This morning I was reading and article from the Wall Street Journal. The author discussed “bank nationalization,” or a bank being owned and run by the government. This process usually occurs when a bank is in danger of failing. “Bank nationalization” could make it easier for some bank customers to get a loan. Also, its customers will still be protected by federal insurance. The downsides to “bank nationalization” include more branch closings, more standardization across bank products, and a deterioration in customer service. Other countries have nationalized their banks, such as France and Sweden. After, “bank nationalization” there should be very little change to consumers’ bank accounts and insurance- protection levels. Also, nationalized banks are more likely to loosen the lending regulations and people will still be able to get loans. The biggest disadvantage of “bank nationalization” is the expense of taking over our countries banks. Therefore, they would only nationalize a portion of our countries 8,000 banks.
What do you think about the U.S. considering nationalizing their banks? Should the government have its hand in our banks?
2 comments:
It's a touchy situation, it sounds like a good idea, but at the same time I don't think Americans would like to have the government involved with their money. Most Americans would feel that they already give the government enough money in taxes, why do they need to get their hand on our accounts? A big American myth is the right to make free decisions, and if the banks get nationalized, those free choices will be lost. I don't think it's a good idea because I feel that as an American I have the right to put my money where I want it. Plus, who wants to be like the French?... just kidding
I agree with Miles. I think there are a lot of Americans who are worried about the government getting involved with their money. It would make a lot of people feel unsafe, especailly during perilous times.
Post a Comment