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
That is great.
Since I got on board early in the inception of the program, the chances of it having been securitized are slim. It was a brand new state program and they were keeping a close eye on us.
Very good information here:
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-wall/wal-g003.html
>That is great.
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-wall/wal-g003.html<
I love how they keep bringing up Jefferson's desire to end slavery. Much as I do admire his writing, Jefferson did own slaves and did not release his slaves upon his death. George Washington also held slaves his entire life, and fought to keep them throughout his Presidency in Philadelphia. His slaves were freed upon his wife's death, though her "dower" slaves (those she inherited from his first husband) were given to her grandchildren.
And the Fugitive Slave Law was overwhelmingly passed by the House (47-8) in 1793. It gives you some idea as to how our Founding Fathers felt about slaves and slavery.
Because of the program we were part of. Like I said, they kept close tabs on us.
Pages