Banks - Nationalize or No Nationalize?

no "And the auto industry" option?

(shd maybe do separate us and uk threads. i don't think the japanese government would approve of the uk nationalizing the auto industry.)

i am an american, and i approve of bank nationalization. it's happening anyway, either in name or in fact.

MPs seem to want bankers to behave like social workers. They are not social workers, and never presented themselves as such. They are bankers, and bankrupt ones. Their retail arms have become mere money boxes.

They should have been taken into temporary public ownership, their deposits protected by the state and their commercial lending ring-fenced with public money. It happens in war. It is not that difficult.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/feb/10/recession-bankofenglandgovernor

yep.

what we have is the worst of both worlds, lots of quid, no pro quo. the whole argument in favour of unfettered, risky banking was, even in the good years, based on trickle-down theory, ie making everyone the city's collective service-economy bitch. without even that to protect them, the message has to be 'get fucked'.

Nationalization is the only option that would permit us to solve the problem of toxic assets in an orderly fashion and finally allow lending to resume. Of course, the economy would still stink, but the death spiral we are in would end.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/12/AR2009021201602.html?sid=ST2009021203365

bump

i am an american, and i approve of bank nationalization. it's happening anyway, either in name or in fact.

― Ein kluges Äpfelchen (Eisbaer), Sunday, February 15, 2009 9:08 AM (Yesterday) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

agreed tho i dont think nationalization is really the most descriptive or marketable term - more receivership or structured bankruptcy - its not like the government would be planning on controlling the banks forever - its just until they can sort them out and sell their viable assets - the us already does this w/smaller banks that go under

sorting them out and selling their assets are not the priority though - job 1 is to start lending to creditworthy people and businesses who have been left high and dry by the collapse of the entire secondary tier of lenders i.e. auto finance companies etc - doing this requires a radical reorientation of the purpose of the banks - yes this would be temporary, but it goes well beyond any kind of neutral receivership idea

"nationalize" gets across the idea that there is a social good to be gained from public ownership of the banks - you're right that word is kinda kryptonite in america, but i can't think of a better one

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2009/02/obama_on_nationalizing_banks_a.html

sounds here like obama isnt as opposed to nationalization as weve been lead to believe - my take he wants to first get the banks books open and see if they can survive w/some government help or maybe someone wants to buy their shit - if thats not feasible then they get eated

everyone was freaking out abt the geithner plan and how it wasnt really a plan and basically he didnt say anything - now that people have had some time to think abt this issue of stress tests is seeming important - looking like the admin wants to see what sort of shape the bank are really in before the tell us what theyre going to do - understandable as u dont really want to say were going to nuke these shits if u dont have to

obv a lot of tea leaf reading here

http://www.blackgold.ab.ca/ict/Division4/Social/ideologiesmap/exemplars/Socialism.GIF

he wants to first get the banks books open

it is amazing on both sides of the atlantic that this hasn't happened.

doing this requires a radical reorientation of the purpose of the banks

― Tracer Hand, Monday, February 16, 2009 9:25 AM (6 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

not sure exactly what yr proposing here - i mean i agree there needs to be new regulation and basically the whole industry should get the shit slapped out of it - but reorienting the purpose? i mean banks are going to lend money and take deposits and whatnot - u mean maybe just removing the investment aspect thats at the root of so much of this shenanigans?

he wants to first get the banks books open

it is amazing on both sides of the atlantic that this hasn't happened.

― ^^ one of enriques sincere posts (special guest stars mark bronson), Monday, February 16, 2009 9:36 AM (40 seconds ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

yah its pretty lol the banks are valuing their own assets "we swear this shit is worth something just give us the $$$ man pllllzzzz"

no, i mean that the purpose of banks right now is to cover their debts, period. this does not square with the health of the nation.

maybe thats what the banks are doing because of the current crisis but its not their purpose - and if u removed those obligations through a bankruptcy type scenario youd solve that issue w/o any further tinkering

basically the problem is there are a bunch of huge institutions that cant serve their purpose because theyre insolvent

and they wont lol admit it

wtf

^yup

just for the record i do think there should be further tinkering

the problem is that proper bankruptcy proceedings would take years, not least because of exactly these weirdo "assets" and obligations they've got (i almost typed "oblongations")

but anyway i think we agree

some of it could take years to play out - hopefully not that many years tho

Automatic thread bump. This poll is closing tomorrow.

Automatic thread bump. This poll's results are now in.

Why aren't real elections this easy?

i'd have voted w/ the commies