The Libertarian/Marxist divide

[DrEast]

There's a deep divide among armchair economists online over what the recent disasters actually mean, what their source is, and what the answer is. And I've discovered a truly interesting phenomenon that I want to note: There are two positions that are entirely opposed and both are technically correct. Let me spell this out for you.

The Libertarian Answer:

This is the Ron Paul/Von Mises/Constitutional/Libertarian answer as to What Went Wrong. This answer states that the Federal Reserve, responsible for the first Great Depression (along with government interventionalism that prolonged it), is just doing what it was designed to do: Make credit fueled booms followed by default busts, allowing the ridiculously rich to profit from the system while enslaving the middle class. It's a banker's scam, and always has been, and the answer is not to throw more (funny) money at the problem; the answer is to eliminate banking as we know it now and return to the good old days of hard currency, where these tricks will ultimately only harm the con men and those foolish enough to believe in them.

In other words, while hard currency isn't perfect, the possibility of being cheated is always on people's minds, and thus having some fiduciary wisdom is regarded as wisdom instead of folly. Folly has been all-too-present in the current system.

The Marxist Answer

This is the Socialist/Marxist/State-trusting answer. Greed caused this crash, greed which comes from insufficient regulation of the markets. Causing all corporations and businesses to become State-owned will prevent similar crashes in the future, which come about thanks to the current administration's touted "deregulation." Never again must the markets be free to swindle with fiduciary scams... the working man must be protected at all times!

Fiat currency is the only trustworthy currency, because it's governed by the State. Putting it in the hands of the privately owned Federal Reserve was, of course, a mistake... it must be nationalized. But then we can finally trust our money and everyone can know the prosperity that is rightfully theirs.


Which of these two viewpoints you take depends largely on how much you trust the State and how much you value freedom over security. If your first impulse is, "Every man must be as free as we can make them," you probably fall into the first camp. If your first impulse is, "Every man must be as secure as we can make them," then you probably fall into the second.

But the important point is that they're BOTH right... after a fashion, inasmuch as human nature will cause pain and suffering in any devised system. The only way to make fiat currency work IS absolute state control, and in an unregulated market it becomes a scam.

Being something of a mathematician, I see these two systems as identical with one fundamental axiom opposed: Freedom is more important than security, or security is more important than freedom.

Neither of these two systems are embraced by those currently in power, who use that scam to their benefit and thus reject hard currency and regulation.

But I don't believe in the power of the State to regulate more efficiently than a lump of gold or silver, which does it automatically, and I've got that infamous INTJ anti-authoritarian streak on top of it, so personally I fall into the first camp. Since you've pretty much gotta take one or the other... how do you all feel about it?

[Autoptic]

The person defines value. Marxism is based on the defunct labor "theory" of value which has alway been an agenda not a theory. They're proposing the regulation of a hell of a lot more than money and business. They'd be holding all powers, including exchange beyond barter and even control over what you'd have to barter with, "for the people" and deciding what is "good" and who are the "people." Basically, I hold the State as a con itself. Even now they mostly get paid to tell you what to do. The only one's generally immune to this politically savvy rich. Guess who would be running the State in any attempt at Marxism.

[DrEast]

Yes, in practical, hard reality, that's what's happened in Socialist states. But then, what happened back when we actually had a gold standard in the US?

The wise got rich, and then they, their children, and their grandchildren bought politicians to more or less socialize the money while leaving themselves free from accountability.

They used the government to solidify their position, on the backs of the suffering millions. Philanthropy is not enough to justify that.

Like I said, I fall into the first camp myself... but you can't point to the imperfections of either to support the other. They're both imperfect because people are imperfect fools. There is no really stable system. The question is, which set of imperfections are better?

And that, I think, really just comes down to the liberty/security question. And that's an internal valuation itself.

[Lights]

Since you've pretty much gotta take one or the other... how do you all feel about it?

I don't have to do shit. Both systems don't work, so it is time to scrap both systems and come up with a compromise that protects both sets of values. There is no reason we can't have a market that is free, fair, and secure. The only limitation are the individuals who limit their choice to the lesser of two evils because they hold their values higher than reason. I'm not going to pick a system that benefits either the state or the corporations; I want a system that benefits everyone, including me.

[DrEast]

I don't have to do shit. Both systems don't work, so it is time to scrap both systems and come up with a compromise that protects both sets of values. There is no reason we can't have a market that is free, fair, and secure. The only limitation are the individuals who limit their choice to the lesser of two evils because they hold their values higher than reason. I'm not going to pick a system that benefits either the state or the corporations; I want a system that benefits everyone, including me.

How will that be enforced?

[Lights]

How will that be enforced?

Integrity. It's the one value that is missing from the market and it is probably the most essential. Once you set up a framework of common sense principles by which individuals should conduct business, then those who violate that value will quickly find themselves living on welfare. In a society that values integrity, nobody will buy or sale from a man that they cannot trust.

[DrEast]

Integrity. It's the one value that is missing from the market and it is probably the most essential. Once you set up a framework of common sense principles by which individuals should conduct business, then those who violate that value will quickly find themselves living on welfare. In a society that values integrity, nobody will buy or sale from a man that they cannot trust.

Which goes back to the ancient point: If mankind were perfect, any system of government or economics would be equally valid, dictatorship or democracy, socialism or capitalism, it doesn't matter.

But integrity can't be mandated. By all means, foster it, please! But it's not gonna come from Congress.

[SShack]

And who exactly will be the one who defines what "integrity" is? Or what these "common sense principles" are?

[Lights]

Which goes back to the ancient point: If mankind were perfect, any system of government or economics would be equally valid, dictatorship or democracy, socialism or capitalism, it doesn't matter.

But integrity can't be mandated. By all means, foster it, please! But it's not gonna come from Congress.

We all want an economic system that ensures liberty while providing fairness, promotes good trade, and works effectively, but it ultimately all comes down to the individuals who make it up. The problem is that people think that this is a "macro" problem and needs to be adjusted at the corporate and state level. The reality is this is a "micro" problem, and it is the accumulated actions of many individuals acting on their own agendas that has led to this disaster. No matter what larger system you have, there will be individuals who exploit it. The answer is that we need a better system for holding the individuals who do take advantage of the system accountable for doing so. Whether it is the corrupt politicians, CEOs, or whatever, they need to be dragged into the spotlight and judged for their practices.

And that all begins with integrity. No system of accountability will be effective if it isn't based on some framework of principles by which to do business. And that is what we should be doing right now. Instead of bickering about socializing or privatizing the market, we should be looking at how individuals have corrupted the system in the past and be making it difficult, if not impossible, for them to do it again.





Lights added to this post, 7 minutes and 34 seconds later...

And who exactly will be the one who defines what "integrity" is? Or what these "common sense principles" are?

Behold the wonder that is democracy and the market in action. Individuals come up with the principles, they vote on them, and the market tests them so that individuals can come up with new or better principles. It's an evolving system.

[DrEast]

We all want an economic system that ensures liberty while providing fairness, promotes good trade, and works effectively, but it ultimately all comes down to the individuals who make it up.

I would have to disagree with this assertion. I believe there are many, most, who want a system that benefits them at the detriment to their neighbors and lets them get good deals, not fair ones. I believe that many people crave power over others so thoroughly that they will not care what debasement they go through to get it, and that what we are witnessing now is just this principle on a grand stage.

[Lights]

I would have to disagree with this assertion. I believe there are many, most, who want a system that benefits them at the detriment to their neighbors and lets them get good deals, not fair ones. I believe that many people crave power over others so thoroughly that they will not care what debasement they go through to get it, and that what we are witnessing now is just this principle on a grand stage.

That is exactly what I said after the part you quoted me. The part where I said, "No matter what larger system you have, there will be individuals who exploit it." I was speaking very generally when I said, "We all want" because I thought my point would be made clear in the later portion of my post. Did you only read the first sentence of my post?

[Autoptic]

Behold the wonder that is democracy and the market in action. Individuals come up with the principles, they vote on them, and the market tests them so that individuals can come up with new or better principles. It's an evolving system.

I would have to disagree with this assertion. I believe there are many, most, who want a system that benefits them at the detriment to their neighbors and lets them get good deals, not fair ones. I believe that many people crave power over others so thoroughly that they will not care what debasement they go through to get it, and that what we are witnessing now is just this principle on a grand stage.

These too are related methinks.

Democracy isn't an answer. It's sophistry far more than logic. Begging the question is standard policy, and appeal to majority is the decision itself.

[SShack]

And that all begins with integrity. No system of accountability will be effective if it isn't based on some framework of principles by which to do business. And that is what we should be doing right now. Instead of bickering about socializing or privatizing the market, we should be looking at how individuals have corrupted the system in the past and be making it difficult, if not impossible, for them to do it again.

Frankly, Lights, the kind of market system you're describing sounds a lot like the kind of market system we have now. Market operates under the idea that people will behave with integrity. Somebody says "The hell with that, I want money," and takes advantage of people. He's found out eventually and a regulation is added to prevent these abuses in the future. In response, somebody else with no integrity starts looking for a new way to abuse the system. He's found out, new regulations are put into place, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

In addition, I doubt many people would allow a public vote to decide what they were and weren't allowed to do with their own money. I might be too optimistic there though. And are we talking about the same public that supports the bailout by a majority, even though only a small percentage of them say they understand what caused the economic crisis in the first place? Do you want these people controlling your economic decisions?

And I hasten to add that part of this economic crisis is due to economic policies put in place by the government to please the public -- making housing loans more accessible. If we were to punish the folks responsible for this, we'd probably have to put half the country in prison.

[DrEast]

That is exactly what I said after the part you quoted me. The part where I said, "No matter what larger system you have, there will be individuals who exploit it." I was speaking very generally when I said, "We all want" because I thought my point would be made clear in the later portion of my post. Did you only read the first sentence of my post?

No, I read the whole thing, but I must have misinterpreted how your first sentence fit in with it. I was assuming something along the lines of a thesis from it, I'm afraid. My bad.

[Lights]

And I hasten to add that part of this economic crisis is due to economic policies put in place by the government to please the public -- making housing loans more accessible. If we were to punish the folks responsible for this, we'd probably have to put half the country in prison.

You have a good point. A massive number of individuals had to act irresponsibly to put us into this position. That has muddied the waters substantially. But I disagree with you on one key factor, and that is your claim that I believe that the system we have now has the level of accountability that we need.

This is a pattern. We faced something very similar with Enron, World Com, and Quest. People are cooking the books and promoting poor business practices. That is why we need a new system of accountability. I don't think our mixed market is what is wrong, but rather that we have no way of catching these things early on before they become disastrous.

If a democratic means is not the answer, then I would love to hear some alternative solutions. However, I believe that good oversight of the market is 90% of the solution to keeping these kinds of things from even occurring.

[PHS Philip]

However, I believe that good oversight of the market is 90% of the solution to keeping these kinds of things from even occurring.

That's the problem. Where do we get good oversight? Democracy has consistently failed to give us intelligent policies, because what is best long term often has short term consequences. Dictatorship leads inevitably to tyrants. Anarchy collapses.

[Lights]

That's the problem. Where do we get good oversight? Democracy has consistently failed to give us intelligent policies, because what is best long term often has short term consequences. Dictatorship leads inevitably to tyrants. Anarchy collapses.

I give up. You are the INTJs. Aren't you guys suppose to be masters at devising systems?

[DrEast]

I give up. You are the INTJs. Aren't you guys suppose to be masters at devising systems?

We're also masters at gaming them. Place not your faith in systems, or I'll own your shirt.

[Lights]

We're also masters at gaming them. Place not your faith in systems, or I'll own your shirt.

Ok I can buy that. I've met enough INTJ Texas Hold'em players.

Now get off your assess and save the world!

[DrEast]

Ok I can buy that. I've met enough INTJ Texas Hold'em players.

Now get off your assess and save the world!

We've TRIED. Nobody LISTENS to us. That's why we're INTJ's, not ENTJ's. Or maybe nobody listens to us because we're INTJ's instead of the other way around:

We know this stuff, we just can't communicate it.

Besides, as I said, half of us will fall on the hard currency side and the other half on the regulation side. Gotta resolve that axiomatic difference first.

[PHS Philip]

Ok I can buy that. I've met enough INTJ Texas Hold'em players.

Now get off your assess and save the world!

The inventor of a fool proof system has never met the average fool. We've met far, far too many.

What it boils down to is that people don't think and function intelligently, and when you get them in groups (society), that problem is compounded. Societies are very short sighted, and short sightedness can destroy even the best of systems very quickly.

[ArchonAlarion]

Here is my thought process:

Everyone has different values. People try to achieve these values.

People will be happiest when allowed to choose their own values and reorder their hierarchy of values as they experience life.

Therefore what is "good" in terms of a social system is what allows for the maximization of freedom to pursue your own values.

Some things conflict with others ability to pursue values, such as valuing murdering people.

The system should then minimize this "overlap." We must be careful in finding the point of efficiency, so as not to create more conflict.

I believe private property along with voluntary association/cooperation is the point of efficiency.

A state might help the majority of people for a certain task in a certain time-frame, but, not only do I doubt this, the very nature of a state is gradual expansion, which will quickly and increasingly cease to be beneficial.

When dealing with a world of scare resources someone, somewhere is going to be unhappy. This system does not guarantee happiness it simply allows you to pursue your happiness free of coercion by other participants in society (more accurately minimizes coerced associations). It also allows you to associate and intereact with whom you wish and not interact with those you do not wish (Generally. Obviously someone you don't know might say "hi!" to you whilst out for a stroll). You can form any voluntary organization you wish, so long as it does not aggress against others property (including their person). You may defend against the aggression of others with force, although other options might be more reasonable depending on circumstances (aggression includes theft, vandalism, pollution of the property of others, murder, rape, and physical assault).

Until the mechanics of this system are proven to be broken, I will continue to adhere to it.

So yes, I sort of fall in the libertarian camp.

[Lights]

I believe private property along with voluntary association/cooperation is the point of efficiency.

Sounds like just another value to me. And one that creates just as much "overlap" as it reduces since it creates inequalities.

[Autoptic]

Sounds like just another value to me. And one that creates just as much "overlap" as it reduces since it creates inequalities.

Certainly not unless you count people trying to claim the property of another as their own as they would simply like for someone else, possibly themselves to have it. This wouldn't be overlap. This would be theft.

[Lights]

Certainly not unless you count people trying to claim the property of another as their own as they would simply like for someone else, possibly themselves to have it. This wouldn't be overlap. This would be theft.

True. And when the United States gives back all the land it took from Native Americans and Mexico, and compensates African Americans for the labor of their enslaved ancestors, then you can tell me about it.

[ArchonAlarion]

Sounds like just another value to me. And one that creates just as much "overlap" as it reduces since it creates inequalities.

Market= inequalities of wealth with no rulers
State= inequalities of wealth with rulers

I just dont agree with your second sentence. How does a hierarchical society have less inequality than a non-hierarchical society (hierarchy as pertaining to coerced social order)?

So You can have your value of imposing a state on me, but I can't have my value of being free?

Sounds like you've mastered the integration of your philosophy into this debate. (sarcasm)

Lights I've been waiting to bring this up for awhile, because you've made this comment many times before.

Actually, you sort of inspired me. Instead of basing my philosophy on an objective morality, I now base it my above description, partly due to your comments.

So i'd like to turn this around and hear how YOUR values override mine.

[Autoptic]

True. And when the United States gives back all the land it took from Native Americans and Mexico, and compensates African Americans for the labor of their enslaved ancestors, then you can tell me about it.

Some of those Native Americans took their land by violence as did the dominant precursors of Mexico. Most African slaves were bought from Africans who had their own slavery racket going before Europeans arrived. Besides, I meant property of actual people not fictions like states and nations.

[Lights]

Some of those Native Americans took their land by violence as did the dominant precursors of Mexico. Besides, I meant property of actual people not fictions like states.

"Some" is such a nice generalized word. Some people use the word some to copout for what happened to most. Some people need to realize they can muddy the waters of history as much as they want, but it doesn't change what past people have done.

And as I recall, property is property regardless of who takes it. That is reality, not Anarcho-Capitalists Land where everything works out hunky dory under the principles of perfect capitalism.





Lights added to this post, 3 minutes and 34 seconds later...

Market= inequalities of wealth with no rulers
State= inequalities of wealth with rulers

So close!

Market = inequalities of wealth with lenders and investors as rulers.

[ArchonAlarion]

So close!

Market = inequalities of wealth with lenders and investors as rulers.

rul·er (rlr)
n.
1. One, such as a monarch or dictator, that rules or governs.

Ruler implies coercing others into doing your bidding, whether small-scale (gang-rape) or large scale (democracy).

Unless you want to conflate leader and ruler, or business person and ruler than you are wrong.

We've been over this before Lights.

And if you decide to conflate, Im just gonna make my own word for what I mean.

But you won't because you know there's a difference, right?

[Tocsin]

Market= inequalities of wealth with no rules (deregulation)
State= possible inequalities of wealth with rules (regulation)

And the "inqualities of wealth" under the state depends on two things:

Whether or not the rules promote the inequality of weath.
Whether or not the rules are either competently or honestly constructed or enforced.

[Autoptic]

It also depends on how you define inequality. Taking the earning of one to give to one that didn't is equal?

[ArchonAlarion]

A state that doesn't help create inequalities of wealth is one that doesn't exist.

They will never be competently enforced, ever. The people who are drawn to be distributers of violence are not the kind of people interested in "equality" they are the kind of bastards we have today and have always had.

And I'd like to know how exactly an actual free market leads to more inequality than a state regulated one.

"Hey DOOD Iz gott a brillient Idear."

"Wat is that DOOD?"

"What If wez BrIBED pollitishins to like tootally make regyaLation Boards so We cud Tootally Stock them WiTh arE peepel To StIFUL Compatishun?"

"DOOD thaz A graet idear n0 1 wiLlz evar no."

[Lights]

But you won't because you know there's a difference, right?

You are incredibly naive if you think lenders and investors have not coerced others into doing their bidding in the past and even now in the present. That is one of the primary reasons people amass wealth, so that they can have influence and even control. The next step is simply to buy goons to go commit atrocities against your fellow man like the mafia or to buy a private army to take resources by force. We most certainly have been here before Archon, and it looks like we have found ourselves at the same conclusion.

[ArchonAlarion]

You are incredibly naive if you think lenders and investors have not coerced others into doing their bidding in the past and even now in the present. That is one of the primary reasons people amass wealth, so that they can have influence and even control. The next step is simply to buy goons to go commit atrocities against your fellow man like the mafia or to buy a private army to take resources by force. We most certainly have been here before Archon, and it looks like we have found ourselves at the same conclusion.

I definately agree with the first part. However thats not an analytic statement its a synthetic one.

And the second part illustrates exactly what a state does.

[void]

True. And when the United States gives back all the land it took from Native Americans and Mexico, and compensates African Americans for the labor of their enslaved ancestors, then you can tell me about it.


Pieces of the Earth's lithosphere do not inherently belong to sets of humans. Land is (usually) acquired through military force, and a geographic region "belongs" to a group of people insofar as said people are able to defend it from hostile takeover.
There is not a single African American alive in the US who has been enslaved. They are descendants of slaves (some, at least). The present US government has jack-all to do with events 150+ years ago.



EDIT: Beat to the punch. I'm far too sluggish.

[Lights]

I definately agree with the first part. However thats not an analytic statement its a synthetic one.

Care to provide a warrant for that argument? Or are you going to try to reduce this to semantics because you recognize it is a valid point, and one that you cannot dismiss?

And the second part illustrates exactly what a state does.

No disagreement. When it comes to the distribution of resources, any group of individuals, whether they exist as a state entity or a market entity, will eventually find themselves in a position to act in aggression.





Lights added to this post, 4 minutes and 22 seconds later...


Pieces of the Earth's lithosphere do not inherently belong to sets of humans. Land is (usually) acquired through military force, and a geographic region "belongs" to a group of people insofar as said people are able to defend it from hostile takeover.
There is not a single African American alive in the US who has been enslaved. They are descendants of slaves (some, at least). The present US government has jack-all to do with events 150+ years ago.


Excellent. If I steal all your property and leave it to my family when I die, then by your logic it will then all belong to my family because they had nothing to do with it. So the key to helping your family prosper is simply to steal as much as you can when you are alive and make sure to pass it down to your family before you die.

[ArchonAlarion]

Care to provide a warrant for that argument? Or are you going to try to reduce this to semantics because you recognize it is a valid point, and one that you cannot dismiss?

All I was saying was that although they may act that way, their actions are not part of the definition of their title. Therefore a man may rule, in fact many men may rule, but that does not make men rulers by definition.


No disagreement. When it comes to the distribution of resources, any group of individuals, whether they exist as a state entity or a market entity, will eventually find themselves in a position to act in aggression.

And I say other individuals should be able to defend against the aggressors. Do you disagree?



Yeah theft on a massive scale f's stuff up for the descendents of both parties. That sucks. Howver I had nothing to do with it even remotely and neither did the descendents of native americans and slaves. If the victims were still alive and/or it was more recent I could understand.

[Lights]

All I was saying was that although they may act that way, their actions are not part of the definition of their title. Therefore a man may rule, in fact many men may rule, but that does not make men rulers by definition.

Ah, the semantic route. Classic!

And I say other individuals should be able to defend against the aggressors. Do you disagree?

Let the monkey who has the longest stick rule over all the other monkeys with shorter sticks.

[void]

Excellent. If I steal all your property and leave it to my family when I die, then by your logic it will then all belong to my family because they had nothing to do with it. So the key to helping your family prosper is simply to steal as much as you can when you are alive and make sure to pass it down to your family before you die.

Flawed analogy. The scenario you propose exists within the context of a larger system: society. This system has rules that prohibit you from doing so. You are (virtually) guaranteed to face consequences in the form of punishment implicitly approved by all other agents who signed the unwritten contract (rules of society).

In international matters, there exists no such overarching system. Well, fine there is NATO and other similar military pacts, but these didn't exist back in the 1700s.

[ArchonAlarion]

Lights somewhere, sometime an INFJ killed someone.

Does that make all INFJ's murderers or does that mean INFJ's are murderers by definition?

I don't really see how I'm being unreasonable here.

Yes I agree that many people in big business manipulate the state for their benefit. In fact, I believe big business is so big because of this manipulation.

[void]

Let the monkey who has the longest stick rule over all the other monkeys with shorter sticks.

An accurate description of the real world.

[Lights]

Flawed analogy. The scenario you propose exists within the context of a larger system: society. This system has rules that prohibit you from doing so. You are (virtually) guaranteed to face consequences in the form of punishment implicitly approved by all other agents who signed the unwritten contract (rules of society).

In international matters, there exists no such overarching system. Well, fine there is NATO and other similar military pacts, but these didn't exist back in the 1700s.

I can agree with your explaination as it conveniently proves my larger point.

[void]

I can agree with your explaination as it conveniently proves my larger point.

Concisely and precisely, what is your larger point? I'm not being snarky here, just genuinely curious.

Also note that it is conceivable that a single agent within a group held together by mutual treaties can become powerful enough to successfully break away and obliterate/capture the other members. Whether or not this yields the maximum payoff for the singularly powerful agent depends on the specifics.

[reb]

DrEast, sadly, i found nothing in your post to discuss. libertarian. wish i could've delineated it that well. if it's not a bother to you, i may 'steal' your post for my email list-non-attributable, of course-no identifiers.
thank you.
reb

[TigerDak]

why are my only choices of thought two normally wrong choices, that being the Libertarian side and the Marxist side? Yuck.

[DrEast]

why are my only choices of thought two normally wrong choices, that being the Libertarian side and the Marxist side? Yuck.

Perhaps wrongly stated in the original post. I was simply stating that both "sides" (there being an infinite variation in nuance on each side) point to the current events on Wall Street as evidence for their positions, at least in forums and blog posts throughout the online world. And that, given the presuppositions of both sides, it is, in fact, evidence supporting both absolutely opposite views.

In other words, a libertarian will point to this and say, "this is why banking with fiat currency is fraud and needs to be ended with a hard currency system that makes the market truly free." A Marxist will say, "this is why regulation needs to be iron-tight, to make the money reliable." And both will be correct, so far as they go: The evidence available combined with the presuppositions on each side supports both opposing viewpoints.

And, of course, the end result is sound and fury between the two camps, signifying nothing.

[Radamisto]

I am an orthodox Austrain follow Rothbard and von Mises to the iota.

Marxism has no serious economic theory - it doesn't even deal with the central problem of economics i.e. the scarcity of resources. Moreover, as has been previously pointed out, it is based on the labour theory of value, which is patently false. Of course it has many othr weaknesses, but those 2 should be enough to disqualify it once and for all.

[reb]

DrEast,
my 'theft' of your post resulted in this reply from a CPA friend:

'I believe it to be major a political scam than a banker scam.. You'll notice that the banks /Federal Reserve operated pretty smoothly until Congress allowed Insurance companies, stock brokerages, and other assorted low-life to own banks. In this manner , the big banks got much bigger and reserved credit for financial scams of friends and directors, that used to go to farmers, ranchers and other productive people. Productive people had to pay premium prices to get loans, while financial big-wigs collateralized "derivatives" and "promises, to get loans with the lowest interest rates.

How to correct: break up large banks to banking conglomerates able to operate in only one or two states. Allow banks that are multinational in scope to remain that was,but divest themselves of local and regional banks. Retain and fund the Rederal reserve to regulate the flow of money to the local and regional banks by their need for capital to fund the productive people and the multinational banks by their possession of tangible collateralized assets. Fund a natiowide audit and investigative agency with sufficient cqapital and employees to guarantee a comprehensive audit every three years and publlish the results of those audits on the internet and in printed form. Make them especially available to local and regional newspapers and TV/radio stations. Establish local hotlines so the public can anonymopusly report "shenanigans" to the audit/investigative agency. '

i am too cynical for this; the only way we can trust the watchers to watch, is if they don't work for the ones they're supposed to be watching. having had pressure exerted on me to 'negotiate a higher price so we don't have to return the funds', the system as it stands is flawed...the system will always be flawed as long as people collaborate to gather power...which will be....lol! we all know the answer, don't we?

reb