digg

Join DiggAbout

The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.

See the original image at firedoglake.com —

Europe: Screw the Paulson Plan, we’re nationalizing ou

firedoglake.com — At least this plan makes some sense.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • techmint, on 10/08/2008, -0/+10Is there any exit strategy once things turn around?
    • theutopian, on 10/08/2008, -5/+4Yes.
    • Temo1, on 10/08/2008, -1/+17The plan is to sell the shares once the credit markets are stabilized.
    • Gerz1219, on 10/08/2008, -0/+5Europe has a fairly long history of privatizing nationalized industries once it becomes clear that nationalization is unnecessary. British Airways, Societe Generale, and basically the entire East German economy. There is significant precedent for it, so I see no evidence for the canard that once government steps in, it's impossible for it to step back later. The conservative party just needs to win at the next parliamentary elections.
      • VanishingLex, on 10/08/2008, -0/+1It isn't privatisation. Read this Story: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7658277.stm
        notice in the section called possible profit at the end of the first paragraph it talks of NON-VOTING preference shares.
        Preference shares get paid a fixed dividend, and are paid before al other shareholder.
        since they have no voting rights however, the UK govt obtains exactly ZERO control of how the banks are run through its shares. It can of course (and has) enforce conditions for the bailout. In this case there is a financial services authority agreement on executive pay and dividends that must be signed to qualify.

        However, overall the article is wrong. The banks are NOT being nationalised. I'd encourage everyone to bury as inaccurate.
    • cjhowe, on 10/09/2008, -0/+1WTF are you talking about? Mission Accomplished!
    • Kizilbash, on 10/09/2008, -0/+1Over here the government has taken over the Dutch branch of Fortis, but they plan to reprivatise it once the markets calm down.

      If they ever will that is, of course..
  • redcolumbine, on 10/08/2008, -0/+37That's "nationalizing our banks."
    • ethanpack, on 10/08/2008, -0/+6You shouldn't've told people, then they would have to read an article for once. :o)
    • jakkyl, on 10/08/2008, -5/+4Spot on!

      As bad as it is at least in America we have preserved market pricing.
      • pgoetz, on 10/08/2008, -1/+4This comment makes no sense whatsoever. In fact, exactly the OPPOSITE is true, if you think about it. We're artificially injecting cash into the system while the Europeans are buying and selling stock. Clearly the latter is the correct "market" approach.
      • jakkyl, on 10/08/2008, -1/+2uhhh sure pgoetz.

        I think the difference is that we ARE going to use the money to buy 'garbage paper'.
      • popfrogs, on 10/08/2008, -0/+1@jakkyl: We're trading one form of garbage paper for another. What's the big deal?
      • ffttoteof, on 10/09/2008, -0/+2If you think "supply and demand" is part of this "market" you speak of then we're not preserving that.

        We're buying a bunch of ***** mortgage-backed securities from banks that they can't otherwise get rid of. We're creating artificial demand for them. And once ownership of those worthless investments is transferred from the banks to the tax payers, there wont' be any demand for them anymore.

        In Europe, the solution was "We'll help out the banks by investing in them."

        In the US, it was "We'll help out the banks by forcing the tax payer to buy their *****, worthless liabilities from them."
  • Fabbyfubz, on 10/08/2008, -13/+2http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZThquH5t0ow
  • gothicform, on 10/08/2008, -8/+10Yup. The fundamentals of these banks are mostly sound but they have major short term funding problems. It's the only get out and governments also have the ability to borrow money at cheaper rates than commercial organisations and can enforce guarantees people won't lose their homes making it win/win. Hopefully a few years down the line when things have recovered a bit and the responsible have gone to jail we can privatise them and make a nice profit for the taxpayer :)
    • nkleffman, on 10/08/2008, -9/+4AAAAAhahahahahaah

      you are living in a dream world dude.

      the fundamentals are mostly sound? a nice profit for the taxpayers? hahahahah
      • kingmanic, on 10/08/2008, -2/+6That's Europe not America.
      • gothicform, on 10/08/2008, -0/+5Yes, we in Europe aren't the ones with subprime problems and millions of people facing losing their homes because they were sold dodgy mortgages. Our problems stem from buying dodgy mortgages we thought were safe because they had been missold and the seizing up of the debt market as a result whereby no one, no matter how good their credit is is able to get financing.
        If you're a hugely profitable bank and need short-term financing and have £100 billion worth coming up you have a problem. Although you're making plenty of money with all your businesses and have a good credit rating you have no way to fill that hole immediately thus you cannot honour your commitments. This is the problem we have with *some* European banks. They don't have domestic arms with millions of customers who cannot afford to pay back their loans and credit cards and mortgages because they weren't the stupid ones to lend the money to start with, that was the American financial institutions.
        Can you tell the difference between 1) structural problems in a financial system which obtains its funding on the basis of short term debt and thus needs alternative sources of equity like making a profit (which it does but not enough at once to cover the immediate sums) and 2) the collapse of not only the ability to secure equity but also their domestic banking businesses which would generate the profit.
        Non American banks suffer only the first part of the problem, American banks suffer both parts.
      • nkleffman, on 10/08/2008, -0/+4subprime mortgages are mere 100 billion of the problem.

        what about the derivative market where the ***** debt has been leveraged hundreds of times over and sold into the world market to the tune of a 1,000 trillion - a quadrillion dollars?
      • Manther, on 10/08/2008, -0/+2So, since it appears safe to assume you were commenting on America, and not Europe like the original post (and TFA...)... I wanted to point out that you missed the biggest joke of all...

        Those responsible have gone to jail??? HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! Everyone is aware by now that the executives from AIG (right, the one the US Government saved from going under) just took a half million dollar vacation including spa and relaxation treatments, right?
  • omgwtflawl, on 10/08/2008, -9/+6Just.....wow. That is scary. If that happens here there will probably be a rooftop election.
  • BESTenemy, on 10/08/2008, -2/+46"The root cause of this crisis is fractional reserve lending, and micromanagement of interest rates by the Fed in particular and Central Banks in general. The Fed started the party by slashing interest rates to 1%, but Central Banks everywhere drank the same punch to varying degrees.

    The Greenspan Fed lowering interest rates to 1% fueled the initial boom, but like an addict on heroin, the same dose a second time will not have the same effect. The Fed, the ECB, etc. could have slashed rates to 0% today and it would not have mattered one bit.

    The reason is simple: There is no reason for banks to go on a lending spree with consumers tossing in the towel, unemployment rising, and rampant overcapacity everywhere one looks with the exception of the energy sector.

    Consumers are tapped out, not just in the US, but in nearly every country on the planet. We had our party, and a fine party it was. However, the party is over and the bill is now past due. The price is a global recession. That price must be paid no matter what Central Banks do."

    - Mike Shedlock (representative for Sitka Pacific Capital Management)
    • skipdog172, on 10/08/2008, -16/+5But anybody who believes the federal reserve's handling of interest rates is one of the big reasons for our economic downturn are just PAULTARDS!!!!!! lol
    • AndrewMoyer, on 10/08/2008, -0/+7I'm not sure what party he's talking about, and I'm also not sure what bill I have that's overdue...

      All of my stuff is PAID. I suspect my taxes will be going up and my dollar's worth will be going down. So I want to know:

      Who had this party, and why am I getting stuck with the bill?
      • omgwtflawl, on 10/08/2008, -0/+8The government had the party, and the banks joined in. You are getting stuck with the bill because the government backs whatever the federal reserve does with its guns.
      • jakkyl, on 10/08/2008, -0/+8He's speaking on platitudes and he's dead on.

        Great post BESTenemy. I'm afraid the digg masses probably won't get it. Try posting on marketwatch. The posters there are a little bit more informed......
      • Manther, on 10/08/2008, -0/+5Welcome to America!!!

        Our irresponsible government hosted the party, and irresponsible Americans were the guests. You, and others like you, are stuck with the bill because you all didn't do a good enough job keeping Joe Six-Pack, who knows nothing about anything, informed enough to make good decisions. A stupid American public is an easy to control American public, and the government knows that. They took full advantage, without regard to the consequences, and they made bank for it. (Government does crap regulating/lawmaking that makes more money for the banks, and the banks give more money to the government officials to make crap laws/regulations... see the cycle? assholes get rich with our money...)
    • jakkyl, on 10/08/2008, -0/+4that is an excellent post!

      well done.....
    • anonymiau, on 10/08/2008, -1/+6Interest rates isn't the problem. Too low interest rates is the problem. If Greenspan had been responsible he would have raised the interest rate to curb spending and avoid bubbles. That's what the tool is meant for. But sadly, the tool is no better than the person using it, and the only thing Fed chairmen have been interested in the past couple of decades is maintaining inflation no matter the cost.
      • BESTenemy, on 10/08/2008, -0/+6 Greed and corruption will manifest themselves throughout the market, as long as the means are available. Without a sound commodity based currency, the system will remain vulnerable to manipulation and exploitation. Regulation on top of failed regulation will only make things worse. Common logic states that the solution cannot be the same as the problem.

        To quote the same analyst:

        "The government/quasi-government body most responsible for creating this mess, will attempt a big power grab, purportedly to fix whatever problems it creates. The bigger the mess it creates, the more power it will attempt to grab. Over time this leads to dangerously concentrated power into the hands of those who have already proved they do not know what they are doing."

        Easy fiat money makes the whole charade possible. If money was constrained to a commodity, manipulation would not have been possible, regardless of the desire and corruption of those in power. We simply cannot trust the human regulator. The money has to regulate itself through open market process. The interest rates cannot precede the demand. They have to follow the market instead of leading it. Keynesian interest rate targeting system has failed. Attempts to maintain price stability have caused capital misallocation. Milton Friedman economic model that emulates gold standard by using basket currencies has also failed. It doesn't work when all the currencies are fiat and eveyone is crashing. The only one that has proved itself valid by predicting the current crisis is Austrian economic model formulated by Ludwig Von Mises. The only politician advocating such system is Ron Paul, but sadly, this country is not ready for his approach. They're too used to Keynesian debt economics. All the average Joe wants is to delay the inevitable. People cry for change, but by "change" they mean keeping everything exactly the same, for as long as possible.
      • anonymiau, on 10/08/2008, -1/+2I have to admit I don't believe a pure free market can exists other than in theory. If the government doesn't regulate, private cartels will. But I agree 100% that fiat currencies are making the dark side of regulation a whole lot darker than what it could have been if currency was tied to for example a gold-standard.
      • BESTenemy, on 10/09/2008, -0/+3@anonymiauanonymiau

        I don't know whether the pure free market can exist. All I know is that it's never been tried.

        Commodity currency's weakness is possible segregation. "Usury" (lending with interest), is arguably the most difficult issue to address, when proposing monetary reforms.

        On one hand, usury leads to segregation of capital in the hands of entity that had the most money when the system got established. On the other hand, in usury-free system, there's no incentive for the lender to lend without compensation of risk associated with possible default by the borrower.

        The only way to get around the problem is to allow regulated usury, but that brings us back to interest rate management and re-introduction of the human element.

        Our forefathers solved the problem the best way they could - by offering 2 competing mediums by which the currency was backed - gold and silver. Supposedly, the two together could fight segregation. Sadly the system got dismantled to make way for the fiat revolution, before it had a chance to mature.

        Gresham's Law is another open market flaw, one that also requires human intervention. Constitution supposedly protected us from its manifestation, but only for as long as people were willing to uphold the Constitutional principles. The late generations took the freedom and economic prosperity for granted, destroying the founding document.

        Human imperfections will forever be embedded into every system we create and try to implement. We make mistakes and through the lessons we learn, we evolve.
      • anonymiau, on 10/09/2008, -0/+2I haven't read all that much about this subject, but couldn't interest be quite easily implemented in a commodity currency? Let's say you borrow money worth an ounce of gold from me, but I won't let you get the money until you sign a contract promising to pay me back two ounces worth (fixing the gold-price to the moment the contract is signed).

        In my opinion, interest isn't merely an incentive for lenders to cash in on their risks. It should also be meant to scare off people who can't really afford to be borrowing in the first place. The problems occur when people borrow the money at a lower interest rate which they think they can afford (and I'd call that sensible borrowing) just to have the lender increase interest during the payback-period. That's not an honest contract either, and leaves the borrower with very little security.
      • BESTenemy, on 10/09/2008, -0/+1 The segregation problem that I'm implying happens due to interest, even if the currency is sound. Historical example of that is the "currency of god" - a limited series coin that ran in Israel and rated at 1:1 ratio with the official currency at the moment of introduction into the market. It was valued among collectors. High demand for it allowed the speculators to corner the market driving the exchange rate to 38:1 at its peak. It became practically inaccessible and ceased to be an active medium of exchange.

        The person that was able to get most of the coins when they were at 1:1 ratio, was able to recollect most of the remaining amount through lending at an interest. Commodity trade became a monopoly game due to lack of flexible alternatives.

        ...

        Regarding the floating interest rates topic, you mentioned the concept of "an honest contract", unfortunately, does not exist. The only honesty existing in such agreement is the obligation to follow the rules set by the contract terms. The power of a contract, even according to the Constitution, is unlimited. An agreement between 2 or more parties is subject to the "common law" - the law of highest jurisdiction.

        Whatever is in the contract has to be followed unless the exit condition is met (if both people agree to void it). Terms of a contract can be exploitative, but they cannot be considered "unfair". The failure to understand or read the contract is never an excuse for not following it. The people have to understand that once they're in, they're in. They should be extra-cautious when accepting contracts.
      • anonymiau, on 10/09/2008, -0/+2So do you believe a system of fixed interest could even work, then? Or does interest have to be floating, even if you fix the currency to commodities. (I'm having a good time reading your posts, btw.)
      • BESTenemy, on 10/09/2008, -0/+2 I personally don't have a problem with the existence of interest rates. I believe they should be natural, based on supply and demand for whatever backs the currency. They have to adjust continuously, and not on month-to month basis at fixed increments, the way central banks set them. The cart has to follow the horse and not other way around.

        When the interest rates are managed manually, the prime dealer of currency essentially tries to guess the future market. People like Ben Bernanke put technical analysis and academic formulas, to justify their decisions. The problem is, market is too complex and unpredictable. No one knows for sure what's ahead.

        Instead of making investment decisions based on supply and demand statistics, today's investors pay more attention to the central bank interest rate announcements. Instead of trying to figure out whether the stock of interest is worthy or not, they guess how it will perform in high vs. low interest rate environment etc. That makes the system very rigid and inefficient. Everything's backwards. People think wealth originates from the money itself, when in reality money derives its value from assets it represents.

        Imagine, if Feb 29 of every leap year was a national holiday, with greeting cards and everything. Imagine if there was a holiday industry associated with it, manufacturing goods and providing services.

        Since the holiday only happens once every 4 years, do we have to have the "leap year" industry running every year, growing at a steady rate? Don't you think that it would make more sense to only have the factories run once every 4 years, in preparation for the celebration?

        Does it make a difference if the factories open their doors once every 4 years printing 1 million holiday cards, or every year printing 1/4 million? Mathematically, not, but market-wise it does. During the stall years the factories operating annually would suck up the capital from the overall market, that could be used for more essential projects. If the capital was suddenly needed to boost crop outputs due to unexpected drought, it would not be available. The funds would have been committed.

        What would be left to do? To print cash, paying for the crop industry restoration (diluting the monetary supply)? To let the farmers go bankrupt? To declare an end to the "leap year holiday" and close the factories?

        The governments are always more inclined to print, and hope the problem would go away. The correct solution would be to eliminate the stupid holiday industry as "less-essential", compared to farming, but that would only happen if the net amount of capital was fixed. If printing cash wasn't an option and the government had no choice, but to follow the self-regulation of the market.

        Sound money is capable of keeping economy balanced. It prevents bubbles from forming, by dynamically adjusting to changing supply and demand. That is what we need today. Commodity currency has its flaws, but right now those are the least of our concerns. The scale of those problems is nowhere near those that originate in fiat economies.

        Gold's been around for thousands of years. An average age of paper currency is 100 years. Our paper has long passed its expiration date.

        (btw. I'm also enjoying the discussion)
      • anonymiau, on 10/10/2008, -0/+2In essence we agree on this matter. I'm no fan of fiat currency. And perhaps an open market tied to a standard would eliminate quite a lot of the problems I think interest rate is a key tool to solving (if applied in a sensible non-Greenspan fashion).

        I'm still concerned about private cartels though, cause even if the currency is fixed and the rate goes by your "cart follow horse" theory, couldn't cartels manipulate supply to vary demand and interest rate to their own gain? First flood the market with a particular commodity, encouraging lending and buying while price is low and then hold back and cash in?
      • BESTenemy, on 10/10/2008, -0/+2 In case you still here, on topic of fighting of segregation through constitutional measures, I'd recommend lectures by Michael Badnarik. They're quite long. Last one deals with monetary policy specifics.

        http://www.archive.org/details/Michael_Badnarik

        In short, the Constitution determined that the congress was the only entity granted the right to coin currency. The congress, in the past, was considered trustworthy, as it was sharing interests of the country and not the private bankers. There were no lobbyists, counter-monetary amendments and so on. The Constitution was a great document. It took many attempts and hundreds of years to dismantle it and turn it into the roll of toilet paper it is right now.

        The founder ideology was this: "The central bankers serve no interests other than their own, and unlike common citizens, the bankers belong to no country. Their goal is profits. Profits derive from artificial scarcity, regulation and price fixing. The goal of a responsible government is well-being of the country it represents, as one cannot flourish without the other. As long as bankers are kept out of the government, and the power is spread evenly across the country, everything should be fine." The founders also gave people guns as way to put fear into potential traitors and those posing as domestic representatives, while being spies of the Crown.

        Yada yada yada. Currency is a difficult subject. I'm still learning about it myself, so I cannot answer all questions.

        It can be manipulated. It can be monopolized. The idea of founding fathers was to keep the monopoly in government's hands while keeping the government itself segmented. If there is no segregation of power, there should be no segregation of money and vice-versa.

        The system got destroyed through simultaneous attacks on the government as well as on the banking system. The people were given guns to guard the Constitutional principles, but they have forgotten how to use them. The presidents that stood up against the central bank were either assassinated or threatened. Those that handed the keys to the gate over to bankers were praised.

        Lincoln refused to take 33% interest loans to fight the revolution, introducing interest-free greenbacks instead. A bit later: "Bang!" Andrew Jackson takes down the 1st National Bank. He gets poisoned (but lives). JFK writes executive order 11-1-10, re-introducing silver into circulation. Before the order is put in place: "bang!" and the first thing the next president does is repeal the executive order.

        We need both, sound money and responsible government. Where do we start fixing? Well... I think money is easier to fix, just cause the alternative is in place already. Gold and silver are accessible. All the people have to do is start circulating the metals. They don't have to have the government approval in order to revolt against the monetary policy. All they have to do is pick the money of their liking. It can be anything. People are the ones holding all the power. They just have to exercise it.

        Why aren't people revolting? Why aren't the things getting fixed sooner?

        Well, it goes into psychology. I call it "the victim fetish". Responsibility is scary. No one wants to take the responsibility for their actions. People would rather vote for a politician who is obviously lying, only to have the luxury of being able to blame him later for exploitation and misdirection. It scares them less than taking the matters into their own hands.

        I choose to target money, because fixing it is the easiest (as oppose to fixing the governments or the human nature). I choose commodity currency because it has fewer flaws than the paper money. The precious metals economy is more transparent. Gold is mined at a relatively slow rate. Even if one held a complete monopoly over it, he would not be able to "flood the market" with gold and cause its complete depreciation. Unlike paper, gold can never go to zero value, as it took energy and effort to extract it out of the ground. Also, the gold cannot disappear completely, as it will continue to get mined. The Fed can quit printing cash and handing out loans. There will be no new money whatsoever. Try closing every single gold mine on the planet.

        The beauty of metals is that their value is intrinsic. Who cares if the chunk you have is shaped like a coin or not. The value derives form the material. There were days when people were exchanging goods for freshly minder gold - dust and ore and it did not matter one bit. Gold has real value. Same with silver. I think today we need them more than ever.
      • anonymiau, on 10/11/2008, -0/+2"The people were given guns to guard the Constitutional principles"

        I live in Europe, and sadly we are not blessed in this way, but I will end this conversation as I believe you have answered all the questions I have. It's been educational and I thank you for taking the time to talk to me about this.
      • BESTenemy, on 10/11/2008, -0/+2The pleasure is all mine.

        See you around.
    • fusuke31, on 10/09/2008, -0/+4I'm a big fan of Mike "Mish" Shedlock. You can find his popular and insightful blog at globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com
  • 1ncu3us, on 10/08/2008, -14/+6The whole money system is going to fail within the next few years.. you heard it here first
    • BadseedJR, on 10/08/2008, -0/+18You weren't first.
    • Egoist, on 10/08/2008, -1/+1Dog turds stink.

      You heard it here first.
    • Depthfunction, on 10/08/2008, -0/+2History will long remember the name, 1ncu3us!
    • jakkyl, on 10/08/2008, -0/+1wow...

      I just took a screenshot of this history in the making.

      How profound!
    • chuckDontSurf, on 10/08/2008, -0/+2if by "first" you mean "yet again, because somebody predicts this ***** every few years," then yes, I heard it here first. Thanks Nostradamus.
  • glucoseboy, on 10/08/2008, -4/+21Yup, this is a plan that will discourage future "lapses in judgment". What Great Britain is doing is "fixing the dents and taking away the keys" after your teenager has wrecked the car. The Paulson plan is just fixing the dents but letting the kid still drive.
    • FasterGun, on 10/08/2008, -0/+19More like fixing the dents then letting the kid drive to a $440,000 resort to celebrate what a great dad he has.
    • omgwtflawl, on 10/08/2008, -1/+2Yeah, I think I found a video of what the government did with the car after it "took the keys".

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THesRyETb7Y

      Skip to 1:50
    • AndrewMoyer, on 10/08/2008, -1/+1I think your analogy should include running over countless millions of elderly and immigrants before finally totaling the car.

      And what's with the damn car analogies!?
    • jakkyl, on 10/08/2008, -2/+3More so preserving a free market. The one casualty in this whole mess cannot be a free market.
      • dave11980, on 10/08/2008, -0/+4How is nationalizing banks preserving a free market? In a true free market we would have allowed our economy to adjust years ago accepting the recession as the price to pay for over abundance, now our tinkering is no longer working and the free market is correcting itself, violently.
  • Temo1, on 10/08/2008, -1/+11There is actually language in the bailout bill that allows the government to take equity stakes in Banks rather than buy the assets.

    It's a plan most economists are in favor of, moreso than straight buying of distressed assets (mostly because accurate pricing of these assets will be some what of a mathematical miracle).
  • HarryRag, on 10/08/2008, -12/+6Why would Europe use the 'Paulson Plan'? Europe's economy isn't suffering from the same ***** America's economy is suffering, things are just going wrong simply because America is having a lot of trouble, and that affects the whole world.

    Buried for not making any sense.
    • Temo1, on 10/08/2008, -2/+3Actually British and French housing markets are declining too, and the general Eurozone economy is on the decline.

      Take a look at the world stock exchanges. They're all down.
      • Rotzooi, on 10/08/2008, -2/+3...because of *American* companies who were selling four-times repackaged ***** as if it were gold.

        Putin blamed this whole crisis on the US, and he's right - this time.
      • arjie, on 10/08/2008, -1/+1Yes, but did the French also take loans against those same houses? I remember reading on the BBC that the French are incredibly conservative in this respect. I find it hard to believe that the falling prices means the same thing there but feel free to correct me.
    • Royish, on 10/08/2008, -0/+4That's the point, why would anyone want to use Paulson's plan.
      Of course the former CEO and VP of Goldman Sachs want this.
    • rekrapt, on 10/08/2008, -0/+3"Europe's economy isn't suffering..."

      ???

      Do you even read the news? In France, at least, people are loosing jobs by the thousands, thousands of homes on the verge of foreclosure, home heating costs have skyrocketed... the list goes on.

      Dugg down for being completely clueless.
    • RMCLC, on 10/08/2008, -0/+0@rekrapt - ???

      Do you even read the news? In U.S., at least, people are loosing jobs by the thousands, thousands of homes on the verge of foreclosure, home heating costs have skyrocketed... the list goes on.

      Dugg down for being completely clueless.
  • mvader, on 10/08/2008, -18/+17Governments OWNING banks?
    Did I read that right? (please correct me if I didn't)
    Does that not scare anyone but me?
    • SteaminTmann, on 10/08/2008, -5/+25Oh, you heard just fine... comrade!
    • theutopian, on 10/08/2008, -8/+26Europeans have the stomach to fix their problems through governmental intervention.

      America does not so we get half assed measures such as the Wall Street Bailout.

      The EU will be the next superpower.
      • Nairebis, on 10/08/2008, -12/+7Yeah, because European socialism over the last 50 years has produced the most economically powerful countries in the world, versus the poor pitiful U.S., who has stubbornly stuck to Capitalism. Too bad we have such a tiny economy.

        By the way, the currrent problems were caused by socialism in the United States through the government pressuring banks to loan to poor citizens.

        But don't let that happily stop you from giving away your freedom to the government. All it will do is make the United States stronger once these bad times pass.
      • mvader, on 10/08/2008, -3/+2So why don't you go live there if you think that they do it right?
        No one is forcing you to stay.
      • stanleyford, on 10/08/2008, -3/+5"Europeans have the stomach to fix their problems through governmental intervention." -- Remember that you said this when the government is taking away your liberties in order to "fix" things.
      • theutopian, on 10/08/2008, -1/+1@mvader

        I plan to, at the earliest opportunity.
      • th3heretic, on 10/08/2008, -0/+3Russia could easily break said "Union", the EU still hasn't faced a major conflict to test its bond. Commence burying.
      • mycoolusername, on 10/09/2008, -1/+4@Naiberis - most of these 'socialist' Europeans receive bigger salaries, have more time for vacations and generally have a higher standard of living than most Americans. I don't give a ***** that America's economy is stronger or that probably in the next decade or two China will be number one when the people in their factories receive about 50 dollars a month for all of their hard work. But, please, do continue living in this imaginary world of yours where a strong economy that only a few can benefit from equals prosperity for all.
      • Nairebis, on 10/09/2008, -1/+0@mycoolusername -- You are correct about vacation time. But you are sadly misinformed about standards of living. And the United States has the richest poor people in the world. By the standards of the world, the United States effectively has no poor people, only less rich than others.
    • onnozele, on 10/08/2008, -0/+14The Netherlands already nationalized 100% of the dutch branch of Fortis Bank and ABN AMRO last week... and dutch government officials say they will nationalize all banks if needed... and also promise all saving accounts are guaranteed up to 100.000 euro. And no... this doesn't seem to scare people... people over here tend to find trust in these government interventions.
      • mvader, on 10/08/2008, -2/+2Americans have a long tradition of not trusting anyone with too much power (Absolute power corrupts absolutely).
        Read our history. That is why our ancestors left England. They were tired of the government telling them what to do.
      • theutopian, on 10/08/2008, -3/+3@mvader

        And look where it got us.
      • mvader, on 10/08/2008, -3/+2@theutopian
        It gave us the technology explosion that we are currently enjoying today.
        It gave us Digg.
        It gave us the power to make ourselves heard over the internet rather than having to listen to the MSM.
        It allowed those who planned carefully to succeed and become wealthy.
        It gave us the iPod.
        It allowed us to go to the moon and send multiple probes across the solar system (yes, I know NASA is run by the government, but it's contractors are not)

        Need I go on?
      • arjie, on 10/08/2008, -0/+2I just hope that list isn't in order of priority.

        For a country which ostensibly believes that the government should be formed of the people, the people seem to be remarkably distrustful.
      • Rotzooi, on 10/08/2008, -0/+3The Netherlands has a decent government. Or, better, a government with decent people in it. Hence, the people trust that this nationalization will end up just fine. EU FTW, it looks like.
      • mvader, on 10/08/2008, -0/+1@arjie
        Formed by the people, but not to rule the people.

        And no, it is not a priority list. I was just typing as I was thinking.
      • MrSkills, on 10/08/2008, -1/+2@ mvader: so you are saying that technology and opportunity come only/mostly from America?
      • shig, on 10/08/2008, -5/+2The Netherlands? Is that a region within the United Socialist States of Europe?
      • dave11980, on 10/08/2008, -2/+5It should be noted that America grew into the world super power it is during it's years of mostly non-intervention in the free markets. It wasn't until the government started manipulating them that we started getting our bubbles. The lesson here should be keep the government out of the markets, not put them in it more. The biggest problem with America is it's short term memory, countless people are sitting here saying economy bad while bush is president = bush's fault. And they will go vote for the democrats in droves. The simple truth is the subprime lending policies that were the spark that ignited the powder keg were Clinton's golden child and were a bi-partisan effort. Both parties are to blame and both parties need to pay the price. Find your senators and representatives and how they voted on the bailout, if they voted for government intervention then vote against them, regardless of party lines.
    • mvader, on 10/08/2008, -5/+3Why am I being dugg down?
      I just asked a couple of questions...
      I guess they hit to close to home :)
      • rekrapt, on 10/08/2008, -1/+5You're being dugg down by people who have absolutely no notion how dangerous Marxists are. Sadly, I think we're all on the verge of re-discovering something we should have learned from our history books.
      • valmira, on 10/08/2008, -0/+1Marxists dangerous? I know I could kick the asses of most of the "Marxists" back in college.
    • SpinningHead, on 10/08/2008, -0/+1Not so long as its a government by the people, for the people. What we are doing here is throwing money at these people and letting our grandkids pay for it. All they're doing is buying interest in banks so that the taxpayers get a return on investment.
  • Weed86, on 10/08/2008, -10/+2Buried for...well...huh...no...huh....no boobies!
  • elscorcho717, on 10/08/2008, -1/+35Banks NEED to be allowed to fail in a free market. Otherwise, things like this happen. Banks would have never loaned out the amount of money they did or make the decisions they did if they knew that a run on their bank would really end them financially. YES, banks will be more conservatively giving out loans if we allow them to fail, but this is exactly what our already extremely indebted economy needs.
    • jeffiek, on 10/08/2008, -0/+2Agreed, but you also have to account for the tremendous incentive the Fed gave them. Years of low interest rates, so low that you can say they were giving it away ( interest rate < inflation = free money). What's a bank to do?

      Money is the raw material of banks. They had all this raw material coming in for a song. What were they going to do with it? They had to fall all over themselves pushing it out. They couldn't make any money sitting on it.

      So let's not forget the Fed's role in this mess.

      • dave11980, on 10/08/2008, -0/+2Absolutely they are to blame too but we should remember that there are banks out there who knew all too well that subprime was a bad idea and stayed out of it. They are the banks that aren't failing.
    • omgwtflawl, on 10/08/2008, -0/+2Also, government-sponsored institutions (Fannie and Freddie) were buying up all of the bad debt the banks could produce.
    • elscorcho717, on 10/08/2008, -0/+1I should say, I only noticed there was an article linked on this page after 20 minutes of staring at that thumbnail image...
  • c010rb1indusa, on 10/08/2008, -9/+14A plan like Englands would never be publicly accepted in the US. Nationalization is to socialistic for Americans, even though it's probably a better idea.
  • colincornaby, on 10/08/2008, -10/+19It makes me cringe every time a TV talking head whines about communism. "But the government can't buy the banks! That's coommmuuunniiissmmm!"

    No duh. Are we supposed to stick with a pure Capitalist banking system after all the good that has done? The best system is one that takes the best of both socialism and capitalism. But the moment anyone brings up a socialist ideal, the media and the talking heads flip out about communism like it's some horrible evil. I'm not in favor of a completely communist government, but after what's happened, don't you think it's time to re-examine our ideals a bit?
    • theutopian, on 10/08/2008, -2/+11The problem is that most Rightists fails to understand the difference between Socialism and Communism. Socialism /= Communism. They'll claim they're the same, but they're not.

      Communism is a political system that espouses the common ownership of everything. Socialism is blanket economic concept summarized by strong governmental intervention and ownership of corporations. The two can mix together, but they are not the same.
      • mvader, on 10/08/2008, -8/+2The only thing I want government to be "strong" at is protecting our borders.
        I want to stand or fail on my own merits. And I want everyone else to do the same. (Is that not what evolution is all about????)
        If I can do something better than someone else, how is it not fair that I should make more money?
        How is it fair to make me pay for someone else's kids just because they had so many that they cannot support them?
        I'm not saying that it is WRONG to help people out, but it should be MY decision, not the government's.
        Unfortunately attitudes like that do not win votes, and so we will never see a government with that policy.
      • arjie, on 10/08/2008, -1/+3What? No! Evolution is not about that.

        Have you ever wondered if the reason these attitudes don't win votes is that most people don't agree with your extreme libertarian stance?
      • mvader, on 10/08/2008, -4/+2@arjie
        Most people want everything done for them.
        Most people do not want to work.

        And isn't evolution "Survival of the fittest"? Isn't that what I just said?
      • Rikkochet, on 10/08/2008, -1/+6mvader, the problem with that attitude is that the people who really need help are the ones who have been blindsided by a medical/economic/social disaster that has overturned their life... And the month before it happened, they thought just like you did.
        When that happens, it's basically a big "***** you" to anyone who has bad luck, and instead of a system based more on merit, life almost becomes a luck game.
        And no, you're absolutely correct, a purely free market (and system in general), is an extension of evolution in every way - the strong will devour the weak. But we've somehow developed a thing called "morals" that stops us from doing this. It doesn't make sense from a natural selection, but somehow it's cropped up over the past few millennia and we're, er, stuck with it.

        What we really need is an insurance system that can help stabilize people when they take a fall. Get 'em back up and contributing to the economy, because ultimately that's all we really care about as a people (note I say "a people" and not "people"). And what we don't need is an overreaching system that consistently bails out people who attempt to abuse it or make no effort to contribute anything.
      • rekrapt, on 10/08/2008, -5/+3Socialism and Communism have failed every single time they've been tried. Why? Not because the concepts don't look great on paper... but, their implementation plays to the power-hungry nature of humanity. These forms of government lead only to oppression. They are nice, neat little ways for the government elites and their friends to keep the working class and the poor "in their place."

        America has a Representative Democracy... which I think is broken because of ill-informed voters who care more about what the candidate looks like on TV instead of their record (or, lack thereof.) Our economy is based on entrepreneurship and capitalism in general. Even our poor live like kings compared to the way things were 100 years ago... or 1,000.

        If people were being taught proper world history, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. I guess when people like you get their way, I'll be one of those people you throw in a re-education camp.
      • JohnFlux, on 10/08/2008, -1/+3rekapt, hardly anyone proposes a pure 100% socialist or communist system, in the same way that hardly anyone proposes a pure 100% capitalist country. You need to find a balance between the two extremes.
      • bagelmaster, on 10/08/2008, -1/+3Wait, socialism has failed? Last I checked England and France are doing a-ok. Well, at least as good as we are (everyone's economy is in the crapper)
    • mvader, on 10/08/2008, -3/+8One of the biggest reasons we are facing a bad economy is because banks were offered incentives (by the government) to give out risky loans. That is not pure capitalism. Pure capitalism would be allowing those idiot banks to fail.
    • Lisztman, on 10/08/2008, -1/+3Actually, all things considered, it HAS done a lot of good. Just because you are blinded by this current fiasco, doesn't mean that a massive amount of wealth and growth has not come from our system. I guarantee you that, despite the hysteria about being worse than the great depression (only in terms of dollar amounts; not taking into consideration size relative to the rest of the economy), you will still have people trying to purchase all sorts of luxury consumer goods(like iPods, etc).

      Our system, by the way, is not "pure capitalist" at all. There is a great deal of laws and regulation involved to make sure that certain things do not go awry. Unfortunately, legislators and regulators cannot predict every possible possible outcome to everything they do.

      The idea of a government nationalizing all banks is disconcerting in that by doing so, all it takes is a few poorly placed politicians to ***** the whole damn thing up even worse. It directly ties the economy to politics. Tell me, do YOU trust our government, an organization whose policies are driven by nothing more than pandering? The whole argument about "communism" is centered around the concern of giving TOO MUCH POWER to too few people.

      In conclusion, the system that we have has treated us rather well, all things considered. Its been the very meddling of government itself, whether through political pressure on the Fed to lower interest rates(making credit easier to obtain), or government subsidized organizations like Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac (being forced by politicians to give home loans to people who any reasonable bank would not loan to because they were too risky), that caused this whole mess.
      • homercles337, on 10/08/2008, -2/+2Tell me, do YOU trust our corporations, a series of organizations whose policies are driven by making as much money as possible despite ANY consequences? The role of the government is to walk the middle road between control by corporations AND communism. Starting with Reagan (but decreasing significantly during Clinton), the Corporations have been in control. Reagan was the first neocon president in his policies and actions.
      • dave11980, on 10/08/2008, -1/+2Actually I do trust the corporations with the economy more than I trust the government, you see, corporations are trying to make money so the detriments of the economy affect them directly. Politicians are trying to win another term so all they have to worry about is keeping it up past their time in office. That is why Clinton pushed sub prime lending, it made him look good to poor people who voted in droves for him. He didn't care what the end result 14 years later would be because he knew he wouldn't be in office then.
    • jeffiek, on 10/08/2008, -0/+10"pure Capitalist banking system after all the good that has done?"

      What pure Capitalist banking system? In the US the banking system is a legally enforced cartel.

      There are enough problems without blaming them on something that doesn't exist.
  • GeneValdorry, on 10/08/2008, -4/+11First the European governments buy the banks (partly) and when the storm clears, they sell with a profit. That's the plan and while doing that saving a lot of jobs. A different approach compared to the Americans. Time will tell which side of the Atlantic was ripped off.
  • zephyear, on 10/08/2008, -12/+9a wonderful day, comrades
    • Stavrosian, on 10/08/2008, -2/+1Yes, it's always best to misunderstand the complexities of an issue and pass off your ignorance with misguided retard humor.
  • chrisb7, on 10/08/2008, -16/+9Are you surprised? All good things come from England, are adopted by America and then claimed as American.

    Proof; what language is spoken in America? (Note: "American English" is not a language but rather an excuse for you not spelling correctly).

    I realise (notice the S) that the timezone is against me at the moment, so bring on the burying - I'll digg it back up once your economy fails and none of you have Internet access!

    (Other Countries Note: And you thought Americans were arrogant? They stole that from us too!).
    • SuperMoses, on 10/08/2008, -2/+5And now you guys want to suck at the American teat by joining them in their war of aggression in Iraq. How the tables have turned and yet how neither governments have changed.
    • Awspire, on 10/08/2008, -2/+8Now, now, don't let penis envy turn you bitter.
      • ChayD, on 10/08/2008, -0/+1I would agree that America's Florida* is bigger than ours.

        * See Gallagher's "Pissing on Cuba" joke.
    • omgwtflawl, on 10/08/2008, -1/+2I got news for you; the English language was standardized by the Americans. The dual spellings we see today were both acceptable in America and in England before Mr. Webster decided which spelling should be used. Of course, you Limeys were too good for anything that the Americans came up with, so you went with the opposite spelling for everything he said.

      So no, in fact. Our spelling is correct.
      • chrisb7, on 10/09/2008, -0/+1Yes, so by standardising the English language, Webster obviously invented it?

        That's about as convincing as your justification for going to war in Iraq.
      • Lady_Phoenix, on 10/09/2008, -0/+1I have to say I don't get your logic here.... Just because Mr. Webster standardized it for this side of the pond doesn't mean he intended to do so for both countries. It's not like he asked permission from both governments and it was a concerted effort between the countries. He was just trying to improve education in America by coming up with a standard, and at the same time simplify some of the spelling rules for English so that correct spelling could be more easily taught.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah_Webster
    • TSK05, on 10/08/2008, -1/+2We here in America don't believe in socialism, hence this isn't a good idea.
    • dpmcalli, on 10/08/2008, -1/+2As a fellow Englishman i dugg you down for being a prick.
    • Lady_Phoenix, on 10/09/2008, -0/+1And as an American who appreciated your closing remark about arrogance (appreciated = laughed out loud!), I digg you up! :)

      If you were being completely serious instead of humorous in that dry, British way, I was still amused.
  • DiscoLando, on 10/08/2008, -1/+7Europe is nationalizing the University of Oklahoma? I guess that makes as much sense as everything else going on.
  • dartmanx, on 10/08/2008, -2/+7I've invested my retirement funds in ammunition, cinder blocks, and canned food.
  • bobjrn2, on 10/08/2008, -4/+6I hate to be the barer of bad news, but the US government already owns the banks by allowing the Federal Reserve to control the interest rates which banks used to loan themselves money.

    The banks aren't the only government-owned entities...look at healthcare. Everyone complains about healthcare not being nationalize while not realizing that Medicare and Medicaid are nationalized systems which make up a fair share of the market share.

    ***** even the postal office is still government-owned when companies like Fedex and UPS could easily take it over.

    This country is already nationalized/socialized which is the majority of our problems. Don't blame the corporations, don't blame the lobbyist, blame washington for having so much control which allows them to be lobbied in the first place.
    • positron, on 10/08/2008, -0/+3Pro Tip: The Federal Reserve is neither federal nor a reserve.
  • timonoj, on 10/08/2008, -2/+3Did you see the way to fix the economy -the swedish way? No? I can't find it in here...Well, in the spanish "Digg" (meneame.net) we found this article quite interesting:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/23/business/worldbu ...

    Basically, it involves that...Lending money to the banks, so the government owes a part of it. The bank, meantime, has new money. But they won't be too queen in going that way, since they are also losing property, so they won't ask money if they don't really need it (remember an expensive dinner just after a salvation?). Afterwards, when everything is more stable, the government can sell its part of the bank, hence getting the money back. After their plan...they had almost all of their money back. Now try that on your bush's capitalism way...
  • WoollyMittens, on 10/08/2008, -5/+4All the money in the western world is based on debt, not value. Its only colateral is the faith that the interest will be paid, but we have reached a point where there is not enough money in the world to repay the debt or the interest.

    Game over. Insert coin to continue.

    I don't know what the future holds, but we are really vulnerable to Islam now, because money lending and usury is illegal there.
  • odigity, on 10/08/2008, -1/+7The reason everything has gotten steadily worse since forever is because the best action a government can take to make the economy strong in any situation is to sit the ***** down and shut the ***** up.

    This is also the only option government will never, ever consider, because it admits that they're worse than useless. So they'll always take some action, any action, as long as it's something other than do nothing, thereby making it worse, until a complete collapse destroys the whole thing.

    They will never voluntarily relinquish power, or the charade that they can help.
  • vt4000, on 10/08/2008, -8/+2liberal rubbish....
  • ColonelJessup, on 10/08/2008, -3/+13Here we go again with the digg.com monetary policy professors.........................
    • Hetman, on 10/08/2008, -1/+2Here we go again with random comments about how only monetary prefessors should be commenting on digg, even though the whole point of digg is to comment on articles. And if only monetary policy professors commented on digg it would get like 10 hits a day and be a wortless social news site.
      • h3ndrix, on 10/08/2008, -0/+1So yer tired of the same, old, routine, random comment about something specific?
    • farfromok, on 10/08/2008, -0/+3..and it's not like they were all commenting BEFORE the wholesale ***** is it?
  • LanaGK2, on 10/08/2008, -5/+5Vulnerable to Islam??? Wow, that's new. Xenophobe.

    I wish someone consulted Ron Paul during this mess: http://tinyurl.com/66o79q
  • TSK05, on 10/08/2008, -4/+7Europe: Screw capitalism, we're doing socialism all the way.
    • Hetman, on 10/08/2008, -5/+4And they already have the gun laws and camera surveillance in place to create a completely fascists communist regime. Mao would be proud.
  • ryangall7, on 10/08/2008, -1/+2its the same concept, its just that nobody in America wants to use the word "nationalize" and to effectively nationalize American banks would cost much much more.
  • MysticKatDaddy, on 10/08/2008, -0/+1The root cause of all these problems is that consumers are financially illiterate. This situation would not have happened if people knew how and chose to live within their means instead of buying everything on credit. Most people are like some friends I know. They thought they could live it up and buy everything they wanted without having to save for it. Now they are 50 grand in debt and whine about it. Another friend of mine learned his lesson and did nothing but work for years and years to pay it all back. I have no debt but I had to give up things like having new cars, buying every movie I wanted, renting instead of buying a house they can't afford, not going out to eat all the time, etc. Public and private schools are to blame because they refuse to teach personal finance. Every student should graduate high school and be an expert or at least competent with money. Being able to live within your means is a choice that any average person can make. I have a disability that prevents me from working full time and even I can do it.
  • scoottie, on 10/08/2008, -1/+2next all we need is the UN to socialize, er i mean nationalize, the banks of the US and Europe and we will be closer to a one world government
  • TimmyGC, on 10/08/2008, -2/+6I live in the UK, and this is actually the first time in 10 years of Labour government that I have ever listened to an announcement of government policy and thought 'oh, that is actually quite a good move'.

    This crisis is all about confidence, and a government guarantee may well restore it.

    It remains to be seen whether or not this will work, but at least they have done something decisive. The alternative is a total meltdown and all its consequences, which is just too awful to think about.
  • neocr0n, on 10/08/2008, -0/+7In the 1950's over 25% of British industry was nationalized. There are still elements of socialism in the UK today, the National Health Service for one. Still Britain never did seek an end to capitalism. I think most socialist industry in the UK was privatized again under Thatcher. Just pointing out that this is certainly nothing new in the UK. I couldn't say or pretend to know what the right course of action is but I'd rather the UK government actually own a share of the bank as apposed to just giving free money to banks.
    • JohnFlux, on 10/08/2008, -0/+3I don't know the right course of action, but I do know that the train times don't seem to have gotten any better after being privatised.
    • svendm, on 10/09/2008, -0/+2Nobody's seeking an end to capitalism, really. Modern social democracy hasn't had the goal of complete socialization for quite a long time. Besides the fact that communist planned economy didn't work, there's the issue that it's practically impossible. People don't want complete socialization. Even Sweden, which has had almost uninterrupted Soc. Dem. rule for 80 years, at times with a lone majority, never came close to socializing everything.

      OTOH, in Britain, even Thatcher wasn't able to privatize everything, either.
      Europe is, and will remain to various extents, a mixed economy.
  • Ceeman, on 10/08/2008, -2/+4Everyone knows things work out just great when the government runs it. You know like the TSA.......
  • digghasnoethics, on 10/08/2008, -2/+8What is wrong with the typical american commenter?

    In europe they say " you ***** up, so we own your arse"

    In the US they say "you ***** up, so here's some free money"

    Somehow that's supposed to be socialism on europe's part? Sounds like good business sense to me. How is getting fair value for the bailout a bad idea?
    • Ymeg, on 10/08/2008, -0/+4In other words.

      Socialism:
      In europe they say " you ***** up, so we own your arse"
      In the US they say "you ***** up, so here's some free money"

      Captalism:
      In Fantasy Land, they say "not going to bail you out; don't make ***** loans."
    • rekrapt, on 10/08/2008, -2/+3Actually, the American Public was largely opposed to this bail out. I've been around Europeans enough to know that it can be a bit scary how quickly they are ready to hand control of something over to their governments. Some governments do good things sometimes, but, at the heart of it, government mostly does whatever it has to to maintain in power. Which generally means killing people and breaking things. It is the average person who gets screwed, ultimately.

      As for me, I'd rather be concentrating on raising my children, loving my bride, doing my job and living my life... not worrying about what my government will do to me next.
      • RMCLC, on 10/09/2008, -1/+1"Which generally means killing people and breaking things. It is the average person who gets screwed, ultimately."

        What????? Europe is not at war at more then 60 years. Can you remember the last year of peace in your beloved country? Today can you tell me who get screwed in U.S..
        Ohhhh. Maybe the AIG Management screwed itself in a luxury resort.
        And yes. Keep imitating an ostrich.
  • mastermemorex, on 10/08/2008, -0/+2Yeah! Give to the banks 50.000€ today and in three years we will have to fix 500.000€ of debt.
    This problem is imposible to solve throwing more money to the banks.
  • sangjmoon, on 10/08/2008, -4/+3Anything that involves the government taking over is bad in the long run because no matter how screwed up the private sector is, the government is far worse. In fact, it is the government through it's attempt to mask investment risk through insurance and bailouts which has brought us one step away from a depression.
  • govsucks, on 10/08/2008, -7/+2Rights, this is Europe, you don't have no stinking rights, no get back to work you piss ant taxpayer.

    No guns, no property rights, no control of currency, no privacy. Yep sounds like utopia for me, for a government bureaucrat.




    • TimmyGC, on 10/08/2008, -1/+4What are you talking about?

      Only the first item on your list, "no guns", is an accurate description of the state of things in Europe as compared to the US.

      What you colonials need to realise is that 1900 years of European history didn't happen without a few good lessons being learned. At least we haven't as yet been *entirely* hijacked by the arms/pharmacutical/agrobusiness crooks/bosses, although given America's record in influencing the rest of the world, it's only a matter of time...
    • govsucks, on 10/08/2008, -4/+2Well you do produce numerous people that love to put their jack boots on the back of your necks, thats for sure. Sounds like your well on your way towards making another.
    • Kizilbash, on 10/09/2008, -0/+1We don't have no guns here, but you can buy weed in a coffeeshop. I like that kind of freedom much better. Plus if they are going to spend my tax money to bail out a bank, we'd better get something in return. What kind of idiot prefers just giving them the money?
  • Midtowner, on 10/08/2008, -0/+1The title scared the crap out of me. I was shocked anyone would want to nationalize Oklahoma University... but George Bush is a UT fan...
  • Maizuru, on 10/08/2008, -0/+3It's not really a nationalisation which the headline implies because the UK Government will only own a minority share of the banks in most cases, via preference shares which don't have voting rights. It's more of a public-private partnership where the private banks continue to run themselves more sensibly and the public (Government) sits in the background with a big stick.
  • VanishingLex, on 10/08/2008, -0/+2"Assuming they're not non-voting that amounts to nationalization."

    They are actually non-voting preference shares.

    Therefore this article is inaccurate.

    Check the end of the first paragraph of the section entitled possible profit in this article:
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7658277.stm
  • atact88, on 10/09/2008, -2/+2Considering that developing countries are having huge success with growth and development by PRIVATIZING their industries and banks and embracing capitalism, one can only imagine what will happen with this move to socialism.

    Remember the characteristics of a socialist society: tend to be low on capital, technologically backwards, good for labor and not much else.
  • waydee, on 10/09/2008, -3/+2Good move British government, now re-nationalise the utilities please.
  • spottydog88, on 10/09/2008, -0/+1Some one tell me why we are not demanding the lowering of interest rates on credit cards? Across the board to let say no higher than 5%.
  • brandita, on 10/09/2008, -1/+1Whoever submitted this story is obviously an idiot. I mean the lack of title and random photo....please.
  • Stevethegreat, on 10/09/2008, -2/+1I'll await for the consequences. If Austrian economics are right then Europe goes down in the toilet faster than America. It is true that US over the 20th century implemented a far better economic policy than Europe and it shows, unfortunately now that US's economy is in a low EU only seems to make worse decisions.

    Time will tell, I just hope that we won't go to negative growth enabling Asia taking the helm faster than they would otherwise, already EU -for the last decade- (the large countries I mean), averages a 2% growth, a pitiful number for a supposed world power, I only hope things won't get worse.
  • ladyattis, on 10/09/2008, -1/+1Socializing failure is like accepting water laced with poison. No matter how you dilute it, it's still harmful.
  • viridari, on 10/09/2008, -1/+1Marxism: change you can believe in.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.