posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 04:20 PM
I go along with the people who are saying this begs the question. Less control means more freedom. Someone in control means they can manipulate and if
they can do that, then sooner or later they will manipulate to their own advantage. I'm not quite to zero control, but I think it can adequately be
shown that the more control exerted, the worse it gets.
Although I astonish myself for saying so, the FDIC has done a very good job of managing the multiple bank failures we've had these last few years. No
one has lost a penny in deposits. Two banks in my county failed. This was not the fault of the Fed or the evil wall street bankers. It was local
businesspeople who set up a bank to make loans to high risk customers, who bailed. Obama didn't do it. Bush didn't do it. The Rothchilds didn't do
it. It was Joe Schmoo who owned the Chevy dealership who partnered with the local McDonalds king pin to start a "hometown bank" that did it. Yet
both banks got sold to the right customers and it's only a few bank officvers who got fired, some of whom richly deserved it.
As much as possible control should be decentralized so that a problem with one does not escalate to be a problem for all.