Comments on: Taxing spoils of the financial sector Thu, 21 Jul 2016 07:57:19 +0000 hourly 1 By: investeast Fri, 23 Apr 2010 02:19:26 +0000 As a long in the tooth former consultant to Central Banks & Commercial Banks, here is my “old fashioned” view.

Banks are the primary engine driving the world’s economy.

Tax the Banks and they will pass it on their customers.

More expensive money means Less economic dynamism & incidentally more unproductive public service costs to regulate.

Obama must have fools for advisers.

But what do I know, it is 20 years since I was advising governments of the world.

By: jebahoula Thu, 22 Apr 2010 20:48:03 +0000 The media’s fanfare about SEC fraud charges against Goldman Sachs is designed to scare politicians into passing the so-called financial reform bill that is before Congress, which will increase the power of the monopoly banks, reduce competition from financial institutions and ultimately raise borrowing costs to consumers and lower returns to investors.

This show is a smoke and mirrors ploy to pass the Bill.

This Bill will give to the Federal Reserve, a puppet of the huge monopoly banks, including Goldman Sachs, control over their remaining banking competition, what their media calls the “shadow banking system”. This competition is composed of financial institutions, such as, Fidelity, Vanguard, Charles Schwab, American Century, etc… which act like banks with checking accounts, savings, mutual funds, lending and brokerage services.

Contrary to the media hype of a “new” financial order, the recent financial crisis created by the Federal Reserve has eliminated banking competition and kept the “old” financial order in power that has governed since the reign of Abraham Lincoln (1861-1865).

In three years these monopoly banks have bankrupt, bought, or gained control of much of their banking competition, from Lehman Brothers to CIT.

It should be no surprise that the largest monopoly banks left in power are Goldman Sachs, Citibank, J.P. Morgan Chase, Wells Fargo, Bank of America, Mellon Bank of New York and Morgan Stanley.

All, except Bank of America, are part of the “old” financial order that mushroomed into power about 150 years ago during and after Lincoln’s Tax War. Remember, Lincoln declared in his First Inaugural Speech (paragraphs 4, 21 and 32) that he started his war solely to collect his new 40% import tax from Southerners under the Morrill Tariff Act of 1861.

With the passage of his National Bank Act of 1863, Abraham Lincoln, a puppet of Northern banks and industries, re-established Alexander Hamilton’s centralist banking system in the United States, which set the foundation for the present day Federal Reserve System.

Under his First Legal Tender Act of 1862, Lincoln printed worthless paper money displaying images of Alexander Hamilton and Lincoln’s Treasury Secretary Salmon P. Chase (as in Chase Bank), which ultimately destroyed State banking.

Consumers and small businesses will have to lick the boots of the few elitist banks of the “old” financial order to obtain a loan. Investors and savers will have few options in their choices for high yields and returns on their investments.

Right now these monopoly banks are borrowing from the Federal Reserve at 1% and lending to consumers, via credit cards, at up to 30%. Price gouging is always the result of establishing monopolies.

By: Gotthardbahn Thu, 22 Apr 2010 20:15:05 +0000 As usual, more rubbish from the dean of bank-bashers, playing to the envious know-nothings in the crowd. Canada’s Finance Minister, Jim Flaherty, has made it abundantly clear that Canada will never agree to a bank tax and/or bailout fund. Given that Canada’s banks are doing very well these days and never required any sort of bailout whatsoever from the Canadian government, unlike the bloated behemoths in the UK, US and Europe, then perhaps the other politicians in attendance should at least listen to him. As for the IMF: Small wonder bankrupt governments stateside and overseas like their plan. It would see these bank taxes go to these governments as general revenue, NOT into a dedicated fund, so all these slimeball pols caould turn around and spend this revenue as they wish, most likely on their re-election. Didn’t the IMF chief economist recently advocate higher inflation? Not something that fills me with a lot of confidence. Stand fast, Mr. Flaherty! This is one Canadian voter who backs you on this one.