So what on earth does this do? After you nationalize a bank there is no profit and no incentive to make or save money.
This may shore up some of the failing investments in real estate dirivitives, but what are they going to do about how we handle these packaged real estate dirivitives? Obviously this whole system is flawed because it is based on an ever-increasing real estate value. So onced that failed the whole concept collapsed like an over inflated chunck of bubble gum.
This may shore up some of the failing investments in real estate dirivitives, but what are they going to do about how we handle these packaged real estate dirivitives? Obviously this whole system is flawed because it is based on an ever-increasing real estate value. So onced that failed the whole concept collapsed like an over inflated chunck of bubble gum.
Here is what nationalization would do IMHO.
The reason they can't let BoA fail is that there are people out there that took out 'insurance policies' saying that BoA would NEVER fail, maybe those guys are WFC, or C, or WHOEVER.
If you nationalize all these crappy ones you can the untangle the CDS, reduce their value to 0 and then start dealing with the crappy mortage backed securities. There is really no other way. The more money we pump into the banks the more money they will hoarde because they need a RIDICULOUS amount of collateral in case one of their CDS triggers.
DING DING DING. Not that Greenspan isn't extremely knowledgable in areas, but his right-wing ideology is a problem (as he admitted recently), he's a literal disciple of Ayn Rand.
It's (long past) time that we not listen as much to him and instead listen to others, just as FDR listened to Keynes over the rival ideologies, including the laissez-faire of the 20's.
Capitalism and free markets are what you want when you are stealing everything. Nationalization and socialism is what you want when everything has been stolen and theft has ruined everything.
BoberFett
Lifer
- Oct 9, 1999
- 37,562
- 9
- 81
Bullshit. One cannot simultaneously be an "Ayn Rand disciple" and "free marketer" while at the same time using the power of the Fed to distort the free market value of money.
If you're giving away a nearly unlimited supply of virtually free money, of course people are going to borrow as much as they can. Where do you think bubble after bubble came from? Overexpansion of the money supply, brought to you by Greenspan and his low interest rates.
Encouraging irresponsible lending practices doesn't make him a free marketer any more than sticking feathers up your ass makes you a chicken
bamacre
Lifer
- Jul 1, 2004
- 21,029
- 2
- 81
Since when did Rand support fractional reserve banking?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Greenspan
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWnhX2koVEc
The Rand connection is a more fundamental philosophical one, of 'the role of government, the nature of man'.
The fact that some of the Randian types ended up acting differently doesn't change the fact of thei beliefs - it was a sort of 'last resort' for them to take those actions.
When the South surrendered in the Civil War, that was not what they wanted to do, and it didn't make them pro-North abolitionists that they did so.
It could well be asked, 'why would we continue to listen to Jefferson Davis on the topic of slavery' after the Civil War, just as we can ask why continue to let Greenspan set the plan.
at least i don't post the same inane shit over and over again.
anyone who has taken even a basic economics class shoudl be able to tell you that not only do 'free markets' not work, they also don't (and can't) exist. Yet cranks like you keep harping on it like the morons you are.
bamacre
Lifer
- Jul 1, 2004
- 21,029
- 2
- 81
That doesn't change the fact that his artificially low interest rates helped cause this mess, and that goes against the very foundations of what Rand stood for.
The deregulation was irresponsible, there's no doubting that. But only because of the reality of the economic world in which we live. Had it been done under completely different terms, under a different monetary policy, it probably would have been a good idea. That's why "true free market" supporters like Ron Paul opposed the deregulation.
Ozoned
Diamond Member
- Mar 22, 2004
- 5,578
- 0
- 0
If the goverment feels the need to get involved, why not just relax the mark to market rules. Allow a mark to market + a certain % point. For example, mark to market + 15% then take a point off of that rule each year over the next 15 years until it returns to normal.
LOL you two! Did you bother to think about what you are saying? Private banks can't compete against the government banks? Good grief. Hard to believe die hard capitalists hold such views.
But, passing the philosophical nonsense, the government banks are going to be the ones saddled with non-performing assets, sometimes actually referred to as DEBTS.
So, their competitiveness will be a huge question and is one of the major reasons militating against taking them over. What do you do with 20-100 BAD BANKS without bankrupting the USA as well?The constitutionality of bank takeovers has been addressed before. Under the Commerce Clause it's perfectly legal. I don't recall the case, but if you really want to know (which I doubt), then go find the case.
I'm fairly agnostic on this whole question of bank takeovers, but I suspect that the tide is pulling strongly towards nationalization of some of the banks, and possibly an auto manufacturer. Greenspan isn't saying anything particularly astonishing, or helpful. He's a dead letter for most people, I'm sure, inasmuch as most of this happened on his watch.
-Robert
Dang, Skoorb, I can't count the times I've stated there the best news you can possibly imagine:
On a feeling level you are unconscious of, but which none the less defines your reality, you feel like the worst person in the world. That is your true belief, not the stories your ego creates. And I have said over and over your feelings are a lie. There is nothing wrong with you at all. If that doesn't uplift you, well you should know why. You can't hear it.
How do you tell a primitive savage he has a million bucks in the bank?
First
Lifer
- Jun 3, 2002
- 10,518
- 271
- 136
Pretty sensible if it's temporary. We nationalized railroads temporarily during WWI before handing them back to over private enterprise. Good idea if it's done right. The alternative of unrestrained "free market" has been widely considered as proven bunk (assuming you're not a layman libertopian).
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 384
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter