Why are the banks still private?

Original post by pizzle223

Why?

This is still ridiculous. It is basically the main reason the world is in the current state it's in.

Because it was governments de regulating things that allowed it to happen.

consider the bank as a child. The government as the parent. Parent says to the child no more sweets before dinner, leaves the sweets on the table and leaves the room. End result child eats the sweets. A prime example of de regulation.

for proper regulation , the parent locks the sweets away.

for an example of what happens with nationalised banks lease look at the Soviet Union...... Oh yes, you can't because it no longer exists as it failed.

Reply 4

danny111

3

Original post by pizzle223

Why?

This is still ridiculous. It is basically the main reason the world is in the current state it's in.

Public economies have never succeeded. You know how much Russia benefited from opening up?

Reply 5

Error4001

Original post by MatureStudent36

Because it was governments de regulating things that allowed it to happen.

consider the bank as a child. The government as the parent. Parent says to the child no more sweets before dinner, leaves the sweets on the table and leaves the room. End result child eats the sweets. A prime example of de regulation.

for proper regulation , the parent locks the sweets away.

for an example of what happens with nationalised banks lease look at the Soviet Union...... Oh yes, you can't because it no longer exists as it failed.

What if the parents "discipline" the child instead of locking the sweets away?

In that scenario, the sweets are still there which the child can eat if he/she is good but they won't be eaten on a constant basis.

That to me seems much more reasonable instead of locking the sweets away.

Reply 6

pol pot noodles

19

Original post by pizzle223

Why?

This is still ridiculous. It is basically the main reason the world is in the current state it's in.

Is it? I'm pretty sure ownership of the banks is not the reason.

Reply 7

Error4001

Original post by danny111

Public economies have never succeeded. You know how much Russia benefited from opening up?

So we should keep them private?

Reply 8

Original post by danny111

Public economies have never succeeded. You know how much Russia benefited from opening up?

There's a huge difference between the state-socialist model of the USSR and the social democratic principle of nationalising failed banks.

Original post by pizzle223

Why?

This is still ridiculous. It is basically the main reason the world is in the current state it's in.

Because the rules of the market only apply to people who don't benefit from them, basically. Check out a lecture by Chomsky about the State-Corporate model. If financial elites were to actually play by the rules they are proponents of, they'd stop being elites. Allowing banks (and any failing industry) to collapse is first and foremost a neoliberal market principle (or at least in theory it is), yet despite this, politicians refuse to allow it to happen because, well, guess who pays their party's campaign bills. Allowing private banks to collapse (enabling the bond holders, rather than the tax payer, to pick up the problems that they caused) and then nationalising them is a perfectly feasible model that took Iceland from the deepest recession in history to the quickest recovery from a recession in history. If this were to happen (which it wouldn't, because the political spectrum in Britain and the USA has shifted far, far, far to the right) parties would lose the financial support that they enjoy in exchange for making the 'right' policies as far as the financial industry is concerned.

May I add that TSR is the worst place ever for productive and meaningful political discussion, and that you should seek greener pastures.

Nobody should bother responding to me with an inane and fallacious market-centric argument as is the norm in TSR threads of this ilk.

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 9

Original post by danny111

Iceland is broke dawg.

Nope. Try and read a news article from the last 2 years, please.

Reply 10

Original post by Error4001

What if the parents "discipline" the child instead of locking the sweets away?

In that scenario, the sweets are still there which the child can eat if he/she is good but they won't be eaten on a constant basis.

That to me seems much more reasonable instead of locking the sweets away.

Possibility. But at the moment we'd be trying to discipline a child who's ill because they mistakingly washed it down with bleach and are in a and e. discipline can only be used when they're better.

Reply 11

Original post by slothcity

Nope. Try and read a news article from the last 2 years, please.

Iceland defaulted in their debts. So yes, they have improved since, but you can do that when you walk away from your responsibilities

Reply 12

Error4001

Original post by MatureStudent36

Possibility. But at the moment we'd be trying to discipline a child who's ill because they mistakingly washed it down with bleach and are in a and e. discipline can only be used when they're better.

So how do we get the child out of a deteriorating coma?

Are there any new drugs on the market which may work without compromising our ethical/moral values?

Reply 13

Original post by MatureStudent36

Iceland defaulted in their debts.

The idea that the Icelandic people had some sort of 'responsibility' to pick up the tab for the failings of corrupt private bankers is absurd. It was the private banks that defaulted on the debts they created, and it was private bond holders that ended up shouldering the cost of it. This demonstrates you have a limited knowledge of what actually happened. It was not 'Iceland' (I assume you mean the State or the Icelandic people) in any meaningful sense. Again, what you say is not strictly true. As I advised the other respondent, please read about how Iceland actually solved its debt crisis before attempting to make an informed (or, in this case, uninformed) response.

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 14

Original post by Error4001

So how do we get the child out of a deteriorating coma?

Are there any new drugs on the market which may work without compromising our ethical/moral values?

Time is a great healer. Banks have pretty much recapitalized now. They're just getting their confidence back about lending. Once they start lending again things wil improve

Reply 15

Original post by slothcity

The idea that the Icelandic people had some sort of 'responsibility' to pick up the tab for the failings of corrupt private bankers is absurd. It was the private banks that defaulted on the debts they created, and it was private bond holders that ended up shouldering the cost of it. This demonstrates you have a limited knowledge of what actually happened. It was not 'Iceland' (I assume you mean the State or the Icelandic people) in any meaningful sense. Again, that is not strictly true. As I advised the other respondent, please read about how Iceland actually solved its debt crisis before attempting to make an informed (or, in this case, uninformed) response.

Oh sorry. You're right. It was the IMF that picked up the bill for that one.

Reply 16

Greenlaner

11

Original post by pizzle223

Why?

This is still ridiculous. It is basically the main reason the world is in the current state it's in.

"The man who controls Britain's money supply, controls the British Empire. And I control Britain's money supply"

- Nathan Rothschild (allegedly. Doesn't really matter who said it though, its still the truth).

Reply 17