Bank nationalisation
-
why this fear of bank nationalisation. it can't be so bad. it's better than having no bank.
-
why this fear of bank nationalisation. it can't be so bad. it's better than having no bank.
But you would have massive, powerful companies run by politicians! Politicians can't run anything! If they could, the banks wouldn't have been allowed to get into this situation in the first place!
------------------------------------ "May I introduce Blon Fel-Fotch Pasermeer-Day Slitheen from the planet Raxacoricofallapatorious, known by her friends as Margaret" The Doctor
-
But you would have massive, powerful companies run by politicians! Politicians can't run anything! If they could, the banks wouldn't have been allowed to get into this situation in the first place!
------------------------------------ "May I introduce Blon Fel-Fotch Pasermeer-Day Slitheen from the planet Raxacoricofallapatorious, known by her friends as Margaret" The Doctor
if the government becomes a majority stock holder, the bank's board of directors would contain civil servants or elected officials. so what? is it fear of mismanagement by the government ? these banks are already mismanaged, no one can do worse than this. india nationalised it's major banks by an act of pariliament decades ago. none of them went under. this fear of bank nationalisation is pure sentiment, some kind of ideological aversion.
-
But you would have massive, powerful companies run by politicians! Politicians can't run anything! If they could, the banks wouldn't have been allowed to get into this situation in the first place!
------------------------------------ "May I introduce Blon Fel-Fotch Pasermeer-Day Slitheen from the planet Raxacoricofallapatorious, known by her friends as Margaret" The Doctor
Maybe different countries have different attitudes towards nationalization, and even different perceptions of Govt competency. I never thought I'd claim India's Govt is more effective than, say, the USA's or the UK's, but nationalized banks here are much sought after for safety and stability.
Cheers, Vıkram.
I've never ever worked anywhere where there has not been someone who given the choice I would not work with again. It's a job, you do your work, put up with the people you don't like, accept there are probably people there that don't like you a lot, and look forward to the weekends. - Josh Gray.
-
why this fear of bank nationalisation. it can't be so bad. it's better than having no bank.
Yes it can. The US gov't is spending about 1Trillion dollars more than it brings in... Do you really want these same people running the banks? Granted the executives in the private sector fucked up, but the government should just be letting them fail. The only smart thing to do is to let the market work itself out. A Socialist or Communist government managed economy is not going to work. It never does.
I didn't get any requirements for the signature
-
why this fear of bank nationalisation. it can't be so bad. it's better than having no bank.
I still want to find out who even suggested this idea. Obama claims he doesn't want it, the CEO's of the banks claim they don't need it yet there is so much bruhaha over that concept that it seems some one is leaking information that nationalization is possible, either that or the media is intentionally fanning the fire with their constant analysis of every niggling detail.
Need custom software developed? I do C# development and consulting all over the United States.
A man said to the universe: "Sir I exist!" "However," replied the universe, "The fact has not created in me A sense of obligation." --Stephen Crane -
Maybe different countries have different attitudes towards nationalization, and even different perceptions of Govt competency. I never thought I'd claim India's Govt is more effective than, say, the USA's or the UK's, but nationalized banks here are much sought after for safety and stability.
Cheers, Vıkram.
I've never ever worked anywhere where there has not been someone who given the choice I would not work with again. It's a job, you do your work, put up with the people you don't like, accept there are probably people there that don't like you a lot, and look forward to the weekends. - Josh Gray.
Vikram A Punathambekar wrote:
I never thought I'd claim India's Govt is more effective than, say, the USA's or the UK's, but nationalized banks here are much sought after for safety and stability.
Exactly. The US government may do a much better job. these people think government ownership of a few banks makes them a socialist country or some such thing. how silly. it is merely a phobia. it's like the muslim who won't use an alcohol based perfume or the the homophobe who fears to use a pink coloured toothpaste.
-
Yes it can. The US gov't is spending about 1Trillion dollars more than it brings in... Do you really want these same people running the banks? Granted the executives in the private sector fucked up, but the government should just be letting them fail. The only smart thing to do is to let the market work itself out. A Socialist or Communist government managed economy is not going to work. It never does.
I didn't get any requirements for the signature
government ownership of a few banks will not make it a socialist country, but failure of almost all the banks will turn it into a banana republic.
-
why this fear of bank nationalisation. it can't be so bad. it's better than having no bank.
Bank of America was a healthy bank. It was forced at the end of govi shot gun to merge with Leman Brothers, now it's choking on the acquisition and causing Bank of America to sink. Competency in action. One remembers the soviet state run industries of or'e, oh, how those under 40 forget.
MrPlankton
The Second Amendment, the Reset Button on the Constitution --- He that lives upon hope will die fasting. Benjamin Franklin -
Vikram A Punathambekar wrote:
I never thought I'd claim India's Govt is more effective than, say, the USA's or the UK's, but nationalized banks here are much sought after for safety and stability.
Exactly. The US government may do a much better job. these people think government ownership of a few banks makes them a socialist country or some such thing. how silly. it is merely a phobia. it's like the muslim who won't use an alcohol based perfume or the the homophobe who fears to use a pink coloured toothpaste.
Spot on with the analogies, couldn't have put it better myself :thumbsup:
Cheers, Vıkram.
I've never ever worked anywhere where there has not been someone who given the choice I would not work with again. It's a job, you do your work, put up with the people you don't like, accept there are probably people there that don't like you a lot, and look forward to the weekends. - Josh Gray.
-
Bank of America was a healthy bank. It was forced at the end of govi shot gun to merge with Leman Brothers, now it's choking on the acquisition and causing Bank of America to sink. Competency in action. One remembers the soviet state run industries of or'e, oh, how those under 40 forget.
MrPlankton
The Second Amendment, the Reset Button on the Constitution --- He that lives upon hope will die fasting. Benjamin FranklinMrPlankton wrote:
Bank of America was a healthy bank. It was forced at the end of govi shot gun to merge with Leman Brothers
1. BAC acquired Merrill. Lehman went bust. 2. BAC by itself recorded a loss in Q4 2008. This was pre merger. But you are right in that there was intense Govt pressure to go ahead with the acquisition.
Cheers, Vıkram.
I've never ever worked anywhere where there has not been someone who given the choice I would not work with again. It's a job, you do your work, put up with the people you don't like, accept there are probably people there that don't like you a lot, and look forward to the weekends. - Josh Gray.
-
Yes it can. The US gov't is spending about 1Trillion dollars more than it brings in... Do you really want these same people running the banks? Granted the executives in the private sector fucked up, but the government should just be letting them fail. The only smart thing to do is to let the market work itself out. A Socialist or Communist government managed economy is not going to work. It never does.
I didn't get any requirements for the signature
ToddHileHoffer wrote:
Do you really want these same people running the banks?
Can't imagine how it could get much worse than the current situation or if we let them fail. I say let them fail, but the fallout will be real. I also don't buy into the promoted notion that government can't do anything right. Its we the people, that means that we can't do anything right. And with the looks of things that might be a valid statement. The only thing going for it is that the government is answerable to the people. The bankers are not. Medicare is an example of a government program that runs well enough. 3% overhead compared to 30% of the health insurance companies and is single payer, and could compete as well with the private sector. Maybe the Fed shouldn't be private. Why does the US borrow its money from Private people? Kennedy had the right idea when he published his US Notes in 63 backed by silver. Too bad he got whacked shortly after and no more were released into the wild.
This statement is false
-
MrPlankton wrote:
Bank of America was a healthy bank. It was forced at the end of govi shot gun to merge with Leman Brothers
1. BAC acquired Merrill. Lehman went bust. 2. BAC by itself recorded a loss in Q4 2008. This was pre merger. But you are right in that there was intense Govt pressure to go ahead with the acquisition.
Cheers, Vıkram.
I've never ever worked anywhere where there has not been someone who given the choice I would not work with again. It's a job, you do your work, put up with the people you don't like, accept there are probably people there that don't like you a lot, and look forward to the weekends. - Josh Gray.
I sincerely doubt they were bemoaning the potential to be the largest winner at the end of this. They went into it whole-heartedly. At the beginning they looked like they were one of the banks that kept their story straight, til they went for the land grab.
This statement is false
-
ToddHileHoffer wrote:
Do you really want these same people running the banks?
Can't imagine how it could get much worse than the current situation or if we let them fail. I say let them fail, but the fallout will be real. I also don't buy into the promoted notion that government can't do anything right. Its we the people, that means that we can't do anything right. And with the looks of things that might be a valid statement. The only thing going for it is that the government is answerable to the people. The bankers are not. Medicare is an example of a government program that runs well enough. 3% overhead compared to 30% of the health insurance companies and is single payer, and could compete as well with the private sector. Maybe the Fed shouldn't be private. Why does the US borrow its money from Private people? Kennedy had the right idea when he published his US Notes in 63 backed by silver. Too bad he got whacked shortly after and no more were released into the wild.
This statement is false
So you must have read something or heard something from Dr. Paul? I suppose the government could run the banks, but if you think like I think you think, you probably agree that the Fed is really the problem and not the solution. So letting the Fed (which is quasi private) run all our banks may not be a good idea. If the government nationalizes citi or any other bank, would it then give control over to the Federal Reserve Bank?
I didn't get any requirements for the signature
-
I still want to find out who even suggested this idea. Obama claims he doesn't want it, the CEO's of the banks claim they don't need it yet there is so much bruhaha over that concept that it seems some one is leaking information that nationalization is possible, either that or the media is intentionally fanning the fire with their constant analysis of every niggling detail.
Need custom software developed? I do C# development and consulting all over the United States.
A man said to the universe: "Sir I exist!" "However," replied the universe, "The fact has not created in me A sense of obligation." --Stephen CraneThat's a good point. I think that many people just see no other choice. The gov't has already purchased 45B worth of preferred stock and Citi is now worth much less than 45B. The government can't just keep throwing money away. This is probably why people think the bank will be nationalized.
I didn't get any requirements for the signature
-
why this fear of bank nationalisation. it can't be so bad. it's better than having no bank.
How soon we have forgotten the wonderful job the Federal Government did with post-Katrina relief management. That alone should qualify them to run any bank better than it has ever been run before. That and the marvelous job they do managing Airport Security. I bet Citi Customers will have to take their shoes off, and remove their laptops from the carry cases before consulting with the IRS Loan Officer. A solvent bank is preferable to an insolvent bank, even especially an insolvent bank propped up by the federal Government.
-
Vikram A Punathambekar wrote:
I never thought I'd claim India's Govt is more effective than, say, the USA's or the UK's, but nationalized banks here are much sought after for safety and stability.
Exactly. The US government may do a much better job. these people think government ownership of a few banks makes them a socialist country or some such thing. how silly. it is merely a phobia. it's like the muslim who won't use an alcohol based perfume or the the homophobe who fears to use a pink coloured toothpaste.
Otto von Drunkencoder wrote:
it is merely a phobia. it's like the muslim who won't use an alcohol based perfume or the the homophobe who fears to use a pink coloured toothpaste.
Probably the most stupid analogies I have ever read in my life.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
-
MrPlankton wrote:
Bank of America was a healthy bank. It was forced at the end of govi shot gun to merge with Leman Brothers
1. BAC acquired Merrill. Lehman went bust. 2. BAC by itself recorded a loss in Q4 2008. This was pre merger. But you are right in that there was intense Govt pressure to go ahead with the acquisition.
Cheers, Vıkram.
I've never ever worked anywhere where there has not been someone who given the choice I would not work with again. It's a job, you do your work, put up with the people you don't like, accept there are probably people there that don't like you a lot, and look forward to the weekends. - Josh Gray.
Vikram A Punathambekar wrote:
BAC by itself recorded a loss in Q4 2008
BAC had already been forced by the FRB to buy up Countrywide which had gone belly up in Q1 2008. Until that point, even though it already owned a chunk of Countrywide, it had been doing OK.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
-
So you must have read something or heard something from Dr. Paul? I suppose the government could run the banks, but if you think like I think you think, you probably agree that the Fed is really the problem and not the solution. So letting the Fed (which is quasi private) run all our banks may not be a good idea. If the government nationalizes citi or any other bank, would it then give control over to the Federal Reserve Bank?
I didn't get any requirements for the signature
Who's Dr Paul? I think that money is fundamental to the economy and society and should be considered part of the commons. Just as electricity, water, and gas is. I think that anything that could be described as part of the commons, fundamental to society, should not reside with private power but be answerable to the people. The entity that is answerable to the people is the government. Part of what Self-Government entails. Participation. So, if government isn't good enough to manage our commons, its our responsibility to make it so. Its us anyway.
This statement is false
-
Vikram A Punathambekar wrote:
BAC by itself recorded a loss in Q4 2008
BAC had already been forced by the FRB to buy up Countrywide which had gone belly up in Q1 2008. Until that point, even though it already owned a chunk of Countrywide, it had been doing OK.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.