Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
contractor

Why Do Banks Have To Make Money?

Recommended Posts

In all of the discussions I've seen I can't remember this fundamental question being answered.

Given that finance and economics are required for civilisation surely banking should create as little overhead as possible. Isn't the practice of banks making profits similar to engine oil adding friction to a car engine?

For every pound made in profit, that's a pound engineered into the system unneccessarily. I think banking should be nat zero, not for profit. Anyone else agree? I'd also like to hear a compelling argument in favour of maximising banking profits too, especially one that shows that it is good for the population as a whole (as opposed to minority VI bankers).

///C

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because banks are businesses and all businesses want to make money for share holders

Building Societies still make money but for there members

Nationalised banks make money for governments (or loose money :P )

Would you trust the British Gov to run nationalised banks for the country?

Edited by moosetea

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Banks don't make profit, they steal the wealth of society. They do this because they're thieves who long ago bought our governments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An excellent question in both senses of "make".

The issue of our means of exchange, to lend to us at interest, by profit motivated commercial banks is a fundamental problem.

Over the past few centuries the world has been enslaved by an ever-growing, debt-based, commercially issued monetary system.

Think also about the question posed in my signature. What sort of means of exchange would be best overall?

What advantage is there to have it issued to us at interest by a privileged minority?

Why are most people totally unaware of how they are enslaved collectively by the debt-based monetary system?

Edited by The Spaniard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We had banks that don't make a profit. They were called building societies.

Most turned into banks... they were effectively sold by their members.

The members were happy to spend their payouts on conservatories and 4x4s.

On that basis, the ex-building societies should NOT have been rescued.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest sillybear2

Because they're parasites that feed off the real productive output of the rest of the economy through usury and by debasing the medium of exchange, this was accepted in previous decades because of their function in allocating capital and the net gains of lending to industry outweighed their dead weight loss, however the tail is wagging the dog now, the economy is finance lead. It's like watching a real, productive local economy being over taken by a giant state backed ponzi scheme that consumes and distorts everything in its wake.

Banks have used their unique position to push their reckless business practices, because they know the government will always come along and socialise their losses, and they bet right, there is now a crippling public debt and huge public liabilities because of their selfish f**kwittedness. We know all this of course, but nothing will change, it's a "heads I win, tails you lose" system so nothing will be learned, the same problems will keep occurring, over and over again and we'll just keep stealing from our children and debasing the currency, over and over again, until eventually it all falls in on itself, like Rome.

All businesses like to make as much money as possible, car companies do this by trying to sell as many cars as possible, the extra congestion and pollution are externalities they don't have to pay for. Drinks and tobacco companies like to sell as much as their product as they can, but the govt woke up and realised they were doing this at great harm to the public good and taxed them. Banks like to make as much money as possible too of course, it's their fiduciary duty to their shareholders, they do this by bloodsucking the productive economy dry and diminishing peoples' standard of living, making the necessities of life unduly expensive and making everyone work longer and harder purely for the banks gain.

One day a government will wake up to the fact bankers and the 'finance industry' are simply parasites and need to be dealt with, however this is doubtful, the banks basically own the government through the issue of money and gilts, and many people in government are parasites too, living off tax payers largess, or buying votes with taxpayers largess, so they don't really see the problem with the concept of legaised theft, nor would they be attracted by the prospect of having to work for a living.

Other countries have a long history of organised crime and racketeers, the mafia, yakuza, triads etc, people think the UK is different, and in many ways we are, we're more genteel, we made our version into a outwardly respectable profession called banking and the state lent a hand with its monopoly on violence, so they can steal your money, steal your pension, kick people out of their homes etc with the full force of the law behind them, something the mafia could only dream of.

Edited by sillybear2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In all of the discussions I've seen I can't remember this fundamental question being answered.

Given that finance and economics are required for civilisation surely banking should create as little overhead as possible. Isn't the practice of banks making profits similar to engine oil adding friction to a car engine?

For every pound made in profit, that's a pound engineered into the system unneccessarily. I think banking should be nat zero, not for profit. Anyone else agree? I'd also like to hear a compelling argument in favour of maximising banking profits too, especially one that shows that it is good for the population as a whole (as opposed to minority VI bankers).

///C

I sometimes wonder what would have happened if Labour had won in the early 80s and nationalised the banks. Regardless I think that govt should issue a permanent form of currency backed by a hard asset ( probably gold ), there is no need for us to pay the ridiculous interest cost that fiat money inflicts. To be honest I think lending at interest should probably be banned, capital could be raised on something like the Islamic model, which seems both more sensible and more equitable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In all of the discussions I've seen I can't remember this fundamental question being answered.

Given that finance and economics are required for civilisation surely banking should create as little overhead as possible. Isn't the practice of banks making profits similar to engine oil adding friction to a car engine?

For every pound made in profit, that's a pound engineered into the system unneccessarily. I think banking should be nat zero, not for profit. Anyone else agree? I'd also like to hear a compelling argument in favour of maximising banking profits too, especially one that shows that it is good for the population as a whole (as opposed to minority VI bankers).

///C

That's commie talk my friend. Come the inquisition, you get to be top of the list.

VMR.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest DissipatedYouthIsValuable
That's commie talk my friend. Come the inquisition, you get to be top of the list.

VMR.

Social credit is for egalitarian dogs.

That'll be £5 please.

Edited by DissipatedYouthIsValuable

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For every pound made in profit, that's a pound engineered into the system unneccessarily. I think banking should be nat zero, not for profit. Anyone else agree? I'd also like to hear a compelling argument in favour of maximising banking profits too, especially one that shows that it is good for the population as a whole (as opposed to minority VI bankers).

///C

shareholders need their money

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have never been a fan of any nationalised industry apart from the creation of money and credit. The shareholders should be every resident of the country. There has never been a relevant argument, IMHO, for this sector of the economy to be anything more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest sillybear2
I have never been a fan of any nationalised industry apart from the creation of money and credit. The shareholders should be every resident of the country. There has never been a relevant argument, IMHO, for this sector of the economy to be anything more.

I agree, and namely because finance is one of the few areas that doesn't benefit from innovation, aside from the basic automation of processes and efficiencies there is no real innovation to add to usury, as Galbraith said in 'A Short History of Financial Euphoria' there's only ever increased leverage and increased risk taking no matter how they try and label it or pretend otherwise.

Edited by sillybear2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have never been a fan of any nationalised industry apart from the creation of money and credit. The shareholders should be every resident of the country. There has never been a relevant argument, IMHO, for this sector of the economy to be anything more.

Two points, the bulk of shareholders are the resident of this country who work in the private sector, they are called pension holders. Pension funds require businesses to grow so that they also grow in value and can pay for your retirement

Second profit is not a thing that just gets squandered on stuff, it serves two purposes a. to contibute to a fund to cover bad years (when a company makes a loss where do you think the cash comes from? either cash in the bank or debt) b. it allows companies to invest in new areas such as new regions or new products that have a start up cost before they make money. (also what paid for chip and pin, online banking, fraud protection etc. etc.)

If we stuck to the usual socialist mantra that profit is bad we would be stuck in the dark ages, socialist policies have failed in every single implimentation it just doesn't work

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest sillybear2
If we stuck to the usual socialist mantra that profit is bad we would be stuck in the dark ages, socialist policies have failed in every single implimentation it just doesn't work

To be fair though the banks themselves are hardly the shining beacon of capitalist enterprise or risk taking as half of them should rightfully be out of the business right now, they only exist because they've cried to nanny and the state has socialised their losses by stealing off every tax payer in the country and the next generation through a crippling public debt. Which kind of proves that socialism does work... if you're a rich banker.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Because they're parasites that feed off the real productive output of the rest of the economy through usury and by debasing the medium of exchange, this was accepted in previous decades because of their function in allocating capital and the net gains of lending to industry outweighed their dead weight loss, however the tail is wagging the dog now, the economy is finance lead. It's like watching a real, productive local economy being over taken by a giant state backed ponzi scheme that consumes and distorts everything in its wake.

Banks have used their unique position to push their reckless business practices, because they know the government will always come along and socialise their losses, and they bet right, there is now a crippling public debt and huge public liabilities because of their selfish f**kwittedness. We know all this of course, but nothing will change, it's a "heads I win, tails you lose" system so nothing will be learned, the same problems will keep occurring, over and over again and we'll just keep stealing from our children and debasing the currency, over and over again, until eventually it all falls in on itself, like Rome.

All businesses like to make as much money as possible, car companies do this by trying to sell as many cars as possible, the extra congestion and pollution are externalities they don't have to pay for. Drinks and tobacco companies like to sell as much as their product as they can, but the govt woke up and realised they were doing this at great harm to the public good and taxed them. Banks like to make as much money as possible too of course, it's their fiduciary duty to their shareholders, they do this by bloodsucking the productive economy dry and diminishing peoples' standard of living, making the necessities of life unduly expensive and making everyone work longer and harder purely for the banks gain.

One day a government will wake up to the fact bankers and the 'finance industry' are simply parasites and need to be dealt with, however this is doubtful, the banks basically own the government through the issue of money and gilts, and many people in government are parasites too, living off tax payers largess, or buying votes with taxpayers largess, so they don't really see the problem with the concept of legaised theft, nor would they be attracted by the prospect of having to work for a living.

Other countries have a long history of organised crime and racketeers, the mafia, yakuza, triads etc, people think the UK is different, and in many ways we are, we're more genteel, we made our version into a outwardly respectable profession called banking and the state lent a hand with its monopoly on violence, so they can steal your money, steal your pension, kick people out of their homes etc with the full force of the law behind them, something the mafia could only dream of.

Very good post ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To be fair though the banks themselves are hardly the shining beacon of capitalist enterprise or risk taking as half of them should rightfully be out of the business right now, they only exist because they've cried to nanny and the state has socialised their losses by stealing off every tax payer in the country and the next generation through a crippling public debt. Which kind of proves that socialism does work... if you're a rich banker.

The banks originally have exploited the regulatory advantages given them together with their monopolist positions to enable them to make huge profits and take huge bonuses. Then when the crash arrived they were bailed out by the government. They have privatised gains and made the losses public. A total disgrace nothing particulaly entrepreneurial either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To be fair though the banks themselves are hardly the shining beacon of capitalist enterprise or risk taking as half of them should rightfully be out of the business right now, they only exist because they've cried to nanny and the state has socialised their losses by stealing off every tax payer in the country and the next generation through a crippling public debt. Which kind of proves that socialism does work... if you're a rich banker.

Here's a message to all banks - MARK TO MARKET, then it should become evident whether you should be paying bonuses, film star pay packages or hirering new faces. Perhaps it would reveal whether you still qualify to be in business atall. While you bankers bathe in your pretence you have put innocent people out of work and caused some people to take their own lives. When will there be justice?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Without profit there's no reason to buy debt from big projects that need lots of money and carry risk. Or to

buy shares in a biotech comapny or lend to a materials development group. Your return = 10 and risk = 20

then a non profit has no way to buffer the risk or any reason to want to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the banks ARE the money supply, why do they need to make any profit? Seems like a lot of effort for nothing.

All they need do is print more cash to give to shareholders and themselves. :blink::unsure:

If you're the man with the apple trees and a monopoly on the supply of apples,

the last thing you need is payment in apples.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I sometimes wonder what would have happened if Labour had won in the early 80s and nationalised the banks. Regardless I think that govt should issue a permanent form of currency backed by a hard asset ( probably gold ), there is no need for us to pay the ridiculous interest cost that fiat money inflicts. To be honest I think lending at interest should probably be banned, capital could be raised on something like the Islamic model, which seems both more sensible and more equitable.

Don't worry if this vid on nationalists site is correct in its figures islam is coming to a world near you very soon ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest sillybear2
The banks originally have exploited the regulatory advantages given them together with their monopolist positions to enable them to make huge profits and take huge bonuses. Then when the crash arrived they were bailed out by the government. They have privatised gains and made the losses public. A total disgrace nothing particulaly entrepreneurial either.

See it from their point of view, they are basically a band of thieves, not content with their existing slow process of regular and systemic theft through usury with a veneer of respectability, they got greedy and took their 'entrepreneurial' spirit and shamelessness up a notch, they found a more effective way of stealing, if the bet paid off then it's all good, otherwise their failure simply became the biggest advance auction on stolen goods in human history. The state has a monopoly on violence, they can legally beat and confiscate money out of anyone, or print money and steal via inflation, so if you buy or blackmail vain or desperate politicians you can just steal from the state who in turn will do the further stealing for you, it even opens up a new avenue, being able to steal from the unborn.

Anyway, the bonuses were paid once the deals were done, provided the wheels didn't come off before the year was up the bankers were fine, that was their only 'event horizon'. Was it in the banks or shareholders interests to employ and reward such crooks? Obviously not, but did they really care knowing they can just go crying off to the nanny state when it all inevitably went wrong? Obviously not.

The problem with looting is the fact its practitioners then find anything but further stealing unrewarding and too much effort.

Edited by sillybear2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Two points, the bulk of shareholders are the resident of this country who work in the private sector, they are called pension holders. Pension funds require businesses to grow so that they also grow in value and can pay for your retirement

Second profit is not a thing that just gets squandered on stuff, it serves two purposes a. to contibute to a fund to cover bad years (when a company makes a loss where do you think the cash comes from? either cash in the bank or debt) b. it allows companies to invest in new areas such as new regions or new products that have a start up cost before they make money. (also what paid for chip and pin, online banking, fraud protection etc. etc.)

If we stuck to the usual socialist mantra that profit is bad we would be stuck in the dark ages, socialist policies have failed in every single implimentation it just doesn't work

Where did I say that any national banking system couldn't make a profit? Or that a national banking system couldn't serve the purposes that you outlined? Your point that profit "doesn't just get squandered on stuff" doesn't cover staff bonus's etc>? Guess that's not stuff in your world. As for being a "socialist" I am certainly not as I pointed out in my post. My point is that money and credit is too important to be in private hands. I think I am suported in that view by a lot of people (Buffet for one). Freidman, Galbraith. Pretty good crowd. You can still have a private banking system-what used to be called "merchant banks"-they would just be 100% reserved up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   295 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.