In foreign relations there once was the domino theory which was rightly criticized. In our modern financial system we have allowed a monstrosity to develop that is so intertwined we have the Jenga theory. Pull out one of the rotting timbers and you stand a pretty good chance of bringing down the whole tower because of how they all seem to depend on each other.

And I didn't see anything about this new authority being limited to 'non-banking financial institutions' that took government funds. Quite the opposite. I thought they made it clear they could intervene in ANY 'non-banking financial institution' they determine is 'troubled'.

That is what scares me. Generic, open-ended, undefined terms that can mean something different later than we think they mean now.

Now, no name calling please. i am seriously putting forth the proposition that the two are equivalent. So, someone please demonstrate how they are not.

Now I am very upset that they did torture and illegally spy on people, and think they should be brought to justice, but I also am aware that our government officials have been doing that for decades (I think they should be brought to justice too). What made me despondent however, was the codification of that behavior into legalisms, because while I did not think that Bush was going to become Dictator, I was (and still am) very concerned that dismantling the legal checks would make that situation more likely in response to the next big crisis.

Similarly, the economic crisis has generated these grand sweeping declarations of authority in similarly vague writing. Again, they do this not because their aim is to take over all this stuff, but because they don't want to mess with any “hassles” so they make it as broad as can be. However, even though everyone knows what the aims are, so they would approve with a wink and nod, I do agree that it sets the stage for something bad down the line. That is the source of my apprehension to do things that would require massive legal authority, even if I agreed with the actions themselves.

Yeah Yves is a male name, but this one isn't.

And I'm not endorsing this post at all because I think that kind of association is completely unhelpful to those who are trying to address serious concerns.

My problem with the post is indeed the sort of name-calling bit. I'm very okay with saying that giving the government these sorts of powers is a very bad idea. We can all then debate whether it's the right move or not. But adding that this is the transformation of our system to communism only fits directly into the conservative meme for decades now that those liberals are all really pinkoes.

The primary concerns are like you and Yves point out. She points out all the legal implications; it'd be one thing if we were starting from scratch, but we're not, and all the domestic and international law can't just be rewritten in haste. I've been reading some stuff on other sites that is making me question the legal feasibility of nationalization, specifically the international aspects. I am more radical than many about what the government can do to capture failed institutions here, but most of the issues involve foreign laws and assets because the world has allowed these companies to become giant shell games. Still, even though those games are morally (and now financially bankrupt) we can't just break international law.

Even aside from that, I've read an increasingly persuasive case that the government does not have the talent to handle this. Again, that's not to say that it would be impossible for a government to, just that at present we don't.

To me it is becoming increasingly clear that political reform must come before financial reform, and I'm a wee bit skeptical that will come anytime soon. As such I am moving to the position that we should just set up a parallel financial system that is starting over from scratch with new regulations and guarantees, and let the old one live or die based on its own merit.

But in any case, doesn't that blow the distinction you're making out of the water, if we're about to give the govt authority to also seize other corporations that banks?

We don't want communism so we have to curb malignant capitalism BECAUSE IT LEADS TO FORCED COMMUNISM.

Obviously and apparent in exactly what we're going through today. The pendulum must swing in the opposite direction to correct the PRE-EXISTING imbalance. The middle should eventually even out at responsible capitalism where strict regulations are in place to prevent malignant capitalism only, like monopolies (see BigOil), hostile takeovers (see Iraq), stock manipulations and so on. We need to look clearly at what forms of capitalism are malignant to a healthy economy and simply eliminate them from legality.

All this stuff about Communism/Socialism whatever fails to recognize the difference between the “economy” (production and labor) and the “financial system” (the allocation of credit). There have been capitalist societies with completely nationalized financial systems, ones with private financial systems that have extremely strict regulations and ones that have no regulations. Some of the countries that had nationalized financial systems had rather unregulated economic activity, while the US had a very unregulated financial system and highly regulated economic activity.

People need to stop confusing the two.