Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
The Growing Movement for Publicly Owned Banks
We the people have given away our sovereign money-creating power to private, for-profit lending institutions, which have used it to siphon wealth from the productive economy. Some states are moving to take that power back.
"Hundreds of job-creating projects are still on hold because Michigan businesses and entrepreneurs cannot get bank financing. We can break the credit crunch and beat Wall Street at their own game by keeping our money right here in Michigan and investing it to retool our economy and create jobs."
--Lansing Mayor Virg Bernero in The Detroit News March 9, 2010
Michigan, which has an unemployment rate of 14 percent, has been particularly hard hit by the economic downturn. Virg Bernero, mayor of Lansing, the state's capital, and a leading Democratic candidate for governor, proposes to relieve the state's economic ills by opening a state-owned bank. He says the bank could protect consumers by making low-interest loans to those most in need, including students and small businesses; it could also help community banks by buying mortgages off their books and working with them to fund development projects.
Bernero joins a growing list of candidates proposing this sensible solution to their states' fiscal ills. Local economies have collapsed because of the Wall Street credit freeze. To reinvigorate local business, Main Street needs a heavy infusion of credit, and publicly-owned banks could fill that need.
In a recent article for YES! Magazine, I tracked candidates in five states running on a state bank platform and one state (Massachusetts) with a bill pending. Just one month later, there are now three more bills on the rolls--in Washington State, Illinois and Michigan--and two more candidates joining the list of proponents (joining Bernero is Gaelan Brown of Vermont). That brings the total to seven candidates in as many states (Florida, Oregon, Illinois, California, Washington State, Vermont, and Idaho) campaigning for state-owned banks, including three Democrats, two Greens, one Republican, and one Independent.
The Independent, Vermont's Gaelan Brown, says on his website, "Washington, D.C. has lost all moral authority over Vermont." He adds, "Vermont should explore creating a State-owned bank that would work with private VT-based banks, to insulate VT from Wall Street corruption, and to increase investment capital for VT businesses, modeled after the very successful state-owned Bank of North Dakota."
The Bank of North Dakota, currently the nation's only state-owned bank, is the model (with variations) for all the other proposals on the table. The Bank of North Dakota acts as a "bankers' bank," partnering with other banks in "participation loans," which allow them to compete with larger banks. In a participation loan, the community bank originates the loan and takes responsibility for it, while the participating bank contributes funds and shares in the risk and profits. The Bank of North Dakota also makes low-interest loans to students, farmers and businesses; underwrites municipal bonds; and provides liquidity for more than 100 banks around the state.
Three New Bills Pending for Publicly Owned Banks
Proposals for publicly owned banks in other states have now progressed beyond the campaign talk of political hopefuls to be drafted into several bills.
The Michigan Development Bank
The Michigan bill has gotten the most press. Introduced into the legislature earlier this month, it mirrors Bernero's state bank idea. According to a press release issued by Michigan Senate Democrats on March 9, the bill's aim is to "keep Michigan's money in Michigan" by putting tax dollars into a proposed "Michigan Development Bank." The bank would function like a traditional bank, but would focus on economic development rather than profit. The press release quoted Senator Gretchen Whitmer (D-East Lansing):
Investing in the state's economy is the greatest way to create jobs, and this proposal will provide small businesses and entrepreneurs the funding they need to invest and grow. Our economy has stagnated due in part to stale thinking in Lansing, and this is just the type of innovative idea we need to create real economic change, using our own money to rebuild the state.
Senate Democratic Leader Mike Prusi (D-Ishpeming) stated:
Michigan's economy has been suffering, and working families in the state have had difficulty keeping up with credit card bills, college tuition prices and mortgage payments. Establishing the Michigan Development Bank will keep our hard-earned dollars right here in the state to invest in small business, create good-paying jobs to get people back to work, and help protect the middle class.
Also quoted was Senator Hansen Clarke (D-Detroit):
With the current state of our economy, every dollar counts, yet we're depositing our money in other people's pockets by investing in big corporate banks without seeing much lending in return. It's time for the Mitten State to lend itself a helping hand and establish a bank that is willing to invest in our small businesses and offer the financial support necessary to see job growth.
For start-up capital, the Senate Democrats suggested that Michigan could sell voter-approved bonds. With an initial capitalization of $150 million, they estimated the bank could lend up to $1 billion to small businesses, students and farmers, and offer low-interest credit cards to consumers. For deposits, the bank could follow the model of the Bank of North Dakota and use state revenues. So says Gene Taliercio, a Republican candidate for the state Senate, who has also put his weight behind the Michigan Development Bank. In a video clip on the website of the local Oakland Press, he says, "We're talking about restructuring the whole tax system, in the sense that the way it's set up is that all taxes are going to go into this central bank ... Every dollar that the state of Michigan makes goes into this bank."
The State Bank of Washington
A similar bill, HB 3162, was introduced to the Washington State Legislature on February 1. The bill has generated so much interest that Steve Kirby, chair of the Financial Institutions and Insurance Committee, has scheduled a special work session on it. According to John Nichols in The Nation, the State Bank of Washington was formally proposed by House finance committee vice chair Bob Hasegawa, a Seattle Democrat. Nichols quotes Hasegawa:
Imagine financing student aid, infrastructure, industry and community development. Imagine providing access to capital for small businesses, or otherwise leveraging our resources instead of having to do it with tax incentives. Imagine keeping our resources local instead of exporting them as profits, never to be seen again--that's what this bank could do.
Leveraging, rather than taxing, is how private banks have been creating "credit" for centuries. States could do the same thing, cutting the middlemen out of the equation, saving significant sums in interest and fees and generating revenue for the state.
A nonpartisan analysis of the Washington bill prepared for the state legislature noted that the bank would be the depository for all state funds and the funds of state institutions, and that these deposits would be guaranteed by the state. The bank would be run by a board of 11 members and would be chaired by the State Treasurer. It would have the same rules and privileges as a private bank chartered in the state. Since current law prohibits the state from lending credit and investing in private firms, voters would have to approve the state Constitution to get the bank off the ground.
The Community Bank of Illinois
A third bill, introduced by Illinois Representative Mary Flowers, is on its way through the legislative process in Illinois. According to the Illinois General Assembly website, the Community Bank of Illinois Act would establish a state bank with the express purpose of boosting agriculture, commerce, and industry. State funds and money held by penal, educational, and industrial institutions owned by the state would be deposited in the bank and would serve as reserves for making loans. The bank could also serve as a clearinghouse for other banks, including handling domestic and foreign exchange; and it could buy property under eminent domain. All deposits would be guaranteed with the assets of the state. The Bank would be managed and controlled by the Department of Financial and Professional Regulation, with input from an advisory board representing private banking and public interests.
An amendment to the initial bill would enable the Community Bank of Illinois to make loans directly to the state's General Revenue Fund, helping the state cope with its current budget challenges.
A Massachusetts-owned Bank
On March 12, the Associated Press reported that a jobs bill sponsored by Massachusetts Senate President Therese Murray also includes a call to study a Massachusetts-owned bank. She told a business group that a state-owned bank has worked in North Dakota, helping to insulate that state from the worst of the recession while also keeping its foreclosure rate down; similarly, a state-owned bank could spur job creation and free up lending to Massachusetts businesses.
Grandfather of the Concept: The Bank of North Dakota
All of these proposals take their inspiration from the Bank of North Dakota, which was founded in 1919 to resolve a credit crisis like that facing other states today. Last year, North Dakota had the largest budget surplus it had ever had. It was the only state that was actually adding jobs when others were losing them. In March 2009, when 46 of 50 states were in fiscal crisis, the Council of State Governments noted that North Dakota was in the enviable position of discussing tax cuts and looking for ways to spend its surplus.
With the deepening crisis, according to National Public Radio, by January 2010 only two states could still meet their budgets--North Dakota and Montana. On February 8, however, the Montana paper the Missoulian reported that the Montana State Legislature's chief revenue forecaster foresees a budget deficit by mid-2011, leaving North Dakota the only state still boasting a surplus.
North Dakota's riches have been attributed to oil, but many states with oil are floundering. The sole truly distinguishing feature of North Dakota seems to be that it has managed to avoid the Wall Street credit freeze by owning and operating its own bank. According to the North Dakota Department of Commerce, the BND turned a profit in 2009 of $58.1 million; this money goes into the state's General Fund. North Dakota's economy is ten times smaller than Michigan's, suggesting that Michigan could generate $500 million per year in this way; Washington State and Illinois present similarly inviting possibilities.
That defuses the objection raised in a March 15 editorial in The Detroit News, arguing that Michigan can ill afford the $150 million capital investment to start a bank. If operated like the BND, the Michigan Development Bank could soon be a net generator of state revenues. There are other possibilities, besides a bond issue, for providing the capital to start a bank, but that subject will be reserved for another article.
The BND's 90-year track record of prudent and profitable lending defuses another objection to state-owned banks: that a public agency cannot be trusted to act responsibly in managing public funds. The Detroit News' editorial concluded that Michigan should "leave banking to the bankers," but it is precisely because the bankers have destroyed the economy with their reckless lending practices that the public needs to step in. We need a "public option" in banking to set standards and keep private banks honest.
The True Potential of Publicly-owned Banks
North Dakota broke new ground nearly a century ago, but the true potential of publicly owned banks remains to be explored. Nearly all of our money today is created by banks when they extend loans. (See the Chicago Federal Reserve's "Modern Money Mechanics," which begins, "The actual process of money creation takes place primarily in banks.") We the people have given away our sovereign money--creating power to private, for-profit lending institutions, which have used it to siphon wealth from the productive economy. If we were to take that power back, we could generate the credit we need to underwrite a whole cornucopia of projects that we don't even consider because we think we lack the "money." We have the labor and we have the materials; we just lack the "liquidity" necessary to put them together to create products and services.
Money today is just a ticket, a receipt for work performed and goods delivered. We can fund the work we need done by creating our own credit. The real promise of publicly-owned banks is not that they can bail out subprime borrowers but that they can jumpstart the economy by creating real wealth. They can provide the liquidity to put labor and materials together, allowing the economy to build and grow. Our private, profit-driven banking sector has been bleeding wealth from the rest of the economy. Public-interest banks can transfuse the economy with the credit it needs to flourish and be productive once again.



70 Comments so far
Show AllWe have publicly held and run 'banks' in Canada.
They are called 'credit unions'.
The Government of Alberta (the most reactionary and right wing of the provincial governments) has run the publicly owned and operated 'Alberta Treasury Branch' for decades without the paranoiacally feared 'societal collapse' into socialism and decadence.
We have credit unions in the USA too and my wife and I have been members all along. Unfortunately, most Americans are lulled into "too big to fail" banks.
Realwealthlife
But that is changing too! There's been a huge campaign via Huffington Post called "Move your money" (out of the TBTF banks). Many people have done this and several states now are talking about it in their own legislatures to move the state funds into their own local, community banks. It's picked up a lot of momentum....
Readers might not be aware that Alberta Treasury Branches (ATB), operating as ATB Financial only within the Province of Alberta in Canada, is about 6 times as large as the Bank of North Dakota (BND). ATB has about $26 billion CAD in total assets in comparison to the BND's $4 billion USD.
ATB is a provincial crown corporation in Alberta and has operated as a commercial enterprise since 1938, with about 165 branches across the province. It's unique in Canada in that while it operates just like a regional bank, it's not subject to federal jurisdiction under the Bank Act of Canada (because it's an agent of the Crown in Right of Alberta).
ATB offers retail and commercial banking services and is a direct clearer through the Canadian Payments Association. One key difference is in the area of deposit insurance, because the provincial government provides a 100% deposit guarantee on ATB's deposits.
Wikipedia has an entry on ATB and the "about us" section on ATB's website provides a fair amount of detailed information about ATB's background, role and governance structure.
Also check out Richard C. Cook & his essays/DVDs on "Credit as a Public Utility".
Also, along the same lines, Stephen Zarlenga's "American Monetary Institute" (the OTHER Chicago School).
"We have the labor and we have the materials; we just lack the "liquidity" necessary to put them together to create products and services."
yes that has always been the case, if he we have enough labor and materials then we have enough "money"
because the worth of money, is simply what is available to by
we have capacity to produce more goods and services than every before in history, therefore we have plenty of wealth
unfortunately, that money has to be in circulation, not in offshore accounts or whereever the rich hide their money
a "redistribution of wealth" is not communism,
but clearly what is needed to produce recover from this depression, which is totally man made through greed,
which could be reversed in a day if our leaders had the wisdom
Or did you mean "if our leaders had the right incentive"? Because I think their only incentive now is about personal gain.
Public state-owned banks - another social institution that benefits the Citizens of the State.
Private banks today, including the Federal Reserve, do not lend money they have on deposit, nor borrow money at a low interest and loan it out at a higher interest rate. Private banks today, through fractional reserve lending, create money--money that is backed by the “full faith and credit of the United States”--out of thin air by bookkeeping entry, whenever anyone, including the government, takes out a loan. (More precisely, private banks issue "bank credit," which essentially becomes "money" when the borrower deposits it or spends it. )
There are two egregious problems with private banks creating our money:
(1) They've done nothing to earn the interest on the money they "create." (Remember, private banks' profits come from interest on loans.)
(2) The credit they extend is not theirs to extend, as it is money backed by the full faith and credit of the United States.
Money should not be confused with wealth -- money is merely a means to facilitate transactions. In fact, the creation of money should be the sole prerogative of a sovereign government -- a public function!
With respect to the claim that a public bank represents unfair competition by the government, note that the “free market” must exist with a means for the exchange of goods and services: a community-defined, or government fiat, currency. The free market becomes a manipulated market when the currency is created by private interests, where the authority to create money in private hands leads to preferential access to credit as well as a transfer of wealth, in the form of interest payments, from the people to the private banks.
So, banking, when it involves the creation of "money," is in fact a public function. A state bank, whose purpose is to serve the public good, is a step in the right direction.
Excellent post
Exactly. Excellent summary.
Money is a government program! To hand over this essential element of our economy to private corporations so that they can manipulate it to their benefit is idiotic and a hand out to a few people of all Americans' wealth and sovereignty.
Spot on.
"We the people have given away our sovereign money--creating power to private, for-profit lending institutions, which have used it to siphon wealth from the productive economy."
Did we give away our power to create money or did politicians sell us out?
We can take it back direct democratically via national voter initiative and referendum: http://www.ni4d.us/
Interesting that Alberta is conservative. North Dakota is very conservative as well, and James Stivers, who is running on a state-owned bank platform in Idaho, is a Republican. What is conservative about the idea is that it favors states' rights and state independence. We want to pull the money power away from Wall Street and back into our own local areas.
Yes, the state bank concept, as well as the issue of monetary reform, is truly one that should appeal to ALL on and across the political spectrum!
No! Not state owned banks: join a couple of local credit unions. They are already organized and running. They are democratically controlled, not by the state but by their own members. They have a great reputation. They know how to out-smart the banks. They give you better interest on your savings, and they charge lesser interest on your loans. You can do it right now: just take your money out of a bank, any bank, and deposit it in a local credit union. Smartest thing you can do.
I agree. My money (what little there is) has always been in credit unions - it baffles me that any non-millionaire+ would willingly put their money in a bank. Banks are like pyramid schemes.
Incidentally, has anyone whose mortgage is through a credit union experienced the kind of predatory lending schemes that banks have been perpetrating?
Credit unions are one of the only truly democratic institutions in the United States - why don't more people use them?
Credit unions are great, but they're still working with fiat money. The point to a publicly owned bank would (or should) be specifically to put currency creation back into the hands of the public, owned by them, to serve them as established in the Constitution. As a nation we have no real need to borrow currency from anyone since all authority to create currency is actually the property of the public. If we find ourselves in a situation in which our nation must pay interest on loans to private banking interests who create money from nothing it is because the authority to create currency has been stolen, and since that event we have never had a truly free market economy. Credit unions would still have a place in a country that actually owned its currency. But the currency they use would still have been created by democratically elected representatives, and without debt. We're all sharecroppers now.
Realwealthlife
Credit Unions are a great option...but they can't do everything. Having Credit Unions and the State bank working together is necessary to meet the level of need that a State has. Credit unions can not lend at the level necessary to fund a thriving state. But, as is true in the example of the Bank of North Dakota....working together the State bank and smaller, local banks--and credit unions makes a powerful combination. (That is the key thing in ND....the State banks works WITH the local, small, community banks and credit unions to help fund the necessities in areas such as farming, small commerce, student loans, housing etc.)
"Did we give away our power to create money or did politicians sell us out?"
Woodrow Wilson sold us out by signing the Federal Reserve bill in a midnight secret deal with a half dozen "Malefactors of Great Wealth." He later regretted it but he's long dead and this monstrous parasite is still attached to the body politic, sucking away the peoples' life blood every day.
For a lucid account of this crime see..."The Beast from Jekyll Island."
A state bank would be an excellent corrective. Let's pressure our local reps...the ones who have to look us in the eye.
The corporate trusts who wrote the Federal Reserve Act positively SCREAMED PROTEST against its passage, claiming that it was going to put them out of business. It was a neat trick. It appears that the same sort of thing is happening with health care now.
Another great piece, Ellen!
Joel Welty is right about credit unions being an excellent place to keep your money, but wrong that they can substitute for a state-owned bank.
By depositing all its normal balances in a state-owned bank, a state can use those resources to fund investments beyond what might be possible for credit unions, including loans for infrastructure projects within the state. And it can attract other deposits like pension fund balances to get still more money to lend.
And best of all, state agencies can borrow that money effectively interest free, since any interest earned on loans to state agencies (or elsewhere for that matter) is repaid to the state as owner of the bank.
This is big news for any state choking on interest payments, as many now are.
That a state-owned bank can help with the state budget is the reason behind the wave of interest you have helped create.
Keep up the good work!
Tom Hagan
QUESTION:
If the state banks are "guaranteed" by the State(s), ie., by the state's power to tax that state's citizens, what mechanisms get put in place to prevent the state banks from...doing exactly what Wall Street just did, only on a smaller scale?
I'm in favor of the idea, just want to know how you prevent moral hazard.
I live in a county where the majority Republican government was so bad it was busted by the Bush Feds, so I need to know...
A lot of "liberals" assume "public" means "virtuous." I don't.
Realwealthlife
One way that the Bank of North Dakota has ensured in its 90 years of existence that it didn't go the 'way of Wall Street", was to write a very tight mission/focus of what it can do. It is very focused on what benefits the state's need for agriculture, small commerce, student loans etc.
Its not out looking invest for the sake of 'investing', but for what benefits the citizens of the State.
People focused not profit-at-any-cost focus.
I'm a liberal, and I can assure you: most of us don't assume "public" means anything like ""virtuous". But there is a huge gulf between the transparency that can be forced onto an institution that is public and one that is private. Public watchdog groups can monitor what goes on in a public institution, and they will, rest assured.
You cannot completely remove the threat of someone acting in an unethical manner that costs a lot of people money. But you can have a hand in setting up a publicly-owned bank in such a way as to minimize it. You can't with a corporate-owned bank. The only leverage you have there is to take your business elsewhere... and you see how effective that's been.
Governance. You're right.
I just recieved an e-mail today from a group in our area. It was a handout to print against the gas drilling that is about to take over here.
At the bottom, there was a statement or what ever you want to call it, about what group created it. The Democratic Socialists.
I really like that idea. I've been reading more about this. there is a book I want to find. I heard it on NPR. It's something like. "The last stop is Finn Statiion"
That might be wrong but at least Finn Station is in it. The guest stated that it's one of the best explainations for socialism. I think it's a novel.
Does anyone know what book I'm talking about?
In light of what this article was about, no I don't have a clue what you're talking about, or why you're talking about it here.
Credit is fundamentally your own ability to convince people that your future earnings have value. It's a good sign when you've been earning money in the community in the past, and better if you're successfully working in the present. If you've cheated other people in the past, you probably don't have much credit. Credit, in essence new money, is written on you. It's not always a government thing.
We have a bad federal government -- corrupt, and it has written over 10 trillion in debts that it probably can't pay off. We'd better look to ourselves for the next solution.
"We have a bad federal government -- corrupt, and it has written over 10 trillion in debts that it probably can't pay off."
Debt, in the aggregate can never be repaid. As is pointed out here money is created out of thin air with interest attached. Where does the interest come from? It can only be derived from more debt so that debt grows exponentially.
True, unless the debt is generated by a publicly-owned bank, in which case the interest gets returned to the public -- at least on its own debt. If it lent to individuals and businesses, interest would accrue, but it would go into the public coffers, defraying taxes, so it would still be working for the public.
I am part of a credit union and my experience has been horrible. Their hours of operation are the same as my working hour, they do not open on weekends, their customer service runs parallel to their hours of operation and their customer service is ineffective. While i do agree that a state owned bank has potential I believe that a combination of all of them would be most beneficial to the people.
Your experience with credit unions runs directly counter to my own.I have been a member of a credit union for over twenty years, my bank is friendly, fee free, and open on Saturdays.Further, with ATM's available, also fee free to all participating credit unions, as well as on line banking your objections ring a bit hollow.
Perhaps you might select another bank that better suits your needs.
>>We have credit unions in the USA too and my wife and I have been members all along. Unfortunately, most Americans are lulled into "too big to fail" banks.
Just for some perspective.
During the Great Depression 9000 banks failed in the United States of America. Zero banks failed in Canada.
During the 1980s and the Savings and loans scandals of the 1980s, some 3000 American banks failed. 2 Small Canadian banks failed , these being the first failures since 1923.
Well over 200 banks failed in the US in this past recession while none have failed in Canada. Indeed the Bankers in Canada inisted the Federal Government tighten regulations for Mortgages to make them harder to get.
Further to that the Canadian Government did far less then that of the United States to step in so as to "save the banks".
I also posted an article some weeks ago regarding Credit Unions in the USA. Even credit unions have been loathe to lend money. In fact some in Nevada are paying depositers to remove their savings.
The reason is the costs of insuring the deposits are costing the Credit Unions more then they can earn investing in Federal Securities. They are losing money everytime someone deposits money. They are not loaning the money out either because of the risks involved in an economy they still do not feel is bottomed out.
Got any figures to go with that?
Just how much to insure deposits?
Could they provide "micro-lending" services?
>>The credit union is investing in short-term Treasurys and earns about one-quarter of 1 percent on those government securities on average, but it was paying 0.4 percent to customers with savings.
>>In addition, the credit union expects the National Credit Union Administration to boost deposit insurance premiums by 0.15 percent to 0.4 percent this year.
In essence because so many big boys failed, Credit Unions have to pay more for depositor insurance.
Whats basically happening is people are cutting back on borrowing and trying to increase their savings instead....which could be a good thing but the Credit Union loses money on holding a persons savings.
With those uber low interest rates what the larger firms do is SPECULATE on commodities, derivatives and the like in order to boost returns. This helped fuel the crisis.
Its in BAD shape. The entire banking system might have to be nationalized.
Well, well---to small to fail.
I just dumped B of A credit card and it felt GREAT!
Micro-lending sounds good, but I know little about it (never stopped me from spouting off, so far...).
So, how about state healthcare co-ops...?
How about AARP buying a controlling interest in a big pharma co...and turning it into a drug co-op?
Looking forward to the first GoldmanSaks bake sale.
Cheers.
snydly
State health care coops -- I like it! Looks like we're not going to get much out of the federal government there. Instead of paying monthly insurance premiums, we could use the money as the capital base for a bank and leverage it, like the big boys do downtown.
AARP is already in with the insurance companies--don't look at the AARP as your friend.
They helped to block single payer and that fake "public option" too.
I just don't know. North Dakota started this 90 years ago. It was a different world. I'm having trouble seeing the "Bank of Illinois" not become a political toy.
And they support "agriculture" What and who? There is potential for great evil as well as good.
The state is suffering because of a credit crunch. Private banks aren't lending. A public bank can get credit flowing again, using the very same mechanisms private banks use, but with the added benefits of (a) a huge asset and deposit base, (b) full accountability and transparency, (c) a mission statement and legislation limiting bank uses to serving the public, (d) the potential of low- or no-interest loans for public projects, and (e) new revenues generated for the state, defraying taxes.
You make much sense, and I thank you for it.
Don't let the naysayers or the "wisdom" of economists discourage you. How often have they been right lately.......or ever? State Public Banking is a necessary step in the right direction of self determination and economic recovery. Its in your TRUE self interest to back it.
My point was that a corrupt state gov't will not create a transparent bank. As someone below pointed out, the North Dakota bank started out with a very strict and narrow mission. And even that mission "to support agriculture" conjures visions to me of loans to Monsanto. I haven't listened to mainstream economists in decades. This is simply a pragmatic objection that doing something half-baked because it's the best you can get (like the health care bill or cap&trade) is always a possiblity in the world of politics. Onc cannot just say "Oh good, state bank good we like". We need to be saying "we want a state bank that does this in this way and is monitored in this way" and set out the standards by which it would be measured.
Public banks are a great idea and a huge improvement, but unfortunately they're still using FED issued fiat money, unless these public banks are also printing their own currency, which I'm unaware of.
I would love to see a true publicly owned currency, as it was originally established, capable of being inflated or deflated as necessary for the public good by elected representatives, and without debt. Anything else is 'plantation scrip', only as valuable as the landlord/storekeep/boss says it is today. It is slavery in all but name. Some cities already have created local currencies, and I think these measures will only gain popularity as things worsen. I think that they'll meet some serious opposition from the FED when that happens. It'll be interesting, to say the least.
Changing the form of money we use is a far greater leap than just forming a bank, which is already legal, and the mechanisms are set up and running. "Money" today is just "credit", a legal agreement, a ticket, a receipt. Credit created by a publicly-owned bank IS a new form of money -- it's the credit of the public, not of private bankers. Jefferson called them "bold and bankrupt adventurers just pretending to have money." If the currency used is the common, familiar one, it's all that much easier to change the system to publicly-issued money -- all money being just "credit" today.
To The Finland Station
Someone here inquired about a book. I suspect they
are thinking of 'To The Finland Station' by Edmund Wilson - a classic history of socialist ideas.
http://www.amazon.com/Finland-Station-Review-Books-Classics/dp/1590170334
Not going to happen. Childish pie in the sky thinking and a waste of space to suggest it.
Bills are pending in four states. Somebody went to the trouble of drafting legislation, and politicians are running on this platform. They don't think it's a waste of space. It's news. The states are rather desperate. Unlike the federal government, they can't just go deeper in debt and they can't print money; and the banks aren't lending at reasonable rates. What to do? Form a bank, which creates "money" as "credit" and can get the credit machine going again. The alternative is to become third world debtor supplicants, slashing back on services and selling off public assets. Detroit already looks like a third world country, or a war zone.