Banking by Donald Trump & Gotham City

Kenneth Nelson20 said:Good morning, everyone—looks like the Dollar is sliding a bit this morning, and honestly, based on what I'm seeing, I'd say we might be looking at a downward trend throughout the day.☕

It’s either the banks or us—someone has to blink. Personally, I say screw the banks. Call me a Marxist if you want, but my stance is simple: we need to stop them to actually protect private property from being swallowed up by bank foreclosures.

The current model is fundamentally corrupt, and frankly, those debts are just never getting paid back.

ironstag8 said:Savings are gradually being converted into "real" money 😉 so things like exchange rates, the Swiss Franc, and all that other nonsense won't be an issue—thank God there isn't much credit out there to worry about, so 🍿

People with this kind of mindset—the type who would totally justify the government seizing private assets through bank nationalization—wouldn't take long to find a new "problem" once they've made an absolute mess of everything by nationalizing the banks...

And that new "problem" could easily be private owners of precious metals, which would then need to be seized and handed over to the state. The logic is that doing so would allow the benefits of holding gold to "trickle down" to everyone (just like they currently claim that nationalizing banks will make their profits "trickle down" to the masses).

Nicole Gomez38 said:The whole goal here is to protect people with deposits at the expense of the bank owners. A devaluation is inevitable at this point; trying to prop up the Dollar as artificially strong by pumping external debt while the Federal Reserve acts like nothing more than a glorified currency exchange is simply unsustainable in the long run.

It’s also worth noting that total debt (loans issued) exceeds deposits by about $600 billion, whereas actual cash on hand (in vaults, registers, or even under mattresses) is only around $100 billion.

As of late 2010, total loans sit at roughly $1.8 trillion, while the total money supply—deposits plus physical cash—is only about $1.3 trillion. Because of how this monetary model works, the gap between debt and the money supply is widening fast; basically, debt is ballooning four times faster than the money supply. (That's exactly why we're seeing so many freezes, foreclosures, and liquidity crises).

Since half of all bank deposits are held in foreign currency, if the Dollar were to devalue by 20%, those deposits would effectively lose 10% of their value since only half are held in domestic currency. (And that’s assuming the government actually chooses to protect citizens over the bank owners, which is my ultimate goal).

If I were thinking ahead, I’d suggest citizens hit the banks hard and start swapping their Dollars for foreign currency before any major devaluation hits.

At the end of the day, the only question that really matters is whether the government stands with its people or with the banks—everything else is just technicalities.

Where exactly are you pulling these numbers from? The idea that bank deposits are split perfectly 50/50 between Dollars and foreign currency sounds like a guess.

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.

If it happens, it happens. If we all had a crystal ball and could see the future, everything would just be simple arithmetic, wouldn't it?

By the way, nobody truly knows what things will look like five years from now, let alone trying to forecast twenty or thirty years down the line.
The Franc might lose value—meaning the Dollar could strengthen—but there's no guarantee. For all we know, the EU could face a total collapse in the meantime. People are already saying the world is headed for disaster next year, so while you’re looking at the bright side, there's plenty of dark scenarios to consider too. We really ought to be brainstorming solutions that hold up even when things take a turn for the worse, don't you think?

Harold Nelson6 said:People with this kind of mindset—the type who would totally justify the government seizing private assets through bank nationalization—wouldn't take long to find a new "problem" once they've made an absolute mess of everything by nationalizing the banks...

And that new "problem" could easily be private owners of precious metals, which would then need to be seized and handed over to the state. The logic is that doing so would allow the benefits of holding gold to "trickle down" to everyone (just like they currently claim that nationalizing banks will make their profits "trickle down" to the masses).

Whoa there, slow down and grab some chips first.
Where exactly did I ever justify seizing private property???

neno1966 said:Back to nature, huh? Calling it "carelessness" is a bit of an understatement when you realize people jumped at those Swiss Franc loans just because the interest rates looked better than the Dollar. Total madness.

If anyone deserves to be called reckless in this situation, it’s definitely the banks.

Nicole Gomez38 said: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.

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.

Oh sure, let's just start taking handouts from overseas donors like the LGBT crowd does—yeah, I totally agree, that’d definitely make us more productive and way more united. ☕

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...

Nope. Not even close.
If you honestly think banks are ever going to offer something that actually benefits the customer instead of just lining their own pockets, you’re dreaming. Seriously, get real.

Jacob White14 said:If it happens, it happens. If we all had a crystal ball and could see the future, everything would just be simple arithmetic, wouldn't it?

By the way, nobody truly knows what things will look like five years from now, let alone trying to forecast twenty or thirty years down the line.
The Franc might lose value—meaning the Dollar could strengthen—but there's no guarantee. For all we know, the EU could face a total collapse in the meantime. People are already saying the world is headed for disaster next year, so while you’re looking at the bright side, there's plenty of dark scenarios to consider too. We really ought to be brainstorming solutions that hold up even when things take a turn for the worse, don't you think?

Nobody can tell you for sure what the next 20 years are going to look like. The only thing that's a total guarantee? This whole deal, cooked up between the government and the big banks, is just a move to make sure they can squeeze those loan payments out of us easier, both now and in the near future. If the wind shifts, you better believe the banks will be the first ones to pivot. No doubt about it.

ironstag8 said:Whoa there, slow down and grab some chips first.
Where exactly did I ever justify seizing private property???

Forget the chips—it’s summer, you gotta watch your figure... 😁

You didn't justify seizing private property at all—here was my actual train of thought:

1. Zabotinski claims you'll use your own savings to fund Pernar's ideas
2. You mention turning those savings into "real" money
3. I'm just jumping in to say that even that "real" money won't save you once we hit the Mad Max scenario Pernar is setting up for us... 😁

My comment was more of a general observation—I just get the feeling a lot of people will fall for these "solutions." I wanted to point out that the people offering them have a very specific mindset—they always point the finger at some third party as the root of all evil, when really, they're just peddling demagoguery.

Harold Nelson6 said:People with this kind of mindset—the type who would totally justify the government seizing private assets through bank nationalization—wouldn't take long to find a new "problem" once they've made an absolute mess of everything by nationalizing the banks...

And that new "problem" could easily be private owners of precious metals, which would then need to be seized and handed over to the state. The logic is that doing so would allow the benefits of holding gold to "trickle down" to everyone (just like they currently claim that nationalizing banks will make their profits "trickle down" to the masses).

Let's call a spade a spade: these banks are thieves. The owners bought them up for way less than what it actually cost to bail them out. This isn't really nationalization; it's just reclaiming stolen goods. Even Slavko Kulić, the former director of the economic institute, has made this exact point.

We're headed for bankruptcy by the end of 2011! The only way out is to nationalize what was stolen from us.
http://e-kastela.com/novosti/american...ji-pokradenog/

Harold Nelson6 said:Forget the chips—it’s summer, you gotta watch your figure... 😁

You didn't justify seizing private property at all—here was my actual train of thought:

1. Zabotinski claims you'll use your own savings to fund Pernar's ideas
2. You mention turning those savings into "real" money
3. I'm just jumping in to say that even that "real" money won't save you once we hit the Mad Max scenario Pernar is setting up for us... 😁

My comment was more of a general observation—I just get the feeling a lot of people will fall for these "solutions." I wanted to point out that the people offering them have a very specific mindset—they always point the finger at some third party as the root of all evil, when really, they're just peddling demagoguery.

Honestly, those "solutions" that rely entirely on tearing down and spitting on whoever's currently in office drive me insane too. Look, I agree the government, the ruling party, and basically 99% of the opposition are all running for the same garbage, but if you actually want to offer a solution, you need to bring something better to the table. You can't just base your entire "platform" on trashing everyone else.

Plus, that Facebook group and their leader? Total nonsense most of the time.
In my opinion, an organization with actual, clearly defined goals has a way better shot at making something happen.

We all saw how that organizer's protests ended—just little walks in the park. They got shorter and smaller every single time until they were basically non-existent.

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.

Give me a break, rustywalker82, what are you even talking about? Where are you going to pay back less?😕
Do you actually realize what extending a loan by 10 years—from 20 to 30—really means? Don't make me sit here and calculate exactly how much extra interest you'll be bleeding at the end...
On a $100,000 loan, over 20 years you'd pay back

Effective Annual Interest Rate (APR):
6.39%
Monthly payment:
$728
Total amount repaid:
$174,724
Total interest paid:
$74,724

30 years

Effective Annual Interest Rate (APR):
6.39%
Monthly payment:
$612
Total amount repaid:
$220,489
Total interest paid:
$120,489

So you save a full hundred bucks a month, but in the end, you're paying $50,000 more in interest. That's roughly 60 percent of the total cost.
Compared to a 20-year loan, where interest accounts for about 40 percent.

Where is the benefit for debtors in that? Good grief...
Sure, inflation will play its part, but we're talking about the Swiss Franc. If anyone is stable, it's that currency. It will certainly lose less value than others. We won't see a situation where you pay off a loan in three months because inflation hit triple digits.

And that new "problem" could easily lead to private owners of precious metals being targeted, with the state seizing them to "distribute" the benefits to everyone else (similar to how they currently claim nationalizing banks will "spread" profits to the masses).

Nonsense. 😬 I mean, it wouldn't go that far; that would involve nationalizing massive holdings, and we saw how poorly that went in our recent history.

Nicole Gomez38 said:Let's call a spade a spade: these banks are thieves. The owners bought them up for way less than what it actually cost to bail them out. This isn't really nationalization; it's just reclaiming stolen goods. Even Slavko Kulić, the former director of the economic institute, has made this exact point.

We're headed for bankruptcy by the end of 2011! The only way out is to nationalize what was stolen from us.
http://e-kastela.com/novosti/american...ji-pokradenog/

Which specific banks are you talking about being sold to foreigners for less than their bailout costs?
Start with the big four here in America: ZABA, PBZ, RBA, and Erste Group.

neondriver5 said:Give me a break, rustywalker82, what are you even talking about? Where are you going to pay back less?😕
Do you actually realize what extending a loan by 10 years—from 20 to 30—really means? Don't make me sit here and calculate exactly how much extra interest you'll be bleeding at the end...
On a $100,000 loan, over 20 years you'd pay back

Effective Annual Interest Rate (APR):
6.39%
Monthly payment:
$728
Total amount repaid:
$174,724
Total interest paid:
$74,724

30 years

Effective Annual Interest Rate (APR):
6.39%
Monthly payment:
$612
Total amount repaid:
$220,489
Total interest paid:
$120,489

So you save a full hundred bucks a month, but in the end, you're paying $50,000 more in interest. That's roughly 60 percent of the total cost.
Compared to a 20-year loan, where interest accounts for about 40 percent.

Where is the benefit for debtors in that? Good grief...
Sure, inflation will play its part, but we're talking about the Swiss Franc. If anyone is stable, it's that currency. It will certainly lose less value than others. We won't see a situation where you pay off a loan in three months because inflation hit triple digits.

And that new "problem" could easily lead to private owners of precious metals being targeted, with the state seizing them to "distribute" the benefits to everyone else (similar to how they currently claim nationalizing banks will "spread" profits to the masses).

Nonsense. 😬 I mean, it wouldn't go that far; that would involve nationalizing massive holdings, and we saw how poorly that went in our recent history.

Not nonsense at all—just looking at things realistically.

The first step is "returning the banks to the people" from the hands of "corrupt foreigners."

Once you see how much nothing they've actually achieved, then you move to the next stage—seizing assets from individuals who have "too much" anyway. But of course, they won't touch the "suitable" tycoons who are cozy with the government and politicians; they'll only target the "unsuitable" ones and regular folks who educate themselves, work their tails off, and save money. I mean, seriously—where does ironstag8 get the nerve to have savings and buy precious metals while the average American can barely make ends meet?!

Robin Rodriguez5 said:Where exactly are you pulling these numbers from? The idea that bank deposits are split perfectly 50/50 between Dollars and foreign currency sounds like a guess.

Actually, the situation is even better—banks hold most of their deposits in foreign currency, which means if the dollar fluctuates against the local currency, citizens wouldn't lose much.

"According to the Associated Press, total foreign currency and local currency deposits at banks reached $173.1 billion by the end of May, with foreign currency accounts making up nearly 80 percent, according to Federal Reserve data."

However, a portion of those "foreign currency deposits" actually refers to local currency accounts tied to exchange rate clauses—basically, people save in dollars, but the bank holds the local currency instead. If they didn't, banks would need to keep 80% of their cash in actual foreign currency, which would make daily operations a nightmare because they wouldn't have enough liquidity in local cash.

In other words, just because Americans are saving in foreign denominations doesn't mean the banks are physically sitting on piles of dollars; as I mentioned, they hold the local currency equivalent.

The Federal Reserve's own tables give us the real answer regarding how much foreign currency is actually held by banks. Data from the Fed from March 2011 shows that total foreign currency deposits at banks sit at $142.5 billion. This means there is more foreign currency than local currency in the banks, though still less than that 80% mark.

To put it simply: while 80% of deposits are categorized as foreign, part of that is actually local currency protected by exchange rate clauses.

"Table D8: Foreign currency deposits at banks"

142,502.6

Here’s the kicker: without nationalizing the banks, it's impossible to protect both debtors and savers at the same time. You can't selectively cancel exchange rate protections just for loans. The whole point of nationalization is to resolve the issue of foreign debt for borrowers while minimizing the sting of devaluation for savers.

For the record, I am strictly against communism and I'm all for lower tax rates. I'm talking about nationalizing banks because it's the only way to shield private property from these macro-level thieves—not because I want the government seizing assets one day. Quite the opposite, actually; my family lost everything to communists, and now the banks are doing the exact same thing to us, except they call it "foreclosure" instead of nationalization.

http://zelenapolitika.wordpress.com/...reza-na-dobit/

Nicole Gomez38 said:Actually, the situation is even better—banks hold most of their deposits in foreign currency, which means if the dollar fluctuates against the local currency, citizens wouldn't lose much.

"According to the Associated Press, total foreign currency and local currency deposits at banks reached $173.1 billion by the end of May, with foreign currency accounts making up nearly 80 percent, according to Federal Reserve data."

However, a portion of those "foreign currency deposits" actually refers to local currency accounts tied to exchange rate clauses—basically, people save in dollars, but the bank holds the local currency instead. If they didn't, banks would need to keep 80% of their cash in actual foreign currency, which would make daily operations a nightmare because they wouldn't have enough liquidity in local cash.

In other words, just because Americans are saving in foreign denominations doesn't mean the banks are physically sitting on piles of dollars; as I mentioned, they hold the local currency equivalent.

The Federal Reserve's own tables give us the real answer regarding how much foreign currency is actually held by banks. Data from the Fed from March 2011 shows that total foreign currency deposits at banks sit at $142.5 billion. This means there is more foreign currency than local currency in the banks, though still less than that 80% mark.

To put it simply: while 80% of deposits are categorized as foreign, part of that is actually local currency protected by exchange rate clauses.

"Table D8: Foreign currency deposits at banks"

142,502.6

Here’s the kicker: without nationalizing the banks, it's impossible to protect both debtors and savers at the same time. You can't selectively cancel exchange rate protections just for loans. The whole point of nationalization is to resolve the issue of foreign debt for borrowers while minimizing the sting of devaluation for savers.

For the record, I am strictly against communism and I'm all for lower tax rates. I'm talking about nationalizing banks because it's the only way to shield private property from these macro-level thieves—not because I want the government seizing assets one day. Quite the opposite, actually; my family lost everything to communists, and now the banks are doing the exact same thing to us, except they call it "foreclosure" instead of nationalization.

http://zelenapolitika.wordpress.com/...reza-na-dobit/

Of course they hold a massive majority in foreign currency. About 90% of anyone paying attention knows this, because you hear about the "problem" of people saving in dollars instead of dollars on every street corner. You’re completely off base here.
Now, answer me this: which major bank was sold to foreign investors for less money than it cost to bail it out? 🙂

coppersurfer21 said:If anyone deserves to be called reckless in this situation, it’s definitely the banks.

Oh sure, let's just start taking handouts from overseas donors like the LGBT crowd does—yeah, I totally agree, that’d definitely make us more productive and way more united. ☕

Nope. Not even close.
If you honestly think banks are ever going to offer something that actually benefits the customer instead of just lining their own pockets, you’re dreaming. Seriously, get real.

Nobody can tell you for sure what the next 20 years are going to look like. The only thing that's a total guarantee? This whole deal, cooked up between the government and the big banks, is just a move to make sure they can squeeze those loan payments out of us easier, both now and in the near future. If the wind shifts, you better believe the banks will be the first ones to pivot. No doubt about it.

It’s just as unlikely that any consumer is going to offer something that serves the interests of the banks, or that anyone is going to take a hit purely out of the goodness of their heart. It’s rare to find a politician who engages in politics to serve the public rather than their own selfish ambitions, and even Bill Gates isn't handing over his billions out of pure pity for kids halfway across the world; he knows that if everyone gets everything handed to them without working for it, the probability of his own children dying from an overdose goes up.

So, when you hear someone claiming they're acting in your best interest rather than their own, you might want to just walk away because they're lying to you. Everyone operates exclusively for their own benefit, and once you accept that as the baseline reality, there aren't really any hard feelings left to deal with.

Yeah, banks calculate interest about the same way a bakery prices its bread. 🙄

Where are the variable costs? Where’s the risk premium, sovereign risk, the cost of capital, or projected inflation?

All of that just gets swallowed up by the bank's margin.
The more bad debt they carry, the higher the interest rates go—it's basic math. I guess you can't really expect rates to be lower than what the government pays on its own bonds. Still, it’s probably safer to bet on the US Treasury paying back its debt than on someone like Pero Perić running his wholesale business at Pero LLC.

Besides, I don't think interest rates are actually your issue—it's the exchange rate.

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?

Nah, that’s not what I’m saying. I'm saying things are going to be a grind in the short term, which is why restructuring makes sense. You essentially push a portion of that Swiss Franc debt down the road. If the Swiss Franc ever swings back to historical levels, you can just walk away from that restructuring plan then.

Average wages have jumped about 68% in Euros over the last decade, and honestly, that kind of growth is exactly what encouraged households to go into debt—even though, by the way, household debt is actually trending down right now, not up.
Regarding wages or the Swiss Franc, I'm obviously not claiming they'll rise indefinitely. I'm just looking at the actual duration of the loan.
If the US economy stabilizes or we see real growth here in America, restructuring won't have helped anyone anyway, and the "smoking" crowd will just spread their influence to everyone else in the country, whether they owe money or not.

It’s hilarious watching thesewannabe Marxist pretenders bicker about nationalizing banks. Yeah, because we all know how legendary state-owned companies are—just look at the massive losses at Wells Fargo. And don't even get me started on those industrial "success stories" like the old shipyards... nothing but non-stop wins there.

rustywalker82 said:Nah, that’s not what I’m saying. I'm saying things are going to be a grind in the short term, which is why restructuring makes sense. You essentially push a portion of that Swiss Franc debt down the road. If the Swiss Franc ever swings back to historical levels, you can just walk away from that restructuring plan then.

Average wages have jumped about 68% in Euros over the last decade, and honestly, that kind of growth is exactly what encouraged households to go into debt—even though, by the way, household debt is actually trending down right now, not up.
Regarding wages or the Swiss Franc, I'm obviously not claiming they'll rise indefinitely. I'm just looking at the actual duration of the loan.
If the US economy stabilizes or we see real growth here in America, restructuring won't have helped anyone anyway, and the "smoking" crowd will just spread their influence to everyone else in the country, whether they owe money or not.

True, but look at the numbers—back in December '99, the national debt was only $9.9 billion, and today it’s sitting at $47 billion. That means the debt has ballooned by 450%, while wages only saw a 68% increase. Since external debt always trickles down to the domestic level, it’s obvious citizens are drowning in much more debt than their raises can cover. That’s exactly why we hit a credit crisis; you simply cannot pay off what you owe if the debt outpaces your actual cash flow.

On top of that, people are spending less, yet they're forced to rely even more heavily on credit just to maintain that lower level of consumption. I've laid this out before, so I'll just copy-paste it again.

The real culprit here is "compound interest." Picture a country with a million working-age adults. Suppose they all take out a loan from $333 for one year (carrying a 10% interest rate) which they then have to repay $367. After that year, they collectively owe $1.1 billion. The bank walks away with $100 million in profit, leaving everyone with $33 less than they started with. To compensate, they take out another loan, but this time it's for $367. Using $33, the bank covers its losses and hands them $333 in credit. However, they now have to pay back $403. After two years, everyone ends up with $70 less than their initial starting point. Meanwhile, the bank has cleared an additional $110 million, totaling $210 million in profit. By repeatedly taking out larger loans, this cycle just repeats itself with even deeper losses—you end up trapped in an ever-expanding mountain of debt without any extra cash to show for it.

Robin Rodriguez5 said:Which specific banks are you talking about being sold to foreigners for less than their bailout costs?
Start with the big four here in America: ZABA, PBZ, RBA, and Erste Group.

I misspoke—what I meant was they were bailed out and then immediately sold off for pennies on the dollar. We all know who pulled the strings on that.

"Banks bailed out with 15 billion, sold for one, while they're worth 40 billion today"

He claims that 15 billion was spent on the FDIC bailout, yet they were sold for just a billion, even though their current value sits at 40 billion. As a specific example, the Libertarian Party points to the Bank of Miami, which was first sold to an Italian for 84 million, then flipped to an Austrian for 136 million, and finally ended up in the hands of a Frenchman for a whopping billion.

Those big four were also sold way under market value. It’s pretty obvious the government ended up drowning in debt while being stripped of its assets—all while claiming they were selling stuff off specifically to stay out of the red.