Why isn't Obama bringing up nationalization of the banks?

[LittleBlue]

That's an honest question, because it makes a hell of a lot more sense than what we're doing.

We've spent trillions on the bailout when we could have just purchased troubled banks for much, much less. Market cap is the total number of shares x by the current price. It's the cost of buying the whole corporation.

Citi's market cap: $18 billion
Bank of America's market cap: $31 billion

http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=C
http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=bac

These are the two largest banks, and both are dragging down the economy. I haven't heard from Larry Summers, Geithner, or anyone else, why we should NOT buy these banks and operate them until the crisis is over. Other countries have successfully done this, like Sweden. It would cost around $50 billion vs. the trillions we've wasted so far.

Maybe someone in the banking industry can fill me in?

[slinkerwink]

1. because Summers is against it.

[LittleBlue]

3. Has Summers articulated some rationale

or is it just the same "free market vs. communism" BS that we get from the Freeptards?

[barb162]

2. Becasue it send shivers up the spines of many people.

Personally, I have no problem with nationalizing several of them. But I have problem with doing the whole damned banking system ($$$$$$$$$$$$$). SO far I think we've thrown away billions on that first big stimulus on them a few months ago. Paulson should be strung up by his balls for that, for not making them lend, getting the cash circulating.

[LittleBlue]

4. I agree. But I don't see why it should send shivers up the spines of anyone

since we already own most of these banks through the loans we've made them. The loans are greater than the bank's value, and the banks can't repay them, so we're already the de facto owners, if not de jure.

[barb162]

5. But we don't officially own them. Nationalizing them makes

it very clear who is directing them and that scares the crap out of some people. A friend of mine calls it the "N" word. I kid you not.