If you would, please re-read the part of the original post where the author talks about how families in Africa are literally losing their daily income. I’m guessing “a few days” can make a big difference here.
The BBC operates independently of the UK government. It is an autonomous entity that is publicly funded. It is not a “propaganda arm” of the UK government in the manner of state television.
This isn’t true. The content of the BBC is independent of the UK government. Even for the royal family and for foreign policy.
I am not British so I could be wrong however. If you have evidence that the BBC lacks autonomy when it comes to foreign policy or to the royal family please share it with the rest of us.
The BBC coverage of the royal family is always crawling. They tried to bury the Andrew story several times. The entire BBC is under royal charter.
As for supposed autonomy from the government... Watch BBC News, you can always get a good idea of who the UK will go to war with next... Before it happens. Their coverage of the Troubles was also reflective of the British government.
That's what a poor person would say. Fox news managed to get Donald Trump elected, whose net worth has gone up by billions.
Also, it's not real money, it's debt equity. Equity transfers are just rich people toys. They move the actual cost into the entity they purchase, and if it fails, whatever, it didn't cost them anything.
I don’t know what that means. You wrote something about debt equity not costing shareholders anything, but it’s trivial to see that all else being equal, a business with more debt will have a smaller market capitalization than a business with less debt.
The debt from the Time Warner and other purchases dragged ATT down from the top spot to 3rd, and boosted Tmobile to the top. The shareholders of ATT lost and the shareholders of Tmobile gained.
reply