Wot no Northern Rock nationalisation thread?
Feb 19 2008 14:58
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7249575.stm
All a bit surreal, I liked this quote though:
George Osborne wrote:
"We now have the situation where the government will be making decisions on whether or not to foreclose on people's loans in a falling housing market," he added.
Feb 19 2008 17:23
#2
given the layoffs would have happened either way i don't think the nationalisation issue comes into that particular aspect whatsoever
Feb 19 2008 17:31
#3
oisleep wrote:
given the layoffs would have happened either way i don't think the nationalisation issue comes into that particular aspect whatsoever
I think his point is that nationalisation will do nothing to stop the layoffs - yet you'll still see various groups calling for it whenever there's redundancies at a high profile workplace.
Like Workers Power and Ryton, to give a recent example.
Feb 19 2008 17:58
#4
Quote:
I think everyone's a bit stunned by it!
I would have been, but it's been on the cards since Gerry Robinson came out for it on Newsnight.
Quote:
"We now have the situation where the government will be making decisions on whether or not to foreclose on people's loans in a falling housing market"
They could field it out to local government, let housing associations rent the places back to those who default on their payments (Ha ha, like right-to-buy-in-reverse) or deploy the same bailiffs they use for council tax arrears.
Feb 19 2008 17:58
#5
how much did they buy the shares for in the end?
Feb 19 2008 18:03
#6
Nothing, you can't sell 'em as they're suspended (at 90p). It's a funny old "nationalisation" really, hardly one at all in fact. I expect they'll be acquired at that price at some point.
Feb 19 2008 18:15
#7
I always thought that a business went bust then the shareholders had to pay off all the debts rather than ask for money.
Feb 19 2008 18:20
#8
Quote:
I always thought that a business went bust then the shareholders had to pay off all the debts rather than ask for money.
Hardly. A "limited" company means limited liability to prevent exactly that (i.e. liability for the debts).
The fact that they (along with every other company that's ever gone bust) are screaming for money is just a symptom of capital's incurable addiction to state support.
Feb 19 2008 18:24
#9
Ha ha. Capital's addiction? There's a magical belief for you. Like God’s law. Either way, lenders to small limited liability companies commonly ask directors to put their homes up for security unless the firm has assets signed into it.
Feb 19 2008 18:25
#10
Carousel wrote:
Nothing, you can't sell 'em as they're suspended (at 90p). It's a funny old "nationalisation" really, hardly one at all in fact. I expect they'll be acquired at that price at some point.
doubt it, they were only at that price because of the emergency funding from the govt, in a real free market that wouldn't happen, the bank would not have funding to continue and would go tits up and the shares would be valued at nothing which is what they should be, still hasn't stopped the hedge funds demanding £4 a share though in 'compensation'
Feb 19 2008 18:28
#11
catch wrote:
oisleep wrote:
given the layoffs would have happened either way i don't think the nationalisation issue comes into that particular aspect whatsoeverI think his point is that nationalisation will do nothing to stop the layoffs - yet you'll still see various groups calling for it whenever there's redundancies at a high profile workplace.
Like Workers Power and Ryton, to give a recent example.
nothing would do anything to stop the layoffs, so as i said the nationalisation issue doesn't come into it
Feb 19 2008 18:29
#12
Quote:
doubt it
The shares have been suspended at 90p. That's what they'll be acquired at, you wait and see. Ha ha. I maybe wrong I suppose. Northern Rock was backed by the BoE anyway. The question in my mind is, is the BoE technically "nationalised" or not? I’m not sure if it is. I tell you, Northern Rock's assets are worth a lot more than the market's £379 million asking price.
Feb 19 2008 18:33
#13
trading in shares were suspended
they were at 90p when that happened
these are two different things
the amount paid will decided by an independent arbitrator and the only fair valuation is zero (that's not to say that will be what is settled on though)
i think the BOE is counted as nationalised by the ONS (as has been northern rock for some time)
Feb 19 2008 18:36
#14
Didn't we have the same situation with railtrack?
Feb 19 2008 18:43
#15
Quote:
i think the BOE is counted as nationalised
Fair enough. What about the ECB? Somehow the notion of the Independant Central Bank counted as a de-nationalisation. Don't you think so? I dunno.
Feb 19 2008 18:45
#16
different circumstances but practically the same situation in terms of govt (correctly) saying it's worth zero but shareholders saying otherwise
they ended up getting quite a bit for it in the end
Feb 19 2008 18:47
#17
Nationalise Luton Town FC!
Feb 19 2008 18:49
#18
I once attempted to nationalise all the late night eateries.
Feb 19 2008 18:50
#19
Carousel wrote:
Quote:
i think the BOE is counted as nationalisedFair enough. What about the ECB? Somehow the notion of the Independant Central Bank counted as a de-nationalisation. Don't you think? I dunno.
what do you mean in that because it was made independent of the treasury there's a case to say it's been de-nationalised?
i think because the assets & liablilities of the BOE are on the govts books and ultimately they have the power to take away the indepedence then that would be more than enough to continue to see it as nationalised
think the same thing would apply to the ECB as ultimately it's owned/funded by the national central banks of the euro zone countries (if they still exist?)
Feb 19 2008 18:50
#20
Quote:
nothing would do anything to stop the layoffs, so as i said the nationalisation issue doesn't come into it
The leftists would argue that the state could stop the layoffs if it really wanted to, because they believe that the proletariat can express its interests through the state.
Feb 19 2008 18:51
#21
Carousel wrote:
I once attempted to nationalise all the late night eateries.
and did socialism shortly follow?
Feb 19 2008 18:57
#22
Demogorgon303 wrote:
Quote:
nothing would do anything to stop the layoffs, so as i said the nationalisation issue doesn't come into itThe leftists would argue that the state could stop the layoffs if it really wanted to, because they believe that the proletariat can express its interests through the state.
fair enough, although that shows the danger of rooting any discussion about anything in the context about what the stock position of leftists/anarchists think about it
Feb 19 2008 19:01
#23
Quote:
fair enough, although that shows the danger of rooting any discussion about anything in the context about what the stock position of leftists/anarchists think about it
Well, I didn't intend to have a serious discussion about it, it was more of a random thought. Besides, depressing as it may be, we can't ignore their influence.
Feb 19 2008 19:06
#24
Quote:
what do you mean in that because it was made independent of the treasury there's a case to say it's been de-nationalised?
Amazingly, it would seem so. A flimsy case. As you say Mervyn’s salary is paid in tax, ha ha, he probably qualifies as working class from some Marxist perspective or other.
Quote:
The leftists would argue that the state could stop the layoffs if it really wanted to, because they believe that the proletariat can express its interests through the state.
As do many others, I’m sure, through whatever euphemism they substitute for the state. Nationalisation is a legal construct after all. Fair play though, the agenda should be one of sustaining incomes rather than saving jobs, I’m sure there’s something else they’d like to try.
Quote:
we can't ignore their influence.
Watch me. What influence anyway?
Feb 19 2008 19:43
#25
Demogorgon303 wrote:
Quote:
fair enough, although that shows the danger of rooting any discussion about anything in the context about what the stock position of leftists/anarchists think about itWell, I didn't intend to have a serious discussion about it, it was more of a random thought. Besides, depressing as it may be, we can't ignore their influence.
part of the lefts/anarchists problem is that they seem unable to do just that
Feb 19 2008 20:54
#26
oisleep wrote:
catch wrote:
oisleep wrote:
given the layoffs would have happened either way i don't think the nationalisation issue comes into that particular aspect whatsoeverI think his point is that nationalisation will do nothing to stop the layoffs - yet you'll still see various groups calling for it whenever there's redundancies at a high profile workplace.
Like Workers Power and Ryton, to give a recent example.
nothing would do anything to stop the layoffs, so as i said the nationalisation issue doesn't come into it
Yes exactly. Do you think nationalisation would stop layoffs in other circumstances? Especially since is the first actual nationalisation of a company for what, 20 or 30 years?
edit: oh I see you already responded.
Feb 19 2008 21:30
#27
Quote:
the lefts/anarchists problem
I wouldn’t say it causes them a problem. It's more of a built-in trait, that is to say, they are as much a part of that overall "influence" as they are its victims. Jesus, I'm anthropomorphising metaphysical constructs myself now. Sorry.
Feb 20 2008 08:23
#28
Quote:
part of the lefts/anarchists problem is that they seem unable to do just that
Why would they? Their purpose isn't to generate clarity for the class but to maintain bourgeois ideology and illusions (esp. concerning the state) among the working class. They're unable to conceive of the working class outside of the framework of the state, unions, etc.
Quote:
nothing would do anything to stop the layoffs
We all seem to agree with this, but I suspect for different reasons. I think it's because the bourgeoisie are genuinely threatened by this crisis and have a very limited room to manouvre. What do other people think?
Feb 20 2008 09:37
#29
Quote:
I think it's because the bourgeoisie are genuinely threatened by this crisis and have a very limited room to manouvre. What do other people think?
As a bourgeois myself, I think this “crisis” only further consolidates my already advantageous position. My stable assets and income provide even greater leverage now the relative position of others is all the more precarious. It bodes well, for instance, for my plans to sexually exploit the local wannabes for both my own gratification and modest financial gain.
Feb 20 2008 10:25
#30
Demogorgon303 wrote:
Their purpose isn't to generate clarity for the class but to maintain bourgeois ideology and illusions (esp. concerning the state) among the working class.
And we would have gotten away with it too, if it wasn't for those pesky left-communists!
I think everyone's a bit stunned by it!
There's no doubt the whole thing is pretty much a disaster though. Of course, the massive lay-offs that have already been announced won't dampen leftist enthusiasm for nationalisation.