Thread: Banking on America

When I said you should read up on this, I should have been more specific--I didn't mean to sound as insulting as I did. I wasn't talking so much about the history of the situation (which I'm always for anyone reading anyway) as I was about the current situation itself.

I don't think you grasp the fundamentals of what's going on--you're talking about how the rich are going to be largely unaffected (several very rich people are pissing their pants right now), how this is all very easy to sort out (it's probably going to take years to sort it out--a frightful number of economists are saying how no one has any idea what the hell is going to happen, and tracing all this toxic paper back to its source as you suggest is not an easy, cheap, or small task--it will probably take years and a lot of work), and how you're set on assigning blame over solving the problem ("These people and their businesses failed--they shouldn't receive any of our money!"--totally true, but you're ignoring the fact that there may be reason to believe that if those people and their businesses fail, you won't be able to get money out of an ATM tomorrow. Or next week. Or next month. And by next year, we'll all be fighting each other in the Thunderdome. So, uh, going "IT'S YOUR FAULT, DIE FUCKERS DIE!" might be morally satisfying, but I don't think that should really be our primary concern).

As I said, I probably don't command an exceptionally superior understanding of the situation than you do, but I'm not writing essays about it--you are. If that's what you want to do, I think you owe it to yourself to do research on the subject you're writing about, and make sure you understand exactly what it is you're saying.

Some good starting points are looking into the Glass-Steagall Act (Banking Act of 1933) and the connection between speculative banks and commercial banks; I think that the incestuous marriage between these two entities is at the root of the problem. That, and a belief in a perpetually growing economy--we can constantly borrow more and more from the future, because the future will always be rosy and bright. Oh, and the slow but steady erosion of all the regulations FDR and friends set up after the Great Depression when they realized just how crazy this shit could get.

In the end, what I'm saying is this situation is far more complicated than what you're describing. Reducing it to a 'RICH PEOPLE CONTROL AMERICA WAKE UP SHEEPLE' sort of essay really does a disservice to the sheer enormity of the problem we're facing as a country and as a global economy.

What's clear is that this was caused not by some sinister conspiracy of the uber-rich intent on making slaves out of us all--but a bunch of short sighted assholes with a lot of capital and very few moral qualms. Those very same short sighted assholes are very, very nervous right now, and we should be too--because their short-sightedness may have repurcussions that extend far beyond their imaginary money.

Interesting view point. Like others mentioned start a radio show or a blog.

If it were really that interesting, a radio show would be out of the question.

Originally Posted by DeVorn

When I said you should read up on this, I should have been more specific--I didn't mean to sound as insulting as I did. I wasn't talking so much about the history of the situation (which I'm always for anyone reading anyway) as I was about the current situation itself.

I don't think you grasp the fundamentals of what's going on--you're talking about how the rich are going to be largely unaffected (several very rich people are pissing their pants right now), how this is all very easy to sort out (it's probably going to take years to sort it out--a frightful number of economists are saying how no one has any idea what the hell is going to happen, and tracing all this toxic paper back to its source as you suggest is not an easy, cheap, or small task--it will probably take years and a lot of work), and how you're set on assigning blame over solving the problem ("These people and their businesses failed--they shouldn't receive any of our money!"--totally true, but you're ignoring the fact that there may be reason to believe that if those people and their businesses fail, you won't be able to get money out of an ATM tomorrow. Or next week. Or next month. And by next year, we'll all be fighting each other in the Thunderdome. So, uh, going "IT'S YOUR FAULT, DIE FUCKERS DIE!" might be morally satisfying, but I don't think that should really be our primary concern).

As I said, I probably don't command an exceptionally superior understanding of the situation than you do, but I'm not writing essays about it--you are. If that's what you want to do, I think you owe it to yourself to do research on the subject you're writing about, and make sure you understand exactly what it is you're saying.

Some good starting points are looking into the Glass-Steagall Act (Banking Act of 1933) and the connection between speculative banks and commercial banks; I think that the incestuous marriage between these two entities is at the root of the problem. That, and a belief in a perpetually growing economy--we can constantly borrow more and more from the future, because the future will always be rosy and bright. Oh, and the slow but steady erosion of all the regulations FDR and friends set up after the Great Depression when they realized just how crazy this shit could get.

In the end, what I'm saying is this situation is far more complicated than what you're describing. Reducing it to a 'RICH PEOPLE CONTROL AMERICA WAKE UP SHEEPLE' sort of essay really does a disservice to the sheer enormity of the problem we're facing as a country and as a global economy.

What's clear is that this was caused not by some sinister conspiracy of the uber-rich intent on making slaves out of us all--but a bunch of short sighted assholes with a lot of capital and very few moral qualms. Those very same short sighted assholes are very, very nervous right now, and we should be too--because their short-sightedness may have repurcussions that extend far beyond their imaginary money.

I'll say this and let you have the last word, with thanks for the crits. You don't think I grasp the fundamentals, and I don't think you grasp the realities.

Glass-Steagall is getting tossed around on blogs a lot right now, but it is a red herring if you consider the ultimate reality that the currency only has value in the human imagination to begin with.

Remember, just because you are paranoid doesn't mean they are not following you. The rich really do run things. But you can't define rich in loose terms and get the picture. The rich motherfuckers that supposedly ran WAMU into ground were bought out by JP Morgan. In 1907 the original Morgan orchestrated the run on banks and consolidated a great deal of power and money in the process by scavanging the carcasses of the crppled institutions left in the wake (all rich themselves but not as connected and powerful as Morgan).

My arguement is not simply to deny a bailout (moot as hell anyway) but is indeed WAKE THE FUCK UP SHEEPLE. (just as moot since those in comas don't need to wake up, they need to come to).

The trick, amigo, is not in the fine point analysis of the mechanics of the downfall. The media will put more spin on that than three hours of Fox News fair and balanced bullshit. The trick is simply in observing where the money and power goes in the aftermath. Those quasi-rich guys pissing in their pants right now are just as much sheeple as the rest of the world.

DeVorn: "What's clear is that this was caused not by some sinister conspiracy of the uber-rich intent on making slaves out of us all..."

I truly hope you don't honestly believe that. If you do, please study political history. I'm not trying to be condescending here, I'm pleading. Governments in every country on the planet have historically gone to incredible lengths to decieve their people, and the US is hardly an exception.

Dig up the financial history of the Rothschilds, DuPonts, J.P. Morgan and Salmon P. Chase. Research it, study it, and see where all the dots connect.

In the meantime, here's an analogy upon which to contemplate.

Someone gives you a puzzle, with all the pieces turned so that the picture side is down, away from you, and you can't see it. Unless you can turn those pieces over, you'll never see all the hundreds or thousands of little pictures on the other side. And if you can't see those...you can never complete the puzzle, and see the big picture.

I've been turning those pieces over for at least fifteen years, and it looks to me like Mr. Burnham has been busy at it as well. Once those pieces start fitting together (not being forced together, but fitting together), then the big picture begins to take form.

Truth is much stranger than fiction, indeed.

John.

Ignoring the politics, as an essay it lacks something. I've heard everything there before, of course, with the same issue, and the issue I have with a lot of essays.

You want to convince me what you are saying, but you provide no facts, only rhetoric. The world is full of rhetoric, and there are certainly a lot of essays that share this trait, but rhetoric doesn't convince anyone who doesn't already agree, and alienates those who don't. If that was your target, then you are in good shape.