@derryb said:
banks should be confined to one state only. Actual money and debt will cross state lines.
Which state?
Each state. corrected
So each state would have a "state owned" bank? But deposits and loans could be made cross borders? Who would regulate those banks, the state that owns them?
Each state would have state regulated banks that could not have branches in other states. (Insurance companies are currently regulated by each state.) All banks nationwide would fall under additional federal regulation to ensure fairness and equal account holder treatment across the country. Depositors and borrowers would be authorized to have credit/debit card accounts, including nationally recognized cards (visa, M/C etc.) issued only through their state located bank. Nationally recognized credit/debit cards (Visa, M/C, etc.) would have to be issued through a bank in the card holder's state.
Are you old enough to remember when you're parent's bank was locally owned and all debt was approved by a local bank manager who was usually known by his first name? I remember that as a child I had a savings past book where I walked into the bank, gave them my $3 deposit from mowing a lawn, and handed them my passbook in which they entered the deposit before returning the passbook to me.
There is no doubt in my mind that the FED, since it's inception, has enabled and encouraged banking to become an anonymous, de-personalized corporate entity that preys on deposit and loan account holders. Breaking up "Ma Bell" into Baby Bells proved to be good for the consumer.
My issue with corporate America is that it has become focused on it's shareholders and not on its customers. My issue with Americans is that they have accepted this.
I don't think I would use insurance companies or the fact that they are regulated by individual states as an example of something that has worked well...
.
North Dakota has a state-run bank that was implemented for the benefit of the people. It has been successful in that regard.
.
What does that have to do with insurance companies and how they are not a good example of state regulated success stories?
.
I'm skipping the insurance company comparisons and going straight to the example of a successful and beneficial state-owned bank (North Dakota).
.
My comment (that you quoted) was directly related to insurance companies and how they are a bad example, but okay...
To your comment, while BND might be somewhat beneficial to the citizens of North Dakota, if you really peel back the onion, it is hardly a model that would work for the United States of America. That's why North Dakota has a lot more banks than just the BND.
@VikingDude said:
BND is not backed by FDIC but by the state.
It made $193 million last year and those profits are returned to the state.
On a side note, we also have a state-owned Mill.
.
The Bank of North Dakota certainly IS a model for others to follow. Returning $193 million to the state for the benefit of the people proves it.
.
It wouldn't work as a national model and you know it.
.
It certainly COULD work and I recommend exactly that. For-profit bankers wouldn't like it, but too bad.
We also have credit card companies that basically skim 3% off the top of the economy. That should have never become acceptable or the norm.
A 3% rake is not an efficient medium of exchange. One major responsibility of government is to implement and maintain an efficient medium of exchange. The ridiculously-complex and onerous income tax system could be replaced by a government-owned bank combined with US digital currency that is efficient and easy to use, and has a lower rake (perhaps 1 or 2 percent) compared to traditional credit cards. Credit card companies wouldn't like that either, but too bad.
.
Sounds like.you are promoting bigger government, private profit limits and increased regulation.
.
No.
I am proposing nationalization of the central bank and everything else is totally free-market capitalism.
Congress has the responsibility of "regulating the value of money" and facilitating an efficient medium of exchange, and the US Government needs to get back to doing that.
.
Nationalizing is bigger govt and dictating profit margin is not free market capitalism.
You also seem to be saying Congress has failed at its job----maybe get rid of Congress?
@derryb said:
banks should be confined to one state only. Actual money and debt will cross state lines.
Which state?
Each state. corrected
So each state would have a "state owned" bank? But deposits and loans could be made cross borders? Who would regulate those banks, the state that owns them?
Each state would have state regulated banks that could not have branches in other states. (Insurance companies are currently regulated by each state.) All banks nationwide would fall under additional federal regulation to ensure fairness and equal account holder treatment across the country. Depositors and borrowers would be authorized to have credit/debit card accounts, including nationally recognized cards (visa, M/C etc.) issued only through their state located bank. Nationally recognized credit/debit cards (Visa, M/C, etc.) would have to be issued through a bank in the card holder's state.
Are you old enough to remember when you're parent's bank was locally owned and all debt was approved by a local bank manager who was usually known by his first name? I remember that as a child I had a savings past book where I walked into the bank, gave them my $3 deposit from mowing a lawn, and handed them my passbook in which they entered the deposit before returning the passbook to me.
There is no doubt in my mind that the FED, since it's inception, has enabled and encouraged banking to become an anonymous, de-personalized corporate entity that preys on deposit and loan account holders. Breaking up "Ma Bell" into Baby Bells proved to be good for the consumer.
My issue with corporate America is that it has become focused on it's shareholders and not on its customers. My issue with Americans is that they have accepted this.
I don't think I would use insurance companies or the fact that they are regulated by individual states as an example of something that has worked well...
.
North Dakota has a state-run bank that was implemented for the benefit of the people. It has been successful in that regard.
.
What does that have to do with insurance companies and how they are not a good example of state regulated success stories?
.
I'm skipping the insurance company comparisons and going straight to the example of a successful and beneficial state-owned bank (North Dakota).
.
My comment (that you quoted) was directly related to insurance companies and how they are a bad example, but okay...
To your comment, while BND might be somewhat beneficial to the citizens of North Dakota, if you really peel back the onion, it is hardly a model that would work for the United States of America. That's why North Dakota has a lot more banks than just the BND.
@VikingDude said:
BND is not backed by FDIC but by the state.
It made $193 million last year and those profits are returned to the state.
On a side note, we also have a state-owned Mill.
.
The Bank of North Dakota certainly IS a model for others to follow. Returning $193 million to the state for the benefit of the people proves it.
.
It wouldn't work as a national model and you know it.
.
It certainly COULD work and I recommend exactly that. For-profit bankers wouldn't like it, but too bad.
We also have credit card companies that basically skim 3% off the top of the economy. That should have never become acceptable or the norm.
A 3% rake is not an efficient medium of exchange. One major responsibility of government is to implement and maintain an efficient medium of exchange. The ridiculously-complex and onerous income tax system could be replaced by a government-owned bank combined with US digital currency that is efficient and easy to use, and has a lower rake (perhaps 1 or 2 percent) compared to traditional credit cards. Credit card companies wouldn't like that either, but too bad.
.
Sounds like.you are promoting bigger government, private profit limits and increased regulation.
.
No.
I am proposing nationalization of the central bank and everything else is totally free-market capitalism.
Congress has the responsibility of "regulating the value of money" and facilitating an efficient medium of exchange, and the US Government needs to get back to doing that.
.
Nationalizing is bigger govt and dictating profit margin is not free market capitalism.
You also seem to be saying Congress has failed at its job----maybe get rid of Congress?
.
Nationalizing the central bank establishes a level playing field for all other capitalistic endeavors. In no way does that "dictate profit margins".
And, if done right, would do away with the need for income taxes and the onerous filing and processing of tax returns.
We wouldn't need 87,000 new IRS agents. And in case you don't realize it, that would equate to smaller government.
@derryb said:
banks should be confined to one state only. Actual money and debt will cross state lines.
Which state?
Each state. corrected
So each state would have a "state owned" bank? But deposits and loans could be made cross borders? Who would regulate those banks, the state that owns them?
Each state would have state regulated banks that could not have branches in other states. (Insurance companies are currently regulated by each state.) All banks nationwide would fall under additional federal regulation to ensure fairness and equal account holder treatment across the country. Depositors and borrowers would be authorized to have credit/debit card accounts, including nationally recognized cards (visa, M/C etc.) issued only through their state located bank. Nationally recognized credit/debit cards (Visa, M/C, etc.) would have to be issued through a bank in the card holder's state.
Are you old enough to remember when you're parent's bank was locally owned and all debt was approved by a local bank manager who was usually known by his first name? I remember that as a child I had a savings past book where I walked into the bank, gave them my $3 deposit from mowing a lawn, and handed them my passbook in which they entered the deposit before returning the passbook to me.
There is no doubt in my mind that the FED, since it's inception, has enabled and encouraged banking to become an anonymous, de-personalized corporate entity that preys on deposit and loan account holders. Breaking up "Ma Bell" into Baby Bells proved to be good for the consumer.
My issue with corporate America is that it has become focused on it's shareholders and not on its customers. My issue with Americans is that they have accepted this.
I don't think I would use insurance companies or the fact that they are regulated by individual states as an example of something that has worked well...
.
North Dakota has a state-run bank that was implemented for the benefit of the people. It has been successful in that regard.
.
What does that have to do with insurance companies and how they are not a good example of state regulated success stories?
.
I'm skipping the insurance company comparisons and going straight to the example of a successful and beneficial state-owned bank (North Dakota).
.
My comment (that you quoted) was directly related to insurance companies and how they are a bad example, but okay...
To your comment, while BND might be somewhat beneficial to the citizens of North Dakota, if you really peel back the onion, it is hardly a model that would work for the United States of America. That's why North Dakota has a lot more banks than just the BND.
@VikingDude said:
BND is not backed by FDIC but by the state.
It made $193 million last year and those profits are returned to the state.
On a side note, we also have a state-owned Mill.
.
The Bank of North Dakota certainly IS a model for others to follow. Returning $193 million to the state for the benefit of the people proves it.
.
It wouldn't work as a national model and you know it.
.
It certainly COULD work and I recommend exactly that. For-profit bankers wouldn't like it, but too bad.
We also have credit card companies that basically skim 3% off the top of the economy. That should have never become acceptable or the norm.
A 3% rake is not an efficient medium of exchange. One major responsibility of government is to implement and maintain an efficient medium of exchange. The ridiculously-complex and onerous income tax system could be replaced by a government-owned bank combined with US digital currency that is efficient and easy to use, and has a lower rake (perhaps 1 or 2 percent) compared to traditional credit cards. Credit card companies wouldn't like that either, but too bad.
.
Sounds like.you are promoting bigger government, private profit limits and increased regulation.
.
No.
I am proposing nationalization of the central bank and everything else is totally free-market capitalism.
Congress has the responsibility of "regulating the value of money" and facilitating an efficient medium of exchange, and the US Government needs to get back to doing that.
.
Nationalizing is bigger govt and dictating profit margin is not free market capitalism.
You also seem to be saying Congress has failed at its job----maybe get rid of Congress?
.
Nationalizing the central bank establishes a level playing field for all other capitalistic endeavors. In no way does that "dictate profit margins".
When you write that a companies shouldn't make more than 1 or 2% then you are dictating profit margins.
And, if done right, would do away with the need for income taxes and the onerous filing and processing of tax returns.
You ain't never get ridd of income taxes unless you get rid of Congress.
We wouldn't need 87,000 new IRS agents. And in case you don't realize it, that would equate to smaller government.
.
Where are these 87,000 gun touting IRS agents? Anybody seen one?
Can you please explain how a nationalized banking system would eliminate taxes? Eliminate the IRS?
What would you do with all the unemployed accounts?
@derryb said:
banks should be confined to one state only. Actual money and debt will cross state lines.
Which state?
Each state. corrected
So each state would have a "state owned" bank? But deposits and loans could be made cross borders? Who would regulate those banks, the state that owns them?
Each state would have state regulated banks that could not have branches in other states. (Insurance companies are currently regulated by each state.) All banks nationwide would fall under additional federal regulation to ensure fairness and equal account holder treatment across the country. Depositors and borrowers would be authorized to have credit/debit card accounts, including nationally recognized cards (visa, M/C etc.) issued only through their state located bank. Nationally recognized credit/debit cards (Visa, M/C, etc.) would have to be issued through a bank in the card holder's state.
Are you old enough to remember when you're parent's bank was locally owned and all debt was approved by a local bank manager who was usually known by his first name? I remember that as a child I had a savings past book where I walked into the bank, gave them my $3 deposit from mowing a lawn, and handed them my passbook in which they entered the deposit before returning the passbook to me.
There is no doubt in my mind that the FED, since it's inception, has enabled and encouraged banking to become an anonymous, de-personalized corporate entity that preys on deposit and loan account holders. Breaking up "Ma Bell" into Baby Bells proved to be good for the consumer.
My issue with corporate America is that it has become focused on it's shareholders and not on its customers. My issue with Americans is that they have accepted this.
I don't think I would use insurance companies or the fact that they are regulated by individual states as an example of something that has worked well...
.
North Dakota has a state-run bank that was implemented for the benefit of the people. It has been successful in that regard.
.
What does that have to do with insurance companies and how they are not a good example of state regulated success stories?
.
I'm skipping the insurance company comparisons and going straight to the example of a successful and beneficial state-owned bank (North Dakota).
.
My comment (that you quoted) was directly related to insurance companies and how they are a bad example, but okay...
To your comment, while BND might be somewhat beneficial to the citizens of North Dakota, if you really peel back the onion, it is hardly a model that would work for the United States of America. That's why North Dakota has a lot more banks than just the BND.
@VikingDude said:
BND is not backed by FDIC but by the state.
It made $193 million last year and those profits are returned to the state.
On a side note, we also have a state-owned Mill.
.
The Bank of North Dakota certainly IS a model for others to follow. Returning $193 million to the state for the benefit of the people proves it.
.
It wouldn't work as a national model and you know it.
.
It certainly COULD work and I recommend exactly that. For-profit bankers wouldn't like it, but too bad.
We also have credit card companies that basically skim 3% off the top of the economy. That should have never become acceptable or the norm.
A 3% rake is not an efficient medium of exchange. One major responsibility of government is to implement and maintain an efficient medium of exchange. The ridiculously-complex and onerous income tax system could be replaced by a government-owned bank combined with US digital currency that is efficient and easy to use, and has a lower rake (perhaps 1 or 2 percent) compared to traditional credit cards. Credit card companies wouldn't like that either, but too bad.
.
Sounds like.you are promoting bigger government, private profit limits and increased regulation.
.
No.
I am proposing nationalization of the central bank and everything else is totally free-market capitalism.
Congress has the responsibility of "regulating the value of money" and facilitating an efficient medium of exchange, and the US Government needs to get back to doing that.
.
Nationalizing is bigger govt and dictating profit margin is not free market capitalism.
You also seem to be saying Congress has failed at its job----maybe get rid of Congress?
.
Nationalizing the central bank establishes a level playing field for all other capitalistic endeavors. In no way does that "dictate profit margins".
When you write that a companies shouldn't make more than 1 or 2% then you are dictating profit margins.
And, if done right, would do away with the need for income taxes and the onerous filing and processing of tax returns.
You ain't never get ridd of income taxes unless you get rid of Congress.
We wouldn't need 87,000 new IRS agents. And in case you don't realize it, that would equate to smaller government.
.
Where are these 87,000 gun touting IRS agents? Anybody seen one?
Can you please explain how a nationalized banking system would eliminate taxes? Eliminate the IRS?
What would you do with all the unemployed accounts?
.
I already did explain it. It doesn't "eliminate" taxes. I never wrote that it did. But it does eliminate the "middle man". It would replace the use of credit cards for many transactions and replace the existing income tax system with an automatic transaction tax similar to the 3% charged by credit card companies.
who said one bank per state or state run banks? I said no national banks. A state could have as many different banks as competition would allow, but they would be limited to operations in one state only.
But you said money would cross borders. If the banks were limited to operations in their own state then how is that cross border business?
A bank in my resident state of FL (the choice of numerous commercial banks is up to me), holds my money and issues me blank checks and/or a debit card. I am not limited to spending that money just in my state; I can write checks on my FL account while in any other state or to pay out of state bills. This is what I mean when I say money would cross borders.
Bigger question, does each state set their own interest rates
The market and competition set rates. And your bank may even throw in that toaster to get your business. Many people (and obviously you) believe the FED sets the interest rate we pay and that we earn. They do not. The only rate they set is the federal funds rate, the rate that banks pay for overnight loans to meet their money needs and reserve deposit requirements (as dictated by the FED). Commercial markets usually follow suit, but if you will note, mortgage rates are holding and even climbing as the FED is lowering rates. So yes, the market sets the rates that apply to you and I, the FED tries to influence that rate.
Repetition of ignorance is ignorance raised to the power two.
who said one bank per state or state run banks? I said no national banks. A state could have as many different banks as competition would allow, but they would be limited to operations in one state only.
But you said money would cross borders. If the banks were limited to operations in their own state then how is that cross border business?
A bank in my resident state of FL (the choice of numerous commercial banks is up to me), holds my money and issues me blank checks and/or a debit card. I am not limited to spending that money just in my state; I can write checks on my FL account while in any other state or to pay out of state bills. This is what I mean when I say money would cross borders.
So if a company based in Iowa wanted to build a business in FL, then they have to take out s loan from that FL bank?
How is that free market?
Bigger question, does each state set their own interest rates
The market and competition set rates. And your bank may even throw in that toaster to get your business. Many people (and obviously you) believe the FED sets the interest rate we pay and that we earn. They do not. The only rate they set is the federal funds rate, the rate that banks pay for overnight loans to meet their money needs and reserve deposit requirements (as dictated by the FED). Commercial markets usually follow suit, but if you will note, mortgage rates are holding and even climbing as the FED is lowering rates. So yes, the market sets the rates that apply to you and I, the FED tries to influence that rate.
Yeah, we all get that, but that not the question. If demands for loans are high in FL and low in Iowa, would rates be higher in FL? Supply/demand, right?
Congress has the responsibility of "regulating the value of money" and facilitating an efficient medium of exchange, and the US Government needs to get back to doing that.
Congress has proven that they cannot regulate the value of money. They control the value of money with their increases of its supply.
Repetition of ignorance is ignorance raised to the power two.
Bigger question, does each state set their own interest rates
Markets set rates. If bank A in your state charges 6% for a mortgage and bank B charges 5%, guess what happens.
Yeah, we all get that, but that not the question. If demands for loans are high in FL and low in Iowa, would rates be higher in FL? Supply/demand, right?
You're finally learning something, supply and demand sets the market prices. Iowa banks have to compete only with Iowa banks, not Florida banks.
Rates, like laws can differ from state to state (i.e. taxes, drinking age, gun ownership). It is what is known as "states rights." I moved to Florida for tax advantages.
My suggestion turns the public economy over to the supply and demand in the marketplace at a state level and takes it out of the hands a central "national" bank made of and owned by individual corporate bankers who meet to "price fix" the value of your money. Price fixing by any other entity is a federal offense. The FED is permitted to function simply because it is Congress's slush fund. Congress knows that if it doesn't have the money to fund its pork can simply have the FED create the money and pass the cost of it on to creditors as a debt that Congress never has to worry about repaying. But they do have to pay interest on that debt so they have the FED create even more new money to cover that. If that doesn't raise your eyebrows you deserve to be fleeced by a constantly devaluing dollar.
Repetition of ignorance is ignorance raised to the power two.
@cohodk said:
If you actually understand what you write you would realize that you advocate for a more divided society and country.
I advocate a free market in banking, and if it takes state's rights (a foundation of your constitution) to achieve it then so be it.
Except you are not actually advocating for a free market, hence my comment.
My comment has nothing to do with society or country it is about banking and the laws that govern it. Quit trying to make everything a political issue or set traps to get fellow members banned. I respect the forum rules and make effort (I'm not perfect) to follow them.
Repetition of ignorance is ignorance raised to the power two.
@cohodk said:
If you actually understand what you write you would realize that you advocate for a more divided society and country.
I advocate a free market in banking, and if it takes state's rights (a foundation of your constitution) to achieve it then so be it.
Except you are not actually advocating for a free market, hence my comment.
My comment has nothing to do with society or country it is about banking and the laws that govern it. Quit trying to make everything a political issue or set traps to get fellow members banned. I respect the forum rules and make effort (I'm not perfect) to follow them.
I made no political reference, set any traps, nor gotten anyone banned.
@cohodk said:
If you actually understand what you write you would realize that you advocate for a more divided society and country.
I advocate a free market in banking, and if it takes state's rights (a foundation of your constitution) to achieve it then so be it.
Except you are not actually advocating for a free market, hence my comment.
My comment has nothing to do with society or country it is about banking and the laws that govern it. Quit trying to make everything a political issue or set traps to get fellow members banned. I respect the forum rules and make effort (I'm not perfect) to follow them.
I made no political reference, set any traps, nor gotten anyone banned.
Why'd you delete your post? Hmmm.
because I realized it was a setup. Hmmm.
Repetition of ignorance is ignorance raised to the power two.
@cohodk said:
If you actually understand what you write you would realize that you advocate for a more divided society and country.
I advocate a free market in banking, and if it takes state's rights (a foundation of your constitution) to achieve it then so be it.
Except you are not actually advocating for a free market, hence my comment.
My comment has nothing to do with society or country it is about banking and the laws that govern it. Quit trying to make everything a political issue or set traps to get fellow members banned. I respect the forum rules and make effort (I'm not perfect) to follow them.
I made no political reference, set any traps, nor gotten anyone banned.
Comments
Nationalizing is bigger govt and dictating profit margin is not free market capitalism.
You also seem to be saying Congress has failed at its job----maybe get rid of Congress?
.
Nationalizing the central bank establishes a level playing field for all other capitalistic endeavors. In no way does that "dictate profit margins".
And, if done right, would do away with the need for income taxes and the onerous filing and processing of tax returns.
We wouldn't need 87,000 new IRS agents. And in case you don't realize it, that would equate to smaller government.
.
When you write that a companies shouldn't make more than 1 or 2% then you are dictating profit margins.
You ain't never get ridd of income taxes unless you get rid of Congress.
Where are these 87,000 gun touting IRS agents? Anybody seen one?
Can you please explain how a nationalized banking system would eliminate taxes? Eliminate the IRS?
What would you do with all the unemployed accounts?
.
I already did explain it. It doesn't "eliminate" taxes. I never wrote that it did. But it does eliminate the "middle man". It would replace the use of credit cards for many transactions and replace the existing income tax system with an automatic transaction tax similar to the 3% charged by credit card companies.
.
A bank in my resident state of FL (the choice of numerous commercial banks is up to me), holds my money and issues me blank checks and/or a debit card. I am not limited to spending that money just in my state; I can write checks on my FL account while in any other state or to pay out of state bills. This is what I mean when I say money would cross borders.
The market and competition set rates. And your bank may even throw in that toaster to get your business. Many people (and obviously you) believe the FED sets the interest rate we pay and that we earn. They do not. The only rate they set is the federal funds rate, the rate that banks pay for overnight loans to meet their money needs and reserve deposit requirements (as dictated by the FED). Commercial markets usually follow suit, but if you will note, mortgage rates are holding and even climbing as the FED is lowering rates. So yes, the market sets the rates that apply to you and I, the FED tries to influence that rate.
Repetition of ignorance is ignorance raised to the power two.
So if a company based in Iowa wanted to build a business in FL, then they have to take out s loan from that FL bank?
How is that free market?
Yeah, we all get that, but that not the question. If demands for loans are high in FL and low in Iowa, would rates be higher in FL? Supply/demand, right?
Congress has proven that they cannot regulate the value of money. They control the value of money with their increases of its supply.
Repetition of ignorance is ignorance raised to the power two.
Markets set rates. If bank A in your state charges 6% for a mortgage and bank B charges 5%, guess what happens.
You're finally learning something, supply and demand sets the market prices. Iowa banks have to compete only with Iowa banks, not Florida banks.
Rates, like laws can differ from state to state (i.e. taxes, drinking age, gun ownership). It is what is known as "states rights." I moved to Florida for tax advantages.
My suggestion turns the public economy over to the supply and demand in the marketplace at a state level and takes it out of the hands a central "national" bank made of and owned by individual corporate bankers who meet to "price fix" the value of your money. Price fixing by any other entity is a federal offense. The FED is permitted to function simply because it is Congress's slush fund. Congress knows that if it doesn't have the money to fund its pork can simply have the FED create the money and pass the cost of it on to creditors as a debt that Congress never has to worry about repaying. But they do have to pay interest on that debt so they have the FED create even more new money to cover that. If that doesn't raise your eyebrows you deserve to be fleeced by a constantly devaluing dollar.
Repetition of ignorance is ignorance raised to the power two.
If you actually understand what you write you would realize that you advocate for a more divided society and country.
I advocate a free market in banking, and if it takes state's rights (a foundation of your constitution) to achieve it then so be it.
Repetition of ignorance is ignorance raised to the power two.
Except you are not actually advocating for a free market, hence my comment.
DOUBLE POST
Repetition of ignorance is ignorance raised to the power two.
Repetition of ignorance is ignorance raised to the power two.
I made no political reference, set any traps, nor gotten anyone banned.
Why'd you delete your post? Hmmm.
because I realized it was a setup. Hmmm.
Repetition of ignorance is ignorance raised to the power two.
Mirrors often do that.