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 - However, they should be regulated and monitored to avoid the type of dealings that got us into the current mess.

  2. No, governments have no place in private enterprise. If the bank/s is not healthy enough to survive then they will fall by the wayside.

  3. I think the market place should decide who fails and who doesn't because that's the basis of the US commercial system. However governments can and should set minimum regulation that prevent the lending excesses of the past.

  4. Absolutely not. Traders don't get bailed out of bad trades and neither should investors who have invested in bad banks.

    "The problem with Socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money." Margaret Thatcher

  5. NO. The government stagecoach is running out of control the way it is. We the People need to pull back the riens.

  6. NO. As far as I can tell the Government created the housing bubble by keeping intrest rates low and promoting low income loans to unqualified buyers. Socialism doesn't work, just look at Europe.

  7. Definitely NOT. This would only shift Private losses to Public ownership and benefit the bank's bondholders who would then lose nothing. If the banks fail the losses should be borne by the shareholders and bondholders alike - not the US public. The only role for Government here is to ensure DEPOSITORS funds are protected.


  9. No

    Or rather, hell, no. Banks can squander our cash, but what about public audits of givernments? The EU has never had its accounts signed off, they are so bent. They had a commissioner (Neil Kinnock) whose job was to INCREASE fraud, which he did by sacking a whistle-blower.

    Governments running banks? Never.

  10. NO, let the free markets weed out the mismanaged and allow the well managed to prevail.

  11. YES. Nationalize some of them. And, IMMEDIATELY FIRE all members of the Board of Directors and Officers of these incompetent banks.

  12. Yes, just to convert a few into goverment banks. To solve the problem quickly.

  13. No - Everyone else wrote the reason why shouldn't..... No need to repeat it...... Now if congress and senate would only listen!

  14. No No No I am not one that wants or expects someone else to be responsible for me or my well being and I do not want to be responsible for some one else's mistakes nor do I expect to profit from their work without my own input.. I just want the opportunity to build and grow for my self in a free market society.

  15. If the banks had been nationalized as the forerunner to the Republican Party wanted in the 1830s we wouldn't be in the mess we are today. It was the Democratic Comgress and President Jackson who insisted on private banking. And so what did the Democrats give up but CitiBank! Hail to real Republicans of the 19th century!

  16. No,the Government should not nationalize the banks.However they can influence banks policies through appointing a representative on the directors board.

  17. YES, I believe nationalised banks have and do work well, but I'd only be for it as a temporary solution. It alllows better scrutiny of the banks and management and at times arguably a tighter more scrutunised control of managament and actions needs to be taken. I think overall it would produce a fairer solution, less costly ojn the taxpayer and less "profitable" for "managament".
    I do believe in the longer term more "control" via regulation (and not self regulation) is necessary.

  18. Are we really, really Nationalizing the Banks OR are we really Privatizing the Treasury?

    Where else, in modern times across the industialized nations of this world, can we find instances of commercial banks "drawing" such hugh sums of money from the national Treasury at will!

    Frank Barone
    Alexandria, VA.

  19. Yes. Follow the Swedish plan. But only for the largest institutions.

    Ultimate safe liquidity is the objective and mantra; not permanent nationalization.

  20. No, beause nationalization is an initiation of force against the only source of human values -> The Individual! Values are those things we choose to act to obtain or to act to keep. Having the government (i.e. those minds with power over us in government) able to counterfeit has reduced the purchasing power of our dollar by over 96% since the 1930's. . . yes the power to force is the power to tax is the power to destroy.

  21. The Constitution orders "gold and silver" and "no bills of credit", therefore' yes, the media of exchange belongs to the Nation! The federal reserve is responsible for their gambling with "our media of exchange" since 1913. They must pay their monetary obligations, their "bail out" of jail money!! Rep. McFADDIN POINTED OUT MANY YEARS AGO THAT THE FEDERAL RESERVE OWES INTEREST to the U.S. under the original agreement, the FR Act. The Fed owes the people of the U.S. quadrillions in interest since 1913. The banks should not be "bailed out of jail", they must be sent to prison. The last two Treasury Sec leading the bankers and the FRB boys.!!! Doc Stump

  22. Yes i think they should as even though it may put the country in debt it is better than letting the banks go through this recession without any help. Even though in a free capitalist market intervention is the wrong thing to do but if no help is given to the banks then they will take longer to recover and ergo this will mean that the economy will suffer and will be in a recession/depression for longer, which as everyone knows is not a good thing!

  23. yes.i think the government should nationalise the banks to protect the interest of the customers and this is the only mean they can strengthen the economy. But, one thing should be avoided is political interferance in the bank management.Then it will serve the purpose

  24. No. Government intervention = higher taxes, and redistribution of wealth to the rich (look who got their billions in bonuses and pay outs - executives who were proven managers - some change!).

  25. NO !!!

    This statement - "The possiblility that fanancial markets might not stabilize represents a major source of downside risk" (US Government - Congressional Budget Office) - proves that POLITICIANS have NO IDEA what they are doing.

    Nationalize Banks = More Politicians = Deeper Mess.

  26. No, but I'm ok with regulations that serve to protect the general public, but I don't beleive our constituion was intended to allow a nationalization of banks. I'm definintely opposed to it.

  27. Hell, no. Growing up in England after the war, the Labor Govt. came into power and nationalized all industry - steel, railways, manufacturing of all kinds - resulting in shoddy work product, complete breakdown of the English pride in their work, and end result being the "Brain Drain" of all intellectuals leaving the country.



  29. No they should not nationalize. Freedom results from people who experience the forces of human nature and survive. Nationalization, then Socialism, then the rapid decline of the most powerful country in the world.

  30. NO! NO! Government officials are too late to save the public from the greedy _______, and, being greedy themselves, react (seeking reelection) to public sentiment hoping to curry favor with voters. Window dressing - "I need to look goo-oo-d."

  31. Technically I think nationalization could work, but practically I don't think the US government should do it. The two alternatives for any government seem to be either they regulate industry by setting boundaries and standard operating procedures, or go all the way and manage it. I think that in theory, either could work.

    But if the government is ineffective at regulation, it already shows that it either doesn't understand the industry or doesn't have the will to protect the public, or both. So if it can't do that, then what makes anyone think that taking a significant role in managing it will produce better results?

    It seems to me that one primary reason the government can't, or won't, do either with effectiveness is that they are being influenced by greed for money and power and/or idealism that demands a high degree of control of society in order to reach their objectives, rather than being motivated by a belief that in time people can work for their overall better good.

  32. NO. They should be allowed to fail. No one would bail out my company if I managed it poorly. Outrageous management pay to companies nose diving.

    Let them fail!

  33. No the government should stay out of private Enterprise. Action like nationalization is another step closer to Communism

  34. NO. See all the damage that the pseudo-national Fed banks have already caused. There is nothing in it for use regular folks, only for the "Friends" of the politicians (e.g. Sen. Dodd, Barney Franks, et al...).

  35. Absolutely not. The government is already trying to do too much, and is already way to far in debt. The strong banks will survive, and the waak ones can fail.

  36. No, they should not be nationalized but regulated if in fact they get so big that they cannot fail without causing a major socioeconomic disaster. We regulate monopolies in other industries, why not banking? The banks should be of a size the they can fail when they make poor investments like any other industry. The problem is that some of them got far too big. Any business, under normal circumstances, should fail in the free market if it is run in such a way so as to merit it.

  37. NO as you see big bank buy small bank during this year. They expand so many branch in big city such as chicago. Every Bank open so many branch to get more customer and make comercial real estate price up up up. It's mean they make money. Gov must find the real reason why they need bailout. So this year I have found new 5 to 10 bank open in chicago.

  38. NO of course N O T !

    it is the biggest rig job I have ever seen in history. the one's doing the bailing out are the same ones responsible. it is called "Hegelian dialectic" where they create the problem, there is a reaction in the market or population etc etc, and the same bankster white collar criminals offer "a" solution that further serves themselves. it is out right criminal and many people in the general public are oblivious to the shell game they play.

    to make a comparison, it is like a forest fire. if you let the under brush burn now, you save the forest later because it cleans out all the dead underbrush. instead, they are putting out the underbrush fire which can only mean the entire forest will burn down later!

    get ready for the so called "new world oder" the Bushtler announced 11SEPT1991 (pay close attention to the date and time) 9-10am on the house and senate floor which will be coming to a town near you, soon.

  39. No, the banks should not be nationalized. What must be done is to get rid of the debt. By letting inflaiton take its course, this should not be a problem in the medium-long term.

  40. You are kidding, right? United Socialist States of America!! USSA We are all entitled to life,liberty and the pursuit of taxpayer funded bailouts. NOT

  41. Yes. There is no reason for bank's and usury agents to exist at all. If the Federal government can print at the keystroke of a computer billions of dollars to bail them out, while actual businesses that provide goods and services go begging, why not give the money direct to the businesses and forgo the banking system entirely. They are the classic middle man markup. Lower interest or no interest means that the products do not have to carry the profit to pay back and interest charge to a banker. Therefore, you have the lowest possible price.

    1. Make the financing of business subject to only the application of a business to a government type institution and eliminate interest altogether. Instead of a usury agent like a banker, the finance worker is paid a standard government salary to evaluate the application, and funds are given interest free to the business owner with a primary equity stake in the business reserved by the government. If the business succeeds, the tax revenue from its profit, and payroll will pay back more than the loan. For example a restaurant that may take a $250,000 capital injection to start would employ 10 people. If the business grows and succeeds, it's employees will pay taxes in the future, and if the business is sold, the original funds can be paid back to loan out again interest free. If the business fails, then at least some people were employed. A much better downside than the current demise of the capital Madoff Ponzi Banking system.

    There would be no backroom bonus for eliminating a bunch of jobs in a takeover, running Madoff schemes, CDO Ponzi instruments etc. Just a government paycheck for looking at the proposal and putting it into the computer to spit out the money directly to the business entrepeneur.

    2. The government currently gives grants to all sorts of "non profit" groups, and state governments. These intermediate and inefficient agencies merely suck down money for the middle man again. Each contstruction job of the state is eventually over. Why not go direct to business.

    Oh, yes, too much greed by the Masters of Business Arrogance who figured out the current meltdown......

  42. no .An agency should monitor the lending method so that they
    do not become toxic in the long run.

  43. I would not like to see all the banks nationalised. What is happening around he world to prevent a bad situation getting worse seems to be right just now. I do object to tax payers money being used for bonuses and pensions though.

  44. No with taxes money.

    If the want they can start a public voluntary subscription to save the banks with problem, politics can lead the way giving so example. The donations' records should be public allowing people to know how generous the political, financial, show business, etc classes are with their own money.

    Of course I can't believe this can happen, but I think it's a better idea than the bailouts they have in mind.

  45. No!
    The existing laws against monopolies should be strictly enforced.
    If they had been, none of this would have happened.

  46. No the 5 banks with approx 200 TRILLION in derivative exposures should be allowed to go bancrupt if they are insolvent.

  47. YES !!!!

    The banks are already Nationalized right NOW as of April 4, 2009 and we are already in a Depression.

    Pity people do not get it. The government has come OUT and said on "record" saying they do not intend to NATIONALIZE THE BANKS.

    What did Paulson tell the public back in March 2008..."Everything is all right." LYing through his teeth.

    5 million unemployed ( the real number is 10 million, the gov't has been lying about their stats since Regan came on the scene as especially since Bush senior). By end of this real unemployment is going to reach 10 million ( with the real unreported figures at 20-25 million).

    America is already in a "Depression." just nobody is saying it!!!!

    Nationalize the banks and get over this "dog and pony show."


  48. Yes..!!
    Otherwise (you can see it happening before your very owen eyes!) the USA will never get out of the problems...


    If we had 5 to 10 banks, maybe, but with hundreds of banks -- no way!
    And then the real problem. Banks controled by semi-crooked politicians who sell our votes out to lobbiest for a few thousand shekels by way of contribution funds. Or per Pelosi to here children's and husbands affiliated businesses,Obama's fancy deal for discounted property subdivision by phony tax writ offs by developers, cold cash in the frig,house extensions by Stevens who gets off because a phony note turns up saying he wanted "to be billed for everything" by his contractor, Barny, Sharpton, ecetera, etcetera. No wonder 2nd tier government guys like our Treasury Sec. can't (won't) even use a "Turbo Tax" to pay their Taxes. How many leave Millionaires after their stint in Congress?????? No,too much self serving by government hirelings!!!!

  50. The Federal Government has acted decidedly in the interests of the banks. Bank actions have been decidedly in the interests of their senior executives and Boards of Directors. It would appear that the Government should act to take control of the banks and have them responsive to the interests of the market, but since government actions continue to serve the interests of banks and their executives I would suggest that voters simply boycott their banks and perhaps their governments. The market must find a better way, a source of financial services that serves their own interests. In response, their government find a way to serve the voters interests.

  51. No.

    but we should "nationalize" the federal reserve. The whole system should be resetet beginning with the fed.

  52. It's already the case no?

    My answer to your question is obviously Yes. They are too big to exist but also too big to fail.
    Nationalizee, restructure the banks into smaller units and resell them quickly.

  53. No. Bank failure, while painful, is part of the process of purging the system of unwise monetary custodians.

  54. No, but a few have been quasi nationalized already, C, BAC. Even if they did fail, the government would set up its own bank to take these big behomoth's place!

  55. No nationalized banks. The government (ie: politicians/Congress) is the worst when it comes to running a business. How many reports have we heard in the past of some government agency overpaying subcontractors by millions for shoddy work or products? It doesn't matter if the Dems are in control of Congress [as currently] or the Reps control [as was the case over 7 of of the last 8 years], none of them are business men/women - they all know how to spend money, but not how to control it. If they owned their own business, they would be quickly out of business. Which is what it looks like will happen to the US government at this rate.

  56. Definitely Not!

    Alan Greenspan intentionally set interest rates at incredibly low levels after the 9/11 attacks. This encouraged lenders to lend out money using all sorts of creative financing packages. It also encouraged borrowers to borrow money from the lenders because of the cheaper money. These policies lead to the continued devaluation of the U.S. Dollar and the U.S. housing crisis which have been the main drivers behind most of the economic problems we are currently seeing.

    Geithner wants us to believe that giving the Federal Reserve and the rest of this private banking system more power is what’s needed to resolve all of the economic problems that were caused by the central bankers themselves. How stupid does Geithner and the rest of the global elite think we are? We have a historical track record of central bankers creating economic problems and bringing in phony solutions to expand their control. We need decentralization and free markets to resolve the economic problems that have been created by these people, not more centralized power.

    If all of this wasn’t bad enough, Jim Tucker from the American Free Press speaking on the Alex Jones show today stated that one of his Bilderberg sources revealed to him that the global elite are planning to push forward their cashless society grid agenda with the use of implantable microchips. The implantable microchips would be sold as a way for people to easily move through the militarized control grid that they’ve setup via the bogus terror war. Tucker also mentioned that we would see the media hyping the phony terror war and specifically the phony “white Al-Qaeda terror threat” as a way for them to continue the justification of the enslavement grid. Assuming Tucker’s Bilderberg source is providing accurate information, this agenda that Geithner is pushing in his Financial Times article is right in line with their well documented plans to get rid of cash. The central bankers would need a global regulatory framework for the banking system so they can move closer to a global currency operating in a cashless society.

    This is some incredibly scary stuff. Of course there was not one word of the 2008 Bilderberg Meeting in any major U.S. media outlets. The corporate controlled media maintained a blackout on any coverage of this incredibly important yearly meeting of the global elite. It is pathetic when citizen journalists like the ones at InfoWars, PrisonPlanet and RogueGovernment provide the best coverage of what is one of the most important geopolitical meetings of the year. Either way, the commentary from Geithner as well as the information from Tucker’s Bilderberg source seems to indicate that the global elite are getting ready to further centralize the banking system in order to establish their one world cashless society grid. These criminals must be exposed and their system of global corruption and tyranny must be defeated. Let’s tell these bastards that they can take their cashless society grid and their implantable microchips where the sun don’t shine.

  57. No to government. That's the beauty of "FREE" Enterprise. You have the " freedom " to succeed and also to " FAIL !".

  58. No-- nationalization of banks means more laws and regulation, less free markets , the less oportunity for the middle class to own a home, car, ect., and a more stife economy

  59. NO! NO! NO!
    They should buy back the federal reserve Instead Then banks might have a chance of surviving

  60. Yes. As Perrin, above, tries to explain nationalizing the banks is, ironically, the best solution for the market.

  61. No. We need bank supervision by independent organization like Fed Res. Sys. - independent from exec and legislation branches.

  62. A BIG NOOOOO!!!!! Government has no business interfering with private business unless that business is doing things against the law. Let pivate business correct itself.

  63. yes
    i came from a country that all the banks were natinalized and atleast they don't fall and every thing is managed very well but it can not be done here because of psychology of us here it can not be done

  64. No. The free market system should be allowed to cull the dead and worthless. Maybe the boards and executive management would take their roles more seriously.

  65. No. They're all worthless. We need term limits and a flat tax. What a bunch of goof-balls!

  66. NO
    Because this is only a temporary solution and may result in more problems in the future.

  67. NO. However something needs to be done, so we don't have same situation for our future generation.

  68. Yes, We can't fight what the book of Revelation(prophecy) and what is to come on this earth. So let it come, chose the God of abraham,Isaac,and Jacob make right choices according to the Torah and everything will be alright, weather a believer lives or dies,..................................... Ultamately. Just don't have the character traits of Revelation 21:8

  69. Yes.
    Without paying anything either to the shareholders or creditors.Creditors and equityholders has to loose for making a bad investment decision.This will also save tax payers money.Once nationalised the government will run and manage the banks as new entities without taking over any liabilites.

  70. No they shouldnt, suck in the deflation and let the stronger banks emerge...

  71. No. Let the non performing banks fail. That way we know the rotten from the good ones.

  72. no they should not, let em fail and let the free markets and innovators solve themselves out. Let the guys who can really think up an economy finally come to the table and get it adopted. I may also add that banking in the ME (Islamic Banking, one's without usury) are the soundest banking principles around that actually help society prosper rather than only the specific bourgous (sp?) select.

  73. absolutely not.let the market shake itself out.there is very little and next to nothing the government does that ever works out for the american people,unless your robbing peter to pay paul....peter gets the shaft and paul gets the holiday.

  74. No.....We do not need that yet besides all the trash being handed out by a so called new change. My gun stays with me and get out of my business.

  75. I will follow the trend, No - It will be an enormous mistake however, isn't the Government already the owner of some?

  76. No ...... Don't bail them out. Let them fail. While we are sitting around waiting to see the results, we can hold an investigation as to what caused the current crisis to begin with and who were responsible. We could look deeper into the Senate Banking Committee and their decisions, Fannie May and maybe Citibank. .......... Wait a minute,I've gotta go. I'm due back on the planet earth.

  77. NO NO NO NOONONONONONONnnnnnn.......ooooooo!!
    from the SEC who who put their stamp of approval on Madoff
    To congress who bailed out AIG....
    But by all means let the government get some competent INDEPENDENT professionsals to provide "oversight" for the money we are pouring in to keep them afloat!!

  78. no, they should be forced to write down their losses and start and clean up their slate, if they need to close down their doors, so be it. No need to saddle our future with the outrsageous amount of debt being issued to support them.

  79. No.Zero rate for morgtages.Zero rate for credit cars.Zero rate for cars.This way USA will survive.

    1. NO to nationlizing the banks but, the real problem is high interest rates.Govt., may fix the maximum interest rate to say 6% APR!

  80. No.Zero rate for mortgages.Zero rate for credit cards.Zero rate for cars.This way USA will survive.

  81. Yes. They may need to nationalize the largest banks, but not regional banks.

    They should take over the banks that present a true threat to a complete meltdown that may cause civic unrest. CC, BAC.

    They should take 100% ownership position and dilute the common shareholders.

    A panic in the system at this point would probably take us to DOW 4K too fast. DOW 4K is our last last line of defense in terms of TA on the DOW.

    I do think the Administration should let the free market work out the prices in the housing market.

    This Mark -to- Market accounting rule change will make it very difficult for the Government to purchase these bad assets off from these banks. Why would the bank sell those assests at a lost when a bank can keep carrying over unrealized losses forever....

    The banks will be able to create their own assest values and force the Government who will use our tax money to pay inflated prices for junk.. The Gov won't be able to sell those same assets anytime soon to investors.. so those assests will sit deteriorating and not being properly utilized.

    Not to mention that private investors will never pay market value for these assets. Private investors are not going to pay POST 2007 prices for bad assets... Private investors are looking for exceptional deals now. 40% - 70% write offs.

    This would create an accounting nightmare. I strongly thought Sarbanes Oxley was created in 2002 for fair accounting... They are planning games with the accounting practices.. With this rule change, We won't know what any of these companies are truly worth.. Most are worth $0 at this point.. Starting with AIG, C, GM.. Soon BAC..

    This is a recipe for complete disaster. I guess we will wait and see how the market will be manupilated in the near term. DOW Futures are up. Let's see if we can create a new high on tomorrow..

  82. Absolutely bad idea. Goverment cannot run the business of fair taxation and wise spending of tax payers money. Running banks? it would be a disaster.

  83. NNNNNNNOOOOOOO!!!!!! IF this is 1984 I din't say that out loud. Whoops-big brother heard it anyway. NNNNNOOOOO!!!!

  84. No they shouldn't, but they will do what they're gonna do anyway....for better or worse....

  85. No! The government running banks is a bad idea, they can't run the Congress how do we trust them with the banks?

  86. No,They should be allowed to fail, that goes for other organizations too.

  87. YES - at least the ones that have a big impact on the economy. There are a some countries in the world that have a few nationalized banks doing very well.

  88. NO
    The federal government simply has no Constitutional authority to do so (but what do they care!!)

  89. I agree with Roubini who believes we should put the ZOMBIE banks in receivership like Sweden successfully did a few years back and let all other banks fend for themselves.

  90. Definitely not. But they should be monitored for dangerous deviations or investments.

  91. No, We have too many banks in this country.
    Let the strong live, the weak ones fail.

    1. No,but they need more regulation from government,however ike any other business they should be allowed to fail

Comments are closed.