Smart economist Alex Tabarrok at Marginal Revolution thinks some form of bank nationalisation is now desirable and anyway inevitable. But it shouldn't be called 'nationalisation':
The debate so far has been framed between a "bailout" and "nationalization." But the public rightly sees the bailout as a way to protect bankers and thus we get pressure for government ownership, which has already happened in part through government control over banker wages. Bankruptcy in contrast is a normal free market procedure, it emphasizes that the firm has failed and current management should be removed. Framing the issue in this way, for example, makes it clear that only the depositors should be protected and under reorganization there should be no control over wages on future management (wages are going to have to be high to get anyone to take on the task). Finally the idea of bankruptcy makes it clear the goal is to get banks solvent, under new management, and back under private control as quickly as possible.
I believe that post is by Tyler's equally smart blogging partner Alex Tabarrok.
Posted by: J | February 17, 2009 at 01:19 PM
Thanks J - I've corrected.
Posted by: Ian Leslie | February 17, 2009 at 01:46 PM