Bank Robbers Profits

bank-robbery-scary-maskThe practice of robbing banks at gunpoint turns out to be not that lucrative. The very best of that kind of bank robber averages only four heists before getting caught. On average, each participant in that kind of robbery nets only about $4,000 per hold up. That is only $16,000 before going to prison. That is too paltry of an income given the enormous risk and the certainty of getting caught. Picking up aluminum cans or begging with a sign on a street corner has a higher return.

Now when banks rob people, their profits are astronomical. Since its inception, the Federal Reserve has assisted banks as they go about robbing the general population. This has been the goal of the quantitative easing  initiatives going back to TARP and all of the programs that have followed. The most profitable method of committing a crime is to partner up with government. After that crimes become legal and meaningful laws are not enforced. There is a downside for banks in using the cover of government to rob people. It is like killing the goose that laid the golden eggs. Banks have robbed the general population to the extent that there is no way now to keep the economy from sliding backwards and in this banks end up suffering right along with everyone else. Of course financial institutions have made so much in the run up, it has to have been worth it to them regardless of the negative end result.

There are two different kinds of bank robbers. There are the kind like John Dillinger was and then there are banks that do the robbing. The best kind of bank robber to be is the bank that robs ordinary people.

(Visited 129 times, 1 visits today)
0 0 votes
Article Rating

About Fantasy Free Economics

James Quillian independent scholar,free market economist,and teacher of natural law. Who is James Quillian? Certainly I am nobody special, Just a tireless academic and deep thinker. Besides that, I have broken the code with respect to economics and political science. Credentials? Nothing you would be impressed with. I am not a household name. It is hard to become famous writing that virtually no one in the country is genuinely not in touch with reality. But, if I did not do that, there would be no point in my broking the broken the code. If you read the blog, it is easy to see that there are just a few charts, no math and no quantitative analysis. That is not by accident. Given what I know, those items are completely useless. I do turn out to be highly adept at applying natural law. Natural law has predominance over any principles the social science comes up. By virtue of understanding natural law, I can debunk, in just a few sentences , any theory that calls for intervention by a government. My taking the time to understand the ins and outs of Keynes General Theory is about like expecting a chemistry student to completely grasp all that the alchemists of the middle ages thought they understood in efforts to turn base metals into goal. Keynesian theory clearly calls for complete objectivity. Government can only make political decisions. Keynesian techniques call for economic decisions. So, why go any further with that? Fantasy Free Economics is in a sense a lot like technical analysis. Technical analysis began with the premise that it was impossible to gain enough information studying fundamentals to gain a trading advantage. Study the behavior of investors instead. Unlike technical analysis, I don't use technical charts. What I understand are the incentives of different people and entities active in the economics arena. For example, there is no such thing as an incentive to serve with life in the aggregate. In the aggregate, only self interest applies. It is routinely assumed otherwise. That is highly unappealing. But, I am sorry. That is the way it is. I can accept that because I am genuinely in touch with reality. Step one in using Fantasy Free Economics is for me to understand just how little I really know. A highly credentialed economist may know 100 times what I do based on the standard dogma. Compare the knowledge each of us has compared to all there is to know and we both look like we know nothing at all. There is always more than we don't know than what we do know. I am humble enough to present myself on that basis. Why? That is the way it is. I am not bad at math. I have taught math. What I understand is when to use it and when to rely on something else. Math is useless in natural law so I don't use it. While others look at numbers, I am busy understanding the forces in nature that makes their numbers what they are. That gives me a clear advantage.
This entry was posted in Daily Comments and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments