As I see it, we have two options: 1) We can let the banks collapse, and pay a terrible

[Jackpine Radical]

price, finally having to rebuild a world economic system on a new, sustainable and equitable basis; or

2)We can pump a few trillion dollars into the banks, after which they will go bust, and we will be worse off than if we had just let them collapse in the first place.

[indepat]

1. Hear, hear!

:D

[BeatleBoot]

2. A World Currency

No thanks.


I love the world, but I just want my fucking home value back to where it was 4 years ago.

[Odin2005]

12. Home values were unsustainably high 4 years ago.

The economy won't begin to recover until the housing bubble deflates completely and all the financial BS is flushed out.

[nadinbrzezinski]

3. We did pump a lot of moneys into the banks in the 1930s

it wasn't the end of that world

Oh wait, it was

That came with regulation

That's coming

We have literally walked down this path before... literally

[napoleon_in_rags]

4. The thing is that we haven't *exactly* walked down this path before.

The current issue as I see it is about debt and resources. Our debt levels are appropriate for a level of expanded future resource exploitation that is impossible based on the worlds current resources and levels of technology. I agree with you in rejecting the either or premise of the OP, but I see Obama's challenge as to do everything he can to lay down the foundations for a new economy based on sustainable resource consumption. Its a huge challenge with no clear historical precedent, because FDR had a lot of resources to be exploited if the loans were just taken out. This is a little different, as the new debt has to come with corresponding technological advances to do more with less. So I think Obama has a very large technological mandate, which is different than FDR.

[nadinbrzezinski]

5. History never, ever repeats itself exactly

but the model they are using vis a vis the banks is exactly the bad bank model of the 1930s with the Sweedish improvements

[napoleon_in_rags]

8. The play is the same, but the setting is different.

Basically I think we have a big "change or die" challenge. Our current modes of living are too wasteful for our dwindling resources. So while FDR's challenge could be said to be "getting things going" Obama's challenge is to "get things going in a new direction". He's off to a good start, with his alternative energy programs and such, but its only a start. Before this is over massive changes are in store in the day to day lives of many Americans, and if we keep pressing the snooze button, all Obama can do is pad the fall, not stop it completely.

[nadinbrzezinski]

17. Just like the setting was different when Sweden used the FDR

model

Before 1932 the very much socialist plank social security had zero chances of passing

We have Social Security today

Ten years ago, hell a year ago, environmental change was impossible

These plays always bring opportunity for dramatic, some may even say radical, change

That said, this 21st century New Deal is USING well tried and true principles

And people should take up a book and read it

Some of what FDR did was very new... for his time

Some of what this administration will do will be very new as well

But both drew from the past and walked along similar paths

We humans are amazing creatures, and I for one am glad this President has actually bothered to read a history book or two

I wish the rest of the country would follow suit...

[girl gone mad]

9. No, not quite.

I never know where you get these ideas from. TARP was not an FDR New Deal style program and what we're doing now (pouring money into zombie banks while pretending it's a liquidity crisis, not a solvency crisis) is proving to be a huge mistake.

[truedelphi]

11. That it is. But people don't understand that. n/t

[Junkdrawer]

6. The current World Banking System IS The American Empire...

There will probably be a World War before it falls.

[burythehatchet]

7. But the people who broke the system must know how to put it back together

right?

[cascadiance]

10. OR #3) Nationalize them and FIRE and PROSECUTE the criminals in charge of them!

That way, we can finally stop the "leaks" in the system!

[customerserviceguy]

19. That was my favorite option

with federally insured deposits, we already have nationalized the risk of banking, we just need to nationalize the profits.

Oh, and pay those in the banking industry according to the GS schedule. And maybe, just maybe, we don't need so damned many of them, what with electronic deposits and online banking.

[smoogatz]

13. Option 3: take over insolvent banks, as the law requires.

Put them in receivership, pay off all FDIC insured accounts, sell the bank's remaining assets and move on. That's what the FDIC is for: depositors are protected, shareholders get bupkis.

[Fire1]

15. Sounds good to me but there will be consequences to that

action and President Obama knows it.

[smoogatz]

18. The FDIC has eaten over 100 local/regional banks already,

since last spring. The mistake was allowing the big boys to steal a trillion bucks-worth of taxpayer money before eating them, too.

[Fire1]

20. I agree with you but that horse has already left the barn and he's

going to tell investors they get 'nothing?' I would love to see that!

[lonestarnot]

14. They should never get another damn dime!

[HaydukesWrench]

16. we're going to hit a painful rock bottom. either in a few weeks or a few months

"pump"ing a few trillion that was created out of thin air doesnt really solve a problem but delay it for a while. Bush was able to delay it until Obama took over, but I think he's stuck with the hot potato(e).