The word being thrown around by the media is NATIONALIZATION. What does that mean exactly? Is the government nationalizing the banks?
The technical answer doesn't really matter, because opponents to the bailout (recovery act, TARP, stimulus) have convinced the public that the government is, in fact, nationalizing the banks.
They don't need to elaborate on this. The details only muddy the message. A recent New Republic article by Noam Scheiber said,
"Money aside, the question of nationalization poses serious complications of its own. Even defining the concept is maddeningly difficult. At the broadest level, it implies the government would own the banks and nurse them to health before presumably selling them off. What no one knows--and few people specify--is what ownership would mean as a practical matter. Would the government involve itself in day-to-day management? Would it wipe out current shareholders and own the banks entirely, or would it be satisfied with a majority stake? Would nationalization be more like temporary seizure--that is, honestly accounting for bad assets and injecting new capital, then privatizing as quickly as possible?"
People are are busy. I image most people not directly involved in this (which is most of us) are saying things like, "If event the experts are sure how to define it and what it means, then believing it is nationalization isn't incorrect. And nationalization sounds bad. I am against."
Obama has been tactically outflanked because words matter and simple ideas resonate.
Republican 1. Obama 0.
No comments:
Post a Comment