BF2S Forums Call for 'Robin Hood tax' on banking transactions

Cybargs wrote:

ruisleipa wrote:

Banks and bankers are the scum of the earth. They're the ones, along with the stock market, certain politicians, investors and speculators, who are responsible for the economic fuck up we find ourselves in. And here you guys are bleating about how we shouldn't take money from them boo hoo hoo. Fuck all that. Take their fuckin money. They fuck up, and the governments (I'm sure you noticed this) gave BILLIONS to bail them out because they were playing around with OUR money and fucking losing it! So, the taxpayer gives billions to the bankers to get them out of the mess the BANKERS are responsible for, and then they go ahead and pay THEMSELVES hundreds of thousands or millions in bonuses - payed for with the TAXPAYER'S MONEY! When was the last time ANY regular saver got ANY kind of 'bonus' from their bank? NEVER, that's when. Maybe 0.5% interest if you're lucky. Do the people that give their money to make the bank's wealth get a cut? Fuck no, it's taken by the 'experts' who are so good at losing endless millions of our cash.

And for you guys that's OK yeah? Bullshit.

And ghettoperson this has nothing to do with your stupid and ignorant remark about 'communist morons' before you bring that shit up.

Well it is people's fucking fault for being careless with money in the first place. Bankers aren't "evil" they're just fucking stupid. Governments would have to bail out the banks in the first place so people won't lose all of their fucking money. Don't like it? Don't fucking use certain banks then. Not that fucking hard. You can also blame credit card users and people who take out huge mortgages knowing they can't pay it back.

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

I'd rather simply restrict the amount of leveraging that goes on, end all bank bailouts, and heighten reserve requirements, while getting rid of the Fed Reserve and replace it with a public central bank.

Of course, I realize a lot of that is radical and wouldn't likely occur anytime soon.

As for the British banking system, I'm not sure if they have an equivalent of the Fed Reserve or not.

Only thing I'd agree with is ending the bailouts.

Edit - and ending the Fed, but without replacing it with anything.

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Only thing I'd agree with is ending the bailouts.

Edit - and ending the Fed, but without replacing it with anything.

Leveraging has to be restricted much more to prevent future disasters like this one.  Also, current reserve requirements are far too lenient for long term stability.

It's not up to the government to decide how much leverage is too much leverage, nor is it the governments job to decide for a bank how much it has to keep in reserve. Those are decisions that are on the business owner to decide. Would you want the government going to the local deli and prevent it from taking out a loan because the government feels that the deli would be over-leveraged? Or, is it none of the governments business?

ATG wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Leveraging has to be restricted much more to prevent future disasters like this one.  Also, current reserve requirements are far too lenient for long term stability.

It's not up to the government to decide how much leverage is too much leverage, nor is it the governments job to decide for a bank how much it has to keep in reserve. Those are decisions that are on the business owner to decide. Would you want the government going to the local deli and prevent it from taking out a loan because the government feels that the deli would be over-leveraged? Or, is it none of the governments business?

That's just great as long as they risk their own money and not tax dollars.

They got the bailout, we got the bill.

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

ATG wrote:

That's just great as long as they risk their own money and not tax dollars.

They got the bailout, we got the bill.

The bailout was paid back with interest months ago...

While it is good that they paid it back quickly, the only way to prevent future bailouts is more regulation over risky practices.  However, I would also support ending the CRA.

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Leveraging has to be restricted much more to prevent future disasters like this one.  Also, current reserve requirements are far too lenient for long term stability.

It's not up to the government to decide how much leverage is too much leverage, nor is it the governments job to decide for a bank how much it has to keep in reserve. Those are decisions that are on the business owner to decide. Would you want the government going to the local deli and prevent it from taking out a loan because the government feels that the deli would be over-leveraged? Or, is it none of the governments business?

I disagree.  Money ultimately is derived from the Treasury.  Currency has to be based on a public institution for its worth to mean anything for a society.  So, because of this necessity in having a government back currency, it is also necessary to put some safeguards in place.

It is rational and consistent with the concept of currency to have government place certain limits on financial practices.

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

While it is good that they paid it back quickly, the only way to prevent future bailouts is more regulation over risky practices.  However, I would also support ending the CRA.

No, you prevent future bailouts by... not giving out bailouts.

I think you're putting the cart before the horse here.  Why even allow a situation to arise where a bailout could be considered?

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

I think you're putting the cart before the horse here.  Why even allow a situation to arise where a bailout could be considered?

Because we do not, and should not, live within a planned economy.

We live in a mixed economy.  Some of that involves planned policies.  All of the most successful economies are like this.

ATG wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

ATG wrote:

That's just great as long as they risk their own money and not tax dollars.

They got the bailout, we got the bill.

The bailout was paid back with interest months ago...

Ya right.

I'm sure the fed got the TARP money back and the deficit was reduced dollar for dollar.