Thursday, January 21, 2010

Obama Warns Bank of America

Hmmmm, where else have I read that certain large banks will not be bailed out (and instead are targeted by the private Bank of NY, aka the Federal Reserve, for destruction)?

Let me think... Oh yes, I remember.


  1. Yes. But, could this just be a smokescreen to take the attention away from the MA election. Populist rhetoric so to speak. Vilifying the giant monster megabanks is popular these days. Dems have to "rebuild their political capital" as it were.

    Obama still has to get it through Congress. And the loopholes are easy to pick out.

    (Did you see the picture of Obama, Volcker creepily looming behind him, and Turbo Tax Tim giving Obama the evil eye? And just where was Bernanke during all of this? A strange defeaning silence.)

  2. I think it's both, because it can be both.

    But even if the MA thing didn't conveniently align, the Fed would have gotten around to ordering the President to break their competition.

    The Supreme Court Ruling is another manifestation of our crooked bank-owned government (to include the highest court) ensuring our government's corporate owners have plenty of strings to yank politicians.

    Seriously, how stupid does one have to be to think corporations are guaranteed the same constitutional protection until the Bill of Rights as the US citizens it was written to protect? If this mass corruption wasn't so intensely evil, the court ruling would be hilarious. Do banks have the right to cast votes now, as guaranteed by the Constitution? Yes, they must.

    You have to be either (a) a blubbering idiot to think "corporate rights" are what the Bill of Rights was written to protect, or (b) be the most evil band of corporate-owned losers on the face of the Earth. It's the latter.

    So believe me, when the private Fed barks an order to the President, he is not permitted to anything else until it's completed.

    Some might wonder if I'm exaggerating; I'm not.

  3. And just where was Bernanke during all of this?

    Of course Bernanke was absent. This directly opposes everything the Fed stands for. To oppose this kind of thing is one reason why the Fed was formed in the beginning. Although this time I agree with the Fed. There's no reason why banks can't trade equities.

  4. Joe Shareholder wrote: "There's no reason why banks can't trade equities."

    Of course there is.

    By trading equities, banks take on financial risk. Normally, that's fine. The problem here is that the risk to them is the risk to you, but the reward to them is not the reward to you.

    If the traditional banks trade in equities, they should be limited to doing so with their profits only, such that the maximum loss they could take would be that of their profits.

    Banks by definition are intended to be "safe havens" for a person's wealth. If a bank is allowed to trade in equities without limits, it should, at a minimum, be under the condition that the deposit accounts are not insured by the FDIC. That would make it clear to all what the bank in question is doing and would allow the free market to decide whether or not to use such banks for "safe haven" storage of funds.

    Oddly enough, we already have institutions that qualify that way. They're called investment banks.

    To allow a traditional bank to trade equities is to allow that bank to engage in false advertising, something which is an anathema to the free market (since the free market operates under the presumption that the actors have sound information upon which to base decisions).


The USA's political-economc system is best described as:

On Nov 2, 2010, I plan to vote (FOR or AGAINST) my incumbent congressman

Free Hit Counter