• hitmyspot@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    8 months ago

    Why not let it collapse. Let them claim bankruptcy. It might mean lenders in the future require better governance. Or it might lead to pushes to reclaim monies inappropriately siphoned off.

    • jonne@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      26
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      Yep, bankruptcy and let the state or a cooperative buy the assets, not the liabilities.

      • hitmyspot@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        8 months ago

        Exactly. Let the investors and banks that allowed them, eat the losses. That’s what privatization is. Risk.

        Unfortunately, commercial interests in the governments ear will try to say that it will cost them as they will get less for future provatisations. Good. If they are not commercially viable, don’t do them. They forget in that argument that they may get more but they would be on the hook for more later to clean up similar messes.

    • HumanPenguin@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      Yep. The UK in the past has had the military distribute water. 1976 when heat caused shortage issues. But other times as well when communities have had issues.

      Same thing can be done in 2024 while the company struggles to survive. I’d much rather money spent on that. Then paying of investors who made loans based on bad company investment.

      Why tf teach lenders that the UK will bail out companies that fail to invest in the inferstructure they manage.