Dick Durbin calls for a run on a bank - Obama says banks don't have a right to profit
- Thread starter papajohn56
- Start date
Competition, even when it is limited and crippled due to regulation, is always good for customers. But were I a BOA customer, and cared about the monthly fee, I'd be looking for shenanigans over the next twelve months:
No Debit Fee for Bank of America - Will It Just Accept a $2 Billion Loss? - Daniel Indiviglio - Business - The Atlantic
Semi-related regarding unintended consequences of Dick fees:
Angry that Redbox Is Hiking DVD Rental Prices? Blame Congress - Daniel Indiviglio - Business - The Atlantic
Let's get one thing straight: The banks don't have a right to their profits. That went out the door the minute they needed our money to continue. The money that they're trying to pocket isn't their's, it's yours and mine.
This is a capitalism. By those rules, each and every one of them should be bankrupt. They should have no jobs, no fancy building, no expense accounts. They should be gone.
But they're not. They told the government that in the entire economy would collapse if they did, then used that leverage to steal our tax money. They said that this was what was required to keep loans coming. The loans stopped.
Instead they cashed out a certain amount of the money to themselves, then used the rest to bribe our politicians to further insulate themselves further from the realities of capitalism. They put their people into the key positions, bribed all the right politicians, dropped checks in all the right pockets. Not their checks mind you, but the checks that came from you and me.
They don't deserve their money. It's money that was gained through a partnership with the government - a partnership intended to rob every other citizen of this country.
If the banks want to be as close to the govenrment as possible, that's fine with me. But I absolutely refuse to treat them like a company that deserves profit if they're going to do that. If they want to be the government and acquire the government's ability to tax it's citizens(which is essentially what they did), I will treat them as the government and expect similar salaries and actions.
The Agorists(a branch of Libertarianism) had it right in their class theory. There is nothing greater than an entrepreneur, and nothing worse than a statist capitalist who leeches off the government.
tldr; Fuck the banks. They're not capitalists, their money is stolen from the citizens via the Government they bribed.
This is a capitalism. By those rules, each and every one of them should be bankrupt. They should have no jobs, no fancy building, no expense accounts. They should be gone.
But they're not. They told the government that in the entire economy would collapse if they did, then used that leverage to steal our tax money. They said that this was what was required to keep loans coming. The loans stopped.
Instead they cashed out a certain amount of the money to themselves, then used the rest to bribe our politicians to further insulate themselves further from the realities of capitalism. They put their people into the key positions, bribed all the right politicians, dropped checks in all the right pockets. Not their checks mind you, but the checks that came from you and me.
They don't deserve their money. It's money that was gained through a partnership with the government - a partnership intended to rob every other citizen of this country.
If the banks want to be as close to the govenrment as possible, that's fine with me. But I absolutely refuse to treat them like a company that deserves profit if they're going to do that. If they want to be the government and acquire the government's ability to tax it's citizens(which is essentially what they did), I will treat them as the government and expect similar salaries and actions.
The Agorists(a branch of Libertarianism) had it right in their class theory. There is nothing greater than an entrepreneur, and nothing worse than a statist capitalist who leeches off the government.
tldr; Fuck the banks. They're not capitalists, their money is stolen from the citizens via the Government they bribed.
I agree.
This is the reason I argue for the dissolution of the state rather than focusing on the banks or corporate personhood.* The state looted the public to hand over a chunk to privileged friends. Get rid of the monopoly aggressor (the state), and the banks will be forced to compete. As you implied, many will rightfully implode.
Cutting the ties of bribery between the banks and the state will do little. The state will remain the aggressor, and find other ways to loot the public for their friends.
* I'm fine with corporate personhood, and will avoid debate on this matter.
There is no "banking industry" without the state. They survive based on loans from the US government and a steady flow of cash from the federal reserve. It is so inextricably tied to the state that without the state they would ALL collapse.
If you had a farmer and severed him from what he relies on (the land) he would not simply start farming in the sky.
It won't be perfect, but it will be better.
The state exists for a single purpose; we give one entity a monopoly on coercion and institute the controls we can on that entity so that other, less controllable groups will not take on the ability to use force.
To that end: Any leak of the power of "force" runs completely contrary to the entire purpose of the state. In this case, the force is being utilized by the banking industry. Therefore we sever the two. Not because it will be perfect(there will still be a group capable of force) but because there will be one less group that has that ability, and that the remaining group can be - to an extent - controlled to prevent disaster.
It's a great argument for limited government, but literally zero government is nothing more than a pipe dream IMO.
Do you have any books or essays you'd recommend on this line of thought? Seems to very much make sense to me.
Agorism gets a little crazy sometimes. It's an anarcho-capitalist philosophy that sees blackmarket activity(counter-economics) as a revolutionary action. That said, they were right about a lot of things.
Here's the wiki, and here's a PDF on agorist class theory. It sees itself as a revolutionary theory, so the reading can be a little..intense.
Congress sucks at regulating banks, see pic:
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1plPyJdXKIY]Warren G - Regulate ft. Nate Dogg - YouTube[/ame]
I have a feeling we agree on most principles. Our paths may split a bit when it comes to possible solutions.
Side note: there is a lot I'd love to discuss with you at length since doing so would bear fruit for me personally. But time is lacking. You may enjoy this:
Why the State Demands Control of Money - Hans-Hermann Hoppe - Mises Daily
Nothing new to you, I'm sure, but Hoppe presents it well.
So much here to go into.
Another link you may enjoy (it's a PDF):http://mises.org/journals/jls/1_1/1_1_3.pdf
The piece's connection with this discussion is slight, at best. But the author churns through a few concepts that came to mind when reading your post (specifically, about acts of aggression). Read only if you're bored standing outside with the OWS crowd.
And yet, I will continue to argue for it (irl mostly).
fffffffuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu
I think it's obvious that Durbin isn't one of the bought-and-paid for politicians of the Banking cartel. Too bad he's such a liberal dick otherwise.
That second article in the OP kinda made me cackle with glee... Even in light of such liberal control and loss of freedom. :\
Go Shady! Every word perfection. +Rep