Question: If we were to Nationalize the Banks, who would we get to then run them?

[FrenchieCat]

Because I believe that part of the problem with this nationalization business is who does the Government then get to run these banks.

I gaurantee you that it couldn't be people experienced with banking, because if anyone chosen
that had ran a bank in the private sector, the media would crucify the administration for choosing such a person, and the public would again become outraged.

So again, my question, who gets to run the many banks that would have to be nationalized under a plan say like Krugman's?

[Uzybone]

1. Definately not Geithner, since the blogs, corp media and GOP say he is inept

not Krugman either, since he doesn't want to serve in this admin.

Maybe Hank Paulson?

[BlooInBloo]

2. A CEO of a large, successful Credit Union?

[FrenchieCat]

4. But the CEO would have to pass the smell test in every measure,

wouldn't you say? And if they originally got their experience working in some big bank, wouldn't that disqualify him/her because of possible public outcry?

How long would it take to screen these folks we would need, and how difficult to find enough Bank saints or virgins that actually understand the Banking system to a better extent than those already in place?

And, do we know how many banks we would end up nationalizing?

What about how many people we would need to run these banks? Of course, we would have to replace not just the CEO, but the entire management I would think (otherwise folks like Krugman would be up in arms that we are still dealing with the same folks). So Not just the CEO would need replacing, cause most in the pitchfork crowd would also want the entire current management to be deep sixed, after the media engineered an outrage based on Gawd who knows what.

What do you think?

[BlooInBloo]

6. Um, I said "credit union". And I meant "credit union"....

In general, you're making the problem out to be a lot harder than it actually is.

It isn't required that we import people from Mars are something. :rofl:

[tigereye]

12. how could you possibly replace all those people, and would it make any

sense?

There must be some ethical bankers out there. I think the trick is to ACTUALLY ENFORCE existing regulations.

[FrenchieCat]

19. See, that's one of the dilemnas I think. Could we really replace all of these people....

hell, I don't even know how many that would be.....but the management of a bank is not the matter of just one person; that I know.

[tigereye]

21. we don't do that with anything else- well, other than airport security, I guess

[Top Cat]

23. I like the Credit Union idea

[Bozita]

3. Being cold-blooded is essential

[amborin]

5. Krugman answers that question....here's link:

<http://query.nytimes.com/search/sitesearch?query=krugman+and+nationalization+of+banks&type=nyt&x=12&y=9>

[BlooInBloo]

9. A 10,000+ hit search is an "answer"?

:rofl:

[FrenchieCat]

13. That's just a link to the search page of the New York Times.

I'm asking for help in finding the answers.....like a specific paragraph from Kruman, not a place for me to now see if I can find the answer. :shrug:

[amborin]

15. well, if you search the blogs, k does provide answers....i don't have time right this min

in sweden, the hired experts in a variety of fields.....real estate, management, etc......

[FrenchieCat]

16. But the experts in various aspect of the financial Banking business, if linked to any institutions

within the last 10 years or so, wouldn't they have to pass the smell test? And wouldn't that open another can of undesirable worms that could explode in the administration's face?

[amborin]

25. the

proposed natl'n plan is for only very short-term natl'n

it's true many are too tainted to do the job...but i think there are also many whose hands are relatively clean, or clean enuf anyway, to do the managing

the argument is: no one can do a worse job than the current bank heads


ps: the managers would have to do stress tests, like Geithner has been doing.....then decide which assets are bad and how to value them....

aren't there some people, like maybe the woman who's head of hte FDIC? who might do some of this?

[Phx_Dem]

7. Krugman, of course, because he's the only one who knows everything.

[LittleBlue]

8. The banks run them, under different management

We appoint the management team, along with the boards of directors.

The banks run themselves with new management.

[FrenchieCat]

11. I understand that they would be appointed......

but who would these people be? Where would they come from?

[LittleBlue]

14. Common shareholders appoint boards of directors

Boards of directors appoint corporate officers, set executive pay, and can relieve these officers of their positions at will.


So, we (theoretically the people) would be the common shareholders. In actuality, it would probably be President Obama making this decision, along with his (hopefully new) economic team.

Then those directors would appoint reasonable executives, paid reasonably, to run the company reasonably.

[FrenchieCat]

17. I understand the process.....

I'm trying to find out who would these people be, how many would we need, and where would we get them from in order for them not to be tainted?

And how much does Nationalizing cost anyways? Does anyone have a figure? Does Krugman or others?

[LittleBlue]

22. I don't know who would personally accept this job

since I don't live on the East Coast. I would imagine, for a moderate salary, we could hire some knowledgeable people. The people who ran these corporations weren't necessarily stupid, they were just extremely greedy, which made them reckless. Take away the short-term greed motive, and you'd probably get some reasonable management.

As to your second question, the total market capitalization (value of the company's entire common stock), is

$14 billion for Citi (C)
$40 billion for Bank of America (BAC)
$60 billion for Wells (WFC)
$87 billion for JP Morgan Chase (JPM)
All quotes from Yahoo Finance. Look them up if you want more details.

These are the top 4 banks in the country, responsible for ~60% of banking activity. I total that to $201 billion. This is approximately $3 trillion cheaper. :rofl:

We'd only really have to buy the top 2, and institute competition requirements to avoid them undercutting the competition.

[tigereye]

10. I'm not sure what actually "nationalizing banks" would mean

How many other countries do this?

Providing the capital? (well, I guess we are already doing some of that)

More regulation and oversight (or actually enforcing the regs that already exist?)


I just had a friend who is an attorney tell me that a lot of the problem was poorly enforced federal regulations that often superseded stringent state regs.

[FrenchieCat]

18. I know that when Sweden did this, the number of banks was small.

I also know that Sweden's government is quite socialistic to begin with.....
and their media doesn't go around looking for gotchas all of the time.

I'm suspecting if we nationalize the hundreds of banks here in the United States,
we'd be opening a potential Pandora's Box that would find no end....
simply based on how our media and politics operate.

I think that nationalizing that many banks, and having to recruit that many people on the fly, and spend the kind of money needed to shore these banks up as government owned entities would sink our economy via any incident causing a major vote of no confidence on the executive branch, and would put Republicans back into power as early as 2010, with Romney at the helm of the leadership .....and a new GOP President in 2012.

What I am saying is, if we insist that Barack Obama does what Krugman and others want him to do, and not what he decides should be done, will we still make Barack Obama responsible to ensure that it will be ran exactly how Krugman decides it should be run as we hit various bumps along the way. If we nationalize and it wasn't Obama's idea, but say Krugman, will he take the heat from the media as well as the responsibility when the media finds the many gotchas that would be created by such a far reaching plan?

[tigereye]

20. maybe people should look to solutions like to the S and L scandals of the 80s

that's what i heard some expert say on Fresh Air. I don't know why every crisis always seems to create the drive for a major over-haul, as opposed to more regulation or enforcement.

I think the power of the stock market is a bigger problem, actually and the way that public companies are run in general - seemingly with little long-term planning and only the desire for short-term profit.

[masuki bance]

24. Chris Dodd.