Nationalization? Big Deal
The New York Times says that the U.S. is nationalizing banks but not calling it that. Further, it's no big deal; the U.S. has nationalized plenty of industries in the past.
Meanwhile, the Independent celebrates Mises's contribution to the theory of money and explanation of the business cycle - an article I can't even imagine in the U.S. mainline press, which perhaps the U.S. has already nationalized.
Comments (7)
JustWondering
Where could I find more information about the 1940 Nationalization of banks in Europe?
Published: October 13, 2008 10:08 PM
Jeff
Probably not the best place to post this question...
But what of all of the Credit Unions in this country?
Published: October 13, 2008 10:27 PM
Chad Rushing
Regarding Jeff's question, I recently read a column online which stated that credit unions in general were in a much better position than traditional banks right now, their non-profit nature having caused them to be more cautious with lending and less generous with executive pay over the past several years. The article also went so far as to suggest that individuals should consider switching over to one if one is available.
Note that I have been using the same credit union for the past 12 years or so, and I have never had any problems with them whatsoever. It might be worth looking into one in your area and/or related to your employer.
P.S. I just found the link to that article I mentioned above:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121978460014474069.html?mod=PersonalFinance99_1
Published: October 14, 2008 12:56 AM
Walt D.
I remember a cynical taunt to "law and order fanatics" from British comedian David Frost - :" the best way to stop crime paying is to nationalize it!"
Published: October 14, 2008 2:23 AM
ariel eric robedizo
There is no question on the nationalization or centralization of finance capital into the hands of a few financial oligarchies and bureaucrat capitalist, it is in the nature of capitalist economic system that runs on principle of private ownership and maximization of profit to follow its own course of evolutionary development. However, since capitalistic production system is based on private ownership, the characteristic of the mode of production revolts against the very foundation of its life.
While the general mode of production is public in the sense that it is run by collective labor force it contradicts the way the economic system is being managed through private ownership. The disharmony is inherent to the very foundation of the economy because the management of the economy by private motives is liable to pursue excessiveness through over production of goods, too much commerce, too expeculation (supply and demand ratio), too much issuance of money in the circulations (liquidity/illiquidity), all these complexity contributes to the over all crisis of the capitalist mode of production...
Published: October 14, 2008 2:31 AM
JustWondering
I asked about the 1940 Nationalization of European banks not to promote it but to gain further knowledge of what happened afterward and how productivity and the value of the currencies was impacted.
Published: October 14, 2008 8:19 AM
Book 'em Danno
Ariel,
All motives are private; only means may be public or private. Therefore, all public means are driven by private motives. Granted, private motives are prone to excess now and again. But public means are created out of coercive actions and have the negative results that you seem to be trying to rectify. Real private ownership- free of state involvement of any kind- has better cancelling-out features. Private vice is denied access to society as a whole when it is denied the corporative power of the state.
Published: October 14, 2008 9:32 AM