More dishonesty? Or just ignorant?

Bumped because I think that it might be nice for KenH to answer the question directly.

Not holding my breath though.

 

THERE ARE TWO ECONOMIES in the US

The economy for the people who lend money and live off their capital gains assets can be doing just fine while the people who work for wages and borrow money are tanking.

Second, most of the people in the US are not old enough to remember being on a gold standard. Back then it was very difficult for working class people to get a loan from a bank.

Credit cards were not generally offered to working class people until we went off the gold standard. My Old Man had an AMEX card in the 1950's and it was a big deal. A blue collar person who got in a jam had to go to the Mafia to get a loan.

 

As usual. No factural support just voicing your bias and hatred.

 

First, I know of no Constitutional basis to have such. That's a minor problem to some . Second, what is the metric as to size? Deposits? The banks that have failed have not been huge deposit-based banks (IndyMac is a prime example). Loans? Problem with using that as a metric is that most of the loans will be subsidized or underwritten in whole or in part by at least a quasi-govt agency, so that's double-dipping. And do we reward egregious risk taking yet again? And again? And again? Let banks make all the loans they want, pay all the salaries they want, knowing that if their loans are big enough and are in default enough, Big Brother will swoop in and save them. As opposed to being run out on a rail, the CEOs of bailed out TARP 2 institutions will still pocket 500k - 1.5 million fish. Not bad for being inept.

But I do agree that we need to get out of the idea that we can't let the markets work and let some companies fail. If a company does things that will bring about failure under normal market conditions, that company deserves to fail. People who never have picked up a copy of WSJ or could read a balance sheet or 10-K know who Enron and WorldCom are and the bywords those companies have become. Let a BoA or Wells go down and see if the Commercial banking system doesn't correct itself in short order. Problem is, Big Brother can't help itself. It will TARP or SarbOx whenever it can, even if it means well. Unintended consequences can wreak havoc.

I'd be interested to hear your take

 

And one more time...OBAMA would NOT want this economy to fail. I just reject that premise. I just believe he's in over his head, and his team, just like his predecessor and his team, are ill equipped to handle this, though the last admin had more private sector experience. Bushama is trying to pull the levers. Problem is you have to know what the levers do. Or when to NOT pull levers. Maybe someday we'll get an administration that has a clue.

 

Very true. I am intrigued by going back to the gold standard.

 

That's been debunked. Again, the problem with the problem banks has not been their deposit base. Their loan sheets put them in a place where no deposit core would sustain. And the FDIC is supposed to prevent a run on banks. A "run on a bank' is an indictment not of a bank, but of the full faith and credit of the federal govt to make good on the insurance promises of FDIC/NCUA.

We have to remember that just because it's on CNN (or Fox News, or whoever), doesn't mean it's a run on a bank. Banks that have went under represent a fractional pct of the deposit core of this country.

 

Not til the millennium, m'friend!

 

>I am intrigued by going back to the gold standard.


Consider this: I have read someplace that the Treasury holds about 100 million ounces of gold. Less than 5% of "money" is in the form of cash. 90% is electronic transfer, the rest checks and such. If the "money" in circulation was 100% gold backed what would the price of gold in dollars be? "Market would determine" is not a good answer. What would be the initial price? What would be the minimum price of gold if every employee was paid in cash on the 1st of every month?

Would credit cards be permitted?