Comments on: Why Not Nationalization?

By: hawleyl

hawleyl — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 05:29:29 +0000

I keep hearing some banks are to large to fail. In the aggregate, are they too large to save?

I agree with dead hobo about credit driving up prices. Many ads emphasize a monthly payment, not a total price.

By: Bruce in Tn

Bruce in Tn — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 01:31:31 +0000

“We should keep housing prices from overshooting on the downside…”

Er, why?

Look, don’t give me the simple answer…but, why?

If prices go too low, actually there might be more of a concerted buying effort, and hence true turnaround, than if we pick a price that is too low, and prevent housing prices from going below that level..

Just sayin’…and if Jim Rogers actually did make most of your money, maybe you don’t have to be that bright…

By: rktbrkr

rktbrkr — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 00:00:53 +0000

John Paulson bought Indymac from FDIC, CITI and BAC will find new owners.

The availability of federal funding actually raised BAC Lewis’ appetite for risk when he bought Merrill (and WaMu). Didn’t take long for “moral haard” to appear did it?

By: danm

danm — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 22:37:24 +0000

Here’s my question: who would be big enough to actually buy the assets of a nationalized BAC or C?

———–

Maybe there’s not much to buy!

By: inthewoods

inthewoods — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 21:39:13 +0000

Here’s my question: who would be big enough to actually buy the assets of a nationalized BAC or C?

And, I don’t know about the rest of you, but I’ve basically given up and now assume that the government will make the worst choice regardless of whether the Dems or the Repubs get their “vision” through – there is no way any actual radical solution that might work will ever get passed.

By: Wyatt_Earl

Wyatt_Earl — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 19:24:01 +0000

Todd –

Your Fortune 500 Company issue is a good point.

However, the FDIC has a temporary insurance in place for *ALL* checking accounts, regardless of balance, as long as they aren’t interest bearing.

So I still say shut’em down, and let the FDIC deal with it. It’s way more toxic assets than usual in one of these situations, granted, but the governments gonna eat the toxic waste – we’re just discussing which tax-payer funded entity get’s the biggest slice, and whether management gets to stay or go.

Show of hands on who thinks management ought to stay. Yeah, that’s what I thought.

By: cheese

cheese — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 19:17:56 +0000

“Organized public works, at home and abroad, may be the right cure for a chronic tendency to a deficiency of effective demand. But they are not capable of sufficiently rapid organisation (and above all cannot be reversed or undone at a later date), to be the most serviceable instrument for the prevention of the trade cycle.”

(Keynes, Collected Writings, vol. XXVII, p.122 ).

By: danm

danm — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 18:39:54 +0000

Oh… and don’t forget that to get in the get rich quick club you probably needed to have done some not so very holy things. Maybe some people out there are afraid the losers on the list will bring them down with them.

I’m sure there are more Spitzer type out there than we think shaking in their shorts!

By: DL

DL — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 18:35:11 +0000

Todd @ 1:03

“A majority of the fortune 500 use BofA, Citi, Chase, and Wells Fargo for their day to day banking needs… imagine the disaster of throwing all of these companies into a line to collect their money…”

Point taken.

There are no good options here.

The option that the politicians seem to like the most is increasing the national debt by a few trillion dollars.

I personally don’t favor that, but that’s what’s likely to happen.

By: danm

danm — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 18:32:31 +0000

Why can’t we just let them fail?
—————–
Let’s make a long list of names of the losers who would end up on thisi list.

Maybe the problem lies in those names!