Bank nationalisation
-
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
-
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.
Rob Graham wrote:
Thank you for your thoughtless partisan contribution.
And for the record I'm neither democrat nor republican. Also, I didn't vote for Obama. So, pray tell, how are my observations that saying govt sucks is empty rhetoric, and that Katrina falls squarely on Bush's appointments partisan? Refute both points if you're able.
This statement is false
-
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
Sorry, I did mean half century, not decade. The thoughtlessness (continued) on your part was the immediate assumption that I was somehow defending Bush or Republicans in any way. Perhaps you missed the sarcasm in my original post. Natural gas can be bought from many suppliers (yes the piped-to-your house kind ), If it were not for government interference, it is likely that electricity would be similarly competitive (the de-monopolization of gas resulted in lower prices in my neck of the woods). Also I did not say government "sucked at everything", I said "Bureaucracy was utterly incompetent". Government and bureaucracy are not identical. Bureaucracy is one tool of government used to deliver services. Because it is entrenched, protected and not answerable to its customers, it tends to deliver poorly. Medicare is one example: it's costs are far higher than they should be, mostly due to the incredible paperwork required of providers, combined with it's seeming inability to control fraud (Private health insurance is only marginally better, but it is better, which was my point). I think private enterprise has done a good job in the delivery of electrical power, in all of the parts of the US that I've lived. I think the telephone companies have, over the years done a quite credible job of providing reliable and (relatively) inexpensive communications. Natural Gas supply, in the places it has been available to me, has been reasonably priced and utterly reliable. Railroads - entirely a private enterprise endeavor, continue to move goods efficiently and inexpensively. I see no entrerprise of scale that the federal bureacracy has created or runs on a day to day basis that works comparably well as similar private enterprises.
-
Rob Graham wrote:
Thank you for your thoughtless partisan contribution.
And for the record I'm neither democrat nor republican. Also, I didn't vote for Obama. So, pray tell, how are my observations that saying govt sucks is empty rhetoric, and that Katrina falls squarely on Bush's appointments partisan? Refute both points if you're able.
This statement is false
The partisan statement was this one: "That alone should remind us of the Republican view that govt is bad, and we'll get elected to prove it." Any attack on a specific political party is, by definition, partisan, regardless of who you may have voted for,or what your affiliation might be. My original post alluded sarcastically to the incompetence of the Katrina response, why would you presume that I would even want to refute that? And, as I pointed out in my previous reply, I said that bureaucracy is incompetent, which is not the same as saying "govt. sucks". I firmly believe in the necessity of government in its appropriate roles: foreign policy, national defense, regulation of trade and commerce, protector of the currency, contractor for interstate infrastructure, and a very few other similar activities. Add to those the delivery of some services at the state and local government level.
-
The partisan statement was this one: "That alone should remind us of the Republican view that govt is bad, and we'll get elected to prove it." Any attack on a specific political party is, by definition, partisan, regardless of who you may have voted for,or what your affiliation might be. My original post alluded sarcastically to the incompetence of the Katrina response, why would you presume that I would even want to refute that? And, as I pointed out in my previous reply, I said that bureaucracy is incompetent, which is not the same as saying "govt. sucks". I firmly believe in the necessity of government in its appropriate roles: foreign policy, national defense, regulation of trade and commerce, protector of the currency, contractor for interstate infrastructure, and a very few other similar activities. Add to those the delivery of some services at the state and local government level.
Rob Graham wrote:
The partisan statement was this one: "That alone should remind us of the Republican view that govt is bad, and we'll get elected to prove it."
Its an observation of mine. I have similar ones of the Democrats and they call me partisan when I use those. I agree with Republicans on some issues and with Democrats on others.
Rob Graham wrote:
I firmly believe in the necessity of government in its appropriate roles: foreign policy, national defense, regulation of trade and commerce, protector of the currency, contractor for interstate infrastructure, and a very few other similar activities. Add to those the delivery of some services at the state and local government level.
We're in agreement more than not. And it was "protector of the currency" that sparked my comments.
This statement is false
-
Sorry, I did mean half century, not decade. The thoughtlessness (continued) on your part was the immediate assumption that I was somehow defending Bush or Republicans in any way. Perhaps you missed the sarcasm in my original post. Natural gas can be bought from many suppliers (yes the piped-to-your house kind ), If it were not for government interference, it is likely that electricity would be similarly competitive (the de-monopolization of gas resulted in lower prices in my neck of the woods). Also I did not say government "sucked at everything", I said "Bureaucracy was utterly incompetent". Government and bureaucracy are not identical. Bureaucracy is one tool of government used to deliver services. Because it is entrenched, protected and not answerable to its customers, it tends to deliver poorly. Medicare is one example: it's costs are far higher than they should be, mostly due to the incredible paperwork required of providers, combined with it's seeming inability to control fraud (Private health insurance is only marginally better, but it is better, which was my point). I think private enterprise has done a good job in the delivery of electrical power, in all of the parts of the US that I've lived. I think the telephone companies have, over the years done a quite credible job of providing reliable and (relatively) inexpensive communications. Natural Gas supply, in the places it has been available to me, has been reasonably priced and utterly reliable. Railroads - entirely a private enterprise endeavor, continue to move goods efficiently and inexpensively. I see no entrerprise of scale that the federal bureacracy has created or runs on a day to day basis that works comparably well as similar private enterprises.
Rob Graham wrote:
The thoughtlessness (continued) on your part was the immediate assumption that I was somehow defending Bush or Republicans in any way. Perhaps you missed the sarcasm in my original post.
It still wasn't thoughtless. I thought about it and came to the conclusion that it was an unfair example of Government as a whole, and more accurately an example of Bush exclusively in this case. Your original post does read like: "See, Bush did so bad; govt is bad." And your follow up challenge to find anything that govt has done well confirms that in some measure.
Rob Graham wrote:
Medicare is one example: it's costs are far higher than they should be, mostly due to the incredible paperwork required of providers, combined with it's seeming inability to control fraud (Private health insurance is only marginally better, but it is better, which was my point).
Medicare has a 3% overhead. Compare that to Insurance companies 30% overhead and it appears as the private sector is losing this battle of efficiency. Private insurers do more than battle fraud. They deny care to all they can under the banner of battling fraud. A good friend of mine is a fraud investigator for a major insurance firm. But, then this isn't surprising since this is the only way for profit to be made for the shareholders.
This statement is false
-
Rob Graham wrote:
The partisan statement was this one: "That alone should remind us of the Republican view that govt is bad, and we'll get elected to prove it."
Its an observation of mine. I have similar ones of the Democrats and they call me partisan when I use those. I agree with Republicans on some issues and with Democrats on others.
Rob Graham wrote:
I firmly believe in the necessity of government in its appropriate roles: foreign policy, national defense, regulation of trade and commerce, protector of the currency, contractor for interstate infrastructure, and a very few other similar activities. Add to those the delivery of some services at the state and local government level.
We're in agreement more than not. And it was "protector of the currency" that sparked my comments.
This statement is false
Synaptrik wrote:
And it was "protector of the currency" that sparked my comments.
I don't happen to believe that ownership of banking is a proper part of "protector of the currency". I think the government should only concern itself with the size of the money supply in circulation, the regulation of interest rates, and regulation of the investment business. They have done a rather poor job of all three of late. :rose:
-
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
Synaptrik wrote:
I remember Social Security having a surplus under Clinton. Where'd that go?
The Social Security Trust Fund has always taken in more money than it paid out. It is doing so right now. It will continue to do so until approximately 2017. At which time, unless additional money comes from payroll taxes or somewhere else, it will start having to cash in the Federal Reserve notes it has always been required by law to buy with its surplus. Assuming the FRB can live up to its obligations, the SSTF will be able to pay out at its present rates (including COLA) until approximately 2040. Of course, if the FRB reneges this will, or at least should, scare the shit out of the UK, France, and China - all of whom own a great number of Federal Reserve notes themselves.
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.
-
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.
Christian Graus wrote:
it's that Indian private industry is less stable than in those countries.
I think the facts speak otherwise. :|
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.
-
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
For the life of me, I cannot figure out what got us one voted for talking about Nationwide and Merril Lynch. Certainly both of us have said things that might piss someone off - but this? :confused:
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.
-
For the life of me, I cannot figure out what got us one voted for talking about Nationwide and Merril Lynch. Certainly both of us have said things that might piss someone off - but this? :confused:
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.