Thread: LIBOR scandal: Barclays Chairman and CEO resign, mass confussion follows

Originally Posted by USCitizen

You work for a family member doing regulatory paperwork.
You have posted such in the last two weeks.

Again you know shit so dont talk about me.

- - - Updated - - -

Originally Posted by OldmanDan

Do you kiss your mother with that mouth?

Is adult language to much for you ?

Please discuss the topic.

We need to separate banking practices from the high-stakes, high-risk casino gambling that constitutes much of today's financial industry, because when banks fail the government has to bail them out or the economy crumbles.

What would Dodd-Frank do?

here's a run down of what its advocates like about it and its opponents don't like about it: The 5 Best and 5 Worst Regulations in Dodd-Frank

If we had a few more laws and regulations, and a few more government lawsuits, we could put all the banks in the country out of business and let the government take over all banking, savings and loaning. That would be so much better.

Originally Posted by jpn

What would Dodd-Frank do?

here's a run down of what its advocates like about it and its opponents don't like about it: The 5 Best and 5 Worst Regulations in Dodd-Frank

5. No housing reform
This is depressing.

But what's to worry?
Any legislation whatsoever will completely destroy the US.
Remember when the colonies had no rules or regulations? Ah! The gold old days.

Good link. I agree with some of them, and disagree with others. Real surprise there.

In the listing, I don't see a separation between commercial banking, which has to be stable, reliable, dependable an trustworthy, and investment banking (proprietary or otherwise), which is the high risk gambling, which is none of those things.

Without this separation I only see risk and negative impact on the commercial customers from the investment customers, when their bad gambling needs to be paid off. Then it's pretty clear that the commercial customers get screwed while the investment customers laugh all the way to their other bank.

Originally Posted by eohrnberger

Good link. I agree with some of them, and disagree with others. Real surprise there.

In the listing, I don't see a separation between commercial banking, which has to be stable, reliable, dependable an trustworthy, and investment banking (proprietary or otherwise), which is the high risk gambling, which is none of those things.

Without this separation I only see risk and negative impact on the commercial customers from the investment customers, when their bad gambling needs to be paid off. Then it's pretty clear that the commercial customers get screwed while the investment customers laugh all the way to their other bank.

I agree. That's basically what the Volker Rule, which is part of Frank-Dodd, would do. Or was designed to do.
The trouble is that banks make huge profits off the casino parts of their business (and pass their losses off to the taxpayers), so are spending hundreds of millions in lobbying and media efforts to dismantle it. Business-friendly publications are frenetically issuing article after article promising the end of the world if the rule is allowed to have a single tooth left.

In the list above, it was predictably one of the five most hated by the financial industry.

Originally Posted by eohrnberger

Good link. I agree with some of them, and disagree with others. Real surprise there.

In the listing, I don't see a separation between commercial banking, which has to be stable, reliable, dependable an trustworthy, and investment banking (proprietary or otherwise), which is the high risk gambling, which is none of those things.

Without this separation I only see risk and negative impact on the commercial customers from the investment customers, when their bad gambling needs to be paid off. Then it's pretty clear that the commercial customers get screwed while the investment customers laugh all the way to their other bank.

Well, there are countries who have this separation already for decades. Which is ONE reason why they sailed well through the crisis :


Analysis: Brewing model saves Germany from bankers' droop | Reuters


Quote : / Local banks dominate savings and loans in Europe's largest economy. There are hundreds of small players, which by their very existence help limit the economic fallout from bank failures and makes sure banks do not get 'too big to fail.'

The prevalence of municipally-owned savings and customer-owned cooperative banks, the microbreweries of the banking world, ensures a steady supply of business loans, reducing the likelihood of a credit crunch and helping to protect Germany's coveted triple-A sovereign debt rating.

"You have two strong pillars in the system, savings banks and cooperative banks, which will always support the economy and not cause an issue for the sovereign," said Michael Dawson-Kropf, senior director of Financial institutions at Fitch Ratings.


and : Quote /

So just as brewers stick to the 'Reinheitsgebot' purity protocol which demands a beer be made from only water, malt and hops, savings banks keep their business simple, returning personal saving to the regional economy by extending loans to enterprises and private customers.

Germany has 2,000 banks, while Britain has just 405, Spain 415, Italy 785, Ireland 590 and France 1,147, according to European Central Bank statistics.

Data from the central bank, the Bundesbank, shows that Germany's big two, Deutsche Bank (DBKGn.DE) and Commerzbank (CBKG.DE), have to compete with 1,200 cooperative banks, 438 municipally-owned savings banks, and 10 Landesbanks -- regional banks which belong to their respective governments and whose main purpose is to support the region's economy.

The banking industry would be just fine if the government had stayed out of it in the first place. When the government gets into business for the purposes of control, social engineering, or other non financial purposes, the whole free market system is distorted and ruined.

Government bailed out the banks because Congress knew it was their failures that put the banks in trouble in the first place and because it would give them more control over the banks in the end.

Originally Posted by Voland

Well, there are countries who have this separation already for decades. Which is ONE reason why they sailed well through the crisis :


Analysis: Brewing model saves Germany from bankers' droop | Reuters


Quote : / Local banks dominate savings and loans in Europe's largest economy. There are hundreds of small players, which by their very existence help limit the economic fallout from bank failures and makes sure banks do not get 'too big to fail.'

The prevalence of municipally-owned savings and customer-owned cooperative banks, the microbreweries of the banking world, ensures a steady supply of business loans, reducing the likelihood of a credit crunch and helping to protect Germany's coveted triple-A sovereign debt rating.

"You have two strong pillars in the system, savings banks and cooperative banks, which will always support the economy and not cause an issue for the sovereign," said Michael Dawson-Kropf, senior director of Financial institutions at Fitch Ratings.


and : Quote /

So just as brewers stick to the 'Reinheitsgebot' purity protocol which demands a beer be made from only water, malt and hops, savings banks keep their business simple, returning personal saving to the regional economy by extending loans to enterprises and private customers.

Germany has 2,000 banks, while Britain has just 405, Spain 415, Italy 785, Ireland 590 and France 1,147, according to European Central Bank statistics.

Data from the central bank, the Bundesbank, shows that Germany's big two, Deutsche Bank (DBKGn.DE) and Commerzbank (CBKG.DE), have to compete with 1,200 cooperative banks, 438 municipally-owned savings banks, and 10 Landesbanks -- regional banks which belong to their respective governments and whose main purpose is to support the region's economy.

We used to separate commercial and investment banks too. Then we deregulated.

Originally Posted by OldmanDan

The banking industry would be just fine if the government had stayed out of it in the first place. When the government gets into business for the purposes of control, social engineering, or other non financial purposes, the whole free market system is distorted and ruined.

Government bailed out the banks because Congress knew it was their failures that put the banks in trouble in the first place and because it would give them more control over the banks in the end.

Well, we could go back to how we were in the late 19th century. Bank panics common, with the run on banks. This creates an unstable economic environment and we gained intelligence and regulated those banks in the earlier 20th century.

These wise regulations helped to keep banking stable for many decades. Then we forgot why we regulated them, and deregulated them, because sound banking is not as profitable. Then we got the S and L scandal. Then some more burps, and finally the last crash.

The gov't also sets speed limits on the nation's highways. And of course, they have no need nor right to do such a thing, as we really should trust our citizens to do the right thing, all of the time. Things would just work so much better without rules set in place by gov't.

Originally Posted by OldmanDan

The banking industry would be just fine if the government had stayed out of it in the first place. When the government gets into business for the purposes of control, social engineering, or other non financial purposes, the whole free market system is distorted and ruined.

Government bailed out the banks because Congress knew it was their failures that put the banks in trouble in the first place and because it would give them more control over the banks in the end.

You can find a lot of people on Fox News, Wierd News Daily, and other right-wing outlets who feel the same way.
But outside of the right-wingnut echo chamber, you'll be hard pressed to find a single source to back up your ludicrous notion.