Contradicting someone, or demolishing their arguments can be difficult. Much better, where possible, is to prove they are contradicting themselves. Here’s where banksters contradict themselves.
Bank CEOs, bank shareholders, etc are always keen to persuade us that lending standards which others claim to be a risk, are in fact not a risk, and hence that we should have lax lending standards. The claim is of course a pack of lies: banksters’ real aim, as we all know, is to enjoy the profits of lax lending as long as that works, while taxpayers foot the bill when it doesn’t.
Now why doesn’t the state call banksters’ bluff?
I.e. how about the state saying to bank shareholders, “OK, if the risks of lax lending REALLY ARE negligible, then you won’t mind pledging your entire worldly wealth to back the claim, will you? I.e. if your bank goes bust, we (the state) grab your house and ALL YOUR ASSETS so as to put your bank back on its feet. (Or instead of anyone’s entire worldly wealth being pledged, perhaps the amount of assets pledged could be some multiple of each bank shareholder’s shareholding.)
Indeed, we (the state) will even pay you a very small dividend in exchange for the latter pledge. E.g. we’ll pay you say 0.01% of the value of your pledged assets per annum as a reward for the invaluable service you’re providing. And how can you possibly turn down the offer: after all, the risks are non-existent (according to you), and you get an extra 0.01% return on your assets. Why would you turn down the offer?”
Moreover, the latter system would be very similar to the system employed by Lloyds, (the London based insurance entity). Lloyds “names” pledge their worldly wealth, and get a dividend in good years; while in exceptionally bad years, they lose a fortune.
Reason banksters would turn down the latter sure-fire way of making money is of course that it’s not sure fire. And they know it. They’re lying. They’re contradicting themselves.