What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Has President Biden Nationalized our banking system?

pknopp

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2019
Messages
57,857
Reaction score
20,423
Points
2,210
Those loans rescued our banking system.

The bailout of SVB has effectively Nationalized the banking system. If the law had been followed, it SVB would have hardly been a blip in our economy. Now President Biden has told banks that their losses are Socialized and their profits are Capitalism. Make high-risk investments and if you lose, taxpayers will rescue you and if you win, the multi-millionaires will make huge profits. What a plan!

You damn socialists and your bail outs of failed enterprises.
 

CommunistFront

VIP Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2022
Messages
2,666
Reaction score
714
Points
88
Has President Biden Nationalized our banking system?

A better question is, how has he NOT Nationalized our banking system? How can the government now refuse to make whole depositors of more than $250,000 in any bank in the country?

US regulators say SVB customers will be made whole as second bank fails

By David Goldman, CNN
Updated 8:44 PM ET, Sun March 12, 2023

New York (CNN)In an extraordinary action to restore confidence in America's banking system, the Biden administration on Sunday guaranteed that customers of the failed Silicon Valley Bank will have access to all their money starting Monday.


If only he would, that would be great.
 

CommunistFront

VIP Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2022
Messages
2,666
Reaction score
714
Points
88
You damn socialists and your bail outs of failed enterprises.
Capitalism survives on bailouts every seven to twelve years. Look at our history. Without bailouts and public services, capitalism would collapse and wouldn't get back up, like in that commercial from the 80s.


 

pknopp

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2019
Messages
57,857
Reaction score
20,423
Points
2,210
Capitalism survives on bailouts every seven to twelve years. Look at our history. Without bailouts and public services, capitalism would collapse and wouldn't get back up, like in that commercial from the 80s.



I agree in principle outside to once again note, Capitalism does not exist anywhere. What you say is true about what we pretend is Capitalism.
 

CommunistFront

VIP Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2022
Messages
2,666
Reaction score
714
Points
88
I agree in principle outside to once again note, Capitalism does not exist anywhere. What you say is true about what we pretend is Capitalism.

Capitalism at a national scale needs way too much support from the government. Producing everything that people consume for a monetary profit eventually leads to cronyism. The exploitation of human labor and the creation of monopolies is endemic to capitalism. Even Adam Smith, the father of capitalism admitted that. There are things that Mr. Smith wrote in his book "Wealth Of Nations" that if you didn't know that it was him (the father of capitalism) saying it, you would think that it was a quote from the communist manifesto. You would say "that's Karl Marx". Let me give you a few examples:

What are the common wages of labour, depends every where upon the contract usually made between those two parties, whose interests are by no means the same. The workmen desire to get as much, the masters to give as little as possible. The former are disposed to combine in order to raise, the latter in order to lower the wages of labour.(Book I, Chapter VIII)


Adam Smith admits that the interests of the capitalists is not necessarily the interests of the working class. He even goes as far as to identify the capitalists as "masters". He refers to "unionizing" or organizing for the purpose of defending one's financial interests as "combining". How do the masters "combine" or organize to defend their financial interests? Ever heard of "Citizens United"? The army of lobbyists legally bribing our politicians in the halls of government. The "think tanks" in Washington, funded by the wealthy, write the papers and legislation, then hand it to the lobbyists who go to the politicians.

It's all a corrupt system of legal bribery. Then the GOP complains about workers wanting to unionize. Why can't workers unionize? The masters "unionize", they're united and well organized, why can't the working class do the same to defend and advance their financial interests? Only the rich masters i.e. capitalists, can unite and organize, according to the Republicans and a few Democrats as well.

Adam Smith goes on to say:

It is not, however, difficult to foresee which of the two parties must, upon all ordinary occasions, have the advantage in the dispute, and force the other into compliance with their terms. The masters, being fewer in number, can combine much more easily; and the law, besides, authorizes, or at least does not prohibit their combinations, while it prohibits those of the workmen.(Book I, Chapter VIII)

Adam Smith admits that the masters "combine", they organize and unite to advance their interests, which are often at the expense of the working class, and do everything they can to prohibit workers from unionizing. They want the little worker to negotiate with the big strong capitalist master, "uno a uno" / one on one, without having the backing of other workers. There's strength in numbers and even the masters realize that hence they organize or "combine" as Adam Smith admits, but the workers, are constantly being demonized by the right, for wanting to unionize.



Adam Smith:

The government of an exclusive company of merchants is, perhaps, the worst of all governments for any country whatsoever Of all the expedients that can well be contrived to stunt the natural growth of a new colony, that of an exclusive company is undoubtedly the most effectual.

But as all the different merchants, who joined their stocks in order to fit out those licensed vessels, would find it for their interest to act in concert, the trade which was carried on in this manner would necessarily be conducted very nearly upon the same principles as that of an exclusive company. The profit of those merchants would be almost equally exorbitant and oppressive. (Book IV, Chapter VI)



This is all Adam Smith, the father of capitalism:


The exploitation of colonies

Folly and injustice seem to have been the principles which presided over and directed the first project of establishing those colonies; the folly of hunting after gold and silver mines, and the injustice of coveting the possession of a country whose harmless natives, far from having ever injured the people of Europe, had received the first adventurers with every mark of kindness and hospitality.
(Book IV, Chapter VII, Part II)







The absurd complaints of the British capitalists

Our merchants frequently complain of the high wages of British labour as the cause of their manufactures being undersold in foreign markets, but they are silent about the high profits of stock. They complain of the extravagant gain of other people, but they say nothing of their own. The high profits of British stock, however, may contribute towards raising the price of British manufactures in many cases as much, and in some perhaps more, than the high wages of British labour.
(Book IV, Chapter VII, Part III)







Unnatural gigantism

The monopoly of the colony trade besides, by forcing towards it a much greater proportion of the capital of Great Britain than what would naturally have gone to it, seems to have broken altogether that natural balance which would otherwise have taken place among all the different branches of British industry. The industry of Great Britain, instead of being accommodated to a great number of small markets, has been principally suited to one great market. Her commerce, instead of running in a great number of small channels, has been taught to run principally in one great channel. But the whole system of her industry and commerce has thereby been rendered less secure, the whole state of her body politic less healthful than it otherwise would have been. In her present condition, Great Britain resembles one of those unwholesome bodies in which some of the vital parts are overgrown, and which, upon that account, are liable to many dangerous disorders scarce incident to those in which all the parts are more properly proportioned. A small stop in that great blood-vessel, which has been artificially swelled beyond its natural dimensions, and through which an unnatural proportion of the industry and commerce of the country has been forced to circulate, is very likely to bring on the most dangerous disorders upon the whole body politic.
(Book IV, Chapter VII, Part III)







Monopoly

The monopoly raises the rate of profit, but it hinders the sum of profit from rising so high as it otherwise would do. All the original sources of revenue, the wages of labour, the rent of land, and the profits of stock, the monopoly renders much less abundant than they otherwise would be. To promote the little interest of one little order of men in one country, it hurts the interest of all other orders of men in that country, and of all men in all other countries. (Book IV, Chapter VII, Part III)

It is thus that the single advantage which the monopoly procures to a single order of men is in many different ways hurtful to the general interest of the country.
To found a great empire for the sole purpose of raising up a people of customers may at first sight appear a project fit only for a nation of shopkeepers. It is, however, a project altogether unfit for a nation of shopkeepers; but extremely fit for a nation whose government is influenced by shopkeepers.
(Book IV, Chapter VII, Part III)

All the different regulations of the mercantile system necessarily derange more or less this natural and most advantageous distribution of stock. But those which concern the trade to America and the East Indies derange it perhaps more than any other, because the trade to those two great continents absorbs a greater quantity of stock than any two other branches of trade. The regulations, however, by which this derangement is effected in those two different branches of trade are not altogether the same. Monopoly is the great engine of both; but it is a different sort of monopoly. Monopoly of one kind or another, indeed, seems to be the sole engine of the mercantile system.
(Book IV, Chapter VII, Part III)



Great properties require the establishment of the government

Men may live together in society with some tolerable degree of security, though there is no civil magistrate to protect them from the injustice of those passions. But avarice and ambition in the rich, in the poor the hatred of labour and the love of present ease and enjoyment, are the passions which prompt to invade property, passions much more steady in their operation, and much more universal in their influence. Wherever there is great property there is great inequality. For one very rich man there must be at least five hundred poor, and the affluence of the few supposes the indigence of the many. The affluence of the rich excites the indignation of the poor, who are often both driven by want, and prompted by envy, to invade his possessions. It is only under the shelter of the civil magistrate that the owner of that valuable property, which is acquired by the labour of many years, or perhaps of many successive generations, can sleep a single night in security. He is at all times surrounded by unknown enemies, whom, though he never provoked, he can never appease, and from whose injustice he can be protected only by the powerful arm of the civil magistrate continually held up to chastise it. The acquisition of valuable and extensive property, therefore, necessarily requires the establishment of civil government.
(Book V, Chapter I, Part II)

The rich, in particular, are necessarily interested to support that order of things which can alone secure them in the possession of their own advantages.
(Book V, Chapter I, Part II)







The monied people increase their wealth lending to the government

The merchant or monied man makes money by lending money to government, and instead of diminishing, increases his trading capital. He generally considers it as a favour, therefore, when the administration admits him to a share in the first subscription for a new loan. Hence the inclination or willingness in the subjects of a commercial state to lend.
The government of such a state is very apt to repose itself upon this ability and willingness of its subjects to lend it their money on extraordinary occasions. It foresees the facility of borrowing, and therefore dispenses itself from the duty of saving.
(Book V, Chapter III)


Justice and well-being as signs of a flourishing society

Servants, labourers and workmen of different kinds, make up the far greater part of every great political society. But what improves the circumstances of the greater part can never be regarded as an inconvenience to the whole. No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable. It is but equity, besides, that they who feed, cloath and lodge the whole body of the people, should have such a share of the produce of their own labour as to be themselves tolerably well fed, cloathed and lodged. (Book I, Chapter VIII)






High salaries bring about high quality and productivity of work

The wages of labour are the encouragement of industry, which, like every other human quality, improves in proportion to the encouragement it receives. A plentiful subsistence increases the bodily strength of the labourer, and the comfortable hope of bettering his condition, and of ending his days perhaps in ease and plenty, animates him to exert that strength to the utmost. Where wages are high, accordingly, we shall always find the workmen more active, diligent, and expeditious, than where they are low.
(Book I, Chapter VIII)

Adam Smith didn't like Landlords:

As soon as the land of any country has all become private property, the landlords, like all other men, love to reap where they never sowed, and demand a rent even for its natural produce. The wood of the forest, the grass of the field, and all the natural fruits of the earth, which, when land was in common, cost the labourer only the trouble of gathering them, come, even to him, to have an additional price fixed upon them. He must then pay for the licence to gather them; and must give up to the landlord a portion of what his labour either collects or produces. This portion, or, what comes to the same thing, the price of this portion, constitutes the rent of land, and in the price of the greater part of commodities makes a third component part.
(Book I, Chapter VI)



The type of capitalism we see today in America was considered highly destructive by Adam Smith, the father of capitalism.
 
Last edited:

💲 Amazon Deals 💲

Forum List

Top