Banking by Donald Trump & Gotham City

Andrew Booth29 said: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).

Nicole Gomez38 said:Are you really one of those people trying to convince others that foreign-currency loans are a good idea? Why don't you mention the massive economic fallout of pegging a domestic currency to a foreign one—basically turning the central bank into nothing more than a glorified money changer—for the US Economy?

The US started rolling out this model back in 1991, and it took just ten years before everything hit the fan and they had to ditch it entirely in 2001. Beyond just having an impossibly huge external debt, there are plenty of other nasty side effects to this kind of monetary setup:

1. Unemployment skyrocketing (jumping from 6.1% in '91 to 15% by 2000)
2. Poverty rates climbing (simply because the economy is falling apart)
3. Stagflation (where prices for goods and services climb while wages drop and unemployment rises)
4. Domestic profitable industries being sold off to foreign corporations—who then lay off local workers and bleed all the profits out of the country
5. Foreign banks keeping local citizens trapped in a cycle of debt slavery

Why won't you admit that an economic meltdown and unmanageable external debt are the inevitable results of this type of monetary policy? This model was doomed to fail eventually because, frankly, it was unsustainable in the long run.

Nicole Gomez38 said: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.!!!

Scott Rodriguez19 said:Why?

Robin Bailey7 said:There was a time when we actually owned our banks, and back then, even through periods of recession or high unemployment... if we had just possessed the expertise to manage them ourselves, there wouldn't have been any reason to sell them off in the first place.

Nicole Gomez38;34379224 said:The issue with your logic is you're treating the symptoms instead of the actual disease. If those currency clauses are what made these loans impossible to pay back in the first place, then the only real fix is to strike them down as unconstitutional and force the banks to refund the overpayments. Anything else is just putting a Band-Aid on a gunshot wound and dragging out the inevitable.

Declaring those clauses unconstitutional is the only way out. It’s the plain truth... I just wonder if the Supreme Court actually has the guts to rule that way.
Legally speaking, those clauses shouldn't even exist under the Constitution. The real question is whether justice will actually win out over political maneuvering.

Joseph Carter7 said:Declaring the currency clause unconstitutional is our best shot at salvation—that's the absolute truth here... but honestly, what are the odds the Supreme Court actually rules that way?
From a legal standpoint, this clause is definitely unconstitutional; the real question is whether justice will actually prevail over political maneuvering.

Nicole Gomez38 said:The banks didn't go out and borrow in Swiss Francs—they borrowed in Euros. But since they knew the Euro was unstable and headed for a dip, they offered people interest rates that were 1% or 2% lower just to lure them in. They knew exactly what they were doing; they anticipated the Euro would drop at least 20%, allowing them to rake in massive profits once those currency clauses kicked in against the Swiss Franc.

They’ve finally realized how strong the Swiss Franc is—and more importantly, they've caught wind that it might actually drop back to its baseline value. Because they're terrified of taking that hit, they aren't willing to gamble anymore; they're strictly issuing loans in Euros now.

A buddy of mine—he’s a banker with a PhD in economics and used to advise the board at a major Wall Street firm—once told me how the higher-ups would constantly pressure him to push those Swiss Franc-denominated loans on people. It wasn't even because the bank itself was heavily leveraged in Swiss currency (I mean, Switzerland's economy is tiny compared to the Eurozone, right?), but rather because they saw a massive opportunity. They knew the Franc was far more stable than the Euro, and they figured if the Euro tanked, they'd end up with fat wallets and a trail of financially ruined clients whose assets they could then just swoop in and seize.

If you were to look at the Swiss Franc right now—and I mean really look at it—it's a whole different story. $2.00 I took it. $205 Taking out loans in Swiss Francs was such a gamble—once the Franc dropped to 5.15, those folks were suddenly looking at much smaller repayments. Talk about a lucky break! $172 If you factor in the principal plus interest, the bank would be looking at a total loss.

The Euro is fundamentally unstable because the European Central Bank refuses to allow for non-debt-based money issuance—instead, every single cent entering circulation is tied to debt. In this model, thanks to the compounding effect of interest and constant debt accumulation, the total debt swells much faster than the actual money supply. Eventually, that leads straight into a credit crisis where nobody can actually pay back what they owe—which is exactly what we’re seeing unfold in the Eurozone right now. Check out this video if you want to grasp the core of the problem. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zplkkuwQpcQ

You forgot to mention that the Republican Party was in power back then—and we were at war, too. Honestly, one was just as bad for the economy as the other!

Nicole Gomez38 said:The issue with your logic is that you’re treating the symptoms rather than tackling the actual disease. If it’s obvious that these loans became unpayable because of those currency clauses, then the only real solution is to strike down those clauses as unconstitutional and force a refund of the overcharged amounts. Anything else—well, it's just cosmetic window dressing meant to drag out the agony.

If you "extend" a loan by ten years, you'll end up paying an extra $50,000 in Swiss Francs regardless of the exchange rate, all just to shave a few bucks off the monthly payment. That doesn't look like a winning strategy to me—unless, of course, you're on the payroll at a big Bank (or doing PR for Jeb Bush and the Republican Party).

Honestly, if you were actually stuck with one of these Swiss Franc mortgages, I think you'd grasp this simple math a lot faster.

rustywalker82 said:If we actually want to fix the root of this mess, we need massive, deep-seated reforms. Just patching things over with some reprogramming or talking about eventually scrapping the voucher system isn't going to cut it. It's like putting a Band-Aid on a broken leg; you aren't actually fixing the bone, you're just hiding the pain for a minute. We need to go much bigger if we want real change.

What’s the actual real-world value of 100k Swiss Francs going to be in 20 years? What about 30? I’m trying to wrap my head around what salaries look like right now versus what they'll actually buy us two or three decades down the road when you factor in all the price hikes.
It’s pretty basic math, honestly. It only makes sense to stretch out your loan if you think the Swiss Franc is going to tank compared to what it is right now. You also have to look at whether real interest rates here in the States are going to be lower down the road than they are today. If both those things happen, you're winning.

Nicole Gomez38 said:The currency will definitely lose value, sure, but people will be crushed by much higher debt loads. In a model without non-credit money issuance, the money supply grows way slower than the total debt—I actually broke this down during my segment on Capital Network. On top of that, the credit crisis is only going to get worse because the gap between total debt and the money supply widens every single day.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JMZsYfyPwzo

I don't know if you caught this part... in a debtor inflation model, once that short-term credit expansion ends, prices skyrocket while wages stay flat. That's your classic stagflation scenario.

One thing is certain: the mere passage of time works against people due to cumulative interest in a model lacking non-credit money issuance. It puts everyone in a worse spot, not a better one.

Also, who told you that wages and prices would just keep climbing indefinitely? Look around—real estate is worth less than it was five years ago, wages have stagnated, and mortgage payments are through the roof. Your theory only holds water if a credit crisis (an inability to service the debt) doesn't happen. But a credit crisis is an inevitable feature of any system where debt outpaces the money supply. Even those claiming the Euro will solve our problems are being misled; many countries that adopted the Euro are actually in the tightest spots right now.

The reality is that people who took out loans followed your exact logic—thinking it would get easier to pay them back over time—but life showed them the exact opposite. Thinking things will just "fix themselves" without changing the entire monetary system is pure fantasy.

Pure debtor inflation paired with rising tax rates is going to wreck both individuals and the economy. That's the biggest secret the financial elite is hiding.

Again, the issue is this "cumulative interest" trap. Picture a country with a million productive citizens. They all take a one-year loan from a $333 at 10% interest. After a year, they collectively owe $367. They have to pay back $1.1 billion. The Bank walks away with $100 million in profit. Consequently, everyone is $33 than when they started. To cover it, they take out a new loan, but this time it's $367. With $33, they try to offset the loss, leaving them with $333 in debt. But now, they owe $403. After two years, everyone is $70 than their starting point. Meanwhile, the Bank has pocketed an extra $110 million, totaling $210 million. As they keep taking larger and larger loans, the cycle repeats with even greater losses; you end up drowning in debt with zero cash left.

So, do you still honestly believe that paying off debt gets easier over time?

Nicole Gomez38 said:The currency will definitely lose value, sure, but people will be crushed by much higher debt loads. In a model without non-credit money issuance, the money supply grows way slower than the total debt—I actually broke this down during my segment on Capital Network. On top of that, the credit crisis is only going to get worse because the gap between total debt and the money supply widens every single day.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JMZsYfyPwzo

I don't know if you caught this part... in a debtor inflation model, once that short-term credit expansion ends, prices skyrocket while wages stay flat. That's your classic stagflation scenario.

One thing is certain: the mere passage of time works against people due to cumulative interest in a model lacking non-credit money issuance. It puts everyone in a worse spot, not a better one.

Also, who told you that wages and prices would just keep climbing indefinitely? Look around—real estate is worth less than it was five years ago, wages have stagnated, and mortgage payments are through the roof. Your theory only holds water if a credit crisis (an inability to service the debt) doesn't happen. But a credit crisis is an inevitable feature of any system where debt outpaces the money supply. Even those claiming the Euro will solve our problems are being misled; many countries that adopted the Euro are actually in the tightest spots right now.

The reality is that people who took out loans followed your exact logic—thinking it would get easier to pay them back over time—but life showed them the exact opposite. Thinking things will just "fix themselves" without changing the entire monetary system is pure fantasy.

Pure debtor inflation paired with rising tax rates is going to wreck both individuals and the economy. That's the biggest secret the financial elite is hiding.

Again, the issue is this "cumulative interest" trap. Picture a country with a million productive citizens. They all take a one-year loan from a $333 at 10% interest. After a year, they collectively owe $367. They have to pay back $1.1 billion. The Bank walks away with $100 million in profit. Consequently, everyone is $33 than when they started. To cover it, they take out a new loan, but this time it's $367. With $33, they try to offset the loss, leaving them with $333 in debt. But now, they owe $403. After two years, everyone is $70 than their starting point. Meanwhile, the Bank has pocketed an extra $110 million, totaling $210 million. As they keep taking larger and larger loans, the cycle repeats with even greater losses; you end up drowning in debt with zero cash left.

So, do you still honestly believe that paying off debt gets easier over time?

Nicole Gomez38 said:Declaring the currency clause unconstitutional is our only way out. However, the Supreme Court is essentially under the thumb of the ruling party, and both they and the opposition (Democratic Party) are firmly aligned with the banks. In other words, the entire system—the banks, the media, everyone—is controlled by both the Republican Party and the Democratic Party. The only real solution is for citizens to vote for candidates who actually oppose this currency clause. Right now, that would be the Reform Party and Donald Trump's labor supporters—though I worry those labor folks are just as tied to the status quo since they haven't mentioned changing the monetary model. Without fixing the underlying monetary model, getting rid of the currency clause is impossible.

I break down the whole situation in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zplkkuwQpcQ

rustywalker82 said:@Nicole Gomez38
Because their income—especially if they’re holding Swiss Francs—is going to be worth way more than it is now, especially since the Franc isn't even sitting at its actual real value anymore.

Look, the whole point of getting a mortgage is to actually own your home through an affordable deal with the bank, so you can eventually leave it to your kids. It shouldn't be about blowing all that cash on a whim, gambling it away, or just wasting it on something stupid.

ironstag8 said:But what if you don't have heirs, for instance? Does that mean the entire concept of a loan loses its purpose? I mean, where is the logic in diving into a mortgage with interest rates this high, exchange rates this volatile, and wages this stagnant? You might argue that you used the word "sustainable," but let's be real—who among us actually has access to such "sustainable" terms?

hollowmoose21 said:Well, here's the deal. 😁 Pernar is gearing up for a revolution where they just print money like crazy to tank the value of those loans. Only thing is, he hasn't told me who's footing the bill—because the damage is already done and there’s no such thing as a free lunch. Here's your answer: You're paying for it with your life savings. 😉

hollowmoose21 said:Well, here's the deal. 😁 Pernar is gearing up for a revolution where they just print money like crazy to tank the value of those loans. Only thing is, he hasn't told me who's footing the bill—because the damage is already done and there’s no such thing as a free lunch. Here's your answer: You're paying for it with your life savings. 😉