You're wondering why the author hasn't provided a detailed 'risk matrix' and a detailed overview of economic theory in a 1000 word article designed for non-specialists?
Would you like to share your risk matrix with us then? Or outline some of the 'theories' that have informed your detailed understanding of the matter? Or perhaps you just like saying 'risk matrix'?
What, specifically, do you see as long-term risks to rail and utilities ownership in the UK?
One poster has already compared state ownership of UK rail and electricity to Leeds United and then the American speculative housing bubble, which is quite... boutique
Why spend thirty seconds doing your homework when you can just lob idle self-serving assumptions instead? What have you uncovered about the author's background or experience which calls his judgement into doubt? Why, specifically, should we distrust him? Or just baseless speculation then?
The New Statesman editorial line has been hostile to Corbyn since day one, incidentally.
Interest rates likely would go up as result of Labour's programme, and as I've explained several times elsewhere and can't be bothered to get into again, this is a feature not a bug, because without sensible interest rates, pensions and eventually banks are in grave danger and capital is forced into high-risk speculative gambits of the sort that caused the last crash
On the other hand, I might be wrong, because of 'risk' and 'theories'
Well, yeah...there does need to be a risk matrix created which would no doubt consist of algorithms pumped in by (most likely) PHDs...
The author hasnt even mentioned that (or used simplistic terms) to describe other key fundamental and technical issues with their "dont worry if it fails, the state can just sell it off and breakeven" theory. They have given ONE scenario without any other options, which even for discussion purposes is laughable.
The reason the authors work experience is important is due to my own personal and professional experience with PHD holders...heres the first 3 i met;
1st: French guy holding doctorate in Space Physics from Tokyo university = then became a masseuse when his theories didnt match reality lol
2nd: Romanian girl holding a PHD from psychology studies = no personal communication skills, just staring or shouting at people about 'her views' = became an unpaid womans rights activist in the US after marrying a local for a visa...
3rd; English guy with PHD in something fund related = escaped out of Japan before a trial after beating up his girlfriend. Got a banking job in Singapore for a year...married his girlfriend and then after being booted from his job lived off his wifes earnings as a camgirl.
So for me, PHDs have no credibility when compared to real life experience in their field.
I imagine the author doesnt have any experience because if they submitted a document with only one viewpoint and no risk analysis proving it was the only real option they wouldnt be in their job for long.
We can discuss this or the other points about interest rates potential to cause serious issues (or not) in repayments. However, like i asked;
Was Corbyn lying or doesnt he understand borrowing ?
No, I compared the method of funding, (namely, the widely discredited financial instrument of securitisation )the state ownership of UK rail, electricity etc you were championing as the way forward to the previous ownership of Leeds United and used the American housing market crash as an example of it's catastrophic failure. I did not criticise state ownership of those utilities per se, only your questionable methods of funding. Instead of getting the hump with other posters when someone questions your explanations, why not provide some support for your arguments? Funding of the purchase of the assets of public utilities by the state by the method of securitisation is the way forward because.......??
I think you might be confusing my use of the word 'secure' with this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Securitization
Not the same thing.
The issue really isnt the way its done, or the terminology, or even the risk...
The issue should be if Corbyn is lying or he doesnt know how he would fund one of the major items in his manifesto...
