What The New York Times thinks, anyway

In today's New York Times, it seems very clear what they, at least, think should happen.

First, they covered John Thain's fleecing of his company and the American people, when he was at the head of Merrill Lynch. You probably heard about this guy--he had his private bathroom done for $1.2 million dollars, for starters and then gave away billions of dollars of bonuses, for God's sake, just before Bank of America bought them and just before B of A had to get billions of dollars of your and my tax money to cover all their lossed, these included.

Let it be said now and into the future and in the American history books that John Thain is and was a thief and scumbag.

Second, the Times had an editorial by Paul Krugman, saying we need, as a country, to nationalize banks in the country and the sooner the better.

Third, there was an editorial column saying the same thing.

Finally, there is a fourth separate article pointing out how Sweden's advice to the US in the financial mess we're in would be to, repeat after me--nationalize the banks--or some of them, anyway.

So it's pretty clear what some people and groups in the US think we should be doing.

It will likely happen, too, for a few reasons:

1) It will be called "nationalizing" the banks, not socialism;

2) It will be stated that it's intended to be temporary and finally

3) We're in one hell of an ugly financial crisis and our government leaders don't know what else to do, other than also borrow and hand out trillions of dollars of money.

The banks and their leaders were incredibly irresponsible and greedy, which is why we're in this mess, and that's what the John Thain piggery makes so clear.

One thing is for sure--we need a quick return to good, strong, clear and complete regulation of our banking system, now and forever.