We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide
Trade deficit widens..
Comments
-
I think you illustrate the fact that the fortunes of major international companies and the fortunes of the original host country are not necessarily aligned.
do you mean that the USA, Germany, Italy etc should have forbidden UK companies from investing in their respective countries?
or do you mean the UK government should forbid selling foreign assets once acquired?0 -
I think you illustrate the fact that the fortunes of major international companies and the fortunes of the original host country are not necessarily aligned.
Or that the UK takes a very different stance to many other countries. When it comes to ownership. Short termism in taking a profit. Rather than holding an investment for the longer term.0 -
I think you illustrate the fact that the fortunes of major international companies and the fortunes of the original host country are not necessarily aligned.
It is all very efficient though apparently. Shareholders own each other in different countries have no allegiance to anywhere, pay as little tax into the system as possible, flit from one domicile to the next to pay even less.
Then the G20+ countries can all get together, share information, to try and catch up with them.
The wealth trickles down and there is no need to for governments to underwrite those that are too big to fail and or provide key products and services. If weak companies fail and take down others with them the strong persevere and things get better. Volatility doesn't matter continuous unnecessary change is good brings out the best. It works much better when there is endless credit and provident individuals to milk for some reason."If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future.".....
"big business is parasitic, like a mosquito, whereas I prefer the lighter touch, like that of a butterfly. "A butterfly can suck honey from the flower without damaging it," "Arunachalam Muruganantham0 -
shareholders i.e pension funds, ordinary people etc hold shares in vodaphone
vodaphone hold shares in US verizon
after the sale
the existing shareholders will own shares in vodaphone and also they will hold shares directly in verizon
the total wealth of the shareholders will be largely unchanged
this clearly shows why we need state control of mobile phone companies and indeed tighter control of all multinationals0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 354K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.3K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.3K Spending & Discounts
- 247.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 603.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.3K Life & Family
- 261.2K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards