You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Home Front Economy
Greenspan backs bank nationalisation
2009-02-18
The US government may have to nationalise some banks on a temporary basis to fix the financial system and restore the flow of credit, Alan Greenspan, the former Federal Reserve chairman, has told the Financial Times.

In an interview, Mr Greenspan, who for decades was regarded as the high priest of laisser-faire capitalism, said nationalisation could be the least bad option left for policymakers.

”It may be necessary to temporarily nationalise some banks in order to facilitate a swift and orderly restructuring,” he said. “I understand that once in a hundred years this is what you do.”

Mr GreenspanÂ’s comments capped a frenetic day in which policymakers across the political spectrum appeared to be moving towards accepting some form of bank nationalisation.

“We should be focusing on what works,” Lindsey Graham, a Republican senator from South Carolina, told the FT. “We cannot keep pouring good money after bad.” He added, “If nationalisation is what works, then we should do it.”

Speaking to the FT ahead of a speech to the Economic Club of New York on Tuesday, Mr Greenspan said that “in some cases, the least bad solution is for the government to take temporary control” of troubled banks either through the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation or some other mechanism.

The former Fed chairman said temporary government ownership would ”allow the government to transfer toxic assets to a bad bank without the problem of how to price them.”

But he cautioned that holders of senior debt – bonds that would be paid off before other claims – might have to be protected even in the event of nationalisation.

”You would have to be very careful about imposing any loss on senior creditors of any bank taken under government control because it could impact the senior debt of all other banks,” he said. “This is a credit crisis and it is essential to preserve an anchor for the financing of the system. That anchor is the senior debt.”

Mr GreenspanÂ’s comments came as President Barack Obama signed into law the $787bn fiscal stimulus in Denver, Colorado. Mr Obama will announce on Wednesday a $50bn programme for home foreclosure relief in Phoenix, Arizona. Meanwhile, the White House was working last night on the latest phase of the bailout for two of the big three US carmakers.

In his speech after signing the stimulus, which he called the “most sweeping recovery package in our history”, Mr Obama set out a vertiginous timetable of federal decisions in the coming weeks that included fixing the US banking system, submission next week of the 2009 budget and a bipartisan White House meeting to address longer-term fiscal discipline.

“We need to end a culture where we ignore problems until they become full-blown crises,” said Mr Obama. “Today does not mark the end of our economic troubles… but it does mark the beginning of the end.”
Posted by:GolfBravoUSMC

#8  but do you honestly believe the DemoncRats will do that to their campaign supporters?

Statute of limitations is longer than 8 years unless you believe the Donks are not going to ever give up power, then we have far greater problems than just collecting.
Posted by: Procopius2k   2009-02-18 22:37  

#7  The way the system should work is the shareholders carry the can up to the full amount of their investment, ie until their shares are worth zero. Nationalization just sounds like a way to sell the banks as a 'going concern'.

Socialising bank losses by buying up bad paper is crazy.

Posted by: phil_b   2009-02-18 19:07  

#6  Hamilton also thought term limits were a bad idea. And he would never have supported putting the backbone of the American economy in the hands of government.
Posted by: Mike N.   2009-02-18 19:04  

#5  "go back and collect from officers who operated the entity in abject failure of their fiduciary responsibilities"

Sounds nice, p2k - but do you honestly believe the DemoncRats will do that to their campaign supporters?
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut   2009-02-18 18:57  

#4  May I point out that Alexander Hamilton, first Secretary of the Treasury, had the Bank of the United States chartered as a federal institution. Hardly a socialist or Marxist. If it's a choice between nationalizing a bank or just sucking up its bad paper and debts, I'd rather we get the whole package. Why should other financial entities get to pick up the good stuff at close out prices and the American taxpayer gets stuck with the remaining bag of crap? As new owners of the assimilated financial institutions, we have standing to go back and collect from officers who operated the entity in abject failure of their fiduciary responsibilities.
Posted by: Procopius2k   2009-02-18 18:51  

#3  "It may be necessary to temporarily nationalise some banks in order to facilitate a swift and orderly restructuring," he said. "I understand that once in a hundred years this is what you do."

What a maroon.

I'm surprised he didn't do more damage given how long he was in the job.
Posted by: Nimble Spemble   2009-02-18 18:23  

#2  Yeah right. Temporary like the Dukakis sales tax increases in MA. Temporary, for 25 years, and then it took a public referendum to trim, not end, them.

Sic Semper Tyrannis
Posted by: AlanC   2009-02-18 18:00  

#1  Thanks Captain Ed Smith for your opinion. You know, there are plenty of banks out there which are doing just fine despite the fact they don't buy giant logos on sports arenas or sport vikings buying lingerie. High priest indeed - IMHO greenspan more than anyone should have been waving warning flags.
Posted by: swksvolFF   2009-02-18 17:33  

00:00