Dealing With Bankrupt Banks: Nationalization or Welfare
The media continue to do more to misinform the public than to inform
them when it comes to plans for fixing the financial system. Following
the absolute worst in journalistic practices, a front page Washington Post article
explains the Obama administration's policy by telling readers that the
"approach reflects Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner's philosophy
of how governments should respond to financial crises."
Trees had to die for this garbage? The reality is that the reporters
have no clue as to what Timothy F. Geithner's philosophy of how
governments should respond to financial crises. The reporter knows what
Timothy F. Geithner told them, so why don't they just stick to passing
this information along to readers instead of speculating about his
innermost thoughts?
The excursion into philosophy deflects readers from the real issue.
Mr. Geithner wants to use taxpayer dollars to keep bankrupt banks in
business. In effect, he wants to tax teachers, fire fighters, and Joe
the Plumber to protect the wealth of the banks' shareholders and to pay
high salaries to their top executives. No readers of this piece would
understand that this is the process being described.
The Post editorial page carried on with this deception. An editorial on saving the banks
dismissed nationalization because it would involve the government in
running the banks. Then it discusses the idea of buying bad assets and
warns, "but there is a huge risk that the government would badly
overpay in the first place."
Actually, this is not a risk, this is the point. If the government
paid the market price for these assets the banks would be bankrupt and
we would be back to step 1, nationalization. The point of buying the
bad assets is to pay too much, so that the banks can get enough money
to stay solvent. (It is worth noting that deciding how much the
government will overpay, and to whom, also involves the government in
running the banks in a really big way.)
It would be nice if the Post and the rest of the media would report
honestly on the bank bailout and stop trying to conceal plans for a
massive redistribution of wealth to the bank shareholders and their top
executives.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
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 has always been 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, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
The media continue to do more to misinform the public than to inform
them when it comes to plans for fixing the financial system. Following
the absolute worst in journalistic practices, a front page Washington Post article
explains the Obama administration's policy by telling readers that the
"approach reflects Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner's philosophy
of how governments should respond to financial crises."
Trees had to die for this garbage? The reality is that the reporters
have no clue as to what Timothy F. Geithner's philosophy of how
governments should respond to financial crises. The reporter knows what
Timothy F. Geithner told them, so why don't they just stick to passing
this information along to readers instead of speculating about his
innermost thoughts?
The excursion into philosophy deflects readers from the real issue.
Mr. Geithner wants to use taxpayer dollars to keep bankrupt banks in
business. In effect, he wants to tax teachers, fire fighters, and Joe
the Plumber to protect the wealth of the banks' shareholders and to pay
high salaries to their top executives. No readers of this piece would
understand that this is the process being described.
The Post editorial page carried on with this deception. An editorial on saving the banks
dismissed nationalization because it would involve the government in
running the banks. Then it discusses the idea of buying bad assets and
warns, "but there is a huge risk that the government would badly
overpay in the first place."
Actually, this is not a risk, this is the point. If the government
paid the market price for these assets the banks would be bankrupt and
we would be back to step 1, nationalization. The point of buying the
bad assets is to pay too much, so that the banks can get enough money
to stay solvent. (It is worth noting that deciding how much the
government will overpay, and to whom, also involves the government in
running the banks in a really big way.)
It would be nice if the Post and the rest of the media would report
honestly on the bank bailout and stop trying to conceal plans for a
massive redistribution of wealth to the bank shareholders and their top
executives.
The media continue to do more to misinform the public than to inform
them when it comes to plans for fixing the financial system. Following
the absolute worst in journalistic practices, a front page Washington Post article
explains the Obama administration's policy by telling readers that the
"approach reflects Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner's philosophy
of how governments should respond to financial crises."
Trees had to die for this garbage? The reality is that the reporters
have no clue as to what Timothy F. Geithner's philosophy of how
governments should respond to financial crises. The reporter knows what
Timothy F. Geithner told them, so why don't they just stick to passing
this information along to readers instead of speculating about his
innermost thoughts?
The excursion into philosophy deflects readers from the real issue.
Mr. Geithner wants to use taxpayer dollars to keep bankrupt banks in
business. In effect, he wants to tax teachers, fire fighters, and Joe
the Plumber to protect the wealth of the banks' shareholders and to pay
high salaries to their top executives. No readers of this piece would
understand that this is the process being described.
The Post editorial page carried on with this deception. An editorial on saving the banks
dismissed nationalization because it would involve the government in
running the banks. Then it discusses the idea of buying bad assets and
warns, "but there is a huge risk that the government would badly
overpay in the first place."
Actually, this is not a risk, this is the point. If the government
paid the market price for these assets the banks would be bankrupt and
we would be back to step 1, nationalization. The point of buying the
bad assets is to pay too much, so that the banks can get enough money
to stay solvent. (It is worth noting that deciding how much the
government will overpay, and to whom, also involves the government in
running the banks in a really big way.)
It would be nice if the Post and the rest of the media would report
honestly on the bank bailout and stop trying to conceal plans for a
massive redistribution of wealth to the bank shareholders and their top
executives.