They’re working with public opinion here, and they’re still trying to keep up the appearance of propriety. They (WE!) are still buying the stock when they nationalize it. Next step, once we’re acclimated to that, is for them to just take it, whether title is actually transferred or not. That’s was Hillary tried to do.
From what I have seen in the papers and on-line, if they were very concerned with public opinion, they wouldn’t have bailed out AIG.
You’re right, and that’s why they all left town (“to campaign”). But this is really nothing. The public has a very short memory even when it comes to elections. But I was addressing the original comment. They only have so much money to bail companies out, and they can’t bail out a bunch of Democrat contributors all at once. It might become so obvious the media would have to report it. 
I believe all this business is just paving the way for social regulation of the global free market.
Capitalism can no longer run on greed-based profit. It must answer to its base in the working class or it shall fall.
Money transactions become transparent and trade wars ensue to buy up markets when nations start merging into trade unions.
Reportedly the federal government may soon undertake the biggest bailout in the financial markets since the Great Depression. The Bush administration and Congress are said to be working out the final plan aimed at stemming the credit crisis now. The plan has the federal government buy up “hundreds of billions of dollars” of “illiquid” mortgage assets at a deep discount from banks. The Treasury Department is expected to run the program directly. No one knows what the bailout will ultimately cost taxpayers. If the government buys the assets at below-market rates and holds onto them until the market recovers, they could sell the loans at a gain. But if the plan doesn’t stem the tide of foreclosures, home prices will not stabilize, the economy will not recover, and taxpayers will be left holding the bag.
government bail out?
do you know what got the world out of the great depression?
and you thought world war two was something to fight…
the eagle is screaming…
-Imp
Hey wake up fairies. Money doesn’t exists, it is an abstract symbol referring to “future work and goods”, to future processes. So the FED will print trillions of dollars and just give it away worldwide to keep the economic “process” running, it will never be “paid” back because no one had it in the first place. This is an excellent example that shows how economy is ultimately a “philosophical construction”, the ultimate governor of the process is the world governments and after that weapons and ultimately god.
I missed this one.
Government control without ownership is fascism, control with ownership is communism. They are effectively nationalized in either case and this crisis is taking us rapidly from fascism to communism. The only difference between this brand of communism and the Soviet/Chinese/Cuban/Venezuelan brand is whether the corporations stockholders are compensated at fair market value (or at all) for their investment. Obviously, even the US government can’t buy all corporations, so you figure it out.
Regulation is not the answer. Corporations are being strangled with regulation already. Just look at the airlines, oil and car companies that do fine overseas but are smothered here with regulation s(and labor unions). The key is to pay attention and enforce the laws we have. Bush has been warning Congress for years about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, 17 times this year.
Jim Johnson, former Fannie Mae CEO. cooked the books and he made millions. Then, Obama asked him to pick his VP and raise thousands for his campaign. The Washington Post says Obama comes to Franklin Raines for advice on mortgage and housing policy. Under Raines, Fannie Mae committed extensive financial fraud. Raines made millions, Fannie Mae collapsed. Taxpayers, stuck with the bill.
Democrat response, “racist” (wasn’t it lucky Raines is black).
Then there’s this from the AP:
So maybe the Left doesn’t like whistleblowers all that much.
This is a private bank (the Fed) loaning money to a private insurance company (AIG) with AIG stock as collateral.
Yet thousands of economists and journalists are describing it (falsely) as a nationalisation.
And you say there’s no conspiracy…
This is why politics is a joke.
If the Democrats were true to their Socialist philosophy, they should love this move.
If the Republicans were true to their Free Market philosophy, they should hate this move.
Yet the opposite is true.
Conclusion: Ideology is irrelevant. Both are hypocrites and the only thing that matters is gaining power.
But this is a philosophy board. Should any of us be surprised by this?
Except it isn’t a nationalisation.
Except it isn’t a nationalisation.
Partly because it isn’t a nationalisation.
Ideology is the make up we put on powergrabs of all types, and the means by which the elite artificially generate conflict to bring about the changes they desire.
Broadly true.
No. Nor should we be surprised to find that the former CEO of AIG (until he left amidst a corruption scandal) worked for the New York Fed (basically, the most significant of the member banks who make up the Fed).
This deal was probably planned over a decade ago.
That may not be the intent, but fundamentally, that’s exactly what it is.
Nationalize - To convert from private to governmental ownership and control
HA! You may be right. But if so, it was good planning. All indications are that the government is going to profit on the deal.
AIG is now owned by the Fed. The Fed is a conglomerate of twelve member banks all of which are under private ownership and control.
Ergo, this is not a nationalisation in any traditional sense. It is more akin to what the World Bank does to poor countries.
Not the government, the Fed. You’ve got to understand that the Federal Reserve is not a Federal institution, but a private one. And not just that, but a private one owned by the same clique of bankers who also own Citigroup, Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase and so on.
Yeah but the chairman is selected by the president. You make it sound like the Fed isn’t an arm of the government. I’m pretty sure it is.
It isn’t owned by the government - if anything, it owns the government (since national debt in the US is over 60% of GDP, according to the CIA).
Likewise, if anything, the government is an arm of the Fed.
If the fed is private, why is congress voting on whether or not to authorize the bailout? A private company could buy whatever shares it wants. It seems at the very least that the government is the majority (or perhaps plurality) shareholder in the Fed.
Is the bailout money coming from the Fed? Or is it ‘coming from the Fed’, i.e. being loaned to the government so they can spend it on the bailout?
Hardly.
So’s your face.
You are not the first person to observe this.