$1.2 Trillion went to Wallstreet

[bfdd]

The banksters, most of which required those bailouts, absolutely are criminals who should be prosecuted and if found guilty put in jail.


Last time I checked little things like defrauding people of millions or billions or even trillions of dollars was and is a crime. Are you implying that it should not be a crime?

I completely agree. If you ran a bank that required a bailout, that means you most likely have defrauded your customer base(at least a good portion of it), so you should probably be in jail not a penthouse.

 

[momeNt]

The banksters, most of which required those bailouts, absolutely are criminals who should be prosecuted and if found guilty put in jail.


Last time I checked little things like defrauding people of millions or billions or even trillions of dollars was and is a crime. Are you implying that it should not be a crime?

You actually imply it shouldn't be a crime. Fractional reserve banking is lending money on deposits that belong to the depositors, not the banks.

Now unless depositing money in a bank gets its name changed to investing in banks, and instead of depositing your paycheck you decide to invest your paycheck, i consider this thievery and the banks should be prosecuted and found guilty and put in jail.

Originally Posted by Darwin333
Can you name me a current economy of any relevance that uses a 100% reserve system? No? Wanna know why?

Would like to see how you reconcile these two statements.

 

[Icepick]

so what you are saying is, we gave the money to the job creators?

l o l !!!!!

 

[LegendKiller]

You actually imply it shouldn't be a crime. Fractional reserve banking is lending money on deposits that belong to the depositors, not the banks.

Now unless depositing money in a bank gets its name changed to investing in banks, and instead of depositing your paycheck you decide to invest your paycheck, i consider this thievery and the banks should be prosecuted and found guilty and put in jail.



Would like to see how you reconcile these two statements.

Ohhh for fucks sake. It's not "thievery". Depositors know that the funds are lent out, otherwise they wouldn't even be making money on the deposits.

 

[momeNt]

Ohhh for fucks sake. It's not "thievery". Depositors know that the funds are lent out, otherwise they wouldn't even be making money on the deposits.

Who keeps the money they make on the deposits? Better yet, who pays up if they lose money?

The whole reason banks have FDIC stickers and plaques all over the office is to prevent the bank run. Would be a lot easier if the banks just had the money in their coffers wouldn't it?

 

[LegendKiller]

There is a fundamental disconnect between people who feel that regulation is the root of the problem, and they argue for free banking, gold standards, and 100% reserves.

Then there are the people that feel that everything needs to be more regulated, and any failure in a currently regulated and centrally planned system simply needs more regulating and central planning.

People will always find a different way to view the situation. Take barefoot running for example. Some people out there feel that running shoes cause injuries, they don't let the muscles in your leg properly absorb impact and weaken all the muscles associated with your gait. Then there are those that feel that the running shoes just need to get better and offer even more protection. The two will never agree.

It isn't really LMFAO on him arguing for no regulation at all. Yes you will point to Clinton's repeal of the Glass-Steagall act as the catalyst for causing the enormous rise in mortgage CDOs and the collapse of our markets in 2008, but that is only looking at the problem very closed-minded and wanting to only see the answer that proves your point. You are forgetting that sub-prime mortgages were encouraged by GSEs like Fannie and Freddie and that the Community Reinvestment Act that was expanded to no longer be ignored in the 1990s actively discouraged redlining by banks and encouraged lending to individuals and families the banks initially tried to stay away from.

So you can draw two conclusions, glass-steagall repeal caused the banks to become TBTF and allowed the volume of CDOs to run up to proportions that nobody could guarantee if they tanked. Or regulatory acts like the Community Reinvestment Act encouraged banks towards bad investments which caused high mortgage payment failure and a loss in value on their books.

We go from putting every american in a home to predatory lending, well which is it? The answer is not very clear cut and definitely doesn't deserve an LMFAO....

CRA was a pimple on the elephants ass and only targeted regulated entities. The vast majority of bad CRA loans weren't even originated at regulated entities. Further, most studies show that CRA wasn't a significant contributor and, in most vintages, outperformed prime loans. Further, the GSEs didn't issue a large amount of CRA paper and didn't issue subprime paper in any meaningful amount. In fact, their portion of RMBS issuance declined as a % of the market.

 

[ProfJohn]

The banksters, most of which required those bailouts, absolutely are criminals who should be prosecuted and if found guilty put in jail.


Last time I checked little things like defrauding people of millions or billions or even trillions of dollars was and is a crime. Are you implying that it should not be a crime?

Then why isn't Obama throwing people into jail?

 

[LegendKiller]

Who keeps the money they make on the deposits? Better yet, who pays up if they lose money?

The whole reason banks have FDIC stickers and plaques all over the office is to prevent the bank run. Would be a lot easier if the banks just had the money in their coffers wouldn't it?

Depositors get a portion of the money they loan out, an OK return since the deposits are guaranteed and you can remove the deposits quickly. The FDIC, which is funded by the same banks which take in deposits, pays the amount through the DIF fund. The DIF fund can be lent money (hasn't yet).

Do you really think that having all deposits having 0 monetary velocity would cure all of the ills? Further, do you really think it is "theft" if you can take it back at any time and KNOWINGLY give it to the bank to lend out? Further, do you really think that eliminating FRB would stop runs on banks?

Deposits aren't the whole story for bank funding.

 

[rchiu]

Who keeps the money they make on the deposits? Better yet, who pays up if they lose money?

The whole reason banks have FDIC stickers and plaques all over the office is to prevent the bank run. Would be a lot easier if the banks just had the money in their coffers wouldn't it?

Seriously how out of touch from reality are you?

If the banks just keep the money in their coffer, who is going to pay for the buildings, workers for the bank, and God forbid, some profit for the stockholders of those banks?

What value add is the bank going to provide vs. lets say you putting your money under your mattress? Do you know how many businesses rely on banks to run their business? Who is going to provide for your precious little house mortgage?

We have a banking system that works, that pushed US economy to world #1. Now with one crisis, all the idiots with no idea how banks work crawling out of the woodwork and want to destroy something that makes this entire country run.

Yes the pendulum for the system has swing too much to overflow of credit and lack of control/review in the name of profit, but that's a problem we have to fix, and not a reason to disband the whole banking system.

 

[momeNt]

Depositors get a portion of the money they loan out, an OK return since the deposits are guaranteed and you can remove the deposits quickly. The FDIC, which is funded by the same banks which take in deposits, pays the amount through the DIF fund. The DIF fund can be lent money (hasn't yet).

Do you really think that having all deposits having 0 monetary velocity would cure all of the ills? Further, do you really think it is "theft" if you can take it back at any time and KNOWINGLY give it to the bank to lend out? Further, do you really think that eliminating FRB would stop runs on banks?

Deposits aren't the whole story for bank funding.

Do you really think that having all deposits having 0 monetary velocity would cure all of the ills?

No I don't think that having all deposits be fully reserved would cure all the ills, I think it is only 1 step on the way to sound banking.

Further, do you really think it is "theft" if you can take it back at any time and KNOWINGLY give it to the bank to lend out?

Compared to full reserve banking yes I do believe it is a form of theft, I don't believe that banks should use claims to money in their vault to expand the money supply, it's an inflationary practice.

Further, do you really think that eliminating FRB would stop runs on banks?

No I don't think it would eliminate the runs on banks, eliminating the FRB, going to a 100% gold standard and full reserve banking would end a bank run leading to a chain collapse because banks would no longer be leveraging deposits against the chance of their redemption to inflate the money supply. If A-B-C banks are all linked and A goes through a loss of confidence and the depositors try to pull funds, it stresses not just A, but also B-C because their funds are linked because they all lent each other money they didn't have a claim to, the depositors had the claim!

Multiple claims on a single dollar means somebody is lying about who owns it.

 

[JSt0rm]

We have a banking system that works, that pushed US economy to world #1. Now with one crisis, all the idiots with no idea how banks work crawling out of the woodwork and want to destroy something that makes this entire country run.

scary isnt it.

 

[momeNt]

scary isnt it.

I'll fully respond in the morning.

I think a lot of people fail to realize that what I'm saying has been said for over 100 years. Some economists believe there is a cure to recessions, and they are the idiots crawling out of the woodwork...

 

[JSt0rm]

I'll fully respond in the morning.

I think a lot of people fail to realize that what I'm saying has been said for over 100 years. Some economists believe there is a cure to recessions, and they are the idiots crawling out of the woodwork...

We can have our collective experts look back and study how things are done in the past and make some kind of educated judgement on what to do now.

Thats how this thing we call the modern society works. I dont expect the economist to cook me a 7 course french fusion feast. Because thats not their expertise. Just like i dont expect the average knuckle dragger on these forums to run the economy.

Would you let your garbage man take out your tonsils?

 

[rchiu]

I'll fully respond in the morning.

I think a lot of people fail to realize that what I'm saying has been said for over 100 years. Some economists believe there is a cure to recessions, and they are the idiots crawling out of the woodwork...

Heh yeah, people claim and believe bigfoot exists for many years as well. Don't make the claim true or worth people's attention.

 

[bfdd]

rchiu, it worked up until this point. that doesn't mean it's going to continue to work.

plus your guys problem with thinking some economist knows what's up is hilarious. any macroeconomist is just trying to control the world, no different than a king forcing their subjects to do things their way. please spare me the "they know best" non-sense. anything involving statistics and people almost always comes out fucking retarded.

 

[rchiu]

rchiu, it worked up until this point. that doesn't mean it's going to continue to work.

plus your guys problem with thinking some economist knows what's up is hilarious. any macroeconomist is just trying to control the world, no different than a king forcing their subjects to do things their way. please spare me the "they know best" non-sense. anything involving statistics and people almost always comes out fucking retarded.

I am not the one asking people to believe what economists are saying. I am asking you to look around and appreciate what we have compare to some 3rd world countries with none effective banking system.

Recession/banking crisis or not, US businesses rely on short term loans/revolving credits to pay for their inventories and work in progress so they can get all the work done before they sell their products and get paid. Same thing with people and their mortgages and hundreds other banking services those banks provide on daily basis.

Those anti-banking people are the ones saying a system supported by few nutty economists, and oh by the way, never been adopted by any of the country, can replace the existing system and yeah, works much better. Me, I would rather stick to what are proven to work, with few adjustments to deal with the issues we have.

 

[J-Money]

Shocking:

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/bundlers.php?id=N00009638

... only 3 out of the 10 on the list (Bank of America, Deutsche Bank and Hypo) are not major Obama campaign contributors. Pay in and you get pay-out baby!

your obama knows this. He directed where it went. I wonder if that woman at his town hall meeting got her new kitchen/gas in her tank/mortgage paid?? All from the obama "cash stash".

Pretty much sums up why your country is going down hill so much. Two people in this thread alone who blame Obama for something that happened before his presidency.

Good luck getting people like this to vote based on the right person for the job as opposed to "he's a republican so I picked him!"

 

[Ausm]

Then why isn't Obama throwing people into jail?

Because Bush and his cronies would have to go first.

 

[momeNt]

I am not the one asking people to believe what economists are saying. I am asking you to look around and appreciate what we have compare to some 3rd world countries with none effective banking system.

Recession/banking crisis or not, US businesses rely on short term loans/revolving credits to pay for their inventories and work in progress so they can get all the work done before they sell their products and get paid. Same thing with people and their mortgages and hundreds other banking services those banks provide on daily basis.

Those anti-banking people are the ones saying a system supported by few nutty economists, and oh by the way, never been adopted by any of the country, can replace the existing system and yeah, works much better. Me, I would rather stick to what are proven to work, with few adjustments to deal with the issues we have.

In a full reserve system banks would still be able to make loans, it would just have to be from actual savings from the bank as opposed to deposits.

It's a crazy idea, trust me I know that, but there have been free banking eras throughout history, none really in the USA though. Some of the banks in these free banking eras did offer full reserve services. I will have to do some reading into these periods though to understand how their systems work.

It also was a crazy idea at some point or another for a government to control the production of bank notes and have them unbacked by any commodity, but here we are now.

I do appreciate what has been done in the USA as far as its economic and productive prowess. I think its important to remain critical and analyze situations with an open mind and to not fall into complacency. If there is a better option, it doesn't matter how good we have it at the time, better is better. So the discussion is more along the lines of "is it really better?" not, shut up and be happy!

 

[Darwin333]

The federal government took ~ $4 trillion out of the private sector last year through taxes and borrowing.

The Fed started under "progressive" Wilson. Progressives love centralization of power and love to pretend that it will be wielded responsibly and for the best interests of the people. This has been shown time and time again to be a failure.

The borrowed money adds to the economy, or GDP. Eventually it must come back out but until that time it is an addition not a subtraction.

 

[Darwin333]

You actually imply it shouldn't be a crime. Fractional reserve banking is lending money on deposits that belong to the depositors, not the banks.

Now unless depositing money in a bank gets its name changed to investing in banks, and instead of depositing your paycheck you decide to invest your paycheck, i consider this thievery and the banks should be prosecuted and found guilty and put in jail.

You agree to allow your money to be lent out when you open an account. That is simply the way it works. The bank is also obligated to return your funds to you upon request. The bank is also obligated, or at least they were until accounting fraud was legalized, to hold a combination of assets and cash that are sufficient to cover all deposits. If the FDIC properly did its job it should never lose money or at the very least a very very small amount. Any significant losses are due purely to accounting fraud regardless if its legal or not.

Would like to see how you reconcile these two statements.

No. Black letter law states that lending your deposits out, under specific circumstances, is perfectly legal and is not in fact fraudulent.

Digging dog shit in chocolate and then selling it as grade a 100% pure Godiva chocolate is in fact fraud.

See the difference?

I will respond to your previous post when I get more time.

 

[momeNt]

The borrowed money adds to the economy, or GDP. Eventually it must come back out but until that time it is an addition not a subtraction.

Which is exactly why debt ceilings in this environment shouldn't exist. Always need more debt because deflation will crush the debtholders.

 

[Darwin333]

Who keeps the money they make on the deposits? Better yet, who pays up if they lose money?

The whole reason banks have FDIC stickers and plaques all over the office is to prevent the bank run. Would be a lot easier if the banks just had the money in their coffers wouldn't it?

Actually the FDIC stickers are to cover depositors in case a bank fucks up and does not follow the law or their own policies. Thats usually the only way a bank goes under which is usually the only time the FDIC needs to get involved. The side affect of preventing runs on banks is sort of there but as seen with WAMU (IIRC) it doesn't always work.

Out of curiosity, since you are talking about liquid cash being held at literally 100% are you talking about onsite? You know, just in case EVERYONE the bank does business with wants to withdraw all of their money in a single day. If not, what do you suggest should be done with this massive amount of cash?

Modern banking is a good thing, you are talking about completely ending it altogether. The fees would be so absurd that only the upper middle class and the rich could afford to do business with them at all and the poor would probably be tagged with $20 fees just to cash their paychecks. Not to mention ending loans and drastically devaluing anything requiring a loan (but it seems you want a gold backed currency which would require MASSIVE increase in the value of gold, you wouldn't by any chance actually own gold would you?) including the entire housing market, auto market, etc...

In short, it would completely nuke the economy.

 

[Darwin333]

Which is exactly why debt ceilings in this environment shouldn't exist. Always need more debt because deflation will crush the debtholders.

Deflation would be very good for the debtholders and very bad for the debtor. You are very wrong on this one bud.

I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you either meant inflation or debtor though.

 

[Darwin333]

Then why isn't Obama throwing people into jail?

Because he is just as bought and paid for by the banksters as the Republicans (and the rest of the Dems for that matter) are.

There is sworn testimony in front of the United States Congress by an exec of a very large bank admitting to fraud. You didn't answer my previous question, you do believe that fraud should be a crime right?

Then there are little things like bribery (one side is a bank the other a politician, one is in jail.... wanna guess which?), money laundering for drug cartels, market manipulation, front running, insider trading, forgery, breaking and entering, theft, more counts of perjury then anyone can imagine, etc.... But we can just stick to the fraud for right now as it is the most blatant.

Disclaimer: Yes there are a few on both sides who appear to not be bought and paid for. They are the exception and not the rule.