“As for the nature of the bailout, President Obama pointed to Sweden’s resolution of its bank crisis as a solution. “They took over the banks, nationalized them, got rid of the bad assets, resold the banks and, a couple years later, they were going again,” he told ABC News on Tuesday. “So you’d think looking at it, Sweden looks like a good model.”
Mr. Obama then suggested that it wouldn’t work in the United States, partly for cultural reasons. But a broad range of experts believe that some variation of nationalization is the only way to revive the banks quickly without squandering vast amounts of taxpayer dollars. Even the managing director of the International Monetary Fund suggested that Washington think of the Swedish model.”
Mr. Obama then suggested that it wouldn’t work in the United States, partly for cultural reasons. But a broad range of experts believe that some variation of nationalization is the only way to revive the banks quickly without squandering vast amounts of taxpayer dollars. Even the managing director of the International Monetary Fund suggested that Washington think of the Swedish model.”
—
Op-Ed Columnist - Escaping the Bust Bowl - NYTimes.com
It’s always baffling to me why we reject such solutions to problems just because it is somehow tainted by the idea of “socialism.” I won’t disagree that a fully socialized business and industrial sector would not be a good idea, but there is evidence that in limited and rare incidences, it can be useful. So why not try it? Why let a word or idea get in the way of something that has proven itself in the marketplace?
(via robot-heart-politics)
It hasn’t. Keynesian Economics led to the Great Depression, and we’re trying to do the same exact thing all over again. In fact, government involvement is exactly what led to the problems we’re facing right now.
3 years ago