Jump to content


Photo

Public banks, good or bad?


  • Please log in to reply
5 replies to this topic

#1 duke_Qa

duke_Qa

    I've had this avatar since... 2003?

  • Network Staff
  • 3,837 posts
  • Location:Norway
  • Division:Revora
  • Job:Artist

Posted 31 May 2012 - 09:06 AM

I thought this article and the video in it were good, also 12-year olds explaining such topics helps reduce the inherent confusion of the topic:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bx5Sc3vWefE

So basically the quote goes something like this:

Towers was asked, "Will you tell me why a government with power to create money, should give that power away to a private monopoly and then borrow that which Parliament can create itself, back at interest, to the point of national bankruptcy?" He replied, "If Parliament wants to change the form of operating the banking system, then certainly that is within the power of Parliament."


Why would you give those rights away to someone else? governments are a manifestation of the nation, and with a slight self-preservation instinct, any government would see that creating cash, then giving it away to private banks, and then loaning it back with interest paid to the private banks...
If you chopped a ton of wood and gave it away to your neighbor, only to buy it back from him on money you had to earn selling apples or something, wouldn't you find that to be an idiotic solution?

Edited by duke_Qa, 31 May 2012 - 09:06 AM.

"I give you private information on corporations for free and I'm a villain. Mark Zuckerberg gives your private information to corporations for money and he's 'Man of the Year.'" - Assange


#2 Pasidon

Pasidon

    Splitting Hares

  • Network Admins
  • 8,673 posts
  • Location:Da Moon
  • Projects:YouTube
  •  Actual Celebrity
  • Division:Community
  • Job:Community Admin

Posted 31 May 2012 - 10:36 PM

Bad.

Well true, banks are evil and have the ability to raze your families and homes by a whim. But what are you going to do about it? Nothing. Get rid of banks and people die. And as Canadians, we are bound to ensure no one dies ever unless they're terrorist. Also, showing that Canadian kid saying big people stuff isn't clarifying or impressive...it's irritating. Children are associated with such things as annoyance and stupidity, so that video don't quite give no authority to that there topic. Process that child for my entertainment, and burn her script. She mispronounced government... she deserves nothing better.

YT_Sig.jpgoutput_Fkd6it.gifFB_Sig.jpg


#3 duke_Qa

duke_Qa

    I've had this avatar since... 2003?

  • Network Staff
  • 3,837 posts
  • Location:Norway
  • Division:Revora
  • Job:Artist

Posted 01 June 2012 - 06:40 AM

You seem to have the argument that "Banks sucks, but the alternative of wiping them out is worse". This ain't the war on terror or war on drugs. Banking is an advanced topic with many philosophies, not a binary choice of bad banks/no banks. Good example of a non sequitur though.
Wonder if that is a typical conservative train of thought: Something's not working -> can we shoot it and bury it without causing trouble? ->if yes:*pow* -> if no:"can't kill it, too importunt". I guess when the only tool of conservative governance is a libertarian hammer, everything starts to look like a nail :)

Anyway, right now 70% of the wealth in the US is under control by the 5 biggest American banks. Back in the "Malaise days" of the early 80s, it was 40% among the 40 biggest banks. Whenever one of these banks needs to be bailed out, I would have publicized the bank, arrested the leaders and probably divided the bank into smaller banks specialized to their expertise. Seems only fair that when someone gets robbed from their money that the robbers get put behind bars.

Anyway, Canadian kid: I found it quite clear and simple to understand. That you find it annoying can probably be more connected with the topic than the person.

Edited by duke_Qa, 01 June 2012 - 10:04 AM.

"I give you private information on corporations for free and I'm a villain. Mark Zuckerberg gives your private information to corporations for money and he's 'Man of the Year.'" - Assange


#4 Ash

Ash

    Foxtrot Oscar.

  • Undead
  • 15,524 posts
  • Location:England
  • Projects:Robot Storm
  •  Keep calm and carry on.

Posted 01 June 2012 - 08:57 AM

I really don't see how it can hurt. I think Pasidon is just being facetious, as he always is.

People always seem to rag on the public sector, and how the government always (and I mean always) finds a way to saddle everything in endless bureaucracy and indecision.

Well newsflash for you - the banking sector is already like this. Also its sole purpose in the world is to make that 70% wealth factor into 100%. That's all banks know how to do is to amass greater and greater levels of profit and wealth.

I'm not going to say everything is their fault - there were too many people too dumb to understand that debts have to be repaid at some point, but at the same time the bank actually gave these people a loan. The only people who should be doling out loans to people who clearly can't pay them are fine, respectable, upstanding pillars of society like Big Vinnie. That way when the person defaults it's just their kneecaps and not the entire goddamn planet (for reasons I cannot discern). What is the banks' fault is investing shittons in rubbish, aka gambling badly.

I do resent how this has ended up, to be honest. I don't see why millions (billions, even) of people should suffer because of events outside their control. Generally, these are the honest, hardworking people who could keep up their mortgage repayments who end up suffering because of some absurdly well-paid idiot. Why should 'the 95%' suffer severe austerity measures? Why should the hard-working Greek people end up getting almost collectively fired because their leader spent their money for them along with money they didn't have? It isn't their fault, and above all else that's what people resent; a forced share in responsibility and culpability when they themselves are actually free of wrongdoing.

I don't see a problem in a publicised bank which loans money not just to the government but to individuals, one which if run right could actually make money for the government and do so in such a way as to be ethical and not prone to the same contagion as the rest of them. The only problem is a number of banks have been part-nationalised and nothing has changed within their inner circle or their actual way of doing shit. Plus the governments seem shit-scared of keeping hold of what could be a goddamn goldmine and then sell them off at a loss. And somehow this is a "good deal" for the taxpayer.

This clearly isn't the solution.

If any other person or organisation becomes debt-ridden the government would never have done anything to help them as they brought it on themselves. Why is a bank different? The banks should have been obliged to be the creditors for the bailout money, and paid it back with interest to the governments at a later time. Clearly our governments lack business acumen in the same way that the banks do.

#5 duke_Qa

duke_Qa

    I've had this avatar since... 2003?

  • Network Staff
  • 3,837 posts
  • Location:Norway
  • Division:Revora
  • Job:Artist

Posted 01 June 2012 - 11:34 AM

Yeah, Pasi paints with a very broad brush. But there are those out there that could use that sort of rhetoric seriously, so its usually fun to argue a bit against them for training.

People always seem to rag on the public sector, and how the government always (and I mean always) finds a way to saddle everything in endless bureaucracy and indecision.

Well newsflash for you - the banking sector is already like this. Also its sole purpose in the world is to make that 70% wealth factor into 100%. That's all banks know how to do is to amass greater and greater levels of profit and wealth.

I'm not going to say everything is their fault - there were too many people too dumb to understand that debts have to be repaid at some point, but at the same time the bank actually gave these people a loan. The only people who should be doling out loans to people who clearly can't pay them are fine, respectable, upstanding pillars of society like Big Vinnie. That way when the person defaults it's just their kneecaps and not the entire goddamn planet (for reasons I cannot discern). What is the banks' fault is investing shittons in rubbish, aka gambling badly.

I do resent how this has ended up, to be honest. I don't see why millions (billions, even) of people should suffer because of events outside their control. Generally, these are the honest, hardworking people who could keep up their mortgage repayments who end up suffering because of some absurdly well-paid idiot. Why should 'the 95%' suffer severe austerity measures? Why should the hard-working Greek people end up getting almost collectively fired because their leader spent their money for them along with money they didn't have? It isn't their fault, and above all else that's what people resent; a forced share in responsibility and culpability when they themselves are actually free of wrongdoing.


Very few in the western world understand the amount of protocol and procedures that goes into keeping this zeitgeist that we call civilization running. But at least most of it is under public survey and readily available to be stopped if done wrong.

And as you say, private banking is a web of paper-hell already, one written by people with ignoble intentions and no public accountability. The bailout of American banks in 2008 should have publicized the banks and taken the metaphorical kneecaps of the suits that allowed this to grow. Not give the rich a bailout and a pat on the back for throwing the rest of the world into chaos.

I don't see a problem in a publicised bank which loans money not just to the government but to individuals, one which if run right could actually make money for the government and do so in such a way as to be ethical and not prone to the same contagion as the rest of them. The only problem is a number of banks have been part-nationalised and nothing has changed within their inner circle or their actual way of doing shit. Plus the governments seem shit-scared of keeping hold of what could be a goddamn goldmine and then sell them off at a loss. And somehow this is a "good deal" for the taxpayer.
This clearly isn't the solution.

If any other person or organisation becomes debt-ridden the government would never have done anything to help them as they brought it on themselves. Why is a bank different? The banks should have been obliged to be the creditors for the bailout money, and paid it back with interest to the governments at a later time. Clearly our governments lack business acumen in the same way that the banks do.


I suspect much of the reasons governments keep selling off their banks must be because of bad advice from economic "advisors". Which is like asking a religious fundamentalist to give you a neutral analysis on the theory of evolution, except the fundamentalists have someone hijacked the theory in the name of their religion.

Anything that has enough power to make governments kneel without democratic input is a threat to society. Banks that bet on being bailed out should be ripped apart and rebuilt, kept safe from private banks that would love nothing else than buying up the new and weaker banks, and left to earn the government money. As far as I'm concerned, the only reason you need private banks would be for the more risky and quicker deals, which should be filled with high-risk capital from those willing to invest it in high-risk investments.

"I give you private information on corporations for free and I'm a villain. Mark Zuckerberg gives your private information to corporations for money and he's 'Man of the Year.'" - Assange


#6 Pasidon

Pasidon

    Splitting Hares

  • Network Admins
  • 8,673 posts
  • Location:Da Moon
  • Projects:YouTube
  •  Actual Celebrity
  • Division:Community
  • Job:Community Admin

Posted 06 June 2012 - 10:22 AM

Well every scenario I see banking taken out of the picture, I see many years if rescission and misery. I would laugh for ten thousand years straight is banking went down tomorrow, but that ain't going to happen. I see all these great benefits involved in taking the privatized nonsense out of the money system, but this is what I imagine: the actions required to deconstruct the baking system today would render people so poorly, it would be inconceivable to world leaders. All people need to do today is take their money out of their banks, but that will be impossible if forced. SO much can be taken advantage of during a financial reconstruction, and we learned this lesson when the banking system was put into place with all the corrupt schemers across the globe nearly derailing the American economic system in the early 18th century since they were determined to get their grubby hands into the massive amounts of funds being moved. It's a very Jeffersonian problem when dealing with banks since they have very many tightly nit systems that won't give you a dime, no matter how hard you try. Killing the risks of a less privatized model will take decades to do. That's reason enough why it will never be done. The people who need to make the decision are doing very well for themselves and don't see a problem with banking. Why would they risk putting themselves in poverty? Nonsense... politics is a job, not a duty, apparently. And ultimately,any 1st world society today is so obsessed with protecting how things run, including people's physical and financial safety, they can't issue a deconstruction of banking. You walk along a cliff at a public park and see a tiny bit of railing in one section because you know that someone was stupid enough to fall right there. You can very easily fall anywhere else, but that section had an incident, so funds will be issued to make that section safe. If government had any say, there would like no railing since it costs no money. But people's well beings are at risk! But I' getting into metaphors and I never usually go there... but The amount of bureaucratic nonsense in life will put nations so far in debt by decommissioning private banks, your politicians won't consider it in many lifetimes. Yes, the cliff railing was a metaphor for government time and funding placed in the modern banking system, which is like 300 years of time and money your government doesn't want wasted in the future. Many of your politicians are / were bankers at one point in time, unfortunately.

Anywho... banking has so many metaphorical cliff railings to prevent dults from falling, it will take beyond trillions to undo them and reorganize them; not to mention the mountain of zeroes placed into making what we have today. Government only functions for the two reason: your health and your (their) money. Taking away the current system puts their (your) money at risk, and that is why I doubt anything will be done in any foreseeable time. Politicians didn't even try to derail banking in the Jefferson era, and that was an era when politicians actually tried to do what was right / justified, and everyone knew the horrible situation we were putting ourselves in. Read Thomas Jefferson's bio... he predicted exactly what would happen with 1st world banking 300 years ago, minus the weird stamp predictions he had. But yea, hope people get off their tuckuses and think about how to create a better structured baking system soon, but it ain't happening. I find many subjects in politics I know will always be a frustrating issue, but nothing will ever be done with in a reasonable amount of time. So I don't even bother considering how change can happen. I have paragraphs of ideas on how banking can be restructured, but too many hardy businessmen in the baking system really have a grip on government, thus any idea I have will be wasted in time. They're just too rich now, to put it simply.

YT_Sig.jpgoutput_Fkd6it.gifFB_Sig.jpg





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users