Stop blaming the bankers!

[lizzyking]

Bank Bailout or martial law - YouTube

Bank Bailout or martial law - YouTube

The bailout money given to the banks, creates a debt, a debt that accrues interest. The debt is to be serviced by money collected from taxpayers. The banks will loan the bailout money that they received courtesy of taxpayers, to the taxpayers, at interest. So, taxpayers who borrow money now, are borrowing what is essentially the taxes they will be paying in the future, to service the debt created by the bailout.

[jon galt]

Originally Posted by lizzyking

Bank Bailout or martial law - YouTube


The bailout money given to the banks, creates a debt, a debt that accrues interest. The debt is to be serviced by money collected from taxpayers. The banks will loan the bailout money that they received courtesy of taxpayers, to the taxpayers, at interest. So, taxpayers who borrow money now, are borrowing what is essentially the taxes they will be paying in the future, to service the debt created by the bailout.

you forget that the government got major shares in the banks (at least in the uk) in return for the bailout money, it will be paid back. add to that if the banks were allowed to go bust it would have bankrupted whole industries and individuals savings. in which case people would be complaining that the government did nothing. which has now led to the to big to fail idea.

[the nail]

This argument will never be resolved without adressing the inviability of private property and profit. Which in a way relates to the OP's premise. The OP was wrong about the mechanics of the capital system, and with who blame ultimately lies for financial collapse; but right about the remedy.

There is no way to reform this society because the mechanics of capitalism demand growth and profit which on a planet of finite reesources = inequality and violence.

The only way to solve the problem is for there to be a mass global uprising by "workers". How cleverly we plan and execute it will decide how violent the military reaction will be.

[verndewd]

rather it will never be properly addressed by materialists in the epic race for more than they need. thats everyone,,, well shoot , i guess were screwed.

[lizzyking]

Originally Posted by jon galt

you forget that the government got major shares in the banks (at least in the uk) in return for the bailout money, it will be paid back. add to that if the banks were allowed to go bust it would have bankrupted whole industries and individuals savings. in which case people would be complaining that the government did nothing. which has now led to the to big to fail idea.

Well maybe that is fairer in a sense, if the gov't has shares in the banks, if their shares in the interest generated can be considered "the people's" money (and spent on social programs, infrastructure, etc).

In the US, the only thing I've heard about insofar as the gov't getting shares, was GM, in the automotive bailouts.


The crisis in the US had a lot to do with the housing bubble. I think if the banks were worried about not getting money from people defaulting on mortgages, why not give the people the money directly (in the form of vouchers or something) to pay to the banks on their mortgages, at least in the case of primary residences (and not investment properties), rather than give it directly to the banks. The banks got the bailout money and get the properties when there is a foreclosure! Shareholders gotta be loving that.



Ideological wingers were screaming about deregulation of private banks quite a few decades ago, saying that it was gov't interference (communism!), so, they got their deregulation, and that deregulation is what created this mess. Even the Federal Reserve is largely a private enterprise, even though its run by appointees:

According to the Board of Governors, the Federal Reserve is independent within government in that "its monetary policy decisions do not have to be approved by the President or anyone else in the executive or legislative branches of government."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_System

I'm almost inclined to go further in the other direction, and suggest reinstituting former regulations isn't enough, outlaw private banking on such a scale, and just have a "People's Bank" instead of the Fed Reserve.

[brucel]

www.youtube.com/watch?v=vplwUROCAFY

» Armed Citizen Militia Shows Up At Occupy Phoenix Alex Jones' Infowars There's a war on for your mind! - YouTube

» Armed Citizen Militia Shows Up At Occupy Phoenix Alex Jones' Infowars There's a war on for your mind! - YouTube

[brucel]

www.youtube.com/watch?v=gf2KgLbznVU

Death and Execution of Benito Mussolini 1945 - YouTube

Death and Execution of Benito Mussolini 1945 - YouTube

[apollo_gnomon]

Ideological wingers were screaming about deregulation of private banks quite a few decades ago, saying that it was gov't interference (communism!), so, they got their deregulation, and that deregulation is what created this mess.

True that. Deregulation of the banking industry under Reagan created the "Savings and Loan crisis"

Savings and loan crisis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Savings and loan crisis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Savings and loan crisis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(not bothering making a nice tidy hotlink anymore since the forum parses wiki links into the stupid box you see above one way or the other)

and congress in the time of Newt Gingrich's leadership/Clinton presidency made changes to mortgage rules and allowed securitization of mortgages, which removed risk of borrower default from the loan originator, leading to the "sub prime mortgage" crisis.

Many causes, from actions by members of both parties, in congress and white house all combined to make this happen.

[apollo_gnomon]

Originally Posted by brucel

www.youtube.com/watch?v=vplwUROCAFY

» Armed Citizen Militia Shows Up At Occupy Phoenix Alex Jones' Infowars There's a war on for your mind! - YouTube

Alternate title for video: Fat Twat Makes Armed Citizens Look Stupid

[brucel]

Originally Posted by apollo_gnomon

Alternate title for video: Fat Twat Makes Armed Citizens Look Stupid

says, the nasa apollo moonlanding shill. ......... i know where you stand brother !!!
you've already proven your true colors in backing the government's story of 9/11..

[lizzyking]

Originally Posted by apollo_gnomon

True that. Deregulation of the banking industry under Reagan created the "Savings and Loan crisis"

Savings and loan crisis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(not bothering making a nice tidy hotlink anymore since the forum parses wiki links into the stupid box you see above one way or the other)

and congress in the time of Newt Gingrich's leadership/Clinton presidency made changes to mortgage rules and allowed securitization of mortgages, which removed risk of borrower default from the loan originator, leading to the "sub prime mortgage" crisis.

Many causes, from actions by members of both parties, in congress and white house all combined to make this happen.

And also there was the heralding of the "quants" replacing common sense.
Here's an excerpt from an interesting article written by Greenpan's predecessor:

One basic flaw running through much of the recent financial innovation is that thinking embedded in mathematics and physics could be directly adapted to markets. A search for repetitive patterns of behavior and computations of normal distribution curves are a big part of the physical sciences. However, financial markets are not driven by changes in natural forces but by human phenomena, with all their implications for herd behavior, for wide swings in emotion, and for political intervention and uncertainties.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/arch...growing-short/

[lizzyking]

Speaking of herd behavior, that is why Alex Jones gets underwritten by people in the gold industry. Fear mongering helps drive people to invest in gold. I wonder when that bubble is gonna burst?

How much more blatant can you get? GCN was founded with the sole purpose, along with Alex Jones, to shill gold. A supposed news radio program, played on over 450 AM, FM, and shortwave radio stations in the United States, is in fact one giant, elaborate advertisement for some gold salesman in Minnesota who probably goes by Teddy. Thousands (not to mention the millions who visit infowars.com every day) are being manipulated into believing very insane things and buying into what is possibly a bubble because someone came up with a clever scheme to feed the fires of paranoia and conspiracy for profit.

http://geopoli.net/archives/15

[sandwarrior]

Originally Posted by hassid

Peple love blaming the 'greedy bankers' for the recession. It's easier than blaming themselves. No one forced anyone to borrow money.

The reason why so many people are in debt is because [b]they[b/] were greedy and wanted to live above their means.

Perhaps if everyone started taking responsibility for their actions we'd be able to climb out of this mess.


And the matter of interest - or as others like to call it (because it sounds more sinister), usury.

While there are so many on the DIF who condemn the banks for charging usury, who here would lend much of their money interest free (instead of investing somewhere else)?

Imagine this scenario: You win half a milion on a scratch card. A very casual acquaintance founds out and he asks you to lend him the money interest free for 1000 months to buy a house, to be repaid at £500 p/m. Would you do it? Would anyone?

So what's so bad about the banks?

I am surprised that you have to ask why Usury is so bad, being a scholar of your faith.

But just in case you missed that part in your studies:

“Thou shalt not lend upon interest to thy brother: interest of money, interest of victuals, interest of anything that is lent upon interest. Unto a foreigner thou mayest lend upon interest; but unto thy brother thou shalt not lend upon interest; that the Lord thy God may bless thee in all that thou puttest thy hand into, in the land whither thou goest in to possess it” (Deuteronomy 23:20-21).

Basically you will not lend with usury to your brother but to a Foreigner it is fine.

Extrpolate to our current situation and you have your reason why the bankers are being blamed.

And blaming the common people for the predicament, knowing what you do, is just mocking them.

[busa]

Originally Posted by hassid

I put forth an argument that reflects my opinion. Some, for example believeinnothing, came back with coherent and sensible responses.

What did you do?

If you don't have at least one working brain cell no need to publicize it. Really, there's no obligation to respond.

From your first post you came across as being a banker?
Yours is a rhetoric question and at this stage of affairs it is pretty irrelevant.

Should anyone blame themselves for a system that was created whereby you cannot buy a house, afford a car and enjoy a moderate standard of living without possessing a large amount of borrowing? No I don't think so.

One of the recent social engineering projects has been to manipulate people into serious financial debts to keep them trapped and compliant. Debt and fear of debt is a powerful control medium. Keeps them locked into work and paying the debts with no time or will for rebellion.

But in considering the banks have pushed too much borrowing onto people in the name of control, a share of responsibility lies with the people to have realised what the banks and government were doing.

The question is: Do we blame the people for not being awake to the elite's control through money debt agenda?

[thirsty4]

Originally Posted by verndewd

rather it will never be properly addressed by materialists in the epic race for more than they need. thats everyone,,, well shoot , i guess were screwed.

yup that's about the size of it - a better system would require evolved altruistic humanity - um screwed is the word

[the nail]

Originally Posted by thirsty4

yup that's about the size of it - a better system would require evolved altruistic humanity - um screwed is the word

In my experience more and more people are working toward that very thing. It is improbable that a sufficient uprising will take place before a total economic and social meltdown occurs, but there is plenty of infrastructure in place if only socially to ensure that from the rubble new austere communities will thrive and grow.

[hassid]

Originally Posted by rosa616

The reason people hate the bankers is because they robbed us blind. It wasn't a case of folks taking out huge mortgages an loans and then not bothering to pay them back. The problem was that bankers only used to be able to loan out a certain ratio of what they had in the vaults, but they asked for that restriction to be lifted and it was. basically, the bankers went away and made huge "bets" on things like derivitives that then crashed and we the public were then made to pay it back FOR the bankers. If you bear in mind that the same ruling elite own the banks, and had a cunning plan to crash the world economy so they could then implement thier NWO, with a One World Bank with a universal electronic currency, then we were shafted. It was all deliberate.

Key word is the lent you money. You did not have to borrow (I'll expand on that soon).

When you borrow you should expect that the lender wants something in return (interest), so if you can't pay back the capital plus interest don't borrow.

[dolores1]

Oh dear!


This thread is impossible not to laught at!


Hassid, there's none so blind as those who won't see!


LEARN the truth!

[lizzyking]

Originally Posted by sandwarrior

I am surprised that you have to ask why Usury is so bad, being a scholar of your faith.

But just in case you missed that part in your studies:

“Thou shalt not lend upon interest to thy brother: interest of money, interest of victuals, interest of anything that is lent upon interest. Unto a foreigner thou mayest lend upon interest; but unto thy brother thou shalt not lend upon interest; that the Lord thy God may bless thee in all that thou puttest thy hand into, in the land whither thou goest in to possess it” (Deuteronomy 23:20-21).

Basically you will not lend with usury to your brother but to a Foreigner it is fine.

Extrpolate to our current situation and you have your reason why the bankers are being blamed.

And blaming the common people for the predicament, knowing what you do, is just mocking them.

To be fair, I've heard a lot of conservatives make the same argument that Hassid has made, who aren't Jewish. And liberal Jews who would be just as offended as you are, with his "blame the victim" attitude. Hassid has stated he is orthodox, so its probably safe to assume he leans to the conservative side of the political spectrum (for whatever reason, most orthodox have been, that I've come across, anyway). I can agree to an extent tho, that some people foolishly have lived beyond their means when easy credit was made available to them, but in the current state of affairs, I think it is very narrow-minded to emphasize such cases, when considering the big picture of what has happened with the economy on a macroeconomic scale, and the role the financial sector has played in it. Deregulation leading to predatory loaning practices, combined with financial institutions making risky investments; basically gambling with other people's money (their depositors), and not being concerned, because of foreknowledge that if things went badly, the government would bail them out at the taxpayer's expense.

As far as usury itself, I can see good things and bad things about it. It allows people to buy a home for one, most people can't afford to pay cash up-front for a home. At least they are getting some equity when making payments on a mortgage, instead of spending all of their "need for shelter" money on rent, none of which can be recovered. So that is generally a good thing.

However, if not nationalized, than the privatized financial industry - especially banking - needs to be heavily regulated for many reasons, not the least being predatory loaning practices.

The reasons some Jewish families became heavily associated with the banking industry has historical reasons that aren't simply the fault of Jews, but of circumstances. As you probably know, the usury prohibition from the Bible that you quoted, applied to Christians as well, as the Old Testament/Torah comes along with the New Testament. So, Christians in Christian countries, weren't allowed to loan money with interest charge, to other Christians. Back in the day, when there wasn't separation of Church and State, Jews were obviously heavily discriminated against simply for not being Christian.. there were Inquisitions and such, and, at one time, the Holy Roman Empire legislated the Death Penalty for anybody who converted to Judaism! But, Christian royalty and aristocrats found a use for Jews, so they were often tolerated in their lands, because they were useful for increasing their wealth, by using Jews as a proxy for loaning money at interest, since 'foreigner' was interpreted to mean of a foreign/different religion (like the sense of Pan-Islamism and the 'Ummah' used for referring to their Diaspora of believers). This is the historical reason of why the UK's Royals are so chummy with the Rothschild family, as one example. And if and/or when it got out of hand at any time & place, and there were economic hard-times resulting in a lot of commoners suffering with unmanageable debt burdens, the Elites could just blame their Jewish proxies, and unfortunately, all Jews were scapegoated to take the heat off of the elite, irregardless of their business or socioeconomic status; not just the well-off banking families. I have a name that was anglicized upon arrival to the USA in order to reduce the chance of discrimination, a name that was originally Jewish, and meant "coal miner", hardly the occupation of an elitist, but seems largely why my father's family came to the USA as refugees even though he and my grandparents were Christian. It got so crazy, TPTB eventually went after what the Nazis called "mischlings", because of bizarre racist formulas based on even one grandparent who was Jewish.

[hassid]

Originally Posted by danster82

If we are bumping around in the dark because someone keeps turning the lights off, your just point out that someone keeps turning the lights off, theres no blame or judgement about it, your just calling a spade a spade.

With regards to it being peoples fault of course there is greed amongst us, but a system of debt was always set to eventually become unsustainable its built in, so even if angels with no greed at all where using this debt based money system they would eventually find themselves in the same situation of needing to default.

People looking to reform the banking system and remove those who are perpetuating the current one is exactly taking responsibility.

Also loans could indeed be made interest free or even with interest, this isnt the fundemental problem, you cant fully understand the banking system. The problem isnt so much interest charged on lending money, its interest charged on issuance of new money, as the money itself is a debt instrument, if it wasnt there would be true ownership of money and banks could only operate by lending what they have on deposit which would be fine and any interest payments that get out of control would self correct in a short period of time because you couldnt create new money to extend failing interest payment so free market forces would "ironout" any imbalances caused by interest.

First of all even if it were true that you have to get into debt on which you'll eventually default, that is not the fault of the banks. They are just the ones facilitating the loan.

But in fact it's just not true. No ones needs to borrow money except perhaps in emergencies. And if one does borrow money they have the responsibility of paying it back. Why should you have to default on a loan?


Also, the fact that banks, as you call it, create money out of thin air, that allows them to lend more money to the people who need to borrow. If they wouldn't have this money and you wanted to open a business you'd be complaining that banks can't lend you.