Trader's Blog Contest For April

"Do You Think The Government Should Nationalize Banks"

Just answer... Yes, No, or Don't Care (specific opinions optional)  to be entered in a drawing for the prize below.


Winner will receive 2 FREE months of MarketClub and 2 hardback books on valuation, risk and investment courtesy INO TV. Whether you are already a member or not, you will receive 2 FREE month with no catch.

2 FREE Months of MarketClub (+$100 Value)

How To Enter:

Comment on this post telling us if you think if you think the government should nationalize banks. Just write YES or NO, but feel free to voice your opinion... just keep it clean and remember that there is only one entry per person.


1. This contest is open until 11:59 PM on April 30th, 2009.

2. No wrong answers, any participation counts as an entry.

3. One entry per email address.

4. Winner will be picked by random integer software.

5. Winner will be contacted on Thursday, May 4th, 2009 via email.

Good luck!

278 thoughts on “Trader's Blog Contest For April

  1. No. It would only add to the EXCESSIVE CONTROL of the central government.

  2. No. However, more realistic ground-rules must be set up and put
    in place. Rules not too unlike the Canadian Banks which are weathering this storm quite well.

  3. Yes, policies tending toward privatization and deregulation over the last two and a half decades is now shown to be bad policy. Though no guarantee, nationalization may help to provide faith and stability.

  4. No the banks should not be nationalized, because the government has enoughcontrol over our lives already. I think that they should be strictly regulated....

  5. No, I'm already unhappy with all the GOV. intervention & B/S.
    I.O.U.S.A. Is in such debt, we can't raise enough cash through
    TAXES to even pay the interest on that debt, let alone pay the
    principal. I belive the whole system is destined to FAIL!

  6. My answer is YES, very strong YES (for falling banks)
    Now I explain why cuz I see that most ppl here said NO. I think nobody realize that GOV wont allow to fail any bank even if going to bankrupt. Our Gov will bail out that bank with our money (read TAX) & after some time again will allow exist lake normal & lake never anything happened. Im not happy of that if any bank will be rescue by GOV if they screw up & now they in trouble. In that case those banks should be nationalised or took over by other banks (without GOV "help"). Someone wrote that GOV bank could freeze our money if they will need, then what about private banks ?? They cant do it that ?? Of course they can, if worst scenario they wont pay back even a penny. If we will be lucky then will get some money back from GOV cuz banks R "secured" & WHO WILL BE AGAIN PAY FOR THAT ??

  7. No, because the process of attaining an efficient system to make the financial system earn profits and is altered by the government which lack the skill set or the political will to originate loans that would be profitable.

  8. I think they should. This bankers with all the degrees they have and all the years of experience they cant run a bank atleast the government is not going to do the same thing they did and take our tax money to give themselves bonuses with our money!!!!!!!!!!!!

  9. The taxpayers should not subsides banks.The banks that were not diligent with their money should fail like any other businesses. Showering them with the money that come from the FED printing presses
    will only prolong depression and devalue the dollar.
    Nationalization of the bank will increase the burden on the
    taxpayers that already struggling with paying their debts and everyday living expenses.The goverment cannot rescue everyone.It cannot rescue banks,car makers,real estate, health care and etc. If they will continue in this direction the question will be who will rescue the goverment?


  11. No. We have more than enough socialist controls over us now. When are the people going to wake up?

  12. The recent hearings on TV prove without a doubt that the people in Congress are incapable of running any business. Their lack of any insight is amazing. We need to go back to our founding fathers ideas and reinstate term limits. Imagine the money we would save not providing unbelievable healthcare and retirement benefits to the winners of popularity contests, the sole objective of getting re-elected and no interest in doing the best for the poor sob's that elected them. In a word--hell NO we should not let these people anywhere near the banks--they are already being run by thieves.

  13. Yes as then there might be less problems in the future and also better control of Banks exploiting people.

  14. Yes definitely we should nationalize the Federal reserve, or ABOLISH it, and put the TREASURY DEPARTMENT in charge. Also, quit printing FEDERAL RESERVE Notes, and start printing only UNITED STATES NOTES. Kennedy PRINTED UNITED STATES NOTES by executive order. No debt to the international bankers. I have some examples of those red seal 2 and 5 dollar United States Notes. The bankers killed him for that, because they cannot charge the slaves interest on them. Johnson quit printing such terrible things.
    Why are we in debt to the international bankers for printed paper money? Would you be in debt if you controled a printing press for money?
    Sounds like a HUGGGGGGGGGGGE scam to me. And now, they want more control over people's lives. Money doesn't get them off anymore. Power and control, worshiping the Devil, and the big CON, does.
    Old man Bush let it slip one day when he didn't think it was public. Asked what would the people do if they really knew what they were doing behind the scenes. He said something to the effect; "they would torture us until we were dead, and take everything we and our children own."
    The treasury Department should have control of the distribution of money, rather than the privately owned Federal Reserve Bank, with its secret owners and locked doors, who have never been audited by the Treasury. Its a BEAST! And it is eating our lunch!

    You hungry enough to do something about it yet?

    Ron Paul Revolution!

    1. hello Ron

      I see that U know what U talking about & educate URself properly. wish if we know each other cuz will have HOURS to talk about it what U wrote here, I think not many ppl know true about all this ****.

      wish U all best

  15. YES until the law is changed, do not count on that!!! we need new blood in congress.

  16. No, this credit / banking issue was caused by legislation approved by Bill Clinton which made it easy for someone to buy a home for much, much more than they could afford (P.S. I personally am OK with this part), when you combine that with the AAA rating of these loans that were being traded like hotcakes (this I think is a big part of the problem), you end where we are today. Banks should loan and trade, let the government do their main job, make helpful laws and uphold them. When they make bad decisions here - we the people pay for them (the real issue was not - per say in making it OK to approve these loans – as I agree with Clinton here, but to ignore the fact that the banks will treat them all equally when trading them is irresponsible. The government could have instead helped these banks by allowing them to approve these loans, but require them to deem these loans as more risky based on the fact that the loan would actually be 95% of debtor’s true income or whatnot). Don't blame Obama or Bush, this started with Clinton's "affair" shall we say, and then the banks blew this up because they treated or understood all of these loans as AAA). The housing / mortgage industry (as the post office) is currently "government"… so don’t be surprised when this all comes to pass with the banking system (unless we Americans do something about this!), but be prepared to live like in post war East Germany if we do nothing (banking is one thing too valuable for our freedom that we can’t let the government control! We need pro-debtor, pro money-in-American’s-pockets policy in Washington! When they say Obama won't raise taxes... that will be harder and harder to believe when we are paying higher taxes because of this continued, unabated spending. And taxes, doesn’t anyone remember the story of England and why “Americans” wanted to escape in the first place? My state is already close to approving these higher taxes to make up for this "surprise” “inherited" debt issue we knew nothing about during the election. Talk about broken campaign promises and passing the buck. We Americans have known that our government was approving pork for years – remember the $1,000,000 space toilet? No wonder the world hates us. We should have just split that trillion between us and called it a day! I know at least that way I could get a better education, or afford to go to the doctor. Don’t count on a world where we live in a Utopia like Russia unless you want to live like they do in Russia – socialism doesn’t work. I say in some ways who better than to fail than the big banks (which did not manage risk properly) and out of touch auto companies that wiggled through regulations to make more SUVs when Toyota was selling more Priuses than the world famous Escalades, 150s or 15mpg Vans (when the new Sprinter gets 20+mpg). The auto companies failed because they felt the unrelenting prosperity will continue indefinitely in the face of rising home prices, steady or lower wages, and higher gas prices. With $2 or less gas they now seem to be in a perfect position, but they still can’t sell because of one thing - less value for the money! Who wants the hybrid Ford fusion that gets 35 mpg for $30K+ when the Prius gets 45 mpg at $22K (and has much more room and has better fit and finish – Fusion says highest mpg for it’s class - my A@s). They have a technique in China, that’s called coping best selling products. Why do these big 3? 2? want to keep doing it their own (worse) way? You’d think I’m an anti-American bigot, but I’m just a (dare I say) intelligent, hard worker, that doesn’t want to throw away my money. The new 2010 Honda Insight and Prius get more like 50mpg, so don’t be surprised if America has a 45 mpg hybrid out around 2012 that costs $22K (don’t those specs sound familiar)? If all I did was light $100 bill cigars I’d buy the (basically 2 seater that can’t fit my 6’5” frame) $40K Chevy Volt, but instead I’ll stay in the real world buy a used 2000 + 4 seater Prius and advertise for Toyota to help them keep getting rich. Chevy (GM) READ THIS - sell a million of your Volt at $22K and I’ll guarantee you’ll stay the world’s largest car company! No you don’t want that, you want to go bankrupt instead – oh I get it. And American car maker’s – Don’t cry that you can’t make cars this cheap - How does Toyota do it?! If you can’t make a Volt for $22K, then make a US-Prius-a-like for $19K. Again, people love American cars, American companies just rape us on the prices (the EV1 had its own movie for heaven’s sake). P.S. If some government official is reading this, please pass these ideas around - I’m looking for the job of Car Czar, email me.

  17. Yes - as long as this meant the shareholders and bondholders were wiped out in the process, assets were properly re-valued, management was changed and the restructured entity was later sold at a profit to taxpayers. This is what would happen in any other country in such a serious crisis.

    Wall St won't allow it as they don't want the extent of the huge mess they have created to be fully undressed in the public domain or to be interfered with in any significant manner. Wall St has bought and paid for Government, Obama included, so in the end they will get largely get what they want. You just watch.

  18. Absolutely not! The government should stick to insuring client deposits IF the banks were to go under, but not to prop them up. Let the free markets determine which banks should ultimately survive. What the government should also do (participate in) is establishing better rules by which banks can operate. Banks have a responsibility to their depositors (not just to their investors), therefore more stringent rules need to apply to banks in order to better protect the depositor.

  19. Definitely not, the America of today was built on "Anyone can become whomever they chose if they applied themselves and worked at it" I work with the feds there is no cost savings, they just spend...lowest bidder gets the projects regardless if they are able to do the work, If they can't the same project will be done and require tweaking with many more contracts to get what you had hoped to accomplish. Management does not have run the company to satisfaction of their shareholders but to whatever state the politician needs votes. Socialism is not the answer, and definitely not the banks. Nor anything else for that matter..let's all get this great country on top again and stop this BS

  20. no=yes jast to protect the interest of the customers with out interferance in the bank management.Then it will serve the purpose

  21. A. NO. There is no economic advantage to bank nationalization. Currently, the Government has the opportunity to recover its investment. The bank stock purchased will rise with the stock market. This rise will be ahead of the general economic recovery.

    B. Once solvent, the banks will 1) buy back the stock and the Government will benefit from tax free profits; 2)increase bank loans; and 3)this will increase the economic multiplier effect.

    C. How do we get from A to B? Effective and efficient management that is aware of the global economics. To paraphrase: manage locally, think globally.

  22. The banks are bankrupt at this time. There is no point in paying a penny for their stock. As private businesses they also owe the U.S.A. trillions in back interest, since 1913, as Rep. L. McFadden pointed out in addressing Congress in the 1920's. The bankers belong in prison for their 96yr old Ponzi scam, plus they must pay back all they have stolen from 1913 to 2009. The present gang in the White House should be indicted for even attempting to sell these bankrupt Banks to Congress. Congress will say NO, if they obey their oaths to the Constitution of the U.S.A., see "only gold and silver are legal tender", (paraphrased). Sincerely as I swear by our National Constitutional Contract, Doc Stump, I also SAY NO a Thousand Times No to the Madoff Gang Swindlers List!!!

  23. No, the government has no business taking over the banks. America runs on the principle of free enterprise. Let the failures fail, the survivors will pick up the business and move forward. It's worked for over 200 years and it will work now provided BHO and his socialist administration move out of the way.

  24. No! Nor do we need a government of a central banking system, by a central banking system, and for a central banking system. We need to return my country to government of the people, by the people and for the people--of the United States of America, not of the World Trade Organization, NAU, the Bilderbergers and other NGOs who run my nation from offshore now. Decentralize the banks, and abolish the Federal Reserve System since it was never legal in the first place.

  25. the idea could be intriguing in an ideal world but i don't trust the government to run anything well, even the government!

  26. No, It's America, how can this big country like America nationalized bank? it is ok if in China. just let the the weak fall, and the stonr survive. it's the risk of business.

  27. NO! The federal government should NOT be engaged in directly managing private businesses. Unfortunately, the current administration is headed towards a form of socialism and apparently is opting to promote "a one-world, one-currency" policy. We will rue the day we elected BHO!

  28. No. Do we really want to perpetuate, even entrench, the smoke and mirrors "reality" with further Federalization? Do we really want to expose the intra and intergovernmental caprices which have already helped stage the current crises locally and globally? Can we count on no conspiracy and complicity by the insiders with knowledge of or access to the "Truth" without immunity or amnesty? Can this be done without full international cooperation? And were we to actually arrive at the bottom line, the naked and exposed system before us, what would we and what could we do? Perhaps a socioeconomic New World Order would emerge, sooner rather than later.

    I don't have the answers; I do have some of the questions.

    And now I need to piss in a different direction as the wind, as it is wont to do, is shifting.

  29. No,
    However some level of control is needed to reduce the chances of this kind of mess happening again but nationalising the banks should be seen as a last option.

  30. NO.

    Our present Central Bank, the Federal Reserve Bank (FRB), is a private banking cartel, not responsible to the Congress, whose membership is secret, and it controls money and credit in our economy which is a far cry from a free-market economy.

    The FRB is responsible for the Great Depression, the bubble/bust economy we are living in, the current meltdown and the inflation of the money supply that has devalued our dollar 98% since the inception of the FRB.

    "The decrease in purchasing power incurred by holders of money
    due to inflation imparts gains to the issuers of money..."
    -- Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
    Source: Review, Nov. 1975, p.22

    So, in a sense, we already have a nationalized banking system because the U.S. Congress chartered the Federal Reserve Bank. And the record of the FRB is absolutely terrible.

    So, when I say "NO" to nationalizing banks I'm also saying "NO" to the present system of letting our money and credit be controlled by the private banking cartel known as the Federal Reserve Bank.

    "This Act (the Federal Reserve Act, Dec. 23rd 1913) establishes the
    most gigantic trust on earth. When the President (Woodrow Wilson) signs
    the Bill, the invisible government of the Monetary Power will be
    legalised... The worst legislative crime of the ages is perpetrated
    by this banking and currency Bill."
    -- Charles A. Lindbergh, Sr.
    (1859-1924) Congressman (R-MN), father of famous aviator
    Source: his book, Banking and Currency and The Money Trust, 1913

Comments are closed.