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.”
North Dakota, let’s face it, isn’t known as a hotbed of rampant consumerism.
There are “Banks” and then there are “Investment Houses” that confusingly are also called banks.
Everything that caused the meltdown was ILLEGAL 20 years ago. Everything that has happened was unavoidable once the rules protecting against it were removed.
Obama, as the phrase goes, so far, has been trying to “rebuild the bubble” rather than VERY SIMPLY==reinstitute all the rules that were overturned. All this “high finance” on any inspection at all is not wealth creation but rather wealth transfer. All this HIGH FINANCE represents nothing but exposure to risk for society and no net gain all to the harm of lower income people.
This meltdown and Obama’s failure to address its root causes and root solutions will destroy his legacy otherwise.
Too bad, for us all.
It didn’t hurt us that the oil companies recently discovered the Bakken formation which accounts for about 25% of the USA reserves. North Dakota is now the 5th largest US oil producer. But it sure has been one crappy winter, curse you Al Gore and all you “climate Change” bozos. Since when has the climate been stable? In one million years, what’s it gonna matter?
Received this email several years ago:
Back in 1990, the Government seized the Mustang Ranch brothel in Nevada for tax evasion and, as required by law, tried to run it.
They failed and it closed.
Now, we are trusting the economy of our country and a 700 Billion Dollar bailout to a pack of nit-wits who couldn’t make money running a cat house and selling booze.
Now if that doesn’t make you nervous, what does?
————
Sounds Funny but…
http://message.snopes.com/showthread.php?t=39820
“conservatives will have a hard time hearing”
No one says state-owned or state directed business can’t be profitable. Those of us who believe in the free market just don’t like the idea – profit isn’t the only measure of a working system.
#5–brm==rare to see the underlying issue almost named. Greed. A working state directed business that is very profitable is no good because certain criminal elements can’t make EXCESSIVE profits. Well done. Now crawl back under your rock.
#5 brm
Re: “…state-owned or state directed business…”
It is called Fascism.
Your statement should read, “No one says Fascism can’t be profitable. Those of us who believe in the free market just don’t like the idea – profit isn’t the only measure of a working system.
Mofo Jones and Aunt Dave don’t want to understand the very big difference between State Owned and FEDERALLY owned. The other big difference is the bank of ND was originally started AS A STATE bank. It wasn’t taken over as is the fear today.
What I am curious to know is if Aunt Dave thinks that it’s ok for the Federal government to take over banks and he thinks it can do the job to run them?
This is why it is good to be a state employee for ND. Always some money for the cost of living raises. Yes, the winter sucked this year. Very cold.
Well the Feds can’t pressure a state bank to make loans to minorities on favorable terms, especially when there are so few to begin with. Pretty easy to do well when the primary loss factor is removed.
They keep saying that California is the 4th largest economy in the planet or something…. What would happen if all of the taxes were kept in California or California seceded from the US and became a sovereign country.. or, even part of Mexico ( which it may be already) Isn’t as big as some EU countries?
#9. Yep, I pulled all our money out of American Express Bank (now Ameritrade I think) and Wells Fargo about a year ago. Found a local state owned bank with a solid record and have been happy since. But…you have to do some homework.
#8, big difference between State Owned and FEDERALLY owned
And that is the difference.
People tend to forget that States are not supposed to be extensions of the Federal Government.
Face it, most banks are now “state” owned. Just need to check your def of “state”.
right now there isnt anything that some extreme regulation cant cure…
since the financial institutions were allowed, wait ,that they were mandated to go wild west on their business practices (read.. anything goes and everything went).
pity the plan in place wont work in the long run….
I still can’t believe that people think that banks and other financial institutions weren’t regulated. They were. The problem is that that those regulating them were asleep at the wheel and/or congress put in legislation that allowed the banks to do the crazy things they were doing. This just wasn’t a private sector fiasco. Barney Frank and other dems helped this monster to flourish. 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.
Most states used to have their own banks and even printed their own money. The Fed negated much of this a long time ago but I have no problem with state banks. They may even be a very smart move. It means states can use their surplus funds to make loans in state rather than let the nuts on Wall Street decide where to make the loans.
The real issue is the Fed regulations need to be put back in place and the gambling institutions selling mortages need to be regulated. To be blunt the lender ought to be required to hold their loans and deal with the borrower themselves.
Of course the Fed seems to want the banks to go back to making high risk loans so I guess they want another melt down. Other than an aversion to making high risk loans I don’t think money is actually tight for loans.
Hey, what can you expect from people who have the Fed sell loans/bonds to the the Fed and say that means they have money to spend?
Let’s see, how much has Obama agreed to spend beyond what we are taking in since he took office? I think it’s $17,000 per citizen but I may be behind or just misunderstood.
Okay so at least we don’t have to pay interest on the money the Fed loaned to the Fed but let’s be honest. It isn’t backed by anything either. It’s more or less saying we are going to increase the money supply by printing more money.
You folks have a fun now. The country may or may not be going to hell but I’m going to church tomorrow and have a good time with a lot of people I know and like breaking in a new church building.
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.
#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?
#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.
#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.