patrick.net

I have posted this lecture in the past with no apparent listeners. But it is it interesting in that it goes over how banking became centralized since the 80s and how the banking industry has spent 2.5 trillion lobbying to stake a claim on the US banking market.

They talk about how there is a committee in the Fed that approves banking expansion for the chains. One of the key questions is has the bank been "good citizens" which is answered with who have they given money to. The Fed then hears from citizen committees (who have received the money) and then say what good citizens the bank has been. At which point the Fed approves the expansion plans.

This guy has written book about the worlds banks explaining that each country is different. But the key problem with the US banking is that it is controlled by crony capitalism. He compares the US system to Canada's and points out that the difference is that Canada's is controlled by appointed officials, IMO they have a de facto republic regarding banking and other things.

The result of this is that Canada has had zero banking crises compared to 17 for the US over the past 100 yrs. A banking crises is defined as a situation that involves more than 1% of the GDP.

I wonder if this would have been the case if we did not have the 17th amendment.

http://www.schiffradio.com/pg/jsp/verticals/archive.jsp?dispid=310&pid=66345

indigenous says

I wonder if this would have been the case if we did not have the 17th amendment.

Why is that? Cronyism and corruption were markedly worse when state legislatures elected senators. Do you ever read actual history or just the revised clipnote version provided by peoples trying to support their opinions?

indigenous says

But the key problem with the US banking is that it is controlled by crony capitalism

Us banking was always controlled by crony capitalism. Fraud and fiat currency by states and private banks from 1780's till the war of 1812 lead to the second bank which degenerated into fraud and fiat currency which lead to fraud an fiat currency of the giulded era with the bonus of big time stock market manipulation thrown in. Big business corruption and cronyism of the Government in the 19th century makes today look like a tea party. Ditto history comment.

If anything the post wwII era was an anomaly and the last 30 years is a return to the previous norm of corruption, cronyism, and income inequality that existed from roughly the war of 1812 till the beginning of WWII. Hmm I wonder who was elected 34 years ago that dramatically changed policies?

bob2356 says

Why is that? Cronyism and corruption were markedly worse when state legislatures elected senators.

Whereever there is political power there will be attempts to gain influence from it.

The argument is that with state senators electing the US senators its harder (though possible) to corrupt a larger group group of state senators vs one Senator.

The real issue is whomever and however the senator ends up in DC, he has enormous power to disburse funds.

The election of US Senators by state representative argument is relatively weak.

That argument is strengthened by promoting a weaker Federal government or a confederacy, rather than the method of sending senators to DC..

smaulgld says

The argument is that with state senators electing the US senators its harder (though possible) to corrupt a larger group group of state senators vs one Senator.

It's a really weak argument. The large businesses of the day had no trouble at all influencing senators or congressmen.

bob2356 says

Us banking was always controlled by crony capitalism. Fraud and fiat currency by states and private banks from 1780's till the war of 1812 lead to the second bank which degenerated into fraud and fiat currency which lead to fraud an fiat currency of the giulded era with the bonus of big time stock market manipulation thrown in. Big business corruption and cronyism of the Government in the 19th century makes today look like a tea party. Ditto history comment.

Do you have a citation?

The idear of the country was a Republic no? The Fed was/is the child of the states no? The one sure way that makes the US a Republic is the appointment of it's senators.

Between that and gerrymandering you would end up with a tyranny of the democracy. Oh that's right that is what we have.

Admittedly the idea of representative government is a charade. But Anything that reduces it from a centralized tyranny is a good thing.

Not that there is Any hope for that occurring, but if I were to point to a cause of it's demise I would point to an inability to get things corrected. Not according to some democratic thinly disguised blather that is aimed at gaining more control.

Corrected according to who? Certainly not a brain dead constituency.