CDZ What have banks to do with Capitalism?

[Dekster]

I am not sure you understand the basis of currency after having read your posts, or have a sound theory on the basis of currency's value. Banks are a system of currency distribution. This whole bank vs. innovation isn't even close enough to reality to even be called apples to oranges.

You are welcome to inform me about what apparently it is that I do not understand. I can then rate and thank your post accordingly.

I had not intended to present the topic as a contrast. In fact, the quote about competition in the OP was meant to make that clear.

The idea proposed was that banks are an example of stability, or firm establishment, therefore not having to do anything about Capitalism, and yet assuring it in it's unstable baby steps with its successful project, and perhaps even serving as an indirect example of innovation, since they relate to and depend on an extensive diversity of businesses and peoples, but do not associate themselves directly with that diversity.

Your post is making no sense to me after having read it 5 times. Socialist countries have banks. Communist countries have banks. I am not sure why you think banks are so closely tied with capitalism. I doubt you could find a country that does not have a bank but they are not all capitalists countries.

 

[Holos]

Banks produce a multitude of Financial Products for the various strata of society, so the answer is yes.
Plus I know MANY people who work for Banks and Banks live for Fees and Commissions, NOT innovation.

I am only aware of one financial product that banks produce: currency, also known as money.

Can you give me example of other financial products that banks produce?

If banks were to be Capitalistic Entities as you have proposed within the presented context, they would have to accept some measure of innovation, since that is the definition we are using to continue our discuss.

Banks DO NOT produce Currency.
They pay to borrow currency and charge to lend it out.

That's actually an interesting point for contention.
I think it is fair for you to correct me in respect to the terms previously used.

I believe that ideally we would be ascribing currency production to the Federal Reserves.

 

[Indeependent]

Banks produce a multitude of Financial Products for the various strata of society, so the answer is yes.
Plus I know MANY people who work for Banks and Banks live for Fees and Commissions, NOT innovation.

I am only aware of one financial product that banks produce: currency, also known as money.

Can you give me example of other financial products that banks produce?

If banks were to be Capitalistic Entities as you have proposed within the presented context, they would have to accept some measure of innovation, since that is the definition we are using to continue our discuss.

Do you consider Mortgages or Lines of Credit as Products?
If not, think again.
These Products are marketed to make money, NOT to create innovations for society.
You are young and see innovation going on around you with every passing day.
Prior to the mid-2000s such was NOT the case.
In fact, most successful businesses, including Banks, AVOIDED innovation to avoid losses.

Loans are not products. They are conducts.

A product can have a final and simple end (purpose), that is, it can remain unaltered when concluded. A conduct is only a mid-end (process), and has the specialized purpose to be continually altered, even after conclusion.

That's what Mortgages and Lines of Credit are, complex processes; loans.

Also, your last phrase is a repetition of what is written in the OP.

Then renting a car out for a day is also a process.

 

[Holos]

I am not sure you understand the basis of currency after having read your posts, or have a sound theory on the basis of currency's value. Banks are a system of currency distribution. This whole bank vs. innovation isn't even close enough to reality to even be called apples to oranges.

You are welcome to inform me about what apparently it is that I do not understand. I can then rate and thank your post accordingly.

I had not intended to present the topic as a contrast. In fact, the quote about competition in the OP was meant to make that clear.

The idea proposed was that banks are an example of stability, or firm establishment, therefore not having to do anything about Capitalism, and yet assuring it in it's unstable baby steps with its successful project, and perhaps even serving as an indirect example of innovation, since they relate to and depend on an extensive diversity of businesses and peoples, but do not associate themselves directly with that diversity.

Your post is making no sense to me after having read it 5 times. Socialist countries have banks. Communist countries have banks. I am not sure why you think banks are so closely tied with capitalism. I doubt you could find a country that does not have a bank but they are not all capitalists countries.

I know where you are coming from.

Any political system has en economic system.
Capitalism is primarily a political system, as Socialism and Communism also are.

Banks happen to be especially relevant in this case to the comprehension of Capitalism because Capitalism is a political system envisioning economic integrity, and banks are a good example of economic integrity, since you can most likely find them in any politically motivated country, as you have stated yourself.

 

[Holos]

Banks produce a multitude of Financial Products for the various strata of society, so the answer is yes.
Plus I know MANY people who work for Banks and Banks live for Fees and Commissions, NOT innovation.

I am only aware of one financial product that banks produce: currency, also known as money.

Can you give me example of other financial products that banks produce?

If banks were to be Capitalistic Entities as you have proposed within the presented context, they would have to accept some measure of innovation, since that is the definition we are using to continue our discuss.

Do you consider Mortgages or Lines of Credit as Products?
If not, think again.
These Products are marketed to make money, NOT to create innovations for society.
You are young and see innovation going on around you with every passing day.
Prior to the mid-2000s such was NOT the case.
In fact, most successful businesses, including Banks, AVOIDED innovation to avoid losses.

Loans are not products. They are conducts.

A product can have a final and simple end (purpose), that is, it can remain unaltered when concluded. A conduct is only a mid-end (process), and has the specialized purpose to be continually altered, even after conclusion.

That's what Mortgages and Lines of Credit are, complex processes; loans.

Also, your last phrase is a repetition of what is written in the OP.

Then renting a car out for a day is also a process.

Yes, indeed it is.

 

[Indeependent]

Banks produce a multitude of Financial Products for the various strata of society, so the answer is yes.
Plus I know MANY people who work for Banks and Banks live for Fees and Commissions, NOT innovation.

I am only aware of one financial product that banks produce: currency, also known as money.

Can you give me example of other financial products that banks produce?

If banks were to be Capitalistic Entities as you have proposed within the presented context, they would have to accept some measure of innovation, since that is the definition we are using to continue our discuss.

Do you consider Mortgages or Lines of Credit as Products?
If not, think again.
These Products are marketed to make money, NOT to create innovations for society.
You are young and see innovation going on around you with every passing day.
Prior to the mid-2000s such was NOT the case.
In fact, most successful businesses, including Banks, AVOIDED innovation to avoid losses.

Loans are not products. They are conducts.

A product can have a final and simple end (purpose), that is, it can remain unaltered when concluded. A conduct is only a mid-end (process), and has the specialized purpose to be continually altered, even after conclusion.

That's what Mortgages and Lines of Credit are, complex processes; loans.

Also, your last phrase is a repetition of what is written in the OP.

Then renting a car out for a day is also a process.

Yes, indeed it is.

Before we continue this discussion...
Are you in college?
Have you seen The Wolf Of Wall Street?

 

[Holos]

I am only aware of one financial product that banks produce: currency, also known as money.

Can you give me example of other financial products that banks produce?

If banks were to be Capitalistic Entities as you have proposed within the presented context, they would have to accept some measure of innovation, since that is the definition we are using to continue our discuss.

Do you consider Mortgages or Lines of Credit as Products?
If not, think again.
These Products are marketed to make money, NOT to create innovations for society.
You are young and see innovation going on around you with every passing day.
Prior to the mid-2000s such was NOT the case.
In fact, most successful businesses, including Banks, AVOIDED innovation to avoid losses.

Loans are not products. They are conducts.

A product can have a final and simple end (purpose), that is, it can remain unaltered when concluded. A conduct is only a mid-end (process), and has the specialized purpose to be continually altered, even after conclusion.

That's what Mortgages and Lines of Credit are, complex processes; loans.

Also, your last phrase is a repetition of what is written in the OP.

Then renting a car out for a day is also a process.

Yes, indeed it is.

Before we continue this discussion...
Are you in college?
Have you seen The Wolf Of Wall Street?

I believe it is plausible for me to answer yes to both of those questions, although my previous education would endeavor to argue, and perhaps eventually conclude disagreement (no as the answer to both questions) is a greater conductor for the continuity of our discussion.

Take either yes or no, but let us continue with the discussion...

 

[Indeependent]

Do you consider Mortgages or Lines of Credit as Products?
If not, think again.
These Products are marketed to make money, NOT to create innovations for society.
You are young and see innovation going on around you with every passing day.
Prior to the mid-2000s such was NOT the case.
In fact, most successful businesses, including Banks, AVOIDED innovation to avoid losses.

Loans are not products. They are conducts.

A product can have a final and simple end (purpose), that is, it can remain unaltered when concluded. A conduct is only a mid-end (process), and has the specialized purpose to be continually altered, even after conclusion.

That's what Mortgages and Lines of Credit are, complex processes; loans.

Also, your last phrase is a repetition of what is written in the OP.

Then renting a car out for a day is also a process.

Yes, indeed it is.

Before we continue this discussion...
Are you in college?
Have you seen The Wolf Of Wall Street?

I believe it is plausible for me to answer yes to both of those questions, although my previous education would endeavor to argue and perhaps eventually conclude to disagree.

Financial Institutions DO NOT audit actual sites and products of those who apply for Commercial Loans.
They WILL have an Inspector eyeball a house for which one requests a Mortgage.
So Companesi A through ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ come in and ask for MILLIONS in Loans and need provide ZERO concrete proof that they even have a base of Operations.
I know because I worked with a multitude of Loan Officers who lived off of Database Reports and NEVER eyeballed the actual operation.
To believe that Loans, in anyplace other than a textbook, are complex operations, is to believe that Funhouse Mirrors reflect the truth.

But NEVER tell that to your Professor.

 

[Holos]

Loans are not products. They are conducts.

A product can have a final and simple end (purpose), that is, it can remain unaltered when concluded. A conduct is only a mid-end (process), and has the specialized purpose to be continually altered, even after conclusion.

That's what Mortgages and Lines of Credit are, complex processes; loans.

Also, your last phrase is a repetition of what is written in the OP.

Then renting a car out for a day is also a process.

Yes, indeed it is.

Before we continue this discussion...
Are you in college?
Have you seen The Wolf Of Wall Street?

I believe it is plausible for me to answer yes to both of those questions, although my previous education would endeavor to argue and perhaps eventually conclude to disagree.

Financial Institutions DO NOT audit actual sites and products of those who apply for Commercial Loans.
They WILL have an Inspector eyeball a house for which one requests a Mortgage.
So Companesi A through ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ come in and ask for MILLIONS in Loans and need provide ZERO concrete proof that they even have a base of Operations.
I know because I worked with a multitude of Loan Officers who lived off of Database Reports and NEVER eyeballed the actual operation.
To believe that Loans, in anyplace other than a textbook, are complex operations, is to believe that Funhouse Mirrors reflect the truth.

But NEVER tell that to your Professor.

I concur, but let the Professor be paid too, will you?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Nothing.

"Capitalism is a system of largely private ownership that is open to new ideas, new firms and new owners—in short, to new capital. Capitalism’s rationale to proponents and critics alike has long been recognized to be its dynamism, that is, its innovations and, more subtly, its selectiveness in the innovations it tries out. At the same time, capitalism is also known for its tendency to generate instability, often associated with the existence of financial crises, job insecurity and failures to include the disadvantaged."

"Competition, it appears, is not sufficient for economic dynamism."

"The essence of capitalism’s innovations was uncovered by [...] Friedrich Hayek [who] saw it as a core feature that, under capitalism, entrepreneurs are self-selected, aided by their particular experience and driven by their distinctive visions. [...] a state investment bank would not be well-suited to select among entrepreneurs’ projects: being accountable to the central government for its mistakes, it would avoid all the very innovative proposals because of the ambiguity of the evidence for them and thus the uncertainty of their profitability."

Theory of Capitalism | The Center on Capitalism and Society


Does Capitalism then really have a tendency to generate instability? Why?
Would you argue for any central bank's functional presence within Capitalism?

Well .... food for thought:

What Trump's team of advisers tells us about his economic plan

From the link:

Donald Trump's list of economic advisers includes hedge-fund managers, billionaire bankers, and an oil tycoon, but only one economist with a doctorate and no women.

The Q is: What effect does it have on democracy.

 

[Holos]

Nothing.

"Capitalism is a system of largely private ownership that is open to new ideas, new firms and new owners—in short, to new capital. Capitalism’s rationale to proponents and critics alike has long been recognized to be its dynamism, that is, its innovations and, more subtly, its selectiveness in the innovations it tries out. At the same time, capitalism is also known for its tendency to generate instability, often associated with the existence of financial crises, job insecurity and failures to include the disadvantaged."

"Competition, it appears, is not sufficient for economic dynamism."

"The essence of capitalism’s innovations was uncovered by [...] Friedrich Hayek [who] saw it as a core feature that, under capitalism, entrepreneurs are self-selected, aided by their particular experience and driven by their distinctive visions. [...] a state investment bank would not be well-suited to select among entrepreneurs’ projects: being accountable to the central government for its mistakes, it would avoid all the very innovative proposals because of the ambiguity of the evidence for them and thus the uncertainty of their profitability."

Theory of Capitalism | The Center on Capitalism and Society


Does Capitalism then really have a tendency to generate instability? Why?
Would you argue for any central bank's functional presence within Capitalism?

Well .... food for thought:

What Trump's team of advisers tells us about his economic plan

From the link:

Donald Trump's list of economic advisers includes hedge-fund managers, billionaire bankers, and an oil tycoon, but only one economist with a doctorate and no women.

The Q is: What effect does it have on democracy.

Is the Question referring to the website you have linked, Wry Catcher?

If yes, then the effect appears to be null if we are to consider sovereign individual citizenship, which caters to individuals who are able to speak to their own plans, unless we are already well prepared to democratically integrate multiple operating professional groups into a single and individual citizenship.

In other words, to effectively and democratically comprehend what the website linked is suggesting and therefore know its beneficial effect, an individual citizen must be able to recognize and adopt those suggestions as their very own.

To know and understand of Trump's economic plan, according to the linked website, one must analyze and verify his proposals through the perspective of those citizen categories mentioned therein.

If the question does not refer to the website you have linked, then please clarify the question.

 

[320 Years of History]

I think you'll find the following documents quite helpful with arriving at an informed and objective answer to the questions you posed in your OP.

• A Critique of the “Varieties of Capitalism” Approach
  
• What Do Banks Do? What Should Banks Do?
  
• A new map of the financial world and why it matters -- Be careful about "jumping on board" with some of the ideas presented in this paper for it was written with particular focus on the British economy. One should understand the differences between UK and US banking and business environments before drawing parallels and U.S.-specific inferences from it.
  
• A Brief History of Investment Banking from Medieval Times to the Present
  
• The Financial Power Elite
• Defining Corporate Social Responsibility: A Systems Approach For Socially Responsible Capitalism
  
• The Origins of Banking Panics: Models, Facts, and Bank Regulation

 

[Wry Catcher]

Nothing.

"Capitalism is a system of largely private ownership that is open to new ideas, new firms and new owners—in short, to new capital. Capitalism’s rationale to proponents and critics alike has long been recognized to be its dynamism, that is, its innovations and, more subtly, its selectiveness in the innovations it tries out. At the same time, capitalism is also known for its tendency to generate instability, often associated with the existence of financial crises, job insecurity and failures to include the disadvantaged."

"Competition, it appears, is not sufficient for economic dynamism."

"The essence of capitalism’s innovations was uncovered by [...] Friedrich Hayek [who] saw it as a core feature that, under capitalism, entrepreneurs are self-selected, aided by their particular experience and driven by their distinctive visions. [...] a state investment bank would not be well-suited to select among entrepreneurs’ projects: being accountable to the central government for its mistakes, it would avoid all the very innovative proposals because of the ambiguity of the evidence for them and thus the uncertainty of their profitability."

Theory of Capitalism | The Center on Capitalism and Society


Does Capitalism then really have a tendency to generate instability? Why?
Would you argue for any central bank's functional presence within Capitalism?

Well .... food for thought:

What Trump's team of advisers tells us about his economic plan

From the link:

Donald Trump's list of economic advisers includes hedge-fund managers, billionaire bankers, and an oil tycoon, but only one economist with a doctorate and no women.

The Q is: What effect does it have on democracy.

Is the Question referring to the website you have linked, Wry Catcher?

If yes, then the effect appears to be null if we are to consider sovereign individual citizenship, which caters to individuals who are able to speak to their own plans, unless we are already well prepared to democratically integrate multiple operating professional groups into a single and individual citizenship.

In other words, to effectively and democratically comprehend what the website linked is suggesting and therefore know its beneficial effect, an individual citizen must be able to recognize and adopt those suggestions as their very own.

To know and understand of Trump's economic plan, according to the linked website, one must analyze and verify his proposals through the perspective of those citizen categories mentioned therein.

If the question does not refer to the website you have linked, then please clarify the question.

Yes, the link does speak quite loudly to Trump's advisors and to two Supreme Court Decisions (CU & McCutcheon v. FEC) on their impact on our democratic institution, to wit: Voting. Your circumlocution post seems to approach word salad, is that intentional or did you learn English as an adult?

 

[Holos]

Nothing.

"Capitalism is a system of largely private ownership that is open to new ideas, new firms and new owners—in short, to new capital. Capitalism’s rationale to proponents and critics alike has long been recognized to be its dynamism, that is, its innovations and, more subtly, its selectiveness in the innovations it tries out. At the same time, capitalism is also known for its tendency to generate instability, often associated with the existence of financial crises, job insecurity and failures to include the disadvantaged."

"Competition, it appears, is not sufficient for economic dynamism."

"The essence of capitalism’s innovations was uncovered by [...] Friedrich Hayek [who] saw it as a core feature that, under capitalism, entrepreneurs are self-selected, aided by their particular experience and driven by their distinctive visions. [...] a state investment bank would not be well-suited to select among entrepreneurs’ projects: being accountable to the central government for its mistakes, it would avoid all the very innovative proposals because of the ambiguity of the evidence for them and thus the uncertainty of their profitability."

Theory of Capitalism | The Center on Capitalism and Society


Does Capitalism then really have a tendency to generate instability? Why?
Would you argue for any central bank's functional presence within Capitalism?

Well .... food for thought:

What Trump's team of advisers tells us about his economic plan

From the link:

Donald Trump's list of economic advisers includes hedge-fund managers, billionaire bankers, and an oil tycoon, but only one economist with a doctorate and no women.

The Q is: What effect does it have on democracy.

Is the Question referring to the website you have linked, Wry Catcher?

If yes, then the effect appears to be null if we are to consider sovereign individual citizenship, which caters to individuals who are able to speak to their own plans, unless we are already well prepared to democratically integrate multiple operating professional groups into a single and individual citizenship.

In other words, to effectively and democratically comprehend what the website linked is suggesting and therefore know its beneficial effect, an individual citizen must be able to recognize and adopt those suggestions as their very own.

To know and understand of Trump's economic plan, according to the linked website, one must analyze and verify his proposals through the perspective of those citizen categories mentioned therein.

If the question does not refer to the website you have linked, then please clarify the question.

Yes, the link does speak quite loudly to Trump's advisors and to two Supreme Court Decisions (CU & McCutcheon v. FEC) on their impact on our democratic institution, to wit: Voting. Your circumlocution post seems to approach word salad, is that intentional or did you learn English as an adult?

I do not know if you or any other board member here are adults, so I must treat all of you as children, including the rawest and the aged of them food word caterers.

These posts are of public access, and there is no way for me to restrict their exposition to a single prospecting member such as yourself, but instead I must consider the totality of the American public which would find benefit in knowing more about politics from a stable and basic literati foundation.

Not all English speaking Americans are actually engaged in the constant evolution of the English language. Take yourself as an example. You never answered any of the questions in the OP, and yet proposed a loose complementary article in the attempt to assist with the development of the topic.

You have indeed informed me, but you have not contributed to the OP.

 

[320 Years of History]

I do not know if you or any other board member here are adults, so I must treat all of you as children, including the rawest and the aged of them food word caterers.

LOL I take the other approach -- assuming that the audience here consists mostly of well informed, mature and adept critical thinkers -- yet that approach also doesn't appear to be the right one. LOL

 

[Holos]

well informed, mature and adept critical thinkers

Children.

 

[320 Years of History]

well informed, mature and adept critical thinkers

Children.

??? I have no idea what your one word reply in your mind means with regard to the passage you quoted.

 

[Holos]

well informed, mature and adept critical thinkers

Children.

??? I have no idea what your one word reply in your mind means with regard to the passage you quoted.

You mentioned that you would take the "other" approach, that of assuming there were no children involved or to be involved in these posts; that children were indeed misinformed, underdeveloped, and frail thinkers, therefore requiring the "otherly", but "also (two times) inappropriate" alternative measure.

I retained what was important in your post, and prompted by your confusion cleared the prospecting presentation of my previous post which had not been fully comprehended.

Is it clear now?

I should have included the abbreviation "i.e.", or the words and the comma "that is," for ready literati ease, but the effect of making sure the previous message had been comprehended would perhaps not be the same.

 

[320 Years of History]

well informed, mature and adept critical thinkers

Children.

??? I have no idea what your one word reply in your mind means with regard to the passage you quoted.

You mentioned that you would take the "other" approach, that of assuming there were no children involved or to be involved in these posts; that children were indeed misinformed, underdeveloped, and frail thinkers, therefore requiring the "otherly", but "also (two times) inappropriate" alternative measure.

I retained what was important in your post, and prompted by your confusion cleared the prospecting presentation of my previous post which had not been fully comprehended.

Is it clear now?

I should have included the abbreviation "i.e.", or the words and the comma "that is," for ready literati ease, but the effect of making sure the previous message had been comprehended would perhaps not be the same.

Red:
Not entirely, but I've also decided I don't care if it is not at this point.

 

[Holos]

well informed, mature and adept critical thinkers

Children.

??? I have no idea what your one word reply in your mind means with regard to the passage you quoted.

You mentioned that you would take the "other" approach, that of assuming there were no children involved or to be involved in these posts; that children were indeed misinformed, underdeveloped, and frail thinkers, therefore requiring the "otherly", but "also (two times) inappropriate" alternative measure.

I retained what was important in your post, and prompted by your confusion cleared the prospecting presentation of my previous post which had not been fully comprehended.

Is it clear now?

I should have included the abbreviation "i.e.", or the words and the comma "that is," for ready literati ease, but the effect of making sure the previous message had been comprehended would perhaps not be the same.

Red:
Not entirely, but I've also decided I don't care if it is not at this point.

Do you still care for the OP's topic, or do you think that discussion has also already reached its determining end?