It is a case that could have been taken off the script pages of the Yellowstone television show, but I have had a front row seat to it, and I’m sure there will be years of legal action in the aftermath, because there are so many bad things done by so many bad people that shaking hands and walking in separate ways at the end of it just won’t be possible. But to answer a question I have had about why there is not enough private ownership of businesses these days, and to understand why so many companies have sought the shelter of being publicly traded, or to hide behind large staffs of a board of directors to shield themselves from the pain of private enterprise, my question has been are the banking practices we see today purposefully predatory, and the confirmation couldn’t be more explicit than with a Wells Fargo case I know about regarding a tech company in Northern Cincinnati. I have spoken to everyone about this case, and it seems that a large bank like Wells Fargo would not intentionally engage in practices that are meant to essentially harm a business and bleed it dry for their own interests. This appears to break every fiduciary assumption that the finance industry would consider itself bound by. However, I’ve spoken to people who have served on the Federal Reserve and been CEOs of local community banks, and they weren’t fazed by what they were hearing about big bank practices. Which alarmed me, because what would normal people do in these kinds of situations, who own companies targeted by hostile banking practices to force them to sell so that they could take over the carcass for a value only they understand. As I drive around Ohio, and see a lot of businesses that are now empty, how many of them fell that way through mismanagement, and how many were forced into that condition by banking policies that have written into their financial markets an absolute hatred of capitalism and a desire to punish private ownership through lending practices that were inspired by Karl Marx and has the same level of radicalism behind their management practices.
It’s the same kind of logic that we’re currently experiencing with Trump in the White House, where the Fed has interest rates set between 4.25% and 4.50%. The cost to the American economy is approximately $600 billion per 1%, so Trump would like to see interest rates lowered into the 2% range to stimulate the economy by over a trillion dollars. However, the Fed doesn’t care about the people who vote; they represent the interests of their banks. With Trump’s red-hot economy, they want to make money off their investments, so the policy is set for them, not for the good of the country. They are concerned about their long-term bondholders, the banks in general, and other creditors and lenders. Nobody is saying they shouldn’t be making money off the services they provide, but in the case of the Fed, they have rates set too high to maintain their control over the market. In their view, presidents come and go and can kiss babies and pat dogs on the head at holiday parades. So long as they stay out of their breadbasket and keep financial management separate from political considerations. And baked into all that is how many of these banks have become overtly corrupt, and even evil. And feel untouchable to any political scrutiny. I’ve read about plenty of stories, but with this Northern Cincinnati case, I had not yet seen it firsthand. And what I have witnessed has been outrageously corrupt.
In the case of the tech company in Northern Cincinnati, the bank fell sideways with a CFO there and they essentially targeted the privately held company for collapse by withholding funds the company needed to run its business, audaciously insisting on spending huge fees onto a consulting firm that works for the bank to essentially steer the company over a cliff to destruction, not caring at all what might happen to all the customers that company had in the process. And no amount of logic could be talked into those characters because they had a preconditioned outcome in mind that certainly did not support privately held businesses. And that was when the policies of the big banks themselves were implemented to make it very difficult to maintain private ownership of anything, regardless of the company’s size. Smaller community banks are, of course, the way to go if you can get them. However, they have tight financial markers as well and are very prone to risk, so it’s another situation where monetary policy is one of the most significant barriers to inspiring business growth. There is a hatred of private ownership that large institutions are keen to destroy for very political reasons. The Fed person I spoke to thinks it’s just a fair in love and war condition. However, as I have been involved in the story, it’s a clear case where the menace is written into the policymaking. And suppose any society wants to have an excellent economy with private ownership taking risks to create jobs. In that case, there must be policies in place to prevent parasitic banking practices, which is the case with this Northern Cincinnati company and a large institutional bank. They feed off risk takers in ways that punish the practice.
When I tell the story to people, they assume, just as we do with the Federal Reserve, that the participants understand what they do to people, and that if they did, they would care. That nobody is that overtly evil. Yet, as interest rates are set to feed off the masses, a barrage of easy money, essentially, most people working in finance are not the kind who like to work very hard at anything. So, they are parasitic in their fundamental work ethics and don’t like scrappy, privately held companies, because they don’t treasure such freedoms and feel perfectly justified in abusing their power for personal gain under the guise of following the rules. The rules they created were designed to make it easy for them to be parasitic lenders. And if the carcass dies, they sell it off and move to the next target. And in that way, there is a Marxist fantasy that is unleashed in their hatred of private enterprise, which is ruthless. And very scheming. And all too common, which we don’t even know how to talk about, until we experience a case like this for ourselves. In the case I’m talking about, I don’t think the bank understood the mess it was getting itself into, and many of the bottom feeders involved in these kinds of things, who are professional parasites, clearly underestimated the situation and are going to feel a lot of pain they could have avoided. But to answer the question as to the ruthlessness of it, it’s evident that its quite common and that most companies undergoing the same level of hostility by a banking partner would never survive and that if we truly want an excellent economy in Ohio, and in the nation, that we are going to have to bust up these financial institutions with their anti-American, and anti-private ownership radicalism. Most companies lack the kind of tenacity that has been present in this case. But the question about methods couldn’t be more obvious. And that there is a financial institution’s aversion to privately held companies is not something they want to protect, just as the Fed is guilty of setting interest rates at the cost to society in general, in defense of their interests. Their approach is short-sighted and lazy. And purposefully ruthless to feed the essence of their natures, which is the question before us. What do we do with such people when we clearly can’t have them pacesetting our economy? Because, if left to their own devices, they will maliciously destroy everything they touch.
Rich Hoffman
Click Here to Protect Yourself with Second Call Defense https://www.secondcalldefense.org/?affiliate=20707
The Overmanwarrior 