Banking

  • 🔧 Site instability resolved. You can report double-posts and broken attachments. For bigger issues, use the Technical Grievances thread.
    🇵🇦 Nuestro primer dominio localizado está en español en kiwifarms.pa. Our first localized domain is on Spanish on kiwifarms.pa.
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
Fatniggo1488

Fatniggo1488

kiwifarms.net
Joined
Dec 6, 2022
Just kind of curious if there's anyone who still supports the current systems where private banks pretty much control all financial exchange. Obviously, I'm a national socialist so I think that at the very least, lending should be regulated by the state. Personally, I think there should be a needs versus wants system to where that needs such as non-luxury housing, or non-luxury vehicles should have a very low to zero interest rate whereas luxury alternatives should have a very high interest rate. I also don't think that banks, assuming they're even allowed to exist, should be able to pick and choose who they do business with. To me, being a part of the market is a basic right. Under the current system, the most malum in se criminals (child rapist, serial killers, etc.) imaginable are allowed to buy and sell on the market within restrictions from the government. Why should a private citizen who is guilty of no crimes be restricted in any way?


From where I'm standing, the current financial exchange system just seems like yet another democratic scam to where the general populous is told they have freedom, but the definition of that freedom is in fact controlled by a group of elites with no connection to the common man.
 
Last edited:
OP making a popular opinion, immediately gives the worst alternative imaginable.

Anyways modern banking is bad, but the alternatives are usually worse, either being based on a meme or blind ideology.
 
Fatniggo1488 said:
Personally, I think there should be a needs versus wants system to where that needs such as non-luxury housing, or non-luxury vehicles should have a very low to zero interest rate whereas luxury alternatives should have a very high interest rate.
Click to expand...
You should think more about the unintended consequences of good intentions. Prior to 2007 was had just that in mortgages, everyone gets a a low rate mortgage, no job, no income? No problem.
 
Waifu Denier said:
You should think more about the unintended consequences of good intentions. Prior to 2007 was had just that in mortgages, everyone gets a a low rate mortgage, no job, no income? No problem.
Click to expand...
Don't you know nothing that happened before op was born actually occured?
 
Waifu Denier said:
You should think more about the unintended consequences of good intentions. Prior to 2007 was had just that in mortgages, everyone gets a a low rate mortgage, no job, no income? No problem.
Click to expand...
Lol that's entirely different. You're talking about a subsidized private system which encouraged banks to give loans out that weren't even possible to break even on. That's completely apples and oranges.
 
Tie printing of currency to exports. This is what Hitler did. It worked. Capitalistrannies and Commieniggers can Cope, Seethe, and Dilate.

I hate the antichrist.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom