Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: FDIC attempts to end Operation Choke Point with letter, action

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,151

    FDIC attempts to end Operation Choke Point with letter, action

    In an effort to put an end to Operation Choke Point — a financial task force that was created by the Obama administration to “choke out” businesses it finds objectionable like gun shops — the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. issued a letter Wednesday, saying all banks should examine their customer relationships on a case-by-case basis and not by industry operational risk.

    The government agency followed the action with a memorandum to its supervisory staff requiring examiners put in writing their recommendation to terminate an account, which the financial institution must review before the account is ended. The memorandum makes it very clear that “reputational risk” alone is not enough reason to end a client’s banking account.

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...nt-letter-act/
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  2. #2
    Regular Member HPmatt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Dallas
    Posts
    1,597
    Didn't work....surprise surprise...

    http://dailysignal.com/2016/04/02/in...earms-dealers/


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    “Men live without other security than what their own strength and their own invention shall furnish them"
    -Thomas Hobbes 1651

  3. #3
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    In an effort to put an end to Operation Choke Point — a financial task force that was created by the Obama administration to “choke out” businesses it finds objectionable like gun shops — the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. issued a letter Wednesday, saying all banks should examine their customer relationships on a case-by-case basis and not by industry operational risk.

    The government agency followed the action with a memorandum to its supervisory staff requiring examiners put in writing their recommendation to terminate an account, which the financial institution must review before the account is ended. The memorandum makes it very clear that “reputational risk” alone is not enough reason to end a client’s banking account.

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...nt-letter-act/
    So, let me get this straight. An agency whose only purpose is to shore up public confidence in the fraud* that is called fractional reserve banking is now into giving advice as to who should and shouldn't be excluded from the fraudulent scheme?

    Really?

    I guess in a way it makes a twisted sort of sense, "Hey, fractional reserve bankers. Don't alienate depositors on this ideological point--the system is pretty rickety as it is."



    *Think back to elementary school. Remember the explanation of how banks work. Timmy puts ten dollars in the bank, a gift from grandma or the proceeds from his paper route. The bank keeps one dollar, and loans out nine dollars. The "nice" bank puts Timmy's money "to work". Just one little problem. Certainly my teachers never pointed it out: in any other business in the world, if you give two people title to the same one piece of property, you go to prison for fraud.

    But, not fractional reserve bankers. They assure Timmy that he can get his money any time he wants. But, they also assure the loan recipient that whoever he gives the money can cash that check back at the bank.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Banks, always having our best interests at heart ... when SHTF, they'll be one of the first institutions to be burned to the ground.

  5. #5
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    Banks, always having our best interests at heart ... when SHTF, they'll be one of the first institutions to be burned to the ground.
    +1

    I would argue further.

    I would argue that when SHTF, fractional reserve banking will be both the S and the fan.*




    * That is just a manner of speaking. In truth, the market would be the fan. Try as they might, government and fractional reserve bankers, even when allied like today, are not as powerful as the market itself. The market always self-corrects, the market is always more powerful than government and the central planners in the banking system. Its just another way of saying, "there's way more of us than them."

    When it seems the market is slow to self-correct, or seems to not self-correct, it is literally because it has to work over, through, and around the distortions caused by the banking system and government. The important point is that there is way more of us than them, and we--the market--always work toward self-correction in the market (out of self-interest, if nothing else). All of government's arrogance about thinking they can plan what we need better than us ourselves, and all the self-interest of bankers and their after-crash planning to protect themselves, runs smack into our numerical superiority and our ability to figure out for ourselves where to spend our money or allocate our investments. The "market" is always more powerful in truth than the government and the fractional reserve bankers--that's why they have to lie and spin to us. If it wasn't true that the market--us--was more powerful, they'd have no to reason to resort to extensive lies, half-truths, and manipulations. The simple fact they tell even one lie or distortion reveals who is more powerful.
    Last edited by Citizen; 04-03-2016 at 02:38 PM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •