First NATIONAL City Bank -- Nationalization Upon Us?

DriftingByTheStorm

There is a LOT of buzz about bank nationalization going around in the last few days,
starting with a bank formerly known as First National City Bank -- that is, of course, Citibank.

Given the tumultuous events befalling the banking industry,
how do people on this boar feel about the idea of bank nationalization?

Do you think that the country would be better served by having direct government control over banks in this time of crisis?

If this were to happen, common stock holders would most assuredly be wiped out through share dillution.
Do you view nationalization as "fair" in this regard, as investors (many bank stock holders being retirees and elderly, relying on dividend income) were waging their risk\reward on the seemingly obvious premise that free market capitalism would sustain, and the government would not interfere unduly with private enterprise?

Is it really in our best interest to let corrupt goverment further marry itself to corrupt private banking enterprise?

Citibank is under $3 a share going in to close today.
You are going to start hearing a lot more about this topic in debate on the news in coming days,
that is a near guarantee.

Anyone?

inmytree

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

There is a LOT of buzz about bank nationalization going around in the last few days,
starting with a bank formerly known as First National City Bank -- that is, of course, Citibank.

Given the tumultuous events befalling the banking industry,
how do people on this boar feel about the idea of bank nationalization?

Do you think that the country would be better served by having direct government control over banks in this time of crisis?

If this were to happen, common stock holders would most assuredly be wiped out through share dillution.
Do you view nationalization as "fair" in this regard, as investors (many bank stock holders being retirees and elderly, relying on dividend income) were waging their risk\reward on the seemingly obvious premise that free market capitalism would sustain, and the government would not interfere unduly with private enterprise?

Is it really in our best interest to let corrupt goverment further marry itself to corrupt private banking enterprise?

Citibank is under $3 a share going in to close today.
You are going to start hearing a lot more about this topic in debate on the news in coming days,
that is a near guarantee.

Anyone?

Not sure what Citi is going to do. My g/f works for CitiFinancial, and communications she's getting are vauge. I've read that they plan on splitting into two divisions...

She's a branch manager, and her office is moving to another, more expensive location, slated to happen this week...

on thurs. they have some announcements planned...

SolarWorld

Some sort of bank nationalization is a foregone conclusion and has nothing to do with "fair"...

Flutter Girl

History shows that when we are left alone by the government, the economy is better, there is more job growth, and everyone is happier for it. When the government takes too much control over everything, the economy gets stunted and businesses start closing.

DriftingByTheStorm

RM291946 wrote:

History shows that when we are left alone by the government, the economy is better, there is more job growth, and everyone is happier for it. When the government takes too much control over everything, the economy gets stunted and businesses start closing.

I would agree with that statement generally.
The problem here is we are in a sort of false diachotomy, where both sides point to government.

If the government steps in and nationalizes the banks outright,
it will be overt government control or "intervention".

If the government does not nationalize, we are still left in the same banking system that is fundamentally run by the Federal Reserve System, and therefore is in a process of ongoing dramatic "intervention" on behalf of the government.

In other words, nationalization is simply government intervening to stymie the progressive collapse of a system rife with government intervention all the way to its core.

soulsinging

I prefer control by corrupt government officials I at least have some control over via the vote than control by corrupt and greedy private interests that take pleasure in fucking over people less fortunate for their own private benefit. At least I have some chance to check the former.

And I could give a shit about stockholders. I hope they all get wiped out. The elderly will have fallbacks like social security or God forbid, having their children care for them which worked pretty well for 3000 years before private wealth and selfishness ruled the day. And those that aren't elderly can go fuck themselves.

Flutter Girl

soulsinging wrote:

I prefer control by corrupt government officials I at least have some control over via the vote than control by corrupt and greedy private interests that take pleasure in fucking over people less fortunate for their own private benefit. At least I have some chance to check the former.

And I could give a shit about stockholders. I hope they all get wiped out. The elderly will have fallbacks like social security or God forbid, having their children care for them which worked pretty well for 3000 years before private wealth and selfishness ruled the day. And those that aren't elderly can go fuck themselves.

You are disregarding the fact that their children are making far less than they did, and cost for living is up, so taking care of them now is nothing like how it was taking care of them back in the day.

Private wealth and selfishness has ruled since the invention of money. It's just been in different forms throughout the generations..And there are little folk who invested in stocks in good faith that it was going to one day hopefully pay for their children's college, or if a medical issue came up, or a slew of any other reasons. They lose their stocks, and they are simply out that money, undeservedly. You think they could just go fuck themselves too? Losing money they didn't really have much of in their attempts of securing a better future?

And then there are major stockholders like George soros. He is a multi-billonare. At first glance you wouldn't care if someone with his kind of wealth lost out, right? Except he places no value on the dollar, and all value on ideas. He is in the stock market purely to fund other people's ideas, and his charity that serves as an umbrella organisation for foundations and charities throughout the world..He needs to continue to make the kind of money he does for the simple fact that at the rate he donates money into the charity and up-starts, he'd be flat on his ass broke by now, cos he sinks $400 mill into the charity, alone, every year.

Not everything is black and white..


And to Drifting...very very good point...unfortunately

soulsinging

RM291946 wrote:

You are disregarding the fact that their children are making far less than they did, and cost for living is up, so taking care of them now is nothing like how it was taking care of them back in the day.

Private wealth and selfishness has ruled since the invention of money. It's just been in different forms throughout the generations..And there are little folk who invested in stocks in good faith that it was going to one day hopefully pay for their children's college, or if a medical issue came up, or a slew of any other reasons. They lose their stocks, and they are simply out that money, undeservedly. You think they could just go fuck themselves too? Losing money they didn't really have much of in their attempts of securing a better future?

And then there are major stockholders like George soros. He is a multi-billonare. At first glance you wouldn't care if someone with his kind of wealth lost out, right? Except he places no value on the dollar, and all value on ideas. He is in the stock market purely to fund other people's ideas, and his charity that serves as an umbrella organisation for foundations and charities throughout the world..He needs to continue to make the kind of money he does for the simple fact that at the rate he donates money into the charity and up-starts, he'd be flat on his ass broke by now, cos he sinks $400 mill into the charity, alone, every year.

Not everything is black and white..

And to Drifting...very very good point...unfortunately

Cost of suporting the elderly is only so high because they're all trying to live for fucking ever, nobody dies like a decent person anymore, they've got to have $150,000 operations and 24 hour care just to add another 6 months to their lives.

Those little people who invested got suckered. They'd have been just as well off taking their money to Vegas. But we hold up the handful who do ok and do manage to make enough to pay for college so that the 10 that don't continue keeping things funded for people like Dick Cheney. For every one George Soros are a dozen Ken Lay's. This system is shit and I'll be very happy when "the mythical market" collapses for good and washes all these snake-oil salesmen into oblivion.

Commy

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

There is a LOT of buzz about bank nationalization going around in the last few days,
starting with a bank formerly known as First National City Bank -- that is, of course, Citibank.

Given the tumultuous events befalling the banking industry,
how do people on this boar feel about the idea of bank nationalization?

Do you think that the country would be better served by having direct government control over banks in this time of crisis?

If this were to happen, common stock holders would most assuredly be wiped out through share dillution.
Do you view nationalization as "fair" in this regard, as investors (many bank stock holders being retirees and elderly, relying on dividend income) were waging their risk\reward on the seemingly obvious premise that free market capitalism would sustain, and the government would not interfere unduly with private enterprise?

Is it really in our best interest to let corrupt goverment further marry itself to corrupt private banking enterprise?

Citibank is under $3 a share going in to close today.
You are going to start hearing a lot more about this topic in debate on the news in coming days,
that is a near guarantee.

Anyone?

I don't agree with nationalizing the banks, but what's an alternative solution? in your opinion, what should be done with citigroup?

mickeyrat

I think a big part of the problem is these banks are f'n huge. Too big to fail? I think not. Seriously f'd if/when they do.

Commy

mickeyrat wrote:

I think a big part of the problem is these banks are f'n huge. Too big to fail? I think not. Seriously f'd if/when they do.

I agree. chop em up. I doubt we see these terrible lending practices if each branch didn't have a big branch propping it up. if each had to fend for themselves..would be a bit more stingy with the funds I'd imagine.

mickeyrat

Commy wrote:

mickeyrat wrote:

I think a big part of the problem is these banks are f'n huge. Too big to fail? I think not. Seriously f'd if/when they do.

I agree. chop em up. I doubt we see these terrible lending practices if each branch didn't have a big branch propping it up. if each had to fend for themselves..would be a bit more stingy with the funds I'd imagine.

And not only the banks. Seeing it in energy(including oil) , media , etc....

Heineken Helen

I can't help but feel that there's something bigger going on that we're not gonna realise til later. Something about this 'credit crunch' feels very sudden and forced. I dunno what's right or wrong but whatever THEY wanna happen WILL happen and we'll look back in hindsight and wonder how we fell for it :(

DriftingByTheStorm

Commy wrote:

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

There is a LOT of buzz about bank nationalization going around in the last few days,
starting with a bank formerly known as First National City Bank -- that is, of course, Citibank.

Given the tumultuous events befalling the banking industry,
how do people on this boar feel about the idea of bank nationalization?

Do you think that the country would be better served by having direct government control over banks in this time of crisis?

If this were to happen, common stock holders would most assuredly be wiped out through share dillution.
Do you view nationalization as "fair" in this regard, as investors (many bank stock holders being retirees and elderly, relying on dividend income) were waging their risk\reward on the seemingly obvious premise that free market capitalism would sustain, and the government would not interfere unduly with private enterprise?

Is it really in our best interest to let corrupt goverment further marry itself to corrupt private banking enterprise?

Citibank is under $3 a share going in to close today.
You are going to start hearing a lot more about this topic in debate on the news in coming days,
that is a near guarantee.

Anyone?

I don't agree with nationalizing the banks, but what's an alternative solution? in your opinion, what should be done with citigroup?

I'll be blunt, Commy:
I don't think there is much that CAN be done.
Even the establishment's own most noted economic reporter, Mr. Paul Krugman of the NY Times, thinks the "Bad Bank Plan" is a sham.

In fact, Peter Schiff is on CNBC with Kudlow, as i type, arguing against both nationalization and the "aggregator bank" bullshit.

I think this is going to be one fuck of a storm.
And i'm pretty sure that we will probably get a "aggregator bank" or whatever you want to dress it up as, REGARDLESS of its ACTUAL effectiveness.

Why?
Because it is the only thing conceivable that, however irrationaly, addresses the concerns of THE BANKS.
What do i mean by that?

The very act of the government overpaying the banks for their "troubled assets", reinflates the banks' asset sheets, alleviating some of their pressures.

Krugman's balls on closing statement, "I’m not dead set against this proposal — but I’m still waiting for some explanation of why this is supposed to be more than rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic" reflects the overall stupidity of this scenario.

At the same time the government is with one hand giving money to the troubled banks, removing these assets from their books, it is with the other hand putting a heaping pile of worthless shit on their own troubled balance sheets.

If we consider "the economy as a whole" (meaning both public and private aspects) to be our "Titanic", then the act of moving that potentialy multi-trillion dollar black box of derivatives losses from the private sector to the public sector does NO good.

What do you prefer?
Corporate insolvency and collapse that creates crisis, that leads to government insolvency and collapse,

or do you want to delay corporate collapse by over burdening government, causing it to fall first?

I don't have an answer for you Commy, because if i did, i would be paid one HELL of a salary,
because all the kings horses and all the kings men STILL can not put this economy back together again.
A new king and new men won't fare any better. This feels like end phase inflationary fiat economy terminal illness to me. But it isn't even only that. I've been reading Caroll Quigley's Tragedy and Hope, and his basic opening thesis is that Western Civilization is (and has been for 40 years) in its declining 2 phases of population demographics, while China and the east were to be just entering their "Population Type B" by the year 2000 (Quigley wrote all this back in the early 60's). His thrust is essentially that as the Western world goes in to population decline, the eastern world is undergoing intense internal pressures (the kind that spurred our "great American century", when we were in the same population phase) that FORCE it to be more competitive and to incur MORE GROWTH. This is paramount, and he promises to spend much of the next 1,200 pages dancing around the point.

What you are witnessing is not only what is likely the terminal phase of a fiat economy, but a global economic paradigm shift which will necessarily mean the reshifting of power away from the civilization in decline, towards the one in its prime. The wild card that gets me, and something i can only dream that Quigley could answer (since he died before the internet revolution), is how and IF Western Civilization has managed to "infiltrate" or diffuse in to eastern culture enough for us to either stay in the running, intergrate, or otherwise manipulate our way out of collapse. In otherwords, has Western Civilization somehow managed to truly become the "world religion", thereby ensuring its survival?

Outside of that possibility, i think we are in for hard times.
The ongoing massive bubble in US Treasuries is looking ready to burst at any minute, and when THAT market comes crashing down, guess what goes flying through the roof? INTEREST RATES.
Here is a pretty good article from 1\18:
How the Treasury Bubble Will Burst and Why

Peter Schiff was brilliant just now on CNBC.
Some relevant conversation, for sure.
I'll post it when it is up.

EDIT:
Btw, here is a clip of globalist henchman Henry Kissinger discussing with fellow Bilderberg insider, Charlie Rose, about the "necessity" of a "new world order" and -- as Charlie suggests (almost guaranteed to have read Quigley himself) -- "there has been a shift from the west to the east". I think this one exchange is pretty telling. It shows that this entire scenario is a preexamined, foregone, and at least superficially "understood", by those running the world. If this entire collapse is NOT part of the plan, and we are truly in "contingency" mode, then i would be none too enthused about the outcome (ie. people like Gerald Celente and Jim Rogers are both probably right about a lot of things).

DriftingByTheStorm

Heineken Helen wrote:

I can't help but feel that there's something bigger going on that we're not gonna realise til later. Something about this 'credit crunch' feels very sudden and forced. I dunno what's right or wrong but whatever THEY wanna happen WILL happen and we'll look back in hindsight and wonder how we fell for it :(

Bing bing bing.

In fact the entire housing bubble was "designed", so much in that conscious decisions were made amongst high officials that in order to spur a recovery from the last bubble burst (and also, "conveniently", from 9/11) that the Federal Reserve (ALWAYS the culprit in the economy) cut interest rates to the floor, and by bleeding the people through inflation, managed to pump enough money back in to wallstreet to distract americans for another 7 years. Part of this effort was necessarily to give a loan to every living two legged being on earth (and some with four) and through the means of securities and derivitives to create even more leveraged wealth on their balance sheets.

I'm sure those who wanted to, did forsee this, and that they are going to ram something to their liking down all of our throats. I don't think i need to remind ya'll of all the threads i've posted about Rothschild bank presidents, EU presidents, and global leaders all talking about this or that "new financial order" or "new reserve currency" or global regulation, or this or that. They have a half dozen schemes or more they are just dying to shove own our throats. What the hegelian dialectic isn't good for, a "generated crisis" (thank you, VP Biden) is always good for.

JP Morgan made a KILLING during the Great Depression, buying up busted banks by the hundreds and thousands. The scheme is 100 years old, and they will keep it going as long as we let them.

Heineken Helen

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

Bing bing bing.

In fact the entire housing bubble was "designed", so much in that conscious decisions were made amongst high officials that in order to spur a recovery from the last bubble burst (and also, "conveniently", from 9/11) that the Federal Reserve (ALWAYS the culprit in the economy) cut interest rates to the floor, and by bleeding the people through inflation, managed to pump enough money back in to wallstreet to distract americans for another 7 years. Part of this effort was necessarily to give a loan to every living two legged being on earth (and some with four) and through the means of securities and derivitives to create even more leveraged wealth on their balance sheets.

I'm sure those who wanted to, did forsee this, and that they are going to ram something to their liking down all of our throats. I don't think i need to remind ya'll of all the threads i've posted about Rothschild bank presidents, EU presidents, and global leaders all talking about this or that "new financial order" or "new reserve currency" or global regulation, or this or that. They have a half dozen schemes or more they are just dying to shove own our throats. What the hegelian dialectic isn't good for, a "generated crisis" (thank you, VP Biden) is always good for.

JP Morgan made a KILLING during the Great Depression, buying up busted banks by the hundreds and thousands. The scheme is 100 years old, and they will keep it going as long as we let them.

oh I agree completely... not necessary about the details cos I don't know much about that... but I couldn't understand how, when people were starting to STOP buying houses, the builders were still buying land and starting projects to build hundreds of apartments. These certainly aren't stupid people and it just made no sense. I'M stupid in comparison and I could see that this was NOT a good time to be building more apartments. Surely anyone with half a brain can see that not all is how it seems.

It WILL all work out after a few years and we will see who the beneficiaries are and then MAYBE it will make some kinda sense... but at the moment it makes ZERO sense. It NEVER made sense for banks to be giving 100% mortgages to people who had only just got out of school and didn't have any kinda financial history... JUST a couple of years ago. The ENTIRE thing stinks. And, I know I believe in conspiracy theories anyway, but I don't understand when I say this to so called 'logical' people and they laugh at me and call ME nuts

soulsinging

Heineken Helen wrote:

oh I agree completely... not necessary about the details cos I don't know much about that... but I couldn't understand how, when people were starting to STOP buying houses, the builders were still buying land and starting projects to build hundreds of apartments. These certainly aren't stupid people and it just made no sense. I'M stupid in comparison and I could see that this was NOT a good time to be building more apartments. Surely anyone with half a brain can see that not all is how it seems.

It WILL all work out after a few years and we will see who the beneficiaries are and then MAYBE it will make some kinda sense... but at the moment it makes ZERO sense. It NEVER made sense for banks to be giving 100% mortgages to people who had only just got out of school and didn't have any kinda financial history... JUST a couple of years ago. The ENTIRE thing stinks. And, I know I believe in conspiracy theories anyway, but I don't understand when I say this to so called 'logical' people and they laugh at me and call ME nuts

You underestimate the power of optimistic greed. These people think "people may be buying less houses, but our houses will be great! People will still buy them!" That's what got this whole mess going... everyone is greedy and thinks the good times will only ever get better... raise profits now, up stock price, etc etc.

Heineken Helen

soulsinging wrote:

You underestimate the power of optimistic greed. These people think "people may be buying less houses, but our houses will be great! People will still buy them!" That's what got this whole mess going... everyone is greedy and thinks the good times will only ever get better... raise profits now, up stock price, etc etc.

Of course... these people who have been through downturns, recessions and depressions. These super educated people with all their super educated financial advisors... yip, I knew better than ALL OF THEM! gimme a bloody break

soulsinging

Heineken Helen wrote:

soulsinging wrote:

You underestimate the power of optimistic greed. These people think "people may be buying less houses, but our houses will be great! People will still buy them!" That's what got this whole mess going... everyone is greedy and thinks the good times will only ever get better... raise profits now, up stock price, etc etc.

Of course... these people who have been through downturns, recessions and depressions. These super educated people with all their super educated financial advisors... yip, I knew better than ALL OF THEM! gimme a bloody break

Not necessarily. They're so convinced they know it all that they think they're invincible and immune to the downturns.

Heineken Helen

soulsinging wrote:

Heineken Helen wrote:

soulsinging wrote:

You underestimate the power of optimistic greed. These people think "people may be buying less houses, but our houses will be great! People will still buy them!" That's what got this whole mess going... everyone is greedy and thinks the good times will only ever get better... raise profits now, up stock price, etc etc.

Of course... these people who have been through downturns, recessions and depressions. These super educated people with all their super educated financial advisors... yip, I knew better than ALL OF THEM! gimme a bloody break

Not necessarily. They're so convinced they know it all that they think they're invincible and immune to the downturns.

You BUY that???????????????????? Cos I certainly don't! My last employer couldn't move without his financial advisors telling him left or right.. he was constantly consulting with banks. The apartments he was building were certainly no better quality than what any other builder was building. His family business has been around for decades... you don't survive all those downturns and recessions by getting carried away with yourself. Why's this one different?

soulsinging

Heineken Helen wrote:

You BUY that???????????????????? Cos I certainly don't! My last employer couldn't move without his financial advisors telling him left or right.. he was constantly consulting with banks. The apartments he was building were certainly no better quality than what any other builder was building. His family business has been around for decades... you don't survive all those downturns and recessions by getting carried away with yourself. Why's this one different?

I'm not sure I'm following what you're saying. The banks gave loans to these companies hoping and thinking the good times would continue. They got support to do it from the higher ups that figured even if they took losses from bank a, bank b would catch lightning in a bottle and make it worth the risks. The problem is, at a certain point, there's nobody left to buy houses and then both bank a and b can't collect on those loans. The whole thing sinks.

It's just like the auto industry in the 1950's... they used to make cars built to outlive their owners. Then they suddenly realized if people could buy one car and keep it, they wouldn't be buying again and they'd have no more business. Voila: planned obsolescence.

People bought into this system of hype, thinking the housing market would just keep growing and growing, everyone would buy a house in a suburban development and everyone would get rich. The reason this recession is so bad is because in most recessions, property ownership is the one stable standby... you own a house and no matter how bad things get, that's always worth something. Only this time, it isn't. This time, houses being worthless is the problem. Banks are generous with home loans figuring even if people default on the loan they get a house they can resell. But the problem here is people are defaulting and no one is buying the homes. The banks are caught with their pants down.

It's not apocalyptic, but it's a new kind of problem and it's got people panicked.

But I'm still unclear as to what you think I'm buying that you don't? You don't think banks are really in trouble?

Heineken Helen

I'm not sure about in the US... but in Ireland it was pretty obvious to see that pretty much anyone who was in a position to buy HAD BOUGHT... and yet these wonderful hopeful banks were still lending money to builders to buy ACRES upon acres to build hundreds of apartments. And you think all this was simply in good faith? Since when do banks work by the 'good faith' etiquette?????????????????????

I don't know what's going on and I don't claim to know what's going on... but I call bullshit on it being what we're told it is... cos from an idiot observing, I called it months before the banks did :? now that's just bollox.

soulsinging

Heineken Helen wrote:

I'm not sure about in the US... but in Ireland it was pretty obvious to see that pretty much anyone who was in a position to buy HAD BOUGHT... and yet these wonderful hopeful banks were still lending money to builders to buy ACRES upon acres to build hundreds of apartments. And you think all this was simply in good faith? Since when do banks work by the 'good faith' etiquette?????????????????????

I don't know what's going on and I don't claim to know what's going on... but I call bullshit on it being what we're told it is... cos from an idiot observing, I called it months before the banks did :? now that's just bollox.

I guess I'm fuzzy on what you think you're being told it is and what you mean by "good faith." I truly believe these bankers were deluded and thought they would get rich off these properties. I think they saw the same signs everyone else did, but they ignored them or thought they could outsmart other people or any number of other things. They saw nothing but the dollar signs they MIGHT make and it blinded them to all else.

I've seen it in my hometown... they built 2 huge shopping center things within about 3 years of each other. Why? Because one was built in another city not far from here and did well and someone thought "man, I should get a cut of that action" and managed to convince everyone else it would be a great idea. So because one such center did well in a city 3 times the size of ours, we now have TWO such centers in a town that has barely been struggling to stay out of collapse.

Heineken Helen

soulsinging wrote:

Heineken Helen wrote:

I'm not sure about in the US... but in Ireland it was pretty obvious to see that pretty much anyone who was in a position to buy HAD BOUGHT... and yet these wonderful hopeful banks were still lending money to builders to buy ACRES upon acres to build hundreds of apartments. And you think all this was simply in good faith? Since when do banks work by the 'good faith' etiquette?????????????????????

I don't know what's going on and I don't claim to know what's going on... but I call bullshit on it being what we're told it is... cos from an idiot observing, I called it months before the banks did :? now that's just bollox.

I guess I'm fuzzy on what you think you're being told it is and what you mean by "good faith." I truly believe these bankers were deluded and thought they would get rich off these properties. I think they saw the same signs everyone else did, but they ignored them or thought they could outsmart other people or any number of other things. They saw nothing but the dollar signs they MIGHT make and it blinded them to all else.

I've seen it in my hometown... they built 2 huge shopping center things within about 3 years of each other. Why? Because one was built in another city not far from here and did well and someone thought "man, I should get a cut of that action" and managed to convince everyone else it would be a great idea. So because one such center did well in a city 3 times the size of ours, we now have TWO such centers in a town that has barely been struggling to stay out of collapse.

So your ONE example of bad town planning backs up your view that all bankers throughout the world (cos this is certainly not localised) were deluded and driven by greed (I'd buy the latter, pun intended, if I bought the former... which I don't... but the former is necessary for the latter to be a genuine reason). If it were a few scattered bankers who WERE deluded... sure this can happen... but to get me to believe that they were ALL deluded... well you'll have to do better than an example of bad town planning :?

Lesbelges

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

There is a LOT of buzz about bank nationalization going around in the last few days,
starting with a bank formerly known as First National City Bank -- that is, of course, Citibank.

Given the tumultuous events befalling the banking industry,
how do people on this boar feel about the idea of bank nationalization?

Do you think that the country would be better served by having direct government control over banks in this time of crisis?

If this were to happen, common stock holders would most assuredly be wiped out through share dillution.
Do you view nationalization as "fair" in this regard, as investors (many bank stock holders being retirees and elderly, relying on dividend income) were waging their risk\reward on the seemingly obvious premise that free market capitalism would sustain, and the government would not interfere unduly with private enterprise?

Is it really in our best interest to let corrupt goverment further marry itself to corrupt private banking enterprise?

Citibank is under $3 a share going in to close today.
You are going to start hearing a lot more about this topic in debate on the news in coming days,
that is a near guarantee.

Anyone?

Whoever invested in Citibank would be wiped out regardless of government intervention, so that point is moot.
As for nationalization, I would rather have the government own citibank than the crooks who ran it into the ground.

I think a real important question is this: If you all remember, there was a big fight between Citibank and Wells Fargo because Citibank had a verbal agreement to acquire Wachovia, however Wells Fargo outbid Citibank and Citibank was outraged and tried to stop that acquisition via litigation. Now that we know in how bad a shape Citibank is (So much so that it has to split into two), isn't everyone outraged that Citibank was trying to increase its market share on the backs of the tax payers? I say this, since there was no way that Citibank was healthy enough (and the CEO could not have not known) to acquire a bank, let alone a failed bank like Wachovia.

I just can't believe I have not read any such story/opinion on the news!

Your thoughts?

DriftingByTheStorm

soulsinging wrote:

It's not apocalyptic, but it's a new kind of problem and it's got people panicked.

I don't understand your constant refusal to acknowledge catastrophic failure as a possibility.
It may or may not be, but all systems have their limits, and there is no reason to believe that the US economic system is any different.

There are certain tolerances that are going to be allowable, and pushing beyond any of them could lead to a systemic breakdown.

I honestly sometimes wonder if people around here watch or read ANY intelligent news reports.
This is not lone chicken little any more.
OBAMA HAS ACKNOWLEDGED OUTRIGHT THAT THE ENTIRE SYSTEM COULD COLLAPSE.
He said it in a speech only just this week.

This kind of problem should not be taken lightly.
If there are any "solutions", the "experts" certainly have come NO WHERE NEAR a consensus on what that solution would be, and THAT has me (and a great many others) very worried!

DriftingByTheStorm

Lesbelges wrote:

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

There is a LOT of buzz about bank nationalization going around in the last few days,
starting with a bank formerly known as First National City Bank -- that is, of course, Citibank.

Given the tumultuous events befalling the banking industry,
how do people on this boar feel about the idea of bank nationalization?

Do you think that the country would be better served by having direct government control over banks in this time of crisis?

If this were to happen, common stock holders would most assuredly be wiped out through share dillution.
Do you view nationalization as "fair" in this regard, as investors (many bank stock holders being retirees and elderly, relying on dividend income) were waging their risk\reward on the seemingly obvious premise that free market capitalism would sustain, and the government would not interfere unduly with private enterprise?

Is it really in our best interest to let corrupt goverment further marry itself to corrupt private banking enterprise?

Citibank is under $3 a share going in to close today.
You are going to start hearing a lot more about this topic in debate on the news in coming days,
that is a near guarantee.

Anyone?

Whoever invested in Citibank would be wiped out regardless of government intervention, so that point is moot.
As for nationalization, I would rather have the government own citibank than the crooks who ran it into the ground.

I think a real important question is this: If you all remember, there was a big fight between Citibank and Wells Fargo because Citibank had a verbal agreement to acquire Wachovia, however Wells Fargo outbid Citibank and Citibank was outraged and tried to stop that acquisition via litigation. Now that we know in how bad a shape Citibank is (So much so that it has to split into two), isn't everyone outraged that Citibank was trying to increase its market share on the backs of the tax payers? I say this, since there was no way that Citibank was healthy enough (and the CEO could not have not known) to acquire a bank, let alone a failed bank like Wachovia.

I just can't believe I have not read any such story/opinion on the news!

Your thoughts?

My thoughts are that the true powers behind Citibank are essentially the same forces "behind" our government.
Citi is one peg lower than JP Morgan on the pole, it is true, but they are very much backbones of the US Military Industrial Complex.

If you don't choose to acknowledge this, you are missing some very far reaching conclusions about the structure of our government. our entire system is predicated on the dollar, which is -- as stated on the face -- a "Federal Reserve Note". The entire US economic system hinges on the secret (seriously obscured) truth that private banks own the government. The faith and credit of the government itself is backed by private wealth. That IS what the Federal Reserve system is. The BANKS own it. They and they alone. In fact, this is SO secret that the list of Federal Reserve banks' stock owners (for ANY of them) has NEVER been oficially published. But it IS the truth.

What does that mean?
It means the government MUST "save" the banks, through some scheme ... some smoke and mirrors routine.
it must because ITS OWN CREDIT depends on the underwriting of those very same "private" banks, which own the Federal Reserve, issue the currency, and provide the US Government with the credit distribution (loan origination) mechanism by way of which it (The US Government Establishment) can say "here are my assets, look at all these loans people owe us. Of COURSE the US government can pay YOU back! EVERYONE owes US!" ["US" being the private banks that issue the currency, and underwrite the government]

What do i think about Citi trying to buy Wachovia?
I think that Citi has always been a Rockefeller institution, and i have NO suprises that it is corrupt and dishonest as hell. That's what the elite did in the first depression, they tried to gobble up all the competition. Why would i be suprised this time? And remember, it was THE GOVERNMENT that was "facilitating" the Citi\Wach deal behind closed doors. They (USGov) were FULLY behind Citi nearly all the way to the end -- the same cushy way they were behind JP Morgan SEVERAL times earlier in the year.

I have NO idea how "they" will "save" Citibank, but they are FORCED to do SOMETHING slick.
R E A L slick!

soulsinging

Heineken Helen wrote:

So your ONE example of bad town planning backs up your view that all bankers throughout the world (cos this is certainly not localised) were deluded and driven by greed (I'd buy the latter, pun intended, if I bought the former... which I don't... but the former is necessary for the latter to be a genuine reason). If it were a few scattered bankers who WERE deluded... sure this can happen... but to get me to believe that they were ALL deluded... well you'll have to do better than an example of bad town planning :?

:roll: I suppose it's too much for you to respond to any of my requests that you explain a bit more clearly what you think is happening rather than just saying my theories aren't good enough?

How many examples would be enough for you? That's one. I'm quite certain I could come up with many more if I needed, but you could say each one by itself isn't good enough. It's not about a worldwide epidemic of greedy small town bankers. All it takes is a few greedy people at the top of the company. They put pressure on the people below them to get "results." So these people take big risks hoping for big scores.

This is a huge part of the problem here in the US... the banks, in an effort to make it look like they're doing very well to their superiors, who are pressuring them for high returns, would make a big loan, but then put down as an asset their "hopeful" estimate of what the property was worth... so it LOOKED on their books like there was no problem and no risk and finances were good. Then people started defaulting on those loans, and the banks get the property. Only they find out that the property is not worth what they hoped, because there's no demand for houses anymore. This was happening ALL OVER the country and it WAS a result of pressure from the people on top, who were driven by greed. These people felt free to apply the pressure because they figured that even if they had losses in one region they would be offset by wins in other regions. But the low demand for this property was national, and everyone started failing. Big problem.

So yes, greed played a part, as did unrealistic optimism. I DO think bankers and capitalists are deluded as a rule. They all expect and demand ever increasing profits. This is why I don't care if the market collapses, good riddance. The stock market is the problem. It distorts results and drives delusional expectations. When profits go down, so do stockholder dividends. That means you can have a company that is making millions of dollars still be a failure. Why? Because if dividends are not as high as last year, stockholders see the company as failing, even if it's still turning a large profit. They sell, stock price goes down, and now the company IS failing. So there is an expectation that your company will ALWAYS make more money than the year before, and it is grossly unrealistic. It put enormous pressure on every company not just to run well and efficiently, but to always make more than the year before or face the wrath of the market. Thus, you have banks not content to run a good, steady business... they have to take bigger and bigger risks to get bigger and bigger returns. And then you have that trickling down to bad business at the local level.

soulsinging

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

I don't understand your constant refusal to acknowledge catastrophic failure as a possibility.
It may or may not be, but all systems have their limits, and there is no reason to believe that the US economic system is any different.

There are certain tolerances that are going to be allowable, and pushing beyond any of them could lead to a systemic breakdown.

I honestly sometimes wonder if people around here watch or read ANY intelligent news reports.
This is not lone chicken little any more.
OBAMA HAS ACKNOWLEDGED OUTRIGHT THAT THE ENTIRE SYSTEM COULD COLLAPSE.
He said it in a speech only just this week.

This kind of problem should not be taken lightly.
If there are any "solutions", the "experts" certainly have come NO WHERE NEAR a consensus on what that solution would be, and THAT has me (and a great many others) very worried!

I think you and I have different definitions of apocalyptic. I think the system and the market collapsing would be a good thing. We're due for a shake up. But I don't see this as an apocalypse, just a huge paradigm shift in world economics. Yes, it will be rough and painful. But I don't view the market collapsing as the end of the world, so I'm not completely disturbed by the thought. I see it as an opportunity to try something new.

Heineken Helen

soulsinging wrote:

:roll: I suppose it's too much for you to respond to any of my requests that you explain a bit more clearly what you think is happening rather than just saying my theories aren't good enough?

I don't KNOW what's happening... I've said that a few times... no least in my FIRST post in this thread. I don't know... I never claimed to know. All I said is that it's not what we're being told cos what we're being told makes zero sense by any standard. As to what IS happening... it could be anything... but I said in my first post that we probably won't know til hindsight.

Jeez... stop acting like some kinda victim and read the posts :?

soulsinging

Heineken Helen wrote:

I don't KNOW what's happening... I've said that a few times... no least in my FIRST post in this thread. I don't know... I never claimed to know. All I said is that it's not what we're being told cos what we're being told makes zero sense by any standard. As to what IS happening... it could be anything... but I said in my first post that we probably won't know til hindsight.

Jeez... stop acting like some kinda victim and read the posts :?

That's classic, you're one of a kind... "I don't know what's happening, I just know that you're wrong." And I'm the one with the vendetta?