4 ms·

I would say the fact that banking is not something that is legally the authority of the federal government; even though states have seemingly acquiesced to thei

I would say the fact that banking is not something that is legally the authority of the federal government; even though states have seemingly acquiesced to their role and right eroding and being taken from them as the federal government persistently oversteps its bound and becomes ever more authoritarian. It’s something even most Americans don’t even understand anymore, let alone foreigners or immigrants; that the USA is technically by design 50 countries, in an economic and organizational block for limited purposes. The core, supreme law of the land, the Constitution is explicit that anything not explicitly delegated to the Federal government is the right of the state and the people. The vast majority of what the federal government claims rights over is not mentioned at all, let alone explicitly delegates to the federal government. Included in that, banks and regulation of banks. Unfortunately, the founders of America were not positively explicit enough about the sovereignty of the states, probably because they had no understanding of the consolidating forces that would be introduced through things like automobiles, planes, roads, electricity, telecommunications, and computers and the internet. The small banks thrived and why America’s banking sector was so “fragmented”, was by design, in hopes of preventing the very consolidation of power and control that the founders were so concerned about and threatens everything now. American banks were community scale, community oriented, community based, and had community accountability; all factors that restrain psychopathic tendencies of banks and bankers. If these forces of evil that are trying to consolidate everything are not able to be stopped, by all measures things will only get worse for all of humanity from here. Just as banking has become stale and uniform and conformist without any real diversity, so will those pressures continue destroying real diversity in the world by trying to force everyone and everything into templated, repeatable objects for global uniformity. There has been no time in human history where consolidation of power was a good thing. Monolithic things fail spectacularly. I would argue that the degree of global consolidation of power lusted after by globalists even represents an existential threat to humanity, if not all life on this planet. It creates a single point of failure and also snuffs out what makes us human, actual, real diversity of people doing different things in different places and environments, under the guise of fraudulent diversity and diversification.

jillesvangurp 3y ago
When banks collapse, it definitely is a federal emergency. That's the whole problem. The 2008 crisis was basically a lot of banks needing to be bailed out and people demanding that something should be done (by the powers that be, i.e. the feds). The current banking crisis is relatively minor in comparison but a nice wake-up call that banks can and do collapse if you don't regulate them and that they can do a lot of damage when they do. What you are stating isn't that black and white. The US constitution is only worth as much as governments and judges are willing to enforce. And where it isn't very explicit, that's mostly a very political thing. In the case of banks means that a lot of power has actually been granted to federal authorities over time. All without changing a line of text in the constitution. There's been a bit of a cycle of de-regulation followed by crisis induced new regulations happening of course historically. And you might argue things are currently leaning towards more regulation rather than less given the apparent failure of the sector to self regulate and sort things out themselves.
- 4RealFreedom 3y ago
  Just because people say something is an emergency, doesn't mean it's constitutional to do anything about it.
  - jillesvangurp 3y ago
    Whether or not something is constitutional is fundamentally a political question decided by judges appointed by the senate who get to interpret what the centuries old text says and what that actually means in a modern context. And that text only means something when you get judges to act on that. Until they decide something is unconstitutional, nothing happens. And often they decide something is fine after all. That's why the political color of judges on the supreme court is so important. Because what they do is super political. And all of that is constitutional.
    - 4RealFreedom 3y ago
      The courts and state representatives have eroded the constitution for some time. The federal government should only be responsible for the military and disputes between states. The only option I see is to eliminate federal agencies and eroded the federal government's power. People don't give up power willingly. What's your solution?

jillesvangurp 3y ago

When banks collapse, it definitely is a federal emergency. That's the whole problem. The 2008 crisis was basically a lot of banks needing to be bailed out and people demanding that something should be done (by the powers that be, i.e. the feds). The current banking crisis is relatively minor in comparison but a nice wake-up call that banks can and do collapse if you don't regulate them and that they can do a lot of damage when they do. What you are stating isn't that black and white. The US constitution is only worth as much as governments and judges are willing to enforce. And where it isn't very explicit, that's mostly a very political thing. In the case of banks means that a lot of power has actually been granted to federal authorities over time. All without changing a line of text in the constitution. There's been a bit of a cycle of de-regulation followed by crisis induced new regulations happening of course historically. And you might argue things are currently leaning towards more regulation rather than less given the apparent failure of the sector to self regulate and sort things out themselves.

4RealFreedom 3y ago
Just because people say something is an emergency, doesn't mean it's constitutional to do anything about it.
- jillesvangurp 3y ago
  Whether or not something is constitutional is fundamentally a political question decided by judges appointed by the senate who get to interpret what the centuries old text says and what that actually means in a modern context. And that text only means something when you get judges to act on that. Until they decide something is unconstitutional, nothing happens. And often they decide something is fine after all. That's why the political color of judges on the supreme court is so important. Because what they do is super political. And all of that is constitutional.
  - 4RealFreedom 3y ago
    The courts and state representatives have eroded the constitution for some time. The federal government should only be responsible for the military and disputes between states. The only option I see is to eliminate federal agencies and eroded the federal government's power. People don't give up power willingly. What's your solution?