A member of staff cleaned ATMs at the headquarter of Credit Suisse bank in Zurich on Monday.FABRICE COFFRINI/AFP VIA GETTY IMAGES
.
After another week of turmoil, how safe are banks?
And for many, the events of the last two weeks have evoked that sort of wide-eyed shock. If banks such as First Republic, Silicon Valley, Signature, and Credit Suisse can teeter or fall — albeit for different reasons — how safe is the system?
Meanwhile, the Federal Reserve revealed that banks — they won’t say which ones —borrowed more than $150 billion from the central bank last week, breaking a record established during the 2008 financial crisis.
“It’s bad, in many ways,” says Simon Johnson, a professor of entrepreneurship at MIT and the former chief economist of the International Monetary Fund. “I think we worry about the quickness of this readjustment of deposits.”
Buthe was encouraged by the support that big banks offered First Republic — in the form of $30 billion in new deposits last week. And he believes that the United States should extend “deposit insurance to cover all depositors” and make “all depositors pay a fair insurance premium.” (The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. currently insures up to $250,000 per depositor, and bank customers don’t have to pay for it.)
Clearly, neither the private sector nor the public sector wants contagion to spread. JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon and Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen worked together to convince large banks to help First Republic, and new discussions to stabilize the bank were ongoing as of Monday afternoon. Even in tech circles — where libertarianism has historically thrived — government aid has been welcomed.
“There’s the old saying: ‘There are no atheists in a foxhole, and no libertarians in a bank run,’” says Johnson. “But as soon as the bank run is over, the libertarians are like: ‘Get this government thing off my back, would you?’”
He argues that there’s a bigger question here, which has to be addressed: “Why do we get into these repeated crises?”
Economist William Emmons, who retired last year after 27 years at the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, wonders the same thing: Why do we lurch from failure to failure? Think Continental Illinois National Bank in 1984, the savings and loan crisis of the ‘80s and ‘90s, and Washington Mutual and IndyMac in 2008, just to name a few.
To Johnson, the answer is clear: “The incentives that we give people who run banks — small, medium, and large — are really screwed up. They get a lot of upside — really good compensation — when things are good. But the way they can juice their compensation is to take a lot of risk.” And even if that risk-taking results in disaster for bank leadership, “they walk away with a fortune, and we provide deposit insurance and other forms of support from the Federal Reserve.”
He argues that there has to be better regulation and oversight around this sort of risk-taking, which can have ripple effects far beyond an individual bank.
Emmons, meanwhile, worries that beneath the recent volatility, there’s a fundamental economic problem we simply haven’t grappled with: Asset prices, of everything from stocks to real estate, have been too high for too long. And people now take inflated prices for granted, in large part because interest rates were low for such an extended period.
As the tech euphoria of the 1990s faded away, he argues, “[Federal Reserve Chair Alan] Greenspan basically inflated a housing bubble. That’s what’s going to keep the growth going. Well, that didn’t turn out well.”
“So after the financial crisis, the housing bubble crashes, the Fed — under [Ben] Bernanke now — lowers interest rates to zero and more or less convinces people they’re going to stay at zero forever. And guess what? The stock market takes off, and there’s a recovery in real estate prices.
“And after COVID, [Jerome] Powell just dusts off the playbook from the financial crisis and puts interest rates back to zero… And it’s gone on so long, there’s a natural tendency to believe that this is just the way things are. But I would say it’s been highly artificial.”
He worries about a major economic correction, and the strain that would put on the banking system.
If it were up to him, Emmons says, he would likely consolidate banking, curtail enormous pay packages, and make it more like a public utility. In Japan, he points out, banking is done at the post office.
I asked if he worries about more bank failures ahead. His answer: “It’s certainly a reasonable scenario, yes.”
The Marriner S. Eccles Federal Reserve building in Washington, on Oct. 22, 2021.STEFANI REYNOLDS/NYT
Johnson argues that more oversight and regulation are critical to making sure the banking system operates smoothly, even though increased regulations might provoke resistance. Because every time the government swoops in, he says, it reinforces the notion that risk-taking is OK. And the health of communities rests on banks of all sizes being stable.
Kathleen Murphy, chief executive of the Massachusetts Bankers Association, believes the industry she represents is indeed stable, and that any problems are not systemic: “I wish there was a greater appreciation for this robust, very strong banking ecosystem that exists here in Massachusetts. … Banks are stronger and more capitalized than they ever have been.”
People are talking with their bankers, Murphy says, which she encourages. “We want people to have confidence in the banking system, and there’s every reason that they should have even greater confidence than they’ve ever had.”
Anecdotally, Murphy says she’s hearing from bankers more about inflows than outflows, especially as former clients of SVB reallocate their funds.
Mari Anne Snow, CEO of Boston-based Eascra Biotech, has worked with banks of many sizes, and told me her concern “is that everything sits on top of confidence.”
Just after Silicon Valley Bank collapsed, Snow was at South by Southwest in Austin, as one of 40 companies chosen to pitch to industry luminaries. Some of the startups, she says, “had to stand up and pitch to hundreds of people, believing that their companies were insolvent and weren’t going to be able to pay payroll. Imagine what that’s like.”
Snow explained that she worked in financial services during the 2008 recession. And it didn’t instill a lot of confidence in her.
“That old ‘Wolf of Wall Street,’ ‘greed is good’ mentality has been internalized,” she says. “In 2008, 2009, 2010, there was a lot of fear. But once we got past that, everybody came roaring back, trying to get back to the good old days.”
.
.
….The answer to why we get into these repeated crises?
The jews….and here is their modus operandi:
- High-finance jews permit us productive, hard-working Whites to build up businesses, pay employees, and buy homes, cars, farms, etc. Why? Only because they want to eventually foreclose on them and acquire them for ten cents on the dollar at auction. The more we Whites produce, being somewhat affluent for a while, the more they can eventually take.
- To do gigantic foreclosures, periodically the Fed and Wall Street jews trigger recessions and depressions. Then we Whites canot keep up the payments because we lost our job and income. We default, and the sheriff or IRS comes and seizes everything we have for their jew masters.
The Federal Reserve was created in 1913 actually to 1) avoid drastic economic ups and downs, to 2) fight inflation, and 3) to maintain full employment.
It fails periodically at all three goals, and deliberately. Rince and repeat…..
Wiki:
| Depression of 1920–1921 | January 1920 – July 1921 | 1 year 6 months | 10 months | −38.1% | −32.7% | The 1921 recession began a mere 10 months after the post-World War I recession, as the economy continued working through the shift to a peacetime economy. The recession was short, but extremely painful. The year 1920 was the single most deflationary year in American history; production, however, did not fall as much as might be expected from the deflation. GNP may have declined between 2.5 and 7 percent, even as wholesale prices declined by 36.8%.[31] The economy had a strong recovery following the recession.[32] |
| 1923–1924 recession | May 1923 – June 1924 | 1 year 2 months | 2 years | −25.4% | −22.7% | From the depression of 1920–1921 until the Great Depression, an era dubbed the Roaring Twenties, the economy was generally expanding. Industrial production declined in 1923–24, but on the whole this was a mild recession.[26][33][34][35] |
| 1926–1927 recession |
| Great Depression | August 1929 – March 1933 |
3 years 7 months |
1 year 9 months |
21.3% (1932)[50]– 24.9% (1933)[51] | −26.7% | A banking panic and a collapse in the money supply took place in the United States that was exacerbated by international commitment to the gold standard.[52][53][54] Extensive new tariffs and other factors contributed to an extremely deep depression.[55] GDP, industrial production, employment, and prices fell substantially. A small economic expansion within the depression began in 1933, with gold inflow expanding the money supply and improving expectations; the expansion would end in 1937. The ultimate recovery, which would occur with the start of World War II in 1940, was credited to monetary policy and monetary expansion.[56] |
| Recession of 1937–1938 | May 1937 – June 1938 |
1 year 1 month |
4 years 2 months |
17.8%[50]–19.0% (1938)[57] | −18.2% | The Recession of 1937 is only considered minor when compared to the Great Depression, but is otherwise among the worst recessions of the 20th century. Three explanations are offered as causes for the recession: the tight fiscal policy resulting from an attempt to balance the budget after New Deal spending; the tight monetary policy of the Federal Reserve; and the declining profits of businesses leading to a reduction in business investment.[58] |
| Recession of 1945 | February 1945 – October 1945 |
8 months | 6 years 8 months |
5.2%[57] (1946) |
−12.7% | The decline in government spending at the end of World War II led to an enormous drop in gross domestic product, making this technically a recession. This was the result of demobilization and the shift from a wartime to peacetime economy. The post-war years were unusual in a number of ways (unemployment was never high), and this era may be considered a “sui generis end-of-the-war recession”.[59][60] |
| Recession of 1949 | November 1948 – October 1949 |
11 months | 3 years 1 month |
7.9% (October 1949) |
−1.7% | The 1948 recession was a brief economic downturn; forecasters of the time expected much worse, perhaps influenced by the poor economy in their recent lifetimes.[61] The recession also followed a period of monetary tightening.[39] |
| Recession of 1953 | July 1953 – May 1954 |
10 months | 3 years 9 months |
6.1% (September 1954) |
−2.6% | After a post-Korean War inflationary period, more funds were transferred to national security. In 1951, the Federal Reserve reasserted its independence from the U.S. Treasury and in 1952, the Federal Reserve changed monetary policy to be more restrictive because of fears of further inflation or of a bubble forming.[39][62][63] |
| Recession of 1958 | August 1957 – April 1958 |
8 months | 3 years 3 months |
7.5% (July 1958) |
−3.7% | Monetary policy was tightened during the two years preceding 1957, followed by an easing of policy at the end of 1957. The budget balance resulted in a change in budget surplus of 0.8% of GDP in 1957 to a budget deficit of 0.6% of GDP in 1958, and then to 2.6% of GDP in 1959.[39] |
| Recession of 1960–1961 | April 1960 – February 1961 |
10 months | 2 years | 7.1% (May 1961) |
−1.6% | Another primarily monetary recession occurred after the Federal Reserve began raising interest rates in 1959. The government switched from deficit (or 2.6% in 1959) to surplus (of 0.1% in 1960). When the economy emerged from this short recession, it began the second-longest period of growth in NBER history.[39] The Dow Jones Industrial Average (Dow) finally reached its lowest point on February 20, 1961, about 4 weeks after President John F. Kennedy was inaugurated.[citation needed] |
| Recession of 1969–1970 | December 1969 – November 1970 |
11 months | 8 years 10 months |
6.1% (December 1970) |
−0.6% | The relatively mild 1969 recession followed a lengthy expansion. At the end of the expansion, inflation was rising, possibly a result of increased deficits. This relatively mild recession coincided with an attempt to start closing the budget deficits of the Vietnam War (fiscal tightening) and the Federal Reserve raising interest rates (monetary tightening).[39] |
| 1973–1975 recession | November 1973 – March 1975 |
1 year 4 months |
3 years | 9.0% (May 1975) |
−3.2% | The 1973 oil crisis, a quadrupling of oil prices by OPEC, coupled with the 1973–1974 stock market crash led to a stagflation recession in the United States.[64][65] |
| 1980 recession | January 1980 – July 1980 |
6 months | 4 years 10 months |
7.8% (July 1980) |
−2.2% | The NBER considers a very short recession to have occurred in 1980, followed by a short period of growth and then a deep recession. Unemployment remained relatively elevated in between recessions. The recession began as the Federal Reserve, under Paul Volcker, raised interest rates dramatically to fight the inflation of the 1970s. The early 1980s are sometimes referred to as a “double-dip” or “W-shaped” recession.[39][66] |
| 1981–1982 recession | July 1981 – November 1982 |
1 year 4 months |
1 year | 10.8% (November 1982) |
−2.7% | The Iranian Revolution sharply increased the price of oil around the world in 1979, causing the 1979 energy crisis. This was caused by the new regime in power in Iran, which exported oil at inconsistent intervals and at a lower volume, forcing prices up. Tight monetary policy in the United States to control inflation led to another recession. The changes were made largely because of inflation carried over from the previous decade because of the 1973 oil crisis and the 1979 energy crisis.[67][68] |
| Early 1990s recession | July 1990 – March 1991 |
8 months | 7 years 8 months |
7.8% (June 1992) |
−1.4% | After the lengthy peacetime expansion of the 1980s, inflation began to increase and the Federal Reserve responded by raising interest rates from 1986 to 1989. This weakened but did not stop growth, but some combination of the subsequent 1990 oil price shock, the debt accumulation of the 1980s, and growing consumer pessimism combined with the weakened economy to produce a brief recession.[69][70][71] |
| Early 2000s recession | March 2001 – November 2001 |
8 months | 10 years | 6.3% (June 2003) |
−0.3% | The 1990s were the longest period of economic growth in American history up to that point. The collapse of the speculative dot-com bubble, a fall in business outlays and investments, and the September 11th attacks,[72] brought the decade of growth to an end. Despite these major shocks, the recession was brief and shallow.[73] |
| Great Recession | December 2007 – June 2009[74][75] |
1 year 6 months |
6 years 1 month |
10.0% (October 2009)[76] |
−5.1%[77] | The subprime mortgage crisis led to the collapse of the United States housing bubble. Falling housing-related assets contributed to a global financial crisis, even as oil and food prices soared. The crisis led to the failure or collapse of many of the United States’ largest financial institutions: Bear Stearns, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Lehman Brothers, and AIG, as well as a crisis in the automobile industry. The government responded with an unprecedented $700 billion bank bailout and $787 billion fiscal stimulus package. The National Bureau of Economic Research declared the end of this recession over a year after the end date.[78] The Dow Jones Industrial Average (Dow) finally reached its lowest point on March 9, 2009.[79] |
| COVID-19 recession | February 2020 – April 2020 [80][81][82] |
2 months | 10 years 8 months |
14.7% (April 2020)[83] |
−19.2%[84] | The economic effects of the pandemic were severe after the first quarter of 2020. More than 24 million people lost jobs in the United States in just three weeks in April.[85] Official economic impact of the virus is still being determined, but the recession was one of the shortest on record, helped in part by online purchases, zero interest rates, and printing of huge amounts of money by the Fed to prop up the stock market.[86] [needs update] |
.svg){kind=link}
(This man was the father of the famous aviator who was a key figure in the antiwar America First Committee of 1940-41. Lindbergh SENIOR fiercely and bravely opposed the criminal US entry into WWI and, before that, the establishment of the Fed.)
.
……On the brave Lindbergh, Senior
Wiki:
Charles August Lindbergh
|
Charles August Lindbergh
|
|
|---|---|
| Member of the U.S. House of Representatives from Minnesota‘s 6th district |
|
| In office March 4, 1907 – March 3, 1917 |
|
| Preceded by | Clarence Buckman |
| Succeeded by | Harold Knutson |
| Personal details | |
| Born |
Carl Månsson
January 20, 1859 |
| Died | May 24, 1924 (aged 65) Crookston, Minnesota, US |
| Resting place | Lakewood Cemetery, Minneapolis, Minnesota, US |
| Political party | Republican |
| Other political affiliations |
Progressive “Bull Moose” (1912) |
| Spouses |
|
| Children | 4, including Charles |
| Parent | August Lindbergh (father) |
| Alma mater | University of Michigan Law School |
Charles August Lindbergh (born Carl Månsson; January 20, 1859 – May 24, 1924) was a United States Congressman from Minnesota’s 6th congressional district from 1907 to 1917. He opposed American entry into World War I as well as the 1913 Federal Reserve Act. Lindbergh is best known as the father of famed aviator Charles Lindbergh.
Early life[edit]
Lindbergh was born Carl Månsson, in Stockholm, Sweden, to Lovisa Carlén, the 19-year-old mistress of Ola Månsson, a peasant member of the Riksdag of the Estates and a bank manager. Ola Månsson changed his name to August Lindbergh, emigrated to the United States with his mistress and their illegitimate infant son, Carl, in 1859. Lovisa became Louisa and young Carl became Charles August Lindbergh.
They settled in Melrose, Minnesota, and had six more children together. August worked as a farmer and a blacksmith for 26 years before marrying Louisa in 1885, having become a widower in 1864 with the death of his first wife in Sweden.[1][2]
Charles August Lindbergh studied law at the University of Michigan Law School, graduating in 1883, and was admitted to the bar that same year.
Political career[edit]
Lindbergh served as prosecuting attorney for Morrison County, Minnesota from 1891 to 1893. He was elected to the United States House of Representatives in 1906 as a Republican, serving in the 60th, 61st, 62nd, 63rd, and 64th congresses. In 1912, he supported Theodore Roosevelt’s unsuccessful third party Progressive bid for the White House. In 1916 he unsuccessfully campaigned for a seat in the United States Senate.
Isolationist views and opposition to the Federal Reserve[edit]
Lindbergh was an outspoken critic of the Federal Reserve
When World War I broke out in Europe in 1914, Lindbergh was vocal that the United States should not become involved. In 1916 he lost his United States Senate bid to an opponent who openly advocated American intervention in Europe. In March 1917 as a lame duck member of the House, Lindbergh was one of only 14 congressmen to vote against the arming of United States merchant ships.[3] By 1917, the third year of the Great War, Lindbergh’s son was aged 16, which meant some possibility of conscription.
In Congress, Lindbergh was one of the first outspoken critics of the Federal Reserve. His stature grew when he was featured in an article in The American Magazine: “It was a Swede from Minnesota who first raised in Congress the hue-and-cry of the Money Trust Hunt—’a Swede who dreams’, a fellow member described him—Charles A. Lindbergh.”[4] Lindbergh declared, “This Act establishes the most gigantic trust on Earth. When the President signs this bill, the invisible government by the Monetary Power will be legalized, the people may not know it immediately, but the day of reckoning is only a few years removed … The worst legislative crime of the ages is perpetrated by this banking bill.”[5] In 1917 Lindbergh brought articles of impeachment against members of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, including Paul Warburg and William P. G. Harding, charging that they were involved “… in a conspiracy to violate the Constitution and laws of the United States …”[6]
In 1913 Lindbergh published Banking, Currency, and the Money Trust.[7] He also wrote an anti-war polemic titled “Why is Your Country at War?”. In 1918, under the Comstock laws federal agents destroyed the printing plates, along with Banking, Currency and the Money Trust, which attacked the Federal Reserve and big banks. The former was later posthumously released in 1934, under the title, Your Country at War, and What Happens to You After a War In the first chapter, he wrote,
“It is impossible according to the big press to be a true American unless you are pro-British. If you are really for America first, last and all time, and solely for America and for the masses primarily, then you are classed as pro-German by the big press which is supported by the speculators.”[8] These beliefs would influence his son, who would later famously oppose American intervention in World War II.
Gubernatorial campaigns[edit]
In 1918, Lindbergh ran for governor of Minnesota as a Republican against the Republican incumbent, Joseph A. A. Burnquist. Lindbergh was endorsed by the Farmers Nonpartisan League, which called for government ownership of some agricultural enterprises, such as mills, plants, and grain elevators. Many of his campaign speeches were attended by thousands of supporters. But due to his opposition to American entry into the first World War and his connection to the Socialistic Farmers Nonpartisan League, Lindbergh was attacked by the press and there were often protestors who pelted him with eggs and rocks.
.
*** See, Lindbergh was pro-German and the Germans, well, see, even way pre-Adolf, under the Kaiser, SUDDENLY in 1916 we swallowed that they were diabolical monsters….
…raping Belgian nuns, crucifying Canadian officers, shooting unarmed civilians (who din-do-nuffin), and either cutting hands off babies
Who could cut a baby’s hands off? Only a Hun, a Kraut, of course, said the Jew York Times.
Or the Huns tossed babies into the air to spear them with bayonets….
So said all the jewspapers in Amurka about the incredibly CIVILIZED and mostly very moral German nation.
The proof?
These drawings PROVE well, actually, zilch!
But The People gobbled it up.
Proving democray is the best form of government, the Rule of The People. 😉
Whining about how things are now in America? 😉
In another incarnation your ancestors believed this mental diarrhea — which was doubly amazing since the country was then one-third German!!! — and refused to heed the many, many Lindbergh types warning them this war hysteria was all a lie.
So they voted for Wilson AGAIN in 1916, ignored that his slogan had been “He Kept Us Out Of WAR.” Five months later Wilson got us into the war.
Your ancestors, or you even in another life, joined the Army or Navy to sail 3,000 miles or more to go kill the slandered Germans, the framed Lee Harvey Oswalds of history.
The Germans had literally NO war goals in WWI — just to repel invasion by France, Britain, Russia and, in 1917, America.
Here come the Yanks: 82nd infantry division, 1918, Camp Gordon, Georgia (a division which became the 82nd Airborne Division in WWII)
American goyim blindly killed German goyim for their jew masters….
.
.
.
***
Lindbergh’s son Charles worked as his driver and “never forgot the hostile crowds that harassed his father, or the way the press derided him.” Lindbergh’s 1918 bid for governor ultimately failed.[3] In 1924, Lindbergh was once again a candidate for governor on the Minnesota Farmer–Labor Party ticket. Lindbergh’s campaign was cut short by his death. He would have been the first Minnesota governor from the party if he had been elected.
.
.
And what has changed in 104 years without a new white spirituality? Not much…..
A few days ago, the Chinese discovered that the US military was using tents made in China. These tents came from a humanitarian convoy that China had sent to Syria. The Americans (here a soldier of the 102nd Airborne Division) not only steal oil from Syria, but also humanitarian aid.
I suppose it is a lot like the situation in South Africa. The people who now complain the loudest are the ones who voted “yes” to hand the country over to the ANC.
Good remark.
Delusionality extends all across the board. Once you can lie to yourself about ONE thing (such as thinking the Blacks in South Africa will not act like all Blacks everyone where once they get the power 😉 ) you can lie to yourself about everything.
And this was just incredible in the case of South Africa, with white-ruled Rhodesia turning into a chaotic, black-ruled Zimbabwe right next door to warn them! ….with Zimbabwe blacks in hordes swimming past the crocodiles to flee THEIR OWN COUNTRY TO GET INTO WHITE-APARTHEID SA!!!!
Reincarnationism plus Eckhart Tolle means understanding that egoic, delusional people can spend a hundred or more lifetimes repeating the same mistakes, learning nothing: and justifying every stupidity they have committed….committed against themselves, perpetrated against their own loved ones, and carried out to the severe detriment of their country.