Florida political leaders consider state bank: telling Wall Street to kiss their assets goodbye?

hyperlinks and video live at source: http://www.examiner.com/x-18425-LA-County-Nonpartisan-Examiner~y2009m10d29-Florida-political-leaders-consider-stateowned-b...

Even though this idea is obviously cost-effective with just a few moments’ consideration of the facts, even though the idea of creating money and credit for the public good rather than for bank profit has a rich history of support from many of America’s brightest minds, and even though this is the “secret” to the state with the lowest unemployment in the nation along with a record budget surplus (it’s North Dakota, one of only two solvent states today), the idea of a state-owned bank creating its own credit is a new idea for many Americans.

Florida candidate for Governor, economist Farid Khavari, explains that a state-owned bank should replace for-profit banks to provide substantial public benefits while profiting the state. Two percent mortgages would reduce interest payments by 85%, saving $88,000 per every $100,000 borrowed. The bank would pay 5% interest on deposits, charge 6% interest on credit cards, and 3-4% on commercial and vehicle loans. This would be done with existing international credit-creation standards issued by the Bank for International Settlements of an 8% capital requirement.

Bruno Barreiro, County Commissioner for Miami-Dade County, is also proposing a government-managed bank at the county level.

One of the immediate benefits of a state-owned bank is ending interest payments on existing debt. If California created its own bank, they could issue 0% credit to themselves to buy existing debt and save $5 billion every year that they pay in interest. To put that number in perspective, California has 20,000 laid-off teachers. All could be rehired at $70,000/year and California would still have $3.4 billion of their saved money left-over. Retiring the national debt would be different, but just as easy; saving Americans $450 billion every year in interest costs.

While American working families are transferring record amounts of their money to banks under our existing monetary system, the question is not whether there are superior models of banking available, but how long it will take the American public to force their bank-captured political “leaders” to serve the public rather than bankster bonuses.

The below 2-minute video from Mr. Khavari’s campaign for governor walks you through the benefits of a state-owned bank. The links in this article provide history and national monetary reform solutions.

As always, please share this article with all who say they are responsible citizens in government and economics. It is impossible for them to argue their competence if they do not understand one of the very few TRILLION DOLLAR annual issues of policy. I promise that the links in this article will educate you in a way completely within your ability to proudly learn.

If you appreciate my work, please subscribe by clicking under the article title (it’s free). Please feel free to use my archive of work to help build a brighter future.

Don't you always have

too many dollars created under fiat money creation and eight percent reserve requirements, always leading to a cycle of debt as debtors search for dollars to pay back their loans? More has to be borrowed from the creator of the money. It also leads to depreciation of the currency, because nothing can be created out of thin air without depreciation, as history has taught us time and time again. You don't have the ability to say, let's restrict money creation, because the money has to be out there to satisfy the servicing of previous debts. So depreciation of the currency becomes inevitable. Of course we don't even get into the question of mismanagement of the currency, which is all but inevitable as well. All reasons for separating money and banking. The money supply and its value should be a neutral arbiter in the economy, supplied by the monetization of a commodity, the supply and vallue of which is purely in the hands of market forces. Such will lead to stable money values as was experienced under gold standards of the past. The gold standard had to be dumped when greedy politicians like Johnson could not finance their disgusting wars. The result is what we have today--huge debt, a cycle of war, and taxpayer looting.

You're missing the point, my friend.

Monetary reform takes the power of creating money from banks and returns it to public benefit (direct payment of goods and services). State-owned banks is an intermediary step to transfer profits of banksters to the people through 2% mortgages, etc. Look up my historical article on Ben Franklin's system of the government creating and spending the amount for interest on loans through fiat currency.

Gold-backed money caused deflation and shortage of currency in the past! This was the genesis of the Greenback party, the Populist Party and William Jennings Byron's platform for the Dems. The point is managing the supply of money. It must be done openly and with political ownership for the amount.

You're welcome to argue for attaching this to gold, but history is against you. The Roman Empire intentionally made money worthless as a commodity. Gold money caused depression in the Empire when they tried it. But tell you what: you're making the argument of stable money values with gold. Prove it.

We hold these truths to be self-evident...

This is GREAT idea.

Not long ago, several small towns created their own currencies and it seemed to work.

For further info, google "town creates own money"