Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
If banks can not be allowed to fail, why should the state accept private ownership of banks? The owners takes no risk if it goes bad and cashes in if it goes good.

I believe the socialist parties used to have nationalisation of banks on their agendas, perhaps for this reason. So is it a good idea, bad idea or something else?

Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se

by A swedish kind of death on Wed Nov 28th, 2007 at 01:56:37 PM EST
Well, many French banks were nationalised after WWII. The Crédit Lyonnais scandal wasn't the French state's finest hour, though...

Un roi sans divertissement est un homme plein de misères
by linca (antonin POINT lucas AROBASE gmail.com) on Wed Nov 28th, 2007 at 02:19:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Something else like a Banking public/Private Partnership.

ie Public ownership of credit creation, with private operation, and with costs and defaults shared equitably.

Not far off what is going on with Bank of England and Northern Rock now, actually, except they haven't sorted out the equitable sharing bit yet.

"The future is already here -- it's just not very evenly distributed" William Gibson

by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Wed Nov 28th, 2007 at 02:19:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]


Occasional Series