The Achilles heel of the economy

[WhoWee]

Sure, but would ONLY that cause the economic problems? Just from some quick reading it seems vastly more complex than just that. Know any good links on the issue?

I think one of the dangers in a highly speculative (leveraged investments also think derivatives) market is that capital is siphoned away from IPO's and bonds. Fresh capital is needed for growth.

 

[Drakkith]

I think one of the dangers in a highly speculative (leveraged investments also think derivatives) market is that capital is siphoned away from IPO's and bonds. Fresh capital is needed for growth.

I don't really know what any of that means lol.

 

[WhoWee]

Both Initial Public Offerings and the sale of bonds (debt instruments) inject cash directly into a company. As discussed earlier in this thread, when the shares of that company are trades between investors - the company doesn't receive any of the money.

When investors see a stock price increasing and borrow against the value of their portfolio to buy more shares - the investors now owe money on the "if/come". They have to sell the newly acquired shares in order to pay for their purchase and free the pledged shares.

When investors purchase derivatives - they don't own anything - basically a hedge bet (legal gambling) - and it's unregulated. It's not uncommon for a derivatives investor to have a very complex strategy in place - this requires large amounts of capital that are not available for direct investment in a growth or start-up company.

 

[Drakkith]

Ah ok, I see. Thanks Whowee.

 

[WhoWee]

Ah ok, I see. Thanks Whowee.

Sure. My point was there are a fixed amount of dollars available for direct investment. Anything that draws them away can slow growth.

When investors borrow money to make investments - they better be chasing sure bets. I've known people that took cash advances on credit cards to purchase a hot stock.

 

[Nev]

I've read a few articles online, and from what I've read it takes a combination of events to cause something like a depression from a Stock Market crash. The thing is that the stock market is directly connected to the economy and the money supply. When the economy does bad it isn't the Stock Market to blame, it is the economy. The market merely reflects the economy.

I accept that any problem affecting the global economy, such as sudden shortage of oil, can have a serious impact on the value of shares worldwide. But in any case, I see money, the means of exchange, as something totally different from a product produced by someone's labour for human consumption or use, which is the only way to create wealth, whereas the notion that trading in money can somehow make more money is simply fiction.

Of course there are some who gain from the trade, or it wouldn't exist, but I suggest that their winnings are far outweighed by the losses of others and the risks to the wider economy when such gambling falls on its head.

 

[WhoWee]

I accept that any problem affecting the global economy, such as sudden shortage of oil, can have a serious impact on the value of shares worldwide. But in any case, I see money, the means of exchange, as something totally different from a product produced by someone's labour for human consumption or use, which is the only way to create wealth, whereas the notion that trading in money can somehow make more money is simply fiction.

Of course there are some who gain from the trade, or it wouldn't exist, but I suggest that their winnings are far outweighed by the losses of others and the risks to the wider economy when such gambling falls on its head.

Are you now referring to currency trading?

 

[Nev]

Are you now referring to currency trading?

I'm sorry if I confused the issue over the exchange of money. Clearly it is involved in stock market transactions as well as the currency market and also in credit or loans from banks, which attract interest.

 

[WhoWee]

I'm sorry if I confused the issue over the exchange of money. Clearly it is involved in stock market transactions as well as the currency market and also in credit or loans from banks, which attract interest.

I would like to agree with you firmly on a narrow type of investments (yet an enormous and unregulated market) - the exchange of money in derivatives creates nothing - it is gambling.

 

[Nev]

As I have stated before, I am convinced it is unnecessy for interest on loans to be charged as an incentive for debts to be repaid. All business, as I have said before, is based on trust, whether a company does work for which it expects to be paid once the job is completed or one expects an item to be delivered when payment is made in advance to a reputable company. We know how reckless lending by banks for profit can cause havoc with the global economy, even their own survival, unfortunately at huge cost to the taxpayer. Once again, I suggest if banks worldwide were no longer able to charge interest, their operations funded by the state, I feel certain the cost to the community at large would be far outweighed by the advantages to both business and consumers, thereby leading to greater stability and potential for growth in the global economy. Meanwhile the risk of another banking crisis in Europe would recede, as countries with huge deficits would stand a far better chance of repaying their debts once the burden of crippling interest was removed. Of course huge vested interests would fiercely oppose such a change, but politicians surely have more power than bankers.

 

[WhoWee]

As I have stated before, I am convinced it is unnecessy for interest on loans to be charged as an incentive for debts to be repaid. All business, as I have said before, is based on trust, whether a company does work for which it expects to be paid once the job is completed or one expects an item to be delivered when payment is made in advance to a reputable company. We know how reckless lending by banks for profit can cause havoc with the global economy, even their own survival, unfortunately at huge cost to the taxpayer. Once again, I suggest if banks worldwide were no longer able to charge interest, their operations funded by the state, I feel certain the cost to the community at large would be far outweighed by the advantages to both business and consumers, thereby leading to greater stability and potential for growth in the global economy. Meanwhile the risk of another banking crisis in Europe would recede, as countries with huge deficits would stand a far better chance of repaying their debts once the burden of crippling interest was removed. Of course huge vested interests would fiercely oppose such a change, but politicians surely have more power than bankers.

You're suggesting that banks no longer pay interest on deposits as well?

 

[Nev]

You're suggesting that banks no longer pay interest on deposits as well?

Yes, interest doesn't necessarily encourage people to save.

 

[WhoWee]

Banks loan their deposits - I would argue that most people would not want their deposits loaned out without some form of compensation.

 

[Drakkith]

WhoWee, I think Nev is saying that banks wouldn't be for profit anymore, but run by the state. I personally don't want the government further entrenched in the Economy, so I don't like that idea at all.

 

[WhoWee]

WhoWee, I think Nev is saying that banks wouldn't be for profit anymore, but run by the state. I personally don't want the government further entrenched in the Economy, so I don't like that idea at all.

That would require the Government to have cash deposits to loan (at zero interest at that) - not borrowed funds to make payroll.

 

[Nev]

What does it really matter if a few banks should fail due to their reckless lending for profit, which has led to massive national debts and severe hardship for many as austerity measures are applied in an attempt to rectify the situation? Trade and industry worldwide will continue as ever, albeit tragically at a much slower pace than before. Have we not seen down-turns in economic activity before for the same basic reason - ie because banks are managed for profit, when they should be run as a free service to the community, funded by the state on a sane and sensible basis by universal consent? How else can we expect to obtain the financial stability necessary for sustained growth in the global economy?

After all, money in essence is merely a means of exchanging useful goods and services, not a tool which by itself can create wealth. Clearly banks in their current form, trading in money for profit and competing with everyone's money in markets governed by fickle confidence, do more harm than good. The world's capacity for growth can only be driven by its industrial output, not by banks gambling on a grand scale with its means of exchange, which so often leads to cycles of 'boom and bust', leading to drastic reductions in vital investment and credit to business worldwide.

Only the world's leaders acting in unison with courage and determination can provide a financial system which truly serves the needs of the community, instead of itself, and so bring the stability we so badly need. As long as overpaid, invulnerable bankers, with their myopic vision obscured by unbridled greed for profit, remain unaccountable to the wider public, so long will millions of innocent, vulnerable citizens continue to suffer the consequences of such a flawed financial system!

 

[John Creighto]

What does it really matter if a few banks should fail due to their reckless lending for profit, which has led to massive national debts and severe hardship for many as austerity measures are applied in an attempt to rectify the situation?

What you mean to say is that you believe that the cost of propping up an over extended bank is greater than the cost of letting it fail. Many would agree with this.

Trade and industry worldwide will continue as ever, albeit tragically at a much slower pace than before.

Try to connect your sentences better. You said something would happen. You didn’t say after what event. Should I add something like “After a bank failure” to the beginning of your sentence?

Have we not seen down-turns in economic activity before for the same basic reason - ie because banks are managed for profit,

I understand many people dislike profit motive but clearly if a bank doesn’t make a profit it fails. So we should conclude that maximizing profit does not lead to failure even though greed can lead to failure. A lot of the negative effects of greed in banking could be eliminated by eliminating bank bonuses but the counter argument is that people should be rewarded for success.

when they should be run as a free service to the community, funded by the state on a sane and sensible basis by universal consent? How else can we expect to obtain the financial stability necessary for sustained growth in the global economy?

I presume you aren’t really looking for an answer to the last question. If you wish to discuss it in another thread we can. Banks cannot be run as a free service though. You will either pay for it though fees, trough taxes or by accepting risk. We do already to a degree pay for banks though taxes because we grantee their deposits at rates I suspect do not adequately insure the current risk in the system.

After all, money in essence is merely a means of exchanging useful goods and services, not a tool which by itself can create wealth. Clearly banks in their current form, trading in money for profit and competing with everyone's money in markets governed by fickle confidence, do more harm than good.

An economy needs a system to allocate resources for production. When someone allocates resources it is not unreasonable for them to expect a return on the resources (dollars) they allocate. Well, our system is far tfrom perfect at this, it is far more efficient than any form of state allocation.

The world's capacity for growth can only be driven by its industrial output, not by banks gambling on a grand scale with its means of exchange, which so often leads to cycles of 'boom and bust', leading to drastic reductions in vital investment and credit to business worldwide.

If credit doesn’t drive growth why is credit vital?

 

[Dotini]

If credit doesn’t drive growth why is credit vital?

Notwithstanding the question of growth, credit is vital as a proxy for physical money in quotidian transactions.

Respectfully submitted,
Steve

 

[Drakkith]

Have we not seen down-turns in economic activity before for the same basic reason - ie because banks are managed for profit, when they should be run as a free service to the community, funded by the state on a sane and sensible basis by universal consent? How else can we expect to obtain the financial stability necessary for sustained growth in the global economy?

ALL businesses are managed for profit. Why should banks be any different? If it wasn't for a bank or similar company I wouldn't have my house currently. Are you saying you wan't loans that are "free", as in no interest and such, funded by the state? I hope your prepared to pay more in taxes to fund these banks.

Only the world's leaders acting in unison with courage and determination can provide a financial system which truly serves the needs of the community, instead of itself, and so bring the stability we so badly need. As long as overpaid, invulnerable bankers, with their myopic vision obscured by unbridled greed for profit, remain unaccountable to the wider public, so long will millions of innocent, vulnerable citizens continue to suffer the consequences of such a flawed financial system!

This is pure nonsense and almost incoherent. Banks and credit are only one aspect of a financial system. A bank that stays in business by providing decent loans and competative rates IS good for the public. That's the whole point behind capitalism. CEO's, business owners, and other related positions are accountable in accordance with the applicable laws, just ask the guys at Enron.

And I'm sorry, but the idea of millions of "innocent vulnerable" citizens is rediculous. My credit score is directly related to how well I pay my bills. I have very good credit because I make sure to pay off my bills on time and don't miss payments and such. Since I have a good score, I get good rates. EVERYONE that I know that has credit problems got themselves into it. You can try to shift the blame all you want, but people have almost full control over their own finances, not banks.

 

[WhoWee]

Only the world's leaders acting in unison with courage and determination can provide a financial system which truly serves the needs of the community, instead of itself, and so bring the stability we so badly need. As long as overpaid, invulnerable bankers, with their myopic vision obscured by unbridled greed for profit, remain unaccountable to the wider public, so long will millions of innocent, vulnerable citizens continue to suffer the consequences of such a flawed financial system!

Please clarify with specifics.

 

[Nev]

EVERYONE that I know that has credit problems got themselves into it.

I accept that imprudent borrowing by nation states and individuals is clearly a major part of the picture, but I suggest as long as banks are managed for profit the temptation to lend to the point where serious defaults are likely, will continue well into the future, especially as banks are currently immune from failure.

 

[Drakkith]

I accept that imprudent borrowing by nation states and individuals is clearly a major part of the picture, but I suggest as long as banks are managed for profit the temptation to lend to the point where serious defaults are likely, will continue well into the future, especially as banks are currently immune from failure.

It is against a banks best interest for anyone to default on a loan. They no longer receive income from the interest and in many cases they only get a partial return on whatever property they can legally take in lieu of payment. And that's assuming there's actually something for the bank to take, which isn't always the case. Sometimes they simply have to bite the bullet.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

EVERYONE that I know that has credit problems got themselves into it. You can try to shift the blame all you want, but people have almost full control over their own finances, not banks.

It is against a banks best interest for anyone to default on a loan. They no longer receive income from the interest and in many cases they only get a partial return on whatever property they can legally take in lieu of payment. And that's assuming there's actually something for the bank to take, which isn't always the case. Sometimes they simply have to bite the bullet.

I do agree with you Drakkith but I have to add another dimension to this discussion. Lots of people (in the UK at least) in the recent past were duped by banks offering credit cards and loans by the bucket load. Whilst it is those peoples' fault that they borrowed more than they could afford the problem was that banks unwisely marketed and offered money to people who had no way of paying it back, people who were demonstrably unintelligent with money. This was a failure of both unwise consumers and unwise business practice.

Since the global crash it's been a hot political topic. Since 2008 there have been a string of short-term money lenders pop up that deliberately target people with bad credit and low incomes with adverts like "if the bill is due on Tuesday and pay day is Friday, why not just take a quick and simple loan?" which get people who consistently don't have enough money into huge amounts of debt until they are eventually bankrupt and have their things repossessed.

In a perfect market situation all consumers would be rational, intelligent actors and all banks would engage in purely profitable and sensible trading. However in reality people are flawed, consumers will make unwise decisions regarding money and banks will aim to exploit.

 

[Drakkith]

You don't have to tell me about short-term money lenders, they are EVERYWHERE near the base here. I understand what you're saying, there will always be people that do exploit others, but I don't believe that most banks do. Of course your definition of the word *exploit* may vary.

 

[John Creighto]

I accept that imprudent borrowing by nation states and individuals is clearly a major part of the picture, but I suggest as long as banks are managed for profit the temptation to lend to the point where serious defaults are likely, will continue well into the future, especially as banks are currently immune from failure.

There are two points to keep in mind here. The first is the money supply constrains the amount which can be lent. Politicians want cheap money (A.K.A low interest rates) often to postpone economic downturns, banks want cheap money because the more money available to them the more they can lend . Both banks and politicians influence the central bank which controls the money supply.

The rate at which the current money supply grows is the difference between the rate new debt is created and the rate old debt is paid off. Defaults and devaluations also influence the money supply but in a multiplicate way.

The moral hazord isn’t just the profit motive of banks. It includes the following:
-The desire of government to have cheap money.
-It is also the desire of politicians to make money cheap for the large corporations (big car companies for instance) that donate to their political campaigns.
-The desire of people who work for those companies (like auto unions) to stay employed.
-The desire of people with good credit to make money off asset price increases (AKA inflation) well people who are poor and people who save lose out.
-The desire for an electorate to postpone the inevitable pain of a market correction as long as possible.
-The desire for instant gratification (consume today and pay later)

In short, government can’t solve the moral hazord of banking because government is part of the moral hazord of banking and so are the people. Well, we should look for better banking rules we also perhaps should as individuals and business look for ways to hedge against changes to the money supply. That is reduce your exposure to money. I will though need to give some thought on the best way to do this. Maybe a combination of being long on gold futures and owning put options on stocks but I haven’t given it enough thought.

 

[Nev]

Please clarify with specifics.

By "a free service to the community", I don't necessarily rule out some measure of interest on loans to fund wages and salaries etc, but that banks' operations should no longer be run for profit, with strict limits on how much capital can be employed to provide mortgages etc and loans and long-term investments to business to boost the economy. Any surplus revenue could then go to the government, rather than into the pockets of shareholders or greedy, self-serving staff by way of massive bonuses. We have already seen how gambling for a quick profit in company capital led to the dreadful Wall Street Crash and the Great Depression of the 30's, as well as the recent credit squeeze which resulted from the debacle caused by excessive lending by banks for profit, which could not be sustained, in the sub-prime mortgage market.

I see no reason why banks should not be run as a reliable, dependable service to the community with no profit motive involved, their operatives accountable to the state and hence the taxpayer, with strict rules to prevent high risk initiatives, which can so easily lead to disaster for the wider economy, as millions of jobs are lost and all that such a scenario means to the quality of life of all who are affected.

I appreciate such a radical change to the system would require worldwide consensus, but I am convinced the benefits to trade and industry and everyone's quality of life would be substantial and ongoing.

 

[John Creighto]

By "a free service to the community", I don't necessarily rule out some measure of interest on loans to fund wages and salaries etc, but that banks' operations should no longer be run for profit, with strict limits on how much capital can be employed to provide mortgages etc and loans and long-term investments to business to boost the economy. Any surplus revenue could then go to the government, rather than into the pockets of shareholders or greedy, self-serving staff by way of massive bonuses. We have already seen how gambling for a quick profit in company capital led to the dreadful Wall Street Crash and the Great Depression of the 30's, as well as the recent credit squeeze which resulted from the debacle caused by excessive lending by banks for profit, which could not be sustained, in the sub-prime mortgage market.

I see no reason why banks should not be run as a reliable, dependable service to the community with no profit motive involved, their operatives accountable to the state and hence the taxpayer, with strict rules to prevent high risk initiatives, which can so easily lead to disaster for the wider economy, as millions of jobs are lost and all that such a scenario means to the quality of life of all who are affected.

I appreciate such a radical change to the system would require worldwide consensus, but I am convinced the benefits to trade and industry and everyone's quality of life would be substantial and ongoing.

Well, it is an admirable to want a better banking system worldwide may I suggest doing as Gaundi said and” be the change you want to see”. Now to some degree this is difficult. Carrying a debit card around is easier the carrying cash. Carrying cash around is easier than carrying gold. We often need a checking account for our job and most things today require a credit card. However, there are not for profit banks they are called credit unions. As a depositor in a credit union you are an investor in it and have a say in the organization in proportion to what you invest.

“In the credit union context, "not-for-profit" should not be confused with "non-profit" charities or similar organizations.[20] Credit unions are "not-for-profit" because they operate to serve their members rather than to maximize profits.[21][22][23] But unlike non-profit organizations, credit unions do not rely on donations, and are financial institutions that must turn what is, in economic terms, a small profit (i.e. "surplus") to be able to continue to serve their members.[24][25] According to WOCCU, a credit union's revenues (from loans and investments) need to exceed its operating expenses and dividends (interest paid on deposits) in order to maintain capital and solvency[26] and "credit unions use excess earnings to offer members more affordable loans, a higher return on savings, lower fees or new products and services".[citation needed]”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_union


Now if you don’t like the business practices of a particular credit Union consider organizing a new one.

 

[WhoWee]

By "a free service to the community", I don't necessarily rule out some measure of interest on loans to fund wages and salaries etc, but that banks' operations should no longer be run for profit, with strict limits on how much capital can be employed to provide mortgages etc and loans and long-term investments to business to boost the economy. Any surplus revenue could then go to the government, rather than into the pockets of shareholders or greedy, self-serving staff by way of massive bonuses. We have already seen how gambling for a quick profit in company capital led to the dreadful Wall Street Crash and the Great Depression of the 30's, as well as the recent credit squeeze which resulted from the debacle caused by excessive lending by banks for profit, which could not be sustained, in the sub-prime mortgage market.

I see no reason why banks should not be run as a reliable, dependable service to the community with no profit motive involved, their operatives accountable to the state and hence the taxpayer, with strict rules to prevent high risk initiatives, which can so easily lead to disaster for the wider economy, as millions of jobs are lost and all that such a scenario means to the quality of life of all who are affected.

I appreciate such a radical change to the system would require worldwide consensus, but I am convinced the benefits to trade and industry and everyone's quality of life would be substantial and ongoing.

How would business expansion be funded?

 

[JonDE]

Well, it is an admirable to want a better banking system worldwide may I suggest doing as Gaundi said and” be the change you want to see”. Now to some degree this is difficult. Carrying a debit card around is easier the carrying cash. Carrying cash around is easier than carrying gold. We often need a checking account for our job and most things today require a credit card. However, there are not for profit banks they are called credit unions. As a depositor in a credit union you are an investor in it and have a say in the organization in proportion to what you invest.

“In the credit union context, "not-for-profit" should not be confused with "non-profit" charities or similar organizations.[20] Credit unions are "not-for-profit" because they operate to serve their members rather than to maximize profits.[21][22][23] But unlike non-profit organizations, credit unions do not rely on donations, and are financial institutions that must turn what is, in economic terms, a small profit (i.e. "surplus") to be able to continue to serve their members.[24][25] According to WOCCU, a credit union's revenues (from loans and investments) need to exceed its operating expenses and dividends (interest paid on deposits) in order to maintain capital and solvency[26] and "credit unions use excess earnings to offer members more affordable loans, a higher return on savings, lower fees or new products and services".[citation needed]”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_union


Now if you don’t like the business practices of a particular credit Union consider organizing a new one.

^ This

Credit Unions. I love them.
I don't want the banks to be run by the government, as the OP has been suggesting. Credit Unions are perfectly fine with me. Personally I believe that if every person and every company switched to using credit unions, the economy would be much better off in the long run. They aren't perfect, I know this. It will also not solve the boom and bust cycle of the economy, but it would be a start.