3 ms·

> Wouldn't be nice to fail upward like that? It's almost like the banking system was designed by rich people to suit the needs of rich people or something. An

> Wouldn't be nice to fail upward like that? It's almost like the banking system was designed by rich people to suit the needs of rich people or something. And to tax the poor but that's a more recent component.

notavalleyman 2y ago
And if the banking system were actually designed by poor people to suit the needs of poor people. How would this scenario play out differently? A bank is underwater on loans to a certain house. If they pull the plug now, the bank takes a loss. If they work with the household to raise the household wealth, then they can recoup their loan amount from the new wealth. So what's your alternative solution, in the world where banks are designed for the poor? I ask because I don't see how the personal assets of the people who designed this system come into play, at all
- carlosjobim 2y ago
  The alternative would be the removal of the banking system, not to re-make it.
- ToucanLoucan 2y ago
  I think you would end up with a lot more institutions designed in the vein of Credit Unions rather than banks. The differences are subtle but noticeable. They still generate profit but they're non-profits, and so the profits they do generate are invested immediately back into the institution, by way of expanding their branch offices, providing lower rates or relief to members who are struggling, and other misc. community-focused projects.
troyvit 2y ago
Wow apparently a lot of rich people and/or bankers are here judging by the downvotes.
diab0lic 2y ago
> It's almost like the banking system was designed by rich people to suit the needs of rich people or something. Food for thought: If they didn’t have an investment manager before this, and their primary asset was a big house they couldn’t afford… these people weren’t rich. They were working class, over extended themselves into a house, and got lucky. Your premise may have some validity but the story in this thread may be an example of a bank making a working class family rich.
Nasrudith 2y ago
That is just a plain stupid conspiratorial collection of communist cliches which demonstrate the common symptom of bigotry; treating a disfavored group as though they were a hivemind monolith and being literally unable to comprehend that groups are made up of different people. Under that logic you get howlers of counter-factuals like "Kings were rich and therefore there was never a war between kings." It is up there with the abject stupidity of System of a Down accidentally going pro-monarchist by asking why don't presidents fight the war. Apply some actual thought, please. The job of a bank is to accumulate idle money to put to use in investment to generate returns. "Why does money accumulate in the money accumulator that generates more the more money is put inside of it?"
- ToucanLoucan 2y ago
  > treating a disfavored group Hold on: in what possible way, by what conceivable metric, are the wealthy a disfavored group? Name for me any way a wealthy person struggles. It is some mad "leave the billionaire alone" cope to try and say the literally most privileged, by definition, class of folks on the planet are somehow oppressed. > and being literally unable to comprehend that groups are made up of different people. Of course they are, but as a group of people who share commonalities of experience, priorities, and oftentimes physical location and interaction, they necessarily also have more in common with one another than with people who are far disconnected from them. That is why people like Ellen Degeneres are taking pictures with George Bush: George Bush has far more in common with Ellen than Ellen does to the vast, vast, vast majority of her audience. This goes double for economic interest. A world that no longer privileges wealth, even putting aside bogeymen like taxation or confiscation, will be unappealing to every wealthy person, because their wealth currently makes the world bend over backwards for them, and that's pretty sweet and nobody apart from the most principled people on the planet would willingly give that up. > Under that logic you get howlers of counter-factuals like "Kings were rich and therefore there was never a war between kings." It is up there with the abject stupidity of System of a Down accidentally going pro-monarchist by asking why don't presidents fight the war. I mean if you don't think it makes politicians of any stripe, kingly or otherwise, more ready to declare war if they know full well they themselves will not be expected to take up arms, then you have far more faith in people than I do. Though I don't know where you got that quote from, if it is indeed a quote. I'm a much bigger fan of "when the rich wage war, it's the poor who die." And I think you'd be hard pressed to find a conflict where, outside some strange exceptional occurrence, that wasn't quite true. > The job of a bank is to accumulate idle money to put to use in investment to generate returns. "Why does money accumulate in the money accumulator that generates more the more money is put inside of it?" I don't object to the money accumulator accumulating money, I object to the money accumulator, when it malfunctions, having it's money replenished with tax dollars it did not earn by performing it's function, from which the guy who owns the accumulator draws a substantial salary afterwards, despite overseeing when the accumulator stopped working.

notavalleyman 2y ago

And if the banking system were actually designed by poor people to suit the needs of poor people. How would this scenario play out differently? A bank is underwater on loans to a certain house. If they pull the plug now, the bank takes a loss. If they work with the household to raise the household wealth, then they can recoup their loan amount from the new wealth. So what's your alternative solution, in the world where banks are designed for the poor? I ask because I don't see how the personal assets of the people who designed this system come into play, at all

carlosjobim 2y ago
The alternative would be the removal of the banking system, not to re-make it.
ToucanLoucan 2y ago
I think you would end up with a lot more institutions designed in the vein of Credit Unions rather than banks. The differences are subtle but noticeable. They still generate profit but they're non-profits, and so the profits they do generate are invested immediately back into the institution, by way of expanding their branch offices, providing lower rates or relief to members who are struggling, and other misc. community-focused projects.

troyvit 2y ago

Wow apparently a lot of rich people and/or bankers are here judging by the downvotes.

diab0lic 2y ago

> It's almost like the banking system was designed by rich people to suit the needs of rich people or something. Food for thought: If they didn’t have an investment manager before this, and their primary asset was a big house they couldn’t afford… these people weren’t rich. They were working class, over extended themselves into a house, and got lucky. Your premise may have some validity but the story in this thread may be an example of a bank making a working class family rich.

Nasrudith 2y ago

That is just a plain stupid conspiratorial collection of communist cliches which demonstrate the common symptom of bigotry; treating a disfavored group as though they were a hivemind monolith and being literally unable to comprehend that groups are made up of different people. Under that logic you get howlers of counter-factuals like "Kings were rich and therefore there was never a war between kings." It is up there with the abject stupidity of System of a Down accidentally going pro-monarchist by asking why don't presidents fight the war. Apply some actual thought, please. The job of a bank is to accumulate idle money to put to use in investment to generate returns. "Why does money accumulate in the money accumulator that generates more the more money is put inside of it?"

ToucanLoucan 2y ago
> treating a disfavored group Hold on: in what possible way, by what conceivable metric, are the wealthy a disfavored group? Name for me any way a wealthy person struggles. It is some mad "leave the billionaire alone" cope to try and say the literally most privileged, by definition, class of folks on the planet are somehow oppressed. > and being literally unable to comprehend that groups are made up of different people. Of course they are, but as a group of people who share commonalities of experience, priorities, and oftentimes physical location and interaction, they necessarily also have more in common with one another than with people who are far disconnected from them. That is why people like Ellen Degeneres are taking pictures with George Bush: George Bush has far more in common with Ellen than Ellen does to the vast, vast, vast majority of her audience. This goes double for economic interest. A world that no longer privileges wealth, even putting aside bogeymen like taxation or confiscation, will be unappealing to every wealthy person, because their wealth currently makes the world bend over backwards for them, and that's pretty sweet and nobody apart from the most principled people on the planet would willingly give that up. > Under that logic you get howlers of counter-factuals like "Kings were rich and therefore there was never a war between kings." It is up there with the abject stupidity of System of a Down accidentally going pro-monarchist by asking why don't presidents fight the war. I mean if you don't think it makes politicians of any stripe, kingly or otherwise, more ready to declare war if they know full well they themselves will not be expected to take up arms, then you have far more faith in people than I do. Though I don't know where you got that quote from, if it is indeed a quote. I'm a much bigger fan of "when the rich wage war, it's the poor who die." And I think you'd be hard pressed to find a conflict where, outside some strange exceptional occurrence, that wasn't quite true. > The job of a bank is to accumulate idle money to put to use in investment to generate returns. "Why does money accumulate in the money accumulator that generates more the more money is put inside of it?" I don't object to the money accumulator accumulating money, I object to the money accumulator, when it malfunctions, having it's money replenished with tax dollars it did not earn by performing it's function, from which the guy who owns the accumulator draws a substantial salary afterwards, despite overseeing when the accumulator stopped working.