by itself isn't going to destroy the country, but they are quite synergistic in terms of their potential damage - to be clear the ones that are either going to increase borrowing or nationalise / pseudo-nationalise companies. Close tax loopholes by all means. Add VAT to private school places (and then realise all the money goes to new school places as a percentage of parents can no longer afford it) - OK, that might save some money.

    An enemy that wishes to die for their country is the best sort to face - you both have the same aim in mind.
    Science flies you to the moon, religion flies you into buildings.
    "If you can't trust the local kleptocrat whom you installed by force and prop up with billions of annual dollars, who can you trust?" Lemur
    If you're not a liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative by the time you're 35, you have no brain.
    The best argument against democracy is a five minute talk with the average voter. Winston Churchill

    Member thankful for this post:



  3. #213
    Mr Self Important Senior Member Beskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Albion
    Posts
    15,821
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: UK Politics Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by rory_20_uk View Post
    B]Create a National Pharmaceutical company[/B] This is my favourite idea, given how it demonstrates his almost utter lack of understanding of the industry and indeed most things outside of the Communist Manifesto. Either he really thinks he can just magic a company that is better at discovering drugs than everyone else, or he is just going to invalidate patents for existing products and then manufacture them for UK use and the rest of the world will just be cool with that. The problems with this just go on and on (mainly as I work in this industry so I have a greater understanding).
    It is not the most terrible idea. There are advantages to such a system without doing both of those things:
    - It wouldn't need to invalidate patents, as many common medicines are generic. So it would be able to hypothetically produce these cheaper (especially if an NHS preferred supplier) due to economies of scale. They could potentially also licence medications for a reduced cost. So let's say company A charges $1000 for their drug, and it is does not meet the NICE Guidelines for Cost-Effectiveness, they could licence it to NatPharma so they get some money from it, without even needing to worry about manufacture.
    - As for Drug Research, there could be efforts to fund not-so-profitable options (antibiotics, for dementia, etc) as some private companies simply refuse to bother due to the low-chance of recouping the losses.
    "We are living in space-age times but there's too many of us thinking with stone-age minds" - Daryl Davis
    "What makes something right or wrong?" | How to spot a Humanist
    "Men of Quality do not fear Equality." # | "Belief doesn't change facts. Facts, if you are reasonable, should change your beliefs." RG

  4. #214
    Darkside Medic Senior Member rory_20_uk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Taplow, UK
    Posts
    8,341

    Default Re: UK Politics Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Beskar View Post
    It is not the most terrible idea. There are advantages to such a system without doing both of those things:
    - It wouldn't need to invalidate patents, as many common medicines are generic. So it would be able to hypothetically produce these cheaper (especially if an NHS preferred supplier) due to economies of scale. They could potentially also licence medications for a reduced cost. So let's say company A charges $1000 for their drug, and it is does not meet the NICE Guidelines for Cost-Effectiveness, they could licence it to NatPharma so they get some money from it, without even needing to worry about manufacture.
    - As for Drug Research, there could be efforts to fund not-so-profitable options (antibiotics, for dementia, etc) as some private companies simply refuse to bother due to the low-chance of recouping the losses.
    Generics in the UK are already cheap; drugs that don't get NICE approval don't get used much. Manufacturers offer confidential discounts to get a green light. TEVA et al already have economies of scale for generics..

    Billions has been spent on dementia. the trials haven't worked. Companies are trying, but they are failing. Antibiotics isn't a question of more molecules, it is down to the regulatory framework being adapted. Lots of antibiotics have been refused licences since they are not better than current gold standard, when in fact what the question should be is do they have any efficacy as once a drug is dumped that is basically it... Perhaps some effort to reuse these would be worthwhile.

    An enemy that wishes to die for their country is the best sort to face - you both have the same aim in mind.
    Science flies you to the moon, religion flies you into buildings.
    "If you can't trust the local kleptocrat whom you installed by force and prop up with billions of annual dollars, who can you trust?" Lemur
    If you're not a liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative by the time you're 35, you have no brain.
    The best argument against democracy is a five minute talk with the average voter. Winston Churchill

  5. #215

    Default Re: UK Politics Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by rory_20_uk View Post
    I have to demonstrate cause and effect on theoretical future plans? Wow. High bar.
    Significant claims need significant evidence.

    Economics and economies are based as much on sentiment and emotions as reality. Things fail if people think they will and can succeed against all the odds if enough people believe they should. There are many who are very fearful of Corbyn before he has done anything Him merely being in charge would make a bear market more likely due to if nothing else irrational fear.
    Your theory here is that there is so much propaganda against Corbyn, and so influential, that perception would automatically cripple a Corbyn government? Aside from being highly speculative, it sounds like an argument for revolution to me.


    First off, Nationalization to start off with, the cost has been estimated by some to be not far off £200 billion. Labour has also occasionally said they'd just not bother with paying the market price and just pay the nominal value. So either this is spending money the country doesn't have, or is undermining trust in the UK. Either way, this would mean the UK would be even more dependant on the Markets right at the time they have cause a massive upset to them. Does this end up in the Courts, does the UK government have to pay over the odds to get people to sell or are there some archaic King Henry VIII powers to just basically force things along?
    Other possibilities include:

    1. The industries and the government negotiate a haircut after a lengthy process, including such factors as existing liabilities, subsidies, and deferred costs.
    2. Labour government accepts a more limited nationalization agenda.

    Taxation The Democrats taxation proposals are better, not perfect and Corbyn has said he'll increase the maximum tax band. Which by itself in the 1970's managed to decrease taxation since those earning this much didn't just sit around and pay, they left. When political parties talk of closing tax loopholes there are invariably high hopes of the money rolling in but historically this has rarely happened. Perhaps this time its different...
    Within the remit of domestic taxation there's clearly an argument to be made for a comprehensive taxation to minimize the "whack-a-mole" aspect. But I doubt either of us are familiar with the details of Labour's proposals or the various projections for them, let alone what additions or changes can be made to optimize them. Clearly there is much to be debated. Take the gauntlet if you wish.

    Take shares Yeah, if I have a company and you tell me to make new shares to dilute down what I have and then give them to the state that is taking. Dress it up as you like, my dividends will be lower by the 10% - unless you think companies will restructure their shares to offset this decrease in dividend of 10%. Companies do not have to be listed in the UK and given others do not require this tax, why not go elsewhere? And this is happening as companies are Nationalised.
    Lower dividends are a problem for existing shareholders, not the company, and a temporary one at that. The companies that haven't relocated over Brexit probably won't relocate over this relatively mild measure. Especially given that is uniformly applied to a broad class of companies, unlike the idiosyncratic effects of a contracting economy and trade/regulatory disruption.

    Borrowing Ah, the old "increase GDP so debt is a low percentage". Labour has previously undertaken this wheeze under Brown and the only problem is if the economy shrinks, then the debt balloons. With guaranteed spending with a vague promise that the money will come from somewhere and sort it all out that again is very worrying. Again, the only concrete facet is the increase in requirement for money. Borrowing tends to become more expensive the more that is required.
    Labour promises zero added debt-to-GDP ratio. They will probably not live up to this promise. You offer no reason to believe they would break this promise so far as to go out of their way to relentlessly drive up the debt without countermeasure - let alone do this to the point of deleterious effects for the UK's accounts.

    Create a National Pharmaceutical company This is my favourite idea, given how it demonstrates his almost utter lack of understanding of the industry and indeed most things outside of the Communist Manifesto. Either he really thinks he can just magic a company that is better at discovering drugs than everyone else, or he is just going to invalidate patents for existing products and then manufacture them for UK use and the rest of the world will just be cool with that. The problems with this just go on and on (mainly as I work in this industry so I have a greater understanding).
    I don't understand your complaint, but I'm not aware of the proposal so I'll have to look it up later.

    Meanwhile here is a tangential essay by economist Dean Baker on how the patent system as monopoly rent is a fundamental defect in pharmaceutical research and commerce, and the need to incentivize a copy-left framework for new research.

    Corbyn's plans are together changes we have not seen for decades. Either he won't finish in 5 years (and risk the grand vision not working) or he'll be all talk and no trousers. He says he would do all of this slowly and so we have to take the chap at his word?
    Or he could just do some of it? Like every politician?

    You don't have to "take his word", take the word of the political constraints at hand.

    Potentially the ongoing mess that is Brexit hasn't ended, and on the Civil Service will then be tasked with a vast number of new activities. Will he just increase the numbers to sort this out?
    From an electoral point of view Brexit is the overriding issue (which Corbyn hasn't recognized), but it's more convenient rather than less to align domestic reforms with the conclusion of withdrawal negotiations and hashing the subsequent relationship. (Or, he calls a second referendum, which has two realistic outcomes: clarifying the withdrawal process, or cancelling it altogether and restoring a measure of stability.)

    Not to mention how does one nationalise an industry slowly? Dragging things out tends to make things even worse than a quick change due to the ongoing uncertainty.[
    I don't understand. The process of doing so is worked out over some period of time to take into account the necessary logistical and legal considerations and stakeholder input, as well as to create readiness for a smooth assumption of new administration. The final handover presumably happens in a day. We would have to refer to other nationalizations in British history for a comparison point.

    Each aim by itself isn't going to destroy the country, but they are quite synergistic in terms of their potential damage - to be clear the ones that are either going to increase borrowing or nationalise / pseudo-nationalise companies.
    What I gather is you believe he would be able and willing to simultaneously implement everything in his legislative agenda (I haven't heard anything about the executive power with respect to Corbyn), implement it as badly as it can be implemented, and for the tail-end risk scenarios of the results of these policies to manifest in a perfect storm.

    It sounds unreasonable, like you've internalized the calculated fearmongering that you referenced at the beginning of the post as poisoning perceptions of a Corbyn administration. Kind of circular reasoning around self-fulfilling prophecy.
    Last edited by Montmorency; 10-30-2019 at 03:59.
    Vitiate Man.

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

  6. #216
    Formerly Wigferth Ironwall Senior Member Philippus Flavius Homovallumus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Isca
    Posts
    13,201

    Default Re: UK Politics Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
    Other possibilities include:

    1. The industries and the government negotiate a haircut after a lengthy process, including such factors as existing liabilities, subsidies, and deferred costs.
    2. Labour government accepts a more limited nationalization agenda.
    A haircut on a forced acquisition is the same as forced sale at a devalued price - it's theft. Regardless of whether you think services should have been privatised they were and are now in private hands. Only totalitarian governments steal from their own citizens in peacetime.

    Lower dividends are a problem for existing shareholders, not the company, and a temporary one at that. The companies that haven't relocated over Brexit probably won't relocate over this relatively mild measure. Especially given that is uniformly applied to a broad class of companies, unlike the idiosyncratic effects of a contracting economy and trade/regulatory disruption.
    Devaluing shares doesn't just lower dividends - although that is a problem - it takes a percentage share away from current owners. Let's say a family retains 55% of the shares in their company - what happens when the government forces them to issue 10% new shares, devaluing the current shares from 100% of the total to 90%?

    Their shares are now 90/100*55=49.5%.

    They lose control of the company.

    They only way around that would be to create even more new shares and buy them back on the open market - spending capital you probably don't have and screwing over your other shareholders in the process - assuming you can do that and don't lose those share too. This is a major issue, especially in the UK where companies have had to issue new shares because of our historically weak manufacturing to raise capital and those shares have been bought up by American conglomorates that then take over the company and dismantle parts of it.

    For example, Cadbury's Chocolate being bought out by Hershy's and having its historical factory closed.
    "If it wears trousers generally I don't pay attention."

    Member thankful for this post:



  7. #217

    Default Re: UK Politics Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus View Post
    A haircut on a forced acquisition is the same as forced sale at a devalued price - it's theft. Regardless of whether you think services should have been privatised they were and are now in private hands. Only totalitarian governments steal from their own citizens in peacetime.
    Negotiations are stealing. Well, I suppose the good ol' USA has a long record of stealing from its citizens in peacetime.

    A forced taking at a unilaterally-set price would be closer to theft. This is not it and I consider it perfectly fair. Especially when so much of the ownership in the targeted industries is of foreign (especially EU) governments, meaning the negotiation nestles into the context of diplomacy between state peers.

    Devaluing shares doesn't just lower dividends - although that is a problem - it takes a percentage share away from current owners. Let's say a family retains 55% of the shares in their company - what happens when the government forces them to issue 10% new shares, devaluing the current shares from 100% of the total to 90%?

    Their shares are now 90/100*55=49.5%.

    They lose control of the company.
    I'm not sure how you could get so off the track. Companies issue new shares all the time for all sorts of reasons, especially to raise new capital. WTF I can't even begin to describe how common this is, and has nothing to do with the government.

    So how do majority stakeholders prevent share dilution leading to loss of majority stake in these common situations? They buy new shares themselves. Share dilution is a risk every private investor in publicly traded companies accepts. This is like asking why anyone would start a business if a possibility is that the venture will fail.

    Mamma mia.
    Vitiate Man.

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

  8. #218
    Formerly Wigferth Ironwall Senior Member Philippus Flavius Homovallumus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Isca
    Posts
    13,201

    Default Re: UK Politics Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
    Negotiations are stealing. Well, I suppose the good ol' USA has a long record of stealing from its citizens in peacetime.

    A forced taking at a unilaterally-set price would be closer to theft. This is not it and I consider it perfectly fair. Especially when so much of the ownership in the targeted industries is of foreign (especially EU) governments, meaning the negotiation nestles into the context of diplomacy between state peers.
    Forced purchase, negotiated haircut, is the same as a purchase at a devalued price - just offset for "optics".

    I'm not sure how you could get so off the track. Companies issue new shares all the time for all sorts of reasons, especially to raise new capital. WTF I can't even begin to describe how common this is, and has nothing to do with the government.

    So how do majority stakeholders prevent share dilution leading to loss of majority stake in these common situations? They buy new shares themselves. Share dilution is a risk every private investor in publicly traded companies accepts. This is like asking why anyone would start a business if a possibility is that the venture will fail.

    Mamma mia.
    So you agree there's a risk, then?

    Not all companies issue new shares "all the time", prudent owners do it only when necessary. So here you're mandating imprudent behaviour.
    "If it wears trousers generally I don't pay attention."


  9. #219
    Mr Self Important Senior Member Beskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Albion
    Posts
    15,821
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: UK Politics Thread

    There is the age-old argument of Megacorporations where 30% is a controlling stake versus Mom&Pop stores.

    Some rules affect Megacorporations and Mom&Pop stores differently. Differentiating them is also a tricky pickle too.
    Last edited by Beskar; 11-01-2019 at 19:37.
    "We are living in space-age times but there's too many of us thinking with stone-age minds" - Daryl Davis
    "What makes something right or wrong?" | How to spot a Humanist
    "Men of Quality do not fear Equality." # | "Belief doesn't change facts. Facts, if you are reasonable, should change your beliefs." RG

  10. #220

    Default Re: UK Politics Thread

    Not-so-breaking news: Labour confirms second referendum and green reform package.

    Quote Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus View Post
    Forced purchase, negotiated haircut, is the same as a purchase at a devalued price - just offset for "optics".
    The implication here is that you're simply much more restrictive on the proper role of eminent domain than I am. For the briefest treatment of what's relevant here's what Wiki says: "In England and Wales, and other jurisdictions that follow the principles of English law, the related term compulsory purchase is used. The landowner is compensated with a price agreed or stipulated by an appropriate person. Where agreement on price cannot be achieved, the value of the taken land is determined by the Upper Tribunal." The state is always the final arbiter one way or another. There is no mandate to pay the owner their asking price. Is this system presumptively illegitimate? Insofar as the state can be permitted to overrule property claims, do you believe owners should always be paid their asking price and this never be negotiated downward? I don't. Leaving aside the real-world exigencies of our time, private property of this nature is an invention of the state, and the state shouldn't merely be an incestuous relationship of the propertied classes.

    So you agree there's a risk, then?

    Not all companies issue new shares "all the time", prudent owners do it only when necessary. So here you're mandating imprudent behaviour.
    That depends on the needs of the company of course. Walmart has been retiring stocks continuously for years, from over 4 billion outstanding in 2006 to over 2.8 billion recently. Amazon, meanwhile, has been slowly but steadily expanding, from over 400 million in 2006 to around half a billion lately (so, more than 1% a quarter typically).

    Stock options are another way for shares to be introduced into circulation, which is why companies also report diluted earnings per share that are predicated on the scenario of all convertibles becoming new outstanding stock. FYI. All in all we should understand that legally mandated creation of shares according to a set timetable is unlikely to cause chaos - financial markets will simply adapt, just as they do when companies normally and individually issue new stock (which can happen on a day's notice, rather than years' as in the IOF plan).

    Check this shit out:

    Investors Get Stung Twice by Executives’ Lavish Pay Packages

    What they found: The average annual dilution among S.&P. 500 companies relating to executive pay was 2.5 percent of a company’s shares outstanding. Meanwhile, the costs of buying back shares to reduce that dilution equaled an average 1.6 percent of the outstanding shares. Added together, the shareholder costs of executive pay in the S.&P. 500 represented 4.1 percent of each company’s shares outstanding.
    So investors take executive compensation in stride as it affects their equity stake ALL THE TIME, plus secondary offerings on zero notice, but a much smaller systematic transfer is economically and ideologically daft? Jog. On.
    Vitiate Man.

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

  11. #221

    Default Re: UK Politics Thread

    Come to think of it, those who assume that a mandatory 1% issuance of new equity by a company will result in devaluation of per share or dividends per share of existing stock by 1% are not necessarily right.

    For the baseline we would have to assume that a company's self-directed secondary issuance of shares will lead to a static decrease in stock valuation proportional to the amount of new stock. I've been trying to find information on this point, but it just doesn't seem to work like that because markets and pricing are not static - they follow from the intuitions and expectations of the investors. In fact the expectation is often that equity will grow in value following an offering on account of growth potential or bullish spirit or whatever. For example in 2005 Google's secondary offering "the stock had climbed 6.3 percent since the company announced plans to sell the additional shares, even though they will dilute current holdings." We must understand that changes in valuation are not static or linear and are probably unpredictable beyond a case-by-case basis. It is especially fallacious to assume that new stock somehow represents a static decline in long-term valuation.

    Dividends: The companies' directors calculate dividends to be paid from earnings (profits) according to their own strategy; there is no precept to maintain the same payout ratio. If a company has been distributing a certain percentage of earnings across a certain number of shares annualized, then each year for 10 years as they add 1% to the IOF they can increase the payout ratio to prevent relative dividends dilution (not counting any matching for new standard or converted stock available on the market). Alternatively, if a company and its investors have not otherwise felt the need to stabilize dividends against standard shares growth, then why would investors hold it against them now? (As an example, Walmart has raised its dividend every year since it first offered them 40-ish years ago, and currently its payout ratio is 43.18%.)

    Stock Price: As this page explains, the stock price is fundamentally linear to the market capitalization of the company. The actual price of a share is determined on the market, where it is bought and sold according to perceptions of the company's strength: e.g. its cash flow or subjective growth potential. It is true in abstract that since new stocks are generally offered for below the existing market price of shares, the immediate effect of selling new shares is to increase the market capitalization of the company on a lower per-share basis. In other words, the ratio of market cap to outstanding shares decreases in the immediate aftermath, which in theory would reduce the value of shares. However, as stated above the market does not stand still on prices making a linear equation unrepresentative.

    Secondary offerings don't always result in dilution, especially if a company is particularly popular. Yet even the fear of potential dilution is often enough to send share prices downward, at least temporarily. Shareholders need to be wary of secondary offerings to make sure they don't see their existing holdings lose too much value.
    What you might notice is that new issuance for the IOF is in effect a special category of shares: it is is never available on the market. If a share does not exist and cannot exist on the market, and its ownership is automatically locked in yet also does not add to or subtract from the capitalization of the company, then there is little reason I can see for the market to take this issuance into consideration in pricing shares of the company. This is doubly true when one remembers most stock-issuing companies would be affected in the exact same way at the exact same time - by law.

    There is one caveat I can detect. While government-mandated locked-in stock issuance off the market should not affect the prices of the stocks directly, they can eventually affect them indirectly. The IOF plan requires IOF-held stock to be remunerated with dividends to workers in the form of cash. Because paying shareholders cash decreases the amount of cash available to the company, the act of paying dividends in itself can be said to act as a downward-pressure on stock. In practice companies are required to announce record dates on which dividends are paid, and in the window leading up to this date the company stock becomes a popular short buy from people who want to turn a profit by picking up the dividend check against the shares but don't want to hold on to the shares long-term. Therefore the stock price often increases comparable to dividend size leading up to the record date, but is then dumped following this date leading to a reversion (drop of stock price). There could conceivably be a discrete downward pressure from the paying of dividends against IOF shares that have no market presence or price yet extract money from the company. But the magnitude of this theoretical vector should resemble the typical effect of labor costs on a company's valuation, since IOF dividends are effectively just a labor cost. Investors traditionally don't like labor costs because they expect the company to transfer the value of labor from the laborers to the investors. This is a primary dynamic of the capitalist economy that leftists most heavily criticize and desire to disrupt!!!

    So in fact any impact on company financials and financial markets from the IOF plan's dividends (as separated from the corporate income tax aspect since that's a different thing) must be categorically similar to legislative interventions such as the minimum wage, and any argument against leftists that their plans transfer value from capital to labor is bound to fail - that's the point of the intervention! The only real question is the effectiveness and efficiency of a proposal in achieving its goals compared to some other proposal. In that vein here are what I would consider interesting and relevant questions about the IOF plan:

    Why combine a rise in ordinary corporate income tax rate with collecting most of the dividends from the IOFs as a secondary hidden corporate tax (the vast majority of IOF capped dividends would flow to the government)? Why not consolidate the IOF as a workers' participation measure and apply any new corporate tax distinctly, and perhaps in collectible form through the issuance of special non-voting shares as per Dean Baker's proposal? A potentially easier way to accomplish the distinct goal of transferring more corporate money to workers could be to modify wage/employment law to require all applicable companies pay a bonus equal to 10% of dividends from UK profits, whether or not capped at £500. Also, Employee Ownership Trusts were introduced in 2014 but apparently haven't seen much uptake - could those structures be modified to achieve some of the employee ownership goals without mandatory transfers? Employee participation goals could in part be met by Labour's existing Germany-style codetermination proposal.

    In the current IOF plan is there a mechanism for establishing IOFs at new companies? Of all questions this one is probably already answered - I'd bet on a continuing requirement to transfer 1% where applicable up to the 10% cap - but I can't recall locating what happens to companies that begin to fall into the criteria following the first tranche of IOF transfers. Without such a mechanism the full 10% IOF would only apply to companies that meet the criteria on the day of implementation and continue to meet the criteria for 10 years. Inversely, what happens to companies that fall below the employment threshold having already established an IOF?

    What are the mechanisms for collective management of IOF within a company? Is governance participatory or delegatory? Is there an expectation for how IOF managers will participate in corporate governance? For instance, since the IOF is capped the IOF has neither ability or incentive to grow itself. What kind of decision-making are IOFs predicted to engage in?

    Should workers be able to sell their stake in IOF, or to their entitlement to dividends from IOF? While a dividends cap cuts against inequality between workers, that most workers aren't covered by IOFs and there is lack of flexibility with respect to IOF rights in taking or leaving these jobs on the other hand increases inequality between workers.

    What happens with companies that are already cooperatives or employee-owned? What about existing partially employee-owned companies? And large companies that don't pay dividends?

    Does anything happen to existing individual employee stock in their own/other companies? What about convertible securities, stock options and warrants? Are C-suite and upper management employees covered by IOF?

    When the plan mentions "workers" does that include only employees or contractors and temporary workers as well? The dividend structure seems problematic in application to workers of more detached categories; they don't have as much skin in as full employees, and anyway is there a risk their hiring/firing could be organized around record dates for payment of dividends?

    Does the government have any ownership policies targeting all the many classes of workers who are not self-employed but still work for small/medium companies?

    What are estimates of distortion effects around (above/below) the 250 worker threshold? How will subsidiaries be treated compared to branches?





    I'm tired of learning about the UK, and I have to take time to familiarize myself with the below local election issues by Tuesday so please take a few days to carefully consider any response.

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    Ballot Question 1, New York City Elections Charter Amendment: Ranked-Choice Voting, Vacancies, and City Council Redistricting Timeline On the ballot
    A yes vote is a vote in favor of amending the city charter to do the following:
    establish ranked-choice voting to be used for primary and special elections beginning in 2021;
    increase the time between a city office vacancy and the special election to fill it from 45 days (60 for mayor) to 80 days; and
    change the timeline for city council redistricting to complete it prior to city council nominating petition signature collection.

    • Ballot Question 2, New York City Civilian Complaint Review Board Charter Amendment On the ballot
    A yes vote is a vote in favor of amending the city charter to do the following:
    add two members to the 13-member Civilian Complaint Review Board (CCRB)—one appointed by the Public Advocate and one jointly by the mayor and speaker of the council;
    allow the city council to appoint members directly without the mayor having final appointing authority;
    require the CCRB annual budget to be enough to hire employees for at least one CCRB for every 154 police officers (0.65% of the city's police force) unless the mayor determines that fiscal necessity prevents it;
    add to the city charter the requirement that the city police commissioner to provide an explanation to the CCRB whenever the board's disciplinary recommendations aren't followed;
    authorize the CCRB to investigate the truthfulness of statements made during its investigation of complaints; and
    allow the CCRB to delegate its authority to issue and enforce subpoenas.

    • Ballot Question 3, New York City Ethics and Government Charter Amendment On the ballot
    A yes vote is a vote in favor of amending the city charter to do the following:
    increase the amount of time after leaving service before elected city officials and senior appointed officials can appear before the city agencies in which they served from one year to two years;
    replace two of five members of the Conflicts of Interest Board (COIB) appointed by the mayor with a member appointed by the comptroller and a member appointed by the public advocate;
    prohibit members of the COIB from involvement with city office campaigns and restrict contributions from COIB members to campaigns to between $250 and $400 depending on the office;
    add to the city charter a requirement that the Minority- and Women-Owned Business Enterprise (M/WBE) to report directly to the mayor and to require a mayoral office for the M/WBE; and
    require city council confirmation of the city's corporation counsel appointed by the mayor.

    • Ballot Question 4, New York City City Budget Charter Amendment: Revenue Stabilization Fund, Public Advocate and Borough President Budgets, and Reporting by Mayor On the ballot
    A yes vote is a vote in favor of amending the city charter to do the following:
    authorize a rainy day fund to go into effect with required state law changes;
    set minimum Public Advocate and Borough President budgets based on the 2020 fiscal year adjusted based on inflation or the total change in the city's total budget;
    move the deadline for the mayor's revenue report (excluding property taxes) to the city council from June 5 to April 26; and
    set a deadline of 30 days for the mayor to submit changes to the city's financial plan requiring budget changes to the city council.

    • Ballot Question 5, New York City Land Use Charter Amendment: Uniform Land Use Review Procedure Requirements On the ballot
    A yes vote is a vote in favor of amending the city charter to do the following:
    require the Department of City Planning (DCP) to provide a summary of Uniform Land Use Review Procedure (ULURP) projects to the Borough President, Board and Community Board affected by the project 30 days prior to when the project application is certified for review by the public and
    increase the amount of time allowed for review of the ULURP projects by the affected Community Boards from 60 days to either 75 days or 90 days, depending on timing.
    Last edited by Montmorency; 11-03-2019 at 04:41.
    Vitiate Man.

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

  12. #222
    Ni dieu ni maître! Senior Member a completely inoffensive name's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    I live on the org, feeding off of what few thanks are tossed at my posts. It is up to you to make sure I don't starve.
    Posts
    8,410
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default Re: UK Politics Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by rory_20_uk View Post
    Generics in the UK are already cheap; drugs that don't get NICE approval don't get used much. Manufacturers offer confidential discounts to get a green light. TEVA et al already have economies of scale for generics..

    Billions has been spent on dementia. the trials haven't worked. Companies are trying, but they are failing. Antibiotics isn't a question of more molecules, it is down to the regulatory framework being adapted. Lots of antibiotics have been refused licences since they are not better than current gold standard, when in fact what the question should be is do they have any efficacy as once a drug is dumped that is basically it... Perhaps some effort to reuse these would be worthwhile.

    Sometimes I wonder how cheap people expect drugs to be. It's insanely expensive just to maintain the level of equipment and high quality precursors needed to produce molecules getting injected into bodies...
    In all these papers we see a love of honest work, an aversion to shams, a caution in the enunciation of conclusions, a distrust of rash generalizations and speculations based on uncertain premises. He was never anxious to add one more guess on doubtful matters in the hope of hitting the truth, or what might pass as such for a time, but was always ready to take infinite pains in the most careful testing of every theory. With these qualities was united a modesty which forbade the pushing of his own claims and desired no reputation except the unsought tribute of competent judges.

  13. #223
    Formerly Wigferth Ironwall Senior Member Philippus Flavius Homovallumus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Isca
    Posts
    13,201

    Default Re: UK Politics Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
    Come to think of it, those who assume that a mandatory 1% issuance of new equity by a company will result in devaluation of per share or dividends per share of existing stock by 1% are not necessarily right.

    For the baseline we would have to assume that a company's self-directed secondary issuance of shares will lead to a static decrease in stock valuation proportional to the amount of new stock. I've been trying to find information on this point, but it just doesn't seem to work like that because markets and pricing are not static - they follow from the intuitions and expectations of the investors. In fact the expectation is often that equity will grow in value following an offering on account of growth potential or bullish spirit or whatever. For example in 2005 Google's secondary offering "the stock had climbed 6.3 percent since the company announced plans to sell the additional shares, even though they will dilute current holdings." We must understand that changes in valuation are not static or linear and are probably unpredictable beyond a case-by-case basis. It is especially fallacious to assume that new stock somehow represents a static decline in long-term valuation.

    Dividends: The companies' directors calculate dividends to be paid from earnings (profits) according to their own strategy; there is no precept to maintain the same payout ratio. If a company has been distributing a certain percentage of earnings across a certain number of shares annualized, then each year for 10 years as they add 1% to the IOF they can increase the payout ratio to prevent relative dividends dilution (not counting any matching for new standard or converted stock available on the market). Alternatively, if a company and its investors have not otherwise felt the need to stabilize dividends against standard shares growth, then why would investors hold it against them now? (As an example, Walmart has raised its dividend every year since it first offered them 40-ish years ago, and currently its payout ratio is 43.18%.)

    Stock Price: As this page explains, the stock price is fundamentally linear to the market capitalization of the company. The actual price of a share is determined on the market, where it is bought and sold according to perceptions of the company's strength: e.g. its cash flow or subjective growth potential. It is true in abstract that since new stocks are generally offered for below the existing market price of shares, the immediate effect of selling new shares is to increase the market capitalization of the company on a lower per-share basis. In other words, the ratio of market cap to outstanding shares decreases in the immediate aftermath, which in theory would reduce the value of shares. However, as stated above the market does not stand still on prices making a linear equation unrepresentative.



    What you might notice is that new issuance for the IOF is in effect a special category of shares: it is is never available on the market. If a share does not exist and cannot exist on the market, and its ownership is automatically locked in yet also does not add to or subtract from the capitalization of the company, then there is little reason I can see for the market to take this issuance into consideration in pricing shares of the company. This is doubly true when one remembers most stock-issuing companies would be affected in the exact same way at the exact same time - by law.

    There is one caveat I can detect. While government-mandated locked-in stock issuance off the market should not affect the prices of the stocks directly, they can eventually affect them indirectly. The IOF plan requires IOF-held stock to be remunerated with dividends to workers in the form of cash. Because paying shareholders cash decreases the amount of cash available to the company, the act of paying dividends in itself can be said to act as a downward-pressure on stock. In practice companies are required to announce record dates on which dividends are paid, and in the window leading up to this date the company stock becomes a popular short buy from people who want to turn a profit by picking up the dividend check against the shares but don't want to hold on to the shares long-term. Therefore the stock price often increases comparable to dividend size leading up to the record date, but is then dumped following this date leading to a reversion (drop of stock price). There could conceivably be a discrete downward pressure from the paying of dividends against IOF shares that have no market presence or price yet extract money from the company. But the magnitude of this theoretical vector should resemble the typical effect of labor costs on a company's valuation, since IOF dividends are effectively just a labor cost. Investors traditionally don't like labor costs because they expect the company to transfer the value of labor from the laborers to the investors. This is a primary dynamic of the capitalist economy that leftists most heavily criticize and desire to disrupt!!!

    So in fact any impact on company financials and financial markets from the IOF plan's dividends (as separated from the corporate income tax aspect since that's a different thing) must be categorically similar to legislative interventions such as the minimum wage, and any argument against leftists that their plans transfer value from capital to labor is bound to fail - that's the point of the intervention! The only real question is the effectiveness and efficiency of a proposal in achieving its goals compared to some other proposal. In that vein here are what I would consider interesting and relevant questions about the IOF plan:

    Why combine a rise in ordinary corporate income tax rate with collecting most of the dividends from the IOFs as a secondary hidden corporate tax (the vast majority of IOF capped dividends would flow to the government)? Why not consolidate the IOF as a workers' participation measure and apply any new corporate tax distinctly, and perhaps in collectible form through the issuance of special non-voting shares as per Dean Baker's proposal? A potentially easier way to accomplish the distinct goal of transferring more corporate money to workers could be to modify wage/employment law to require all applicable companies pay a bonus equal to 10% of dividends from UK profits, whether or not capped at £500. Also, Employee Ownership Trusts were introduced in 2014 but apparently haven't seen much uptake - could those structures be modified to achieve some of the employee ownership goals without mandatory transfers? Employee participation goals could in part be met by Labour's existing Germany-style codetermination proposal.

    In the current IOF plan is there a mechanism for establishing IOFs at new companies? Of all questions this one is probably already answered - I'd bet on a continuing requirement to transfer 1% where applicable up to the 10% cap - but I can't recall locating what happens to companies that begin to fall into the criteria following the first tranche of IOF transfers. Without such a mechanism the full 10% IOF would only apply to companies that meet the criteria on the day of implementation and continue to meet the criteria for 10 years. Inversely, what happens to companies that fall below the employment threshold having already established an IOF?

    What are the mechanisms for collective management of IOF within a company? Is governance participatory or delegatory? Is there an expectation for how IOF managers will participate in corporate governance? For instance, since the IOF is capped the IOF has neither ability or incentive to grow itself. What kind of decision-making are IOFs predicted to engage in?

    Should workers be able to sell their stake in IOF, or to their entitlement to dividends from IOF? While a dividends cap cuts against inequality between workers, that most workers aren't covered by IOFs and there is lack of flexibility with respect to IOF rights in taking or leaving these jobs on the other hand increases inequality between workers.

    What happens with companies that are already cooperatives or employee-owned? What about existing partially employee-owned companies? And large companies that don't pay dividends?

    Does anything happen to existing individual employee stock in their own/other companies? What about convertible securities, stock options and warrants? Are C-suite and upper management employees covered by IOF?

    When the plan mentions "workers" does that include only employees or contractors and temporary workers as well? The dividend structure seems problematic in application to workers of more detached categories; they don't have as much skin in as full employees, and anyway is there a risk their hiring/firing could be organised around record dates for payment of dividends?

    You're in favour of this preposal simply because it fits your ideology - the fact is it's still ill thought out.

    Does the government have any ownership policies targeting all the many classes of workers who are not self-employed but still work for small/medium companies?

    What are estimates of distortion effects around (above/below) the 250 worker threshold? How will subsidiaries be treated compared to branches?





    I'm tired of learning about the UK, and I have to take time to familiarize myself with the below local election issues by Tuesday so please take a few days to carefully consider any response.
    This post is a smidge over 1500 words.

    All of this can be summed up simply. Litt:

    However you dress it up this is state seizure of property for the purposes of the state - even if that purpose is redistribution of wealth. This is fundamentally different to taxation because they are taking you money, not your property. In the UK there are already successful companies wholly own by their employees - the two most famous are the John Lewis Partnership and the Co-Operative group. One is a high-street retailer and grocer, the other is a banker, insurer and grocer.
    "If it wears trousers generally I don't pay attention."


  14. #224
    Formerly Wigferth Ironwall Senior Member Philippus Flavius Homovallumus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Isca
    Posts
    13,201

    Default Re: UK Politics Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
    Not-so-breaking news: Labour confirms second referendum and green reform package.
    Yeah?

    https://www.newstatesman.com/politic...-get-behind-it

    "It will negotiate a deal which secures our political departure from the EU, while seeking to retain economic and social benefits that protect jobs and maintains standards, based on principles the Party has consistently advocated, including customs arrangements and frictionless trade with the single market.

    There is little doubt that such a deal could be swiftly agreed with Brussels."

    Is this not just as much a fantasy as the Tory starting position?

    The implication here is that you're simply much more restrictive on the proper role of eminent domain than I am. For the briefest treatment of what's relevant here's what Wiki says: "In England and Wales, and other jurisdictions that follow the principles of English law, the related term compulsory purchase is used. The landowner is compensated with a price agreed or stipulated by an appropriate person. Where agreement on price cannot be achieved, the value of the taken land is determined by the Upper Tribunal." The state is always the final arbiter one way or another. There is no mandate to pay the owner their asking price. Is this system presumptively illegitimate? Insofar as the state can be permitted to overrule property claims, do you believe owners should always be paid their asking price and this never be negotiated downward? I don't. Leaving aside the real-world exigencies of our time, private property of this nature is an invention of the state, and the state shouldn't merely be an incestuous relationship of the propertied classes.
    Labour has made compulsory purchases and forced compulsory mergers before - we no longer have a car industry because of it and all our defence contracts go through one megacorp.

    In fact under certain circumstances allow for compulsory purchases - like during war or for necessary infrastructure. Rather like it's permissible to prorogue Parliament for a week before a new session but a gross overreach to do it for five weeks.

    That depends on the needs of the company of course. Walmart has been retiring stocks continuously for years, from over 4 billion outstanding in 2006 to over 2.8 billion recently. Amazon, meanwhile, has been slowly but steadily expanding, from over 400 million in 2006 to around half a billion lately (so, more than 1% a quarter typically).

    Stock options are another way for shares to be introduced into circulation, which is why companies also report diluted earnings per share that are predicated on the scenario of all convertibles becoming new outstanding stock. FYI. All in all we should understand that legally mandated creation of shares according to a set timetable is unlikely to cause chaos - financial markets will simply adapt, just as they do when companies normally and individually issue new stock (which can happen on a day's notice, rather than years' as in the IOF plan).

    Check this shit out:

    So investors take executive compensation in stride as it affects their equity stake ALL THE TIME, plus secondary offerings on zero notice, but a much smaller systematic transfer is economically and ideologically daft? Jog. On.
    Not the point - the point is that we're talking about government telling companies how to dispose of themselves - which always ends horribly.
    "If it wears trousers generally I don't pay attention."


  15. #225

    Default Re: UK Politics Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name View Post
    Sometimes I wonder how cheap people expect drugs to be. It's insanely expensive just to maintain the level of equipment and high quality precursors needed to produce molecules getting injected into bodies...
    https://gh.bmj.com/content/3/1/e000571

    Introduction There are persistent gaps in access to affordable medicines. The WHO Model List of Essential Medicines (EML) includes medicines considered necessary for functional health systems.

    Methods A generic price estimation formula was developed by reviewing published analyses of cost of production for medicines and assuming manufacture in India, which included costs of formulation, packaging, taxation and a 10% profit margin. Data on per-kilogram prices of active pharmaceutical ingredient exported from India were retrieved from an online database. Estimated prices were compared with the lowest globally available prices for HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis (TB) and malaria medicines, and current prices in the UK, South Africa and India.

    Results The estimation formula had good predictive accuracy for HIV/AIDS, TB and malaria medicines. Estimated generic prices ranged from US$0.01 to US$1.45 per unit, with most in the lower end of this range. Lowest available prices were greater than estimated generic prices for 214/277 (77%) comparable items in the UK, 142/212 (67%) in South Africa and 118/298 (40%) in India. Lowest available prices were more than three times above estimated generic price for 47% of cases compared in the UK and 22% in South Africa.

    Conclusion A wide range of medicines in the EML can be profitably manufactured at very low cost. Most EML medicines are sold in the UK and South Africa at prices significantly higher than those estimated from production costs. Generic price estimation and international price comparisons could empower government price negotiations and support cost-effectiveness calculations.

    Quote Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus View Post
    Yeah?

    https://www.newstatesman.com/politic...-get-behind-it

    "It will negotiate a deal which secures our political departure from the EU, while seeking to retain economic and social benefits that protect jobs and maintains standards, based on principles the Party has consistently advocated, including customs arrangements and frictionless trade with the single market.

    There is little doubt that such a deal could be swiftly agreed with Brussels."

    Is this not just as much a fantasy as the Tory starting position?
    Sure? As I've ranted in the Exit thread a couple times it would be less fantastical if Labour had adopted and been working on it since late 2018. Even better from an electoral POV had they explicitly positioned themselves as preparing the best plan to respect the wishes of either (broad) side regardless of the outcome of the referendum.

    In other not-so-breaking news, I found out Sanders had finally released the details of his employee ownership plan, and it seems to resemble Corbyn's but with double the fund cap, without the dividend cap, and perhaps a more robust criterion for what companies are included (revenue instead of employment figures). With his venturing beyond Corbyn's standar and his Green New Deal plan that includes bona fide nationalization, Sanders seems to finally be revealing his power level (which had previously hovered around "left-liberal").

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    Share Corporate Wealth with Workers. Under this plan, corporations with at least $100 million in annual revenue, corporations with at least $100 million in balance sheet total, and all publicly traded companies will be required to provide at least 2 percent of stock to their workers every year until the company is at least 20 percent owned by employees. This will be done through the issuing of new shares and the establishment of Democratic Employee Ownership Funds.
    These funds will be under the control of a Board of Trustees directly elected by the workforce. Employees will be guaranteed payments from the funds equivalent to their shares of ownership as equal partners in the funds.
    Workers will be guaranteed the right to vote the shares given to them through this plan. The funds will enjoy the same voting rights as any other institutional shareholder and their shares will not be permitted to be transferred or sold. Instead, they will be held permanently in trust for the workforce. Dividend payments will be made from the Funds directly to employees.
    According to the most recent statistics, 56 million workers in over 22,000 companies in America would benefit under this plan.An estimate based on data from over 1,000 companies shows that directing 20 percent of dividends to workers could provide an average dividend payment of over $5,000 per worker every year.


    Labour has made compulsory purchases and forced compulsory mergers before - we no longer have a car industry because of it and all our defence contracts go through one megacorp.

    In fact under certain circumstances allow for compulsory purchases - like during war or for necessary infrastructure. Rather like it's permissible to prorogue Parliament for a week before a new session but a gross overreach to do it for five weeks.
    There are two logical extremes here: The state has unlimited authority to adjust the valuation or ownership of property, or; the state has no authority to adjust the valuation or ownership of property. I doubt either of us falls on either extreme. A fair process, including price negotiation, is the key thing, not that the private owner or manager get whatever they want. Negotiation is formally a legitimate component of compulsory purchase; the contention is therefore only over the details of the process and compensation. I hope we can agree on that abstraction.

    I will grant you one thing however, that Corbyn is arguably taking a less prudent approach than he could - as seen here:

    A leaked Labour party document has revealed plans for a swift and sweeping renationalisation of the country’s £62bn energy networks at a price decided by Parliament.

    The blueprint, seen by the Telegraph, lays bare for the first time Mr Corbyn’s plan to bring all energy network companies under public ownership “immediately” following a Labour election win.
    If by "immediately" what is meant is an immediate start to the process, that's fine, but if it refers to arriving at the result then that's too fast for proper process.

    I've never heard of a legislature negotiating a price for nationalization - is that how it's been done in the UK in the past? I would assume the executive is normally responsible for such things, if pending on legislative approval. Corbyn, according to the Telegraph article, cities the Northern Rock nationalization as a precedent, but from Wiki the compensation there was worked out by an appointed arbitration panel, which sounds executive to me. Or is that the same as what is meant by "decided by Parliament?"

    Hopefully something that will be clarified.

    Not the point - the point is that we're talking about government telling companies how to dispose of themselves - which always ends horribly.
    What do you think of the minimum wage, or commercial and standards regulations in general?
    Vitiate Man.

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

  16. #226
    Ni dieu ni maître! Senior Member a completely inoffensive name's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    I live on the org, feeding off of what few thanks are tossed at my posts. It is up to you to make sure I don't starve.
    Posts
    8,410
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default Re: UK Politics Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
    Clarification: Proteins, anti-bodies and uncommon therapeutic molecules that haven't already been made for the past 50 years.
    In all these papers we see a love of honest work, an aversion to shams, a caution in the enunciation of conclusions, a distrust of rash generalizations and speculations based on uncertain premises. He was never anxious to add one more guess on doubtful matters in the hope of hitting the truth, or what might pass as such for a time, but was always ready to take infinite pains in the most careful testing of every theory. With these qualities was united a modesty which forbade the pushing of his own claims and desired no reputation except the unsought tribute of competent judges.

Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 45678

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO