There is only one solution to the banking crisis; it is simple and has been successfully used over many years. If there is reluctance to change it can be summed up by the analogy; turkeys don’t vote for Christmas. The private banking consortiums manipulate governments and, as in the case of Italy, Greece and elsewhere they replace them. Goldman Sachs is to all intents and purposes running Europe; today they call the shots.
They and other private banking conglomerates are not however running the banking systems of 40 percent of the world’s economies. It is not a coincidence that these publicly owned independent economies are concentrated on countries that escaped the 2008 banking crisis. Mostly but not exclusively they make up the BRIC countries – Brazil, Russia, India and China.
These nations have flourished; their economies surged 92 percent whilst the private owned banking systems in the West floundered. Call it unfair competition if you wish. The BRIC countries have a competitive edge that Western systems, handicapped by private banks, cannot hope to overcome. Imagine the futility of running a business against competitors unburdened by 40 percent overheads.
Provided politicians are agreeable, which many are not because they are in the pockets of privately owned banks, there is no reason why cities and local authorities could not set up their own publicly owned banking service. There is hardly a better example of responsible community banking than the state run independent Bank of North Dakota (BND).
This model could easily be used elsewhere.
The Bank of North Dakota is the only bank to have escaped the U.S. banking crisis. The government of North Dakota, which owns it, shows an impressive budget surplus each year. It has the lowest unemployment level in the United States. There is no state government debt; it enjoys excellent credit rating with exceptional dividends each year. These dividends are ploughed back into public services. The BND not only saves money; it makes money, which supports the community.
There is growing pressure to bring banks into public ownership. Iceland did so; they issued warrants for the arrest of their banks’ hapless banking heads. These fled before they could be questioned. The Icelandic economy is now prospering. The West is following Iceland’s example and is entering a period of revolution. It is not against governments, unless they act as the banks protectors: It is a revolt that will decide whether the banks are private or publicly owned. If the latter then the crisis is resolved and prosperity returned; prospects are good. We have a level playing field in international trade.
Public pressure is mounting; most prominent are the Move Your Money and Occupy Wall Street movements. According to the former, an estimated 10 million U.S. customers have turned their backs on conventional banking during the last 24-months. During the same period Credit Unions have shown unprecedented growth with assets now exceeding $1 trillion dollars.
By borrowing from their own publicly-owned banks, governments could eliminate their interest burden altogether. As 2010 closed California’s debt was $158 billion. Of this amount 44 percent was interest payable to private banks. Had the banks been publicly owned that $70 billion in lost interest would have been ploughed back into the economy.
This has been demonstrated elsewhere with unquestioned success; the countries include Canada, Australia and Argentina. In 2011 the U.S. the federal government paid out $454 billion dollars interest on the federal debt; a privately owned banking entity. That was not an insignificant amount; it is nearly one-third of America’s personal income tax. This was lost to the taxpayers by being transferred to privately owned banks. This interest was publicly money; had the banks been publicly owned then of course this staggering amount could have been use to pay for services, reduces taxes; both.
It is estimated that bringing a nation’s banks into public ownership would eliminate the national debt. Many countries have done so; others did so at a cost: bankers’ inspired war being declared on them.
Public banking may appear to be a radical solution, but it is also an obvious one. By developing a public banking system, governments can keep the interest and reinvest it locally. According to Professor Margrit Kennedy and economist Helmut Creutz, that means public savings of 35 percent to 40 percent. Costs can be reduced across the board; taxes can be cut or services increased; market stability can be created for governments, borrowers and consumers. Banking and credit can become public utilities, feeding the economy rather than feeding off it. Source: Truthout. Ellen Brown.