He seems unaware of the law though.
4. Nationalization, expropriation or requisitioning shall be based on grounds or reasons of public utility, security or the national interest which are recognized as overriding purely individual or private interests, both domestic and foreign. In such cases the owner shall be paid appropriate compensation, in accordance with the rules in force in the State taking such measures in the exercise of its sovereignty and in accordance with international law. In any case where the question of compensation gives rise to a controversy, the national jurisdiction of the State taking such measures shall be exhausted. However, upon agreement by sovereign States and other parties concerned, settlement of the dispute should be made through arbitration or international adjudication.
That\’s the UN.
General Assembly resolution 1803 (XVII) of 14 December 1962, \”Permanent sovereignty over natural resources\”
Yup, we can nationalise the banks any time we want. All we\’ve got to do is pay for them.
£20 billion for Barclays, £92 billion for HSBC, £32 billion for Standard Chartered, do we buy all or part of Santander for £32 billion, all or part of Deutsche for £22 billion…..shit, this is getting expensive pretty fast, isn\’t it? And there\’s some 450 banking licences in the City of London…..
And yes, we have always paid when we\’ve nationalised something. If they were bust when we nationalised them then not a lot, obviously, but if they weren\’t then we\’ve coughed up full market value.
Just imagine, Ritchie is insisting that you should pay for Bob Diamond\’s share options to both vest and pay out at full value.
As you know from his previous posts, Tim, he thinks no compensation should be paid to shareholders. So expropriation of assets is where he’s at, even though it breaks UK and internatioal law. My SWP nephew would agree with him.
“shit, this is getting expensive pretty fast, isn’t it? ”
If you have a telly economist in your pocket you can do it cheaper by talking them into trouble.
No problem; he’ll just print some more money to pay for them.
You’re missing the big picture. This is why he supports the FTT, robbing bonuses, 50%, etc…
The aim is to reduce the market value of UK-based operations…
General Assembly resolutions are non-binding and so are not law.
Ah, if only you could just read
The context was nationalisation without compensation when the banks fail next time
As happened quite legitimately and properly in the case of Northern Rock
But why let a little detail like context in which the comment was made get in the way of snide comment?
Tim adds: A point I make Richard, try reading. If they’re bust then there’s little to no compensation due, as I say.
Northern Rock…the famous casino bank, with all those traders and dealers…
“Ah, if only you could just read
The context was nationalisation without compensation when the banks fail next time”
Well, I was stumped too. I assumed you wanted to nationalise all banks, including those that don’t fail.
Something in the headline ‘this time we nationalise the banks – and I mean all of them’ gave that impression.
Remember Railtrack: The Government deliberately made it go bust by stopping funds for work it was contracted to do. The benighted company was later revealed to have been making healthy profits at the time. Not sure of the details but I think some banks have still not been able to return their state deposit funding. relying on the state for deposit funding had was contrst
Sorry about the rubbish left on the end of previous comment. Thought I had read over to the end.
I must admit, I got the impression too that this meant nationalising ALL the banks, whether failing or not…..so thanks to Richard Murphy for clarifying that.
Yes, if banks are collapsing under the burden of massive losses shareholders must be wiped out and little or no compensation would be due. Not good news for pension funds.
I remain concerned though about the loading of £trillions of potentially or actually toxic assets on to the public balance sheet. I wonder just how much money we would have to print, or how much debt we would have to issue, to meet the liabilities arising from the failure of those assets.
Oh, and I don’t think there’s any such thing as “temporary” nationalisation. A bank crisis on this scale would mean bank shares not recovering to any kind of sensible value for years. Denationalisation would be a VERY long process. The thinking – a la Ritholz – seems to be that the failing banks would be broken up and asset-stripped, but given the deep recession that is bound to ensue from another major banking failure I’m not sure how easy it would be to find buyers for the “bits” at anything other than fire sale prices. However you look at it, it’s either near-permanent nationalisation or a massive public loss.
“based on grounds or reasons of public utility, security or the national interest which are recognized as overriding purely individual or private interest” – UN.
Incontrovertible PROOF that Richard Murphy should be nationalised ! And no, there would be no need to pay compensation ….
Alan Douglas
Oh, by the comment at #6 you certainly still have an avid reader. He just seems to be having a problem with the longer words.
Maybe you should consider a simplified version of the blog for the little people, perhaps with a puzzle & a picture to colour in…
The benighted company was later revealed to have been making healthy profits at the time.
No, that was made up by Railtrack shareholders. The resulting court case (although it did provide amusement for everyone by proving that Stephen Byers was a lying toad), found conclusively that this wasn’t the case, that the company was insolvent, and that refusing the loan and putting it into administration was the right thing to have done.
‘If you google Tim Worstall you’ll find his highest ranking category is trolling me
He and others can disagree, of course
I don’t need to give them the space to do so’
Err, doesn’t that make Ritchie, by his own definition, a troll ?
Richie, hilariously, is on Twitter claiming that he always debates his critics (sic.).
To someone he’s just blocked for asking awkward questions…
Richard Murphy is appearing / has appeared today as an ‘expert witness’ in the ‘Topshop trial’.
“this is getting expensive pretty fast, isn’t it?”
He didn’t think of that. He did his normal Murphyism and just spewed rubbish without thinking of reality.