Dear Right...

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by pgardn

This may be exactly what will happen if the banks are Nationalized.
This is almost exactly what happened in a case (hi im god presented
in the form of an audio in an earlier post) during the Savings and Loan crisis in the 80's were one institution was indeed Nationalized. It turned out to be
a controlled bankruptcy even though that was not intended.

Not really. While the Feds may need control of the bank as it is dismantled, nationalizing banks under the current plan is attempting to right the ship instead of scuttling it.

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Not really. While the Feds may need control of the bank as it is dismantled, nationalizing banks under the current plan is attempting to right the ship instead of scuttling it.

They intend for private investors to take over the responsibilities.
Exactly as what God posted in that interview. Its almost the same
thing. Take a listen. It will actually give you more fodder.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by pgardn

They intend for private investors to take over the responsibilities.
Exactly as what God posted in that interview. Its almost the same
thing. Take a listen. It will actually give you more fodder.

There is pretty much zero chance that this will actually happen. Govt NEVER truly relinquishes authority and hardly anyone qualified wants to even serve in the Treasury dept much less manage these debacles for peanuts.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by pgardn

They intend for private investors to take over the responsibilities.
Exactly as what God posted in that interview. Its almost the same
thing. Take a listen. It will actually give you more fodder.

For peegarden

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

For peegarden

Why has the stock market fallen so much as politicians have talked about nationalizing the banks? If this was such a wonderful way of fixing credit markets, wouldn’t you think that stocks would go up?

No.

Not until the government organizes and
gets out.

Where have you found that Obama has said he plans
to run the banks, and keep the banks in government control?
Where? I have not found it yet...

stop it with the silly stuff.
You can call it Nationalizing or whatever. But the degree
to which the govt. takes control, manages, and for how long
are the real issues.

Just say we should let the banks fail and watch the market.
It will dive. But imo it will come back. Is there a middle ground?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by pgardn

Why has the stock market fallen so much as politicians have talked about nationalizing the banks? If this was such a wonderful way of fixing credit markets, wouldn’t you think that stocks would go up?

No.

Not until the government organizes and
gets out.

Where have you found that Obama has said he plans
to run the banks, and keep the banks in government control?
Where? I have not found it yet...

stop it with the silly stuff.
You can call it Nationalizing or whatever. But the degree
to which the govt. takes control, manages, and for how long
are the real issues.

Just say we should let the banks fail and watch the market.
It will dive. But imo it will come back. Is there a middle ground?

Let me explain this because you seem to have a problem forming independent thoughts.

If the govt "nationalizes" banks, who exactly is going to run them? Please tell me this. Who will be in charge and who will they have to answer to?

Let me ask another question. If the "nationalization" plan actually works out (which is almost an impossibility) why would the govt then give up control regardless of which party is in charge? Can you actually say with a straight face that Congress is going to give a successful bank back? Why would they?

If it doesnt work (which is lke a 99.9% chance) then who exactly is going to want them especially with the draconian rules that will surely be drafted?

What is Obama SUPPOSED to say? Yeah we are taking over the Banking business and probably going to keep it? Hell when Chris Dodd said it the market went into a freefall and his word is far less meaningful than Obama's.

The market is falling regardless. The worry is what happens in the future if the govt gets into the banking business. You may want to call it rightwing paranoia but why wouldn't govt banks be just another cog in the giant political machine? Politics cost all of us. There is a reason that the Fed Reserve is supposed to be apolitical.

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Let me explain this because you seem to have a problem forming independent thoughts.

1. If the govt "nationalizes" banks, who exactly is going to run them? Please tell me this. Who will be in charge and who will they have to answer to?

Let me ask another question. If the "nationalization" plan actually works out (which is almost an impossibility) why would the govt then give up control regardless of which party is in charge? Can you actually say with a straight face that Congress is going to give a successful bank back? Why would they?

If it doesnt work (which is lke a 99.9% chance) then who exactly is going to want them especially with the draconian rules that will surely be drafted?

What is Obama SUPPOSED to say? Yeah we are taking over the Banking business and probably going to keep it? Hell when Chris Dodd said it the market went into a freefall and his word is far less meaningful than Obama's.

The market is falling regardless. The worry is what happens in the future if the govt gets into the banking business. You may want to call it rightwing paranoia but why wouldn't govt banks be just another cog in the giant political machine? Politics cost all of us. There is a reason that the Fed Reserve is supposed to be apolitical.

1. When this happened before in the 80's the government hired people from other banks to...

a. Put people in place within the system who they deemed worthy so that the bank could eventually be sold to Banks that remained solvent. Conflicts of interest were a problem, but it got these instituions OUT OF THE GOVTS
HANDS...

THis has actually been done before and it was not pretty. But might be prettier than letting them just dive. Can you say with certainty that if the banks fail, money will still flow? Because there are plenty of people that
believe the banks should not be allowed to fail, not because of longterm problems, but because the fire is in the damn house now and we are not worried about the longterm health of the furniture! Which will be a problem
to solve LATER.

Do you seriously believe that Obama wants to KEEP THE BANKS IN THE GOVERNMENTS CONTROL?

And if so how in the hell did you get this idea?
Since he did not say it. YOu just feel it, as a good
Republican? How the heck do you know he wants to do
this because he has indicated he wants to get them reorganized
and out of government control.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by pgardn

1. When this happened before in the 80's the government hired people from other banks to...

a. Put people in place within the system who they deemed worthy so that the bank could eventually be sold to Banks that remained solvent. Conflicts of interest were a problem, but it got these instituions OUT OF THE GOVTS
HANDS...

THis has actually been done before and it was not pretty. But might be prettier than letting them just dive. Can you say with certainty that if the banks fail, money will still flow? Because there are plenty of people that
believe the banks should not be allowed to fail, not because of longterm problems, but because the fire is in the damn house now and we are not worried about the longterm health of the furniture! Which will be a problem
to solve LATER.

Do you seriously believe that Obama wants to KEEP THE BANKS IN THE GOVERNMENTS CONTROL?

And if so how in the hell did you get this idea?
Since he did not say it. YOu just feel it, as a good
Republican? How the heck do you know he wants to do
this because he has indicated he wants to get them reorganized
and out of government control.

What happened in the 80's and what is going on now are two entirely different things.

And let me ask you this question. Why wouldnt Obama want to keep the banks in govt control? Govt control is the standard behind which he governs as shown by his first 2 months on the job. Certainly his Congressional leaders such as Pelsoi and Dodd would LOVE to have this authority over those dirty capitalists. Do you honestly believe that they wouldnt rather make these banks puppets of the state? Let me ask again, What incentive is there to give up control of these institutions? Do I have to make a list of things Obama or any other politician has said that they either have done a 180 degree reversal on or were simply not true? His ACTIONS speak louder than his words. And his actions indicate that the banks would retain some degree of govt control were they to recover.

[hi_im_god]

the fdic insures deposits.

when a bank's assets (what is owed them) significantly exceed their liability (what they owe depositors), the fdic steps in and for all intents and purposes temporarily "nationalizes" the institution. it indemnifies what would otherwise be depositor loss's.

the government has, since the last depression, stood behind the "private" banking system.

indymac was "nationalized" last fall. lehman wasn't.

do you ever wonder why an institution like citicorp with $1.75 trillion in supposed assets is currently valued by the market at around $10 billion?

that's a troubling question for someone that believes in market economies. it suggests most people in the market think the institution is insolvent. they loaned a lot of money assuming housing would keep going up. they now hold assets that aren't worth what they owe their depositor's.

same for b of a. and too many other financial institutions.

on the upside, my favorite poster is back.

[cowgirlintexas]

Originally Posted by hi_im_god

the fdic insures deposits.

when a bank's assets (what is owed them) significantly exceed their liability (what they owe depositors), the fdic steps in and for all intents and purposes temporarily "nationalizes" the institution. it indemnifies what would otherwise be depositor loss's.

the government has, since the last depression, stood behind the "private" banking system.

indymac was "nationalized" last fall. lehman wasn't.

do you ever wonder why an institution like citicorp with $1.75 trillion in supposed assets is currently valued by the market at around $10 billion?

that's a troubling question for someone that believes in market economies. it suggests most people in the market think the institution is insolvent. they loaned a lot of money assuming housing would keep going up. they now hold assets that aren't worth what they owe their depositor's.

same for b of a. and too many other financial institutions.

on the upside, my favorite poster is back.

Mine too

Perhaps we should start a betting pool on how long it takes for him to get grounded to the basement