Do We Need to remake the National Bank? - Because we went from: 'Make your own website', 'make your own hosting', 'make your own internet' and now 'make your own payment processor'

[Secret Asshole]

I don't know how many Kiwis know (especially not you heathen international Kiwis) but America used to have its own functioning bank. In the mid 19th Century, Andrew Jackson went fucking ape-shit on that bitch which caused an event known as the 'Bank War'. It was a literal economic war between pro-US Bank and anti-US Bank. It got so terrible it nearly cratered the US economy. Eventually, as we all know, the anti-bank Jackson won and basically fucked our financial system over forever by handing it to private enterprise completely, with no viable alternatives. That lead-addled brain dead fuck. So now we have to deal with the 'hurr PRIVATE BUSINESS START YOUR OWN BANK' fucking idiotic libertarians. Sorry libertarians, but your free market shit is just as dumb. The free market will freely not be a free market when it suits them.

So now, we're having people getting de-platformed completely off of the one thing they need to live: Money. Dick Masterson's patreon alternative just had its merchant account revoked because fucking Discover card demanded that they do so. Obviously, this is not the first case of someone's income stream being shut down not for something illegal, but because there's something bad with their views. Of course, banks are all too happy to take a racist's money if they get paid. But got forbid they enable anyone else to do so.

I really do think that this is a crisis, and we've really only got two options.

1) Create an amendment for 'freedom of economy'. You cannot have your accounts shut down for your political views or if you are doing anything legal under United States law. This would prevent 'wokeness' from being a mantra. The problem is getting any state to agree on this and have it only protect the people.

2) Re-instate a national bank that is forced to follow federal law. IE: The First Amendment. Since it is no longer a private entity, it is bound by these strictures and cannot discriminate against you for your ideas. Obviously this would be the simplest alternative, but we'd probably have to get Seal Team Six to kill everyone in the Fed before this happened.

Making your own bank in this day and age that is large enough to be a merchant provider is almost impossible.

Firstly, you have to join the banking consortium and follow their rules. If they don't like you, they won't do business with you. So you're cut off from all forms of capital. This is international, and why discover can say to Chase 'cut his account off', because Discovery under the banking rules, is allowed to do that completely. So making your own bank is not an option, because you need other banks to work with you and there's no obligation for anyone to do so. You also have to follow very specific rules or you don't count.

Personally, my option is bloody revolution against the plutocrats. But that's not going to be very popular. So, the real question is: How do we stop the deplatforming of people who are just making edgy jokes and drawing anime tits or just want a place to have an audience to pay them? And don't tell me crypto. The easiest way to make things successful is making it easy, and crypto still isn't big enough to be easier or popular. And when it does, the banks will regulate it into the ground.

Andrew Jackson really fucked us by handing over the National Bank to private interests. I'm not saying the bank was perfect, but him saying the deposits 'weren't safe' back then is a fucking laughable idea when private enterprise can cut your account off, hold your money at will and there is next to nothing to do anything about it.

I mean, look at the absurdity this place has to go through to even EXIST. Now banks are cutting people off for jokes and drawings. I know there's a lot of people who will go: "But the government has my info!" Nigger, every corporation on Earth has your info, even more than the government. Privacy is long dead. You want to secure your privacy, run to Montana and live in a shack with no running water. So this is irrelevant.

 

[Stoneheart]

just form your own bank, im pretty sure they arent allowed to not work with you.

 

[No Exit]

1) Create an amendment for 'freedom of economy'. You cannot have your accounts shut down for your political views or if you are doing anything legal under United States law. This would prevent 'wokeness' from being a mantra. The problem is getting any state to agree on this and have it only protect the people.

2) Re-instate a national bank that is forced to follow federal law. IE: The First Amendment. Since it is no longer a private entity, it is bound by these strictures and cannot discriminate against you for your ideas. Obviously this would be the simplest alternative, but we'd probably have to get Seal Team Six to kill everyone in the Fed before this happened.

as hell but can we not get both? Stop this cancel culture bullshit and make something mandatory like banking a public issue. Privatizing banks in the first place was retarded and it's an issue that's long needed fixing.

 

[Secret Asshole]

just form your own bank, im pretty sure they arent allowed to not work with you.

You need between 15 and 20 million in capital. Other banks are able to provide this to you and routinely if other banks don't have enough cash on hand to take risk, they'll cover for you. Banks need to take risks to make money. There is no obligation for a bank to help you out in these matters if you don't have enough cash on hand. For example, I need to make a profit and there's this great opportunity. Unfortunately, I'd be out of capital to take the risk. Which means I need to over-leverage myself and have to take a loan to cover if someone wants to withdraw cash. Other banks usually do this, because nobody wants to be that asshole that doesn't give another bank a loan and it collapses. Plus it makes other banks money.

If I wasn't a woke bank, banks are under no obligation to give me a capital or a loan if I over-leverage or risk, in order to try and expand. Because I can't cover my day to day operations if I do over-levarage (just people withdrawing money) I face severe fines and penalties and my bank crashes.

as hell but can we not get both? Stop this cancel culture bullshit and make something mandatory like banking a public issue. Privatizing banks in the first place was exceptional and it's an issue that's long needed fixing.

First, an amendment, while I think is the second-best solution, but making them are so fucking impossible. First, 2/3's majority vote in the house and Senate. Barring that, a 2/3s majority in every state legislature. Then if you magically pass this, 38 out of 50 states need to ratify it. California is 100% out. Silicon Valley wants to be a technocracy and giving freedom of economy takes away their power. Delaware is out, where most credit card companies are based. It'd cut into their bottom line. Other liberal strongholds will probably join with libertarian ones and before you know it, we've got more than 12 states saying no.

Secondly, the National Bank, every single banking entity would scream. They would hire lobbyists, hitmen, assassins, rapists, murders, anything to stop this. They would whine and say the couldn't compete, like they're weak bitches, but they're just pretending. The Fed would probably create a hostage situation. Libertarians would lose their fucking minds. Democrats would not allow a national bank under a republican, even though it benefits the government as a whole and is a way to pay off the national debt.

I'm also pretty sure there's a law where if this does happen the government isn't allowed to make a profit or something. But I may just be misremembering.

I don't mean to black pill, but both of these things would be INCREDIBLY hard to accomplish. And yes, privatizing banks and giving them this much power was fucktarded.

 

[Gustav Schuchardt]

Getting rid of the existing banking system would need a bloody revolution. And the odds of that producing a functional society rather than anarchy or tyranny are unfortunately very low.

 

[No Exit]

First, an amendment, while I think is the second-best solution, but making them are so fucking impossible. First, 2/3's majority vote in the house and Senate. Barring that, a 2/3s majority in every state legislature. Then if you magically pass this, 38 out of 50 states need to ratify it. California is 100% out. Silicon Valley wants to be a technocracy and giving freedom of economy takes away their power. Delaware is out, where most credit card companies are based. It'd cut into their bottom line. Other liberal strongholds will probably join with libertarian ones and before you know it, we've got more than 12 states saying no.

Secondly, the National Bank, every single banking entity would scream. They would hire lobbyists, hitmen, assassins, rapists, murders, anything to stop this. They would whine and say the couldn't compete, like they're weak bitches, but they're just pretending. The Fed would probably create a hostage situation. Libertarians would lose their fucking minds. Democrats would not allow a national bank under a republican, even though it benefits the government as a whole and is a way to pay off the national debt.

I'm also pretty sure there's a law where if this does happen the government isn't allowed to make a profit or something. But I may just be misremembering.

I don't mean to black pill, but both of these things would be INCREDIBLY hard to accomplish. And yes, privatizing banks and giving them this much power was fucktarded.

I wouldn't expect either of those things to actually happen. And as far as I'm concerned, I don't give a shit how much banks fuss and whine and say they can't compete. The whole point is to have it so they can't compete because they wouldn't exist. And any libertarian or liberal or whoever in favor of private banking can fuck off too. Fuck credit card companies as well and I'd even go so far as to say anyone who votes against an amendment like that should be tried as a traitor.

Getting rid of the existing banking system would need a bloody revolution. And the odds of that producing a functional society rather than anarchy or tyranny are unfortunately very low.

Admittedly I'd take anarchy or tyranny over private banks since they're basically a tyranny anyway considering the amount of power they have in the market and politics.

 

[Stoneheart]

You need between 15 and 20 million in capital. Other banks are able to provide this to you and routinely if other banks don't have enough cash on hand to take risk, they'll cover for you. Banks need to take risks to make money. There is no obligation for a bank to help you out in these matters if you don't have enough cash on hand. For example, I need to make a profit and there's this great opportunity. Unfortunately, I'd be out of capital to take the risk. Which means I need to over-leverage myself and have to take a loan to cover if someone wants to withdraw cash. Other banks usually do this, because nobody wants to be that asshole that doesn't give another bank a loan and it collapses. Plus it makes other banks money.

Thats not what i meant...

If I wasn't a woke bank, banks are under no obligation to give me a capital or a loan if I over-leverage or risk, in order to try and expand. Because I can't cover my day to day operations if I do over-levarage (just people withdrawing money) I face severe fines and penalties and my bank crashes.

Conservative Coop bank. a credit union for shitposter.

 

[A Welsh Cake]

I'm fed up of remakes so no.

 

[verissimus]

What in the ever living hell did you just write...

1) Since when was the Bank of the United States meant to serve as anything but simply the deposit of the federal government and not, as I understand what you wrote, some entity of the federal government that could effectively control U.S. banking? I have never, ever heard of such an interpretation especially from the biggest proponent of it Alexander Hamilton never mind any other Founder. And just so we're clear, I not long ago finished an edited volume of his letters and writing and I definitely would have remember Hamilton's idea of the bank going this far.

2) There were alternatives to the Bank of the United States...they were the banks of the states which Jackson chose as the deposits for the federal government.

3) "Re-instate a national bank that is forced to follow federal law. IE: The First Amendment. Since it is no longer a private entity, it is bound by these strictures and cannot discriminate against you for your ideas." ...what provision of the first amendment are you talking about speech? Ok, even supposing that could happen (which I for the life of me don't understand how it could since no one has to lend you a damn thing or allow you to deposit any money), that is, if a bank decided to say we're not going to service X because of their ideology, that has nothing to do with actual speech. If anything that has more to do with association. It almost sounds to me like you want the federal government to force banks (never mind other organizations since there's no reason why the federal government should simply relegate this just to banks), to associate with people they don't want to associate with. Please tell me that is not the case because that is insane.

4) "I don't mean to black pill, but both of these things would be INCREDIBLY hard to accomplish. And yes, privatizing banks and giving them this much power was fucktarded." How would the federal government be any better? Seriously?

5) "Andrew Jackson really fucked us by handing over the National Bank to private interests." ...again, he chose to deposit the money of the federal government in state banks. That is plain wrong. You can rant all you like about his decision to destroy the bank but don't tell me that a noted populist and slave owner was all along a pawn of "private interests". Give me a break.

6) "How do we stop the deplatforming of people who are just making edgy jokes and drawing anime tits or just want a place to have an audience to pay them?" ...you all are going to crucify me for my response for this but they could

a) Try a foreign bank if they have access to it. Obviously I know we all don't have easy access to some offshore bank or Swiss Bank, but it's theoretically an alternative. Just not practicable for your average Joe.

b) Try to have someone you trust and knowmanage your funding/accounts. If these banks etc. are willing to deny services to your legal partners, then I'd say we're FUBAR. Also note, this is additionally why I don't understand how or why you bring up the first amendment here, because there would be no grounds for a bank to say well your friend or whomever violated our TOS by handling your funding even though he or she said nothing. In other words, banks can't just say not only will we not deal with people who aren't politically correct but the people they associate who may or may not be politically correct. That would be such a pain in the ass for any bank to want to have to bother going through. Again, inconvenient, but I don't see how people can't get around the current round of de-platforming in such a way so far as I'm aware.

7) "Create an amendment for 'freedom of economy'. You cannot have your accounts shut down for your political views or if you are doing anything legal under United States law. This would prevent 'wokeness' from being a mantra. The problem is getting any state to agree on this and have it only protect the people." This is about the only thing you wrote that I can sympathize with provided what I said in point 3 isn't taken in a direction I think would be insanely disgusting.

"Privacy is long dead. You want to secure your privacy, run to Montana and live in a shack with no running water. So this is irrelevant." ...so I just wasted my time with this reply if you don't give a crap about your OP? Wish I had read this first instead of last.

 

[Sam Losco]

1) Create an amendment for 'freedom of economy'. You cannot have your accounts shut down for your political views or if you are doing anything legal under United States law. This would prevent 'wokeness' from being a mantra. The problem is getting any state to agree on this and have it only protect the people.

2) Re-instate a national bank that is forced to follow federal law. IE: The First Amendment. Since it is no longer a private entity, it is bound by these strictures and cannot discriminate against you for your ideas. Obviously this would be the simplest alternative, but we'd probably have to get Seal Team Six to kill everyone in the Fed before this happened.

I'm far more in favor of 1 than 2. No way in hell I'd trust a government bank. The glow in the darks would be all over that shit even more than they are private banks now.

 

[Lemmingwise]

How could there be any other solution to this than revolution?

Refusing chemo just because it might kill you is dumb when you have cancer. And the cancer we got has mestatasized and spread. Since the year 2000 we've gone from 9 countries without a rothschild central bank to 5 countries without a central bank.

We will continue to see these countries in the news until they're brought to heel:

1. Iran
2. Syria
3. Venezuela
4. North Korea
5. Cuba

I'm not advocating revolution though. I think this battle was lost decades ago at the least.

 

[BONE_Buddy]

First, remember THE standard rule of government work: It will take twice as long, deliver half as much, and cost four times what was promised.

Next, as bad as the large corporate private banks is, it is the existing government regulations on banking really prevents anyone else from getting into the business. That is of course if you have the resources and the wherewithal to form a bank in the first place. Now largely this is because both the corporations and the government both have mutual interest in keeping the competition limited. It is a national bank system in all but name.

Both the government and big mega-corporations have a vested interest in removing radicals from influence, as status quo favors both. Throwing all banking to the government will not change that.

What is really needed is a massive decentralization of banking/payment processing. Really crypto currency (like Bitcoin) is billed as being able to do that. Though its actual utility is still to be seen.

Finally, the last and final point.

You have too much trust in the government.

You are seeing the same thing I right? Special interest does not stop at the doors of the government. It never has. It never will.

 

[Marco Fucko]

Personally, I think we should put together a rape gang and drag all of America's oligarchs out of their homes and then execute them live, but what do I know.

 

[CheezzyMach]

What makes you think the government won't deplatform people it doesn't like?

 

[Charls did nothing wrong]

How could there be any other solution to this than revolution?

Refusing chemo just because it might kill you is dumb when you have cancer. And the cancer we got has mestatasized and spread. Since the year 2000 we've gone from 9 countries without a rothschild central bank to 5 countries without a central bank.

We will continue to see these countries in the news until they're brought to heel:

1. Iran
2. Syria
3. Venezuela
4. North Korea
5. Cuba

I'm not advocating revolution though. I think this battle was lost decades ago at the least.

When u say Rothschild central bank what do u mean? Specifically how do you justify calling the Reserve Bank of Australia a Rothschild central bank?

 

[Unog]

I think a "right to commerce" amendment would be great, and would fix this problem in a jiffy, but the problem would indeed be getting state legislatures to agree to it in lieu of a majority in the federal legislative branch. It really makes my piss boil that these assholes think they have the right to decide who can send money to whom even if nobody's doing anything illegal.

To even get to the point that it could be passed I think you'd have to pass something like what I've though for a while where cities after a certain population limit are considered identical to D.C. in respect to their ability to influence the politics of their local areas, which is something else that will basically be impossible. Might as well be asking for congressional term limits at that point.

If anything that has more to do with association. It almost sounds to me like you want the federal government to force banks (never mind other organizations since there's no reason why the federal government should simply relegate this just to banks), to associate with people they don't want to associate with. Please tell me that is not the case because that is insane.

I'm glad that you find the idea of fucking with freedom of association insane as well, I too pine for the days of white-only establishments... (this is sarcasm, I say this because it's hard to convey via text and there are people who actually believe that shit on this site)

 

[verissimus]

How could there be any other solution to this than revolution?

Refusing chemo just because it might kill you is dumb when you have cancer. And the cancer we got has mestatasized and spread. Since the year 2000 we've gone from 9 countries without a rothschild central bank to 5 countries without a central bank.

We will continue to see these countries in the news until they're brought to heel:

1. Iran
2. Syria
3. Venezuela
4. North Korea
5. Cuba

I'm not advocating revolution though. I think this battle was lost decades ago at the least.

Didn't Iceland do something about its bank? Also great selection. I'm sure looking forward for us to emulate all those countries.

 

[Lemmingwise]

When u say Rothschild central bank what do u mean? Specifically how do you justify calling the Reserve Bank of Australia a Rothschild central bank?

They say they are owned by "Australia", but that's just a recent thing they've begun saying. Back in 2008 they still admitted they were owned by the commonwealth, in other words, the british royal family:

RBA: FAQ-About the Role of the RBA

http://archive.md/abCat (archive of previous link)

The Bank is wholly owned by the Commonwealth, but is not a government department

----

The british royal family has been rothschild controlled for considerable time, but that's a big subject in itself, so let's look at another part of the hypothesis that the reserve bank of australia would be owned and controlled by the australian government (as it says on their site now).

If you are in doubt about the the british royal family being under such influence, you might want to begin to ask why they are circumcised, something that outside of the USA (and south korea which is under US sphere of influence) doesn't happen to non-jews/non-muslims.

----

Australian debt has accelerated rapidly in the last 2 decades. Each debt ceiling was rapidly surpassed after its creation and it was removed altogether in 2013.

Australian government debt - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

http://archive.md/50X7H (archive of previous link)

That debt is for a large part owned by the chinese through chinese banks.

http://archive.md/FAaPO (archive of wapo article)


and chinese banks have been built by the rothschilds.

https://www.australiamatters.org/rothschina.html (article from february 21st, 1994)

 

[Charls did nothing wrong]

Back in 2008 they still admitted they were owned by the commonwealth, in other words, the british royal family

They are an independent (from legislature) Government body. The name of the Australian state is the Commonwealth of Australia. If they admit to being owned by “the commonwealth” that’s because they are owned by the Commonwealth of Australia, which is the entirety of the Australian state. You’re correct in observing that the Queen is the head of state. However, I’m just not sure how her being the head of state translates into control of this specific organ of the state. Does she have any control over the RBA? She has her own representatives in state and federal legislature but I’m not aware of what compels the RBA to do what she wants.

Honestly if there is non-Australian interests at work in the RBA I wouldn’t be shocked but I’d expect it to be via the RBA’s Governor and board having ties to so-and-so, not this.

 

[The best and greatest]

I don't want a national bank because its too top-heavy, and involves too much compromise and allowing the policies of some states to bleed into and effect other states. I'd rather each state of the union have its own bank insured and covered by the national bank/fed in times of crisis. It accomplishes roughly the same goal to keep big capital from oppressing people by holding their finances for ransom without empowering the fed in the same way since in theory the state authorities are more responsive to the constituency than the fed.