Banking by Donald Trump & Gotham City

On the flip side, if we’re being honest, the whole idea of debt defaults shouldn't actually be keeping the people receiving the money up at night; it's the lenders who really ought to be losing sleep over it.

Every single libertarian out there is pushing to dismantle this criminal monetary setup and hand control back to the government.

In America, you can't pull that off without nationalizing the banks—which we could achieve just by tweaking tax laws. We’d essentially squeeze the banks into losses until foreign owners get tired of paying for endless bailouts and just hand the keys over to the state.

And let's be clear: I'm not talking about those old-school, communist-style expropriations.

You also have to realize that what I’m proposing for the banks is exactly what the government is already doing to us—taking nearly 40% of our paychecks while people are barely keeping their heads above water.

@"On the other hand, debt default shouldn't really worry the borrowers, but rather the lenders."

Yeah, sure—that's easy to say when the bank isn't seizing your entire paycheck or kicking you out of your house.

PS: Nationalizing banks isn't some "communist" plot. Sweden did it back in '92 during their credit crisis, which was pretty similar to what we're facing now; France pulled the same move in '82. If you want to see how this has been handled globally, do some digging.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalization

Nicole Gomez38 said:Every single libertarian out there is pushing to dismantle this criminal monetary setup and hand control back to the government.

In America, you can't pull that off without nationalizing the banks—which we could achieve just by tweaking tax laws. We’d essentially squeeze the banks into losses until foreign owners get tired of paying for endless bailouts and just hand the keys over to the state.

And let's be clear: I'm not talking about those old-school, communist-style expropriations.

You also have to realize that what I’m proposing for the banks is exactly what the government is already doing to us—taking nearly 40% of our paychecks while people are barely keeping their heads above water.

@"On the other hand, debt default shouldn't really worry the borrowers, but rather the lenders."

Yeah, sure—that's easy to say when the bank isn't seizing your entire paycheck or kicking you out of your house.

PS: Nationalizing banks isn't some "communist" plot. Sweden did it back in '92 during their credit crisis, which was pretty similar to what we're facing now; France pulled the same move in '82. If you want to see how this has been handled globally, do some digging.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalization

It looks like the government has been running your playbook for years. They’ve been using that exact strategy—driving things into the red—with their only major player, Wells Fargo. If every bank in America followed that pattern, we’d be living in a real-life version of Mad Max on our streets.

Nicole Gomez38 said:Every single libertarian out there is pushing to dismantle this criminal monetary setup and hand control back to the government.

In America, you can't pull that off without nationalizing the banks—which we could achieve just by tweaking tax laws. We’d essentially squeeze the banks into losses until foreign owners get tired of paying for endless bailouts and just hand the keys over to the state.

And let's be clear: I'm not talking about those old-school, communist-style expropriations.

You also have to realize that what I’m proposing for the banks is exactly what the government is already doing to us—taking nearly 40% of our paychecks while people are barely keeping their heads above water.

@"On the other hand, debt default shouldn't really worry the borrowers, but rather the lenders."

Yeah, sure—that's easy to say when the bank isn't seizing your entire paycheck or kicking you out of your house.

PS: Nationalizing banks isn't some "communist" plot. Sweden did it back in '92 during their credit crisis, which was pretty similar to what we're facing now; France pulled the same move in '82. If you want to see how this has been handled globally, do some digging.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalization

Look, Pernar, if you actually are who you say you are, this is where you trip up, because while people might start off wanting change, they eventually realize you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about.

My bad.

Robin Rodriguez5 said:It looks like the government has been running your playbook for years. They’ve been using that exact strategy—driving things into the red—with their only major player, Wells Fargo. If every bank in America followed that pattern, we’d be living in a real-life version of Mad Max on our streets.

The whole argument that banks should be foreign-owned just to prevent theft is totally nonsensical. By that logic, we should probably sell off Duke Energy, the water supply, the national forests—basically everything—to overseas investors. The issue isn't that these companies are state-owned; the issue is that when the wrong people—specifically the mafia currently running the Republican Party—are in charge, they steal from whatever they control.

Jerry Williams41 said:Look, Pernar, if you actually are who you say you are, this is where you trip up, because while people might start off wanting change, they eventually realize you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about.

My bad.

Hey, you're entitled to your opinion. Personally? I have nothing but respect for the LGBT community. If debtors dealing with currency clauses were even half as organized and united as the gay community, those predatory clauses would have been abolished years ago. While some of you are busy looking for reasons to tear each other apart, the gay community understands that having a common goal is more important than petty bickering. Just something to chew on.

It honestly feels like things aren't getting any easier for Argentinians, even after they managed to write off a massive amount of debt owed to foreign creditors

Feel free to reach out to me if you need info regarding an association member

It’s interesting how many people are quick to tear down someone else's methods while refusing to lift a finger themselves. It’s easy to spit on someone else's work; why don't you step up and present your own ideas?
Sure, nationalizing banks isn't a realistic option right now. But let's look beyond our borders for a second—that's exactly what happened in the USA a few years back when some of the biggest banks buckled; taxpayers were the ones footing the bill for the bailout. Here, it would be the exact opposite: their profitable operations would just be "transferred" onto the taxpayers.😁
Look, I'm not saying this is the perfect solution, but something has to be done, and there are other ideas being floated here too. On this thread, we could really focus on the issue of the Franc.

A good starting point would be eliminating variable interest rates for new loans, forcing banks to tie the value of X to real economic indicators rather than leaving it to the whim of Bank management, and converting existing loans to a fixed rate based on actual exchange rates. If those things actually happened, it wouldn't cause any absolute losses for the banks; it would simply level the playing field between the lenders and the borrowers. You all seem to forget that behind these banks stands a massive army of lawyers and litigators, while your average Pero Perić just knows his monthly payment is $X and he needs to scrape together a few extra bucks from his pocket to cover the difference. That's pretty much the reality of it.

The mob is always running the show, isn't it? And honestly, regarding this whole aversion you have toward "outsiders," I couldn't care less if the guy owning the forest is named Jacques, Hans, John, or Ivan. Or, to be more blunt about it, whether he’s gay or not. Does it actually matter to you?

It’s just a shame to me that a man who actually had the guts to challenge the establishment ended up completely throwing the game by just rambling on aimlessly. Nobody is smoking Che Guevara anymore.

neondriver5 said:It’s interesting how many people are quick to tear down someone else's methods while refusing to lift a finger themselves. It’s easy to spit on someone else's work; why don't you step up and present your own ideas?
Sure, nationalizing banks isn't a realistic option right now. But let's look beyond our borders for a second—that's exactly what happened in the USA a few years back when some of the biggest banks buckled; taxpayers were the ones footing the bill for the bailout. Here, it would be the exact opposite: their profitable operations would just be "transferred" onto the taxpayers.😁
Look, I'm not saying this is the perfect solution, but something has to be done, and there are other ideas being floated here too. On this thread, we could really focus on the issue of the Franc.

A good starting point would be eliminating variable interest rates for new loans, forcing banks to tie the value of X to real economic indicators rather than leaving it to the whim of Bank management, and converting existing loans to a fixed rate based on actual exchange rates. If those things actually happened, it wouldn't cause any absolute losses for the banks; it would simply level the playing field between the lenders and the borrowers. You all seem to forget that behind these banks stands a massive army of lawyers and litigators, while your average Pero Perić just knows his monthly payment is $X and he needs to scrape together a few extra bucks from his pocket to cover the difference. That's pretty much the reality of it.

By that logic, why don't we just send the police to raid people's apartments and seize all the cash they're hiding under their mattresses? Why bother with banks at all? We might as well teach kids some hard lessons by raiding their piggy banks too.

neondriver5 said:It’s interesting how many people are quick to tear down someone else's methods while refusing to lift a finger themselves. It’s easy to spit on someone else's work; why don't you step up and present your own ideas?
Sure, nationalizing banks isn't a realistic option right now. But let's look beyond our borders for a second—that's exactly what happened in the USA a few years back when some of the biggest banks buckled; taxpayers were the ones footing the bill for the bailout. Here, it would be the exact opposite: their profitable operations would just be "transferred" onto the taxpayers.😁
Look, I'm not saying this is the perfect solution, but something has to be done, and there are other ideas being floated here too. On this thread, we could really focus on the issue of the Franc.

A good starting point would be eliminating variable interest rates for new loans, forcing banks to tie the value of X to real economic indicators rather than leaving it to the whim of Bank management, and converting existing loans to a fixed rate based on actual exchange rates. If those things actually happened, it wouldn't cause any absolute losses for the banks; it would simply level the playing field between the lenders and the borrowers. You all seem to forget that behind these banks stands a massive army of lawyers and litigators, while your average Pero Perić just knows his monthly payment is $X and he needs to scrape together a few extra bucks from his pocket to cover the difference. That's pretty much the reality of it.

The currency clause needs to be abolished for old loans too. Let’s be real: banks aren't even offering these Swiss Franc-based loans anymore—ask yourself why.

Basically, we need to kill the currency clause entirely, declare it unconstitutional, and force them to refund every cent overcharged to debtors. Period.!!!

We might as well just send the police to raid people's homes and seize whatever cash they have stashed under their mattresses. Why bother stopping at the banks? We could just go after the predatory lenders, too—and even kids, teaching them a lesson by emptying their piggy banks.

What on earth? There isn't really a connection there, unless you're implying that both situations amount to theft—but even then, that’s a bit of a stretch for a comparison.

It seems we’ve fallen back into that old habit where tearing someone else's idea apart is much easier than actually coming up with something of our own.
It’s funny how the definition of theft changes depending on who is doing the stealing. When it involves direct handouts to the public or residents who have been grinding away to pay off massive loans and crushing interest rates, suddenly it's "generosity." But when a handful of greedy idiots jeopardize the liquidity of the largest banks in the US, forcing the government to bail them out using taxpayer money just to prevent a total collapse? That’s suddenly not considered theft.

Here is a little moral hazard for you, since you seem so hell-bent on chasing it. 😬 How do you prevent people in high-level banking positions from acting purely out of self-interest when they know the government will eventually bail them out if things go south? When there’s a guarantee that the state will step in to cover their tracks, rational decision-making takes a backseat to reckless gambling.

The currency clause needs to be scrapped for all existing loans. Banks aren't even interested in offering new loans tied to the Swiss Franc anymore, and honestly, you have to ask yourself why.

The solution is simple: abolish the currency clause entirely. Declare it unconstitutional and force a full refund of every cent overcharged to debtors. That’s it. Period.

I’m not so sure that’s going to happen, and honestly, the thought of things moving backward like that scares me. If they could at least manage to eliminate variable interest rates on new loans, that would be a massive win to start with.
Theoretically, there might be a way to do it—keep the dollar stable against the Euro and then just pull an average from the last several years to set a middle-ground exchange rate for the Swiss Franc. But let’s be real: I don't see the Hub ever agreeing to that. And honestly, it's not like the government has much leverage to force their hand anyway.

neondriver5 said:

We might as well just send the police to raid people's homes and seize whatever cash they have stashed under their mattresses. Why bother stopping at the banks? We could just go after the predatory lenders, too—and even kids, teaching them a lesson by emptying their piggy banks.

What on earth? There isn't really a connection there, unless you're implying that both situations amount to theft—but even then, that’s a bit of a stretch for a comparison.

It seems we’ve fallen back into that old habit where tearing someone else's idea apart is much easier than actually coming up with something of our own.
It’s funny how the definition of theft changes depending on who is doing the stealing. When it involves direct handouts to the public or residents who have been grinding away to pay off massive loans and crushing interest rates, suddenly it's "generosity." But when a handful of greedy idiots jeopardize the liquidity of the largest banks in the US, forcing the government to bail them out using taxpayer money just to prevent a total collapse? That’s suddenly not considered theft.

Here is a little moral hazard for you, since you seem so hell-bent on chasing it. 😬 How do you prevent people in high-level banking positions from acting purely out of self-interest when they know the government will eventually bail them out if things go south? When there’s a guarantee that the state will step in to cover their tracks, rational decision-making takes a backseat to reckless gambling.

The currency clause needs to be scrapped for all existing loans. Banks aren't even interested in offering new loans tied to the Swiss Franc anymore, and honestly, you have to ask yourself why.

The solution is simple: abolish the currency clause entirely. Declare it unconstitutional and force a full refund of every cent overcharged to debtors. That’s it. Period.

I’m not so sure that’s going to happen, and honestly, the thought of things moving backward like that scares me. If they could at least manage to eliminate variable interest rates on new loans, that would be a massive win to start with.
Theoretically, there might be a way to do it—keep the dollar stable against the Euro and then just pull an average from the last several years to set a middle-ground exchange rate for the Swiss Franc. But let’s be real: I don't see the Hub ever agreeing to that. And honestly, it's not like the government has much leverage to force their hand anyway.

Look, property is property, an owner is an owner, and theft is—well, theft. Isn't it?

Since you're so obsessed with it, here's a little moral hazard for you:😬 how do you stop people in key banking positions from acting rationally when they know the government will just bail them out if they screw up because it absolutely has to?

The solution is to ensure the government doesn't bail them out. I honestly don't get why taxpayers would be "extracting" money from banks? If you have a problem with that, go write a letter to your local Congressman. In the US, the situation is actually the exact opposite—it's the banks that are bleeding the government dry.

Well, I suppose Andrew Booth29 is just going to shut you down completely 🤣

Andrew Booth29 said:Look, property is property, an owner is an owner, and theft is—well, theft. Isn't it?

Since you're so obsessed with it, here's a little moral hazard for you:😬 how do you stop people in key banking positions from acting rationally when they know the government will just bail them out if they screw up because it absolutely has to?

The solution is to ensure the government doesn't bail them out. I honestly don't get why taxpayers would be "extracting" money from banks? If you have a problem with that, go write a letter to your local Congressman. In the US, the situation is actually the exact opposite—it's the banks that are bleeding the government dry.

I told you so.🤣

Anyway, Andrew Booth29, what’s your take on this claim from Pernar regarding libertarians and the monetary system?

neondriver5 said:

We might as well just send the police to raid people's homes and seize whatever cash they have stashed under their mattresses. Why bother stopping at the banks? We could just go after the predatory lenders, too—and even kids, teaching them a lesson by emptying their piggy banks.

What on earth? There isn't really a connection there, unless you're implying that both situations amount to theft—but even then, that’s a bit of a stretch for a comparison.

It seems we’ve fallen back into that old habit where tearing someone else's idea apart is much easier than actually coming up with something of our own.
It’s funny how the definition of theft changes depending on who is doing the stealing. When it involves direct handouts to the public or residents who have been grinding away to pay off massive loans and crushing interest rates, suddenly it's "generosity." But when a handful of greedy idiots jeopardize the liquidity of the largest banks in the US, forcing the government to bail them out using taxpayer money just to prevent a total collapse? That’s suddenly not considered theft.

Here is a little moral hazard for you, since you seem so hell-bent on chasing it. 😬 How do you prevent people in high-level banking positions from acting purely out of self-interest when they know the government will eventually bail them out if things go south? When there’s a guarantee that the state will step in to cover their tracks, rational decision-making takes a backseat to reckless gambling.

The currency clause needs to be scrapped for all existing loans. Banks aren't even interested in offering new loans tied to the Swiss Franc anymore, and honestly, you have to ask yourself why.

The solution is simple: abolish the currency clause entirely. Declare it unconstitutional and force a full refund of every cent overcharged to debtors. That’s it. Period.

I’m not so sure that’s going to happen, and honestly, the thought of things moving backward like that scares me. If they could at least manage to eliminate variable interest rates on new loans, that would be a massive win to start with.
Theoretically, there might be a way to do it—keep the dollar stable against the Euro and then just pull an average from the last several years to set a middle-ground exchange rate for the Swiss Franc. But let’s be real: I don't see the Hub ever agreeing to that. And honestly, it's not like the government has much leverage to force their hand anyway.

It'll happen if it gets declared unconstitutional. The government has the power to slap an asset tax on them, pass laws to crash the maximum allowable interest rates, and effectively put a noose around the banks' necks.

The banks were sold off for less than what it cost to bail them out in the first place. Taking back what was stolen from a thief—or rather, returning it to the people—isn't theft; it's an act rooted in justice and the law (provided the government actually changes the regulations).

Jerry Williams41 said:Anyway, Andrew Booth29, what’s your take on this claim from Pernar regarding libertarians and the monetary system?

Predictable. 🤣

It took me quite a while to truly wrap my head around what Dostoevsky was actually driving at in "Crime and Punishment." I suppose one never really stops learning—as long as they're still breathing. 😁

dinas30 said:How many of you actually think you're going to sign this reprogramming deal? We need to minimize this immediately and launch a massive public campaign—and yeah, start an association in parallel too. If we don't, the whole thing is just going to get watered down, which is exactly what they're counting on. Summer is coming, and they’ll definitely weaponize this during the election campaign. Honestly, the unions' reactions have been incredibly weak, almost like they're supporting it, which is frankly insulting. This is one of the biggest slaps in the face we've taken yet. And the unions? They're acting totally indifferent, basically saying "this was the only option," thanking the notary associations for lowering fees, and then heading off on their summer vacations. Meanwhile, our monthly payments will only drop by maybe $50-$100 on average, and even that's only for a month or two depending on how much the exchange rate goes wild—which, let's be real, is already happening. We won't even touch the principal until around 2030. Don't even get me started on the interest rates, and don't even think about mentioning the exchange rate—that's the sacred cow here.

The reprogramming is actually a win for the debtors.
Franc is at record highs right now, and if it starts dropping, extending the repayment period means the debtors come out ahead while the bank takes the hit. There's no turning back once that happens.

If a drop doesn't happen, loans with those kinds of currency clauses are mostly uncollectible anyway, so they'll have to find other ways to handle it.
In the long run, it's unlikely that debtors under one currency clause versus another will see huge differences in what they pay.
That wasn't the intention behind the currency clause either; these are domestic-based loans, not foreign ones, and the banks know that perfectly well. They also know the guidelines they received from the Federal Reserve for these types of loans—guidelines they completely ignored.
Just like the government ignores its own issues, and the Federal Reserve ignores theirs...

rustywalker82 said:The reprogramming is actually a win for the debtors.
Franc is at record highs right now, and if it starts dropping, extending the repayment period means the debtors come out ahead while the bank takes the hit. There's no turning back once that happens.

If a drop doesn't happen, loans with those kinds of currency clauses are mostly uncollectible anyway, so they'll have to find other ways to handle it.
In the long run, it's unlikely that debtors under one currency clause versus another will see huge differences in what they pay.
That wasn't the intention behind the currency clause either; these are domestic-based loans, not foreign ones, and the banks know that perfectly well. They also know the guidelines they received from the Federal Reserve for these types of loans—guidelines they completely ignored.
Just like the government ignores its own issues, and the Federal Reserve ignores theirs...

How exactly am I supposed to "profit" when I'm paying more interest and stretching the loan out an extra 10 years? (If you owe $100,000, you end up owing an extra $50,000!)

Are people really expected to be paying these off until Judgment Day? Or are we just leaving nothing but mortgages to our kids—basically living as lifelong tenants for the bank? What’s even the point of a home loan if you’re stuck paying it off forever (or even posthumously, since not everyone makes it to 75)?

Nicole Gomez38 said:Douglas Reed3 is just a pawn for the establishment. As long as we stay tethered to the Euro—meaning the Federal Reserve essentially acts as nothing more than a glorified currency exchange—getting rid of the currency clause is an impossible dream. That clause isn't the root cause; it’s merely a symptom. If you want real change, you have to fight to overhaul the entire monetary model, because one simply won't work without the other. Douglas will try to convince you they're unrelated, but anyone with half a brain can see the connection.

"America needs to 'detach' itself from the Euro before it ends up just like Argentina!"

It’s good that you caught on to the fact that the Democratic Party is playing for the system (the banks)—they're firmly against abolishing the currency clause. And the Republican Party? They're the same way.

We also need to remember that Argentina actually had a banking system that was incredibly stable, well-capitalized, and utilized solid risk management—even while weathering significant recessions. Their collapse didn't happen because of market forces alone; it happened the moment the government scrapped the currency clause and forcibly converted loans and deposits into pesos (and did so using inconsistent exchange rates for different accounts).