Greek banks closed

[jaybird88]

Are you suggesting the banks operate as non-profits? And the interest charged banks by the Fed helps pay for the Fed's operation, so there is no government money spent on a quasi-public entity that wasn't supposed to be tax-supported.

i think they are for profit which is precisely my point.

You benefit from it, among others. If the bank is able to make money on offering loans, small businesses are able to acquire operating capital and start-up costs through loans providing them money they otherwise would have no access to, and only giant corporations would be in business. But the giant corporations all began as someone's start-up, too, didn't they?

if i benefit then please explain why the gap between the masses and the few is so big? and why has it grown so fast in the last 20 years? im the last 20 years we had more banking regulation cut than ever before

I'm not sure I can give you a crash course in free enterprise on a message board. I've already answered that question as best I can without posting a textbook with my first two responses here.

do you really need a textbook to look out the window and see the economy is terrible? but its not bad for the rich, they are making fortunes!

That isn't how it worked at all, before the Fed. Before the Fed came into being, we had the First Bank of the United States, in existence from 1791 to 1811, and the Second Bank of the U.S., from 1817-1837. Both had 20-year charters. Both were initially funded by a purchase of 20% of the stock by the U.S. government. But the remaining 80% of the stock of both banks was up for grabs, giving the wealthiest investors in the country control of the U.S. banking system. Ironically, that's exactly what people accuse the Fed of being today, and it simply is not so.

fed, central bank, 1st bank, are all the same thing with different names. they were abolished as they were completely corrupt, andrew jackson called them a den of vipers, why would he say that and why would he think they were such a big threat?

That's a myth perpetuated by the conspiracy theorists who don't even bother to look into the history of the banking system in the U.S., and make stuff up when they can't figure out any other way to disparage the system.

so if a conspiracy theorist said the world was round you wouldnt believe it? the truth is exactly that no matter who says it. i read about the history of banking, i remember a story about jeckell island.

Also a myth, for the same reasons.

the roman empire was never corrupt?

Nope, they weren't bankers. They were crooked businessmen who robbed from the poor Temple goers by claiming to "judge" the quality of their sacrifice. Of course they always found it wanting, and sold them a "flawless" sacrifice" in exchange for their animal and cash. Sometime soon thereafter, they resold that same animal to another unsuspecting Temple goer. Jesus, in fact, endorsed the ancient banks of that time in His Parable of the Talents. Go read that to see what I'm talking about.

money changers were bankers in those days. there was no citi bank in 15 AD. so the Son of the Almighty blessed the banks? so the most righteous people must be on wall street?

My bank is working in my best interest. They've proven that time and time again, and they work within the system you obviously want torn down. We've tried other systems. They did not work at all. So if you wish to cling to your conspiracy theories, Jay, I won't try to talk you out of them, but I'd urge you to actually learn about the system you hate before you make wild claims that you can't support. No offense, brother, but that is exactly what you're doing. God bless.

if they are working for you great , but for the majority of us they are not. i wouldnt call 700 billion bailouts "working great", and who pays those bailouts, the masses. i dont want the system torn down, i only want them to follow rules like everyone else, the very rules they have payed billions over the years through lobbying to have torn down.
simple logic is far from wild claims.

 

[Viligant_Warrior]

i think they are for profit which is precisely my point.

If they weren't "for profit," there wouldn't be any banks.

if i benefit then please explain why the gap between the masses and the few is so big? and why has it grown so fast in the last 20 years? im the last 20 years we had more banking regulation cut than ever before

The economic gap has absolutely nothing to do with the banking system or the Fed. It has to do with individual responsibility, willingness to work, invest, get educated, challenge yourself, take risks like starting one's own business.

Big corporations have always been big, and they aren't any bigger comparatively speaking than they've ever been. There have always been extremely rich individuals who hold more capital than the next 80% of the people behind them combined. There's nothing immoral about making money. Immorality only comes into the equation if money is your god.

Banking regulations have actually gotten stricter over the last 20 years, except in the case of Barney Frank's hair-brained idea that wound up law, loosening the lending requirements for people who weren't qualified to get a home loan. They got them anyway, couldn't pay them back, and the economy collapsed. Any idiot should have know that would be the outcome.

do you really need a textbook to look out the window and see the economy is terrible? but its not bad for the rich, they are making fortunes!

The economy is terrible because the people who create jobs -- big and small business alike -- have no confidence this administration's economic policies will sustain them if they expand facilities, production, or hiring. And the truth is, this administration's economic policies won't. So they don't do any of that. And the rich aren't "making fortunes" in this economy. Their reserves do go a lot farther than those who don't have a great deal of wealth, but the middle class is sustaining, even in this economy.

fed, central bank, 1st bank, are all the same thing with different names. they were abolished as they were completely corrupt, andrew jackson called them a den of vipers, why would he say that and why would he think they were such a big threat?

I gave you the reasons those first national banks were closed down. I also told you how the Fed has safeguards built into its structure that prevents that kind of corruption from infecting it. Either you didn't read it, or you don't believe it, but I've given you the facts.

so if a conspiracy theorist said the world was round you wouldnt believe it?

That's the problem with the way you folk argue. That's completely irrelevant.

the truth is exactly that no matter who says it. i read about the history of banking, i remember a story about jeckell island.

Maybe you'd like to share it so I'd know what the heck you're talking about?

the roman empire was never corrupt?

We aren't talking about the Roman Empire, we're talking about the history of banking in the U.S., remember?

money changers were bankers in those days. there was no citi bank in 15 AD.

You're wrong, but you at least have an excuse. Most translations do a poor job of rendering the words, and many lexicons poorly define them.

Matthew 25, NASB
27 'Then you ought to have put my money in the bank, and on my arrival I would have received my money back with interest."​

In Matthew 21:12, for example, the Greek kollubisteß (kollubistes) is translated "money changers" and that is accurate. But the word in this verse is trapeziteß (trapezites) and while it is defined also as "money changer," this was not a person, but an institution, and it was an instutution that functioned very much like a modern bank.

so the Son of the Almighty blessed the banks?

As I just showed you, yes He did.

so the most righteous people must be on wall street?

You seem to love engaging in logical fallacies when you can't come up with a reasoned response. Why should I continue conversing with you?

if they are working for you great , but for the majority of us they are not.

You can speak for yourself, but not for the majority, unless you're George Gallup and you can produce a poll with those results.

The majority of registered voters says they are not confident in the economy. Extending that lack of confidence to the banks is a stretch you have no basis for claiming.

i wouldnt call 700 billion bailouts "working great", and who pays those bailouts, the masses.

Blame Barney Frank and the greedy and now out-of-business banks that caused the housing bubble. But since they don't exist, and Barney isn't in office anymore, I guess you're out of luck.

i dont want the system torn down, i only want them to follow rules like everyone else, the very rules they have payed billions over the years through lobbying to have torn down.

As I've repeatedly told you, and as you can discover for yourself with some reasoned research -- not the hyperbole you like to engage in nor the logical fallacies you favor as "arguments" -- you'll find out for yourself I'm telling you the truth.

simple logic is far from wild claims.

When you show some, I'll listen. Until then, all you've got are wild claims.

 

[jaybird88]

If they weren't "for profit," there wouldn't be any banks.

yes an independent bank but we are talking about the fed which is supposedly goverment, and your saying it should be to make as much profit as possible? off the citizens? funded off tax payers to make profits off tax payers? i dont agree

The economic gap has absolutely nothing to do with the banking system or the Fed. It has to do with individual responsibility, willingness to work, invest, get educated, challenge yourself, take risks like starting one's own business.

it has everything to do with it when they are the ones that issue all the currency. the more they issue the richer they get and the masses get poorer as the value of their money goes down. the inflation makes no difference to the banks as the more money they issue the more interest they get.

Big corporations have always been big, and they aren't any bigger comparatively speaking than they've ever been. There have always been extremely rich individuals who hold more capital than the next 80% of the people behind them combined. There's nothing immoral about making money. Immorality only comes into the equation if money is your god.

they are bigger than ever. most citys that had 2-3 newspapers now only have one, only 4-5 food companies, drug companies, etc etc. they are merging together faster than ever

Banking regulations have actually gotten stricter over the last 20 years, except in the case of Barney Frank's hair-brained idea that wound up law, loosening the lending requirements for people who weren't qualified to get a home loan. They got them anyway, couldn't pay them back, and the economy collapsed. Any idiot should have know that would be the outcome.

so all the lobby money banks have thrown at congress got them more regulations? that makes no sense at all. im not buying that.

I gave you the reasons those first national banks were closed down. I also told you how the Fed has safeguards built into its structure that prevents that kind of corruption from infecting it. Either you didn't read it, or you don't believe it, but I've given you the facts.

the point i was making is they were central banks which they were

That's the problem with the way you folk argue. That's completely irrelevant.

if its truth it is completely repellent. but you avoided the question

We aren't talking about the Roman Empire, we're talking about the history of banking in the U.S., remember?

i was pointing out whats being done now has been done before. but you avoided the question

You're wrong, but you at least have an excuse. Most translations do a poor job of rendering the words, and many lexicons poorly define them.

Matthew 25, NASB
27 'Then you ought to have put my money in the bank, and on my arrival I would have received my money back with interest."​

In Matthew 21:12, for example, the Greek kollubisteß (kollubistes) is translated "money changers" and that is accurate. But the word in this verse is trapeziteß (trapezites) and while it is defined also as "money changer," this was not a person, but an institution, and it was an instutution that functioned very much like a modern bank.
As I just showed you, yes He did.

i dont interpert Him as blessing banks but of you see it that way no worries. i cant speak for our Lord but in my opinion living a life of greed, loving money and obsessing over how many bags of gold you own, is not a proper example of being a Christian.

You seem to love engaging in logical fallacies when you can't come up with a reasoned response. Why should I continue conversing with you?

i was making a point that you didnt seem to get.

As I've repeatedly told you, and as you can discover for yourself with some reasoned research -- not the hyperbole you like to engage in nor the logical fallacies you favor as "arguments" -- you'll find out for yourself I'm telling you the truth

When you show some, I'll listen. Until then, all you've got are wild claims.

i showed you plenty yet you ignored what i said with childish insults. i do understand where you come from. i to was raised to believe the deception until i started reading it for myself and seen it was mostly garbage.

 

[didymos]

AP reports that as of Sunday, all Greek banks are closed indefinitely and limits placed on withdrawals. How will this effect the stock market Monday?

This is madness...