If banks are nationalized, what is the argument for EVER giving them back to rich assholes?
The only thing I don't get about bank nationalization is the temporary part. It's like saying you are going to take Jeffrey Dahmer's knives and saws away until we can clean up his apartment for him--THEN we'll give them back to him.
It is not just their collapse but their abusive credit card practices and more that we cannot allow them to regain control of.
What am I missing here?
What is the argument for giving them back besides allowing the rich to get richer by screwing the rest of us?
are not usually run very well and are overly subject to political rather than economically sound decisionmaking. That is especially important given the precarious situation of most of the banks.
I would like to see the government get a good return on their investments in the banks, but beyond that they need sound regulation.
Although maybe the government could have a seat on the board -- it might counter the usual cronyism.
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators
Important Notices: By participating on this discussion
board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules
page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the
opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent
the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.