Liz Peeps

When you say "free market values" you mean "free market ideas" right?

Second of all, those banks, Goldman Sachs especially, basically ripped off the American economy by diverting capital from the tax payers and this is compounded by the fact that bailing out these failing banks will inhibit the expansion of smaller, more conservative firms from taking their place. So in this sense, you're sacrificing the long-term benefits for short sighted gains.

And third, what makes you think US banks are better for the consumer than foreign banks? The interest rates you earn keeping your money in the bank are less than the rate of inflation which means that you lose value simply by leaving in the bank. The banks are taking that money and using it to make a profit meanwhile you're losing value by letting them loan it out. So please, make the case that US commercial banks are better than foreign banks, because from what I've seen there's only a few banks in the US that I would consider decent from the standpoint of the products and services they offer to consumers of my economic level. The banking system in the US is not going to get any more stable by bailing out banks for yet the second time. (Do you remember reading about the 30s when FDR declared bank holidays, devalued the dollar, and confiscated gold from American citizens to resolve the bank emergency? If you keep bailing them out then you're sending the message that it's okay to put the financial structures in trouble for potential lucrative gains, especially if you get the government to give you money, let your competitors fail, and prop up other institutions in which you have a counterparty risk.)

I know I said I'd take a break from economics, but really man, if you're going to talk about banking please actually learn about the banking structure, don't just repeat what you read in the New York times nine months ago.

repeter

Yes, I do.

Yes, I agree they ripped us all off, and we should let them suffer. But, if they had failed they would have left en enormous gap in our economy, and who would have the capital to fill that? Foreign banks, foreign auto industries. This country would end up being sold out even more if thats possible...

I'm not saying that our banks are better, what I am saying is that if we don't have them, our country is collectively out of the financial industry for quite some time. And I personally would prefer to put my money in an American bank, rather then a German one whose name I can't pronounce. And if the dollar loses value, that is a good thing because it allows us to stop jobs being our number one export.

And unless I remember incorrectly, America was the most powerful country in the world after FDR. And the wealthiest, and the most advanced.

__________________
Veni. Vidi. Vici.
-Gaius Julius Caesar
The Only Thing to Fear is Fear Itself.
-Franklin Delano Roosevelt

Bootsavich

Actually, that was only due to the war. And the fact that the rest of the civilized world was in rubble. It's easy to win a one horse race.

Also, you still haven't answered my question.

Liz Peeps

Again, here you are going around in circles. You trying to go the populist angle and the too big to fail angle at the same time. This is causing you to spin around in circles very rapidly and what I'm afraid is that if you start spinning too fast, it might create a quantum singularity which will distort time and space, and suck in innocent bystanders into believing this kind of doublethink. So what I'm going to do is reach out and try to grab you, to try to keep you from spinning, and I know that you've been spinning for a while, so it's only natural to feel a little dizzy as you recover, so lets give it a try and see what happens.

The question of who owns what is not what matters. The United States has maintained a dollar hegemony for decades which is now being dismantled very carefully by our foreign creditors whom we have stiffed on their investments. What matters is letting the bad elements at the higher stages of production to unravel themselves from the market, working out the imbalances so that we can actually have a stable economy. Without a stable economy we are going to be stuck going forward from here.

Here's a little example of a distortion. So you advocated bailing out the investment banks, not just buying their liabilities with tax payer money, but simply giving them tax payer money and allowing them through regulation to magically turn their liabilities into assets. You've got Goldman Sachs, and Morgan Stanley, and UBS trading in unregulated, private markets in Europe right now. It's a win-win for the banks because it allows them to make guaranteed profits at the expense of EVERYONE ELSE in the markets. The banks make bets in the public markets, people see the direction these banks are investing in within the publicly viewable markets and bet alongside the banks. Simultaneously these banks, in the private markets, are shorting the same bets they made in the public markets with even more money. They know very well the bets they made in the public markets are not profitable, that's why they're trying to get everyone to throw their money away. It's basic Wall Street shenanigans, pump and dump, it's the same kind of stuff that wreaked so much havoc in the exchange markets in the 30s. So what about me? How come I don't have access to those private markets? What about my profits? I want to make riskless returns too! What about me? The difference is that if I did it then it would be illegal. Do you understand the dangers of this example? Why do you think they should be allowed to do this? Once you bail them out, you're opening up the flood gates for further financial terrorism, illegal and unfair tactics that will provide profits for these banks at the expense of literally everyone else in the world.

Our country wouldn't be out of the financial industry, you would still have smaller banks and smaller firms out there expanding their market share and they'd be doing it knowing full well that if they did the same tricks the US banks did then they would fail and lose everything. So you're basically advocating, even though these US banks are corrupt and screwing everyone else in the market, screwing up the entire global financial structure, that you want to keep these corrupt wealth destroying banks in business? WHY?!

And by the way, what US bank looks best to you. This is one I want to hear, even if you completely ignore the entire rest of this post, please just answer what US bank would YOU put your money in, and provide an explanation if could. This is going to be good.

And you attribute this to bailing out corrupt US banks? You know there's a big world out there and during that period in time there was a lot of stuff happening all around the world, particularly in Europe. I think attempting to misuse history to demonstrate your rhetorical points is intellectually dishonest and anyone who knows anything can see entirely through this lazy reasoning.

repeter

Which is why regulation should be put in place. Without any, everything gets carried away into the world of mega-corporations and bought governments ( not saying the US isn't already bought). Too much regulation you also cause growth to stagnate. What I am saying is that we reach the threshold between too much and too little. That point as far as I can tell, is where you intervene when necessary as in this case, and do what you have to then let the company go out on its own again. And I understand your example, which is why we need regulation in the first place, to keep your exmaple for becoming dominant. Once you bail them out, you obtain the leverage to gnaw at the companies inner workings as you see fit, so forth eradicating what should be such as exec's and giving back to the poor in the company. The bail out is somewhat useless though if you only give money and ask for nothing in return. Obama at the very least did something as in take back some of the bonuses.

We would essentially be out of the running. Those small companies could be easily bought by the bigger foreign companies with the available money. The foreign companies would essentially hold a monopoly. And I don't want to keep these companies like AIG in place where they can screw with us, but I want to use the money as leverage to bring them lower and allow them to then re-expand to their prior place in the world. Just giving them money and letting them go off is wrong. I haven't realy been following whats been going on for the past week, so I have no idea whats really happened so far.

I don't know which bank I would give my money to. Initially, I think Wells Fargo, simply because I already have a debit card with them, but on second thought, I don't really know much about the company themselves. Bank of America's gone, and Chase has replaced it in California, and I don't personally trust Chase because I haven't done any business with them before, so essentially, I don't know. If I have to chose, probably Wells Fargo though.

I don't dispel the lazy part, I'm still studying for my test. if I do good on it, it is going to be worth 40% of my grade here.

I used this example because you made a comment on FDr doing something during his admin and I simply pointed out the end results of what he did. The corruption in our system can really be attributed to greed and lobbyists, and I doubt senators are going to vote to stop getting payed for voting anytime soon. Greed is part of mankind. I personally feel you can combat these, and Obama should be doing more to combat them, but Washington is a bureacracy, nothing actually gets done.

__________________
Veni. Vidi. Vici.
-Gaius Julius Caesar
The Only Thing to Fear is Fear Itself.
-Franklin Delano Roosevelt

Liz Peeps

The thing I was describing is something that WOULDN'T be POSSIBLE without the governments giving the big stamp of approval. What reason would they have to regulate it when they have a vested interest in allowing this kind of thing to occur?

BONUSES?! Freaking, BONUSES?! Goddamn, I...I.......I mean......you.....what.....dude you're not quite getting what I'm saying. The banks are corrupt and the only reason they're allowed to do this is because governments are standing right behind them 100%. Goldman Sachs is expecting to pay out RECORD BONUSES this year, RECORD BONUSES of their entire 140 year history. RECORD BONUSES, you're telling me that jack off smooth talking conman is cracking down on the banks when they're distorting the entire global financial system and expecting to pay out record bonuses?

When a company gets bought out in a typical, legitimate deal what wealth is being destroyed?

So you're going with Wells Fargo because you have a debit card with them? Holy **** man you can get a debit card with any retail bank you can imagine. Don't you ever look at the products and services they offer? What advantage does Wells Fargo give you over other banks?

No, you're looking at what FDR did, and you're looking at what happened in the world, and you're assuming these things that happened in the world are a result of what FDR did. Lets play the game of "name the fallacy".

repeter

You know, it all boils down to the lobbyist system. Legal corruption you could say.

You should notice, we didn't bailout Goldman Sachs, therefore no leverage inside them.

It's called a hostile takeover. Read about it.

I choose Wells Fargo simply because I know more about them then any other bank out there. Without going and doing research for a hypothetical situation, I would choose them. I honestly don't have the time to spend looking up all these different banks and their services.

So....the economic recovery we experienced less then a year after he died had nothign to do with the numerous bills he passed before he died? Thats funny.

__________________
Veni. Vidi. Vici.
-Gaius Julius Caesar
The Only Thing to Fear is Fear Itself.
-Franklin Delano Roosevelt

Liz Peeps

I'm saying Goldman Sachs have leverage within the government, which is blatantly obvious in the previous posts I made. You're being obtuse or maybe you just don't read so well if you think Goldman didn't benefit heavily from the government bailouts (the funds for which they actually did directly receive).

That's funny you telling me to read about things when you're a fifteen year old high school student that doesn't know **** about banking or even current events. I mean, a lot of the stuff you bring up in our conversations is just factually wrong, but not only that you appear to be unable to independently analyze information.


Exactly, you don't know **** about banks and why one bank should be better than another, so what the **** makes you think you should go around pretending?

What I'm saying is that economies, markets, world affairs, etc. are very complex and looking at only one factor alone and say "eureka!" is pretty ****ing stupid.

repeter

You know what? There is no real point to debate with you because everytime I make a point you say, " Oh, you're 15, yuo don't know ****." Thats pretty pathetic, so how about you just stfu and debate the freaking points?

__________________
Veni. Vidi. Vici.
-Gaius Julius Caesar
The Only Thing to Fear is Fear Itself.
-Franklin Delano Roosevelt

CaptainCourtesy

Moderator's Warning:

Two things. The personal attacks from everyone needs to stop. And when debating, it is far better to address points rather than comment on someone's age. That too is a personal attack. Further consequences may be happening if y'all don't stop.

__________________
"Never fear. Him is here" - Captain Chaos (Dom DeLuise), Cannonball Run

====||:-D