Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 - Separation of Commercial and Investment banks
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
When Geihtner (sp?) and Bernanke are pulled before Congress every few months, that's them answering to someone.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album (They sound very much like Metallica, great lyrics too)[^]
That cracked me up. You just basically nailed it. The point is that Congress has no say in what the bank does. At all. Ian, distind, I hope you people get the point. Seriously, they need a check on their power. Why do you think we have a system of checks and balances? Because no one source can be trusted with unchecked power. The Fed has precisely that. They are at the top, more powerful than the Congress itself.
-
That cracked me up. You just basically nailed it. The point is that Congress has no say in what the bank does. At all. Ian, distind, I hope you people get the point. Seriously, they need a check on their power. Why do you think we have a system of checks and balances? Because no one source can be trusted with unchecked power. The Fed has precisely that. They are at the top, more powerful than the Congress itself.
josda1000 wrote:
Ian, distind, I hope you people get the point.
Oh, they get the point, it scares them so they block it out and manufacture a fantasy land. In Ian's case, it may be because he profits greatly from the corrupt system and nothing else matters to him. Ian works for a very profitable hedge fund in NY.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album (They sound very much like Metallica, great lyrics too)[^]
-
Senator Sanders asked Bernanke if he would tell the Congress where all the money went. Specifically, to which institutions (investment firms, banks, etc). Bernanke answered "No."
Well, that's a bit odd. I could understand something like "Not at this time," or "Not in front of the cameras," because openly naming the institutions that got bailed out would erode confidence in them, which would then cause them to be in need of ANOTHER bailout. Could understand delaying the information (Or only giving it to the finance committee in private) until after the bailed-out firms had recovered.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
-
josda1000 wrote:
Ian, distind, I hope you people get the point.
Oh, they get the point, it scares them so they block it out and manufacture a fantasy land. In Ian's case, it may be because he profits greatly from the corrupt system and nothing else matters to him. Ian works for a very profitable hedge fund in NY.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album (They sound very much like Metallica, great lyrics too)[^]
-
Well, that's a bit odd. I could understand something like "Not at this time," or "Not in front of the cameras," because openly naming the institutions that got bailed out would erode confidence in them, which would then cause them to be in need of ANOTHER bailout. Could understand delaying the information (Or only giving it to the finance committee in private) until after the bailed-out firms had recovered.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
Don't you understand? If they went bankrupt instead of being bailed out, the economy would have been fine. People that lost money in the banks that went bankrupt should know better... it's called "fractional reserve"... they don't have the money! People that lose their jobs in the banks would just get relocated to new businesses or neighborhood banks. Those big banks SHOULD go down! Don't you see that? Like CSS says... of course you do. You just have a vested interest in this. (I don't mean to offend, I just hope you see the light, honestly. You should know me by now.)
-
josda1000 wrote:
Ian, distind, I hope you people get the point.
Oh, they get the point, it scares them so they block it out and manufacture a fantasy land. In Ian's case, it may be because he profits greatly from the corrupt system and nothing else matters to him. Ian works for a very profitable hedge fund in NY.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album (They sound very much like Metallica, great lyrics too)[^]
Actually, we're only somewhat profitable right now. I do NOT work for one of the big firms (Though I did in early '08, and got laid off along with most of the rest of the company). My firm is NOT a public company or a commercial bank. We did NOT get a penny of bailout money. Going to keep trying to insult me, or would you like to get back to the actual discussion?
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
-
Actually, we're only somewhat profitable right now. I do NOT work for one of the big firms (Though I did in early '08, and got laid off along with most of the rest of the company). My firm is NOT a public company or a commercial bank. We did NOT get a penny of bailout money. Going to keep trying to insult me, or would you like to get back to the actual discussion?
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
-
Don't you understand? If they went bankrupt instead of being bailed out, the economy would have been fine. People that lost money in the banks that went bankrupt should know better... it's called "fractional reserve"... they don't have the money! People that lose their jobs in the banks would just get relocated to new businesses or neighborhood banks. Those big banks SHOULD go down! Don't you see that? Like CSS says... of course you do. You just have a vested interest in this. (I don't mean to offend, I just hope you see the light, honestly. You should know me by now.)
josda1000 wrote:
People that lost money in the banks that went bankrupt should know better...
It's a fair point, but you're not seeing the indirect effects. Let's look at 401k accounts, to start... Tax-deferred retirement accounts... Not social security or government funding. This is people putting away money for the future, so they can retire comfortably. Well, here's the first list of big 401k providers that I stumbled upon (Outdated by a few years): http://www.workforce.com/tools/hot_list/HL01_30_06.pdf[^] #1. Fidelity. 11 million participants (People with retirement accounts). #2. Hewitt Associates. 5.4 million participants. #3. Merrill Lynch, part of Bank of America. 3 million participants. Just looking at the top three... Hewitt is just fine, but Fidelity and Merrill both needed a bailout. If they went down, that's 14 million people who would have lost their retirement savings. I think you can see where I'm going with this... After 401k, you can look at pension funds. Then you can look at the mutual funds that invested in these firms, and which 401k and pension funds were invested in THEM. That's the real problem... Everything is so intertwined that if a large firm collapses, it can hurt millions and millions of people. That's the "Too Big To Fail" problem. So yes, the big firms DID deserve to collapse... But did everyone invested indirectly in that firm deserve the same?
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
-
Yes. A small group of hedge funds that's a subsidiary of a large non-financial/tech company. I think we only have a couple hundred employees worldwide, if that.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
-
Which is the whole point of auditing them. Because otherwise, they can get away with what they want. They simply must be audited, even if they'd done nothing wrong. We just need to keep them in check.
As I keep saying, they ARE audited. They even post the audits on the web for the general public. Ron Paul probably just wants to look through their books himself, instead of letting an independent auditing firm do it.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
-
josda1000 wrote:
People that lost money in the banks that went bankrupt should know better...
It's a fair point, but you're not seeing the indirect effects. Let's look at 401k accounts, to start... Tax-deferred retirement accounts... Not social security or government funding. This is people putting away money for the future, so they can retire comfortably. Well, here's the first list of big 401k providers that I stumbled upon (Outdated by a few years): http://www.workforce.com/tools/hot_list/HL01_30_06.pdf[^] #1. Fidelity. 11 million participants (People with retirement accounts). #2. Hewitt Associates. 5.4 million participants. #3. Merrill Lynch, part of Bank of America. 3 million participants. Just looking at the top three... Hewitt is just fine, but Fidelity and Merrill both needed a bailout. If they went down, that's 14 million people who would have lost their retirement savings. I think you can see where I'm going with this... After 401k, you can look at pension funds. Then you can look at the mutual funds that invested in these firms, and which 401k and pension funds were invested in THEM. That's the real problem... Everything is so intertwined that if a large firm collapses, it can hurt millions and millions of people. That's the "Too Big To Fail" problem. So yes, the big firms DID deserve to collapse... But did everyone invested indirectly in that firm deserve the same?
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
And that's why I say that you should actually keep some money in either dollars (savings accounts like 401K is ok, but I mean liquid accounts), or gold/silver. because things like this can happen. and you KNOW that those two businesses should have apparently failed, from your findings. You actually kind of helped my case. NO government money should have gone into the private sector like that. It's precisely unconstitutional. BUT the way they got around it is by using the Federal Reserve, a private bank. That's the only way they got around it. It is immoral what they did, for one thing. Stealing from the public to give it to a few banks/institutions and their members. Once this system collapses, we'll have to go back to our American roots, it's the only way.
-
Senator Sanders asked Bernanke if he would tell the Congress where all the money went. Specifically, to which institutions (investment firms, banks, etc). Bernanke answered "No."
Oh, by the way... If you're curious: http://money.cnn.com/news/specials/storysupplement/bankbailout/[^]
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
-
Yes. A small group of hedge funds that's a subsidiary of a large non-financial/tech company. I think we only have a couple hundred employees worldwide, if that.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
-
And that's why I say that you should actually keep some money in either dollars (savings accounts like 401K is ok, but I mean liquid accounts), or gold/silver. because things like this can happen. and you KNOW that those two businesses should have apparently failed, from your findings. You actually kind of helped my case. NO government money should have gone into the private sector like that. It's precisely unconstitutional. BUT the way they got around it is by using the Federal Reserve, a private bank. That's the only way they got around it. It is immoral what they did, for one thing. Stealing from the public to give it to a few banks/institutions and their members. Once this system collapses, we'll have to go back to our American roots, it's the only way.
josda1000 wrote:
and you KNOW that those two businesses should have apparently failed, from your findings. You actually kind of helped my case.
I do agree that the big firms DESERVED to fail. Yes, they did stupid things. Yes, they deserved to face the consequences. But their failure would have screwed far too many people, many of which didn't even know their money was at risk.
josda1000 wrote:
It is immoral what they did, for one thing. Stealing from the public to give it to a few banks/institutions and their members.
Well, look at it this way... Option 1: Do nothing. Firms collapse. A significant percentage of the population loses their life savings. Big firms get what they deserve. Option 2: Spend taxpayer money. Firms stay up. People keep their life savings. Big firms get away with their idiocy. It was a lose-lose situation, and they picked the lesser of two evils.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
-
Oh, by the way... If you're curious: http://money.cnn.com/news/specials/storysupplement/bankbailout/[^]
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
-
josda1000 wrote:
and you KNOW that those two businesses should have apparently failed, from your findings. You actually kind of helped my case.
I do agree that the big firms DESERVED to fail. Yes, they did stupid things. Yes, they deserved to face the consequences. But their failure would have screwed far too many people, many of which didn't even know their money was at risk.
josda1000 wrote:
It is immoral what they did, for one thing. Stealing from the public to give it to a few banks/institutions and their members.
Well, look at it this way... Option 1: Do nothing. Firms collapse. A significant percentage of the population loses their life savings. Big firms get what they deserve. Option 2: Spend taxpayer money. Firms stay up. People keep their life savings. Big firms get away with their idiocy. It was a lose-lose situation, and they picked the lesser of two evils.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
-
Wow that is amazingly small. Glad to hear you're not hit by the problem. Whether we agree or not lol
Actually, when the mortgage crisis started, I was working for Bear Stearns. Got laid-off when J.P. Morgan bought us. No, I wasn't anywhere NEAR the branch of the company that imploded... I never even met the guys in that department. Ironically, I was one of the lucky ones... Since we went down first, the Fed basically TOLD J.P. Morgan to buy us, so I got a standard severance and all that. When Lehman went down soon after, I heard the people essentially came in the next morning and were told "Get your #(%*& and get out." Me, I used the time off to write my first novel :) Oh, and by the way... I know I get a lot of flak in this forum whenever this debate starts, for being in the financial industry... Just keep in mind that I'm not one of the millionaires... In this industry, tech guys are bottom feeders. Unless you've got a PhD in mathematics and are writing quantitative analysis algorithms (Not ashamed to admit that stuff is WAY beyond me), you just make a decent salary, not an extravagant one.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
-
And that's why I say that you should actually keep some money in either dollars (savings accounts like 401K is ok, but I mean liquid accounts), or gold/silver. because things like this can happen. and you KNOW that those two businesses should have apparently failed, from your findings. You actually kind of helped my case. NO government money should have gone into the private sector like that. It's precisely unconstitutional. BUT the way they got around it is by using the Federal Reserve, a private bank. That's the only way they got around it. It is immoral what they did, for one thing. Stealing from the public to give it to a few banks/institutions and their members. Once this system collapses, we'll have to go back to our American roots, it's the only way.
josda1000 wrote:
And that's why I say that you should actually keep some money in either dollars (savings accounts like 401K is ok, but I mean liquid accounts), or gold/silver. because things like this can happen.
I'd like to point out the incredible stupidity of this statement. You know why banks exist? To keep your money safe. That's what it boils down to. When you hear about some old timer that had all their money stolen by a thief because it was stuffed in a mattress, you shake your head. They aren't getting it back. A bank is insured. A bank keeps it safe and in exchange uses it to make more money. Ian even pointed out there were 401Ks at risk, and you STILL acted like your point was valid. No one keeps gold at home in vast quantities because they would quickly lose their money to a robber. The security required to keep your money safe from robbers that know every person with a nice house has a large wad of cash in it would wipe out any savings. I suppose we should go to our American roots. You know how to ride a horse and chop wood? Far too many people want to go back to a system that just plain didn't work well and won't work with the numbers we deal with nowadays.
-
josda1000 wrote:
And that's why I say that you should actually keep some money in either dollars (savings accounts like 401K is ok, but I mean liquid accounts), or gold/silver. because things like this can happen.
I'd like to point out the incredible stupidity of this statement. You know why banks exist? To keep your money safe. That's what it boils down to. When you hear about some old timer that had all their money stolen by a thief because it was stuffed in a mattress, you shake your head. They aren't getting it back. A bank is insured. A bank keeps it safe and in exchange uses it to make more money. Ian even pointed out there were 401Ks at risk, and you STILL acted like your point was valid. No one keeps gold at home in vast quantities because they would quickly lose their money to a robber. The security required to keep your money safe from robbers that know every person with a nice house has a large wad of cash in it would wipe out any savings. I suppose we should go to our American roots. You know how to ride a horse and chop wood? Far too many people want to go back to a system that just plain didn't work well and won't work with the numbers we deal with nowadays.
I'd like to point out the incredible naivity of YOUR statement, sir!
ragnaroknrol wrote:
You know why banks exist? To keep your money safe.
Not at all! They existed so that people didn't have to carry around gold in their pockets! They used gold/silver certificates in place of the actual gold/silver in transactions!
ragnaroknrol wrote:
When you hear about some old timer that had all their money stolen by a thief because it was stuffed in a mattress, you shake your head. They aren't getting it back. A bank is insured. A bank keeps it safe and in exchange uses it to make more money.
A bank does use it to make more money! Completely true! That's the whole point of this problem! It's the fractional reserve system that is collapsing us, and why the dollar is losing value!
ragnaroknrol wrote:
Ian even pointed out there were 401Ks at risk, and you STILL acted like your point was valid.
Yes I am! Because people shouldn't be putting so much faith in a system that is going bankrupt. The dollars are losing value; the Fed is printing money (indirectly as you people pointed out earlier, AND the mint is literally doing it, at the same time...); the stock market almost collapsed a year ago; the stimulus is running out... I think you get it.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
No one keeps gold at home in vast quantities because they would quickly lose their money to a robber.
Then why did people do it before the Fed was enacted? Article I, Section 10: No State shall... make any Thing but gold and silver coin a Tender in Payments of Debt.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
I suppose we should go to our American roots. You know how to ride a horse and chop wood?
What a baseless argument. I'm not saying to stop using cars or stop using table saws. That was a troll type of comment.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
Far too many people want to go back to a system that just plain didn't work well and won't work with the numbers we deal with nowadays.
How do you know? A gold coin today has the same buying power that it did in 1971. The system that I advocate works well, and perfectly, when not in a war. That coincides with my arguments about war. Bring the troops home.
-
I'd like to point out the incredible naivity of YOUR statement, sir!
ragnaroknrol wrote:
You know why banks exist? To keep your money safe.
Not at all! They existed so that people didn't have to carry around gold in their pockets! They used gold/silver certificates in place of the actual gold/silver in transactions!
ragnaroknrol wrote:
When you hear about some old timer that had all their money stolen by a thief because it was stuffed in a mattress, you shake your head. They aren't getting it back. A bank is insured. A bank keeps it safe and in exchange uses it to make more money.
A bank does use it to make more money! Completely true! That's the whole point of this problem! It's the fractional reserve system that is collapsing us, and why the dollar is losing value!
ragnaroknrol wrote:
Ian even pointed out there were 401Ks at risk, and you STILL acted like your point was valid.
Yes I am! Because people shouldn't be putting so much faith in a system that is going bankrupt. The dollars are losing value; the Fed is printing money (indirectly as you people pointed out earlier, AND the mint is literally doing it, at the same time...); the stock market almost collapsed a year ago; the stimulus is running out... I think you get it.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
No one keeps gold at home in vast quantities because they would quickly lose their money to a robber.
Then why did people do it before the Fed was enacted? Article I, Section 10: No State shall... make any Thing but gold and silver coin a Tender in Payments of Debt.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
I suppose we should go to our American roots. You know how to ride a horse and chop wood?
What a baseless argument. I'm not saying to stop using cars or stop using table saws. That was a troll type of comment.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
Far too many people want to go back to a system that just plain didn't work well and won't work with the numbers we deal with nowadays.
How do you know? A gold coin today has the same buying power that it did in 1971. The system that I advocate works well, and perfectly, when not in a war. That coincides with my arguments about war. Bring the troops home.
josda1000 wrote:
Not at all! They existed so that people didn't have to carry around gold in their pockets! They used gold/silver certificates in place of the actual gold/silver in transactions!
So the difference in a gold/silver certificate and a dollar is what? Oh yea, PRETTY MUCH NOTHING. I can exchange X numbers of dollars for gold if I want. Oh yea, the dollar is not backed by gold. So, how much gold is in the world? Enough to power our curent economy? I'm guessing the answer is no.
josda1000 wrote:
A bank does use it to make more money! Completely true! That's the whole point of this problem! It's the fractional reserve system that is collapsing us, and why the dollar is losing value!
So what, they should just not make money? Let me explain something, and I will try and make it clear. The dollar is losing value because the world has lost confidence in it. Nothing else. Not some stupid bank scheme, not the fed, confidence. When we ratchet up wars for stupid reasons, people are less likely to trade with us. When we start throwing out money to cover debts instead of working on growing infrastructure and keeping our system strong, people lose confidence. When OPEC decides it hates us and starts talking about th Euro, we bomb one of their countries and they shut up... whoops. I mean the dollar gets weaker.
josda1000 wrote:
Then why did people do it before the Fed was enacted? Article I, Section 10: No State shall... make any Thing but gold and silver coin a Tender in Payments of Debt.
Because back then they just shot the stupid jerk as he walked in. That's a lot less likely now. And I hate to tell you, but paper money was used all the time. Massachussets Bay Colony issued paper money. (1690) In 1785 the Continental COngress determined the dollar would be the official currency. After adoption of the Constitution in 1789, Congress chartered the First Bank of the United States until 1811 and authorized it to issue paper bank notes to eliminate confusion and simplify trade. The bank served as the U.S. Treasury's fiscal agent, thus performing the first central bank functions. In 1836 when the second US bank was no longer in existance and no regulation was happening a bunch of banks printed their own money. That didn't work well. Gold certificates DIDN'T EXIST until 1865 and ended circu