Any way you want to look at this, the issue of government seizure of private property is paramount. Can the Gov't confiscate property for the public good? Can it do so without compensation is another issue. It certainly asserted the first premise on numerous occasions. Even AT&T was confiscated in WWI, as well as most of the railroads in this country. Therefore, when in the 2008 financial debacle, F&F were front and center perpetrators, confiscation was plausible "for the public good". Uncle Sam could have backstopped these entities with several other tools at its disposal. Paulson chose "conservatorship" a nebulous concept that can be interpreted in many ways, since no one knows exactly what it means.
Nevertheless, respect for fair compensation is integral to our form of government. Eventually, every confiscated entity that was seized by US was returned to its owners (including such enemy owned entities as BAYER Aspirin and GAF were returned ). There is no room for vitiating this concept imbedded in the constitution. How this administration and our judiciary handle this issue will determine the future of our "democracy" .
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
