President Obama, on why the new financial bailout/rescue plan doesn't temporarily "nationalize" the banks (as Sweden successfully did in its 1990s financial crisis):

"Obviously, Sweden has a different set of cultures in terms of how the government relates to markets and America's different. And we want to retain a strong sense of that private capital fulfilling the core -- core investment needs of this country.

And so, what we've tried to do is to apply some of the tough love that's going to be necessary, but do it in a way that's also recognizing we've got big private capital markets and ultimately that's going to be the key to getting credit flowing again."

Well, we voted for change, didn't we, so let's start changing the culture that says we can't even temporarily nationalize the largest banks with the worst balance-sheet issues, in an emergency that threatens the world economy and is in part attributable to these banks' irresponsibility.  Say, as many, including lefties like the former IMF chief economist Ken Rogoff, and lefty financial-history prof Niall Ferguson seem to believe, a belief perhaps even reflected in the stock market's fall on Geithner's press conference, we need to temporarily nationalize the banks.  Call it restructuring, make the call that the zombie banks are effectively bankrupt and an expedited, not court-supervised, receivership is needed, call it tough love, pander to our "culture" of responsibility.  Nationalization is a stupid word to use---it suggests an intention for long-term transfer of banking to the government, and few are seriously suggesting that.  We can do bank restructuring and still "retain a strong sense of that private capital fulfilling the core investment needs of this country." Maybe it can be done, in a stealthier way, through Geithner's plan---but it's apparently not clear to most what Geithner's "plan" will turn out to be, in practice.