The article is an interview with the bank’s president who, I fully realize, conservatives will have a hard time hearing from considering to them he is Satan’s socialist henchman, but given what Godly, unbridled capitalism has done for us lately…
How the Nation’s Only State-Owned Bank Became the Envy of Wall Street
The Bank of North Dakota is the only state-owned bank in America—what Republicans might call an idiosyncratic bastion of socialism. It also earned a record profit last year even as its private-sector corollaries lost billions. To be sure, it owes some of its unusual success to North Dakota’s well-insulated economy, which is heavy on agricultural staples and light on housing speculation. But that hasn’t stopped out-of-state politicos from beating a path to chilly Bismarck in search of advice. Could opening state-owned banks across America get us out of the financial crisis? It certainly might help, says Ellen Brown, author of the book, Web of Debt, who writes that the Bank of North Dakota, with its $4 billion under management, has avoided the credit freeze by “creating its own credit, leading the nation in establishing state economic sovereignty.”
Brazil’s president Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva
“It is a crisis caused and encouraged by the irrational behaviour of white people with blue eyes, who before the crisis appeared to know everything, but are now showing that they know nothing.”
ok you got me “Sorry”
It’s all my fault that these left leaning methods like The Bank of North Dakota look so effective.
I just wanted to make millions with a risk be damned devil may care attitude who’d have guessed the devil did care?
Don’t fret, the Free Market Capitalism isn’t dead only sick, it’s still the best. We have just been reminded that full gallop unbridled greed is a bit to much freedom and we need some guard rails put back up. After the guard rails are up the govs will back off.
People tend to forget that States are not supposed to be extensions of the Federal Government.
You’re one of those people who still believes in the 10th amendment, aren’t you? Careful, that kind of talk will get you put on a terrorist watch list.
#20, A private business making less profit than a state-owned business is more desirable because freedom, and not simply the size of profit, is an important economic goal.
I’m stealing this line from you.
Well said.
#22,
I’m already on Double Secret Probation! What more can they do to me?
http://tinyurl.com/crgna2
“I don’t know why Uncle Dave said that conservatives”
Dave posts a lot of things that no one understand except Dave. Just wait until his next Sarah Palin obsession. In 2020 he’ll be posting his petty rants about her.
Dave, you do know that most of us to the right of you politically are OK with individual states owning economic enterprises? This is in stark contrast to what The Chosen One is doing with The State. Do you grasp this?
I bet not.
25. Sarah Palin…what? Lou, really…reality check please. Why are you still beating that dead horse? Let Sarah fade away where she belongs…….
I can guarantee you that this bank isn’t run by Jews.
Sarah who?
#26, Lou,
Dave, you do know that most of us to the right of you politically are OK with individual states owning economic enterprises?
Lou, You do know that most of those to the right of Uncle Dave have been writing how Obama will be nationalizing everything. It has been a constant rant on how socialism will ruin America.
Whenever the concept of single payer health care comes up, the right wing nuts get on this kick about how poorly the government runs EVERYTHING.
So if you really want anyone to believe your nonsense now, it’s too late.
#17, Warden,
Let’s not forget the Bush admin tried on NUMEROUS occasions to fix this by regulating it but that BARNEY FRANK stopped them. The problem is that Bush Admin didn’t have the balls to force the issue.
Please post something to validate that Barney Frank stopped the Bush Administration from fixing any regulation dealing with the banks, Freddie and Fannie, or other financial institution.
I know there has been numerous reports refuting these claims but I am still open to see what your evidence is.
#29, Uncle Dave,
Lee?
#20–brm==yea, I think there are several confusions running around. I don’t think “freedom” is listed as a goal of any economic system/bank. In the banking system, I would think trust and stability would be the highest goals?
Profit does not equate to criminality but “excessive profit” does. Morally and philosophically, not legally. That excess comes from those who provided it and should have remained with them. Note that “freedom” from criminalty exists at all levels and in either private or state run systems.
Childish is to think excessive profits don’t exist outside of monopolies or that state run means lack of freedom or that privately run business has anything to do with freedom simply by that status.
For the love of Pete,
You People really need to crack a god damned book,before you go bandying terms around like Socialism and Fascism.
What do They teach in Robert E. Lee High School these days?
Barney Frank did try to raise a distress flag but was shutdown by President Mission Accomplished,I know this was not covered by the TPM so here is the rebuttal in his own write:
http://huffingtonpost.com/rep-barney-frank/is-there-an-antidote-to-t_b_176538.html
#33:
I agree that the banking system is out of control and full of crooks.
Back to “excess profits.” It’s impossible to extract monopoly profits without collusion in the market. If there’s competition, prices are set by the market, and as such are fair. A monopolist will charge a price higher than this, even though the market really values the product at the lower price.
I think you’re using “excess profits” to mean higher-than-required prices charged for the product. There’s really no other meaning for the term.
A state-run business is more likely to do this because it has taxpayer money to fall back on and cover inefficiencies. Even if the state-run business operates in a competitive market, and charges market prices, they may be spending more money to operate than their privately owned competitors. This extra money comes from the taxpayers, which is no different than charging a higher price for the product.
“Morally and philosophically, not legally.”
Pursuing monopoly profits, unless sanctioned by the gov’t, as with utilities, *is* illegal.
“In the banking system, I would think trust and stability would be the highest goals?”
They’re definitely up there. An argument can be made that there is less freedom when the banking system can’t be trusted.
They’re manipulating the money, along with the Fed. It’s theft – they change some numbers in a spreadsheet, and we all loose money. They get first dibs at newly printed money, and we get it after they’ve leveraged it all over the place.
I think getting rid of the Fed is the solution to the corrupt banking system. Nationalizing banks isn’t going to do anything except maybe stabilize the system – but it’s still the same corrupt system.
#25–brm==staying up late? You really are flitting around like a butterfly. We were discussing profit and excess profit. Why throw in “monopoly profit” or “monopoly profit with collusion” without making some expressly defined distinction from what went beforehand?
In context, I think its clear that I was defining “excess profits” as that which was criminal. But I broadened it out to include profits not justified by the relationship of the seller to the buyer on moral grounds==totally flaky on my part. I suppose I invited you to err?
Price/Profit, how to regulate same for what end goals is a book worthy topic. I suppose many have already been written and I have only read small excerpts from a few?
1. It’s impossible to extract monopoly profits without collusion in the market./// Not true. Competitors often act in consort rather than collusion. You see this all over the place: gas, oil, movie theater tickets. I think these excess profit niches form from providing a fungible product so there is no real way to compete/distinguish a product, so they all sell the same.
2. If there’s competition, prices are set by the market, and as such are fair /// I agree but thats highly circular, and excess profit is made all the time. My favorite is real estate sales. So little work and expertise is required that 6% of sales price is excessive. The “competition” that makes up 5% of the market doesn’t change this evaluation. There is a cultural artifact that these part time bored housewives qualified to do nothing else can earn this type of money. Same with stock brokers, hedge fund managers and on and on.
A state-run business is more likely to do this because it has taxpayer money to fall back on and cover inefficiencies. /// Well, you are making all kinds of assumptions. You are right when the government business has the exclusive right to perform the service–a monopoly. Or even when they grant a monopoly to a for profit like doctors. Yes, we can agree monopolies at not free market and have a lot wrong with them. They are to be avoided. This leads right to AIG/Too Big to Fail corporations. Monopolies in fact. All bad.
I think getting rid of the Fed is the solution to the corrupt banking system. /// Before you remove a wall, remember why it was put up. Generically, I think check and balances are needed. When they don’t work, the solution is not “to get rid of them” but to modify them so that they do work.
The free market has just as many/more ills than whatever the other choices are perceived to be. More than anything else, we need to select what system to use for what issues and then manage/regulate the excesses that are inherent in each approach.
I am all for a federal bank.
So was Alexander Hamilton.
But some conspiracy theorists would say that he was a nasty socialist and the government silenced him through Aaron Burr. All those federalist communists you know.
Didn’t need more of Washington or Adams types. We wanted big spenders like Jefferson and all that land he bought from Nappy! Empire building is hard and costly. Ask any emperor.
Cursor_
#36 bobbo:
“We were discussing profit and excess profit.”
But there’s no definition of “excess profit.” It’s a meaningless term. In economics, there is a difference between normal profits and economic profits, but I don’t think that’s what you’re talking about. You seem to think that profits are made in excess if you don’t think the work warrants the pay, regardless of what the rest of the market thinks. How arrogant.
“My favorite is real estate sales. So little work and expertise is required that 6% of sales price is excessive.”
People could just as easily sell their own homes, but so many choose a realtor.
If a realtor sells my home for $100 more than I could get, but charges me $100, it’s in my interest to hire them. If my time is very valuable, paying a realtor to sell the home for less than I could myself might also be a worthwhile investment.
You’re making the common mistake in thinking that a person’s pay should be dictated by their knowledge or expertise alone. Look around – this is not how the world works.
Any idiot can shovel shit, but I’m going to pay someone to do it for me. Likewise with selling my home.
If I tell these people that I’m going to pay them less because I think they’re “bored housewives qualified to do nothing else,” and the guy next to me is willing to pay the market price, I’ll be forced to stick a ‘for sale by owner’ sign outside.
“no real way to compete/distinguish a product”
A market like this, given enough sellers, is the textbook example of a competitive market, where the sellers are price takers, not price setters.
“You are right when the government business has the exclusive right to perform the service–a monopoly.”
I am also right when a state-run business operates in a competitive market. Think about it:
In a competitive market, it costs all sellers the same price to manufacture the good. If you’re costs are one dollar more per year than the other sellers, you’re better off shutting down and investing the money in one of the other sellers. To do otherwise makes no sense.
However, if you’re a state-run business, you can simply take the additional dollar from the taxpayer, and keep operating. You can still pay market wages, and sell at market prices. But that dollar you took to cover the inefficiency, that is lost value to the taxpayer. The taxpayer is better of taking that dollar and investing it in one of the other sellers.
This is how a state-run business, operating in a perfectly competitive market, with many sellers, can have the same effect on the taxpayer as a monopoly extracting excess (economic) profits from them.
“Before you remove a wall, remember why it was put up.”
Wasn’t the Fed put up so that private bankers could control the money supply? You’re actually defending an organization that meets in secret, is not accountable to our gov’t, and manipulates the money supply with no input from citizens?
“When they don’t work, the solution is not “to get rid of them” but to modify them so that they do work.”
Getting rid of something that doesn’t work is a perfectly fine solution. It’s not true that the *only* solution is to modify something so that it does work, and I can think of about a million examples when getting rid of something was better than keeping it around.
Why should have seen that capitalism was evil years ago. We shouldn’t have destroyed the USSR, the were the good guys. Maybe we have hope with Putin and fidel
#2 But he warned everyone in his campaign. He was going to transfer wealth. He didn’t decieve anyone.
Pity for those that thought otherwise and are just waking up. Still, these are better than the blind defenders out there