1. I see no path to salvation except via taking all power from the bankers,

[Jackpine Radical]

nationalizing the necessary banking functions, and just amusing the bankers by letting them play some sort of Second-Life, Fantasy Banking game that will keep them entertained humanely and harmlessly. Maybe they could generate power by pedaling exercise bikes hooked up to generators that keep their computers fed with juice & maybe feed a little excess into the grid.

I think that would amount to more productive work than the whole lot of them have ever done.

[tabatha]

1. Absolutely agree.

Nationalize them. Open the books, so that citizens can see what is happening with THEIR money.

This CRAP about people losing their retirement money because of the bad deeds of banks is totally unacceptable. Where is the "freedom" in that?

OWS needs to articulate this better.

[Vincardog]

2. WE are OWS get thee down to the GA and articulate away

[scorpiogirl]

3. I just saw Inside Job finally last night

These guys need to be strung up in the center of town and flogged! What despicable 'people.'

[bemildred]

4. Correct. As long as the money power exists, it will defend itself and exploit us. nt

[Zorra]

5. 2. And instituting methods that insure that wealthy private interests cannot

influence political campaigns or government with money, goods, or other types of bribes.

Take money and wealth completely out of the equation.

Michael Moore has put forth some proposals that IMO are worth considering and refining.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Where-Does-Occupy-Wall-Str-by-Michael-Moore-111123-530.html

[Fire Walk With Me]

6. Bankers suddenly realized they could take power. We have to realize

we can take it back.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

7. "nationalizing the necessary banking functions"

Um.

What makes you think private sector schucks wouldn't transition nationalized banking positions? Have you seen articles about how many Goldman-Sachs people work for the administration?

http://my.firedoglake.com/fflambeau/2010/05/08/an-updated-list-of-goldman-sachs-ties-to-the-obama-admin-including-elena-kagan/

Nationalization does nothing but create a monopoly and those are so hideous we have special anti-trust laws. Except anti-trust laws can't be used against the government. We need smaller banks with decentralized programs so no one institution threatens the entire economy.

[Jackpine Radical]

10. Check into the consequences of having a State-run bank.

Start with North Dakota.

The point is that the bankers would work for a salary, not for their individual aggrandizement, and would be judged on how well they serve the people's needs.

There are ways to make government work. Do you realize how little fraud and abuse there was during the New Deal years?

[bhikkhu]

26. I think the biggest consequence would be the politicization

...as in, when, from time to time the repugs are in control of government, they'd also be in control of our bank accounts, mortgages, credit lines, and so forth. At least now we have the option of closing accounts at banks we don't like and moving them to credit unions or other banks.

It could work, but the stakes would be pretty high
.

[Fool Count]

38. If by "politicization" you mean democratic control of a public institution

by people's elected representatives then it is exactly how democratic system is supposed to function.

[bhikkhu]

39. True, but democratic control of congress failed to regulate the banking industry

leading to all the recent problems. Its failure was more or less "on purpose", as the repugs are ideologically opposed to that sort of thing. If banks had been nationalized during the same period, I think the loot-and-pillage would have simply been a magnitude larger and more thorough.

Currently, the Dodd-Frank reforms are pretty good, and regulations that are in many ways stronger than Glass-Steagal are in place. Of course the repugs are determined to de-regulate the whole mess again. It wouldn't take much of a shift in the senate (or another repug president) for them to succeed, then we'd be back on the same boat again, but in the meantime good policies and adequate regulation serves the purpose well.

[Fool Count]

42. I don't disagree, but I have to wonder if the gridlock programmed for failure

might be what American voters want. They keep electing those bozos, don't they? So they can't be really so unhappy with them.
At some point they should learn their lesson and change their behavior, that's how democracy is supposed to work. If Dodd-Frank
reforms work and are sufficient to fix the problem - fine, we should know soon enough. If not and the American people gives
the Congress a mandate to nationalize the banks, then I am hoping the majority elected to do that will be responsible enough
to perform the task honestly and transparently.

[bemildred]

11. I'd rather have a monopoly that at least belongs to me.

The mega-banks are already monopolies, and way the fuck worse than the Post Office too.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

13. Except it wouldn't belong to you.

It would belong to the well-connected; just like these things always are. If you're displeased with BoA you can leave it for another bank or a CU; but if the government monopolizes you have no escape -- ever. If GS is all over the current administration what do you think will happen once the next GOPer is elected? Do you really want the next republican president appointing your bank managers?

Do just focus on what you want, think about what the opposition will do when they get to enforce your laws.

[bemildred]

15. It will more than Citibank, eh? I spit on your attempts to spread fear. nt

[Nuclear Unicorn]

18. Do you need a tissue for your monitor?

Goldman-Sachs is thicker than fleas on a hound dog in the current administration; an administration brought-in by the ceaseless efforts of progressives who believed we had better days ahead of us. Our votes were betrayed. We were sold-out. GS got our money as bailouts and they got access to set policy. If a president elected by progressives would treat us so shabbily please explain to us how you think the next blue dog / GOP president will treat us.

[bemildred]

19. Tell me something I don't know.

I didn't spit on my monitor.
Why are you defending monopoly banking?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

22. "Why are you defending monopoly banking?"

What?

My entire post was AGAINST monopolies because they're monopolies and monopolies are bad. My alternate solution was to break-up banks and their programs so much that no one bank / program could wreck the entire economy.

Are you sure you replied to the right post?

[bemildred]

23. How about a network of gov't banks like the Post Office?

You seem to be objecting to the idea of nationalizing the mega-banks, which I certainly do take to be defending them.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

25. The branches may be local but the institution is still singular

I'm not defending mega-banks or mega-anything -- I wouldn't even defend Mega-Shark vs Giant Octopus (who could, really?) -- on the contrary I say, break them up. Put limits on how much they can hold, hard floors on their minimum asset requirements and hard ceilings on their liabilty exposures. Minimize instrument participation. No more of having everyone buy the same derivatives / whatnot. Even if the products are the same the vendors must be varied; again, to isolate risks.

In other words, everything from the individual brand name to the investment instruments should be decentralized and small-scale so no one bank or instrument can jeopardize the entire economy. I don't want a half-dozen mega-banks, I want hundreds of smaller banks using thousands of different investments. BTW -- the CEO salaries would be correspondingly broken-up as well by natural effect, not legislative mandate. I certainly don't want a single, government-protected, soverignly-immune monopoly whose officers are appointed or filibustered by the GOP. If my bank pisses me off I want to be able to go to their competitor and know its not the same umbrella corp or political party.

A nationalized bank won't get money out of politics, it will put politicians in charge of your money; and the CEOs won't go away, they'll become cabinet appointees.

[bemildred]

28. How about state banks? Like in South Dakota?

How about federally chartered autonomous local banks, one per county or something?

Convert them all to Credit Unions owned by depositors.

I mean you can't get rid of the federal government, and you can't take away its ultimate authority over the banking system, that's its job. Why the hell should I be afraid of my own government, how fucked up is that?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

30. "Why the hell should I be afraid of my own government, how fucked up is that?"

How "fucked up" did you feel from 2001 to 2009?

just askin'

[bemildred]

34. I am not afraid, I got nothing to lose. nt

[Nuclear Unicorn]

40. Not an enviable position.

People have families, jobs, businesses, charities, hobbies, passions, faith --

These are good things and they're worth having. Prosperity and happiness are worth working for.

[bemildred]

43. Actually, it is. nt

[Odin2005]

8. All power to the General Assemblies!

[Nuclear Unicorn]

9. To do what? It's not like they can write banking law.

just sayin'

[Jackpine Radical]

12. Give them a little while.

I think we're in the process of inventing something entirely new in terms of social organization.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

17. A little while to do what?

Consciousness raising only works if you intend to enact reforms or create your own system. The former requires political participation and the latter requires becoming a business.

[bemildred]

21. A little while to write banking law.

With enough of us we can elect anybody we please, to do any damn thing we please, as the Constitution provides.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

27. I certainly hope so

Far too many people want OWS to stay out of the political process, claiming it is too corrupt. Corrupt, yes; but unless OWS participates and reforms they are doomed to only holding signs in the rain. The movement HAS to get people into office and propose policies.

[bemildred]

29. I can assure you that OWS intends to intervene in the political process.

Just not politics as usual.

[Jackpine Radical]

41. Exactly.

[Yo_Mama]

33. Before that could happen, they would become TRUE general assemblies

They would, in fact, represent the American population - and I think you'll find that power would be wielded significantly differently than you anticipate.

[saras]

14. I agree, except that bankers should be entertainment for our current crop of violent prisoners.

[spanone]

16. k&r...

[WillyT]

20. K & R !!!

:kick:

[bhikkhu]

24. I like the people who work at my local branch

...both at the credit union which is my main bank, and at a regular bank where we have another account and our mortgage. They're nice people who live in my community, and they always smile and remember my name. I don't use ATM's, because its nicer dealing with people who seem happy with their work. When I asked about getting a lower interest rate on our mortgage (in spite of "damaged" credit), the girl made some phone calls to see what could be done - and after a couple of days came up with a refinance plan that should work (its still "in process").

But I suppose those aren't the bankers you're talking about putting on exercise bikes...

[nini]

31. I agree

Been saying that for some time now ;-)

[Yo_Mama]

32. Because that worked so well at Fannie, Freddie and FHA?

We're only in hock to the banks that are "too big to fail". We need to reverse the changes made during the Clinton era, which allowed this to happen, and then we can go back to letting the banks compete for our business.
http://www.menafn.com/qn_news_story.asp?storyid={e3a12b75-ecc5-4c45-a337-b5ae9f00fd67}

Current FHA buyers are paying much higher insurance premiums than they mostly should be because the program was used to bail out underwater mortgages - by the government.

Fannie and Freddie will probably end up costing the taxpayers over 350 billion. It's not whether something is controlled by the government that makes it good or bad, it's whether something is so big that it can control the market.

TARP really hasn't cost the government much money, aside from Fannie, Freddie, and perhaps FHA (it may yet go bust). Most of the losses in TARP come from the bailouts of certain companies, and those non-banks.
http://www.frumforum.com/cbo-tarp-will-cost-taxpayer-19-billion

[bemildred]

35. Congress fucked them up, they can un-fuck them up. nt

[Yo_Mama]

37. No they can't.

That's the thing about large pools of financial assets. Once they are effed up and you haven't reserved properly, the only way out is to do what FHA is doing - pass the costs on to future participants and slowly gain back your losses. Which is hardly "free".

Congress is giving large chunks of taxpayer money to Fannie and Freddie each quarter to keep them operating. The taxpayer is paying for Fannie & Freddie, and the borrowers are (so far) paying for FHA.

There ain't no free lunch when it comes to financial misdeeds.

[bemildred]

45. Financial assets are little magnetic dots on magnetic media.

They are ephemeral and fungible.

[Initech]

36. I agree they totally abused it, it's time for them to go.

[hyphenate]

44. Imagine how many budget benefits

could be gained with billions of dollars given out to bank CEOs and their cronies? Well hell, we'd all get to have the American Dream come right back into sight without paying anouther cent more to the government than we already are.

And think what that would do for the world! We have a lot less rich people, but we don't have to worry about the repugs anymore, salaries would be in tune with the rest of the proles in the country, and maybe, just mayne, some bank presidents might decide to take their lunch with them to work, preferably in a '60s metal lunchbox. (a girl can dream, can't she? :))

It wo;; never happen. The power and influence would make it impossible to happen, except in a parallel world, where someone from our time went back in time to advise the founding fathers about making specific changes, and astonish the FF with tales of our society. They would think we're aliens, and they would surely die from fright in their sleep.

[blindpig]

46. That would necessitate a revolution........

When has a ruling class ever given up power willingly? They control the government.....

But that's what it's gonna take, nothing trivial to contemplate.

[Huey P. Long]

47. Things WILL continue to get worse until it is so. -eom

[liberalnationalist]

48. I agree 100% with this thread