Banking

Fact #1: Central banking systems are good.
Fact #2: Recessions/depressions are good for the American economy because when the Fed lends out money to failing banks, they pay the Fed's loan back with interest.
Fact #3: Businesses that fail during recessions are overextended/overleveraged and it's good for them to fail. Natural selection baby.

Attached: Timothy_Geithner_Treasury[1].jpg (800x1008, 93K)

is there no jewish problem?

>Fact #2: Recessions/depressions are good for the American economy because when the Fed lends out money to failing banks, they pay the Fed's loan back with interest.
>Fact #3: Businesses that fail during recessions are overextended/overleveraged and it's good for them to fail. Natural selection baby.
these two are completely contradictory

are you trolling?

Banks are different entities than most businesses, brainchild

I *may* be trolling but that doesn't make my statements contradictory.

In regards to Fact #2: Banks like taking high-risk high-payoff positions; ultimately this high-risk strategy results in sometimes banks not being able to pay off their obligations, hence necessitating either a collapse of some existing banks, or a government intervention.

In regards to Fact #3: Business other than banks (I should've clarified) will fail because unlike banks, they aren't backed by a central bank. This is good, if they fail it's because they are poorly managed and taking on too much risk.

Those businesses and also housing prices are only allowed to become as big as they are before they fail because money is erroneously invested in them. Banks do a lot of this malinvestment directly and indirectly through what other investors they lend to.
These banks are poorly managed and the norm is for all these banks to be so to the point that the entire market is extremely irrational for long periods of time. These institutions should be allowed to fail just individual investors are allowed to fail so that there is less capital invested irrationally.

So you're against Fact #1? lel

this makes sense if you got a jewish brain. Are you a jew OP?

Bringing up ethnicity instead of making logical arguments? Goyim detected

it was a pretty good system when large banks were allowed to fail. point #2 is wrong. dilution of the money stock at the whim of the large banks (by threatening to fail) is not good even if the fed "makes interest". there is no longer an accurate way to measure risk within the system. that's why cryptocurrency is good, because it stands on its own outside of their broken system, while being able to be used within it.

> it was a pretty good system when large banks were allowed to fail
when in the history of The Fed was this ever allowed?

> dilution of the money stock
Plz explain this a bit more

> there is no longer an accurate way to measure risk within the system.
When was there ever? What was the risk-management system called?

>banks are special and don't count as businesses
Wow, sounds convenient for the bankers huh?

the problem with central banking systems is the tendency for them to bail out failing firms by printing money. The bankers won't allow assets to go down in value during a depression/recession/ so they always remain unaffordable to regular people.
They call it socializing the losses, privatizing the profits.
Now asset prices are out of control and the cost of living is rising. All because of TARP inflating the value of property for all those years.

>when in the history of The Fed was this ever allowed?
it was allowed in theory up until 2008, otherwise what are banks even doing? why not just give out as many loans as possible to whoever? if the fed will always lend you money then what's the problem? the 1933 banking act which created the FDIC as a temporary agency is one before-and-after moment to look at. the temporary emergency measure grew into a national put option on depositor liquidity, at no explicit cost to the banks in particular.
>dilution of the money stock
all of this on demand access to money removes the incentive for good stewardship and risk management in banking. banks used to hold loan portfolios of their customers against deposits. now they are essentially fronts for fannie mae and the secondary mortgage market. they make money on how much they can pump out rather than on lending in their local area based on principles of risk. by dilution of the money stock basically I mean inflation, although it's mostly been seen in asset values which have access to credit up until this point, and there is a great deal of "towels getting thinner" that has happened over the past decade where efficiency gains and slow shrinking of products eats this up rather than price increases.
>when was there ever, what was it called
the capital asset pricing model, or CAPM

also the ECB is still buying 35 billion in corporate bonds every month... That's crazy.

>t. goldberg

This is what leads to financial crisis. Banks think they're untouchable when they shouldn't be. Fuck off faggot

Lmao what leads to financial crisis is a large number of independent actors thinking they're different. Banks offering sub-prime loans wouldn't work if the buyers weren't stupid and arrogant enough to take a clearly shitty deal. Retail banks often take advantage of the idiocy of the average American consumer but let's be real, people could simply be taught to make better financial decisions.

Banks have no authority on a proof of NEET board, rothchild

Attached: CFE4349C-C6E7-47AA-BCD1-7A5854B14F68.png (450x451, 67K)

So what has made CAPM irrelevant nowadays?