Are banks simply powerful recipients, or an actual part of the federal governmen

1. 92

   john000posted 11 years ago

   Are banks simply powerful recipients, or an actual part of the federal government?
   
   This is a quote from Whiskey and Gunpowder, "Either the banks are the permanent welfare queens of the fiat money systems, or convenient policy levers for the macro-economic central planners. In any case, this is certainly not how a capitalist business should look."

   replyreport
2. 82

   Attikosposted 11 years ago

   Institutionalized corporations both for and not for profit, the large financial concerns being one category of them, constitute a branch of the national state. It isn't that they control government, it's that they and what we call government are just different faces of the same structure. The phrase "too big to fail" is a euphemism for "we have the power to make the people prop us all up, and we will use it." The sooner Americans realize that, the sooner they can start thinking about what to do about it.

   replyreport
3. 60

   joer4x4posted 11 years ago

   We have a central banking system. All banks are part of the Federal Reserve and all transactions pass through the Fed. The Fed is not part of the government and the government has no power to regulate the Fed. This is the way it has been since 1913 when the Fed was created.
   
   With our now world economy, other countries also have central banks. All central banks, including the Fed are guided (to be kind) by the IMF and World Bank who in turn answers to the Bank for International Settlements.
   
   The world central banking system controls and has all the money. If you follow the money from the time you are paid until you spend it you will find most of your money never leaves the bank, it just bounces from bank to bank. The only time it leaves the system is when you have cash in your pocket. But when you spend it, it winds up back in the bank. This is the way the system is designed.
   
   Years ago most of the money was in the hands of people and business and that's where the power once was until everyone was convinced to use the banking system.

   replyreport
   1. 72

      thebolesfamilyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Actually, I think the banking system was imposed on us by the government.

      replyreport
4. 60

   Chris Daneposted 11 years ago

   I would argue that true, pure capitalism is just as dead as true socialism and communism. Everything failed. They're all systems created by people. Most economies of the world are blended, with facets of various economic models spliced in. It's like a complicated engine built with loose directions and lots of duct tape and prayer. People always adapt the system to work according to their needs. You'll find black markets and commerce in pockets throughout communist societies, and communal arrangements and coops in capitalist ones. People just sort of do stuff and we assign labels.
   
   Ultimately, we need a restoration of balance. Corruption in the system is inevitable, but total collapse isn't. Separation of power prevents damage from corruption, limiting its effects, but there is an imbalance right now in the American economy. Both parties are half right in their assessments of what needs to be done, so we'll need both parties to compromise if we're to fix anything.

   replyreport
5. 72

   thebolesfamilyposted 11 years ago

   Banks are technically private corporations, but they are also insured through the FDIC and regulated the Federal Reserve and other government agencies, and thus operate under partial government control; I guess this makes them tools of the government for controlling the activities of the population.

   replyreport