Citibank: Nationalization, With A Fig Leaf

I don't deal with the technicalities of receivership, and I'm no expert on banking policy. But I've got to agree with Josh Marshall's theories of quasi-nationalization: if a company is forced to accept government aid, and is forced to do so on the condition that they replace members of their board of directions, and on the condition that they change their lending and compensation practices, can they really be said to be, in practice, privately held? The government's not running the bank. They don't have majority ownership. But they're running the people who run the bank. They have access to every bit of information that the bank owners  have. They are setting the goals for the bank.  The difference between this -- and "nationalization" -- seems to me to be immaterial, although I an open to changing my mind.