Heard that word a lot this weekend while listening to the radio. It was all about the US nationalizing debt and banks (Freddie Mac and Fanny Mae) and Cricket Christ knows what else. I got bad shivers every time I heard it.
Never thought that word -- nationalize -- would effect me like that.
I guess it's true what they say, profit is privatized, but loss is socialized.
The more I pay attention to the outside world, the more disturbed I get. Too bad focusing on work won't work to distract me.
5 comments:
Nationalism ... Socialism ... national ... socialism? That aside: 'cricket christ'-I like that phrase.
Freddy Mac and Fanny Mae used to be fully public entities. They're really being de-privatized.
AE -- Like I needed something else to worry about. Thanks.
Otis -- I know they were public, but they haven't been for our lifetime. Hell, for most of our parents' lifetime they've been private entities. They've been private for longer than they were public.
Calling them "de-privatized" doesn't make it any weirder or nerve wrecking.
Are you comfortable with what's happened/happening? I'd like to read what you have to say since you have a much (MUCH) stronger knowledge of economics that I do.
Comfortable isn't the right word. No. There are a lot of worrying trends in the economy.
But I try not to get too hung up on the labels. It's a truth that Americans need to come to grips with that a well run capitalist economy always has and always will require a lot of government intervention.
You're right, I shouldn't get hung up on labels. It's just that I never thought I'd hear of the US nationalizing things outside of Amtrack, and that was a long time ago. Up until recently, to me, nationalization took place in 3rd world countries after a coup, not in a nation with a fairly stable government. I was wrong.
As for the other, I guess then it comes down to how do we convince government to intervene or regulate things?
The Clinton administration didn't want to regulate credit default swaps, which played a large part in leading to the last two or so weeks.
It's pretty clear that the business leaders in a capitalistic economy don't want the government to intervene until things go bad, but what if the government doesn't want to intervene either because they're afraid they'll stifle growth?
I know, big question and you're just one guy with only 10ish years of experience in the economics game, had to ask, though.
Post a Comment