51% Lack Confidence in the US Banking System...

Superfreak said:
I agree with your above comments. However, the part that annoys me is that these 'too big to fail' banks are getting bigger and bigger as they are allowed to buy up other distressed banks.

Just look at the two in the front of the line to swipe Citi..... JPM and Goldman.

Both of these banks need to be broken down to the point that no one component is 'too big to fail'. If you are too big to fail... you are too big to exist as you are. Hatchet time.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. To me too big to let fail is too big to let exist because they are a threat to the stability of the USA.
Instead we let them get bigger. How stupit is that?
 
Damocles said:
You don't need a Fed takeover to break up and sell off pieces of a company. There is no reason that the Fed needs to own the business in order to get this done. Why is it that the only solution that comes to the mind of big government cronies is the government owning things it shouldn't?

When Ma Bell was broken up, there was no fricking government takeover. When monopolies were broken up, there were no government takeovers. Why would it have to happen now? First, stop letting them buy new things, their collapse already threatens the economy, don't let them get even larger. Next, require them to sell of portions of the company until any portion would not effect the whole economy if it collapsed.
Click to expand...

On those latter 2 measures, many would still call that a gov't takeover. How does the gov't stop them from buying new things?

At some point, you have to essentially take a stand against capitalism, albeit in an isolated case.
 
Damocles said:
This is something we all seem to agree on, yet we continue to let these behemoths grow instead of taking them apart. What is wrong with us?
Click to expand...

Hmmm...it is almost like governments are run for the sole benefit of multinational financial cartels or something.

I must go now as some men in black suits are coming up the stai

Please disregard the above...yours faithfully,
The Man.
 
Onceler said:
On those latter 2 measures, many would still call that a gov't takeover. How does the gov't stop them from buying new things?

At some point, you have to essentially take a stand against capitalism, albeit in an isolated case.
Click to expand...
The same way they make anti-monopoly laws. Please. Long ago we all suggest that "too big to fail" = "too big to exist" yet your only solution involves simply taking what others made and giving it to the government to break up.

Simply require them to sell portions of the company, define a limit where banking institutions become too large (make it effective within the boundaries of inflation), and make banks stick to that limit so that we are no longer threatened by so few failures.
 
Damocles said:
The same way they make anti-monopoly laws. Please. Long ago we all suggest that "too big to fail" = "too big to exist" yet your only solution involves simply taking what others made and giving it to the government to break up.

Simply require them to sell portions of the company, define a limit where banking institutions become too large (make it effective within the boundaries of inflation), and make banks stick to that limit so that we are no longer threatened by so few failures.
Click to expand...

Why are you calling it "my only solution"?

There is no reason to get defensive. I'm just asking. What you're suggesting would likely work, but they'd still get slammed for being socialists, imo.
 
charver said:
Hmmm...it is almost like governments are run for the sole benefit of multinational financial cartels or something.

I must go now as some men in black suits are coming up the stai

Please disregard the above...yours faithfully,
The Man.
Click to expand...


Turn left now. I am monitoring thru the matrix tap.
 
Onceler said:
Why are you calling it "my only solution"?

There is no reason to get defensive. I'm just asking. What you're suggesting would likely work, but they'd still get slammed for being socialists, imo.
Click to expand...

The right that reallize what is needed get a bit testy when some of their long espoused issues fail.
Like less regulation. Leave business alone, etc.

I am just pleased that some see the light in some areas.
 
Damocles said:
The same way they make anti-monopoly laws. Please. Long ago we all suggest that "too big to fail" = "too big to exist" yet your only solution involves simply taking what others made and giving it to the government to break up.

Simply require them to sell portions of the company, define a limit where banking institutions become too large (make it effective within the boundaries of inflation), and make banks stick to that limit so that we are no longer threatened by so few failures.
Click to expand...

First and foremost, you separate the bank from the investment bank. Put that barrier back in place. Banks should be there to make loans, hold demand deposits, checking accounts, debit cards etc... The only investment they should be allowed to offer is CD's.

Second, you put into legislation regulations on the mortgage industry that require a person to qualify for the 30 year fixed in order to get a loan on the property. If they qualify, THEN an ARM can be considered.

Third, you eliminate the 'Fair lending act'.

Fourth, you regulate hedge funds just like you do any other investment firm.

Fifth, you put the uptick rule back in place.
 
Onceler said:
Why are you calling it "my only solution"?

There is no reason to get defensive. I'm just asking. What you're suggesting would likely work, but they'd still get slammed for being socialists, imo.
Click to expand...
I don't know if it would be "socialism" they'd get slammed for, more likely they'd get slammed for limiting the freedom of the banks to make as much money as they can...

I do believe that they'd be criticized, but I do think that most Americans can recognize the need and it seems there is a harmony going on here we should take advantage of.

Oh, I called it that because it was the only one you offered. Geithner's plan sucked. And it will not be fun implementing any kind of regulation like this. The institutions will fight it, but we'll be better off, IMO. No institution should be so large that it is national security to keep that one business going even when they make poor decisions.
 
Superfreak said:
First and foremost, you separate the bank from the investment bank. Put that barrier back in place. Banks should be there to make loans, hold demand deposits, checking accounts, debit cards etc... The only investment they should be allowed to offer is CD's.

Second, you put into legislation regulations on the mortgage industry that require a person to qualify for the 30 year fixed in order to get a loan on the property. If they qualify, THEN an ARM can be considered.

Third, you eliminate the 'Fair lending act'.

Fourth, you regulate hedge funds just like you do any other investment firm.

Fifth, you put the uptick rule back in place.
Click to expand...

that would Likely work :clink:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top