EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Economy Prompts Fresh Look at ND's Socialist Bank
BISMARCK, N.D. - It has no automatic tellers or drive-up windows, doesn't issue credit cards, and tends only a few thousand checking and savings accounts. Its only location is a glass, steamboat-shaped headquarters near the Missouri River, where the business moved from its original 1919 home in a former auto assembly plant.
In this photo taken Feb. 5, 2010, Eric Hardmeyer, president of the Bank of North Dakota, in Bismarck, poses in the bank's lobby on Friday, Feb. 5, 2010. The bank is the only state-owned bank in the nation, and officials in other states are studying whether a state-owned bank could help improve their states' economies. (AP Photo/Dale Wetzel) The Bank of North Dakota - the nation's only state-owned bank - might seem to be a relic. It was the brainchild of a failed flax farmer and one-time Socialist Party organizer during World War I.
But now officials in other states are wondering if it is helping North Dakota sail through the national recession.
Gubernatorial candidates in Florida and Oregon and a Washington state legislator are advocating the creation of state-owned banks in those states. A report prepared for a Vermont House committee last month said the idea had "considerable merit." Liberal filmmaker Michael Moore promotes the bank on his Web site.
"There's a lot of hurt out there, a lot of states that are in trouble, and they're tying the Bank of North Dakota together with this economic success that we're having right now," said the bank's president, Eric Hardmeyer.
Hardmeyer says he's gotten "tons" of inquiries about the bank's workings, including questions from officials in California, Michigan, New Mexico, Ohio and Washington state. North Dakota has the nation's lowest unemployment rate at 4.4 percent, soaring oil production and a robust state budget surplus - but Hardmeyer says the bank isn't responsible for the prosperity.
"We are a catalyst, perhaps, or maybe a part of it," he said. "To put this at our feet is flattering, but it frankly isn't true."
The Bank of North Dakota serves as an economic development agency and "banker's bank" that lessens the loan risks of private banks and helps them finance larger projects. It offers cheap loans to farmers, students and businesses.
The bank had almost $4 billion in assets and a $2.67 billion loan portfolio at the end of last year, according to its most recent quarterly financial report. It made $58.1 million in profits in 2009, setting a record for the sixth straight year. During the last decade, the bank funneled almost $300 million in profits to North Dakota's treasury.
The bank has the advantage of being the repository for most state funds, which can be used for loans and occasional relief for private banks that need a jolt of cash during sluggish credit markets.
"We think of ourselves as kind of a little mini-Federal Reserve," Hardmeyer said.
The state earns roughly 0.25 percent less interest than state agencies would get from a commercial institution. The bank also pays no state or federal taxes and has no deposit insurance; North Dakota taxpayers are on the hook for any losses.
The Bank of North Dakota was a cornerstone of the agenda of the Nonpartisan League, a farmers' political insurgency spawned by anger about outside control of North Dakota's credit and grain markets.
Founded in 1915 by A.C. Townley, who became a Socialist Party organizer after he went broke raising flax in western North Dakota, the NPL advocated state-owned banks to provide low-interest farm loans, along with state flour mills, grain elevators, meatpacking houses and hail insurance.
Supporters gained control of the legislature and the governorship within five years. The movement's power quickly waned, but two of its state-owned businesses survived - the Bank of North Dakota and a state flour mill and grain elevator in Grand Forks.
From the 1940s until the early 1960s, the bank served mostly as a public funds depository and municipal bond buyer, said Rozanne Enerson Junker, author of a 1989 history of the bank. Its economic development activity has greatly expanded since.
Gary Petersen, president of the Lakeside State Bank of New Town, a community on the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation in northwestern North Dakota, said the state bank is often willing to take a stake in local development projects.
"In my experience, you make a contact with the (Bank of North Dakota), and their question is, 'How do we get this done?'" Petersen said. "They're not looking at ways to knock it down."
Alerus Financial, a Grand Forks bank, has sold about $115 million of its $600 million loan portfolio to the Bank of North Dakota, both to spread its risk and provide itself with additional loan money, said Karl Bollingberg, Alerus' director of banking services.
"If you're left to find other participating banks, that can be very challenging," he said. "They don't have the same interest that the Bank of North Dakota has in helping you to do deals."
Mauro Guillen, a professor of management at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School of Business, said it is unlikely other states would open similar banks, in part because "the political culture here is very much against that kind of a thing."
Some state and federal agencies, such as the Small Business Administration, already have economic development programs similar to those at the Bank of North Dakota, Guillen said.
Bollingberg said the idea of other state-owned banks would also likely rouse opposition from private banks that wanted to keep their share of state deposits. "Because the (Bank of North Dakota) has been here so long, no banks know what it was like to have those deposits," he said.
Hardmeyer said he, too, was always doubtful others would take up North Dakota's model, but now he's not so sure.
"When I see what's going on around the country, it's not quite as far a leap as I thought it once was," he said.
On the Net:
Bank of North Dakota: http://www.banknd.nd.gov/
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
76 Comments so far
Show AllWhat counts is the honesty of the management.
Rhode Island had its own mini-FDIC insuring state-based credit unions. In the 1980s, a couple of large credit unions indulged in huge-scale bad loans. RISDIC went down and dragged some quite good credit unions under with it.
This occurred because the rules were written off during the 80's, and it wasn't just RI that had that problem. In fact, it cost the taxpayers of this country half a trillion to fix it. And rather than learn a lesson about what NOT to do, the righties and the "conservative" democratic party members went ahead and did the same thing to the regular banks. Look what THAT little piece of conservative wisdom has cost us all.
When are people going to realize that taking something that the gov't is supposed to be responsible for, turning it over to private industry who then adds on an average of 30% profit margin on top of it does NOT result in savings? How the hell is it even possible to say that it would result in savings with a straight face? Colorado, before the privatization of prisons, spent $70 million per year on the DOC. Now, after 25 years of for profit imprisonment, we spend 11 TIMES that per year. $770 MILLION that could be going to something other than rich people's profits. And now we have Arnold in CA talking about doing EXACTLY the same thing to "save money".
There seems to be a rule in politics, if something fails, try try again, using EXACTLY the same plan that failed before. Where is it written that politicians can't have a brain between ALL of them put together?
Nationalize the banks. Put them under OUR control rather than the other way around. Read your history. The banks have been among the lowest, scummiest and most dishonest of our citizens since the inception of the country. There is NO reason to think that they will ever change. It's time to take back what they have stolen from us, and if need be, send these assholes on a one way trip to the middle of the ocean. We really won't miss them.
WJM said "When are people going to realize that taking something that the gov't is supposed to be responsible for, turning it over to private industry who then adds on an average of 30% profit margin on top of it does NOT result in savings? How the hell is it even possible to say that it would result in savings with a straight face?"
I used to work in county government and it was absolutely astonishing the number of people who would repeat the privatization manta and use it to get often unanimous support for switching public services to enrich private companies or individuals to the detriment of the public.
As for when people will realize this doesn't work, who can say? It isn't a matter of empirical knowledge, it's faith-based ideology and therefore impervious to facts.
RE: it's faith-based ideology and therefore impervious to facts.
You can say that again! If there was an honest cost/benefit analysis of the capitalist economy, and people could fairly choose, capitalism would lose in a heartbeat. A group of Indian researchers did a study on the externalized costs of the fast food hamburger: if those costs were internalized, the burger would cost over $200 - each!
Come spring thaw, the teabggars will be heading for Bismarck to protest now that they know the commies have been holed up there since 1919.
“The end of democracy and defeat of the American Revolution will occur when government falls into the hands of the lending institutions and moneyed incorporations.
The Bank of the United States is one of the most deadly hostilities existing against the principles and form of our Constitution. The system of banking is a blot left in all our Constitutions, which if not covered will end in their destruction. I sincerely believe that banking institutions are more dangerous than standing armies; and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity is but swindling futurity.“
Thomas Jefferson
It's the snow and cold that makes them so dang smart.
Gotta love that socialist viewpoint. It actually works.
Democratic Socialism is the enemy of capitalism. Why? Because, and especially currently, Dem. Soc. is the friend of the "little guy"; hence, all the bad-mouthing and programming against the system. If more working, "regular Americans" were to really understand whet Dem. Soc. stood for, THEN I believe there would be marches against capitalism and the "tea baggers" would disassemble and become PRO-Dem. Soc. BUT...given the programmable brains of the masses....
If YOU aren't completely sure what Democratic Socialism is, PLEASE cut and paste the following and see for yourself:
http://www.dsausa.org/pdf/widemsoc.pdf
Thanks for that link.
My pleasure. PLEASE share it.
Yes. Good link, me thinks too. Good info, good FAQ-presentation of Social Democracy there. Tnx.
A flicker of intelligence in that vast cosmos of stupidity. Incredible! And other state government airheads are actually considering a smart solution to their problems! That's the most incredible thing of all!
If the state can own a bank why can't communities and counties? Decentralize as much as possible is my motto and centralize what one must, not what one can.
Gary
"Drive-in banks were established so most of the cars today could see their real owners."
-- E. Joseph Cossman
goodman 10:43 -- You probably are familiar with the informal ethnic banks in the USA. Such as the Koreans, and I assume Chinese also.
"If the state can own a bank why can't communities and counties?"
They could, and those communities could also issue their own banknotes to their employees and for other expenses that would be a promise to pay in legal currency. Since those communities would also be taxing entities they would naturally accept these banknotes in payment of taxes and could likely persuade local merchants to accept the local currency.
They would probably need clever lawyers to prove it to be legal when sued by the international banking cartel.
and those communities. if they really stand up for their "sovereignty" could also simply THUMB THEIR noses at the international banking cartel and the FEDs.
what are the banking cartels going to do:
threaten them with "sanctions?" threaten that they'll use their clout and attorneys to threaten businesses outside of the communities "not to do business" with the communities upon whom businesses of all kinds depend for "markets?"
threaten them with using the national or state governments' "monopoly on violence" and send in armed forces to do exactly WHAT? surround the communities , put up blockades , threaten to imprison exactly whom? the citizens of the communities in their thousands?
threaten that the "world community" is not going to RECOGNIZE the transactions, monetery value and currencies of communities, investors will "abandon" them, there will be no monetary process with the "rest of the world?"
when there was NO state - what did people do ? they lived in "communities" - made their own houses, planted and gathered their own food, built their own infrastructure ..heck that is what villages across the globe still does - and practically ALL would still be viable and thriving IF NOT for the "global cartel of money" interfering with them!
so - exactly what are the giant banks going to do? IF - IF communities really did that and were willing to live within their means and by that trade properly with other self-sustaining communities, realizing their own viability as the natural state of society without continuing to be coerced and rendered compliant and homogenized by the Banking and Money Cartels - who of course depend on communities COMPLYING with their rigged game - these MOney Capital Cartels are NOTHING. they have no power with only their PRINTING PRESS as their reason for existence straight to their own starvataion before they even finish EATING their precious "money".
people -- if they BAND together as communities this way - if they can escape being "mass-hypnotized" by the Capitalist Banking and Money Cartels - actually have the power to put the Money Capitalists in their Place:
isolated, useless and completely DEPENDENT and begging to be taken in by SOCIETY!
If the practice of states running their own banks starts to spread, Wall Street will simply use its political clout to have the operations of these banks either strictly limited or banned altogether.
q
This is but a sampling of what's possible when you change the fundamental precept of banking and financing capital from that of a private enterprise serving private interest to one of a social enterprise serving the public interest.
The concept of spreading risk is also a naturally "socialized" concept that has been privatized to serve private interests.
The idea that government is inept and cannot operate or manage such "business" or to preserve and promote our community wealth is political, not factual, and depends entirely on the idiots and influences we allow to have an affect. We should recognize the hucksters immediately by their insistence that private enterprise is always more efficient than public enterprise. This simply isn't an eternal inevitable truism. The efficiency or inefficiency of either depends on the actual mission, management, practices, priorities and participation of stakeholders.
Consider the broader ramifications. It is but a small step from 'socialist' banking to 'socialist' insurance. Anyone for universal 'socialist' heathcare?
No such concept can possibly be allowed to take root in 'the land of the free and the home of the brave' -- and you can rest assured that it won't be.
"Anyone for universal 'socialist' heathcare?"
Yes. It's called "single payer."
I pay for mine now, and understand that I'll continue to under a single payer scheme. And I understand that it will cover the tens of millions of Americans who don't have health care now. And that it will be no more costly, despite that. And it will be more efficient (Medicare and VA and military care are all provided with overhead of 2-4%; the true overhead load of for-profit health care insurance is around 35%. Single payer is TEN TIMES as efficient).
And the quality won't suffer.
We'll actually be safer from contagious diseases (everyone will have access to health care).
Emergency rooms will be emptied of people who have *no* other access to any care, currently, so those people will be getting better care, earlier, which is humane and cost efficient. And the emergency rooms will be able to deal with real emergencies far more quickly and efficiently.
What's not to like? (Unless you're a Health Insurance Exec, used to raking in millions of dollars a year, plus millions of dollars a year in bonuses... for doing *absolutely nothing* that benefits any of your "customers" or the society)
Cicero: "Freedom is participation in power."
Unemployment in the Social(ist) Democratic Republic of Norway right now is 4%.
If I remember correctly - it was either last year or the year before that - when the Norwegians voted into power a more "left" parliament (notwithstanding a "capitalist leaning" rightwinger prime minister that Karl Rove -- of norwegian extraction - has tried to get close to).
part of the election was reported to be because the norwegians wanted to EXPAND their socialist system even MORE...from being already one of the more far-reaching social welfare systems in europe.
a high official from norway - after Obama's election and subsequent unfolding of his "agenda" actually said:
"IF that was norway ...OBAMA would be considered - ULTRA conservative, EVEN by our own conservatives".
In the Norwegian elections of 2005 the social democratic Labour party won over the incumbent center-right coalition, with support of the much smaller Socialist Leftist party and the Center party. This gov't was reelected in 2009.
The 4.5 millon Norwegians quite like the welfare state, supported by relatively high taxes to which there are few complaints, and a well-managed and growing oil-fund. The social democratic system is deeply established and not up for debate.
It's true that after Norwegian standards - even the conservative's - the "closest ally" USA's president Obama is a far rightist. Bush (both) was considered off the scale.
Norwegians tend to see USA as a country run by powerful barbarous elite ruling over good people. - Not much different a view from that of well informed USAns.
One big difference from the USA: the Norwegian central bank is a limited company fully owned by the state, and run by the government which appoints the board and instructs the chairman. Quite similarly to the Bank of North Dakota. - But then of course, 30 percent of North Dakota's population are Norwegian Americans.
Smarter , thank you for those explanations.
Many years ago - i spent a very nice weekend with a close friend at her mother's house in Rhode island...so that we could , all three of us, spend some time relaxing and studying and working on some classical songs together...my friend being an opera singer as was her mom...and both swedish.
it was a wonderful time - nothing but enjoying the quiet, the scenery, long slow walks, quiet conversations, and of course just pure artistic , musical work which we were preparing for a project.
but in our talks...when i asked her mom :"what is it like in sweden?"
she told me:
"in sweden - we do have a type of social welfare system..and we accept it and its high taxes, even if of course no one really likes taxes. but long ago .. we decided as a society that taxes are necessary if we are to maintain a decent society...to US -- the american system is simply barbaric...yes...we also have economic classes...there are veyr wealthy people, private enterprise is as much a part of our system as the welfare system...but as a society - we LOOK DOWN upon anyone that has no consideration for the welfare of those below themselves ...and we look down on unreasonable wealth accumulated by anyone at the expense of society as a whole...to us this is simply uncivilized".
I read also, several years ago, stumbling on some website from Finland...an interview with one , if not THE, richest man in Finland. He was the one who started the telecom company NOKIA.
and in his interview - with his wife (i think it was on Youtube also)
he explained his thoughts. i paraphrase the essence of the conversation:
"yes -- i am very rich...but my wife and I are rich beyond our dreams and needs...I consider it a PRIVILEGE to pay my taxes to society because this society - our welfare system - is what ALLOWED me to have the freedom to be creative and not be afraid of failing, and to try again until I found my success....it is what I owe to our society and our people...I can not imagine ever wanting to imitate the way it is in the USA".
As someone of Norwegian ancestry, I am relieved to inform you that Karl Rove is not Norwegian--at least according to Wikipedia--which states that only his step-father was Norwegian.
On the other hand he does bear a slight resemblance to Quisling.
Aurora-- thank you very much for the correction .
his kind - norwegian extraction or not - are the kind that should be SHUNNED by anyone in this world...
disgusting people.
as for the remark by a Norwegian official -- I can not recall who it was from norway that said that about Obama...but what he said really stood out . i was even surprised when he said "he would be considered FAR RIGHT EVEN by our conservatives".
*sigh* A state-owned bank is not an example of socialism, unless the BOD and management are hired by and responsible to the citizenry. If they're appointed by politicians or bureacrats, it's an example of *state capitalism* aka fascism.
"State socialism" is not socialism.
"'We think of ourselves as a little mini Federal Reserve', Hardmeyer said."
I agree Mairead, a mini Fed is not socialism.
Wonder what Hardmeyer took home in "bonuses" this year?
Plowing that $300 million back into the state's treasury seems like a colossal waste when it could be buying a second yacht or third vacation home.
State owned, NOT Federal Owned.
This is the difference here.
A State owned Bank deals with its state, its people. It is NOT a one size fits all Central Bank.
Big difference here.
END The FED!
End the federal reserve and I bet you will see some major changes in this country.
The Biggest one, the END of the WARS!
Without a willy nilly print counterfeit money out of nothing federal reserve system, wa-la no more funding of the Illegal WARS and Military Bases around the world, the END of the Military Industrial Complex, the END of the EMPIRE and the beginning of a grass roots self sufficient Nation of hardworking creative people.
peace. love. anarchy
"Hardmeyer says he's gotten "tons" of inquiries about the bank's workings, including questions from officials in California, Michigan, New Mexico, Ohio and Washington state. North Dakota has the nation's lowest unemployment rate at 4.4 percent, soaring oil production and a robust state budget surplus — but Hardmeyer says the bank isn't responsible for the prosperity.
"We are a catalyst, perhaps, or maybe a part of it," he said. "To put this at our feet is flattering, but it frankly isn't true."
You guys are idiots read the other stories about this bank.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_socialist_bank
"The Bank of North Dakota serves as an economic development agency and "banker's bank" that lessens the loan risks of private banks and helps them finance larger projects"
Oil production and a budget surplus? Thats just wrong wrong wrong!!!!
"You guys are idiots read the other stories about this bank"
Gee, thanks, I just cannot wait for your next insult.
Oh come on now doubledee, you are letting your fellow CD posters down. You can come back with something better than that. I'm sure when I log back in tomorrow morning they will have plenty of material for you to learn from. Trust me they are entertaining.
Good idea? DON'T log-in tomorrow....
Some are ,some are not. You fall into the NOT catgeory. Many here seek answers , seek solutions, some, and I think you may very well be one, seek only a form of self gratification. I suggest you engage in the usual kind, using tissues and lotion
See I knew you had it in you!
What's the point of your link LAH? It's exactly the same article.
They updated the article from the time I made my post. CD most have thought their version was better than the original article that was on yahoo.
States want to be able to run deficits, but unlike the Fed they can't print money. CA has the right idea with issuing IOUs; just keep kicking the can down the road for awhile, making sure by rule of state law that everyone accepts the IOUs and then magically the IOUs become money.
Actually according to the Constitution of the United States, No One has the right to PRINT money. Article I section 8.
Paper Money IS Debt-Based Money. This is why America is collapsing at its foundation. All this counterfeit paper money floating around, funding the Military Industrial Complex and the Empire it has created with over 700 Military bases around the world. If America had an honest money system, we would not have a Military Industrial Complex, we would not have 10,000 Nuclear weapons. We would not be bailing out the Too BIG To Fail Government Friends. And we would not have a Multi-Trillion dollar deficit either.
Americans would have honest money, they would be small business owners, home owners and have savings in the bank. But instead we have Debt, we are wage slaves to major corporations, if we aren't homeless yet, we are mostly home renters and our bank accounts are usually empty.
This, is because of the Federal Reserve, and Paper Debt-Money!
Shouldn't the headline be... Local Bank Proves Totalitarian Centralized Banking Doesn't Work.
I'm sure there's examples of local private banks that are doing well also. This is just more evidence that we need decentralization and an end to the socialist Fed.
Don't miss Ron Paul's article today:
http://www.safehaven.com/article-15826.htm
US taxpayers are bailing out socialist countries like Greece but we won't know how much because the Fed is a totalitarian socialist agency that isn't accountable to anyone.
You really have no idea what you are talking about. The "Fed" is not a socialist institution. It is an institution run by and for the capitalist class. The Fed is not even a part of the U.S. government.
Socialism is democracy extended to the workplace. Or, in other words, worker control of the means of production. Socialism does not necessarily mean "state owned" either, although, when appropriate, it does not exclude state or municipal ownership of certain civil infrastructure.
Then why is the phrase corporate socialism used all the time here on CD to describe bailouts to corporates and subsidies. Libertarians like Paul call it crony capitalism. Call it whatever you want. What it means is the state has a totalitarian anti-democratic control over people's lives and justify it by saying it helps the people and saves them from the dangers of freedom and a free market which was the excuse for creating the Fed just like the excuse for other government agencies. The Fed was created by the government to protect us from the greed and speculation of bankers' and what we got instead was a secretive, totalitarian agency to controls people's lives whether they want it or not. The Fed was created to protect the worker from losing their money because of the ups and downs of the free market caused by rich bankers' greed and speculation. It was created with a progressive socialist agenda not for capitalism. You need to learn a little about history.
"Ism's" are philosophies or beliefs. Socialism is not a system but an approach to reality based on certain beliefs. Examples: a belief that all citizens have an inherent right to food, health care, shelter, education, employment, security. The socialistic systems in one way or the other put these beliefs into practice. To define socialism as a system in which the state controls the means of production is to limit socialism to those systems that are basically mob controlled. There are varying degrees of capitalism in the socialist systems of Northern Europe. There is no country there that controls all means of production. But what each of those countries shares is the recognition of all of the above mentioned rights. The glaring difference between the democratic socialism of Scandinavia and the purely capitalistic system of the US is that the US recognizes that every citizen can have as much food, health care, shelter, education, employment and security as his/her wealth can buy. Most people will readily agree to changes that bring them better access to food, health care, shelter, education, employment and security, just don't call it "socialism". It is too much like asking a non-practicing Protestant to accept another "ism", such as Catholicism or Islamism. It is a threatening request because it challenges something fundamental. It is far easier to convince individuals that they rights within themselves that call out for recognition.
"...socialist Fed." WTF?!
"The "Fed" is not a socialist institution. It is an institution run by and for the capitalist class. The Fed is not even a part of the U.S. government."
WELL SAID!
Corporate socialism is a term used here on CD all the time. It is completely accurate to call the Fed socialist. Not to mention the article calls this a socialist bank and then in the article there is a quote calling it a mini-Federal Reserve! How much more relavent to the article could it be to call the Fed socialist? Did you read the article before posting a comment?
What kind of twisted reasoning is that?
it's amazing how it is showing up to be such an american trait to MUDDLE the meaning of words and concepts...such as calling "socialist" the US federal bank - simply , presumably, to DISCREDIT "socialism" by attaching it to "federal bank of the USA" BECAUSE the whole world knows now that the US PRIVATELY HELD Federal Bank MESSED UP things for everyone and therefore - implying that it is because of the "socialism" involved...where it DOESN'T Exist!
it would be nice if some americans , if they are unable to contend with concepts and philosophies they don't agree with, at least be INTELLECTUALY HONEST! and NOT call the Federal bank - a PRIVATE ENTITY - a PUBLIC entity when calling it what it is NOT: "socialist" - just in order to discredit "socialism" because CAPITALISM is the ONE that is being discredited all over the world...starting with Wall Street, and the Federal Bank of the USA!
as the erudite Asiatimesonline writer, Henry CK Liu - in his voluminous history of the banking, monetary and capitalist system through the centuries - puts it:
in article series including "BANKING BUNKUM - the Federal Bank and The Oracle of Wall Street, Alan Greenspan".
"while the USA accuses countries of manipulating their currencies ...it is actually the USA , through its Federal Bank, a private entity, that is the world's MAIN and Biggest Currency Manipulator, just as it is also the world's main protectionist nation PRETENDING to be free-market".
Corporate socialism is a phrase I've seen often used here on CD by several authors. What do you call the tax-payer backed guarantees for TBTF banks? That is corporate socialism. At least that is what I've seen it called by progressive writers here on CD. That's why I call it socialism.
'Corporate socialism' is an ironic term, and is used sarcastically. It refers to government using public funds to support corporations. Whereas 'socialism' is the opposite, using corporate-industrial funds/revenues to support the public.
Some people don't get irony. It's a standing danger when constructing ironic terms.
William C -- i think i understand better that you are just using the "socialism" nomenclature for the subject because of how the public money or wealth is exploited to keep them "viable".
is that what you meant? if so - i understand that part - and I want to apologize that I charged that you were trying to "discredit Socialism by attaching it to these " banks that - are , i think you would agree also, "socialist in name only"...
i.e., they DEPEND on socialist "bail-out" or exploitation of common wealth but with the INTENT that is not socialist in the sense of "socialism" being for the welfare of the commons.
if that were such your idea - i think everyone can see your point. maybe we are just explaining things differently , but seeing the same things.
maybe the better way to call these "banks" that operate within and FOR the capitalist system - using "socialist" support for their viability is:
"pseudo-socialists".
they make USE of "socialist" support - but with the intent of privatizing PROFIT.
i think we can all learn from each other. i know I do , from you and everyone else.
but hopefully we all come to some commonality in the knowledge that we care and would work for if we can , benevolent societies...
and between capitalism and socialism...i think it is quite clear which one is benevolent and which one is NOT.
and what is NOT starts with C.