We need your help. From Open Ukraine: (my quick translation) While Alpha Bank is trying to regain access to its billions abroad, the Ukrainian branch is calmly raising money for the Ukrainian armed forces and even brags about it on social media. I’m going to jump in right here. There’s more information about to be presented, but there’s no explanation given as to why Alpha Bank is behaving so unpatriotically.
Patriotic banker is an oxymoron and always has been. There's a reason traditional societies held the merchant class in contempt and reserved political power for warrior aristocracies.
My real banking education began after I read about Abraham Lincoln's approaching the banks to finance the American Civil War. The financiers set impossibly usurious 30-40% interest rates, expecting that Abe was over a barrel. In a manner a bit reminiscent of Putin, having been deprived of access to the dominant currency, he decided instead to issue a substitute, in the form of fiat paper Greenbacks. These proved to be not only workable, but popular, which was not the lesson the banks intended. A decade or 2 later, the banks finally forced withdrawal of Greenbacks (and silver specie) in favor of gold, in the circumstances surrounding the "Crime of 73". Lesson: fiat currency works just fine, as long as it's issued to finance productive activity (Richard Warner's Princes of the Yen to see how this worjed in post-WWII Japan).
Banks subliminally promote gold, because they control it. I'm still trying to assess whether bitcoin will be a currency controlled by the banks, just like gold or something truly new. Sadly, I suspect the former.
A well-managed fiat currency, IMHO, is the best of all choices, but prioritizing good policy over the temptations of greed requires placement of the levers of control in the hands of incorruptible technocrats. Here's yet another argument for autocratic government: a potentate who already has power has an incentive to improve economic conditions. This would make him more popular, and hence, even more powerful; I bet even Machiavelli would approve.
Richard Warner mentioned the example of the Chinese Empire. The Emperor used a fiat monetary scheme to manage his kingdom's finances, over a very large region, over very long times, very successfully. Using an entirely governmental, non-private, banking system.
I mean, the Commies' economic program was shite but man, they had a point about the uber-rich or the Capitalists or the Oligarchs or whatever you want to call them. And these huge concentrations of wealth and power in the "private sector" are not natural or some platonic ideal of Ricardian Capitalism. That shit breaks down at scale. Running a large bank is effectively a state function. This guy is formulating state policy and it is contrary to the official state's policy. Man, if Russia doesn't get this crap under control it's going to go down the Western path no matter what it tries.
Patriotic banker is an oxymoron and always has been. There's a reason traditional societies held the merchant class in contempt and reserved political power for warrior aristocracies.
Gref is also on the WEF board of trustees
Дело есть дело.
My real banking education began after I read about Abraham Lincoln's approaching the banks to finance the American Civil War. The financiers set impossibly usurious 30-40% interest rates, expecting that Abe was over a barrel. In a manner a bit reminiscent of Putin, having been deprived of access to the dominant currency, he decided instead to issue a substitute, in the form of fiat paper Greenbacks. These proved to be not only workable, but popular, which was not the lesson the banks intended. A decade or 2 later, the banks finally forced withdrawal of Greenbacks (and silver specie) in favor of gold, in the circumstances surrounding the "Crime of 73". Lesson: fiat currency works just fine, as long as it's issued to finance productive activity (Richard Warner's Princes of the Yen to see how this worjed in post-WWII Japan).
Banks subliminally promote gold, because they control it. I'm still trying to assess whether bitcoin will be a currency controlled by the banks, just like gold or something truly new. Sadly, I suspect the former.
A well-managed fiat currency, IMHO, is the best of all choices, but prioritizing good policy over the temptations of greed requires placement of the levers of control in the hands of incorruptible technocrats. Here's yet another argument for autocratic government: a potentate who already has power has an incentive to improve economic conditions. This would make him more popular, and hence, even more powerful; I bet even Machiavelli would approve.
Richard Warner mentioned the example of the Chinese Empire. The Emperor used a fiat monetary scheme to manage his kingdom's finances, over a very large region, over very long times, very successfully. Using an entirely governmental, non-private, banking system.
Curious to ask which bank you would recommend then since they all seem to be run by such unscrupulous characters?
Positions open for countries 110, 111, 112…
That is just too ridiculous.
I mean, the Commies' economic program was shite but man, they had a point about the uber-rich or the Capitalists or the Oligarchs or whatever you want to call them. And these huge concentrations of wealth and power in the "private sector" are not natural or some platonic ideal of Ricardian Capitalism. That shit breaks down at scale. Running a large bank is effectively a state function. This guy is formulating state policy and it is contrary to the official state's policy. Man, if Russia doesn't get this crap under control it's going to go down the Western path no matter what it tries.