Stress-Testing Us!
So, before the government takes further steps to support the financial system, there will be a "stress test" to see how the biggest banks would do in an even weaker economy? I'll tell you who's being "stress tested." It's us.
If
the banks need more, we're told, the government might have to act. But
don't worry -- it won't be a government takeover. A takeover would be
"surprising," the head of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp told CBS
this week.
So, before the government takes further steps to support the financial system, there will be a "stress test" to see how the biggest banks would do in an even weaker economy? I'll tell you who's being "stress tested." It's us.
If the banks need more, we're told, the government might have to act. But don't worry -- it won't be a government takeover. A takeover would be "surprising," the head of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp told CBS this week.
It won't be a takeover, oh no, because a takeover would be bad. That's the drumbeat of the week.
Economist Paul Krugman makes the point that it's not entirely un-American to nationalize the banks. He's right. It's happened in the past. The bigger point is that even as the public -- and markets -- panic about nationalization via "takeover," our government has already actually nationalized much of banking. At least the risky part.
Taxpayers have already relieved banks of the risk of banking by recapitalizing the banks that squandered their capital and buying up or guaranteeing those banks' bad debts.
The "takeover" on the table now is the takeover of the profits part. That's the potential profit earned on taxpayer funds.
That's not scary socialism any more than privatizing profits while socializing risks is free market capitalism. It is giving taxpayers a fair deal. Instead of scaring us, government should be reassuring us of just that.
If it requires taking over banks for Americans to get value for their investment -- well -- that's what its going to take, they could say. Instead, I guess someone out there is hoping that as long as this terror talk about terrible "takeovers" keeps up, the public will be too stressed to figure out what's at stake.
Urgent. It's never been this bad.
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission from the outset was simple. To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It’s never been this bad out there. And it’s never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed and doing some of its best and most important work, the threats we face are intensifying. Right now, with just three days to go in our Spring Campaign, we're falling short of our make-or-break goal. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Can you make a gift right now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? There is no backup plan or rainy day fund. There is only you. —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
So, before the government takes further steps to support the financial system, there will be a "stress test" to see how the biggest banks would do in an even weaker economy? I'll tell you who's being "stress tested." It's us.
If the banks need more, we're told, the government might have to act. But don't worry -- it won't be a government takeover. A takeover would be "surprising," the head of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp told CBS this week.
It won't be a takeover, oh no, because a takeover would be bad. That's the drumbeat of the week.
Economist Paul Krugman makes the point that it's not entirely un-American to nationalize the banks. He's right. It's happened in the past. The bigger point is that even as the public -- and markets -- panic about nationalization via "takeover," our government has already actually nationalized much of banking. At least the risky part.
Taxpayers have already relieved banks of the risk of banking by recapitalizing the banks that squandered their capital and buying up or guaranteeing those banks' bad debts.
The "takeover" on the table now is the takeover of the profits part. That's the potential profit earned on taxpayer funds.
That's not scary socialism any more than privatizing profits while socializing risks is free market capitalism. It is giving taxpayers a fair deal. Instead of scaring us, government should be reassuring us of just that.
If it requires taking over banks for Americans to get value for their investment -- well -- that's what its going to take, they could say. Instead, I guess someone out there is hoping that as long as this terror talk about terrible "takeovers" keeps up, the public will be too stressed to figure out what's at stake.
So, before the government takes further steps to support the financial system, there will be a "stress test" to see how the biggest banks would do in an even weaker economy? I'll tell you who's being "stress tested." It's us.
If the banks need more, we're told, the government might have to act. But don't worry -- it won't be a government takeover. A takeover would be "surprising," the head of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp told CBS this week.
It won't be a takeover, oh no, because a takeover would be bad. That's the drumbeat of the week.
Economist Paul Krugman makes the point that it's not entirely un-American to nationalize the banks. He's right. It's happened in the past. The bigger point is that even as the public -- and markets -- panic about nationalization via "takeover," our government has already actually nationalized much of banking. At least the risky part.
Taxpayers have already relieved banks of the risk of banking by recapitalizing the banks that squandered their capital and buying up or guaranteeing those banks' bad debts.
The "takeover" on the table now is the takeover of the profits part. That's the potential profit earned on taxpayer funds.
That's not scary socialism any more than privatizing profits while socializing risks is free market capitalism. It is giving taxpayers a fair deal. Instead of scaring us, government should be reassuring us of just that.
If it requires taking over banks for Americans to get value for their investment -- well -- that's what its going to take, they could say. Instead, I guess someone out there is hoping that as long as this terror talk about terrible "takeovers" keeps up, the public will be too stressed to figure out what's at stake.