Break up the banks: Gee, do ya think?

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by lustylad

The Fed's profit each year (it earned over $100 billion in 2015 thanks to QE) is remitted to the US Treasury - i.e. the taxpayers!


As for the idea of breaking up the large banks, am I the only person who appreciates the IRONY of this? The reason J.P. Morgan and Bank of America et alia bulked up in the first place is because they were stiff-armed by the US government (more specifically, by Hank Paulson and Ben Bernanke) to buy failing institutions back in 2008! And now the same government wants to bust them up?

No good deed goes unpunished!

And how in the fuck can any self-respecting Libertarian favor letting the federal government step in anytime it feels like it and arbitrarily tell any successful business or financial institution it is too big to fail and therefore must be broken up? That's way too much power!

The IRONY of all this astonishes me!

There's no irony in it at all.

Your right to swing your arm in the air ends where my nose begins. So your freedom is limited by actions causing harm to me. Every libertarian agrees with that.

The big investment banks (i.e., Goldman Sachs, Wells Fargo) aren't real persons like you and me - they are creatures of the law, in particular, corporate law. They got that big because mergers and acquisitions approved by government MADE them that big. And, of course, they use their HUGE financial resources to bribe both parties to leave them alone and all them to reap huge profits. They even draft legislation on behalf of legislators to make it even easier for them to introduce bills.

But they have made themselves so big that if they fail they cause massive harm to the economy, including ME. I don't have to sit idly by while they swing their arm and hope they don't hit me in the nose. And some point, enormous financial institutions become a threat to everyone's financials well-being. And it is NOT because they are a natural monopoly (like Microsoft used to be) that came into being because everybody wanted what they were selling.

If a $100 billion big bank is broken up into ten $10 billion small banks, every shareholder gets stock in the new banks of equal value. No one loses money, so there is no "taking" that violates the takings clause of the Constitution. If you don't want stock in one or more of the smaller companies, you can always sell it and get your money back.

But the smaller banks now compete with each other rather than cooperate with each other to rig the system. If the top 5-6 biggest investment banks are broken up into 40, 50 or 60 smaller ones it will be far harder for them to come to any kind of sweetheart arrangements with Congress and among themselves.

They compete, their profit margins are thinner so they have less cash to throw around at Congress. And the cost of their services is lowered, so consumers gain. And if 2, 3, 4 or 5 of them fail, there are still 40-50 left to provide financial services.

We all gain by the removal of a common thread.

A financial oligarchy is a threat to my liberty, too. Not just big government. Because they usually go hand-in-hand in reducing people's freedom and threatening their financial well-being.

And the big banks were not exactly strong-armed (not "stiff armed") into buying the assets of the failing banks. First, the liquidity crisis was threatening to take THEM down, too. They wanted the government to provide a safety net for them also. The government let them buy the assets on the cheap and underwrote their risk. The government also printed money willy nilly and handed it over to the banks. You may recall that the big criticism of the banks in the early days of the financial crisis was that the banks took all of the government money and kept it as a hedge on their own positions rather than loan it out (the way the government expected) in order to get the economy jump-started fast. Yet another reason why the recovery has been so slow.

If you want to start reducing the power of government, you have to start by reducing the power of the government's handmaidens. Although some may reasonably say it is government that is the handmaiden of the banks.

[CuteOldGuy]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

http://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/about_14986.htm


"The Federal Reserve System fulfills its public mission as an independent entity within government. It is not "owned" by anyone and is not a private, profit-making institution.

"As the nation's central bank, the Federal Reserve derives its authority from the Congress of the United States. It is considered an independent central bank because its monetary policy decisions do not have to be approved by the President or anyone else in the executive or legislative branches of government, it does not receive funding appropriated by the Congress, and the terms of the members of the Board of Governors span multiple presidential and congressional terms.

"However, the Federal Reserve is subject to oversight by the Congress, which often reviews the Federal Reserve's activities and can alter its responsibilities by statute. Therefore, the Federal Reserve can be more accurately described as "independent within the government" rather than "independent of government."

"The 12 regional Federal Reserve Banks, which were established by the Congress as the operating arms of the nation's central banking system, are organized similarly to private corporations--possibly leading to some confusion about "ownership." For example, the Reserve Banks issue shares of stock to member banks. However, owning Reserve Bank stock is quite different from owning stock in a private company. The Reserve Banks are not operated for profit, and ownership of a certain amount of stock is, by law, a condition of membership in the System. The stock may not be sold, traded, or pledged as security for a loan; dividends are, by law, 6 percent per year.

Wow! From the FED itself! Well, it must be true! Thanks for getting the truthful answer from the FED!


Jesus, you are gullible. Go ahead. Government loves you.

[CuteOldGuy]

Originally Posted by lustylad

The Fed's profit each year (it earned over $100 billion in 2015 thanks to QE) is remitted to the US Treasury - i.e. the taxpayers!


As for the idea of breaking up the large banks, am I the only person who appreciates the IRONY of this? The reason J.P. Morgan and Bank of America et alia bulked up in the first place is because they were stiff-armed by the US government (more specifically, by Hank Paulson and Ben Bernanke) to buy failing institutions back in 2008! And now the same government wants to bust them up?

No good deed goes unpunished!

And how in the fuck can any self-respecting Libertarian favor letting the federal government step in anytime it feels like it and arbitrarily tell any successful business or financial institution it is too big to fail and therefore must be broken up? That's way too much power!

The IRONY of all this astonishes me!

The prime directive of Libertarianism is that no one has the right to deprive another of their life, liberty or property by force or fraud. These major banks are full of fraud, and are depriving people of liberty and property. It is completely Libertarian to investigate and break them up if the evidence supports it.


The only irony is your reliance and trust in government. These banks are part OWNERS of the government. Oh, sorry. Check a government source and "prove" me wrong.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Wow! From the FED itself! Well, it must be true! Thanks for getting the truthful answer from the FED!


Jesus, you are gullible. Go ahead. Government loves you.

Would you rather have the Statutory and/or Regulatory provisions, ...

............or a report from the General Accounting Office?

Or do you want to stick with "your expertise" expressed on a hooker board?

Shall we begin at the beginning or start in 2016?

I prefer "the beginning"... aka The Federal Reserve Act: 12 U.S.C. Chapt 3, Subchapt I @ § 222:

The continental United States, excluding Alaska, shall be divided into not less than eight nor more than twelve districts. Such districts may be readjusted and new districts may from time to time be created by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, not to exceed twelve in all:

Provided
, That the districts shall be apportioned with due regard to the convenience and customary course of business and shall not necessarily be coterminous with any State or States. Such districts shall be known as Federal reserve districts and may be designated by number. When the State of Alaska or Hawaii is hereafter admitted to the Union the Federal Reserve [1] districts shall be readjusted by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System in such manner as to include such State. Every national bank in any State shall, upon commencing business or within ninety days after admission into the Union of the State in which it is located, become a member bank of the Federal Reserve System by subscribing and paying for stock in the Federal Reserve bank of its district in accordance with the provisions of this chapter and shall thereupon be an insured bank under the Federal Deposit Insurance Act [12 U.S.C. 1811 et seq.], and failure to do so shall subject such bank to the penalty provided by section 501a of this title." (Dec. 23, 1913 etc.)

That almost sounds like having to buy health insurance or pay a fine! Except in the Obamacare rubric the IRS does the "auditing" of the citizens while in the Federal Banking System rubric the "Feds" audit the "member banks"!

I'll change "sources" just to keep it "fair and balanced" ... so "we" know there is no collusion!!!

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE...pII-sec241.pdf

12 USC. § 241 ("Banks and Banking")
"SUBCHAPTER II—BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM

§ 241. Creation; membership; compensation and expenses
The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (hereinafter referred to as the ‘‘Board’’) shall be composed of seven members, to be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, after August 23, 1935, for terms of fourteen years except as hereinafter provided, but each appointive member of the Federal Reserve Board in office on such date shall continue to serve as a member of the Board until February 1, 1936, and the Secretary of the Treasury and the Comptroller of the Cur- rency shall continue to serve as members of the Board until February 1, 1936. In selecting the members of the Board, not more than one of whom shall be selected from any one Federal Reserve district, the President shall have due regard to a fair representation of the financial, agricultural, industrial, and commercial inter- ests, and geographical divisions of the country. The members of the Board shall devote their en- tire time to the business of the Board and shall each receive basic compensation at the rate of $15,000 per annum, payable monthly, together with actual necessary traveling expenses. (Dec. 23, 1913, ch. 6, § 10 (par.), 38 Stat. 260; June 3, 1922, ch. 205, 42 Stat. 620; Aug. 23, 1935, ch. 614, title II, § 203(b), 49 Stat. 704.)

CODIFICATION
Section is comprised of first par. of section 10 of act Dec. 23, 1913. Pars. 2–7 and 8 of
section 10; par. 9 of sec- tion 10, as added June 3, 1922, ch. 205, 42 Stat. 621; par.
10 of section 10, as added Aug. 23, 1935, ch. 614, § 203(d),
49 Stat. 705; and par. (12) of section 10, as added Pub. L.
111–203, title XI, § 1108(b), July 21, 2010, 124 Stat. 2126, are classified to sections 242 to
247, 1, 522, 247a, and 247b, respectively, of this title. No par. between pars. (10) and (12) has
been enacted.

AMENDMENTS
1935—Act Aug. 23, 1935, § 203(b), increased the appoint- ive membership from six to seven,
terminated the membership of the Secretary of the Treasury and the Comptroller of the
Currency, raised the tenure from twelve to fourteen years and increased the annual sal-
ary from $12,000 to $15,000."

COG, you probably didn't like Scalia much did you?

[CuteOldGuy]

Oh. You're talking about that Act that Woodrow Wilson regretted, aren't you? The Central Bank that our Founders warned against. What has it grown into? Find another government source. Pacify yourself.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Oh. You're talking about that Act that Woodrow Wilson regretted, aren't you?

That was amended right on up to 2010? Yes that one!....

"as added Pub. L. 111–203, title XI, § 1108(b), July 21, 2010, 124 Stat. 2126,"

"government source"?

You don't like the website and you don't like the Statute when they are contrary to the bullshit you post on here! Right, COG?

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Wow! From the FED itself! Well, it must be true! Thanks for getting the truthful answer from the FED!


Jesus, you are gullible. Go ahead. Government loves you.

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Would you rather have the Statutory and/or Regulatory provisions, ...

............or a report from the General Accounting Office?

Or do you want to stick with "your expertise" expressed on a hooker board?

Shall we begin at the beginning or start in 2016?

I prefer "the beginning"... aka The Federal Reserve Act: 12 U.S.C. Chapt 3, Subchapt I @ § 222:

The continental United States, excluding Alaska, shall be divided into not less than eight nor more than twelve districts. Such districts may be readjusted and new districts may from time to time be created by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, not to exceed twelve in all:

Provided
, That the districts shall be apportioned with due regard to the convenience and customary course of business and shall not necessarily be coterminous with any State or States. Such districts shall be known as Federal reserve districts and may be designated by number. When the State of Alaska or Hawaii is hereafter admitted to the Union the Federal Reserve [1] districts shall be readjusted by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System in such manner as to include such State. Every national bank in any State shall, upon commencing business or within ninety days after admission into the Union of the State in which it is located, become a member bank of the Federal Reserve System by subscribing and paying for stock in the Federal Reserve bank of its district in accordance with the provisions of this chapter and shall thereupon be an insured bank under the Federal Deposit Insurance Act [12 U.S.C. 1811 et seq.], and failure to do so shall subject such bank to the penalty provided by section 501a of this title." (Dec. 23, 1913 etc.)

That almost sounds like having to buy health insurance or pay a fine! Except in the Obamacare rubric the IRS does the "auditing" of the citizens while in the Federal Banking System rubric the "Feds" audit the "member banks"!

I'll change "sources" just to keep it "fair and balanced" ... so "we" know there is no collusion!!!

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE...pII-sec241.pdf

12 USC. § 241 ("Banks and Banking")
"SUBCHAPTER II—BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM

§ 241. Creation; membership; compensation and expenses
The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (hereinafter referred to as the ‘‘Board’’) shall be composed of seven members, to be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, after August 23, 1935, for terms of fourteen years except as hereinafter provided, but each appointive member of the Federal Reserve Board in office on such date shall continue to serve as a member of the Board until February 1, 1936, and the Secretary of the Treasury and the Comptroller of the Cur- rency shall continue to serve as members of the Board until February 1, 1936. In selecting the members of the Board, not more than one of whom shall be selected from any one Federal Reserve district, the President shall have due regard to a fair representation of the financial, agricultural, industrial, and commercial inter- ests, and geographical divisions of the country. The members of the Board shall devote their en- tire time to the business of the Board and shall each receive basic compensation at the rate of $15,000 per annum, payable monthly, together with actual necessary traveling expenses. (Dec. 23, 1913, ch. 6, § 10 (par.), 38 Stat. 260; June 3, 1922, ch. 205, 42 Stat. 620; Aug. 23, 1935, ch. 614, title II, § 203(b), 49 Stat. 704.)

CODIFICATION
Section is comprised of first par. of section 10 of act Dec. 23, 1913. Pars. 2–7 and 8 of
section 10; par. 9 of sec- tion 10, as added June 3, 1922, ch. 205, 42 Stat. 621; par.
10 of section 10, as added Aug. 23, 1935, ch. 614, § 203(d),
49 Stat. 705; and par. (12) of section 10, as added Pub. L.
111–203, title XI, § 1108(b), July 21, 2010, 124 Stat. 2126, are classified to sections 242 to
247, 1, 522, 247a, and 247b, respectively, of this title. No par. between pars. (10) and (12) has
been enacted.

AMENDMENTS
1935—Act Aug. 23, 1935, § 203(b), increased the appoint- ive membership from six to seven,
terminated the membership of the Secretary of the Treasury and the Comptroller of the
Currency, raised the tenure from twelve to fourteen years and increased the annual sal-
ary from $12,000 to $15,000."

COG, you probably didn't like Scalia much did you?

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Oh. You're talking about that Act that Woodrow Wilson regretted, aren't you? The Central Bank that our Founders warned against. What has it grown into? Find another government source. Pacify yourself.

Originally Posted by LexusLover

That was amended right on up to 2010? Yes that one!....

"as added Pub. L. 111–203, title XI, § 1108(b), July 21, 2010, 124 Stat. 2126,"

"government source"?

You don't like the website and you don't like the Statute when they are contrary to the bullshit you post on here! Right, COG?

http://www.federalreserve.gov/bankinforeg/reghist.htm#A

The Federal Regulations regarding the management of "the Fed" was amended as effective in January of 2016!!!

"Woodrow Wilson"????

COG you are making a joke of yourself!

[Yssup Rider]

Nice pink letters, cupcake!

I love these cat fights.

Meowwwww!

[CuteOldGuy]

Yes. It's a statute. Let's repeal it.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Yes. It's a statute. Let's repeal it.

After the ACA.

Before you load up that band wagon for dismantling the Federal banking system you might want to read Henry B. Gonzales's (RIP) report on the South Texas "Rent-a-bank" scandal generated while he was on the banking subcommittee in Congress (House). The paper back version, if I recall correctly, was almost 3 inches thick of thin pages. Maybe 2.5 inches. And if you have read it, you might want to reread it.

There is good reason why the Western District of Texas (United States Courts) is called the "Wild, Wild West"!

[DSK]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Yes. It's a statute. Let's repeal it.

What happens at that point to the 19 trillion debt denominated in Federal Reserve Notes? I certainly not going to be able to afford that from the humble proceeds of my bakery!!!

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

After the ACA.

Before you load up that band wagon for dismantling the Federal banking system you might want to read Henry B. Gonzales's (RIP) report on the South Texas "Rent-a-bank" scandal generated while he was on the banking subcommittee in Congress (House). The paper back version, if I recall correctly, was almost 3 inches thick of thin pages. Maybe 2.5 inches. And if you have read it, you might want to reread it.

There is good reason why the Western District of Texas (United States Courts) is called the "Wild, Wild West"!

Another good book would be Democracy in Desperation: The Depression of 1893. It explains why an institution like the Fed was desperately needed in 1893 -- and again in 1907.

[CuteOldGuy]

Did you ever stop to think that maybe the panics of 1893 and 1907 were planned, for the sole purpose of convincing Congress that a central bank was necessary? Can you find the roll call vote on the Federal Reserve Act when it was passed by Congress? How many Senators were present when the vote was taken? Why did Woodrow Wilson regret signing the Act? Why did Jefferson, Madison and other Founders warn us of a central bank? How much value has the dollar lost since 1913?

I once spoke to a former US Senator, who happened to be friend of mine, just exactly who holds the power in Washington? He told me, without hesitation that it was the FED. The people are no longer the rulers of this country. Why did Meyer Rothschild say a couple hundred years ago, "Give me control of a nation's money supply, and I care not who makes the laws"? Who controls our money supply now?


You're buying into the biggest fraud ever perpetrated on a (formerly) free people.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Did you ever stop to think that maybe the panics of 1893 and 1907 were planned, for the sole purpose of convincing Congress that a central bank was necessary? Can you find the roll call vote on the Federal Reserve Act when it was passed by Congress? How many Senators were present when the vote was taken? Why did Woodrow Wilson regret signing the Act? Why did Jefferson, Madison and other Founders warn us of a central bank? How much value has the dollar lost since 1913?

I once spoke to a former US Senator, who happened to be friend of mine, just exactly who holds the power in Washington? He told me, without hesitation that it was the FED. The people are no longer the rulers of this country. Why did Meyer Rothschild say a couple hundred years ago, "Give me control of a nation's money supply, and I care not who makes the laws"? Who controls our money supply now?


You're buying into the biggest fraud ever perpetrated on a (formerly) free people.

Well, if those were frauds, then God and/or Mother Nature conspired to help the bankers perpetrate the frauds, e.g., the agricultural failure in Argentina in 1890 and its impact on the world economy in 1893 and the 1906 San Francisco earthquake's contribution to the Panic of 1907. I'm not going to argue the point, because the U.S. economy was pre-digital and was on the gold standard at that time. In those days, specie -- in the form of gold -- had to be physically present in sufficient quantity when and where it was needed on a moment's demand to insure confidence in the banking system. The only remedy for liquidity problems like those experienced in 1893 and 1907 was a bank, like the Fed, which could act as a clearing house. On matters of 21st banking and finance, I defer to lustylad and CaptainMidnight's expertise.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Did you ever stop to think that maybe the panics of 1893 and 1907 were planned,.....

Shortly after I contemplated the astronomical reality that our galaxy is on a collision course with another galaxy, and based upon the estimated size of the other galaxy ours will be "swallowed" and "engulfed" in a magnificent "fireworks" display that none of us will be able to enjoy by the time it occurs.

"The Fed" and the "panics of 1893 and 1907" are pimples on a gnats ass!

But regardless of what your "buddy" Senator said ... the member banks don't "own" shit .... in the sense of "ownership" as is commonly known in the corporate business enterprises and .... the member banks don't have any control over what occurs within "The Fed".... from a legal point of view.

Some little Junior Birdman Loan Officer with a thick "Banking Law" book propped up on the back of his rented credenza behind his rented desk in the rented lobby of "his $100 billion" bank may believe so, but his three piece in striped suit with the fluffy handkerchief won't buy him a cup of coffee at Starbucks down the street! Because he's "rented" also, and his "occupancy" will expire when the "government" auditor says so.