That's not what the bankers want to hear…
*TRUMP STILL COMMITTED TO RESTORING GLASS-STEAGALL: SPICER
Interestingly this comment comes after President Trump met with a group of community bankers, And that is weighing on The Dow.
ANDREW JACKSON IS BACK IN THE WHITE HOUSE - KIKE BANKERS ON SUICIDE WATCH
Other urls found in this thread:
nymag.com
politico.com
politico.com
bloomberg.com
nytimes.com
bloomberg.com
politico.com
nytimes.com
heavy.com
politico.com
wallstreetonparade.com
forward.com
berniesanders.com
nybooks.com
twitter.com
FUCK BANKS
FUCK MEXICANS TOO
Hahahaha.
Reminder that Bill Clinton was responsible for this.
Remember to keep your money in a local credit union instead of a (((bank))).
END THE FED
No more half-measures.
...
Shit is really heating up.
Donald Tusk reelected, Nigel meeting Assange + Vault7 leaks, march 15 fed hike, elections, debt ceiling. This will be big
...
Ides of March soon.
It's more likely that your house will burn down than a bank failing.
who cares?
Depends, is it a (((bank))) or a bank? Because some chosen people want to get rid of banks with (((banks))), not that there are many non chosen banks left in the world.
...
Famous last words.
DON'T PUT YOUR MONEY IN CREDIT UNIONS EITHER, THEY WERE CUCKED AFTER THE FINANCIAL CRISIS AND ARE JUST BANKS BY ANOTHER NAME TODAY.
That's a cold downturn.
How? You're not even blaming Obama anymore, you're blaming someone who hasn't been president in over 30 years.
checked
What retarded safes do you have in whatever shitskin country are you from that are fucking flammable?
amirite
...
hwot
Banks aren't paying any interest, and if they fail, you will lose everything. This is EXACTLY the type of condition where you do better holding cash and gold.
10/10; Would pollute race with.
Seriously though, how funny is it when the President swears to fight corruption, and billions of dollars disappear from the Dow Jews Index? Gosh – I wonder if they're corrupt!
Seriously – Nazi SS waifus. Fuck, man. Why did you bring that to a national socialist Himalayan Kabbuki board like this one? That shit is kryptonite.
Clinton signed off on the repealing of Glass-Steagall in 1999 on his way out of office
Holy shit you degenerate, she has a face like a fucking dinner plate and the nose of a pug. What the hell is wrong with you?
...
The only sensible thing to ever do with your money is to invest it in companies/people/institutes you trust, or you agree with.
Any other use of money than investment is worthless. Yes, consuming is a form of investment. Money is made to be spent, just be smart and spend it in the right places.
...
...
Kek has directed us to keep cash, bullion and bullets at home.
The Happening finally approaches.
He's blinded by the Hugo Boss.
What about FDIC?
It funds up to 200k per account insured, but only to banks that apply for it.
...
TAKE MY ENERGY
This is Carter Glass. He is one of the men credited for the founding of the (((Federal Reserve))) and is one of the namesakes of the bill. Is this a goy bill, a jewish tool gone rogue, or a second coming of a jewish trick?
Sweet me and my $800 are safe for now
Thanks for the advice.
Who is this Steagal feller and why does Trump want to glass him?
The Glass-Steagall Act, also known as the Banking Act of 1933 (48 Stat. 162), was passed by Congress in 1933 and prohibits commercial banks from engaging in the investment business. It was enacted as an emergency response to the failure of nearly 5,000 banks during the Great Depression.
The Investment Business
what does wikipedia mean by this? I'm a literal retard when it comes to how the banks work.
What does wikipedia mean by
You give the bank your money to hold on to. The bank then uses your money to make investments in hopes of making a profit. When the banks do well, you make a dividend. When the banks fail, you would lose it all, or at least you used to.
But don't banks make all their money doing this? Holy shit, he's going to crash the entire banking system. Why was this never enforced?
Kikes.
found the kike
Oh boy, it's gonna be tough to be a (((banker))).
They would make by lending to people they believed could pay the money back with interest. At least if wall street tanked, the effects wouldn't be quite as immediate.
No, they also give out (((loans))) to people. Banks shouldn't be a business though, they should be a service. They should only earn as much as needed to pay the people that work for them, and not to fill some fat jew's pockets while they cut more and more costs by automating shit and firing people.
The fees some banks charge should pay the costs alone.
(checked)
FDIC isn't going to pay out if the banks fail.
Better to invest in farm animals, ammo and toilet paper at this point.
FDIC is kind of like Social Security. It is a very nice safety net but it was only ever designed to furnish so much of a payout, and those funds have been pillaged to fuck and back by the kikes.
This could be a really fucking good thing though. If Trump is smart, and he is, one of the options he has to push forward would be an offer to anyone who can afford to guarantee the balance of bank accounts. I.E. some user with money saying "I will produce x amount of money to guarantee the funds available in y amount of accounts and in return they be gifted an amount of collectable loans that said bank held. It would work out like a sort of semi high risk bond. Would also be nice if he brought about a penalty for mismanaging banks to the tune of 20 years minimum incarceration.
WHERE HAS THE TIME GONE!?
If banks fail, then the valuation of paper currency also becomes worthless. If you don't own gold or jewels or grow your own food you will die.
Trump will complete the system of German idealism.
The FDIC will make good on balances up to the stautory amount. Problem is that it will take quite some time with all the failures spiralling at once, and they will blow through their reserve in an instant, necessitating an infusion of printed money from the Fed.
It will be inflated to almost nothing by the time you get it back.
I need to learn to trust in kek a bit more.
Well there would be a time limit.. If and when a crash happens… If you are fast enough get your ass to the closest fucking store and buy as many necessary supplies and barter items as you can.
Also smaller stores will likely be accepting cash a bit longer than the box stores would.
Also…
every time I post this anons say Im crazy… Toilet paper takes up a lot of space to stock pile and you will eventually run out. Go out and buy $10 worth of terry cloth clean up towels from home depot. When you run out of toilet paper you will be so fucking thankful that you bought a cloth that can provide you with good asswiping and, if you are smart enough to be making your own soap, cleanable and reusable
If undoing reckless deregulation is your concern, the CFMA of 2000 is the problem, not Gramm-Leach-Bliley.
Investment banks are a kind of bank which doesn't take private deposits and instead specializes in buying, selling and underwriting private securities like bonds or stocks. They're the ones which help firms enter the stock market through IPOs, for instance. Commercial banks, on the other hand, take private deposits and lend that money to their costumers or invest it in "investment grade" securities, like government bonds. These are kinds of banks that used to exist under Glass-Steagall. As it currently is, the major banks are now mixed banks, which offer both kinds of services. The issue is that, because investment banking is more profitable than commercial banking, it encourages mixed banks to offer commercial loans to customers with a higher non-payment risk on their debts because these guys also pay higher interest.
What Glass-Steagall effectively prevents is that, for example, major banks take high risk sub prime assets, turn them into securities and sell them, passing them to other financial institutions, which is what happened in 2008 and almost caused the whole banking system to collapse. It also prevents them from gambling with their clients' money in the stock market, which is why it was enacted in the first place: because too many mixed banks crashed along with the stock market in 1929.
He's that actor feller, what did all those action flicks with the arm breaking. Some fool forgot to kill him before we all found out he was a pussy and Trump is tryin ta fix that. Lookin out for the little guy that Trump, god bless.
Banks did that leading up to 2008 because the federal government, beginning under Clinton, compelled them to and offered Fannie Mae as a dumping ground for the same subprime mortgages. Banks were already doing so before Gramm-Leach-Bliley.
Feels good knowing I'll never be this retarded.
...
Why doesn't the government take direct control of them?
I have no idea how to feel about this. It's either masterful level trolling or complete fucking autism.
It doesnt have to.
IT'S CURRENT YEAR
watching how the dealmaker sets this up in the public discourse will be fascinating
It's obvious bait. It's some Holla Forums pseudo-intellectual deriding German idealism. Thankfully it doesn't matter because retards like you are fooled by it and the propaganda will function properly regardless of the viewer's moralistic perspective.
DUDE–everyone needs to spot the gem at 2:18
If the banks crash your money is worthless anyway and quite frankly if it's really that bad then the last of your problems is protecting your worthless cash. Only tangible things of value like gasoline, food, water, weapons and women will be commodities at that point. Moral of the story is don't take your money out of stock market / whatever accounts you have just on a whim because if you're right you're fucked anyway.
Israel would deploy the Samson Option due to the American (financial) Holocaust before he could pull it off.
why wouldn't you put it into hard assets then? PMs, nonperishable food, guns?
That doesn't really contradict what was written. This isn't about Gramm-Leach-Bliley but about about reinstating Glass-Steagal, whose provisions against securitization already had been effectively dropped by 1990, as you've pointed out (I think). If it were reenacted with the provisions against commercial banks underwriting securities, it would prevent the kind of exposure and financial contamination that happened in 2008, as banks passed securitized subprime mortgages around. Fannie Mae's policies did worsen the crisis, but that doesn't change the incentives that a mixed bank faces. Furthermore, if the only institution buying mortgages had been Fannie Mae, they'd be the only ones who'd have failed. Instead, Lehman Brothers came along, and other banks almost did too because of the financial contamination.
So it's a combination of both. Trolling and autism. Don't see how I was wrong here.
Gramm-Leach-Bliley was the law which partially repealed Glass-Steagall in late 1999, in particular the provision separating commercial and investment banks. Nothing about Glass-Steagall was repealed before Gramm-Leach-Bliley in 1999.
Sorry, this reply was meant for
I must find this man and become his friend.
You just BTFO yourself. You should probably leave quietly without making a scene.
he was truly the King of Pop
Clinton got rid of glass-steagall right before the end of his second term.
Crash it. Redo 2008 the right way. Nuke the jews.
This is the Trump I want, not the Paul Ryan schemes the GOP has tried to push for decades that nobody wants.
looks kike
Fucking awesome. I want to believe this is because the Don or one of his sons were browsing the thread where I suggested bringing it back.
Are credit unions the better option in canada? If not, what do? Thingken of closing my bank account.
Which would be the caucus belli for a second and actually real holocaust.
Plus since one of those nukes is in D.C. and New York it would wipe out two of (((their))) bastions here in America.
you're talking to a shill. anyone who cannot into board culture just fucking filter.
Im convinced I got Abby Martin pulled off RT for promoting faggotry and feminism when Russia itself wouldnt accept that in their country. Putin has a website you can send him messages directly with, and if they are formatted correctly and actually something that is a valid complaint or message in any way, hes supposed to be read it.
I sent him a message about how she was interviewing trannies.
...
kek, nice work user. you may have been the catalyst
...
That's Kantbot you morons.
Nationalization is dangerous economically. When running a government, it might seem like you can just start throwing levers left and right to further your goals, and like everything should just go tickety-boo until whoops, uncertainty causes instability and there goes your currency, and suddenly the country turns into fucking Zimbabwe. Nationalization is something that is considered an extreme measure, and thats generally because its seen as the government stealing private peoples wealth for its own benefit. Venezuela nationalized its oil industry, which actually worked out in the short term because they are something like the 5th largest oil producing country in the world.. but all the industry and private business saw what they did, and said "They wont take ours too!". Its called capital flight, everyone runs away to avoid having theirs taken too. When Canada elected Trudeau for example, he didnt even have to make a single change, all the foreign investment money left the country just knowing he was a socialist, Canada went from something like a 7.8% surplus on some measure regarding foreign investment, to a deficit of -2.X% (I think it was 2.2) setting a record for the largest swing of that type, and putting it as the lowest outlook country out of any western country on that measure of foreign investment money. Ive only seen the story talked about twice, the media tries to cover it up because its just so damning.
My point is, even without nationalizing banks, the types of changes Trump is making are dangerous, not that they aren't good, but hes really playing with fire. I guess you could say hes got one big bonfire going, and keeps heaping more wood and gas onto it. Its very attractive and hes selling a ton of tickets to the bonfire party, but if that fire ever falls over, the party is over too and youre going to be spending that ticket money on fixing your house which just burned down. I would love to see Trump nationalize the banks, but I think its pretty safe to say the economy would crash instantly.
dubs confirm i have no fucking idea who that is
Also, since this isn't actually a National Socialist country, any changes Trump does can be exploited by a Communist down the line. Communists love to nationalize things, and having a right wing person to take the blame would be something they would benefit from, while giving them more justification to "cease the means to production". Nationalization is something that both Communists and National Socialists use, in different ways. Im pretty sure Hitler nationalized the steel industry.
Can messages be in English?
My god, they went down by A WHOLE PERCENT.
ECONOMIC MELTDOWN
Silber and bidgoin :DD
I always thought it was Rorschach.
Foreign capital being code word for kikes and kike sycophants.
No, it's anyone who knows anything about investing. You dont invest in marxist socialist countries. Trudeau since hes been in power has talked about basic income, just giving people over 1000$ a month, for nothing, with no requirement that they work. Electing people who plan to steal "ebil rich peoples" money and give it to the scum of the earth is the dumbest thing you can do as a country. Trudeau didnt have to actually make a single change, the Canadian people were the real dumbasses. They clearly dont know what capital flight is. Its one of the reasons Communism doesn't work. You cant simply take all the rich peoples money, the money just disappears, the whole country goes broke, and no one wants to work.
National Socialism isnt about wealth redistribution, it's not even close to marxist socialism. Nationalization is a healthy part of it if you ask me, but it's not done in the same way, and a National Socialist country that is run reasonably well wouldn't really need foreign investment money, since they have a highly motivated population of workers who are themselves prosperous, and a government who seeks to elevate them instead of bringing them down with "equity" minded policy.
No, it actually very much is. Jews were not allowed to own firms, manage firms, be school teachers, own media or work in media, rent property to anyone but other jews, were not allowed to serve or be employed in civil sectors [police, fire, etc]. Those who would siphon off the country's wealth at the expense of the country were forcibly stripped of their ability to partake in that wealth.
A similar situation unfolded in Venezuela, though care is taken to obscure that information.
A point that should also be made is that Nazi Germany was not a controlled economy. It was heavily regulated, but in the end, the government contracted out private companies, and there was profit to be made as a private citizen, if you helped your country. Rockwell speaks about the economic aspect of his view of National Socialism, and how he found that people need to feel like they are being rewarded, they need to see results from their labor or they just dont see the point of it.
I wouldnt call the policy towards Jewish control of the country "wealth redistribution", its more like "wealth reclamation and entitlement protection". The German people were entitled to Germany, and the fruits of the land. Its not redistribution, its reclamation.
research.calvin .edu/german-propaganda-archive/haken32.htm
The best safe is wood in your basement all you need is good insulation so the money does not burn up. The next step is never telling anyone where it is if your house would be hit for all your cash in your home there is a 99% chance it would be an inside job. The last step is make it not look like a safe.
Trump's Wall Street Supporters
nymag.com
Bankers Celebrate Dawn of Trump Era
politico.com
Why Wall Street is Suddenly in Love with Trump
politico.com
Wall Street Wins Again as Trump Picks Bankers, Billionaires
bloomberg.com
Trump's Economic Cabinet Picks Signal Embrace of Wall St. Elite
nytimes.com
Bankers Ridiculed by Trump are Already Embracing his Future Regime
bloomberg.com
I'm not really interested in what you want to call it. That's what it is. Those who do the country ill with their wealth no longer have it.
(accidentally closed the window ffs)
Ivanka Trump Turns to Goldman Sachs Partner for Advice
politico.com
Goldman Sachs to Extend its Reach in Trump Administration
nytimes.com
List of Goldman Sachs Alumni in Donald Trump's Administration
heavy.com
Goldman Sachs Poised for Return to Power in Trump White House
politico.com
Here's how Goldman Sachs became the Overlord of the Trump Administration
wallstreetonparade.com
Donald Trump Reverses Campaign Message with Goldman Sachs Adviser Picks
forward.com
Calling it wealth redistribution implies that its about taking money and giving it to other people, that doesn't explain what is actually happening. Its about recognizing Jews and other undesirables as being harmful foreign actors who have managed to hurt the German people and take control of things which they should have no title to in the first place. Its not wealth redistribution when A its your wealth in the first place B they dont actually own it, but merely have control over it and C it is your racial entitlement as a member of that country.
To redistribute wealth would be to say:
National Socialism isnt even so much about money, and wealth, as it is about race - and blood. Your people are your most precious asset,
Its about freedom, as Goebbels said. Its not about "questions of the stomach" - and its not about the people who have the least. Its about all Germans. How are you redistributing the Germans wealth, if you are merely adding to the pile.
I would challenge you to find a single verse from someone like Hitler, or Goebbels (not Rohm) about "wealth redistribution" instead of racial inheritance being secured, and the race being protected. Read the section on "Why we are nationalists" for more about the logic behind the ideology, and its purpose. The wealth isnt even just given to people either, except maybe war widows, who are being repayed. Poor people dont just get money, they get paid to build their home.
I'm not really interested in your semantics. Just because Goring wasn't knocking on your door to hand you a check from the bank account of some guy across town doesn't change the functional reality of what was happening.
I don't need you quoting me a bunch of stuff I've already read tens time over.
You sound like a lefty/pol/ subvert tbh, its not semantics. Its like confusing murder with killing. I guess all soldiers are murderers amirite? You go around telling people National Socialism is about wealth redistribution and you'll be doing us all a disservice.
As I said, No one showed up at your door to give you a check from the bank account of some guy across town. You can read the early 30s economic policy over on /pdfs/. People were paid to clear land, and to build their homes. No one was given money, they were paid by the government. It wasnt redistributed, they earned it, and it was theirs to begin with.
Lol no. It was returned to the bank.
Also, a lot of that money was supposed to be paid back afterwards, they werent exclusively paid to build the house, they were paid to help build their house, and something like 40% of it was a loan, the money used to pay them would have gone to welfare anyways etc so why not have them doing something good.. and it was on the outskirts of town with a large yard so they could grow food and eat healthier, instead of living in Jewish slums. Also, large amounts of land were reclaimed, the forests and bogs cleared, barren lands scaped/seeded etc.
No, it's just that you're trying to put a very Americanized [read: judaized] spin on what you want others to take away from National Socialism.
It is, though. Removing wealthy, property, and productive means from those who harm your nation or horde it for themselves in order to hollow out the racial integrity of the occupied people is the same as redistributing wealth. If jews aren't allowed to rent apartments to anyone but other jews, they aren't going to be able to extract wealth out of non-jewish tenants and will be reliant on their own racial kin to keep up acceptable profits. If jews aren't allowed to manage or own creative/industrial/productive firms, they can't fill the firm up with their own kind and exclude the occupied race from the benefits of that production. If jews are not allowed into the civil sector, they can't load the government up with their own kind and direct favorable contracts to their own kind. Follow this chain across all sectors of the economy. The wealth is being redistributed. None of this changes just because nobody seized Rheinmetall's assets.
You think you're being clever or something, but you're really just reacting to a turn of phrase you've been conditioned to revile through your judaized education. Redistributing wealth away from parasitic and extractive jews is the only reason why Germany achieved what it did.
Reported :^)
Again, like I said, lumping it in with the marxist socialist/communist term "wealth redistribution" implies that its just about poor people being given rich peoples money, and it also applies the stigma associated with it - that its stealing etc.
I asked you to provide one instance of a senior Nazi besides the obviously too-far left Rohm who was purged talking about "wealth redistribution" - but youre not interested in finding one, and clearly dont know of one off the top of your head. Maybe there is one, If you found it, I might reconsider my stance partially. However, regardless, propaganda is important, and its self defeating to be advertising NS as a ideology based on wealth redistribution. New language is attractive to people, old language have stigmas attached to them. Wealth redistribution is a negative term, and its associated with a lot of scum that NS stands against. Propaganda is about laying things out in a way that the public can understand, and appreciate. Calling NS "wealth redistribution" is telling the uninformed that "white people should have all the money".
Thats not smart.
I know. You keep saying the same shit over and over again because you want people hung up on semantics.
Nobody is lumping it in with anything, you dumb faggot.
Im not talking about between you and me, Im talking about in general as a concept. You can call it whatever you want, I couldnt care less, but if everyone goes around saying NS is about wealth redistribution, that will play negatively to people, and it wont actually fully explain what is going on. Ive presented several arguments and explained from multiple angles why calling NS "wealth redistribution" is wrong, and youve pretty much resorted to calling me a dumb faggot now, while cherrypicking and ignoring the actual content of my posts. Not much point going any further with you.
I know and it's incredibly annoying.
That's the exact opposite of what you've been shitting up this thread with.
Yes, it will play negatively to capitalists who have chummy relationships with jews, the defense industry, and the immigrant invasion lobby.
No, you haven't. You've copy-pasted quotes from men better than yourself that don't support your stridency on this issue at all.
His argument could be succinctly made as
And there would be nothing wrong with that. Looting other tribes has been how every great civilization got where it was. Arguing that we shouldn't call it what it is, is silly. If you want to sell the idea to some normie, fine play with words to your hearts content, but at least make an effort at being honest here.
holocaust implies a sacrifice
BEWARE THE IDES OF MARCH
his twitter stream is rather dank
You're talking about speculative capital.
We only want productive capital.
checked good goy get
Try doing basic research you lazy jewnigger
He is the living caricature of the anti-christian shill.
...
NO
This is how a 10/10 jap qt looks like:
And RAISE THULE!!!
See Glass-Steagal repeal as taking the rug out of fractional reserving in principle.
Bernie Sanders was very big on restoring Glass-Steagall. It was one of his signature issues for years.
berniesanders.com
Of course like every commitment he ever made, if he'd won he would have been totally unable to deliver.
This is my face when Trump delivers a keystone to the Berniebros, those faggots don't even notice or care, and he doesn't even give a shit if they feel grateful or not.
