Support NeoGAF

[Canova]

... What is going on with Greece now? Is it the nation being bankrupt, or did something else happen while I wasn't watching.

Greece has new sugar daddy, China.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/08/AR2010060805312.html

(China to buy Greece's debt)
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE69112L20101002


well China is everyone's sugar daddy nowadays

 

[demosthenes]

I love how people are "What's the point of protesting?" and "Nothing ever good happens from these". Unlike countries like America, France's government is generally "afraid" of it's citizens and not the other way around. Citizens don't like something, they strike, the government then compromises or accomodates for the citizens. Isn't that what democracy should be like?

From earlier:

“When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.”

 

[fortified_concept]

I don't work for a bank, but my mom does. The fact that you think they perform nothing for society is laughable. Perhaps you're mistaking banks with investment banks? But if you really think banks, all banks are parasites then you're just...I don't even know what to call you.

I also know people that work in banks that doesn't mean anything. They're still fucking leeches that offer nothing to society. Their "services" could easily be replaced by a non-profit possibly democratic organization.

I can't comment on French weapons dealers. However the defense budget for all nations will always remain at some minimum even in peaceful times. You can't just flip a switch, technology has to be updated, nuclear bombs need to be protected and updated.

That became the standard somewhere during the 20th century. This kind of retarded tactic of stockpiling enormous amounts of weapons even during peaceful times wasn't a standard before. I don't give a flying fuck about that standard. I want that standard to suffer a painful death.

And the bold, I believe you're French (correct me if I'm wrong). Can you give me numbers that back this up?

What do you think of this logic:

System A (Retirement) was setup years ago for Demographic A (The people, noting life expectancy and money needed for healthy standard of living). However Demographic A has changed to Demographic B (life expectancy has increased and cost of living has increased). System A isn't fit to handle the loads of Demographic B. Thus it needs to be altered.

I have to leave now but my argument can easily be backed simply by looking at the numbers of just the two examples I mentioned: Profits of the fucking banks and expenses on defense budget. Also regarding your logic. System A was setup years ago for Demographic A. Demographic A changed to Demographic B not just regarding life expectancy but also productivity. Which means that the increase on productivity could probably sustain the change in life expectancy. We can't know because the financial system is fucked up and until it sorts itself out I won't agree with the stripping of the rights of the middle class.

 

[demosthenes]

I also know people that work in banks that doesn't mean anything. They're still fucking leeches that offer nothing to society. Their "services" could easily be replaced by a non-profit possibly democratic organization.

That became the standard somewhere during the 20th century. This kind of retarded tactic of stockpiling enormous amounts of weapons even during peaceful times wasn't a standard before. I don't give a flying fuck about that standard. I want that standard to suffer a painful death.

I have to leave now but my argument can easily be backed simply by looking at the numbers of just the two examples I mentioned: Profits of the fucking banks and expenses on defense budget. Also regarding your logic. System A was setup years ago for Demographic A. Demographic A changed to Demographic B not just regarding life expectancy but also productivity. Which means that the increase on productivity could probably sustain the change in life expectancy. We can't know because the financial system is fucked up and until it sorts itself out I won't agree with the stripping of the rights of the middle class.

Everything could be replaced by a non-profit, but oh wait, we'd be in communism then. Which will eventually fall flat on it's face. What's the point to do anything, why should person a work harder than person b? Society becomes stagnant. A democratic organization...I don't even know what you're trying to say here. I'd love it if people could settle for less but that's not the world we live in and you're not going to change it.

Standard before what? When was Europe ever peaceful? Can you name a 50 year time period where there hasn't been some type of war in the past 400 years? They've always had a standing army b/c they've always had wars/fights to fight. Why should now be any different?

You say your ideas can easily be backed up but don't give numbers. And I still have no idea what the hell you're talking about w/ productivity when at the end of the day it comes down to money.

 

[Cyan]

I also know people that work in banks that doesn't mean anything. They're still fucking leeches that offer nothing to society. Their "services" could easily be replaced by a non-profit possibly democratic organization.

You talking about credit unions?

 

[Monroeski]

I also know people that work in banks that doesn't mean anything. They're still fucking leeches that offer nothing to society. Their "services" could easily be replaced by a non-profit possibly democratic organization.

If they offer nothing to society as you say, why would you bother replacing them with a non-profit?

Spoiler

And why am I responding to the obvious troll?

 

[Zenith]

Everything could be replaced by a non-profit, but oh wait, we'd be in communism then.

Don't put it past him. He used the word "bourgeois" in an un-ironic manner.

 

[2San]

Greece has new sugar daddy, China.

well China is everyone's sugar daddy nowadays

China isn't really a sugar daddy though. They expect something in return. I'm not implying that they are doing anything bad though, just good business.

 

[Evlar]

“When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.”

Love the presumption that people couldn't figure that out hundreds of years ago.

 

[fortified_concept]

Everything could be replaced by a non-profit, but oh wait, we'd be in communism then. Which will eventually fall flat on it's face. What's the point to do anything, why should person a work harder than person b? Society becomes stagnant. A democratic organization...I don't even know what you're trying to say here. I'd love it if people could settle for less but that's not the world we live in and you're not going to change it.

The banking system is basically a monopoly and it decides where money should be invested, where the wealth the workers of a society aka the majority create should be spent. That is a decision for society to make not authoritarian greedy organizations. Thta's why it should be a democratic organization.

If they offer nothing to society as you say, why would you bother replacing them with a non-profit?

Spoiler

And why am I responding to the obvious troll?

Uhhhh like I said the service the provide is basically decide how the wealth will be distributed. They offer nothing to society because they have failed again and again on that task and they keep a huge portion of that money for themselves.

 

[ezrarh]

China isn't really a sugar daddy though. They expect something in return. I'm not implying that they are doing anything bad though, just good business.

Sugar daddies expect some ass fucking from time to time. I'm sure China expects the same.

 

[fortified_concept]

You say your ideas can easily be backed up but don't give numbers. And I still have no idea what the hell you're talking about w/ productivity when at the end of the day it comes down to money.

One bank in France, BNP, made 2 billion in profits in one quarter. That's 8 billion profit in one year. Their military expenditures are 67 billion. The pension deficit is 10 billion iirc. I didn't think it deserved to even mention numbers because with just two simple examples the problem is more than solved. And let me clear, these are just two examples. There are a fuckton more I don't even have to mention. It's that easy to solve this "problem".

China isn't really a sugar daddy though. They expect something in return. I'm not implying that they are doing anything bad though, just good business.

Of course they're our sugar daddy. They're gonna fuck us in return.

edit: damn you ezrarh, just saw your post when I posted :lol

Don't put it past him. He used the word "bourgeois" in an un-ironic manner.

Jesus, I keep refuting your bullshit, you disappear for a while and then you come back with more ad hominems and bullshit. Don't you have any dignity, it has already happened twice in this thread. You're not even trying to participate in the discussion, you just post to troll me. It's sad.

 

[Ripclawe]

So what you're saying is you don't understand a thing about what the people are in the street for! Interesting...

The overall gist of the protests are people wanting the government to keep being their mommy and daddy, that is the basis of most strikes in France in the last decade.

Many workers feel the change would be a first step in eroding France's social benefits — which include long vacations, contracts that make it hard for employers to lay off workers and a state-subsidized health care system — in favor of "American-style capitalism."

 

[fortified_concept]

The overall gist of the protests are people wanting the government to keep being their mommy and daddy, that is the basis of most strikes in France in the last decade.

They want their mommy and daddy because they want to keep their excellent social services safe from the disgusting prick? Gee, why can't more countries be like USA where you have to spend 6700$ for three stitches or 200,000-400,000$ to have college education? I think it's obvious who's the sucker in this situation.

 

[Mistouze]

The overall gist of the protests are people wanting the government to keep being their mommy and daddy, that is the basis of most strikes in France in the last decade.

The overall gist of the protests is that Sarkozy has been raping our republic since he was elected. The reform was really just the straw that broke the camel's back.

 

[Mael]

The overall gist of the protests are people wanting the government to keep being their mommy and daddy, that is the basis of most strikes in France in the last decade.

Keep telling yourself that :lol
Gotta love people with such a simplistic view on life, I guess you're one of these people that consider hobos as good for nothing leeches that should be shot on sight by default.
If you don't understand how a system works, your view on it is less than worthless.

One bank in France, BNP, made 2 billion in profits in one quarter. That's 8 billion profit in one year. Their military expenditures are 67 billion. The pension deficit is 10 billion iirc. I didn't think it deserved to even mention numbers because with just two simple examples the problem is more than solved. And let me clear, these are just two examples. There are a fuckton more I don't even have to mention. It's that easy to solve this "problem".

WTF has that got to do with anything?
You're saying take the bank's money to fund retirement?
Why not L'Oreal, Dassault, Alstom or another company?
Why punish a bank that did good business in 1 year for something they have nothing to do with?
You can find money pratcially everywhere, the problem is not that.
The problem is that if you take it from something to fund something else you're not doing a very good job managing your money.
there's countless examples like that, we got a tax for cars that was supposed to be used for the war veterans or something (we called that the 'vignette automobile') and it ended up funding the healthcare system which proved inefficient and unfair.
And what happens when the bank fail one year and have massive loses? we tell retired people to take a hike and beg on the street?
I mean we're talking about banks that could be as mismanaged as SocGen here!!

 

[fortified_concept]

WTF has that got to do with anything?
You're saying take the bank's money to fund retirement?
Why not L'Oreal, Dassault, Alstom or another company?
Why punish a bank that did good business in 1 year for something they have nothing to do with?
You can find money pratcially everywhere, the problem is not that.
The problem is that if you take it from something to fund something else you're not doing a very good job managing your money.
there's countless examples like that, we got a tax for cars that was supposed to be used for the war veterans or something (we called that the 'vignette automobile') and it ended up funding the healthcare system which proved inefficient and unfair.
And what happens when the bank fail one year and have massive loses? we tell retired people to take a hike and beg on the street?
I mean we're talking about banks that could be as mismanaged as SocGen here!!

Because he asked me to give numbers about my examples. I mentioned just one bank to show how huge the profits of the banks are and why they should be taxed more. If a bank fails one year which rarely happens because they suck the blood of the workers dry each and every year we will pay for it either way like europeans did a year ago to bail the fuckers out (and they used that money to lend our countries money with interest after we had given it to them without interest). Also read my other posts if you want a further analysis on why I hate banks and why they're the leeches of society.

Btw: French Interior Minister: We will not let the thugs go unpunished. Glad to know Sarkozy isn't the only disgusting fuck in the government.

 

[itxaka]

Everything could be replaced by a non-profit, but oh wait, we'd be in communism then. Which will eventually fall flat on it's face. What's the point to do anything, why should person a work harder than person b? Society becomes stagnant. A democratic organization...I don't even know what you're trying to say here. I'd love it if people could settle for less but that's not the world we live in and you're not going to change it.

wat.

Socialism != communism

Some of you are really fearful of anything not for profit. Like it will eat your children or something like that :lol

 

[Shanadeus]

wat.

Socialism != communism

Some of you are really fearful of anything not for profit. Like it will eat your children or something like that :lol

If people aren't acting out of their own egoism and desire to make money then it's commiefaschistnazi nonsense to them.

 

[Magni]

Btw: French Interior Minister: We will not let the thugs go unpunished. Glad to know Sarkozy isn't the only disgusting fuck in the government.

Wait, so an interior minister who is going after thugs who have burned down schools and looted shops, ie, doing his job, is a "disgusting fuck" now?

And you wonder why I :lol :lol :lol every time you post?

 

[Shanadeus]

Wait, so an interior minister who is going after thugs who have burned down schools and looted shops, ie, doing his job, is a "disgusting fuck" now?

And you wonder why I :lol :lol :lol every time you post?

I think the minister is referring to everyone partaking in this protest as "thugs":

"The current situation cannot continue without serious consequences for our life as a society and our economy but also for the health and safety of our citizens," AFP quoted Hortefeux as saying in a press conference on Wednesday.

The French official made the comments on the ongoing strikes and protests that have crippled much of the oil refineries in the country and disrupted commuting systems.

"We will continue to unblock these depots as much as necessary," he further explained.

"We will not let the country be blockaded and we will not let the thugs go unpunished," he added, referring to those arrested in street protests.

Just because you've been arrested for street protests it doesn't mean that you're a "thug", which is why he's a disgrace to the country.

 

[Magni]

I think the minister is referring to everyone partaking in this protest as "thugs":



Just because you've been arrested for street protests it doesn't mean that you're a "thug", which is why he's a disgrace to the country.

He is talking about those who have burned down schools and other acts of vandalism. He is doing his job. As for those who are blocking the refineries and all, that is a crime in France, so even though they aren't thugs, they still deserve to meet the police.

He is NOT referring to the "normal "protesters.

 

[fortified_concept]

Wait, so an interior minister who is going after thugs who have burned down schools and looted shops, ie, doing his job, is a "disgusting fuck" now?

And you wonder why I :lol :lol :lol every time you post?

You just read the title, didn't you?

 

[Magni]

You just read the title, didn't you?

I read the French quote, you know, the original.

 

[fortified_concept]

I read the French quote, you know, the original.

So the english translation is wrong? He didn't actually say this: "We will not let the country be blockaded and we will not let the thugs go unpunished"?

 

[Shanadeus]

He is talking about those who have burned down schools and other acts of vandalism. He is doing his job. As for those who are blocking the refineries and all, that is a crime in France, so even though they aren't thugs, they still deserve to meet the police.

He is NOT referring to the "normal "protesters.

It sounds like he is considering your everyday anti-government protester to be a thug because their behavior (to strike and cause blocks) is thuggish:

The French official made the comments on the ongoing strikes and protests that have crippled much of the oil refineries in the country and disrupted commuting systems.

"We will continue to unblock these depots as much as necessary," he further explained.

"We will not let the country be blockaded and we will not let the thugs go unpunished," he added, referring to those arrested in street protests.

Maybe it's like you say and he's just referring to those who has been burning down cars and buildings, but it's ambiguous enough to make it sound like he considers everyone to be a thug.

 

[Magni]

Dans la matinée, le ministre de l'Intérieur s'en était pris aux "voyous qui se greffent" sur les manifestations lycéennes contre le projet de réforme des retraites. "Nous ne les laisserons pas impunis", a-t-il prévenu.

He is talking about the thugs who join the protests to break havoc all over, in Lyon in this case:

http://www.lefigaro.fr/flash-actu/2...sseurs-a-lyon-hortefeux-se-rend-sur-place.php

 

[Kurtofan]

Btw: French Interior Minister: We will not let the thugs go unpunished. Glad to know Sarkozy isn't the only disgusting fuck in the government.

I don't defend the government but "thugs" refers to the assholes who destroy everything not the real protesters.

 

[delirium]

They want their mommy and daddy because they want to keep their excellent social services safe from the disgusting prick? Gee, why can't more countries be like USA where you have to spend 6700$ for three stitches or 200,000-400,000$ to have college education? I think it's obvious who's the sucker in this situation.

What? Where are you getting this information? I didn't spent a 10th of that for mine and I don't know many people that do. Of course you could if you go to a private university, but there are just as many universities that aren't that expensive and offer the same quality of education.

 

[fortified_concept]

He is talking about the thugs who join the protests to break havoc all over, in Lyon in this case:

http://www.lefigaro.fr/medias/2010/10/20/20101020PHOWWW00100.jpg[

[url]http://www.lefigaro.fr/flash-actu/2010/10/20/97001-20101020FILWWW00395-casseurs-a-lyon-hortefeux-se-rend-sur-place.php[/url][/QUOTE]

So did they fuck up the translation or not? And if they did why do you put words in my mouth when it's obvious that it was the article's fuckup?

Btw another link quoting the exact same phrase in the exact same context. [B][url]http://www.news24.com/World/News/French-cops-break-blockades-20101020[/url][/B]:

[QUOTE]"The current situation cannot continue without serious consequences for our life as a society and our economy but also for the health and safety of our citizens," Hortefeux told a news conference on Wednesday.

"We will continue to unblock these depots as much as necessary," Hortefeux said. "We will not let the country be blockaded and we will not let the thugs go unpunished," he added, referring to those arrested in street riots.[/QUOTE]

Further down he seems to be calling the youth who are participating in clashes with the police thugs too. It seems that he's using the word a lot.

 

[SmokyDave]

Is it not obvious that amongst the legitimate protesters, there were thugs just there to smash everything up?

It was widely reported that bands of unemployed people (I'll avoid the phrase immigrants because I felt it was speculative of the media) had joined the protest and were amongst those burning building and smashing shit up.

Those people are thugs and should be dealt with to the fullest extent the law allows.

Further down he seems to be calling the youth who are participating in clashes with the police thugs too. It seems that he's using the word a lot.

Could've been worse, he could've said 'racaille'.

 

[fortified_concept]

Is it not obvious that amongst the legitimate protesters, there were thugs just there to smash everything up?

It was widely reported that bands of unemployed people (I'll avoid the phrase immigrants because I felt it was speculative of the media) had joined the protest and were amongst those burning building and smashing shit up.

Those people are thugs and should be dealt with to the fullest extent the law allows.

That's not the context of what he was saying though, at least as far as English written articles are concerned. He was speaking about the protesters who participate in blockades and immediately after he says that the thugs won't go unpunished. My obvious assumption is that he's talking about regular protesters, I don't understand why people think he talks specifically about troublemakers.

 

[Mael]

Because he asked me to give numbers about my examples. I mentioned just one bank to show how huge the profits of the banks are and why they should be taxed more. If a bank fails one year which rarely happens because they suck the blood of the workers dry each and every year we will pay for it either way like europeans did a year ago to bail the fuckers out (and they used that money to lend our countries money with interest after we had given it to them without interest). Also read my other posts if you want a further analysis on why I hate banks and why they're the leeches of society.

Newsflash : it's not the XIXth century anymore.
Banks are not what was described by Zola in Germinal or something anymore.
They're absolutely vital for any company to function unless they're so fucking huge that they've got their own bank.
Heck you probably don't even know that some pretty big bank were actually founded to provide funding to smaller business because the big old ones wouldn't play ball.
Heck they make a nice hefty profit for a reason, I see nobody complaining over P&G making a killing by providing products people actually want.
If banks are such blood sucking monsters as you describe, then basically any company out there IS a blood sucking monster preying on the poor workerforce.
If people actually elected responsible officials we wouldn't be asking money to give our state budget money that we had to pay back.
When you see that they're actually spending more money than what they're actually getting from their resources it stand to reason someone provide the money they don't have.
And as they say it doesn't grow on trees.
If you're unhappy on how France requires banks to lend it money, blame the oil crisis of 75 and the governments that followed then. The banks provided the funds, it's not their faults that the states were unable to have a ballanced budget.

Btw: French Interior Minister: We will not let the thugs go unpunished. Glad to know Sarkozy isn't the only disgusting fuck in the government.

1) It's Hortefeu, what did you expect?
2) he's referring to dumb fucks that burn shops, schools and co to the ground
3) he's actually doing his job
4) even if you hate him and his policy you can't deny that he can't let public and private properties go up in flames while idly doing nothing.

 

[fortified_concept]

Newsflash : it's not the XIXth century anymore.
Banks are not what was described by Zola in Germinal or something anymore.
They're absolutely vital for any company to function unless they're so fucking huge that they've got their own bank.
Heck you probably don't even know that some pretty big bank were actually founded to provide funding to smaller business because the big old ones wouldn't play ball.
Heck they make a nice hefty profit for a reason, I see nobody complaining over P&G making a killing by providing products people actually want.
If banks are such blood sucking monsters as you describe, then basically any company out there IS a blood sucking monster preying on the poor workerforce.
If people actually elected responsible officials we wouldn't be asking money to give our state budget money that we had to pay back.
When you see that they're actually spending more money than what they're actually getting from their resources it stand to reason someone provide the money they don't have.
And as they say it doesn't grow on trees.
If you're unhappy on how France requires banks to lend it money, blame the oil crisis of 75 and the governments that followed then. The banks provided the funds, it's not their faults that the states were unable to have a ballanced budget.

I have already replied to all this so I just slightly edited my previous posts to reply:

The banking system is basically a monopoly and it decides where the wealth the workers of a society aka the majority create should be invested. That's the service they provide and that is a decision for society to make not authoritarian greedy organizations. That's why they should be democratic organizations.

Like I said the service they provide is basically decide how the wealth should be distributed/invested. They offer nothing to society because they have failed again and again on that task and they keep a huge portion of that money for themselves.

 

[McBacon]

LOL, unions.

Have you ever noticed that only one letter differentiates onions and unions

 

[Mael]

The banking system is basically a monopoly and it decides where the wealth the workers of a society aka the majority create should be invested. That's the service they provide and that is a decision for society to make not authoritarian greedy organizations. That's why they should be democratic organizations.

Like I said the service they provide is basically decide how the wealth should be distributed/invested. They offer nothing to society because they have failed again and again on that task and they keep a huge portion of that money for themselves.

Nothing is stopping anyone from starting a bank that could do just that....wait a minute that's what people DID/DO!!

To you a bank may be a nebulous exterior entity that invests based on greed and all, but in real life there's real banks that actually invests in business based on sector and profitability of the venture (because no one want to invests in a crappy business that will fail and lose money for everyone).
In short, you're talking nonsense with no knowledge of how and why a bank invest in a business or not.
And they don't even have any monopoly on investment! That's the most laughable part of your argument.
If you build a business tomorow, you're not limited to banks to raise your money. there's angel investors, family, banks and so on.
And I pretty much doubt that you're using the economic definition of monopoly in your argument.


About the quote from hortefeu, I can't find it on lemonde so I'll seek afterward but I can pretty much guarranty it's a misquote if it looks like he's equating all protesters with thugs.

 

[fortified_concept]

Nothing is stopping anyone from starting a bank that could do just that....wait a minute that's what people DID/DO!!

To you a bank may be a nebulous exterior entity that invests based on greed and all, but in real life there's real banks that actually invests in business based on sector and profitability of the venture (because no one want to invests in a crappy business that will fail and lose money for everyone).
In short, you're talking nonsense with no knowledge of how and why a bank invest in a business or not.
And they don't even have any monopoly on investment! That's the most laughable part of your argument.
If you build a business tomorow, you're not limited to banks to raise your money. there's angel investors, family, banks and so on.
And I pretty much doubt that you're using the economic definition of monopoly in your argument.


About the quote from hortefeu, I can't find it on lemonde so I'll seek afterward but I can pretty much guarranty it's a misquote if it looks like he's equating all protesters with thugs.

Of course I know why a bank invests in a business or person. They check their financial statements and make a decision on whether to invest in that entity (and when I say "invest" that includes regular lending because that too in a form of investment) in theory. In reality and because they're greedy fucks they invest on derivatives, they invest on investments that had been invested previously and repackaged to be re-re-re-invested, they create endless pyramid schemes that collapse each and every time and they basically have turned the market into a big casino.

The monopoly comment was about how the central banks are basically the ones that decide the interest rates thus making competition non-existent. They all pretty much offer the same in different packages.

And again the decision on where the wealth society creates should be left to society not greedy authoritarian organizations that have failed society so many fucking times for their own gain. Banks should be non-profit democratic organizations because it's the society's money and the private ones seem to have zero accountability to society, just their big fat owners who are more than willing to sacrifice stability in the long run for short-term profit.

 

[badcrumble]

Legitimate protesters should oppose the folks that go around smashing up cars and store windows because they make it far, far easier for the government to discredit their entire cause. Look at the bullshit that the stupid Black Bloc pulled in Toronto this summer.

 

[Mael]

Of course I know why a bank invests in a business or person. They check their financial statements and make a decision on whether to invest in that entity (and when I say "invest" that includes regular lending because that too in a form of investment) in theory.

No that's in reality too, there would be NO business at all if that wasn't the case.
That's even how small company survive the first few years!
And again if you find that system to not work, go outside and make a bank that work that way.
That's exactly how some banks were made in the first place!!
Small businesses pooling their money together so that they could raise money more easily and putting a structure on top of it and calling it a bank!
Heck if banks weren't lending money to businesses there wouldn't even be bakeries and small businesses at all inthis day & age.

I'm not talking about hypothetical either.
That's even how someone actually won a fucking Nobel prize!
remember the micro lending in some poor part of India?
That's the kind of things you can do right now if you don't want your money in the hands of greedy evil banks.
The good thing with actual capitalism is that if something doesn't suit you, there's always the opportunity to change that

Spoiler

it may require hard work

.

 

[Mael]

Closest I could find on LeMonde

So yeah, as expected misquote is incredibly likely.

 

[fortified_concept]

No that's in reality too, there would be NO business at all if that wasn't the case.
That's even how small company survive the first few years!
And again if you find that system to not work, go outside and make a bank that work that way.
That's exactly how some banks were made in the first place!!
Small businesses pooling their money together so that they could raise money more easily and putting a structure on top of it and calling it a bank!
Heck if banks weren't lending money to businesses there wouldn't even be bakeries and small businesses at all inthis day & age.

I'm not talking about hypothetical either.
That's even how someone actually won a fucking Nobel prize!
remember the micro lending in some poor part of India?
That's the kind of things you can do right now if you don't want your money in the hands of greedy evil banks.
The good thing with actual capitalism is that if something doesn't suit you, there's always the opportunity to change that

Spoiler

it may require hard work

.

Yet things instead of getting better they're getting worse. That's capitalism for you, since the greedy system of the banks is slowly taking over even in Europe and capitalism evolves to corporatism like it always does.

And btw you're still missing the point. When someone wants to create something he's asking from society to focus some of its resources on his project, that's what he does basically when he asks for a loan or money to be invested on his project. That's why it should be society's decision and not some greedy private organization's because it's society that actually helps him not a fucking bank. The banks have zero resources to physically create anything and contribute to society they just make a decision where the resources and wealth of society should be focused.

 

[SmokyDave]

And again the decision on where the wealth society creates should be left to society not greedy authoritarian organizations that have failed society so many fucking times for their own gain. Banks should be non-profit democratic organizations because it's the society's money and the private ones seem to have zero accountability to society, just their big fat owners who are more than willing to sacrifice stability in the long run for short-term profit.

I can only see two outcomes from this.

A; Society collapses, paralysed by inaction, squabbling and infighting.

B; Certain members of society prove far better at this than others, power is ceded to those 'experts' who then become just as corrupt as their forebears as they are in control of the money supply and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

So basically, we're stuck with this shit until someone comes up with an actual, viable, alternative. I agree that banks ought to be non-profit but I can't see it ever happening.

 

[Mael]

Yet things instead of getting better they're getting worse. That's capitalism for you, since the greedy system of the banks is slowly taking over even in Europe and capitalism evolves to corporatism like it always does.

And communism actually evolve into something closer to stalinism?
Give me a break when we do get to be in a capitalism system with a free market and all that it'll indeed work out.

And btw you're still missing the point. When someone wants to create something he's asking from society to focus some of its resources on his project, that's what he does basically when he asks for a loan or money to be invested on his project. That's why it should be society's decision and not some greedy private organization's because it's society that actually helps him not a fucking bank. The banks have zero resources to physically create anything and contribute to society they just make a decision where the resources and wealth of society should be focused.

I'm missing nothing, you're the one that keep insisting that the only way to make anything is to ask the nameless entities called bank to provide financial resources.
I repeat, it's NOT mandatory to raise money via banks, there's private investors and others.
If you're not happy that you need to get funding via a bank, pool your money together with other workers or something and make your own structure to raise funds.
you're just spewing empty rethoric at this point.
I mean angel investors REALLY does exists

 

[fortified_concept]

And communism actually evolve into something closer to stalinism?
Give me a break when we do get to be in a capitalism system with a free market and all that it'll indeed work out.

already been answered too:

wat.

Socialism != communism

Some of you are really fearful of anything not for profit. Like it will eat your children or something like that :lol

I'm missing nothing, you're the one that keep insisting that the only way to make anything is to ask the nameless entities called bank to provide financial resources.
I repeat, it's NOT mandatory to raise money via banks, there's private investors and others.
If you're not happy that you need to get funding via a bank, pool your money together with other workers or something and make your own structure to raise funds.
you're just spewing empty rethoric at this point.
I mean angel investors REALLY does exists

I'm explaining to you why private banks shouldn't exist and you're talking about other options that a) are a rarity and b) have nothing to do with the banking system which I specifically talk about and have a problem with. I don't give a crap about the other options, I don't have a problem with them, I have a problem with the authoritarian banking system that makes decisions for the rest of society and constantly screws up. Yeah, you keep missing the point, reread my previous post or something I can't make it any more simple than that.

 

[Mael]

already been answered too:

the fuck! I'm leaving in a bloody socialist country according to your crazy yankee's standards!
Even then Corporatism =/= Capitalism, at least the worthwhile part of Capitalism.

I'm explaining to you why private banks shouldn't exist and you're talking about other options that a) are a rarity and b) have nothing to do with the banking system which I specifically talk about and have a problem with. I don't give a crap about the other options, I don't have a problem with them, I have a problem with the authoritarian banking system that makes decisions for the rest of society and constantly screws up. Yeah, you keep missing the point, reread my previous post or something I can't make it any more simple than that.

With that I'm done with you, I'm not exactly willing to talk to a wall that much.
Angel investors are not a rarity, that's why they make a network of that type of investors.
You're talking about investing and completely miss the point that banks are the only game in town playing that game.
You're basically in restaurant spouting that the cook is fucking awful and you shouldn't have to suffer his food.
I point to you to other forms of sustainment and how you can actually open your own fucking restaurant and get a better cook if that bother you THAT much.
And you keep ignoring that you can actually pool your resources together and make a fine job of that.

seriously how hard is it to understand that a bank is mostly a pool where people put their money into?
You don't like what your bank do with your money?
Go pool your money with other people where you can have control of what they do with your money.
You used the example of BNP earlier, well if you don't like how BNP is speculating with your money, DON'T FUCKING USE THEM.
There's no bank that do a simple bank system of pooling money to lend it to people with interest and some without dealing in investments and the likes?
MAKE YOUR OWN!
Too much trouble?
People did it before and will do it again, your laziness is no excuse if you can't convince people that's a good idea.
It's absolutely infuriating how fucking clueless you can be and still spout about how banks are the evils of the world that should be controlled by the state (like that would end well).

And heck the whole paragraph about how it's for Society to decide what to invest and why, dear god that's a trainwreck in the making.
Because that actually means it's a political question and that needs to be controlled by politician (by its very definition). And we all know where political oriented investment will lead us....

 

[fortified_concept]

I can only see two outcomes from this.

A; Society collapses, paralysed by inaction, squabbling and infighting.

B; Certain members of society prove far better at this than others, power is ceded to those 'experts' who then become just as corrupt as their forebears as they are in control of the money supply and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

So basically, we're stuck with this shit until someone comes up with an actual, viable, alternative. I agree that banks ought to be non-profit but I can't see it ever happening.

c) Banks are democratic non-profit organizations whose executives are directly voted by the people. I don't believe that governments should be in charge of the banking system either because it's a system as important as the government but if it comes down to a choice between the greedy pricks and government I'll choose government every time. And before you say it, yeah, I'm willing to sacrifice some productivity for stability and democratic process. Afterall the productivity lost with the constant recessions, mini recessions and bubbles bursting every decade nulify the productivity argument. I want a banking system that works for society not for the profits of the big investors.

 

[Mael]

c) Banks are democratic non-profit organizations whose executives are directly voted by the people. I don't believe that governments should be in charge of the banking system either because it's a system as important as the government but if it comes down to a choice between the greedy pricks and government I'll choose government every time. And before you say it, yeah, I'm willing to sacrifice some productivity for stability and democratic process. Afterall the productivity lost with the constant recessions, mini recessions and bubbles bursting every decade nulify the productivity argument. I want a banking system that works for society not for the profits of the big investors.

I bet nobody thought about that....

 

[SmokyDave]

c) Banks are democratic non-profit organizations whose executives are directly voted by the people. I don't believe that governments should be in charge of the banking system either because it's a system as important as the government but if it comes down to a choice between the greedy pricks and government I'll choose government every time. And before you say it, yeah, I'm willing to sacrifice some productivity for stability and democratic process. Afterall the productivity lost with the constant recessions, mini recessions and bubbles bursting every decade nulify the productivity argument. I want a banking system that works for society not for the profits of the big investors.

It's already been tried. UK Building Societies work on 'One Member - One Vote' and my bank is a Co-Operative.

The people at the top will always find a way to siphon off a little (which tends to be A LOT) for themselves. That's how they get to the top and that's how they stay there.

We need a totally new system but we also need the people that maintain control over the current system to loosen their grip. I can't imagine that being easy.

 

[fortified_concept]

the fuck! I'm leaving in a bloody socialist country according to your crazy yankee's standards!
Even then Corporatism =/= Capitalism, at least the worthwhile part of Capitalism.

You don't though. And of course capitalism isn't corporatism it just always evolves to that. I think I was clear about that.

With that I'm done with you, I'm not exactly willing to talk to a wall that much.
Angel investors are not a rarity, that's why they make a network of that type of investors.
You're talking about investing and completely miss the point that banks are the only game in town playing that game.
You're basically in restaurant spouting that the cook is fucking awful and you shouldn't have to suffer his food.
I point to you to other forms of sustainment and how you can actually open your own fucking restaurant and get a better cook if that bother you THAT much.
And you keep ignoring that you can actually pool your resources together and make a fine job of that.

seriously how hard is it to understand that a bank is mostly a pool where people put their money into?
You don't like what your bank do with your money?
Go pool your money with other people where you can have control of what they do with your money.
You used the example of BNP earlier, well if you don't like how BNP is speculating with your money, DON'T FUCKING USE THEM.
There's no bank that do a simple bank system of pooling money to lend it to people with interest and some without dealing in investments and the likes?
MAKE YOUR OWN!
Too much trouble?
People did it before and will do it again, your laziness is no excuse if you can't convince people that's a good idea.
It's absolutely infuriating how fucking clueless you can be and still spout about how banks are the evils of the world that should be controlled by the state (like that would end well).

And heck the whole paragraph about how it's for Society to decide what to invest and why, dear god that's a trainwreck in the making.
Because that actually means it's a political question and that needs to be controlled by politician (by its very definition). And we all know where political oriented investment will lead us...

I don't care about angel investors and it has nothing to do with the discussion. You just don't understand. This isn't about me or which are my choices, this has to do with the banking system and how it affects society as a whole. You don't understand how banks make money out of nothing creating inflation which affects everyone and you don't understand how they redirect resources of society not based on what's best for society but what makes the biggest short-term profit.

And we all know where political oriented investment will lead us...

If it leads you nowhere you'll have the choice to get rid off the leadership like you're gonna do with the prick. On the other hand the banks caused a worldwide economic collapse and they still have the same leadership using the same disgusting tactics giving millions in bonuses from your money.

 

[Canova]

Sugar daddies expect some ass fucking from time to time. I'm sure China expects the same.

:lol :lol

I couldn't have said any better