For those who blame government instead of the banks...

rowjimmy · October 15, 2011, 09:46

http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=195994

The best quote is in the comment section:

I don't understand what is being objected to about the article, and I don't even see the coherence of the argument you're making at all, Karl.

When Henry Paulson was at Goldman Sachs, he was arguably working for Goldman Sachs. When he becamse Tsy Sec'y, he may have been working for the United States by virtue of his title or he may have been (still) working for Goldman Sachs. Most of us, I think, suspect the latter. As Tsy Sec'y he appeared to shove his bazooka down the throats of the bankers and it looked like a government takeover. But it was no such thing. It was a promise to relieve the banks of the impact of their massive bad debt.

If all you're objecting to is the assertion by PJTV that "the government" took over the banks, that is just a semantic argument as I see it. The banks had already taken over the government, and they remain in such control today. So all you're saying is that the banks took over the banks, using the government as the mechanism.

rowjimmy · October 15, 2011, 09:47

I meant to post this in econ and invest..

carguym14 · October 15, 2011, 12:03

From the article:
"Even beyond what we can see with regulations gone wild, failed stimulus, and outright corruption, our government’s authoritarian overhang and its destructive psychological effect on business and investor behavior largely explain why the economy won’t acceptably grow.

If you believe one word of that paragraph you're dumber than a box of rocks"

I guess I am dumber than a box of rocks.

The only part I don't agree with is the "regulations gone wild" part.

Other than that-

Failed stimulus? Check
Outright corruption? Check
Authoritarian overhang and destructive psychological effect on business and investor behavior? Check

rowjimmy · October 15, 2011, 12:18

Car, I think the point is that the referenced article seeks to blame government intervention in the markets versus realizing wall street now owns the government and the failures are due to policies of the last thirty years and more recent deregulation of the banking industry. This deregulation allowed the creation of the associated ponzi schemes which have brought the world to its knees.

To invoke the traditional republican mantra of small (read no) government intervention in the markets and little regulation is foolhardy at this point. The markets now own the government. Goldman Sachs runs the world. And if you look at the votes on The Financial Industries Modernization Act, they own both parties.

This problem cannot begin to be addressed until banks are allowed to fail and the market is cleared of bad debt and new regulations are instituted. It's not gonna happen as long as wall street owns the government.

While the mantra of limited government is nice, free markets tend to a monopoly and wealth consolidates in the hands of a few. We are at the stage of Oligarchy, we no longer have a republic. Think what you will....

RG Coburn · October 15, 2011, 12:59

Having a person who cannot prove he is a U.S. citizen as "President" doesn't help much either....

**martin35** · October 15, 2011, 14:30

We are at the stage of Oligarchy, we no longer have a republic.
We are and always have been a Representative government,, we elect a few, a "Oligarchy" to rule in our best interests,,, and they do,,, for a few in perfect harmony,,,all others are discontented to some degree,,, are we now saying our form of government is no longer a viable institution?
In my opinion a true Democracy of referendum is only workable in uniformly assimilated citizenry with rigid social and cultural puritan standards,,, we are fragmented cultures and societies and some will not be represented as fairly as their standards require,,, ergo a Representative Democracy should in theory represent the majority fairly,, not the minority.
The citizery creates the aristicratic Oligarchy by means of incombancy in candidacy and political machines that assume that all must be taken care of in a common best interest,, the nation must always serve the people and the people must preserve the nation but not be made to serve the nation as subjects,,, that ever shifting balance is politics,,, a poor form of government to be sure but where there are only worse to choose from,,,, in my opinion.

FAL freek · October 15, 2011, 15:28

Quote:

Originally posted by RG Coburn
Having a person who cannot prove he is a U.S. citizen as "President" doesn't help much either....

You better be glad dabtl isn't here to see that posted. I believe it would give him that nudge that would drive him over the edge.

ftierson · October 15, 2011, 15:40

Quote:

Originally posted by FAL freek
You better be glad dabtl isn't here to see that posted. I believe it would give him that nudge that would drive him over the edge.

Like he isn't already...

Forrest

rowjimmy · October 15, 2011, 16:08

Quote:

Originally posted by martin35
We are at the stage of Oligarchy, we no longer have a republic.
We are and always have been a Representative government,, we elect a few, a "Oligarchy" to rule in our best interests,,, and they do,,, for a few in perfect harmony,,,all others are discontented to some degree,,, are we now saying our form of government is no longer a viable institution?
In my opinion a true Democracy of referendum is only workable in uniformly assimilated citizenry with rigid social and cultural puritan standards,,, we are fragmented cultures and societies and some will not be represented as fairly as their standards require,,, ergo a Representative Democracy should in theory represent the majority fairly,, not the minority.
The citizery creates the aristicratic Oligarchy by means of incombancy in candidacy and political machines that assume that all must be taken care of in a common best interest,, the nation must always serve the people and the people must preserve the nation but not be made to serve the nation as subjects,,, that ever shifting balance is politics,,, a poor form of government to be sure but where there are only worse to choose from,,,, in my opinion.

A republic is a form of representative government...when the banks own both parties and see that all legislation is passed in their interests, it's an oligarchy..do you not understand the difference in what I'm saying? A republic implies an accountability to the people of the elected, an oligarchy implies thier is no accountability save to the few in power.

**martin35** · October 15, 2011, 16:41

rowjimmy, the majority constituency of incumbents vote to be ruled by the oligarchy they create, just as those who don't vote do by default,,, we are witness to the loud cries against banks by those (OWS) who disdain to vote.
There will always be banks, bankers, money lenders and speculators, they are the single most vital part of a healthy Capitalist system,,, the method of regulation is the criminal element.

rowjimmy · October 15, 2011, 21:08

Quote:

Originally posted by martin35
,,, the method of regulation is the criminal element.

You mean the LACK of regulation?

I guess we will just disagree.

Bawana jim · October 15, 2011, 21:12

Who has the most power, the government or the banks?

jim

Does a bank have a standing army? A police force? A justice department? Can the bank draft citizens??? Can a bank declare war?

**martin35** · October 16, 2011, 01:47

I guess we will just disagree.
That happens when two guys are dating the same big ol' fat girl,,, they usually meet comin' around the mountain.

FAL freek · October 16, 2011, 06:12

Quote:

Originally posted by ftierson

Like he isn't already...

Forrest

Gone over the edge or watching the Files? I'd wager to say both.

V guy · October 16, 2011, 10:52

The first financial panic in the USA was 1793.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_banking_crises

Reading the list makes you realize that people and money and banks and goverment are always in conflict.

Nothing new here, but world socialism in Europe and here, IS affecting the mix, somewhat. Difference between Ragu and Prego spaghetti sauce is the big difference inthe long run between 1873, 1930 and today.

Depressions are designed to keep wealth out of the hands of the masses.
Communism is also designed to keep wealth out of the hands of the masses.
In between the economic cycles and political revolutions, you might have a buck or two and some things........

ftierson · October 16, 2011, 12:12

Quote:

Originally posted by V guy
Reading the list makes you realize that people and money and banks and goverment are always in conflict.

The problem is not when banks and government are in conflict.

It's when they are not...

Forrest

Bawana jim · October 16, 2011, 12:23

Should be obviouse by the tracks they have left that government and the banks are in cahoots to bring down the country by a civil war. The only way America can be brought down and it has been planned and organized for decades. How else to you get the lazy ass left to get up and protest than to create events that affects them?

This isn't about the economy, it's a planned revolution by the progressive socialist. When they talk class warfare they mean it.

jim

**308bolt** · October 16, 2011, 13:42

I don't know that it's a planned revolution.
I suspect it's more just rampant greed.

The banks donate to and then lobby the politicians for more lenient or even preferential laws so they can make more money.
The politicians who want those donations and preferential treatment by the banks themselves so they have the means to feather their nests and stay in office push to pass or modify the laws to satisfy the banks agendas.

It's a symbiotic relationship.
I don't see where pushing the country into chaos does them any good.

StarPD · October 16, 2011, 13:43

Apparently the OP and maybe some others here are oblivious to the fact that big banks and Wall street are among OHHHH Bama's and the democommie Party's biggest contributors.

But just continue deluding yourselves that government is good and banks are bad.

In case no one noticed further, banks are in the business of MAKING money, while government is in the business of TAKING money.

But just keep in indulging in your fantasies that government is the solution to our financial woes. Note that big banks are just helping them, no more, no less.

Bawana jim · October 16, 2011, 21:24

Quote:

Originally posted by 308bolt
I don't know that it's a planned revolution.
I suspect it's more just rampant greed.

The banks donate to and then lobby the politicians for more lenient or even preferential laws so they can make more money.
The politicians who want those donations and preferential treatment by the banks themselves so they have the means to feather their nests and stay in office push to pass or modify the laws to satisfy the banks agendas.

It's a symbiotic relationship.
I don't see where pushing the country into chaos does them any good.

It's a much bigger picture than just government and the banks and I won't bore you with all the tracks that leads me to my conclusion. The term perfect storm comes to mind but it takes alot of "smart" guys to make the storm happen. All of it adds up to bad times for people to sow the seeds of revolution.

It's the young who revolt and they are the ones targeted by the economy. School debts, no jobs and no future, why not revolt? This has been planned.

jim

Dave Hume · October 16, 2011, 21:51

Quote:

Originally posted by ftierson

The problem is not when banks and government are in conflict.

It's when they are not...

Forrest

HEY...YOU!

That's a very profound observation.

juanni · October 17, 2011, 05:42

Quote:

Originally posted by StarPD
Apparently the OP and maybe some others here are oblivious to the fact that big banks and Wall street are among OHHHH Bama's and the democommie Party's biggest contributors.

That is old news.
Wall St has used Obama for about all they can get out of him , so they are backing their new boy, Mitt Romney.

from the Wash Post..
The largest corporate sources of money for Romney are mostly finance industry leaders, including Morgan Stanley and Bank of America. Goldman Sachs employees have given nearly a quarter of a million dollars in contributions. [...]

Nearly three-quarters of Romney’s money came from donors giving the maximum $2,500 contribution, and one in eight of Romney’s donors live in New York City and its suburbs.

...............juanni

**308bolt** · October 17, 2011, 07:28

Quote:

Originally posted by Bawana jim

It's a much bigger picture than just government and the banks and I won't bore you with all the tracks that leads me to my conclusion. The term perfect storm comes to mind but it takes alot of "smart" guys to make the storm happen. All of it adds up to bad times for people to sow the seeds of revolution.

It's the young who revolt and they are the ones targeted by the economy. School debts, no jobs and no future, why not revolt? This has been planned.

jim

And how are they going to revolt?
Sit on street corners?
Make signs?
Shout slogans?

It did nothing in the 60/70s and it will have the same effect now.

Using Occam's Razor as a guide makes me believe this is the result of greed and incompetence not a grand scheme and complex plot.

Bawana jim · October 17, 2011, 23:14

Quote:

Originally posted by 308bolt

And how are they going to revolt?
Sit on street corners?
Make signs?
Shout slogans?

It did nothing in the 60/70s and it will have the same effect now.

Using Occam's Razor as a guide makes me believe this is the result of greed and incompetence not a grand scheme and complex plot.

Bill Ayers, in the 60s (one of Obama close friends) set bombs in police stations etc and it got him in the white house so to speak. It isn't like nothing happened, lots of riots and murder and it was all about stoping the draft. We no longer have a draft.

jim

JohnnyReb · October 19, 2011, 10:00

This cartoon is from 1912, even looks like a Vampire Squid ....

rowjimmy · October 19, 2011, 10:18

Quote:

Originally posted by JohnnyReb
This cartoon is from 1912, even looks like a Vampire Squid ....

Looks like a flow chart of public money to me...

It's funny, you blame the banks instead of government (since they now control it and essentially are our government, look at the lineage of most current and former players, Bernanke, Paulson, Geithner, etc...) and people think you support big government and Obama.

Wild inference and lack of reading comprehension abounds on the files...

TXscout · October 19, 2011, 10:44

Quote:

Originally posted by 308bolt
I don't know that it's a planned revolution.
I suspect it's more just rampant greed.

The banks donate to and then lobby the politicians for more lenient or even preferential laws so they can make more money.
The politicians who want those donations and preferential treatment by the banks themselves so they have the means to feather their nests and stay in office push to pass or modify the laws to satisfy the banks agendas.

It's a symbiotic relationship.
I don't see where pushing the country into chaos does them any good.

The next step is taking this ponzi "global"--that's the goal. There are "emerging markets" to tap.

Dopavash · October 19, 2011, 10:44

Jimmy, if the banks didn't have someone to push their bad loans on to, this wouldn't have happened in the first place. If the government didn't decide that it needed to encourage people to own homes when they had no business doing so, the banks wouldn't have been making all these toxic loans to begin with. Why would they? It'd be a recipe for disaster.

But when they can sell a few good loans with a foundering one that everyone knew would be terrible from the get-go to Uncle Freddie and Aunt Fannie, and they'd be more than happy to take the turds in the name of "Social Justice" (or whatever the popular code word for Marxism is today), and make a ton of money doing so, then why not?

The government is the prime mover in this situation. If they didn't have their hand in the pot to begin with, the pot wouldn't have spoiled. I'm not letting the banks off completely; they certainly screwed up too and at the expense of taxpayers. They don't get much of the blame, tho, because they didn't have the power to screw everyone over by themselves. It was people like Dodd and Frank that made this happen. Paulson and Bernanke and the others deserve some egg on their face too.

rowjimmy · October 19, 2011, 10:49

Quote:

Originally posted by Dopavash
Jimmy, if the banks didn't have someone to push their bad loans on to, this wouldn't have happened in the first place. If the government didn't decide that it needed to encourage people to own homes when they had no business doing so, the banks wouldn't have been making all these toxic loans to begin with. Why would they? It'd be a recipe for disaster.

But when they can sell a few good loans with a foundering one that everyone knew would be terrible from the get-go to Uncle Freddie and Aunt Fannie, and they'd be more than happy to take the turds in the name of "Social Justice" (or whatever the popular code word for Marxism is today), and make a ton of money doing so, then why not?

The government is the prime mover in this situation. If they didn't have their hand in the pot to begin with, the pot wouldn't have spoiled. I'm not letting the banks off completely; they certainly screwed up too and at the expense of taxpayers. They don't get much of the blame, tho, because they didn't have the power to screw everyone over by themselves. It was people like Dodd and Frank that made this happen. Paulson and Bernanke and the others deserve some egg on their face too.

This is well beyond the subprime mess...that is just a symptom.

Dopavash · October 19, 2011, 10:54

I agree, I was just trying to use that as an example. That doesn't change the fact that government is holding all the cards. They wield all the power by a monopoly on force. The government cannot be taken advantage of unless the people running the show are allowing it to or making it happen.

October 15, 2011, 09:46	#1
rowjimmy Registered FALaholic #: 21662 Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Central PA Posts: 3,404	For those who blame government instead of the banks... http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=195994 The best quote is in the comment section: I don't understand what is being objected to about the article, and I don't even see the coherence of the argument you're making at all, Karl. When Henry Paulson was at Goldman Sachs, he was arguably working for Goldman Sachs. When he becamse Tsy Sec'y, he may have been working for the United States by virtue of his title or he may have been (still) working for Goldman Sachs. Most of us, I think, suspect the latter. As Tsy Sec'y he appeared to shove his bazooka down the throats of the bankers and it looked like a government takeover. But it was no such thing. It was a promise to relieve the banks of the impact of their massive bad debt. If all you're objecting to is the assertion by PJTV that "the government" took over the banks, that is just a semantic argument as I see it. The banks had already taken over the government, and they remain in such control today. So all you're saying is that the banks took over the banks, using the government as the mechanism.

October 15, 2011, 12:03	#3
carguym14 Registered Bronze Contributor FALaholic #: 13162 Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Iowa Posts: 5,959	From the article: "Even beyond what we can see with regulations gone wild, failed stimulus, and outright corruption, our government’s authoritarian overhang and its destructive psychological effect on business and investor behavior largely explain why the economy won’t acceptably grow. If you believe one word of that paragraph you're dumber than a box of rocks" I guess I am dumber than a box of rocks. The only part I don't agree with is the "regulations gone wild" part. Other than that- Failed stimulus? Check Outright corruption? Check Authoritarian overhang and destructive psychological effect on business and investor behavior? Check __________________ Anything not under government control is,by definition,out of control. Don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining. When is it time to pick up your rifle? When your conscience cannot abide to see it unused. 1gewehr 8/3/05

October 15, 2011, 14:30	#6
martin35 when legend becomes fact Contributor Bronze Contributor FALaholic #: 2939 Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Texas Posts: 16,823	We are at the stage of Oligarchy, we no longer have a republic. We are and always have been a Representative government,, we elect a few, a "Oligarchy" to rule in our best interests,,, and they do,,, for a few in perfect harmony,,,all others are discontented to some degree,,, are we now saying our form of government is no longer a viable institution? In my opinion a true Democracy of referendum is only workable in uniformly assimilated citizenry with rigid social and cultural puritan standards,,, we are fragmented cultures and societies and some will not be represented as fairly as their standards require,,, ergo a Representative Democracy should in theory represent the majority fairly,, not the minority. The citizery creates the aristicratic Oligarchy by means of incombancy in candidacy and political machines that assume that all must be taken care of in a common best interest,, the nation must always serve the people and the people must preserve the nation but not be made to serve the nation as subjects,,, that ever shifting balance is politics,,, a poor form of government to be sure but where there are only worse to choose from,,,, in my opinion. __________________ "Inside the wire" has taken on new meaning",, in Obamastan

October 15, 2011, 16:41	#10
martin35 when legend becomes fact Contributor Bronze Contributor FALaholic #: 2939 Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Texas Posts: 16,823	rowjimmy, the majority constituency of incumbents vote to be ruled by the oligarchy they create, just as those who don't vote do by default,,, we are witness to the loud cries against banks by those (OWS) who disdain to vote. There will always be banks, bankers, money lenders and speculators, they are the single most vital part of a healthy Capitalist system,,, the method of regulation is the criminal element. __________________ "Inside the wire" has taken on new meaning",, in Obamastan

October 15, 2011, 21:12	#12
Bawana jim Registered FALaholic #: 17482 Join Date: May 2005 Location: west coast Posts: 5,341	Who has the most power, the government or the banks? jim Does a bank have a standing army? A police force? A justice department? Can the bank draft citizens??? Can a bank declare war? Last edited by Bawana jim; October 15, 2011 at 21:52.

October 15, 2011, 09:47	#2
rowjimmy Registered FALaholic #: 21662 Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Central PA Posts: 3,404	I meant to post this in econ and invest..

October 15, 2011, 12:18	#4
rowjimmy Registered FALaholic #: 21662 Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Central PA Posts: 3,404	Car, I think the point is that the referenced article seeks to blame government intervention in the markets versus realizing wall street now owns the government and the failures are due to policies of the last thirty years and more recent deregulation of the banking industry. This deregulation allowed the creation of the associated ponzi schemes which have brought the world to its knees. To invoke the traditional republican mantra of small (read no) government intervention in the markets and little regulation is foolhardy at this point. The markets now own the government. Goldman Sachs runs the world. And if you look at the votes on The Financial Industries Modernization Act, they own both parties. This problem cannot begin to be addressed until banks are allowed to fail and the market is cleared of bad debt and new regulations are instituted. It's not gonna happen as long as wall street owns the government. While the mantra of limited government is nice, free markets tend to a monopoly and wealth consolidates in the hands of a few. We are at the stage of Oligarchy, we no longer have a republic. Think what you will....

October 15, 2011, 12:59	#5
RG Coburn Registered FALaholic #: 27406 Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 10,867	Having a person who cannot prove he is a U.S. citizen as "President" doesn't help much either....

October 16, 2011, 01:47	#13
martin35 when legend becomes fact Contributor Bronze Contributor FALaholic #: 2939 Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Texas Posts: 16,823	I guess we will just disagree. That happens when two guys are dating the same big ol' fat girl,,, they usually meet comin' around the mountain. __________________ "Inside the wire" has taken on new meaning",, in Obamastan

October 16, 2011, 10:52	#15
V guy Registered FALaholic #: 10282 Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: miami Posts: 8,206	The first financial panic in the USA was 1793. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_banking_crises Reading the list makes you realize that people and money and banks and goverment are always in conflict. Nothing new here, but world socialism in Europe and here, IS affecting the mix, somewhat. Difference between Ragu and Prego spaghetti sauce is the big difference inthe long run between 1873, 1930 and today. Depressions are designed to keep wealth out of the hands of the masses. Communism is also designed to keep wealth out of the hands of the masses. In between the economic cycles and political revolutions, you might have a buck or two and some things........ Last edited by V guy; October 16, 2011 at 13:51.

October 16, 2011, 12:23	#17
Bawana jim Registered FALaholic #: 17482 Join Date: May 2005 Location: west coast Posts: 5,341	Should be obviouse by the tracks they have left that government and the banks are in cahoots to bring down the country by a civil war. The only way America can be brought down and it has been planned and organized for decades. How else to you get the lazy ass left to get up and protest than to create events that affects them? This isn't about the economy, it's a planned revolution by the progressive socialist. When they talk class warfare they mean it. jim

October 16, 2011, 13:42	#18
308bolt Heathen Silver Contributor FALaholic #: 19255 Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Wisconsin Posts: 19,981	I don't know that it's a planned revolution. I suspect it's more just rampant greed. The banks donate to and then lobby the politicians for more lenient or even preferential laws so they can make more money. The politicians who want those donations and preferential treatment by the banks themselves so they have the means to feather their nests and stay in office push to pass or modify the laws to satisfy the banks agendas. It's a symbiotic relationship. I don't see where pushing the country into chaos does them any good. __________________ "The bandwagons rumble past. I sit here on the curb," ~ John Hartford ~ "Nil desperandum, -- Never Despair. That is a motto for you and me. All are not dead; and where there is a spark of patriotic fire, we will rekindle it." ~ Samuel Adams ~

October 16, 2011, 13:43	#19
StarPD Registered FALaholic #: 4773 Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Phoenix, Posts: 5,299	Apparently the OP and maybe some others here are oblivious to the fact that big banks and Wall street are among OHHHH Bama's and the democommie Party's biggest contributors. But just continue deluding yourselves that government is good and banks are bad. In case no one noticed further, banks are in the business of MAKING money, while government is in the business of TAKING money. But just keep in indulging in your fantasies that government is the solution to our financial woes. Note that big banks are just helping them, no more, no less. __________________ George StarPD ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

October 19, 2011, 10:00	#25
JohnnyReb Registered FALaholic #: 12093 Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: NC & NV Posts: 3,432	This cartoon is from 1912, even looks like a Vampire Squid .... __________________ One Bank to rule them all, one Bank to find them, one Bank to bring them all and in the darkness bind them.

October 19, 2011, 10:44	#28
Dopavash Registered FALaholic #: 44433 Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: North Central Texas Posts: 954	Jimmy, if the banks didn't have someone to push their bad loans on to, this wouldn't have happened in the first place. If the government didn't decide that it needed to encourage people to own homes when they had no business doing so, the banks wouldn't have been making all these toxic loans to begin with. Why would they? It'd be a recipe for disaster. But when they can sell a few good loans with a foundering one that everyone knew would be terrible from the get-go to Uncle Freddie and Aunt Fannie, and they'd be more than happy to take the turds in the name of "Social Justice" (or whatever the popular code word for Marxism is today), and make a ton of money doing so, then why not? The government is the prime mover in this situation. If they didn't have their hand in the pot to begin with, the pot wouldn't have spoiled. I'm not letting the banks off completely; they certainly screwed up too and at the expense of taxpayers. They don't get much of the blame, tho, because they didn't have the power to screw everyone over by themselves. It was people like Dodd and Frank that made this happen. Paulson and Bernanke and the others deserve some egg on their face too.

October 19, 2011, 10:54	#30
Dopavash Registered FALaholic #: 44433 Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: North Central Texas Posts: 954	I agree, I was just trying to use that as an example. That doesn't change the fact that government is holding all the cards. They wield all the power by a monopoly on force. The government cannot be taken advantage of unless the people running the show are allowing it to or making it happen.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode