How about a nationalized, democratized banking system - General

I am suggesting complete socialization of banking, with major roles being elected in. This national bank will be here to keep current accounts in the same way banks do currently, keep savings at inflation (or slightly above if feasible) and invest in new businesses that create wealth in a fair and sustainable way. I think there should be elections for the major roles in the institution every 2 years and a independent committee that reviews the institution to make sure there is no corruption or malpractice. In order to do this, any other banking will have to be banned, so this system can achieve it's goals without competition from other banks. I believe this is necessarily as in the UK, our economy floats on banking, which is an industry that rarely creates wealth, and seams to just hoard money, making those at the top of that industry richer without doing anything productive. I see the need in banking for investment and somewhere to keep my money safe, but in reality it's boring accounting that is necessary but shouldn't be the UK's main source of growth.

I completely agree. The state should be the sole owner of a single national bank that manages everything. Leaving it to private banks is a very unreliable way of doing things. Plus the government can use the bank to invest back into the country rather than hedge funds or something else stupid.

I dunno. Competition usually keeps the price of things down, such as multiple businesses attempting to sell the same product through means of competition based pricing. Surely banks would compete in a similar way in regard to interest rates? When you only have one bank, it would be free to adjust that and other things as well (like taxing transactions, if there are no other banks then that would mean everyone would have to deal with such a thing). I can understand there might be benefits if that single bank was a part of a benevolent administration, but then again in an open market a bank would have to offer value to the customer if it were to succeed in competing with the other banks, so would we really need only one bank? For example, say Bank of America went ahead with its fees on transactions. They would lose plenty of customers, because those customers would rather go to a bank that doesn't impose such a fee. Same thing might apply in regard to interest rates.

I suggest the complete opposite. Large (or small) corporate anti-democratic anti-state pro-profit banking system Competition keeps prices down, monopolies provide jobs, cartels are obvious and easy to defeat

[QUOTE=Eltro102;33274499]I suggest the complete opposite. Large (or small) corporate anti-democratic anti-state pro-profit banking system Competition keeps prices down, monopolies provide jobs, cartels are obvious and easy to defeat[/QUOTE] A large corporation that is all about profit and doesn't care what their customers think? A+

[QUOTE=Megafanx13;33274724]A large corporation that is all about profit and doesn't care what their customers think? A+[/QUOTE] As opposed to what? A monopolistic system that's run by the same entity that fines you, taxes you? Government is just one big company.

[QUOTE=Capitulazyguy;33275031]As opposed to what? A monopolistic system that's run by the same entity that fines you, taxes you? Government is just one big company.[/QUOTE] A government doesn't care about profit as much as a company. Instead a country will want itself to be strong, powerful and have high prestige. Looking after its people will help a country achieve some of these goals. A country which doesn't, will be hated by everybody minus the plutocrats.

[QUOTE=Capitulazyguy;33275031]As opposed to what? A monopolistic system that's run by the same entity that fines you, taxes you? Government is just one big company.[/QUOTE] Apart from one major thing, you're government isn't out to make a profit (unless it's a really bad one). A lot of the time, the even want to help people.

A government is out to get itself re-elected. If it runs the banks, that means twisting banking statistics. And, of course, the unelected officials will be out to look for a nice little earner for themselves. [editline]14th November 2011[/editline] And it's wrong to deny people choice. Plus, merging every bank in the country is going to be expensive, and will inevitably involve corruption and job loss.

Or, how about we go the other way, and implement a decentralized banking system in which people have more choice in banking and investment, a single bank failure won't destroy the market, the money supply can't be manipulated or distorted by a single entity, and where interest rates can begin hovering around a market equilibrium.

[QUOTE=Derubermensch;33278725]Or, how about we go the other way, and implement a decentralized banking system in which people have more choice in banking and investment, a single bank failure won't destroy the market, the money supply can't be manipulated or distorted by a single entity, and where interest rates can begin hovering around a market equilibrium.[/QUOTE] Or phase out for-profit banks and have multiple credit unions that are cooperatively owned.

[QUOTE=Megafanx13;33274724]A large corporation that is all about profit and doesn't care what their customers think? A+[/QUOTE] By this logic, capitalism is evil. The competition between companies is what drives the market, isn't it? Having one control for everything is a [i]bad[/i] idea. Not to mention making that conversion would be incredibly difficult.

[QUOTE=Phsykotik;33280004]By this logic, capitalism is evil. The competition between companies is what drives the market, isn't it? Having one control for everything is a [i]bad[/i] idea. Not to mention making that conversion would be incredibly difficult.[/QUOTE] So have multiple institutions that are cooperatively owned. For example, in my town we have 3 different credit unions, each with different kinds of benefits.

[QUOTE=Phsykotik;33280004]By this logic, capitalism is evil. The competition between companies is what drives the market, isn't it? Having one control for everything is a [i]bad[/i] idea. Not to mention making that conversion would be incredibly difficult.[/QUOTE] Having a single thing to do the purpose of multiple tasks is generally a good idea. If you need a bank, there will be only one in a town owned by a government. If private banks exist, multiple banks serve a single town vying for costumers in an inefficient manner, and less people use one bank than another. If all banks follow the same standards, and are owned by the same people then this problem will not occur. Conversion to standards is difficult, but many languages, number systems, machines, etc have gone to various standards. Another problem was for example the 4 ft 6 in and 7 ft gauges in Britain. Despite the latter being superior in all respects, it was out-competed by the smaller gauge system. The exact same thing will and does happen to banks, where the better bank actually gets out-competed by another. For example the other one may use advertising or sabotage to get rid of the more efficient competitor.

[QUOTE=Megafanx13;33279763]Or phase out for-profit banks and have multiple credit unions that are cooperatively owned.[/QUOTE] I wouldn't say we have the same idea of what a "for-profit" bank is. Seeing as the central banking system we have right now is basically the banks not only getting in bed with the government, but staying the morning after and having the government make them breakfast.

Why is for profit banking a bad thing? It is really the backbone of any civilized economy. For an individual, credit unions are great. However, for businesses taking major loans a credit union just doesn't generally have the capital to loan. Also, government monopolies are almost always a bad thing. Government has a nasty habit of running things very inefficiently(and with more corruption) than for profit enterprises. The only time I want Government taking control of an industry is when the industry is either very hard to profit from(public safety, roads, infrastructure) or morally wrong to deny someone based on money(healthcare, schooling, food) .

[QUOTE=yawmwen;33280945]Why is for profit banking a bad thing? It is really the backbone of any civilized economy. For an individual, credit unions are great. However, for businesses taking major loans a credit union just doesn't generally have the capital to loan. Also, government monopolies are almost always a bad thing. Government has a nasty habit of running things very inefficiently(and with more corruption) than for profit enterprises. The only time I want Government taking control of an industry is when the industry is either very hard to profit from(public safety, roads, infrastructure) or morally wrong to deny someone based on money(healthcare, schooling, food) .[/QUOTE] One of the main problems with banking at the moment is complexity. In biology it's a well known fact that a more complex ecosystem can take much longer than a simpler ecosystem to recover from a change. This is often reflected in economics.

[quote]reality it's boring accounting that is necessary but shouldn't be the UK's main source of growth. [/quote] Wow yeah, there's a lot more involved in banking than 'boring accounting' and I don't know why you think it's bad if it helps the UK's economy grow, surely that's good for any industry? Also the banking sector is probably one of the best proponents of creating wealth, who gives loans to businesses to then turn into revenue and profit? [QUOTE=Sobotnik;33280554]Having a single thing to do the purpose of multiple tasks is generally a good idea. If you need a bank, there will be only one in a town owned by a government. If private banks exist, multiple banks serve a single town vying for costumers in an inefficient manner, and less people use one bank than another. If all banks follow the same standards, and are owned by the same people then this problem will not occur. Conversion to standards is difficult, but many languages, number systems, machines, etc have gone to various standards. Another problem was for example the 4 ft 6 in and 7 ft gauges in Britain. Despite the latter being superior in all respects, it was out-competed by the smaller gauge system. The exact same thing will and does happen to banks, where the better bank actually gets out-competed by another. For example the other one may use advertising or sabotage to get rid of the more efficient competitor.[/QUOTE] The fuck are you on about, you can't compare measuring methods to the world of business. Multiple banks breeds competition which lowers prices and keeps them efficent. A single national bank (ignoring the bank of england of course) would struggle due to bureaucratic red tape slowing all of the inner workings and resulting in a detachment of workers doing their job and staying there, I mean why strive to make the most money when you know your company is large enough to absorb your inefficency and keep you on.

[QUOTE=Callius;33287166]I mean why strive to make the most money when you know your company is large enough to absorb your inefficiency and keep you on.[/QUOTE] Why would they keep you on? The banking system in the capitalist worlds main goal is to manipulate money so as to gain an advantage for themselves by profiting off the labour of unwilling people.

[QUOTE=Thoughtless;33286827]One of the main problems with banking at the moment is complexity. In biology it's a well known fact that a more complex ecosystem can take much longer than a simpler ecosystem to recover from a change. This is often reflected in economics.[/QUOTE] Why make the banking system even more complex by nationalizing it, then? [editline]15th November 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Sobotnik;33287483]Why would they keep you on? The banking system in the capitalist worlds main goal is to manipulate money so as to gain an advantage for themselves by profiting off the labour of unwilling people.[/QUOTE] Wow, no. [editline]15th November 2011[/editline] A bank is there to make money, yes. However they don't just "profit off the labor of unwilling people". They profit off the labor of willing people, and the willing people profit off the bank directly and indirectly. It's a symbiotic relationship where banks benefit from profitable businesses and profitable businesses benefit from banks, and increases wealth for everyone, including the lower classes and "proletariat".

[QUOTE=Callius;33287166]Wow yeah, there's a lot more involved in banking than 'boring accounting' and I don't know why you think it's bad if it helps the UK's economy grow, surely that's good for any industry? Also the banking sector is probably one of the best proponents of creating wealth, who gives loans to businesses to then turn into revenue and profit? [/QUOTE] Banking can't grow the global economy or create wealth on it's own, It pulls in wealth from growing businesses. I can see it's importance in helping businesses get going, and that's why the current system needs to be replaced rather than being got rid of.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;33287794] A bank is there to make money, yes. However they don't just "profit off the labor of unwilling people". They profit off the labor of willing people, and the willing people profit off the bank directly and indirectly. It's a symbiotic relationship where banks benefit from profitable businesses and profitable businesses benefit from banks, and increases wealth for everyone, including the lower classes and "proletariat".[/QUOTE] Explain why these massive protests are happening world-wide in protests against the power and influence of banks? These banks caused the recent economic depression and got massive bailouts. Then for another kick in the balls their owners still have massive salaries and pensions. Why do bank owners require so much money?

[QUOTE=yawmwen;33287794]Why make the banking system even more complex by nationalizing it, then?[/QUOTE] How can nationalizing a large number of competing banks, into one open institution make things more complex? Seriously tell me because I can't think of one way.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;33287986]Explain why these massive protests are happening world-wide in protests against the power and influence of banks? These banks caused the recent economic depression and got massive bailouts. Then for another kick in the balls their owners still have massive salaries and pensions. Why do bank owners require so much money?[/QUOTE] How exactly did the banks directly cause the economic crisis? Seriously, I'm curious. Furthermore, what is there to say that having only one bank that is publicly owned would prevent a possible economic crisis? Also Business owners should be entitled to their salaries as typically they were the individual that actually got the business running, and as such got people jobs and offer a larger variety in goods and services to the public. Same would apply for CEOs and GMs and what not in company ownership businesses, they have the highest responsibility in regard to operating the business. This is a concept some people can't accept in regard to capitalism, that if you're willing to take the risks to work your way to the top, and then make all the risks and decision necessary to stay at the top then you'll get the benefits if you do so. It would probably be ethical for an owner to cut his or her own salary in times of a worsened cash flow (less in and more out), but he or she shouldn't have to if he or she is capable of making the decisions to get the business back into renewal.

[QUOTE=Antdawg;33288498]How exactly did the banks directly cause the economic crisis? Seriously, I'm curious. Furthermore, what is there to say that having only one bank that is publicly owned would prevent a possible economic crisis? Also Business owners shsould be entitled to their salaries as typically they were the individual that actually got the business running, and as such got people jobs and offer a larger variety in goods and services to the public. Same would apply for CEOs and GMs and what not in Company ownership Businesses, they have the highest responsibility in regard to operating the business. This is a concept some people can't accept in regard to capitalism, that if you're willing to take the risks to work your way to the top, and then make all the risks and decision necessary to stay at the top then you'll get the benefits if you do so.[/QUOTE] Banks caused the economic crisis by lending to people who would never be able to pay it back, then when they realised their mistake, they stopped lending to anyone. Also capitalism isn't about taking risks, it's about taking risks and either lose everything or be lucky, money helps aswell.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;33287986]Explain why these massive protests are happening world-wide in protests against the power and influence of banks?[/quote] So by that logic Obama is a socialist because people are protesting him? [quote]These banks caused the recent economic depression and got massive bailouts. Then for another kick in the balls their owners still have massive salaries and pensions.[/quote] Actually the Government caused the economic recession. And without the banks we wouldn't have an economy at all. Have you ever heard the story of the scorpion and the frog? Long story short, don't hate the banks because they act within their very nature. It is Government's responsibility, and Society's responsibility to protect themselves and use Corporations and Banks for their benefit of all Americans. [QUOTE=Thoughtless;33287988]How can nationalizing a large number of competing banks, into one open institution make things more complex? Seriously tell me because I can't think of one way.[/QUOTE] Anything controlled by the Government is inherently convoluted. The vast amount of organization and bureaucracy for government agencies to function is staggering. Not to mention the amount of corruption that would seep through.

[QUOTE=Thoughtless;33288686]Banks caused the economic crisis by lending to people who would never be able to pay it back, then when they realised their mistake, they stopped lending to anyone. Also capitalism isn't about taking risks, it's about taking risks and either lose everything or be lucky, money helps aswell.[/QUOTE] Because the government totally didn't pressure banks to providing discrimination free (in regard to credit rating) loans? Wow, nice contradiction on second paragraph. You say capitalism isn't about risks, then you say it's about taking risks and losing everything or being lucky. That's a risk isn't it?

[QUOTE=Thoughtless;33288686]Banks caused the economic crisis by lending to people who would never be able to pay it back, then when they realised their mistake, they stopped lending to anyone. [/QUOTE] They were encouraged to do so by the government.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;33287986] Why do bank owners require so much money?[/QUOTE] The same reason CEOs of businesses or TNCs get such high pay, it's a highly demanding, stressful job which cuts deeply into your personal time and even regulates what you do in your spare time e.g. scandels which ruin the business' reputation. [QUOTE=Sobotnik;33287483]Why would they keep you on? The banking system in the capitalist worlds main goal is to manipulate money so as to gain an advantage for themselves by profiting off the labour of unwilling people.[/QUOTE] My point was that is what would happen if you nationalized the banks into a single central bank. If you're not running to make profit then your boss doesn't really mind if you take 10 minutes extra on that break and his boss isn't really fussed if the department has excessive spending because he's one of 500 regional departments so it's not like his boss will mind either. A democratic bank as well would be stupid, how are normal people going to look at a bank's performance and vote accordingly? Most people can't make head or tail of an auditor's report or company accounts. [quote]independent committee that reviews the institution to make sure there is no corruption or malpractice.[/quote] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parmalat#Financial_fraud_.282002.E2.80.932005.29[/url] Gist of the link is Parmalat (A multinational company) was found to have been lying about their company's holdings for several years in which the independent accounting firms who were supposed to be making sure the company's figures were true and fair had just been glancing at the figures and going "yeah they're a big firm, looks about right". No corruption or malpractice is a pipe dream as much as no crime in anyway is.

[QUOTE=Antdawg;33288811]Because the government totally didn't pressure banks to providing discrimination free (in regard to credit rating) loans? Wow, nice contradiction on second paragraph. You say capitalism isn't about risks, then you say it's about taking risks and losing everything or being lucky. That's a risk isn't it?[/QUOTE] Basically what i'm saying is that if you take risks, you'll ether succeed or more likely end up in the shitter and lose all your money. The main reason people take stupid risks is because if you're super rich you where lucky.