Snorvey wrote:Wouldn't you just base it on the Market Capitalisation of the companies invloved?
On the other hand, it could cost as little as nothing (i.e., we're siezing that in the name of the United Kingdom and it's people)
Aha. You are Jeremy Corbyn. I claim my £5.
There are lots of people talking about nationalisation. I am old enough to remember some of the down sides. I remember what it was like trying to get a telephone comnnected to a house before BT was de-nationalised. Two months? You have got to be kidding.
However, the other thing which always puts me off nationalisation goes back to my first job. My first employer was Ferranti - a moderately successful (at the time) company in the defence industry. Amongst their various products was one which nobody else in the world could make. The MOD needed these products, and Ferranti contracted to sell the products to the MOD at an agreed price. It turned out that the profit margin was rather high - quite excessive in fact, but then, if you are the only supplier, you can charge what ever you want. So, that's is one of my disagreements with nationalisation. The second and more important reason goes back to how the government and MOD decided to fix the Ferranti excess profits issue. They implemented a scheme which would ensure that they would never be ripped off again. It was caled "cost plus". Whenever a defence supplier wanted to sell a widget to the MOD, a cost plus contract would be drawn up. Then, the development and manufacture of the widget would be monitored down to the cost of every man-hour, paperclip, staple and photocopied sheet (yes, really). The MOD would then pay all this, plus an agreed profit margin. What could possibly be wrong with that? In my first boss's words, "the more cost, the more plus".
And that's why I think mationalisation is not the answer.