I vote, not because my one vote will make any difference, but if all the cynicals who don't vote would turn around and CAST a vote, maybe we COULD make a difference. To paraphrase a song of the 60's, "One man's hands can't move to push the plow, 2 men's hands can't move to push the plow, but if 2 and 2 and 50 make a million, we will see the world go round, we will see the world go round."
Yeah, I'm a hopeless idealist, but "if we don't hang together, we will surely hang separately" to quote a far earlier figure!
Hey Wanderer, my thoughts on the banks are the same. It was apparent to me that nationalizing, at least temporarily would be best. Feds would have been able to implement reasonable loan standards and refrain from imposing the worst conditions of repayment on those who are least able to pay. Also would have reduced the deficit. Without nationalization or conditions I knew the pendulum would swing the other way after the easy money. Failing to place conditions on the money was really stupid.
Where I have not formed an opinion is the aftermath of Perry or whichever right winger. Will another theocrat be elected or will the country be courted by empty promises of "change"?
I never liked Andrew Jackson anyhow.
Makes sense to me. The only downside is the employees and shareholders of banks.
i take it back, since this is a fantasy bank there is no downside. $)
It depends on whether the banks continue to operate. If they do, their profitability is presumably reduced, and their investment value suffers accordingly. Depreciated stock value impacts little people along with fat cats.
If the banks are bought out by the government there may be no negative stock impact but there is the issue of whether employees of the bank will have a job.
On balance nationalizing banks is likely beneficial for the people. Fair and uniform national standards for lending without gouging the most vulnerable borrowers would be an improvement.