> RoMunn wrote: > Good analysis in this article about why nationalization is such a bad idea, > and why it is being considered anyway. > > http://www.iht.com/articles/2009/01/26/business/26banks.php >
But Sanger is missing the point: "nationalization" needn't mean the gov't running the banks. I'd put a program in place that does 2 things: (1.) If you, banks, would like to run to the gov't here's what going to happen: we're going to dissolve you, re-org your assets, and re-sell the result back to the public. (2.) You may decide to stay private with your current portfolio and management, but if you took gov't money you owe the gov't your full and entire accounting books. If you dont' have a viable business (i.e., you're a zombie), the gov't will take control of your assets under anti-trust (see #1). Then you bake in some incentive to existing investors to turn over the bank rather than have it confiscated. Done and done. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to date Get the Free Trial http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;207172674;29440083;f Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:286707 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
