Ooooh, fun! I'll quote myself too. :)

"Do you have any examples of the model your suggesting actually working anywhere? Or, is it instead based on some research? I'm actually curious what you're basing your assertions on."

No what I'm getting at is more what we will operate under after capitalism. much like how mercantilism was after feudalism and capitalism was after mercantilism.

Oh I'm speaking from the perspective of social justice, not actual models. You asked me what I thought philosophically and I gave you a philosophical answer.

Oh, I thought the reference you made about financial institutions ALL being evil, then changed to merely unscrupulous, where about our current model.

Good thing, in this real world model I live in, my bank has really helped me out!

Were, not where. Can't seem to type today, but do seem to require pointing out all my own typos.

hyperbole shouldn't make the entire point of someone's stance void, and i think you realize that. That being said, institutions that take your money and invest it for their own profit should not be allowed to keep all the profit, they should be required to give you a portion of it - given that it was your capital. And if they lose that money their losses shouldn't be nationalized. It's my personal opinion that the above should be illegal and that we should reinstate the Glass-Steagall Act. In this way we can keep the greedy unscrupulous fucks of wall street away from main street's lifetime's savings. A bank that does not invest your money for its own profit may not be inherently unscrupulous and provides a useful service given the condition and intrinsic nature of our current fiscal and economic reality. That being said, I philosophically approve of the intrinsic necessity of usury or the way our banks' roles are currently established in the national and global economy.

****That being said, I do not*** philosophically approve of the intrinsic necessity of usury or the way our banks' roles are currently established in the national and global economy.

First of all, the definition of usury includes 'excessive.' You seem to be using it to mean 'any.' You claim ALL of the financial institution is unscrupulous; there are plenty of institutions that are very reputable and allow plenty of people and small businesses access to capital that they couldn't otherwise receive.

Unfortunately, you weren't making many points before that weren't little one liners (or one word) and then you later backed down saying you were talking hypothetically instead of about the real world, which is where we started.

I agree with several of the points you made in your recent post, but that was the first time you made many of those (in this thread, at least.) It was a far more reasonable attempt at explaining your thoughts, so thank you.

Now go to bed; I'm done here soon too. ;)

I wasn't speaking hypothetically, I was speaking philosophically - I object to buying houses on credit, philosophically. I obviously understand its a necessary evil given the intrinsic nature of today's economic reality. But you asked so I answered.