I'm not a financial, banking, or economic expert at all, but a thought or question that came to mind while reading the article is, "Why doesn't the government just buy out these damn banks and turn them into The People's Bank(s) under The People's government and to free or liberate The People of all of the damn business racketeering going on with these banks in the hands of private ... schmucks?". Spreading the wealth would really make the country wealthy; instead of only relatively few people wealthy. According to my maths anyway.

"TMinSD February 26th, 2009 6:11 pm

...

This is why I keep urging folks who are sick and tired of banks ripping them off to join the local credit unions who are caring and understanding."

Ralph Nader recently had an article here at CD on the topic of how the credit unions have been actually faring quite well during the economic crisis. It made for good and relieving reading. I was a member of two credit unions in the U.S., one in Mass. and another in Iowa, which made reading his article all the more pleasant for me. In Canada I'm member of another credit union or else cooperative sort of bank, one in which account holders are members anyway. I can't say how well the bank is doing during the present times, but it's the Caisse Populaire one.

http://www.desjardins.com

There's a similarly named bank, sort of bank anyway, in Manchester, N.H., St Mary's, which seems related to the Caisse Pop. here.

http://www.stmarysbank.com

Clicking on the 100th-year anniversary provides a page in which visitors can learn of the history of this bank or cooperative (whatever). It's in that page that St Mary's seems to be definitely related to the coop. that, for Canada anyway, began in Quebec (I believe). Seems like interesting history too.

I was member of a CU in Iowa that was formed by a corporation, and I think only employees were supposed to be allowed to get accounts; probably employees and their family members. And I was member of another CU in Mass. That one was a public kind where evidently anyone could get an account, for I was an anybody sort of member; but employed, unlike here in Canada. It was the Sharon CU in Sharon, Mass., and I appreciated it, though also didn't have any problems with the one in Iowa, either; although also only used the latter for not even a year, having been there for only several months for some contract work.

Branches? I think not having many branches is common with CU's. The Caisse Pop. is one with many branches, in Canada, or certainly in the province of Quebec anyway; but the two CU's I had accounts with in the U.S. had very, very few branches. The one in Iowa probably had a branch at other locations where the corportion that started the CU had a manufacturing plant; but members would probably still need to be an employee, except when contractors are also allowed and/or when branches or the whole of the CU decides to open access to the whole public (if that ever happened or will). The Sharon CU had a branch in that town and I believe also another in western Mass., if my memory's correct on this. But that's it, one or two, maybe three, perhaps a tremendous four branches; very, very few anyway. We can still manage when at distance, but the availability of branches is something to consider when a person is often away at considerable distances; I think.

When I worked for the Bank of Boston I took a couple of courses to learn some extra "stuff" about banking and learned that next best (I guess the next anyway) is or was Savings banks. I don't recall if credit unions were particularly better to use than Savings banks, but remember the course saying that for most people we should usually consider these two types and [not] corporate banks. And I think, without being sure, that Savings banks also have very few branches.

What other kinds of similar businesses exist? Are there trusts or is that something ... like totally different? Are CU's, cooperatives, Savings banks and corporate banks the only kinds of banking choices, or is there another kind, or two?

Still, I'm pretty sure the best choices for most people are the CU's (and cooperatives, if there's really a difference) and Savings banks. I could manage with accounts in only these types of banks even when often far away from them. It can cost a little more for using other businesses' ATM's, say, but take out enough and less often, instead of taking out much less and often; and that'll reduce ATM fees, f.e.

Account holders in Savings banks aren't members. Or are they? If they're not, then what differences are there in services, like with loans, f.e.? And CU's seem good imo, but are they all "created equal"?

There are details people would want to get informed about before making a decision between which of the two to use. Perhaps loans would normally be easier to get with a CU, once a member of one. Look into all of the pertinent info.

Anyway, Ralph Nader's article was a refreshing read and people who haven't read it should check for it. It was posted at CD over the past week.

"TMinSD February 26th, 2009 6:11 pm

THANK YOU ! Most people are unaware that the term "free market" isn't for real. What we really have is what some in other posts have called a RIGGED market."

Yes, and they really do that quite freely. The term of "free market" is indeed "for real", and you indicate (in an inferred way) what I was going to say about the term, which is that while it is "for real", because it really does exist ... as a term employed by many people, what the promoters and/or designers of "free market" terminology are really talking about is not a truly or truthfully [free] market. They LIE about the "free" qualifier. It's a [freely rigged market] and they just drop mention of the additional qualifier of "rigged"; also freely doing that, as well. They feel free to rig as they please and then to always try to deceive by dropping reference to their way, the rigging. Lying by omission, again! Deliberately!

A freely unfair market due to deliberately being criminally rigged by the profiteers and any and all naive followers or adherents, say. It's a little longer to say than "free market" is, but is a lot more accurate.

Banks to Get Nearly Unlimited Federal Funds, eh?

It sounds like we're moving from "'Winners' Take All" Economics (a.k.a. Reaganomics) to "Losers take all that's left" Economics.

This is Obamanomics: unlimited give aways of public funds to corporate profiteers - for the public good.

So where's the "Change" I can believe in?

Amo

let's see. we're going to have federal regulators who "will pore over the books of the 19 largest banks..." in search of "the composition of a bank's cash on hand..." so, someone correct me if i'm grasping at thin air here. these same 19 banks took, gleefully, $179 billion out of last autumn's $350 billion welfare check, and we're now looking for the composition of cash on hand? and the great hope "will provide a virtually unlimited solvency guarantee" to these criminals? and the people aren't out in the streets in protest? and your friendly neighborhood banker is walking around with a smirk on his face? what does it take for the american sheople to get a clue? postal workers shooting one another, school kids shooting one another. i don't think we've seen anything yet.

as ekaton/9:29am says, this is beyond disgusting.

An old, seemingly cynical saw says that big bankers are just legalized robbers in business suits who only fulfill their deeper criminal fantasies as actual masked bandits with guns.

In the recent deregulated era, bankers/financiers' solicitation of, packaging of, and resale of blatantly bad debt certainly fulfilled a good meansure of that professional class's safe-robbery dreams -- their physical masks and guns being easily supplanted by bogus paper documents and knowingly false-reassurances.

But probably never in their wildest fantasies did such money moguls dare to hope that if caught in the inevitable dollars and cents collapse of their dishonest schemes, they'd not only escape criminal charges, but also have the government take their side by forcing taxpayers to subsidize both the crimes and the criminals.

This kind of manifest, systematic dishonesty and injury to the citizenry is why it's hard for many, normal, honest people to believe in what Obama and others still call a 'free market system.'
Or in his proposed rescue of it.

Common sense tells some of us, at least, that it's just newly vile bullshit piled on top of older bullshit -- with no end in sight to the bullshitting process.

Some of you responders have said that the government should nationalize the banks and I was wondering who you would recommend to manage them - Barney Franks? Christopher Dodd?

More than likely the same people who are running the banks NOW would remain in place, only under new rules and regulations - the same new rules and regulations that the recently appointed financial sector overseers have already imposed.

Let's face it - the government has already "nationalized" the banks. In most cases the amount given to each bank is greater than the street value of the common stock. The only difference is that a new brand of preferred stock is being used to denote government ownership. If the banks need more $$$ then this preferred stock will be converted to common (voting) stock.

This is all being done to relieve the banking industry of toxic assets, which have gotten the banks 'under water' pertaining to assets and liabilities. Banks, by law, MUST show an excess of assets over liabilities before they can lend and take over more liability. The toxic assets has forced an imbalance - liabilities are greater than assets - so the banks cannot lend. The infusion of this capital should put the banks in a more favorable balance so that the lending can once again begin.

Give their stock to We the People, not to politicians for bankers!

I remember another country, not so long ago, that printed money like it was going out of style, and the government was beholden to right wing corporations, many heavilly involved with armaments, names like Krupp and Messershmidt.

This country had a bleating press media that demanded increased militarisation and expansion to the point of invading other countries and stealing their resources. This bombastic press said that the country could only have security by having the strongest military available, and that no expense should be spared in having the latest most advanced killing machines available.

All this was going on while the country's and the world's economy was teetering on the brink of financial disater brought about by banks and their insane profit making stock schemes.

What happened?

Well, the cost of bread shot up to several million units of the local currency. The economy collapsed. A right wing dictator pulled of a false flag attack, found a scape goat, and started the biggest, most expensive and bloody war in the history of the world.

This country was called Germany.

Can you see any parrallels?

Walk in peace.

Just remember this:

Failed banks are getting trillions of TAXPAYER dollars to loan back to said TAXPAYERs at interests rates as high as 35%.

For the millions who still aren't getting it: due to your lying/stealing/incompetence whatever, you lost all your money. So I loan you $100; you then turn right around and loan it back to me at 35% interest; I repay the $135, and am now out $235, because a loophole says you do not have to repay me until you want to (as in, never.) Or, I can't repay on time, and you raise the rate to 45%, then take my car, then sell my debt to a collector and mark me as a "bad" risk - or, even better, you invoke your "government guarantee against losses" and receive a bailout/rescue/stimulus whatever...

You end up on the cover of Forbes, I end up on the street...

Here's a better idea: how about y'all give me a few trillion instead of the banks, and I'll decide which of the TAXPAYERS are worthy of receiving loans of their own money back to them. And I'll only tack on 10%. Cool?

"...DO YOU CHUMPS BELIEVE THAT OBAMA IS AN EMPLOYEE OF GOLDMAN SACHS AND CITIGROUP YET!???!..."

- That's about the size of it. Although he also seems to be an employee of the military-industrial complex, at the same time. Not that these two loyalties in any way conflict with one another.

DO YOU CHUMPS BELIEVE THAT OBAMA IS AN EMPLOYEE OF GOLDMAN SACHS AND CITIGROUP YET!???!

God damn am I disappointed at being proved right.

I was actually interested in Obama for the first couple months, though I liked Ron Paul best and Kusinich second I didn't think either would win. Then he went to Israel and said "Jerusalem should be the undivided capital of a Jewish state" and I thought, well it's all downhill from here.

Obama is going down like the Titanic bolted to the Hindenburg and he's taking us all to Hell with him.

Meanwhile, In Canada, The Royal Bank of Canada announced quarterly profits last quarter of 1.06 billion dollars. This on the heels of the TD banks own quarterly profits of some 900 million.

A little over a year ago the Royal bank of Canada was listed as the 65th largest bank in the World by capitalization.

They have bought no other bank in that time nor have they merged.

They are now in the top 5.

The decade previous to this our "Economists" ridiculed the Canadian Banking system imploring the Government to "loosen up" regulation so that they could compete on an equal footing with the larger US and European banks.

(Such as that Idiot neil Reynolds in The Globe and Mail)

Tax Revolt - National Strike

This is the only way to stop the Corporate thieves. Take away the $$$$

C'mon people. Use your Power - Now!

"The idea behind the so-called stress tests is to gauge if the banks have enough capital to cope with a more severe downturn than even today's - one in which the economy contracts by 3.3 percent and the unemployment rate tops 10 percent. That's far from the worst-case scenarios that some of the gloomier forecasters predict."

According to Shadowstats.com, the "actual" unemployment rate is already at about 15%. If those stats are more accurate (and I believe they are) than the government's convenient perception of reality at 7.6% or 7.8% current unemployment, then the so-called stress tests will not paint an accurate picture of a bank's ability to cope with a more severe downturn.

"A restored 'producer' economy would return America to the path of prosperity." - John Browne
http://www.financialsense.com/fsu/editorials/schiff/2009/0225.html

Behind all the hoopla of Obama's splendidly delivered speech and the Republicans' fumbling response, the greatest theft in the history of the world is taking place. This is the real story, besides the projected 2 trillion dollar deficit. The conspiracy theorists will be having a field day, as they basically being proven right.

Here is a related article worth reading: "How the Economy was Lost"

http://www.counterpunch.com/roberts02242009.html

"The other goal is to restore investor confidence by showing that these big financial firms have access to as much money as they need, because the government is willing to invest as needed."

Access to as much ripped off taxpayer dollars as they need because the government is willing to rip off as many tax dollars as needed to give to private corporations that have funded their reelection campaigns.

Disgust doesn't begin to describe my frame of mind at the moment.

d.k.shaw

THE BANKERS' MANIFESTO OF 1934
From New American, February, 1934.

"Capital must protect itself in every way, through combination and through legislation. Debts must be collected and loans and mortgages foreclosed as soon as possible. When through a process of law, the common people have lost their homes, they will be more tractable and more easily governed by the strong arm of the law applied by the central power of wealth, under control of leading financiers. People without homes will not quarrel with their leaders. This is well known among our principle men now engaged in forming an IMPERIALISM of capital to govern the world. By dividing the people we can get them to expend their energies in fighting over questions of no importance to us except as teachers of the common herd. Thus by discrete action we can secure for ourselves what has been generally planned and successfully accomplished."

You might consider sending this to your House Rep and ask if he concurs.

d.k.shaw

Obama's plan is a loser.

He doesn't have the courage to nationalize the banks and wipeout his Wall Street buddies and their stockholders.

So we the taxpayer will have to pay (hundreds of billions) to keep these criminals on life-support.

When the situation reaches critical mass and it becomes apparent that the banks need to be nationalized THEN Obama will find the courage to drop the axe.

These bankers should be headed to jail and their assets seized under the Rico laws.

Instead they get rewarded for their criminal behavior with taxpayer cash.

Yes we can (continue the decade of the greatest transfer of wealth and privilege) !

They get to gamble with our money.

If they win, they get to keep it all.

If they lose, we have to pay them back.

Pretty sweet. Even I could make money with a deal like that, and I'm no Nobel-laureate econonmist.

The repeal of Glass-Steagall wasn't "deregulation," it was DECRIMINALIZATION! The above scenario used to be a crime, for very good reasons, and with the stroke of a pen, now it's not.

p.s.

queerplanet @ 7:17am is spot-on about single-payer's beneficial effects on the economy.

"This financial crisis was not inevitable," Obama said, noting that his goal wasn't to inhibit the free market but to regulate it better to prevent a repeat of the global meltdown now occurring.
=====

And pray tell, what do the BANKS have to do with a "free market"?

=====
A free market is a market that is free of government intervention and regulation, besides the minimal function of maintaining the legal system and protecting property rights[1], and is also free of private force and fraud. In a free market property rights are voluntarily exchanged at a price arranged solely by the mutual consent of sellers and buyers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market
=====

Whatever we may think about "the free market", the banks have been violating basic free market principles, for instance, by selling mortgages to other financial institutions and claiming a higher and higher non-existent value of those mortgages -- there is no longer a relationship between the buyer and original seller of goods or products, and the value of the dollar has plummeted.

It certainly makes sense to me that consumers will STILL be ripped off, even if the banks spend every penny trying to help people pay their mortgages (for instance), since the lenders that Obama is determined to rescue never had anything concrete to exchange with buyers of concrete goods, homes, boats, etc. All the banks had was "made-up" loan-money that doesn't exist now and didn't exist when the loans were made.

Obama may be worse for the economy in the long run than GW ever was, unwilling to make any difficult decisions that would actually address the underlying causes of this crisis, crimes of the bank leadership. "Just give 'em more money" is his mantra, and "don't worry, folks, we've got it covered."

Ever read Satre's "No Exit"? That "room" is the world-economy.

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of
patriots and tyrants. ....Thomas Jefferson

So, regulation = bailout! Interesting math....must be the same they use to count the Iraqi dead. Thieving bastards. What the hell, We the People enjoy being sodomized.

OK, lets put more lipstick on the pig, maybe a little eyeshadow for good measure. I mean after all, how can you save the Capitalist system without capital.

Come on folks, the jig's up. Time to invent a new jig?

I thought he said his first order of business was to bring National Health care.

Wouldn't removing the burder of medical debt stimulate the economy? Wouldn't a citizenry that can get medical care be more productive?

Single payer health care was promised. Bankers can already afford health care.