Why Was The Bankster-Destruction of the World Economy Necessary?

According to Libertarian (Libertardarian) theory, or neoliberal theory, the recent blowup of the US economy by the FIRE (Finance, Insurance and Real Estate) sector was absolutely necessary, or at least was absolutely normal. Any attempts to regulate US capitalism to try to prevent such economic ruin in the first place would have been and would be catastrophic.
It’s important to note that Libertardarian theory and neoliberalism are essentially the same thing. Neoliberalism rules the West, especially the US. It’s firmly in place in much of the Third World. And since Thatcher, it’s made major inroads even in socialist Europe. Almost all US Economics departments have been colonized by neoliberal crazies. If you go anywhere in the US to study Economics, you come out a wild-eyed neoliberal nutcase.
Nearly the entire US mass media has been intellectually colonized by Neoliberal Madness, including all of the major US dailies, the major US newsweekly magazines, all major US network TV, and most of the paid intellectuals at US intellectual policy foundations. The Republicans have been a neoliberal party for decades now, but the Democrats are not far behind.
The “socialist” Obama is no such thing. On the FIRE question, he’s as insane as George Bush or Milton Friedman. Obama’s administration is littered top to bottom with bankster and FIRE crooks, from Larry Summers to Robert Rubin to Tim Geithner to Robert Reich. Much of the blame for the horrific destruction to the US and world economy can be laid at the feet of the Clinton Administration, who tried to out-reactionary the Republicans in deregulating the FIRE sector.
The recent G20 summit solved nothing, Obama’s braying aside. Despite a lot of loose Obama talk, little to nothing has been done to regulate the FIRE sector. The banks are back gambling again in the same way they did before, the same way that ruined the economy of the planet, and no one is going to stop them. The next blow-up is probably going to be even worse.
Libertardarianism is ridiculous. It’s never been attempted anywhere, really, and the only places where it’s been de facto in place, such as the Third World and pre-civilized America, ended up or end up pretty well wrecked. The only people who have fun in these places are the rich people. Everyone else gets screwed.
A lot of White Americans think that Libertardarianism is tres cool. What they really mean is it’s good for White people. A bunch of White nationalist retards recently got on board for supposedly the same reason when they supported the Ron Paul campaign.
Libertardtarianism is behind the recent blowup of not just the US but the world economy. Qui bono? Almost no one. White people? Get real. Upper middle class or middle class Whites? Not really. Basically what happened is that the banks and FIRE (finance, insurance and real estate) sector robbed the national economy blind. They had to be bailed out to $10 billion, which came out of our savings from our taxes, out of Social Security and Medicare. SS and Medicare are pretty well nuked now, but that was the project all along.
The economy is screwed. Income has been flat since 2001, and wages have been flat since 1980. My friends in Europe are moaning. The economy there is ruined by the US bankster-crooks. It’s gone for all the rest of the year and all next year. My friends were White Europeans with good incomes living very well. Their incomes and lifes have been screwed hard, and so have the lives and incomes of millions of other European Whites.
So you’re an upper middle class White in the US. You made out? Dubious. You probably lost your corporate job, you may have lost your house, your car, God knows what else. How many American Whites have been screwed like this by this Banker Ripoff?
My Mom bought her house 4 years ago for $130K. It’s now worth $48K. She’s a normal, elderly White woman, who’s worked her whole life. Why did she need to get fucked like this for some lying Banksters?
This blowup has screwed the US economy. A lot of companies are hurting bad or out of business altogether. How did this Bankster Ripoff Scam benefit US business, or US capitalism? It didn’t. All it did was blow a hole in the safe and make off with a ton of loot and leave us holding the bag.
The Republicans won’t reform the FIRE criminals, and neither will the “socialist” Obama. Why not? He’s not a socialist! Both parties, even the “liberal” Democrats, are 100% controlled by Big Corporate Money and in particular Big FIRE Industry Money. They won’t even regulate this runaway train if their lives depend on it.
Can anyone even give me a pro-capitalist, pro-business or pro-White argument about why this Greatest Bankster Robbery even needed to happen in the first place? I don’t get it. It was bad for business, bad for capitalism, bad for Whites.
Yet Libertariantards not only justify but champion such Free Market Fundamentalist Mumbo-Jumbo.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

19 thoughts on “Why Was The Bankster-Destruction of the World Economy Necessary?”

  1. Libertarianism did not cause the world economy to collapse. Is it libertarian to force banks to lend to NAMs that otherwise would be bad credit risks?
    Do you read Sailer? He’s written extensively on this. For example, here.
    http://www.vdare.com/sailer/080921_cornerstone.htm
    Also, we’ve had the Federal Reserve since 1913, meaning that we don’t have any kind of libertarian or free market system at all.
    http://hbdbooks.com/2009/08/how-thieves-operate/
    It’s the mechanism by which government steals from us and gives to bankers, weapons dealers and the diversity-educational industrial complex.
    If the system we had was so libertarian, you’d think that Ron Paul would’ve been singing its praises. As a matter of fact, he called the collapse.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04B3Wl2qouw

    1. I see you drink the Koolaid.
      No one forced banks to loan to NAM’s. The banks did it on purpose, deliberately loaning money to insolvent people because libertarian economics allowed them to sell of the loans so they didn’t give a fuck whether they were coming back or not. We used to regulate that libertarian ideologues got rid of that regulation.
      Before we had a Fed, we had a well and truly fucked up economy, with insane panics, wild run-ups, full-blown depressions, mass extreme poverty and all sorts of bullshit, just what you expect with no Central Bank.
      Neoliberalism is libertarianism in action. Deregulation is libertarianism in action. Neoliberalism and deregulation caused the collapse. Full blown libertarian lunacy would have made it that much worse. Iceland had the most deregulated financial sector on Earth and the whole place got mega-nuked by the Libertarian Depression. China has an extremely regulated, pure state banking system and they breezed right on through.
      Steve Sailer is a racist liar.

  2. How does libertarian economics allow people to loan out money without caring if it comes back or not? Only government insurance can do that.
    The Fed was created by a coalition of bankers and progressive politicians. Are you naive enough to think they did so out of the goodness of their hearts?
    Central banking allows them to screw us as a cartel of thieves rather than being competing criminals each doing fractional reserve banking on his own.
    If you want to call Sailer a liar (“racist” is pretty weird, since 99% of the population would consider you a racist for believing in intelligence differences) provide some evidence.

    1. Nope, the shitheads repackaged the loans as “securities” and sold them on the derivatives market. Something that ought to be illegal. Further, commercial and investment banking used to separate due to Glass-Steagal, but libertarians of both parties dismantled that Depression-era act, and the logical result was a second Depression.
      Steve Sailer is a real racist asshole. Number 1, for pitching this despicable “niggers and beaners wrecked the economy” lie. This has been proven to be a lie so many times it’s not even funny.
      No evil big government forced anyone to give mortgages to any insolvent borrowers. The banks did that on their own, first of all by farming out the brokerage biz to independent brokers who didn’t care whether the loans went bad or not, second by the reselling of the stinky known to be bad mortgages as “securities” to suckers and fools.
      The sales of these securities were insanely profitable, so everyone just partied while the Titanic was sinking.
      The Fed was a good idea. All sane states everywhere on Earth now have Central Banks. It’s a necessity. They are not created out of the goodness of anyone’s hearts but out of a realization that libertarianism (an economy minus a Central Bank) is madness and creates a maelstrom of instability. It’s a stabilizing and moderating influence on an economy.
      The whole “evil Fed” conspiracy strikes me as insanity. These are the dumbfucks who want to go back on the gold standard. There’s not a sane economist on Earth who thinks that that is a good idea.

  3. Steve Sailer is a real racist asshole. Number 1, for pitching this despicable “niggers and beaners wrecked the economy” lie. This has been proven to be a lie so many times it’s not even funny.
    Actually what he writes is very close in some respects to what leftists have said. The difference may be that leftists put the onus on banks and predatory lenders whereas Steve Sailer points out that a high percentage of toxic and worthless loans were taken out by Blacks and Latinos.
    The dismantling of sane lending restrictions was less of a libertarian cause than a opportunistic response from bankers who wanted to really up the ante and lefties such as acorn were brought along for the ride. Countrywide and Ameriquest two huge mortgage brokers (the former absorbed by B of A for almost nothing and the latter now defunct…) made contributions to Acorn to further their agenda.
    As you have noted.. there has been very little done by the Obama administration to correct the problems. 85% of the loans originated this year are held by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, or the FHA. In other words if there are loses the tax payer will take the hit. JP Morgan, Wells Fargo, and B of A originated more than half of the loans in the US this year. The collect the fees and points up front and pass the risk to the tax payer. Privatizing profits.. and socializing risk (losses).

    1. He’s an asshole. NO ONE forced banks to loan to minorities! Jared Taylor is spreading this lie too. All the WN’s are.
      Anyway, my understanding is that Blacks and Browns have the same default rates on loans as Whites. The bad loans were given to Blacks regardless of their financial status. If you were Black, you got a subprime. It was just racist lending.
      Dismantling of sane lending restrictions is libertarianism. Libertarians oppose all govt restrictions on such stuff. You know that. Otherwise, of course, I agree with you here.
      I think ACORN felt they got taken for a ride early on and started protesting these changes when it become obvious a lot of minorities were getting subprimes. They were sqwaking about this before it even happened.

  4. Anyway, my understanding is that Blacks and Browns have the same default rates on loans as Whites.
    No.. not true.. I’ll find the information for you.
    The bad loans were given to Blacks regardless of their financial status. If you were Black, you got a subprime. It was just racist lending.
    Have you bought a house or applied for mortgage loan…? My first house was in a majority black neighborhood. I bought it at the beginning of the boom so I think my experience is similar to what many Black and Latino home buyers experienced. I would get fliers in the mail all the time about refinancing… often it would have a photo of the mortgage broker in flier. Guess which race (about 80%) they were..? Also 90% of my loans (until the signature which didn’t even require the presence of a mortgage broker but a notary..) were done over the phone or online. Of these three without knowing who they were.. which one is black: Martin King, Don Black, Allen Sharpton…? There were some places I called that were clearly selling bunk loans. They didn’t give a crap what my color was.

  5. Dismantling of sane lending restrictions is libertarianism. Libertarians oppose all govt restrictions on such stuff. You know that. Otherwise, of course, I agree with you here.
    Well … not really… there was certainly deregulation… but Libertarians are against fractional reserve banking, loan subsidies from the government, etc. Most Libertarians were warning of the blow up before it happened. The US banking is very far away from a Libertarian ideal. Without a fractional reserve system, it simply would have been very hard for this nonsense to happen. Libertarianism is flawed yes but basically it was fraud committed on a grand scale. Calling it Libertarian is simplistic.

    1. Ok, but it’s something that Libertarians agree on for sure. They certainly would not oppose any kind of deregulation. The only difference between Libertarians and free marketeers or neoliberals is that the Libertarians take it a lot further.
      Without a fractional reserve system, it simply would have been very hard for this nonsense to happen.
      This strikes me as insane. No sane economist wants to get rid of the Fed or go back on the gold standard. The most deregulated bank system on Earth, in Iceland, was the most ruined of all. The whole country just got nuked by this thing. Africa and China by contrast generally have very much government controlled banking systems or at least state dominated banking systems, and they suffered very little damage.
      Before we had a Fed, we had an extremely unstable economy with regular run-ups followed by crazy panics and full-blown Depressions.

  6. Rob,
    (And yeah I know it’s on Vdare.. which I have my issues with…)
    Here’s an article by Michelle Maulkin about illegal aliens obtaining loans in 2003, basically the beginning of the super run up in property prices:
    http://www.vdare.com/malkin/loans.htm
    Here’s Mr. Bush at work:
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4568925/
    One of the approaches, the American Dream Down Payment Act, will help low-income Americans afford the down payment and closing costs on their first home. Bush is asking Congress to provide $200 million a year for the program. He also proposes to make zero down-payment loans available to first-time buyers whose mortgages are guaranteed by the Federal Housing Administration.
    In addition, Bush is proposing a tax credit to encourage builders to provide 200,000 affordable homes over five years for low-income families.
    These and other steps, he said, will push the nation toward his goal of adding 5.5 million new minority home owners by the end of the decade.

  7. This strikes me as insane. No sane economist wants to get rid of the Fed or go back on the gold standard.
    The fractional reserve system and the gold standard are not synonymous at all.. do you know the difference..?

  8. Rob,
    From your comments, it looks as if you are conflating the US Fed and fractional reserve banking together. They are not the same:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional-reserve_banking#Reason_for_existence
    Also, note that Great Britain, France, and Germany all had central banks in the 19th century but were on a gold standard. A central bank does not mean a lack of a gold (or in the case of the US a bimetallic standard..) standard.
    The US went off the silver standard in 1964 (partially and fully by 1968) and the gold standard in 1971 well after the creation of the FED.
    silver:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silver_standard#United_States
    gold:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon_Shock

  9. If you were Black, you got a subprime. It was just racist lending. -RL-

    heg: Now … this is why all commi-lib’s are shit for brain, they can’t count and they use words they don’t have the faintest idea what the mean.
    A subprime loan is given on the soul estimate what an object is worth in itself. lt has NOTHING whatsoever to do with skin or credit history. Heck, even Robert L could get a subprime loan.

  10. How The Jew Bankers Boils Gold – Or Making Money from Air
    You trade from Europe to China. By sail it takes six months one way. To bring gold is expensive and unsecure. What the trader does is that he leaves his goldbar with the goldsmith and he writes a note. lt works and other traders leaves their goldbar to the goldsmith. Now the goldsmith have ten goldbars and nobody comes to claim the goldbar.
    The note is now solid as a goldbar. Now the goldsmith goes banker and write an 11th note. Now the banker is boiling gold. An 11th note is plus ten percent.
    Now the Jew banker gets a copy machine, calls himself FED and starts to print dollarim with gold or silver to back the value. The dollarim is worthless.
    lt cost the jew bankers one cent to print one or 1.000 dollarim. On top of that the jew bankers lend the monopoly moneda to the stupid american people at 35 percents interest.

  11. To Richard Hoste:
    Yes, that’s how it works. Except it could be a Gentile too.
    To point such things out doesn’t sit well with Heg.

  12. “Yes, that’s how it works. Except it could be a Gentile too.”
    Could be a Gentile but isn’t.
    What’s curious is all the immigrant Muslim cabdrivers I’ve ever asked about banking have told me they bank with Bank of America. That means Muslims businessmen in the US are probably doing the same. There don’t seem to be any interest free Muslim banks in America. Your devout cabbie from Pakistan, Somalia, Ethiopia, the Sudan, etc. is supporting his one to four wives and their children, here and abroad, with foodstamps and Jewish boiled gold.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *