Socialized banking?

It's not more acceptable, it's a huge mistake.

I disagree with the entire premise.  I disagree that nationalization is actually taking place (there are private lenders in this country), I disagree that this proves free markets don't work, and I disagree that government should be bailing anyone out.

OK, so if it's not some form of socialization/nationalization, what is it when the government spends what is going to be more than $700 billion to keep the big players going, in exchange for a percentage of ownership?

And what does it show (I think it shows that without some form of regulation, the basic nature of people is to get what they can in the short run).

And you can disagree with the principle of bail outs, but it still is happening.  Your statement reminds me of an exchange my wife once had with her nephew.  He asked if she would buy him a toy gun (because his parents wouldn't).  My wife said "No, Aaron.  Because I don't believe in guns".  He responded "What do you mean you don't believe in guns? Aunt Cheryl, guns are real!"

I think the bailout is a huge mistake also. I think this economy should live or die on its own merits. The only way to really see whether the ideologues are correct is to let them see what happens if you follow their ideology to its bitter end. Of course, the US gov't cannot simply stand by and watch its economy melt.

All these people who have made millions and have preached minimal gov't intervention will now happily go to the teat of the gov't for nourishment. The message is clear: Get big enough and the gov't needs you more than you need gov't, so they will bail you out, no matter how irresponsible and malevolent you have been. Meanwhile, nobody will bail out the little guys, that's for sure.

It's nationalized when the government takes over the entire industry.  So far, we have not done that.  I'm pretty sure there are private firms out there.

I think it shows, as I've said several times in the past, that the focus by stockholders and boards on short term gains in stock value is a very poor metric, and this is one of the results.  I think it shows that we as a country, and a culture, have lost our focus on what it means to be a responsible member of society.  I'm quite certain that there is no amount of regulation or government mandate that will change those two things.  More laws does not make a more lawful society.

Your statement was that people are all for bailing out the banks, but not medicine.  I'm showing you there are people that oppose both.

So, if you nationalized your healthcare except for 3 private hospitals in, say, Schenectady, New York, Springfield, Missouri and Mankato, Minnesota, then you will not have nationalized healthcare?

If that's the case, then I think I just discovered a giant loophole to the whole nationalization/socialism debate.

Remember, this bail out is to provide a backstop or liquidity to the marketplace and then get the heck out of the way.  Take the AIG gig for example, they aren't taking over AIG to run insurance programs as a gov't operation - they are making them stable with the goal of having the Gov't get rid of its holdings as soon as possible.

The idea of taking bad loans off the bank's balance sheets is to open up the bank's balance sheets and allow them to start lending again.  This time, though there may be some oversight (e.g. you can't lend to someone who doesn't prove his or her income or if you do - you'll get in trouble)  The other thing is that even this "stuff" taken off the balance sheets is a real tangible asset backed by a physical house - so it isn't like we the taxpayers aren't getting something in return.

The catch is how the assets are valued before they are taken off the balance sheets.  Give too much money, the gov't just gave banks a HUGE handout.  Give too little money, it becomes questionable if the bailout did any good.

The thing to remember is that the U.S. Gov't isn't entering this fray to nationalize anything, but merely support the system until it recovers.  Big difference!

I'm not explaining myself well, that's my issue.

The fact is, we have not nationalized anything.  The companies still have non-governmental owners.  This fact alone goes against the idea that they are nationalized.

We may have nationalized individual companies (depending on if we are considered majority owners based on purchases), but it's short-term, and it's not the entire industry.

But Mankato called, they want their private hospital.

Armed revolt works well for that.

Besides, state control of a hospital is hardly "naionalized healthcare".  I would argue that if the state took over the insurance industry, and became the de facto provider for everyone, the argument would be more valid.

Exactly.  Better put than I could have managed today.

Bingo-  privatize the profits, socialize the losses.

I prefer socialized medicine or socialized public transit to socialized banking.

At least with the first 2 you get something out of it.

hmm... but where is my free lunch in all that...? /sarc

I am sure that there are people who, like you, oppose government intervention in both medicine and businesses.  But I am more interested in how those who oppose anything that makes them think "socialized medicine" can justify these sort of bail-outs.

Also, I don't think that we have to have the government take over every operation to have nationalized it.  Taking over the biggest players is close enough.  Otherwise, even the Chinese would not have a completely socialized program, since they have those "special economic areas".

I think I am in favor of more oversight and regulation at the outset, since the de facto position of the government towards the big players is that if they get in enough trouble, they will get a bail out. If my tax money is at risk at some point, I want to know it is being protected. Otherwise, no government oversight should mean no chance for government hand-out bail out.

Well put. I think we're beyond the point of debating it. It seems that just letting things collapse would put the nation in a complete financial tailspin. 

That's why I don't entirely understand the resistance to restoring takes on the over-$250K crowd to the pre-Bush levels. It would seem that those making the most money have the most to lose if things go "poof--" Rich people are far more likely to own assets that would become worthless in a major collapse.

I don't disagree with what you have said.

The sad thing is that we may have a complete economic collapse EVEN with the bailout. It may only delay the inevitable and suck down a couple $Trillion extra along with it. In fact it may hasten such a collapse. The potential for unintended consequences is humongous.

If it were me, I would be calling in the Oracle of Omaha (Warren Buffet) and all other top 'financial' people (economists, investors, etc) to figure out the BEST way to do this. Of course, that means putting politics aside and, right now, neither the democrats nor republicans seem able to do that. IF they are going to do a 'bailout' and have it successful, it MUST be completed in the next few days... this is something that is urgent. If they wait another week, its too late. It might be too late now but we have to try SOMETHING.

If they do nothing, theres a 99.9% chance of a major/great depression - something that our grandparents/great grandparents suffered through but I had never expected in my lifetime. What most people dont realize is that it took the beginning of World War II in 1939 to bring this county out of the depression that started in 1929... almost 10 years of economic turmoil and soup lines.

Sure - we all want to punish those responsible and it would be great if we didnt have to do this. Unfortunately, there isnt much choice. Almost all leading economists/analysts have said that, without the bailout, our economy is doomed. We can sit back and gripe about congress wasting our money bailing out private companies... but it will be worse for all of us if they dont.

I was pleasantly shocked to see AIG's outgoing CEO turn down his $22 million severance package today. FINALLY, an outgoing CEO of a destroyed company did the right thing.... maybe the others will take note and return their 'severance packages'... As an investor, it makes me sick to see them walkin away with millions when I have lost thousands this year.