[SeekAndFind]

Depends on what they plan to do with Nationalization.

If their main purpose is to stabilize the troubled banks and eventually sell it back to private hands ( what Sweden did on the 1990’s, which a lot of economists considered successful ), I don’t think this is something to be concerned about.

But I am not sure what Obama and team have in mind.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

The Drudge headline says:

OBAMA MOVES TOWARD 'SWEDISH MODEL' FOR BANK BAILOUT

[pointsal]

In the big plan, the government is working to dilute the appraisal guidelines by allowing broker opinions and even tax assessment values as the underlying documentation for the collateral value.

.... Yep, true skinny! Lessons never learned!

[americanophile]

That is exactly what Graham is talking about...though we have reached a threshold when we put ‘nationalization’ of anything on the table. I would be extremely uncomfortable with nationalization of the banks if Ronald Reagan were president, Newt Gingrich ran the House, and Jesse Helms was the Senate Majority Leader...under Obama, Pelosi and Reid, it will inevitable take a sinister turn.

[jd777]

We should use the term RECEIVERSHIP. And it should be done now.

This is not permanent government control. The plan should be from the outset to Reprivatize the banks after the treasury/fdic/federal reserve can safely and completely dispose of all the toxic securities.

Secretary Geithner's proposal to fund a $2 trillion Public Private Partnership to buy up the securities is untenable.

[AvOrdVet]

If their main purpose is to stabilize the troubled banks and eventually sell it back to private hands

You know (or should know) as well as I do that once a government gets its hands into something, it is like a tick, very hard to dislodge...

Here is a common statement from the Government..."this will just be a temporary law or tax"... how many ever go away after being implemented, whether Federal, State or Local?