Republicans talking about nationalizing banks...

8 thoughts on “Republicans talking about nationalizing banks…”

1. But since we’re already bailing these mega-banks out, and our nation seems to be held hostage by these corporations, it seems like we’re driving towards some kind of takeover as a rational conclusion.

   I for one am getting tired of having the banking industry hold our country for ransom. So maybe: take ’em over, break ’em up, and sell them off.

   At this point, the idea they can still be considered “private” entities is a farce anyway.  

   Log in to Reply

   1. What no one has really explained is how nationalizing banks would help consumers and hurt investors who we must depend upon to capitalize the ultimate recovery.

      The issues are complex. Nobody has good answers because nobody can predict where the world and American economies are going. Those who are predicting an end to the recession by the second quarter are know nothing hopefuls who are misleading savers, investors and voters.

      Obama’s predictions that he will save or create 4 million jobs are just as unbelievable as the hype coming from the CNBC hypes.

      Log in to Reply

      1. Hudson City Bancorp, Wells Fargo and a number of others managed risk appropriately.

         I think Wells even balked at taking TARP payoffs initially.

         note: I have ownership in AMEX, Wells, USBancorp. That AMEX is one poor performing bastard. I have been thinking of getting into Hudson, but the entire sector is polluted due to NINJA’s.

         The mark to market requirement has destroyed some much capital and facilitated so much misuse of taypayers dollars to keep failures alive at Treasury’s “new economy” ICU.

         Log in to Reply

2. Nationalization is used to mean many things. No one is proposing that banking as an industry become state run (which is what true nationalization would be).

   I do think it is necessary for the government to take a short-term asset stake while they are sorted out. This is in part because it is a more effective strategy than throwing money at it, and in part because it is likely to be less costly to tax payers.

   Log in to Reply

   1. are taking the risk, we should get some of the return if it turns out to be a good investment.

      Log in to Reply

      1. all these ‘free market’ types have no problem standing in line to get their billions. But talk about actually ensuring that returns flow back to taxpayers footing the bill, or that banks actually make cash available and not just take it while they jack up everyone’s interest rate–giving the taxpayers the double screw, or that the executives now surviving because of the public dole actually try to live on a half million a year… and they scream SOCIALISM!!!!

         Log in to Reply

   2. It’s called the FDIC and they take over banks and then sell them off or shut them down all the time. The only difference here is the size.

      And I think they need to be broken up because too big to fail doesn’t work.

      Log in to Reply

3. It’s almost like Kabuki Theater – Obama said that nationalization is off the table. So the GOP reflexively comes out in favor of it. Yes logically the GOP should oppose nationalization but their prime directive appears to be take the opposite approach.

   Now the Dems are starting to say that if the GOP pushes them on it then in the interests of bi-partisianship they do need to look at it.

   Over the next week or two the Dems will decide in the interests of bi-partisianship to first consider, then to implement an FDIC takeover of the big banks that are bankrupt.

   But is Obama had started off proposing an FDIC takeover the GOP would have fought tooth and nail. This way he gets their support. And the banks won’t be able to bribe lobby their way out of the takeover as both parties will be in favor of it.

   Log in to Reply