Why You Should Care About “Casino Banking”

The simple answer is because they are robbing you blind. And you are blind because they are hiding behind multiple layers of curtains.


see https://wallstreetonparade.com/2022/10/casino-banking-wall-street-mega-banks-traded-more-in-their-federally-insured-bank-than-the-total-for-their-bank-holding-company/


The article in the above-referenced link says that regulators need to pull their heads out of the sand. The obvious problem is that legislators and regulators are prospective employees of the originators of the worst economic crime in human history. Thus each PR confrontation is actually an audition for a new job. And practically every legislator on federal and state levels has been paid serious money to support their campaigns for election and reelection.


The reason that such money was available to spread around within the marketplace, legislatures and regulatory agencies, is that securities brokerage firms who originated the current iteration of “securitization” have been converting the money of investors and the money and wealth of homeowners.

The article above is the tip of the iceberg. The absurdity of  reported revenue from trading exceeding actual economic activity is not apparent to most people. And those who understand the fundamental defect are either directly or indirectly suppressed from speaking or taking any action. So as we now stand, only 50% of GDP consists of economic activity in the form of goods and services and 50% of “financial services.”

In the time before securitization was claimed to be implemented in the credit markets involving transactions with homeowners, such financial services and trading activity consisted of only 16% of GDP. Now it is 50%.


The effect on individuals  has been profound. Wages have stagnated as debt was persistently and aggressively marketed as a reasonable substitute for rising wages. All efforts to educate the public as to the risks of accepting this infrastructure were successfully suppressed. And now people find themselves more interested in their FIFO scores than in the amount of money they have in any savings account – if they even have a savings account.

In addition, this love affair with debt has completely clouded the judgment of consumers, investors and law enforcement. They are all literally invested in this infrastructure as long as they have retirement or pension benefits. Nearly every stable managed fund is heavily invested in unregulated certificates with a value far less than the amount paid.

Consumers are agreeing to pay back money that should’ve been paid to them in the first place as a fee for assuming the risk of participation in a scheme whose principal objective is the creation, sale and trading of unregulated securities. And everyone is calling these transactions “loans.”

This infrastructure is undermining the basic economic strength of the country.  The Nobel prize awarded to Ben Bernanke may be well deserved for his insights into the real reason behind the behavior that produced bank panics in the 1930s.

But no award should be granted for the policies he adopted that completely ignored the rights of investors and homeowners who were victims of illegal and fraudulent behavior on the part of multiple securities investment firms that, in my opinion, are erroneously referred to as “investment banks.”

Homeowners, in my opinion, should not simply be successfully defending legal proceedings that carry the label of “foreclosure.”  they should be attacking such efforts as extortion. The fact that they are not doing so is only a testament to the fact that they are ignorant of the finer points of investment banking.

But nothing can change the fact that the money they received at their “loan closing” was money that was due to them for taking on and assuming risks that they did not know were present.



2 Responses

  1. Thank you Neil. That is exactly what I have re-labeled my case as, extortion and been arguing for quite some time. If the Plaintiff, who has never existed gave the false label of foreclosure for the unlawful action at the onset but can’t meet any of the requirements of a “foreclosure” then it isn’t one. Just because a foreclosure-mill attorney says so doesn’t make it so. I am finding this to be one of the most difficult things to get the Judge to accept. Like Javagold wrote – “It’s hard to get a man to understand the problem, when his salary depends on him not understanding the problem.” So perfectly stated! The Judges’ retirement fund/pensions are dependent on these falsely labeled cases.

  2. It’s hard to get a man to understand the problem, when his salary depends on him not understanding the problem.

Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: