Is anyone actually buying into this load of crap?

And that form of a personal attack would be the propaganda that one would expect from a bank, or banker.

Kind of like calling me a Robot, right? Somehow, that one missed your radar. Thanks for coming to my defense when I was personally attacked.

No, what that is called is usery. One only needs to look at the example of the moneychangers in the temple in Roman Palestine 2,000 years ago. Jesus Christ called them a den of thieves. I agree. Banks produce nothing. They are leaches on society.

Ask any entrepreneur whether they value a good working relationship with their banker, and whether having a good relationship with their bank is important to them.

Then please take a look at the most recent catechism of the Catholic Church, which recognizes that modern banking serves a practical function in modern society, and has retracted its opinions regarding traditional banking.

Usury - such as charging astronomical rates as in title pawns, etc. - is egregious. Agreed. Banks aren't charging egregious rates, except perhaps in the case of credit cards, which are typically issued by the big houses, not the small hometown banks.

reply to post by CookieMonster09

By the same argument that you make, you could accuse any profitable business of "making money out of thin air" because they charge more than what they put into producing a product or a service.

No you can't.

Banks do not produce anything except debt.

So, that's not really much of a service.

Chrysler isn't really trying to put me into debt. They just want to prove to me that their vehicles are the best.

The Federal Reserve prints money out of thin air.

The Federal Reserve is a private bank.

reply to post by CookieMonster09

Banks have a legitimate service - Lending money at interest.

Lending money at interest is a "service."

Wow, you're right, they are truly noble in their efforts to steal property.

I'll be sure to hold the guy that broke into my home in the middle of the night in the same regard.

That money does trickle down to the smaller banks.

I'd love to hear your explanation on this one.

So those smaller banks are using money that was printed out of thin air. On the basis of nothing more than what started out as a Government bond.

Maybe at the onset of the Federal Reserve system. But certainly not now. I have already given you an example of a bank that does not have to rely on the Federal Reserve for funding. It has its own capital reserves, and its own assets, and plenty of deposits. As do most banks that have weathered this storm, though more banks are set to fail due to overzealous real estate lending.

You cannot refute their publication.

Well, I haven't heard you refute a single point I've made all night. Fair is fair.

First, as far as the alleged publication goes, I have no evidence whatsoever as to its legitimacy, nor that it was actually ever published by the source you cite. Certainly, there are plenty of bogus "reports" floating around, and this one, even if legitimate, is certainly dated.

[edit on 5/15/2010 by dalan.]

Lending money at interest is a "service." Wow, you're right, they are truly noble in their efforts to steal property.

You have no concept of risk management, credit analysis, credit investigation, etc., do you? Bankers have traditionally served as advisers to business owners, entrepreneurs --- the very job-producing engines of our economy.

Again, ask any business owner if they value a good working relationship with their bank. Bankers frequently advise business owners on financial trends that need changes, local economic trends, and providing resources and contacts to make deals happen. They are integral to our economy.

Have you ever lent money to anyone? Ever? What kind of due diligence and research did you do? How did you make the decision to lend to them?

Just hocus-pocus, give money to anyone, right? Banks don't ever have losses, right? It's all magic, fairyland money to you.

Well, that's not the real world. In the real world, banks operate like a business. They are very bottom-line focused, and intent on making a profit. Losses are real, even if you don't think they are.

Some property! Property that is worth pennies now, because it has devalued so much. Yeah, great collateral. Thanks a lot.

[edit on 15-5-2010 by CookieMonster09]

Originally posted by CookieMonster09
Then please take a look at the most recent catechism of the Catholic Church, which recognizes that modern banking serves a practical function in modern society, and has retracted its opinions regarding traditional banking.

Did the Church Change Its Stance on Usury?

As far as dogma in the technical Catholic sense is concerned, there is only one dogma at stake. Dogma is not to be loosely used as synonymous with every papal rule or theological verdict. Dogma is a defined, revealed doctrine taught by the Church at all times and places. Nothing here meets the test of dogma except this assertion: that usury, the act of taking profit on a loan without a just title, is sinful. . . . This dogmatic teaching remains unchanged. What is a just title, what is technically to be treated as a loan, are matters of debate, positive law, and changing evolution. The development of these points is great. But the pure and narrow dogma is the same today as in 1200. (Noonan, 399–400)

In other words, Catholic teaching still holds that usury is morally impermissible, but it does not follow from this (and the Church never did teach) that any charge above principle on a loan is always wrong. The Catechism of the Catholic Church reiterates the condemnation of usurious actions:

The acceptance by human society of murderous famines, without efforts to remedy them, is a scandalous injustice and a grave offense. Those whose usurious and avaricious dealings lead to the hunger and death of their brethren in the human family indirectly commit homicide, which is imputable to them. (CCC 2269)

Read more: Catholic.com

Be careful when stating what the Catholic Church says about things around here, there might be Catholics around to correct you.

Originally posted by CookieMonster09
Bank of America, JPMChase, and Citi all are Wall Street investment banks. They also have retail banking in place as well.

Each one of those financial institutions is a large commercial bank w/an investment banking arm. Were any of them founded as an investment bank ?

Easy money? For brokers, yes. Yeah, the GSE's were funding like crazy for these bad, sub-prime loans. But GSE's aren't banks, are they?

GSE's were initially formed to provide a secondary market/liquidity for small regional/city banks...national banking cartels came later...mortgage brokers after that.

Easy money...origination fees, sales commissions, and in some instances the retention of servicing rights. Nobody claimed that GSE's are "banks". Large national banks, and small regional banks originated loans without performing due diligence with respect to creditworthiness, dumped these questionable assets on the secondary market/GSE's...and when push came to shove, the bagholder of last resort was the US taxpayer. The banks were back-stopped from the get.

To say that the proliferation of derivatives compounded the crisis would be an understatement. As an insurance policy of sorts, the CDS for example provided a platform for commercial banks to engage in excessive risk-taking.

They're just prepping us for something big. They want us to remember B.S. like this when don't allow us to withdrawal our accounts when the dollar starts to go bust.

Hmmmmnn, let's see what our old friend John Maynard Keynes had to say on usury:

Indeed, the last great economist to address the subject was J. M. Keynes, back in the 1930's. Keynes, who was no friend of the Church, surprised himself by finding that the Church's restrictions on usury made perfect economic sense, a sense ignored by classical economists:

"Provisions against usury are amongst the most ancient economic practices of which we have record. The destruction of the inducement to invest by an excessive liquidity preference was the outstanding evil, the prime impediment to the growth of wealth, in the ancient and medieval worlds. I was brought up to believe that the attitude of the Medieval Church to the rate of interest was inherently absurd, and that the subtle discussions aimed at distinguishing the return on money-loans from the return to active investment were merely jesuitical attempts to find a practical escape from a foolish theory. But I now read these discussions as an honest intellectual effort to keep separate what the classical theory has inextricably confused together, namely, the rate of interest and the marginal efficiency of capital." [ The General Theory , 351-2]

What Keynes is saying in this somewhat technical language is that when returns to pure loans are higher than returns to actual investments, you will have a problem; if you can make more money lending to consumers at 25% than to auto makers at 10%, then the money for making things will dry up, and loans will shift to consumption and speculation.

Read more: It's all about Usury

[edit on 5/15/10 by FortAnthem]

Be careful when stating what the Catholic Church says about things around here, there might be Catholics around to correct you.

Read here:

www.newadvent.org...

Usury - such as charging 50% or more in interest - does not apply to modern traditional banking. And, to clarify, I am speaking about commercial lending to businesses primarily:

"There has never been at any time any prohibition against the investment of capital in commercial or industrial undertakings or in the public funds."

and:

"The change in the attitude of the Church is due entirely to a change in economic matters that require the present system. The Holy See itself puts its funds out at interest, and requires ecclesiastical administrators to do the same."

I've thoroughly researched the matter. Basically, usury has historically been looked upon as wrong. However, in the modern era, the practicality of modern, traditional banking, as it relates to business and commercial enterprises, is accepted by the Church, though with caution. Why? The business owner serves to receive benefit, just as the lender does - I.e., it's not a one way street. Read the article.

Were any of them founded as an investment bank ?

I don't know that you can answer that question. Chase, for example, as well as Citi, are basically a conglomeration of dozens of bank mergers and acquisitions. More like, which was first, the chicken or the egg?

Regardless, if Chase and BOA, and Citi, are the measures of the banking world, then all is lost. They certainly don't represent the majority of the bankers in the American Bankers Association, who tend to deplore the practices of the big banks.

To say that the proliferation of derivatives compounded the crisis would be an understatement. As an insurance policy of sorts, the CDS for example provided a platform for commercial banks to engage in excessive risk-taking.

Got it. However, the problems with these bad loans are that they were sub-prime loans. You typically go and see your local mortgage broker if you have shady credit, not your traditional brick and mortar bank which typically takes AAA credits only.

When you have bad credit, do you visit your local bank? No. You visit Guido Brothers Mortgage Company.

I understand that some retail banks may have brokered these kinds of loans to the GSE's, but historically, this role was better served by the broker, not a traditional bank. Banks don't typically want to deal with these kinds of bad credits.

Originally posted by CookieMonster09

Be careful when stating what the Catholic Church says about things around here, there might be Catholics around to correct you.

Read here:

www.newadvent.org...

Oh, I see you didn't read all the way down to the end:

Lending money at interest gives us the opportunity to exploit the passions or necessities of other men by compelling them to submit to ruinous conditions; men are robbed and left destitute under the pretext of charity. Such is the usury against which the Fathers of the Church have always protested, and which is universally condemned at the present day. Dr. Funk defined it as the abuse of a certain superiority at the expense of another man's necessity; but in this description he points to the opportunity and the means which enable a man to commit the sin of usury, rather than the formal malice of the sin itself. It is in itself unjust extortion, or robbery. The sin is frequently committed.

"There has never been at any time any prohibition against the investment of capital in commercial or industrial undertakings or in the public funds."

The Church defines usury as interest on NON-PRODUCTIVE LOANS. Collecting interest on commercial or industrial undertakings is considered a business investment.

What the Church condemns is consumer loans such as car loans, credit cards and even residential home loans. Charging interest on these has always been condemned.


[edit on 5/15/10 by FortAnthem]

You're taking the quote out of context. Even the Vatican charges interest!

You're entirely missing the point.

If I lend $1 million to a business owner to purchase a building, buy equipment, buy inventory, etc., and that money goes to hire employees, and has a productive, positive impact on the company's expansion and bottom line, then this is not a sin. Not at all. I am contributing, as a banker, to economic development, which is a good thing. I am helping to create jobs, and the business owner is profiting from the relationship. It's a two way street.

That's traditional business banking.

If, however, I charged huge rates of interest, such that it caused hardship on the business owner, and I sent Guido and his boys to break his legs, then that would be a sin. That is what is called usury.

It's a long article. Modern traditional banking is not usury. Credit cards that charge 30 percent interest is usury.

What the Church condemns is consumer loans such as car loans, credit cards and even residential home loans. Charging interest on these has always been condemned.

Read your edit. I think we are on the same page now.

One reminder: Residential mortgages - as utilized by investors and speculators - were business investments expected to earn a profit. They would not qualify as usury.

[edit on 15-5-2010 by CookieMonster09]

Originally posted by CookieMonster09
Modern traditional banking is not usury. Credit cards that charge 30 percent interest is usury.

ANY interest on a credit card is usury, unless it was used to pay for business expences.

The Church defines usury as interest on NON-PRODUCTIVE LOANS. Collecting interest on commercial or industrial undertakings is considered a business investment.

What the Church condemns is consumer loans such as car loans, credit cards and even residential home loans. Charging interest on these has always been condemned.

Read your edit. I think we are on the same page now.

One reminder: Residential mortgages - as utilized by investors and speculators - were business investments expected to earn a profit. They would not qualify as usury.

Agreed.


[edit on 5/15/10 by FortAnthem]

More of the same business world bull# that has over taken our society in recent years. Good citizenship begins with an honest run business which banks, wal mart, insurance companys are not. They ran off the Mom & Pop stores that provided good customer experiences and an honest value for an honest price. That SHOULD say something about these crooks in suits.

[edit on 5/15/2010 by mikelee]

reply to post by FortAnthem


These guys would sell a rats@#$%hole to a blind man as a wedding ring... you really wonder how they lie straight in bed at night.....the scary part is some gullible people will buy right into this applie pie diatribe

reply to post by CookieMonster09



Where does the Fed get all the money to buy and sell such large quantities of Treasury bonds?

They Don't. They just make it up!

Today's letter is "F" is for.. Federal Reserve Act.

now go back to your trash can & read...


[edit on 15-5-2010 by reeferman]

[edit on 15-5-2010 by reeferman]

[edit on 15-5-2010 by reeferman]

reply to post by searchforknowledge


They can't lie in bed easily, they get drugs from their Pharma crook friends so that they can sleep at night.

Originally posted by CookieMonster09
Got it. However, the problems with these bad loans are that they were sub-prime loans. You typically go and see your local mortgage broker if you have shady credit, not your traditional brick and mortar bank which typically takes AAA credits only.

When you have bad credit, do you visit your local bank? No. You visit Guido Brothers Mortgage Company.

I understand that some retail banks may have brokered these kinds of loans to the GSE's, but historically, this role was better served by the broker, not a traditional bank. Banks don't typically want to deal with these kinds of bad credits.

I'll give you three of many ALT-A/exploding ARM subprime lenders that failed...three big ones, three commercial banks you might remember.

IndyMac...WaMu...Wachovia.

On another note, the low interest rate policy you praise fueled the housing bubble under Greenspan, in fact he openly promoted subprime lending practices. A financial system awash in cheap money sent massive amounts of liquidity in search of higher returns via riskier assets...enter subprime loans, MBS, and the CDO, along with related complex derivatives contracts.

Originally posted by CookieMonster09

Better yet, don't borrow beyond your means. How's that for a concept?

I'll go you one better than that. Don't borrow at all. How's THAT for a concept?

I cut up all my credit cards 20 years ago. Never looked back, never missed a thing. I severed all banking connections 3 years ago. Never looked back, never missed a thing.

If I can't afford cash for a thing, well, I just can't really afford that thing. No problem. What I have is paid for, don't have to hassle with bills other than utilities. I find they take cash, too, if they really want the money (which they seem to do).

I have 34 acres, and 2 houses. Paid cash. No mortgage to worry about. I hear they're moving towards trying to outlaw cash. Maybe, I dunno. Haven't noticed many recipients having an aversion to it. If they do, though, they'd better be ready to receive payments in chickens or hides, 'cause they ain't never gonna get me back onto that banking hamster wheel, and trying to take what I have because I ain't participating in that system anymore would assuredly be met with rather stiff resistance.