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.