Quote:
Originally Posted by lustylad
What a disappointment... I thought you were one of the few intelligent posters here, ExNYer. You've swallowed the false, agenda-driven libtard narrative on the 2008/09 financial crisis hook, line and sinker. And then you insult everyone's intelligence by saying this libtard narrative is consistent with Libertarianism. Go play with COG. Then vote for Bernie Sanders. He's your man. He'll break up the banks and take a wrecking ball to the rest of the US economy too.
|
So, I guess you are a banker, huh?
First, I'm not a tort lawyer so stop pretending you know me, mope.
And stop trying to put words in my mouth or attribute assumed positions/beliefs to me. That's IBHankering's trick. It's stupid when he does it. It's stupid when you do it.
I didn't "lose" any money in the crashes that sways my opinion. I lose money - like everyone else - when my TAXES go to bail out big banks. You only point out the financial institutions that are still in existence. What about the ones that are gone? Merrill Lynch? Lehman Brothers? They were absorbed into the now-even-bigger banks - which now pose an even greater threat to the economy.
Are you really waiting for another replay of 2008-2009?
I can't even begin to address line-by-line all of your misleading arguments above. I have neither the time nor the patience to do so.
But, suffice it to say, all of your blather about "economies of scale" is horseshit.
The problem is "too big to fail" remember? That means economies of scale are part of the problem if they lead to a half dozen monstrous banks that have too much sway over the economy. Oligarchy is not an improvement over monopoly.
It isn't the 14,000 or 5,500 banks that are the problem. It is the small handful that we have to worry about bailing out when things go south again. Like they appear to be doing right now.
And your argument about American companies having to borrow from foreign banks because no American banks are big enough is utterly ridiculous. First, it is RARE that any company needs to borrow so much money that only a giant bank like Goldman Sachs can swing it. That's no excuse to let GS continue to exist at its current size.
Second, there is nothing to stop a company from borrowing money from a group of banks that pool the loan. That happens all the time also.
And then there is this line of stupidity:
---------------------------------------------
"... you contradicted yourself. First you say the banks “bribe” politicians to “leave them alone.” Then in the next breath you complain about how busy they are drafting new legislation affecting their industry. Do they want to be left alone or not? Make up your mind before you go on a rant.
---------------------------------------------
There is no contradiction, mope. "Affecting their industry", as you put it, doesn't tell you anything.
The banks like to draft legislation that is designed to "leave them alone" - i.e., reduce their oversight, remove barriers to markets they want to enter, reduce penalties for shady practices, etc.. The legislation is drafted to suit their purposes, not increase the burdens on them.
What I don't understand is why YOU are so willing to go in the tank to protect the economic clout of the half-dozen or so financial institutions that can take down the economy in another downturn.
In a REAL free market, they would be allowed to go broke and better banks would take their place, right? All this bailout shit is communism, right?
And yet, in your entire diatribe, you never once addressed the issue of bailing them out the next time around, did you?
We have gotten into the position of privatizing the profits of these big banks, but socializing the risk. How fucked up is that?
Yet all we hear from you is that we have to do absolutely nothing. We have to maintain these financial giants in their current positions at all costs.
Is that the best you've got?
