- 20 May 2022 19:53
#15228524
So then why the bristling -- ? Isn't that just normal everyday banking?
Are you a monetarist, or *aren't* you -- ?
You've railed against *rentier* capital privileges, but the direction of greater economic productivity would require *more liquidity*, not stronger currency valuations.
So which economic faction of capitalism are you for, really -- ?
Well, is debt and finance to be considered as 'legitimate', 'valid' capitalism, or isn't it -- ?
Would you really call for a 'no-debt' kind of capitalism, on political principle -- ?
So now you're directing your ire towards *banks*, as well as deficit-spending / money-printing government -- ?
I think you need to get a grip, no offense -- does capitalism allow for *debt* / finance, or doesn't it -- ?
I'll rephrase -- since government is able to issue debt, and does, all of that liquidity will inevitably be *in circulation*, and used for corporate finance.
Any comment on the following -- ?
---
Whatever. You mean *Stalinism*, so go right-ahead -- be my guest, and rail-away against bureaucratic elitism.
Political Spectrum, Simplified
ckaihatsu wrote:
You make 'private commercial bank licenses' sound like a royal-favoritist *christening*, resulting from dramatic governmental *palace intrigues* and the goings-on of bureaucratic nobility.
Truth To Power wrote:
No I don't. It doesn't matter how they are granted. As it happens, they are only granted to people who are rich enough to put millions of dollars of their own money into the bank's capital.
So then why the bristling -- ? Isn't that just normal everyday banking?
ckaihatsu wrote:
Are you sure that such licenses *aren't* approved based on a standard business-regulatory framework, like anything else?
Truth To Power wrote:
I'm sure there is a framework. I am also sure that whatever that framework is, the privilege of a bank license is -- almost literally -- a license to print money.
Are you a monetarist, or *aren't* you -- ?
You've railed against *rentier* capital privileges, but the direction of greater economic productivity would require *more liquidity*, not stronger currency valuations.
So which economic faction of capitalism are you for, really -- ?
ckaihatsu wrote:
You're dramatizing things in the direction of stoking resentment against the bourgeoisie's *own* ruling apparatus, the nation-state.
Truth To Power wrote:
AFAIK there is no necessary relationship between nation-states and debt-money banking.
ckaihatsu wrote:
Does finance / debt really only pour-forth from the graciousness of 'big-gubmint', and only to 'winners', and not-me, or is it *really* more a function of capitalism *itself*, like debt-to-GDP ratios -- (!)
Truth To Power wrote:
Debt-to-GDP ratios are not a function of capitalism simpliciter, though they are of modern finance (debt-money) capitalism.
Well, is debt and finance to be considered as 'legitimate', 'valid' capitalism, or isn't it -- ?
Would you really call for a 'no-debt' kind of capitalism, on political principle -- ?
ckaihatsu wrote:
If finance is so governmentally 'privileged', then wouldn't that make your 'ownership of producer goods in a production system' to *also* be 'privileged', since much equity capital / market capitalization, is *itself* based on debt-based / leveraged *financing* -- (!)
Truth To Power wrote:
No, because it is the bank that gets income via privilege rather than production, not the borrower. Duh.
So now you're directing your ire towards *banks*, as well as deficit-spending / money-printing government -- ?
I think you need to get a grip, no offense -- does capitalism allow for *debt* / finance, or doesn't it -- ?
ckaihatsu wrote:
These touted capitalist / entrepreneurial 'angels', relieving scarcity everywhere they gaze, have most-likely provided *leveraged equity* / *debt*, which refers back to capitalist-financial-benchmarks, or the everyday pedestrian rule-of-capital, and *not* big-gubmint as a cartoonish villain.
Truth To Power wrote:
I have no idea what that is supposed to mean, but it sounds disingenuous and deceitful.
I'll rephrase -- since government is able to issue debt, and does, all of that liquidity will inevitably be *in circulation*, and used for corporate finance.
Any comment on the following -- ?
The shadow banking system is a term for the collection of non-bank financial intermediaries (NBFIs) that provide services similar to traditional commercial banks but outside normal banking regulations.[1] Examples of NBFIs include insurance firms, pawn shops, cashier's check issuers, check cashing locations, payday lending, currency exchanges, and microloan organizations.[2][3] The phrase "shadow banking" is regarded by some as pejorative, and the term "market-based finance" has been proposed as an alternative.[4]
Former US Federal Reserve Chair Ben Bernanke provided the following definition in November 2013:
"Shadow banking, as usually defined, comprises a diverse set of institutions and markets that, collectively, carry out traditional banking functions—but do so outside, or in ways only loosely linked to, the traditional system of regulated depository institutions. Examples of important components of the shadow banking system include securitization vehicles, asset-backed commercial paper [ABCP] conduits, money market funds, markets for repurchase agreements, investment banks, and mortgage companies"[5]
Shadow banking has grown in importance to rival traditional depository banking, and was a factor in the subprime mortgage crisis of 2007–2008 and the global recession that followed.[6][7][8]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_banking_system
---
ckaihatsu wrote:
So you gotta puff out the chest a little, and own-up to the *rainy* days, as well as the sunny ones, regarding capitalism.
Truth To Power wrote:
You persist in falsely claiming that I advocate, praise, or defend capitalism. I do not. I am merely aware of the fact that socialism is even worse.
Whatever. You mean *Stalinism*, so go right-ahead -- be my guest, and rail-away against bureaucratic elitism.
Political Spectrum, Simplified
Spoiler: show