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!

How Much is a Corbyn?

1246737

Comments

  • chewmylegoff
    chewmylegoff Posts: 11,466 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    the only way to run an efficient train service is to nationalise it - and then staff it with people that will get prison time if they run late or any similar problems.


    We all know public sector attitudes. I have seen staff leave a man bleed to death in a station because they were on a tea break so couldn't call an ambulance.


    Therefore, money "allegedly" is not the issue. If a train is late - barring some kind of "natural" disaster, the management AND driver should be given 5 years inside.


    Then we'd see it run efficiently.

    What were you doing whilst he bled to death? Watching them having their tea break? Posting on MSE about how unfair it was that the govt took your middle class benefits away from you?
  • michaels
    michaels Posts: 29,133 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Photogenic Name Dropper
    Generali wrote: »
    It sounds like they stuck on a 10% takeover premium.

    Of course the reason buyers are willing to pay a takeover premium is that they think they can reduce costs and or have increased pricing power to make up for the overpayment.

    Which of course works in this case - a nationalised power supply company could slash costs on customer aquisition and retention (there is no competiton to defect to), increased buying power could screw down suppliers (look what the supermarkets can do to the farmers) and of course with no competiton prices to the customer can be set at whatever level suits. Of course there will be none of that nasty 'profit' element to pay the interest on the govt borrowing required to purchase the assets in the first place but nonetheless there will be ample scope for London Underground type salary and pension arrangements to be funded when setting the price to the consumer.
    I think....
  • michaels
    michaels Posts: 29,133 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Photogenic Name Dropper
    ahhh the joy of just thinking in our little box.

    I guarantee that if anyone did that they would be in so many international trade courts that we could power the country by burning the papers they produced and sent to Number 10.

    Not to mention that if you start pulling investment from under private companies, why would anyone invest in the UK at all? The capital flight from the UK would be frightening!


    I didn't hear any of that mentioned when Labour were proposing an 18 month price freeze. Surely it would only take this sort of scale of intervention to make the UK energy supply businesses effectively worthless.
    I think....
  • antrobus
    antrobus Posts: 17,386 Forumite
    MS1950 wrote: »
    If you're going to have a serious discussion on 'Corbynomics' - instead of listing various 'back of an envelope' speculations based on what are necessarily short and simplified policy statements made during the leadership election campaign - then I would have thought it worth starting with what is clearly the source of many of his ideas and proposals – the 'New Economics Foundation'.....

    I am aware of the 'New Economics Foundation'. They bring new meaning to the phrase 'economically illiterate'.
    MS1950 wrote: »
    ...Whatever their merits I would have thought that they can't simply be dismissed as a return to 'the 1980s' or 'Clause IV' (which incidentally was written by Sidney Webb - later Baron Passfield, founder member member of the Fabian Society set up to “advance the principles of socialism via gradualist and reformist means” - not Lenin).....

    Ah yes, Sidney Webb, delightful man, wanted to lock the poor up in Reformatory Detention Colonies in order to 'reform' their characters. Very pro-Stalinist, and very keen on eugenics. I wouldn't drag up that black sheep, if I were you.:)

    MS1950 wrote: »
    ....I haven't had the time to study the NEF's proposals in any depth in order to evaluate them – but a good starting point would seem to be several substantial reports that seem central to what Corbyn has been saying....

    I wouldn't waste your time.
  • martinsurrey
    martinsurrey Posts: 3,368 Forumite
    michaels wrote: »
    I didn't hear any of that mentioned when Labour were proposing an 18 month price freeze. Surely it would only take this sort of scale of intervention to make the UK energy supply businesses effectively worthless.

    http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/factcheck-pouring-cold-water-labours-fuel-price-freeze/15908

    "That timescale would give a new Labour government only a year to draft a complex new law that may well be subject to legal challenge by the industry under domestic and EU competition law."

    "Experts have told us they doubt whether the law can be changed in time to make this plan work, the law would probably be subject to lengthy legal challenge, and it may well have unintended negative consequences."

    but it just wasn't good headline material at the time.
  • Generali
    Generali Posts: 36,411 Forumite
    10,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    michaels wrote: »
    Of course the reason buyers are willing to pay a takeover premium is that they think they can reduce costs and or have increased pricing power to make up for the overpayment.

    I disagree with that quite fundamentally.

    The reason why the Board of Directors is prepared to pay a premium for another company is because the larger the company the more the board is paid for running it.

    About 65% of mergers and takeovers destroy value for shareholders of the buying company. More than that (can't recall the proportion though) result in the remaining directors earning more.
  • martinsurrey
    martinsurrey Posts: 3,368 Forumite
    Generali wrote: »
    About 65% of mergers and takeovers destroy value for shareholders of the buying company. More than that (can't recall the proportion though) result in the remaining directors earning more.

    source please.
  • martinsurrey
    martinsurrey Posts: 3,368 Forumite
    Generali wrote: »
    Thirty years from now there will be a huge amount of oil – and no buyers. Oil will be left in the ground. The Stone Age came to an end, not because we had a lack of stones, and the oil age will come to an end not because we have a lack of oil.” Sheikh Yamani

    and by the way, the quote in your sig is now half way to its 30 year prediction (said in 2000), yet global oil production is higher than 15 years ago.

    the stone age may have ended, but our use of stone didn't, I'm pretty sure we mine more stone now than the stone age folk ever managed.

    Its a good quote but why it was said was wrapped up in a much more complicated political situation.
  • Generali
    Generali Posts: 36,411 Forumite
    10,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    source please.

    Oh you mean apart from 20 years in the industry.

    https://wwz.unibas.ch/fileadmin/wwz/redaktion/Summer_School/2013/Yermack/Lys___Vincent_1995.pdf

    http://www.nber.org/digest/aug03/w9523.html

    https://www.eurofidai.org/Powell_2010.pdf

    You could, of course, take a CFA or CA and find out for yourself but I'm sure that a terse 'source please' is a far easier way of finding out.

    Now if you disagree, rather than just being a contrary annoyance, can you demonstrate how M&A adds value other than to the IBs and BoDs concerned please?

    My guess is that you can't because only VIs can show added value and that's because they're justifying the value added to them.

    I'd be happy to understand your theory of how M&A adds value for shareholders because I could make a fortune as a result. Seriously a mozza. Please help me be rich.
  • Generali
    Generali Posts: 36,411 Forumite
    10,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    and by the way, the quote in your sig is now half way to its 30 year prediction (said in 2000), yet global oil production is higher than 15 years ago.

    the stone age may have ended, but our use of stone didn't, I'm pretty sure we mine more stone now than the stone age folk ever managed.

    Its a good quote but why it was said was wrapped up in a much more complicated political situation.

    It's easy to knock someone else but what do you think will happen and why?
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 351.3K Banking & Borrowing
  • 253.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 453.8K Spending & Discounts
  • 244.3K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 599.5K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 177.1K Life & Family
  • 257.8K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
  • 37.6K Read-Only Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.