[Still Thinking]

South Africa's state-owned Land Bank said on Monday a plan to allow the state to seize land without compensation could trigger defaults that could cost the government 41 billion rand ($2.8 billion) if the bank's rights as a creditor are not protected.

1) How could the bank's 'rights' possibly be protected in an expropriation scenario?

2) Are these sheetheads actually saying they're OK with communism and theft so long as they don't get any on them? If so, I hope they lose their azz.

[Leaning Right]

> How could the bank’s ‘rights’ possibly be protected in an expropriation scenario? <

The government could bail them out by paying them (roughly) the value of the land. This would mean cranking up the printing presses, and more inflation. But hey, that’s just situation normal in a socialist paradise.

[ameribbean expat]

The bank is state-owned. It all zeros out, the debt is cancelled when ownership of the asset is recognized.

And now the state owns the land...hey...what do you think the odds are that the state just keeps the land instead of doing land reform? “I’m sorry, we, uh, I mean the state, has to take ownership otherwise the land bank would default. The repercussions in the international lending arena would be catastrophic...hey! ignore that bigazz party palace shaped like Beyonce’s booty being built over there in the distance...”

[tbw2]

The prior sales were generally at amounts to at least cover the mortgage even if they didn’t give land owners much money left over.