The Banks Should Serve the Real Economy

28 posts / 0 new

Democracy, risk and liability are turned upside down when trillions bailout the banks and workers, unemployed and pensioners must pay the bill! Banks must be prevented from high risk speculative activities. The shriveling of the banks and reduced bank revenue are not the end of the world.

We live from those who say No to trivialization of crisis, to the state being reduced to a trough or errand boy for the banks (Bill Moyers). The future could be full of community centers, free Internet books and soft power! Trust and public spirit can arise again when the finqancial casino is shut down and when the state defends public interests, not special interests of the super-rich. The economy should be a part of life, not a steamroller crushing creativity.and self-determination.

to read the interview with Rudolf Hickel published in April 2012, click on

http://la.indymedia.org/news/2012/05/253106.php

demandside's picture
demandside
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Comments

I agree, get these films out to people.

The American Dream Film-Full Length

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGk5ioEXlIM

The Money Masters.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-515319560256183936&q=The+money+changers&ei=Zd4QSMjvB47YqAKQtJmzBA

antikakistocrat's picture
antikakistocrat
Joined:
Apr. 18, 2012 3:41 pm
Quote demandside:Democracy, risk and liability are turned upside down when trillions bailout the banks and workers, unemployed and pensioners must pay the bill! Banks must be prevented from high risk speculative activities. The shriveling of the banks and reduced bank revenue are not the end of the world.

We live from those who say No to trivialization of crisis, to the state being reduced to a trough or errand boy for the banks (Bill Moyers). The future could be full of community centers, free Internet books and soft power! Trust and public spirit can arise again when the finqancial casino is shut down and when the state defends public interests, not special interests of the super-rich. The economy should be a part of life, not a steamroller crushing creativity.and self-determination.

We need to reinstate Glass-Steagall ASAP, and recreate a National Bank with Hamiltonian credit system.

FDR left us a legacy of how to get out of econmic messes like this...

Karolina's picture
Karolina
Joined:
Nov. 3, 2011 7:45 pm

A startling statistic buried within an outstanding New Republic article:

As a result of the crisis and various government rescue efforts, the largest six banks in our economy now have total assets in excess of 63 percent of GDP (based on the latest available data). This is a significant increase from even 2006, when the same banks’ assets were around 55 percent of GDP, and a complete transformation compared with the situation in the United States just 15 years ago, when the six largest banks had combined assets of only around 17 percent of GDP. If the status quo persists, we are set up for another round of the boom-bailout-bust cycle that the head of financial stability at the Bank of England now terms a “doom loop.”

Good god. I knew that these banks were big, but I had no idea they were this big. The New Republic devotes the rest of its article to explaining why Obama’s bank regulations are (surprise!) a sham. But then, we should have already known that. When Treasury Secretary Geithner appeared on Newshour a few days ago, he baldly stated that these new regulatory rules “will not include breaking up the banks“. Forgive me, but what is the point of “regulation” if our banks are allowed to keep their “too big to fail” status and continue to engage in the same practices that brought down our economy in 2008? The so-called Volcker rules do nothing to stymie the relationship between Wall Street and Washington, they do nothing to prevent banks from over-leveraging (as they had during the run-up to the crisis), they allow the banks to retain their gargantuan size… so what were the Volcker rules supposed to do again? Oh yeah, it bans “proprietary trading”, somthing which only accounts for 5 percent of total bank revenue.

Meanwhile, President Obama is proposing yet another giveaway to the banks, this time in the form of $30 billion in loans at below-market interest rates. If I sell you something about below-market value, then I’m giving you a gift. That’s what these “loans” are. The Washington Post attempts to bury the issue in the middle of the piece, and refers to the subsidy as going to “community banks”, without noting that most of these “community banks” have long since been bought up by our banking behemoths.

I don’t really know what else to say here. The banks own Congress; they own the House; they own Obama (check out his campaign donors) – there doesn’t seem to be any way out of this. I think some mobs with torches and pitchforks would not go amiss at this point.

camaroman's picture
camaroman
Joined:
May. 9, 2012 11:30 am
Quote camaroman:The so-called Volcker rules do nothing to stymie the relationship between Wall Street and Washington, they do nothing to prevent banks from over-leveraging (as they had during the run-up to the crisis), they allow the banks to retain their gargantuan size… so what were the Volcker rules supposed to do again? Oh yeah, it bans “proprietary trading”, somthing which only accounts for 5 percent of total bank revenue.

This is why I keep stressing that once the mobs with torches & pitchforks get done (I'd be LOL if it wasn't so pathetically true), the FIRST thing to do is to reinstate Glass-Steagall word-for-word.

Karolina's picture
Karolina
Joined:
Nov. 3, 2011 7:45 pm

Debt free money we need debt free money...

If the Guernseyns can do so can the Americans.

antikakistocrat's picture
antikakistocrat
Joined:
Apr. 18, 2012 3:41 pm

That's why we need a National Bank and to start huge infrastructure projects like NAWAPA, high speed rail, rebuilding of crumbling highways, roads & bridges, reestablishing a superior education system and many more—to get our nation's big industries restarted, production restarted, our population back to work, our kids ready for bright futures — and all paid for under the Hamiltonian credit system, where government invests in the projects at very low interest.

Once Glass-Stegall is re-enacted, much of the debt will disappear, because the debt from speculation will go back to the banks which created it.

Karolina's picture
Karolina
Joined:
Nov. 3, 2011 7:45 pm

Karolina, while I would be all for the reinstatemnt of Glass-Stegall and the busting up of ALL the too big to fail financial institutions, I do not see that happening anytime soon. Those institutions have too much control over the pols and regulators in DC.

I am with Jefferson and Madison on there being a national bank. Because they could see the problem with allowing a privately owned bank to control the financial system in America. And they knew that it would result with the banks becoming very powerful and dictating the decisions that the Government would make. They may have also foreseen that the banks would began to loan money without gold to back, resulting in devaluing the US dollar. That would also mean that if they were ever to stop loaning money and call the notes in they would own a large portion of American businesses and homes. AND THAT IS WHAT WE HAVE TODAY WITH THE FEDERAL RESERVE. And look at the mess they have created. $16+ trillion in debt with little to show for it.

camaroman's picture
camaroman
Joined:
May. 9, 2012 11:30 am

Stay away from big banks-join your local credit union!

lovecraft
Joined:
May. 8, 2012 12:06 pm

Absolutely—but people need to be educated about what will bring us out of this mess. They need to know that there are laws that when re-enacted, will return us back to the principles where humans can live as humans.

That's why FDR had his fireside chats to bring up the morale of the people so they understood what needed to be done, and to reassure them that he was doing it. Obviously we don't have an FDR to vote into office, but when our country becomes completely bankrupt, as Europe is right now, maybe it will be very common knowledge what must be done to immediately bring back normal human life, progress and prosperity and people will know what to do.

Karolina's picture
Karolina
Joined:
Nov. 3, 2011 7:45 pm

Sorry, Americans have been trained to be consumers-not citizens and I'm afraid too many aren't interested in being educated. Well-maybe if you had one of the New Jersey Shore people give the fireside chat in the nude.

lovecraft
Joined:
May. 8, 2012 12:06 pm

When people are forced to starve for the first time in their lives—they remember that as a human, they need to survive, with out "consuming" anything else but food and water. And they become interested in how to never again be forced to starve.

Karolina's picture
Karolina
Joined:
Nov. 3, 2011 7:45 pm

All this could have been avoided in 2008, had we elected Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party. He would have carried through Ron Paul's End the FED and re-instated Glass-Steagle. Instead they foolishly failed to make the Bilderberg connection between Obama and McCain and now we are at the point where we are now.

If this Depression leads to a civil war I will not feel sorry for all those who end up in FEMA Camps. If the Globalists thin the stupid herd before we we put them out of commission then so be it.

antikakistocrat's picture
antikakistocrat
Joined:
Apr. 18, 2012 3:41 pm

Ron Paul is not interested in Glass-Steagall, nor in the Hamiltonian credit system to replace the monetarist system in a new National Bank. Ron Paul wants to get rid of the social programs that FDR instated, like Social Security and Medicare.

Karolina's picture
Karolina
Joined:
Nov. 3, 2011 7:45 pm

That is NOT so, Karolina!!! Ron Paul would might restructure some of those social programs to make them better. And who could diagree that they are is horrible shape as is this whole country financially. We are drowning in debt!!!

Do a little research and you will discover that FDR was not the savior history has made him out to be. He was owned lock stock and barrel by the elite.

camaroman's picture
camaroman
Joined:
May. 9, 2012 11:30 am

I've been doing plenty of research for a long time and I know that Ron Paul said in an interview on FOX with Chris Wallace in May of 2011, that Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, are unconstitutional and that they do not go under under "promoting the General Welfare." Wallace was surprised and told Ron Paul that these programs were not just a view of liberals, but had been the decision of the Supreme Court in 1937, who decided that they were constitutional under Article 1, Section 8.

In the same interview Ron Paul also said that he didn't think the government should play a role in bailing out people who live in either hurricane and/or flood zones.

Karolina's picture
Karolina
Joined:
Nov. 3, 2011 7:45 pm

Here is Ron Paul on healthcare: http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/health-care/

On SS he will not leave anyone hanging: http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Ron_Paul_Social_Security.htm

On social programs he is against the overreach and therefore ever increasing control of the federal government, states should be in control: http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message392125/pg1

The federal government has most of the sheeple believing that only the federal government can and will take care of them.

camaroman's picture
camaroman
Joined:
May. 9, 2012 11:30 am

As for FDR:

His socialist programs extended the great depression. He had the insane notion (like Obama) the government can create jobs. The best thing the government can do to ensure more jobs is to get smaller and tax less. The mighty engines of a free economy will pull the ship out of the abyss.

Hoover made the mistake of increasing taxes in a recession. It caused the great depression. FDR kept them high but spent billions on make work jobs which was a wash. It made the unemployment problem appear better, but there was real jobs that produced wealth.

The problem occurs when businesses are taxed, they cut back on labor. People buy less, and this results in further cutbacks.

churchill said - A country that tries to tax itself out of debt, is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.

Obama appears to want to make both mistakes. Tax to lower the debt and spend to end unemployment.

The only way to get a country out of debt is growth.

FDR embraced policies that aimed to stop prices and wages from correcting and embarked on the boldest federal intrusion of the private sector in the history of the U.S.—all justified by a crisis made worse by previous attempts to stop prices and wages from correcting. And when his policies didn't cause the promised happy days to return again, the golden tongued-FDR could be counted on to shift the blame—to Hoover, the Republicans, greedy businessmen, flaws in the free enterprise system.

He was good at it too, but when the excuses grew tired, Roosevelt dependably grew the state. Unemployment rates still high? Then pass my Social Security program to get those old-timers to give up their jobs for the younger workers. Dairy prices still falling? Then order the USDA to pour milk into sewers until prices rise again. The Supreme Court against me? Then let's add a few members. The economy in worse shape seven years into the New Deal? Then get out those war drums and let's get involved in the mess in Europe.

It was finally the war which brought the depression to a halt.

camaroman's picture
camaroman
Joined:
May. 9, 2012 11:30 am

So if there had never been a second world war we would have continued declining economically until... when?

EDIT

I'm not a scholar on the Great Depression, but it looks like total GDP and total employment bottomed out in winter 1932-1933. Now the unemployment rate remained very high (as best as they could measure or estimate at the time.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Employment_Graph_-_1920_to_1940.svg

So maybe one could conclude both that FDR didn't hinder economic growth and that WWII didn't salvage it.

chilidog
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Unemployment During the Great Depression

Average rate of unemployment
in 1929: 3.2%
in 1930: 8.9%
in 1931: 16.3%
in 1932: 24.1%
in 1933: 24.9%
in 1934: 21.7%
in 1935: 20.1%
in 1936: 16.9%
in 1937: 14.3%
in 1938: 19.0%
in 1939: 17.2%3

Full and healthy employment in 1929 at 3.2% abruptly shifted with the crash on Wall Street and ensuing global depression. Rising unemployment reached double-digits in late 1930, and the situation continued to deteriorate through the bleak winter of 1932-33, when well over a quarter of all workers were unable to find jobs. The New Deal helped to reduce unemployment from 1933 through 1937, when another economic recession briefly caused a resurgence in joblessness. Full employment did not return until the war years of the early 1940s.

Didn't look so good to me.

http://www.shmoop.com/great-depression/statistics.html

camaroman's picture
camaroman
Joined:
May. 9, 2012 11:30 am

camroman wrote:

It was finally the war which brought the depression to a halt.

poly replies: Yep. A stimulous package of government spending was finally large enough to do the trick. Government spent itself out of the Depression. The right denounces stimulous spending on one hand, yet loudly proclaim it works when it's large enough on the other! They don't see their own inconsistencies.

However, instead of buying everyone a new tank, ship or bomber and putting people to work to make them, government could have had the same effect by buying everyone a new auto, washing machine or refrigerator.

Prior to the war, when stimulous was cut back in 1936, we had the recession of 1937.

The way we apply capitalism collapses from time to time beyond mere "corrections". We're at the beginning of a global meltdown. Watch it continue to deterorate with wacked out austerity economic programs of libertarians and conservatives. They've been adopted globally at the behest of banksters and financiers...the only beneficiaries.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"..

polycarp2
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

U.S. Real Unemployment 42%!!!

Guest Post: Illusion Of Recovery - Feelings Versus Facts
6 February 2012
, by Tyler Durden (Zero Hedge)
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/guest-post-illusion-recovery-feelings-versus-facts

There are 242 million working age Americans. Only 142 million Americans are working.

That means 100 million working age Americans (41.5%) are not working.

http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=228038.0;topicseen

antikakistocrat's picture
antikakistocrat
Joined:
Apr. 18, 2012 3:41 pm

FED PAYING Banks To Withhold Loans From Citizens The FED paying banks not to use their excess capitol to make loans. ... Banks excess reserves at the Fed rose to a record $877.1 Billion daily average ... from 2 Billion a year earlier. ... The FED is paying banks higher int rates to keep their funds parked at the FED instead of loaning the money to the American people.



http://amrpt.tv/video/Fed-PAYING-Banks-To-Withhold-Lo;State-Of-The-Union


http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=230956.0;topicseen

antikakistocrat's picture
antikakistocrat
Joined:
Apr. 18, 2012 3:41 pm

What if bank accounts were not insured by the federal government so you actually had to pay attention to the banks portfolio and what they are doing with your money? If we did that reckless banks would not have the capital to make these decisions. The Fed insuring these acounts make you not care about what the bank does with your money.

CollegeConservative's picture
CollegeConservative
Joined:
May. 4, 2012 2:22 pm

Right. Considering a huge percentage of Americans are functionally illiterate, just exacly what would studying portfolios solve?

"According to a 1997 study of Medicare patients conducted by the National Institute for Literacy (NIFL), more than half of these patients couldn't properly understand instructions about taking medicines on an empty stomach"

http://education-portal.com/articles/Grim_Illiteracy_Statistics_Indicate_Americans_Have_a_Reading_Problem.html

"Take on an empty stomache." Pretty simple instructions.

However, if you want to keep a daily track of your bank's portfolio, go at it. Maybe your bank will be safe while the rest of the economy gets flushed down the toilet by those banks that aren't. After you lose your job, you can live off your savings ...unless there is a panic run on your bank.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

polycarp2
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

When do we say that there has to be some personal responsibility and not just bigbrother watching our for you all the time. People forget when you allow government to overstep its boundaries when u like what its doing you wont be able to stop it when you dont like what is doing.

CollegeConservative's picture
CollegeConservative
Joined:
May. 4, 2012 2:22 pm

It is true that regulations are only as effective as the regulators. So when we elect "anti-government," ahem, "government," and they do not eliminate the regulations, but rather appoint anti-government regulators, the results are predictably disastrous.

chilidog
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

No stick with FDIC, and go after reckless banks who end up srewing up with other peoples' money.

Like come 2013, many bakster better have relocation plans are they will be facing a lot of TEA Party backed legal prosecutions in the up and coming year.

The ones on Logan Act violations will be the easiest to prosecute first, then those who went along with it we'll have to find out the extent of their guilt.

antikakistocrat's picture
antikakistocrat
Joined:
Apr. 18, 2012 3:41 pm

Currently Chatting

GOP Blocks Equal Pay...again.

Just in time for election season, Senate Republicans blocked legislation aimed at closing the gender pay gap. For the third time since 2012, Republicans refused to allow debate on the Paycheck Fairness Act, and reminded women that the GOP doesn't believe in equal pay for equal work.

Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system