Banking by Donald Trump & Gotham City

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?

Right now, hardly anyone...
Long-term stability is in the best interest of both the lenders and the borrowers. Plus, economic history didn't just stop dead after the summer of 2011.

Nicole Gomez38 said: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.

You’ve misspoken more times than I can count in just this one day you've been here. 😁

Look, I asked you a very specific question: which of the major banks was sold for less than its bailout cost? It's easy to throw around slogans about how banks were handed over to shady foreign interests for pennies on the dollar after being rescued, but I'm asking for hard data. You brought up the Bank of Los Angeles—which controls less than 7% of the market—so tell me, exactly how much money was poured into its bailout?

The heavy hitters—JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Goldman Sachs, and Hypo Real Estate—account for over 75% of the total banking market. That is a massive majority. So, which one of them was actually bailed out for more than its sale price? 🙂

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.

How exactly do you see that working? You're basically calling for nationalization, but then who's supposed to pay back the savers—the bank owner? Which owner would that even be?

Robin Rodriguez5 said:You’ve misspoken more times than I can count in just this one day you've been here. 😁

Look, I asked you a very specific question: which of the major banks was sold for less than its bailout cost? It's easy to throw around slogans about how banks were handed over to shady foreign interests for pennies on the dollar after being rescued, but I'm asking for hard data. You brought up the Bank of Los Angeles—which controls less than 7% of the market—so tell me, exactly how much money was poured into its bailout?

The heavy hitters—JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Goldman Sachs, and Hypo Real Estate—account for over 75% of the total banking market. That is a massive majority. So, which one of them was actually bailed out for more than its sale price? 🙂

The top three were all sold off for peanuts (Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, and JP Morgan Chase). Wells Fargo was never even state-owned to begin with, and as for Hypo—they're just expanding using US dollars that the Republican Party squeezed out of the country, all while paying off bribes to Sanders & Co. for those little favors.

Nicole Gomez38 said: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.

The way you're describing lending and cumulative deposits is just... off—it completely misses the whole concept of value creation. If we're looking at things today— $33 If we can pull this off across the whole country—and actually hit our targets by the end of the year—we'll have managed to create plenty of new jobs. $1.75 Please do not print any new ones. $1.75 It’s not just about borrowing—it’s about actually creating value by producing new goods that match that worth. $1.75If we had actually used that money wisely, paying back any debt wouldn't be an issue at all—but instead, we just borrowed funds to waste on total nonsense rather than investing it to create actual value. Of course, now we're stuck in this loop of borrowing more just to cover old debts. That isn't some fundamental flaw in the system; it’s just us being irresponsible and blowing our cash on complete garbage.

Nicole Gomez38 said: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.

I don't know the exact numbers, so I won't comment on those—but doesn't this whole way they’re selling off banks just show how poorly the government is handling things? Tell me—if you personally owned a bank, would you really sell it for... $3.25 If she were actually worth 50? No way—not a chance. But when the government holds all the cards, it’s just business as usual—some politician is bound to greenlight selling off state assets for pennies on the dollar. $3.25 And he walks away with another couple of bucks in his pocket—just what we needed.

The whole situation with the banks isn't exactly black and white—even if you agree they were sold off for pennies on the dollar. Honestly, the wave of bank acquisitions over the years actually did some good; it acted as a stabilizer for the entire economy. Just imagine if Sanders & Co. had treated JP Morgan Chase and Bank of America like their own personal piggy banks—kind of like how some people treated Wells Fargo.

hollowmoose21 said:How exactly do you see that working? You're basically calling for nationalization, but then who's supposed to pay back the savers—the bank owner? Which owner would that even be?

The issue isn't actually about paying back the savers—that money is sitting right there in the bank—it's the impossibility of disabling foreign exchange clauses for loans while still allowing them for savings at the same time.

Ideally, the owners should just become employees and clients themselves. After all, a bank operates just like a casino—it doesn't actually create any real value; it just shuffles the chips (the cash) around in a circle so that the house always wins and everyone else loses.

Harold Nelson6 said:The way you're describing lending and cumulative deposits is just... off—it completely misses the whole concept of value creation. If we're looking at things today— $33 If we can pull this off across the whole country—and actually hit our targets by the end of the year—we'll have managed to create plenty of new jobs. $1.75 Please do not print any new ones. $1.75 It’s not just about borrowing—it’s about actually creating value by producing new goods that match that worth. $1.75If we had actually used that money wisely, paying back any debt wouldn't be an issue at all—but instead, we just borrowed funds to waste on total nonsense rather than investing it to create actual value. Of course, now we're stuck in this loop of borrowing more just to cover old debts. That isn't some fundamental flaw in the system; it’s just us being irresponsible and blowing our cash on complete garbage.

I don't know the exact numbers, so I won't comment on those—but doesn't this whole way they’re selling off banks just show how poorly the government is handling things? Tell me—if you personally owned a bank, would you really sell it for... $3.25 If she were actually worth 50? No way—not a chance. But when the government holds all the cards, it’s just business as usual—some politician is bound to greenlight selling off state assets for pennies on the dollar. $3.25 And he walks away with another couple of bucks in his pocket—just what we needed.

The whole situation with the banks isn't exactly black and white—even if you agree they were sold off for pennies on the dollar. Honestly, the wave of bank acquisitions over the years actually did some good; it acted as a stabilizer for the entire economy. Just imagine if Sanders & Co. had treated JP Morgan Chase and Bank of America like their own personal piggy banks—kind of like how some people treated Wells Fargo.

What I'm trying to get across is that we don't have non-credit issuance here—even when new value is generated, it isn't covered by non-credit issuance. You're essentially creating new capital while the system creates new debt—external debt that bleeds into internal debt because the Federal Reserve acts as the exchange.

Nicole Gomez38 said:The top three were all sold off for peanuts (Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, and JP Morgan Chase). Wells Fargo was never even state-owned to begin with, and as for Hypo—they're just expanding using US dollars that the Republican Party squeezed out of the country, all while paying off bribes to Sanders & Co. for those little favors.

Don't exhaust yourself. I asked you which specific one was sold for less than what it cost to bail it out via the FDIC. You’re the one making that "claim," not me.

So, we're slowly realizing that some of these weren't even sold because they were foreign-owned from day one. Come on, we're almost at the point where we uncover the rest of the mess.

The core issue with this whole credit mess is that debt is ballooning four times faster than the money supply—that’s exactly why we’re seeing this massive credit crunch, all those foreclosures, and frozen accounts.

It all ties back to the way the American Monetary System is structured; basically, the Federal Reserve acts more like a currency exchange than a true central bank, especially since there's no non-credit-based money issuance.

What I’m getting at is that the only real way to save people drowning in debt is to overhaul the entire monetary model while simultaneously scrapping the indexation clauses—you simply can't do one without the other.

And let's be honest: you can't pull off that first step without a devaluation, because the dollar only maintains its "strength" by pumping up external debt. I'll say it again—the Federal Reserve is acting like a mere exchange house, which means we're stuck with a derivative-heavy model similar to the one that sent Argentina into a tailspin.

http://zelenapolitika.wordpress.com/...veo-u-propast/

Nicole Gomez38 said:The issue isn't actually about paying back the savers—that money is sitting right there in the bank—it's the impossibility of disabling foreign exchange clauses for loans while still allowing them for savings at the same time.

Ideally, the owners should just become employees and clients themselves. After all, a bank operates just like a casino—it doesn't actually create any real value; it just shuffles the chips (the cash) around in a circle so that the house always wins and everyone else loses.

Bullshit. It doesn't exist.

hollowmoose21 said:Bullshit. It doesn't exist.

So where did all those deposits go—mostly foreign currency ones, too—if they aren't sitting in the banks?

Nicole Gomez38 said:The issue isn't actually about paying back the savers—that money is sitting right there in the bank—it's the impossibility of disabling foreign exchange clauses for loans while still allowing them for savings at the same time.

Ideally, the owners should just become employees and clients themselves. After all, a bank operates just like a casino—it doesn't actually create any real value; it just shuffles the chips (the cash) around in a circle so that the house always wins and everyone else loses.

If that were true, what would a bank run even be? Why would the term even exist, let alone pose a threat?

Nicole Gomez38 said:So where did all those deposits go—mostly foreign currency ones, too—if they aren't sitting in the banks?

They get funneled into investments or spent through loans, I guess.

Come on, moderator, just call the cops and have them haul Jon Stewart away for spamming this thread.
Everyone’s feeling pretty satisfied 😁

Robin Rodriguez5 said:If that were true, what would a bank run even be? Why would the term even exist, let alone pose a threat?

That's a great question. A bank run isn't actually an issue if there’s no credit multiplication happening . In other words—if the Federal Reserve prohibits banks from issuing multiple loans against the exact same deposit (basically multiplying debt without increasing the actual money supply).

At the same time, a portion of those deposits—say, $15 billion—is held at the Federal Reserve as required reserves. If things ever get "dicey," the Fed simply lowers the reserve requirement and pushes those same deposits back to the commercial banks
.
From what I gather, though, American banks do engage in credit multiplication (albeit somewhat limitedly). If that's the case, it means they truly don't have a portion of the deposits on hand—but that's a whole other conversation, and you can't blame the government for it; that money was never physically there to begin with, regardless of who owns the bank
.

Carl Foster8 said:They get funneled into investments or spent through loans, I guess.

Sure, deposits are technically "placed," but let's be real—about 93% of the money supply stays tucked away inside the bank at any given time. The cash isn't actually leaving the vault; it's just being shuffled from one checking account number to another.

It would be fascinating to see just how much physical cash big banks like JPMorgan Chase actually keep on hand to cover all those savings accounts. I’m not suggesting everyone shows up at once—that's obviously not happening—but if you gave them a week to scramble and pull together enough liquid cash to pay out every single depositor, what would that look like?
We also can't forget that savers have every right to pull their money whenever they want; sure, they might take a hit on interest or pay a small penalty for an early withdrawal, but the access is there. Meanwhile, loans are strictly tied to specific maturity dates..

But that’s a conversation for another time.

Nicole Gomez38 said:The issue isn't actually about paying back the savers—that money is sitting right there in the bank—it's the impossibility of disabling foreign exchange clauses for loans while still allowing them for savings at the same time.

Ideally, the owners should just become employees and clients themselves. After all, a bank operates just like a casino—it doesn't actually create any real value; it just shuffles the chips (the cash) around in a circle so that the house always wins and everyone else loses.

Well, now you’ve stepped right into my backyard. How can you say a casino doesn't create value? Just look at what it costs to build one, all those people they employ, the sheer scale of the operation. Sure, most players lose, but they’re paying for what they want out of it—the adrenaline, the entertainment, that slim chance at a jackpot. A casino provides a service, much like a bank does, and as long as people keep walking through those doors, it means that service is something they clearly feel they need.

And moving on to the banking side of things, banks are fundamental to how society progresses. Period. Try finding a bank in Zimbabwe that would ever lend you money in local currency at a fixed interest rate. Try finding a single bank tucked away in the middle of the Amazon rainforest.

Another thing to consider is how bankers have basically engineered a system to insulate themselves from the consequences of their own bad or reckless decisions. They’ve been throwing around someone else's Johnson like it was some kind of socialist collective fund, and they can thank their cozy little relationships with politicians for that privilege.

To me, this whole situation looks like a textbook Ponzi scheme where the current mortgage holders are stuck at the very bottom of the pyramid. They were the last ones to jump in. I’d be curious to see if the people who bought their properties back when they were, say, $200,000 a unit, and now see them worth $300,000, are actually complaining about rising rates. Does anyone here actually fit that description?

neondriver5 said:It would be fascinating to see just how much physical cash big banks like JPMorgan Chase actually keep on hand to cover all those savings accounts. I’m not suggesting everyone shows up at once—that's obviously not happening—but if you gave them a week to scramble and pull together enough liquid cash to pay out every single depositor, what would that look like?
We also can't forget that savers have every right to pull their money whenever they want; sure, they might take a hit on interest or pay a small penalty for an early withdrawal, but the access is there. Meanwhile, loans are strictly tied to specific maturity dates..

But that’s a conversation for another time.

That is definitely a separate topic, but it’s an absolutely fascinating question. The core issue with credit multiplication is the lack of actual, tangible cash. Most banks probably count quasi-money toward their deposits—money that doesn't even truly "exist" in a physical sense.

"Quasi-money refers to financial assets that aren't cash itself but can be converted into cash quite easily.

The bulk of quasi-money consists of savings deposits; you can't use them directly to buy groceries, but you can request a withdrawal in cash or transfer them to a checking account upon demand."

I honestly don't get how anyone in the US can actually stick up for big banks. They make insane amounts of money just fueled by pure greed and that whole "because we can" mentality.