I promise you, it is not a comprehension issue. It is a "I have done this a million times, and sometimes assuming, even when it is obvious, leads to mis-assumptions" and I do my very best to avoid any miscommunication. It's one of those damned if you do (guess wrong), damned if you don't (your insult earlier).
Anyway, thank you. It sounds like were getting somewhere.
So you say gov would not be a good long term avenue for loans on a consumer basis. But also think private lenders shouldn't be charging interest. My next thought then is, what incentive is there for banks to lend out money? If not profit motivation then what does motivate them to do it?
And if there is profit, but it's not from interest, in what form does that profit take? Does the borrower basically pay a fixed service fee to the bank at inception of the loan? Or yearly, monthly?
So you say gov would not be a good long term avenue for loans on a consumer basis. But also think private lenders shouldn't be charging interest. My next thought then is, what incentive is there for banks to lend out money? If not profit motivation then what does motivate them to do it?
There is no such thing currently as private lenders. I think that’s your big continued misconception. Banks have socialized risk through tax payers. We haven’t had a bank capable of collapsing from bad investments for decades now. So why should they profit from no risk?
And if there is profit, but it's not from interest, in what form does that profit take? Does the borrower basically pay a fixed service fee to the bank at inception of the loan? Or yearly, monthly?
Again, why are they profiting from something they never took risk on? Banks are the largest welfare recipients in the government bar none. Why are we paying interest to welfare queens who were given their money from the government in the first place?
I'm not saying we should. But "why should we do ____" isn't a proposal. It's an inquiry. I think that's the hold up for me, is I they to be direct and you speak more.... Rhetorically. Let's put it that way.
Okay so you consider banks non private entities. I consider banks private because they are non government. But your line of reasoning is that they are ultimately bailed out by the tax payer and so that makes them not private regardless of their ownership. Fair enough.
Nonetheless, regardless of what they are what incentive would they have to even give out loans under your system of no interest?
And would genuinely private organizations be allowed to charge interest in your ideal set up? For example could I loan someone $100,000 and charge interest?
These questions of mine don't bely a point. I'm against the bank bailouts, the auto industry bailouts, I'm against the vaccine liability immunity that was given. I'm no fan of lots of things. That said, changed require intense scrutiny as well.
Nonetheless, regardless of what they are what incentive would they have to even give out loans under your system of no interest?
What incentive do we have as taxpayers to bail them out repeatedly? Their incentive is they get to continue existing as banks. If they have a problem with that they can process loans at gunpoint, no different than what they did to taxpayers.
And would genuinely private organizations be allowed to charge interest in your ideal set up? For example could I loan someone $100,000 and charge interest?
Sure, that’s a non factor, again you’re taking risk, that’s the give with the take.
These questions of mine don't bely a point. I'm against the bank bailouts, the auto industry bailouts, I'm against the vaccine liability immunity that was given. I'm no fan of lots of things. That said, changed require intense scrutiny as well.
Which is understandable, the change I’m saying is essentially either put banks back to pre Wilson standards and make them compete to exist on loans, or take the mask off of banks being businesses instead of a government entity. This is not a long term solution but it will at least stop the bleeding of taxpayers and at least give the ability to create a better solution.
I have been respectful, please reciprocate.
I promise you, it is not a comprehension issue. It is a "I have done this a million times, and sometimes assuming, even when it is obvious, leads to mis-assumptions" and I do my very best to avoid any miscommunication. It's one of those damned if you do (guess wrong), damned if you don't (your insult earlier).
Anyway, thank you. It sounds like were getting somewhere.
So you say gov would not be a good long term avenue for loans on a consumer basis. But also think private lenders shouldn't be charging interest. My next thought then is, what incentive is there for banks to lend out money? If not profit motivation then what does motivate them to do it?
And if there is profit, but it's not from interest, in what form does that profit take? Does the borrower basically pay a fixed service fee to the bank at inception of the loan? Or yearly, monthly?
There is no such thing currently as private lenders. I think that’s your big continued misconception. Banks have socialized risk through tax payers. We haven’t had a bank capable of collapsing from bad investments for decades now. So why should they profit from no risk?
Again, why are they profiting from something they never took risk on? Banks are the largest welfare recipients in the government bar none. Why are we paying interest to welfare queens who were given their money from the government in the first place?
I'm not saying we should. But "why should we do ____" isn't a proposal. It's an inquiry. I think that's the hold up for me, is I they to be direct and you speak more.... Rhetorically. Let's put it that way.
Okay so you consider banks non private entities. I consider banks private because they are non government. But your line of reasoning is that they are ultimately bailed out by the tax payer and so that makes them not private regardless of their ownership. Fair enough.
Nonetheless, regardless of what they are what incentive would they have to even give out loans under your system of no interest?
And would genuinely private organizations be allowed to charge interest in your ideal set up? For example could I loan someone $100,000 and charge interest?
These questions of mine don't bely a point. I'm against the bank bailouts, the auto industry bailouts, I'm against the vaccine liability immunity that was given. I'm no fan of lots of things. That said, changed require intense scrutiny as well.
What incentive do we have as taxpayers to bail them out repeatedly? Their incentive is they get to continue existing as banks. If they have a problem with that they can process loans at gunpoint, no different than what they did to taxpayers.
Sure, that’s a non factor, again you’re taking risk, that’s the give with the take.
Which is understandable, the change I’m saying is essentially either put banks back to pre Wilson standards and make them compete to exist on loans, or take the mask off of banks being businesses instead of a government entity. This is not a long term solution but it will at least stop the bleeding of taxpayers and at least give the ability to create a better solution.