The Justification of Private Profit is Private Risk

“The justification of private profit,” said President Franklin Roosevelt in a 1938 address, “is private risk.” Banking has now been made virtually risk-free, backed by the full faith and credit of the United States and its people. The American people are therefore entitled to share in the benefits and the profits. Banking needs to be made a public utility.

https://www.counterpunch.org/2020/05/20/another-bank-bailout-under-cover-of-a-virus/

My take: The apologists for corporate bailouts need to understand that if the taxpayer is forced to bail out the banks (and any other private enterprise) then the banks should be nationalized. Anyone who disagrees is a lackey of the banks and corporate America.

 

How about we stop bailing them out? We don't need more bail outs we need less. We need less government intervention. More is almost never the answer.

 

The issue goes beyond the banks. The rot is systemic and we definitely need to restructure. With the power bases we’ve created that’s going to be extremely difficult.

Nationalization might be a tool utilized to restructure (last resort), but I’d prefer if we simply returned the banks to their original purpose and separated the current entities. The units can stand on their own (or not).

We could certainly use more accountability and competition in our market place across the board.

Plus, there are many ways to accomplish the task it doesn’t have to be public or private. It could be either/or or both as long as it gets done.

 

It looks like you disagree with yourself. While not all banks needed bailing out, all government programs do.

 

This would be bad enough, but the situation is much worse.
Not only do we (the people) guarantee banking, we legally sanction and insure gambling and resultant debts. Not casinos in Vegas, but the much larger scale market, bigger than anything else financially; derivatives.

 

Perhaps we need to find a kinder, gentler verb to replace "nationalize". How about "requisition for national security".
As should be done with the energy companies.
As history repeatedly demonstrates, too much money/power in too few hands is dangerous for a republic.

 

This notion to go vertical (1985) was fraught with risk. It was sold as a way to make us more competitive on the world stage (some merit then) and would be the avenue to eliminate our trade deficit (patently ridiculous then and now). The risk was creating monopolistic behavior in our market and make it less competitive.

The problem Is we never adjusted and kept on going and going and going. Most (not all) of the monstrosities we’ve created are not necessary unless, of course, you ask the monstrosities.

Any “why” question asked about this country the root answer is, these monstrosities:

Divided? Slow growth? Inequity? Small business or the working man taking a beating? Unresponsive government?

 

WTF???
How the hell do government programs need to be nationalized if the government already owns, controls and funds them??? Oh, my bad. You are one of these "Get your government hands off my Medicare" people.
Sweet trolling though.

 

DE-PRIVATIZE

 

Government fails far more often than the private sector. And guess who pays when government screws up?

 

Everything our government controls is poorly managed. They can't handle what they have now. Can you address my post instead of misquoting me and posting irrelevant memes?

 

The history of corporate management is, for the most part, one of failure. The survivors and successes are a small minority. The mighty most often fall.

 

I agree.
Let them liquidate

 

Were Biden and Obama lackeys for the solar industry.........Private Profit, private risk don't ya know.

 

You actually want the doctor's office turned into the waiting room at the DMV?

 

and thats an argument against bailouts not an argument for nationalization

 

Liquidation is the proper path

 

correct
if banks were under a threat of no bail outs they would take less risks they would be much more cautious

 

The mighty pave the way to what replaces them. Sears was once a retail giant selling mail order items you could not find anywhere else. They are out of business while Amazon is now a giant selling mail order crap you can get anywhere. While many great achievements become obsolete, that doesn't make them a failure.

The government, on the other hand, ...

 

Did I said I liked Obama or Biden? I despise them. Come November though I'll vote for the Democratic nominee, whoever's it may be, but I'll do it holding my nose. I have no illusions about the Democrats.

 

and its that failure which weeds out the poorly managed if you let them fail
there is no threat of failure with government run endeavors so there is no incentive not to be poorly managed
its like having a job from which you cant be fired from what incentive do you have to do a well job?

 

I disagree. When the government coddles the rich it does a great job. However, when taking care of the general population it drags its feet unless there is a mass mobilization to goad the government into energetic action.

 

The government is rich. I agree when it comes to taking care of the general population and thats why I oppose government interference. I can do a much better job taking care of myself. All government programs are poorly managed.

 

I dunno, looks to be the same people paying either way.....

 

We should distinguish here between retail banking - where average Joe keeps their money - and an investment bank.

It was one thing to guarantee the retail banking system - quite another the investment side. So we should not have bailed these out in the way we did - changes should have been made - but not make them pubic utilities ... that does not make any sense... Even the most socialist EU nation does not do this.