Who are the banks anyway?

[ljm2002]

And why do they appear to be running everything?

Am I the only one who's noticed that everyone -- including individuals, corporations and governments -- owe money to the banks? (*) And in spite of the fact that those same banks brought the world to financial ruin through their fraudulent activities, they have demanded to be paid in full on every bad loan they made -- and their demands have been met? In other words they are the ONLY institutions who have been unscathed through this crisis. Oh sure some of them "went under", if you can call it that: they got bought out, and assmilated into much larger entities, while the fat cats bailed out with golden parachutes or are still working for the new institution and collecting their big fat paychecks not to mention their obscene bonuses.

Meanwhile, governments are cutting back and citizens are rebelling against their governments. Yet both citizens and governments should be on the same side -- the side that says F*** You to the banks, and takes back what is ours!

WTF????? Who is really in charge? It sure as hell is not the citizens of this country, nor apparently of other countries either. When are we all going to look around, quit carping about one another and figure out who the real enemies are? Don't the government people recognize they have ceded their powers to the financial giants? I guess they do, but it pays so well they don't give a damn.

(*) Yes I know there are individuals who don't owe anything to the banks. Good on them, but that is not the norm.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

1. $300B a year in interest, a year, in the US.

That's your bank.

Half the Defense budget.

:think:

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

2. Need a Deficit Commision?

:think:

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

3. The invisible spending.

:think:

[socialist_n_TN]

4. Governments are cutting back BECAUSE they...............

bailed out the banks and now are running big deficits.

So think about this. The banks fucked up the economy royally, nearly as bad as they did 80 years ago. The people, represented by their bought and paid for governments, bailed out the banks and saved their asses from the consequences of their own incompetence, so that the banks didn't LOSE ANYTHNG OF SUBSTANCE. So now because we're running huge deficits CAUSED BY THE BANKS directly (fucking up the economy) and indirectly ("having" to bail them out) ONCE AGAIN THE PEOPLE PAY with "austerity" and the shredding of what's left of our social safety net. It is SUCH a fucked up mess.

Kill capitalism before it kills us.

[ljm2002]

5. Exactly!

Governments are cutting back services for their citizens because of the banks that they bailed out at 100cents on the dollar for assets that everyone knew were not worth that. The banks are the ONLY entities that did not suffer losses during this crisis that THEY created. Instead of being punished they are being rewarded.

If governments actually worked for those they govern, it would have been clear what to do: make the banks take a bath, instead of the rest of us. That means their investors would suffer too, and I do understand that means things like retirement funds and the like. So maybe spread the misery around some, don't put it 100% on the banks, but make sure they suffer along with the masses.

Well we can see how that worked out.

So now we have austerity measures instituted for everyone except the banks and the mega rich. The banks caused the crisis, they were guilty of fraud both domestically and internationally, and the only punishment is to take more away from the citizens, the very people who bailed them out. We get to bear all the burden of the collapse. Why? Because as far as they are concerned, nothing collapsed. They're doing just fine, thank you very much. And the government is in their pockets.

It reeks to high heaven.

[socialist_n_TN]

7. YES! You get it...........

I wish more people did. We pay twice for the bank's fuck up.

[Kennah]

6. I know who they are not

They are not The Bailey Building & Loan.

[Scruffy1]

9. Tar and feathers anyone?

[defendandprotect]

8. Who would the banks have been w/o Congress permitting the scams on

depositors and with bank credit cards?

Many of them are laundering drug money -- hundreds of millions of dollars every

year -- with no action by Congress to prevent it!!

[jimlup]

10. Your avatar kinda answers your headline question...

Sorry, it's a joke but yeah, something like that.

I'm surprised we have not taken to the streets with pitch forks already. It is long past due and will only get worse until we actually do. Reform might forestall the problem for fifty years but if that happens they will just chip away at the edges until the reform is moot and they own the world again.

[applegrove]

11. There was no need for bankers to behave the way they did. Canadian banks didn't get into

derivatives and they required no bailout from government. Not one dollar. And they are really big international banks with the whole gamut of regular financial services.

[Greyhound]

12. Pretty much the same families that have run them for hundreds of years.

Some we are familiar with, Rothschild, Lazard, Rockefeller, etc., but most are (deliberately) obscure. These constitute much of the parasite class.

Large investors such as pensions and insurance companies are the major stockholders but outright ownership is secondary, the key is in control, not ownership. In nearly every case an ownership stake of less than 5% is all that's required to exert control over the institution itself.

Owning common stock is meaningless, all you get with those are dividends, it is the class 'A', or voting stock, that matters and that's where you find those names over and over again.

Check my second sig line.

The founders of this nation were very familiar with these bloodsuckers and tried to keep them out of this new nation's economic systems by reserving this power to the Congress (Article 1 Section 8) and it took the parasites over a hundred years to get around it.

They run everything because, thanks to the corrosive effects of interest, they own everything.
:kick: & R

[guardian]

13. ummmm they are businesses owned by people

Shareholders own banks. If you want to buy stock go out and buy some. You can buy a share of Bank of America for about $11. You can buy a share of Wells Fargo for about $27. US Bank for about $24.

Who did you think owned banks? Elves? Martians?

Buy a few shares; then you too can "appear to be running everything".

[ljm2002]

14. Maybe I should rephrase my question...

...as "Who do the banks think they are, anyway?"

Believe me I understand how these things are structured. The fact that people and institutions are invested in the banks seems to give them a free pass. Lots of folks were invested in GM, too, yet you didn't hear many complaints when GM had to make painful adjustments and they and their investors had to take losses. Yet when it came to the banks, no one had to take any losses. And the taxpayers bailed them out, yet they have continued their reckless and speculative practices. Why shouldn't they? They never suffered any ill consequences.

It is very useful to have people who will come around parroting "Why it's the people who own them! It's us! It's your granny!" because that serves the argument that they can't be touched and must be made whole even when they have brought the world's financial system to its knees. Then after they have been made whole, the next move is to point out how much in debt the government is -- in no small part due to the bailout that made them whole. That, in turn, is said to make austerity measures necessary -- the kind of measures that help to feed granny when she retires, for example.

The point I am trying to get at is the structural inequality. It is structured so that money is just gushing upwards, and the middle / working classes are being drained. The reason it is allowed to continue in this way is that the middle class / working people have little or no representation in our Congress, while the bankers / financiers pay huge campaign $$ to buy effective representation for their interests. It is working out very well for them, not so well for most of us.

And by the way, you can take your condescending snark and shove it where the sun don't shine.

[socialist_n_TN]

15. I LOVE your third paragraph........

To me, it's the crux of the ENTIRE SITUATION! The ONLY thing I'd add to it is that MOST of the government debt is not only due to the bailouts themselves which made the banks whole, but also to the falling tax revenue from the recession/depression THAT THEY CAUSED! We, the workers, pay TWICE. Not only to bail them out, but now because of the bailout and recession destroyed much of the government tax base, with "austerity".

I'm beginning to wonder now, if it wasn't a "crisis" actually MANUFACTURED by the banks in order to bring about this very end result. If the capitalists will take advantage of crises to further their agenda (and they do, read or watch the movie of The Shock Doctrine), then what's to stop them from CAUSING the crisis?

Capitalists are criminals and should be treated accordingly.

[ljm2002]

17. Thanks for the kind words...

...I'm not sure if they created the crisis on purpose; my read is that they went hog wild with the derivatives, etc., and the system they created spun out of control. But they were really right there, ready to exploit it. The other thing is, there is a large cadre of Chicago-school ideologues who want everyone to do it the way they say because that is what their model dictates. Don't pay any attention to the real world consequences to the majority of the population, just full steam ahead with the draconian so-called "free market" measures, starting with austerity. Because God help us if we refuse to play the game they have created, the one that is designed to benefit them disproportionately. So far, this has worked very well. For them.

As far as capitalists being criminals, it is certainly a known syndrome among capitalists. That is why the government needs to keep them in check, and also tax them appropriately. Unfortunately our government is bought and sold. I believe in a balance between capitalism and socialism: I don't think we should have policies that put people on the street; rather, we should have a safety net that guarantees a livable situation. Nothing fancy, but meet basic needs for food, clothing and shelter. On the other hand, I think we should encourage free enterprise and we certainly will not benefit from centralized production of goods, i.e. classical socialist economy. I think people are motivated by the ability to gain from their own creativity and/or hard work, and there is nothing wrong with that and it does drive innovation. But where we got the idea that the capitalists should run the whole show, now that is a mystery to me.

[lonestarnot]

16. K & R