"Annoying as fuck" indicates a high level of annoyance and/or frustration. My point is that if 7 words in the opening line of an email (which are trivially easy to skip or ignore) create that level of annoyance then something isn't right.
I absolutely agree that people who are overly verbose, who step around the point they are making with flowery language, and use a thousand words when a few will do can make it considerably harder to extract a clear meaning, purpose, or instruction from that peice of communication.
But that isn't what Op started with. Op said the opening line is what was annoying as fuck. That is what I was challenging them on.
Lenders to Thames argue that forcing them to incur losses on their debts would also drive up the cost of borrowing for all UK water companies, and potentially other utilities such as gas and electricity.
Oh absolutely, Ofwat are also unbelievably shit. The point is however is that fundamental market failures like natural monopolies cannot be solved by regulatory bodies.
That's not to give Ofwat an out, they have utterly fucked this and can be argue to have been captured, but even if they were perfect a privatised water system would still fail.
I would have so much more respect for the FT - and The Economist - if they actually acknowledged market failure rather than pretending it's always regulatory or government.
If owners want to load their companies with debt (and they did), equity and debt holders should know they are gaining higher potential returns at the price of greater risk. These are decisions the private sector is well placed to make.
I love the FT, they are so absolutely blinded by capitalism being the only possible method. This is a crisis literally created by capitalist greed and assets stripping / debt loading, demonstrating that risk is not taken seriously because of limited liability. Get the money and get out, simple.
If you think this is the behaviour of entities well placed to make these decisions then I have a bridge to sell you.
A natural monopoly is one of the most basic forms of market failure, and to suggest otherwise is a laughabe level of economic illiteracy.
Oh absolutely, my main point is that the people doing the work are more important than the people who don't.
The implication being that removing the "no control, all the work, vs "total control, none of the work" paradigm it would reduce the amount of unethical behaviour that is coerced from workers. It won't get to 0, and I agree that there still needs to be extensive regulation, but it would be an improvement.
Begotten is so weird, I don't think I've ever managed to pay attention all the way through.