Posted on 03/13/2023 12:57:32 PM PDT by Red Badger
As a conservative, I have watched with increasing concern as the left wing of the Democratic Party has pushed for greater control over the US banking system. This push has been fueled by a misguided belief that the banking system is inherently corrupt and that only government intervention can save it.
However, as renowned conservative economist Milton Friedman once said, “The government solution to a problem is usually as bad as the problem.” In other words, the left wing’s proposed solution of greater government control over the banking system would likely only exacerbate the problem.
If the left wing of the Democratic Party continues down this path, they risk bankrupting the very system they seek to control.
One of the key ways in which the left wing of the Democratic Party seeks to take over the banking system is through increased regulation. However, as Nobel Prize-winning economist Friedrich Hayek once observed, “The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design.”
In other words, the left wing’s attempts to design a better banking system through regulation are likely to fail. As Hayek noted, the economy is too complex for any group of individuals, no matter how well-intentioned, to fully understand or control.
Indeed, history has shown that increased regulation often leads to unintended consequences. For example, the 2008 financial crisis was in part caused by regulations that encouraged banks to take on risky loans in the name of increasing home ownership.
As conservative economist Thomas Sowell has noted, “It is amazing that people who think we cannot afford to pay for doctors, hospitals, and medication somehow think that we can afford to pay for doctors, hospitals, medication and a government bureaucracy to administer it.”
The same principle applies to the banking system. If the left wing of the Democratic Party seeks to take over the banking system through increased regulation, they will have to pay for an enormous government bureaucracy to administer those regulations. This will ultimately prove to be more expensive than any benefits that might be gained.
Furthermore, increased regulation will stifle innovation and competition in the banking industry. As renowned conservative economist Adam Smith once observed, “People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.”
In other words, if the banking industry is tightly regulated, it will be much more difficult for new entrants to compete with established players. This will lead to less innovation and higher prices for consumers.
Another way in which the left wing of the Democratic Party seeks to take over the banking system is through the creation of a government-run “public option” for banking. However, as conservative economist Milton Friedman once noted, “A major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that it gives people what they want instead of what a particular group thinks they ought to want.”
In other words, the creation of a government-run “public option” for banking would be a classic case of the government picking winners and losers. It would also create an unfair advantage for the government-run option over private sector competitors.
Furthermore, a government-run “public option” for banking would likely be inefficient and expensive. As conservative economist Friedrich Hayek once observed, “The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design.”
In other words, the government’s attempts to design a better banking system are likely to fail. The government simply does not have the knowledge or expertise necessary to run a successful banking operation.
Ultimately, the left wing of the Democratic Party’s attempts to take over the banking system are misguided and dangerous. As conservative economist Thomas Sowell has noted, “The first lesson of economics is scarcity: there is never enough of anything to satisfy all those who want it.”
In the case of the banking system, the left wing’s attempts to take over the system through increased regulation and the creation of a government-run “public option” would only exacerbate scarcity by stifling competition, innovation, and economic growth.
As renowned conservative economist Friedrich Hayek once observed, “The market is not a place, a thing, or a collective entity. The market is a process, actuated by the interplay of the actions of the various individuals cooperating under the division of labor.”
In other words, the market is made up of individual actors who, through their own self-interest, work together to create a more efficient and innovative system. By allowing the free market to operate in the banking industry, we can create a system that is both more efficient and more responsive to the needs of consumers.
Furthermore, by allowing the free market to operate in the banking industry, we can ensure that the system remains solvent and financially stable. As conservative economist Thomas Sowell has noted, “The most basic question is not what is best, but who shall decide what is best.”
In other words, by allowing the free market to operate, we can ensure that market forces, rather than government bureaucrats, are the ones making decisions about which banks succeed or fail. This will ultimately lead to a more stable and sustainable banking system.
The left wing of the Democratic Party’s attempts to take over the banking system through increased regulation and the creation of a government-run “public option” are misguided and dangerous. Instead, we should trust in the power of the free market to drive innovation and competition in the banking industry. By doing so, we can ensure that the banking system remains solvent and financially stable, and that consumers are able to benefit from a more efficient and responsive system. As conservative economist Milton Friedman once said, “Only a crisis – actual or perceived – produces real change. When that crisis occurs, the actions that are taken depend on the ideas that are lying around.” Let us hope that the ideas of the free market continue to lie around, so that we can avoid a crisis in the banking system and ensure a prosperous future for all Americans.
If only there was a political party that was actually adept at making this point. Sadly, there isn't one.
Look at Sarbanes-Oxley aka the Consultancy Full Employment Act. Private cmopanies have put billions (trillions?) into this overblown POC legislation and it has yet to produce a SINGLE positive outcome.
After having worked on SOX implementations for Fortune 100 companies I personally cold come up with a dozen ways around it to accomplish what Enron did just with different trickery. I am willing to wager dozens of FReepers in the industry concur.
The more government you get, the more corruption you get. AWLAYS.
Pfft! They already own it. Or more precisely it owns them.
Banking is an old and mature line of business. Just what innovation is intended? As it happens, the great problem with banking is not so much coming up with new things but keeping old lessons in mind to guard against making old mistakes in new ways.
Are the banks not already run by the Dems? Government run systems are always the best... if you enjoy systemic collapse.
The U.S. banking system must be heavily regulated because the U.S. government is the “lender of last resort” that props up our entire economy.
“The more numerous the laws the more corrupt the state’’. Tacitus, Roman senator and philosopher.
It is hideous to think that a bunch of incompetents can run anything. Government employees are exactly that, incompetent. Want proof? Just look at how great government already runs things.
A couple of thoughts:
1. Rather than fully compensate lenders of more than 250k, hou about partially compensating them, say, at 50%.
2. Any rescue or bailout will ultimately be paid for by we taxpayers. We will become poorer because our tax money is not being use to make our country better. It’s being wasted propping up the weak, stupid and corrupt.
Patriots beware!
Although the corrupt, post-17th Amendment ratification Congress is a big headache, conservatives also seem to be clueless about the federal government's constitutionally limited powers.
Yes, the drafters of the Constitution gave the popularly elected Congress, not the constitutionally undefined Federal Reserve run by non-popularly-elected bureaucrats, the specific power to regulate the value of national coin currency, but ONLY the power to regulate value of money, no other power to regulate banking.
"Article I, Section 8, Clause 5 : To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;"
"In every event, I would rather construe so narrowly as to oblige the nation to amend, and thus declare what powers they would agree to yield, than too broadly, and indeed, so broadly as to enable the executive and the Senate to do things which the Constitution forbids." —Thomas Jefferson: The Anas, 1793.
In fact, Congress's politically correct power to regulate banking starts to get suspicious with the 19th century Supreme Court emphasis on the reasonably clear interpretation of the Commerce Clause, that it doesn't expressly give Congress the specific power to regulate INTRAstate commerce.
"Article I, Section 8, Clause 3: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;"
”State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress [emphases added].” —Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
But most importantly, the drafters of the Constitution had discussed giving Congress the express power to regulate banking, but had decided not to.
More specifically, Benjamin Franklin had proposed including building commerce-related canals in the Constitution's Article I, Section 8-limited power clause that authorized federal mail roads. But some delegates objected to including canals on the basis that it would give Congress an excuse to establish a bank which would risk the ratification of the Constitution (my wording).
"Docr. FRANKLIN moved to add after the words "post roads" Art I. Sect. 8. "a power to provide for cutting canals where deemed necessary [emphasis added]"" —Madison Debates, September 14, 1787.
"Article I, Section 8, Clause 7: To establish Post Offices and post Roads [, a power to provide for cutting canals where deemed necessary];"
"Mr. KING. The States will be prejudiced and divided into parties by it. In Philada. & New York, It will be referred to the establishment of a Bank, which has been a subject of contention in those Cities. In other places it will be referred to mercantile monopolies." —Madison Debates, September 14, 1787.
"It is known that the very power now proposed as a means was rejected as an end by the Convention which formed the Constitution. A proposition was made to them to authorize Congress to open canals, and an amendatory one to empower them to incorporate. But the whole was rejected, and one of the reasons for rejection urged in debate was, that then they would have a power to erect a bank, which would render the great cities, where there were prejudices and jealousies on the subject, adverse to the reception of the Constitution [emphasis added]. — Jefferson's Opinion on the Constitutionality of a National Bank : 1791
It is important to note that Franklin did not initially suggest giving Congress the specific power to establish a bank, but to build canals. So when the drafters decided not to give Congress the power to build canals because of the implied power to establish a national bank, they eliminated banking powers as a "necessary and proper" means for Congress to perform any of its Section 8-limited power duties imo.
Getting back to the previously mentioned Federal Reserve, activist President Woodrow Wilson wrongly ignored first leading Congress to successfully petition the states to ratify an appropriate banking power amendment to the Constitution before signing the bill that established the Reserve.
As a consequence of Wilson's misguided "leadership" it remains that Congress is still constitutionally "married" to the regulating the value of money clause, corrupt career lawmakers probably happy that they have more job security being able to hide behind Reserve bureaucrats.
But the problem remains that Wilson's Federal Reserve wrongly weakens the constitutionally enumerated voting power of ordinary qualified citizen voters to indirectly regulate the value of money through their constitutionally enumerated voting power.
Patriots, the bottom line is this imo. What is your threshold of “pain” for peacefully stopping unconstitutionally big state and federal governments controlled by bully, constitutionally undefined political parties, from oppressing the people under their boots?
The inevitable remedy for ongoing, post-17A ratification, corrupt political party treason (imo)...
All MAGA patriots need to wake up their RINO federal and state lawmakers by making the following clear to them.
If they don’t publicly support either a resolution, or a Constitutional Convention, to effectively "secede" ALL the states from the unconstitutionally big federal government by amending the Constitution to repeal the 16th (direct taxes) and 17th (popular voting for federal senators) Amendments (16&17A), doing so before the primary elections in 2024, that YOU will primary them.
If the proposed amendment was limited strictly to repealing 16&17A, relatively little or ideally no discussion would be needed before ratification of the amendment imo.
With 16&17A out of the way, my hope is that Trump 47 becomes the FIRST president of a truly constitutionally limited power federal government.
In the meanwhile, I'm not holding my breath for significant MAGA legislation to appear in the first 100 days of new term for what may still prove to be another RINO-controlled House.
Again, Trump will hopefully do another round of primarying RINOs for 2024 elections.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.