Ignoring FDIC, ABC's Stark says bank nationalization happens "in socialist countries" and is "not supposed to happen" in the U.S.
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
SUMMARY: On World News, business correspondent Betsy Stark stated: "Wall Street is the bastion of free-market capitalism, and nationalization, even if it's meant to save the banks, is something that happens in socialist countries; it's not supposed to happen in the United States." In fact, the FDIC has acted as receiver assuming all deposits for 66 failed banks since October 1, 2000. Indeed, Cato Institute senior fellow Gerald P. O'Driscoll Jr. wrote, "The federal government, under the auspices of the FDIC, can be said to routinely nationalize failed banks."
On the February 23 broadcast of ABC's World News, anchor Charles Gibson asked business correspondent Betsy Stark "why nationalization is considered such a dirty word," and Stark replied, in part: "Wall Street is the bastion of free-market capitalism, and nationalization, even if it's meant to save the banks, is something that happens in socialist countries; it's not supposed to happen in the United States." In fact, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), an "independent agency of the federal government" that describes its mission as "insuring deposits, examining and supervising financial institutions, and managing receiverships," has acted as receiver assuming all deposits for 66 failed banks since October 1, 2000. Indeed, economists including Cato Institute senior fellow Gerald P. O'Driscoll Jr., a former vice president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas and Citigroup, and Nobel laureate Paul Krugman have stated, in Driscoll's words, that "[t]he federal government, under the auspices of the FDIC, can be said to routinely nationalize failed banks."
In a February 23 Wall Street Journal op-ed, Driscoll wrote:
There is a great deal of imprecision in all the talk of nationalizing banks. The government, through the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. (FDIC), temporarily takes over insolvent banks when it closes them. When it can, the FDIC sells a failed bank to another institution. Sometimes the purchaser does not want some or any of the failed bank's assets. The FDIC must either then pay the buyer to take the assets (subsidize expected losses) or take over those assets. In a limited number of cases, there is no buyer for a failed bank. IndyMac Bank is a notable recent example. It has been operated since last year as an FDIC-owned institution (IndyMac Federal Bank) with the goal of finding a private buyer.
Certainly, in the latter case, a government agency has taken ownership of a bank. The federal government, under the auspices of the FDIC, can be said to routinely nationalize failed banks. There is nothing new about that policy and it certainly occurs more than once every 100 years.
Similarly, in a February 23 New York Times column, Krugman wrote:
Still, isn't nationalization un-American? No, it's as American as apple pie.
Lately the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation has been seizing banks it deems insolvent at the rate of about two a week. When the F.D.I.C. seizes a bank, it takes over the bank's bad assets, pays off some of its debt, and resells the cleaned-up institution to private investors. And that's exactly what advocates of temporary nationalization want to see happen, not just to the small banks the F.D.I.C. has been seizing, but to major banks that are similarly insolvent.
From the February 23 broadcast of ABC's World News with Charles Gibson:
GIBSON: And I'm curious why nationalization is considered such a dirty word. The Obama administration has been at pains to say, "We're not going to nationalize the banks," but a lot of economists, and you heard some there, say this could actually be a positive step if the banks were to -- a couple of banks were taken over for a couple of years.
STARK: A couple of things, Charlie. I mean, one of them -- one of them is just about money. If banks are taken over by the government, then private investors could see the value of their shares either severely diluted or wiped out altogether. But the other thing is philosophical. Wall Street is the bastion of free-market capitalism, and nationalization, even if it's meant to save the banks, is something that happens in socialist countries; it's not supposed to happen in the United States.
Stark would be pleased to know that the banks would not be "nationalized."
Here's a tip, boys n' girls: anyone who throws around the word "nationalization" needs to look up the word "receivership." (A quick punch in the face is optional.)
Nationalization and receivership are two very different things, and the latter is what's actually happening.
"And I'm curious why nationalization is considered such a dirty word."
One thing that can be said about this exchange is that Gibson got a hell of a good answer to that. Whether a plan works or not has nothing to do with anything. If it can possibly be construed as socialist by any stretch of the imagination, it's unacceptable.
That's the problem with ideology. Everything gets judges against the ideology as it it, rather than reality, is the absolute truth.
Granted some Liiberals do this to, but the liberal's natural tendecny to question and change things leads to far more self-examiniation and adaptation of their own philosophy and policies than the conservative's tendency to believe their own dogma with an almost religious like fervent... Analogous to how each group views religion!
NGE,
It is the liberals who have made their political outlook their religion.
Read Ann Coulter's book, "Godless" for an eye opener.
ps. No doubt there will be some here who will revile and condemn Coulter thereby proving my point.
If one wants to get a little bit more introspective, take a look at the way Obama has been treated by the left. You'd think he walks on water.
What point does reviling and condemning Coulter prove?
Barney doesn't know. He's just a zombie who mistakenly believes that his points are constantly being proven. I think this problem starts with his thinking that he ever has a point.
Aw, I checked back here, hoping Barney would have attempted one of his far-fetched explanations, but it looks like he abandoned ship. Oh well, sometimes it's as much fun trying to guess what the trolls are trying to say as reading their attempt to make sense of their own thinking.
I'll try to fill in for AA;
**ahem** Liberals made their political views a religion. To support this premise, I'm going to recommend a "book" by a well documented right wing liar and propagandist. If anybody mentions that the author is a nut job with no credibility, I'll consider that as proof that liberals consider their political views a religion.
How'd I do?
We don't have to revile and condemn her, it's sufficient to just post all the past links from MMFA detailing all the lies she tells. And if by the left you are referring to the fact that 68% of the country approves of everything Obama is doing vs only 30 something % approval of anything republicans are doing, then yes, he does walk on water.
snoop,
Where do you get your numbers?
Fifty-five percent (55%) of American adults say the federal government would be rewarding bad behavior by providing mortgage subsidies to financially troubled homeowners. Among investors, 65% hold that view.
http://www.examiner.com/x-1528-Baltimore-Personal-Finance-Examiner~y2009m2d24-55-Of-Americans-agree-with-Rick-Santelli
On Tuesday, President Obama signed into law the $787-billion economic stimulus plan. The president was able to rally support for the plan through his own personal appeal, but only 38% of voters nationwide believe the plan will help the economy.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/weekly_updates/what_they_told_us_reviewing_last_week_s_key_polls
Head-to-head, though, Americans are putting far more faith in Obama than in congressional Republicans: 61 percent said they trust Obama more than the GOP when it comes to economic matters, just 26 percent side with the Republicans in Congress. Obama’s advantage on that question is bigger than George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, or George H.W. Bush ever had over the opposition party in the legislature on dealing with the economy.
Overall, Democrats maintain a nearly 2 to 1 edge over Republicans as the party Americans prefer to confront “the big issues” over the next few years.
So basically, all republicans managed to do was polarize their base because what you left unsaid was that that only 29% believe it will hurt the economy. This little fact sheet is way more telling:
Rasmussen is an outlier and that's because they frame the question in such a way to get a higher percentage for the conservative position. It's a deceptive pattern of theirs.
Oops...
Polls: Most support Obama's economic plan
Approval ratings high as president moves to stem recession woes
WASHINGTON - Large majorities of Americans support President Barack Obama's plans to revive the economy and his efforts to work across party lines, according to a pair of public opinion polls released Monday.
One month into his presidency, a Washington Post-ABC News poll found 68 percent of Americans approve of Obama's job performance.
Sixty-four percent of respondents supported the administration's $787 billion economic stimulus package and the same percentage backed his proposal to prevent housing foreclosures, the Washington Post reported.
Ann Coulter has been caught in more lies about the left than even Rush and that is next to impossible to do.
Can it really be much of a sin to "revile and condemn" somebody who openly hates you and everything about you? I don't even hate her back, I just think she's pretentious, pseuedo-intellectual garbage boiled down into hatespeech. She routinely advocates violence, intimidation tactics and murder against people like me, and yet you think I should allow her to the table? That's one of those strange doublethink moments you get from conservatives. They want to feel unbridled hatred toward you and recieve nothing but welcomes in return.
Of course this ends with another platitude about Obama's treatment. You don't really read the actual "liberal media" do you? They have often expressed, and continue to express skepticism towards Obama. Right now I'm reading an article on projectcensored.com (ARRGH! LEFT!) about how Obama is already beginning to continue business-as-usal American military industrial complex practices. Of course, that didn't surprise me, as my healthy dose of "liberal skepticism" informed me that this would almost certainly happen. See what having actual thoughts of your own gets you?
And check out how the right treats Obama like the "House Negro"
Oops! This is gonna hurt...
This morning on ABC News "This Week", Republican Senator LIndsey Graham and Rep. Peter King both argued nationalizing banks may be in order while Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer and Rep. Maxine Waters opposed such a move.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFyEBr7kuLs&eurl=http://www.examiner.com/x-243-Progressive-Politics-Examiner~y2009m2d15-Republicans-call-for-bank-nationalization&feature=player_embedded
Snoop I think it was Shumer that opposed the idea. I think Ms.Waters agreed it should be on the table!? At least thats how i interpreted it.
hurricane,
Fascism is an offshoot of socialism.
"Economic liberals, such as Ludwig von Mises, contend that fascism, an offshoot of socialism, was collectivist and anti-capitalistic. According to Mises, fascism maintained an illusion of respecting private property, since individuals could not use their property how the wished because the government frequently enacted regulations (on behalf of government allies in the business sector) that were not in line with the functioning of a free market."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-capitalism
Obama's approach is really more fascistic than socialistic if you ask me (and others). Take a look at Michael Ledeen's "We are all Fascists" at Pajamas Media. He also points out the difference between fascism and socialism.
http://pajamasmedia.com/michaelledeen/2009/02/12/we-are-all-illiterates-now/
Hey, I can pick and choose parts of an article to subvert definitions too! From the same wikipedia: (P.S. we've had more fascism during the last 8 years then you'll ever see outta Obama!)
Eugen Weber places fascism on the right: "...their most common allies lay on the right, particularly on the radical authoritarian right, and Italian Fascism as a semi-coherent entity was partly defined by its merger with one of the most radical of all right authoritarian movements in Europe, the Italian Nationalist Association (ANI)."[39] Walter Laqueur says that historical fascism "did not belong to the extreme Left, yet defining it as part of the extreme Right is not very illuminating either", but that it "was always a coalition between radical, populist ('fascist') elements and others gravitating toward the extreme Right".[40] Stanley Payne notes the alliances and sometimes fusion between fascists and right-wing authoritarians, but stresses the important differences between the two.[41]
snoop,
You are entitled to your opinion but your selective quote does not prove anything.
Only if one says that fascism is the opposite of communism, does it land the right. However both fascism and communism are on the left. Yes, different flavors of fascism do have nationism in them, but that is simply the government taking control of private enterprise while at the same time leaving ownership to the individuals. Both Fascism and Socialism believe in the State controlling the individual.
Fascism is more like the government and business conspiring against workers with fervent nationalism, authoritarianism, and belligerence thrown in. This describes the current iteration of the republican party.
It proved you were selectively applying a definition of where fascism comes from. There are far more definitions of fascists being center-right than you will find on the left. You should really stop picking and choosing...
Fascism is an authoritarian nationalist ideology focused on solving economic, political, and social problems that its supporters see as causing national decline or decadence.[1][2][3][4] Fascists aim to create a single-party state in which the government is led by a dictator who seeks unity by requiring individuals to subordinate self-interest to the collective interest of the nation or a race.[5][6][7] Fascist movements promote violent conflict between nations, political factions, and races as part of a social Darwinist view that conflict between these groups is natural and a part of evolution.[8][9]
Fascist governments permanently forbid and suppress all criticism and opposition to the government and the fascist movement.[10] Fascist movements oppose any ideology or political system that gives direct political power to people as individuals rather than as a collective through the state (democracy, individualism, liberalism); that is deemed detrimental to national identity and unity (class conflict, communism, internationalism, laissez-faire capitalism); that protects and enhances the power of "weak" or disobedient people rather than promoting "strong" and obedient people (egalitarianism); that may oppose major changes to institutions and cultural values that it proposes (conservatism) and that undermine the military strength and military ambitions of the nation (pacifism).[11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20]
Republicans believe this too.
And here's an example to back that up!
GOP punishing members who cross party lines Rachel Oswald
Published: Tuesday February 24, 2009
Determined to enforce the party line, the GOP has taken new steps to punish those members who have crossed the aisle in recent weeks to vote in support of the federal stimulus package and to send the message to any party moderates - turncoats will not be tolerated.
That would fall under Fascist governments permanently forbid and suppress all criticism and opposition to the government and the fascist movement.[10] Fascist movements oppose any ideology or political system that gives direct political power to people as individuals rather than as a collective through the state (democracy, individualism, liberalism);
It's difficult to categorize Fascism because its central purpose is to create a unified and pure nation by any means necessary. They want to rid the nation of mediocrity, weakness and ethnic impurities. Neither repubs nor Dems are espousing this.
I would have to disagree with you, loonz, only because we've seen several calls around the immigration issue couched in statements about "losing our cultural heritage" or "we need more european descent immigrants". I think that hits right up there at or near cleansing the nation of ethnic impurities. Tancredo comes to mind as I type this.
Weakness would fall under the calls for the country to act unilaterally - who cares what the rest of the world thinks, we are the master race!
I agree it is difficult to categorize, I can find examples on both sides of the spectrum. But unless I'm mistaken, I have just shown a few examples of one party engaging in parts of that ideology. I will admit though that it is only because the party I target has been taken over by the more extremest elements (IMHO) and does not necessarily embody the entire party. But keep in mind Hitler didn't necessarily start out with complete support of his party either.
Here's the real answer: fascism is neither "left" or "right". To attach an ideological significance to fascism is to completely misunderstand fascism. Fascism's aims aren't at all political in nature, they're simply authoritarian. Most of the time, a fascist regime's adopted sloganry and professed ideology is at complete odds with its actual practice. A fascist isn't concerned with anything other than their stranglehold on power. They may call themselves "socialists" but they aren't anymore than you are. And one thing all fascists undeniably hate with a passion, that one thing that can cripple authoritarian power from the inside: Liberalism. And that's undeniable. There is nothing more truly at odds with fascism than liberalism.
AA, your reply ,as usual is about what I expect from you and the other RIGHTIES. I'll clarify some terms for you.WHEN I say FASCIST I mean GERMANY AND ITALY in the 1930's and 1940's. When I say COMMUNIST I mean RUSSIA from 1918 to 1991., china from 1945 to present, NORTH KOREA from 1945 to present. When I sat SOCIALIST I mean SWEDEN, NORWAY, DENNMARK and HOLLAND FROM THE END OF WW2 to present.I will repeat, when offered the choice between SOCIALISM AND FASCISM, I'll take SOCIALISM every time.
I should have said CHINA from 1949 TO THE PRESENT.
hurricane,
Thanks for the clarification. (I see you left out American Capitalism.)
AA, more definitions, I consider myself a FDR,HARRY TRUMAN , DEMOCRAT as opposed to a HERBERT HOOVER, GEORGE W BUSH REPUBLICAN. That should clarify things for you.
Not real clear on the concept of "multiple choice", Mark & barney?
Call it socialism if you like, but the alternative is to do nothing and just watch what little we have left melt.
Here's a good example of those who think we're on the slippery slope to socialism. It's a clip from "Right America: Feeling Wronged" from HBO.
"Say No To Socilism."
Call it socialism if you like
The problem is in the definition. Anything but unregulated, unmitigated, full-bore, greed-based capitalism is referred to by the MSM as "socialism".
Unregulated Capitalism will destroy a sosity of any signifgant size as quickly as pure comunism will. This is for the same reason both fail to account for greed one by saying it does not exist and leaving it out the other by say it is good and relieing on it not being to strong to help the poor. If it were not for regulations that the GOP would call socialism we would have an 80+ hour work week for less than $1 a day still. While the rich were earning $100's of thousands a day.
That's excellent King. I may have to get over my beef with my cable company & get HBO again.Do you think that youngster is concerned about what socilism might do to our school systems?
That led me to another clip. This is sad and embarassing. Compare this to that "How Obama got Elected" video, where loaded and inaccurate questions were used to bag on people who couldn't answer or admitted ignorance.
These people are scarier, they think they know stuff.
Scary stuff. This was my favorite comment about the clip you referenced.
"Slack-jawed, inbred idiots with guns."
Good god, that idiot didn't even know what he was protesting against!
I recall the gray haired lady at the Mccain rally who actually believed ( and probably still does ) that Obama is an arab.
And george hershell walker bush is actually a sea lion living at the mouth of the Columbia river.
Would it have been to much for someone to have handed the woman a brush or a comb before they handed her a microphone.
maybe Katie Couric's make-up lady was too far away
There are some out there think Ted Kennedy is Irish.
Maybe that's because he is Irish American? What's your missing point?
It is only a small point. Picking out one gray haired lady who is unidentified at this time, who supposedly believed Obama is an Arab, might simply be because of his Muslim middle name. (I know he is part Kenyan).
Some people call Bush a terrorist. So what?
That's justifiable considering Bush's actions. I just call him a war criminal.
loonz, i agree with you. I believe that BUSH is a war criminal. When i told my dad ( a life long REPUBLICAN), that last week, he just about exploded right there. Nothing like diehard loyalty(to a screwed up ideology.)
She is only one example of many. There's a whole bunch of threads on MMFA alone detailing all the attempts by the right to claim obama is a muslim. Examples of people from McCain and Palin rallies saying it. Examples of senators and congressmen suggesting it. Are you denying it happened?
Maybe Barney isn't able to distinguish the blue text above in the Colonel's post which represents a link to a video clip of a large group of people who one after the other repeat that Obama is a Muslim, a terrorist or a socialist.
Leave it to the deputy to try to say it's just one crazy old lady. It's one crazy Grand Old Party.
On Real Time w/ Bill Maher Ron Paul said we should take a hands-off approach and let ailing businesses and banks fail; everything would get better in a year or so. Maher should have asked him "What magically happens at the end of the year to make businesses start hiring again?"
I think and believe it was the hands-off approach ( as in deregulation ) that got the economy wrapped around the axle big time.
What we really need is a trust buster like one of the last great Presidents
Theodore Roosevelt a Republicain byt the way. Any business that is too big to fail is too big to exist as a single entity.
Good point, Shaggles.It's just that the GOPpers have their minions whipped into such a mindless frenzy since 9/11, they're going to take advantage of any boogeymen they can - Muslims, socialists, terrorists, communists, black people, gays... all the ingredients of wingnuts' nighmares.
or they could be using this.
Socialism is by definition worker control of the means of production. nothing more, nothing less. Its that freakin simple.
By definition, there does not exist, nor has there ever existed, a single socialist country.
In actuality, every single country out there is essentially fascist to one degree or another: the state coordinates and controls the means of production in conjunction with capital. It is merely a matter of degree, and to what end the means of production are controlled. Some factions believe that the means to production should be implemented "hawkishly", crushing the masses underfoot or keeping them docile with fervent nationalism and other childish sentiments, while others believe that the means to production should be implemented in a more "dovish" manner. keeping the masses at bay by allowing them some degree of material wealth and services. Various mixes of these methods of control make up the seeming variation among different modern governments.
This is the difference between 'right' and 'left' as far as the masters are concerned. For the rest of us, the definitions are merely a matter of how we prefer to be controlled.
...the view from on high.
That's an interesting take, a different perspective that I've not seen before. While I agree with your definition of true 'socialism' above, I think it's a simplistic definition of socialism, hence your 'matter of degree' and 'to what end the means of production are controlled' designation.
Nothing to criticize in your post though. I enjoyed reading it. It allowed me to look at socialism (which I do support, for the most part) in a different light.