Glass Steagall

public banking

Public Funds At Risk In The Big Banks

People think that money is safe in the big banks because the FDIC will protect the deposits. This assumption is not based on the facts. This video will show official government documents that describe the plans for confiscating deposits when, (not if) a big bank fails. Individual, as well as public funds from municipal, university, county deposits are at serious risk. YOUR taxpayer money will disappear in the next crisis! Public officials in charge of taxpayer funds need to be aware of the dangers here. The loss of taxpayer funds and the inability to meet payrolls and obligations will certainly prompt a response that will both immediate and forceful.

This video may be useful to present to public officials to inform them of the dangers of losing public funds under their care. Source: PublicBankingTV

and PublicBanking on Twitter

The Leveraged Buyout of America

by Ellen H. Brown

Giant bank holding companies now own airports, toll roads, and ports; control power plants; and store and hoard vast quantities of commodities of all sorts. They are systematically buying up or gaining control of the essential lifelines of the economy. How have they pulled this off, and where have they gotten the money? Continue reading…

Interview by CGreene34

Bank of North Dakota – Wikipedia
The Bank of North Dakota was established by legislative action in 1919 to promote agriculture, commerce and industry in North Dakota.[2] Other entities may also open accounts at the Bank; however, BND offers fewer retail services than other institutions, and has only one office, limiting its competitiveness in consumer banking.

Official-Bank of North Dakota
The only state-owned bank in the nation. Its mission, established by legislative action in 1919, is to encourage and promote agriculture, commerce and industry in North Dakota.

Banking malfeasance Are Big Banks safe?

Glass-Steagall: War on Wall Street

Glass-Steagall: War on Wall Street
Lyndon LaRouche launched three critical flanks: 1. A new Pecora Commission must be convened; 2. We need a full expose of who in Congress actually belongs to Wall Street; 3. In the wake of what has come to light in the Detroit bankruptcy, we need a list of the crimes committed by Wall Street in each state.

Detroit: Test Case For Genocide
The conditions now being experienced by the people of Detroit, as described vividly in this presentation, herald the future for the rest of the American people — unless Glass-Steagall is immediately restored and the true enemies of the United States recognized, and defeated

Glass-Steagall Red Herring

Repost of  Tom Woods article about a topic that has been discussed in length by Lyndon LaRouche

‘Repeal’ of Glass-Steagall Irrelevant to Financial Crisis

Although we’ve heard a great deal about how “deregulation” caused the financial crisis, specific cases of repealed legislation that would have prevented it are few and far between. The one some progressives seem to have settled on is the “repeal” of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, which separated commercial from investment banking. The “repeal” involved only one provision of the Act, the one preventing the same holding company from controlling both a commercial bank and an investment bank.

I’ll try to write more on this when I have time (for now, I’ll note that I cover the subject in Rollback, my book from earlier this year). When we recall that stand-alone institutions, both commercial and investment, also failed during the crisis, and that all of them acquired mortgage-backed securities (which they had always been allowed to do, by the way), the Glass-Steagall “repeal” looks more and more like a red herring that appeals to people whose belief system requires them to find some way a Fed-fueled bubble could have been stopped had the right regulatory structure been in place.

(The problem with those who point to Glass-Steagall is not that they’re radical. It’s that they’re not nearly radical enough. They think the system as is, shot through with moral hazard at every level, and presided over by a market-defying central bank, is of its nature stable and without fault; we just need a few regulations.)

Because Glass-Steagall was passed during the Depression, it is assumed that it was addressing a pressing need of the time.  In fact, the lack of government-enforced division between commercial and investment banking had precisely zero to do with bank problems during the Great Depression. The 9,000 bank failures during the early 1930s had far more to do with the damage done by government regulation — namely, the unit-banking laws that made it difficult for banks to diversify their portfolios (by limiting them to a single office and making branching illegal) — than with a lack of regulation. These were small banks, not the behemoths for which Glass-Steagall would have been relevant. Canada had none of these stifling regulations, and had zero bank failures. (Incidentally, Canada also avoided all the post-Civil War bank panics that struck the U.S., even though Canada did not have a central bank until 1934 — yet again, reality refuses to conform to the where-would-we-be-without-our-wise-overlords comic-book version of events.)

The Glass-Steagall-did-it crowd is the same crowd that likes to claim Canada avoided the worst of the U.S. crisis because it was so much better regulated. But they can’t have it both ways — Canada did not have a Glass-Steagall law! (For the real story on what happened in Canada, click here.)

For a little more on this, see Bill Woolsey. Again, I’ll try to revisit this soon.

Article source:

Pin It on Pinterest