4 ms·
Nationalizing all banks seems like the worst option of them all. There is no precedent in history of a society built around government owned banks that doesn’t
by happyopossum 4y ago
Nationalizing all banks seems like the worst option of them all. There is no precedent in history of a society built around government owned banks that doesn’t include oppression and failure.
- ProjectArcturis 4y agoNationalize, recapitalize, and reprivatize. So that the benefits of government recapitalization don't get captured by the same people who caused the crisis.
- courgette 4y agoIs’t what happened in 1929 in the us ? https://www.federalreservehistory.org/essays/emergency-banking-act-of-1933 https://www.federalreservehistory.org/essays/emergency-banki... Title 2 above seems to describe a government appointed regulator in case of failure.
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago> Title 2 above seems to describe a government appointed regulator in case of failure Receivership is different from nationalisation. It’s aimed at winding down or disposing of the asset on a short timeline. For comparison, we’re FTX in receivership, its assets would be controlled by a third party whose job would be to protect it for users’ benefit.
- ethbr0 4y agoSemi-independent federal reserves? We can quibble about fiat/currency vs banking, but technically the government owns all money. Granted, retail and last-mile banking seems a poor fit for government control. Although from memory Japan offers retail banking services through their postal service? (for historical quirk reasons, see: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_Post_Bank https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_Post_Bank )