Some very well-known facts: 1. Banks are bailed out with the tax payer money. 2. Once they are bailed out, they still don´t lend money so that the people can pay off the mortgages, put up new businesses or not to shut down their current businesses. Questions: 1.Why does then the government bail out the banks, without conditions? 2.Shouldn´t it be a condition that the bank that receive the money lent money again to people? If not, how do they use the money the people gives them? it is just a gift from the people to the banks? 3.If the banks fail again, will they be bailed out over and over again by the government, therfore, by the tax payer?
1. The banks/wall street run the treasury and the FED....it is a revolving door. They then threaten economically illiterate congressmen that the economy will totally collapse on their watch. 2. No...it shouldn't be a condition because the money should not be given in the first place. Second part of this question...they shore up their balance sheets and pay off their foreign creditors. A large sum of that money was sent overseas. Third part of this question...pretty much a incentive is what it was for the banks and wall street to continue doing what they have been doing. It start back in the late 80's with the S&L crisis. 3...yes. They will be bailed out again and yes we will pay for it. As mentioned above it started many decades ago and since both parties are run by these banks it will continue to happen. It is called crony capitalism and it happens in both parties. The banks/wall street/multinational corps/special interests literally run this country. Anybody that denies that is either stupid and should not be engaged in any kind of intelligent debate OR they are benefiting somehow from the status quo.
I'll add that they take the Fed loans and bailouts, and funnel it into the banking casino, AKA, swaps and derivatives, but yeah the rest sounds about right.
Keep in mind the banks need someone with a plan to pay back the money before lending. I too often hear people say "the banks should loan more money", which begs the question "To whom? ". Strangely the only companies I know complaining about not being able to borrow are complaining about banking regulators putting the brakes on their loans not the banks. I saw a good example on CNN. A guy has a start up company(actually I believe 3 or 4 yrs in bus) training the top people to run oil rigs. It was quite interesting. The number of rigs I guess has risen 5 fold in the last 20yrs. Tho operations and training are predominantly patterned after the military for everyone but the top brass. This guy realized that the rigs were similar to running a ship and being ex-navy is applying officer training techniques. Long story short, the oil industry is begging for his services, he needs to expand. The bank loves him. The feds don't. He doesn't have enough brick & mortar or financial equity. The story has a happy ending the oil companies step in and finance his expansion. A one in a million outcome. If they hadn't this guy wouldn't have blinked, he'd have been on a plane to Singapore within the week. I wasn't able to discern what "new" regulations they were faulting but what was most bothersome was the bank was a small midwest bank, and according to this gentleman were not a bank involved in trillions in OTC derivatives. I'm by no means an expert on these matters, but it strikes as being about right. Huge banking conglomerates engineer this mess, get bailed out, so the logical step would be to take investment decisions out of the hands of Bob at Omaha Local Bank and give it to a fed bureaucrat. Meanwhile It's my understanding the OTC Der market is still unregulated. Again I'm no expert on these matters and this example is obviously anecdotal. But it seems to me that all banks are being lumped into the evil category and as usual the little guys who played by the rules will be the only ones to feel the burden.
So what do you think is a more likely explanation for this: 1) Over zealous bureaucrats, accidentally created these regulations that is stifling this advisory company from getting the loans it needs. 2) The large banks lobbied the bureaucrats to intentionally make it more difficult for smaller banks to compete. ?
I guess if I had to choose I'd say #1. I have a very low opinion of the govt in general. Although I don't discount #2.
Good answer. I like how you didn't rule either out. The reality is that we can't solve any of our problems because we can't agree on what they are. The only path forward is more information which is gained through a culture change that demands transparency that will enable accountability.
I might disagree a little with not agreeing on the problems. My best friend is decidedly different philosophically from myself. We probably agree 98% on what the problems are the causes and fixes not so much. I say this of course knowing that you most likely include the "causes" in "what are the problems". I guess we just concentrate on the actual problems (excessive debt is a problem) and use the causes(not high enough taxes vs too high spending) argument to lead to the solutions argument(higher taxes vs lower spending). Perhaps just looking for some common ground.
1.So, the banks (Wall Street) run the Fed?. I mean, is not the Fed a PUBLIC INSTITUTION?. I have argued about that issue and people tell me the Fed is a public institution very useful, and that it doesn´t lend money to the government AT INTEREST. I thought a public institution was part of the government, and therefore, it can not lend money to itself (to the government), to the people, because the principal + interests are for the people to pay back, I think. 2. "Illiterate congressmen" is an exaggeration or it is a fact? . I say this because here in my country (Spain), politician can have absolutely any background, without studies at all (there was more than once high politicians being plumbers (before coming into Politics). Here , you enter the party, shout a lot, and you are promoted, and, as a logical consequence people who run the country are really illiterate, except for the Economy minister, luckily. Do politicians in US need to prove a high degree? 3. Do you think money shoud not be given to the banks , the bailouts? I mean, the "too big to fail" theory. Which is most puzzling for me is that their mistakes are paid by us, the citizens, the baker and the plumber and the police officer and your mother. Moreover, it is quite astonishing when you say the banks pay off their foreign creditors, or, it could be so, but at the same time, they should give part of the money to the people, otherwise, if they don´t lend, it is worse for them, isn´t it? . I mean, if they don´t lend, many employers have to shut down, unemployment raise, deposits in their vault decrease. Aren´t they interested in having a large middle class who consume, spend money, deposit money, etc....and to do so, they have to offer loans for the people and the country to develop, to have a better economy. I don´t get that they, the banks, are interested in not having a large middle class in US or any other country. 4. I don´t know what "S&L crisis" is, but I´ll try to get informed about it. 5. You said "Both parties are run by these banks" . Therefore, they represent them, and the same applies to TV Networks (bought by them I think), radio stations, newspapers.....is that not fascism?. Maybe I am exaggerating. Are there no differences between republicans and Democrats then? Are those differences superficial, just to make people believe they are choosing? . Oh my, sound horrible to me. Since when the banks control everything? I fear the answer is going to be: ever since the banking was created. 6. IT IS VERY OUTRAGING THAT PEOPLE PAY THESE MISTAKES, DON´T PEOPLE REALIZE? What is your stand on this?
banks are gambling our money 1. when they win it's their win 2. when they lose it's the tax payers loss we need laws to make sure banks are not gambling our money, we need to make the "fed" a government controlled entity .
Yeah....good luck with that. There is a reason they fight so hard to keep everything secret. There is NO CHANCE of that or a full GAO audit for all of us to see. If a full audit was done, and the audit was on the up and up, then people would be rioting tomorrow...quite literally.
neoliberalism = dictatorship of the banks for Q3 take the example of Europe: yes they will be bailed out even if it bankrupts the state and drive population into starvation.
Yep....they audit how much they spend on pencils and paper but that is about it. The important stuff is never audited and prohibited by law from being audited.
