Nationalizing The Banks

[cptacek]

Oh, and reloading is the way to go!

I think one plan is to require serial numbers on all ammunition (and you have to be registered for all ammo you buy) and to outlaw reloading.

[GREENBACK]

I think one plan is to require serial numbers on all ammunition (and you have to be registered for all ammo you buy) and to outlaw reloading.

If you tour the streets of a lot of middle eastern countries you will see that firearms and ammunition are easy to make. criminals will adopt these methods. No gov't intervention will stop this. If outlawing things worked we wouldn't have the drug problems that we have.

There are plenty of laws on the books as is but they are not enforced as they should be. The only ones that obey these laws are law abiding citizens and criminals by definition have a free pass.

Just look at cities like D.C. or Chicago. Most stringent gun laws around and highest murder rates around.

[Angio333]

Many smart people are advocating temporary "nationalization".

There are a ton of smart people against bailouts too. The following is a list of economists that were against the first bailout. I haven't looked to see if there is a similiar list for the one that just got passed.

Acemoglu Daron (Massachussets Institute of Technology)
Ackerberg Daniel (UCLA)
Adler Michael (Columbia University)
Admati Anat R. (Stanford University)
Ales Laurence (Carnegie Mellon University)
Alexis Marcus (Northwestern University)
Alvarez Fernando (University of Chicago)
Andersen Torben (Northwestern University)
Baliga Sandeep (Northwestern University)
Banerjee Abhijit V. (Massachussets Institute of Technology)
Barankay Iwan (University of Pennsylvania)
Barry Brian (University of Chicago)
Bartkus James R. (Xavier University of Louisiana)
Becker Charles M. (Duke University)
Becker Robert A. (Indiana University)
Beim David (Columbia University)
Berk Jonathan (Stanford University)
Bisin Alberto (New York University)
Bittlingmayer George (University of Kansas)
Blank Emily (Howard University)
Boldrin Michele (Washington University)
Bollinger, Christopher R. (University of Kentucky)
Bossi, Luca (University of Miami)
Brooks Taggert J. (University of Wisconsin)
Brynjolfsson Erik (Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
Buera Francisco J.(UCLA)
Cabral Luis (New York University)
Camp Mary Elizabeth (Indiana University)
Carmel Jonathan (University of Michigan)
Carroll Christopher (Johns Hopkins University)
Cassar Gavin (University of Pennsylvania)
Chaney Thomas (University of Chicago)
Chari Varadarajan V. (University of Minnesota)
Chauvin Keith W. (University of Kansas)
Chintagunta Pradeep K. (University of Chicago)
Christiano Lawrence J. (Northwestern University)
Clementi, Gian Luca (New York University)
Cochrane John (University of Chicago)
Coleman John (Duke University)
Constantinides George M. (University of Chicago)
Cooley, Thomas (New York University)
Crain Robert (UC Berkeley)
Culp Christopher (University of Chicago)
Da Zhi (University of Notre Dame)
Darity, William (Duke University)
Davis Morris (University of Wisconsin)
De Marzo Peter (Stanford University)
Dubé Jean-Pierre H. (University of Chicago)
Edlin Aaron (UC Berkeley)
Eichenbaum Martin (Northwestern University)
Ely Jeffrey (Northwestern University)
Eraslan Hülya K. K.(Johns Hopkins University)
Fair Ray (Yale University)
Faulhaber Gerald (University of Pennsylvania)
Feldmann Sven (University of Melbourne)
Fernandez, Raquel (New York University)
Fernandez-Villaverde Jesus (University of Pennsylvania)
Fohlin Caroline (Johns Hopkins University)
Fox Jeremy T. (University of Chicago)
Frank Murray Z.(University of Minnesota)
Frenzen Jonathan (University of Chicago)
Fuchs William (University of Chicago)
Fudenberg Drew (Harvard University)
Gabaix Xavier (New York University)
Gao Paul (Notre Dame University)
Garicano Luis (University of Chicago)
Gerakos Joseph J. (University of Chicago)
Gibbs Michael (University of Chicago)
Glomm Gerhard (Indiana University)
Goettler Ron (University of Chicago)
Goldin Claudia (Harvard University)
Gordon Robert J. (Northwestern University)
Greenstone Michael (Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
Gregory, Karl D. (Oakland University)
Guadalupe Maria (Columbia University)
Guerrieri Veronica (University of Chicago)
Hagerty Kathleen (Northwestern University)
Hamada Robert S. (University of Chicago)
Hansen Lars (University of Chicago)
Harris Milton (University of Chicago)
Hart Oliver (Harvard University)
Hazlett Thomas W. (George Mason University)
Heaton John (University of Chicago)
Heckman James (University of Chicago - Nobel Laureate)
Henderson David R. (Hoover Institution)
Henisz, Witold (University of Pennsylvania)
Hertzberg Andrew (Columbia University)
Hite Gailen (Columbia University)
Hitsch Günter J. (University of Chicago)
Hodrick Robert J. (Columbia University)
Hollifield Burton (Carnegie Mellon University)
Hopenhayn Hugo (UCLA)
Hurst Erik (University of Chicago)
Imrohoroglu Ayse (University of Southern California)
Isakson Hans (University of Northern Iowa)
Israel Ronen (London Business School)
Jaffee Dwight M. (UC Berkeley)
Jagannathan Ravi (Northwestern University)
Jenter Dirk (Stanford University)
Jones Charles M. (Columbia Business School)
Jovanovic Boyan (New York University)
Kaboski Joseph P. (Ohio State University)
Kahn Matthew (UCLA)
Kaplan Ethan (Stockholm University)
Karaivanov Alexander (Simon Fraser University)
Karolyi, Andrew (Ohio State University)
Kashyap Anil (University of Chicago)
Keim Donald B (University of Pennsylvania)
Ketkar Suhas L (Vanderbilt University)
Kiesling Lynne (Northwestern University)
Klenow Pete (Stanford University)
Koch Paul (University of Kansas)
Kocherlakota Narayana (University of Minnesota)
Koijen Ralph S.J. (University of Chicago)
Kondo Jiro (Northwestern University)
Korteweg Arthur (Stanford University)
Kortum Samuel (University of Chicago)
Krueger Dirk (University of Pennsylvania)
Ledesma Patricia (Northwestern University)
Lee Lung-fei (Ohio State University)
Leeper Eric M. (Indiana University)
Letson David (University of Miami)
Leuz Christian (University of Chicago)
Levine David I.(UC Berkeley)
Levine David K.(Washington University)
Levy David M. (George Mason University)
Linnainmaa Juhani (University of Chicago)
Lucas Robert (University of Chicago - Nobel Laureate)
Ludvigson, Sydney C. (New York University)
Luttmer Erzo G.J. (University of Minnesota)
Manski Charles F. (Northwestern University)
Martin Ian (Stanford University)
Mayer Christopher (Columbia University)
Mazzeo Michael (Northwestern University)
McDonald Robert (Northwestern University)
Meadow Scott F. (University of Chicago)
Meeropol, Michael (Western New England College)
Mehra Rajnish (UC Santa Barbara)
Mian Atif (University of Chicago)
Middlebrook Art (University of Chicago)
Miguel Edward (UC Berkeley)
Miravete Eugenio J. (University of Texas at Austin)
Miron Jeffrey (Harvard University)
Moeller, Thomas (Texas Christian University)
Moretti Enrico (UC Berkeley)
Moriguchi Chiaki (Northwestern University)
Moro Andrea (Vanderbilt University)
Morse Adair (University of Chicago)
Mortensen Dale T. (Northwestern University)
Mortimer Julie Holland (Harvard University)
Moskowitz, Tobias J. (University of Chicago)
Munger Michael C. (Duke University)
Muralidharan Karthik (UC San Diego)
Nair Harikesh (Stanford University)
Nanda Dhananjay (University of Miami)
Nevo Aviv (Northwestern University)
Ohanian Lee (UCLA)
Pagliari Joseph (University of Chicago)
Papanikolaou Dimitris (Northwestern University)
Parker Jonathan (Northwestern University)
Paul Evans (Ohio State University)
Pearce David (New York University)
Pejovich Svetozar (Steve) (Texas A&M University)
Peltzman Sam (University of Chicago)
Perri Fabrizio (University of Minnesota)
Phelan Christopher (University of Minnesota)
Piazzesi Monika (Stanford University)
Pippenger, Michael K. (University of Alaska)
Piskorski Tomasz (Columbia University)
Platt Brennan C. (Brigham Young University)
Rampini Adriano (Duke University)
Ray, Debraj (New York University)
Reagan Patricia (Ohio State University)
Reich Michael (UC Berkeley)
Reuben Ernesto (Northwestern University)
Rizzo, Mario (New York University)
Roberts Michael (University of Pennsylvania)
Robinson David (Duke University)
Rogers Michele (Northwestern University)
Rotella Elyce (Indiana University)
Roussanov Nikolai (University of Pennsylvania)
Routledge Bryan R. (Carnegie Mellon University)
Ruud Paul (Vassar College)
Safford Sean (University of Chicago)
Samaniego Roberto (George Washington University)
Sandbu Martin E. (University of Pennsylvania)
Sapienza Paola (Northwestern University)
Savor Pavel (University of Pennsylvania)
Schaniel William C. (University of West Georgia)
Scharfstein David (Harvard University)
Seim Katja (University of Pennsylvania)
Seru Amit (University of Chicago)
Shang-Jin Wei (Columbia University)
Shimer Robert (University of Chicago)
Shore Stephen H. (Johns Hopkins University)
Siegel Ron (Northwestern University)
Smith David C. (University of Virginia)
Smith Vernon L.(Chapman University- Nobel Laureate)
Sorensen Morten (Columbia University)
Spatt Chester (Carnegie Mellon University)
Spear Stephen (Carnegie Mellon University)
Stevenson Betsey (University of Pennsylvania)
Stokey Nancy (University of Chicago)
Strahan Philip (Boston College)
Strebulaev Ilya (Stanford University)
Sufi Amir (University of Chicago)
Tabarrok Alex (George Mason University)
Taylor Alan M. (UC Davis)
Thompson Tim (Northwestern University)
Troske Kenneth (University of Kentucky)
Tschoegl Adrian E. (University of Pennsylvania)
Uhlig Harald (University of Chicago)
Ulrich, Maxim (Columbia University)
Van Buskirk Andrew (University of Chicago)
Vargas Hernan (University of Phoenix)
Veronesi Pietro (University of Chicago)
Vissing-Jorgensen Annette (Northwestern University)
Wacziarg Romain (UCLA)
Walker Douglas O. (Regent University)
Walker, Todd (Indiana University)
Weill Pierre-Olivier (UCLA)
Williamson Samuel H. (Miami University)
Witte Mark (Northwestern University)
Wolfenzon, Daniel (Columbia University)
Wolfers Justin (University of Pennsylvania)
Woutersen Tiemen (Johns Hopkins University)
Wu Yangru (Rutgers University)
Yue Vivian Z. (New York University)
Zingales Luigi (University of Chicago)
Zitzewitz Eric (Dartmouth College)

Jay Hancock's blog: Hopkins economists against the bailout - Economic navigation and sightseeing - baltimoresun.com
*************

Nationalization of the banks is just like another bailout. Keynesian economics at its finest. The first bailout did nothing. The auto bailout didn't work. So lets do another bailout and possibly another auto bailout. While we're at it, lets nationalize the banks!

We are better off with a lot less government in our lives.

[Scanner]

Nationalization of the banks is just like another bailout

How so? Nationalization provides the government not with just giving a handout to the banks, it provides them with income as well. . .they get to loan money, make interest on it, they get to have depositors, and they get to cut out the "middleman", the bank CEO's, who make the profit along with the investor.

Sure, they will still need management to be paid, but it's a hell of lot different than a bailout.

To me, it's the difference between your children asking you for money because they are going bankrupt because of bad decisions or you going in, examining the books, having your children get a job, maybe sell the house and expensive SUV and setting things right for your children.

Unfortunately, the capitalists acted like children and now they need Father to come in and set things straight. This is why I am against just handing them a blank check, as you obviously support. Either that, or you support the entire collapse of our financial system and going back to the day of doing barter and handing each other silver bullion and gold bullion.

[kork13]

The problem with any nationalized industry is that it stifles competition. Competition does 2 things for society: First, it encourages development. New technologies, ideas, ways of doing business, and so on. Second, it allows the consumer to "shop around", and for the industry to compete against eachother to get business. Whether that's by offering better interest rates on loans, deposit accounts, etc., or offering better deals on airline tickets. Without competition, there is no benchmark for establishing a "market value" of any given product or service, so the government simply does as it wishes. Nationalization is not a good business model--period. It benefits only the regulatory machine itself.

[Scanner]

First, it encourages development. New technologies, ideas, ways of doing business, and so on. Second, it allows the consumer to "shop around", and for the industry to compete against eachother to get business.

That's why we are in the mess we are in - the banks used "innovative" new ideas for doing banking. "Neat-o" ideas like taking subprime mortgages and making securities out of them, packaging them up, and shipping them overseas.

The bank CEO's turned our banks into one big giant casino and uh, oh, it came up red when they spun the wheel when they had our money riding on black.

I don't want our banks to be innovative. I want them to be boring and safe. If I want an innovative investment, I'll buy an innovative investment.

As far as competition, the Fed pretty much controls interest rates anyway. There isn't too much difference in yield from bank to bank. If I have to surrender a bit of competition from yield, so the gov't can make sure the money is safe, I am willing to make that sacrafice.

I don't want to be making a run on my bank with my business deposits. I want them boring.

EDIT: BTW, as a business person, I think I have more clout since I have employed people in the past and employ people now in that I want my business's money safe. I am a risky investor but a conservative business person. When I am telling you, I want my banks boring, I am being serious. I don't want to worry about my employee's payroll, that some CEO has taken my money out and lent it in an "innovative way."

Let's cut to the chase.

THe reason people don't want nationalization is because well, the cable chatter and the talk radio show hosts put this fear into them that somehow we will end up like Argentina under Dictator Obama, with a picture of his mug on a tapestry in every bank.

We are still a democracy - we nationalized our railroads in the past and nationalized our airport security during 9-11. It's not the end of the world. We can still throw out our leaders by electing someone else.

I swear we won't all be calling each other Komrade if we nationalize our banks.

We may still be headed for soup lines though, thanks to Reaganomics.

[Angio333]

The problem with any nationalized industry is that it stifles competition. Competition does 2 things for society: First, it encourages development. New technologies, ideas, ways of doing business, and so on. Second, it allows the consumer to "shop around", and for the industry to compete against eachother to get business. Whether that's by offering better interest rates on loans, deposit accounts, etc., or offering better deals on airline tickets. Without competition, there is no benchmark for establishing a "market value" of any given product or service, so the government simply does as it wishes. Nationalization is not a good business model--period. It benefits only the regulatory machine itself.

I am against any form of bailout. we are chasing bad money with more bad money. Our national debt is way to high, and all of the money we just created may just open our economy up to massive inflation.

Let banks and businesses fail. Let the economy rebuild itself. Many experts now say that the government intervention actually prolonged the great depression.

Corporate greed is not the only reason we are in the situation that we are in. Its was a "perfect storm" of three things.

1) Government intervention
2) Corporate greed
3) General financial incompetence of the average person


Banks were not doing anywhere near as many very risky loans until the government stepped in to back up some mortages, etc. Then the banks/corps greed kicked into HIGH gear and they started to give loans to anyone with a pulse. Then people took the loans despite the fact that they werenor realistic. That is a very basic overview of why we are where we are. Now it got so out of control that is hitting everyone.

More government is not the answer. A free market is. Do you really think that as many super risky loans would have been made if Fannie and Freddie were not around?

How in the world can our country work our way out of this debt?

Should we go back to a gold standard? I don't think its really possible. But we have to figure out a way that our money is not only backed by the the promise/faith of the government. I have no idea what the right choice is, but simply printing more money is not.

If money is only backed up by the faith of government, you get things like this:

California may issue IOUs for tax refunds - 1/05/09 - San Francisco News - abc7news.com

SACRAMENTO, CA (KGO) -- With the state budget crisis ongoing, the state's Controller says California may be forced to send out IOUs instead of refunds.

Hoping to get her state income tax refund as soon as possible, Akisha Marshall is getting a jump start on her filing.
ABC7 asked her, "How much do you depend on your refund?"
"A lot. It's just like a job check," she said laughingly.
Story continues belowAdvertisementLast year 2.7 million people got their state refund in February totaling $2 billion. But, this single mom and other Californians may have to wait for their refund this year.
It is Day 61 of the state's budget stalemate and the state will run out of cash next month. It is at the point where the Controller will have to issue IOUs to pay the bills, including state tax refunds.
"An IOU is a registered warrant issued on behalf of the state's treasury that lets the individual receiving the IOU know that they will receive their funds at a later date," explained Jacob Roper with the State Controller's Office.
When asked, "How much later?" Roper replied, "We don't know."
State lawmakers just came back from a long holiday break to continue budget negotiations. Republicans still do not want to raise taxes and Democrats do not want deeper cuts to social programs.
Both, though, agree IOUs are a terrible option.
The state has issued them only once before since the Great Depression.
"It's a horrible thing. It is morally irresponsible for us not have an agreement," said Budget Chairwoman Noreen Evans
"I think it's a terrible prospect. Obviously, I don't want to see it," added Budget Vice-Chairman Roger Niello.
Akisha does not want to see the IOUs happen either.
"My landlord isn't going to take it. The utility companies aren't going to take it. It just isn't good," she said.
When asked, "If taxpayers owe the state, can they issue you an IOU?" Roper replied, "Unfortunately, there's not an option in the law for that."
If the state has to issue IOUs, the money owed to you would earn interest. It is too early to tell what the rate would be, but it could go up to 5%.
***********************

Gving the whole banking indusrty over to the government is way too much power. If they controlled all aspects of money, then they can switch currency over night like what happened in Russia a long time ago making the cash you saved at home worthless.

As far as nationalizing banks go,it would turn over all over your personal information to the government. Why should they know how much I have in savings?

We need to restore our banking industry to what is was in the past. Where loan officers made decisons on a case by case basis. Not everyone gets a loan. Where financial success was not defined as bowing down to the almight FICA score.

[Angio333]

We are still a democracy - we nationalized our railroads in the past and nationalized our airport security during 9-11. It's not the end of the world. We can still throw out our leaders by electing someone else.

We may still be headed for soup lines though, thanks to Reaganomics.

Our airline security is still a joke - ask anyone who works in the airline industry.

We'll going to soup lines for mistakes by both sides. Bush's policies of government spending were not conservative at all. Obama giving 30 million to the NEA when we have deficit spending doesn't help. Neither does billions of dollars to groups like ACORN.

We need to cut programs and spending as much as possible to get out of this mess. The Bush and the Obama spending agendas are insane.

If you ran your business with that mindset, you woul be out of business in a week.

[Scanner]

The "Let the banks Fail" philosophy is wrong on many accounts. If we just simply let the banks fail, I would estimate about 1/2 of us could kiss our jobs goodbye. As one topples, many others will follow.

I am thinking of my wife's hospital payroll - it probably operates on credit to pay the paychecks. If they can't get it, we don't get a paycheck. . .we don't make our mortgage payment. . .the bank that owns our loan doesn't have cash for our mortgage (ours is not subprime). . .the dominoes fall.

Since my business is a lot of cash and carry (about 50%), I would imagine I go out of business, with my landlord losing my rent. Not to mention the other 50% is health insurance checks, which probably operate on a margin. With the domino effect of many businesses on main street becoming white washed windows, you can guess what happens to commercial real estate values.

All for what?

Because some talk show hosts who have a brainwashed following oppose nationalization because it's socialism.

You have to seperate the banking rescue from the economic stimulus.

Bank rescue/nationalization? Yes.
Stimulus? Eh. . .I could be swayed either way.

As a nation, we have got to drop the rancid ideology and start thinking pragmatically. I at least think Obama is shedding the Baby Boomer political idealogy and focusing on pragmaticism of Generation X. For that I am glad.

In the end, it should benefit the taxpayor - you go in and buy up all bank shares at $.50/share and then sell them off 5-10 years later at $10/share to the private sector thereby benefiting the taxpayor.

Boom! We have private banking again and everyone is happy.

Again, nationalization is the final penalty for being incompetent. It's the same with utilties - when there are rolling blackouts affecting the public good. . .guess what happens? You're regulated.

[GREENBACK]

If you ran your business with that mindset, you woul be out of business in a week.

This is so true. I stated earlier that I've been a gov't employee for most of my career. If gov't were a private buisness they wouldn't last 6 months. What keeps them afloat is a constant cash flow regardless of wasteful spending and idiotic decisions.

That is precisely why they are the wrong entity to fix this crisis. If they are wrong with these bailouts they'll just shrug it off and borrow/print more money to try a new angle. Try that move in your private buisness and see how long you last.

[Scanner]

Business can mismanage business. Government can mismanage business. No one sector has the monopoly on good management. There are companies everyday (Detroit) that go out of business because of mismanagement.

That being said, yes, I would agree given the choice, I'd rather let free markets rule the day as I would imagine that business has better managers than government. Sure, I would rather banks be investor owned.

But we don't have the choice.

Think of the banking system as the "infrastructure" to daily business. Every business is intertwined through the banking system. It's not just like GM or Chrysler goes out of business, some imports can come in and pick up the slack and people still drive cars. If American banks collapse, all business stops - small, medium, big.

If you were in business, you'd be aware of an old business saying, "Every business is in the credit business."

That is, there are very few businesses that operate only cash and carry (my barber only takes cash). Credit cards, lines of credit. . .even though my line is at only $1000 balance now. . .I even extend "credit" to my patients in that I am awaiting their insurance co. to pay me. If their ins co. defaults because their LOC goes defunct. . .then I have to bill them. . .except if that happens, my patients say, "Well, I paid them my premium this month so I am not paying you - I don't have it." Then I have to go to my landlord and explain things.

You see how this works? It's like a closed loop. The Fed is pumping money into the loop and the bank CEO's are just skimming it and not priming the pump.

For that, I just say get it over with and nationalize them and make the CEO's work customer service.

Again, I want my banks boring. . .not innovative. If I want to take risks with money, I'll buy stocks, commodities, or let it spin on red at the Borgata in Atlantic City, NJ.

[Blue Leader]

How in the world can nationalizing the banks be remotely good?? There are so many cons to this ludicris idea. Since when is the govt good at running anything!?! Oh wait, they are really good at running the printing presses printing new money out of thin air. Next stop: hyperinflation!

Think about this. If the govt nationalizes banks; BAM, the US govt owns your financial records. Holy friggin scary.

[Scanner]

As a taxpayor, you should want a return on your money - that's one pro to nationalization (among others). As it stands now, we just keep throwing money at the problem.

THe gov't goes in and buys up banks at $.50/share and sells them off at $10.00/share in 5 years - the taxpayor has made a profit.

Do what we are doing now and the CEO's just keeping handing out bonuses. Is that how you want your tax money spent?

Which would you prefer?

[GREENBACK]

Scanner

This whole big push for everyone acheving the "american dream" came from the gov't. That banks sought innovative ways to package those loans and sell them was not surprising. I don't think the banks would have even made most of the loans out there if not for gov't intervention. Of course, the entity responsible for the whole mess is now the perfect solution?

I know, It's the greed of bankers right? Were bankers ever not greedy. Have you contemplated why this wasn't a problem until the gov't decided everyone should have their dream home...NOW!!! When they step in and Nationalize banks we will truly observe their incompetence.

[Scanner]

U.S. regulators stand ready with more bank capital: Financial News - Yahoo! Finance

Yup. . .the banks are doing a great job of instilling confidence.

Listen, I will agree that government inefficiency has a tendency to self-propagate. You have an inefficient manager in gov't, there is little recourse (other than political) to get fired. However, on that same note, even in big business, it's political who gets fired and who doesn't.

Are you actually naive enough to think that every person in management in banking actually is an oh-so-efficient-businessman and there because they are "business moguls?" No, we all know that some are "inefficient" and are there because of nepotism or this one slept with this other one or whatever.

I am advising you to stop putting big business on a pedestal.

Again, big business (which I know right wingers worship) have no monopoly on correct management.

As far as the government getting us here. . .that is debatable. Yes, they have their hand in this. . .however, many people would have qualified for FHA loans but the greedy mortgage bankers didn't want to go through the paperwork when a "Stated Income Loan" (how much you make? 100K/year? Oh, cool. . .) was easier and had a higher commission, right?

I kind of understand the push for homeownership by the government -

Which is easier to you?

A. Keeping people eternally on welfare and paying for Section 8 housing?

or

B. Encourage homeownership as a form of social insurance?

I must admit, if I were in politics and I had the choice, I would rather encourage people to work and own their homes since often, at the end of their lives, this is the only form of wealth people have to show for their years of hard work. The gov't realized this and thus, the FHA was born (and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac).

But maybe you are satisfied with people not working and not owning their own homes, I don't know.

It is a huge mess now. I admit we have to rethink how we can get social insurance with as little risk and cost to society.