>
> (email exchange)
>
> The following houses have lowered Q1 GDP:
>
> BAC, GS, Barclays, Noumura, DB, MS… most to just above 2% (2.1% for GS from 2.3%) or
> just below ( Nomura 1.9% from 2.1%). Barclays lowered their estimates by a full 0.4%
> to 2% flat.
>
Copyright 2024 © Valance Co., Inc. All rights Reserved.
Hi Warren,
MMT-OWS unity!
We would love to have in late June at Occupy Dallas.
We are going to begin petitioning the city/county for the removal of public funds from TBTF institutions.
We could use your expertise.
Thanks,
Charles
Occupy Dallas Bank Action
looking at being there June 23 for a few hours if that works?
Also, removing public funds from any bank is pointless.
Those funds don’t help the bank.
Nor are the banks actually too big to fail.
Failure means the stock holders and other uninsured creditors lose all when the banks capital goes negative.
Nothing ever stops the FDIC from doing that.
And the FDIC is then free to replace management as well.
My proposal is along the lines where a bank has to apply to grow,
and the criteria would be lower fees and lower rates for borrowers due to economies of scale.
😉
@WARREN MOSLER,
which remains me–i’m kinda curious as to how you would respond to this proposal from your good friend, Roger Mitchell:
http://mikenormaneconomics.blogspot.com/2012/03/roger-mitchell-on-bank-nationalization.html
“Free Banking” would mean anyone could create at currency currency and an entire competing financial system if they so desire.
The “privatize banking” crowd does not want “free banking” they simply want a monopoly in banking for the chosen few mega-banks, backed by the taxpayers, and protected by paid off government officials.
I think I’m ok with free banking if that’s how it’s defined. the umkc buckaroo would be free banking, and seems to me it’s a good thing
I’ll stick with my banking proposals
http://moslereconomics.com/?p=8968
@WARREN MOSLER,
“…and the criteria would be lower fees and lower rates for borrowers due to economies of scale.”
Sacrilege! 🙂
@Charles Hayden,
Do you support unwinding the Big 4?
@Charles Hayden,
See, we need your expertise.
June 23rd is great.
good, will work around it.
I’d have to identify specific public purpose in doing that.
and with my ‘narrow banking’ proposals they wouldn’t be allowed to do all that much so i suspect the issue would go away
http://moslereconomics.com/?p=8968
@WARREN MOSLER,
I just think of Bill Black…..”cheaters go in a different category.”
@Charles Hayden,
I thought deposits were a source of funds for the settlement process?
Bill Mitchell: The role of bank deposits in MMT
http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=14620
“Deposits do not fund loans. But they are one source of funds that the bank has available to ensure that its role in the settlement process is not compromised which would require borrowing from the central bank.”
@Charles Hayden,
I think understand. Local government deposits do not form a consistent deposit base. And if reserves are needed they can be borrowed off the interbank market.
I’m think we should push for a responsible banking ordinance, like the one recently passed by Seattle, calling for the city to “examine banking and investment practices, home-foreclosure patterns, and the financing of local elections.”
What do you think?
have a read of this, thanks
http://moslereconomics.com/?p=8968
@WARREN MOSLER,
I’ve probably read it a dozen times; each time it makes more sense.
good to hear that!
if a bank makes a loan which creates a deposit, and that deposit stays with your bank, the banks balance in its fed reserve account doesn’t change, even though its deposits went up
@WARREN MOSLER,
Our revised petition:
“We, the Residents of the City of Dallas, demand that the City Council examine the banking, lending, and investment practices of financial institutions utilized by the City for the management of public funds. In addition, we demand an examination of their home-foreclosure practices and their political contributions to our local elections. Furthermore, we have lost confidence in so called Too-Big-Too-Fail banks, such as Bank of America, J.P. Morgan-Chase, Wells Fargo, Citibank, Morgan Stanley, and Goldman Sachs, and we demand the establishment of a financial reform committee to examine ways that the City can avoid using the financial services of these institutions.”
better, but how about a committee to determine if public purpose is served by allowing those particular large banks?
@Charles Hayden,
yeah, but that’s federal level….
we want our local government to step up…do what it can to put pressure on Congress to act.
OD began with a march on the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas.
Now, we can’t take credit for the recent progress of their enlightenment, but we can damn sure can say that we speak truth to power.
what does the dallas fed actually do apart from maybe clearing checks and funding ‘research’?
@Charles Hayden,
Well they were advocates of hard money and self-regulation.
ok, i agree they talk a lot, but have very little ability, if any, to actually do anything more than talk
Great Research!
OT
http://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/Pages/tg1523.aspx
We now have a “profit” of $18 billion on TARP. When does the Treasury issue dividend checks to the taxpayers???
@Newbie,
🙂 best laugh all day;
our dividend is the good work done by all our Congresspeople who “saved” the economy by obtaining that currency for the Treasury to use
gotta stop, or I’ll talk myself outta that laugh