Bank nationalization gaining ground

[TheBreeze]

Thank God. Nationalization of the banks is picking up steam:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/2ad3b750-fd27-11dd-a103-000077b07658.html?nclick_check=1

I think this is a reasonable approach to clean up this mess. Nationalize the banks, fire all the crooked banksters, and start to clean up the balance sheets. Seems reasonable to me.

I predict we’re going to see an up-day in the markets tomorrow. This is the first half-way decent the politicians have had in a while so I think we could see the market react positively to it.

[LuckyInOC]

Breeze,

The problem does not lie whether or not the banks are public, private, or central. The real problem is when any financial institution ‘creates’ money based on limited fractional reserves. If you research the follow panics in the United States, you will find the following common thread is: Banks willing to lend fractional reserve money to highly speculative endeavors, be it land, railroads, dot.com, homes, gold, etc. The United States Government has not followed the Constitution that only “Congress has the Power: To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;”. It is the Government, we the people, that have given up that power to the banks. Gov’t has done it in the past in a smaller scale. And more recently, in a greater scale with the adoption of the Federal Reserve System. I think you will find that during these panics the government did not ‘regulate the Value’ of money. Rather, the Government allowed banks to increase the money supply by fractional reserves on highly speculative endeavors because the Gov’t reaped taxation benefits. Eventually, the speculation could not sustain itself, collapsed, and cause severe damage not only to the speculators, but the country as a whole.

Panic of 1819
Panic of 1837
Panic of 1857
Panic of 1873
Panic of 1893
Panic of 1901
Panic of 1907

I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.

Thomas Jefferson, (Attributed)
3rd president of US (1743 – 1826)

Lucky in OC

[LuckyInOC]

Breeze,

The problem does not lie whether or not the banks are public, private, or central. The real problem is when any financial institution ‘creates’ money based on limited fractional reserves. If you research the follow panics in the United States, you will find the following common thread is: Banks willing to lend fractional reserve money to highly speculative endeavors, be it land, railroads, dot.com, homes, gold, etc. The United States Government has not followed the Constitution that only “Congress has the Power: To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;”. It is the Government, we the people, that have given up that power to the banks. Gov’t has done it in the past in a smaller scale. And more recently, in a greater scale with the adoption of the Federal Reserve System. I think you will find that during these panics the government did not ‘regulate the Value’ of money. Rather, the Government allowed banks to increase the money supply by fractional reserves on highly speculative endeavors because the Gov’t reaped taxation benefits. Eventually, the speculation could not sustain itself, collapsed, and cause severe damage not only to the speculators, but the country as a whole.

Panic of 1819
Panic of 1837
Panic of 1857
Panic of 1873
Panic of 1893
Panic of 1901
Panic of 1907

I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.

Thomas Jefferson, (Attributed)
3rd president of US (1743 – 1826)

Lucky in OC

[LuckyInOC]

Breeze,

The problem does not lie whether or not the banks are public, private, or central. The real problem is when any financial institution ‘creates’ money based on limited fractional reserves. If you research the follow panics in the United States, you will find the following common thread is: Banks willing to lend fractional reserve money to highly speculative endeavors, be it land, railroads, dot.com, homes, gold, etc. The United States Government has not followed the Constitution that only “Congress has the Power: To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;”. It is the Government, we the people, that have given up that power to the banks. Gov’t has done it in the past in a smaller scale. And more recently, in a greater scale with the adoption of the Federal Reserve System. I think you will find that during these panics the government did not ‘regulate the Value’ of money. Rather, the Government allowed banks to increase the money supply by fractional reserves on highly speculative endeavors because the Gov’t reaped taxation benefits. Eventually, the speculation could not sustain itself, collapsed, and cause severe damage not only to the speculators, but the country as a whole.

Panic of 1819
Panic of 1837
Panic of 1857
Panic of 1873
Panic of 1893
Panic of 1901
Panic of 1907

I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.

Thomas Jefferson, (Attributed)
3rd president of US (1743 – 1826)

Lucky in OC

[LuckyInOC]

Breeze,

The problem does not lie whether or not the banks are public, private, or central. The real problem is when any financial institution ‘creates’ money based on limited fractional reserves. If you research the follow panics in the United States, you will find the following common thread is: Banks willing to lend fractional reserve money to highly speculative endeavors, be it land, railroads, dot.com, homes, gold, etc. The United States Government has not followed the Constitution that only “Congress has the Power: To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;”. It is the Government, we the people, that have given up that power to the banks. Gov’t has done it in the past in a smaller scale. And more recently, in a greater scale with the adoption of the Federal Reserve System. I think you will find that during these panics the government did not ‘regulate the Value’ of money. Rather, the Government allowed banks to increase the money supply by fractional reserves on highly speculative endeavors because the Gov’t reaped taxation benefits. Eventually, the speculation could not sustain itself, collapsed, and cause severe damage not only to the speculators, but the country as a whole.

Panic of 1819
Panic of 1837
Panic of 1857
Panic of 1873
Panic of 1893
Panic of 1901
Panic of 1907

I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.

Thomas Jefferson, (Attributed)
3rd president of US (1743 – 1826)

Lucky in OC

[LuckyInOC]

Breeze,

The problem does not lie whether or not the banks are public, private, or central. The real problem is when any financial institution ‘creates’ money based on limited fractional reserves. If you research the follow panics in the United States, you will find the following common thread is: Banks willing to lend fractional reserve money to highly speculative endeavors, be it land, railroads, dot.com, homes, gold, etc. The United States Government has not followed the Constitution that only “Congress has the Power: To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;”. It is the Government, we the people, that have given up that power to the banks. Gov’t has done it in the past in a smaller scale. And more recently, in a greater scale with the adoption of the Federal Reserve System. I think you will find that during these panics the government did not ‘regulate the Value’ of money. Rather, the Government allowed banks to increase the money supply by fractional reserves on highly speculative endeavors because the Gov’t reaped taxation benefits. Eventually, the speculation could not sustain itself, collapsed, and cause severe damage not only to the speculators, but the country as a whole.

Panic of 1819
Panic of 1837
Panic of 1857
Panic of 1873
Panic of 1893
Panic of 1901
Panic of 1907

I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.

Thomas Jefferson, (Attributed)
3rd president of US (1743 – 1826)

Lucky in OC

[TheBreeze]

Even though I’ve heard Mish rail against fractional-reserve lending repeatedly, I’m not convinced that it is the ultimate problem. I think the mortgage market could work fine on fractional-reserve lending if everyone was forced to put 40% down on their mortgages. It would be easy to sell pretty much any mortgage at any time if there was a 40% equity cushion. Thus, even if a bank had all deposits withdrawn in a short time, it would likely be relatively easy for the bank to sell all of it’s mortgages in order to meet those withdrawals.

I think the real problem is ‘financial innovation’. It is likely that a decent financial system came into being after each of the financial panics and that banking lobbyists worked over time to weaken that system. In this most recent cycle, banking lobbyists were able to reduce the requirements for mortgage down payments from 20% to -10% on negatively amortizing loans. The Republicans led by Phil Gramm were also able to get Glass-Steagall repealed. There is no way a financial system can survive that type of chicanery regardless of whether fractional-reserve lending is used or not.

Besides, if banks can’t lend against deposits, what can they lend against? What is the alternative to fractional-reserve banking?

[TheBreeze]

Even though I’ve heard Mish rail against fractional-reserve lending repeatedly, I’m not convinced that it is the ultimate problem. I think the mortgage market could work fine on fractional-reserve lending if everyone was forced to put 40% down on their mortgages. It would be easy to sell pretty much any mortgage at any time if there was a 40% equity cushion. Thus, even if a bank had all deposits withdrawn in a short time, it would likely be relatively easy for the bank to sell all of it’s mortgages in order to meet those withdrawals.

I think the real problem is ‘financial innovation’. It is likely that a decent financial system came into being after each of the financial panics and that banking lobbyists worked over time to weaken that system. In this most recent cycle, banking lobbyists were able to reduce the requirements for mortgage down payments from 20% to -10% on negatively amortizing loans. The Republicans led by Phil Gramm were also able to get Glass-Steagall repealed. There is no way a financial system can survive that type of chicanery regardless of whether fractional-reserve lending is used or not.

Besides, if banks can’t lend against deposits, what can they lend against? What is the alternative to fractional-reserve banking?

[TheBreeze]

Even though I’ve heard Mish rail against fractional-reserve lending repeatedly, I’m not convinced that it is the ultimate problem. I think the mortgage market could work fine on fractional-reserve lending if everyone was forced to put 40% down on their mortgages. It would be easy to sell pretty much any mortgage at any time if there was a 40% equity cushion. Thus, even if a bank had all deposits withdrawn in a short time, it would likely be relatively easy for the bank to sell all of it’s mortgages in order to meet those withdrawals.

I think the real problem is ‘financial innovation’. It is likely that a decent financial system came into being after each of the financial panics and that banking lobbyists worked over time to weaken that system. In this most recent cycle, banking lobbyists were able to reduce the requirements for mortgage down payments from 20% to -10% on negatively amortizing loans. The Republicans led by Phil Gramm were also able to get Glass-Steagall repealed. There is no way a financial system can survive that type of chicanery regardless of whether fractional-reserve lending is used or not.

Besides, if banks can’t lend against deposits, what can they lend against? What is the alternative to fractional-reserve banking?

[TheBreeze]

Even though I’ve heard Mish rail against fractional-reserve lending repeatedly, I’m not convinced that it is the ultimate problem. I think the mortgage market could work fine on fractional-reserve lending if everyone was forced to put 40% down on their mortgages. It would be easy to sell pretty much any mortgage at any time if there was a 40% equity cushion. Thus, even if a bank had all deposits withdrawn in a short time, it would likely be relatively easy for the bank to sell all of it’s mortgages in order to meet those withdrawals.

I think the real problem is ‘financial innovation’. It is likely that a decent financial system came into being after each of the financial panics and that banking lobbyists worked over time to weaken that system. In this most recent cycle, banking lobbyists were able to reduce the requirements for mortgage down payments from 20% to -10% on negatively amortizing loans. The Republicans led by Phil Gramm were also able to get Glass-Steagall repealed. There is no way a financial system can survive that type of chicanery regardless of whether fractional-reserve lending is used or not.

Besides, if banks can’t lend against deposits, what can they lend against? What is the alternative to fractional-reserve banking?

[TheBreeze]

Even though I’ve heard Mish rail against fractional-reserve lending repeatedly, I’m not convinced that it is the ultimate problem. I think the mortgage market could work fine on fractional-reserve lending if everyone was forced to put 40% down on their mortgages. It would be easy to sell pretty much any mortgage at any time if there was a 40% equity cushion. Thus, even if a bank had all deposits withdrawn in a short time, it would likely be relatively easy for the bank to sell all of it’s mortgages in order to meet those withdrawals.

I think the real problem is ‘financial innovation’. It is likely that a decent financial system came into being after each of the financial panics and that banking lobbyists worked over time to weaken that system. In this most recent cycle, banking lobbyists were able to reduce the requirements for mortgage down payments from 20% to -10% on negatively amortizing loans. The Republicans led by Phil Gramm were also able to get Glass-Steagall repealed. There is no way a financial system can survive that type of chicanery regardless of whether fractional-reserve lending is used or not.

Besides, if banks can’t lend against deposits, what can they lend against? What is the alternative to fractional-reserve banking?

[greekfire]

The root of the problem is not allowing banks and other big corporations to fail. The last time I checked the Constitution didn’t have a provision to save people from bad mortgage products. Nor did it mention saving banks from risky lending. People are going to take risks. Why not leverage yourself to the hilt if you know you are going to get bailed out?

[greekfire]

The root of the problem is not allowing banks and other big corporations to fail. The last time I checked the Constitution didn’t have a provision to save people from bad mortgage products. Nor did it mention saving banks from risky lending. People are going to take risks. Why not leverage yourself to the hilt if you know you are going to get bailed out?

[greekfire]

The root of the problem is not allowing banks and other big corporations to fail. The last time I checked the Constitution didn’t have a provision to save people from bad mortgage products. Nor did it mention saving banks from risky lending. People are going to take risks. Why not leverage yourself to the hilt if you know you are going to get bailed out?

[greekfire]

The root of the problem is not allowing banks and other big corporations to fail. The last time I checked the Constitution didn’t have a provision to save people from bad mortgage products. Nor did it mention saving banks from risky lending. People are going to take risks. Why not leverage yourself to the hilt if you know you are going to get bailed out?

[Author]

Posts