Bank nationalisation
-
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.
-
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
Synaptrik wrote:
Who's Dr Paul?
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=ron+paul&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=[^]
I didn't get any requirements for the signature
-
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.
Rob Graham wrote:
That alone should qualify them to run any bank better than it has ever been run before.
That alone should remind us of the Republican view that govt is bad, and we'll get elected to prove it. It was Brown brown brown and the glaring reality of Bush's appointments that should retain focus with Katrina. Not more of the empty rhetoric of how the govt can't do anything. But I've said from the beginning, let em fail. Too big to fail is too big to exist. We'll recover.
This statement is false
-
Even after they bought up Countrywide they weren't doing too bad. I think in this case its more of the same. They saw the bright lights, thought of glory, and didn't realize that it was a truck heading right for em'.
This statement is false
Synaptrik wrote:
Even after they bought up Countrywide they weren't doing too bad.
Until the mortgage market went totally sour in the fourth quarter, but the seeds of their destruction were contained in the original buying up of what would prove to be a dead albatross looking for a neck to hang around, Countrywide.
Synaptrik wrote:
and didn't realize that it was a truck heading right for em'.
They certainly didn't predict what would happen to the mortgage market any better than anyone else did - and I suspect you are right, BAC's own management saw it as the white knight charging off to stablise the economy because they were, after all, the greatest bank in the country. X|
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.
-
Rob Graham wrote:
That alone should qualify them to run any bank better than it has ever been run before.
That alone should remind us of the Republican view that govt is bad, and we'll get elected to prove it. It was Brown brown brown and the glaring reality of Bush's appointments that should retain focus with Katrina. Not more of the empty rhetoric of how the govt can't do anything. But I've said from the beginning, let em fail. Too big to fail is too big to exist. We'll recover.
This statement is false
Synaptrik wrote:
It was Brown brown brown and the glaring reality of Bush's appointments that should retain focus with Katrina
Without giving up any of my contempt for the calibre of many, maybe most, members of the Bush administration, I have to ask: are you saying that there have never been incompetent appointments under any other President?
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.
-
Synaptrik wrote:
Who's Dr Paul?
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=ron+paul&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=[^]
I didn't get any requirements for the signature
-
Synaptrik wrote:
It was Brown brown brown and the glaring reality of Bush's appointments that should retain focus with Katrina
Without giving up any of my contempt for the calibre of many, maybe most, members of the Bush administration, I have to ask: are you saying that there have never been incompetent appointments under any other President?
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.
-
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.
There is no question that a nationalised bank would be stable. That doesn't meant it would be effective. The issue is not that Indian government is more stable than the US or UK, it's that Indian private industry is less stable than in those countries.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.
-
Rob Graham wrote:
That alone should qualify them to run any bank better than it has ever been run before.
That alone should remind us of the Republican view that govt is bad, and we'll get elected to prove it. It was Brown brown brown and the glaring reality of Bush's appointments that should retain focus with Katrina. Not more of the empty rhetoric of how the govt can't do anything. But I've said from the beginning, let em fail. Too big to fail is too big to exist. We'll recover.
This statement is false
Synaptrik wrote:
Not more of the empty rhetoric of how the govt can't do anything.
I challenge you to find any large scale endeavor on the part of the government that has been run efficiently or effectively in the past half decade. There is nothing empty about the "rhetoric". The Federal bureaucracy, like all bureaucracies, is utterly incompetent. It has nothing to do with which party is in power. Thank you for your thoughtless partisan contribution.
-
Synaptrik wrote:
Even after they bought up Countrywide they weren't doing too bad.
Until the mortgage market went totally sour in the fourth quarter, but the seeds of their destruction were contained in the original buying up of what would prove to be a dead albatross looking for a neck to hang around, Countrywide.
Synaptrik wrote:
and didn't realize that it was a truck heading right for em'.
They certainly didn't predict what would happen to the mortgage market any better than anyone else did - and I suspect you are right, BAC's own management saw it as the white knight charging off to stablise the economy because they were, after all, the greatest bank in the country. X|
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.
Oakman wrote:
Until the mortgage market went totally sour in the fourth quarter, but the seeds of their destruction were contained in the original buying up of what would prove to be a dead albatross looking for a neck to hang around, Countrywide.
True. Too true...
This statement is false
-
Synaptrik wrote:
Not more of the empty rhetoric of how the govt can't do anything.
I challenge you to find any large scale endeavor on the part of the government that has been run efficiently or effectively in the past half decade. There is nothing empty about the "rhetoric". The Federal bureaucracy, like all bureaucracies, is utterly incompetent. It has nothing to do with which party is in power. Thank you for your thoughtless partisan contribution.
Oh it wasn't thoughtless. Thanks for the assumption. Government might in fact fail at many things. Are you an anarchist? What is your alternative. Greed will supplant any corrective measure the private sector might work out in the theories regarding an unimpeded free market. But to just state that Govt sucks at EVERYTHING is empty rhetoric. How does Medicare suck? Our electricity and gas is privatised. Yet I can only shop at one company. I have to move to get a different supplier. How is this helpful? How is this free market? What are the alternatives? Where is the competition?
Rob Graham wrote:
I challenge you to find any large scale endeavor on the part of the government that has been run efficiently or effectively in the past half decade.
Just the past 5 years? That's all Bush. Are you sure you don't want to expand that some? I remember Social Security having a surplus under Clinton. Where'd that go? Show me one large scale endeavor on the part of Private Enterprise that covers an area considered to be the commons of society that has been run efficiently or effectively in the past 30 years and that has lived up to the hype. And let me clarify. I don't want the government manufacturing things. I don't want to buy clothes from them. Nor do I want to buy cars from them. But power, gas, water, money,... private enterprise requires profit, which forces a mindset of greed. Unavoidable. And never answerable to the people.
This statement is false
-
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.
what about if you are a shareholder of the bank stock. How woudl you feel? that is why the market id down. If the goverment starts there what is next? the car companies? then steel companies. etc.
cheers, Donsw My Recent Article : Optimistic Concurrency with C# using the IOC and DI Design Patterns