Here's whats really going on with the banks.

[Still Growing]

We all know that the financial crisis was primarily caused by a real estate bubble bursting. What the news fails to report was that some banks made a killing off derivatives and are now buying up the failed banks. In 1908 JP Morgan bought up failed banks and then in 2008 they do it again? Same bank, same benefit. Hmmmm.

When the dust settles we will see that the winning banks influenced politics and wholesale money supply to create the unstable market intentionally.

We're all supposed to mad at the AIG guys getting their bonsuses and its been all you've heard about on the news.... People have opinions one way or the other BUT, the top banks WANT YOU TO BE ANGRY AT THE EMPLOYEES to divert attention from themselves.

Reading the paper this morning I read that the CEO of Goldman Sachs is lobbying hard to get the compensation packages in check with these "Overpaid Employees". Then it suddenly hit me "If I was one of the major shareholders of Goldman's I'd probably want to pay less bonuses and salaries in the future too"

Its completely clear that the real culprits of this crisis have not only made a fortune but in the end they'll have lower employee costs too.

[Brutha]

On the other hand Ron Paul tries to get a Fed Transparancy Act passed.
But it's much easier for people to hate an employee for getting a large bonus than to understand why transparency is supposed to be important.

Reading the paper this morning I read that the CEO of Goldman Sachs is lobbying hard to get the compensation packages in check with these "Overpaid Employees". Then it suddenly hit me "If I was one of the major shareholders of Goldman's I'd probably want to pay less bonuses and salaries in the future too"

Does Goldman Sachs receives Tarp money directly (and is therefore included in the bonus cap)?

[ar81]

What is laughable is the socialist subsidy that is given to banks if buy toxic asset plan would pass. That would be money at 0% interest being lend to banks to reward failure.

Since US citizens did not fail or let down their nation, they seem not to deserve a socialist subsidy, like the banks...

[liamona]

Originally Posted by Brutha

On the other hand Ron Paul tries to get a Fed Transparancy Act passed.
But it's much easier for people to hate an employee for getting a large bonus than to understand why transparency is supposed to be important.

Yep. And that's why "they" would rather you hate the bankers than see a solution where everyone (rather than just the 1%) benefits. Most of the bankers are just minions, they aren't the Man Behind the Curtain controlling anything.

"They" have been really great at keeping us in our various little factions, fighting each other, while they lap up the profits and laugh all the way to the bank. Democrat, Republican, or Other, it's time to throw off focusing on the things that separate us, and unite in the realization that there's way more of us than them.

[ar81]

Imagine this.

John gave me $100.
I lend you the $100 John gave me.
In return you must pay me $500.
Since you have problems to pay, I refinance your debt and you must pay me $1000.

Economy has only $100 (the ones John gave me).
The rest of money does not exist.
To make it to exist, you must work hard, earn $1000 to pay me.

So it means you worked to make $1000, you enjoyed $100 and I made $900 of profit. And the money that I lend is not even mine.

So basically you work hard, I as a bank make profit. If you see it, it is about making YOU a slave. You have a deadline to pay me the contractual "ransom" so you do not lose your $100 home.

---------------------------

The banking system works far worst than the case I just described.

Imagine Federal Reserve percentage is 20%.

-John deposited $1000. It means $200 go to federal reserve and bank can lend $800. Let's say Charles borrowed those $800.
-Bank deposited these $800 in the account of Charles. 20% of that money goes to federal reserve and the remaining $640 can be lend.
-Mike came and borrowed those $640. Money is deposited in his account, which gives the bank the right to lend $512 and the rest goes to federal reserve.

In the end, with 20% federal reserve percentage, Federal Reserve ends up having $1000 and $5000 were lend by the bank. It means the same money was lend several times. So how do you explain a "liquidity problem"?

Let's say that the bank lends $5000 out of the original $1000, but it only recovers $2000 as the rest defaulted their mortgage. In the bank books you see a loss of $3000, but indeed it made $2000 out of $1000, so in net terms it had profit.

So where is the freaking bank loss?

If I am not mistaken, with current federal reserve percentage, money is lend 9 or 10 times.

By lending several times the same money, it pushes towards inflation, but as inflation was exported, the citizens of countries that suffer inflation lose buying power, and they become cheaper workers, so an income gap is created.

Such income gap makes jobs to go overseas.

An american worker costs 15 times the cost of a chinese worker. Inflation caused by the monetary policy of FED was exported to China, and chinese became poorer, and then you lost your job. Chinese and american citizens lose, while subsidizing bank profits. Americans subsidize by paying interests and losing jobs, chinese subsidize with their poverty.

It is the perfect socialist system. Communist politbureau of bankers subsidized by proletarian citizens, using financial tools, but they call themselves "capitalists" because they make all the money.

The sad thing is that if you criticize their subsidies,you are being called "socialist" by those who do not understand the scam. Quite convenient.