Bill Gross: Bank Nationalization Would Cause 'Instability'

Reader Comments
Back to blog

gxwvwflt bdfmprms tncxmlva

acquistare via internet of 11:20AM August 28, 2009

+1

soundtracks of AL 5:44AM July 17, 2009

The nationalization of private Banks of a country is as İ mentioned before again and again a benefecial step of right direction as long as it remains in line with a healthy contribution to a stable economy as a whole. The nationalization of Banks should never last for a long period of time, otherwise the governments efforts to solve a economic crises could go wrong. As a result of nationalization the economic cycle rules of free trade policy in a international market should also not be neglected by nationalization. One of the governments significant steps should not only be keeping an eye on the whole nationalization process at every step of the policy, but also to prevent a high-inflation case through bailouts, if once nationlization is thought to be taken up. The government is also responsible for everything. İn cases of long-lasting nationalizations the equilibrium of free economy could be broken. This would lead to an unacceptable circumstances, which might have been avoided in the forefront.

Sencan Boz 10:44AM February 25, 2009

It should be called 'democratization' of the banks (including the FED), NOT 'nationalization'.
Democracy is the prime order of our time, at this final end of Empire-times, and everything; political, economic, social, and military should come under the sway of democracy ---- just as was intended in the American Revolution against the British political, economic, social, and military Empire.
Sovereignty in America is only ‘of the people’ --- not of the crown, the banks, the generals, nor CERTAINLY the NON-human corporations!
Using the evasive, guileful, and even propagandistic phrase "nationalization" of the banks (or financial sector) is an extreme media disservice, distortion, and even deceit to the American people.
Instead of this fear/scare term 'nationalization' of banks, a truthful and truly democratic media would use the honest term, "democratization of the banking system".
The bottom line is that the banking system is now one of unchallenged, unelected, and ruthless EMPIRE, and it must be brought into the service of 'the people' under the control of our indivisible democracy --- just as every aspect of our political, social and economic lives, as free and voluntary members of a self-governing democracy entails of all spheres of our shared lives --- except for the separate and non-interfering sphere of religion, as defined in our Constitution.
A free and democratically representative Republic of self-governing people can not allow an uncontrolled Empire to exist within the economic heart of its Republic --- else Franklin's greatest concern will come true, "We have our Republic now, if we can keep it (from Empire)"
Alan MacDonald
Sanford, Maine

Alan MacDonald of ME 8:53PM February 24, 2009

When I first read Bill's response, I thought - for sure he must be right because he's a financial genius and multi-billionaire! Then I read markgo of CT's comments, and now I'm not so sure. Financial genius aside, the financial gurus on WallStreet didn't want the mortgage lending bubble to pop and kept filling the balloon with more hot air until it popped, with dire collateral damage to the global economy. The major financial institutions are basically legitimized Ponzi schemes called investments where new dollars (deposits, premiums, stock purchases,etc.) are paid out as dividends, benefits, depositor interests, etc. to existing investors/depositors. Sound familiar to Matloff's sure fire investment deals? Too much hot air in the economic system and not sufficient hard assets to back them up. The feds, however should not revamp the banking system overnight as the collateral damage may also be catastrophic. Instead, constraints must be placed to better monitor the banking system to ferret out fraud and irresponsible schemes that have potential disasterous effects on the national and global economies. International banking is a complex web of money transfers and accounting practices - to tip over the cart at this point would be a potential disaster. Fix it, don't kill it. And if the fix doesn't work - then try another fix. If it doesn't work after that, the economy will be so bad that the poor homeless masses will become swollen with emnity for existing governments and the elites and historically that spells revolution. Let's try evolution to avoid revolution... but should revolution come as it may - then countless millions of lives will be destroyed and the resultant new world order is likely to be worse than what we have now.

Tony Lee of CA 7:58PM February 24, 2009

in banks and other "financials" DESERVE the haircut they (or we) are getting. When you let the CPAs and rating agencies and regulators tell you everything is okay, and yet we now find out that NO ONE knows what's on the balance sheets---WE, AS A COUNTRY, HAVE BEEN NAIVE TO A FAULT.
They may have to nationalize a few to avoid their outright default. Then, we need some real transparency and some real trust---things that will take a lot more regulation than we've had.

Muser of NM 4:32PM February 24, 2009

I think Gross' analysis if more flawed that Greenspan et al.
1) It's not 7500 banks in danger. It's probably fewer than 10 that would require this treatment.
2) The haircut is well deserved and far less damaging than what has already been caused by CDOs and poor risk management. Perhaps those creditors will take a closer look at risk in the future. The purpose of the any federalization is to save the economy not preserve shareholder value.
3) The goal is correct. Your judgement that nationalization will do the opposite is highly questionable. We've already recapitalized them, and turns out the pit was even deeper than they admitted. Time for new medicine.
4) Let's see. A bond guru whose holdings would be damaged by nationalization is objective on this subject???

markgo of CT 3:51PM February 24, 2009