Forum Post: A New Bank
Posted 13 years ago on Oct. 9, 2011, 12:33 p.m. EST by April
(3196)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
I live in a relatively small town. 30,000 or so. On may way through town recently I noticed they are building another bank. I couldn't help but wonder - Do they have so much money that they have to keep building more to hold it all?
A new bank is exactly correct, and although I'm all in favor of taking down today's ineffective and inefficient Top 10% Management Group of Business & Government, there's only one way to do it – by fighting bankers as bankers yourselves. Consequently, I have posted the Strategic Legal Policies, Organizational Operating Structures, and Tactical Investment Procedures necessary to do this at:
http://getsatisfaction.com/americanselect/topics/on_strategic_legal_policy_organizational_operational_structures_tactical_investment_procedures
Join
http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/StrategicInternationalSystems/
if you want to support a Presidential Candidate Committee at AmericansElect.org in support of the above bank-focused platform.
What? Is the fundamental idea of competition lurking about in this question? Why do multiple car dealerships open in towns, or clothing stores that cater to the same clientele?
You're right, competition is good. I guess it was just a silly thought that occurred to me since many people are critical of the banks not lending enough.
I didn't mean to deride. Banks want to lend, the problem is suitable borrowers. If during the crisis your credit score was tarnished, the bank might find lending to you now as risky. Its very hard for banks to determine who is risky and who is not right now. Businesses aren't borrowing because they are sitting on cash waiting for demand to pick up so they can invest. To a person cash is an asset but to a bank cash is a liability. Banks have to pay out interest on cash, and without loans generate revenue or interest it makes it tougher for them to meet that obligation. It is in their interest to lend money.
I understand. Believe me, I would rather the banks behave responsible than not! Don't want that again!
Agree with you thats why I try to inform people to the legislation in congress right now. H.R. 1489, Return to Prudent Banking Act. This act is in subcommittee discussions. It is trying to separate Investment Banks and Commercial Banks. So that those who we entrust with our deposits can't take on excessive risk and those Investment Banks who want to can do it at their own expense. This was rule of land from 1933 until 1999.
Totally on board with that! Is this the same thing as Glass-Stegall? Does it include derivitive regulation? I'm not good with all the legal stuff! But as far as I am concerned, the more finance reform and regulation the better!!
My big thing though is how the banks bought and paid for their deregulation. Which I think is the root cause of the problem and many other problems. I'm advocating for election reform to get the money out of the political system. Your thoughts?
It essentially repeals Graham Leach Bliley, which allowed them to get together in the first place. Yep, it reinforces the laws of Glass-Steagall. Not in this piece of legislation for the derivatives. Agreed, Derivatives are virulent to the system and need to be on a open market with transparency between who the counter parties are. I know their having difficulty with this because they aren't like stock where each stock is the same as every other more or less in the same company. With Derivatives they are tailored to the need of the buyer for alot them.
Totally agree. There has to be a limit on contributions. I know some on this blog don't want companies to have a voice but they are big part of this country and the economy as well. If we could limit how much an entity or individual contributes we would be better off. If they had to disclose this information on their Rep Webpage, the people could see where their campaign contributions come from and determine if voting patterns are serving general or specific interests.
Thanks for the info! I would like to see election reform go much further and completely take all of the money out of the political process to where it is publicly financed. I believe that 1% buys their representation in government and 99% are left with the crumbs.
Absolutely, I appreciate the discussion April. At the end of the day this gov't belongs to us. We the taxpayers are the owners of the US. Reps, Senators and Presidents are our employees. Its time that they started acting in the interest of those who pay them.
That is what I am telling as many people as will listen! I believe that money speaks too loudly in our government. I think this is the root cause of many of our country's problems. Of course our country is in a terrible mess. Because our democracy is in a shambles! 1% has unfair influence in our government. Money is their tool. And money is not worthy of our democracy. I am advocating for complete and total Separation of Money and State. If you believe in it too, please spread the word. And thanks for listening!