Time to Hang the Speculators?

[georgephillip]

I guess what you're missing is that I think the economy should be controlled by investors. Government shouldn't have the power to control the economy.

Who should have the power to coin money?

Whoever wants to. I'd like to see bitcoins takeover as a common currency.

"The debate about public or private control of the monetary system has been going on for hundreds of years,' Armstrong, the executive director of the Public Banking Institute, said when I reached him by phone.

“'The American Revolution had everything to do with who controlled our economic destiny. The money supply is central to that control. North Dakota has proven that a state can use a public bank to further the economic interests of its people.

"'North Dakota funds its own infrastructure and capital investment projects. It provides funding for commercial lending throughout the state. It develops the areas of its economy it wants to prioritize, areas that are often not funded by private banks.'”

Seriously.
Bitcoins?

Chris Hedges: Overthrow the Speculators - Chris Hedges - Truthdig

 

[dblack]

Who should have the power to coin money?

Whoever wants to. I'd like to see bitcoins takeover as a common currency.

"The debate about public or private control of the monetary system has been going on for hundreds of years,' Armstrong, the executive director of the Public Banking Institute, said when I reached him by phone.

“'The American Revolution had everything to do with who controlled our economic destiny. The money supply is central to that control. North Dakota has proven that a state can use a public bank to further the economic interests of its people.

"'North Dakota funds its own infrastructure and capital investment projects. It provides funding for commercial lending throughout the state. It develops the areas of its economy it wants to prioritize, areas that are often not funded by private banks.'”

Seriously.
Bitcoins?

Chris Hedges: Overthrow the Speculators - Chris Hedges - Truthdig

I really wish you'd converse in your own words instead of mostly quotes.

Anyway, yeah.. I think one of the few bright spots on the horizon, in terms of the future of freedom, is keeping economic transactions out of the clutches of banks and governments. If bitcoins, and similar schemes, can do that, we'll all be better off. Unless you're a banker or work for the Fed.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I don't remember who said it...but it is concise statement:
"Markets don't build bubbles, governments do".
In recent history there was the mortgage bubble, that was built by the government guaranteeing loans via the sudo government branches of Freddie and Fannie.
Right now there is the education bubble created by government guaranteeing loans via the sudo government agency Sallie Mae.
Right now there is the entire second financial market bubble created by government backed discount loans and bail outs.
Who lost and who gained?

It might be a good idea to decide who caused subprime mortgages to explode in 2008 before Subprime auto loans do likewise in the near furure

"It is clear to anyone who has studied the financial crisis of 2008 that the private sector’s drive for short-term profit was behind it. More than 84 percent of the sub-prime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending.

"These private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year.

"Out of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006, only one was subject to the usual mortgage laws and regulations.

"The nonbank underwriters made more than 12 million subprime mortgages with a value of nearly $2 trillion.

"The lenders who made these were exempt from federal regulations.

"How then could the Mayor of New York, Michael Bloomberg say the following at a business breakfast in mid-town Manhattan on November 1, 2011..."

Lest We Forget: Why We Had A Financial Crisis - Forbes

I suspect private money bribed politicians for actions like the repeal of Glass Steagall and other corporate friendly legislation to enhance the private profits while socializing the cost (blame) on "government."

The government created the bubble

Fannie and Freddie were the Binary Financial Black holes at the epicenter of the meltdown

 

[georgephillip]

It sounds like your issues are with government. Not sure how hanging investors is going to help.

It seems to me our local, state, and national economies are all controlled by investors (or speculators) and taking control can only be accomplished through "government." (What am I missing?)

I guess what you're missing is that I think the economy should be controlled by investors. Government shouldn't have the power to control the economy.

Is that the same thing as saying there should be no democratic control of the economy?

 

[georgephillip]

I don't remember who said it...but it is concise statement:
"Markets don't build bubbles, governments do".
In recent history there was the mortgage bubble, that was built by the government guaranteeing loans via the sudo government branches of Freddie and Fannie.
Right now there is the education bubble created by government guaranteeing loans via the sudo government agency Sallie Mae.
Right now there is the entire second financial market bubble created by government backed discount loans and bail outs.
Who lost and who gained?

It might be a good idea to decide who caused subprime mortgages to explode in 2008 before Subprime auto loans do likewise in the near furure

"It is clear to anyone who has studied the financial crisis of 2008 that the private sector’s drive for short-term profit was behind it. More than 84 percent of the sub-prime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending.

"These private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year.

"Out of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006, only one was subject to the usual mortgage laws and regulations.

"The nonbank underwriters made more than 12 million subprime mortgages with a value of nearly $2 trillion.

"The lenders who made these were exempt from federal regulations.

"How then could the Mayor of New York, Michael Bloomberg say the following at a business breakfast in mid-town Manhattan on November 1, 2011..."

Lest We Forget: Why We Had A Financial Crisis - Forbes

I suspect private money bribed politicians for actions like the repeal of Glass Steagall and other corporate friendly legislation to enhance the private profits while socializing the cost (blame) on "government."

The government created the bubble

Fannie and Freddie were the Binary Financial Black holes at the epicenter of the meltdown

If it's true Fannie's and Freddie's losses were "only" 200 billion dollars, doesn't that represent "only" a drop in the ocean of all 2007 derivatives "which...amounted to three times the size of the entire global economy."

I'm not saying government didn't do its part by repealing Glass-Steagall in '98, dropping interest rates to 1% following the dot-com scam in 2000, and ignoring fraudulent credit ratings, but all these action were done at the behest of private lenders serving the richest 1% of all Americans.

Lest We Forget: Why We Had A Financial Crisis - Forbes

 

[dblack]

It seems to me our local, state, and national economies are all controlled by investors (or speculators) and taking control can only be accomplished through "government." (What am I missing?)

I guess what you're missing is that I think the economy should be controlled by investors. Government shouldn't have the power to control the economy.

Is that the same thing as saying there should be no democratic control of the economy?

Yes.

Except that, in a way, I consider the distributed, decentralized aggregation of all our personal value decisions to be far more 'democratic' than majority rule. Certainly more respectful of individual differences.

 

[georgephillip]

What are they going to do about it, start their own private investment bank?

Invest in something besides a bank that robs them. People ususally prefer to spend on anything other than something that robs them. You still haven't explained why shareholders don't seem to be bothered by being "robbed."

"Today’s speculators have created grotesque financial mechanisms, from usurious interest rates on loans to legalized accounting fraud, to plunge the masses into crippling forms of debt peonage.

Usarious interest rates? Interest rates have never been lower. How is a 4% 30 yr mortgage usarious?

Debt peonage? Who is being forced to borrow at usarious [4%] rates? You can alwas not-borrow if you think the price is too high. It doesn't seem like robbery if someone is willingly borrowing at an agreed interest rate. And what do usarious interest rates have to do with speculation?



Which public funds are they stealing? GNMA, FMCC, FNMA and the Fed willingly purchase the securities they buy - nobody is stealing from them. Nobody is holding them at gunpoint forcing them to take securities in exchange for cash.



Inflated? A 2% interest rate on a loan for 10 years is just about anything other than a wildly inflated interest rate.

Do explain how over a THOUSAND TRILLION in Derivatives in a few years betted is goof for the world...........

I don't see how they are necessarily good or bad for the world. Why are they bad for the world?

And how it of course didn't have anything to do with the crash of 2008, or the Dot com, y2k, and etc...................

It's all sooooooooooooo Innocent isn't it.........Just the markets man............Hey look, we raised the value of your house man...........It's now worth double what it used to be.................

Yeah, COOL..............POP............All gone................but NO BANKS FAILED MAN...............

16.2 TRILLION in Discount window loans to save the TOO BIG TO FAIL BANKS............sniff sniff.........as they blow up the markets without real economic recovery.........
and a Money Velocity that has basically died since the year 2000

Is this just repetition of some stuff you saw once on a blog?

What's the biggest threat to the US economy, public or private debt?

"That’s why government debt is not a problem right now. With just a small amount of political will, it can be solved pretty easily: more government investments to put people to work and more taxes on the rich so that they pay their fair share again have always solved it in the past.

"On the other hand, private sector debt is a huge problem. Not only is it devastating the livelihoods of millions of Americans around the nation, but it’s also pushing our economy toward collapse.

"After World War 2, total private debt was below 50% of GDP. Today, it’s more than 250% of GDP, which is even higher than it was during the Great Depression.

"There are several reasons for this.

"The first is that when Reagan stopped enforcing the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, businesses started merging and acquiring each other like crazy.

"Because of changes in the rules on how that could be done, Private Equity or LBO firms came into existence, driving the monopolistic merger process with trillions in debt.

"Today virtually every corporate merger involves the company taking on huge debt, while the executives and the Pirate Equity boys take home billions.

"The result is that most of this private sector debt is corporate debt, and it's dangerously high, a teetering, towering house of cards.

"And then there's household debt..."

Private Debt ? Not Government Debt ? Will Destroy America

 

[georgephillip]

I guess what you're missing is that I think the economy should be controlled by investors. Government shouldn't have the power to control the economy.

Is that the same thing as saying there should be no democratic control of the economy?

Yes.

Except that, in a way, I consider the distributed, decentralized aggregation of all our personal value decisions to be far more 'democratic' than majority rule. Certainly more respectful of individual differences.

It seems to me public banks like the State Bank of North Dakota represent a way to redistribute and decentralize the money making process without giving those with huge private fortunes the same leverage in society they would have if we all switched to bitcoins.

How would you regulate the influence of private greed on society if not through some form of government?

 

[dblack]

Is that the same thing as saying there should be no democratic control of the economy?

Yes.

Except that, in a way, I consider the distributed, decentralized aggregation of all our personal value decisions to be far more 'democratic' than majority rule. Certainly more respectful of individual differences.

It seems to me public banks like the State Bank of North Dakota represent a way to redistribute and decentralize the money making process without giving those with huge private fortunes the same leverage in society they would have if we all switched to bitcoins.

How would you regulate the influence of private greed on society if not through some form of government?

I'd regulate the influence of private greed the same way I'd regulate anything else that violates the rights of others. As long as the transactions are voluntary, and no one is being coerced into economic decisions against their will (via government or otherwise), I don't care how rich someone gets.

 

[georgephillip]

Yes.

Except that, in a way, I consider the distributed, decentralized aggregation of all our personal value decisions to be far more 'democratic' than majority rule. Certainly more respectful of individual differences.

It seems to me public banks like the State Bank of North Dakota represent a way to redistribute and decentralize the money making process without giving those with huge private fortunes the same leverage in society they would have if we all switched to bitcoins.

How would you regulate the influence of private greed on society if not through some form of government?

I'd regulate the influence of private greed the same way I'd regulate anything else that violates the rights of others. As long as the transactions are voluntary, and no one is being coerced into economic decisions against their will (via government or otherwise), I don't care how rich someone gets.

Who or what would control the monopoly of violence in the society you're envisioning?
Up until now, the richest individuals of society have controlled that lever.

 

[dblack]

It seems to me public banks like the State Bank of North Dakota represent a way to redistribute and decentralize the money making process without giving those with huge private fortunes the same leverage in society they would have if we all switched to bitcoins.

How would you regulate the influence of private greed on society if not through some form of government?

I'd regulate the influence of private greed the same way I'd regulate anything else that violates the rights of others. As long as the transactions are voluntary, and no one is being coerced into economic decisions against their will (via government or otherwise), I don't care how rich someone gets.

Who or what would control the monopoly of violence in the society you're envisioning?
Up until now, the richest individuals of society have controlled that lever.

Not really. Not to the extent that we've kept government limited in scope. The problem begins when we invite interest groups to use the government to steer the economy in their direction. This is the very reason I'm so adamant about keeping government out of economic decisions and squarely focused on the monopoly of violence. Mixing the two is the source of many of the problems we're faced with today.

 

[georgephillip]

I'd regulate the influence of private greed the same way I'd regulate anything else that violates the rights of others. As long as the transactions are voluntary, and no one is being coerced into economic decisions against their will (via government or otherwise), I don't care how rich someone gets.

Who or what would control the monopoly of violence in the society you're envisioning?
Up until now, the richest individuals of society have controlled that lever.

Not really. Not to the extent that we've kept government limited in scope. The problem begins when we invite interest groups to use the government to steer the economy in their direction. This is the very reason I'm so adamant about keeping government out of economic decisions and squarely focused on the monopoly of violence. Mixing the two is the source of many of the problems we're faced with today.

One of those problem we are faced with today is the influence of corporations and their parasitic relationship with government. For example, a considerable amount of NSA spying has to do with industrial espionage. If government can be described as Dr. Frankenstein and the corporation as his monster, how will we limit the scope of the former without turning over the monopoly of violence to the latter?

 

[editec]

What we are facing is not capitalism, not socialism, not communism, either.

It is basically THEFT disguised as CENTRAL BANKING.

Death to all partisans who think it's the other party screwing our nation.

 

[dblack]

Who or what would control the monopoly of violence in the society you're envisioning?
Up until now, the richest individuals of society have controlled that lever.

Not really. Not to the extent that we've kept government limited in scope. The problem begins when we invite interest groups to use the government to steer the economy in their direction. This is the very reason I'm so adamant about keeping government out of economic decisions and squarely focused on the monopoly of violence. Mixing the two is the source of many of the problems we're faced with today.

One of those problem we are faced with today is the influence of corporations and their parasitic relationship with government. For example, a considerable amount of NSA spying has to do with industrial espionage. If government can be described as Dr. Frankenstein and the corporation as his monster, how will we limited the scope of the former without turning over the monopoly of violence to the latter?

You seem to be assuming that it's somehow reciprocal; that less government control over the economy means more corporate control, and vice versa. And that's where I think I'm seeing it differently. Corporations exercise control over the economy via government, not in spite of it.

 

[JimmieD]

What's the biggest threat to the US economy, public or private debt?

"That’s why government debt is not a problem right now. With just a small amount of political will, it can be solved pretty easily: more government investments to put people to work and more taxes on the rich so that they pay their fair share again have always solved it in the past.

"On the other hand, private sector debt is a huge problem. Not only is it devastating the livelihoods of millions of Americans around the nation, but it’s also pushing our economy toward collapse.

"After World War 2, total private debt was below 50% of GDP. Today, it’s more than 250% of GDP, which is even higher than it was during the Great Depression.

"There are several reasons for this.

"The first is that when Reagan stopped enforcing the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, businesses started merging and acquiring each other like crazy.

"Because of changes in the rules on how that could be done, Private Equity or LBO firms came into existence, driving the monopolistic merger process with trillions in debt.

"Today virtually every corporate merger involves the company taking on huge debt, while the executives and the Pirate Equity boys take home billions.

"The result is that most of this private sector debt is corporate debt, and it's dangerously high, a teetering, towering house of cards.

"And then there's household debt..."

Private Debt ? Not Government Debt ? Will Destroy America

So am I supposed to respond to a point you wish to make or respond to the random quotes you have assembled?

 

[georgephillip]

What we are facing is not capitalism, not socialism, not communism, either.

It is basically THEFT disguised as CENTRAL BANKING.

Death to all partisans who think it's the other party screwing our nation.

Is the problem central banking itself or the way it's applied in the US?
Judging by the results of the State Bank of North Dakota, I'm inclined to believe the latter.

 

[georgephillip]

What's the biggest threat to the US economy, public or private debt?

"That’s why government debt is not a problem right now. With just a small amount of political will, it can be solved pretty easily: more government investments to put people to work and more taxes on the rich so that they pay their fair share again have always solved it in the past.

"On the other hand, private sector debt is a huge problem. Not only is it devastating the livelihoods of millions of Americans around the nation, but it’s also pushing our economy toward collapse.

"After World War 2, total private debt was below 50% of GDP. Today, it’s more than 250% of GDP, which is even higher than it was during the Great Depression.

"There are several reasons for this.

"The first is that when Reagan stopped enforcing the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, businesses started merging and acquiring each other like crazy.

"Because of changes in the rules on how that could be done, Private Equity or LBO firms came into existence, driving the monopolistic merger process with trillions in debt.

"Today virtually every corporate merger involves the company taking on huge debt, while the executives and the Pirate Equity boys take home billions.

"The result is that most of this private sector debt is corporate debt, and it's dangerously high, a teetering, towering house of cards.

"And then there's household debt..."

Private Debt ? Not Government Debt ? Will Destroy America

So am I supposed to respond to a point you wish to make or respond to the random quotes you have assembled?

Do you believe public or private debt poses the greatest threat to the US economy today?

 

[georgephillip]

Not really. Not to the extent that we've kept government limited in scope. The problem begins when we invite interest groups to use the government to steer the economy in their direction. This is the very reason I'm so adamant about keeping government out of economic decisions and squarely focused on the monopoly of violence. Mixing the two is the source of many of the problems we're faced with today.

One of those problem we are faced with today is the influence of corporations and their parasitic relationship with government. For example, a considerable amount of NSA spying has to do with industrial espionage. If government can be described as Dr. Frankenstein and the corporation as his monster, how will we limited the scope of the former without turning over the monopoly of violence to the latter?

You seem to be assuming that it's somehow reciprocal; that less government control over the economy means more corporate control, and vice versa. And that's where I think I'm seeing it differently. Corporations exercise control over the economy via government, not in spite of it.

In the days immediately following Hurricane Katrina, corporate security made it presence felt in Louisiana:

" Some, like Blackwater (which has since redubbed itself Xe), were under federal contract, while a host of others answered to wealthy residents and businessmen who had departed well before Katrina and needed help protecting their property from the suffering masses left behind.

"According Jeremy Scahill's reporting in The Nation, Blackwater set up an HQ in downtown New Orleans.

"Armed as they would be in Iraq, with automatic rifles, guns strapped to legs, and pockets overflowing with ammo, Blackwater contractors drove around in SUVs and unmarked cars with no license plates.

"'When asked what authority they were operating under,'' Scahill reported, 'one guy said, "We're on contract with the Department of Homeland Security." Then, pointing to one of his comrades, he said, "He was even deputized by the governor of the state of Louisiana. We can make arrests and use lethal force if we deem it necessary." The man then held up the gold Louisiana law enforcement badge he wore around his neck.'''

I've heard the allegation that law enforcement, prosecutions, and incarcerations could be handled more efficiently in private instead of public hands.

This seems to me like moving away from the very limited democratic control over our private lives that we have today in this country

The Secret History of Hurricane Katrina | Mother Jones

 

[dblack]

One of those problem we are faced with today is the influence of corporations and their parasitic relationship with government. For example, a considerable amount of NSA spying has to do with industrial espionage. If government can be described as Dr. Frankenstein and the corporation as his monster, how will we limited the scope of the former without turning over the monopoly of violence to the latter?

You seem to be assuming that it's somehow reciprocal; that less government control over the economy means more corporate control, and vice versa. And that's where I think I'm seeing it differently. Corporations exercise control over the economy via government, not in spite of it.

In the days immediately following Hurricane Katrina, corporate security made it presence felt in Louisiana:

" Some, like Blackwater (which has since redubbed itself Xe), were under federal contract, while a host of others answered to wealthy residents and businessmen who had departed well before Katrina and needed help protecting their property from the suffering masses left behind.

"According Jeremy Scahill's reporting in The Nation, Blackwater set up an HQ in downtown New Orleans.

"Armed as they would be in Iraq, with automatic rifles, guns strapped to legs, and pockets overflowing with ammo, Blackwater contractors drove around in SUVs and unmarked cars with no license plates.

"'When asked what authority they were operating under,'' Scahill reported, 'one guy said, "We're on contract with the Department of Homeland Security." Then, pointing to one of his comrades, he said, "He was even deputized by the governor of the state of Louisiana. We can make arrests and use lethal force if we deem it necessary." The man then held up the gold Louisiana law enforcement badge he wore around his neck.'''

I've heard the allegation that law enforcement, prosecutions, and incarcerations could be handled more efficiently in private instead of public hands.

This seems to me like moving away from the very limited democratic control over our private lives that we have today in this country

The Secret History of Hurricane Katrina | Mother Jones

I'm really not sure what you're getting at. Privatizing policing and other functions of justice (prisons, etc...) is idiocy - I agree with that. What does that have to do with the OP?

 

[georgephillip]

Not really. Not to the extent that we've kept government limited in scope. The problem begins when we invite interest groups to use the government to steer the economy in their direction. This is the very reason I'm so adamant about keeping government out of economic decisions and squarely focused on the monopoly of violence. Mixing the two is the source of many of the problems we're faced with today.

One of those problem we are faced with today is the influence of corporations and their parasitic relationship with government. For example, a considerable amount of NSA spying has to do with industrial espionage. If government can be described as Dr. Frankenstein and the corporation as his monster, how will we limited the scope of the former without turning over the monopoly of violence to the latter?

You seem to be assuming that it's somehow reciprocal; that less government control over the economy means more corporate control, and vice versa. And that's where I think I'm seeing it differently. Corporations exercise control over the economy via government, not in spite of it.

Actually, dblack, I had completely forgotten what the OP was.
Let me take another shot at this.

If corporations exercise control over the economy via government how will shrinking Dr. Frankenstein (government) reduce the (corporate) power of his monster?