Nationalize the banks

[Moonbeam]

Skoorb is one of my favorite posters.

The cure for deafness is praise. A saying.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: bamacre
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.

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.

Interest rates didn't cause the current mess, you'll have to back that up with your own explanation, i.e. no links to laymans from YouTube or newspaper articles you don't understand.

And no, Paul didn't oppose deregulation, he wants the Fed and SEC abolished. Ron Paul is as ideological as they come when it comes to deregulation.

 

[Zebo]

BANKS getting 30% of GDP is a serious issue. They create nothing only allow people to create.. Thats WEIRD if you ask me.

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: manowar821
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...?

Did you mean "Tenets" or are you referring to some Marxist Lease-Hold Agreement?

 

[cwjerome]

I'm finding myself receptive to partial and temporary bank nationalization. Anything is better than multiple trillion dollar bail-outs and "stimulus packages," which will hardly do a damn thing.

Get in, clean house, make solvent, then auction them off.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Evan

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: bamacre
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.

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.

Interest rates didn't cause the current mess, you'll have to back that up with your own explanation, i.e. no links to laymans from YouTube or newspaper articles you don't understand.

And no, Paul didn't oppose deregulation, he wants the Fed and SEC abolished. Ron Paul is as ideological as they come when it comes to deregulation.

Wow, are really this dumb?

Even LK can admit that Greenspan's interest rates helped cause this mess.

Vic even said, to YOU by the way, that it was "inarguable that artificially low interest rates fueled excessive borrowing, which was the primary cause of all this (although not the only cause by a long shot).

Are you disagreeing with them? And with anyone else armed with half a brain?

And how many times do I have to tell you, Ron Paul voted against the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act?

Do you not believe me?

Have you looked it up for yourself?

Why do you keep saying he voted for it?

Just being dishonest? Stop spreading lies.

 

[cwjerome]

Greenspan's preoccupation/tunnel vision with inflation is what led him to maintain unreasonably low interest rates which helped lead to the cluster we have today. There's a lot of moving parts with this crisis but that has to be one of the major contributors.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: BoberFett
1) miketheidiot stop breathing.

quoted

Yes, I thought it was quoteworthy as well.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: chess9
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.

What's the matter, couldn't extract your head from your ass this morning? How do you propose a private organization compete against one that has unlimited funding and never needs to turn a profit?

You have to nationalize all or none. If you nationalize some, the private ones will fail quickly.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Wow, are really this dumb?

Even LK can admit that Greenspan's interest rates helped cause this mess.

Right, and I believe he said it wasn't even the main reason. And he's right, it wasn't. It was a combination of things that happened that, had Greenspan maintained the benchmark rates, it still would have resulted in a bad recession like the current one.

Vic even said, to YOU by the way, that it was "inarguable that artificially low interest rates fueled excessive borrowing, which was the primary cause of all this (although not the only cause by a long shot).

Right, never in doubt, the problem is that you attribute this to the Fed causing the crisis when a whole slew of reasons outside of lower interest rates (namely bad banking practices and terrible risk management by private companies) that exacerbated the situation into a full blown deep recession.

And how many times do I have to tell you, Ron Paul voted against the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act?

Do you not believe me?

Have you looked it up for yourself?

Why do you keep saying he voted for it?

Just being dishonest? Stop spreading lies.

You're transparent in the worse way. Voting against Bliley does not overshadow a lifetime of support for deregulating financial markets (just as voting against giving Rosa Parks a Congressional medal does not make him a racist). Paul leads the fight for deregulation via abolition of the Fed and SEC, he has literally sponsored and/or lead House bills asking for it. That alone is far less regulation than the vast majority of Congressmen on either side of the political spectrum believe in. It's nuts, but he doesn't know it's nuts because he's deluded into thinking markets regulate themselves better than any other alternative (despite centuries proving the contrary) while simultaneously claiming falsities about the Fed propping up housing prices. Just laughable stuff.

I'm sure Paul's ideas and values would have fit perfectly in pre-Civil War America, and I'm sure he would have fought valiantly for Southerners under Jefferson Davis to secede from the Union (even claimed they should have been allowed to break peacefully, effectively letting slavery endure :roll: ), but unfortunately for him he's living in the 21st century, stuck with a 19th century mindset. But good call on not going into detail about the Fed's role in the current recession, I wouldn't either if I had absolutely no real world experience or education as you clearly do not have.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: cwjerome
I'm finding myself receptive to partial and temporary bank nationalization. Anything is better than multiple trillion dollar bail-outs and "stimulus packages," which will hardly do a damn thing.

Get in, clean house, make solvent, then auction them off.

Probably not a bad idea. It has been done before with railroads here and with banks very successfully in other countries. Makes good sense, but much more complicated here. Maybe now they'll be more oversight of these private hedge funds that are let run wild in the free market.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: daveymark


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.

There's nothing temporary about nationalizing a bank. It's like creating a temporary government program.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: BoberFett
1) miketheidiot stop breathing.

quoted

:laugh: I just nominated you for ownage of the year in this thread.

Biggest laugh I've had in this forum in a looong time.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

What has come over him? Did he burn his signed copies of Atlas Shrugged?

 

[chess9]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: chess9
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.

What's the matter, couldn't extract your head from your ass this morning? How do you propose a private organization compete against one that has unlimited funding and never needs to turn a profit?

You have to nationalize all or none. If you nationalize some, the private ones will fail quickly.

The government has taken over thousands of banks since 1932 and no privately held bank has suffered irreparable harm. If that were the case, government take overs would have stopped long ago. You do not understand the many fundamental weaknesses that a taken over bank has. It's lost the confidence of it's shareholders, investors, depositors, and other customers. It usually has an inventory of bad loans. And bad banks are usually broken up quickly to vitiate the damage.

Get a grip-the US government doesn't need to nationalize all banks.

-Robert

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: chess9

Originally posted by: Fern

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

Yes.

This whole concept of nationalizing what are otherwise private businesses strikes me as problematic on many levels. I wonder if this is even constitutional?

Fern

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

As far as competition goes (no matter what debt the government aquires), the USA gov won't pay income taxes (in any real sense). That has long been recognized as unfair competition. This is why non-profit orgs must pay income tax on activites that compete with regular businesses, even if that activity is in accordance with their non-profit mission/purpose. So, IMO, to set up the federal government in direct competition with other banks is indeed problematic.

As regards the constitutionality of nationalizing retail banking - Yes, I've read some of the case but it has to do with establishing a national bank. The case was McCulloch v Maryland.

No, it wasn't the Intertstate Commerce Clause (The first significant case on that only came years later). Instead, this case turned on the 'Necessary and Proper Clause' in Areticle 1, Section 8 of the Contitution.

Aside from all that, I doubt the McCulloch case is directly relevent anyway. Seems to me that a 'national bank' is different in purpose than retail banks and I do not see how the government owning retail banks is related in any way to the powers or duties the fed gov may have.

Fern

 

[tk149]

My job requires me to deal with EPA, DOT, FDA, DEA, etc.

I can honestly say that getting the government to do anything, much less anything quickly and efficiently, is bloody well nearly impossible. Nationalization may look good on paper, but the implementation will be just as inefficient as the rest of the government agencies. Maybe finance will be different, but I doubt it.

IIRC, income tax was supposed to be temporary too.

BTW, Greenspan WAS a Rand disciple. Then he rejected her philosophy and became head of the Fed.

 

[imported_Lothar]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: bamacre
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.

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.

How can one oppose deregulation and also oppose regulation?

 

[Vic]

Topic Title: Nationalize the banks
Topic Summary: says Alan Greenspan

Ayn Rand rolls in her grave

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Vic

Topic Title: Nationalize the banks
Topic Summary: says Alan Greenspan

Ayn Rand rolls in her grave

It wouldn't be the first time.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Lothar

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: bamacre
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.

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.

How can one oppose deregulation and also oppose regulation?

Read the headlines, look at the stock market, watch banks being nationalized.

Economists Robert Ekelund and Mark Thornton have criticized the Act as contributing to the 2007 subprime mortgage financial crisis, arguing that while "in a world regulated by a gold standard, 100% reserve banking, and no FDIC deposit insurance" the Financial Services Modernization Act would have made "perfect sense" as a legitimate act of deregulation, under the present fiat monetary system it "amounts to corporate welfare for financial institutions and a moral hazard that will make taxpayers pay dearly". [14]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm-Leach-Bliley_Act

 

[First]

^ rofl.

 

[RichardE]

I would just like to leave this here. Step 5 from the communist manifesto

5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.

Funny how close we are coming to the other 9


In case anyone has never seen the 10 planks of communism as described by Karl Marx here they are. Remember, these were created for a Utopian ideal but used instead to seize power by ambitious people who saw opportunity when the state turned towards these. That is not to say that the state turned to these with the ideas of a dictatorships, but that people within the state saw weakness in the foundations of the state during this transformation and used that weakness to seize power.

Karl Marx's "10 Planks" to seize power and destroy freedom:

1. Abolition of Property in Land and Application of all Rents of Land to Public Purpose.

2. A Heavy Progressive or Graduated Income Tax.

3. Abolition of All Rights of Inheritance.

4. Confiscation of the Property of All Emigrants and Rebels.

5. Centralization of Credit in the Hands of the State, by Means of a National Bank with State Capital and an Exclusive Monopoly.

6. Centralization of the Means of Communication and Transport in the Hands of the State.

7. Extension of Factories and Instruments of Production Owned by the State, the Bringing Into Cultivation of Waste Lands, and the Improvement of the Soil Generally in Accordance with a Common Plan.

8. Equal Liability of All to Labor. Establishment of Industrial Armies, Especially for Agriculture.

9. Combination of Agriculture with Manufacturing Industries; Gradual Abolition of the Distinction Between Town and Country by a More Equable Distribution of the Population over the Country.

10. Free Education for All Children in Public Schools. Abolition of Children's Factory Labor in it's Present Form. Combination of Education with Industrial Production.

 

[imported_Lothar]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Lothar

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: bamacre
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.

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.

How can one oppose deregulation and also oppose regulation?

Read the headlines, look at the stock market, watch banks being nationalized.

Economists Robert Ekelund and Mark Thornton have criticized the Act as contributing to the 2007 subprime mortgage financial crisis, arguing that while "in a world regulated by a gold standard, 100% reserve banking, and no FDIC deposit insurance" the Financial Services Modernization Act would have made "perfect sense" as a legitimate act of deregulation, under the present fiat monetary system it "amounts to corporate welfare for financial institutions and a moral hazard that will make taxpayers pay dearly". [14]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm-Leach-Bliley_Act

Ron Paul didn't vote "No" on it.

 

[BansheeX]

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?

You = fail. Central banking is a socialist idea, the idea of backstopping fractional reserves with more counterfeit, price fixing interest rates, having a currency monopoly, is inherently marxist. Read the 5th plank of the communist manifesto. That Greenspan was a CHAIRMAN of this institution, used his powers to defer a correction into a bigger bubble, should tell you that the least surprising thing he could say is to nationalize the banks. Go back to freaking school and stop being one of those "Republicans vs Democrats" people. You may as well be saying "it wasn't socialism's fault, it was socialism's fault!" because that's what both parties are. Wake the heck up, it wouldn't take this long for anyone with a brain.