The Banking System
For "Word History" followers, I'm still working on "Part Two," and I'm getting close to finishing it, but it does take quite a bit of time to research each word through various sources; so I hope to have it posted soon; there is, however, a single word history at the end of this article.
As we all know, many of the banks, including many of those "too big to fail," are in trouble. Any regular readers here already are well aware that I'll NEVER be mistaken for a supporter of any wealthy big business venture, but first, we all need to ask ourselves two questions: "What kind of banking system do I want?" And, "What is in MY self interest?" As to the first, I guess I'd have to say that we only have a couple of "broad choices;" the basic system that has evolved during the history of the country, or some other very different system. The key to what I'm saying here is "broad." I am not for a total overthrow of the basic banking system, but I do believe that it needs to be regulated. Since the time of The Great Depression and the subsequent regulation imposed because of that fiasco, the bigwigs have stomped around huffing and puffing about how unfair government regulation is. I equate them with criminals who get shot or clobbered breaking into someone's home and then they, or their families, argue how unfair it is that they were injured, and that people shouldn't be able to hurt someone breaking into their home unless there is clearly "a threat to their safety;" as if someone breaking into your home ISN'T a clear threat to a person's safety. Criminals always seem to feel they are being treated unfairly, and of course, there's always that premise that comes to mind: "self interest." If criminals can make things safer for themselves, hey, they're going to do it; it is in their interest to do so. Such is the case with rich bankers and their "investors," frequently those of the "sit on their ass class." No regulation means they can do anything they want, including to you, and legally get away with it. Make no mistake about it folks, that's why all of the whining about regulation by bankers and their investors over the decades. Like those home robbers, they have NO concern for YOUR well being, only their own. As to the second point, I don't see it in non rich people's interest to have the whole banking/financial system come crashing down. I know you're mad, and YOU SHOULD BE!!! So am I, but sometimes we have to swallow hard and move on, hoping to avoid an even worse calamity. If greater banking regulation to avoid such nonsense is the result, we'll all be better off for it.
Okay, but the point is, if you favor the basic system, but re-regulated, and probably with even more enhanced regulation than that of the New Deal era, because times have changed so much since then, well we're going to have to have more money for bailouts, because they've gotten themselves (ad we're the "collateral damage;" get it? Banks....collateral!) into one hell of a mess, and that mess has helped to bring the country down with it. The conservative free market people who at least are consistent say no taxpayer money should be used to bail out bad banks and that we should just let them go under. In an ideal world, and this is NOT an ideal world, that would be true, and even since the New Deal era, banks have been taken over by government regulators due to insolvency, but these were generally a few banks here and there, and their demise didn't cause a potential depression, or even much of a ripple in the lives of most Americans. The situation now is much different. So many big banks are in trouble that their collapse would undoubtedly send shock waves around the WORLD, not just in America. The same argument can be made for American automakers. In an "ideal world," they could be left to go under, but not only would that give Americans a jolt to their pride, but certainly hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Americans whose jobs are tied to the auto industry would go under too. Like we need a couple more million jobless Americans. Add the banking system jobs to the unemployed, if the banks go under, and you got probably a couple of more million. There's no doubt in my mind that the resulting catastrophe would surpass the Great Depression, which might happen even if we continue the bailouts. So, as I see it, we've got our backs to the wall. These last eight years, especially, have put us in what may well be a "no win situation" about the entire economy, not just the banking system.
Some conservatives are saying that with all of the spending being done by government, that in a few years, inflation could be a big problem. They "may" be right, but that can't be a reason for inaction, folks. If the doctors told you, "You have to have this surgery, or you are likely to die," would you say, "Let me think about this....hmm....This surgery is going to cost the insurance company a bundle, and they may raise my rate?"
Word History:
Bolster-This comes from Indo European "bhelgh," which meant "to swell." The Old Germanic offshoot was "bolkhstraz/bolkstraz," which gave English "bolster," which seems to have been spelled in Old English just as it is today, and also gave German "Polster." The original meaning in Old English was "long pillow stuffed with some material" (You can see the "to swell" meaning in this.) Later, in the 1500s, a further development came about from this "stuff something so that it puffs up" meaning, so that it took on the meaning of "support something." German "Polster" still means "pillow, or padding."
As we all know, many of the banks, including many of those "too big to fail," are in trouble. Any regular readers here already are well aware that I'll NEVER be mistaken for a supporter of any wealthy big business venture, but first, we all need to ask ourselves two questions: "What kind of banking system do I want?" And, "What is in MY self interest?" As to the first, I guess I'd have to say that we only have a couple of "broad choices;" the basic system that has evolved during the history of the country, or some other very different system. The key to what I'm saying here is "broad." I am not for a total overthrow of the basic banking system, but I do believe that it needs to be regulated. Since the time of The Great Depression and the subsequent regulation imposed because of that fiasco, the bigwigs have stomped around huffing and puffing about how unfair government regulation is. I equate them with criminals who get shot or clobbered breaking into someone's home and then they, or their families, argue how unfair it is that they were injured, and that people shouldn't be able to hurt someone breaking into their home unless there is clearly "a threat to their safety;" as if someone breaking into your home ISN'T a clear threat to a person's safety. Criminals always seem to feel they are being treated unfairly, and of course, there's always that premise that comes to mind: "self interest." If criminals can make things safer for themselves, hey, they're going to do it; it is in their interest to do so. Such is the case with rich bankers and their "investors," frequently those of the "sit on their ass class." No regulation means they can do anything they want, including to you, and legally get away with it. Make no mistake about it folks, that's why all of the whining about regulation by bankers and their investors over the decades. Like those home robbers, they have NO concern for YOUR well being, only their own. As to the second point, I don't see it in non rich people's interest to have the whole banking/financial system come crashing down. I know you're mad, and YOU SHOULD BE!!! So am I, but sometimes we have to swallow hard and move on, hoping to avoid an even worse calamity. If greater banking regulation to avoid such nonsense is the result, we'll all be better off for it.
Okay, but the point is, if you favor the basic system, but re-regulated, and probably with even more enhanced regulation than that of the New Deal era, because times have changed so much since then, well we're going to have to have more money for bailouts, because they've gotten themselves (ad we're the "collateral damage;" get it? Banks....collateral!) into one hell of a mess, and that mess has helped to bring the country down with it. The conservative free market people who at least are consistent say no taxpayer money should be used to bail out bad banks and that we should just let them go under. In an ideal world, and this is NOT an ideal world, that would be true, and even since the New Deal era, banks have been taken over by government regulators due to insolvency, but these were generally a few banks here and there, and their demise didn't cause a potential depression, or even much of a ripple in the lives of most Americans. The situation now is much different. So many big banks are in trouble that their collapse would undoubtedly send shock waves around the WORLD, not just in America. The same argument can be made for American automakers. In an "ideal world," they could be left to go under, but not only would that give Americans a jolt to their pride, but certainly hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Americans whose jobs are tied to the auto industry would go under too. Like we need a couple more million jobless Americans. Add the banking system jobs to the unemployed, if the banks go under, and you got probably a couple of more million. There's no doubt in my mind that the resulting catastrophe would surpass the Great Depression, which might happen even if we continue the bailouts. So, as I see it, we've got our backs to the wall. These last eight years, especially, have put us in what may well be a "no win situation" about the entire economy, not just the banking system.
Some conservatives are saying that with all of the spending being done by government, that in a few years, inflation could be a big problem. They "may" be right, but that can't be a reason for inaction, folks. If the doctors told you, "You have to have this surgery, or you are likely to die," would you say, "Let me think about this....hmm....This surgery is going to cost the insurance company a bundle, and they may raise my rate?"
Word History:
Bolster-This comes from Indo European "bhelgh," which meant "to swell." The Old Germanic offshoot was "bolkhstraz/bolkstraz," which gave English "bolster," which seems to have been spelled in Old English just as it is today, and also gave German "Polster." The original meaning in Old English was "long pillow stuffed with some material" (You can see the "to swell" meaning in this.) Later, in the 1500s, a further development came about from this "stuff something so that it puffs up" meaning, so that it took on the meaning of "support something." German "Polster" still means "pillow, or padding."
Labels: bailouts, banking regulation, banks, English, etymology, Germanic languages, the wealthy
posted by Randy at 11:48 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home