Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community  

Go Back   Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community > The Academy > Tilted Economics


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 02-23-2009, 07:59 AM   #1 (permalink)
Tilted Cat Head
 
Cynthetiq's Avatar
 
Administrator
Location: Manhattan, NY
Should the US banks be nationalized?

Quote:
View: Nationalization Gets a New, Serious Look
Source: Nytimes
posted with the TFP thread generator

Nationalization Gets a New, Serious Look January 26, 2009
News Analysis
Nationalization Gets a New, Serious Look
By DAVID E. SANGER

WASHINGTON — Only five days into the Obama presidency, members of the new administration and Democratic leaders in Congress are already dancing around one of the most politically delicate questions about the financial bailout: Is the president prepared to nationalize a huge swath of the nation’s banking system?   click to show 



Quote:
View: As Doubts Grow, U.S. Will Judge Banks’ Stability
Source: Nytimes
posted with the TFP thread generator

As Doubts Grow, U.S. Will Judge Banks’ Stability
February 23, 2009
As Doubts Grow, U.S. Will Judge Banks’ Stability
By EDMUND L. ANDREWS

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration will begin taking a hard look at the financial condition of the country’s 20 biggest banks this week to judge whether they could hold up even if the downturn worsens further than policy makers already expect.   click to show 



Banks are again looking for the state to pick up the pieces and keep them afloat. Citigroup is asking for more state stake in the company. I'm for the banks to fail. Sorry, it's going to be rough. But, as Thomas Jefferson said, "It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes. A principle which if acted on would save one-half the wars of the world." This does not just infer war, but in lifestyle. We should not nor cannot live above our means and expect future generations to pay for it.

Do you think that the US banks should be nationalized? Even for a short period of time?

In my mind the answer is a resounding no.
__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.
Cynthetiq is offline  
Old 02-23-2009, 08:15 AM   #2 (permalink)
Crazy, indeed
 
Location: the ether
Well, what are the alternatives? That is the thing, nationalization is a lot more market friendly, actually, then the alternatives. If it wasnt for the cultural aspects of it, it would have been done a long time ago.

Here are the alternatives you have:

- do nothing, let the banks fail. The govt. would still need to spend massive amounts of money because of the insured deposits. After spending this massive amount, the banks would still have failed and we would officially be in great depression territory. In fact, we would be worse than that, because of the size of the banks that are about to fail. It might be satisfying on some personal level, but it would be the general population who would lose money, twice. In fact, the future generation would be paying for the debts of the past, just in a much more painful way.

- Bail the banks out by providing capital to generate liquidity. The problem with this is that it is basically free money for the bank's shareholders. The tax payer would be pumping a lot of money into the banks without any sort of stake to potentially revert the losses in the future.

- The government buys the banks, makes them liquid, and sells them. That is, instead of rewarding the stockholders of the banks, the govt. buys the banks at their current very low price, then it injects the money to make them solvent, and then at least partially recovers that by reselling the stocks of a now solvent bank.


People are put off by the "N" word, but this would be nothing like the nationalizations of the 50s and 60s, when governments bought companies to run it themselves, as opposed to fixing it and reselling it.
dippin is offline  
Old 02-23-2009, 10:45 AM   #3 (permalink)
Easy Rider
 
flstf's Avatar
 
Location: Moscow on the Ohio
I guess it's like dippin said, there doesn't seem to be any other good alternatives. The majority of economists seem to think that without a bailout things would be much worse. I'm not smart enough to know if they are right or not and I have a real problem with Washington running things much like our recent regulators which seem like more foxes watching the henhouse.
flstf is offline  
Old 02-23-2009, 11:03 AM   #4 (permalink)
Devoted
 
Redlemon's Avatar
 
Donor
Location: New England
I just finished reading "For Us, the Living" by R.A.Heinlein, which is not really a book but rather a description of a utopia. Nationalization of the banks was large component of this book. The theory was that banks were inventing money by being able to loan more money than they possessed, and that they were doing it for a profit. Instead, they required banks to be 100% capitalized, and allowed the government to create money as needed.

Would it work? I have no idea, but it was an interesting read, considering it was written in 1938 and speaks to today so well.
__________________
I can't read your signature. Sorry.
Redlemon is offline  
Old 02-23-2009, 11:42 AM   #5 (permalink)
warrior bodhisattva
 
Baraka_Guru's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: East-central Canada
No, I don't think they should be nationalized. That seems extreme and cumbersome. I think the U.S. (and other nations) can learn much from other, more stable banking systems, like the one here in Canada, which is subject to an overarching constitutionalized regulation that makes sure all banks are following regulations, laws, and other aspects of banking/financial regulatory compliance.

Here's something coming from Obama's recent trip to Ottawa:
Quote:
Obama finds the Canadian banking system 'striking'
Posted: February 18, 2009, 10:19 AM by Vieira
Ottawa

The World Economic Forum has ranked Canada's banking system as the best in the world, and Bank of Canada governor Mark Carney has said other major industrialized and developing economies want to learn more about Canada's financial architecture.

Now, count U.S. President Barack Obama as a fan of the Canadian financial way, according to an interview he conducted Monday with CBC.

"One of the things that I think has been striking about Canada is that in the midst of this enormous economic crisis, I think Canada has shown itself to be a pretty good manager of the financial system in the economy in ways that we haven't always been here in the United States," Mr. Obama said during the broadcast interview in advance of his five-hour working visit with Prime Minister Stephen Harper in Ottawa Thursday. "And I think that's important for us to take note of, that it's possible for us to have a vibrant banking sector, for example, without taking some of the wild risks that have resulted in so much trouble on Wall Street."

Paul Vieira
TheStar.com | Canada | PM praises Canada's financial sector on U.S. TV

Here's an excerpt regarding PM Harper's visit to New York:
Quote:
PM praises Canada's financial sector on U.S. TV
TheStar.com
February 23, 2009
bruce campion-smith
Ottawa bureau chief

OTTAWA — Prime Minister Stephen Harper hit the Big Apple today — the heart of America's economic meltdown — to boast about Canada's stable banking system, warn against trade protectionism and note the insatiable appetite for oil south of the border.

While Canadian media were shut out of his visit to New York City, Harper wasn't shy about talking to American journalists as hevisitedseveral news networks to build on the attention sparked by U.S. President Barack Obama's visit to Ottawa last Thursday.

"Because we're not a squeaky wheel, we often don't get the grease and we're forgotten. So it was great to have that kind of attention from our great friends in the United States," Harper said during a morning interview with Alexis Glick, of Fox Business News.

"And one of the reasons I decided to travel here today was to follow up on that rare attention we actually got in the U.S. media last week," he said.

The prime minister sang the praises of Canada's prudent banking and financial system, which he said can be attributed to "activist" regulation by Ottawa.

"We're helped by the fact we have six major banks, three major insurance companies so it's easier for the government to exercise moral suasion on the sector," Harper said.

He said that Canada, while hit by the economic downturn, hasn't suffered a meltdown of the financial sector or the mortgage foreclosures that have hit the U.S. economy so hard.

"We haven't had to bail out any of our financial institutions," Harper said. "There will be no government bailout of mortgages in Canada."

Harper said he remains "hugely worried" about the financial system in the United States as well as several other unnamed countries.

[...]
TheStar.com | Canada | PM praises Canada's financial sector on U.S. TV

Nationalization isn't the only answer, and I think the alternatives are to be well-planned and far-reaching.
__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot
Baraka_Guru is offline  
Old 02-23-2009, 11:51 AM   #6 (permalink)
Crazy, indeed
 
Location: the ether
Baraka,
regulations going forward are a different matter than what to do about currently failing banks.
These major banks are currently insolvent and illiquid. If left alone they will fail, and the options right now are to capitalize them by giving them money or take over them and then capitalize them.

Nationalization is a misleading term here because the idea is not that the US would make these banks state banks going forward. The US government wouldnt run them continually, or anything like that. It would be a short term acquisition with eyes to reselling it as a solvent entity.
dippin is offline  
Old 02-23-2009, 11:56 AM   #7 (permalink)
warrior bodhisattva
 
Baraka_Guru's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: East-central Canada
dippin, I guess it's just hard for me to wrap my head around how bad it is for U.S. banks right now. I suppose, then, if regulation is too much of a long-term solution for what's a crisis now, then I'd rather see the governement float loans to the banks rather than buy them only to sell them later.

These loans would be used for capitalization, but would have regulatory conditions attached to them...conditions that could later be applied in a longer-term solution.

I'm not as keen on these macro issues as I am on micro ones, so I'm not sure this could work.
__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot
Baraka_Guru is offline  
Old 02-23-2009, 12:30 PM   #8 (permalink)
Crazy, indeed
 
Location: the ether
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru View Post
dippin, I guess it's just hard for me to wrap my head around how bad it is for U.S. banks right now. I suppose, then, if regulation is too much of a long-term solution for what's a crisis now, then I'd rather see the governement float loans to the banks rather than buy them only to sell them later.

These loans would be used for capitalization, but would have regulatory conditions attached to them...conditions that could later be applied in a longer-term solution.

I'm not as keen on these macro issues as I am on micro ones, so I'm not sure this could work.
The thing is, if these loans are made at anywhere near market levels, the banks would remain insolvent. It would need to be a heavily subsidized loan with a very long due date, which in the end is basically giving them money for free.

The truth is that the process through which the FDIC guarantees deposits and so on is very similar do nationalization. Several small banks have gone under this past year, and the FDIC basically takes over, pays the shareholders and liquidates the assets.

If Bank of America, citigroup, etc were to fail, a similar thing would happen, only it would be a lot more damaging to the economy. So the idea is to either nationalize them now, save them now, and then resell them or keep giving them money. In the former case, the government at least gets a share of the bank when it is fixed. In the latter, it is like giving free money to bank shareholders.
dippin is offline  
Old 02-23-2009, 01:30 PM   #9 (permalink)
 
roachboy's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
paul krugman has been talking about this question for weeks. his view, which i agree with, is that the administration should just suck it up and say if the auditing process that's about to get underway reveals that the banks in general--or even a specific cluster of them---are in fact not only in bad shape, but in worse shape than has so far been thought, then they'll be nationalized. the reason i agree with this idea is not so much that i think nationalization is a magic bullet, but rather that there needs to be longer-term plans in place that shape what the administration is doing--and which add a level of transparency to that doing by providing at the least a political objective/set of objectives relative to which stuff can be judged. my main problem so far is that obama's administration has been hit with so much shit so fast that they've had little choice but to be reactive--not as badly as were the bush people, but still.

the problem here is that because there was no clearing space for derivatives trading, no-one has any idea what the devices are or are not worth at this point--not really.
because that's the case, there's nothing like an accurate assessment of the state of affairs within the banking system.
it is not an option to allow collapse because institutions are so intertwined with each other at this point that allowing one to fold could well be writing off an entire sector, and this for no purpose (expect that it enables one to keep talking in outmoded neoliberal terms about stuff like moral hazard).

so nationalization seems a reasonable next step to at least talk about as the process unfolds of trying to use audits to determine what's actually going on with the banking system--to the extent that it can be determined in a quick and accurate manner (no mean feat)...why would you undertake the audit if you aren't going to say what will happen next? and this is what i take krugman's main arguments to be. i think he's right.

nationalization is not the only route, but its a good piece of theater for the present situation.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite
roachboy is offline  
Old 02-23-2009, 01:35 PM   #10 (permalink)
warrior bodhisattva
 
Baraka_Guru's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: East-central Canada
Extremis malis extrema remedia.
__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot
Baraka_Guru is offline  
Old 02-23-2009, 01:46 PM   #11 (permalink)
Easy Rider
 
flstf's Avatar
 
Location: Moscow on the Ohio
In order for nationalizing the banks to work the nation has to have honest polititians capable of the task. Our nation's polititians seem to be neither capable or honest. IMHO this will not end well and we may be better off rebuilding from the rubble of bankruptcy rather than imposing these delaying tactics.
flstf is offline  
Old 02-23-2009, 01:52 PM   #12 (permalink)
 
roachboy's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
except that the banking system is more system than collection of individual banks.
the consequence of failure would be catastrophic.

institutions in this sense are a bit like nation-states.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite
roachboy is offline  
Old 02-23-2009, 02:21 PM   #13 (permalink)
Easy Rider
 
flstf's Avatar
 
Location: Moscow on the Ohio
I guess things could get more catastrophic, so far my house and retirement funds are down about 30-50%, I guess they could go to zero. I'm beginning to think a better stimulus for the economy would be to send a $10,000 check to every tax paying household (estimate of bailout/simulus money so far) This will probaby go to $20,000 before long. I don't think many of us will benefit from the trickle down theory of bailouts and stimulus packages or the $12 per week tax cut. I guess when you think about it nationalizing our banks (and other industries if necessary) wouldn't be any worse than bailing them out.
flstf is offline  
Old 02-23-2009, 02:26 PM   #14 (permalink)
 
roachboy's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
i think there's a side of all this that's theater--it's theatrically important that the banking system be salvaged from the consequeces of normal operations under neoliberalism. it's also theatrically important that if nationalization happens that there be a purging of the upper echelons of these banks for incompetence.

it's important that property values be stabilized. it's important that banks be forced to refinance mortgages. it's important that people do not loose more jobs. it's important that there be some kind of plan to reconfigure the deindustrialized american economy after neoliberalism has finished enabling the store to be plundered. on and on.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite
roachboy is offline  
Old 02-23-2009, 02:32 PM   #15 (permalink)
Insane
 
pai mei's Avatar
 
roachboy , "incompetence" ? Maybe "real clever planning".
__________________
Blog
One day there will be so many houses, that people will be bored and will go live in tents. "Why are you living in tents ? Are there not enough houses ?" "Yes there are, but we play this Economy game"
pai mei is offline  
Old 02-23-2009, 07:49 PM   #16 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: San Antonio, TX
I think a temporary nationalization of the banks is the right way forward - it keeps them from failing outright, which would be disastrous, and also keeps from giving away taxpayer money. We can also put a stop to the insane bonuses to bank execs, which would be nice as well. And of course any such nationalization would be *temporary* by design.

Of course, the crazy right will go absolutely apeshit on Obama if he even suggests anything like this, but really, they will anyway.
robot_parade is offline  
Old 02-24-2009, 01:45 AM   #17 (permalink)
immoral minority
 
ASU2003's Avatar
 
Location: Back in Ohio
I'm not sure if the banks can be fixed without some sort of nationization.

The big question is, do we rely on the stock market too much now? Will people only be happy with the economy if BAC goes from 3.5 to 50 in the next year? Bank of America fell from about 50 to 2.5 in the past year. Without artifically inflating the stock market, it is an almost impossible task.

The question is, why would things be different if the government controlled the banks? If the government had been running the banks in the past few years, wouldn't we be in about the same place? The top execs might only have made $800,000 like the head postmaster general, and a not-for-profit banking system could be benefiticial to the customers.
ASU2003 is offline  
Old 02-24-2009, 10:02 AM   #18 (permalink)
Nothing
 
tisonlyi's Avatar
 
In effect, they're already nationalised.

Where it not for the idea that the US Govt will not let the remaining banks fail (through all manner of insuring and temporary purchase above market value schemes), they'd be dead now. The final decision as to what happens to all of the large banks in the US rests solely with the US govt, no matter how much one or the other of them squeals that they're fine... Everyone who looks at their leveraging figures knows that they are not. (Wells was the least leveraged in the US if memory serves, at least on its own books, with around 1:30 ratio. 3.3% losses and it's entire capital base has been wiped out. Case-Shiller today reports house prices down between 15-20% on average. No math(s) required.)

If the state is calling the tune then that, chaps, is nationalisation.

This would all be solved sooner if the banks were formally taken under state control, purged, broken up into much smaller pieces and sent back out into the world anew.

Also, you'd have a lot more control over what these fuckers were up to. It seems one or two of the tarp recipients simply took their cash and doubled down. No joke.
__________________
"I do not agree that the dog in a manger has the final right to the manger even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit that right. I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place." - Winston Churchill, 1937 --{ORLY?}--
tisonlyi is offline  
Old 02-24-2009, 11:59 AM   #19 (permalink)
Insane
 
pai mei's Avatar
 
The state should be the only one with power to create money. Paper or electronic. When someone needs a loan he borrows with 0 interest from the state run bank. When he pays the loan the money created disappear. All money needed to run the administration are created and used by the state, not borrowed from some banks by the state. The state can increase the money supply when it;s needed - to let the economy grow, or decrease it when it's needed - when inflation appears. Increase by sending people money to spend, decrease by instituting taxes. There will be no taxes when there is no need to decrease the money supply, the expenses for the state - create new money. If the economy is in good shape these new money will not create inflation.

There. Comments ?

And I forgot to tell you that you are rulled by bankers right now. The whole world is. Find out about what Andrew Jackson wanted. Then what happened in 1913.
__________________
Blog
One day there will be so many houses, that people will be bored and will go live in tents. "Why are you living in tents ? Are there not enough houses ?" "Yes there are, but we play this Economy game"

Last edited by pai mei; 02-24-2009 at 12:06 PM..
pai mei is offline  
Old 02-24-2009, 12:50 PM   #20 (permalink)
Nothing
 
tisonlyi's Avatar
 
pai mei, that's a topic to expand on and use as another thread.

Bloomberg.com: Worldwide

Quote:
U.S. to Get Bank Ownership Stakes Only as Losses Rise (Update1)
Email | Print | A A A

By Craig Torres

Feb. 24 (Bloomberg) -- Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke said the U.S. government’s bank-capitalization plan is designed to shore up lenders’ common equity only if the economy worsens and creates more losses for financial institutions.

The Treasury will buy convertible preferred stock as needed in the 19 largest U.S. banks after stress tests to determine how much capital is needed to address losses in a “worse” case scenario, Bernanke told lawmakers at a Senate Banking Committee hearing today. The shares will be converted to common only as the extraordinary losses happen, he said.

“It doesn’t have an ownership implication until such time as those losses which are forecast in the bad scenario actually occur,” the Fed chief said. He also rejected the idea that the stress tests are a pretext for nationalizing banks, saying, “I don’t see any reason to destroy the franchise value or to create the huge legal uncertainties of trying to formally nationalize a bank when it just isn’t necessary.”

Bernanke’s remarks eased concern among some investors that the Treasury’s capital-injection plan will hurt banks’ shareholders and lead to government takeovers of lenders. The Standard & Poor’s 500 Banks Index climbed 10 percent, the most in more than two weeks.

Majority Ownership

“We don’t need majority ownership to work with the banks,” Bernanke said today. “We have very strong supervisory oversight. We can work with them now to do whatever is necessary.”

The chairman added that it will be up to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and the Obama administration to determine whether more bailout funds will be needed from Congress.

“How much more we’ll have to do depends on the state of the banks, it depends on how the economy evolves and it depends on the margin of safety we think we want to have,” Bernanke said today. He separately warned that “if we don’t stabilize the financial system, we’re going to founder for some time.”

Bernanke also said the so-called stress tests that regulators will run on the 19 banks will look at potential losses over a two-year horizon if the economy worsens.

The stress tests “will look at the balance sheets and the capital needs of each of our 19 largest $100-billion-dollar-plus banks over the next two-year horizon,” Bernanke said in response to a question from Senator Robert Corker, a Tennessee Republican.

Economic Scenarios

The assessment will use “both a consensus forecast -- where we think the economy is likely to be based on private sector forecasts -- and an alternative which is worse,” Bernanke said.

In his semiannual testimony on the economy to Congress today, the Fed chief warned that the recession may last into 2010 unless policy makers can stabilize the financial system.

The economic forecasts Fed officials prepared in January suggest that “a full recovery of the economy from the current recession is likely to take more than two or three years,” Bernanke said.

A private survey today showed that confidence among U.S. consumers sank to a record low in February. The Conference Board’s index declined more than forecast to 25 this month, the lowest level since data began in 1967, the New York-based research group said today.

Bernanke urged “strong” action by policy makers. The message comes as the Obama administration works on fleshing out the details of its bank-rescue plan. Financial stocks had slumped further since Geithner unveiled his outline Feb. 10, amid concern a lack of details and worries over the ultimate intention of the approach.

Citigroup Talks

Officials have also opened talks with Citigroup Inc. about providing further help to the lender after the company’s share price dropped to as low as $1.61 four days ago. It was at $2.43 at 1:53 p.m. in New York.

Along with a new round of capital injections, Geithner’s strategy includes creating public-private partnerships to purchase toxic assets weighing down banks’ balance sheets, and a $1 trillion program to restart the markets for securities backed by consumer and business loans.

The purpose of the stress tests on banks isn’t to provide a “pass” or “fail” grade, Bernanke said today. Instead, the government wants to ensure that firms can meet their obligation to lend even if the economy worsens, he said.

‘Sufficient’ Equity

“The bank could convert the preferred to common to make sure that it has sufficient common equity, and only at that time, going forward, if those losses do occur, would the ownership implications become relevant,” Bernanke said.

Treasury officials are expected to provide further information about the stress tests tomorrow.

Regulators won’t let banks “hide anything” as they look at how lenders have valued their assets, and will ensure that firms are using “appropriate models” for mark-to-market accounting, Bernanke said.

“We’re going to do a tough evaluation,” the central banker said in response to a question from Senator Richard Shelby of Alabama, the Senate panel’s ranking Republican.

Bernanke took issue with some observers’ characterization of major U.S. banks as “zombie” firms, kept alive only through access to federal programs. They have “substantial franchise value,” he said.

To contact the reporter on this story: Craig Torres in Washington at ctorres3@bloomberg.net.
Last Updated: February 24, 2009 14:11 EST
So, folks, there are 19 banks that the administration believe are going to need massive, ongoing, regular bailouts (until they eventually fail). Oh, and "If everything goes our way and the world magics itself into a new state of utopia" then the economy will start to pick up towards the end of this year.

"substantial franchise value" as the only reason to keep those entities limping along?

That whole deposition was a joke and Bernanke knows it.

Every indicator is heading through the floor, credit supplies are still drying up, margin calls are still ongoing. Not just in the US, but worldwide.

If they go through with this, then the V shape recession Bernanake is talking about is out of the question, with U shape recession or an L shape recession both equally likely I think.

All. Of. The. Banks. Are. Dead.

US. UK. Euroland. Asia.

ALL.

The necromancy to keep them alive with ever expanding bailouts, insurance coverage, guarantees, shotgun weddings with dowries, etc, etc... are only going to suck all life out of whatever is left of the western and eastern economies until those damn banks, financiers and distressed corporations all fail, through either bankruptcy or nationalisation.

"The United States can be relied upon to do the right thing, only once it has tried every other option." - Whisky-Sodden Imperialist Relic.

The rest of the world too, I hope, Mr Churchill. The last solution to this sort of global problem is now not an option.

Can you believe this stuff? Does anyone out there swallow this nonsense?

---------- Post added at 09:50 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:35 PM ----------

------------------------

As an aside, what this effectively does is hitch the state and therefore the people (as the UK has also) to specific corporate, mainly banking interests. The merging of corporate and state power.

*gulp*

At least if they were nationalised and reformed, the damn shareholders could be wiped out, with as much incompetent management kicked out as possible, as much bad debt written off as possible and the system reset to a certain degree...

Urgh... this is insane.
__________________
"I do not agree that the dog in a manger has the final right to the manger even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit that right. I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place." - Winston Churchill, 1937 --{ORLY?}--

Last edited by tisonlyi; 02-24-2009 at 12:38 PM..
tisonlyi is offline  
Old 03-23-2009, 03:50 AM   #21 (permalink)
Crazy
 
Location: Houston,TX
I think the banks should be nationalized just for a while until we get out of this mess. It only makes sense, so much of our tax dollars are going to the failing banks to keep them afloat we should at least have some control or represented control. Hopefully they will start giving out loans again soon I need to finish school ASAP.
__________________
Man/Amazing is offline  
 

Tags
banks, nationalized

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 04:50 AM.

Tilted Forum Project

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360