Nationalisation
Find a Conversation
| Sat, 10-11-2008 - 7:49pm |
It is a word unthinkable at the time of my primary vote (8 January.) Mere mention of the word would produce an immediate rebuttal of nonsense - including by me - because it seemed incomprehensible that a nation so devoted to capitalist ways, with a pro-business government... would ever go near such a topic.
Well, here we are, madness has set in. Our government plans to partially nationalise some of our biggest banks in order to forestall financial collapse. I like the idea of an equity stake in these firms, given the enormity of the bill we are asked to pay.
I'm wondering though about the sheer scope of the word, how it is contrary to so much about our outlook. What are your thoughts about this stunning, incredible, surreal change in our economic system?
Discuss... nationalisation of our banks on whatever level you wish.

Pages
"I look at it a bit differently. Our intent should be to move these banks back to profitability, then sell our stake and at least make our money back. I'm with you on not being in banking long term."
I agree it's the least worst option right now, especially because Britain and other countries are doing it and therefore they will eat our companies for lunch if we don't do it for them.
I think that there is some good news about the Europeans and (possibly) the US buying stock in troubled banks.
Sopal
<?xml:namespace prefix = v ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" />
I think the market is open tomorrow.
Sopal
<?xml:namespace prefix = v ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" />
>The Founding Fathers of this country didn't want big government. <
Back in their day, most major highways were toll roads. Gee, don't ya just miss the bad old days?
And actually, their beef was against a too-powerful Federal government. They had nothing against states making their own "big government" decisions.
Yes, most roads were toll roads.
Pages