Banking system failure: causes and options

[Ravi]

Here's a great program explaining the banking system, what went wrong, and what various fixes would accomplish.

Lots of blame to go around for those that like to point fingers.

After listening to this I am leaning toward nationalizing the banks long enough to clean them up.

This American Life

click on Full Episode under the picture of the piggy

 

[sealybobo]

Great topic. Boy how conflicted Ron Paul Republicans must be. Ron Paul tells them that the bankers are the problem while the party tells them that government is the problem.

So who do they expect to take the country back from the bankers and corporations that now own/run this bitch?

And boy will Ron Paul Republicans be the first to start screaming SOCIALISM, PROTECTIONISM, FREE TRADE, COMMUNISM & ANTI SOCIALISM the minute guys like Dennis Kuchenich & Chris Dodd even mention nationalizing the banks, which ultimately means TAKE OUR COUNTRY BACK!!!!

So Republicans. Pick a side, would you? Either you want the rich bankers to run/own this country or you want WE THE PEOPE to own it once again?

We know what the Bush Republicans would say. Let the corporations continue to own us. Status quo.

The Democrats might take the country back if we tell them to. They are a new party so they might get it done if they think the country is backing them. But remember the right wing is going to fight back awfully hard. Did you see Rush this weekend on CPAC? And the right wingers said he was strictly for entertainment? He is the leader of their party and they know it.

 

[sealybobo]

How come people don't take this serious?

Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes the laws. Rothschild quote

The real menace of our Republic is the invisible government which like a giant octopus sprawls its slimy legs over our cities states and nation. At the head is a small group of banking houses generally referred to as 'international bankers.' This little coterie... run our government for their own selfish ends. It operates under cover of a self-created screen...[and] seizes...our executive officers... legislative bodies... schools... courts... newspapers and every agency created for the public protection.


If people who say the bankers own/control the world are called "conspiracy theorists", what should we call the people who deny us? Fact Deniers?

 

[Ravi]

Sealy, keep in mind the nationalization is a temporary thing...like what we normally encourage third world countries to do to stabilize their economy. The only difference being that we are now the third world country, so to speak.

btw, the link is just audio...I tried to find a transcript but I guess you have to pay for it.

 

[editec]

The thing that I think the Ron Paulians still don't get is that we do NEED a central bank.

But they definitely DO GET that the system we have now is unfair.

We have already nationalized our banks, folks.

We did THAT the moment that we agreed to bail them out and take on their toxic debts.

Now the plan, as I understand it, is to give the banks time to get their ducks in a row so they can take back their shares, but I cannot see why they'd want to take on the toxic debts they've offloaded onto the backs of the American people.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Sealy, keep in mind the nationalization is a temporary thing...like what we normally encourage third world countries to do to stabilize their economy. The only difference being that we are now the third world country, so to speak.

btw, the link is just audio...I tried to find a transcript but I guess you have to pay for it.

No such thing as a "temporary" government expansion of power

 

[editec]

Sealy, keep in mind the nationalization is a temporary thing...like what we normally encourage third world countries to do to stabilize their economy. The only difference being that we are now the third world country, so to speak.

btw, the link is just audio...I tried to find a transcript but I guess you have to pay for it.

No such thing as a "temporary" government expansion of power

True, DAT, blood.

 

[sealybobo]

Sealy, keep in mind the nationalization is a temporary thing...like what we normally encourage third world countries to do to stabilize their economy. The only difference being that we are now the third world country, so to speak.

btw, the link is just audio...I tried to find a transcript but I guess you have to pay for it.

I don't want to nationalize "THE BANKS". The little banks scattered all across the country can be private if they want. They can give out loans and collect interest on those loans.

But what they should not do is run our country. And because of the Federal Reserve, they do run our country.

We need to take back the Federal Reserve from the bankers who stole it in 1913.

Until we do, don't expect much.

Because they can crash the economy tomorrow and you will run to them for solutions. The know how to control us.

And the newspapers and tv shows they own will lie to us.

We are hopeless.

 

[sealybobo]

Sealy, keep in mind the nationalization is a temporary thing...like what we normally encourage third world countries to do to stabilize their economy. The only difference being that we are now the third world country, so to speak.

btw, the link is just audio...I tried to find a transcript but I guess you have to pay for it.

No such thing as a "temporary" government expansion of power

It's our government. Why would we not want our government to have the power? Why would we want the bankers to have it?

The bankers who caused this mess.

 

[editec]

Sealy, keep in mind the nationalization is a temporary thing...like what we normally encourage third world countries to do to stabilize their economy. The only difference being that we are now the third world country, so to speak.

btw, the link is just audio...I tried to find a transcript but I guess you have to pay for it.

No such thing as a "temporary" government expansion of power

It's our government. Why would we not want our government to have the power? Why would we want the bankers to have it?

The bankers who caused this mess.

Becasue Skull still thinks that the private market can keep the relationship between the money supply and the nation's productivity aligned.

Of course the fact that he still doesn't get that the FED is a PRIVATE bank is completely mystifying to me, but there it is.

Most Ron Paulians apparently believe that the FED is a government bank and had it not been for the government the market wouldn't have done what it did.

 

[Ravi]

Sealy, keep in mind the nationalization is a temporary thing...like what we normally encourage third world countries to do to stabilize their economy. The only difference being that we are now the third world country, so to speak.

btw, the link is just audio...I tried to find a transcript but I guess you have to pay for it.

No such thing as a "temporary" government expansion of power

Funny, banks have been rescued by their countries since the beginning of banking systems and in almost all cases end back up in the private sector.

Did you even bother to listen to the link?

 

[sealybobo]

No such thing as a "temporary" government expansion of power

It's our government. Why would we not want our government to have the power? Why would we want the bankers to have it?

The bankers who caused this mess.

Becasue Skull still thinks that the private market can keep the relationship between the money supply and the nation's productivity aligned.

Of course the fact that he still doesn't get that the FED is a PRIVATE bank is completely mystifying to me, but there it is.

Most Ron Paulians apparently believe that the FED is a government bank and had it not been for the government the market wouldn't have done what it did.

For those who think I get all my thoughts from Air America, I do not. I was driving in when this contradiction between Ron Paul Republicans and Real Republicans hit me.

The reason government is part of the problem is because the government is in bed with these bankers/oilmen. So no doubt Republicans want a small government with very limited power.

So instead of discussing these contradictions, Republicans will just spin the conversation into "do you think the dems are any better".

And the answer is, OF COURSE THEY ARE BETTER.

Yes Dems want business to succeed too. If business fails, so do people. But they understand that left unchecked, these corporations will go too far sending jobs overseas, hiring illegals and lowering our wages.

Because corporations don't care about america, people, global warming, death, etc. They only care about profits.

 

[Ravi]

This will probably be like banging my head against the wall...but, whatever.

Nationalizing the banks would only include those that are so full of toxic assets that they are insolvent. It doesn't include solvent banks, it doesn't mean the government would take over and keep the banks. It means that the government would inject capital, get rid of the toxic assets, make the banks solvent and sell them back to private owners (hopefully some with a little more sense than the current crop).

 

[editec]

This will probably be like banging my head against the wall...but, whatever.

Nationalizing the banks would only include those that are so full of toxic assets that they are insolvent. It doesn't include solvent banks, it doesn't mean the government would take over and keep the banks. It means that the government would inject capital, get rid of the toxic assets, make the banks solvent and sell them back to private owners (hopefully some with a little more sense than the current crop).

Yeah, exactly, Ravi.

The term nationalization is being used, I think, incorrectly.

If we nationalize the banks, we OWN the banks.

Seems to me the only thing we own right now is their bad debts (and we also put the American people on the hook for them through FDIC, of course)

Have I missed something?

Other than AIG, I don't see anything that looks like the government is taking over ownership of the corporations.

And given that AIG was insolvent, and we OVERPAID FOR IT, suggesting that we nationalized that insrance company is wrong, too.

The US taxpayers BOUGHT that insurance company, they didn't nationalize it.

When you nationalize something you TAKE something with some REAL VALUE.

AIG's market value was LESS than ZERO.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Sealy, keep in mind the nationalization is a temporary thing...like what we normally encourage third world countries to do to stabilize their economy. The only difference being that we are now the third world country, so to speak.

btw, the link is just audio...I tried to find a transcript but I guess you have to pay for it.

No such thing as a "temporary" government expansion of power

It's our government. Why would we not want our government to have the power? Why would we want the bankers to have it?

The bankers who caused this mess.

And the insurance companies and the politicians and yes BooBoo the public as well.

No such thing as a "temporary" government expansion of power

It's our government. Why would we not want our government to have the power? Why would we want the bankers to have it?

The bankers who caused this mess.

Becasue Skull still thinks that the private market can keep the relationship between the money supply and the nation's productivity aligned.

Of course the fact that he still doesn't get that the FED is a PRIVATE bank is completely mystifying to me, but there it is.

Most Ron Paulians apparently believe that the FED is a government bank and had it not been for the government the market wouldn't have done what it did.

Ed don't presume to know what I do or don't understand. the chairman of the fed is a political appointee and the decision to raise or lower interest rates is a ham handed political tool.

This will probably be like banging my head against the wall...but, whatever.

Nationalizing the banks would only include those that are so full of toxic assets that they are insolvent. It doesn't include solvent banks, it doesn't mean the government would take over and keep the banks. It means that the government would inject capital, get rid of the toxic assets, make the banks solvent and sell them back to private owners (hopefully some with a little more sense than the current crop).

you mean the government will pick "people with sense" to sell the banks to?

like the people politicians appoint now?

good luck with that.

 

[Paulie]

Did you even bother to listen to the link?

Hey, Rav asking whether someone listened to HER link.

No Rav, I stopped listening after the first statement because it was "lies".

 

[editec]

.

No such thing as a "temporary" government expansion of power

It's our government. Why would we not want our government to have the power? Why would we want the bankers to have it?

The bankers who caused this mess.

And the insurance companies and the politicians and yes BooBoo the public as well.

Becasue Skull still thinks that the private market can keep the relationship between the money supply and the nation's productivity aligned.

Of course the fact that he still doesn't get that the FED is a PRIVATE bank is completely mystifying to me, but there it is.

Most Ron Paulians apparently believe that the FED is a government bank and had it not been for the government the market wouldn't have done what it did.

Ed don't presume to know what I do or don't understand. the chairman of the fed is a political appointee and the decision to raise or lower interest rates is a ham handed political tool.

I'm not presuming anything, Skull. You just proved my point. Skull, where dopes EVERY GOVERNOR of the FED come from? From the banks which OWN the Fed, right? They all worked for those banks, and then they take their turn running the FED which THEY OWN, sport.

The fact that our POTUS gets to appoint SOME of those governnors, but ALWAYS CHOOSES BANKERS who worked for the BANKS which OWN the FED should be the tipoff that the FED is entirely an animal of the banks.

Why you keep missing this obvious revolving door betweenthe private banks and the so called FED, I don't know.

The government doesn't own the banks, the banks OWN THE GOVERNMENT

This will probably be like banging my head against the wall...but, whatever.

Nationalizing the banks would only include those that are so full of toxic assets that they are insolvent. It doesn't include solvent banks, it doesn't mean the government would take over and keep the banks. It means that the government would inject capital, get rid of the toxic assets, make the banks solvent and sell them back to private owners (hopefully some with a little more sense than the current crop).

you mean the government will pick "people with sense" to sell the banks to?

like the people politicians appoint now?

good luck with that.

 

[Ravi]

Did you even bother to listen to the link?

Hey, Rav asking whether someone listened to HER link.

No Rav, I stopped listening after the first statement because it was "lies".

lol...your loss.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Sealy, keep in mind the nationalization is a temporary thing...like what we normally encourage third world countries to do to stabilize their economy. The only difference being that we are now the third world country, so to speak.

btw, the link is just audio...I tried to find a transcript but I guess you have to pay for it.

Is there any reason why The People can't own dividend paying common stock in these corporations?

If We The People owned 1/3 of CHASE and our representatives voted those shares according to the will of their constituents, wouldn't that be a good thing?

-Joe

 

[Ravi]

Sealy, keep in mind the nationalization is a temporary thing...like what we normally encourage third world countries to do to stabilize their economy. The only difference being that we are now the third world country, so to speak.

btw, the link is just audio...I tried to find a transcript but I guess you have to pay for it.

Is there any reason why The People can't own dividend paying common stock in these corporations?

If We The People owned 1/3 of CHASE and our representatives voted those shares according to the will of their constituents, wouldn't that be a good thing?

-Joe

I don't think it would be a good thing. I'm okay with the government fixing things that no one else can fix, but I don't like the idea of the government trying to run the banks on a permanent basis. When they screw up, as they eventually will...who would bail them (us) out?