January 28, 200917 yr In his confirmation hearing last week, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner said the White House is working on a new bank rescue plan. He was short on details, but the massive scope of the problem has prompted talk that the administration may be planning to "nationalize" a large portion of the banking industry. In its most extreme form, nationalization would mean that the government buys (or takes) all the shares of stock and takes over operations of the company, keeping the profits. Such state ownership is typically a form of socialism; major oil producing countries, for example, have set up state-owned companies to produce and sell oil, using the proceeds to pay for government services. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28880095
January 28, 200917 yr I don't think I like the idea either. But I have a question. Didn't the Government already become "share holders" to some banks it bailed out last fall with the first plan? Can some one clarify that for me?
January 28, 200917 yr Troubling. If this is indeed the policy they pursue I will be first in line to oppose it.
January 28, 200917 yr You mean we didn't nationalize parts of the banking industry with TARP??? What I have read is that they are considering nationalizing some of the bad loans . . . buying them from the banks
January 28, 200917 yr I don't think I like the idea either. But I have a question. Didn't the Government already become "share holders" to some banks it bailed out last fall with the first plan? Can some one clarify that for me? Freddie and Fannie were nationalized, more or less, but they were already quasi-government organizations. The government will be the majority shareholder of AIG if it fails to repay its loan.
January 28, 200917 yr I thought it was just Republican hype that O was going to move this country to socialism?
January 28, 200917 yr Funny he should learn his history, his party did away with the national Bank way back when.
January 28, 200917 yr How is this supposed to help? The logic seems to be that if the govt is the "owner" it will free up money to be loaned which will stimulate the economy. Banks just aren't lending right now and that's probably the biggest issue with the stalled economy.
January 28, 200917 yr The logic seems to be that if the govt is the "owner" it will free up money to be loaned which will stimulate the economy. Banks just aren't lending right now and that's probably the biggest issue with the stalled economy. I just don't see it (I get what you are saying, but I hate the misused logic). Why would government ownership result in freed up money? Because they can print it? Everyone knows the government is operating at a huge deficit.
January 28, 200917 yr The govt will not take over banks. You reading the same article or just refuse to see what is being talked about? I am dead serious with that question.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.