Am I the only one left supporting profits for banks and dividends for shareholders?

[SmileyRose]

I absolutely support banks making a profit. I absolutely support shareholders making money too.

But honestly the point has long past when they are just fucking predators sucking the life out of the planet. If they are just going to find another way to suck us dry every time we slap more government regs on them then we little peon are going to have to fight back the only way we can ---- refuse to do business with them or anyone who does.

[elleng]

1. Hope not, I agree, profits and dividends good and useful;

predation NOT good.

[maxsolomon]

2. sure, i support profits.

i also support restoring glass steagal

[banned from Kos]

3. G-S was weak - the new G-S (Volcker Rule) is stronger.

But nostalgia is 90% fantasy and always will be.

[maxsolomon]

16. ok, the new Volcker rule then

we didn't seem to have this issue until it was repealed.

[librechik]

4. there should be 2 kinds of banks--Savings and Loans for us,

and Investment Banks for those who want to gamble with their capital. It used to be that way. Until it is again, we are doomed.

[L0oniX]

5. Usury is condemned in the bible for good reason imo.

Usury is the practice of charging excessive, unreasonably high, and often illegal interest rates on loans.

Originally, when the charging of interest was still banned by Christian churches, usury simply meant the charging of interest at any rate (as well as charging a fee for the use of money, such as at a bureau de change). In countries where the charging of interest became acceptable, the term came to be used for interest above the rate allowed by law. The term is largely derived from Christian religious principles; Riba is the corresponding Arabic term and ribbit is the Hebrew word.

[Bluenorthwest]

8. Again, that is from the edited bits.

Now, the Bible reads as follows: God created the world. Jesus loves the little children and hates gays. The End.

[L0oniX]

10. Jesus hates gays is not in the bible ...but go ahead and help spread the lie.

[Bluenorthwest]

21. That was a joke, kiddo. Relax. That is how the 'bad ones'

read it. Get it? The book is actually still very, very thick. Would you care to discuss what is in there, in detail? Jesus said nothing about gay people at all.
Just so you know, I loved your comment, and made a joke accordingly. The joke is pointed at hypocrites, as many of Jesus' own comments were.
Is that in the Bible, calling a wise crack a lie because you take offense? What does it say about taking offense, to rush right in? No, it says to be very slow to take offense.
You enjoy.
Edited to ask you to please tell your faith mates what you told me until they stop with the slanders and legislation, would you, please? They march around with signs that indicate they my not know what you and I know. Many of their other, daily actions indicate the same. I assume you have noticed this, and that you call them liars all the time, as you did to me for mocking them.

[L0oniX]

24. Peace. n/t

[TBF]

6. I support nationalizing the banks. Why would you choose profit over people? nt

[L0oniX]

7. +1 ...and same thing with health care.

[leftstreet]

17. ++1

:thumbsup:

[socialist_n_TN]

22. And with education

energy and ANYTHING having to do with the general welfare, starting with food, clothing, and shelter.

[banned from Kos]

9. The 5th Amendment and the Takings Clause make nationalization

impossible.

[TBF]

13. Oh we can give them "compensation" in return - maybe let them live for example.

But thanks for your ultra right-wing comment.

[banned from Kos]

18. oh - following the Bill of Rights is "ultra right wing"? I'll tell my ACLU brethren that!

That is a good one.

You know, sometimes people we don't like are protected by the Constitution too.

[socialist_n_TN]

23. Easy enough. Give them "special" government bonds

that aren't redeemable for 100 years and are ONLY redeemable by the person who the bond is issued to.

That's for shareholders who hold over a certain amount of shares. Up to that certain number of shares (10 or 12?) they would be compensated at market value.

Either that or we just could wait till they crash (like they did in '08) and just buy them out when they drop to pennies on the dollar.

Lots of ways to get around that.

[villager]

11. Well I certainly agree with the "refuse to do business with them" part!

;-)

[denverbill]

12. I don't care if they make profits. I care that they are too big to have competition.

No company with any real competition could just start charging it's customers fees like this and not expect a big backlash, but when your only 'competition' is with banks that are part of your oligopoly you can do whatever you want.

[saras]

14. That only worked when the majority of bankers had ethics stronger than their desire for money

The problem with the whole shareholder concept is that shareholders are ONLY allowed to make money. The rest of their interests are not represented in the system, especially if they are small shareholders, and often the interests of the money go against all their other values. This is why Republicans used to talk so happily of people "voting their pocketbook", because if you beat people down to the point that they can't vote for the society they want, but are reduced to scraping for survival, that "voting your pocketbook" is pretty much always right-wing in the short run.

The only reason I would want to be a shareholder in a bank is to encourage them to NOT take moneymaking shortcuts, but behave better towards others, even if it means less profit. I do not regard it as a legitimate, sustainable way of making a living, and would prefer to see it die off. And since I am, in general, not allowed to do this as a shareholder - there are court cases forbidding it, for example - there's no reason for me to get more involved than to simply oppose banks and banking, and trust people to come up with better alternatives for meeting their needs.

But no, not everyone supports the idea of profit-making banks, especially in a society that is so unwilling to unentangle various ways of making a profit, some of which are widely regarded as less legitimate than others.

If a profit-making bank can compete as an equal with a non-profit credit union, with no laws biased in favor of the banks (yes, this implies no Fed either), then sure, they're free to compete.

[ixion]

15. no, you're not alone... there are a bunch of psychotics working in financial centers

who agree with you.

[msongs]

19. did B of A announce massive pay cuts for upper management to save money for shareholders? lol nt

[deaniac21]

20. With my Anarco-Syndicalist background, I just can't agree with

you.

[LWolf]

25. No.

I don't know about profits for banks; I kind of think they should all be credit unions. I think they should bring in enough money to pay their employees and keep the bank solvent, but I don't know that there needs to be "profits." I feel like that about any enterprise that people depend on.

Shareholders receiving dividends? Yes. If you invest, you should expect a return. Invest in those things that don't need to serve the public.

My electricity is delivered by a co-op. I pay quite a bit less than those who are bound to the private, for-profit electric company in city limits. And...I get a yearly financial report about assets, and every two years, if we've paid more than they used we get a check back. Our dividend, so to speak, for being part of the co-op.

I like it that way. I think many businesses could run that way.