Did anyone else have a secret desire (or fear, for you Libertarians) that Obama was going to nationalize the banks when he took over from Bush 3 years ago?

I did. Discuss. :-)

Views: 91

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

You seriously think that "nationalizing" the banks would take it out of the control of the elites and restore it to the American people?
Yeah thinking about it made me realize the merit of the creating new banks option. I'm wondering though what it would have done to the US credit if we let all those big banks fail. Would there have been any greater chance of the US defaulting on its debt? What other repercussions are imaginable?
Exactly where did I state that we should have bailed out the banks?  That's not capitalism, it's corporate welfare.  It's privatizing profit while socializing risk, and I'm vehemently opposed to such a thing.  The whole idea that an institution is too big to fail is absurd.  We have anti-trust and monopoly laws so that we don't get ourselves into this position.  We should have let them fail or enforced the anti-trust and monopoly laws at the very least in my opinion.  If they failed, then they would have then naturally been parted out and sold and diversified and those greedy assholes would have learned a lesson for once.  Or we could have forcefully broken them up through anti-trust or monopoly laws.  I'm not much for the latter option, but I think it's better then the bail out, that is for sure.

You say you are against privatizing profit and socializing risk. But are you in favor of socializing profit or privatizing risk? Is having them both operating according to the same principles the priority, or is privatization the priority? I am assuming you are for private profit and private risk, and that is the whole of it. Am I correct?

Private risk, private profit. I'm not against socializing risk, which is what purchasing stock is essentially, so long as it's voluntary. I'm against the idea of forcing me to invest in a company.
I do think it is a serious idea that has merit, yes. Again, I don't fathom the fear of a government which represents the people, so long as it does in fact do so. Give me some changes to the electoral process, let me tinker with how representation works, let me alter the format the Founders laid out, and I would empower the government and, by extension, the people into a proper balance with empowering the individual. I do take the position that democratic reforms are the primary concern here, and what happens afterwards is a secondary concern. Would Republicans, and to a lesser extent, Democrats, find a way to screw up the economy rather than helping it by nationalizing the banks? Yeah, probably. But I see no reason to be conspiracy theorists about democratic governments in general.
no i always thought it was propaganda or borderline conspiracy theory nonsense  it seems like there is always some kind of shadow conspiracy about.
You're right there, Hazel. We on the left think the conspiracy is the big businesses and the banks working together to control the government. The right seem to think that government itself is a suspicious creature that should never be trusted (but the guys with all the money are job providers and therefore a generally respectable group of guys). I guess different interpretations of fighting against those who have power over you lead to different beliefs of who has the power. But we do all seem to be laboring against what might be seen as a conspiracy by those who don't share our interpretations.
I was in favor of letting the capitalists get what they deserve.  Let the banks fail.




Update Your Membership :



Nexus on Social Media:

© 2019   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: The Nexus Group.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service