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.
I like the idea of P2P currency like bitcoin. I'm not sure its ready to be fully adopted right now, but if it happens in the future we would have no need for these big banks that screw everyone over. It would be a true free market that banks and government can't manipulate or control.
I like the idea of P2P currency like bitcoin. I'm not sure its ready to be fully adopted right now, but if it happens in the future we would have no need for these big banks that screw everyone over. It would be a true free market that banks and government can't manipulate or control.
An effective nation/state needs a sovereign currency and control over that currency and people. The only true free markets will remain black.
Had this discussion with some folks today.. it got quite heated.
How do private banks benefit society? I suggested public ownership of banks. Of course that makes me a Marxist / Communist / Radical Socialist.
If you disagree, please detail how private banks benefit society.
We have the worst case scenario now-"privately" owned banks backed and supported by the government. The benefit of privately owned banks (without our hybrid system) is that they have to be responsible with their investor's money, or they go out of business when they make bad mistakes. As they should. Do you support a continuation of our systems such as Fannie and Freddie where every bad mistake and irresponsible act is paid for by the taxpayer?
Interesting points. Though if we the people decided it was illegal to sell guns then we could restrict banks lending as they are.
That being said, there may be many more reasons to NOT lend with a nationalized system than private. Depending of course on how the rules are written, and by whom.
So many mortgages should never have been written in the years leading up to the 2008 crash. Certainly aggravated by profit seekers along the way. The Federal Gov't has no need to profit.
We see how the government will selectively punish companies with legal products. How much tax is on a pack of smokes in NY? They have essentially set out to destroy and industry they felt didn't serve the public interest. If they control lending, first it might be gun stores have to pay 40% interest on loans, and the next thing you know, if you want a car loan, you can pay 5% on a Volt or 25% for that big pickup.
And as far as the mortgage crisis, let's not forget it was essentially congress who allowed Fannie and Freddie to buy up loans that were complete and total crap. Freddie and Fannie said, "Make practically any loan you want, and we'll buy them up in package deals ensuring you a profit." Quite a shock how that worked out. If the banks had to hold those crap loans themselves, I'd bet a lot less of them would have gone through.
Pennsylvania is one of the largest single purchasers of liquor in the world. They make a profit of 100 million on more than 2 billion in sales.... we also have some of the highest cost for liquor compared to many other states, limited places to purchase it and selection can be problematic.
We see how the government will selectively punish companies with legal products. How much tax is on a pack of smokes in NY? They have essentially set out to destroy and industry they felt didn't serve the public interest. If they control lending, first it might be gun stores have to pay 40% interest on loans, and the next thing you know, if you want a car loan, you can pay 5% on a Volt or 25% for that big pickup.
And as far as the mortgage crisis, let's not forget it was essentially congress who allowed Fannie and Freddie to buy up loans that were complete and total crap. Freddie and Fannie said, "Make practically any loan you want, and we'll buy them up in package deals ensuring you a profit." Quite a shock how that worked out. If the banks had to hold those crap loans themselves, I'd bet a lot less of them would have gone through.
If we the people want people to stop smoking, then we the people support said policy. And alcohol and marijuana, et al. So if we the people want to discourage gun ownership, then this could be a matter of that course. But this is coming from the people, not Gov't.
Tax preference and political/economic influence and control is nothing new. There can be good and there can be bad. I do agree that this preferential effect might be amplified with a public banking system. But if that is what we the people want, then we could go with it.
If we the people want to encourage home ownership and business expansion, then low interest rates and slack regulation will help that cause. If we the people should so desire, we could go back to gold and/or what most people believe to be bank loans that originate through customer deposits. IMO this won't happen, but the possibility exists. I think that the huge embedded powers that be in money and politics and control to be too strong, entrenched and pervasive to allow the US and USD to sink into mediocrity or worse.
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.
There shouldn't be such a thing as a black market.
