CDZ What have banks to do with Capitalism?

[Holos]

Nothing.

"Capitalism is a system of largely private ownership that is open to new ideas, new firms and new owners—in short, to new capital. Capitalism’s rationale to proponents and critics alike has long been recognized to be its dynamism, that is, its innovations and, more subtly, its selectiveness in the innovations it tries out. At the same time, capitalism is also known for its tendency to generate instability, often associated with the existence of financial crises, job insecurity and failures to include the disadvantaged."

"Competition, it appears, is not sufficient for economic dynamism."

"The essence of capitalism’s innovations was uncovered by [...] Friedrich Hayek [who] saw it as a core feature that, under capitalism, entrepreneurs are self-selected, aided by their particular experience and driven by their distinctive visions. [...] a state investment bank would not be well-suited to select among entrepreneurs’ projects: being accountable to the central government for its mistakes, it would avoid all the very innovative proposals because of the ambiguity of the evidence for them and thus the uncertainty of their profitability."

http://capitalism.columbia.edu/theory-capitalism


Does Capitalism then really have a tendency to generate instability? Why?
Would you argue for any central bank's functional presence within Capitalism?

 

[yiostheoy]

Banks are capitalists too.

Especially when they get too big to fail.

Then they can suck the blood of the Fed as well.

 

[Holos]

Banks are capitalists too.

Especially when they get too big to fail.

Then they can suck the blood of the Fed as well.

How are banks capitalists?
Your statement is empty.

Did you read the OP?

 

[waltky]

Banks is where money...

... the lifeblood of capitalism...

... comes from.

 

[Indeependent]

Banks are capitalists too.

Especially when they get too big to fail.

Then they can suck the blood of the Fed as well.

How are banks capitalists?
Your statement is empty.

Did you read the OP?

Stop smoking pot before posting and perhaps you'll see how Banks are Capitalistic Entities.

 

[Holos]

Banks is where money...

... the lifeblood of capitalism...

... is.

According to Columbia's website, the lifeblood of capitalism is innovation and money has not much to do with the principle of capital, except by otherwise making sure that entrepreneurs have an example of orthodox tradition (the contrasting concept to innovation).

 

[Dekster]

Banks are not necessary for capitalism, but I am guessing my doctor would get tired of taking chickens in exchange for his services at some point.

 

[Holos]

Banks are capitalists too.

Especially when they get too big to fail.

Then they can suck the blood of the Fed as well.

How are banks capitalists?
Your statement is empty.

Did you read the OP?

Stop smoking pot before posting and perhaps you'll see how Banks are Capitalistic Entities.

I was not considering art crafts as fundamental when analyzing economics. In fact, I had assumed pre-modern History had already properly accomplished it's designated purpose, already observing the technologies of the Industrial revolution.

Tell me then, since we have already moved on from 10.000 B.C., how are Banks Capitalistic Entities in the 21st Century A.C.?

 

[Indeependent]

Banks is where money...

... the lifeblood of capitalism...

... is.

According to Columbia's website, the lifeblood of capitalism is innovation and money has not much to do with the principle of capital, except by otherwise making sure that entrepreneurs have an example of orthodox tradition (the contrasting concept to innovation).

That is theoretical.
In reality, banks deal in profit.

 

[Indeependent]

sQUOTE="Holos, post: 14961040, member: 56831"]

Banks are capitalists too.

Especially when they get too big to fail.

Then they can suck the blood of the Fed as well.

How are banks capitalists?
Your statement is empty.

Did you read the OP?

Stop smoking pot before posting and perhaps you'll see how Banks are Capitalistic Entities.

I was not considering art crafts as fundamental when analyzing economics. In fact, I had assumed pre-modern History had already properly accomplished it's designated purpose, already observing the technologies of the Industrial revolution.

Tell me then, since we have already moved on from 10.000 B.C., how are Banks Capitalistic Entities in the 21st Century A.C.?[/QUOTE]
Banks produce a multitude of Financial Products for the various strata of society, so the answer is yes.
Plus I know MANY people who work for Banks and Banks live for Fees and Commissions, NOT innovation.

 

[Holos]

Banks are not necessary for capitalism, but I am guessing my doctor would get tired of taking chickens in exchange for his services at some point.

Banks is where money...

... the lifeblood of capitalism...

... is.

According to Columbia's website, the lifeblood of capitalism is innovation and money has not much to do with the principle of capital, except by otherwise making sure that entrepreneurs have an example of orthodox tradition (the contrasting concept to innovation).

That is theoretical.
In reality, banks deal in profit.

The operation of banks is not theoretical, although in fact, as Columbia's website presented, they do function in relation to profit - although not only of their own interest, but in accordance to state and federal regulation which is continued by and through commercial taxes.

How is capitalism theoretical, and not also pragmatic as in the case of bank operations? Have innovations no pragmatic value in your perspective? Are they restricted to profit in your opinion?

 

[Dekster]

Banks are not necessary for capitalism, but I am guessing my doctor would get tired of taking chickens in exchange for his services at some point.

Banks is where money...

... the lifeblood of capitalism...

... is.

According to Columbia's website, the lifeblood of capitalism is innovation and money has not much to do with the principle of capital, except by otherwise making sure that entrepreneurs have an example of orthodox tradition (the contrasting concept to innovation).

That is theoretical.
In reality, banks deal in profit.

The operation of banks is not theoretical, although in fact, as Columbia's website presented, they do function in relation to profit - although not only of their own interest, but in accordance to state and federal regulation which is continued by and through commercial taxes.

How is capitalism theoretical, and not also pragmatic as in the case of bank operations? Have innovations no pragmatic value in your perspective? Are they restricted to profit in your opinion?

I am not sure you understand the basis of currency after having read your posts, or have a sound theory on the basis of currency's value. Banks are a system of currency distribution. This whole bank vs. innovation isn't even close enough to reality to even be called apples to oranges.

 

[Indeependent]

Banks are not necessary for capitalism, but I am guessing my doctor would get tired of taking chickens in exchange for his services at some point.

Banks is where money...

... the lifeblood of capitalism...

... is.

According to Columbia's website, the lifeblood of capitalism is innovation and money has not much to do with the principle of capital, except by otherwise making sure that entrepreneurs have an example of orthodox tradition (the contrasting concept to innovation).

That is theoretical.
In reality, banks deal in profit.

The operation of banks is not theoretical, although in fact, as Columbia's website presented, they do function in relation to profit - although not only of their own interest, but in accordance to state and federal regulation which is continued by and through commercial taxes.

How is capitalism theoretical, and not also pragmatic as in the case of bank operations? Have innovations no pragmatic value in your perspective? Are they restricted to profit in your opinion?

It's not my opinion, it's fact; Banks operate to make a profit, not to fund innovation.
I would presume you are young and don't know many people who work for Banks and Investment Firms.
And to be perfectly honest, I truly don't care how an Industry is defined by Columbia's website.
The real world is often far more painful than Academics are willing to see.

 

[Holos]

Banks produce a multitude of Financial Products for the various strata of society, so the answer is yes.
Plus I know MANY people who work for Banks and Banks live for Fees and Commissions, NOT innovation.

I am only aware of one financial product that banks produce: currency, also known as money.

Can you give me example of other financial products that banks produce?

If banks were to be Capitalistic Entities as you have proposed within the presented context, they would have to accept some measure of innovation, since that is the definition we are using to continue our discuss.

 

[Toronado3800]

Banks are places where capitalism is made to look bad and regulation is made to look necessary because the workers are too selfish, dumb or short sighted to avoid giving out bad loans to hit short term bonuses?

 

[Indeependent]

Banks produce a multitude of Financial Products for the various strata of society, so the answer is yes.
Plus I know MANY people who work for Banks and Banks live for Fees and Commissions, NOT innovation.

I am only aware of one financial product that banks produce: currency, also known as money.

Can you give me example of other financial products that banks produce?

If banks were to be Capitalistic Entities as you have proposed within the presented context, they would have to accept some measure of innovation, since that is the definition we are using to continue our discuss.

Do you consider Mortgages or Lines of Credit as Products?
If not, think again.
These Products are marketed to make money, NOT to create innovations for society.
You are young and see innovation going on around you with every passing day.
Prior to the mid-2000s such was NOT the case.
In fact, most successful businesses, including Banks, AVOIDED innovation to avoid losses.

 

[Indeependent]

Banks produce a multitude of Financial Products for the various strata of society, so the answer is yes.
Plus I know MANY people who work for Banks and Banks live for Fees and Commissions, NOT innovation.

I am only aware of one financial product that banks produce: currency, also known as money.

Can you give me example of other financial products that banks produce?

If banks were to be Capitalistic Entities as you have proposed within the presented context, they would have to accept some measure of innovation, since that is the definition we are using to continue our discuss.

Banks DO NOT produce Currency.
They pay to borrow currency and charge to lend it out.

 

[Holos]

I am not sure you understand the basis of currency after having read your posts, or have a sound theory on the basis of currency's value. Banks are a system of currency distribution. This whole bank vs. innovation isn't even close enough to reality to even be called apples to oranges.

You are welcome to inform me about what apparently it is that I do not understand. I can then rate and thank your post accordingly.

I had not intended to present the topic as a contrast. In fact, the quote about competition in the OP was meant to make that clear.

The idea proposed was that banks are an example of stability, or firm establishment, therefore not having to do anything about Capitalism, and yet assuring it in it's unstable baby steps with its successful project, and perhaps even serving as an indirect example of innovation, since they relate to and depend on an extensive diversity of businesses and peoples, but do not associate themselves directly with that diversity.

 

[Dekster]

Banks produce a multitude of Financial Products for the various strata of society, so the answer is yes.
Plus I know MANY people who work for Banks and Banks live for Fees and Commissions, NOT innovation.

I am only aware of one financial product that banks produce: currency, also known as money.

Can you give me example of other financial products that banks produce?

If banks were to be Capitalistic Entities as you have proposed within the presented context, they would have to accept some measure of innovation, since that is the definition we are using to continue our discuss.

Banks DO NOT produce Currency.
They pay to borrow currency and charge to lend it out.

You are correct but here comes the fractional banking canard in short order.

 

[Holos]

Banks produce a multitude of Financial Products for the various strata of society, so the answer is yes.
Plus I know MANY people who work for Banks and Banks live for Fees and Commissions, NOT innovation.

I am only aware of one financial product that banks produce: currency, also known as money.

Can you give me example of other financial products that banks produce?

If banks were to be Capitalistic Entities as you have proposed within the presented context, they would have to accept some measure of innovation, since that is the definition we are using to continue our discuss.

Do you consider Mortgages or Lines of Credit as Products?
If not, think again.
These Products are marketed to make money, NOT to create innovations for society.
You are young and see innovation going on around you with every passing day.
Prior to the mid-2000s such was NOT the case.
In fact, most successful businesses, including Banks, AVOIDED innovation to avoid losses.

Loans are not products. They are conducts.

A product can have a final and simple end (purpose), that is, it can remain unaltered when concluded. A conduct is only a mid-end (process), and has the specialized purpose to be continually altered, even after conclusion.

That's what Mortgages and Lines of Credit are, complex processes; loans.

Also, your last phrase is a repetition of what is written in the OP.