Nationalized banks.

Why hasn't anyone responded?

Because it is a touchy subject:



Most people in the US think that free market is the best option for the society.

However, the current crisis shows that it is not so and some alternative ways may exist.

One of them is nationalizing some parts of the nation's financial system.

That means that the nation will possess large amounts of shares in the capital of said banks, thus implementing a new governance policy.

Obviously, the first action that should be initiated is to get rid of toxic assets that weighs on the current availability of cash flow and the balance sheets.

Some hope that the government will implement such solution and then resell its shares to the market when the banks are "clean".

(From a personal point of view, this is an hypocrite move, as if the markets are not able to deal with the mess they created, why should they benefit from the money of the taxpayers?)

Some countries, the US being one of them, have already done this in the past, with very good results.

More

Maybe picking Geithner was a bad choice as he is framing placing the troubled banks into government receivership as nationalization. It is rescuing the institutions but booting out the rascals who brought about the mess. Geithner seems to be part of the crowd as he was governor of the New York branch of the Federal Reserve that overlooked the operations of the troublesome banks and former employee of Goldman Sachs.

Nationalization has an odor about as it would become a bureau and unions would have a huge say into banking matters. It would not operate as a profit making business but as a social agency and could potentially become a money losing concern as politics set the agenda.

the canadian banks are not national banks but are under way more strict government control than any american would feel comfortable with (hey were all commies up here) but let's face it our banks didn't need bailouts and are now amongst the most solvent in the world