If we own the banks, we keep the profits of foreclosing on ourselves. Maybe there's more to it than just owning the banks, maybe debugging their programming too?
th-cam.com/video/iiKr-i022mY/w-d-xo.html The Progressive Growth of Money Supply Principle, 2013 discovered, shows us how the Money Supply must growth, i.e., the quantity of money that market needs. If we increase the money supply by an amount equal to the sum of interest generated by the financial system during the preceding period, the market interest rate will be the natural interest (Wicksell) Thanks to the Progressive Growth of the Money Supply Principle we know today that it is impossible to return to the Gold Standard.
Public Banks can create a new supply of money to increase production which can finance a new industrial revolution for the public's interest. Intentional actions to be inclusive so those positioned to fail can close that gap and succeed. Public money can be leveraged to succeed in the private markets and hopefully aligned the two markets together to further stretch the money and focus accomplishing on inclusionary goals for poor people in particular.
Yes it is & socialism is a good thing despites what all the capitalist propaganda says. The average person is brainwashed (on purpose) to believe that socialism is a dirty word when it couldn't be further from the truth 😁
China grew because they accepted a consumer based economy. After American corps went to China and built there manufacturing industry China began to grow. China grew be coping an American consumer based system and by emulating the American business model. The same can be said for South Korea. Banks do not create money banks create inflation with fractional reserve lending. Loan rates and credit scores are a scam. Public banks do better than private banks in the long run. However the risks associated with govt running the banks is very high. Corruption runs deep in America. Like all publicly funded organizations they all end up costing more. Yes public banks can be successful but its the competition for our money that makes public banks stand out. With no competition the incentive drops. With no competition we end up with Comcast and Time Warner types of customer service and efficiency.
Ellen BRown is idealistic. Instead, I call for a 2nd tier money. This 2nd tier money is something govt spends into existence, and taxed, but cannot be used to buy real estate or stocks, and can only be used to buy consumer items such as food and clothing. This would force the 2nd tier local money to circulate and stay in the economy. People that use 2nd tier money can also get discounts from certain stores. It will act similar to a food stamp card. If stored in a bank, the bank would have a separate category account to hold that 2nd tier money.
Great idea, you should look at Lincoln's 'greenback' money that funded the Union in the Civil War, BUT implementing a 2nd tier money supply does not seem less idealistic than Ms. Brown's ideas. Delete 'instead' in your post and replace it with, 'and,' then you've got my support.
when pple save endogenous money, the federal govt MUST fiscal spend to make up for the desire to save while maintaining the level amount of "in use" money in the economy.
The owner of the banking system does not matter, but how money is generated. The bankers hated the gold standard because it gave accountability. Whether it is public or private is to miss the core problem...think a thing through to its logical conclusion and always look at the origins.
"Should we recapture the sovereign power to create money by reclaiming ownership of the banks?" Isn't all of that already controlled by the government?
The Greek experience doesn't support your argument. The Greek government owned banks bought more Greek government bonds when no one else did and their credit portfolio was full of political cronies loans.
+Γιωργος Κασκαρελης The so-called National Bank of Greece is an entirely private company. The Central Bank of Greece - though the national government owns some of its shares - is controlled by private commercial banks via the ESCB and the IMF (all central bank governors must be on the IMF's board of governors). Capitalism as a whole inherently produces more debt than money (and so must push people into poverty- for someone to be out of debt, someone must be in proportionate debt). Because the system collapses if everyone is asked to pay their debts, the banksters systematically go across the globe picking one nation after another to demand payment from. The last nations they ransacked were Greece and Ukraine. Here the populaces will be forced to pay back interests and debts (by working harder, paying higher taxes and selling state assets). Once Greece pays up (it can't pay its debts - no country can), the banksters wil move on to another country. Capitalism, and the banking system as a whole, is a giant scam.
her public bank plan wouldn't work. Banks need to have the power to create loans to fund good entrprneurs. If they are limited by govt's decision on how much to spend the economy would collapse. It's not free market. Endogenous money must be elastic to expand and contract with the decision making of the free market ( people and businesses taking out loans to spend and bank managers willing to lend)
mrzack888 state owned banks or even town owned banks would not limit the money that could loaned to entrepreneurs. It would actually allow money to be created and loaned at a cheaper price to everyone.
Wow! Fantastic presentation and case for public banks. Thank you and God bless you for your research and advocacy, Ellen.
Private individuals can do this exact same thing using life insurance.
If we own the banks, we keep the profits of foreclosing on ourselves. Maybe there's more to it than just owning the banks, maybe debugging their programming too?
Thank you for the slides
Interesting talk but the sound quality is quite poor. :(
@@Jj-gi2uv unlike private banks that look like luxury places then beg for welfare.
th-cam.com/video/iiKr-i022mY/w-d-xo.html The Progressive Growth of Money Supply Principle, 2013 discovered, shows us how the Money Supply must growth, i.e., the quantity of money that market needs. If we increase the money supply by an amount equal to the sum of interest generated by the financial system during the preceding period, the market interest rate will be the natural interest (Wicksell) Thanks to the Progressive Growth of the Money Supply Principle we know today that it is impossible to return to the Gold Standard.
Public Banks can create a new supply of money to increase production which can finance a new industrial revolution for the public's interest. Intentional actions to be inclusive so those positioned to fail can close that gap and succeed. Public money can be leveraged to succeed in the private markets and hopefully aligned the two markets together to further stretch the money and focus accomplishing on inclusionary goals for poor people in particular.
Could a basic income help transitioning the money supply to a public utility?
+Hannes Radke This is been developed now on Ethereum
Martin Oh this is very interesting! I heard of etherium a month ago for the first time, with smart contracts n stuff. Got link?
Public ownership of the banks?! But isn't that *gasp* Socialism!!!!!!!
Yes it is & socialism is a good thing despites what all the capitalist propaganda says. The average person is brainwashed (on purpose) to believe that socialism is a dirty word when it couldn't be further from the truth 😁
+-KingOfAwesome- Cursed socialists, with their "being morally superior and economically efficient"! Curse them aaaaaall!
The speaker explained it quite well. It is not about socialism, but rather national sovereignty and freedom from private interests.
Private individuals can do this exact same thing using life insurance.
Ethereum!
China grew because they accepted a consumer based economy. After American corps went to China and built there manufacturing industry China began to grow. China grew be coping an American consumer based system and by emulating the American business model. The same can be said for South Korea.
Banks do not create money banks create inflation with fractional reserve lending. Loan rates and credit scores are a scam.
Public banks do better than private banks in the long run. However the risks associated with govt running the banks is very high. Corruption runs deep in America. Like all publicly funded organizations they all end up costing more.
Yes public banks can be successful but its the competition for our money that makes public banks stand out. With no competition the incentive drops. With no competition we end up with Comcast and Time Warner types of customer service and efficiency.
Ellen BRown is idealistic. Instead, I call for a 2nd tier money. This 2nd tier money is something govt spends into existence, and taxed, but cannot be used to buy real estate or stocks, and can only be used to buy consumer items such as food and clothing. This would force the 2nd tier local money to circulate and stay in the economy. People that use 2nd tier money can also get discounts from certain stores. It will act similar to a food stamp card. If stored in a bank, the bank would have a separate category account to hold that 2nd tier money.
Great idea, you should look at Lincoln's 'greenback' money that funded the Union in the Civil War, BUT implementing a 2nd tier money supply does not seem less idealistic than Ms. Brown's ideas. Delete 'instead' in your post and replace it with, 'and,' then you've got my support.
how about Murray Rothbards idea. I free market in money
when pple save endogenous money, the federal govt MUST fiscal spend to make up for the desire to save while maintaining the level amount of "in use" money in the economy.
The owner of the banking system does not matter, but how money is generated. The bankers hated the gold standard because it gave accountability. Whether it is public or private is to miss the core problem...think a thing through to its logical conclusion and always look at the origins.
yeah, the Jewish bankers would never go for this.
+Highway Phantom ask them why we even need currency and their heads explode.
Potato mic quality. RSA => no quality? Basics guys ... camooon!
"Should we recapture the sovereign power to create money by reclaiming ownership of the banks?"
Isn't all of that already controlled by the government?
+Sebastian Lundh Nope.
The Greek experience doesn't support your argument. The Greek government owned banks bought more Greek government bonds when no one else did and their credit portfolio was full of political cronies loans.
+Γιωργος Κασκαρελης The so-called National Bank of Greece is an entirely private company. The Central Bank of Greece - though the national government owns some of its shares - is controlled by private commercial banks via the ESCB and the IMF (all central bank governors must be on the IMF's board of governors). Capitalism as a whole inherently produces more debt than money (and so must push people into poverty- for someone to be out of debt, someone must be in proportionate debt). Because the system collapses if everyone is asked to pay their debts, the banksters systematically go across the globe picking one nation after another to demand payment from. The last nations they ransacked were Greece and Ukraine. Here the populaces will be forced to pay back interests and debts (by working harder, paying higher taxes and selling state assets). Once Greece pays up (it can't pay its debts - no country can), the banksters wil move on to another country. Capitalism, and the banking system as a whole, is a giant scam.
her public bank plan wouldn't work. Banks need to have the power to create loans to fund good entrprneurs. If they are limited by govt's decision on how much to spend the economy would collapse. It's not free market. Endogenous money must be elastic to expand and contract with the decision making of the free market ( people and businesses taking out loans to spend and bank managers willing to lend)
mrzack888 state owned banks or even town owned banks would not limit the money that could loaned to entrepreneurs. It would actually allow money to be created and loaned at a cheaper price to everyone.