Jim Devine wrote:
FWIW, a lot of the deflation would occur at the public expense [even] if the
government _doesn't_ take over [the banks], assuming that there's no
alternative
government policy: the cut-back in credit, the way in falling asset
and product prices make previously-taken debts more onerous, etc.
So is this a back-handed argument in favor of
nationalization? Presumably the government could manage the
deflation better, or at least make the cost and distribution of that
cost more transparent?
Thanks for your comment.
Ann
At 11:45 AM 1/24/2009, you wrote:
Ann Davis wrote:
> Re: the recent debate on nationalization of banks, please consider these
> points:
>
> Pro:
> Such a nationalization reveals the underlying public, social nature of the
> production, realization, and "preservation" of surplus.
>
> Con:
> A government takeover at this time saddles the public with financial assets
> which are vastly over-inflated. Then the deflation occurs at the public
> expense.
FWIW, a lot of the deflation would occur at the public expense if the
government _doesn't_ take over, assuming that there's no alternative
government policy: the cut-back in credit, the way in falling asset
and product prices make previously-taken debts more onerous, etc.
--
Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own
way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
