We already own the banks -- shouldn't we run them?

[bemildred]

The worst thing about ideological sloganeering is that it obscures, rather than clarifies, the facts of a situation.

Exhibit A: The question of whether we should "nationalize" our crippled banks. To the political right, the very word smacks of the world of banana republics. To the left, it's just what those idiots on Wall Street deserve, and long overdue.

---

As part of its $700-billion bank bailout, the U.S. government is injecting $45 billion of taxpayers' cash into each of the two most impaired institutions in the elephantine herd, Bank of America and Citigroup. The government has also pledged to cover $419 billion in losses at the two institutions.

The cash injections alone are almost enough to buy up all of BofA's outstanding common stock twice over and Citi's stock three times over. Yet the government has failed to demand any specific performance in return. There have been no sackings of management and no mandate that the money be applied to support loans in credit-strapped sectors, like small and medium-size businesses.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hiltzik19-2009feb19,0,3960835.column

[Captain Hilts]

1. AND our new soccer team - Manchester United. nt

[Rosa Luxemburg]

2. What Man Utd? How about Liverpool or Everton?

regulated is different from running them

[Wapsie B]

3. Exactly. The public should have shares of preferred stock in both banks.

The doling out of public funds to corporations should come with a steep price tag, meaning the government gets to dictate their operation. Otherwise let the free market sort things out.