Greenspan backs bank nationalisation

Discussion in 'Economy' started by Shogun, Feb 18, 2009.

  1. Shogun
    Offline

    Shogun Free: Mudholes Stomped

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2007
    Messages:
    30,495
    Thanks Received:
    2,224
    Trophy Points:
    1,043
    Ratings:
    +2,260
    The US government may have to nationalise some banks on a temporary basis to fix the financial system and restore the flow of credit, Alan Greenspan, the former Federal Reserve chairman, has told the Financial Times.

    In an interview, Mr Greenspan, who for decades was regarded as the high priest of laisser-faire capitalism, said nationalisation could be the least bad option left for policymakers.

    ”It may be necessary to temporarily nationalise some banks in order to facilitate a swift and orderly restructuring,” he said. “I understand that once in a hundred years this is what you do.”

    Mr Greenspan’s comments capped a frenetic day in which policymakers across the political spectrum appeared to be moving towards accepting some form of bank nationalisation.

    “We should be focusing on what works,” Lindsey Graham, a Republican senator from South Carolina, told the FT. “We cannot keep pouring good money after bad.” He added, “If nationalisation is what works, then we should do it.”

    FT.com / US / Politics & Foreign policy - Greenspan backs bank nationalisation



    :lol:


    :eusa_whistle:


    :eusa_angel:
     
  2. wimpy77
    Offline

    wimpy77 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2009
    Messages:
    591
    Thanks Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +10
    i actually think the proper term is receivership and yes, i think some banks ago gonna have to go into receivership.
     
  3. editec
    Offline

    editec Mr. Forgot-it-All

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    41,427
    Thanks Received:
    5,598
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Maine
    Ratings:
    +5,617
    Greenspan's even smarter than I thought he was.

    Greenspan and I are on the same page here.

    How many times have I said the same thing in the last few weeks right here on this board?

    We BOUGHT those banks when we paid more than their market share worth to save them.

    If they can buy their shares back, or pay off these "loans" (at interest) great!
     
  4. sealybobo
    Offline

    sealybobo Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    50,693
    Thanks Received:
    3,198
    Trophy Points:
    1,845
    Location:
    Michigan
    Ratings:
    +10,203
    That little sob has come out to bust GOP lies more than a couple times. If he comes out and agrees with Ron Paul to socialize the banks, that is saying something.

    Will the people listen? Probably not. They can silence Greenspan too. The corporate media will just ignore him.

    Then you guys can say, "where did you hear that? oh, that's a liberal website so i don't acknowledge the facts on it".

    :cuckoo:
     
  5. Shogun
    Offline

    Shogun Free: Mudholes Stomped

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2007
    Messages:
    30,495
    Thanks Received:
    2,224
    Trophy Points:
    1,043
    Ratings:
    +2,260
    I'm betting the usual capitalistas who bitch daily about socialism this and blah blah blah won't decide to make a presence in this thread...
     
  6. manu1959
    Offline

    manu1959 Left Coast Isolationist

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2004
    Messages:
    13,761
    Thanks Received:
    1,625
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    california
    Ratings:
    +1,626
    ”It may be necessary to temporarily nationalise some banks in order to facilitate a swift and orderly restructuring,” he said. “I understand that once in a hundred years this is what you do.”

    if the queen had balls she would be king......
     
  7. sealybobo
    Offline

    sealybobo Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    50,693
    Thanks Received:
    3,198
    Trophy Points:
    1,845
    Location:
    Michigan
    Ratings:
    +10,203
    Yea, the Robber Baron's push every 100 years or so and they are back. Yes they are sort of the masters, but not really. Yes they do tell Congress and the President what to do, but then sometimes they push too much and we get an FDR New Deal or Obama who has to break up the good old boys.

    Last one to try was Kennedy, and you see where that got him. :eusa_shhh:
     
  8. Bern80
    Offline

    Bern80 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    8,094
    Thanks Received:
    720
    Trophy Points:
    138
    Ratings:
    +726
    And pass up a chance to go another round with my favorite sparing partner? NEVER!!!

    Honestly though I don't see what it's suppossed to accomplish or any good it's suppossed to accomplish. What I got out of the article is that somehow they're going to somehow magically be able to get rid of all this bad debt into a 'bad debt bank'. Okay, so the bad debt is now off the banks books. Is all of that debt just going to be forgiven? Is the bad debt bank going to 'handle it' it someway? Is this going to be one time only deal? i don't think it's the kind of precedent we want to be setting. It woud be like a financial game of chicken. banks pile up bad debt, the government says not our problem, until someon flinches. Either we get economic ruin because the govenrment didn't help (because it isn't their responsibility) or the government does help and we've just told people don't worry about bad debt, if it gets bad enough we'll take care of it.

    As far as a capitilistic solution, ironically that would require government policy as well, mainly in the form of reversing policy that encouraged risky lending (thank you President Carter!!). 'In theory' that would keep lenders from making risky loans. the result unfortunately would be a lowered standard of living because it would be harder to purchase things you couldn't really afford. You have complained before Shogun about reducing our standard of living in a variety of ways like jobs going overseas, but at the same time it is undeniable that the standard of living we're at is rather inflated. It does not accurately reflect people's ability to AFFORD that standard of living. The current SoL is probably over what it should be in terms of the SoL one can actually pay for, but the ease with which people can get credit has inflated that.
     
    Last edited: Feb 18, 2009
  9. Bern80
    Offline

    Bern80 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    8,094
    Thanks Received:
    720
    Trophy Points:
    138
    Ratings:
    +726

    You're half right. 'Robbing' is partially what got us into this mess (end of bobo being right). Who did the robbing though? Isn't robbing taking from others or taking what you don't have the ability to pay for? You look at all these people with credit card debt and pull out the victim card for them, but they are the theives in this situation bobo. they have debt because they bought things with money they don't have. When you buy something with a credit card you are promising to pay for it later. When you don't that's called theft and that's exactley what people who don't pay theor credit card balances are.
     
  10. sealybobo
    Offline

    sealybobo Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    50,693
    Thanks Received:
    3,198
    Trophy Points:
    1,845
    Location:
    Michigan
    Ratings:
    +10,203
    Aren't we asking the lenders to loosen up the purse strings and start lending to get the economy going again? So thanks to Bush, no one can afford to get a loan. That's not Carter's fault.

    And why not socialize the banks and then the government doesn't just take the bad debt, they take the good too.

    Right now, the Federal Reserve Private bankers get all the profits and we take all the losses for them? How's that make sense?
     

Share This Page