Why do we need private banks

[rnen]

[quote=TheBreeze][quote=rnen]

Do we need to rethink the banking system as a whole? Absolutely. Do we need to put regulations and controls on the banking system? With out a doubt. Do we want the government to decide who qaulifies for a loan? Gee, maybe not such a good idea.

Just imagine the shape we would be in if the likes of Frank, Shumer and Waters dictated lending policies.

[/quote]

Ring…ring…ring. “Hi, this is the cluephone. Who do you think is going to put ‘regulations and controls’ on the banking system? Ding! Ding! Ding! That’s right, it’ll have to be the government. Frank, Schumer, and Waters. Get a clue.”

So under your ‘private banks’ plan we have two corrupt systems – the government and the private banks. The private banksters then pay the government politicians to keep easing back on regs so that they can continue to rape America. If all the banks were controlled only by the government, there wouldn’t be any lobbying/payments to politicians from banks and maybe then the government would put in some reasonable regs. With private banks, there’s no chance of that happening.

How do you reconcile your view that banks need governmental ‘regulations and controls’ (presumably from the same government that Frank, Schumers, and Waters are a part of) with your view that we need private banks and that Frank, Schumers, and Waters shouldn’t dictate ‘lending policies’? So Frank, Schumers, and Waters are capable of crafting reasonable ‘regulations and controls’, but they aren’t capable of creating reasonable ‘lending policies’? There is a massive logical disconnect in your argument.

We’ve already tried ‘private banks’. They failed. Big time. Why do you want to go back there? What’s going to stop them from raping the system and failing again? A government led by Frank, Schumers, and Waters is going to stop the private banks from raping the system again? Please. Other than abolishing the Fed and the fractional reserve banking system, the only hope of having a banking system that won’t rape and pillage is to make it 100% owned by the government.

[/quote]

I agree the current system failed badly. It needs an overhaul, and it can be done with responsible people at the helm who are not beholden to every freaking special intrest group that feeds them money.
Do you really believe that a single bank run by the government is a better alternative? So we eliminate all the banks and credit unions, who compete for our business, and create a monopoly run by the government. Do you think that maybe they would have just found a new way to squeeze more out of all of us to fund even more pork projects? Given how efficient the government operates do you really believe we will all be better off?
Do you really want the government to have complete access to all your finiance activity?

This is not going to be an easy problem to solve but I for one will never support putting all my faith in the government.

[davelj]

The problem isn’t with private banks, it’s with private HUGE banks. If the 20 largest banks in this country had entered this crisis with 2.5x the capital they did (or, conversely, 2.5x less leverage), a lot of the current problems would be alleviated because the losses could be sucked up by capital.

The largest US banks – those deemed too big to fail by our government – should carry dramatically more capital and should be operated not unlike large, boring public utilities. That’s the price you pay for operating in a regulated, ultimately taxpayer-backstopped industry.

The only changes I’d make to the smaller banks (less than $25 billion in assets) would be to cap concentrations in certain loan types. For example, no bank can have more than 10% of its loan portfolio in construction and development. Had we made that one single change five years back, we’d see a small fraction of the failures we’re going to see.

Personally I don’t see any reason to destroy an otherwise sound system when a few small (but critically important) regulatory changes could’ve mitigated much of this disaster.

[davelj]

The problem isn’t with private banks, it’s with private HUGE banks. If the 20 largest banks in this country had entered this crisis with 2.5x the capital they did (or, conversely, 2.5x less leverage), a lot of the current problems would be alleviated because the losses could be sucked up by capital.

The largest US banks – those deemed too big to fail by our government – should carry dramatically more capital and should be operated not unlike large, boring public utilities. That’s the price you pay for operating in a regulated, ultimately taxpayer-backstopped industry.

The only changes I’d make to the smaller banks (less than $25 billion in assets) would be to cap concentrations in certain loan types. For example, no bank can have more than 10% of its loan portfolio in construction and development. Had we made that one single change five years back, we’d see a small fraction of the failures we’re going to see.

Personally I don’t see any reason to destroy an otherwise sound system when a few small (but critically important) regulatory changes could’ve mitigated much of this disaster.

[davelj]

The problem isn’t with private banks, it’s with private HUGE banks. If the 20 largest banks in this country had entered this crisis with 2.5x the capital they did (or, conversely, 2.5x less leverage), a lot of the current problems would be alleviated because the losses could be sucked up by capital.

The largest US banks – those deemed too big to fail by our government – should carry dramatically more capital and should be operated not unlike large, boring public utilities. That’s the price you pay for operating in a regulated, ultimately taxpayer-backstopped industry.

The only changes I’d make to the smaller banks (less than $25 billion in assets) would be to cap concentrations in certain loan types. For example, no bank can have more than 10% of its loan portfolio in construction and development. Had we made that one single change five years back, we’d see a small fraction of the failures we’re going to see.

Personally I don’t see any reason to destroy an otherwise sound system when a few small (but critically important) regulatory changes could’ve mitigated much of this disaster.

[davelj]

The problem isn’t with private banks, it’s with private HUGE banks. If the 20 largest banks in this country had entered this crisis with 2.5x the capital they did (or, conversely, 2.5x less leverage), a lot of the current problems would be alleviated because the losses could be sucked up by capital.

The largest US banks – those deemed too big to fail by our government – should carry dramatically more capital and should be operated not unlike large, boring public utilities. That’s the price you pay for operating in a regulated, ultimately taxpayer-backstopped industry.

The only changes I’d make to the smaller banks (less than $25 billion in assets) would be to cap concentrations in certain loan types. For example, no bank can have more than 10% of its loan portfolio in construction and development. Had we made that one single change five years back, we’d see a small fraction of the failures we’re going to see.

Personally I don’t see any reason to destroy an otherwise sound system when a few small (but critically important) regulatory changes could’ve mitigated much of this disaster.

[davelj]

The problem isn’t with private banks, it’s with private HUGE banks. If the 20 largest banks in this country had entered this crisis with 2.5x the capital they did (or, conversely, 2.5x less leverage), a lot of the current problems would be alleviated because the losses could be sucked up by capital.

The largest US banks – those deemed too big to fail by our government – should carry dramatically more capital and should be operated not unlike large, boring public utilities. That’s the price you pay for operating in a regulated, ultimately taxpayer-backstopped industry.

The only changes I’d make to the smaller banks (less than $25 billion in assets) would be to cap concentrations in certain loan types. For example, no bank can have more than 10% of its loan portfolio in construction and development. Had we made that one single change five years back, we’d see a small fraction of the failures we’re going to see.

Personally I don’t see any reason to destroy an otherwise sound system when a few small (but critically important) regulatory changes could’ve mitigated much of this disaster.

[Anonymous]

The financial industry is driven by profits. They created ridiculous products that have blown up the economy.

The politicians are driven by getting re-elected. They never make tough decisions. Their decisions always have their re-election in mind. They made it super easy for the banks to do VERY stupid things. They could have prevented this whole mess.

They both suck and suck bad. We need some people that are not driven by profits or re-election to make some very hard choices. Those choices will be painful to many but it will speed up the process of the banking industry and housing market. Right now the govt. is trying to put a band-aid on gang green legs. Cut the damn legs off already so we can move forward.

There is no getting out of this housing situation and bank meltdown without experiencing SERIOUS pain. The government is coming up with 1 stupid idea after the other in an attempt to make all the problems just magically go away. That ain’t happening.

[Anonymous]

The financial industry is driven by profits. They created ridiculous products that have blown up the economy.

The politicians are driven by getting re-elected. They never make tough decisions. Their decisions always have their re-election in mind. They made it super easy for the banks to do VERY stupid things. They could have prevented this whole mess.

They both suck and suck bad. We need some people that are not driven by profits or re-election to make some very hard choices. Those choices will be painful to many but it will speed up the process of the banking industry and housing market. Right now the govt. is trying to put a band-aid on gang green legs. Cut the damn legs off already so we can move forward.

There is no getting out of this housing situation and bank meltdown without experiencing SERIOUS pain. The government is coming up with 1 stupid idea after the other in an attempt to make all the problems just magically go away. That ain’t happening.

[Anonymous]

The financial industry is driven by profits. They created ridiculous products that have blown up the economy.

The politicians are driven by getting re-elected. They never make tough decisions. Their decisions always have their re-election in mind. They made it super easy for the banks to do VERY stupid things. They could have prevented this whole mess.

They both suck and suck bad. We need some people that are not driven by profits or re-election to make some very hard choices. Those choices will be painful to many but it will speed up the process of the banking industry and housing market. Right now the govt. is trying to put a band-aid on gang green legs. Cut the damn legs off already so we can move forward.

There is no getting out of this housing situation and bank meltdown without experiencing SERIOUS pain. The government is coming up with 1 stupid idea after the other in an attempt to make all the problems just magically go away. That ain’t happening.

[Anonymous]

The financial industry is driven by profits. They created ridiculous products that have blown up the economy.

The politicians are driven by getting re-elected. They never make tough decisions. Their decisions always have their re-election in mind. They made it super easy for the banks to do VERY stupid things. They could have prevented this whole mess.

They both suck and suck bad. We need some people that are not driven by profits or re-election to make some very hard choices. Those choices will be painful to many but it will speed up the process of the banking industry and housing market. Right now the govt. is trying to put a band-aid on gang green legs. Cut the damn legs off already so we can move forward.

There is no getting out of this housing situation and bank meltdown without experiencing SERIOUS pain. The government is coming up with 1 stupid idea after the other in an attempt to make all the problems just magically go away. That ain’t happening.

[Anonymous]

The financial industry is driven by profits. They created ridiculous products that have blown up the economy.

The politicians are driven by getting re-elected. They never make tough decisions. Their decisions always have their re-election in mind. They made it super easy for the banks to do VERY stupid things. They could have prevented this whole mess.

They both suck and suck bad. We need some people that are not driven by profits or re-election to make some very hard choices. Those choices will be painful to many but it will speed up the process of the banking industry and housing market. Right now the govt. is trying to put a band-aid on gang green legs. Cut the damn legs off already so we can move forward.

There is no getting out of this housing situation and bank meltdown without experiencing SERIOUS pain. The government is coming up with 1 stupid idea after the other in an attempt to make all the problems just magically go away. That ain’t happening.

[patb]

[quote=waterboy]Why do we need private health care?[/quote]

To provide medical care for rich arabs

[patb]

[quote=waterboy]Why do we need private health care?[/quote]

To provide medical care for rich arabs

[patb]

[quote=waterboy]Why do we need private health care?[/quote]

To provide medical care for rich arabs

[patb]

[quote=waterboy]Why do we need private health care?[/quote]

To provide medical care for rich arabs

[Author]

Posts