• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Nationalize the banks

<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e310cbf6-fd4e-11dd-a103-000077b07658.html
<b">Text</a>




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.?

Speaking to the FT ahead of a speech to the Economic Club of New York on Tuesday, Mr Greenspan said that ?in some cases, the least bad solution is for the government to take temporary control? of troubled banks either through the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation or some other mechanism.

The former Fed chairman said temporary government ownership would ?allow the government to transfer toxic assets to a bad bank without the problem of how to price them.?

But he cautioned that holders of senior debt ? bonds that would be paid off before other claims ? might have to be protected even in the event of nationalisation.

?You would have to be very careful about imposing any loss on senior creditors of any bank taken under government control because it could impact the senior debt of all other banks,? he said. ?This is a credit crisis and it is essential to preserve an anchor for the financing of the system. That anchor is the senior debt.?

Mr Greenspan?s comments came as President Barack Obama signed into law the $787bn fiscal stimulus in Denver, Colorado. Mr Obama will announce on Wednesday a $50bn programme for home foreclosure relief in Phoenix, Arizona. Meanwhile, the White House was working last night on the latest phase of the bailout for two of the big three US carmakers.

In his speech after signing the stimulus, which he called the ?most sweeping recovery package in our history?, Mr Obama set out a vertiginous timetable of federal decisions in the coming weeks that included fixing the US banking system, submission next week of the 2009 budget and a bipartisan White House meeting to address longer-term fiscal discipline.

?We need to end a culture where we ignore problems until they become full-blown crises,? said Mr Obama. ?Today does not mark the end of our economic troubles? but it does mark the beginning of the end.?

Looks like we're certainly headed in that direction. More and more are jumping onboard this idea. Is there any reason that this would not work? In Alan's defense, he is only saying we should nationalize SOME banks, and only temporarily.
 
Originally posted by: daveymark
Text

Looks like we're certainly headed in that direction. More and more are jumping onboard this idea. Is there any reason that this would not work? In Alan's defense, he is only saying we should nationalize SOME banks.

Just continous flalling attempts to avoid the effects of a massive de-leveraging market shift. In my opinion it's like holding a gun to our head and saying jump into the oven or I shoot you, unfortunately the oven will be turned on in a few hours. Not a fun spot to be in.

 
Originally posted by: sandorski
Even Idealists see that the situation requires extraordinary measures. The key word is "temporarily".

Not to mention he said...

Speaking to the FT ahead of a speech to the Economic Club of New York on Tuesday, Mr Greenspan said that ?in some cases, the least bad solution is for the government to take temporary control? of troubled banks either through the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation or some other mechanism.
 
Greenspan and a McCain toady both calling for bank nationalization? Does anyone doubt that we are in a true financial crisis now? OTOH it seems like both are saying the government can liquidate these bad assets more efficiently than private enterprise can.

Here is a link to a similar proposal from Simon Johnson, an economics professor at MIT:

Simon Johnson on Bill Moyers Journal

Personally I like this idea better than just throwing bushels of cash at the banks and having the bankers continue to fleece us unabated.
 
You know the situation is grim when someone like Alan Greenspan(the champion of free market capitalism) is starting to talk about nationalization of banks.
 
Originally posted by: Lothar
You know the situation is grim when someone like Alan Greenspan(the champion of free market capitalism) is starting to talk about nationalization of banks.

not to mention a Republican senator from South Carolina.. had you told me this would happen 2 years ago I'd laugh at you
 
So, I'm still confused as to how the tenants of socialism and fascism have reversed roles? Was there a definition change some time ago that I wasn't aware of...?
 
I knew he was a soviet plant from the beginning, him and Ayn Rand, just waiting all these years for the switch to be flipped.

 
Originally posted by: BoberFett
You can't nationalize some banks. How would a private bank compete against a government funded bank?

Smaller private banks mostly just adhere to the standards of the big ones right now anyways. All of them are also very highly regulated already.
 
Originally posted by: Thump553
OTOH it seems like both are saying the government can liquidate these bad assets more efficiently than private enterprise can.

Of course it can. Government doesn't care about profit, it just raises taxes or prints more money.
 
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
LOLSOCIALISM!
OK this really doesn't make sense in a Greenspan thread?
I know, it's just shocking to see a true free-market believer advocating nationalizing the banks. Viewed in this context, it makes a lot of the Obama nit-pickers seem a little retarded for screaming "socialist" or "marxist" at virtually every proposal he makes. Then again, I guess we already knew that though?
 
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
LOLSOCIALISM!
OK this really doesn't make sense in a Greenspan thread?
I know, it's just shocking to see a true free-market believer advocating nationalizing the banks. Viewed in this context, it makes a lot of the Obama nit-pickers seem a little retarded for screaming "socialist" or "marxist" at virtually every proposal he makes. Then again, I guess we already knew that though?

Greenspan isn't a "true free-market believer" and hasn't been for many years.
 
Alan Greenspan is a hero to me. In the future I want to be at the helm of one of the greatest economic fvckups in mankind just like he was and then continue to talk about it like I should do anything but stfu.

I'm not saying he's wrong here, necessarily, just making a funny 🙂
 
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Originally posted by: Thump553
OTOH it seems like both are saying the government can liquidate these bad assets more efficiently than private enterprise can.

Of course it can. Government doesn't care about profit, it just raises taxes or prints more money.

You misunderstand my point. In the original bank bailout from last October the theory basically became toss the money at the banks to give them some breathing room, then the private enterprise banking wizs can work their miracles and orderly liquidate the bad assets (of course this was before they absconded with 18+ billion for their bonuses). If the private guys could truly do it better the government would print up the money to let them do it. Greenspan, the McCain toady and Simon Johnson (see my earlier link) basically say a mega-FDIC type takeover is better and cheaper.
 
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
LOLSOCIALISM!
OK this really doesn't make sense in a Greenspan thread?
I know, it's just shocking to see a true free-market believer advocating nationalizing the banks. Viewed in this context, it makes a lot of the Obama nit-pickers seem a little retarded for screaming "socialist" or "marxist" at virtually every proposal he makes. Then again, I guess we already knew that though?

Greenspan isn't a "true free-market believer" and hasn't been for many years.

Actually yes he his. This is why he encouraged the creation of derivatives, more exotic mortgages etc. because he though the 'free system' would regulate itself.

I don't understand how you don't see that. The banks took the idea and ran with it. He said his biggest mistake was ASSUMING that the free market would police itself. In fact it didn't.

I really don't see how you don't see that.
 
Originally posted by: GTKeeper
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
LOLSOCIALISM!
OK this really doesn't make sense in a Greenspan thread?
I know, it's just shocking to see a true free-market believer advocating nationalizing the banks. Viewed in this context, it makes a lot of the Obama nit-pickers seem a little retarded for screaming "socialist" or "marxist" at virtually every proposal he makes. Then again, I guess we already knew that though?

Greenspan isn't a "true free-market believer" and hasn't been for many years.

Actually yes he his. This is why he encouraged the creation of derivatives, more exotic mortgages etc. because he though the 'free system' would regulate itself.

I don't understand how you don't see that. The banks took the idea and ran with it. He said his biggest mistake was ASSUMING that the free market would police itself. In fact it didn't.

I really don't see how you don't see that.

Yeah, me either. 😕
 
Back
Top