Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
'I saw the angel in the marble and carved until I set him free'
About Me
Posts
Heroes
- Axel Leijonhufvud
- E.E.Evans-Pritchard
- Edmund Leach
- Francois Couperin
- Joan Robinson
- John Maynard Keynes
- Louis de Soissons
- Mario Draghi
- Noam Chomsky
- Pablo Picasso
- Paul Klee
- Pietro Porcinai
- The Earl of Onslow
- Umberto Boccioni
- Wassily Kandinski
- Wilhelm von Humboldt
Blog Archive
-
▼
2008
(473)
-
▼
February
(40)
- Touch
- Respect
- Buffy in Bloomsbury
- Indefeasible Entitlements and Politicians' Families
- Cleaning Up
- Tax, Havens, and Gordon Brown
- Brussels for Lunch
- Quasi Judicial Bodies, Quasi Legality, And Quasi D...
- Financial Satement
- How Much Lower Can Labour Sink?
- Nationalisation Without Compensation
- Who's Next?
- Temporary Nationalisation
- People's Socialist Republic of the North East Unve...
- Capisci?
- Troops Home Soon
- That'll Be the Daewoo
- Do Not Go Gentle Into That Good Night
- The Phillips Curve Is not Vertical
- Long Live the King!
- In Jobs But Not in Work
- Money Where Her Mouth Is?
- Sinking Under Labour
- Ooh Er Missus
- The Services and Prayers of a False Religion
- Creditable
- Advance Australia Fair
- Guilty
- Tartan Tories
- Crystal Balls
- Forward not Back
- Cats and Dogs
- Answer
- Application
- Seigniorage and Sleight of Hand
- Yahoo, a Packet of Woodbines, and Change
- A Run on the Country
- The Gift
- Perverting the Course of Social Justice
- Undoing the Damage
-
▼
February
(40)
Fallen Angels
- David Cameron (for risking the disorderly dissolution of the Euro)
- Giorgio Napolitano (for stance on Budapest 1956: Prague 1968: Italy 2013)
- Mervyn King (for bailing-out Northern Rock)
- Nicholas Kaldor (for inventing VAT)
4 comments:
Very succinct, and very true.
Has anyone seen any analysis of the legality of the process? I'm thinking about, (i) Human Rights Act 1998 and the shareholders; (ii) Competion rules and other banks, while politics comes into play when Charity Donations from a government entity are considered.
It is hard to understand why the Northern Rock Foundation should continue to hang limpet-like onto 'at least £15 million a year until 2012'.
(Darling's statement at the Treasury on Sunday).
The bank is bankrupt without our money, so presumably the Labour regime is just doling out client regime support from central funds. . Apart from being such notably unworthy recipients and projects, its objectives are solely concerned with people living in north east England.
Whether that's legal is doubtful too.
The only conceivable meaning of "temporary nationalisation" of an asset is the acquisition of a state leasehold while the freehold is retained by the original private owner.
Except that
- a lease is for a pre-determined period, while here the length of the "temporary" arrangement is not specified, not even in terms of conditions to be satisfied;
- a lease is suitable to a building or a plot of land, whose use and maintenance can be easily specified and routinised, so that the asset is preserved until the time when the lease falls due. It is not suitable to an enterprise, and even less suitable to a bank, whose own assets in turn can be sold, wasted, or depleted.
- there maybe nothing at all to be returned to the original shareholders at the end of the allegedly temporary arrangement. This is the most likely occurrance, unless the government finds some surreptitious way of transferring to the shareholders funds they are not entitled to, over and above the resources already sunk in this bottomless pit.
Thus your one-liner, HG, is indeed "very succint, and very true" (as john says).
Post a Comment