home

"Temporary Takeover" It Is

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Wed Feb 25, 2009 at 09:15:33 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public.

-H.L. Mencken

Via Digby, Mencken is proven right again:

A majority of Americans (54%) favor a temporary government "takeover" of major U.S. banks, but a much lower minority (37%) favor a temporary "nationalization" of the banks.

Um, ok. A "temporary takeover" it is. Sheesh.

Speaking for me only

< Vicarious Liability and the Death Penalty in TX & VA | States Consider Dropping Death Penalty >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    "Temporary Takeover" It Is | 59 comments (59 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    It's a little disappointing (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by lilburro on Wed Feb 25, 2009 at 09:26:01 AM EST
    I liked how in one of Krugman's articles he recently described nationalization as "American as apple pie."  He then stated why.  Nationalization is already happening.  So wake up people.

    Is it better to choose a phrase like "temporary takeover" and, in general, expend a lot of time with working on phrasing...or just pick "nationalization" and campaign to explain it?

    I want to see efforts to educate from President Obama and crew.  They are going to have to deal with "nationalization," whether it is what they call what they're doing or not (any "temporary takeover" plan will be labeled immediately as a "nationalization plan" by many on right and left).  Bite the bullet, and tell the American people why it is needed.  If I have to sit through at some future time Robert Gibbs explaining how "temporary takeover" is different from "nationalization," I will be so pissed.

    Temporary takeover is fine by me (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 25, 2009 at 09:27:31 AM EST
    I am commenting on the astounding stupidity of the American public.

    Yes I am an elitist.

    Parent

    yeah (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by lilburro on Wed Feb 25, 2009 at 09:33:06 AM EST
    it is pretty remarkable that the difference in those two questions is simply "taking over" or "nationalization" - otherwise they are identical.

    But if one word - "nationalization" - is capable of destroying support for what Obama does, regardless of whether it is called "taking over" or "nationalizing" - then Obama needs to get out there and do some edumacating.  Although I guess he is still at the "conduct a stress test" stage for the banks.

    Parent

    I would argue that (5.00 / 4) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 25, 2009 at 09:38:22 AM EST
    Obama should just say temorary takeover and say Republicans are wrong when they say this is nationalization. Apparently, Americans will believe that.

    Parent
    So long as that ridiculous term - (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed Feb 25, 2009 at 10:50:36 AM EST
    "pre-privatization" - doesn't catch on, I'm fine with either of the other two.

    But this is why I was talking about the definition of nationalization the other day.  Because the American public hasn't a clue what the term means and have already been trained to fear it.

    Parent

    IOW (none / 0) (#10)
    by lilburro on Wed Feb 25, 2009 at 09:35:03 AM EST
    I hold out hope the stupidity can be cured.

    Parent
    Elitist or just plain accurate (none / 0) (#23)
    by CoralGables on Wed Feb 25, 2009 at 10:15:05 AM EST

    I am commenting on the astounding stupidity of the American public

    There is no need to brand yourself with the elitist label to render that verdict, unless you prefer the label of course. We did, as a country, elect George W twice. No further evidence of the astounding stupidity of the American public is needed for the Nation to be found guilty as charged.

    But perhaps we are on the slow path to rehabilitation.

    Parent

    I think some wise Sage (none / 0) (#42)
    by NYShooter on Wed Feb 25, 2009 at 11:44:13 AM EST
    suggested "Pre-privatization."

    Parent
    Krugman on PBS last night (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Fabian on Wed Feb 25, 2009 at 09:58:00 AM EST
    versus some Big Business apologist.  I don't remember who, but Krugman was stating that we need to nationalize the banks (to keep them from collapsing completely) and the apologist was arguing that the banks are okay, but these are Hard Times and the banks need some Help.  (...and some more Help and then some more Help....pretty soon you start wondering why we don't cut the middlemen out and deliver the financial services directly!)

    Parent
    Banks need help.... (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by kdog on Wed Feb 25, 2009 at 10:01:40 AM EST
    What happened to pulling yourself up by your argyle socks?...oh yeah, that's a slogan for the little people:)

    Parent
    The Federal Government... (none / 0) (#35)
    by santarita on Wed Feb 25, 2009 at 10:48:03 AM EST
    is already doing some traditionally private type banking through TALF, for example.

    There are many banks in this country that are well-run institutions.  The federal government doesn't need to take over them.  And I do think that having the government take over all private banking functions would be a mistake.  There is simply too much opportunity for abuse of power.  

    The problems are concentrated at the large financial institutions.  The federal government needs to convince the international community, the banking community, and the investing public that it has control of the problems.  So far it hasn't convinced them.

    Parent

    So you think the government shouldn't (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed Feb 25, 2009 at 10:55:29 AM EST
    take over failing banks, but you want the government to look as if it is in control of the situation?

    I don't think that you can have both.  You have to choose.

    Not for nothing, the government has been taking over failing banks with some regularity for seventy years through the FDIC.  That's been viewed as a feature of our banking system, not a bug.

    Parent

    I'm not opposed to the ... (none / 0) (#39)
    by santarita on Wed Feb 25, 2009 at 11:15:54 AM EST
    federal government taking control of failing banks and disposing of the assets and liabilities or forcing mergers instead of receivership.  I just don't think that anyone would want the federal government to take over all banking activities in the country.  

    Parent
    That option has never been (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed Feb 25, 2009 at 11:40:03 AM EST
    on the table.  Nationalization of a bank or several banks is not taking over the entire system.

    Although it is worth noting that the federal banking system and the Treasury are integral to our private banking industry.  People seem to be completely unaware of that fact.  Or there's some disconnect in understanding there.  

    I heard something somewhat troubling last night which I have not been able to verify anywhere else which is that because Citigroup is a holding company the government can't easily go in and take over their bank under our existing laws.  I sort of think that is probably bunk, but it was still an interesting comment.  If that is true, that would make our situation way more complicated and would mean way more trouble for us than I previously thought we might have.  Particularly in the case of Citigroup we should go in and take over - and NOT encourage mergers - but instead spin the pieces and parts off so we don't have to deal with this "too big to fail" monster anymore.

    Parent

    I think the reason people fear (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by Anne on Wed Feb 25, 2009 at 10:17:53 AM EST
    "nationalization" or "nationalize the banks" is because the word and the phrase connote a takeover of every bank in the nation; they need a new word that does not have Average Jane and Joe fearing that the community bank that is on solid financial footing and with which they have done business for years is about to become a branch in the Bank of the United States Government.

    I don't know that Jane and Joe are stupid, but no one has done a very good job of explaining what the term means, and they are already so in fear for their jobs and their retirement and everything else that this sends them over the edge a bit.

    At a minimum, anything that educates and informs the public in a way that calms their fears would be a good thing for the economy.

    Stupid vs. Ignorant (none / 0) (#31)
    by santarita on Wed Feb 25, 2009 at 10:39:57 AM EST
    You make a good point.  To the extent that Americans get their news from the 30 minutes of watching tv news or listening to the radio they wouldn't have much of an idea about what nationalization or takeover involves.  This doesn't make them stupid, just ignorant.  

    Bernanke made an interesting point in his appearance before the Senate Banking Committee yesterday.  Basically he said that the government doesn't have to nationalize a bank in order to exert significant control over it.  He's right, of course,  He's talking about de facto nationalization. The regulators can issue "Cease and Desist" orders and take other regulatory actions.  Banks know that and regulators usually don't have to take those actions in order to obtain compliance.  The questions to be asked about the big banks, at this point at least, are whether or not the regulators are actually exerting enough control and whether or not the big banks are thumbing their noses at the Feds.  The culture over the last 8 years has been laissez-faire.  What the big banks wanted to do, they did and the regulators said little.  It takes a little time to change that culture.  

    Ousting the boards and senior management and inserting federal management is the final step and may need to be taken.  It doesn't sound like the Fed and Treasury are ready for that.

    Parent

    It's hopeless (none / 0) (#1)
    by SOS on Wed Feb 25, 2009 at 09:18:56 AM EST
    Markets heading south this morning. At this rate all the new wealth boomers will be wiped out (punished) by year end.

    I say. . . (none / 0) (#2)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Feb 25, 2009 at 09:21:27 AM EST
    call it "Government Based Privatization" and be done with it.

    It's those numbers, and the shark like Republicans circling around looking for an issue, that I suspect are making Obama cautious about making the big decisions (well, that and a naturally cautious nature).

    I agree with you that there are some big, game-changing decisions that need to be made.  I just think that those decisions have a lot of risk, as well as a lot of potential upside for Obama and the Democrats (including the risk that if not managed properly they won't get done).

    How about reprivatization? (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by andgarden on Wed Feb 25, 2009 at 09:25:59 AM EST


    Parent
    Agreed (5.00 / 5) (#11)
    by eric on Wed Feb 25, 2009 at 09:35:45 AM EST
    why don't Dems play the word games that Republicans play?  I say we call it a Private Enterprise Trusteeship (PET).

    Parent
    Heavy. n/t (none / 0) (#12)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Feb 25, 2009 at 09:37:33 AM EST


    Parent
    Now there's an idea (none / 0) (#15)
    by andgarden on Wed Feb 25, 2009 at 09:38:28 AM EST
    why not call it "My Pet Tamabanki?"

    Parent
    LOL! (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by coigue on Wed Feb 25, 2009 at 10:08:08 AM EST
    They certainly peep if you forget to feed em.

    Parent
    Goodbye yellow brick road (none / 0) (#3)
    by SOS on Wed Feb 25, 2009 at 09:24:33 AM EST
    . . .

    Same sh*t different smell.... (none / 0) (#7)
    by kdog on Wed Feb 25, 2009 at 09:29:33 AM EST
    No doubt, but I'm not gonna beat up on my fellow Americans for balking at the term "nationalization"...such knee-jerk reservations of government takeover/control of anything might just preserve what is left of our liberty in the future.  

    Defending ignorance (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 25, 2009 at 09:30:39 AM EST
    is beneath you kdog.

    Parent
    I hear ya... (none / 0) (#13)
    by kdog on Wed Feb 25, 2009 at 09:37:50 AM EST
    But just this once, it might be a good thing:)

    I'm glad the initital gut reaction to nationalization is no...though it is troubling that, through the use of double-speak, the American people will jumpt to support the same exact thing, without the commie-sounding moniker...that is indeed scary.

    Parent

    Such as? (none / 0) (#43)
    by NYShooter on Wed Feb 25, 2009 at 11:46:43 AM EST
    Inheritance tax..........Yay!!

    Death tax ...............Booo!

    Parent

    Good one.... (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by kdog on Wed Feb 25, 2009 at 12:05:20 PM EST
    or this...

    Patriot Act...Yay!

    Reductions in Civil Liberties Act...Boo!

    Parent

    My! (none / 0) (#52)
    by NYShooter on Wed Feb 25, 2009 at 03:38:05 PM EST
    I AM honored Mr. "D"

    (face turning red, looking down, shoes shuffling)

    Parent

    What is the argument? (none / 0) (#16)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Feb 25, 2009 at 09:53:56 AM EST
    As if the common person understands the difference.  For Pete's sake, even the people doing it don't understand it.  Call it George, call it Pete.  

    I am with Nassim Nicholas Taleb, the Black Swan Guy How bank bonuses let us all down

    There's quite a smart vid (none / 0) (#25)
    by tokin librul on Wed Feb 25, 2009 at 10:19:37 AM EST
    in which Nouri alRoubini and Nasim Taleb discuss the state of the economy while the assembled CNBC crew seems to be trying to get stock tips.

    Parent
    Or, who was the President (none / 0) (#44)
    by NYShooter on Wed Feb 25, 2009 at 11:51:26 AM EST
    who scolded one of his aides who publicly used the word, "recession," in a speech? The aide asked, "so what should we call a recession?"

    From that moment on, our country faced a possible "banana."

    Parent

    The financial boys have (none / 0) (#18)
    by SOS on Wed Feb 25, 2009 at 09:59:56 AM EST
    already siphoned off their profits and they are safely put away. They weren't using their money to make the bets they made they were using depositors and investors funds. Billions have disappeared in profits and bonuses. The hedge fund boys are still driving around in BMWs from their mansions to the house in the hills. If the company goes bust it won't hurt them a bit. They are already out.

    After the depression the bankers were richer than ever and yes they did buy up assets at pennies on the dollar to cement their positions.

    This doesn't make me feel comfortable at all, any more than it would thinking it is all just a big accident caused by everybody in the financial industry becoming brain dead at the same time.

    Let Bernanke do all the talking. (none / 0) (#20)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 25, 2009 at 10:08:01 AM EST


    Pardon My Pedantry... (none / 0) (#22)
    by tokin librul on Wed Feb 25, 2009 at 10:14:11 AM EST
       Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public.
        -H.L. Mencken

    Pardon the pedantry: Mencken wrote, "Nobody ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public."

    While i think them equally true, I think there actually is a difference..."taste" having to do with sophistication, "intelligence" having to do with actual cognitive competence.

    Just sayin--
    (signed)
    "the Quote Nazi"

    It is disputed what Mencken actually said (none / 0) (#26)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 25, 2009 at 10:21:00 AM EST


    Parent
    More pedantry (none / 0) (#49)
    by jnicola on Wed Feb 25, 2009 at 01:18:12 PM EST
    Actually, the closest Mencken came to this quote, on the record, was in the Chicago Tribune in 1926, in an essay titled Notes on Journalism.

    No one in this world, so far as I know -- and I have researched the records for years, and employed agents to help me -- has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people. Nor has anyone ever lost public office thereby.

    The continuation of the article is somewhat relevant to BTD's original post.

    The mistake that is made always runs the other way. Because the plain people are able to speak and understand, and even, in many cases, to read and write, it is assumed that they have ideas in their heads, and an appetite for more. This assumption is a folly. They dislike ideas, for ideas make them uncomfortable...'


    Parent
    Why are you convinced your (none / 0) (#53)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 25, 2009 at 05:23:59 PM EST
    excerpt is the closest Mencken ever came, etc.?  I found both versions via googling and enjoyed at least an hour of reading Mencken's witty writings.  Reminds me a bit of kdog!

    Parent
    I did say 'on the record' (none / 0) (#54)
    by jnicola on Thu Feb 26, 2009 at 02:43:42 AM EST
    And I'm sure because it's long been a topic of discussion in Mencken circles; it's come up in Menckeniana a few times over the years. Mayo Dubasky couldn't find a closer version either for Gist. If he said anything closer to the common phrase than this then it was in speech, not in his published writing or in the letters which have so far been collected.

    Mencken was witty; usually wrong but with considerable style. Chrestomathy is probably the best grouping of his pieces, although Alistair Cooke's selection is broader in scope and shorter in length.

    Parent

    Thanks for your reply. (none / 0) (#55)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 26, 2009 at 09:26:06 AM EST
    The possibility Mencken made this particular statement while speaking reminds me of Barack Obama's speech against the U.S. invading Iraq.

    I did enjoy reading Mencken's proclamations yesterday although, as you stated, they were mostly wrong.  He surely did not like formal education or educators!

    Parent

    Good to hear from you too! (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by jnicola on Thu Feb 26, 2009 at 12:56:24 PM EST

    I find the retrospective importance that's been placed on that speech fascinating too. It demonstrates the extent to which the times make the man...

    Mencken was a mass of contradictions; his prose suggest he liked no-one except the group he defined as elite, changing the definition from one year to the next, but he was one of the most loyal of friends and maintained an incredibly wide correspondence with friends, acquaintances and strangers. His views on formal educators were, as you say cutting, but he courted one of them for seven years, and corresponded with hundreds in writing The American Language giving and getting considerable respect.  There's a great extract from Hobson's biography on the Mencken Society's website that shows more of these. Myself I love his wit; and even if the bases of his beliefs were wrong, he was always intellectually honest in his deductions from them. And his epitaph is redolent of a fundamentally sympathetic man.

    "If, after I depart this vale, you ever remember me and have thought to please my ghost, forgive some sinner, and wink your eye at some homely girl."


    Parent
    Have you read the biography? (none / 0) (#57)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 26, 2009 at 01:06:43 PM EST
    Recommend?  I'm curious to learn more about this curmudgeon.

    P.S.  I also enjoy Paul Theroux's writing!

    Parent

    Hobson (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by jnicola on Thu Feb 26, 2009 at 02:04:16 PM EST
    is probably the standard biography, but it's not brilliantly written. William Manchester's Disturber of the Peace is the most enjoyable of the biographies I've read. It's out of print but I think most libraries should have a copy, or Amazon's got a secondhand copy.

    I've always meant to read Theroux but have never been sure which book to start with. Any recommendations?

    Parent

    Read "Ghost Traiin," (none / 0) (#59)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 26, 2009 at 02:08:27 PM EST
    his latest non-fiction book, in which he re-travels (with additions and deletions due to current political situation) from London to Japan, to China, returning on Trans-Siberian Express to Moscow.  Along the way he talks with Pico Iyer, Arthur Clarke, Haruki Murakami, and others.  Then read his latest novellas, "Elephanta Suites," and you will discover where he gets his ideas for fiction.  

    Parent
    Thanks! (none / 0) (#60)
    by jnicola on Thu Feb 26, 2009 at 02:10:02 PM EST
    Will do.

    Parent
    Turns out our central library (none / 0) (#61)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 26, 2009 at 02:21:00 PM EST
    has one copy of Manchester's bio of Mencken on CD (11 discs) and I am #1 in the "queque,) per the website.  

    Parent
    I love you guys (none / 0) (#45)
    by NYShooter on Wed Feb 25, 2009 at 11:54:08 AM EST
    No, really.

    However, the original text HAS morphed into the latter meaning.

    Parent

    In the "Peoples' confusion over labels (none / 0) (#27)
    by tokin librul on Wed Feb 25, 2009 at 10:24:15 AM EST
    you may see revealed the insidious completeness of the CorpoRat propaganda agenda that has dominated the cultural and intellectual life of the country for at LEAST the last 75 years. That has been the primary job of the media--and the schools, of course, too--throughout the period since about 1900.

    The average American (none / 0) (#28)
    by Wile ECoyote on Wed Feb 25, 2009 at 10:27:50 AM EST
    is stupid?  Nationalization because 10% of the banks are in trouble?  
    How about a law made because of a heinous crime?  How does TL readers react to that?  

    Um (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 25, 2009 at 10:42:05 AM EST
    You missed my point.

    Parent
    They're victims of what should be called (none / 0) (#29)
    by tokin librul on Wed Feb 25, 2009 at 10:28:28 AM EST
    "taught incompetence."

    I don't know that Jane and Joe are stupid, but no one has done a very good job of explaining what the term means, and they are already so in fear for their jobs and their retirement and everything else that this sends them over the edge a bit.

    They're not intrinsically "stupid" people, necessarily. It is that their school and lived experience has never included thinking critically about what they are told by the people and institutions they are TAUGHT to believe and admire: the Church, the School, the family, all of which have been subverted to the purposes of propagandizing the status quo...

    And, to be fair, Jane and Joe (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Anne on Wed Feb 25, 2009 at 10:33:41 AM EST
    are entirely capable of not sitting and waiting to be told what all of this means, and could do what a lot of other people end up doing: educating themselves, and not relying on the government or any iconic institution to do it.

    Parent
    Yes... (none / 0) (#32)
    by santarita on Wed Feb 25, 2009 at 10:41:23 AM EST
    especially since the internet now provides such great access to good information.

    Parent
    As well (none / 0) (#48)
    by cal1942 on Wed Feb 25, 2009 at 12:20:05 PM EST
    as some very bad information.

    Parent
    potato, (none / 0) (#33)
    by coigue on Wed Feb 25, 2009 at 10:41:37 AM EST
    potahto or is it potato, potatoe?

    Language In Polls (none / 0) (#47)
    by squeaky on Wed Feb 25, 2009 at 12:14:36 PM EST
    Is rarely neutral. No surprise this time. 'Take over' is associated with business as usual in capitalism, hostile takeover used to be in the news regularly. Nationalize is something you hear about in Cuba or Venezuela and is foreign to say the least.

    As silly as this appears to make regula Americans seem, elitists can get swayed by the way a question is framed by a pollster.

    We saw a lot elitists acting stupid during the primary.

    Somewhere Orwell is ... (none / 0) (#50)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Feb 25, 2009 at 02:25:23 PM EST
    smirking.

    Smirking or Crying.... (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by kdog on Wed Feb 25, 2009 at 02:32:33 PM EST
    you said it.  

    It is feeling awfully IngSoc-ey 'round here lately.

    Parent

    "Temporary Takeover" It Is | 59 comments (59 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment