Is Nationalizing Banks The Answer?
The topic of these stress tests was discussed on Bill Moyers Journal this past Friday in one of the best interviews I've seen about how to get us out of this financial abyss we're in which I posted the other day at Video Cafe but here's the video again for anyone that didn't watch it already. The transcript and links to Bill Moyers are available in that post as well.
Andrew Sullivan is a bit more confident than Johnson that the banks will be nationalized and feels that the stress tests will be used as a means to justify it to the public.
After watching the interview on Bill Moyers Journal with Simon Johnson, I hope he's right. As covered by TPM, it looks like even Lindsey Graham agrees that nationalization may be necessary.
One thing that bears noting is just what exactly Simon Johnson envisioned as to what would happen if this takes place. From the transcript of the Bill Moyers Journal interview:
Johnson: So you're looking at how the bank's balance sheets will look under stress. And then you say to them, "This is our assessment of the amount of capital you need to cover your losses, and to stay in business, and be able to make loans, through what appears to be a severe recession."
And, as the president said, we may lose a decade. So we've got to be very hard headed, and all the officials forecasters are still too optimistic on that. This is the amount of capital you need. Now you have a month, or two, to raise this amount of capital privately.
And when this was done in Sweden, by the way, in the early 1990s, they did it to three big banks. One of the three was able to go to its shareholders, raise a lot more capital, and stay in business as a private bank, same shareholders. That's an option. Totally fine. However, the ones that can't raise the capital are in violation of the terms of their banking license, if you like.
We have no problem in this country shutting down small banks. In fact, the FDIC is world class at shutting down and managing the handover of deposits, for example, from small banks. They managed IndyMac, the closure of IndyMac, beautifully. People didn't lose touch with their money for even a moment. But they can't do it to big banks, because they don't have the political power. Nobody has the political will to do it.
So you need to take an FDIC-type process. You scale it up. You say, "You haven't raised the capital privately. The government is taking over your bank. You guys are out of business. Your bonuses are wiped out. Your golden parachutes are gone." Okay? Because the bank has failed.
This is a government-supervised bankruptcy process. It's called, in the terminology of the business, it's called an intervention. The bank is intervened. You don't go into Chapter 11 because in that's too messy. Too complicated. There's an intervention, you lose the right to operate as a bank. The FDIC takes you over. I think we agree, everyone agrees, we don't want the government to run banks in this country.
So who's speaking out against nationalization? Chuck Schumer. I know everyone's shocked, right? Another corporate Democrat taking Wall Street's money and he's against it. It seems Jane Hamsher has taken notice of the Johnson inteview on Bill Moyers and Schumer's statements on This Week as well and has more on the topic here: Who Does Chuck Schumer Represent, You or the Banks?
Lindsey Graham may want to talk to Sen. Schumer a bit more.
http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/Story?id=68822...
and my immediate thoughts were how much money is he taking from the banking industry? Second thought was how much of this is semantics and if the banks do end up failing the stress tests, which I would think most of them would, then is it really the correct term calling it nationalizing them if it's an FDIC style take over, break up and sell off? Devil is going to be in the details once we see them. If they don't bust these guys up though we're in for a lot of wasted taxpayer dollars continuing to try to keep basically bankrupted companies afloat that don't deserve to be. Thanks for the reminder and I added it to the post.
call me crazy, but it seems to me we have gifted more money than the banks are currently worth. for what? we have spent the money to nationalize them, what is missing is the political will to make the banks friggin act responsibly with the tax payers money. and that does not include bonuses, mergers/acquisitions, hording, etc.
consider the deal warren buffet got when he bought a large stake in goldman sachs ("The terms of the deal were very positive for Berkshire; Warren Buffet agreed to invest $5 billion in Goldman in exchange for perpetual preferred shares with a dividend yield of 10%. This will set Goldman back roughly $500 million a year, which will be taken directly off their net income in after tax dollars. This means that Berkshire will be making well over $1 million each day from this investment. It will also be extremely expensive for Goldman to redeem these shares, as they must buy them back at a 10% premium. Buffet also has the option to invest an additional $5 billion in common stock at a strike price of $115.")...
the US taxpayers should have gotten a similar, if not better deal. thanks congress!
we paid for the cow, but we don't get the milk.
[dread: this was supposed to be a stand alone comment, not a "reply"]
Everyone needs to see the special that cnbc had on called "House of Cards" It explains everyone's part in this financial disaster, some even from those who were up to their neck in it. From the mortgages to the banks and beyond. After seeing it, I have less sympathy than I did before for the banks. Things were running wild, the banks knew it, but didn't think the day would ever come when the shit would actually hit the fan.
Say what you mean. Mean what you say. But don't say it mean.
Stated he had no desire to Nationalize the Banks.. For one reason he said we couldn't do it like Sweden did it because we have a LOT more banks than Sweden does.
Think of the money it would take. Geeze folks... we would be talking more than just a few Trillion... we would be talking close to hundreds of trillions. There is no way we could buy up all the banks like that.
That's why I think they are talking about letting some fail and letting some pull out on their own.
if Obama nationalizes the banking system i am closing all my bank accounts and am going to start looking for a country i can become an expat in. that is the craziest, scariest most communist thing i have heard today. honestly, this is starting to scare me now. banks are private businesses they need to find a way to deal with their own problems not have the government come in and do it for them. i am not a conspiracy theorist or anything but come on, who things this is a good idea and when it starts where does it stop?
that's a promise and not a threat.
what me becoming an expat. things keep going the way they are going i might just have to find me a beachside hut a corona and some special grass
let's just say that we let the banks "find a way to deal with their own problems" without taxpayers throwing huge sums of cash at them. The result? Many of them will simply fail. What happens to your precious bank accounts and money then? You'll be first in line at the government's door trying to claim insurance on your funds no doubt.
well right now i am depositing checks so therefore i dont stand to lose any money.
Chris, dear, EVERYONE will lose Money.. Some will lose their lives.
"Egotism is the anesthetic that dulls the pain of Stupidity" - Frank Leahy
i thought gifting and giving into the financial blackmail was terrible in the first (TARP, i'm looking at you). i thought the govt should have injected capital into the economy, but NOT into the same friggin assholes that got us into the mess.
that said, now that we have, i think it only fair and prudent that the tax payers are treated fairly with our HUUUUUUGE investment.
as things stand now we simply threw gobs of money at the banks for naught. had we some say in how the money was spent we wouldn't be scolding the ceos about private jets, bonuses, and the such--as that shit never would have happened.
of course, the financial community has paid enough money into the political-prostitution system to make a lot of this discussion merely academic.
Goodbye, and don't let the door hit ya.' One less wingnut - woohooo!
You cons don't have any problems with upper class "communism," but when the people who actually own the country are looking for a fair shake, you get all hot and bothered.
Why do you hate democracy and the american people? Yet love corporate fascism?
Rush Limbaugh is what a smart person thinks a stupid bigot sounds like.
i really fraking hate people that assume. you do not know me so do not tell me what i believe and dont believe. how can you tell me who i hate and i love. frak you.
for your information i would die for this country. I love her values and her people that much. Just because i do not beleive that nationalizing the bank system is necesarily a good thing whereas you might does not make me rich (which im not) uber-conservative (i didnt like palin as much you).
Frak you too! I do know you! You are a delusional right winger who lives in a fantasy land, that in no way could be construed as pro american! And did I say frak you!
Rush Limbaugh is what a smart person thinks a stupid bigot sounds like.
you are a moron.
Yes you are. A complete and utter moron. What have you got against the PEOPLE owning the distribution of their own money supply. Idiot!
Rush Limbaugh is what a smart person thinks a stupid bigot sounds like.
wat are you talking about????????????
your comment had no relevance.
if you mean the people owning the distribution of their own money supply when the government nationalizes it?
or do you mean something else. please rephrase so you make yourself understood
I am actually engaged in an intelligent conversation below. check it out, you might just agree with some of the things i am saying. and no i am not a right winger. if i had to classify myself i am a moderate. you do not know me. dont assume that you do.
Okay, that seems fair enough.
Rush Limbaugh is what a smart person thinks a stupid bigot sounds like.
Here is a wonderful essay written by one of our Founding Fathers Alexander Hamilton. The essay argues for the creation of a National Bank. Not only did he argue for the creation of a National Bank; but, he won the argument. Arguing that the creation of a National Bank is crazy, scary, or communist is to make the argument that our Founding Fathers were crazy, scary, and communist. My intention is not to call your patriotism into question; you have done a good eough job of that yourself; rather, my intention is to bring your hysteria into perspective; and, point out to you that the creation of a National Bank is by no means a radical idea.
http://web.archive.org/web/20010107190800/htt...
If i recall correctly, Hamilton also had opponents of the national bank among the founding fathers. so by you saying that i am not patriotic because i do not support that some of the founding father's were unpatriotic cuz they didnt support it. besides its not just the nationalizing of the bank it is the combination of everything else that is going on that scares me.
we are at a crossroads and if we are not careful on which way we turn we may never be able to turn around.
This is a must read about the banking system:
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/20298
for the link. Interesting.
is the first step we ought to take. Republicans call it while gagging "regulation."
Before we seize these failing banks (how many have gone under this year alone? 10? 11? More?), with taxpayer dollars, we ought to look at this situation very carefully. Nationalizing the banks can, in theory, set a dangerous precedent.
A little offtopic: If you C&Lers are responsible, thanks for helping me boot Hal Turner's fat ass off Blogger. There's a new post with details over at my place but I want to thank everyone who swarmed his blog and reported him for making death threats.
JP
http://giveusthisdayourdailtydread.blogspot.com
The existence of a National Bank is in NO way a radical idea. Jefferson and Hamilton argued about this very subject. Sometimes in our history we have had a National Bank; other times in our history, it has not been needed. The idea of having a National Bank is very American and very traditional. The people that argue this is somehow Marxists or Socialist are full of shit and DO NOT have a clue about American History.
I agree, especially after bailing them out for more than their recorded assets. Hell, we now own them already.
And what's the alternative? They failed remember. You know...imminent Chapter 11, loss of ALL assets, and TOAST! Is the choice now to give them their bail-out as if nothing happened or else everyone looses their savings and credit? No - nationalize them.
The Bankers have proven themselves incapable of acting like mature adults. This means that they need to be babysat, until they prove themselves capable of acting like adults.
given the behavior of our government recently (both bush and obama) they are hardly mature enough to babysit anyone
You mean most wingnuts?
Rush Limbaugh is what a smart person thinks a stupid bigot sounds like.
i mean most everyone in DC. for most of them as soon as they get inside the beltway their brain goes gaga
It's like the Iraq occupation: there are few right ways to do this and hundreds of wrong ways. We'll eventually get it right, after we try every wrong approach.
There are a couple of fundamental wrong ideas still at play here:
1) struggling banks are private institutions. They're not, effectively. They're now public utilities. Shareholder profit is not a priority, reliability of service is.
2) CEOs will do the right thing if we give them money with no strings attached. They won't. They have a fiduciary responsibility to ignore Barney Frank and the will continue to do so. You'll never find out how they spend the TARP. Never.
3) The old system can be righted. We've just hit a little bump. Give a little boost to the credit market and we'll be on our merry way to the next bubble. We won't. Fundamentally, we have to change the way we manage finance. Money is a public utility, it is not a private toy. If we want to have a vigorous free market, it depends on a strictly regulated financial services industry.
4) There's some way to revalue houses that doesn't leave millions of homeowners holding the bag. There isn't. Someone has to cosign for that debt and that someone should be the government. It can restructure overvalued loans out to 40, 50 or 60 years, it can slide balloon payments out a decade. It can do these things to keep homeowners in their homes, which maintains their value. But what it can't do is make someone pay a million dollars for a six hundred thousand dollar house. That money is gone. It never existed. All we can do is wait the 10, 20 or 30 years it will take for those values to return. To do that, homeowners need a partner with deep pockets: Uncle Sam. And if you're worried about the moral hazard of people getting something for nothing: consider that Uncle Sam can take 50% of the eventual profit and everybody wins.
Markets can't solve this. Any bank who thinks they can is welcome to try their luck.
Nice post Jason.
the sweden model is gaining some support. intervention by the fdic. reduce/break up the monopoly of the banking/financial industry. there" too big to fail" is taking this country down. they have been above the law. intervene weed out the poor management/reform the regulation and revise the anti-monopoly law(s). make the changes/regulations and go back to privatization. i would also like to see updated/consumer friendly credit card laws/legislation.
I was just going to write the same thing.
We have in effect bought these banks...now we fix what's broken and sell them back to the private sector, regulations intact to ensure it doesn't happen again.
shoulda never have bought them in the first place
But what's done is done. Now we have to deal with it.
there will be plenty of investors waiting in line to bring back nationalized banks(if you will) back to privatization......like the sweden scenario. this problem is much bigger than they're telling us. telling us could create many negative scenarios from possible breach national security to serious downturn of the "market".
so an interim solution would be to nationalize while the government fixes the internal problems and sell them off to the private sector. that might be feasible and actually the government might have motivation to get the job done quickly, efficiently, under budget so that they improve their profit margin(i guess there would still be a profit margin after the bailout??)
The caveat to that is the government has to be willing to release control back to the private sector. i could make a very convincing argument that once the government has spent the time effort and money to fix the banks it makes a certain logical sense to keep the banks and run them so the private sector doesnt mess them up 10,15,20 years down the line.
If, that were to happen there would have to be an extensive overhaul of the banking and lending legislation to include greater oversight.
now the conservative streak in me says that there cannot be to much regulation because that defeats the purpose of a quasi free market.
true. i still like my beach hut idea from an earlier post but because i am not a bum and like to think lets talk.
the government owns the banks. banks are full of bad assets. government needs to fix the bad assets.
one solution is the complete nationalization of the banking industry. in some ways this wouldn't be a bad thing. standard rates. standard rewards etc. But the thing i dont like about a wholly nationalized banking system is they take the choice away from us. you may like wachovia i may like bank of america. should we have to sacrifice that? my answer is no.
but... (completely out of ideas)
The ENTIRE banking industry nationalized? That sets up monopoly scenarios that I think are dangerous.
Not every bank asked for a handout. Those that did, need to subject themselves to scrutiny and accountability in the form of serious audits. Obviously, those who drove them into the ground should be removed from their positions.
Hey Ms Belle we agree on something. that might be a workable solution if you combine it with the above the above one.
...is I absolutely have no faith in "free markets".
Business is an amoral entity. It requires regulations and standards of operation to ensure that it stay above board.
Can you name a single "free market" economy that has worked successfully for citizens?
laizze-faire. no. but then again i do not support that. the government has a responsibility to protect workers and consumers against abuse in the workplace and products. however, i also think the market is capable of punishing those few individual companies that are corrupt and therefore there is no need for the government to interfere.
I work in the restaurant business. I think it perfectly acceptable to have health inspections, OSHA, sexual harrasment prevention but what i would not find ok is if the government came down and told me how to run my store.
having said that...
there does need to be a change in business law especially banking and lending to make more tansparent. ah hell through insurance in there as well.
it might be worthwhile to look at general business law as well.
i have to agree. the so-called "free market" is NOT perfect as it's somewhat portrayed. what happens is the breeding of the unfair advantage......that causes collateral damage. then the government has to get involved. so it's a ongoing tug of war. some one mentioned this earlier and i agree the free market can't solve this without mucho damage to this country/world. japan is experiencing their worst recession for some time. our downfall would affect many other economies.
yes but they should get involved in unemployment programs, retraining programs. i hate to say that cuz i do not want to long lines of unemployed people. but in this i guess i have a stubborn conservative streak.
I am willing to talk about the temporary nationalization of the banks that we bailed out.
I am willing to accept the arguments for the stimulus package though i think it could have been done differently.
I am willing to accept the logic behind the bailout
I am willing to listen to your ideas(given some of the things said in this post and on the party like its 1993 post that is actually pretty good)
but i cannot countenance EXCESSIVE government interference in the economy. like i have said before, the government is not the economy and should remember that. the government's actions over the past few months the government has forgotten that.
its the stubborn conservative economic streak coming out again:)
There's a strange sort of extreme binary in what you posit. Either we respect the free market (which we never actually had and our movement towards it has caused a great deal of the problems we're dealing with today) or we fret about excessive government interference.
Has this been suggested by anyone? I think if anything, you should be worried about a bigger laissez-faire attitude by the government, as all of the blind eyes they took towards (nay, the encouragement of) credit default swaps can be pinpointed as the problem with financial institutions.
Maybe, and I would be standing right beside you calling for regulation. The way I see it is there needs to be a balance. A balance between what the government interferes with, for a lack of a better word, and what it leaves alone. In my opinion, a good balance would be one where the workers and consumers were protected by the government but the market chooses financial winners and losers based on the companies concept, marketing, etc. The sole caveat to that, and this is a big caveat, is that the market goes south the government cannot interfere. It could help retrain unemployed persons and such but cannot consciously attempt to sway the balance one way or the other.
Our economy has been Sweded!
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_type=&s...
should "loan" the banks money, at loanshark rates like banks do their customers. Periodically send them letters ststing the contract has been changed and the interest rate jumped, "cuz we can". Let the bastards fail. They wouldn't bail out a single entity anywhere in the solar system if roles were reversed.
Thanks so much for posting this. It's an amazing interview.
As for Schumer... He may be my Senator but I can't stand the rat. He'd sell his mother to third world slavery for a shiny nickel. And, ever since I watched him insult the survivors of the Branch Davidian fire I've hated his arrogant ways.
Hopefully humanity will one day learn to be humane.
See Amy Goodman with James Galbraith.
Economist James Galbraith: Bailed-Out Banks Should Be Declared Insolvent
http://www.democracynow.org/2009/2/10/economi...
Galbraith gives a very insightful description of what the buzzword 'Nationalization' should actually be taken to mean.
At the same time he asks the entirely reasonable question:
Does Treasury plan on auditing the bailed out banks?
If not we are being flim flammed.
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
I've had some thoughts about the economic meltdown and how to recover from same:
http://movies-of-the-week.blogspot.com/2009/0...
Let me know what you think.
...
if your sector requires over $1 trillion to stay afloat, it basically means that said sector needs to go the way of the dodo as it has failed.
The only role of the government should be to make sure the employees are secure, and to provide a leadership role in the alternatives that need to spring in order to fill the void created by the failed enterprises.
The role of the government should not be the prepping of failed business models at the expense of the taxpayer.
In any case, if such quantities of public money are being invested. Looking simply at the market cap of these banks, it should be better for the state to right out buy these banks and manage them out of this crisis. That would require a complete firing of the governing board of said banks, and pursue criminal and negligence charges where required. That would provide a much better return on the investment to the tax payers. Alas, it is a much lesser value proposition for the pigs currently siphoning our public funds for their own gain.
taking those billions upon billions they are virtually going to give to these insolvent banks, and actually creating an alternative set of banks. That is what they should be doing.
was that a conservative streak i detected, at least in the first half??
I am as liberal as they come. There is nothing liberal about simply giving money away to failed business so that the fat cats can keep living the lifestyle they are accustomed.
That is a blatant transfer of wealth from the middle and lower classes to the upper classes.
The fact that said fat cats use the same middle and lower classes they are about to screw, as basically hostages... makes bailouts doubleplusungood IMHO.
Just a heads for anyone interested
This ought to be a good watch tomorrow.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/meltd...
Goodnight, Frau Blücher
Paul Krugman: The good, the bad, and the ugly
Democracy is too important to be entrusted to politicians.
Rise Up!
Protest!
CNN's Blitzer Ignores William Cohen's Prior Service on AIG's Board of Directors http://newsbusters.org/blogs/michael-m-bates/...
(Susan Collins) She worked for Senator William Cohen from 1975 until 1987, when she became chair of the Maine commission on financial regulation. She served in this position until 1992
Study the symptoms not the virus...
Sure hope that stimulus hurries up and gets to the states so they can pay their bills. First national attention for California, now this:
Kan. suspends income tax refunds, may miss payroll
http://www.kansas.com/735/story/701750.html
sorry
District Name
Kansas - Sen. Brownback, Samuel [R]
Kansas - Sen. Roberts, Pat [R]
Kansas - 1st Rep. Moran, Jerry [R] [View Map]
Kansas - 2nd Rep. Jenkins, Lynn [R] [View Map]
Kansas - 3rd Rep. Moore, Dennis [D] [View Map]
Kansas - 4th Rep. Tiahrt, Todd [R] [View Map]
Study the symptoms not the virus...
the 'energy' industry.
You gotta admit they 'private sector' has done everything it could to slow down progress toward alternatives.
I doubt that a bunch of govt. technocrats could do any worse, in either case...
the sheer stupidity of government. Even with good intentions, most government investments usually have cost over runs that are just totally off the wall. Government involvement in the Healthcare system in Canada, has both saved it, and almost bankrupt it. You end up with layers upon layers of unaccountable bureaucrats, f*cking the dog all day and taking more out of the system than they put in.
Its not government itself that causes problems, it is the people within government that cause the problems. When you have people who hate government so much that they want to shrink to the size of a baby and then drown it that when they become part of the government they do everything to fuck it up.
Election 2012: Be Educated! Be Active! Vote!
www.phoenixjustice.com
JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America and any other "bank" that received $1 billion or more in government "bailout" funds should be seized immediately. After all consumer and retail mortgages are "re-defined", the assets of the failed banks would be sold off in little pieces to private investors to take public.
Legislation would need to be written that would prohibit the types of mergers that went on after 1999 and that banks can no longer offer services other than loans/mortgages and that they can no longer "leverage" their assets.
Election 2012: Be Educated! Be Active! Vote!
www.phoenixjustice.com
Board of Directors
> # Tommy Franks, Retired General, United States Army
Study the symptoms not the virus...
Here, Krugman indicates that it is the Obama administration itself that is opposed to nationalization.
“But bank stocks are worth so little these days — Citigroup and Bank of America have a combined market value of only $52 billion — that the ownership wouldn’t be partial: pumping in enough taxpayer money to make the banks sound would, in effect, turn them into publicly owned enterprises.
My response to this prospect is: so? If taxpayers are footing the bill for rescuing the banks, why shouldn’t they get ownership, at least until private buyers can be found? But the Obama administration appears to be tying itself in knots to avoid this outcome. ...We can’t afford to squander money giving huge windfalls to banks and their executives, merely to preserve the illusion of private ownership.”
The will of the people and an elastic currency, with a fractional reserve scheme attached. If the banks are left alone, our "Lender of last resort", will one day be, the last lender... IMHO
PS. The FDIC is only as stable as it's contributors. Go ahead, let them fail...
Study the symptoms not the virus...
When we remove our money>(deposits) from the banks and our investments>(stocks) from the banks, what we find is the "Truth"...
They're living on borrowed Dime!
Study the symptoms not the virus...
Mr. Johnson and you to Lindsey Graham. The answer was always right in front of us and now is the time to act. No bank is "To Big To Fail".
For the banking system to work without widespread failure and nationalization we either have to hand out huge subsidies to banks directly, in the form of cheap capital, or indirectly, by giving a subsidy to investors who will pass on part of it to banks as a condition of getting their share. The first is unfair, the second unfair and inefficient.
Of course, it could have been worse. We seem to have escaped calls to magic solvency up by suspending mark-to-market accounting, which would have worked as well as making “six” the new “zero.”
And in fairness we don’t know how the stress tests will work or if it is possible to fail one. But President Obama did tell ABC News that nationalization “wouldn’t make sense” because of the scale and complexity of the U.S. economy and capital markets would make it too tough to manage and oversee. He’s right and government will do a terrible job of managing banks, but it will be forced to and may as well get on with it. They seem now to be hoping that the economy turns and bails them and the banks out of their pickle, but that is a dangerous bet.
By the time we figure out that it’s not working, when whatever capital we have injected is swamped by falls in asset prices — and remember deleveraging and asset price falls go hand in hand — things will be that much bleaker and the United States will have less room to maneuver.
But ironically, maybe the most hopeful sign yesterday was the negative way in which the stock market and shares in banks reacted. Bank investors clearly thought that this raises the chances of them having their equity extinguished or at the very least their share of future profits diminished.
And Obama is not FDR coming in after a depression was already entrenched, he is leading a country which is only beginning to wake up and to suffer. It is just possible, though not likely, that the administration realizes it will have to take more drastic steps but needs more time to prepare the ground and make that politically possible.
One factor which may come into play is international pressure not to nationalise. What is just about possible in the United States would be far harder in economies such as Britain’s with larger banking systems relative to their size and borrowing power.
Maybe, just maybe. Using a capitalist/monetary system which expects infinite growth while being applied in a world of finite resources... maybe it is not such a good idea.
We have lived through a succession of bubbles and busts. We work like slaves, and when the fat cats push their greed to the brink of collapsing the system, they themselves have created, it us peons who have to fix it?
I don't think so...
time to evolve. We have the technology to meet basic human needs, we should not be in the XXI having to work like slaves to meet the most trivial human needs. There are very few people benefiting from the current system. And I am sure as fuck, it is not any of us reading this site. Why should we fix or patch such a system?
Let the bankers fix their own system then... let them put their money where their mouths are and put themselves into insuperable debt, if it such a great system that must enslave our children with debt. If that is the case, they should have no issue with putting forth the largest chunk of the injection of capital needed to save this sinking ship. Right?
But so far, all I have seen are proposals that take OUR money and labour to fix THEIR system.
Time to evolve, time to figure what it is in OUR interests, and apply our minds towards that goal. Time to stop working our lives away to defend THEIR interests...
What's the question?
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
Comments are closed on this entry