Susie Bright hits some nails on the head

[pecunium]

The Hammer and Sickle, or the Shovel

[T]the number one reason we haven't nationalized the hopeless banks already, is because of Cold War Commie-phobia— irrational superstition at its pinkest. The very word "nationalization" is considered risqué. The GOP has palpitations just thinking about it, and so do many Democrats. Alright, fine— but how deep a rat-hole will this country sink into in order to hold onto its Commie Cootie Bugs?

I don't get it. If a nation haunted by colonial slavery can get over its own racism to elect a black President; if gay marriage rights can become as American as apple pie; then what is the big deal about addressing a modicum of public interest? Is class consciousness the last taboo?

Yes, nationalization will hurt a sliver of the American population, our aristocracy. But the 2-Percenters won't go hungry.

Take Arthur Levitt, the former chief of the Securities and Exchange Commission— who was supposed to protect the American people from investment fraud. He says he has no problem sleeping at night, and I bet his health insurance plan is yummy. He was asked how he is changing his spending habits in the current crisis and he said: "I canceled a vacation to the Far East that I had planned for the spring. I don’t feel right about spending large sums of money in this environment."

Which is much like the fired head of Merril Lynch, at a dinner which probably cost more than $100 making a point of drinking tap water; because of the economic environment.

Comments

[nancylebov.livejournal.com]

I assume you're imagining banks owned by a basically honest, competent government. I suspect our current situation would be even worse if nationalized banks had been around when GW was president-- and while I don't think people will be making that frivolous a choice again any time soom, I don't see any way to guarantee that it won't happen again ever.

[ann-totusek.livejournal.com]

I don't believe she's necessarily correct. The idea of a nationalized bank isn't inherently odious to me, but the idea of an uncompensated seizure or forced sale at below market price would bother me greatly. That being said, the price for a distressed bank shouldn't be that high, but on the gripping hand, it's a poor investment and I object to my tax dollars being spent on foolish investments, whether it be a failing bank, a "Bridge to Nowhere" or a social program that doesn't get results.

[shunra.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure that "uncompensated seizure" and "below market price" apply at the moment, since the banks have basically tanked.

It seems to me that the point of the nationalization is not compensating the owners (because the value of bank stock has basically disappeared, or mostly disappeared) but rather, to maintain the function of the bank, both for depositors and for oiling the gears of commerce.

North Dakota

[lsanderson.livejournal.com]

Has had it's own bank at least since 1919. The repugs ustta keep trying to dump it, but it always made money so it was hard to sell the goose.

[pgdudda.livejournal.com]

That sort of thing is exactly why I half-jokingly suggest that we should peg executive pay to, say, no more than 40 times whatever the loweest-paid employee earns in that exec's corporation. (I know that IRL, this poses other problems, but I still think the underlying idea has its merits.)

[starwatcher]

.
I've said similar for years. If execs want their pay to go up, their workers' wages must also go up.

I'd like to see the same for Congress, who keeps voting themselves sneaky late-night payraises. Mandate to be 'X' times the median national wage. You want more money? You have to develop programs and ways that everyone makes more money.

I know it's the thinnest of pipe dreams, but I still wish it.
.