Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The short answer is that it may mean the rationing of credit, that it will be difficult to get a loan if you do not have political connections or are part of some other privileged minority.
The short answer is that it may mean the rationing of credit, that it will be difficult to get a loan if you do not have political connections or are part of some other privileged minority.
"Privileged minority," like people with stable income, no or low debt, and good credit?
"Privileged minority," like people with stable income, no or low debt, and good credit?
Probably not.
For example, look at the recent comments by Charlie Rangel regarding the stimulus plan:
Quote:
And one thing you can depend on, you don’t have to be worried about what the middle-class is gonna do. Things are so bad. They have to put food on their tables. Clothes for their kids. Get them in school. I think this is a tremendous opportunity for a stronger America.
Applying this logic, people with good credit, stable income, and low debt will be people who will be well off and won't need the loans.
The fact that this type of thinking tends to eliminate the middle class is lost on these politicians.
The vice of capitalism is the unequal distribution of wealth. But the vice of socialism is the equal distribution of misery.
- Sir Winston Churchill
Applying this logic, people with good credit, stable income, and low debt will be people who will be well off and won't need the loans.
How does the fact that the middle class needs to put food on the table/send kids to school/etc., lead to the conclusion that people with good credit, stable income, and low debt suddenly will "not need loans" ?
Why will people with good credit, stable income, and low debt suddenly "not need loans"?
Please do not try to use logic in this. If the banks are nationalized, then likely loans will be rationed and "bureaucraticized". Rationed, then, but not rational, at least from the point of view of the independently productive.
Nor, from that point of view, was the destruction of 60 years of savings through reckless financing of unaffordable housing rational, but it has served the interests of a few.
Nationalization means further concentration of power in the hands of ever fewer, and the distribution of goods and services as they see fit, using their underlings in the bureaucracy to maintain control and implement their decisions.
Nationalizing banks, when tied to a policy of dispossessing the private banking class' ability to contribute to the monopoly money creating ponzi scheme, is good for the median american. It would be part of the steps taken to stabilize the currency, which is good for joe schmoe, but not good for the banking class.
Of course this has more to do with what side of the fence you're in philosophically. If you buy into our boom bust free-for-all perma-usury lifestyle for the median, then nationalizing banks is a horrible idea. If you reject on principle the tools that foster consumerism and perpetuate the economic slavery of the median which are aimed at the theoretical protection of the ultra-rich's ability to remain ultra-rich, then nationalizing banks, ALONG with currency protectionist policies (ending the fed for example), would be good for the majority at the expense of the real "protected minority".
As to the Churchill quote above, that's hyperbole. Capitalism can be effectively be viewed as the unequal distribution of misery as well, which is quite american, in essence "well, since life is not fair, eff you I got mine". And people say this country is christian? Contradiction. This idea that capitalism is a small group of special people doing favors to the masses that don't deserve the air they breathe is just as narcissistic as those central planners that thought they could beat their own nature and equally distribute wealth and resources (they failed by their very nature).
What people in America want to know is what amount of misery can the upper classes bestow on the rest of the population without causing social instability and chaos. That's it. The rest is rhetorical chaff and rationalization for the galactic moral conflict between what they nod their heads at on Sunday morning and how they conduct their daily lives economically. The idea of nationalizing banks, by virtue of undercutting the banking class's ability to debase the currency to their only benefit (they always see the full value of the funny dollar, no one else does down the line), is good for the median, which happens to be part of the proletariat in this country, not the capital owner class.
If you are Joe Schmoe this is good for you, ASSUMING Joe rejects the usury-driven consumerism the system requires of Joe. If that is not the case then Joe won't have easy funny-money access and his fake lifestyle won't be substantiated. I am of the belief Joe is waking up to this now, so by virtue of that my vote goes to nationalizing banks. I'm just a working stiff with more intellect than capital, good for me bad for the private banks.
As to idea that centralizing anything is bad because it excludes access, get on the circular reasoning conga line. There is NO access to Joe to the banking capital class, the fact that we LIKE TO BELIEVE we can BE the next american idol and that's why we send our poor to fight for the right of the rich to stay rich, does not make it so. I rather have a stake in who controls the access to money (a populist government for the People, like those socialists like Jefferson and the like, who've thunk it...) than clicking my heels and letting my private neighbor dictate the terms of my financial slavery in the same way those of you accuse centralized public banking of supposedly doing. Tomato, tomáto. Just because "private" sounds FREE doesn't mean it is. Capitalism ≠ freedom and that's where all this misdirected sentiment towards fear of anti-access comes from. That's what a private bank wants you to feel about dispossessing them of their niche, do I have to draw it with a big fat purple crayon too to connect the dots ? If you're lazy and have an inferiority complex, then yeah let your boss dictate your economic slavery, but if you're engaged and able to practice what you preach on Sunday you'll see having a stake on the system that dictates that slavery is better than outright giving that right away to your neighbor.
Last edited by hindsight2020; 01-23-2009 at 09:15 AM..
I recommend reading Thomas Jefferson's thoughts on national banks.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
