It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Nationalization of American Banks being discussed

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 02:20 PM
link   
So, now they're talking bank Nationalization, and saying de facto Nationalization alone is not workable.

NY Times

Nationalization Gets a New, Serious Look

By DAVID E. SANGER
Published: January 25, 2009
WASHINGTON — Only five days into the Obama presidency, members of the new administration and Democratic leaders in Congress are already dancing around one of the most politically delicate questions about the financial bailout: Is the president prepared to nationalize a huge swath of the nation’s banking system?
...
“Well, whatever you want to call it,” said Ms. Pelosi, Democrat of California. “If we are strengthening them, then the American people should get some of the upside of that strengthening. Some people call that nationalization.
...
So far, President Obama’s top aides have steered clear of the word entirely, and they are still actively discussing other alternatives, including creating a “bad bank” that would nationalize the worst nonperforming loans by taking them off the hands of financial institutions without actually taking ownership of the banks. Others talk of de facto nationalization, in which the government owns a sizeable chunk of the banks but not a majority, with all that connotes.

That has already happened; taxpayers are now the biggest shareholders in Bank of America, with about 6 percent of the stock, and in Citigroup, with 7.8 percent. But the government’s influence is far larger than those numbers suggest, because it has guaranteed to absorb the losses of some of the two banks’ most toxic assets, a figure that could run into the hundreds of billions of dollars.

Many believe this form of hybrid ownership — part government, part private, with the responsibilities of ownership unclear — will not prove workable...."




posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 02:32 PM
link   
This is simply the next step toward globalization of currency.As it stands now the banks are essentially nationalized.The stock market is on a much worse footing than people are being led to believe.The complete demise of Icelands centeral banking,followed by several smaller countries world wide.Hearald the collapse of the monetary system as we know it.
The Obama administration will try to polish the poison apple that we are going to be forced to swallow. We will be asked to tighten our belts and we will be "forced" to trade out our currency for government credits of some type.This will have to be done.You can't build a new monetary system while still holding on to the old system.



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 02:41 PM
link   
IF this happens, expecta run on the banks.

Many people I know (and day trade with) are going over to cashing out paychecks and not keeping in the banks anything more than necessary to keep an account open.

Cash is king, and there isn't enough cash printed to cover all the deposits in these banks



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 02:56 PM
link   
It seems pretty obvious to me that this will in fact happen. Whether or not we the people are told remains to be seen.

Chances are they will mask it with other bills, bailouts, etc. over the course of the next year or two, till eventually nearly all economics are government regulated.

Hope you're all ready for your chip, or card, or whatever new monetary unit will "save" us in teh future.



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 03:01 PM
link   
Such a run would almost certainly be stopped through some sort of emergency "maximum withdrawl" bill drafted under the thumbprint of national security.



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 03:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Dbriefed
 

Not the greatest concept but in some respects it may be a deterrent to market manipulation and the predatory interest rates most banks charge for loans and other services. Not to mention the bizarre rise in third-party surcharges; I now have to pay Western Union a $10 monthly fee per car payment just to schedule a payment to my lender from my own bank account which a load of crap. Most credit card agencies already implemented this policy for voice-automated systems and I've noticed other fees creeping up on online payments.
One thing is for sure, putting private banks out of the credit card business will definitely drop the interest rates below the 30 percent or so a lot of us are paying now.



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 03:56 PM
link   
I'm not too worried. I will just play the wait and see game.

The way I see it, regardless of what steps they take, we will have little say so in it anyway. They will do just like they did with the bailout and cram it down our throats.



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 05:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Dbriefed
 


Isn't Nationalization of the Banks a GOOD thing?
Banks being in the hands of international bankers is what is causing the problems. We need to take control of the banks so the Federal Government make the money off of the interest on loans instead of private parties; then we can erase the national debt and end income taxes.....at least that is what I got from the book "Web of Debt" and the Money Masters videos.....am I not seeing something here?...to me it sees ATSers would be FOR Nationalization?



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 07:15 PM
link   
Problem is, governments don't make good bankers. This experiment was tried before. Bank of the United States (1791-1811), Second Bank of the United States (1816-1836), both were shut down due to speculation, financial manipulation, and corruption. Oddly enough, it was Democrats who opposed the banks back when they were against big totalitarian government.

Edit: Adding more data...
From Wikipedia:

In Jackson's veto message (written by George Bancroft), the bank needed to be abolished because:
  • It concentrated the nation's financial strength in a single institution.
  • It exposed the government to control by foreign interests.
  • It served mainly to make the rich richer.
  • It exercised too much control over members of Congress.
  • It favored northeastern states over southern and western states.


Actually sounds like grounds to abolish the Fed.

[edit on 26-1-2009 by Dbriefed]



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 07:32 PM
link   
What a joke

All the American people are getting is the darn bill, for the squandering of tax payer money.

The federal reserve has not business monitoring and pushing for socialization of the banks in the nation they are not part of the government, We the people do not vote for their members they are all privately owned.

Banks in a capitalistic society if they can not thrive they should be allowed to fail and go bankrupt.

Plain and simple.

None of us will see a penny of the money the thieves in the federal reserve and our corporate run government will get for handding the nations banks to the global elites



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 01:01 AM
link   
The IMF Chief backs your position:

www.imf.org...

GLOBAL ECONOMIC CRISIS
Need to Fix Banking Sector for Stimulus to Work, IMF Chief Says
IMF Survey online

January 26, 2009
  • Economic recovery calls for revamping banking sector
  • IMF experience in banking crises shows losses must be fully recognized
  • Strauss-Kahn says financial sector continues to undermine confidence
Economic stimulus alone cannot pull the world out of the current tailspin and more needs to be done to fix the underlying causes of the crisis, particularly in the banking sector, IMF Managing Director Dominique Strauss-Kahn said.

"If there's not a restructuring of the banking system, then all the money that you can put into [monetary and fiscal] stimulus will just go into a black hole," Strauss-Kahn told a panel discussion at Georgetown University in Washington DC.

Restructuring the banking system would involve fully recognizing losses, segregating bad assets held by banks, preferably through a public institution that can take them over, and downsizing the sector "which means that it has in some way to shrink, that some part of it has to disappear." To do this would need strong public intervention.

While a lot had been said about recapitalizing banks and recognizing losses, not enough had been done so far and the sector continued to undermine confidence, he told the panel discussion organized by the Financial Times and Georgetown University on January 26. Panelists also included Roger Altman, Chairman of Evercore Partners and a former U.S. Deputy Treasury Secretary, and William Gale, Director of Economic Studies at the Brookings Institution.

Gale reinforced the Managing Director's remarks. "We have to address the situation in the financial sector. This isn't the usual recession. This is the very deep, very long, very difficult-to-get-out-of type of recession," he said.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join