jump to last post 1-7 of 7 discussions (12 posts)

Obama wants to separate your insured deposit from the casino

  1. bgamall profile image83
    bgamallposted 8 years ago

    Investment banks leverage up casino-like. When they fail, they put in jeopardy the commercial banks and you, Joe taxpayer, have to come to their rescue. Obama wants to stop that by implementing the Volcker Plan. Some say it doesn't go far enough, but at least it is an attempt to keep insured deposits out of the investment bank casino. That MUST be done.

  2. justintimee profile image56
    justintimeeposted 8 years ago

    I feel sorry for the Children,what has happened to the leadership in this country? We need strong people who will stop the HOGS and put dignity back in the work place.

  3. ledefensetech profile image70
    ledefensetechposted 8 years ago

    Volccker is just a start.  It's a good start and I like Volcker, even if he is a central banker.  It does not go far enough because it doesn't remedy the biggest fault with fractional-reserve banks.  Namely that they don't give Joe Taxpayer the option of risking their money when the bank originates loans.  As things stand now, all depositors are forced to have their money be used to originate loans rather than being given the choice of how much money they want in a fully reserve account and how much they want to risk by allowing the bank to originate loans with it.

    For an example of how this would work check out the Free Lakota Bank:  http://freelakotabank.com 

    There you have the option of putting some, none or all of your money in a general funds account from which the banks makes loans, the rest of your accounts are fully reserve.  Thus no matter what happens your money is safe, so long as it is in a fully reserve account.  Instant defense against bank runs and that pretty much kills any argument for a central bank.  Without central banks, investment banks and their ilk can never get strong enough to threaten the entire economic structure of this country.  Pretty simple solution and it plays to the strengths of the US, namely freedom to choose.

    1. justintimee profile image56
      justintimeeposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      You need to run for public office.

  4. MikeNV profile image81
    MikeNVposted 8 years ago

    It won't make any difference. The source of the problem is the Federal Reserve and Fractional Reserve Banking itself.  More rules and regulations is like putting a bandaid on a severed artery.

    Patching symptoms will not cure the disease. The Government has been treating the symptoms of financial collapse for years while never addressing the root cause.

    Clinton and the Republicans all signed off on the Glass–Steagall Act Repeal... but the system was still broken when it was in place.

    Obama's Populist appeal with this one sounds great to the uneducated masses.

    But the fix has been proposed many times by Ron Paul and he keeps running up against a Brick Wall.

    Obama says one thing then does another.  He says he wants to go after banks then he reappoints Ben Bernanke to continue the destruction of the American Economy.

  5. TheGlassSpider profile image71
    TheGlassSpiderposted 8 years ago

    This sort of thing isn't my forte, and it may be a bit off topic...but I have, since all this economy mess started--been really confused about all this bailing out of banks, companies...etc.

    Am I naive? I thought one of the points of capitalism was that if a company fell too bad, so sad...there'll be another to rise in it's place? Sort of, economic survival of the fittest?

    I could be wrong. But that's all I kept thinking every time I heard about bailouts.

    1. ledefensetech profile image70
      ledefensetechposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      That's why I keep saying that we don't live under capitalism.  You're only confused because you're using the wrong word to describe our economic system.

  6. Flightkeeper profile image72
    Flightkeeperposted 8 years ago

    Technically the bank shouldn't have been bailed out, but we are not in a purely capitalistic society.  The government, starting with George Bush Jr was afraid that if a lot of the big banks went down that it would take the entire economy with it.

    1. Misha profile image74
      Mishaposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      I bet this mindset started waaaay before poor Mr. Bush. He definitely was not the brightest spot in American history, put blaming all country problems on him seems a bit unfair still smile

    2. justintimee profile image56
      justintimeeposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      No,not true! They would have to go and get a real JOB!

  7. theguru-reports profile image59
    theguru-reportsposted 8 years ago

    The issue rests with the Federal Reserve and how they manage the banks under their control.  This private institution is dedicated to make themselves money and get more power. 

    Everything you see, from any government official, including the Obama administration, is just public relations.  We are coming up on the 100 year anniversary of the establishment of the Fed.  The dollar will likely not survive

    1. rhamson profile image76
      rhamsonposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      "I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs."
      Thomas Jefferson

      The wisdom this man had is astounding even today.