Are Bankers That Stupid, Are Governments That Stupid

[drunkincharge]

on the other thread Godfrey Bloom hits the spot

Politicians just understand the banker mentality or their game plan.

Edited February 15, 2012 by drunkincharge

[Toto deVeer]

I have said elsewhere that in my view the state has been usurped by banks and other corporations, but that this is facilitated by the monetary system.

If the state had not given control of the the money supply over to commercial banks, bouts of deflation could be handled without the banks having a gun against the states head and demanding private debts be nationalised 'or the head gets blown off'.

Who gave away these powers of money creation away in the first place, and what was the rational?

The history goes back a long way, perhaps starting with the Venetians, but my take is the system that we presently 'enjoy' was the brainchild of Mayer Rothschild and the Hanoverian Kings who arrived in the UK during the late 1700's/Early 1800's. From Germany it spread to the City of London, then to the USA in the early 1900's. Kuhn Loeb of New York, who financed the Russian revolution, were an arm of the Rothschild banking empire. But the Rothschilds married into the Sassoon family, of Baghdad, in the 1800's. The Sassoons were a major player in the international drugs trade in Asia, so there is probably some Asian aspect of this that I am not aware of.

To me this is not a conspiracy, just a recognition by very wealthy persons that states could be made subservient to moneyed interests by the control of debt. The politics involved, be they communist, fascist or capitalist, are of no significance. It's all about who controls the debt.

[Traktion]

I have said elsewhere that in my view the state has been usurped by banks and other corporations, but that this is facilitated by the monetary system.

If the state had not given control of the the money supply over to commercial banks, bouts of deflation could be handled without the banks having a gun against the states head and demanding private debts be nationalised 'or the head gets blown off'.

Who gave away these powers of money creation away in the first place, and what was the rational?

They have always had that power, just like you or I can extend credit to others. The banking system is just a trust network, between people and the banks and the banks with one another.

The problem is, the state provided a central bank, deposit guarantees and an implicit guarantee to not let banks fail. The banks seized on this, leading to the situation we have today.

Ofc, the state didn't help matters by removing various restrictions on the banks, without the removal of the protection which went along side it. Deregulation is fine, as long as the state isn't on the hook when things go wrong. Deregulation, along with state backing, was a disaster waiting to happen, but the various governments were happy to ignore it in exchange for caddy floss growth and tax receipts from it.

IMO, going back to regulated banking is the wrong decision, just as state backing of the risk is; both need to be removed and the market needs to offset profits against risk accordingly. This will likely result in new banking models (more mutualism, more storage only accounts etc) to cope with the new reality, without attempting to define what is good/bad risk, along with the implications/costs of getting such definitions wrong.

The state and the banking sector need to be completely separate. This includes state insurance (at all levels) along with the regulations (which are impossible to define). Let individuals in the market decide their risk exposure and the banks which provide suitable services will flourish.