no my friend, I do not speak from anywhere other that purely philosophical reason. I disagree with ALL government on a poorly philosophical level. It's not one or another government I am against. It is every government that has or will ever exist.
ci How do you propose 7 billion people coexist? I can understand a desire for absolute autonomy for each individual on the planet, but how can that be implemented on a grand scale? Even if all government were abolished over night, people would start forming into smaller groups where the alphas and/or most equipped would quickly rise to the top. Some would then become predatory and go after the weaker ones for resources. Alliances would be made and groups would join other groups creating larger communities thus mimicking large governments more and more. It seems our choice is either creating governments by the people for the people, something that requires work and time, or we can be ruled by sheer survival of the fittest and best armed. I should add, I originated in a country where the government completely failed and the nation collapsed in civil war, so I'm fully aware of just how bad government can be. I just haven't given up on the idea of it altogether and see it as a civilizational inevitability and necessity strictly from a utilitarian point of view.
I honestly don't know as much about the banking crisis as I'd like to, but I will restate what I've said before - the government and banking institutions are so intertwined - by the very nature of how currency is issued and distributed - that the scope of their influence/control is not always clear. The origin of the crisis was clearly predatory banking practices and a hugely inflated market that was taken advantage of with reckless abandon. Again, the government's involvement in that is hard to define, as the gov't and banks have an incestuous relationship and there are many people within the gov't who have previously been bankers and vice versa. It's hard to say that a lack of gov't involvement was responsible for the crash, when people within the government would have been in a position to benefit from the crash and also there are various avenues for insider trading and collusion. The government's alleged lack of involvement/regulation could have been because of certain collusion or foreknowledge. Who knows... I certainly don't and need to be better informed before i really say anything more. However, one thing that I think isn't unreasonable to assume is that the bankers were certain that the government would bail them out for their actions (in other words, enable their malicious practices).
Absolutely not - but you do agree, then, as I take from the emboldened parts of your post - that not interfering in what banks do, will allow them to take advantage of the citizenry, as happened in the USA? If I were to say there is such a thing as a clean government - just for the sake of argument here - <span class="redactor-invisible-space">would you then<span class="redactor-invisible-space"> agree that having some kind of 'police' for the government to protect its citizens against cunning bankers would be a good idea? And should another such financial ripoff of the people happen, the government would say 'no banks, fuck you<span class="redactor-invisible-space">, no bailout!'</span></span></span> <span class="redactor-invisible-space"><span class="redactor-invisible-space"> </span></span> <span class="redactor-invisible-space"><span class="redactor-invisible-space">(Iceland did exactly that, and the American government can<span class="redactor-invisible-space"> do the same, if corrupting influences are removed, is my argument)</span></span></span>
empowering the banks creates the need to interfere Solve government with more government Sound logic -Yuri
Examine Iceland and how it dealt with the banks, and your argument falls apart. We keep butting heads at Real World intersection man
wasn't Iceland the country with 4 times tthe homicide rate of the united states? Ans again, why must you make arguments based on single factors when the equation is far more complex? -Yuri
The topic at hand was the financial crisis, and the involvement of banks and governments. You're not educating yourself on the issue.
I am actually well educated on the issue thanks. The reason we have a banking crisis in America isn't because of freedom. The opposite. The banks were literally enabled and protected. The us government is 100% directly responsible for selling our financial independence to the federal reserve and forever making us reliant on their currency and the war for oil. -Yuri
Have any links to verify this? I would love to read up on the matter if you have any good reading material to recommend.
And selling our children's futures down the damn drain for their gain now. How the fuck is a new born baby in extreme debt to the fucking federal Reserve and China?
Well, the original argument was having civic structures to defend against bank manipulation. I was under the impression you were arguing that the state could never defend the people from banks, and should never get involved.
no my argument was simply that bank manipulation only exists because its protected by the government already -Yuri
So - just to be clear - you think that the financial crisis of 2008 was not caused by rampant bankers and corrupt civic structures, but because banks were protected by the government already?
Clinton repealed some legislation that guy in the '20s passed which led to increased deregulation for banks and less governmental influence Unless you take Alan Greenspans lowered interest rate into account - that would be a bit more gov intervention so in a sense you're both right
close I think bankers were able to do what they did thanks to laws already in place that allowed it essentially Don't get the wrong idea about me. I do believe in justice and the justice system and I do believe "exploitation" to be a crime I am sorry if I don't word my arguments well -Yuri
If I recall correctly, the interesting thing about certain acts of Glass-Steagall being repealed was that while it lead to a merger of banking activities, that merger allowed certain banks to survive the financial crisis better. So on one hand it helped mitigate the crisis, but enabled and ensured large banks reign supreme, while you also have to take into account the low interest rates by the FED which lead to mal-investment in the housing market aka, a bubble.
Glass steagall is important but it's often blown a little bit out of proportion and used as a rallying cry for more regulation. The biggest issue in my opinion was that banks found ways to avoid being responsible to hold cash for promises that hey had made like credit default swaps/other obligations. On top of that they assumed they would never have to pay out many of these obligations and many people didn't even know how far reaching these backdoor deals were, even some people in these companies, because they weren't disclosed in any way/were so complex. So companies like AIG finally realized they were sitting on billions of dollars of obligations they had no way of paying when the housing market went up in flames. There needs to be more regulation to ensure that banks don't skirt requirements that force them to hold a certain amount of capital. There needs to be a better balancing act between making credit to easy to get where a bubble occurs and making it too difficult to get where the economy becomes sluggish. It's a tough balancing act but I strongly believe our gov would be able to do more if lobbying/monetary interests didn't have so much influence. There needs to be better laws pertaining to predatory lending and subprime mortgages. Consumers will always be stupid, this is a fact and it's very hard to change their behavior. This means that if there aren't any changes we'll run into the same problem down the line when credit becomes to easy to get and consumers take advantage leading to some kind of bubble. This is why we need more rules to curb the fact that bankers prey on uninformed decisions/people. No one should be allowed to bet against their clients portfolio, because it creates serious conflicts of interest. Companies shouldn't be able to package subprime mortgages and not tell their customers these details. I don't know how effective regulation would be to stop these things, but I think it's worth a fucking shot. The alternative is do nothing and let the same exact shit play out in the future with probably farther reaching consequences.