Skip to main content

View Diary: Naked Capitalism: "...Democrat Bank Stooges Launch Bills to Permit Bailouts, Deregulate Derivatives" (109 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  so do I (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lostinamerica

    Better still, I understand the lessons of history.

    Andrew Jackson. Jefferson. Mayer Amschel Rothschild. Bank of England.

    You can't tell me that private banking cartels controlling a nation's money supply is progressive, no matter what you think you know about banking history.

    The "extreme wing" of the Democratic Party is the wing that is hell-bent on protecting the banks and credit card companies. ~ Kos

    by ozsea1 on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 07:52:05 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Seriously, you don't know shit. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kovie, johnny wurster, kefauver

      There was a free banking era in the US - 1837-1862 when private bankers did control the money supply.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/...

      During the free banking era, the banks were short-lived compared to today's commercial banks, with an average lifespan of five years. About half of the banks failed, and about a third of which went out of business because they could not redeem their notes.[2] (See also "Wildcat banking".)

      During the free banking era, some local banks took over the functions of a central bank. In New York, the New York Safety Fund provided deposit insurance for member banks. In Boston, the Suffolk Bank guaranteed that bank notes would trade at near par value, and acted as a private bank note clearinghouse.

      Since progressives stepped in the banking system has been under federal control.

      "The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." - Thomas Paine

      by shrike on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 08:03:34 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  yeah, there were "panics" every ten years or so (0+ / 0-)

        this "free banking" system that you speak of was unregulated in the extreme.

        And so the solution?

        Privatize the money supply? So the private banking cartels can skim off the top of the nation's money?

        Pregressive? Really?

        You're the one that doesn't understand shit.

        The "extreme wing" of the Democratic Party is the wing that is hell-bent on protecting the banks and credit card companies. ~ Kos

        by ozsea1 on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 08:17:51 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Jefferson and Jackson were wrong, deeply so (0+ / 0-)

      both drastically cut federal spending to balance the budget and tried to kill the Bank of the US (Jackson succeeded, Jefferson failed), and in so doing caused huge recessions and monetary problems.

      "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

      by kovie on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 10:09:33 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  hmmm (0+ / 0-)

        I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.
        Thomas Jefferson, (Attributed)

        The "extreme wing" of the Democratic Party is the wing that is hell-bent on protecting the banks and credit card companies. ~ Kos

        by ozsea1 on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 08:18:26 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  And we have a modern world without banks how? (0+ / 0-)

          Everything can be bad if poorly done and unregulated. We need banks like we need air to have a modern world. They fuel the economy. We'd be back to the early middle ages without finance. And Jefferson had no credibility to talk about money, having been terrible at personal AND national finance and been in debt most of his life for reasons entirely of his own making.

          We need banks. We need to regulate banks. End of discussion.

          "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

          by kovie on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 08:54:23 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Public and regulated banking, fine (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            kovie

            Privatized control of our national money  - the commons - where "overhead" is charged as the cost of doing "business", is not.

            Please note that I never advocated doing away with the banking system. As you note, we wouldn't have a "modern world" without it.

            Please see "The History of Money"  - the wiki article isn't too bad.....

            http://en.wikipedia.org/..._(book)

            On that, I hope that we can agree.

            The "extreme wing" of the Democratic Party is the wing that is hell-bent on protecting the banks and credit card companies. ~ Kos

            by ozsea1 on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 10:21:06 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  On this we agree (0+ / 0-)

              Public and regulated banking. Which, in theory, we have. In practice, we do not, as the banks control the government and the fed, indirectly but just as effectively. I have no problem with private banking too. In fact we absolutely need it. But it too has to be heavily regulated.

              "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

              by kovie on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 11:17:11 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site