Chavez threatens to nationalize Venezuelen banks.

[Seran]

November 29th, 2009;

CARACAS (Reuters) - Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez said on Sunday he could nationalize private banks for refusing to lend to the poor and for failing to sufficiently aid in the country's development.

In his weekly television show, Chavez said the purpose of banks was not to enrich a small group of people but to help the development of the country, including extending housing credits.

Addressing himself to "all the country's private banks," he rhetorically asked: "You want me to nationalize the banks?"

"I have no problem with that because the banks don't want to extend credit to the poor, they don't comply, they don't want to comply with the bank's purpose for existence."

..continued http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSTRE5AS2E920091130 (http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSTRE5AS2E920091130)
---

Let's us all forget that banks who fail to take risk, or additional risks for folks subsisting on online collectible doll sellers, should be severely penalized or outright nationalized.

[TheEschaton]

"I have no problem with that because the banks don't want to extend credit to the poor, they don't comply, they don't want to comply with the bank's purpose for existence."


There is an interesting debate here at least. What is the purpose of the bank? Capitalism would say one thing, the ideas that the Bretton Woods institutes are (supposedly) founded on would say something different.

[Gan]

There is an interesting debate here at least. What is the purpose of the bank? Capitalism would say one thing, the ideas that the Bretton Woods institutes are (supposedly) founded on would say something different.

Why do you think we have banks?

[Gan]

November 29th, 2009;

CARACAS (Reuters) - Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez said on Sunday he could nationalize private banks for refusing to lend to the poor and for failing to sufficiently aid in the country's development.

In his weekly television show, Chavez said the purpose of banks was not to enrich a small group of people but to help the development of the country, including extending housing credits.

Addressing himself to "all the country's private banks," he rhetorically asked: "You want me to nationalize the banks?"

"I have no problem with that because the banks don't want to extend credit to the poor, they don't comply, they don't want to comply with the bank's purpose for existence."

..continued http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSTRE5AS2E920091130 (http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSTRE5AS2E920091130)
---

Let's us all forget that banks who fail to take risk, or additional risks for folks subsisting on online collectible doll sellers, should be severely penalized or outright nationalized.

Hugo Chavez, yea he's a real peach. What excuses will he give when he runs out of things to nationalize and has to explain to his subjects why his country is still in the shitter?

[TheEschaton]

I think we have banks because rich people didn't want to carry large sums of money around with them, and wanted lines of credit elsewhere based on what they had deposited somewhere else.

I don't think there's any real historical backing of Chavez's view of the banks. My interest is in wondering whether there's an evolution towards the purpose of a bank - development banks are very much a 20th century thing.

-TheE-

[Gan]

I think we have banks because rich people didn't want to carry large sums of money around with them, and wanted lines of credit elsewhere based on what they had deposited somewhere else.
wow

I mean WOW. :wtf:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In my opinion: Banks facilitate trade through the issuance of standardized currency, act as a medium between trade partners (promote trust in the marketplace), hold and protect individual value and wealth, and facilitate personal and corporate growth through lending. Unfortunately, as history demonstrates, banks are still run by man - who are susceptable to greed and thus require some level of regulation. To think that banks are not necessary because of the latest economic downturn would seem purely populist.

[Parkbandit]

I think we have banks because rich people didn't want to carry large sums of money around with them, and wanted lines of credit elsewhere based on what they had deposited somewhere else.

I don't think there's any real historical backing of Chavez's view of the banks. My interest is in wondering whether there's an evolution towards the purpose of a bank - development banks are very much a 20th century thing.

-TheE-

Scary part is... I'm not sure if you are serious.

[Atlanteax]

wow

I mean WOW. :wtf:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In my opinion: Banks facilitate trade through the issuance of standardized currency, act as a medium between trade partners (promote trust in the marketplace), hold and protect individual value and wealth, and facilitate personal and corporate growth through lending. Unfortunately, as history demonstrates, banks are still run by man - who are susceptable to greed and thus require some level of regulation. To think that banks are not necessary because of the latest economic downturn would seem purely populist.

Nevermind that Banking has functioned with this same purpose since the Classical Period. It is not some recent phenomenon that is "evolving".

[longshot]

I think we have banks because rich people didn't want to carry large sums of money around with them, and wanted lines of credit elsewhere based on what they had deposited somewhere else.

-TheE-

I think you're a retarded victim of a shitty liberal arts education, blessed with an even shittier sense of elitism.

If I remember correctly, someone in your family has done very well in the financial world... and been your patron saint for your crude crusades against capitalism... your whimsical time in the peace corp, followed by three years of introspection and personal development/soul searching known as "law school".

If only they made pants with bigger pockets... then we wouldn't need banks!

[Paradii]

November 29th, 2009;

CARACAS (Reuters) - Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez said on Sunday he could nationalize private banks for refusing to lend to the poor and for failing to sufficiently aid in the country's development.

In his weekly television show, Chavez said the purpose of banks was not to enrich a small group of people but to help the development of the country, including extending housing credits.

Addressing himself to "all the country's private banks," he rhetorically asked: "You want me to nationalize the banks?"

"I have no problem with that because the banks don't want to extend credit to the poor, they don't comply, they don't want to comply with the bank's purpose for existence."

..continued http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSTRE5AS2E920091130 (http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSTRE5AS2E920091130)
---

Let's us all forget that banks who fail to take risk, or additional risks for folks subsisting on online collectible doll sellers, should be severely penalized or outright nationalized.


Sounds like Chevaz just skimmed through Atlas Shrugged and is trying to prove Rand wrong.

[BigWorm]

I think you're a retarded victim of a shitty liberal arts education, blessed with an even shittier sense of elitism.

If I remember correctly, someone in your family has done very well in the financial world... and been your patron saint for your crude crusades against capitalism... your whimsical time in the peace corp, followed by three years of introspection and personal development/soul searching known as "law school".

If only they made pants with bigger pockets... then we wouldn't need banks!

Didn't TheE go to BC for undergrad too? Hardly a 'liberal' arts college in my book.

[Parkbandit]

Didn't TheE go to BC for undergrad too? Hardly a 'liberal' arts college in my book.

Boston College is not a liberal arts college now?

Since when?

[Belnia]

Even kicking around the idea of nationalizing banks on a TV show is a sure-fire way to cause every foreign banking interest to start pulling up stakes very, very quickly.

[BigWorm]

Boston College is not a liberal arts college now?

Since when?

Notice that I emphasized the 'liberal' part. BC is hardly liberal. I realize liberal is supposed to have a slightly different context in liberal arts, but I don't think longshot was making the distinction, hence the 'elitism' comment.

[TheEschaton]

wow

I mean WOW. :wtf:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In my opinion: Banks facilitate trade through the issuance of standardized currency, act as a medium between trade partners (promote trust in the marketplace), hold and protect individual value and wealth, and facilitate personal and corporate growth through lending. Unfortunately, as history demonstrates, banks are still run by man - who are susceptable to greed and thus require some level of regulation. To think that banks are not necessary because of the latest economic downturn would seem purely populist.

So you agree with Chavez if the banks "aren't lending to the poor", they're not doing their job?

And longshot, your crusade against so-called rich, spoiled brats is pathetic. I'm sorry you can't believe that my beliefs arise out of the merit of the belief itself, instead of the circumstances of my upbringing. There's plenty of conservatives amongst liberal-arts educated, rich kids. I'd even venture that they are in the majority in that particular subset. Why not, for one moment, think past your obvious "class hatred" that you often accuse me of, and entertain the idea that my whimsical frolic in the Peace Corps and subsequent three year introspection at law school might actual be part of my belief structure.

-TheE-

[TheEschaton]

And yes, I was playing the devil's advocate, suggesting that banks are purely there to exist for the rich and increase their own wealth. And you gave me what I was looking for, a definition that outlines the role of the bank as something that is supposed to promote development, or at least stablize the currency/economy.

[Atlanteax]

So you agree with Chavez if the banks "aren't lending to the poor", they're not doing their job?

If the poor (applying) do not have any concrete means of repaying the loan (or collateral) that would make them high-risk during a time where there is limited liquidity to make loans.

To pay interest on deposits made to the bank, they need to generate income, which is predominantly via loans.

If they lose too much money on loans, or end up in a situation where too many outstanding loans are being slow to repay ... their ability to pay interest, nevermind the credibility in preserving the value of depositors' assets, becomes at risk.

Are you so dense to not realize that Chavez is getting so desperate for public support, that he continue to jeopardize Venezuela's economic well-being so that he can stay in power, by throwing good money (deposited into banks) after bad (non-performing-loans) ?

It is just like the fuss in the U.S. and in Europe about banks taking too much risk in lending to people who would not be financially qualified (under normal circumstances) to afford homes, and when all those loans went bad (or NPR), the taxpayers had to bail them out.

So it'll be the same in Venezuela... everyone is going to suffer.

[Keller]

I think you're a retarded victim of a shitty liberal arts education, blessed with an even shittier sense of elitism.

If I remember correctly, someone in your family has done very well in the financial world... and been your patron saint for your crude crusades against capitalism... your whimsical time in the peace corp, followed by three years of introspection and personal development/soul searching known as "law school".

If only they made pants with bigger pockets... then we wouldn't need banks!

You realize that TheE is entirely correct.

Banks evolved out of the need to (1) secure currency (whether in the form of precious metal or commodities) and (2) exchange currencies.

I appreciate the scathing longshot post as much as the next guy, but I think you're issue is with TheE personally, not with his accurate statement on the development of banks.

[Gan]

I kind of thought the longshot post was dead on. And worth a hearty chuckle followed by a smelly warm fart.

:)

[Keller]

I kind of thought the longshot post was dead on. And worth a hearty chuckle followed by a smelly warm fart.

:)

But longshot's post was just an angry tirade against Alok, not against what Alok was saying.

You'll notice that longshot didn't say Alok was wrong, but just that he was an elitist with a liberal arts education and a law degree.

[TheEschaton]

Which I am, since I'm better than all of you. ;)

[TheEschaton]

WAS THAT SARCASM? I DON'T KNOW?!?!?

God I need a drink.