if the banks fail, say tomorrow, your savings are gone, your business is going down as people will have no money to buy your stuff and you will starve unless you have enough money stashed away under your mattress. — CuddlyHedgehog

Banks must guarantee savings in their bank accounts under certain limits. In some EU countries this amount is like 100,000 EUR per account. So if you have say, $1 million, and spread it 100K/bank, you'll be fine. Even if you have it all in one account, you'll still get 100K EUR or the equivalent.

If the bank doesn't have liquidities, no worries. Then they should pay with asset transfers, or otherwise liquidate those assets to pay the guarantees and close the bank. Simple. Many people out there wouldn't mind owning one or two bank branch buildings.

Don't tell me banks don't have money - they own assets, in property alone, sometimes in the billions. This is disgusting.

Banking is not productive - bankers don't produce anything or add any value. Ideally, banking should facilitate the development of industries by providing access to capital. — Agustino

And not only industries but ordinary people. Why people in the Third World countries remain poor is because they cannot get a loan to buy their own home and hence have to live on a rent. Hence they don't have the ability to gain wealth. Getting a loan for a home with low interest and for a longer time is something that a functioning banking sector can provide. Having real estate has been one of the most simple ways how people in the West have become more wealthier. With that wealth they then become consumers, which then creates a market and hence creates growth.

What a nationalized or government controlled banking sector does it that hinders the competition between banks and the end result is that less people can get loans. Simple as that.

Hence banking has a crucial role in the economy and that when it functions well people can get a loan with reasonable rates is something that obviously adds value.

With that wealth they then become consumers, which then creates a market and hence creates growth. — ssu

And when do they become producers? Never?

Why people in the Third World countries remain poor is because they cannot get a loan to buy their own home and hence have to live on a rent. — ssu

LOL! Banking in Third World countries is the problem, not the solution. They even take charges for taking money out of the ATM :lol: - in fact, the poorer the country is, the more these thieves will try to rob them. There will be a crisis in some 5-10 years in Eastern European countries - lots of young people are taking huge loans from banks to buy property, loans that they will never be able to pay back because rates will keep going up, while salaries are still very low. The bank will get the property and some of the interest too! I pity a lot of young people who have taken 30 year-long mortgages from the bank to buy property - they really have no clue what they're getting themselves into.

Having real estate has been one of the most simple ways how people in the West have become more wealthier. — ssu

Why do you think so? Owning real estate is not a way to become wealthier - unless you rent it out. Owning real estate is otherwise an expense. Whether you pay rent or you pay the bank monthly payments on your mortgage - same thing, except that paying the bank has the potential to suddenly increase your interest rates. Bankers aren't dumb - especially in third-world countries they've rigged the system and are MORE oppressive than in the Western world, and MORE entitled. A cohort of banks dominate the banking system in third world countries and collude with each other to set the terms. There is no competition, who are you kidding? Or if there is competition, there is within certain bounds, that they themselves set.

What a nationalized or government controlled banking sector does it that hinders the competition between banks and the end result is that less people can get loans. Simple as that. — ssu

There should be no competition - banking shouldn't be solely for profit.

end result is that less people can get loans. — ssu

Less people get loans as things are now - or if they get them, they get them as terrible deals, that aren't even worth getting. In countries where the average wage is $300-600/month, you have banking directors making $10,000+/month. Why? What service is the bank director doing that he deserves that kind of payment relative to others? And not just the bank director, but everyone under him. They are all thieves, from the highest ranks to the lowest. It is utterly ridiculous that anyone believes banks are good, or multinational corporations are good, etc. - these are just a class of people who are profiting from this theft of national property and the abuse of entire nations and their fellow citizens by rackateering money-changers.

You get very reckless banks precisely because the social classes I was talking about have already formed. They insulate themselves from the risks, while accumulating more and more rewards. — Agustino

No,

People avoided jail (in the US) simply because of political connections and the unwillingness of the Bush and Obama governments to implement the existing laws. During the S & L crisis earlier in the US, a lot of bankers went to jail. During the last financial crisis, not anyone except a few people including a Ponzi-schemer that willingly gave himself up went to jail.

It's not anything about a class. That's just provoking hatred against "the rich". It's simply about the government doing it's job or not and having the balls to have very rich people loose their money. The US government didn't have the balls. When my country had it's housing bubble and banking crisis, the local government performed far better... even if not many people went to jail, the owners of the banks lost money and the banking sector was totally reformed (only a few smaller banks continued with the big banks being merged/broken up).

That's just provoking hatred against "the rich". — ssu

No, these aren't "the rich". These are "the thieves" - they don't deserve that wealth. There is nothing wrong with Bill Gates or Jeff Bezos, etc. having a fortune of $100+ billion. But there is something wrong with retards who have never taken any real risk in their lives, holding a prestigious piece of paper and nothing else apart from maybe family connections, to earn that kind of money while doing effectively nothing. That is a disgrace.

even if not many people went to jail, the owners of the banks lost money and the banking sector was totally reformed (only a few smaller banks continued with the big banks being merged/broken up). — ssu

Riiiight - screw everyone else, do not be worried, you won't go to jail, and you will keep your big mansion too - you'll just give up your job. That sounds like a terrible deal for the government.

It's simply about the government doing it's job or not and having the balls to have very rich people loose their money. — ssu

The government doesn't do it's job because it too is formed of a class of leeches, very similar to the bankers, who make a lot of money while doing nothing and taking no risks.

LOL! Banking in Third World countries is the problem, not the solution. They even take charges for taking money out of the ATM :lol: - in fact, the poorer the country is, the more these thieves will try to rob them. There will be a crisis in some 5-10 years in Eastern European countries - lots of young people are taking huge loans from banks to buy property, loans that they will never be able to pay back because rates will keep going up, while salaries are still very low. The bank will get the property and some of the interest too! I pity a lot of young people who have taken 30 year-long mortgages from the bank to buy property - they really have no clue what they're getting themselves into. — Agustino

Are you reading what I write?

I said that banking is exactly the problem because ordinary people cannot get a loan with a reasonable interest rate. That's the indicator when a banking sector is healthy: ordinary people with ordinary wage can get a long time loan for a decent house on a decent interest rate. In the Third World it isn't so. Nothing you say contradicts that.

And it's not so obvious that the bank getting the real estate will fix their problems. If a housing bubble bursts, the banks will make a loss with the housing when the debt is larger than the selling price of the house. Only when the housing market is going up bad loans aren't a problem: the person owning the house can simply sell the house for profit and pay the loan back.

There should be no competition - banking shouldn't be solely for profit. — Agustino

When there is no competition, there is also no incentive to give loans for new customers. The banker just give the loans his or her quota defines. I've seen it earlier in my country, works very lousily and keeps people living in far smaller apartments than today.

If you would look at ANY goddam market sector and take out the competition aspect: have just ONE supermarket chain, guess how much everything would cost and lousy the service would be? You can have a chain that "mimics" competition and looks after improve it's services, but still. Hence for there to be competition is crucial. The government has only to watch that no bank becomes too reckless.

And solely? Well, the reason for many services and production of goods to have profit is the objective. Of course a lot of people are genuinely happy when their customers are happy. That doesn't make the profit agenda any less important.

Are you reading what I write? — ssu

And you suggest that (better) banking is the solution? Nope.

If a housing bubble bursts, the banks will make a loss with the housing when the debt is larger than the selling price of the house. — ssu

A loss in accounting terms maybe. Based on money they could have gotten. No loss in real terms. Remember -> loss = final capital < inflation*initial capital (+ whatever small minute amount would go towards paying whatever employees were involved in the process). Those are the real terms - I'm not talking about "fictive" on-paper accounting losses relative to what they could have made.

the person owning the house can simply sell the house for profit and pay the loan back. — ssu

+ the interest rate.

If you would look at ANY goddam market sector and take out the competition aspect: have just ONE supermarket chain, guess how much everything would cost with lousy the service would be? Hence for there to be competition is crucial. The government has only to watch that no bank becomes too reckless. — ssu

We have one military, that's not a problem. We have one ministry of government building roads - not a problem, etc.

In some industries, lack of competition is bad. In some industries, the profit motive is important. Not in all.

And solely? Well, the reason for many services and production of goods to have profit is the objective. Of course a lot of people are genuinely happy when their customers are happy. That doesn't make the profit agenda any less important. — ssu

Nope. The profit-motive isn't good in all circumstances and industries. I agree entrepreneurship should be for-profit - entrepreneurship doesn't include banking though, which is monopolistic and heavily in bed with the state everywhere anyhows. Let's nationalise them and eliminate the profit-motive from banking, that will stop the accumulation of capital to banks.

A loss in accounting terms maybe. Based on money they could have gotten. No loss in real terms.Remember -> loss = final capital < inflation*initial capital (+ whatever small minute amount would go towards paying whatever employees were involved in the process). Those are the real terms - I'm not talking about "fictive" on-paper accounting losses relative to what they could have made. — Agustino

Ok, this is just humbug.

In real life banks can go insolvent through bad debt. I have no idea what you are talking about.

In real life banks can go insolvent through bad debt — ssu

Sure, in very unlikely circumstances.

Say someone takes a 30-year loan. There is a crisis coming 6 years down the road and you don't know about it (you're quite sure though that no near-term crisis is at hand). Fine. Until the crisis the value of the property increases, by, say, 3-5% per annum - roughly a 20% increase going with the lower bound here. He has paid more than 20% of the original value of the property in those 6 years (6/30 - actually more than that cause you pay progressively less - bankers are smart, not stupid, but for the sake of being as harsh as possible on the banker, we'll assume just 20%). How much does the crisis knock the value of the property off? Let's say at first -60% and then appreciates to somewhere 40-30%. So how much is that compared to original value? 1.2*0.6 = 72% - so a loss of 28%. But the person has already paid 20% of the original value. So the loss is really just 8%. Now he can't pay anymore. You take the property, you wait a couple of months till the price gets to higher than -40% compared to pre-crisis levels and sell the property. You're a winner. It's easy to be a banker.

Ok, this is just humbug. — ssu

Not humbug. The bank's making an investment. The only thing they need to cover is to make sure that their capital grows faster than inflation. Simple.

Lawyers and doctors need to have their salaries taxed at 90% above certain levels, which can still be quite high - say $150K in US. — Agustino

What, a person making $150K ought to be taxed 90%? So their take home pay is $15K? That wouldn't even pay rent.

What, a person making $150K ought to be taxed 90%? So their take home pay is $15K? — Metaphysician Undercover

No. Read what I wrote. "ABOVE CERTAIN LEVELS". $150K is taxed normally, above that taxed at 90%.

Right, so income of $150,001 leaves one with about $15,000 in take home pay.

Right, so income of $150,001 leaves one with about $15,000 in take home pay. — Metaphysician Undercover

Nope. *facepalm*

160K income. On 150K normal tax. On 10K 90%.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_tax

Oh, why didn't you say so in the first place?

Oh, why didn't you say so in the first place? — Metaphysician Undercover

I did.

It's one of those sentences where if you really want to be confused about it, you can find a way.

"Salary taxed at 90%" means salary taxed at 90%.

salaries taxed at 90% — Agustino

I saw no indication that what was really meant was "part" of the salary ought to be taxed at 90%.

LOL - you quoted me out of context:

salaries taxed at 90% above certain levels — Agustino

"part" of the salary ought to be taxed at 90%. — Metaphysician Undercover

It's self-evident. For two reasons, one pragmatic and one grammatical. Pragmatically, I'm not a retard, and I would not suggest that someone like a lawyer live off 15K a year, obviously. Grammatically, I said the tax is applied to the salary above certain levels. If your total salary is 160K, what's the salary above the 150K level?

The modifier "above certain levels" is right there in front of you. It's a prepositional phrase acting as an adverbial modifying the verb "taxed" in conjunction with the other prepositional phrase "at 90%" pointing to the fact that there are two important qualifiers on the action of taxing; firstly, that it be at a rate of 90%; and secondly, that it apply above a certain level. That level is then conveniently specified as being $150k. There is a way to confuse yourself about all this if you really try as I said, but it's too taxing to go into now.

Cross-posted. Back to reading (a blog about good and bad uses of English, coincidentally).

Cross-posted. — Baden

The new conspiracy will be that Agustino and Baden are the same person :rofl:

Cross-posted. — Baden

The new conspiracy will be that Agustino and Baden are the same person :rofl:

Oh, we shouldn't do that. :grimace:

Hmmm, I forgot to log out of my other account. That sometimes happens... :rofl:

Grammatically, I said the tax is applied to the salary above certain levels. — Agustino

No, you said:
"Lawyers and doctors need to have their salaries taxed at 90% above certain levels, which can still be quite high - say $150K in US."
Clearly you state that a salary above a certain level, say $150K ought to be taxed at 90%

Pragmatically, I'm not a retard, — Agustino

You mostly demonstrate otherwise . Why would I expect this to be an exception?

The modifier "above certain levels" is right there in front of you. — Baden

Right, the statement says that salaries above a certain level ought to be taxed at 90%. Where's the indication that what is meant is that only a part of that salary should be taxed?

It's a prepositional phrase acting as an adverbial modifying the verb "taxed" in conjunction with the other prepositional phrase "at 90%" pointing to the fact that there are two important qualifiers on the action of taxing; firstly, that it be at a rate of 90%; and secondly, that it apply above a certain level. — Baden

The statement clearly indicates that the salary is what is to be taxed at 90%. And, "above certain levels" qualifies the salary. The fact is, that Agustino did not say what Agustino meant. You understood what Agustino meant, because you did not take Agustino to be an idiot, and knew that what was meant must be other than what was stated. I simply took Agustino to be an idiot. And why shouldn't I, when Agustino has proven so many other times that this is the way to be taken?

You mostly demonstrate otherwise . Why would I expect this to be an exception? — Metaphysician Undercover

:kiss: lovely boy.

[Delete] @Baden

It's all in good fun. I love you Agustino

@René Descartes
@CuddlyHedgehog

Jesus is God, and as God has killed so many people I don't see why Jesus would not.

"Ok, the rich people are given a choice, but if they choose wrongly their reward is death,

With all due respect, Wtf is this shit man. Irrespective of wheter you believe in God or not, this pathology is Wrong. It is the same pathology that justified the murder of millions of people under communist rule. Shame on You. Shame on You.

And seccondly this is the weirdest interpretation of christianity ive ever heard. I personally base my understanding on Tolstoys works, "the Kingdom of god is within you", and "My Confession". Tolstoy was a pacifist who influenced Ghandi and Martin Luther King Jr he thought the fundametal foundation of Christianity was to love thy neighbor. In your interpretation of christianity what happen to the golden rule which was "LOVE your neighbor as yourself" that includes you rich neighbor, or are the rich for some reason allowed to be killed?