Did they also help settle Australia by creating a social atmosphere that would require stealing food to survive, get caught, off you go to the prison island?
The Bankers Manifesto 1892
- Thread starter darkbeaver
- Start date
It doesn’t work that way Bar, banks are not charities. They are for profit companies, their first responsibility is to make profit, they are responsible to share holders. Within that constraint, they should try to help the society.
But if a bank didn’t make a profit, it won’t be around to help the society. I am all for regulating banks, banks helping the society etc., as long as it is kept in mind that the primary function of a bank is to make a profit for the shareholders.
You, as a stakeholder, are that constraint that prevents the bank from doing the social work that they desperately want to undertake. The banks are completely innocent having only followed their natural inclinations. Do you seriously believe that there are perhaps two or three people in Canada who do not know the primary function of private banks? The studies of the last three-hundred years indicate without doubt that private banking cannot be trusted and cannot be regulated so they have to go, period. Or would you rather further regulate society to comply with private bankings primary function?
The point about the profits being recycled would be accomplished by lower interest rates and/or a raise in who qualifies for interest free loans. All companies would be charged interest, a bank does not loan itself money at interest. Money is an essential service, everybody who uses money is a 'share-holder'. Because money can be siphoned off it is one of the main reasons the banking failures of today and in the past can happen. In bad times (poor growing season) the banking income total would be less and their wages drop would mean the ones in line for interest free loans would decrease in number. That balance should fluctuate, the bankers of today have it locked in a position that will eventually break. Through their willingness (greed) to decide who should be loaned money and who should be kept poor.
I agree with this quote below in theory but in practicality it would also be unsustainable because that would require continuous growth. The spurt during the war ( more $$ for companies) and the boom after the war (more $$$ for the people) with some changes. All countries chip in the tiny bit need for a very small army that has people from all current UN Nations as the grunts (that is all that would be needed because the money spent on more expensive weapons systems would be spent on public works projects. The Panama Canal can be used as an example, once construction started many people were employed, at the end of the construction phase, when it entered service at took far fewer employees. If everybody is still going to have a job then another project should be started or everybody gets shorter hours and the pay would be whatever it takes to keep their income the same.
CEO's shouldn't make 500 to 1 in a society that has homeless people.
If our income had kept pace with compensation distribution rates established in the early 1970s, we would all be making at least three times as much as we are currently making. How different would your life be if you were making $120,000 a year, instead of $40,000?"
"As ridiculous as that seems, an in-depth study in 2004 on the explosion of CEO pay revealed that, including stock options and other benefits, CEO pay is more accurately $500 to $1."
The Richest 1% Have Captured America's Wealth -- What's It Going to Take to Get It Back? | | AlterNet
I agree with this quote below in theory but in practicality it would also be unsustainable because that would require continuous growth. The spurt during the war ( more $$ for companies) and the boom after the war (more $$$ for the people) with some changes. All countries chip in the tiny bit need for a very small army that has people from all current UN Nations as the grunts (that is all that would be needed because the money spent on more expensive weapons systems would be spent on public works projects. The Panama Canal can be used as an example, once construction started many people were employed, at the end of the construction phase, when it entered service at took far fewer employees. If everybody is still going to have a job then another project should be started or everybody gets shorter hours and the pay would be whatever it takes to keep their income the same.
CEO's shouldn't make 500 to 1 in a society that has homeless people.
If our income had kept pace with compensation distribution rates established in the early 1970s, we would all be making at least three times as much as we are currently making. How different would your life be if you were making $120,000 a year, instead of $40,000?"
"As ridiculous as that seems, an in-depth study in 2004 on the explosion of CEO pay revealed that, including stock options and other benefits, CEO pay is more accurately $500 to $1."
The Richest 1% Have Captured America's Wealth -- What's It Going to Take to Get It Back? | | AlterNet
What you are advocating is nationalization of banks. It's not going to happen, even NDP is not advocating that.
In principle there is nothing wrong with government running the banks, government already runs the Bank of Canada. However, people won't accept such a move, that will be regarded as a sure sign of creeping Socialism.
While Canadians don't have the instinctive aversion to Socialism that Americans do, I don't think even Canadians will accept such a bold step toward socialization.
Will if you're not happy with creeping socialism you can have racing socialism but you will have socialism and it will define democracy and private capital will be squeezed down to pseudo public manageablity of a sort. The Bank of Canada is a rubber stamp and a hollowed out former public institution. You don't think that but the technocrats who run the world do. You're holding gold and they're betting on plastic carbon credits,so don't you think you'll clash?
It was some time after WWII and in a provincial election in Alberta on party said they would cancel all personal debts (probably just moved it off the books and repaid the banks secretly). No matter what they did in the next few decades they won by a landslide. People revolt when money is being taken away, they don't revolt when they are being given a big check. The only ones in revolt would be the CEO's. Banks, Fire Dept's and Police and Mail Services, etc should not have shareholders.
The combination of de-regulation, and monetarism.. free trade in currency.. has de-nationlized the banking system.. creating an international banking oligarchy outside the control of national governments.. and in control of supra national organizations like the IMF and WTO. It's not a matter of IF national governments should apply supervision over its sovereign national currency and credit, that's obvious.. it's whether the can anymore.. having deeded control to a bunch of scum of the earth Wall Street banks.. and their legates.
Quite so, supervision of banks is essential. Americans don’t believe in any supervision, any regulation, they go to the other extreme. The current meltdown was precipitated due to lack of supervision for banks, and Americans still haven’t learned their lesson.
There still is no supervision of the banks. And with Republicans ready to filibuster any attempt to regulate the banks (they have 41 senators now, enough to filibuster), any chances of bank reform are dead. Another economic meltdown is sure to follow, in a few years.
So I am all for supervision, we do supervise the banks effectively here in Canada. At the same time, it is important to remember that the primary function of the banks is to make money, to make profit. They are for profit corporations, not non profit charities.
I have posted this many times but never got any positive feedback .
The Federal Government can create its own currency
It is interesting to note that the same sections of the B.N.A. Act that disallow the Federal Government the right to collect income tax, did however provide for a means whereby the Federal Government could raise capital. Sectons 91 (14, 15,16, 28, 29, and 20) give the Federal Government the authority, and the responsibility, for the control and issue of our currency, based upon the resources and wealth of the nation. They were given an unlimited supply of debt-free money with which to operate the contry. All they had to do was print it. And they did just that for the first 46 years of our country.
Government gives banks credit monopoly
Then, some 46 years after Confederation, in 1913, our parliamentarians were poorly advised in committing a grave injustice to future generations of Canadians by passing an amendment to the B.N.A. Act (without referendum!) commonly known as the Bank Act. By this act, the Federal Government gave to the banking system the sole right to create the financial credit (in reality, the "money") of our nation. And for the last 79 years, the private banking system has been exercising this monopolistic prerogative of creating and controlling the Canadian people's financial credit.
Well, banks don't work for free... they charge "interest." They even charge interest to the Government. And interest can never be repaid; it just keeps adding up, and up, and up, until today our national debt alone is approaching $600 billion.
Shipwrecked on an island
(Editor's note: At this point of his speech, Mr. Gauvreau explains in detail the same story related by Louis Even in "The Money Myth Exploded," formerly called "Salvation Islan"
Let's assume that those of us here this afternoon are shipwreck survivors, and that we are stranded on a deserted island. Our only means of survival are to help each other by each doing those things that are necessary for the betterment of our new community, until we can be rescued. One of us becomes a farmer, one a fisherman, one a carpenter, and so on.
Each of us has his own role to play for the survival of the community. No one has any money, and at least for the time being, there is no need for money, All are contributing equally, and all are on the same economic level. We are satisfactorily exchanging our goods and services by barter. But gradually, as the community evolves, it becomes apparent that money will be necessary. Bob already has a house, and the carpenter doesn't need another hundred pounds of fish. But we do need to associate, cooperate, and continue to contribute to the community. There needs to be an acceptable and equitable means of exchanging our goods and services...
Then one day, as the community is sitting on the beach, talking about their problem, we notice another raft approaching the island. All are happy to see a new face, and we greet the new arrival warmly. As we continue to talk, someone in the community tells the vew arrival about our dilemma, about how we started the community, developed it, built it through cooperation, and advanced to the point where we now need some form of exchange to help make the community grow and flourish. The new arrival's eyes light up. "I have the answer to your problem," says the new arrival. "I'm a banker. I'll set to work right now to print you some money."
The next morning, the whole community meets in front of the banker's new house. As the banker distributes the money, he reminds us that the money belong to him, and that we do not "own" it, but that we can only "borrow" it, and that we must pay a small fee for the privilege of borriwing it. We can pay that at the end of the year. And he requests that each person sign the agreement to pay 5%, which is certainly not excessive interest.
The debt cannot be paid back
The first year goes by. The community functions and prospers during the year; then at the end of the year we return to the banker, to pay him back what we had borrowed. But we find, to our dismay, that we cannot repay the loan, because we do not have enough money. We find that we now owe all that we had borrowed, plus 5%, which is the interest. The $1,000 that we had borrowed has now become $1,050. Since there is obviously no way to pay back the $50, which is the interest, the banker suggests that we leave the loan on the books as a $1,000, leaving a lesser amount of $950 for each of us to operate on for the next year. Seeing no other real answer, the community agrees to the new terms, and attempts to operate with less money for another year.
At the end of the second year, the community faces a similar, but greater, problem. In buying down the loan, we find that our operating capital has now been cut by 10%, to $900. We realize that if the plan is allowed to continue, the banker will own the island, in its entirety, having contributed nothing but the paper and ink (bookkeeping) that was used to monetize the community's real credit in the first place. Some of the islanders protest.
But the banker has now had a couple of years to prepare for this day. To counter the objection that is inevitable, he has taken evasive steps. He has used the time to develop credibility in the community to educate us as to how valuable his service is, and what a fine contribution he has made to the community. He established colleges and universities majoring in economics, and teaches our children and our educators all about his money system. He ensures that few, if any, in the community are aware that there is another way; and he encourages the community to discount as ridiculous any suggestion that there could be a better way to finance a community...
The solution: Social Credit
Then one day, one of the islanders decides to take a walk along the beach and deliberate upon what has happened to the community. As he strolls along, head down, thinking, he notices what appears to be the corner of a book sticking out from the sand. He kneels, and picks up the book and brushes it off. The title, though tarnished from time, wind, and tide, is still readable - "The Meaning of Social Credit." The islanders had never heard of this before, but he has not had a book to read for a long time, so he sits down on the beach to read it. A nd as he reads, he becomes more and more interested and excited. He realizes that this book holds the real answers to his island's financial problem. The book describes how a community can function very well by simply creating a Balance Sheet, a system of debits and credits...
He runs back to relate the exiting news of his discovery to the rest of the community. As he gathers the islanders to discuss his find, the banker watches with concern. Is his jug up? Has he been found out? Is the community finally ready to take back its property, and reconstruct it, and once again have prosperity and cooperation?
Friends, only you can answer these questions, because the island I talk about is your country, and the community I refer to is all of us.
The story paints a rather dismal picture of the banking system in our country. Please understand, the average bank manager, teller or loans officer, has absolutely no knowledge of what you have just learned. They are merely pawns in a much larger game. But rest assured, those in the upper levels of management in the finance industry are absolutely certain of what they are doing, and how it affects the citizens of this country... Any system that enslaves and controls a population in the way that our finance system does, cannot possibly be from the Lord. So there is only one other place it could come from...
Banks do not lend out depositors' money
Does anybody here know where the banks get the money that they lend out? Actually, most people assume that they lend out depositors' money. But the Bank Act specifies that the bank must retain the depositor's money on account, and must pay him interest on it.
So, where else might the bank get the money?
The Bank Act also specifies that the bank may create, out of nothing, new credit ("money") through loans, but that it must have a relationship to the deposits. Originally, the banks were allowed to lend out six times their deposits, but today banks are allowed to issue new credit up to 26 times their deposits. That means that if I deposit my $1,000 in a Canadian bank, then that bank can issue loans to the tune of $26,000... Go to the bank, get a loan, and ask for the loan proceeds in cash. No matter the size of the loan, you cannot get it in cash - it must be deposited to your account, and cheques written in order to access the money. No tangible money is ever created; only debits and credits (figures) are created...
Today in Canada, the only source of money, whether private, corporate, or governmental need, is a loan from a bank. But you can never borrow your way out of debt. You can only borrow your way into bankruptcy, at which time you turn your back on your assets and your hard work, and give up possession of it to those to whom you owe money, but who gave absolutely no vested interest in your property...
1917: the Federal Income Tax
Now that we understand that the national debt can never be fully repaid using the current system of finance, the question arises: How, then, does it get paid? In 1917, after finding out that the debt was beginning to build, the Federal Government usurped the powers of the provincial governments and, under the guise of the War Debt, instituted the War Debt Income Tax Act. The Act was unconstitutional then, and it is still unconstitutional today. When it was enacted, it was on a voluntary basis, at a rate of 10%, and applied only to those earning $10,000 or more per year. In 1917, the average yearly salary was about $250.
The Income Tax Act could have more appropriately been named the Bank Interest Debt Income Tax Act; but then, people would have fought to the death to keep it out of effect. Since that time, the Federal Government has seen fit to increase the tax rate as high as 65% on high-income individuals, and has also seen fit to remove the lower limits to the point that, as you know, everyone is required to pay...
And now we have had the GST, which in my opinion is equaly as unconstitutional, rammed down our throats by a group of MPs that brashly and boldly declare that they are smarter than we are, and they know best...
Facing up to reality
Our Federal Government has gone so far away from the Constitution, in nearly every area of jurisdiction, that it now conspires to change it altogether. But that is not the solution. Getting back to the way it was written is the solution...
Each one of us selects his mode and method of doing battles with oppressive government. Some of us do it by speaking out... some of us join non-party political groups, some of us pray, and most of us do nothing. We have a condition called the "ostrich syndrome." If we ignore it and don't look at it, it might go away! But remember this: if your head is in the sand, your butt is an open target!
The Federal Government can create its own currency
It is interesting to note that the same sections of the B.N.A. Act that disallow the Federal Government the right to collect income tax, did however provide for a means whereby the Federal Government could raise capital. Sectons 91 (14, 15,16, 28, 29, and 20) give the Federal Government the authority, and the responsibility, for the control and issue of our currency, based upon the resources and wealth of the nation. They were given an unlimited supply of debt-free money with which to operate the contry. All they had to do was print it. And they did just that for the first 46 years of our country.
Government gives banks credit monopoly
Then, some 46 years after Confederation, in 1913, our parliamentarians were poorly advised in committing a grave injustice to future generations of Canadians by passing an amendment to the B.N.A. Act (without referendum!) commonly known as the Bank Act. By this act, the Federal Government gave to the banking system the sole right to create the financial credit (in reality, the "money") of our nation. And for the last 79 years, the private banking system has been exercising this monopolistic prerogative of creating and controlling the Canadian people's financial credit.
Well, banks don't work for free... they charge "interest." They even charge interest to the Government. And interest can never be repaid; it just keeps adding up, and up, and up, until today our national debt alone is approaching $600 billion.
Shipwrecked on an island
(Editor's note: At this point of his speech, Mr. Gauvreau explains in detail the same story related by Louis Even in "The Money Myth Exploded," formerly called "Salvation Islan"
Let's assume that those of us here this afternoon are shipwreck survivors, and that we are stranded on a deserted island. Our only means of survival are to help each other by each doing those things that are necessary for the betterment of our new community, until we can be rescued. One of us becomes a farmer, one a fisherman, one a carpenter, and so on.
Each of us has his own role to play for the survival of the community. No one has any money, and at least for the time being, there is no need for money, All are contributing equally, and all are on the same economic level. We are satisfactorily exchanging our goods and services by barter. But gradually, as the community evolves, it becomes apparent that money will be necessary. Bob already has a house, and the carpenter doesn't need another hundred pounds of fish. But we do need to associate, cooperate, and continue to contribute to the community. There needs to be an acceptable and equitable means of exchanging our goods and services...
Then one day, as the community is sitting on the beach, talking about their problem, we notice another raft approaching the island. All are happy to see a new face, and we greet the new arrival warmly. As we continue to talk, someone in the community tells the vew arrival about our dilemma, about how we started the community, developed it, built it through cooperation, and advanced to the point where we now need some form of exchange to help make the community grow and flourish. The new arrival's eyes light up. "I have the answer to your problem," says the new arrival. "I'm a banker. I'll set to work right now to print you some money."
The next morning, the whole community meets in front of the banker's new house. As the banker distributes the money, he reminds us that the money belong to him, and that we do not "own" it, but that we can only "borrow" it, and that we must pay a small fee for the privilege of borriwing it. We can pay that at the end of the year. And he requests that each person sign the agreement to pay 5%, which is certainly not excessive interest.
The debt cannot be paid back
The first year goes by. The community functions and prospers during the year; then at the end of the year we return to the banker, to pay him back what we had borrowed. But we find, to our dismay, that we cannot repay the loan, because we do not have enough money. We find that we now owe all that we had borrowed, plus 5%, which is the interest. The $1,000 that we had borrowed has now become $1,050. Since there is obviously no way to pay back the $50, which is the interest, the banker suggests that we leave the loan on the books as a $1,000, leaving a lesser amount of $950 for each of us to operate on for the next year. Seeing no other real answer, the community agrees to the new terms, and attempts to operate with less money for another year.
At the end of the second year, the community faces a similar, but greater, problem. In buying down the loan, we find that our operating capital has now been cut by 10%, to $900. We realize that if the plan is allowed to continue, the banker will own the island, in its entirety, having contributed nothing but the paper and ink (bookkeeping) that was used to monetize the community's real credit in the first place. Some of the islanders protest.
But the banker has now had a couple of years to prepare for this day. To counter the objection that is inevitable, he has taken evasive steps. He has used the time to develop credibility in the community to educate us as to how valuable his service is, and what a fine contribution he has made to the community. He established colleges and universities majoring in economics, and teaches our children and our educators all about his money system. He ensures that few, if any, in the community are aware that there is another way; and he encourages the community to discount as ridiculous any suggestion that there could be a better way to finance a community...
The solution: Social Credit
Then one day, one of the islanders decides to take a walk along the beach and deliberate upon what has happened to the community. As he strolls along, head down, thinking, he notices what appears to be the corner of a book sticking out from the sand. He kneels, and picks up the book and brushes it off. The title, though tarnished from time, wind, and tide, is still readable - "The Meaning of Social Credit." The islanders had never heard of this before, but he has not had a book to read for a long time, so he sits down on the beach to read it. A nd as he reads, he becomes more and more interested and excited. He realizes that this book holds the real answers to his island's financial problem. The book describes how a community can function very well by simply creating a Balance Sheet, a system of debits and credits...
He runs back to relate the exiting news of his discovery to the rest of the community. As he gathers the islanders to discuss his find, the banker watches with concern. Is his jug up? Has he been found out? Is the community finally ready to take back its property, and reconstruct it, and once again have prosperity and cooperation?
Friends, only you can answer these questions, because the island I talk about is your country, and the community I refer to is all of us.
The story paints a rather dismal picture of the banking system in our country. Please understand, the average bank manager, teller or loans officer, has absolutely no knowledge of what you have just learned. They are merely pawns in a much larger game. But rest assured, those in the upper levels of management in the finance industry are absolutely certain of what they are doing, and how it affects the citizens of this country... Any system that enslaves and controls a population in the way that our finance system does, cannot possibly be from the Lord. So there is only one other place it could come from...
Banks do not lend out depositors' money
Does anybody here know where the banks get the money that they lend out? Actually, most people assume that they lend out depositors' money. But the Bank Act specifies that the bank must retain the depositor's money on account, and must pay him interest on it.
So, where else might the bank get the money?
The Bank Act also specifies that the bank may create, out of nothing, new credit ("money") through loans, but that it must have a relationship to the deposits. Originally, the banks were allowed to lend out six times their deposits, but today banks are allowed to issue new credit up to 26 times their deposits. That means that if I deposit my $1,000 in a Canadian bank, then that bank can issue loans to the tune of $26,000... Go to the bank, get a loan, and ask for the loan proceeds in cash. No matter the size of the loan, you cannot get it in cash - it must be deposited to your account, and cheques written in order to access the money. No tangible money is ever created; only debits and credits (figures) are created...
Today in Canada, the only source of money, whether private, corporate, or governmental need, is a loan from a bank. But you can never borrow your way out of debt. You can only borrow your way into bankruptcy, at which time you turn your back on your assets and your hard work, and give up possession of it to those to whom you owe money, but who gave absolutely no vested interest in your property...
1917: the Federal Income Tax
Now that we understand that the national debt can never be fully repaid using the current system of finance, the question arises: How, then, does it get paid? In 1917, after finding out that the debt was beginning to build, the Federal Government usurped the powers of the provincial governments and, under the guise of the War Debt, instituted the War Debt Income Tax Act. The Act was unconstitutional then, and it is still unconstitutional today. When it was enacted, it was on a voluntary basis, at a rate of 10%, and applied only to those earning $10,000 or more per year. In 1917, the average yearly salary was about $250.
The Income Tax Act could have more appropriately been named the Bank Interest Debt Income Tax Act; but then, people would have fought to the death to keep it out of effect. Since that time, the Federal Government has seen fit to increase the tax rate as high as 65% on high-income individuals, and has also seen fit to remove the lower limits to the point that, as you know, everyone is required to pay...
And now we have had the GST, which in my opinion is equaly as unconstitutional, rammed down our throats by a group of MPs that brashly and boldly declare that they are smarter than we are, and they know best...
Facing up to reality
Our Federal Government has gone so far away from the Constitution, in nearly every area of jurisdiction, that it now conspires to change it altogether. But that is not the solution. Getting back to the way it was written is the solution...
Each one of us selects his mode and method of doing battles with oppressive government. Some of us do it by speaking out... some of us join non-party political groups, some of us pray, and most of us do nothing. We have a condition called the "ostrich syndrome." If we ignore it and don't look at it, it might go away! But remember this: if your head is in the sand, your butt is an open target!
It is also important to remember that the revolts in the past called for heads to roll rather than it being a 'voluntary cut in pay' and making a cash donation to the 'wounds of the world fund' of some $100t us. (the petty cash squirreled away for some rainy day since about 1000AD) At least the bloodline can carry on even if as only servants, resist a revolt by the masses is not a long-term viable option..
The nitty gritty details of the deception are not very entertaining for most people. If it takes a full blown crisis before it gets the attention it needs so be it. If an amputation is needed before you see a doctor that's fine as long as the amputation could have been avoided by the application of a band-aid just a few years ago prior. Several 100 in this case. From the below what could be carried over to a workable system that didn't rely on revolt by the masses as a way of resetting the odometer so to speak. So far being told where to 'find' $100t doesn't seem to be encentive enought to cause a 'reset'. Banking as a business should be given a set profit of 5%, anything more is passed off as lower consumer prices. Other than printing costs (and distribution) they should get no more than those costs no matter how many rounds that same money makes. Making those rounds means interest from people taking loans out that will result in some form of income. Those are interest bearing loans, housing vacations etc come under non interest bearing loans. Business would not have stockholders they would have owners. The ones that worked there would be classified as owners and their voice would carry the same weight as the shareholders of todays businesses.
If push comes to shove the legal process of Canada separating from England and forming a country called Canada seems to have missed a few steps. Normally no bif deal but this has to do with constitutional matters. All in all a world court might rule that Canada is actually Soverign Provinces still and the debt of that endity currently called Canada is not a debt of the people of the Provinces. Nor any internnational treaties. The original constitition works quite well for social conduct but it doesn't address the issue of corruption at the (highest)banking levels. Banks should be serving Nations, they should come after food and water stuff. Haiti paid on a debt for 200 years that fance or the Bank could have 'forgiven' at any moment, did they, no.
Banks didn't have to create a social atmosphere in order to settle Australia; and the scenario you paint predates modern banking. As a matter of fact it predates any banking. However, if you check the economic development of Australia or any other British colony for that matter, you will find that banks played a prominent role. If you go back even further to what is known as the Commercial Revolution (in the 15th and 16th centuries) you will learn that the explosion of commerce that helped power the Renaissance and the Age of Exploration all depended upon the creation of a modern banking system. I could go on here, but I don't want to detail an entire history of the global banking system. Modern banks are essential to a modern economy whether you like it or not.
I think you misread my post. I said nothing about banks being charities. I said that they should behave in a manner that helps society. Banks can do that by providing a stable financial underpinning for society. Contrary to the TV commercials they don't have to be lovable institutions in order to do that.
Banks are corporations, and by nature corporations are greedy, they will do anything to make a quick buck (like they tried in USA). That is why they need to be properly regulated, properly reined in.
An analogy comes to the mind is dog restricted to the backyard (with a fenced compound). It is only right and proper that the dog is permitted to roam free, that is good for the dog. At the same time, he must not be let loose from the compound and permitted to roam unrestricted on the street, he is liable to injure others and himself (and you will be liable).
The same, way, while banks must be left alone to make profit, they must be strictly regulated. Failure to do so will harm the society, will harm the banks and government will be liable, left holding the bag (as USA has learned the hard way).
Banks can help society just by being responsible lenders and financial institutions. We need banks, society cannot exist without them. We do not have to like them, just understand that they are there to make a profit. (fair profit)
England could afford to send a person to Australia for less than the price of a loaf of bread, apparently.
Being a private business and having the King's ear would seem to be a position that was more than just business, it is an open door to direct policy and as you say they are profit orientated above all else.
I would suggest you read a little on Rothschild, Napoleon and England. Rothschild got the news of his defeat at Waterloo one day before it was publicly released. In that day he started a rumor that caused England's stocks to become almost worthless, Rothchild bought them up for a few pennies, the nest day the value rebounded to their former worth. That is a Bank using their money to earn far more than just normal fees would get them. Why try and make stock secure from tampering when banks can do it just by raising and lowering interest rates?
Individuals might not have a choice on how banking is done but a Nation certainly does. If the people's employees (the Gov) is putting the interests $profits$ of Private Banks above the welfare of the ones who hired then those people have a right to fire then. If you are dead that is about the same thing. Avoiding what in the past has been called bloody revolutions is desirable, but even that is preferred over no revolution (of the banking system). All Nations are financially in the red, everybody in the world would seem to prefer their country to be in the black. There is already enough 'money' in the world to do that. You take back all the money that was illegally collected, for America it would be when the FED Law was passed (about 1910), Canada back a similar amount, etc. (whatever it takes to claim 99.999% of the money that the founding Banks have collected as interest. Yes that includes the interest on the interest ) That reduction would free up a lot of money for any country plus any debt payments would actually decrease the debt that was left outstanding after all the reductions.
Banks do not have to make profit,"privates banks" have to make profit and there is a big difference between usery and making a profit to cover operating expenses. With a legion of lawyers what is determined as fair usually isn't. Law is not justice.
No do what JFK was working on before he was shot, repeal the Federal Reserve Act and go back to that previous form. Freeze the World Bank accounts until all the accounting (by another body ) is done. They stole from the people of the US it is only right that the same group of people take responsibility to reclaiming what was stolen.
Or is that not a cause that is not worth the effort?
You gave your Governmental body up for private investment, now they listen to the ones giving them 'donations' over the ones who are paying their salaries. Not everybody wants things to work like that, mostly the fast majority, all the taxpayers and most of their families included.
Why are you so against doing a few things to the banking industry that make s it a lot cheaper to the people of any Nation. The Bankers still are left with a good income, down from a mountain of gold but it still has a health plan, same one everybody else gets.