Greenspan: Nationalize Banks .. Oh no! .. SOCIALISM

B

blackascoal

The Force is With Me
Greenspan Backs Bank Nationalization

"The US government may have to nationalise some banks on a temporary basis to fix the financial system and restore the flow of credit, Alan Greenspan, the former Federal Reserve chairman, has told the Financial Times. In an interview, Mr Greenspan, who for decades was regarded as the high priest of laisser-faire capitalism, said nationalisation could be the least bad option left for policymakers. "It may be necessary to temporarily nationalise some banks in order to facilitate a swift and orderly restructuring," he said. "I understand that once in a hundred years this is what you do."
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/e310cbf6-fd...heoval/post/2009/02/63005211/1&nclick_check=1

As I've said many times, the beauty of socialism is that society will come to it.
 
Amazing isn't it?!

The best part is, Democrats are still claiming they aren't for nationalization. It actually appears as if conservatives are going to have to "talk liberals into" nationalizing! I am loving this!
 
Darla said:
Amazing isn't it?!

The best part is, Democrats are still claiming they aren't for nationalization. It actually appears as if conservatives are going to have to "talk liberals into" nationalizing! I am loving this!
Click to expand...

:)

You've highlighted one of the many pleasures of watching this.

Hollywood couldn't have made this up.
 
Darla said:
Amazing isn't it?!

The best part is, Democrats are still claiming they aren't for nationalization. It actually appears as if conservatives are going to have to "talk liberals into" nationalizing! I am loving this!
Click to expand...

What is really amazing is that anyone is listening to Greenspan. A person who had perhaps the greatest individual impact on putting us in this situation to begin with. It is truly amazing that we continue to turn to the idiots who helped put us in this mess for the answers on how to get out of the mess.

Reminds me of Qwest paying Nachio to come back and be a 'consultant' for them. Complete stupidity.
 
Superfreak said:
What is really amazing is that anyone is listening to Greenspan. A person who had perhaps the greatest individual impact on putting us in this situation to begin with. It is truly amazing that we continue to turn to the idiots who helped put us in this mess for the answers on how to get out of the mess.

Reminds me of Qwest paying Nachio to come back and be a 'consultant' for them. Complete stupidity.
Click to expand...

It's not just Greenspan though. Several conservatives have come out and said this. And really, if they were offering more of the same, you'd be right. For example, the completely clincially insane Congressional Republicans and even Senators, who voted for a "stimulus" bill made up completely of all tax cuts.

But these guys are doing a complete about-face from the past eight years, from conservative ideology. It's almost as if they've seen the light!
 
Darla said:
It's not just Greenspan though. Several conservatives have come out and said this. And really, if they were offering more of the same, you'd be right. For example, the completely clincially insane Congressional Republicans and even Senators, who voted for a "stimulus" bill made up completely of all tax cuts.

But these guys are doing a complete about-face from the past eight years, from conservative ideology. It's almost as if they've seen the light!
Click to expand...


These guys are reluctantly coming around to accept what folks like Krugman, Roubini and Taleb (folks who have been right all along by the way) have been saying since September.
 
Dungheap said:
These guys are reluctantly coming around to accept what folks like Krugman, Roubini and Taleb (folks who have been right all along by the way) have been saying since September.
Click to expand...

Too bad the people who were right aren't leading the current administration.
 
Can ANYONE give me a constitutional basis for the FEDERAL Government coming in and nationalizing banks. I KNOW they did it in Sweden but Sweden doesn't have our nasty little constitution to impede it.
 
I like the "high priest" remark. Boy, what objective reporting. lol

Greenspan continues to rationalize his own failures, but he is still far from embracing socialism. The beauty of socialism is that it soon implodes.
 
RStringfield said:
I like the "high priest" remark. Boy, what objective reporting. lol

Greenspan continues to rationalize his own failures, but he is still far from embracing socialism. The beauty of socialism is that it soon implodes.
Click to expand...

:)

You mean like Social Security?

How many people did you say want to get rid of that?

Many other examples of socialism in America that no one wants to get rid of.

Beyond that, American taxpayers have bought the banks anyway regardless of what Greenspan and many others are saying .. some for more than their worth.
 
Dungheap said:
Well, there's the commerce clause for starters.
Click to expand...
Wow a real Constitutional Scholar. Lets see what the commerce clause says, shall we?

The Congress shall have power . . . To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.

Nothing in the CC allows the congress to take over private institutions, even temporarily, and run them.
 
blackascoal said:
:)

You mean like Social Security?

How many people did you say want to get rid of that?

Many other examples of socialism in America that no one wants to get rid of.

Beyond that, American taxpayers have bought the banks anyway regardless of what Greenspan and many others are saying .. some for more than their worth.
Click to expand...

I always love the way you guys play loose with the term socialism. Socialism equals welfare state policies like social security in the US but specifically means ownership of the means of production when discussing welfare state policies like those found in Nazi Germany.

Well, I guess I should have said Greenspan has not fully embraced socialism.

I don't recall mentioning a number of people that wish to do away with SS. There will be a large number, soon enough.

I am glad that you are pleased by the one program/policy most responsible for the rise of the military industrial complex.
 
Socrtease said:
Wow a real Constitutional Scholar. Lets see what the commerce clause says, shall we?

The Congress shall have power . . . To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.

Nothing in the CC allows the congress to take over private institutions, even temporarily, and run them.
Click to expand...


And you claim to be an attorney? Please. Enough with the silliness. AHZ wants his schtick back.

Edit: To clarify for the sake of certain persons who apparently take the reputation ratings seriously, the comment above that purports to take the position that the plain language of the commerce clause does not permit congress to nationalize bank is silly in that it (a) pretends that there is universal agreement at to what the plain language of the commerce clause means, (b) ignores disagreements dating back to the the early 1800s as to what the "plain language" of the commerce clause means, (c) ignores disagreements about the scope of the commerce clause when read in conjunction with the necessary and proper clause (yet another controversy that dates back roughly 200 years), and, (d) ignores 200 years of supreme court jursiprudence on the issue.
 
Last edited:
BAC,


With all due respect brother, where has socialism ever worked? Do not name Sweden, France, etc. as examples; these are not socialist countries, but capitalist social welfare states, and even they are downsizing.

Socialism = public ownership of production. Countries which have attempted this include the former USSR, China, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Cuba, Mozambique, and a few others, all of which slaughtered millions of their own people.

Indeed, it seems pure socialism and mass democide go hand-in-hand... why?
 
Nationalizing the banks is so far outside of ANY discernible parameters of the CC. Congress could probably dictate terms of lending, could probably even cap interest rates, but to pretend that the CC would allow the wholesale seizure of property and assets is truly in fantasy land.
 
Socrtease said:
Nationalizing the banks is so far outside of ANY discernible parameters of the CC. Congress could probably dictate terms of lending, could probably even cap interest rates, but to pretend that the CC would allow the wholesale seizure of property and assets is truly in fantasy land.
Click to expand...


I think you are getting hung up on terminology here. The "nationalization" that people are discussing involves something more akin to what the FDIC has done with 13 smaller banks already this year.
 
Tabasco said:
BAC,


With all due respect brother, where has socialism ever worked? Do not name Sweden, France, etc. as examples; these are not socialist countries, but capitalist social welfare states, and even they are downsizing.

Socialism = public ownership of production. Countries which have attempted this include the former USSR, China, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Cuba, Mozambique, and a few others, all of which slaughtered millions of their own people.

Indeed, it seems pure socialism and mass democide go hand-in-hand... why?
Click to expand...

Has capitalism worked?

Besides, as others have pointed out, this isn't systemic socialism that anyone is talking about. By many accounts, nationalizing the banks might be the only way to save them.
 
Dungheap said:
And you claim to be an attorney? Please. Enough with the silliness. AHZ wants his schtick back.

Edit: To clarify for the sake of certain persons who apparently take the reputation ratings seriously, the comment above that purports to take the position that the plain language of the commerce clause does not permit congress to nationalize bank is silly in that it (a) pretends that there is universal agreement at to what the plain language of the commerce clause means, (b) ignores disagreements dating back to the the early 1800s as to what the "plain language" of the commerce clause means, (c) ignores disagreements about the scope of the commerce clause when read in conjunction with the necessary and proper clause (yet another controversy that dates back roughly 200 years), and, (d) ignores 200 years of supreme court jursiprudence on the issue.
Click to expand...

LOL... I dont take the rep thing seriously... it is just a way to screw with people... but it was getting rather old to hear your 'u stupid' type retorts without any explanation. By providing the explanation, the conversation can continue in a more constructive manner. So thank you for providing the above edit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top