NSC DECIDES - the US Presidential election

[tedebear]

The only conclusion is to regulate it properly, and self regulation is NOT enough. In my example, a) far more stringent checks on loanees should have been made and b) the percentage of money held by banks on which they can loan out needs to be strictly monitored.

Completely agree with regulation, my issue is with the government OWNING banks.

I thought though that our banks had to have a percentage on deposit with the bank of england overnight each night? Certainly did in Australia when I worked for Deutsche...

 

[Simster]

Properly regulated? That sounds nice. When can it start?

Whenever the G8 sit down and draw up seom proper ground rules.

What is your alternative then?

 

[tedebear]

Your first mistake is believing banks and governments are two seperate institutions.

eh?

 

[beorhthelm]

Comrade Nibble, answer this. what incentive is there to lend anyone any money if there is no interest? i mean really what is the point, why do i not just keep it and spend it myself? (is it any coincidence that the muslim world that eschews the concept of interest has been held back for a thousand years when its widely acknowledged they were more advanced after the fall of the Roman empire?)

if there are no banks, what do i do with any money i have? put in a cardboard box? how do i access money when i am not near where ever my cardboard box deposit is located?

there seems to be a little myth that banks exist to make money purely for themselves. they were created to keep money safe, then facilitate the transfer of money, its a by product that they make lot of money for their share holders... you, me and everyone with a pension fund.

 

[Barnet Seagull]

I voted McCain/Palin. I feel it's my duty not to leave the rubbish kid to be picked last.

 

[Nibble]

Whenever the G8 sit down and draw up seom proper ground rules.

What is your alternative then?

Alternatives. Well as you can tell I'm pretty keen on ridding the world of interest thus revealing the true value of everything.

I would like all outside interests of private banks to be declared. ie - What media they run, what tobacco and alcohol companies are owned by them, which news agencies they fund. I want to know what wars they finance, what military equipment they commission and I'd like to know why they think they can use my money to make themselves into powerful trillionaires when thousands of people in England cannot afford to feed themselves properly. For a start.

 

[Nibble]

Comrade Nibble, answer this. what incentive is there to lend anyone any money if there is no interest? i mean really what is the point, why do i not just keep it and spend it myself?

if there are no banks, what do i do with any money i have? put in a cardboard box? how do i access money when i am not near where ever my cardboard box deposit is located?

there seems to be a little myth that banks exist to make money purely for themselves. they were created to keep money safe, then facilitate the transfer of money, its a by product that they make lot of money for their share holders... you, me and everyone with a pension fund.

If you believe that there is no point answering the rest of your questions.

 

[Simster]

Completely agree with regulation, my issue is with the government OWNING banks.

It has no choice. The government has not "given" banks money - it has bought a significant share in them.

This in itself is not ideal (we could all think of a million better ways to spend tax payers money) but at least we have a stake in how the banks are run.

Your alternative of letting them fail would be the ideal way to handle the problem (as you would with any other business) but for the reason I illustrate above, they are a unique case. i.e. the banking system underpins the entire economy. Without it, the economy falls apart as it did in the 1930s. This is why even the republicans in the US Senate ended up voting for the $700bn resuce package.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

Your first mistake is believing banks and governments are two seperate institutions.

Damn the ILLUMINATI. Damn them!

 

[Simster]

Alternatives. Well as you can tell I'm pretty keen on ridding the world of interest thus revealing the true value of everything.

I would like all outside interests of private banks to be declared. ie - What media they run, what tobacco and alcohol companies are owned by them, which news agencies they fund. I want to know what wars they finance, what military equipment they commission and I'd like to know why they think they can use my money to make themselves into powerful trillionaires when thousands of people in England cannot afford to feed themselves properly. For a start.

Yes yes, I'd like all that too. Now tell me a)HOW you are going to do it and b) how you are going to underpin an economy that necessarily requires credit facilities to avoid falling into the dark ages (see Lokki's tractor loan example)

 

[Nibble]

Damn the ILLUMINATI. Damn them!

No. Nothing to do with that nonsense but if you believe that governments are not run by Private banks you would be very surprised indeed young man.

 

[Nibble]

Yes yes, I'd like all that too. Now tell me a)HOW you are going to do it and b) how you are going to underpin an economy that necessarily requires credit facilities to avoid falling into the dark ages (see Lokki's tractor loan example)

Lokkis tractor loan example is only based on the current financial structure so does not hold water in this debate.

The question of how I would do it is redundant as it won't happen but people are getting baffled and fooled by this banking system even though it is the simplest system possible.

 

[tedebear]

It has no choice. The government has not "given" banks money - it has bought a significant share in them.

Sorry my bad choice of words, what I don't like is the government having a say in the operations of our banks. Better regulation is the goal not ownership.

Your alternative of letting them fail would be the ideal way to handle the problem (as you would with any other business) but for the reason I illustrate above, they are a unique case. i.e. the banking system underpins the entire economy. Without it, the economy falls apart as it did in the 1930s. This is why even the republicans in the US Senate ended up voting for the $700bn resuce package.

I can see and agree on some levels with what you're saying but I think we have too many banks. Letting one or two fail would highlight those banks with whom people would have confidence, and those banks would probably turn out to be the ones with the least risky portfolios, which is what we're aiming for. People not taking the piss with our money.

I think people voted for it as they don't really understand economics and they wanted a quick fix. I might be wrong as I'm no economist but thats my hunch.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

No. Nothing to do with that nonsense but if you believe that governments are not run by Private banks you would be very surprised indeed young man.

Run by? No.

Have some influence over?.....

 

[sten_super]

Nibble, all you have done is run us all around in circles. Let's take this in very gentle steps...

If banks do not make money, what incentive is there for them to provide us with any kind of service? Are you proposing that they charge us a 'reasonable' rate of interest, or that they don't charge anything at all? If the latter, how are you expecting to keep/store the money that you earn?

 

[Nibble]

Nibble, all you have done is run us all around in circles. Let's take this in very gentle steps...

If banks do not make money, what incentive is there for them to provide us with any kind of service? Are you proposing that they charge us a 'reasonable' rate of interest, or that they don't charge anything at all? If the latter, how are you expecting to keep/store the money that you earn?

Because I have to repeat myself because certain people on here seem unable to grasp the simple notion that our banking system is not helping us.
You can have banks that charge no interest on loans. As I mentioned before two Presidents of the US have set it in motion. Abraham Lincoln and JFK. They also have another thing in common.

 

[Simster]

Because I have to repeat myself because certain people on here seem unable to grasp the simple notion that our banking system is not helping us.
You can have banks that charge no interest on loans. As I mentioned before two Presidents of the US have set it in motion. Abraham Lincoln and JFK. They also have another thing in common.

Not only will most of us disagree with this reasoning, but in addition you don't seem to be prepared to offer any form of alternative to a regulated banking system...

 

[Kylies Stunt Arse]

If you believe that there is no point answering the rest of your questions.

What part of "they were created to keep money safe" is wrong then? That is WHY they were created originally. The fact that they have evolved into something different is another matter.

 

[strings]

Does anyone know when the first exit poll results are released?

(they are not entirely reliable, but usually a good indicator)

 

[tedebear]

Because I have to repeat myself because certain people on here seem unable to grasp the simple notion that our banking system is not helping us.
You can have banks that charge no interest on loans. As I mentioned before two Presidents of the US have set it in motion. Abraham Lincoln and JFK. They also have another thing in common.

Yes you've said it before and most of us ignored it as it had little to do with them being deaded!

We give our banks our money to mind, and we want a little something in return, which is interest. So then when a bank uses our money to give to someone else, they have to ask interest from them to make sure that they have some to give back to us.

Its not that hard - you're just super sceptical of anyone who is making money!