Banking by Donald Trump & Gotham City

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..

Does the company you work for sell products with razor-thin margins where everyone gets tiny paychecks and the owner sees zero profit? Or do you guys charge whatever you can get away with?

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 is clear you lack any real understanding of different schools of economic thought. Grouping libertarians with concepts like nationalization or state-driven corporate insolvency is honestly laughable. Libertarians oppose the current form of the Federal Reserve because they view it as excessive government interference; they certainly don't want to hand more power back to the state. They advocate for minimal regulation, low taxes, and reject the welfare state because it conflicts with their ethics of self-reliance. They want the smallest government possible... For a libertarian, nationalizing anything or forcing a company into debt via state action is an absolute taboo.

Jerry Williams41 said: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.

It’ll be moved to a separate thread. I just wanted to make sure the people following the main feed actually understood why certain individuals simply aren't fit to help solve these problems.

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.

You didn't say that before. Now you're claiming they weren't, even though your last take was that they were rehabilitated and sold at the same time—which, let’s be honest, isn't true either. But whatever. I'm not going to waste my breath arguing with you about this anymore.

Look, here’s the deal: you showed up to a conversation where people were actually trying to find constructive solutions, and instead of contributing, you just dropped a pile of clichés and half-baked talking points. This is a forum, not a soapbox. If you were actually looking for a real discussion, you would have bothered to fact-check your claims before tossing them out like gospel. Using the surge in the Swiss franc and the mess it caused for anyone holding those loans as a way to score cheap political points is low. It’s a serious issue, not a campaign stunt. For now, I'll let you stay, but take your "banking insights" elsewhere—find a thread better suited for your brand of amateur punditry.

Here's the latest topic. Dive in and let me know what you think.

There's some information here regarding bailout costs and the sale of banks.

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.

Underpriced? Underpriced compared to what? The bailout cost? Sure. But we're talking about rescuing the bank's assets. Look at JP Morgan Chase's current assets and compare them to their market cap. If a massive bailout is required, there's no way privatization covers it. Besides, the government sold off the banks before the market took off. If they had waited longer (who knows what state the banks would be in by then), they could have fetched a higher price. But who could have known back then?! A true libertarian would say: the government, at the very least!
If bailing out banks was such a lucrative business, private capital would have jumped in. It didn't. It was just the government stepping in to save the nation's financial system.

When it comes to nationalization, you have some pretty bizarre takes for someone claiming to be a libertarian. No actual libertarian would ever propose anything like that. They don't even want bank nationalization or any kind of bailout during a crisis; they just want the banks to fail.

Regarding the European cases of bank nationalization, they followed the exact same pattern as seen here in America: bailouts first, then privatization.

What would we actually gain from nationalizing banks right now? Banks that hand out loans based on political agendas? Wonderful, just what we need!

It’s actually pretty nice that Mr. Pernar decided to jump in here and defend his positions.

Forcing the nationalization of banks through aggressive means isn't even necessary. It’s really just a last resort for a society that allows fractional reserve banking to exist in the first place.

Fractional reserve banking creates several specific effects:
.

If we were to hike up the reserve requirement to 50%, this is what happens:


You can clearly see that the sum of free cash and credit wouldn't grow over time. This would essentially kill off money multiplication within the banks and set the stage perfectly for the government to start issuing its own currency.

What would happen if we raised those reserve requirements on the banks? Heh, it would be great. It would immediately become obvious that accounts are basically a scam and there’s no actual cash available. Then, the government could use direct money issuance to grab a massive ownership stake in the bank, effectively nationalizing most of it through totally legal channels. I don't think any private owner would agree to sink that much capital into something with such low returns. And that's the bottom line. Bank profits are way higher than the rest of the economy, which honestly isn't sustainable.

Stay smart, folks.

Pernar, if I’m following you correctly, you’re pushing to abolish the Federal Reserve and hand its powers over to the government, essentially letting the state print money whenever they feel like it? And you want to ban commercial banks from issuing loans that aren't backed by their deposits and capital?

In theory, it sounds fine, but reality would tell a different story. Driven by short-term political wins, the government would likely trigger hyperinflation. As for the second point, while it might be the only sustainable way for banks to operate long-term, interest rates would skyrocket, and the American public wouldn't stand for it.

Is there actually any country out there running a system like the one you're proposing? I'd love to see how that looks in practice.

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?

Look, given the current state of affairs here in America, I really don't think you should be criticizing the system like that. You seem to be overlooking a fundamental reality: people are actually out there working their tails off and earning a living, which allows them to pay down their loans while still staying in the black. It’s a win-win for the individuals and the banks alike. And honestly? Bringing up "zeitgeist" arguments? Seriously?

slywolf57 said:Pernar, if I’m following you correctly, you’re pushing to abolish the Federal Reserve and hand its powers over to the government, essentially letting the state print money whenever they feel like it? And you want to ban commercial banks from issuing loans that aren't backed by their deposits and capital?

In theory, it sounds fine, but reality would tell a different story. Driven by short-term political wins, the government would likely trigger hyperinflation. As for the second point, while it might be the only sustainable way for banks to operate long-term, interest rates would skyrocket, and the American public wouldn't stand for it.

Is there actually any country out there running a system like the one you're proposing? I'd love to see how that looks in practice.

If I may jump in here—yes, there is. It's famously known as the London School of Economics. In that model, the President decides who gets credit, rather than worrying about things like reserves, capital, and other bureaucratic nonsense.😁


👋

steelfox3 said:If I may jump in here—yes, there is. It's famously known as the London School of Economics. In that model, the President decides who gets credit, rather than worrying about things like reserves, capital, and other bureaucratic nonsense.😁


👋

You guys are clearly stuck in some Q continuum because you have no clue what's actually happening in the world right now.

Maybe check out this documentary: "The Wizard of Oz" — it's a great video about how bankers have been pulling this fake monetary regulation stunt on us for centuries (I had to find an English version with subtitles).

slywolf57 said:Pernar, if I’m following you correctly, you’re pushing to abolish the Federal Reserve and hand its powers over to the government, essentially letting the state print money whenever they feel like it? And you want to ban commercial banks from issuing loans that aren't backed by their deposits and capital?

In theory, it sounds fine, but reality would tell a different story. Driven by short-term political wins, the government would likely trigger hyperinflation. As for the second point, while it might be the only sustainable way for banks to operate long-term, interest rates would skyrocket, and the American public wouldn't stand for it.

Is there actually any country out there running a system like the one you're proposing? I'd love to see how that looks in practice.

A banking system based on full reserves is basically just a storage locker. You shouldn't expect interest on your deposits; instead, you'd likely end up paying fees just to keep your money there.

Douglas Reed3 said:A banking system based on full reserves is basically just a storage locker. You shouldn't expect interest on your deposits; instead, you'd likely end up paying fees just to keep your money there.

Full reserve means you can't issue more money through loans than what actually exists in reality. You hit full reserve status by mandating a 50% reserve requirement. This sets the money multiplier at 2, but since half the cash is locked in that mandatory reserve, the total amount of credit never exceeds the actual physical money supply. There’s no money expansion happening from credit issuance. Just check out diagram 2 in this post: http://forum.us/showpost.php?p=34409568&postcount=128

I’d suggest some resistance, along with a few others who clearly don't grasp the basic mechanics of how banks actually operate. Just carve out thirty minutes of your life and watch these videos:

http://www.khanacademy.org/video/ban...%20and%20Money
http://www.khanacademy.org/video/ban...%20and%20Money
http://www.khanacademy.org/video/ban...%20and%20Money
http://www.khanacademy.org/video/ban...%20and%20Money

Spending about 40 minutes on actual education isn't a massive ask, and maybe then you'll stop talking nonsense on these forums...

mistystag90 said:I’d suggest some resistance, along with a few others who clearly don't grasp the basic mechanics of how banks actually operate. Just carve out thirty minutes of your life and watch these videos:

http://www.khanacademy.org/video/ban...%20and%20Money
http://www.khanacademy.org/video/ban...%20and%20Money
http://www.khanacademy.org/video/ban...%20and%20Money
http://www.khanacademy.org/video/ban...%20and%20Money

Spending about 40 minutes on actual education isn't a massive ask, and maybe then you'll stop talking nonsense on these forums...

The first part was pretty insufficient for me since it didn't explain where a banker's profit actually comes from. It just stated they made money, without explaining where the capital for that profit originated. Plus, for any company, every investment is essentially an added cost meant to generate profit for that entrepreneur. Where does that return come from? Neither that nor the origin of banking profits were explained. These videos can be really dull. You picked a bad example for teaching!

Maria Thomas48 said:You guys are clearly stuck in some Q continuum because you have no clue what's actually happening in the world right now.

Maybe check out this documentary: "The Wizard of Oz" — it's a great video about how bankers have been pulling this fake monetary regulation stunt on us for centuries (I had to find an English version with subtitles).

Well, my profile says exactly where I'm from... 😕

Had a quick look. So, what—is this all just a massive Freemason conspiracy? 🤷

Here’s a little cartoon that breaks down how the whole banking system actually functions

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

The U.S. gold reserves are basically... non-existent. Well, effectively zero if you look at it certain ways.

I mean, look at Canada, Mexico, or Mexico—they've all got several tons of gold tucked away,
but America doesn't have a single gram to its name!

Total collapse http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAyHIOg5aHk ?

🤔

steelfox3 said:Well, my profile says exactly where I'm from... 😕

Had a quick look. So, what—is this all just a massive Freemason conspiracy? 🤷

It honestly doesn't matter whose curse it is. I really couldn't care less about the names of those slimy characters.

Do you see what real political corruption actually looks like? It isn't about some shady backroom deals or breaking the rules. It’s much deeper than that. It’s when they force through regulations designed specifically to turn everyone else into economic slaves. You see it on the protest signs in Spain—people shouting that "The banks created the crisis." They aren't talking about illegal activity or anything even remotely crooked. They mean people acting perfectly within the law to achieve these results. That is the true corruption.

The system needs an overhaul. It’s not about the people; they aren't the ones at fault just because they took out loans. They didn't really have any other choice. The whole thing is built on regulations that are intentionally designed to be nonsensical. And if you ask why everyone else seems blind to this, it’s simple. Those same bankers basically funded the education system, leaving us with nothing but incompetent economists. Then, they went ahead and bought up the mainstream media, so you can only find the truth if you look at a few niche outlets. Here’s an example: I was just looking over prosperityuk.com earlier. It’s interesting stuff. I tend to spend way too much time falling down these rabbit holes on the internet, just reading through different theories and economic outlooks. Sometimes you find something that actually makes sense, and other times it's just noise. This site feels like one of those things where you have to sit with it for a while to figure out what they're really getting at. It’s pretty straightforward, though. Just some thoughts on how things are moving. Not sure if everyone will agree with their take, but it's worth a look if you have the time to kill. Anyway, just something on my mind today.They hold these conferences and summits for decades on end, but honestly, you barely see any actual progress in American society. We’re just barreling headfirst into this debt crisis. If you look back at what they were writing about the EU's common currency way back in 2000, it’s clear—they basically wrote its downfall right into the founding documents. Our own Federal Reserve aligned itself with the European System of Central Banks back in 1994, and we've been stuck in a cycle of crises ever since. Gust Santin spent an entire year trying to pin down the cause, though he didn't quite nail the real reason.

Maria Thomas48 said:It honestly doesn't matter whose curse it is. I really couldn't care less about the names of those slimy characters.

Do you see what real political corruption actually looks like? It isn't about some shady backroom deals or breaking the rules. It’s much deeper than that. It’s when they force through regulations designed specifically to turn everyone else into economic slaves. You see it on the protest signs in Spain—people shouting that "The banks created the crisis." They aren't talking about illegal activity or anything even remotely crooked. They mean people acting perfectly within the law to achieve these results. That is the true corruption.

The system needs an overhaul. It’s not about the people; they aren't the ones at fault just because they took out loans. They didn't really have any other choice. The whole thing is built on regulations that are intentionally designed to be nonsensical. And if you ask why everyone else seems blind to this, it’s simple. Those same bankers basically funded the education system, leaving us with nothing but incompetent economists. Then, they went ahead and bought up the mainstream media, so you can only find the truth if you look at a few niche outlets. Here’s an example: I was just looking over prosperityuk.com earlier. It’s interesting stuff. I tend to spend way too much time falling down these rabbit holes on the internet, just reading through different theories and economic outlooks. Sometimes you find something that actually makes sense, and other times it's just noise. This site feels like one of those things where you have to sit with it for a while to figure out what they're really getting at. It’s pretty straightforward, though. Just some thoughts on how things are moving. Not sure if everyone will agree with their take, but it's worth a look if you have the time to kill. Anyway, just something on my mind today.They hold these conferences and summits for decades on end, but honestly, you barely see any actual progress in American society. We’re just barreling headfirst into this debt crisis. If you look back at what they were writing about the EU's common currency way back in 2000, it’s clear—they basically wrote its downfall right into the founding documents. Our own Federal Reserve aligned itself with the European System of Central Banks back in 1994, and we've been stuck in a cycle of crises ever since. Gust Santin spent an entire year trying to pin down the cause, though he didn't quite nail the real reason.

And you’d probably change it just so you could hand control over the money supply directly to politicians.
🙏