sounds about right to me. i don't necessarily call it nationalization,
though. to me, nationalization implies that decisions are made for political
reasons as much for economic reasons. for instance, i would call it
nationalization if the government took over a bankrupt gm with the express
purpose
> RoMunn wrote:
> break loose almost overnight. We seem to be past that probability, so now we
> can get down to figuring out what the hell to do.
>
Well we're not though; The danger last fall was *systemic* failure.
The banks are still in deep shit and here's why:
On the left half of the bank
I don't know what he's up to but we definitely needed a stall for anything.
My fear back in the Fall was that if the top banks failed, all hell would
break loose almost overnight. We seem to be past that probability, so now we
can get down to figuring out what the hell to do.
On Sat, Mar 14, 2009
> RoMunn wrote:
> When I think of regulation, then, I see an organization in the government
> that has the ability to take management control of even very large
> institutions if it becomes necessary.
Well that's the whole lost half of anti-trust.
The half we still have is monopoly protection, t
Good analysis. He' basically saying that the "too big to fail" argument is
bogus, as long as the government is equipped and prepared to take over such
big corporations in receivership. It's a sort of perverse irony that, in
allowing corporations to become really big, we have to prepare government
This dude predicted the crisis 5 years ago and here's what he had to
say a few days ago:
--
"I believe that stocks are undervalued, but not extremely so. Passive,
long-term investors in the S&P 500 can reasonably expect average total
returns moderately higher than 10% annually over the ne
