Posted on 02/17/2009 2:28:20 PM PST by rabscuttle385
BY EDWARD LUCEA & KRISHNA GUHA
Nationalisation, long regarded in Washington as a folly of Europeans, is gaining rapid ground among US opinion-formers. Stranger still, many of those talking about federal ownership of banks are Republicans.
Lindsey Graham, the Republican senator for North Carolina, said that many of his colleagues, including John McCain, the defeated presidential candidate, agreed with his view that nationalisation of some banks should be “on the table”.
Mr Graham said that people across the US accepted his argument that it was untenable to keep throwing good money after bad into institutions such as Citigroup and Bank of America, which now have a lower net value than the amount of public funds they have received.
“You should not get caught up on a word [nationalisation],” he told the Financial Times in an interview. “I would argue that we cannot be ideologically a little bit pregnant. It doesn’t matter what you call it, but we can’t keep on funding these zombie banks [without gaining public control]. That’s what the Japanese did.”
Barack Obama, the president, who has tried to avoid panicking lawmakers and markets by entertaining the idea, has recently moved more towards what he calls the “Swedish model” – an approach backed strongly by Mr Graham.
In the early 1990s, Sweden nationalised its banking sector then auctioned banks, having cleaned up their balance sheets. “In limited circumstances the Swedish model makes sense for the US,” said Mr Graham.
(Excerpt) Read more at ft.com ...
Oh, I remember that Freeper's words quite well.
And I quote...
On their worst day, a bill like porkulus would never have been considered by Republicans. —A.Hun, 2009-02-17
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2187316/posts?page=8#8
I have pinged anyone who replied to the post in question, regardless of agreement with its content.
I guess he's not ruling out being a little bit stupid however.
“How about this, Mrs. McCain: Let the bad banks fail and let the regionals and smaller healthier banks pick their bones.”
WOW! I agree with you.
So what about my post? It’s true. I notice you bugged out of the thread....
Apparently, you are just too dumb to realize that the banks are kaput, and nationalization is going to be the cheapest way out while maintaining some semblance of a financial system.
The Dems aren’t going to let them fail.
The trick is to return them to independence in the future. Dems won’t want too, Repubs will. You’re seeing the battle lines drawn now.
A quick question...have you ever posted an article critical of Democrats or do you just have some weird thing for Lindsey and McQueeg?
I had to go to class.
A quick question...have you ever posted an article critical of Democrats or do you just have some weird thing for Lindsey and McQueeg?
Oh, I post a mixture of stories, but generally, since I maintain the McCain Truth File ping list, well, I keep an eye on news coverage of both him and Graham.
The banks in question are already insolvent, and depending on taxpayer cash to keep operating.
As much as I hate to agree with McCain, and Graham, nationalization is merely a small step from where they are now.
Why create a “bad bank” when we have so many ready made?
Nationalize them, dispose of the bad assets in as orderly a manner as is possible, sell the not-so-bad assets to investors, and let “good banks” take over the good assets.
When that is done, close them and be done.
I’m not sure what congress or our honorable RINO senators would prefer, but that’s what I’d do, but then again, I’m not a financial wizard - I could probably only lose a fraction of the money that the professionals were able to lose.
It is incessant and insatiable. It knows no bounds or sense of proportion. It is a creepy, all-consuming fetish.
What?! And upset the FORCE for nationalization of private enterprise?! Are you MAD?! LOL!
>>>>> He says a lot of QUEER things.
He’s called “Pansy” Graham for more than one reason.
His drama queen temper tantrums during “comprehensive immigration reform” were fit for a cabaret performance.
Here comes the puny pragmatist platoon, Rabs. Hear their battle cry: “Hail, the heroes McQueeg and McLinds! They would nationalize one fewer bank than the Democrats!”
BTW, the joke is on Linds with his “little bit pregnant” jape; it uncomfortably (for him) suggests “a little bit socialist” given the context.
NavVet... NavyDad here... Greetings...
You said, “God save us. If Ayn Rand wasn’t dead, this would kill her. I simply cannot believe the American people voted to end the Republic that the founding fathers created, but that certainly seems to be the case.”
I agree, wholeheartedly - but, unfortunately, these dumb Lib sheeple are NOT Americans. They’re only in it for themselves! As in...
“Show Me Da Money!”
So which concerns you more - money or freedom? From your argument it would seem that Nationalization of the Banks in violation of pretty much everything the U.S. is supposed to stand for is “cheaper” than letting the banks fail. Do you even realize though that even IF the government gave back control into private hands at some time in the future it would be used as a precedent by someone else for some other reason???
And, do you actually TRUST the politicians in Washington? SERIOUSLY? We can’t even get them to stop proposing Unconstitutional bills, and you think we’d have any HOPE of demanding they RETURN control after they’ve established that Nationalization is “legal” through some perversion of law, and propaganda??? Heck, all you need to do is just LOOK at WHO the money in this stimulus bill today went to — and these people you would TRUST to give us back our freedom once this particular “crisis” is over? (If that’s true, you must’ve sacrificed your study of History for your study of Economics in some way).
Seriously, I think you need to look at how you are thinking about this. If you’re just trying to save money, then you need to realize that your opinion is based on GREED - not the good of the Nation’s people! Once Freedom is GONE it’s not gotten back cheaply or easily... Every step the government takes away from our Constitution means MORE erosion of the citizens’ rights. THAT is what we should be concerned about here — not MONEY. I’d say the blood of future Patriots that would have to be spilled to get rid of the Tyrants, is WAY more expensive than a bank failure...
The supremacy of finance capital over all other forms of capital means the predominance of the rentier and of the financial oligarchy; it means that a small number of financially “powerful” states stand out among all the rest. The extent to which this process is going on may be judged from the statistics on emissions, i.e., the issue of all kinds of securities. - Vladimir Ilyich Lenin
Of course, nobody is talking about forged mortgage securities. I have it on very good authority that as much as 30% of all mortgage backed securities were fake. These pieces of paper were sliced and diced into more complex securities. Then this toxic paper was sold, resold, and resold by Wall Street to clueless suckers worldwide.
Nothing is more toxic than forged mortgage securities. What happened to all the executives __________ ?
Golden parachutes, millions in bonuses, driving exotic cars, living in gated communities. Living life large, bigger than Madoff. Where is the outrage ?????
Time to move on. Nada por nada. Nothing to see here.
RINOS!!!! ARE THEM TWO DATING??? THEY ARE ALWAYS TOGETHER....
Nationalize banks = a good idea and a lot cheaper than what gubmint is presently doing: if not nationalize then just buy at market price, clean them up and refloat:
Citi market cap $16 bn
JPMorganChase $80 bn
Bank America $24 bn
Wells Fargo $57 bn
US Bankcorp $18 bn
Northern trust $12 bn
Deutsche bank $13bn
That is only $220 billion for seven of the biggest banks around - shareholders can be paid market value for their stock, then Gubmint can clean up the portfolios and sell the banks back into the market for doubtless more than they paid for them. So what is wrong with this idea?
Kind of puts the Tarp and Pigulus bills in perspective.
Since it is our tax dollars that own the place, it should be in taxpayer hands and not just a few shareholders right? We bought it unwillingly, but we did it and need to deal with it. 400 banks would be impossible. Keep it to 5 or 10.
Great post, LR! Awesome.
The precedent of all these actions is what saddens me most. It just accelerates the road to ruin.
Excellent point... and nationalizing (socializing) private industry / enterprise is properly viewed as unconstitutional per the 10th Amendment. It is socialism by the strict definition of that word.
It seems clear to me that any Republican who could entertain such policies needs to check into some sort of rehab.
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.