Posted on 02/17/2009 5:48:34 PM PST by rabscuttle385
BY KRISHNA GUHA & EDWARD LUCE
Washington. 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 with the FT 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at ft.com ...
No.
I see they have Greenspan out shilling for them. He’s been a big part of the problem for almost two decades.
In that case, instead of GM playing silly games with Congress and Recovery Plans, wouldn’t it be simpler to just issue 10 billion shares of new stock and sell it to the Fed through one of these “Primary Dealers”?
Can everyone in the country incorporate themselves, issue a million shares of stock at $1 each in an IPO through a Primary dealer, sell it to the Fed, and we’ll all be millionaires?
http://www.cnbc.com/id/29246420
I’m not sure Greenspan actually recommended nationalization of banks. See above.
And the Chancellor promises to return power back to the Senate after the emergency has passed...
Unless people rise up we are going to end up like Venzuela.
What in the hell can we do?
They could do that and it would be simpler but it would be a bad idea.
Can everyone in the country incorporate themselves, issue a million shares of stock at $1 each in an IPO through a Primary dealer, sell it to the Fed, and we’ll all be millionaires?
You could try, but the Fed probably wouldn't buy.
What are you talking about? How did "mainstream voters" spend trillions of stockholders' money on dubious or worthless assets?
So you’re saying the Fed could do that if they were so inclined.
How is that different from “printing money”, other that the fact that one involves actually getting paper and putting ink on it, and the other is simply a matter of typing some numbers into a computer somewhere?
Defaulted mortgages? Hello?
Yes.
How is that different from “printing money”,
It's not.
I understand what they’re saying talking about the “Swedish model” of grabbing the bank, nationalizing it, restructuring it, and then re-privatizing it. If I thought this government would actually DO that, the concept might not give me the willies. But I don’t trust them one inch; they’ve proven, regardless of party, that once they’re given something, they will NEVER let it go. If they nationalize banks, those banks will never be properly re-privatized, ever again.
}:-)4
The Fed only buys junk from its buddies.
Have you ever driven through a neighborhood and thought to
yourself, “Wow I wonder what kind of job that person has?”
Maybe a few bankers should have said the same thing.
I see. "Mainstream voters" forced investors to buy bad assets, and therefore they own the irresponsible investors' liabilities. Let's blame the victims.
Check your reasoning. Most mortgage holders are not defaulting. Yes, some home buyers contributed to the problem, but saying most "mainstream voters" default on mortgages is preposterous.
"Mainstream voters" defaulted on mortgages.
Yes, some home buyers contributed to the problem, but saying most "mainstream voters" default on mortgages is preposterous.
Most? Who said most?
What I find amazing about Greenspan is that he was at one time an Ayn Rand disciple. And now he finds himself as a player in a real life Atlas Shrugged - another Wesley Mouch. Quite a transformation.
Some did, but you are ignoring the irresponsible investors' role. And you believe it's our responsibility to keep funding them, no matter what they do with the TARP money.
Most? Who said most?
OK, you admit it's not most. Your choice of words "mainstream voters" is dubious then.
Wasn't my choice of words.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.