- This topic has 80 replies, 11 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 12 months ago by
CA renter.
-
AuthorPosts
-
May 7, 2009 at 5:50 PM #395387May 7, 2009 at 6:55 PM #394736
patientrenter
ParticipantCA Renter,
I think this onion has more than one layer. Let’s peel them back one at a time.
1. Who pays when banks go bust?
2. Who pockets gains when banks make money?
3. Who controls the decisions banks make about who gets to rent money, how much they can get, and how much they have to pay for renting it?
I would prefer the govt be minimally involved in #1, just enough to prevent the system from really blowing up (as distinct from whatever it takes to keep bubbles inflated).
Your point is that if the govt takes on the lion’s share of responsibility for #1, then at least it should get the lion’s share of benefits from #2. Sounds fair.
But the part that scares me a lot is #3. Having your Congressman decide who gets what loans isn’t a recipe for long-term fairness or success. And if we respond to overdoses of #1 with extra dollops of #2, to keep everything balanced, we may well end up with lots of #3 too. Your place on the political spectrum may be different from mine, but I hope you can see that would be a real disaster that could last for generations.
We’re better off, in my opinion, dialing down govt involvement in #1. Politically, so many are hooked on the drug govt guarantees and cheap money provide that it may be quixotic to attempt a rollback, but that would make us stronger economically over the long haul.
And yes, taking over bust banks quickly is a govt job. Go for it, but then back out ASAP. Saying that extra govt involvement is good because then govt can reap future profits as well as pay losses implies that the govt would continue running them when the govt isn’t needed any more because the banks are making real money again. V. dangerous.
May 7, 2009 at 6:55 PM #394990ParticipantCA Renter,
I think this onion has more than one layer. Let’s peel them back one at a time.
1. Who pays when banks go bust?
2. Who pockets gains when banks make money?
3. Who controls the decisions banks make about who gets to rent money, how much they can get, and how much they have to pay for renting it?
I would prefer the govt be minimally involved in #1, just enough to prevent the system from really blowing up (as distinct from whatever it takes to keep bubbles inflated).
Your point is that if the govt takes on the lion’s share of responsibility for #1, then at least it should get the lion’s share of benefits from #2. Sounds fair.
But the part that scares me a lot is #3. Having your Congressman decide who gets what loans isn’t a recipe for long-term fairness or success. And if we respond to overdoses of #1 with extra dollops of #2, to keep everything balanced, we may well end up with lots of #3 too. Your place on the political spectrum may be different from mine, but I hope you can see that would be a real disaster that could last for generations.
We’re better off, in my opinion, dialing down govt involvement in #1. Politically, so many are hooked on the drug govt guarantees and cheap money provide that it may be quixotic to attempt a rollback, but that would make us stronger economically over the long haul.
And yes, taking over bust banks quickly is a govt job. Go for it, but then back out ASAP. Saying that extra govt involvement is good because then govt can reap future profits as well as pay losses implies that the govt would continue running them when the govt isn’t needed any more because the banks are making real money again. V. dangerous.
May 7, 2009 at 6:55 PM #395209ParticipantCA Renter,
I think this onion has more than one layer. Let’s peel them back one at a time.
1. Who pays when banks go bust?
2. Who pockets gains when banks make money?
3. Who controls the decisions banks make about who gets to rent money, how much they can get, and how much they have to pay for renting it?
I would prefer the govt be minimally involved in #1, just enough to prevent the system from really blowing up (as distinct from whatever it takes to keep bubbles inflated).
Your point is that if the govt takes on the lion’s share of responsibility for #1, then at least it should get the lion’s share of benefits from #2. Sounds fair.
But the part that scares me a lot is #3. Having your Congressman decide who gets what loans isn’t a recipe for long-term fairness or success. And if we respond to overdoses of #1 with extra dollops of #2, to keep everything balanced, we may well end up with lots of #3 too. Your place on the political spectrum may be different from mine, but I hope you can see that would be a real disaster that could last for generations.
We’re better off, in my opinion, dialing down govt involvement in #1. Politically, so many are hooked on the drug govt guarantees and cheap money provide that it may be quixotic to attempt a rollback, but that would make us stronger economically over the long haul.
And yes, taking over bust banks quickly is a govt job. Go for it, but then back out ASAP. Saying that extra govt involvement is good because then govt can reap future profits as well as pay losses implies that the govt would continue running them when the govt isn’t needed any more because the banks are making real money again. V. dangerous.
May 7, 2009 at 6:55 PM #395262ParticipantCA Renter,
I think this onion has more than one layer. Let’s peel them back one at a time.
1. Who pays when banks go bust?
2. Who pockets gains when banks make money?
3. Who controls the decisions banks make about who gets to rent money, how much they can get, and how much they have to pay for renting it?
I would prefer the govt be minimally involved in #1, just enough to prevent the system from really blowing up (as distinct from whatever it takes to keep bubbles inflated).
Your point is that if the govt takes on the lion’s share of responsibility for #1, then at least it should get the lion’s share of benefits from #2. Sounds fair.
But the part that scares me a lot is #3. Having your Congressman decide who gets what loans isn’t a recipe for long-term fairness or success. And if we respond to overdoses of #1 with extra dollops of #2, to keep everything balanced, we may well end up with lots of #3 too. Your place on the political spectrum may be different from mine, but I hope you can see that would be a real disaster that could last for generations.
We’re better off, in my opinion, dialing down govt involvement in #1. Politically, so many are hooked on the drug govt guarantees and cheap money provide that it may be quixotic to attempt a rollback, but that would make us stronger economically over the long haul.
And yes, taking over bust banks quickly is a govt job. Go for it, but then back out ASAP. Saying that extra govt involvement is good because then govt can reap future profits as well as pay losses implies that the govt would continue running them when the govt isn’t needed any more because the banks are making real money again. V. dangerous.
May 7, 2009 at 6:55 PM #395403ParticipantCA Renter,
I think this onion has more than one layer. Let’s peel them back one at a time.
1. Who pays when banks go bust?
2. Who pockets gains when banks make money?
3. Who controls the decisions banks make about who gets to rent money, how much they can get, and how much they have to pay for renting it?
I would prefer the govt be minimally involved in #1, just enough to prevent the system from really blowing up (as distinct from whatever it takes to keep bubbles inflated).
Your point is that if the govt takes on the lion’s share of responsibility for #1, then at least it should get the lion’s share of benefits from #2. Sounds fair.
But the part that scares me a lot is #3. Having your Congressman decide who gets what loans isn’t a recipe for long-term fairness or success. And if we respond to overdoses of #1 with extra dollops of #2, to keep everything balanced, we may well end up with lots of #3 too. Your place on the political spectrum may be different from mine, but I hope you can see that would be a real disaster that could last for generations.
We’re better off, in my opinion, dialing down govt involvement in #1. Politically, so many are hooked on the drug govt guarantees and cheap money provide that it may be quixotic to attempt a rollback, but that would make us stronger economically over the long haul.
And yes, taking over bust banks quickly is a govt job. Go for it, but then back out ASAP. Saying that extra govt involvement is good because then govt can reap future profits as well as pay losses implies that the govt would continue running them when the govt isn’t needed any more because the banks are making real money again. V. dangerous.
May 7, 2009 at 9:59 PM #394789sdduuuude
Participant[quote=CA renter][quote=sdduuuude]Yes, we should make it illegal for anyone to loan anyone else any money unless it is the government doing the loaning or borrowing. That’ll fix everything. Brilliant[/quote]
You’re missing the point.
[/quote]
No. I’m entirely on the point.
The original poster stated “we should remove private banks.”What is a bank? It is a private entity that borrows money from depositors and loans it to borrowers.
By definition “removing private banks” basically makes it illegal for people to borrow from each other. It seems a basic right to me and not really the source of the problem.
What we need to remove is the fractional reserve system, a debt rating system that pays based on volume rather than quality, and the bailouts that make the problems of stupid banks everyone’s problem.
Banks should not be removed by anything other than their own ineptitude.
May 7, 2009 at 9:59 PM #395041Participant[quote=CA renter][quote=sdduuuude]Yes, we should make it illegal for anyone to loan anyone else any money unless it is the government doing the loaning or borrowing. That’ll fix everything. Brilliant[/quote]
You’re missing the point.
[/quote]
No. I’m entirely on the point.
The original poster stated “we should remove private banks.”What is a bank? It is a private entity that borrows money from depositors and loans it to borrowers.
By definition “removing private banks” basically makes it illegal for people to borrow from each other. It seems a basic right to me and not really the source of the problem.
What we need to remove is the fractional reserve system, a debt rating system that pays based on volume rather than quality, and the bailouts that make the problems of stupid banks everyone’s problem.
Banks should not be removed by anything other than their own ineptitude.
May 7, 2009 at 9:59 PM #395260Participant[quote=CA renter][quote=sdduuuude]Yes, we should make it illegal for anyone to loan anyone else any money unless it is the government doing the loaning or borrowing. That’ll fix everything. Brilliant[/quote]
You’re missing the point.
[/quote]
No. I’m entirely on the point.
The original poster stated “we should remove private banks.”What is a bank? It is a private entity that borrows money from depositors and loans it to borrowers.
By definition “removing private banks” basically makes it illegal for people to borrow from each other. It seems a basic right to me and not really the source of the problem.
What we need to remove is the fractional reserve system, a debt rating system that pays based on volume rather than quality, and the bailouts that make the problems of stupid banks everyone’s problem.
Banks should not be removed by anything other than their own ineptitude.
May 7, 2009 at 9:59 PM #395313Participant[quote=CA renter][quote=sdduuuude]Yes, we should make it illegal for anyone to loan anyone else any money unless it is the government doing the loaning or borrowing. That’ll fix everything. Brilliant[/quote]
You’re missing the point.
[/quote]
No. I’m entirely on the point.
The original poster stated “we should remove private banks.”What is a bank? It is a private entity that borrows money from depositors and loans it to borrowers.
By definition “removing private banks” basically makes it illegal for people to borrow from each other. It seems a basic right to me and not really the source of the problem.
What we need to remove is the fractional reserve system, a debt rating system that pays based on volume rather than quality, and the bailouts that make the problems of stupid banks everyone’s problem.
Banks should not be removed by anything other than their own ineptitude.
May 7, 2009 at 9:59 PM #395455Participant[quote=CA renter][quote=sdduuuude]Yes, we should make it illegal for anyone to loan anyone else any money unless it is the government doing the loaning or borrowing. That’ll fix everything. Brilliant[/quote]
You’re missing the point.
[/quote]
No. I’m entirely on the point.
The original poster stated “we should remove private banks.”What is a bank? It is a private entity that borrows money from depositors and loans it to borrowers.
By definition “removing private banks” basically makes it illegal for people to borrow from each other. It seems a basic right to me and not really the source of the problem.
What we need to remove is the fractional reserve system, a debt rating system that pays based on volume rather than quality, and the bailouts that make the problems of stupid banks everyone’s problem.
Banks should not be removed by anything other than their own ineptitude.
May 7, 2009 at 10:49 PM #394809Arraya
ParticipantI does not really matter what we think anyway. If you have not figured that out, you haven’t been paying attention.
Predictions for within one year:
-Big banks nationalized
-Dollar no longer reserve currency
-Geithner gone
-Rush Limbaugh spontaneously combustsMay 7, 2009 at 10:49 PM #395061ParticipantI does not really matter what we think anyway. If you have not figured that out, you haven’t been paying attention.
Predictions for within one year:
-Big banks nationalized
-Dollar no longer reserve currency
-Geithner gone
-Rush Limbaugh spontaneously combustsMay 7, 2009 at 10:49 PM #395279ParticipantI does not really matter what we think anyway. If you have not figured that out, you haven’t been paying attention.
Predictions for within one year:
-Big banks nationalized
-Dollar no longer reserve currency
-Geithner gone
-Rush Limbaugh spontaneously combustsMay 7, 2009 at 10:49 PM #395333ParticipantI does not really matter what we think anyway. If you have not figured that out, you haven’t been paying attention.
Predictions for within one year:
-Big banks nationalized
-Dollar no longer reserve currency
-Geithner gone
-Rush Limbaugh spontaneously combusts -
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.