In your opinion do Wall Street and the Investment Banks serve a societal purpose?

[el_bryanto]

For the purposes of the poll a societal purpose is a something that benefits society as a whole. We address these through public means (i.e. the post office, the sanitation department) or privately held companies/corporations (i.e. grocery stores provide food and other necessities).

Bryant

10 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	Yes they do
	5 (50%)
	Yes they do; but they aren't the only way that purpose could be met
	0 (0%)
	Yes they do; but the purpose would be better served some other way.
	0 (0%)
	No they don't
	4 (40%)
	This bullshit poll is bullshit!
	0 (0%)
	I like to vote!
	1 (10%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[PowerToThePeople]

1. where is the "Hell No!" option? n/t

[el_bryanto]

3. Sorry about that

But let me ask a question - do you think there is a societal roll they should be filling but aren't or do you think those types of institutions are inherently parasitic?

Bryant

[PowerToThePeople]

7. choice #2. n/t

[A HERETIC I AM]

2. Of course they do.

It is easy to vilify that which is hard to understand, but if we didn't have investment banks it would take 60 years for a city to complete a sewer system or build a bridge.

[el_bryanto]

8. I don't know about 60 years; rather more money would have to be set aside up front

Right now the interest earned on the investment of bond proceeds allows some projects to be done more cheaply; without Investing it, the difference would have to be made up in taxation. Likewise; many projects are funded through bond issuance. Without a market for that, again such projects would have to be funded through taxation of some kind.

I am guessing.

Bryant

[A HERETIC I AM]

15. Bond issuance is precisely the method Investment Banks perform ...

the services needed by municipalitites and businesses.

Your poll is interesting so far in that the "NO!" votes are made up of, and I am guessing here, people who really do not understand how public finance works.

An Interstate exchange or a major bridge project or a sewer system or water system or any other major infrastructure item is just not something a city, regardless of tax base or rate can afford to pay for all at once.

Your statement :

Right now the interest earned on the investment of bond proceeds allows some projects to be done more cheaply; without Investing it, the difference would have to be made up in taxation."

Is a little confusing. "On the investment of bond proceeds? By whom? What are "Bond proceeds" in your mind?



You hit a little closer to the market with this statement;

Likewise; many projects are funded through bond issuance. Without a market for that, again such projects would have to be funded through taxation of some kind.

Yeah....no shit. In fact not "many projects" but the overwhelming majority of them that have costs or budgets that exceed the annual income of the city, as most major infrastructure projects will.

And you can only raise taxes so much before people start saying 'Kiss my ass' and move elsewhere.

How do you think a city raises money for a new bridge over the river or a new highway flyover or a new sewage treatment plant?

[el_bryanto]

20. Bond proceeds - when you issue a bond for a public project

that money is often invested - sometimes for a short time, sometimes for a few years. It depends on what those proceeds are going to be used for. if they are for maintenance than they might be invested while a certain percentage is pulled out each quarter or month to pay for the ongoing maintenance. The part that's not pulled out will earn investment income; or should.

Bryant

[A HERETIC I AM]

25. That is partially true.

Last edited Tue Mar 24, 2015, 12:57 PM - Edit history (1)

Once the underwriting process is complete and the bonds have been sold, the investment bank can be contracted to hold the funds not yet disbursed to pay bills on the project and yes, that money can be further invested so that it pays interest of some sort, but it has to be VERY liquid and as such the interest is not that huge. It is siginficant, but not nearly as much as one might think.

Are you familiar with the bond issuance process in its entirety?

How is it that...say...the city of Fort Myers, FL came up with the money to build a pair of flyover bridges at a busy intersection, or convert a major surface street into a free flowing roadway by building bridges at every intersection?

With all due respect, the amount of misinformation or even complete lack of understanding of how bonds are issued, how they are underwritten, where the money actually comes from, etc. is huge, and not at all unexpected, not only here on DU (and I have been reading this sort of thing on DU for years) but with the public in general.

[el_bryanto]

26. I'm more familiar with it on the investment side

I am not familiar with it in it's entirety; I've never been involved in the bond issuance process, just the investment of such proceeds.

Bryant

[KingCharlemagne]

32. Oh, really? Care to elaborate? It only took the USSR about 15 years to put the first man into space

and I don't remember the USSR relying heavily upon investment banks to accomplish that.

[A HERETIC I AM]

33. OK...I really have only one response to that completely absurd comparison.

Alright.....that's two sentiments.

[KingCharlemagne]

36. Typical . . . resort to insults and invective when you can't respond to

substance.

The USSR had no investment banks and it beat the West into space (both manned and unmanned space flight). So tell us all again why investment banks are necessary for public works projects.

[treestar]

51. that is a good point

It was a communist or socialist society. The government had direct control of where all the money went.

They got into space but then did they have a good and safe infrastructure for the citizens?

It was totalitarian and there was a downside, too.

[KingCharlemagne]

57. I meant only to note that the institution(s) of Wall Street and the investment banking

houses are not the only ways to allocate a society's resources, nor have they ever received sanction from Holy Scripture. The USSR allocated its resources via a centrally planned economy and public ownership of the means of production, not by means of investment banks and a stock exchange. Along the way, the USSR managed to defeat Hitler, build an inter-continental nuclear arsenal and beat us into space . . . all without investment banks and their attendant excesses. Oh and the USSR also managed to build a lot of pubic works projects as well on the local and 'state' levels, again without the use of investment banks.

[treestar]

59. But are we sure they did not

get investment from foreign sources? If they functioned completely on their own, with no involvement from outside - that's not likely to be really possible today.

[Dreamer Tatum]

64. Using the USSR as a paragon might be the greatest vindication of private capital imaginable. nt

[KingCharlemagne]

66. Ah, the obligatory red-baiting. Refreshing, it is. - nt

[Dreamer Tatum]

67. The USSR: so efficient in its central planning that it doesn't exist anymore.

"Don't worry if you don't have a rifle. Pick one up from a dead comrade." - actual Russian command in WWII.

Yeah, that's SOME resource allocation they had there.

Seriously, you might want to rethink the strategy of lionizing the USSR.

[KingCharlemagne]

69. I'll bet you're all down with 10% of this country owning 80% of its

resources. Hell, you're probably part of the 1% who own 40% of the country's resources.

[Dreamer Tatum]

70. No, I'm down with 8 guys in a Politburo owning 100% of it. nt

[KingCharlemagne]

71. Like I say, good old-fashioned red-baiting. Been around since at least

the 1920s and still just as refreshingly predictable as ever.

[Dreamer Tatum]

73. You trumpet the USSR and then accuse me of preferring wealth concentration.

I think you should sit down and have a long think for yourself.

Better yet, go find a long line to stand in and pretend you're in Moscow in 1978, hoping to get a roll of toilet paper.

[sabrina 1]

94. It wasn't efficient in its planning. It did what we are doing now, in a slightly different way.

Had Russia abandoned the notion of invading and attempting to control other nations, it would not have had to spend so much of its resources on its war machine.

If WE focused on this country rather than running around the world, spending trillions on WMDs, invading and financing those invasions, think of what could be done with all that money.

Being an Empire is extremely costly and in the end, will collapse, as the USSR did.

Nothing costs more in this country right now, than our military budget.

[A HERETIC I AM]

53. Slapping my forhead or banging it against the wall is not an insult. (Edited)

It is a sign of frustration.

There is a HUGE difference between a (here's the edit) "CENTRAL" government and the way it finances things and the way those things happen in the private sector (edit again) or LOCAL government.

Space programs are HARDLY "public works projects".

By your analogy one would have to assume that NASA was a privately funded organization.

It wasn't in the 60's and it isn't now.

If you really think investment banks aren't necessary, explain how a municipality, in a timely way, can install ANY major project.

[KingCharlemagne]

62. The USSR managed to construct an enormous number of public works projects at the local and

'state' levels, again without the use of a single (privately owned) investment bank. The example of the USSR thus provides an effective and resounding refutation to your contention that investment banks are absolutey necessary.

I can provide examples of afore-mentioned public works projects if you would like them.

[Dreamer Tatum]

68. The Trabant. nt

[A HERETIC I AM]

74. First of all, nowhere in this thread did I say investment banks were "absolutely necessary"

and it is not my contention in the least.

The OP asked if they "serve a societal purpose" and I originally answered "of course they do".

But....if you want to continue to compare a seriously flawed, centrally controlled economy that eventually imploded to western style economies, you go right ahead.

It is, in my opinion, comparing an apple with an orange.

[el_bryanto]

55. The USSR was operating under a command economy at that point, weren't they?

I mean there would be no need for investment banks or investment; the economy was centrally planned and resources could be allocated anywhere the governing committees wanted them to go. There weren't any individual actors to account for. Raising taxes wasn't a problem in a command economy; they didn't have to worry about being voted out of office. So . . . I don't really know if this comparison works.

In our more democratic society; if a city were to try and raise the money for public works strictly through taxation, they might well be voted out of office.

Bryant

[KingCharlemagne]

58. I meant only to note that there is no writ in Holy Scripture for the institutions

of investment banking and the stock exchange. The example of the USSR proves that there are other ways by which a society may choose to allocate its resources, whether via a 'command' economy (aka: a 'centrally planned economy') and public ownership of the means of production, a la the USSR or some other form of collectivized decision making, like Mao's China.

The whole issue of 'democratic control' of the process (or lack thereof) is probably grist for another thread.

Great poll and discussion, btw. Compliments.

[oldandhappy]

4. Two votes

for society? -- no
for financial hulliganism? -- yes

[moondust]

5. Nothing that credit unions couldn't manage.

To include local investing, lending, credit cards, etc.--without the depersonalized predation.

[hughee99]

6. I think there are a small number of functions

Last edited Tue Mar 24, 2015, 11:35 AM - Edit history (1)

They perform that some entity would perform if they were gone, and I wouldn't call it necessary, but does have some benefit. Basically, by the lowest possible standard, yes.

[Nye Bevan]

9. I guess the concept of starting a business, building it up,

and wanting to take it public, to raise capital, expand, and hire more people, is one that the "no" voters are unfamiliar with.

[el_bryanto]

11. Is the roll of wall street/investment bankers necessary to accomplish that however?

Are there other systems that might be developed that might be more responsive. Microloans for example (I'm a big fan of Kiva). Patreon and Kickstarter have opened up new opportunities as well.

Bryant

[Nye Bevan]

17. Ah yes, I'd forgotten about Kickstarter.

I guess investment banks are not needed after all.

[el_bryanto]

18. I'm not saying as it exists now it could replace them; but it could grow to fill that roll. nt

[Hoyt]

37. I hear what you are saying, but that "new" entity would essentially be an investment banker.

Hoepfully, it would be a more friendly investment banker than most, but it would still be helping businesses start -- some good businesses, and some bad.

I've said it before, I'd love to live like my granddad in the 1940/50s with an outhouse, well for water, milking small herd of dairy cows for a living, going to bed at 8:00 pm so I could get up at 3:30 am, praying for rain and decent milk prices, etc. But, I don't think most folks would. Nor do I think a bunch of little mom-and-pop farms and businesses would produce the income and tax base necessary to provide all the things we have. That doesn't mean I wouldn't change they way our taxes are spent on military, crummy health care, inadequate welfare, etc.

[closeupready]

13. Because Henry Ford was a banker.

[jeff47]

10. They do, but they've gone too far.

They do serve the basic needs of providing capital on one hand, and providing savings on the other.

The problem is they have abused this beneficial role to the point where it's more about enriching themselves and their friends than providing capital and savings vehicles.

[Xyzse]

16. This is where I'm at.

[A HERETIC I AM]

21. What do you mean by "providing savings"? n/t

[jeff47]

72. A place to put savings so that it can grow more than stuffing it in a mattress. (nt)

[A HERETIC I AM]

75. OK...fair enough.

By what method then do these savings grow? Interest, right?

Where does the interest come from?

[jeff47]

78. The interest comes from work.

These entities organize idle capital so that it can be put to work.

(oversimplified example)

If I have $1,000 laying around, that isn't enough to start a business. But me and 49 other people with $1,000 laying around is enough to start a business. The 50 of us deposit the money, and the bank lends it out.

The new business owner gets money from doing work, and pays a portion of that towards his bank loan. The bank takes a cut for their services, and pays the 50 of us interest.

That's the positive for society that financial institutions can create.

The current entities have gone far beyond this basic role in order to enrich themselves. That isn't positive for society.

[A HERETIC I AM]

91. I would add a couple words to the sentence in your title line;

"The interest comes from the money (value) created by work"

If I use a loan from the bank to buy a bunch of lumber and nails but do nothing else, all I will have is a nice pile of lumber and some nails.

If I assemble all that into the shape of a house, I have something of much greater value.

I do not, in any way, shape or form, disagree with the sentiment expressed in your last sentence. Do large banks always act in the best way for the public good?

No. Of course not.

Do they do things that are downright criminal?

Yes.

Can the system be improved?
Yes.

Should it be done away with?

Not without serious consequences that would affect the quality of life Americans, much less any other government or entity that uses them have come to expect.

[treestar]

45. They don't make capital, they are just a point of organization

Of all of our capital. Granted too much of that is in the hands of too few, but the rest of us add up to 99% still and our money is there.

[jeff47]

76. Didn't say they made capital. They make capital available.

Via the "organization" you mention:
Me having a spare $1,000 won't be enough to start a business. Me and 49 other people having a spare $1,000 is.

Something has to bring the 50 of us together in order for that capital to do something. So we deposit that savings into a financial entity, which then loans the money out.

There are many layers of complexity and different sources of capital and other financial arrangements, but their beneficial role is that of organizing idle money so that it can do work.

However, the current entities have used those layers of complexity and financial arrangements to enrich themselves, and pursue that as their only goal.

[closeupready]

12. If charging a fee to move money from point A to point B serves a social purpose, then I suppose.

If, instead, it serves strictly a selfish purpose, then no. I voted no.

[el_bryanto]

14. How do you feel about truckers charging a fee to move food from the fields/packaging plants

to the grocery store?

Bryant

[closeupready]

22. Because cash is edible and sustaining nutrition.

[el_bryanto]

24. OK - but the truckers are paid cash right? Or do you favor a cashless economy? nt

[closeupready]

30. Look. I get it. You're in banking. Check. And you disagree with me.

Anywhere else to go with this topic...?

[el_bryanto]

31. Why are you so dismissive? I asked a follow up question and you responded with an eye roll

I ask another and you respond with this. If you have what you feel is a strong argument, why not make it?

Rather it feels like you've already decided that my mind is closed so there's no point wasting your time.

Bryant

[closeupready]

41. Sorry. I apologize for my tone.

I didn't want to get involved in this discussion too deeply, and simply responded to your question in the negative (as opposed to affirmative).

I know your history here, and I respect you and your views, so let's just agree to disagree.

Cheer.

[treestar]

43. I'm not in banking but I do use banks

Do you?

I would not want to be on a barter economy, as it would take too much time and haggling.

Thus there must be a bank. The bank is regulated by the federal and state governments. So far no bank has ever done anything majorly bad to me. They did charge me for overdrafts when I forgot to make an entry in my check ledger and that made me pretty mad. But it was my error.

[closeupready]

49. Do I use banks? Yes, but if there were a viable alternative, I'd use it.

And I COULD and still function well as a member of society.

Banks in some form may be essential to our way of life, but that could come in a wide variety of forms.

[treestar]

60. It would be interesting to try to imagine those forms

Somehow they'd still be counting things up somewhere, though. Even if we were able to achieve communism, somebody would be counting and allocating.

The use of interest and the value of money itself causes this - so if we had one world currency it could eliminate some of the trading in currencies.

Abolishing interest would mean the money was just for bean counting, which could take out the profit motive and make is pure organization.

[closeupready]

65. Not a jibe at you, but I believe you demonstrate a lack of imagination here -

There are functioning members of the world economy with banks which are prohibited from charging or paying interest. And these are some of the most successful economies.

But getting back to the question posed in the OP, as Wall Street/investment banks exist today, they are little more than rent-seekers. If you consider rent-seeking a socially useful function, then I guess that's where we part ways.

Call me wrong, I'm prepared to admit it if you can argue persuasively that rent-seeking is socially useful.

[treestar]

83. What are those functioning members of the world economy

without interest? I recall something about that in Arab countries.

[closeupready]

90. No offense, but I think I'm done here. I answered the OP's question,

and that's all I'm prepared to do at the moment, no hard feelings.

Peace.

[A HERETIC I AM]

27. Do you like paved roads?

Do you like the idea that you don't have to dig your own cess pit and build your own outhouse each time you move residence?

Do you like the idea that you can reliably turn on your tap and have water come out of it with no further effort?


"move money from point A to Point B"

yeah.....that's all those banks do.

[closeupready]

29. Because cash makes good asphalt - just add water!

Honest!

[A HERETIC I AM]

35. I know you're trying to be clever with your rapier wit and all.....

but you didn't answer the question.

I'll understand if you can't though.

You aren't alone.

[closeupready]

44. Your analogy is flawed. My response to you illustrated how.

[A HERETIC I AM]

46. How is it flawed?

What is it you think an "Investment Bank" does?

My analogy comes from an understanding of their basic business model.

I'm betting yours is coming from a lack of underestanding or rather the conviction that they are inherently evil institutions and stops right there.

[closeupready]

52. Your post illustrates why (as I responded to el bryanto) I didn't want to get into this.

And this will be my last post to you, so have fun talking with yourself.

[A HERETIC I AM]

54. And you too.

Carry on with your bad self!

[TBF]

19. No. Just part of the pyramid scheme that is capitalism -

makes a few rich at the expense of all the others.

[PowerToThePeople]

23. pyramid.

[TBF]

88. ^ this right here is perfect. nt

[KingCharlemagne]

34. Not really. Or, the societal purpose they serve (allocating resources) could be

accomplished much more fairly and efficiently by central planning and nationalized banking.

[Coventina]

38. Sadly, many retirement plans are dependent on them. So I said "yes" but could be better served

another way.

[Hoyt]

48. That's the key point. Our economic system and standard of living right now are dependent on them

to a great degree. Wish we'd seen what would happen decades ago.

It can change, but it will take a relatively slow transformation unless we all want to live for awhile in tents, under bridges, in abandoned houses and stores, etc.; sleeping with one eye open watching for roving armed, right wingers willing to kill for power; and worse.

I'd love to see us more like many European countries, but that won't happen overnight.

[treestar]

39. They are necessary as long as we are going to be a modern, complex society

A small agrarian town might be able to organize things, but not with modern technology.

[hunter]

42. Our "modern, complex society" sucks rotten eggs in so many ways. I'm certain we could do better.

.

[treestar]

61. We'd have to organize big things in some way though

We are all using computers and could make our own in our towns and states, but that would admittedly be inefficient.

The phone lines and the internet have to be organized on large scale, too. Each town having their own would result in having to connect them all. We don't stay in one place and deal with only the people nearby.

I would had not chance to talk to you or know you existed pre-internet days. I'd only be talking to those in my building.

[hunter]

95. The interstate highway system connects things up pretty well.

There's no reason the internet couldn't be managed in a similar way.

So far as funding, see my post below.

Our existing economy is like a stagnant pond. The scum rises to the top and blocks out all the light and oxygen from the economy below.

"Trickle down" doesn't work unless you are an anaerobic criminal or corrupt community political "boss."

To get the economy circulating again we need to pull out the money the uber wealthy hold in stagnant "investments" and other paper games, and return it to the economy of ordinary people by progressive taxation of both wealth and income.

A properly managed economy is, by my rough guess, about 51 to 66 percent socialist. Inflation is controlled by taxing money from "the top of the pond."

Unemployment and other economic problems are dealt with by pumping money into the bottom of the pond.

There need not be any close coupling between those two flows of money.

Depending upon the current economic situation, the flow of money off the top of the pond, taxes, may exceed money pumped into the bottom of the pond, and at other times the opposite may occur.

But there is no reason to have private investors making money off these changing flows. That sort of management of the money supply is an anachronism from a time when "money" was actual gold, silver, or copper metal coins. Bitcoins are simply a modern version of the same.

[hunter]

40. I'm a Socialist and my economics are radical.

I understand our current economic system very well, thank you, and I abhor it.

What our economists today call "productivity" and "profit" is directly proportional to the damage we are doing to both earth's natural environment and the human spirit.

Large transfers of money should only occur with a focus on potential benefits for ALL PEOPLE and then only to projects that are sustainable and improve the overall environment for our own descendants, and the descendants of the other sentient life forms we share this planet with.

I've got no problem with private property or private investment, but I do think taxes ought to be steeply progressive on both income and wealth, such that it's impossible for an uber-wealthy class of people to arise; a class of people capable of buying and otherwise corrupting democratically elected government.

[PowerToThePeople]

50. imo, your economics are not radical

The only reson they are viewed thusly is because we are a corporate fascist state and have been barraged by corporafascist propaganda most all of our lives.

[Douglas Carpenter]

47. of course - at least under any system that is going to be in place for the foreseeable future

The question is the amount of disproportionate power they currently wield, the change from investment orientation to speculation orientation along with irresponsible practices that have gotten way out of control.

[Thinkingabout]

56. Without investment bankers etc how many people would be able to afford homes until they

are too old to enjoy them. In the meantime of saving enough to build a home we still have to pay rent. Wall Street allows investment to come through shares and whether you like corporations or not they tend to hire lots of people, Yes it is a merry-go-round, but it allows us to live the life styles we have become accustomed.

[Dreamer Tatum]

63. Yeah, let's make the world a million times less liquid and see how that works for you.

You want to buy a house where? OK, just go to the local bank and see if they have enough to lend you. No? There's no bank there, or it's undercapitalized? Gee, that's a shame. Too bad there's no way to spread liquidity around efficiently. You know who can help you out? Mr Potter. He's got a nice place for you to live called Pottersville.

You want to save money for retirement and you'd like to have more than a few bucks over what you put in? Gee, that would require some sort of money market, where people with comparatively small amounts of money can pool funds for large-scale investment.

You have a rock-solid idea for a business but you have no funds? Gee, I guess you better go see Mr. Scrooge and Mr. Potter and borrow money at 50%.

You say you want a nice, modern hospital, loaded with all sorts of modern equipment and people to run it? Too bad...a state of the art hospital costs $200 million. No one has that kind of money to invest, since they have to hoard it all just to have any sort of liquidity.

And so on.

Investment banking greases the skids for almost every convenience and advantage we have.

[A HERETIC I AM]

87. Well said and spot on.

Too many just do not seem to understand what it is large investment banks do.

I also find it frustrating and not just a little agravating that when one doesn't declare outright hatred for the cause du jour, it is automatically assumed they are on the side of the hated entity or their lberal bona fides are questioned. I have seen this attitude on DU for over a decade now and it never ceases to amaze me.

I am capable of understanding the services they provide while at the same time not approving of malfeasance in any form.

[pampango]

77. They existed under FDR. They just have to be controlled and taxed like he did. n/t

[Nye Bevan]

81. But Kickstarter wasn't around back then (nt)

[randome]

79. Does everything need a purpose?

Have a hobby? Does that serve a purpose?

More regulation is the answer but we will never stop people from pushing the envelope and trying to make a name for themselves by trying something new, even if it's 'only' a way to use money differently.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Precision and concision. That's the game.[/center][/font][hr]

[el_bryanto]

84. Yes having a hobby does serve a purpose

There's good evidence that we need a certain amount of down time to function properly; a hobby helps fulfil that.

That said, Wall Street and the Investment Banks play a huge role in our economy; I think it's worthwhile to consider if they serve a purpose, and if you feel that they do serve a purpose if that purpose might be fulfilled better in some other way.

Bryant

[randome]

92. With more than 300 million people in this country...

...and all of them trying to distinguish themselves, we will never get to agreement on what is best for society. Too many people trying to stand out from the crowd. If there isn't anything creative to do, someone will reinvent derivatives and the cycle will only repeat.

The first thing we need to do to stop this mindless expansion is to stop our population expansion.

But that's not easy.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Precision and concision. That's the game.[/center][/font][hr]

[Agnosticsherbet]

80. Even under communist rules, Russia had a Central bank that exists to this day.

China has the Peoples Bank of the Republic of China. Socialist counties also require banks within their economic system.

So, yes, banks are integral to an economic system whether it is the modern Consumerism, Communism, or Socialism.

Banks, however, should not be allowed to operate unregulated and they should not be allowed to reach a size where the collapse of a bank threatens the economic system.


Central Bank

[PowerToThePeople]

82. the poll is about investment banks and stock market.

[Agnosticsherbet]

97. Yes, they serve a critical purpose in our economic system.

Stock markets exist everywhere because they are the mechanism, world wide, used to trade in publicly owned companies. They do need to be regulated, but they have a critical purpose in all modern economic systems, including China's Communist System and countries like Norway and Denmark that utilize versions of socialism.

Investment banks are just a specialized form of bank that works within the narrow sector and is allowed to take greater risks. The Great recession and great depression happened because banks were allowed to engage in high risk schemes that failed, catastrophically. Getting rid of investment banks that type of risky behavior bank in other banks. Investment banks should be regulated and should not be allowed to grow beyond a certain size.

In order to go to another system, you would have to create a system of ownership and get that form ownership adopted by the entire planet. Until you did that. stock markets and investment banks would remain a critical part of our economic system.

As I see it, the problem is not their existence. The problem is in effective regulation of investment banks and stock exchanges.

[WDIM]

85. The only purpose they serve is to keep the rich rich.

They are a scam a ponzi scheme a fraud our entire banking and investing system is corrupt and is designed to funnel money to the top 1%. It is fictional money creating money creating artificial wealth.

The best thing we could do as a people is do away with wall street, do away with our current banking system, and do away with the Federal Reserve system. The federal reserve system is the basis for the corruption. It is the reason for the economic inequality we have in this country.

[Marr]

86. Of course-- particularly the commodities markets.

Unfortunately, they've also been undermined and turned into short term scam machines for bankers, instead of price stabilizers for producers.

All these financial services were originally designed to serve specific, practical purposes in a market-driven economy. Over time, however, they've been perverted by creeping deregulation. They used to be reliable, moderately profitable work horses. Now they're bloated, absurdly overgrown parasites that are killing the host.

[subterranean]

89. Yes, but they need to be adequately regulated.

They should be kept separate from commercial banks and not be allowed to become "too big to fail" due to the moral hazard that creates. Before the passage of the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act and other financial deregulation, the investment banks managed to serve their societal purpose without putting the entire economy at risk.

[el_bryanto]

98. Nods - I don't know if many people here believe they shouldn't be more tightly regulated and

controlled than they are now. They clearly have many corrupt elements. The question is whether or not those corrupt elements can be tamed to make them useful to society or if they are inherently corrupt.

Bryant

[Rex]

93. Sorry, but that is two seperate questions. Does Wall Street serve a societal purpose?

Absolutley. Does investment bankers? No they leech capital from society at a harmful rate. There only goal is to produce revenue at whatever expense to society. Was the economic meltdown in 2008 benefitial to society? IMO, investment bankers are the leech class of the financial sector. They produce nothing that a credit union cannot do for society and without being parasidic toward the population. Wall Street is an essential tool, it is the parasidic class that has damaged the way it works. Not the working class, many of which are dependent on Wall Street for their retirement and savings.

Again, investment bankers are part of the predatory class in society, whereas credit unions are a benefit to society. Wall Street WAS benefitial to society, until the parasites got control over it and bought Congress critters to deregulate the market.

[cbdo2007]

96. Business ownership puts billions of $$ into society and makes many of the things listed in

your example possible.

I am hardly "rich" yet I collect dividends and buy/sell pieces of companies all the time - generating thousands of dollars in tax revenue, and that goes back into the economy.

[PufPuf23]

99. Yes, unfortunately they favor concentrated wealth and power rather

than maximize potential social benefit.

[TheKentuckian]

100. Yes, but their reach and power have become so overgrown and distorted that

those necessary functions are mostly a cover and hostages held for to get away with and to actually be rewarded for crooked and cancerous behavior to the point of being black hole of entropy possibly out weighing the original benefits.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

101. Yes, but they're overly centralized.

Too many eggs in too few baskets.