Thread: I hate it when a loan doesn't go my way.

Originally Posted by dex71

If the gov't ever nationalized the bank system, that would be the end of the story. They would NEVER break up and sell a revenue stream that large. In fact, I would bet that they would need to be further subsidized within a decade due to the absolute raping they would do to it. It's easy Math.....For every dollar our gov't brings in, they spend three. When they decide that policy is bankrupting us, they spend five.

And I do not understand why people don't get that.


Sent from my iPhone.

Originally Posted by Bubbasam

The repeal of the Glass Steagall Act....we've been fucked ever since.
I'm not sure how you can nationalize and then sell them off in small pieces later for a profit, but hey, I'd be willing to try anything to let those vultures roast over an open fire for what they do to us.

I completely agree about Glass-Steagall. That should never have been repealed. As for how they'd sell it off in pieces, it could be done. I'm not claiming to be an expert on how a break up and selling off would work, but I'm sure there is a way. After all, these banks got this big by buying up other banks and incorporating investment banking into their company.

Originally Posted by dex71

If the gov't ever nationalized the bank system, that would be the end of the story. They would NEVER break up and sell a revenue stream that large. In fact, I would bet that they would need to be further subsidized within a decade due to the absolute raping they would do to it. It's easy Math.....For every dollar our gov't brings in, they spend three. When they decide that policy is bankrupting us, they spend five.

Oh, look, another cliched conservative talking point that lacks substance and includes nothing but paranoid beliefs about what the government would do.

Originally Posted by Fovezer

I completely agree about Glass-Steagall. That should never have been repealed. As for how they'd sell it off in pieces, it could be done. I'm not claiming to be an expert on how a break up and selling off would work, but I'm sure there is a way. After all, these banks got this big by buying up other banks and incorporating investment banking into their company.

In theory, the breakup and selling off of the banks would be accomplished fairly easily. It would be done similar to how troubled banks were bought out when they were failing. Essentially their accounts and physical branches would be auctioned off. Now the FDIC may make offers to specific banks based on that bank's stability, but ultimately it's not something that would have been difficult to do theoretically. Finding banks that weren't failing that could buy out the nationalized banks might've been a short-term problem, but all that means is it may have taken longer than we'd wanted to get everything sold off and out of the government's hands.

Still very doable.

~Morningfrost

Originally Posted by Nuckle

Originally Posted by dex71

If the gov't ever nationalized the bank system, that would be the end of the story. They would NEVER break up and sell a revenue stream that large. In fact, I would bet that they would need to be further subsidized within a decade due to the absolute raping they would do to it. It's easy Math.....For every dollar our gov't brings in, they spend three. When they decide that policy is bankrupting us, they spend five.

And I do not understand why people don't get that.

Because the story isn't that simple.

There is no one thing which is 'the banking system' and if there was the government couldn't nationalize it even if it wanted to.

The US government has had opportunity to take over large portions of it before, and hasn't done it. It has frequently directed banks to act in a specific way, and has sometimes taken temporary control of dead or zombie banks. In every instance I can think of, they have always returned the institutions to private ownership.

The government has always had a hand in banking. This makes it no different than any other national government that has a budget and backs a currency. There has always been a give and take between the government and large financial institutions (and the people who run them). There are many government banks:

The Federal National Mortgage Association.
The Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation.
There are 12 Federal Home Loan Banks.
There's a Farm Credit System
... and the Federal Agricultural Mortgage Corporation.
There is an Export-Import Bank of the United States.
Also the Student Loan Marketing Association

There are more examples. An institution was set up to deal with the financing and resolution of the Savings and Loan crisis in the 80s.

These are all some variety of hybrid between private/public ownership and private/public administration. They direct an enormous amount of money, but all together they are tiny compared to the commercial banking world.

There is also a thing which we have come to call the Shadow Banking System, and it's an excellent example of why no government in a country similar to ours could ever "take over" the banking system.

Anyway, all these government and hybrid banks are subject to the forces which cause corruption. This makes them no different from private banks, though the details sometimes vary.

Banking isn't the only sector of the economy that has hybrids. The TVA is a good example, as are many other power projects.

Cheers,


AetheLove

Originally Posted by dex71

Oh look! Another arrogant liberal on his soapbox teaching all of us unenlightened. Maybe next he will teach us all about the substance of his retort. Let's listen......and learn.

There was nothing to respond to. All you did was parrot the same conjecture all conservatives use about any government involvement. It's nothing but an unsupported belief not borne out by the evidence. Look of GM. The government has been selling off their shares for a while now and I think they have sold off a majority of them. There was no substance to your post at all and until you have something other than a blind ideological belief, I will respond in kind.

Originally Posted by dex71

GM wasn't making shit for money. Not a good comparasin.

Neither were the banks when they were bailed out. In case you forgot, they lost a TON of money, which is why we had to bail them out. It's a perfectly valid comparison, although not exactly the same as I was proposing, but it shows that you have no basis for blindly assuming that the government wouldn't sell it off if the banks were nationalized. I'll tell you what, I'll stick to my evidence of the government getting involved and then moving on, both in the US and abroad, and you can stick to your cliches. Fair?

Originally Posted by dex71

And since there was no substance in your retort, you could have kept that to yourself, too.....just another option. I also don't share your faith. I think the less our gov't has to do with our lives, the better off we are. You seem to have much more blind faith than I do.

No, this isn't "faith" I'm going on. Faith is blindly believing something without evidence. Faith is for the ignorant. I base my view on past precedent showing what I propose to be successful. Your predictable conservative cliches that you brought up without any supporting evidence is asking me to take your premise on faith, which I will not do.