Time to Jail the Bankers and Take Back Control over Money

Randy Wray and Bill Black appear on “Clearing the Fog.” You can listen to the podcast here. Bill, of the newly formed Bank Whistleblowers United, speaks about the plan they have outlined to instill the rule of law on Wall Street and end fraud with the hope of mitigating the effects of the next financial crisis. Randy, an expert in financial instability and macroeconomics, speaks about alternatives to the current financial system that would bring greater stability.

10 Responses to Time to Jail the Bankers and Take Back Control over Money

  1. Can anyone explain why DOJ/FBI has been so passive re: individual Wall St offenders since 2008?

  2. The system is fundamentally corrupt in that government subsidies* for private credit creation favor the rich at the expense of the poor since the former are more so-called credit-worthy than the latter.

    And we are supposed to be concerned if one set of thieves, the commercial banks, credit unions, etc. are looted by another set of thieves, their management? Is this not a diversion from the need for fundamental reform itself?

    Question: Did redlining occur before or after Glass-Steagall was repealed? Then how does reinstating it help except that color-coding the poor is now illegal? Are the poor not still the least so-called worthy of government-subsidized private credit and the rich the most? Or is stability of an inherently unjust money system the prime concern for Progressives? Then was the burning of Watts and other urban centers in the 1960s an indication of a stable money system?

    * eg. limiting the public’s use of their Nation’s fiat to unsafe, unworldly physical cash (coins and bills) instead of allowing individual, business, etc. accounts at the central bank itself.

    • Make that unwieldy instead of unworldly though, of course, physical cash is hardly practical in today’s world except for small purchases. Thus the public is forced to lend their fiat TO commercial banks, credit unions, etc. but as far as obtaining new deposits FROM commercial banks, credit unions, etc., well that depends on how so-called creditworthy one is. Does any one see the fundamental injustice here? Forced loans from the poor, the least so-called creditworthy, for the benefit of the rich, the most so-called creditworthy?

  3. Peter, the Deep State.

    http://billmoyers.com/2014/02/21/anatomy-of-the-deep-state/

    Essentially, the Big Banksters and the Military/Security Industrial complex are the Deep State, the hidden government that is more powerful than the acknowledged government, and that has different priorities than the acknowledged government that everyone falsely believes is in charge.

    The DOJ is tiny and powerless, when compared to the banksters. And the Military/Security Industrial complex has its own agenda, that overlaps with the agenda of the banksters, and that is different from our national best interests.

    The executive, legislative and judicial branches of government don’t tell the Deep State what to do. The Deep State tells THEM what to do.

  4. “We’re trying to get rid of the excuses” Bill Black

    I’ve yet to hear even a single excuse from Progressives or the MMT community as to why we should have government-provided deposit insurance instead of inherently risk-free accounts for all, ie. individual citizens, businesses, etc. at their respective central banks.

  5. “We might decide that certain types of sovereign government debt should pay interest” LR Wray [paraphased since the audio app is very user unfriendly]

    So you basically believe in welfare proportional to wealth and not need, Mr Wray?

  6. “We [may?] just want to keep interest rates low” LR Wray [again paraphrased since the audio app is very user unfriendly (can’t rewind)]

    If that’s the political consensus, then fine. Then why not distribute* new fiat equally to individual citizen accounts at the central bank until interest rates in fiat drop to politically agreed upon levels or the price inflation rate reaches a politically agreed upon limit of, say, 2%/yr?

    Is this not a much fairer way to lower interest rates (and raise the inflation rate given the greater propensity of the non-rich to consume) than bloating the commercial banks, credit unions, etc. with fiat (aka reserves) which, if it works, just enables the most so-called credit worthy rich to loot** the least so-called credit worthy poor?

    *in addition to normal spending by the monetary sovereign which should also be directed, by default, to individual, business, etc accounts at the central bank.

    **The poor would suffer the resulting price inflation but without the additional funds to cope with it. Or assuming no price rises, the so-called creditworthy rich and the banks would reap all productivity gains given labor’s non-existent negotiating power.

    • if it works,

      But how can it work given inadequate demand/excess capacity? Who would want to borrow in such an economy except the systematically cheated workers/consumers except they’re afraid to borrow too? Because their jobs are on the chopping block? Or if unemployed, even if retired, their benefits are at risk from ignorant politicians?

      So then, where’s the Progressive support for eliminating government-provided deposit insurance given that it is a major root of the problem and given that its abolition should require huge amounts of new fiat to be created and equally distributed to all adult citizens?

      • aka, in reading your comments I am led to believe your questions are more so directed toward the political and social nature of the economy. Many of those issues are resolved at the ballot box not with MMT, and progressive points .