Nationalization Gets a New, Serious Look

[rayboyusmc]

Yeah, let's blame this on Obama and not Bush who he inherited the mess from. As far as I'm concerned, if they can't run it without taking tax dollars, they don't deserve to own them and profit from them.

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?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/26/business/economy/26banks.html?_r=1&hp

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Yeah, let's blame this on Obama and not Bush who he inherited the mess from. As far as I'm concerned, if they can't run it without taking tax dollars, they don't deserve to own them and profit from them.

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?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/26/business/economy/26banks.html?_r=1&hp

Funny? I thought the Dems controlled Congress last year and that FDR created the Idea the US would insure Banks?

 

[Vel]

I not only thought that Democrats controlled Congress for the last two years, I also thought that the current POTUS had been an active member of that Congress.
I don't know about anyone else but that whine we're hearing from Obama about the mess that he "inherited" are ringing very hollow. Please show me the remedies to our terrible economy that Obama sought while a senator.

 

[WillowTree]

If it happens on obamalama's watch, it's his failure! obamalama's watch began Jan. 20th. did it not?

 

[rayboyusmc]

Funny? I thought the Dems controlled Congress last year and that FDR created the Idea the US would insure Banks?

You're right. This just started in the last two years with the Repubs filibustering. They didn't insure banks, they insured our individual deposits up to 100,000.00.

I have no problem with the government taking these over. Maybe, we can make some money and reduce our taxes.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

We shouldn't be nationalizing any banks at all.

 

[editec]

Yeah, let's blame this on Obama and not Bush who he inherited the mess from. As far as I'm concerned, if they can't run it without taking tax dollars, they don't deserve to own them and profit from them.

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?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/26/business/economy/26banks.html?_r=1&hp

We do not have to nationalize banks.

WE ought to nationalize the FEDERAL RESERVE BANK, though.

My suggestion is that we open up the FEDERAL reserve bank to the public instead of making it the loaner to private banks.

Why should I pay more interest for a loan from the FEDS than Citibank?

Even more to the point why should Citibank profit by lending me money they don't have, which they theoretically borrowed from the FED?

Why are they so special that they get to lend me money they didn't have?

Hell I'd rather pay my nation back for my mortgage than some freaking banker who loaned me money he didn't have to begin with.

If I'm going to be borrowing invented money, anyway, let me borrow it from my national government who ORIGINALLY issued it.

 

[cunclusion]

Yeah, let's blame this on Obama and not Bush who he inherited the mess from. As far as I'm concerned, if they can't run it without taking tax dollars, they don't deserve to own them and profit from them.

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?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/26/business/economy/26banks.html?_r=1&hp

We do not have to nationalize banks.

WE ought to nationalize the FEDERAL RESERVE BANK, though.

My suggestion is that we open up the FEDERAL reserve bank to the public instead of making it the loaner to private banks.

Why should I pay more interest for a loan from the FEDS than Citibank?

Even more to the point why should Citibank profit by lending me money they don't have, which they theoretically borrowed from the FED?

Why are they so special that they get to lend me money they didn't have?

Hell I'd rather pay my nation back for my mortgage than some freaking banker who loaned me money he didn't have to begin with.

If I'm going to be borrowing invented money, anyway, let me borrow it from my national government who ORIGINALLY issued it.

That makes more sense than alot of things I have been hearing lately. Let them compete for banking services...

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Funny? I thought the Dems controlled Congress last year and that FDR created the Idea the US would insure Banks?

You're right. This just started in the last two years with the Repubs filibustering. They didn't insure banks, they insured our individual deposits up to 100,000.00.

I have no problem with the government taking these over. Maybe, we can make some money and reduce our taxes.

You make the claim, back it up, provide us that list of bills the Republicans filibustered that would have , if passed, helped with the Banking and housing problems.

 

[editec]

Yeah, let's blame this on Obama and not Bush who he inherited the mess from. As far as I'm concerned, if they can't run it without taking tax dollars, they don't deserve to own them and profit from them.



http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/26/business/economy/26banks.html?_r=1&hp

We do not have to nationalize banks.

WE ought to nationalize the FEDERAL RESERVE BANK, though.

My suggestion is that we open up the FEDERAL reserve bank to the public instead of making it the loaner to private banks.

Why should I pay more interest for a loan from the FEDS than Citibank?

Even more to the point why should Citibank profit by lending me money they don't have, which they theoretically borrowed from the FED?

Why are they so special that they get to lend me money they didn't have?

Hell I'd rather pay my nation back for my mortgage than some freaking banker who loaned me money he didn't have to begin with.

If I'm going to be borrowing invented money, anyway, let me borrow it from my national government who ORIGINALLY issued it.

That makes more sense than alot of things I have been hearing lately. Let them compete for banking services...

ACtually there'd be one bank...the FED.

If people wanted to create private banks, fine, but the FED would have nothing whatever to do with them.

They couldn't borrow money from the FED at a rate any better than the rest of us.

What I am basically proposing is a national bank/treasury -- one where the average person would be borrowing the money FIRST and one where no intermediary private bank would be involved at all.

 

[Tech_Esq]

Funny? I thought the Dems controlled Congress last year and that FDR created the Idea the US would insure Banks?

You're right. This just started in the last two years with the Repubs filibustering. They didn't insure banks, they insured our individual deposits up to 100,000.00.

I have no problem with the government taking these over. Maybe, we can make some money and reduce our taxes.

Way to understand the issue. Pat yourself on the back.

 

[Tech_Esq]

We do not have to nationalize banks.

WE ought to nationalize the FEDERAL RESERVE BANK, though.

My suggestion is that we open up the FEDERAL reserve bank to the public instead of making it the loaner to private banks.

Why should I pay more interest for a loan from the FEDS than Citibank?

Even more to the point why should Citibank profit by lending me money they don't have, which they theoretically borrowed from the FED?

Why are they so special that they get to lend me money they didn't have?

Hell I'd rather pay my nation back for my mortgage than some freaking banker who loaned me money he didn't have to begin with.

If I'm going to be borrowing invented money, anyway, let me borrow it from my national government who ORIGINALLY issued it.

That makes more sense than alot of things I have been hearing lately. Let them compete for banking services...

ACtually there'd be one bank...the FED.

If people wanted to create private banks, fine, but the FED would have nothing whatever to do with them.

They couldn't borrow money from the FED at a rate any better than the rest of us.

What I am basically proposing is a national bank/treasury -- one where the average person would be borrowing the money FIRST and one where no intermediary private bank would be involved at all.

Is that because the current Fed has too little power for you?

 

[garyd]

Okay, the banks borrow from the feds only for certain specific purposes they are not in general funded by the fed. The feds in turn have bank examiners - probably not enough - that are supposed to check the bank's accounts periodically to make sure everything is on the up and up.

Under your plan edit basically the fox would be guarding the hen house. Forgive me for being a bit leary. And what you don't know about the banking industry would and probably has filled books.

 

[Tech_Esq]

Okay, the banks borrow from the feds only for certain specific purposes they are not in general funded by the fed. The feds in turn have bank examiners - probably not enough - that are supposed to check the bank's accounts periodically to make sure everything is on the up and up.

Under your plan edit basically the fox would be guarding the hen house. Forgive me for being a bit leary. And what you don't know about the banking industry would and probably has filled books.

Right. And the valuation that they do has actually accentuated the problem as we hit the downturn in the real estate market (at least as I understand it). The "Mark to market" accounting that is used to value assets held by banks is partly responsible in causing banks to fail.

In mark to market, the value of an asset is what you could sell it on the market on what ever day it is valued. So, if you took out a loan on your home in 2003 for $300,000 on your $375,000 house and it is still held in the loan portfolio of the bank now. You have paid approximately $25,000 in equity. Let's say in 2007, that house could have been sold on the market for $570,000, so when the examiners looked at the value, everything was groovy. In December 2008, when the examiners came, the house could only be sold for maybe $300,000. Now this isn't as bad as a house that "underwater" but it isn't good. The bank now doesn't have much value in this loan.

The loans that were taken out in 2005-2007 are now all underwater for the most part. So, if the banks have those in their portfolio, they represent an negative balance. So, instead of counting home loans as assets, they are now liabilities. If the liabilities outweigh the assets, the bank goes belly up.

The problem with all of this is that the bank was not planning on selling the loan portfolio. So why act like it was for the purpose of valuation? The banks argue that a better way to value the loans is as an average over 5 - 7 years. This tends to flatten out the peaks and valleys in the market and represents a more fair value of loans that are intended to be held for 15 - 30 years.

 

[editec]

That makes more sense than alot of things I have been hearing lately. Let them compete for banking services...

ACtually there'd be one bank...the FED.

If people wanted to create private banks, fine, but the FED would have nothing whatever to do with them.

They couldn't borrow money from the FED at a rate any better than the rest of us.

What I am basically proposing is a national bank/treasury -- one where the average person would be borrowing the money FIRST and one where no intermediary private bank would be involved at all.

Is that because the current Fed has too little power for you?

The current FED Reserve is neither Federal nor is it a reserve.

It is a privately owned bank which has been granted the right to control our monetary policies and they have done a piss poor job of it.

 

[Skeptik]

Unregulated capitalism messed up the banking system, so let's go all the way back and socialize it.

Socialism will work, sure it will.

And the best we can do is debate whether the banking failure is the fault of the Republicans or the Democrats. Well, I can tell you whose fault it is:

Those who say it is the Democrats' fault are right.

Those who respond that it is the Republicans' fault are right, too.

And, the voices telling us it's Wall Street greed that is at fault are also correct.

Both parties have been in charge of the federal government while the banking failure was allowed to happen. It happened because the ones in charge of the system got greedy, and gambled with other people's money.

Now, the federal government is going to help out by paying for the gambling losses, or, worse yet, by socializing banking.

If I go to Vegas, will the government cover my losses while allowing me to keep my winnings? If so, I'll book a flight.

 

[doeton]

Now, the federal government is going to help out by paying for the gambling losses, or, worse yet, by socializing banking.

um so socialized banking is worse than no banks?

ahahahahah.

good one.

If I go to Vegas, will the government cover my losses while allowing me to keep my winnings? If so, I'll book a flight.

not a chance if go bankrupt nobody gives shxt.

if a bank like citigroup goes belly up it affects everyone.

 

[Vel]

Yeah, let's blame this on Obama and not Bush who he inherited the mess from.

Obama was elected to the U.S. Senate in 2004. Perhaps had he done the work he was hired to do rather than immediately beginning his campaign for POTUS, perhaps this economy wouldn't be in such a mess.

 

[editec]

Okay, the banks borrow from the feds only for certain specific purposes they are not in general funded by the fed. The feds in turn have bank examiners - probably not enough - that are supposed to check the bank's accounts periodically to make sure everything is on the up and up.

Under your plan edit basically the fox would be guarding the hen house. Forgive me for being a bit leary. And what you don't know about the banking industry would and probably has filled books.

I'll readily admit that what I don't know about the current banking system would fill volumes.


However the foxes currently OWN the chickencoop, amigo....and we're the chickens.

Now, of course, no government solution (in this case nationalizing the FED) is going to work if the government is badly managed, there's no denying that.

But no market solution works if the market is a mafia-run franchised enterprise, either.

The fact is that in a CAPITAList society, SOMEBODY has to regulate the amount of CAPITAL that's out there chasing all the goods and services being produced.

Call that entity the FED, or call it the TREASURY, but national monetary policy is something that we need, either way.

Ideally, the amount of money in circulation would be based on the amount of good and services being produced by the society issuing the currency.

Now I am NOT advocating that the government take over the means of production. I am more than convinced that for profit capitalism is the most productive and efficient means to produce wealth.

But I am advocating that we can no more trust for profit bankers to keep the money supply in kilter than we can trust our government to decide how much steel should be produced this year.

How many depressions can this society experience thanks to these banking gangsters, before we figure this out?

I'll just keep asking the same question until somebody tells me why you or I have to pay a certain amount to borrow money, but a PRIVATELY OWNED BANK, gets to "borrow" money directly from the FED at deep discounts just so they can lend it to me at a much higher rate of interest?

It must be apparent to some of us that the banks aren't real good at that deciding who is a viable debt risk.

Would the government be better at it?

I don't really know...but they certainly can read my credit rating as easily as any for-profit banker can.

There has GOT to be a better system than what we've got now.

 

[sealybobo]

Yeah, let's blame this on Obama and not Bush who he inherited the mess from. As far as I'm concerned, if they can't run it without taking tax dollars, they don't deserve to own them and profit from them.

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?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/26/business/economy/26banks.html?_r=1&hp

I think it would be a great idea. Don't nationalize all of them. Just create one national bank, that is government run. Didn't we bail out a bank or two? Then don't we now own them?

Let the free market banks compete with them and let us see how they do.

The Federal Government bank, not part of the Federal Reserve, will offer really great rates. The Government bank will also refinance for free people who were predatory lended to.

I'll take all my money out of National City and put it in the government bank.

Now lets see the Free Market compete. They'll have to drop their rates and be competitive with the government run bank.

Hey, if we have to compete with foreign slave labor so consumers can save a buch, then I think it is only fair that American companies should have to compete with our government.

In other words, fuck the corporations. This country is for we the people. The corporations can do business if it is in the best interest of the public. If they are harming the public, then our democratic government should do something about it. Our founding fathers warned us about corporations getting too powerful. I think we have past that point. Bushanomics gave them 8 years to do whatever they wanted. The GOP are sellout/traitors to democracy.