Geithner in Book Says U.S. Considered Nationalizing Banks

Discussion in 'News / Current Events' started by Revmitchell, May 12, 2014.

  1. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,378
    Likes Received:
    790
    Former Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner said in his new book that members of the Obama administration “talked openly” about nationalizing banks such as Citigroup Inc. (C) in the aftermath of the financial crisis, according to an article in the New York Times Magazine.

    Geithner disagreed when Lawrence Summers, then head of the White House’s National Economic Council, suggested to President Barack Obama that the administration “pre-emptively nationalize” banks including Citigroup and Bank of America Corp., or try to embarrass them into changing their pay structures, according to the Times. The article includes quotes from the book, “Stress Test: Reflections on Financial Crises,” and interviews with Geithner.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-...-obama-aides-weighed-nationalizing-banks.html
     
  2. Crabtownboy

    Crabtownboy
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    16,653
    Likes Received:
    158
    Would nationalizing banks have been good or bad?
     
  3. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,378
    Likes Received:
    790
  4. Crabtownboy

    Crabtownboy
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    16,653
    Likes Received:
    158
    Rather off your own topic. Question is would nationalizing the banks have been a good or bad idea.
     
  5. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    National Credit from a Truly National Banking System

    In Langrick’s example, a private banking industry pockets the interest, which must be replaced every year by a 10 percent issue of new Greenbacks; but there is another possibility. The loans could be advanced by the government itself. The interest would then return to the government and could be spent back into the economy in a circular flow, without the need to continually issue more money to cover the interest shortfall.

    The fractional reserve Ponzi scheme is bankrupt, and the banks engaged in it, rather than being bailed out by its victims, need to be put into a bankruptcy reorganization under the FDIC. The FDIC then has the recognized option of wiping their books clean and taking the banks’ stock in return for getting them up and running again. This would make them truly “national” banks, which could dispense “the full faith and credit of the United States” as a public utility. A truly national banking system could revive the economy with the sort of money only governments can issue – debt-free legal tender. The money would be debt-free to the government, while for the private sector, it would be freely available for borrowing at a modest interest by qualified applicants. A government-owned bank would not need to rob from Peter to advance credit to Paul. “Credit” is just an accounting tool – an advance against future profits, or the “monetization” (turning into cash) of the borrower’s promise to repay. As British commentator Ron Morrison observed in a provocative 2004 article titled “Keynes Without Debt”

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-wall-street-ponzi-scheme-called-fractional-reserve-banking/11600

    Using the word "nationalize" will automatically throw corporatists and statists into a tizzy and they'll start calling anyone that suggests giving the private international banking cartel that has controlled our economy since 1913 through the creation of debt based money from nothing the boot and replacing it with government issued debt free money, marxists.

    They are so conditioned to being debt slaves to this private banking cartel at this point they are unable to even consider a different way of life.

    It scares them. And that suits the private international bankers that have been bending us all over a barrel for a hundred years just fine.

    I'm not saying "nationalizing the banks" is the way to go just that the word "nationalize" itself scares corporatists and statists into a state of apoplexy. Something needs to be done about the way our money is created. It's no longer a secret that a private international banking cartel controls our economy. It's no longer a secret that these private international bankers lend our government money created from nothing and charges interest on that nothing and that it has to be paid back in real wealth. It's no longer a secret after the all the bailouts that this private international banking cartel has essentially figured out a way to privatize the profits and socialize loses.

    It's no secret that our "free market" is anything but a "free market". It's a captive market controlled from the top down.

    Something needs to change.
     
    #5 poncho, May 13, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: May 13, 2014
  6. thisnumbersdisconnected

    thisnumbersdisconnected
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2013
    Messages:
    8,448
    Likes Received:
    0
    Only took 'em 80 years to get it done.
     
  7. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128

Share This Page

Loading...