This is why you need bitcoin...

in the UK “private” means not owned by the government. It has nothing to do with shares being tradeable.



engineering said:
#1 You didn't even post data on the correct company. I was referring to Coutts which is owned by Natwest group, of which the taxpayers own the controlling interest. RBS is a different entity under Natwest group.

#2 You're deliberately trying to mislead people with terminology out of context. The "private" you refer to is simply that the shares in the bank are not publicly listed for trading.
https://www.thebalancemoney.com/public-company-vs-private-company-what-s-the-difference-398422
The important factor for this discussion is obviously who owns the controlling interest.
This would be like claiming that a city is "private company" because it is
A) incorporated
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Municipal_corporation
And
B) you cannot buy shares on a public exchange
And therefore it can discrimate against whoever it wants because it's "private".

#3 Given the above, it would seem that you support banning yourself from your bank for misinformation because you're willing to pretend that taking public funds and creating a corporation controlled by a government results in a "private" company.


You're the kind of person who would try to tell us the BBC is "private" because it has "corporation" in its name rather than admitting what it is: state controlled media.
More...
 
Just wanted to add an update which directly addresses the crowd that thinks people should just get another bank because banks are private institutions anyway.

It looks like RFK addresses exactly this and I think he is absolutely spot on. They are absolutely central to the payment system which is a public good. And as he also rightly points out, if banks want to cut people off because of their political beliefs, then they should lose their special privelages that they have with the FED.

This guy is absolutely on fire! (and did you all see how be bought 2 bitcoins for each of his 7 grandchildren??)

2023-07-27 2246.04.png
2023-07-27 2246.20.png
 
Where do you think Robert F. stands on regulating BTC?
He seems to be in favor of having Government control the banks.
 
deaddog said:
Where do you think Robert F. stands on regulating BTC?
He seems to be in favor of having Government control the banks.
More...
He is very pro, and even wanted to back up, I forget what though, with 1% bitcoin.

He has already mentioned that what we have is crony capitalism, which is so true. Its always privatize profits and socialize losses. This BTFB program to keep banks afloat is exactly that.
 
newwurldmn said:
in the UK “private” means not owned by the government. It has nothing to do with shares being tradeable.
More...

Words have multiple meanings and implications in English regardless or the county. If someone's intent is to communicate clearly they'll use enough words to make their meaning unambiguous.

Someone here was being deliberately misleading by try to imply that a privately traded company meant independent from government. It means no such thing.

For example, the UK equivalent of the FAA is a public private partnership.
https://www.nats.aero/about-us/company/
The stock is privately traded. Someone like @Drawdown Addict would use that to imply it would be ok for NATS to block people whose politics they disagree with from using air travel.
 
No retail investor needs Bitcoin.
More...

Well, you know what else the retail investor doesn't need? HF-trading! Why make a few people rich, only to cause socialized losses when it blows up?

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top