State Owned Banks: Fixing the Economy by Ellen Hodgson Brown

[RAMB0IV]

@TheSwissRepublic

The monetary system is far from perfect. Money should be only a means of exchange not a product what benefits the banks. There wouldn't be any crisis if we would reform the money system. When the entire system is based on debt the system will become eventually unsustainable because of the rising interest. As the amount spent on interest rises so do taxes. It's a huge pyramid scam where the big banks keep growing at the expense of others.

[darthvader5300]

A State-owned bank must be accompanied by sound economic policies that encourages investments in the physical-economy that produces real tangible goods and services for an economy is essentially physical in nature. A financial-economy only serves to provide a convenient means of exchanging tangible physical goods and services, that's all. Money by itself is not wealth for it has to be backed by a physical-economy that produces, manufactures, processes,& provides the services for these industries

[Darksteelbeast]

I wish my State of Oregon would  finish up crafting the bill and vote on it instead of it sitting in the legislature. I would also love to read some books on state banks or watch a documentary on the subject .

[saturnined]

What I'd like to know is, would the state owned bank combined with it's private banks be able to handle natural disasters- earthquakes, hurricanes, floods, etc.-so FEMA could be axed? The state in effect would have it's own contingency fund.

[rvrola]

IN OTHER WORDS, THE ONLY WAY ANY STATE IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CAN RECOVER IS TO DO AWAY WITH WALL STREET SPECULATORS - SO THIS IS REALLY THE ENACTMENT OF GLASS-STEGALL ACT - A SEPARATION OF COMMERCIAL AND INVESTMENT BANKING WHICH OBAMA TODAY REFUSE TO IMPLEMENT IN THE COUNTRY. THE LAROUCHE PLAN IS THE ONLY SOLUTION.

[etzel33]

Excellent video. The micro currency idea is very interesting. The state bank idea is a harder sell, but I think there's a good argument for it.

[publicbankingtv]

Isn't it interesting that "newculture" posts this to criticize it. His arguments are poorly reasoned. The "too big to fail" banks that control the Fed have taken 40% of the money out of circulation, so putting money back into the economy would not be inflationary. Second of all, "newculture" claims people would do stupid things if they had the credit they needed , as if the TBTF banks have shown any kind of intelligence in handling the money they steal from us via the Fed.

[Johnhoulgate]

I agree in principle with the concept of state banks that work for the people. I think she gets it wrong talking about the government needing to print more money to get things going. That is what causes inflation. That said, the biggest advantage of the state-owned bank is transparency. When the owners are the people, the bank is fully accountable to them.

[theoneiros1]

Money is a commodity that, by market process, is determined to be most util as a medium of exchange and unit of account. Money status arises naturally over time as a result of voluntary human exchanges; we do not need a state to control its issuance. Increasing the supply of money transfers wealth from everyone to those that receive the new money first. The only thing that this proposed solution would change is the name of the money power: "Federal Reserve" to "Dept. of the Treasury."

[slider123456789qwert]

It sounds like you propose gold as the medium of exchange but then you may as well call it the Federal Reserve of Mines since as you say those who receive new money first have others wealth transferred to them. Many goldbugs would like to see fiat money collapse so that wealth will be transferred to them. One point you are missing is that if money supply growth equals productivity increases no systemic inflation/deflation other than what supply/demand dictates will result. This can be designed,

[theoneiros1]

@slider123456789qwert I do not know what the medium of exchange should be. As I said, such a decision can only be reached by market process. Furthermore, mining is both labor and capital intensive, and so is not any more profitable than any other productive endeavor. The flux of new money into the economy is thus physically limited.

I am not missing anything; your second point has several problems. For one, how do you propose to measure productivity increases?

[mikeboydp]

You need money invested to have production! It doesn't just happen. She is a supporter of 100 percent reserve banking, isn't she? That's sound fiscal policy against fractional reserve. Re-think that one and learn more about her, Warzoo. "A publicly owned bank is there to serve the community." That means stimulating production instead of being focused on quarterly projects for shareholders or being involved in toxic derivative scams and paying multi-million dollar bonuses to evil executives.

[Boydd21]

Very informative. Thank you for sharing this!

[fredmay22]

We all need to use a new vocabulary if we are going to solve this twisted puzzle. Yes, we must be "productive" - because productivity IS money. True money is a medium of exchange, and HUMAN CAPITAL is the only form of money that we carry all the time. The ability to put forth effort - to create, to build, to farm, to cure, to think, to praise and uplift, to paint, to lead - all of this IS MONEY. We work to create money - not for the right to have access to interest-bearing debt money!

[dubified89]

@fredmay22 exactly, we've let the Austrian school people fool us for a while at least I did til I looked into the issue fuller

[Warzoooooo]

It seems like Ellen does not understand the basic of the economy. Money is not the economy, it's the resources that makes the economy. So if you just dump alot of money in the market, money will loose value and soo ppl will not be able to buy anything again. But mean while, while money is made easily available ppl will do foolish things with them, and spend them quickly and the economy will be in even worse shape.

[newculture]

@Warzoooooo -- There are many ways to look at the economy. At the moment, it is spending. People are spending less than in 2006, less than in 2007, less than in 2008, less than in 2009, and every month they are spending less, as a whole.

Money must be spent to be earned by businesses, state and local governments, and, ultimately, by people again.

Her proposal is to increase spending when the people are unwilling, or unable to do so. I invite you to listen again.

[Warzoooooo]

@newculture But increased spending is not the cure for the economy. That's the reason why its bad. As with physic, there is also only one rule that apply for economy. Its not the spending that makes the economy, its the production. But with wastfull spending there is no room for productivity.

There is no use in earning money if they do not buy you anything. Ask anyone in zimbabwe. They tried to create money to get ppl spending, and look at where they are now.

[newculture]

@Warzoooooo The economy is bad because the entire economic model is unsustainable. It would take a different economic model to prevent it from getting bad like this.

Ellen is proposing that people be put to productive use, building wind turbines or solar panels or weatherizing homes or growing food or anything that is productive.

With out the spending, there is no possible way for people to earn the money to live.

[KurzLuppii]

@newculture

The whole economic model is unsustainable is the fault of Federal and State governments doing things just like this. Manipulating the money supply.

Saving and investing no longer happens in the middle-low classes, there is no incentive to save any longer. Interest rates constantly takes off 3 percent a year.

Artificially low interest rates mandated by the government another reason.

Capitalism is based on saving and buying investments... what happens when no one does that?

[Warzoooooo]

@newculture Spending is not the way to get an economy going. If that was the way, why dont we just burn 90% of all the food production, that would create tons of jobs and consumtion would be higher than ever.

Economy begin with production. You can produce without consuming, but there is no way you can consume without production. You cant eat something that you didn't grow first. Consumer demand grows from efficient production.

[Warzoooooo]

@newculture Without spend noone would survive as we have to consume food and energy. So there is not a model where spending comes to a halt. But we dont need unnecessary spending, which translate to wasting of resourses, like building wind turbines. And why do not ppl just grow food and get productive now? Because govt. keeps promoting unproductive parts of the economy.

[Warzoooooo]

@newculture If spending is the solution, why are there poor ppl in the world? I believe anyone can spend and waste resources, that should not be a problem for ANYONE! So spending cant be the solution as it can easily be done.

I have a hard time imagine africans not being able to walk in to a mall and shop til they drop. How hard is that to do?

[dubified89]

No interest i.e. usury is the problem

[dubified89]

@dubified89 that is, privately accumulated interest

[Zern30]

@Warzoooooo - The inflationary argument you're making is only half of the picture. This is key because Ellen did touch on this in a brief statement she made in the clip (so, with respect, you're half right and half wrong). It all goes back to supply and demand. Inflation only occurs when the supply of money exceeds demand.

You see, there were several times in our nation's history when we had neither central private banks nor a gold standard, and the nation and people prospered.

[Warzoooooo]

@Zern30 No, rising prices is a function of more money chasing fewer goods. And thats symptoms of inflation. If there is no money production, there cant simply be more money to chase products.

Well, ppl have prospered with this fraudelent centralbanking system also. The point is that it cant never sustain. You can only steal easily from ppl til they start protecting them selves from theft.

[theoneiros1]

@Zern30 OK. Riddle me this: What is the source for the continued demand for FRNs? Yep. The fact that people, including the government, borrowed them and must settle their debts with them. Why would there be any demand for debt-free US Notes? Because we will be forced to pay taxes with them? How is that any different from debt slavery? Whether its bankers or politicians at the top of the pyramid means nothing to those at the bottom.

[kermitcintronsucks]

If you dump a lot of money irrespective to goods and services you have inflation and poverty. You only have to control the quantity. The economy IS the problem. Throw the baby out with the bath water. We're living in an old paradigm. The problem is economic in nature. Not monetary in nature. That's snake oil. The issue is not money. Even if money was created by the government and was non-inflationary you would still have high unemployment because effectiveness in the economy is gaining.

[RAMB0IV]

@Warzoooooo

You don't understand the point of the video. The point is that you can cut off the private banks entirely who charge interest and cost the government money. Your assumption that government is incapable of running the banks correctly is just foolish. Everybody starts to talk about inflation when this is suggested and that's irrelevant, because you basically only change the bank manager to someone who doesn't charge interest and cares about the people.

[Warzoooooo]

@RAMB0IV I understand the point. What is foolish is to think that govt. would care any more about the individuals than anybody else. Ppl seem to forget that politicians are people as well. If ppl want to harm other ppl in the free market, guess what they'll do when they get the power to force their ideas on anyone.

The central banking system is actually supported by govt, as they need the inflation to keep pretending being santaclaus, while being able to blame the market.

[RAMB0IV]

@Warzoooooo

It is not foolish, because government has different interests and gains nothing from distorting the markets. Politicians do not get billion dollar bonuses from banks from making money from a real estate bubble. When bankers become just employees who can get fired they will have a different mindset. In current situation bankers cannot get fired because they are not accountable to anyone and they can make money anyway they wish.

Governments care about employment, bankers money only.

[Warzoooooo]

@RAMB0IV Govt if any have all the reason to distorting the market. As thats what makes ppl ask for govt help. At which point highly paid bureaucratic jobbs are created for highly paid politicians friends.

If govt didnt get bonuses from the housebubble, why did they make the foundation for the bubble then?

Bankers can only not get fired if govt secure them with other ppls money. Banks are accountable to the govt. and the govt has proven their way of making money. Govt care about re-election!!!

[RAMB0IV]

@Warzoooooo

Governments interest is growth, true growth. You cannot get real growth from creating bubbles. Banks are not accountable for anyone, just look at Europe today, we are bailing out banks who created the crisis and the people have to pay the bill. No banker has been fired over this, they have gotten huge bonuses instead.

The problem is corruption. According to a study banks are responsible for 60 - 70% for all the campaign support for politicians in Europe, probably more in USA.

[Warzoooooo]

@RAMB0IV Govt dont care about growth. Otherwise they would not tax creative ppl, and subsidise failing companies. Look at europe yes, where it is politicians bailing out the banks, not the free market. They can still retrieve their bonus because politicians keep feeding the taxpayers money, in hop for growth.

A video that explains difference between govt jobs and market jobs.

search for "Government Spending Doesn't Create Jobs"

[RAMB0IV]

@Warzoooooo

You forget that the government doesn't control the banks at the moment. The banks are their own entities and do what they please. Banks job is to make profit and profit cannot be made without someones loss and usually banks get too greedy and need to get bailed out.

I don't see this scenario happening if the government controlled it's own money. The bankers take risks because they know that they will get bailed out if something goes wrong. Current system is horrible for the people

[Warzoooooo]

@RAMB0IV The problem is not that banks are privet, but that they are allowed to do things other ppl are not allowed to do, that is create money from thin air.

Profit comes from making more than you put in. In order to survive, any specie have to make "profit" by getting more energy from the food they eat than it takes to get that food. In the economy, before the time of over trust in govt. the most common way to make profit was actually thing ppl were willing to pay for.

[Warzoooooo]

@RAMB0IV Govt. would spend even faster if they didn't have to account the spending to a credit account. So even though the problems would not be the exact same, the total problems for the society would still remain.

Banks now they get bailed out, because ppl vote for politicians that promise to redistribute wealth.

[RAMB0IV]

@Warzoooooo

Why is the government worse option to print money than the private banks? Everyone tries this ridiculous argument, that if governments issue money they will cause hyperinflation! All you basically do is change the printer and save money. There is no reason to assume that government would do worse than the speculating bankers.

[Warzoooooo]

@RAMB0IV Govt like to make the voters think they can get something for nothing. While that is impossible, you can give if you steal from others. And the best way of stealing is through inflation, as only 1 in a million understands how that works. So chance to get caught is slim to non. And in many western countries politicians have an enormous wage, that they like to keep. As they could not find a job that well paid in the private market. If there were savings, money would not have to be printed

[RAMB0IV]

@Warzoooooo

Has it occurred to you that the people actually form the government? That's why people all over the world should revolt and demand new set of rules, because the ones we have right now are not working. Politicians care about money and in their idiocy and greed they try to please the bankers.

I understand what you are saying with no welfare, but in modern urban condition it is impossible for everyone to get a job. Without job you cannot get money, without money no food, no roof.

[ChristopherMarlowe]

Keep it up Ellen. I keep telling people to read your book.

[KurzLuppii]

Its funny in order for a state to fund their projects they need to join in into counterfeiting cartel for themselves and by doing so they steal wealth from the rest of the country by diminishing the value of the currency.

How long can this game of playing with money supply will go on for?

[1samothrace77]

@KurzLuppii money is a means of exchange for goods and services. the supply of money should be controlled by state governments. low interest rates can help the economy when lending requirements are stringent.

[KurzLuppii]

@1samothrace77

LOL those same low interest rates help create the Housing bubble.

Helped increases tuition costs for millions of college students.

They continue to devalue our wealth and our output by spending they way they do.

Money supply should be maintained by the government... however when state and Federal governments run a muck with spending, loaning, money creation you can see why many people don't trust the politicians and the bureaucracy they put into place.

[captkirkconnell]

Also need sane honest leaders. Welfare State and Socialism is what we have now.

Capitalism did not really make America great. It was Freedom to Innovate and profit. Free to produce. Free to have abilities and work hard.

Now we have a Welfare state and the majority of ourleaders are Votemongering Liars that do not think of consequenc go Underground, in yoru garages and country barns and produce valuable quality A GOVMENT PRODUCES NOTING all that it has it has taken from someone who produced.

[patarbab]

Sounds like a secessionist plan

[TheNewRenaissance]

@patarbab It would be more in line with relocalization. Distributed systems are much more resilient to variable conditions and attack including centralized control.

[newculture]

@patarbab LOL, that's pretty funny, I've never thought of North Dakotans as "secessionists", lol. Keep in mind that the federal government only reserves the right to make coins, "to coin money". Since it says nothing about "issuing credit", this is a state's right.

[LibertaerUeberAlles]

@patarbab

Apparently the BND has an account with the fraudulent, "privately owned" Federal Reserve, so it's still forced to participate in ceding sovereignty of the United States. It's just doing it as a state- rather than private institution.

For now, the "easiest" way to secede from the international cabal, which prints fiat-money and loans it to America at interest, is to support Ron Paul's

4248, Free Competition in Currency Act

[zthustra]

Very creative! IMO, you have an excellent grasp of the money problem ... contraction NOT inflation.

I am aware of the North Dakota state-owned bank. I would far prefer for the US government to pass the American Monetary Act and do away with fractional reserve banking. But unitl that happens, I kinda like this state-owned bank idea.

Oh, did I forget to mention that I am a SE Michigan resident? Thanks for making this video and letting us know more.

[KurzLuppii]

@zthustra

Money isn't being contracted... it only contracted Mar to Oct of 2009.

That had to happen as bad debt was being cleaned out of the system.

[zthustra]

@KurzLuppii

Contraction is relative to historical growth and current demand for money for both economic activity and repayment of debt with interest.

When you remove the money needed to service debt incurred to grow the money supply to its current level and account for the fact that money supply growth has slowed down, the money that remains for economic activity is inadaquate ... contraction relative to demand.

[KurzLuppii]

@zthustra

This contraction happened because of the unsustainable demand which lead to unsustainable prices. Which lead to people defaulting in mass.

Though Debt itself is so massive so horrible why would you continue to try to service this debt. We should get off this system of debt based currency.

Money people tend to forget is just a way of transferring wealth.

The wealth is there, but the currency is crap no one trusts it or the government.

[zthustra]

@KurzLuppii

The monetary system is certainly a problem! The quasi-private central bank and the fractional reserve bank system and the neoliberal attitude about regulating usury and securities trading are all working together to guarentee the most effective transfer of wealth from the bottom 90% to the top 1-5% that human history has ever seen.

I see the state banks as a defensive reaction to a system that the states have no control over. Making the best of a bad system.

[zthustra]

@KurzLuppii

The interest on debt-based money or credit money created the fractional reserve system is nothing more that a tax by the unelected, privately owned, economic power centers on everyone that uses money.

The swift move away from relatively secure, interest-bearing, bank, savings accoiunts to various investment schemes and retirement funds is nothing more than swift way to seperate common people from their money for the benefit of the speculators.