I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. agree or disagre?

>>>>>>Banks do need to be regulated and overseen by the government to ensure that they keep their boundaries.<<<<<<<<<
-------------------------
The only reason banks need to be regulated by the government, is that the market place doesn't do a sufficient job of regulating them.

The only reason the market place doesn't do a sufficient job of regulating them, is that the government has created other regulations in the past which has interferred with the market place, stifling production and creating monopolies.

So the government's 'needed' regulation, is simply the result of a mess they have created with earlier regulation. And don't the policitians just love this endless break-it-and-fix-it cycle!

So fundamentally, we don't need the banks regulated by government at all. But in order to establish this fundamental, we need to make government so small that it can't do any damage, and then let the market place work things out.

If things go the way they should (if the government keeps its dirty fingers out of the pie) institutions which specialise in truthful and accurate information as to the financial state of banks, will evolve, and will protect the people far better than any bailout.

The problem is, there are just too many self-interests in Washington, who ultimately want to be worshipped as quasi-messiahs who have rescued the people yet again. And in order to keep on being worshipped, they have to keep on rescuing, and in order to keep on rescuing, they need to keep on creating a mess.

The game is simple: it is has 400,000,000 players: a president who says: "look at me...aren't I great?", and 399,999,999 worshippers only too happy to exult him to the status of 'God'.

So you get the politicians you deserve, and you get the regulation you deserve, and you get the headache you deserve at the end of each financial year.

Disagree--banks are a necessary institution for us to do our financial transactions. It is not the bank that is more dangerous but capitalism that believes in privatizing banks. Banks do need to be regulated and overseen by the government to ensure that they keep their boundaries.
As it has been in the past, banks were allowed predatory lending practices--just look at the credit card business---they are allowed to charge you a 21% financing charge. Now what is that for? 1/5th of what you borrow gets a 21% interest charge? Then add to that the montly APR on the money you charge and you easily can pay half of what you borrowed in interest. Chase Manhattan can charge you over 60% on cash advances---loan sharking laws seem to not apply to improper banking practices. And look at the mortgage crisis: if you wanted to buy a home and got a mortgage loan, banks were able to charge you something like 10-11% or more for being a "risky" lender. Isn't it such that a bank should deny a "risky" lender? If I am not a responsible borrower, why would a bank even consider me worthy the loan? I know people who got a loan to buy a home at 11% and then defaulted on their mortgage loans because they couldn't afford it. Why give a person credit who has proven in the past that he/she won't pay her/his bills in a timely manner? All these practices were unregulated and Wall Street allowed them to go on with little to no government oversight and that is why we are in an economic disaster. It didn't happen because the dollar lost in value - our entire crisis happened because Wall Street made decisions based on their profits without regard to long term consequences and so now we are collapsing(and I do believe that the bailout will not work because the banks don't want oversight). So, it is not the banking industry itself that's more dangerous but the practices these banks can legally pursue that are more dangerous to our nation than standing armies....

Agree. Economic collapse ALWAYS pre-dates the fall of a civilization.

Continental currency was a paper currency issued by the Continental Congress, after the Revolutionary War began in 1775. Eric P. Newman, a leading authority on the early paper money of America, distinguishes between Continental Currency, issued by the authority of the Continental Congress, Colonial currency, issued by the colonies before the revolution, and state currency, issued after the Declaration [though many collectors lump together state and colonial issues and refer to both as Colonial Currency]. [Continental currency was denominated in dollars [from 1/6 of a dollar to $80, including many odd denominations in between], while Colonial currency was denominated in pounds, shillings, and pence, as well as in dollars.] With no solid backing and being easily counterfeited, the continentals quickly lost their value, giving voice to the phrase "not worth a continental".

The painful experience of the runaway inflation and collapse of the Continental dollar prompted the delegates to the Constitutional Convention to include the gold and silver clause into the United States Constitution so that the individual states could not issue bills of credit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental...

The collapse of the continental dollar lead to this:

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility. - Out of Article 1, Section 10 of the Constitution

Also:

In most cases, a fiat monetary system comes into existence as a result of excessive public debt. When the government is unable to repay all its debt in gold or silver, the temptation to remove physical backing rather than to default becomes irresistible. This was the case in 18th century France during the Law scheme, as well as in the 70s in the US, when Nixon removed the last link between the dollar and gold which is still in effect today.

http://kwaves.com/fiat.htm

Thomas Jefferson:

"The system of banking [is] a blot left in all our Constitutions,
which, if not covered, will end in their destruction...
I sincerely believe that banking institutions are more dangerous
than standing armies; and that the principle of spending money to
be paid by posterity... is but swindling futurity on a large scale."

It depends not solely upon The Banking Industry governing and leading a nations economy to victory and prosperity but the force counselling and guiding it. Power applied wisely benefits all strata of society. Taken or usurped by the unethical and ruthless it becomes a powerful weapon of destruction to its own and opposition alike.

Well said, the Banking Failures due to crooked and inept leadership allowed the Nazi party and the worldwide fascist movement to happen - 40 million people died!
All because of dishonest and unregulated banking institutions.

Central banks - YES!

The fed after all caused this entire problem we are facing. It created a false boom which overthrew supply and demand, which can only result in a bust. This kills the currency.

that Thomas Jefferson was one bright man wasn't he?
I guess I agree.

you know I agree.

if anyone wants to hear the big picture sit down and watch this

http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseac...

guess so..