Greenspan backs bank nationalisation

[Shogun]

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

 

[wimpy77]

i actually think the proper term is receivership and yes, i think some banks ago gonna have to go into receivership.

 

[editec]

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

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!

 

[sealybobo]

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

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".

 

[Shogun]

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...

 

[manu1959]

”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......

 

[sealybobo]

”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......

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.

 

[Bern80]

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...

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.

 

[Bern80]

”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......

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.

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.

 

[sealybobo]

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...

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.

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?

 

[sealybobo]

”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......

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.

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.

Funny that Bush made it harder for you to file bankruptsy and easier for corporations and rich people to do it.

And we know now that the mortgage companies did a lot of predatory lending on purpose. Maybe if the GOP didn't deregulate the industry, that wouldn't have happened.

No maybe, for sure it wouldn't have happened.

And sooo many people forclosed because of Bush's bullshit economy where all the manufacturing jobs are overseas.

Maybe if we had manufacturing back, we wouldn't have all these foreclosures.

No maybe, for sure we wouldn't. And you know it.

So now what? Are you going to argue in defense of sending all the manufacturing jobs overseas? Are you a fan of NAFTA? You must be. Or explain how this has not hurt the economy. Explain how all the GM, Chrysler & Ford layoffs has not hurt us. Then add up all the other companies that left. GE, Boeing, Lear, Haloburton, etc.

Then explain why the GOP created tax loopholes that would allow these companies to avoid paying US taxes?

Then explain how that is good for America.

You can't give corporations tax breaks and give yourself a big tax break too. Its either or. So who's it gonna be? Corporations or you? So when the profits go to a $40 million dollar CEO, remember, you are a schmuck.

 

[Bern80]

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...

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.

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.

yes we are asking them to do that. We are NOT asking them to make risky loans. there is a difference. Be in denial all you like. Plenty of dems share blame for this. Carter is at the top of the list because he let the politically correct convince him that lending policies were racist for not lending to minorities when the fact was on paper they were simply too risky to lend money to.

 

[sealybobo]

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.

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.

yes we are asking them to do that. We are NOT asking them to make risky loans. there is a difference. Be in denial all you like. Plenty of dems share blame for this. Carter is at the top of the list because he let the politically correct convince him that lending policies were racist for not lending to minorities when the fact was on paper they were simply too risky to lend money to.

In a good economy, you would loan me money. In this economy, who knows if I'll have a job in 3 months.

You don't realize how bad this economy is. I understand why though. Until Feb, you didn't even know we had problems.

The GOP in January 08 said Michigan was in a one state recession. I knew that was a lie, and now so do you. Things are great where you live? Where do you live? We'll all move there.

 

[Bern80]

Funny that Bush made it harder for you to file bankruptsy and easier for corporations and rich people to do it.

And we know now that the mortgage companies did a lot of predatory lending on purpose. Maybe if the GOP didn't deregulate the industry, that wouldn't have happened.

No maybe, for sure it wouldn't have happened.

And sooo many people forclosed because of Bush's bullshit economy where all the manufacturing jobs are overseas.

Maybe if we had manufacturing back, we wouldn't have all these foreclosures.

No maybe, for sure we wouldn't. And you know it.

So now what? Are you going to argue in defense of sending all the manufacturing jobs overseas? Are you a fan of NAFTA? You must be. Or explain how this has not hurt the economy. Explain how all the GM, Chrysler & Ford layoffs has not hurt us. Then add up all the other companies that left. GE, Boeing, Lear, Haloburton, etc.

Then explain why the GOP created tax loopholes that would allow these companies to avoid paying US taxes?

Then explain how that is good for America.

You can't give corporations tax breaks and give yourself a big tax break too. Its either or. So who's it gonna be? Corporations or you? So when the profits go to a $40 million dollar CEO, remember, you are a schmuck.

bobo, you're kind of a lost cause because you can't see past your disdain for Bush.

FACT: Carter was one of the first to deregulate the lending indsutry through the CRA.

FACT: Clinton lowered the amount of capital that Fannie and Freddie had to keep on hand to back their loans. Not exactley sound business practice.

FACT: Bush attempted to tigten lending regulations but was blocked by DEMOCRATS.

 

[Shogun]

”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......

hehehe... yea, dude.. and all of a sudden YOU find yourself having to agree with the poster boy for free market capitalism when he says, REGARDLESS OF TIMESPAN, that we HAVE TO SOCIALIZE the banks... Rich, isn't it?


Looks like you people are facing the failure of your economic opinions and having to run to solutions that you'd scream bloody fucking murder about a mere 4 years ago...

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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

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".

Ron Paul does not want to socialize any banks, sealy. He would have let all those banks fail, because that's what the market was calling for.

 

[Bern80]

Looks like you people are facing the failure of your economic opinions and having to run to solutions that you'd scream bloody fucking murder about a mere 4 years ago...

I, for one, am not forced to agree with him. I don't have any sympathy for people that took out loans they couldn't afford. I don't have any sympathy for the lenders that made those risky loans. And I don't have any sympathy for the government that encouraged policy (which you will see were more in line with socialist ideology rather than capitalistic) that ultimately made it less risky for lenders to lend to people that normally would be considered high credit risks.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

”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......

hehehe... yea, dude.. and all of a sudden YOU find yourself having to agree with the poster boy for free market capitalism when he says, REGARDLESS OF TIMESPAN, that we HAVE TO SOCIALIZE the banks... Rich, isn't it?


Looks like you people are facing the failure of your economic opinions and having to run to solutions that you'd scream bloody fucking murder about a mere 4 years ago...

Greenspan couldn't possibly be the poster boy for free market capitalism. He was the chairman of the Federal Reserve which is the antithesis of a free market.

 

[Shogun]

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...

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.

It's only inflated because you are comparing it to SOLs from nations whose labor is a LOT cheaper than ours. If we were not hemmoraging jobs to slave wage nations then it WOULD be the case that these risky loans COULD HAVE BEEN PAID. I don't thinks it's a matter of nationwide laziness or widescale conspiracies not to pay mortgage bills so much as it is a testement to the hazards of undermining our American employment potential and how that will affect the overall conuming potential of our citizens. In essence, those loans MAY have worked to upgrade our SOLs were it the case that capitalistas werent hellbent on launching employment at third world states that only continue to devalue the cost of labor.


Sure, our SOL is inflated when compared with labor in ghetto mexico or begger india or million man china. But, our concern should not be to normalize OUR SOL to that of a fucking third world country anyway.


Good to see ya, Bern. It;s been a hot minute since we've sparred over economics.

 

[sealybobo]

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

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".

Ron Paul does not want to socialize any banks, sealy. He would have let all those banks fail, because that's what the market was calling for.

I've already explained to you that you don't understand what Paul saying. He does that on purpose. If he is as blunt as I am, he'll get run out of politics.

But he was in my "conspiracy theory" dvd Freedom to Fascism and yes, he agrees with me 100%. The bankers own this country.

We need to take back the Federal Reserve. We need to go back to the gold standard. The IRS is unconstitutional.

Watch the damn dvd before you argue. Hear Dr. Paul's interview.

You see how the GOP treated Dr. Paul when he even HINTED at this stuff, so don't expect him to be loud and blunt like me. He's more tactful. He has to be.

He points out what is wrong with the system. The only difference is that he doesn't say they system is set up this way on purpose, and that the bankers own us.

He also won't argue that the 16th Amendment is bogus. So is the income tax, federal reserve, etc.

But you remain under informed, and still just as vocal.