Well, and with good reason, right? If the government goes writing off debts, it makes lending less attractive, and lending fuels the economy by increasing the money supply.
Wrong. Paying debts allows banks to lend money to companies they would never consider worth the risk. If they did not think the gov was to scared to help.
No truly private company making the choices Thames Water etc al have done. Would have been lent the money they were.
Debt was given by private banks where other companies artificially upping share price while failing to maintain assets. Would be told to fuck off. The banks depended on gov refusing to let the shareholders suffer. And profited from it.
As such those debts value should be the same as any other bankrupt corperation. The assets were never theirs but placed in trust with them as management contractors. That did not manage. And turned to the gov for funding for any expansion. So they had no assets to secure the debt. We should not be supporting stupid banks again.
Personally I’d argue that the overall cost to society as a whole in letting the current corrupt system of privatised water companies extract money from the country and funnel it into the pockets of hedge funds and fail to fulfill their basic responsibilities continue is greater than the temporary squeezing of lending on certain companies.
I think the extractive setup can be resolved without clearing the existing debt, so there’s a half way house where we don’t do anything to spook the banks.
The tradeoff there is in the one hand deterring investment and in the other not having massive debt on the public books. And you could argue that the principle is that banks should be reluctant to lend to such exploitative profit extractors. But I don’t think the banks will learn that lesson, because they’re not set up to work that out (and it won’t always be obvious) so I think the “temporary squeeze” would last for a long time…
If the government had any guts they’d nationalise them all tomorrow and write off debts but they’re too scared of the banks.
Well, and with good reason, right? If the government goes writing off debts, it makes lending less attractive, and lending fuels the economy by increasing the money supply.
Wrong. Paying debts allows banks to lend money to companies they would never consider worth the risk. If they did not think the gov was to scared to help.
No truly private company making the choices Thames Water etc al have done. Would have been lent the money they were.
Debt was given by private banks where other companies artificially upping share price while failing to maintain assets. Would be told to fuck off. The banks depended on gov refusing to let the shareholders suffer. And profited from it.
As such those debts value should be the same as any other bankrupt corperation. The assets were never theirs but placed in trust with them as management contractors. That did not manage. And turned to the gov for funding for any expansion. So they had no assets to secure the debt. We should not be supporting stupid banks again.
Personally I’d argue that the overall cost to society as a whole in letting the current corrupt system of privatised water companies extract money from the country and funnel it into the pockets of hedge funds and fail to fulfill their basic responsibilities continue is greater than the temporary squeezing of lending on certain companies.
I think the extractive setup can be resolved without clearing the existing debt, so there’s a half way house where we don’t do anything to spook the banks.
The tradeoff there is in the one hand deterring investment and in the other not having massive debt on the public books. And you could argue that the principle is that banks should be reluctant to lend to such exploitative profit extractors. But I don’t think the banks will learn that lesson, because they’re not set up to work that out (and it won’t always be obvious) so I think the “temporary squeeze” would last for a long time…