Posted: 1/22/2010 9:07:19 AM EDT
|
Anyone doing this?
Most of its press has come via lib channels like HuffPo, but it's really not a "left" idea. Our gov bailed out a series of "too big to fail" banks on the premise that allowing their failure would significantly harm the economy. In essence, the banks made bad investments, lost a lot of money, and were saved by tax dollars. The plan is that the banks will pay the money back. A few already have. Others "intend to" in the future. Until they pay the money back, they are somewhat nationalized. I'm still amazed that my gov nationalized some banks, automakers, insurance companies, etc. That is so far from the idea of free enterpise that it astounds. Anyway, part of the plan was that the money pumped into the banks to offset their investment losses would loosen credit, thereby stimulating recovery. Strangely, the banks did not use the gov money to do that. Instead, they tightened credit. They denied loans. They increased interest rates. They increased fees. Most recently, they just capped off a record executive compensation year. WSJ front page a few days ago cites 140 billion in exec comp and bonuses at banks. What? Excuse me, but the gov just disbursed 700 billion to keep them afloat. How can it be that 140 billion of that survival money is going straight to the crooks who should have been allowed to fail in the first place? Our gov is now considering compensation regulation. In other words, the gov determines how much a company pays an employee. Again, in a free market economy, this is astounding. It is naked socialism. In a free market ecopnomy, we don't need gov to save businesses who fail due to bad management. And we don't need gov to regulate compensation. A free market economy is perfectly capable of sorting out problems like this without gov intervention. It happens through dollar votes. The market votes for sccessful business practices with dollars, and against bad business by withholding dollars. Our gov has put itself in a precarious position by getting in bed with the banks. How, you ask? Well, now we can not only vote against our gov at the polls, but also with dollars. Move your money from the big banks that were propped up by the gov to small regional or local banks that did not make bad investments and did not require gov rescue money (your tax dollars BTW). At a minimum, if enough people do it, the message to the banks and to the gov will be loud and clear. "Don't f**k with the free market, you total assholes." The pipe dream is that so many people do this, the banks that were too big to fail end up failing anyway. If that happened, it would likely devalue the USDollar to the extent of total national economic collapse. Therefore, if you feel that total collapse is a bad idea, then I suggest that only every 3rd person who reads this should move their money. On the other hand, if your opinion is... "Economic collapse? - The sooner the better, so we can get started rebuilding our constitutional republic", then I suggest that all of you move your money tomorrow. |
|
At all cost avoid the giant monster mega banks...especially Bank of America. Crooks, google and ye shall see.
I've been a credit union member for 20+ years. If you look around there are some good ones with fair CD rates...not so much right now but overall... BTW - did you see what Oregon Gub candidate Bradbury wants to do if elected? Start a state run Bank of Oregon to keep money local. Sounds fine on paper but who trusts the .gub with another layer of government? Not I. Bradbury Plan |
|
I agree - don't see how a govbank could be a good idea under the present gov.
Another thought about move your money: If you're like me, your paychecks go into the bank and you spend most of that just living day to day. Saving some is great when you can. It's not like I have $100K in a bank account. Therefore my account doesn't make any difference, so I'm not moving it. NOT TRUE!!! Banks make money primarily by lending money and earning interest on the loans. Banks are regulated. They may lend only up to a percentage of total deposits. The method for determing "total deposits" is somewhat involved, but it is a moving average of sorts that definitely includes the base layer of weekly, etc paychecks and other depoits made by normal joes. In other waords, if all the normal joes move their accounts, that base layer goes away, and the big bank will have to sell some loans (its money maker) to meet ratios, and will have to curtail future lending. Many will fail quickly because they are bloated whores. My experience: I banked at USBank for almost 20 years. 3 months ago, they informed me they were raising fees and raising interest from 6% to 12% on my LOC, just because. If I didn't like it, I could close the LOC. Hmm. That's nice. After 20 years of perfect credit, they take 6.6billion in gov float to cover their bad debt, washed it, paid it back, and then f**ked me over with higher fees and interest rates? Whyzat? "Umm... because we wanted to." So I moved my money. At least I wasn't stuck with a CC balance at BAC. They raised interest to 23 friggin percent on a huge number of people saddled and stuck with CC debt; this while survining on tax money and while paying huge bonuses to execs. This isn't the first ethical crisis in American banking. American banks have had multiple internal crime waves over the years, usually washed clean by cover-ups and new regulations. The optimal solution is for the people to know that being up to your ears in debt is a bad idea, and to avoid it. IOW - live within your means. Anyway, I digress. If you're a normal joe and you move your account from a big national chain bank to a small regional bank, the absence of your monthly deposit stream will affect their ratios. If enough people do it, they will fail. If that happened, in my mind, it would be an historical triumph for the American people. |
|
Most of its press has come via lib channels like HuffPo, but it's really not a "left" idea.
You may want to reconsider that. The American people have already been taxed for the amount loaned to the banks via TARP. Now the gov is going back to some of these banks (some of which have already repaid their TARP funds) and charging them. Since banks don't pay these costs, they will be passed along to the bank's customers - in essence - double taxation for the few. The cry for people to move their money is just another twist on the Cloward and Piven Strategy to collapse the system. What happens when sufficient numbers of customers of these banks move their money? These cost are spread throughout the entire banking industry. Do you find it ironic that Huff puff and others of the same ilk are urging people to pursue the strategy of moving their money instead of standing up and screaming about double taxation? I don't. |
|
Quoted:
Most of its press has come via lib channels like HuffPo, but it's really not a "left" idea. You may want to reconsider that. The American people have already been taxed for the amount loaned to the banks via TARP. Not too sure about that. One of the biggest rational arguments against this type of gov spending is that the gov is spending money it doesn't have, ie must be replenished with future taxation, or by defaulting on loans it owes to other nations, etc. Now the gov is going back to some of these banks (some of which have already repaid their TARP funds) and charging them. Charging them what? Is it a percentage of the original loan? Is it a fee? USBank took 6.6billion in gov money to cover its ass during a 6 month crash until it could get its books back in order, then promptly paid it back at the first opportunity. Honestly, nearly no harm done but for the fact that our gov has no business propping up failed businesses. Anyway, you speak of a new charge. How much is it? What is the name of the charge? Which banks have paid it? Which banks have refused? I'm not as well informed as I should be, so i don't know anything about it. If it is happening to banks that have already repaid their loan, then how is the gov able to charge them anything? If the bank owes the gov nothing, the bank is able to tell the gov to stuff it's charge in its ear. If it's only happening to banks that have not yet repaid tarp funds, then I can see how the gov may have sufficient leverage to "charge" them something additional, but I don't see why it would. The gov saved those banks purportedly to save the economy. Why start tacking them with additional "charges"? What is the purpose? To curtail the banks ability to repay the loan? Since banks don't pay these costs, they will be passed along to the bank's customers - in essence - double taxation for the few. I'm not sure I follow you. In the case of the bank that repaid the gov loan, there should be minimal or no taxation to the people. In the case of the bank that fails to repay the loan, then the gov and therefore the taxpayer is stuck with that bill. In the case of the bank that is attempting to repay the loan by jacking up fees and interest rates on consumers to make more money to pay the gov, I see only "single taxation" there, wherein the bank passes the cost of its failure to the customers. If those customers eat the higher fees and interest rates to enable the bank to repay the gov, then the gov gets repaid and therefore does not take a loss that is passed on to the taxpayer. So the only "taxation" was the higher fees that the consumer was willing to eat. [sheep]baaa[/sheep] The cry for people to move their money is just another twist on the Cloward and Piven Strategy to collapse the system. What happens when sufficient numbers of customers of these banks move their money? These cost are spread throughout the entire banking industry. What costs are spread throughout the industry? If I move to small bank A, I'm not bringing any costs with me. If everyone follows me and USBank fails, since they owe no money to gov, the only cost is to the investor, who made a bad decision in staying with a bad bank. If enough customers left USBank to cause it to fail, the FDIC hit will be small because the bank had no depositors. If BAC fails while owing the gov billions, then the taxpayer eats it, not the bank industry. If enough big banks fail , the currency will collapse, and then the USA will see some hard times. Since hard times eventually will come no matter what, why not now? Why continue propping up the house of cards at my expense, instead of letting it fall so we can eventually return to a freer market, smaller gov, etc. I haven't read Cloward/Piven. If they propose that a free people try to topple a sick corrupt banking system and maybe even gov, I'd struggle to see the error of their ways. Regarding irony, the only irony I see here is that the left believes a collapse will benefit them, while at the same time they purposefully and intentionally create and live a lifestyle that places them smack at the bottom of the post-collapse food chain. I digress. Do you find it ironic that Huff puff and others of the same ilk are urging people to pursue the strategy of moving their money instead of standing up and screaming about double taxation? I don't. I don't either. They're morons, who cares if many of them are proponents of unrestricted gun rights? I'm still gonna be a proponent of unrestricted gun rights. (My hippy obama-lovin dope-smokin neighbor is a huge gun-rights fanatic. He buys the sports pac every year.) Show me where double taxation is occurring. Describe the charge. Refute the prior argument. Also, read the red above. Instead of worrying over who is urging whom, explain why, when faced with higher interest and higher fees from a bank that is trying to make enough money to pay for its failure, I shouldn't abandon that bank in favor of a less pathetic one? Why should I help pay for the big bank's failure? Why wouldn't I prefer that the failed entity (in this case the big banks and the gov) not fail? I maintain that it was a disgrace for the gov to bail out any of these businesses (bank, Ins, auto, whatever). History shows time and again that a free market is infinitely more efficient than a gov, and better suited as solving market problems than a gov. Reversal of that premise is socialism, period. |
|
One of the costs spread throughout the industry is FDIC insurance rates and fees, IIRC. Before you jump on a "small bank" bandwagon make sure to read some of these press releases: http://www.fdic.gov/news/news/press/2010/index.html. I see many folding banks just in January that don't seem to be huge mega banks.
In case you missed some other things that have been happening for the past few years, a Kenyan who ran on "spread the wealth" ran for and won the office of President of the United States. |
|
Looks like Federal Regulators are doing their best to kill independent banks and/or take them over. |
|
Quoted:
Our gov is now considering compensation regulation. In other words, the gov determines how much a company pays an employee. Again, in a free market economy, this is astounding. It is naked socialism. Ok, this is how this works, in simple terms. Say you lost your job, and almost had to foreclose on your house. You go to your friend who has a few spare dollars that he is willing to let you borrow on a long term loan, just so you can keep yourself afloat. So he loans you enough money to pay your mortgage for a year, and doesn't expect to be paid back for 5 years. Then you decide to pay off two months of your mortgage, then blow the rest of that money on coke. Rather than focusing on spending the money in places where it really needed to go, you blew it all on one thing (executive payroll). Now you have no money, and you are even more fucked than you were before, though you sure got one awesome thing out of it. Loans come with alot of "buts". If you buy a new car, they require you to have full insurance on it, to protect their investment. |
|
Quoted:
DCS, I disagree with you upstairs, downstairs and in between regarding the reefer, but I'm with you on this one. My wife and I are moving everything over to a credit union tomorrow. We're voting with our dollars; the few we have anyway. Don't forget that some credit unions are in as bad of shape as banks. Do your research. Oregon credit union - bankrate.com ratings |
|
Don't take offense to this but it is like I am either speaking Greek or you just aren't very well read on a myriad of subjects related to this mulit-headed problem. Everything I read indicates that you don't really understand what I am saying. I don't have the time to lay it out for you - I mean we're talking a LOT of information for this to become clear to you if I get your current level of understanding. However, I strongly encourage you to spend less time in places like here and more time reading about stuff like this. Then go tell everyone you know.
The American people have already been taxed for the amount loaned to the banks via TARP. Not too sure about that. One of the biggest rational arguments against this type of gov spending is that the gov is spending money it doesn't have, ie must be replenished with future taxation, or by defaulting on loans it owes to other nations, etc. Am I clear? You don't understand how the American people have been taxed for this? Am I clear as well - you think default cures TARP debt or any other debt for that matter? Since banks don't pay these costs, they will be passed along to the bank's customers - in essence - double taxation for the few. I'm not sure I follow you. In the case of the bank that repaid the gov loan, there should be minimal or no taxation to the people. Am I clear here - you have not followed the story out of DC and what the Government's plans are? You don't know that this is what they are going to do? The cry for people to move their money is just another twist on the Cloward and Piven Strategy to collapse the system. What happens when sufficient numbers of customers of these banks move their money? These cost are spread throughout the entire banking industry. What costs are spread throughout the industry? If I move to small bank A, I'm not bringing any costs with me. If everyone follows me and USBank fails, since they owe no money to gov, the only cost is to the investor, who made a bad decision in staying with a bad bank. If enough customers left USBank to cause it to fail, the FDIC hit will be small because the bank had no depositors. If BAC fails while owing the gov billions, then the taxpayer eats it, not the bank industry. If enough big banks fail , the currency will collapse, and then the USA will see some hard times. Since hard times eventually will come no matter what, why not now? Why continue propping up the house of cards at my expense, instead of letting it fall so we can eventually return to a freer market, smaller gov, etc. I haven't read Cloward/Piven. If they propose that a free people try to topple a sick corrupt banking system and maybe even gov, I'd struggle to see the error of their ways. Regarding irony, the only irony I see here is that the left believes a collapse will benefit them, while at the same time they purposefully and intentionally create and live a lifestyle that places them smack at the bottom of the post-collapse food chain. I digress. You really need to read up on the gov. plan and how it is going to effect the industry. In short if all the depositors leave BAC, BAC will be absorbed by another bank - it still has assets. The margin will be passed on the tax payer. Secondly, if all of the depositors go to non impacted banks - the government merely widens the net. You need to see the forest through the trees - banks don't "pay" anything. The depositors do (us) - now do you understand 'double taxation'? The public pays for TARP in the form of taxes and then is forced to pay for the bank's share (which was never a part of the deal) as well. Lastly you need to understand the inter connectivity of US and Foreign banks. Second of all - it takes all of 2 seconds to google 'Cloward Piven Strategy' and maybe all of 5 minutes to get a thumbnail sketch of what it is. Once you do you will begin see a lot of things. Like Collapsing the Econ / Ramming through Health Care / Amnesty For Illegals = GAME OVER Start reading about things like who is Andy Stern? Why is has he been to the WH more than any other visitor? What is Barry's connection to SEIU? What impact does SEIU have by going Global? What impact does SEIU have here in OR with respect to measure 66 and 67? What are the interconnected groups that are all really working in unison for the same thing (the progressive destruction of America)? Ever checked out this site - http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/? Check out how many of those groups are right here in OR. Look at where they get their funding. See who else those same donors fund. Look at the agendas of all of these groups. Everyone needs to pull their head out of the sand - get informed, get pissed, get vocal, get to the ballot box. |
|
Like talking to a rock.
If you want to reply to some "arguments", spend less time telling me what I need. You assume a lot, and take the time to patronize me personally, but fail to address obvious points I made in prior discourse. So really, why reply at all? Which begs the question - why am I replying again? Hell if I know. Must be because this is a form of entertainment. However, it quickly can become a waste of time. In spite of the fact that I ramble too much, I know I am not unclear. In the classic sense, arguing the merits of an argument requires that each party address the relevant ideas or points made by the other, which you failed to even attempt, Instead, you chose to attempt to portray me as an idiot. I'm sorry, who is the idiot here? I can google Pliven whoever anytime I want, but I don't want to. Why the hell do I need to read that? The information universe is chock full of people with the same idea - how we're on the wrong path; how the gov't could fail if this happened or that happened etc etc. I could write a Dave theory on how Labor Unions destroy Productivity and Promote Complacency and then float it out there with the thousands of existing similar theories that are already in circulation, and then call you an idiot if you didn't read it. Does that make sense to you? The gov is failing. Not small. Big. In so many ways. I think we probably agree on that, but I'm not sure. I won't put words in your mouth. If all depositors leave BAC, their remaining assets are immaterial. The bank's assets are the deposits, and the loans (which they cannot hold without a base of supporting deposits), and whatever other investments the bank holds. If the bank is in trouble, it will divest it's investments on the free market to try to save itself. If the depositors continue to leave, it will have no deposits & no loans, therefore no assest to speak of. This is of course jusst one possibility. None of it is likely to happen, so it's really not worth arguing. But your insistance on declaring the sole obvious outcome and also my total ignorance for not seeing it rubs me the wrong way. I'm sorry, who is the idiot? You speak of margins passed to taxpayers, gov widening a net, forests and trees, banks not paying anything (for example I assume you mean that when USBank repayed it's 6.6billion in tarp funds in full recently, it didn't pay anything), double-taxation of completely undefined origin or nature, etc. What are you babbling about? Why don't you pick one idea and try to define it concisely? Face in Crowd: The public pays for TARP in the form of taxes and then is forced to pay for the bank's share (which was never a part of the deal) as well. WTF are you talking about? Tell us exactly the details of how a bank that took tarp money and then repaid tarp money cost the taxpayer anything material? Use USBank as an example. Did you not see my obvious and logical refutation of this point in my reply above? Is ya blind? BTW - how do you like it when people ask you WTF you're talking about, and then call you stupid? Then don't bother telling us how the taxpayer foots the bill for a bank that took tarp money and then failed. because we already know that, and i already said it above. Obviously, the taxpayer takes that hit. That is why the taxpayers are so pissed about the gov bailing out the banks. Fuck those banks. Should have LET THEM FAIL!!! If it sinks my economy, I don't care. I'd rather live in a toppled-and-now-resurging naion than in a socialist shitpile where private sector morons that fail because of greed or bad management of bad investmensta are bailed by my gov at my expense. THEN, when those same banks in the same FUCKING YEAR raise fEes and raise interest and record record profits anD pay record exec compensation, I get really pissed because that's completely un-called for. The FED sets rates. I'm not saying that's a good idea, or that I endorse the FED. I'm saying that they set rates, and rates are at record lows, but banks have raised consumer rates to record highs anway, while taking record profits etc etc etc. THAT is why a normal intelligent human might be inclined to say FUCK THAT BANK, I'M MOVING TO ANOTHER!!! Hell, let me address some other irrelevant comment from above. Somebody posted about wealth redistribution and Kenyans. WTF does that have to do with an american getting pissed at BAC and moving his money to a healthy local bank after doing some due diligence to make sure he selected a reasonably healthy local bank. Nothing, that's what. Face - Lastly you need to understand the inter connectivity of US and Foreign banks. I'll take your word for that because i gota get out of here. Why drag in new material with new insults by telling me I don't know who Stern or the SEIU is? Does that bolster your position somewhow? FWIW - I spotted obama as a union whore the 1st day he hit the news. Don't preach to me and insult me while refusing to address reasonable points or questions that should be evident to anyone with half a brain. My posts are too long. They have little bearing on a gun board. Maybe this place would be better if I just lurked. Who cares, it's all just for entertainment anyway. I'll try to use more smiley faces in the future for my semi-tongue-in-cheek comments like recommending that everyone move their money so that we can sink our gov. Semi tongue-in-cheek. 
In the mean time, you go read, you pinhead. Civilization was built by thinking humans who recognized the merit of structuring arguments and then evaluating them. Learn to seek the conclusions in a piece of discourse and then the premises that support the conclusions. Only then are you in a position to use evidence or arguments or logic to refute the premises and therefore the argument. Or, in your inability to refute it, you may learn that you perhaps should accept it. Your inability to even attempt this process is indicative of your place in the grand scheme. I'll conclude by saying don't bother. It stopped being fun, so I'm not interested in your reply. Let this sucker drift down with the doobie thread before it. Face - Everyone needs to pull their head out of the sand - get informed, get pissed, get vocal, get to the ballot box. You first. Later. Quoted:
Don't take offense to this but it is like I am either speaking Greek or you just aren't very well read on a myriad of subjects related to this mulit-headed problem. Everything I read indicates that you don't really understand what I am saying. I don't have the time to lay it out for you - I mean we're talking a LOT of information for this to become clear to you if I get your current level of understanding. However, I strongly encourage you to spend less time in places like here and more time reading about stuff like this. Then go tell everyone you know. The American people have already been taxed for the amount loaned to the banks via TARP. Not too sure about that. One of the biggest rational arguments against this type of gov spending is that the gov is spending money it doesn't have, ie must be replenished with future taxation, or by defaulting on loans it owes to other nations, etc. Am I clear? You don't understand how the American people have been taxed for this? Am I clear as well - you think default cures TARP debt or any other debt for that matter? Since banks don't pay these costs, they will be passed along to the bank's customers - in essence - double taxation for the few. I'm not sure I follow you. In the case of the bank that repaid the gov loan, there should be minimal or no taxation to the people. Am I clear here - you have not followed the story out of DC and what the Government's plans are? You don't know that this is what they are going to do? The cry for people to move their money is just another twist on the Cloward and Piven Strategy to collapse the system. What happens when sufficient numbers of customers of these banks move their money? These cost are spread throughout the entire banking industry. What costs are spread throughout the industry? If I move to small bank A, I'm not bringing any costs with me. If everyone follows me and USBank fails, since they owe no money to gov, the only cost is to the investor, who made a bad decision in staying with a bad bank. If enough customers left USBank to cause it to fail, the FDIC hit will be small because the bank had no depositors. If BAC fails while owing the gov billions, then the taxpayer eats it, not the bank industry. If enough big banks fail , the currency will collapse, and then the USA will see some hard times. Since hard times eventually will come no matter what, why not now? Why continue propping up the house of cards at my expense, instead of letting it fall so we can eventually return to a freer market, smaller gov, etc. I haven't read Cloward/Piven. If they propose that a free people try to topple a sick corrupt banking system and maybe even gov, I'd struggle to see the error of their ways. Regarding irony, the only irony I see here is that the left believes a collapse will benefit them, while at the same time they purposefully and intentionally create and live a lifestyle that places them smack at the bottom of the post-collapse food chain. I digress. You really need to read up on the gov. plan and how it is going to effect the industry. In short if all the depositors leave BAC, BAC will be absorbed by another bank - it still has assets. The margin will be passed on the tax payer. Secondly, if all of the depositors go to non impacted banks - the government merely widens the net. You need to see the forest through the trees - banks don't "pay" anything. The depositors do (us) - now do you understand 'double taxation'? The public pays for TARP in the form of taxes and then is forced to pay for the bank's share (which was never a part of the deal) as well. Lastly you need to understand the inter connectivity of US and Foreign banks. Second of all - it takes all of 2 seconds to google 'Cloward Piven Strategy' and maybe all of 5 minutes to get a thumbnail sketch of what it is. Once you do you will begin see a lot of things. Like Collapsing the Econ / Ramming through Health Care / Amnesty For Illegals = GAME OVER Start reading about things like who is Andy Stern? Why is has he been to the WH more than any other visitor? What is Barry's connection to SEIU? What impact does SEIU have by going Global? What impact does SEIU have here in OR with respect to measure 66 and 67? What are the interconnected groups that are all really working in unison for the same thing (the progressive destruction of America)? Ever checked out this site - http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/? Check out how many of those groups are right here in OR. Look at where they get their funding. See who else those same donors fund. Look at the agendas of all of these groups. Everyone needs to pull their head out of the sand - get informed, get pissed, get vocal, get to the ballot box. |
|
DCS - your arrogance is only superseded by your ignorance. Seriously - read a few non fiction books occasionally. Not only will you become a more interesting person, you will have more to contribute to society b/c you actually have learned something.
I can google Pliven whoever anytime I want, but I don't want to. Why the hell do I need to read that? The information universe is chock full of people with the same idea - how we're on the wrong path; how the gov't could fail if this happened or that happened etc etc. First of all - it is Cloward - Piven - not "Pliven" - when you want to attack someone and accuse them of not knowing what they are talking about - you really ought to do what you can to make yourself look more than a scorned mouth breather. You're right - why read and learn about anything. Esp if it is a dominate theory of the progressives and has been for more than 30 years. And your right - that old quote - "If you don't know history, you're doomed to repeat it" - that's BS too. So while you're correct that we are on the wrong path - there is no point in becoming educated in how we got there as a nation. If all depositors leave BAC, their remaining assets are immaterial. The bank's assets are the deposits, and the loans (which they cannot hold without a base of supporting deposits), and whatever other investments the bank holds. If the bank is in trouble, it will divest it's investments on the free market to try to save itself. If the depositors continue to leave, it will have no deposits & no loans, therefore no assest to speak of. This is of course jusst one possibility. None of it is likely to happen, so it's really not worth arguing. But your insistance on declaring the sole obvious outcome and also my total ignorance for not seeing it rubs me the wrong way. I'm sorry, who is the idiot? Let me guess - you have no idea what a tranched investment is? You have little to no idea of how the gov regulates banks either - right? One more guess - you don't work in the financial industry nor do you pay much attention to it - correct? Face in Crowd: The public pays for TARP in the form of taxes and then is forced to pay for the bank's share (which was never a part of the deal) as well. WTF are you talking about? Tell us exactly the details of how a bank that took tarp money and then repaid tarp money cost the taxpayer anything material? Use USBank as an example. You do understand where TARP money came from right? The sale of treasuries. Who pays those back? The taxpayer. Secondly - OK I understand that you are ignorant of the government's plan of taxing the banks $90 Billion. No need to read that either - so you're covered. Banks - like any other corporation don't pay taxes, they don't pay fees, charges, or assessments of any kind - the customer does. Let me guess - you voted yes for 66 and 67? Face - Lastly you need to understand the inter connectivity of US and Foreign banks. I'll take your word for that because i gota get out of here And you're right again - no point whatsoever in understanding how US and Foreign banks are interconnected or what drives US banks to invest in foreign markets or conversely what drives Foreign banks to invest in the US market. Why confuse the issue that you have such a clear read on it all - right? Seriously - ever considered attending a community college or tackling a reading list of relevant subject matter to fill in some of your deficits such that when things come up for a vote you can make an informed decision? WE as a nation would appreciate it. |
|
I understand the reality that a particular business (bank, automaker, defense contractor etc) might be too important to allow it to topple. That said, the realization that this has come to pass is a good time to change things so we're not caught in between a rock and a hard place.
This brand of conservatism that maintains no idea that could be agreed upon by Huff Post and The National Review is fascinating to watch. Would that things were really that black and white. The world is a bit more complicated, as evidenced by the election of a pro-choice Republican in Massachusetts last week. I say if you make crappy cars, screw over the entire economy, etc, you should get what you deserve. Classic capitalism (I thought), consumers vote with their feet and the company is gone. All these jackasses in DC are bought and paid for by someone, usually someone in these mega-corporations instead of their constituents. That is the real problem. The talking heads do a good job of keeping us focused on subsets so we don't actually get angry at the underpinnings. Obama is obviously trying to have it both ways, publicly chastising and demonizing the financial industry while working behind the scenes to protect their fundamental interests. He's no socialist, he's another politician hamstrung by a complicated web of special interests. At least he can actually speak English, Kenyan or not. |
|
Alright! A heave-to! At least if you're gonna reply, then address something that was already said. Your prior tack was quite similar to that employed by every "progressive" liberal you've ever met - opinion based in emotion, ignoring sound arguments completely in favor of citing obscure references as proof of opinion. I'm glad to see that you are capable of at least some independent thought.
Lemme wade in. I ain't gonna read Pliven now, just based on principle. Any intelligent observer with a fundamental education is capable of looking at our gov or our society and identifying flaws in it's policy, direction etc. If that observer wants to, he could fashion theories on how our problems may contribute to failure, or he may or even fashion theories on how some outside force could take actions that contribute to the failure. The observer could even read various authors with similar viewpoints and broaden their horizons and find support for their observations. We all do it. Some will read any reasonable source of informaion and then make their own assessments of the information. Others will only read drudge or huffpo, and everything else is drivel. And all in between. Try to get your head around this. u called me stupid for not reading Pliven. It had nothing to do with my original comments aboout the ails of society, greed of banks, merits of move your money etc. If I complain about the same things that Pliven complains about, or make observations similar to his, I don't have to read Pliven. Okay? On other matters:I said, "Hmm, move your money?" You said double taxation. I said I don't see it, and I made reasonable arguments in support of my position. You failed to address them, and called me stupid. Then I called you a pinhead, and enjoyed it. Now suddenly, you begin to address a few relevant points, but you only begin. I'm cool with that. If you can't concretely demonstrate double taxation in the specific instance of USBank, who repayed tarp in full in 6 months, or in the specific instance of a major bank that fails after a tarp bailout (name one of those by the way), it's okay. Just don't call me stupid because you can't do it. BTW - I'm not a doubter that many banks and much of our gov wont' screw us over every chance they get, it' sjust that I didn't seee double taxation as you described it, and you still haven't demonstarted it. Anyway, then you introduced a planned 90 billion tax, and called me stupid again. What is a planned tax? When does whom pay it? The gov is also currently testing the waters on various other ideas to restrict or tax insane exec compensation at bailed out banks. None are a sure thing. Most are probably just political posturing. I've already said that I believe gov has no place regulating compensation. We don't need gov to punish shitty banks. We can do it by ourselves (by moving our money). The suggestion that all taxes to a corporation are paid by the corporation's customers is not wholly innaccurate, but it is an oversimplification of this issue. I don't agree that a new 90 billion "planned" tax on banks must constitute double taxation to the customer because the customer had to pay for the bailouts. For starters, the customers don't have to pay for bailouts to banks that repay the bailout funds themselves, so there is no double taxation there. Then, for banks that failed after tarp bailouts, the new planned 90 billion tax on banks cannot be double taxation to customers of those banks because you can't slap a new tax on a dead bank and also dead banks have no customers. Yes, I can see how a 90 billion dollar tax on surviving banks could trickle down to bank customers, but since there is no new 90 billion dollar tax on banks, there is no double taxation. Until we have a new tax, is there some other double taxation you were seeing, or was that it? BTW - at what stage of passing the House or Senate is this planned 90 billion dollar tax on banks? What drives foreign banks to invest in domestic banks and vice versa is a profit motive, and to some extent a desire to contribute to stable currency markets. There's a bit of collusion in the mix, but only a bit. If they perceive value in our dollars, our dollars have value. If they dump all of their dollar holdings tomorrow because they are tired of the real value of thsoe dollars plummeting because our real estate devalued significantly and we have no GDP, then our dollars are worth nothing. Holding dollars has been a good idea for a long time, but now its starting to look like a bad idea on the international scale. This is a whole nuther can of worms, and not fully relevant to a suggestion that we the people move our money to screw our banks over as revenge for being so stupid and greedy and mindless and etc. If our biggest banks fail, especially after our gov propped them up, it's likely that our currency will fail. This would have profound effects on banks in other countires, and on "international" banks. So what? I don't care. My gov is endorsing corruption and bad managament by propping up failed businesses. It's a friggin nightmare. It's un-American. It's not what was intended. It's socialism. It sucks to watch. I can't be bothered to worry about what will happen to foreign banks who were dumb enough to hold positions in shitty US banks or in USdollars. My preference, stated over and over, is to allow poorly run businesses to fail early rather than late, and let the free market sort out the rubble. If people have to get hungry because they stood by while getting screwed by bad bankers, I believe it will do them some good and teach them to kill bad bankers in the future so that the same mistake doesn't happen again. Now that's a free market. Your first sentence would be better understood if you replace "superceded" with "exceeded". Until then, it implies that I can no longer be considered arrogant because my ignorance is more advanced than my arrogance and therefore has replaced it entirely. This paragraph itself might be construed as a refutation of that particular argument. If you can get your mind around the fact that I may be able to think without having read Pliven, you will have come a long way. Pliven Pliven Pliven Pliven Pliven. Tell Coward I said Yo. Abandon arguments based on planned taxes. A planned corporate tax is like a planned term limit law. Embrace independent thought. Make your own argument. I do all day long, and people like you get pissy because although you can call me stupid, you are unable or unwilling to identify and choose one solid argument from within my overly verbose commentary to deconstruct. So it becomes tedious blather, and drives people away. This is definitely not to say that my arguments are irrefutable. To the contrary, I'm probably wrong frequently. If so, it should be easy to show. Okay. I'm done here. Move your money. Quoted:
DCS - your arrogance is only superseded by your ignorance. Seriously - read a few non fiction books occasionally. Not only will you become a more interesting person, you will have more to contribute to society b/c you actually have learned something. I can google Pliven whoever anytime I want, but I don't want to. Why the hell do I need to read that? The information universe is chock full of people with the same idea - how we're on the wrong path; how the gov't could fail if this happened or that happened etc etc. First of all - it is Cloward - Piven - not "Pliven" - when you want to attack someone and accuse them of not knowing what they are talking about - you really ought to do what you can to make yourself look more than a scorned mouth breather. You're right - why read and learn about anything. Esp if it is a dominate theory of the progressives and has been for more than 30 years. And your right - that old quote - "If you don't know history, you're doomed to repeat it" - that's BS too. So while you're correct that we are on the wrong path - there is no point in becoming educated in how we got there as a nation. If all depositors leave BAC, their remaining assets are immaterial. The bank's assets are the deposits, and the loans (which they cannot hold without a base of supporting deposits), and whatever other investments the bank holds. If the bank is in trouble, it will divest it's investments on the free market to try to save itself. If the depositors continue to leave, it will have no deposits & no loans, therefore no assest to speak of. This is of course jusst one possibility. None of it is likely to happen, so it's really not worth arguing. But your insistance on declaring the sole obvious outcome and also my total ignorance for not seeing it rubs me the wrong way. I'm sorry, who is the idiot? Let me guess - you have no idea what a tranched investment is? You have little to no idea of how the gov regulates banks either - right? One more guess - you don't work in the financial industry nor do you pay much attention to it - correct? Face in Crowd: The public pays for TARP in the form of taxes and then is forced to pay for the bank's share (which was never a part of the deal) as well. WTF are you talking about? Tell us exactly the details of how a bank that took tarp money and then repaid tarp money cost the taxpayer anything material? Use USBank as an example. You do understand where TARP money came from right? The sale of treasuries. Who pays those back? The taxpayer. Secondly - OK I understand that you are ignorant of the government's plan of taxing the banks $90 Billion. No need to read that either - so you're covered. Banks - like any other corporation don't pay taxes, they don't pay fees, charges, or assessments of any kind - the customer does. Let me guess - you voted yes for 66 and 67? Face - Lastly you need to understand the inter connectivity of US and Foreign banks. I'll take your word for that because i gota get out of here And you're right again - no point whatsoever in understanding how US and Foreign banks are interconnected or what drives US banks to invest in foreign markets or conversely what drives Foreign banks to invest in the US market. Why confuse the issue that you have such a clear read on it all - right? Seriously - ever considered attending a community college or tackling a reading list of relevant subject matter to fill in some of your deficits such that when things come up for a vote you can make an informed decision? WE as a nation would appreciate it. |
He's right. Pliven Pliven Pliven Plive Pliven was uncalled for. Reisling.  But I still smile when I read it.
But overall, a potentially reasonable argument deteriorated. Here's how: I made a not unreasonable query and arguments for Move your Money. Face said it's left, double taxation, and a twist on something proposed by 2 authors. He did not provide support for these arguments. Here, in clean and organized fashion, is my response to those arguments made by Face. Left - the idea of sustaining capitalism by voting with dollars is not a left idea. It's an intelligent, right idea. It's not populist. Populism is always based on pitting one group against another, and usually labeling one group elitist and another not-elitist. Populism has historically been employed by left, right, centrist. Chavez in Venezuela is definitely a populist. Obama in USA is definitely a populist. Populism is effective in masses of people who are not eductaed enough to see it for what it is. It works great among people who wish to emotionally jump on the bandwagion of change. I digress. It's not double taxation: 1 - Tarp was 700 billion, give or take (we'll probably never know exactly how much becaue of all the back room stuff, but that is irelevant to the argument). The cost of assembling tarp was not 700 biilion also. It was much less. Spread among all taxpayers, it's immaterial. The money of concern here is the 700 billion. 2 - Banks who repay tarp in full in a timely fashion have immaterial economic impact on the consumer. The gov disbursed money to banks. Within about 6 months, a handful of banks paid back all the money they received. All. We'll use USBank as an example. They rec'd 6.6 billion, and then paid it all back. All. There is no cost to gov or the taxpayer other than the nominal cost of operating tarp, and therefore no double taxation. Actually, there is no material "single taxation". My idiot gov bailed out USBank, but at least USBank recovered their footing enough to pay all the money back in a timely fashion so that I didn't have to pay it. 3 - Banks who fail after being bailed out with tarp, well, that's bad. It hasn't happened. It probably won't happen. But if it did happen to a bank that receievd, say, 30 billion in tarp funds, then the gov and therefore the taxpayers would be on the hook for that hit. Double taxation might be argued in the higher fees that the bank charged the customers before it failed, which are a cost to the customer in addition to the higher taxes associated with recovering the 30 billion after failure. But since the higher fees are not mandatory, they aren't a tax. The consumer can leave the failing bank and go to another bank that doesn't have higher fees, and therefore avoid the "double taxation". Of course, not all consumers have the gumption or intelligence to do that, but that's another issue. 4 - Lastly, banks that take a while to pay back huge tarp bailouts: There are many of these left. Lets call them Bank Group B (BGB). BGB is sitting on a lot of gov money, literally 100's of billions of dollars. That money is not free. The taxpayer will have to float the cost of that money until the BGB pays it back. If our gov has half a brain, they will not grant BGB "Paid In Full" status until each member of BGB has paid back not only the amount they borrowed, but also interest on that amount that will cover the cost of the money. I'm saying I consider the that the cost of the money borrowed by BGB is a cost to the taxpayer. In the future, if BGB repays all the money plus interest, it's not like the gov is going to turn around and reimburse the taxpayer for supporting the cost of that money. Our gov just doesn't do that. So we have a clear form of "single taxation" there. Moving on...the big tarp banks all raised fees and interest rates, and will keep them high until market forces or legislation bring them down. These higher fees could be construed as double taxation, except for the fact that they are not mandatory. You don't have to pay them. Just find a different bank and move your money there. Recall during the early days of tarp the number of healthy state banks, private banks, etc who made headlines saying "Hey, we're fine". Yes, there are a handful of unhealthy regional, state, private banks, credit unions etc in the USA. But there are also boatloads of healthy ones. Many remain competetive by not inflating fees. You can avoid Face's double taxation by banking at a bank that was relatively immune to tarp fallout and hasn't materially raised fees etc because of the banking crisis. 90 billion - Face had an opportunity to mention 50 banks, but he didn't. The original proposed form of the 90 billion tax on banks was that it applied only to 50 top banks, ins companies, and a few other companies. I can't remember the whole list. But it was only 50 or so. In other words, if congress passes the new tax (unlikely), and if they pass it in its current form (unlikely), then the tax is on the worst offenders only. (Actually not totally distasteful is it?) Anyway, it has no effect on any small bank in its current form. If you move to a small bank, you'll be at a bank that doesn't partiscipate in the new tax, IF the new tax passes. Pliven - I made tongue in cheek comments about sinking the gov by sinking the banks that the gov just bailed out. I need to use more smileys. I admit, it's only semi tongue in cheek. I'd laugh if masses left the big banks and crashed the curency. But i also live in the forest with a years supply of food, a garden, light artillery, night vision headgear with IR laser illuminators and laser aiming systems, motion detection and vibration sensor security, some solar and generator power, and the nearest stoplight to my house is 26 miles away. In other words, I'm ready for my sick country to fall on its face so we can start over. The fact that I make comments like that doesn't mean that I've read Pliven, agree with Pliven, or intend to read Pliven. Not reading Pliven does not mean I cannot think. Pliven is not the only author to have written ideas similar to this train of thought. It's possible that I read one of the other authors who had similar ideas, but I don't have to cite them if i can construct my own obvious arguments. K? Look, this is like the 3rd or 4th time I've typed essentially the same thing. You entered an argument. But you failed to address it. You launched many red herrings and other distractions: ie I voted for 66/67, I don't know what a tranched asset is, I read fiction, I'm stupid, foreign banks, nets, margins, etc. I give you credit for not yet invoking penguins. In my mind, this long ago changed from a discussion about Move your Money to me beating on your unresponsive ass for your abject failure to recognize or attempt to address a simple argument. It has become a lesson is the origins of civilization. Civilization was built by thinking men who agreed to conduct discourse in this fashion, and also by authoritarians who said "we will do it my way". It's been a long road. To engage in discussion of discourse, you extract and evaluate arguments. You attempt to abandon emotion. If your argument fails, you learn and progress. If it succeeds, and at some point is established as a valid deductive agument, it becomes truth. If it cannot be proven but is strong anyway, it becomes an inductive argument awaiting proof via progression in measurement capabilities, but it is also a pathway for progress. The inductive argument that the world is not flat is a great example. Science progressed far based on that inductive agument before it was actually proved. Anyway, this type of discussion is the foundation for law, for gov, for civilization. When it is clouded by emotion or fallacy or irrational refusal to address simple arguments, progress stops. In this thread, I participated in "halting progress" by engaging in frivolous replies (you know, insults, etc), but at least I can say that it was for entertainment, and only after a real attempt to address your arguments followed by your refusal to reply in kind. What's your excuse? |
|
DCS - I sincerely meant it when I said "don't take offense" above.
I do work in the financial services industry. I am not here to argue for sport. I argue over money and language every day for a job. You have no idea what you are talking about. I reiterate my challenge to you to either tackle a selected topics list or start attending a community college to fill in some of the deficits in your knowledge base. 66 and 67 were a major blunder. The voters of Multnomah County are kidding themselves if they really think they are going to replace the silicon forest with bio tech firms by passing these. Or to not understand that high wage earners are the people that create jobs in the first place. Maybe more people should read Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand We need educated voters at the local, state and national level. |
|
Quoted:
DCS - I sincerely meant it when I said "don't take offense" above. I do work in the financial services industry. I am not here to argue for sport. I argue over money and language every day for a job. You have no idea what you are talking about. I reiterate my challenge to you to either tackle a selected topics list or start attending a community college to fill in some of the deficits in your knowledge base. Okay, here's how you do it. First, you consider any contention by an author as an argument presented by the author. Then, you locate the author's conclusion to his arguemnt. In the instance above, it is"DCS has no idea what he is talking about and should read or attend college to learn what he talking about." Then, you find the premises that the author is using to attempt to support his argument. 1 - I work in the financial services industry, therefore I am an expert. 2 - I do not argue for sport, because I argue all day for a job. 3 - Therefore I will not defeat DCS's arguments. 4 - Since I won't defeat his arguments, he cannot learn what he is talking about through my expertise. 5 - Therefore, –– insert conclusion here. The way that you defeat an argument like this is to evaluate the reasoning for fallacy, and then evaluate the premises to see if one can be "disproved". Fallacy is an error in reasoning. An argument that is a fallacy can be convincing. A fallacy is sometimes (not always) difficult to defeat by dismantling premises. Because of this, smart people have made a list of fallacies, and when fallacious arguments are presented, rather than attempt to deconstruct them, the smart people just point at the perpetrator of the fallacy and say "fallacy", and it is over. This is a time-saving feature used when smart people hold discussions. Smart people value their time, and so they value useful tools like pointing and saying "fallacy" and describing the fallacy and then ignoring its author for the rest of the decade. Face's argument is fallacious: Example: Appeal to Authority is a type of fallacy wherein 100% trust in expertise overlooks the always extant possibility that experts can make errors, even in their own field of expertise. There are other ways in which this argument could be construed as fallacious, but lets also attack the premises. 1 - Face may be a low-quality, untrained, union, or government worker in financial services, and accordingly possess little or no expertise. In other words, his job does not guarantee expertise. 2 - In his 1st post to this thread, Face commenced an argument here that is not related to his job. So this premise is very weak. 3 - This itself is a type of fallacy. I can't remember the name. It's some kind of replacement thing, wherein an arguer's inability to defeat an argument is justified or replaced by refusal to engage it. 4 - This could be a strong premise to support his conclusion if he had a valid reason for not arguing. You get the idea. If someone presents a stupid argument, it is perfectly acceptable in our society to laugh at them and call them stupid. BUT, if you are interested in such, there is also a time-honored mechansim in place for refuting an argument with logic & without emotion. It dates back millenia. Literally. Yes, there actually is a list of fallacy. It's like a fistful of magic bullets when you find yourself arguing with pinheads. However, we don't employ fallacy-defense much in everyday life because critical thinking is not something that's valued by mainstream society today. Anyway, an "ad hominem" fallacy involves an irrelevant attack on an arguer, usually to undermine his credibility and then suggest that the attack undermines the argument itself. However, because the reasoning of a sound argument does not depend on the credibility of the arguer, this technique is a recognized fallacy. This is what Face has been doing for days now. In Face's 1st post, he argued double taxation. I refuted his unsupported argument and then he called me stupid. See the ad hominem there? Avoiding the Issue is another type of fallacy. etc etc. So that's where this ends. There's no double taxation until someone demonstrates it. I can only guess that Face hasn't because whatever pretend-technical argument he can assemble to prove double taxation in this instance can be shot down with 3rd grade simplistic logic. Worked for me anyway. In the future, it would be better to not engage an argument initially than to resort to the thought process of a retarded goat to conclude your argument. It makes you resemble the goat. 66 and 67 were a major blunder. The voters of Multnomah County are kidding themselves if they really think they are going to replace the silicon forest with bio tech firms by passing these. Or to not understand that high wage earners are the people that create jobs in the first place. This thread and it's initial arguments were about Move your Money and the presence or absence of double taxation. 66-67 is a fallacious contribution called a Red Herring. Yep. Google it. Face introduced several Red Herings Maybe more people should read Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand We need educated voters at the local, state and national level. Educated according to your standards? Seriously, now I am done. If face responds with a sound argument demonstrating double taxation, one of you folks attempt to deconstruct it. It will be good practice. If you can deconstruct it, then his contention is false. If you cannot, then you can write your congressman to complain about double taxation. |
|
Quoted:
Don't forget that some credit unions are in as bad of shape as banks. Do your research. Oregon credit union - bankrate.com ratings JAFO, thanks for the link. We made our choice based on co-worker's experiences with their credit unions, but without a whole lot of, you know, actual research. I read the bankrate.com report of our new credit union with great interest. Looks like we wound up at a pretty okay place, but there are some stinkers out there. |