Politics
Out of context: Reply #5662
- Started
- Last post
- 33,773 Responses
- ukit0
Not the biggest fan of this guy, but I think Chuck Schumer has it right here...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/20…
Schumer argued that there are good and bad ways to nationalize banks, and that the loaded nature of the term often leads to confusion. "'Nationalization' means many different things to many different people, and somebody needs to clear it up," said Schumer. "We have to distinguish. I like the good and don't like the bad."
Schumer contrasted nationalizing and holding on to a bank with taking over a failed firm for a temporary period. "Bad nationalization is when the government takes over these institutions and runs them for a long period of time. I don't think this is a good idea. I know President Obama doesn't and I don't think most Americans do," he said.
"The government is not good at making these decisions and managing assets in general. It's a different way of thinking in government. The government bureaucrats make for bad bankers and you'd probably end up making it worse," he said.
A second problem with 'bad nationalization,' he said, is that it concentrates too much power in the hands of government.
"There's a real danger of crony capitalism," he said. "Eisenhower himself warned of the military-industrial complex. If the banks were nationalized in the way we're talking, the bad way, you could end up having a military-industrial-financial complex that could threaten, in some ways, our freedom."
That doesn't mean that the government shouldn't take over failed banks -- even large ones -- he said.
"There is a good type of nationalization. I think that the [Treasury] Secretary was wise to do these stress tests," he said. "They're going to find some banks that are hopeless, that are zombie banks."
Those zombie banks, once discovered, he said, should be nationalized.
"Instead of keeping them alive for a long time," he said, "I do agree with people like Roubini or Mishkin -- and I think people would support this -- that the government should come in. And what the government would do would be: wipe out the shareholders, put in new management -- wipe out the old management and put in new management -- and then let the bank run sort of independently without day-to-day government intervention."
(Schumer is referring to economist Nouriel Roubini, who has called for nationalization, and Frederic Mishkin, a former member of the Federal Reserve's Board of Governors.)
"This is not that different than what the FDIC is doing in certain places," he said. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation has taken over a number of banks, guaranteed the deposits and begun the process of cleaning their balance sheets to prepare to reopen them as private institutions.
Earlier Friday, Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), chairman of the banking committee, made similar remarks on Bloomberg TV.
Schumer said that several conditions applied to his support of nationalization. "Government ownership should be brief. We should try to sell the cleaned up bank quickly," he said. "And second, for whatever time the government owns the institution, it shouldn't be running it day to day because of the dangers I cited before."
Schumer was asked if there are any financial institutions that are too large for a government takeover. He said that there are not.
"I don't think this is a question of size. This is a question of viability. There may be some small and some big that are zombies, basically, that can't really be saved and you just come clean," he said. "It should be regarded as a last resort, but a necessary resort, for some of the worst institutions and better than sort of a death of a thousand cuts for these institutions -- where you just keep pumping money in, they stabilize for awhile, get worse, etc."