Question: What do you think about nationalizing the banks?
Answer: I think Roubini, Dodd and Greenspan haven’t thought this one through. The U.S. isn’t Sweden, and not just because our blondes aren’t au naturel.[sic**] Their successful approach revolved around a handful of banks but we have 7,500, as well as many S&Ls and credit unions, which would have to be flushed into government hands.
Bzzzt! As Krugman points out:
Here’s Martin Wolf, today:
The four biggest US commercial banks – JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, Bank of America and Wells Fargo – possess 64 per cent of the assets of US commercial banks (see chart) [chart not available online]. If creditors of these businesses cannot suffer significant losses, this is not much of a market economy.
So as far as this discussion is concerned, we’ve got, like, four banks. The “thousands of banks” line is just a diversion.
Is Gross lying, or ignorant? Inquiring minds want to know. Which leads to another question:
Is Obama lying, or ignorant? Because, as Krugman points out, Obama repeats the same line:
Sweden had like five banks. [LAUGHS] We’ve got thousands of banks.
"[LAUGHS]" Indeed, it's all about the LOLZ!
NOTE Oh, and including the credit unions in the 7,500 figure is bogus, because they didn't get involved in the derivatives mess, the way the looters in Big Money did. They stuck with sound banking practices.
NOTE * Gross is no patzer. PIMCO has about $750 billion in assets under management and runs the Fed's commercial paper markets. He's a made man in the Big Money elite.
NOTE ** It is perhaps needless to say that "natural" is not the same as au naturelle. How true Galbraith's dictum is, that "Wealth, in even the most improbable cases, manages to convey the aspect of intelligence. "
- lambert's blog
Printer-friendly version- Login or register to post comments
Front page
Comments
Off Topic BUT
you may want to read the new comments I added in your Diebold/PES diary. The license that the version of Ghostcript is distributed under may not be the GPU GPL license but, instead, the Aladin Free Public License. You may want to read it to figure out what rules may apply?
In the world of Mutual Funds
there is no greater authority, especially in fixed investments, than Bill Gross. My thinking is that the unspoken fear, and it's a great fear to even someone like me who is on a pension (though a federal pension) that the major stockholders of these five banks, and almost all banks, are 'institutional' and when you say 'institutional', you're talking about pensions, and a very, very wide expanse of pensions. Most of which, leaving aside the solvency of the banks they've invested in, are on pretty shaky ground right now. They, along with me and everyone else, are scared shitless as to what stiffing the stockholders in nationalizing these banks could mean.
Fair enough
Generally, though, you don't have to defend a defensible position with lies.
So something's coming down the pike; let's prepare for it. Wonder if any of Hank Paulson's trillions went to pensions? No?
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
Right off the top of my head.....
Nationalizing the banks would mean Bill Gross is in deep shit, and when looking into the abyss, tainting your unblemished reputation isn't that hard to do. The whole fucking thing is pretty scary, and my hatred of bankers (which was always pretty intense - "On a backbone scale, bankers are just below the common garden slug") is only getting worse. I'd like to hear from Krugman just who the stockholders are that will be left holding worthless assets. probably a lot of people in their 40's and 50's who have been stocking that money away int TIAA CREF etc., because they knew (listening to the talking heads) that SS wouldn't be there for them. It's sickening.
Pension Funds As Stockholders In Banks
From what I've read, a good number of pension funds do own stock in some of the large, insolvent banks. So that is an issue with nationalization and it needs to be dealt with honestly.
The problem I have is that pension stock ownership doesn't explain why we've left management in these banks in place. There's no reason not to have cleared the deck of bad actors as a prerequisite to any federal assistance. And it's leaving all these folks in place that makes me think it's not worry over pension funds that's driving the bailout.
I also suspect there will not be any honest discussion of pension funds as institutional investors because that undermines efforts to replace/supplement SS futher with private investment vehicles, such as Obama's "pension plan" that is nothing more than an IRA. Honest discussions about why investing pension funds (whether through pension plans or Obama's IRA proposal) in the markets is a terrible idea isn't going to happen because the people who make the money off of those plans rule our world.
"Do what you feel in your heart to be right -- for you'll be criticized anyway. You'll be damned if you do, and damned if you don't. " - Eleanor Roosevelt
Lying or ignorant
Sounds familiar. Both can lead to equally bad outcomes, no?
I'm glad others are daring to say this. Of course we still have the Lakoff wing who say its all 11 dimensionall and the Sarah Palin is scaaaaaaary contingent.
so, bankers are the new lawyers?
as in, "kill 'em all. let God sort 'em out"?
We can admit that we’re killers … but we’re not going to kill today. That’s all it takes! ~ Captain James T. Kirk, Stardate 3193.0
1 John 4:18
Bankster vs banker
As Lambert pointed out, the majority of the losses come from a handful of banks/banksters and most banks seem to have used appropriate practices (particularly credit unions).
I find it hard to get to your conclusion given the entirety of the information and opinions presented. In fact, what Lambert seems to be saying, along with Krugman and Wolf, is the exact opposite.
It's Big Money that's the problem
The credit unions didn't go nuts and start stealing; nor did the local banks.
Only the big boys. So they are the ones whose heads should go on pikes, not all bankers.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
Agreed
Which is why I was trying to differentiate between the two, banksters perhaps being the thieves. I think it's important to continually emphasize the difference, however its done. Not all actors were intentionally bad.
Goldman Sachs v Merrill Lynch--definitely bankster v. bankster.
Goldman won.
Well, here's a Annual Report from
Vanguard Prime Money Market, which, BTW, has both investor and institutional shares. Check out pages 15 thru 20. It's there last Annual Report dated 8/1/2008. Awful lot of banks there. Jeez, especially RBS. And Vanguard is indeed very conservative and stalwart in their fiduciary responsibilities. Just for anybody who's interested.
http://www.planforcollegenow.com/pdfs/in...