Consumers Turn Table on Bankers

[Apeman81]

I don't think it would be a bad idea to literally break up the big banks (ie separate them into a larger number of smaller banks).

And regulate the crap out of their practices.

Naturally. Government control of such things as say, mortgages, has yielded such wonderful results

[ironeagle]

I have a better idea how about people stop using the banks if they feel the banks are ruining the country and stealing for profit. If we just did not use their serices wouldn't that break the banks? I don't care who is or is not unemployed when it comes to protecting America against theft and tyranny. The question is when are we going to demand effective regulation that profits the people and the banks and not just policies that either allow fraud on the consumer by protecting the banks too much or over regulation that makes the banks have to commit fraud to make a buck?

[grandpa]

I have a better idea how about people stop using
the banks if they feel the banks are ruining the
country and stealing for profit.
If we just did not use their serices wouldn't that
break the banks?

I think you head in the right direction, but I don't think everyone even can instantly 'stop using the banks." They certainly should try. I myself don't have a bank account, and have never had one, so there's some proof of it's being an option.

The problem is, those ruining the economy are largely running it. Banks own a lot of property. If you challenge the banks too much, they'll say you are infringing their legal rights and you are a thief, and countless other charges.

Those banks are private businesses, but they have plenty of legal (that is, government) protection.

Grandpa h.

[Senor Hoint]

Naturally. Government control of such things as say, mortgages, has yielded such wonderful results

When the regulation of the financial sector established in the 1930s was repealed, the direct effect of that was a series of economic recessions, culminating in the most recent collapse. During the decades when those regulations were in place nothing remotely like the most recent crisis happened.

[Apeman81]

So the recessions of 45, 49, 53, 57, 60, 69, 73, 80 did not occur?

The most recent crisis was the direct result of government interference in the home loan industry, not only via the mismanagement of Mae and Mac, but through the imposition of reduced standards for loans.

It is further exacerbated via government intervention in the form of unclear future costs of employment through increased taxation via "Obamacare" and actual and proposed increases in rates of taxation and other costs.

And let's not forget more than 5 trillion dollars of deficit targetless deficit spending.

[Dieval]

Because some people have enough sense to realize that their job is going to suck no matter where they go. Instead of being good sheep and working they're going to try to improve their lives for once.

Not following your logic...

And just what is different about it? If you think about it, what is suggested in the OP is exactly what the GOP are doing to government. And what good does it do anyone to have that many people added to unemployment?

I'll give you that unemployment is bad when it occurs, but we need far fewer people employed by the government and far more in the private sector.

[Dodds]

I'll give you that unemployment is bad when it occurs, but we need far fewer people employed by the government and far more in the private sector.

And we need fewer people employed by one bank. Also why does the US, with its crumbling infrastructure, high crime rates and poor education results, need less people employed by the government?

[Dodds]

So the recessions of 45, 49, 53, 57, 60, 69, 73, 80 did not occur?

Completely different recessions.

The most recent crisis was the direct result of government interference in the home loan industry, not only via the mismanagement of Mae and Mac, but through the imposition of reduced standards for loans.

Complete and utter bollocks.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/reales...ZMQ_story.html

It was greed in the PRIVATE sector, including the credit agencies who are now targeting Europe, combined with a lack of regulation that caused the crash.

It is further exacerbated via government intervention in the form of unclear future costs of employment through increased taxation via "Obamacare" and actual and proposed increases in rates of taxation and other costs.

First off Obamacare has very little government mandates and is modeled on a GOP policy, secondly the US economy is growing, thirdly the tax hikes were only on the richest. The UK raised taxes on the richest in 2008 from40% to 50% and the UK economy rebounded back then.

Wait

And let's not forget more than 5 trillion dollars of deficit targetless deficit spending.

Look up whats happening to the US deficit as a percentage of GDP. What you forget is the multiplier effect.

http://www.economy.com/dismal/articl...760&src=ce_asp

As I said complete and utter bollocks.

[Dieval]

And we need fewer people employed by one bank.

Why?

Also why does the US, with its crumbling infrastructure, high crime rates and poor education results, need less people employed by the government?

Spending is out of control. The government (and the people working for it) do not create income. They only spend spend spend. See the problem?

What do those (questionable) details have to do with your question?

[Dieval]

Completely different recessions.



Complete and utter bollocks.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/reales...ZMQ_story.html

It was greed in the PRIVATE sector, including the credit agencies who are now targeting Europe, combined with a lack of regulation that caused the crash.


As I said complete and utter bollocks.

I guess it all depends on who you listen to.

Myth 1: The government-sponsored housing finance companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had nothing to do with the housing crisis. They were simply innocent bystanders caught in the crossfire. Economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, for instance, has argued that Fannie and Freddie’s role in the housing market was insignificant between 2004 and 2006 because “they pulled back sharply after 2003, just when housing really got crazy.” According to Krugman, Fannie and Freddie “largely faded from the scene during the height of the housing bubble.”

Fact 1: Fannie and Freddie contributed to the housing crisis by making it easier for more people to take out loans for houses they could not afford. Beginning in 2000, Fannie and Freddie took on loans with low FICO scores, loans with low down payments, and loans with little or no documentation.

The federal government’s role in the housing market goes back at least to 1938, but that role changed fundamentally in the 1990s when the government made a push to increase homeownership in the United States. At that time, the federal government pursued several policies that were meant to encourage banks to lend money to lower income earners and to give incentives to low income earners to buy houses. The result, as we now know, was a gigantic amount of subprime mortgages at a time when house prices were starting to go down.

In addition, lawmakers in both parties enacted policies directed at increasing home ownership rates, resulting in lower mortgage underwriting standards for Fannie and Freddie. Roberts notes that from 2000 on, Fannie and Freddie bought loans with low FICO scores, loans with very low down payments, and loans with little or no documentation. Contrary to Paul Krugman’s assertions, Fannie and Freddie did not “fade away” or “pull back sharply” between 2004 and 2006.

http://reason.com/archives/2011/03/0...fre/singlepage

[Apeman81]

Completely different recessions.



Complete and utter bollocks.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/reales...ZMQ_story.html

It was greed in the PRIVATE sector, including the credit agencies who are now targeting Europe, combined with a lack of regulation that caused the crash.



First off Obamacare has very little government mandates and is modeled on a GOP policy, secondly the US economy is growing, thirdly the tax hikes were only on the richest. The UK raised taxes on the richest in 2008 from40% to 50% and the UK economy rebounded back then.



Look up whats happening to the US deficit as a percentage of GDP. What you forget is the multiplier effect.

http://www.economy.com/dismal/articl...760&src=ce_asp

As I said complete and utter bollocks.

Same old crap, Dodds!

Show me the economic theory that promotes debt over 100% of GDP.

And the one that promotes continued, annual non targeted deficit spending.

Otherwise, it's just your dream. And you're welcome to live it alone.

[Dodds]

Why?

Seriously? Ok the banking sector is a large part of the US economy, the banks are heavily indebted to each other, when one large bank fails we are looking at a global financial catastrophe like the one in 2008. If the banks were smaller there would be less of an impact on the economy as a whole.

Spending is out of control.

The deficit is falling in both monetary terms and as a percentage of GDP, I would call that under control. I guess you won't though.

The government (and the people working for it) do not create income. They only spend spend spend. See the problem?

You worked for a bank right? If you show this lack of understanding of economics it is no wonder the system failed. Have you ever heard of the multiplier effect? In simple terms it is the effect of every dollar spent by the government and the effect that has on the economy as a whole. Example would be a teachers wage. They would then take that wage and spend it in a shop. The shop owner would then take the income and spend it on whatever and so on and so forth. Therefore your assertion of government not creating wealth is flat out wrong.

What do those (questionable) details have to do with your question?

Questionable?

Infrastructure:

http://www.courierpress.com/news/201...1-10-inches-p/

Crime rates:

Doing better but still lagging behind Europe.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cr...e-total-crimes

Education.

Seems you guys can read but not do maths.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datab...cience-reading


Anyways, these things are all problems that the government can solve. Yet you don't want them to by the looks of things.