Plenty of investors have been calling for General Motors Corporation (NYSE: GM) to be removed from the Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) as the automaker hovers on the brink of bankruptcy. But, like it or not, GM's rock-bottom share price isn't justification enough to oust the stock. GM still represents a major chunk of our industrial economy.

However, GM's nationalization would more than justify its removal from the Dow. After all, that's why American International Group (NYSE: AIG) got the boot last fall -- once the government took a controlling stake in the insurance giant, Dow Jones wasted no time adjusting its blue-chip lineup.

This post was written by Minyanville contributor Minyan Peter.

I have been asked whether there was anything in Chairman Bernanke's speech yesterday that changed my outlook on the prospects of nationalization for some of our largest financial institutions. In a word "no".

From my perspective, all Chairman Bernanke did was to confirm Monday's Joint Statement from the bank which offered that what the Government was hoping to implement were "temporary capital buffers" "to provide a cushion against larger than expected future losses, should they occur due to a more severe economic environment, and to support lending to creditworthy borrowers." And that the Government's security of choice would be "mandatory convertible preferred shares."

TheStreet.com's Jim Cramer says we simply can't handle these assets now as a nation. We are ill-equipped.

What's at stake with nationalization? Why do I oppose it so much? Why do I feel that its proponents are glib and over their heads and have done no homework and do not have a stitch of rigor? Maybe because I think that nothing is impossible for those who don't have to do it themselves.

I have said again and again that as much as you may hate the bankers who got us here, it is well beyond the ken of this government to fix it. I have said that the analogies to the Swedish "success" of nationalization are chimerical, because the Swedish banking issues were small and manageable. I have said that you simply can't compare the two.

Today was a disappointment all around. We were supposed to be up for once. That didn't hold. The "no nationalization" talk failed to help keep the broad market afloat. The breath of relief was quickly replaced by more flight to quality and panic protection. It feels as though the rest of the air is coming out of the market as Joe Public throws in the towel. Here were today's unofficial closing bell levels:

Dow 7,115.42 -250.25 (-3.40%)
S&P 500 743.36 -26.69 (-3.47%)
Nasdaq 1,387.72 -53.51 (-3.71%)

Top Analyst Calls

This port was written by Minyanville contributor Minyan Peter.

I think the Government will try at all costs to create the impression that only a limited number of banks are going to be nationalized. To achieve this, Secretary Geithner has requested that the top 15-20 banks in the country undergo a stress test, where regulators will review banks' capital positions under a variety of economic scenarios. And, based on these reviews, those banks that fail will be given convertible preferred stock to boost their capital levels to some yet to be determined level.

Investors should not read too much into the Dow's nearly 400-point drop Tuesday. What they should concentrate on, in the view of a pair of economists, is the mechanism the U.S. Treasury uses to price toxic assets.

The above is the most important 'unknown' in the U.S. Treasury's financial stability plan, so says economist David H. Wang -- how toxic assets that are clogging banks' balancing sheets and restricting credit -- will be priced.

"Will the United States government set-up a clearinghouse? Or will they design some type of open outcry, or managed open outcry? These are the key unknowns," Wang said. "Treasury Secretary Geithner and his staff cannot rush this decision, but on the other hand they cannot take two quarters to developed it. They have to announce the structure of the pricing program within a couple of weeks. I cannot underscore enough the importance of this pricing methodology. It will be the biggest factor in whether the credit system recovers, or something much worse occurs."

In the margins of Barron's this week there was a smallish note about the government of Venezuela nationalizing Cemex's (NYSE: CX) operations in that country. For some reason the government of Hugo Chavez thinks that stealing all of the private companies in 'his' country will lead to greater prosperity for 'his' people.

While it is a long journey from Venezuela to Zimbabwe, with its exponential inflation rate and a near-total economic breakdown, every journey begins with a first step. Mr. Chavez will move much closer to this inevitable outcome if he continues on his chosen path.

Motley Fool has a good write-up on the subject in which they detail the sour relations between Chavez and foreign businesses. Chavez recently offered to re-open negotiations with Cemex, but since he has already decided to take the company, that offer is suspect -- you can't negotiate with a gun pointing at you. To date, Chavez has nationalized the telecommunications industry, electricity, and oil. How many steps down the road is that? Why would anyone want to invest in Venezuela?