Display:
It will cost a lot, because it means to bail out bondholders and the management. And I haven't seen so far any suggestion, how one can avoid this legally, unless all banks declare insolvency.
Even those banks, that are insolvent, will be able to hide that long enough until it is unnecessary.

Especially in the UK, the impression that the gov't backs all liabilities ($ and Euro denominated to a large part) of its big banks, threatens even the credit worthyness of the gov't. In case of an insolvency, you could guarantee with some hair cut on bond holders and excessive pay.
In case of Ireland I'm not sure, but there is as well some potential that the guarantees for the banks threaten the solvency of the state.

And then you have to scale down the financial sector. I predict, that this is done totally unsufficient, when the whole financial industry is in the hands of the gov't.

And by the way. In Germany 100% public owned banks control nearly half the market (and of course I have my account at a public bank). Wiki claims Sparkassen finance to 42% medium sized enterprises, they have the most private accounts, and there are other large players with partial public ownership (even before the current mess. By now I'm not sure, if there is any bank left without a public share).
Overall the public banks in Germany have done considerable worse than those that were fully private before the current mess. If someone would take a Landesbank for 1 Euro, I would advocate even now privatisation. Unfortunately I doubt anybody would take a Landesbank even for that right now.

The muddling with the banks that we already have seen of course is not libertarian at all. It is a corporatist fusioning of state and big banks. I could as easily argue it is close to the mindset of communists as somebody can claim it would be libertarian. The redistribution of wealth to people, that neither need it, nor have earned it, occurs as well, when taking 100% stakes instead smaller shares.

Der Amerikaner ist die Orchidee unter den Menschen
Volker Pispers

by Martin (weiser.mensch(at)googlemail.com) on Fri Jan 23rd, 2009 at 11:01:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Sovereigns have no obligation under international law to take on "odious" debts - e.g. debts that have been run up by colonies in the course of being plundered by their overlords, or purely fictitious debts created by accounting gimmicks to put a stranglehold on the public finances.

There are precedents. Cuba (IIRC), after one of the Spanish-American wars. Argentina, more recently. Russia also had a sovereign default in the late Yeltsin years.

- Jake

If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sat Jan 24th, 2009 at 03:18:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series