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.”
#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.
#34 “Barney Frank did try to raise a distress flag but was shutdown….”
What a crock. What is it about Massachusetts politicians?
http://tinyurl.com/c6douh
Whether you think a state or the Feds would be GOOD at running a bank — why not at least give the consumer the option?
If you don’t think the government can do anything right, then give your money to Washington Mutual or Security Pacific, who obviously did a bang-up job managing money.
But other who trust the government and would like to give profits back to the public, would have that option.
Lou Minatti,
By “The Chosen One” I assume you are referring to GW Bush who was chosen by the five members of the Supreme Court.
You can’t possibly be referring to Obama who was democratically elected by the people.
#41:
“Whether you think a state or the Feds would be GOOD at running a bank — why not at least give the consumer the option?”
Specious.
“whether you think the 1st Amendment is good or not, why not at least give us the option?”
I know that’s bad logic, but it’s how I feel about it.
I don’t buy into the “whatever works best” philosophy of government. There are principles we should defend, even if they yield sub-optimal results on whatever pet axis you’re measuring on.
#38–brm==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. /// Name 2 or 3?
#44:
“Name 2 or 3?”
Vietnam war, Iraq war, Gitmo, slavery, British rule, etc.
I’m sure we could have found a ‘workable’ middle-of-the-road solution in all these situations. Not that nationalizing business is as horrible as slavery or war.
#45–brm==hah, hah. Tacit admission you don’t have a single example of regulatory schemes that should be eliminated rather than modified. Gitmo is as close as you got and that should be modified to provide for quick tribunal providing required human rights prepatory to life incarceration until the war on terror is won==or it is determined that taxicab drivers turned in by rival cab companies are not, or atleast were not, the threat in Afghanistan we were fighting.
Could not have crafted a better admission of buffoonery. Thank You.
#47 bobbo:
My examples were tongue-in-cheek.
I didn’t say all regulation was bad – I said the Fed is bad.
Since they’ve been in charge of the money supply, we’ve had nothing but devaluation of our currency, and worse, a banking system controlled by a small group of unaccountable people. That’s why I think we need to scrap it, not reformulate it.
I don’t have to present another case of an overturned regulation to say the Fed is a bad system. That doesn’t even make any sense.
By your logic, no regulation should ever be nullified. Ever. That also doesn’t make any sense. Some systems are bad, and we need to abandon them. You think this is unreasonable?
#48–brm==
My examples were tongue-in-cheek. /// Well, they were silly. When did you decide they were tongue in cheek?
I didn’t say all regulation was bad – I said the Fed is bad. /// Not true. You all but expressly stated that when saying at #38–“I can think of about a million examples when getting rid of something was better than keeping it around.” So, “the Fed” is ONE, and 2-3 of the other 999,999 examples that aren’t tongue in cheek are what?
Since they’ve been in charge of the money supply, we’ve had nothing but devaluation of our currency, /// I’ll be a graph would show ups and downs, but thats not what you mean–you mean the net effect over time I suppose? I hate to make your arguments for you as that argument is wrong also, but I don’t want to argue with myself. You will have to say that before I continue.
and worse, a banking system controlled by a small group of unaccountable people. That’s why I think we need to scrap it, not reformulate it. /// You want to scrap what? The banking system? Or you want the banking system not to be controlled at all? If you are thinking the banking system should be regulated by a large group of accountable people, then you are talking modifications.
I don’t have to present another case of an overturned regulation to say the Fed is a bad system. That doesn’t even make any sense. //// Straw man. Thats not what you said, I what I said, or what is tongue in bullshit again?
By your logic, no regulation should ever be nullified. /// I never said that, and strongly implied the opposite when I said at #36–“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. If I had only put the “generic” idea closer to the solution, maybe you would have understood the general and reasonable position I take as opposed to your own?
Ever. That also doesn’t make any sense. /// Correct. Good thing its only you who are taking the nonsensical position.
Some systems are bad, and we need to abandon them. You think this is unreasonable? /// From your blather, I can’t tell: name 2-3 regulatory schemes that should be removed rather than modified?
Food Safety? Airline Safety? Immigration? In fact name everything the government does, or private industry. can’t EVERYTHING be done better? HEY!!–I just thought of 2 things that could be eliminated==actually eliminated.
Bet you can’t.
#49 bobbo:
I said that the Fed should be scrapped. You said that I need to present other regulations that were scrapped, to our benefit, for my argument against the Fed to be valid.
Again, this makes absolutely no sense. None.
“You want to scrap what? The banking system?”
When I say ‘banking system,’ I mean the system that prints the dollars. The federal banking system. I don’t want to get rid of banks.
“you are talking modifications”
No, I’m not. The Fed is a secret cabal of bankers that prints our money. I think we should get rid of this.
Ok, you said: “I never said that”
Then you said, in the same sentence: “the solution is not “to get rid of them” but to modify them”
…which is precisely the ‘that’ I accused you of saying.
You’re being ridiculous. All you’re saying now is, “SHOW ME 2 OR 3 REGULATIONS THAT WERE GOT RID OF TO PROVE UR POINT,” which is like, by definition, a straw man.
#50–brm==you shouda stayed away from those pork taco’s in Mexico.
#51 bobbo:
Hey, check it out, I’m going to pretend I’m you:
“you shouda stayed away from those pork taco’s in Mexico.”
SEE U ADMIT THAT U DONT KNOW ANYTHING YOU BUFFOON I WIN!
#41, web,
What is it about right wing nuts.
From your link,
It was Bush that wanted a place to dump toxic paper and put the FMs directly under supervision of the White House. The White House can not be subpeoned to answer questions. Both FMs had to report to Congress each year. They wouldn’t under the new plan.
If you notice, when the ramifications settled in, neither the House nor Senate, both under Republican majorities, brought a bill to the floor.