Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Good bank, bad bank all adds up to nationalization

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Economy Donate to DU
 
Eugene Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-23-09 12:46 PM
Original message
Good bank, bad bank all adds up to nationalization
Source: Reuters

http://www.reuters.com/article/ousiv/idUSTRE50M0LM20090123">Good bank, bad bank all adds up to nationalization
Fri Jan 23, 2009 10:34am EST

By Patrick Rucker and Emily Kaiser - Analysis

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Whether it's called good bank/
bad bank, troubled asset relief or some new acronym, the
United States appears to be on a course that will lead to
the effective nationalization of some of the largest U.S.
lenders.

Investors have little confidence in the banks' ability to
pull themselves out of the credit mess and are growing
frustrated with a government response seen as haphazard.
This is putting pressure on President Barack Obama to
come up with a bolder plan.

His economic team has dropped strong hints that an idea
to buy up bad assets, which was proposed but then
discarded under former President George W. Bush, may
soon be resurrected.

While the word "nationalization" is rarely uttered in
official public discussion, the end result may be the same.
By carving out the bad assets that are blocking the normal
flow of credit and then pumping taxpayer money into the
remaining healthy part, the public's stake in these
institutions may exceed private holdings.

-snip-

Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/ousiv/idUSTRE50M0LM20090123
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
truedelphi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-23-09 12:55 PM
Response to Original message
1. Abt six weeks ago, some local guy wrote a letter to the editoer
Saying that it was a shame that we didn't use "Trickle Up" to rescue the United States economy.

Yep, instead of making each man woman and child responsible for $ 25,000 in BailOut funds, why not send them the $ 25,000 - the household could then pay off the mortgage, the student laons and the credit cards. These payments woul dtrickle UP to the banks that way.

Instead, Paulson and Kashkari have enabled banks to stockpile cash reserves. Some of which gets used to buy 20 Billion dollar investment items in Spain of all places.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jwirr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-23-09 01:03 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Very good idea. I would be free and clear with enough left over to
put a good hunk of down on that trailer house I want. I also would be helping my bank because I owe most of it to the bank.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
On the Road Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-23-09 01:04 PM
Response to Original message
3. What I Don't Understand is Why the Author
equates buying troubled assets with nationalization. If the banks only offload the bad debts, they stay private.

What most of the TARP money was actually used for was in my mind closer to natonalization -- the government taking a stake in the banks via preferred stock. It is far better for the taxpayer than the initial plan.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
patriotvoice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-23-09 01:42 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. Nationalization = "public's stake in these institutions may exceed private holdings."
So, I believe the author says that if We the People own a majority of institution X, then X is "nationalized."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
On the Road Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-23-09 03:50 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. Right, That's What I Think
but if more money is put into preferred stock as per the current TARP, at some point the government will be the majority stockholder.

If the government simply buys bad assets, they have the assets and the banks have the rest of their business plus an infusion of cash. I don't think that will turn out as well for the taxpayers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truedelphi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-23-09 04:08 PM
Response to Reply #3
7. How was it better for the taxpayer than the initial plan.
Edited on Fri Jan-23-09 04:08 PM by truedelphi
According to what I see and hear, the major banks receiving the taxpayer funded BailOUt funds are simply hoarding the money and/or using it to acquire the assets of "more troubled" banks.

Kucinich really questioned Kashkari about the latter. If a bank is insolvent, why does another bank need 2 trillion dollars to purchase it?? Also, out of 350 Billion dollars of the first tranch of TARP payments, again according to Kucinich, only 457 homes Had been saved from foreclosure. Yet this TARP program was sold to the American taxpayers as a vehicle that would allow for many Americans to stay in their homes.

And why oh why did one American financial institute (I think it was Citigroup) allowed to acquire a 20 billion dollar bank in Spain?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-23-09 01:17 PM
Response to Original message
4. Buy preffered stock in the banks. Do not overpay for bad assets.
Overpaying for bad assets is just another way the republicans want to burden us with debt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Dec 27th 2024, 02:39 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Economy Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC