I agree, it depends upon how one choses to define contribute. Let's look at the meaning: I doubt that either Gates or Buffet ever "contribute" to financing ventures that are profit-motivated. The proper word, given the context, is "invest". PS: Gates "contributes" to the Rotary Club funding of polio-shots in Africa where the illness is resurgent ...
Well instead of being liquidated as they should have been, they were bailed out by taxpayers and given $1.3T per year for 4 years running by the FED in the form of QE, exchanging underwater distressed assets worth pennies on the dollar for cash at face value. Every bit of monopolistic power they have has been firmly established with the assistance of government
I agree in the sense that these companies were irresponsible and allowed the Subprime Mess to happen. But it was also the governments fault that the SubPrime Mess occured during a Replicant administration - see here (from the WikiP article on the SubPrime Debacle: Decreased regulation of financial institutions - excerpt: If we cannot learn from our own mistakes, and we continue to repeat them, then as a nation we are headed for the dustbin. Somebody, quick!, tell that to Donald Dork ...
Which government? Most of the mistakes made were Replicant Administrations who think that there should be no hindrance to business "to grow". Growing means, in a finite market, that without taming oligopolies (by means of legal oversight) they dominate markets, making unfair profits, and such markets ultimately fail. Meaning Mr. & Mrs. America are put out of house-&-home. Do you want that to happen again? It will for as long as we accept oligopolies to dominate consumer markets "just because it is profitable" . We suckers, the consumers, always pay the cost of such market manipulations (most often in terms of recessions that they can cause) ...
Make fractional reserve banking illegal and get rid of the FDIC and these banks will shrink back down to a reasonable size. Stop giving them government privilege.
You went right for the Republican thing instead of recognizing the bipartisan nature of the issue. Ruben authored Gramm Leech Bliley, Clinton signed it, bipartisan passage in house and senate.
The bank bailout and QE happened under "Replicant" admins? As long as people keep jumping straight to the partisan crap, the corporatists will always win
what does that even mean?? You want a law to prevent a capitalist banker from making loans beyond his deposits even when his capitalist depositors wants him to make the loans????
if true why is the liberal so afraid to name the oligopolies??? What does the liberal learn from his fear?
and then they became worth more, Fed made money on them rather than let the major banks go bankrupt and cause a worldwide massive depression that would have bankrupted millions of small capitalist businesses needlessly.
Yes, that's precisely what I mean. But if you don't like that, then I have an alternative idea. Make it illegal to bail out such stupid capitalist depositors when the can't get their money back from their capitalist banker when the loans go south.
Private banks were so wreckless that they might cause a massive depression and you think the only solution was to reward them. You call yourself a capitalist? Too funny
The last one was caused by a Replicant Administration, and handed on a silver-platter to Dem Administration. Which did solve the immediate problem (of employment) - but not the long-term matter of the inadequacy of today's American work-force to provide the kind of qualified individuals that our present market-economy is needing. As I never tire of telling. Wakey, wakey! The Industrial Age has passed on and we are now in the Information Age ... Yes, as regards politics-in-America you are quite right. But the problem lies with the fact that most Americans do not learn about how this country is run in a Civics Class. Where was it ever covered in YOUR CLASS the historical relevancy of the Electoral College - that is, the why and how it became a central piece of the Constitution without which the southern-states were refusing to sign it! Because in the latter part of the 18th century, when America was born, the prevailing age was "Agricultural". And slavery was the mainstay input to the production of cotton without which the southern states had no real "industry". Which is why they insisted on the manipulation of the popular-vote by the Electoral College that consistently gives southern states more of a voting-edge regarding the selection of the PotUS. Of the first twelve presidents only three are from the "north", all the rest beginning with Washington (from Virginia) were from southern states. PS: And then, there is also the matter of "gerrymandering" voting districts - which comes from the same frame-of-time. That is, around 1812 when it was first used in Massachusetts. (And there is also the matter of how "commercial publicity" is able to manipulate votes as well - both of which are other subjects for another time.
Get rid of the FDIC and all hell will break loose. From here: Which means "ordinary people" (and obviously not you) would have their property seized to recover any negative bank account. Moreover, when push comes to shove as it did in the SubPrime Mess then a lot more people get hurt if they have accounts with banks that have failed. So, you are suggesting that the insurance be disallowed to punish those banks who "go negative" because of too much lending. And I suggest that we solve the problem of wildfire real-estate lending at the very beginning by punishing banks that show unsubstantiated "quality-control" of borrowers. For instance, showing that you are still employed and proving your revenue source by showing current pay-slips or bank accounts of your revenue-business. Showing your last tax-filing document? Etc., etc. etc. Wouldn't an improved selection-process of borrowers be better for bank solvency and less of a general threat to the economy ... ?
I hope this has been brought up, but inflation of price of good, IS deflation of your currency. Also, Venezuela tried printing money, now I can spend $10 and but enough Venezuelan currency to wipe my arse with for the next 2 years.
When will you ever learn that one-liners are "fractional" in real debate? Explain yourself, if you can ...
Fractional reserve banking sets up the impossible situation of two different parties (the depositor and the bank) having sole ownership to the the exact same dollar. It is inherently unstable and puts the depositor at risk. It should be eliminated. Once it's eliminated, there would no longer be need for the FDIC.
And yes, I know the highlighted section is not legally accurate. The depositor no longer owns the dollar. And that, in itself, is why fractional reserve banking should be made illegal.
The government has now allowed the banks to reclassify depositors as unsecured creditors. Isn't that special?
Not just now. This is the way it has always been, legally. A deposit is considered a loan to the bank and becomes the bank's property. The bank becomes a creditor to the depository. Here's an excerpt from an article in the Fordham Journal of Corporate & Financial Law ( https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1391&context=jcfl ) A client walks into a bank with the intention of depositing personal or business funds. The bank’s teller gladly accepts the deposit, credits the client’s account accordingly, and the client departs content that what transpired was an ordinary-course banking transaction. Simultaneously, however, a curious phenomenon occurs, one which effectively transforms the legal nature of the transaction into something very different from that which our unwary depositor intends. That curious phenomenon, which willfully ignores the nature of the deposit as understood by both parties, subverts the intentions of only one party. What the depositor intends to be in the nature of a bailment, the law transforms into a loan; where ordinary people expect a bailor-bailee relationship, the law creates a creditor and a debtor. Title to the deposited funds passes from the depositor to the bank, and usually only the bank knows it. Upon this legal transformation is built the leviathan that is the global banking system This is why fractional reserve should be made illegal. Bank deposits should be bailments, not loans. But the banks love the fact that the government has set up a situation where the middle class unwitting banks every last dollar they own.