There is enough intransparency, that nationalisation of banks would likely be a windfall for at least bond holders of the bank and the top management, because you can't abolish liabilities of the banks, unless they are defaulting in a state ruled by the law. I have already before written who I think were the main profiteers of the past banking industry inflation.
You can however create new banks and let those other banks vegetate until they either default or overcome the mess. It may be difficult for a new bank, to jump in everywhere, where the old banks were before. But there is no need for it, because banking has to shrink dramatically. We should stop playing capitalism as a Ponzi chain letter, build on ever more debt relative to the economic output. Der Amerikaner ist die Orchidee unter den MenschenVolker Pispers
There is enough intransparency, that nationalisation of banks would likely be a windfall for at least bond holders of the bank and the top management, because you can't abolish liabilities of the banks, unless they are defaulting in a state ruled by the law.
The banks that would require nationalization are those that are insolvent, and if they are insolvent, then a careful look at their books will show that they have not right to continue trading as a going concern.
We avoid the close look at the books because we are afraid of the bank failure, but if it is only the bank common stock getting wiped out, senior management getting sacked, and a pro-rata loss of value of the bank's bonds, then that is a company failure like any other ...
... that is, as long as the bank's account liabilities continue to be honored, we are protected from a melt-down of the monetary system, and if we are protected from a melt-down of the monetary system, then we can, indeed, take a close look at the books, and shut down those corporations that are trading while insolvent before they do any more damage. I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
