• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What If Banks Were Publicly Owned? In LA, This May Soon Be A Reality.

Checkerboard Strangler

Make Video Horizontal Again
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 8, 2005
Messages
68,772
Reaction score
52,839
Location
Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
[h=1]What If Banks Were Publicly Owned? In LA, This May Soon Be A Reality.[/h]

Cities and states typically store this short-term cash in bank accounts or plain-vanilla investments. Big banks like Wells Fargo or JPMorgan Chase use the funds to generate profits, through loans or trades, or whatever else they can conjure. They, for example, fund private prisons that house immigrant families. They fund pipelines that carry fossil fuels and are displacing Indigenous Americans from their land. And big banks continue to act badly with relative impunity ― wrist-slap fines ultimately paid by shareholders, and no executive seeing the inside of a jail cell.
 
Good question. I wonder what the ramifications of the government controlling banking and things like loans.
 

What a lot of BS....If something should not be done then write it into law...if it is not important enough to do that then fine, but dont then bitch about the banks lending money to people and projects that you dont approve of.

We need to get back to the basics in America, far too many people are ignorant of them.

The law are the rules, those who follow the rules are fine.
 
Last edited:
I'm kinda OK with this concept:

Post offices that are also banks? Genius idea. But don't hold your breath

File this under Excellent Ideas That Should Definitely Happen But Probably Won't.

Last week, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, a New York Democrat, introduced legislation to create a Postal Bank, empowering the nation's vast network of post offices to offer checking and savings accounts, and to provide low-interest short-term loans.

There are three things to really like here:

-- It would be cool having an alternative to private banks that all too often prove themselves no friend of customers (hi, Wells Fargo!).

-- Banking services would be a financial lifeline for the U.S. Postal Service, which has been defenestrated by email and digital communications.

-- This could spell doom for bottom-feeding payday lenders.

"I think this is such an elegant fix for complex problems," Gillibrand told me, "particularly payday lending."

Give the whole piece a read. It's an interesting idea.
 
Read up on Savings and loans crisis, starring Charles Keating, happened in part for the same reason the banks had their real estate mortgage crisis. Wall Street is full of crooks, to think otherwise is risky.
 
"Democratizing" the financial system is synonymous with politicizing the financial system, and that does not necessarily encourage a health financial system but one prone to decisions based on the emotion of political decisions. The majority not always knowing what is best for a financial system or investment.
 
My experience has been, "the bigger the bank, the bigger the crook." I remember the S & L crisis well. Keating, Bush, et al. I think the Federal Reserve should be eliminated and a return to a National Bank. The Mortgage tranches that caused the 2008 crash are still out there and larger than ever. Read the entire article partially attached.
< Depositors ? Not Taxpayers ? Will Take the Hit for the Next ?2008? Crash Because Major Banks May Use the ?Bail-In? System >
Depositors – Not Taxpayers – Will Take the Hit for the Next ‘2008’ Crash Because Major Banks May Use the ‘Bail-In’ System

By Barbara G. Ellis, Ph.D.

" August 09, 2018 "Information Clearing House" - The Federal Reserve’s recent undermining of the Volcker Rule brings depositors closer than ever to a Cyprus-style “bail-in” in another 2008 crash. And all signs indicate another is on the way. This time, however, many U.S. banks may confiscate deposits to stay solvent because the Dodd-Frank law bars them from touching taxpayers’ monies. Indeed, most major banks have been planning the “bail-in” tactic ever since Dodd-Frank.

What’s likely to happen to depositors’ money in a major commercial bank in another 2008 crash? And for months, financial pundits and experts such as William Cohen have been warning an even bigger one is on its way because nothing has essentially changed. If it’s one of those giant too-big-to-fail types that caused that global catastrophe, chances are they’ve been planning what’s called a “bail-in” system to seize depositors’ money—temporarily, of course. But whether depositors want to withdraw $50 from the ATM for the weekend, write a cheque at the supermarket, or cash in a CD, they’ll be shut out by their banks.

And when the furious confront those banks, they’ll be told it’s an emergency and, until Monday, would they like to start procedures with the FDIC for a refund? Or accept the bank’s IOU (stocks) immediately for it? (With a failing bank, stocks (aka “equities”) would be as worthless as a Confederate dollar after Appomattox.)

Forget joining fellow depositors armed with baseball bats and AK-16s to storm the banks and retrieve money on Monday. Banks will be closed. Probably ringed by paddy wagons and well-armed police with state-of-the-art equipment to handle any “disturbance.”

Worse, depositors relying on the FDIC (Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation), banking’s insurer since 1933 to protect their money, probably will get none in these times. Although the law permits it to borrow $100 billion from the Treasury in an economic crisis—and face taxpayer rage once again—at the end of March, the fund had $56 billion in its coffers. It’s also expected to cover deposits of at least $26 billion from both domestic and foreign customers, but also derivatives that were at $550 trillion by February.

But the new bank bill (S. 2155), also known as the “bank lobbyists’ bill”, just signed into law by president Trump says stress tests now would be “periodic” and not required for banks holding less than $100 billion.

As financial writer Dean Baker described the bill:

[It] rolls back major provisions of the Dodd-Frank financial regulations of 2010, allowing banks to engage in riskier investment strategies and to hide discriminatory practices.

Written to protect bank customers after the 2008 crash, the Dodd-FrankWall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act was designed

To promote the financial stability of the United States by improving accountability and transparency in the financial system, to end “too big to fail” [banks], to protect the American taxpayer by ending bailouts, to protect consumers from abusive financial services practices, and for other purposes.

In other words, in a financial collapse serious enough to cause Great Depression II, banksare forbidden to use taxpayer revenues resting in the Treasury’s vaults because of public rage in 2009 over making $700 billion of their tax monies available to banks."
 
Read up on Savings and loans crisis, starring Charles Keating, happened in part for the same reason the banks had their real estate mortgage crisis. Wall Street is full of crooks, to think otherwise is risky.

But gosh, I thought Keating was a Christian who wanted to save us from the evils of pr0n...
 
Back
Top Bottom