The wealthy and powerful will grind away at regulation to increase their personal wealth. They are relentless and donate to political campaigns. We could at least replace Glass Steagal.
Members banned from this thread: evince, Port Tack, Doc Dutch, Concart and Gondwanaland |
Just finished reading this article, thought it was really good. I'll quote the conclusion which I think points to a solution to recent U.S. banking troubles:
**
The Public Bank Option
Meanwhile, one midsize bank that has escaped this furor is the Bank of North Dakota. With assets in 2021 of $10.3 billion and a return on investment of 15%, the BND is owned by the state, which self-insures it. There is no fear of bank runs, because the state’s revenues compose the vast majority of its deposits, and they must be deposited in the BND by law.
The state’s local banks are also protected by the BND, which is forbidden to compete with them. Instead, it partners with them, helping with liquidity and capitalization. The BND has been called a “mini-Fed” for the state and its banks. That helps explain why North Dakota has more local banks per capita than any other state, at a time when other states have been losing banks to big bank mergers, causing the number of U.S. banks to shrink radically.
UK Prof. Richard Werner recently published a briefing memo supporting the case for a public bank. It was prepared for the state of Tennessee, which is considering a sovereign state bank on the North Dakota model, but the arguments apply to all states. Benefits discussed include dividends, higher state-level tax revenues, greater job creation, greater local autonomy and resilience to shocks, more options for funding public sector borrowing and state pension funds, and protection of financial transaction freedom and privacy.
Small and local is good, but even small regional banks need to pool their resources for maximum efficiency and security. A state-owned bank on the model of the Bank of North Dakota can provide low interest loans, liquidity, and financial sovereignty, keeping financial resources in the state directed to public purposes, all while turning a profit for the state.
**
Full article:
Ellen Brown: Banking Crisis 3.0: Time to Change the Rules of the Game | Scheerpost
"Trust those who seek the truth, doubt those who find it" - Andre Gide
The wealthy and powerful will grind away at regulation to increase their personal wealth. They are relentless and donate to political campaigns. We could at least replace Glass Steagal.
Guno צְבִי (03-29-2023)
Phoenyx (03-29-2023)
Agreed. But what do you think of the solution Ellen Brown proposes, to have more government owned banks, at least at the state level, like the Bank of North Dakota?
Sure, but without more real competition to private banks, I suspect they'd just repeal it again as they have before. I think the Bank of North Dakota model offers the only real solution.
"Trust those who seek the truth, doubt those who find it" - Andre Gide
Yeah, that's the fractional reserve system for you, only it misses the part that banks charge an interest rate that's well above inflation. It's a bit complicated, but I found that the following documentary from canadian artist and film maker Paul Grignon does a great job of explaining how it came to be, the problems with it, and solutions (it actually includes the idea of cryptos in it too):
"Trust those who seek the truth, doubt those who find it" - Andre Gide
Lionfish (03-29-2023)
Phoenyx (03-29-2023)
The article is crap. Ellen Brown is a Green Party Marxist who is dishonestly fabricating a "crisis" to push her extremist agenda.
Let's take a closer look:
Apparently she thought paraphrasing and embellishing upon the Communist Manifesto would be the most effective:The Failed Banks Were Not Nationalized, But Maybe They Should Have Been
One option that was debated in the 2008-09 crisis was actual nationalization. As Prof. Michael Hudson wrote in February 2009:
Real nationalization occurs when governments act in the public interest to take over private property. … Nationalizing the banks along these lines would mean that the government would supply the nation’s credit needs. The Treasury would become the source of new money, replacing commercial bank credit.
There is no crisis. We do not need Communism.Communist Manifesto
5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
I saw the MD banks long ago and notice how they were not suffering like the rest. But bankers and financial giam\nts will do all they can to stop them. https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/researc...to-open-a-bank
Guno צְבִי (03-29-2023)
State banks are better for the people as a whole. https://ilsr.org/rule/bank-of-north-...tate.%E2%80%9D
Phoenyx (03-29-2023)
Why do you think there is no crisis? In any case, I don't think anyone is claiming that North Dakota is communist. Having the state handle some things doesn't mean that it's therefore communist. In the last banking crisis, the government handed out a lot of money to banks who essentially gambled with their money. Do you think that was the right course of action?
"Trust those who seek the truth, doubt those who find it" - Andre Gide
For the same reason you can't show me any Global Warming, you can't show me any "bank crisis." Why should any rational adult believe your hype that there is some undefined "bank crisis" over which we should panic and convert to communism?
Great pivot. I'll just presume that you never learned that the Communist Manifesto contains communist dogma or that Karl Marx espoused Marxist ideology ... and you probably aren't smart enough to figure it out on your own. It's good for you that you have me here to tell you these things.
I'm getting the distinct impression that you cannot read. It seems to be the most likely explanation for why you cannot seem to respond to what I wrote and are only responding to things I did not write.
Giving the State a monopoly on credit is one of the planks of Marxist communism and is therefore definitely communist. How did your logical ineptitude reach the point that you can't even put 1 and 1 together? Have you read the Communist Manifesto so that you can know what would constitute communism? Would you even be able to read the Communist Manifesto?
Anyway, the Communist Manifesto has been around for a long time and the ideology is very bad ... ruinous, in fact. You should learn to recognize it instead of gullibly believing that it somehow forms "a good solution" ... especially to invisible, undefined "crises" that you cannot show.
Global Warming violates the 1st LoT by claiming a magical creation of thermal energy out of nothing, in the form of a temperature increase, which is somehow caused by a magical substance.
Greenhouse Effect violates Stefan-Boltzmann and black body science by claiming that an increase in earth's temperature is somehow caused by a decrease in earth's radiance.
Greenhouse Effect violates the 2nd LoT by claiming that the cooler atmosphere somehow heats the warmer earth's surface.
Bookmarks