FionaK |
|
| The reason you let them go bankrupt first (or rather admit that they are bankrupt) is because then you take them over without buying them: on account of the fact they are not worth anything. If you do not get them to admit it first, they will demand money, saying you are buying something worthwhile: see the history of nationalsing the railways and the mines in the UK. If the are nationalised because they have failed you may have to pay something for the buildings etc: but since you are going to confiscate the money made through fraud that can probably be set off.
Indeed part of the problem is that other funds are in the banks: either they stole them or they didn't. If they did then they are replaced by the money we are putting in the nationalise banks: which is no different from the current bailouts except we take control. If those funds are still there they are still there: ownership of the bank makes no difference.
|
| | |
