Nacionalización y Estatización; A propósito del rescate bancario en Estados Unidos

A continuación, se publica una entrada de el blog "Economix" que aparece en la edicion del dia 12 de Febrero del New York Times, y que trata sobre la presunta nacionalización de la banca en Estados Unidos. Lineas más abajo, se agrega un comentario que hice, con respecto al tema y que me parece pertinente compartir aquí. Por obvias razones, el contenido esta en ingles.

El blog cita lo siguiente:

Dr. Doom’s Case for Nationalizing Banks

By DealBook

From our colleagues at DealBook:


Washington has already turned to a Plan B for rescuing the nation’s banks, but Nouriel Roubini, the bearish economics professor sometimes referred to as Dr. Doom, thinks it is time for Plan N.

That’s N for nationalization of the banking industry, which Mr. Roubini, of New York University’s Stern School, argues may be the best option for the United States, and for Britain as well.

One of the concerns weighing on bank stocks recently has been the prospect of being nationalized; Bank of America’s chief executive, Kenneth Lewis, recently dismissed speculation that his bank would be nationalized as "absurd".

A continuación se citan los comentarios:

It will happen, but only after we try the Geithner plan first and then only when we call it something other than ‘nationalization’. To the uneducated public, that is almost as bad as socialized medicine.
— scott

Why can’t we look into Pandit’s idea (Citigroup)? Buy the assets at some inflated value, then clawback the profits from the banks a few years later when the economy recovers. Basically, we’re giving the banks capital, allowing the banks to defer their losses and pay them off over time. And by then the assets may not be as worthless as they are today, especially if they do a cramdown or something to reduce foreclosures.
— Dr. Dude

Por último, cito mi comentario:

First of all, i think there's a whole misuderstanding about the concept of nationalization. That confusion leads to wrong debates. Lets explain. If american bank system were in hands of foreigners, for example, mexican bankers, and, this banks were in a bad-assets trouble situation (as the current bank system in america is); Then, a "factible" solution would be the "nationalization", which means, a change of propiety from mexican bankers to american bakers (that not necessarly means shift from a private to a public bank system, and furthermore, the banks still remain in private hands); But now nationalization its not the solution because american bank system still in hands of american bankers. In the other hand, given the current trouble in the bank system, understanding what really means a "nationalization", and analizyng the solutions of put the economy in march again, a "real" solution is the "statization" (not a nationalization). A statization means making public the private debt. So, this case its totally different from a nationalization just because the property of the debt shift from private hands (banks in trouble) to public hands (taxpayer money). A statization of the debt doesn't mean socialismus, its just a mechanism that capitalist economies uses for re-establish the general conditions of rentability (which means re-launch credit markets, once the banks are clean), and its associated to keynesian economic policies. So, the real debate should go around in which will be the rules or the terms for a statization of the banking system, and this debate should leave behind the phantoms that surround every american mind that state intervention means socialismus.

THE MAN IN BLACK