Maggie was right

[DodgyAgent]

We don't borrow the money - we sold what we owned (shares) to get the money which are now owned by the company, which in turn owned by shareholders.

It's not debt.



You are so digging yourself deeper and deeper

Let's talk about it this time next year Rodders

Where has the money come from to "buy" your shares? However you try to spin it, you are still taking on debt. It may well be that you are settling this debt by giving back equity. This is no different than a mortgage except that the debt is repaid over a period of time.
Your "equity investment" on the other hand carries no such security (as with the dotcom companies) and when it crashes the bank behind the investor will then have some explaining to do.

[AtW]

The houses obviously weren't 'gifted' to people because if that was the case they wouldn't have had to take out mortgages to pay for them.

So, Thatcher sells off stock of houses in exchange for butt load of money that she'd have to borrow otherwise and in process gains votes where she would never get them. Brilliant move politically as I said, at least temporarily until Govt needed more social housing and had to pay more for it than they would have needed if they had owned the houses in the first place.

[Mich the Tester]

So, Thatcher sells off stock of houses in exchange for butt load of money that she'd have to borrow otherwise and in process gains votes where she would never get them.

So should she have given them away?

Make up your mind man.

[AtW]

Where has the money come from to "buy" your shares? However you try to spin it, you are still taking on debt. It may well be that you are settling this debt by giving back equity.

We've announced where money came from (banks are only involved to keep the money).

Look up equity investments, maybe take an evening MBA or something - you certainly lacking basic economic education.

It's not debt numpty - it's like saying that when you sell your house, then you get the money and this puts you in "debt" but nano-second later house ownership is transferred (in full or in part) to the party who paid for it and the debt is "settled".

Your "equity investment" on the other hand carries no such security (as with the dotcom companies) and when it crashes the bank behind the investor will then have some explaining to do.

I think I'll have a lot explaining to do to the investor if I continue wasting time talking to you

But I am glad we had this little talk - this time next year, mark my words - you'd probably be still calling cash as debt

[AtW]

So should she have given them away?

Social (council) housing (that's the one she sold?) should remain owned by the state - it's the best long term way.

Selling them is an easy way to pay off current problems that will cost more in the future.

[Mich the Tester]

Selling them is an easy way to pay off current problems

Problems which were caused by a Labour government who had 'run out of other people's money', as Margaret Thatcher said.

[DodgyAgent]

We've announced where money came from (banks are only involved to keep the money).

Look up equity investments, maybe take an evening MBA or something - you certainly lacking basic economic education.

It's not debt numpty - it's like saying that when you sell your house, then you get the money and this puts you in "debt" but nano-second later house ownership is transferred (in full or in part) to the party who paid for it and the debt is "settled".



I think I'll have a lot explaining to do to the investor if I continue wasting time talking to you

But I am glad we had this little talk - this time next year, mark my words - you'd probably be still calling cash as debt

It is still his cash that he is investing in your business. So the business has a debt to repay him. His security () is the ownership of a section of something that might () one day repay his money and make him a profit.

If your friend had used his money to buy 50% of my house. In return I had agreed to pay him on a monthly basis plus a percentage over 20 years in order to buy the remaining share of the house, it is no different from what you are doing, except that the investor would have been wiser investing in my house for a solid return rather than speculating on an iffy business run by a dodgy foreigner.

It was the latter type of risk that brought the economy down twice in recent years.

[AtW]

Problems which were caused by a Labour government who had 'run out of other people's money', as Margaret Thatcher said.

It's the people who got in debt - including those who voted Conservatives - I did not hear many on here complaining that the price of the houses and BTLs were too high.

[DodgyAgent]

It's the people who got in debt - including those who voted Conservatives - I did not hear many on here complaining that the price of the houses and BTLs were too high.

I bet your investor votes conservative

[Mich the Tester]

It's the people who got in debt - including those who voted Conservatives - I did not hear many on here complaining that the price of the houses and BTLs were too high.

Again, that is the responsibility of those individuals who make decisions over their own expenditure. It is quite a different matter for the government to get into debt by running out of other people's money.