Re: [Pen-l] So Just Why is Bank Nationalization Off the Table?

[Jim Devine <jdevine03@xxxxxxxxx>]

Ann Davis wrote:
> Re: Edmund Andrews in today's NYT and Bernanke's speech on Monday, the Obama
> administration is going through massive contortions NOT to nationalize the
> banks which are receiving bailout funds.
>
> Can a case be made for the opposite, for the importance of nationalization?
>
> Have progressives already made this case elsewhere?  Is it not considered
> desirable, for some reason?
>
> Please advise.

>From a "progressive" perspective, I don't see the big advantage of
nationalization of banks, if the "nation" (the government) is run by
the same type of clown that runs banks. The main advantages of
nationalization from this point of view are propagandistic: it makes
the bankers and their free-market/deregulation craziness look bad.

In addition, if any entity (including the US government) is going to
give money to an organization such as a failing bank and take a big
risk, it should received an equity stake (with voting rights) or at
least high-quality IOUs (putting the government at the front of the
line of creditors if the bank goes 'rupt). That's simple financial
good sense.
-- 
Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own
way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l