Banking by Donald Trump & Gotham City

Jerry Williams41 said: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?

I wouldn't say they're really on the same level, though. Nobody is forcing you to go gamble, but you pretty much need a bank account just to function in today's economy, right?

Am I ever going to get actual answers from these banks? They control over 75% of the market here in the States, yet they were sold off for less than what was spent just to bail them out in the first place.

Nicole Gomez38 said: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.

Yeah, real smart, Sherlock. Banks just take all the cash you deposit and shove it into one massive piggy bank. Then, when you pull out $33 at an ATM, it sends a signal for some teller to run over, smash the piggy bank with a hammer, and toss the cash into the machine.

Nicole Gomez38 said: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
.

Make up your mind: would a bank run actually be a problem or not? You’re out here playing both sides—one minute you’re rambling about how it wouldn't be an issue if certain conditions were met, and the next, you're acting like those bank deposits are perfectly safe and easy to pay out. Pick a lane.

Matthew Evans7 said: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.

Don't go thinking everyone hanging out on this forum is just some random user looking out for credit applicants. Trust me—the big-shot bankers and politicians are keeping a very close eye on these threads too, because this stuff hits them right where it hurts. xD

Jacob White14 said:I wouldn't say they're really on the same level, though. Nobody is forcing you to go gamble, but you pretty much need a bank account just to function in today's economy, right?

Someone spends all night at an Atlantic City casino, passing massive amounts of cash from hand to hand—but at the end of the day, zero actual value is created. It’s no different than what happens at a big commercial bank. Yet, you're forced to deal with the bank when you need to, whereas nobody's required to step foot in a casino—even though the fundamental difference between the two is practically non-existent. Zack, you hit the nail on the head with that comment.

Robin Rodriguez5 said:Make up your mind: would a bank run actually be a problem or not? You’re out here playing both sides—one minute you’re rambling about how it wouldn't be an issue if certain conditions were met, and the next, you're acting like those bank deposits are perfectly safe and easy to pay out. Pick a lane.

Regarding those four major banks—I already told you they aren't, so please don't badger me with the same question ten times over—but regardless, they’re all undervalued.

As for a bank run, it would definitely be a problem depending on the level of credit multiplier—from what I gather, based on $33 bank deposits, they can issue $50 in loans. Honestly, I'm dying to know just how much of that "virtual money" is actually out there. So, yes, I think it would be a problem, though I have no clue to what extent since those details are kept under lock and key by the big players. It's definitely something we should dive into eventually, but it's a bit of a tangent right now. I suspect that credit multiplier will always exist; it’s just a matter of how high it goes.

Matthew Evans7 said: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.

Consumers are the ones enabling those profit margins. A mortgage isn't some social welfare program, and nobody is forcing anyone to sign up for one. ☕

Look, I’m not out here defending banks either. I’m just sticking to common sense and basic logic. Logic dictates that a bank—just like any other corporation or private individual—would much rather sell something for $1.75 than for 4...

It’s pretty ridiculous to me when someone from a bank or a guy like The Wolf of Wall Street starts asking for "social sensitivity." That concept simply doesn't exist 🙂

Banks create value, so it’s actually a win that they were sold off and the profits are heading out of the States. I mean, interest rates here are four times higher than what those same banks charge back in their home countries... it's totally business as usual. 🙂

Just because you can, doesn't mean you should kill someone. Same goes for banks here—they pull criminal stunts just because they think they can get away with it..

Jamie Newman5 said:Consumers are the ones enabling those profit margins. A mortgage isn't some social welfare program, and nobody is forcing anyone to sign up for one. ☕

Look, I’m not out here defending banks either. I’m just sticking to common sense and basic logic. Logic dictates that a bank—just like any other corporation or private individual—would much rather sell something for $1.75 than for 4...

It’s pretty ridiculous to me when someone from a bank or a guy like The Wolf of Wall Street starts asking for "social sensitivity." That concept simply doesn't exist 🙂

Look, whether you're living with your parents (which, based on this post, seems likely) or you just inherited some property is a totally different story. But if people want to live actual lives, they need a place to call home.

It's wild that there are actually people in the US who would write something defending the banks like this. I can only hope you're getting some kind of direct kickback for this, because if you aren't, you're seriously in trouble. It’s not funny—it’s actually pretty depressing that someone could think this way.

Nicole Gomez38 said: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.

Uhh... Not quite. 😁

The fact that newly created money shows up as a liability on the Fed's balance sheet is really just an accounting classification.

Besides, there’s more primary money in the US than our total external debt—which pretty clearly points to non-credit issuance being a thing.

Nicole Gomez38 said:Regarding those four major banks—I already told you they aren't, so please don't badger me with the same question ten times over—but regardless, they’re all undervalued.

As for a bank run, it would definitely be a problem depending on the level of credit multiplier—from what I gather, based on $33 bank deposits, they can issue $50 in loans. Honestly, I'm dying to know just how much of that "virtual money" is actually out there. So, yes, I think it would be a problem, though I have no clue to what extent since those details are kept under lock and key by the big players. It's definitely something we should dive into eventually, but it's a bit of a tangent right now. I suspect that credit multiplier will always exist; it’s just a matter of how high it goes.

What a total joke of an entry. You’re basically trying to be Buffett, Trump, and Branson all rolled into one. 🙏

Matthew Evans7 said:Banks create value, so it’s actually a win that they were sold off and the profits are heading out of the States. I mean, interest rates here are four times higher than what those same banks charge back in their home countries... it's totally business as usual. 🙂

Just because you can, doesn't mean you should kill someone. Same goes for banks here—they pull criminal stunts just because they think they can get away with it..

If you think you could do a better job, go ahead—get some funding from abroad, start your own credit institution, and offer loans at lower rates.

Otherwise, you still have the choice to take out a loan or not. Nobody is forcing you to sign anything, whether it's at four times the rate or with interest rates that are 44 times higher. The decision is yours.

All of this is getting a bit off-topic; maybe we should move this to a separate thread.

Carl Foster8 said:If you think you could do a better job, go ahead—get some funding from abroad, start your own credit institution, and offer loans at lower rates.

Otherwise, you still have the choice to take out a loan or not. Nobody is forcing you to sign anything, whether it's at four times the rate or with interest rates that are 44 times higher. The decision is yours.

All of this is getting a bit off-topic; maybe we should move this to a separate thread.

Like I said, people are all different. It’s totally clear to me that some Germans invest and make money, but I just don't get why anyone would defend those sold-off banks that are basically running criminal operations—unless they're a German who benefits directly from it. Sure, a handful of people in the US benefit. But whether they're acting shady or not, there's really no point in debating it.

Banderas, it’s pretty obvious he isn't actually going to answer you; he’s just throwing out these empty platitudes, hoping they’ll land with someone gullible.

@Zack, one of those clichés he loves to lean on is this idea that casino owners are inherently predatory because the house always wins while most people lose. My take is simpler: it’s just a service, much like walking into a Chase branch or heading to a barber shop, and as long as there’s a demand for that service, it exists. You have account management services at a bank—not exactly mandatory—and then there’s the whole credit expansion business, which I'm fairly certain isn't an obligation either.

What really gets under my skin about the big banks, though, is the complete lack of transparency when they push variable interest rates. It feels like a total scam, and honestly, I can't wrap my head around how people ever agreed to it, but here we are. They only signed up because they were chasing their own immediate interests, trying to snag a piece of real estate before the market prices them out.

Look, I don't want to play moderator here, but this guy looks like a total plant sent specifically to wreck the group we're trying to build. Feels like a paid shill to me. Honestly, just delete him. 🤷

Matthew Evans7 said:Like I said, people are all different. It’s totally clear to me that some Germans invest and make money, but I just don't get why anyone would defend those sold-off banks that are basically running criminal operations—unless they're a German who benefits directly from it. Sure, a handful of people in the US benefit. But whether they're acting shady or not, there's really no point in debating it.

Both sides entered into this deal voluntarily, and both sides stood to gain.

Now that one side finds the agreed-upon obligations inconvenient, they want to walk away.

Because of this dodging of responsibility, the current situation is much worse than it ought to be.

slydrifter39 said:Look, I don't want to play moderator here, but this guy looks like a total plant sent specifically to wreck the group we're trying to build. Feels like a paid shill to me. Honestly, just delete him. 🤷

Signature 😉

Matthew Evans7 said:Look, whether you're living with your parents (which, based on this post, seems likely) or you just inherited some property is a totally different story. But if people want to live actual lives, they need a place to call home.

It's wild that there are actually people in the US who would write something defending the banks like this. I can only hope you're getting some kind of direct kickback for this, because if you aren't, you're seriously in trouble. It’s not funny—it’s actually pretty depressing that someone could think this way.

You’re getting all emotional about this. I'm just looking at the facts.

The solution to the housing crisis isn't just about owning a condo. It’s more complicated than that.

Swiss francs, Swiss francs... just making sure we aren't totally out of sync here. 😁)

Matthew Evans7 said:Like I said, people are all different. It’s totally clear to me that some Germans invest and make money, but I just don't get why anyone would defend those sold-off banks that are basically running criminal operations—unless they're a German who benefits directly from it. Sure, a handful of people in the US benefit. But whether they're acting shady or not, there's really no point in debating it.

Look, nobody is defending the banks—they're just trying to explain how the system actually works. Once you grasp the mechanics of the system, you realize that starting revolutions or calling for nationalization isn't going to put food on the table.

What debtors really need to do—and this is the only thing that seems like it might actually work—is keep building their association, then hire serious lawyers and economists to negotiate more favorable terms with the banks collectively.

slydrifter39 said:Look, I don't want to play moderator here, but this guy looks like a total plant sent specifically to wreck the group we're trying to build. Feels like a paid shill to me. Honestly, just delete him. 🤷

If you go ahead and delete it, you basically end up looking like a shill for the banking Masons, but if you don't, you lose that essential exchange of ideas and you're essentially preventing people from forming their own perspectives based on the debate. It’s definitely a messy off-topic situation, sure, but maybe it would be better to just move the conversation to its own dedicated thread and let people work on founding the association in peace.