Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 43

Thread: San Francisco - The First US Municipality to Start a Bank?

  1. #1

    Cool San Francisco - The First US Municipality to Start a Bank?

    Governor Jerry Brown returned AB 750, the bill that would study the merits of the State of California owning a state-owned bank, back to the Assembly without his signature. San Francisco is not waiting for State politicians to serve the public's interest - they are making it happen in their city.

    San Francisco - The First US Municipality to Start a Bank?

    To many San Franciscans, a municipal bank has seemed like an obvious, common sense proposal for cutting costs, raising revenues, and investing in a sustainable local economy. But in San Francisco’s infamous pay-to-play politics, the campaign contributions of Bank of America and Montgomery Street investment bankers have always stopped a municipal bank proposal from moving forward. KPFA’s Ann Garrison has the story.

    KPFA/Ann Garrison: Banking contributions to campaign coffers have stopped municipal and state bank proposals from moving forward, but times have changed. In San Francisco, the backlash against predatory lending, home foreclosures and the federal bailout of the big banks most responsible has finally created a political climate in which a San Francisco Municipal Bank is on the table.

    On Sept. 29, Supervisor and mayoral candidate John Avalos rallied a crowd at Occupy SF around the idea:

    Supervisor John Avalos: I want to pull our dollars out of these banks that don’t give us a plan about how they can support us locally. And together, with our power that we have here, in this plaza, in front of this building, we can make it happen! Are you with me?
    Occupy SF: Yeeeeeeees!
    Supervisor John Avalos: That was kind of loud. Are you with me?
    Occupy SF: Yeeeeeeees!
    Supervisor John Avalos: Can we create our own municipal bank in San Francisco?
    Occupy SF: Yeeeeeees!
    Supervisor John Avalos: Yes, we can! Thank you very much.
    KPFA: Supervisor Avalos has scheduled an open hearing on a municipal bank at San Francisco City Hall on Oct. 24.

    Public Defender and mayoral candidate Jeff Adachi [7] also says that the City and County of San Francisco should do its own banking:

    San Francisco Public Defender Jeff Adachi: San Francisco absolutely should have a municipal bank for a number of reasons. For one, the idea that giving money, taxpayer money, to the banks so that they would assist citizens who are suffering and hurting right now was a bad idea. It was a bad idea then; it’s a bad idea now.

    And having a municipal bank would allow San Francisco more control over its municipal economy. We spend over $6.8 billion a year and we bank through Bank of America and other institutions that charge us millions and millions, tens of millions, in fees.KPFA: If the City and County of San Francisco is a normal banking customer, it is reasonable to estimate that its banking fees total between $30 and $50 million annually, not including fees from issuing bonds for schools, parks, road improvements, water system upgrades and so forth, which may easily double the number to as much as 100 million a year.

    The San Francisco Green Party and its mayoral candidate Terry Baum [9] are longstanding advocates of a municipal bank, and state Sen. and mayoral candidate Leland Yee now supports the idea as well. KPFA has not yet been able to determine how many more of the City’s 16 mayoral candidates support a municipal bank, but we will make an effort to report that before Election Day, Nov. 8.

    Supervisor and mayoral candidate John Avalos’ staff report that they anticipate support on the Board of Supervisors from Supervisors Mar, Campos, Mirkarimi and Kim but are still uncertain about Supervisor and mayoral candidate David Chiu [10], who could, by joining them, create a six-vote board majority for a municipal bank.
    For Pacifica [11], KPFA Radio [12], I’m Ann Garrison.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2

    Default

    Good for San Francisco...
    Come check out our message board - Free Speech is always encouraged.
    http://speakfreeforum.com/forum/

  4. #3

    Default

    San Francisco is a dumb-vortex.
    “One may come to the aid of another being unlawfully arrested, just as he may where one is being assaulted, molested, raped or kidnapped. Thus it is not an offense to liberate one from the unlawful custody of an officer, even though he may have submitted to such custody, without resistance.” (Adams v. State, 121 Ga. 16, 48 S.E. 910).

  5. #4

    Default

    That's too bad. It is still tyrannical and will pick the winners and losers. Governments have no more business in the money business than they do in the shoe business.

  6. #5

    Default

    Look at the success of the The Bank of North Dakota . I don't look at labels but look at what works.

    If the ability to improve the financial condition can occur for the entire society then who cares whether it is a public, semi-public, private or any other sort of group/business/collective. The main objective here is throw out the Corporatists, the ones who hoard all the wealth for themselves & leave everyone else destitute b/c of their fraudulent actions. FRAUD has to do when one party gains the trust of another party yet then proceeds to betray that trust.

    We must seek to bring justice to the perpetrators of fraud & in turn develop financial systems where the benefits not only reward & penalize risk & but also do not attempt to lessen the prosperity of others. Reward gained to the determent of others is not truly a reward. Reward gained b/c you enhanced the well being of others is.

    As a business owner I have tried for years to give people a good product that enhanced their lives & enhanced the people working for me. In that model you have the key to economic & cultural turn around. I personally do not believe in doing business any other way. However I also do not believe in social engineering either. You cannot legislate morality & ethics per se.

    However you can legislate against fraud & collusion. The media help perpetrate this fraud by failing to report upon corporate misdeeds. They accept advertising money of companies that harm.

    We can also as a society decide NOT to contribute tot he survival of companies to do things that "benefit" them while harming others.
    Last edited by kr1963; 10-23-2011 at 05:10 PM.

  7. #6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kr1963 View Post
    You cannot legislate morality & ethics per se.
    Of course you can. The free market does it every day. Try screwing over your customers and see how many you'll keep once they figure it out. The free market is the strictest regulator that exists.
    My personality type: INTJ - please forgive my weaknesses (Not naturally in tune with others feelings; may be insensitive at times, tend to respond to conflict with logic and reason, tend to believe I'm always right, tend to be unwilling or unable to accept blame )

  8. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Travlyr View Post
    That's too bad. It is still tyrannical and will pick the winners and losers. Governments have no more business in the money business than they do in the shoe business.
    Having Local and State Governments intervening is much better then the federal government intervening. Good for San Francisco making their own choices

  9. #8

    Default

    That is not legislation.

    His comment is accurate.

    Quote Originally Posted by hazek View Post
    Of course you can. The free market does it every day. Try screwing over your customers and see how many you'll keep once they figure it out. The free market is the strictest regulator that exists.

  10. #9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hazek View Post
    Of course you can. The free market does it every day. Try screwing over your customers and see how many you'll keep once they figure it out. The free market is the strictest regulator that exists.
    I said LEGISLATE. That means people in a governing body trying to dictate to others what is moral & what is not. Ethics is a little easier since that has to do with survival & most people want to survive & the basics on that are generally covered, (the golden rule). What I meant more about with regards to ETHICS is that you can't force people to survive.

    However in your example it is not always so apparent. The Pharmaceutical companies have been screwing people & killing them for years & getting away with it. But they are kept afloat by Insurance companies & the medical industry's PR campaign to make sure that we think of Medical Doctors as our new high priests. Unfortunately many of them have turned into drug pushers & body cutters instead of healers.

  11. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FlatIron View Post
    Having Local and State Governments intervening is much better then the federal government intervening. Good for San Francisco making their own choices
    It all depends upon the execution now doesn't it? There are different types of determinism. In school we all taught about SELF-DETERMINISM. However some people think that means being SELFISH or creates a DOG-EAT-DOG mentality. What we need in our business practices is the viewpoint that is PAN-determined. Pan meaning MORE THAN ONE. If any bank whether local, state or national can act in that fashion, (as apparently the Bank of North Dakota does) then we will ALL win & not just because others are asked to give more or suppress others.

  12. #11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Czolgosz View Post
    San Francisco is a dumb-vortex.
    There are dumb & stupid & smart folks everywhere. It all depends on who plays the game.

  13. #12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FlatIron View Post
    Having Local and State Governments intervening is much better then the federal government intervening. Good for San Francisco making their own choices
    Yea. The city now owns me rather than the Feds. Yea.

  14. #13

    Default

    I have the utmost confidence in the ability of the City of San Francisco to operate a bank successfully. AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHA . . . I give up. There are not enough "HAs" in my computer for this.
    The proper concern of society is the preservation of individual freedom; the proper concern of the individual is the harmony of society.

    "Who would be free, themselves must strike the blow." - Byron

    "Who overcomes by force, hath overcome but half his foe." - Milton

  15. #14

    Default

    Who is the City of San Francisco actually? That is really a generality. It all depends upon the SPECIFIC persons who are running it & the agreements set up in terms of policy.

  16. #15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kr1963 View Post
    Who is the City of San Francisco actually? That is really a generality. It all depends upon the SPECIFIC persons who are running it & the agreements set up in terms of policy.
    It will have policy set by the City Council. Need I say more?
    The proper concern of society is the preservation of individual freedom; the proper concern of the individual is the harmony of society.

    "Who would be free, themselves must strike the blow." - Byron

    "Who overcomes by force, hath overcome but half his foe." - Milton

  17. #16

    Default

    Will San Franciscans have the choice to opt out? Can they bank elsewhere? Is your city limits employer going to be forced to direct deposit to the San Francisco Public Trust Bank?
    CPT Jack. R. T.
    US Army Resigned - Iraq Vet.
    Level III MACP instructor, USYKA/WYKKO sensei
    Professional Hunter/Trapper/Country living survivalist.

  18. #17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Acala View Post
    It will have policy set by the City Council. Need I say more?
    That means YOU can choose as a voter to should be on that board. Look at North Dakota. Look at Germany.

    Quote Originally Posted by Icymudpuppy View Post
    Will San Franciscans have the choice to opt out? Can they bank elsewhere? Is your city limits employer going to be forced to direct deposit to the San Francisco Public Trust Bank?
    It still exists in a free market. Given a choice people meant tend to go to e public bank & thusly knocking out private banks. Isn't this what we want? Less to zero corporate influence out of our lives & government? Isnt this whats destroying the constitutionally based republic?

  19. #18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kr1963 View Post
    That means YOU can choose as a voter to should be on that board. Look at North Dakota. Look at Germany.

    It still exists in a free market. Given a choice people meant tend to go to e public bank & thusly knocking out private banks. Isn't this what we want? Less to zero corporate influence out of our lives & government? Isnt this whats destroying the constitutionally based republic?
    Why should banking have any attachment to government, at all?
    "Everyone who believes in freedom must work diligently for sound money, fully redeemable. Nothing else is compatible with the humanitarian goals of peace and prosperity." -- Ron Paul

    Brother Jonathan

  20. #19

    Default

    If it is working who cares?

    As I said to you in another thread it depends upon who is running the bank.

    Rothschild said give the ability to print money & I can not who writes its laws (or something to this effect). Someone will always have some sort of authority to print currency unless we somehow eliminate it. It is has more to do with the policy of the government & the bank so that the central goal is prosperity for the society & not just the people in charge of the bank.

    A Public bank gives a person an option to take monetary control away from greedy private bankers.

    Now if I was running a private bank, I know that I would be running it in the same way. And if a private banker got control of a public bank well then I wouldn't bank there. So it comes down to policy AND EXECUTION & nothing else.

  21. #20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kr1963 View Post
    That means YOU can choose as a voter to should be on that board.

    Hahahaha! Democracy is a sham and a failure.

    Quote Originally Posted by kr1963 View Post


    Look at North Dakota. Look at Germany.
    And compare them to what? Fiat, fractional reserve, central banking systems elsewhere? To be accurate, they need to be compared to FREEDOM.

    Quote Originally Posted by kr1963 View Post

    It still exists in a free market. Given a choice people meant tend to go to e public bank & thusly knocking out private banks. Isn't this what we want? Less to zero corporate influence out of our lives & government? Isnt this whats destroying the constitutionally based republic?
    We want government out of banking and out of the money supply. Government is a tool of violence and corruption. It has no business being involved in banking.
    The proper concern of society is the preservation of individual freedom; the proper concern of the individual is the harmony of society.

    "Who would be free, themselves must strike the blow." - Byron

    "Who overcomes by force, hath overcome but half his foe." - Milton

  22. #21

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kr1963 View Post
    If it is working who cares?

    As I said to you in another thread it depends upon who is running the bank.

    Rothschild said give the ability to print money & I can not who writes its laws (or something to this effect). Someone will always have some sort of authority to print currency unless we somehow eliminate it. It is has more to do with the policy of the government & the bank so that the central goal is prosperity for the society & not just the people in charge of the bank.

    A Public bank gives a person an option to take monetary control away from greedy private bankers.

    Now if I was running a private bank, I know that I would be running it in the same way. And if a private banker got control of a public bank well then I wouldn't bank there. So it comes down to policy AND EXECUTION & nothing else.
    It comes down to freedom to choose and the use of force. Greed plus the use of force (government) = slavery. Greed without the use of force = good service.
    The proper concern of society is the preservation of individual freedom; the proper concern of the individual is the harmony of society.

    "Who would be free, themselves must strike the blow." - Byron

    "Who overcomes by force, hath overcome but half his foe." - Milton

  23. #22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kr1963 View Post
    If it is working who cares?

    As I said to you in another thread it depends upon who is running the bank.

    Rothschild said give the ability to print money & I can not who writes its laws (or something to this effect). Someone will always have some sort of authority to print currency unless we somehow eliminate it. It is has more to do with the policy of the government & the bank so that the central goal is prosperity for the society & not just the people in charge of the bank.

    A Public bank gives a person an option to take monetary control away from greedy private bankers.

    Now if I was running a private bank, I know that I would be running it in the same way. And if a private banker got control of a public bank well then I wouldn't bank there. So it comes down to policy AND EXECUTION & nothing else.
    Why just bankers? They're the only ones who are greedy? Replace bankers with anything else to see how absurd that statement is....

    "A Public grocery stores gives a person an option to take grocery control away from greedy grocerists."

    "A Public car manufacturer gives a person an option to take transportation control away from greedy automakers."

    "A Public cell phone maker gives a person an option to take mobile device control away from greedy cell phone makers."

    etc

    There's no reason a government should be involved in banking, all of our current problems are brought about by the government interfering with the market.

    Everything government touches is screwed up in this country: healthcare, education, housing financial system.

    Is there any refrigerator crisis? cell phone crisis? candy bar crisis? pencil crisis? computer crisis? Nope.


    Government is the source of our problems, not our savior.
    More government control will just make it even worse in the long run.
    Last edited by matt0611; 10-24-2011 at 06:49 PM.

  24. #23

    Default

    Here is why I fear a "state bank", maybe this is just paranoia? Here is my scenario: California borrows 10 billion from the capital markets. California then deposits this money with the "State Bank of California". The bank then buys newly issued California bonds. The state of California then takes the newly borrowed money and deposits it back into the state of California. The ending effect is to create out of thin air 10x the initial amount borrowed. I am sure there are tons of laws on the books currently against this, but why else would completely bankrupt states be looking to start a bank?

  25. #24

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Acala View Post
    Hahahaha! Democracy is a sham and a failure.
    I am not so cynical & that is your opinion. It is actually kind of a degraded comment as well.

    Eliminate the dark forces behind the created failures & the cream will rise tot he top. You need people who actually share the common goal & purpose & who also have the experience & know-how on how to run any organization for the benefit of all.

    Quote Originally Posted by Acala View Post
    And compare them to what? Fiat, fractional reserve, central banking systems elsewhere? To be accurate, they need to be compared to FREEDOM.
    Compare? Just look at the fact that system is working & that there is prosperity. There is freedom right there.

    Quote Originally Posted by Acala View Post
    We want government out of banking and out of the money supply. Government is a tool of violence and corruption. It has no business being involved in banking.
    But WHO is the government? it is you & me if we so chose to be a part of it.

    So no matter what SOMEONE will be running some part of a legislative body or a corporation. The group dynamic is a part of the equation of survival. Someone will always be running a bank somewhere so what difference does it matter whether it a private bank or government or a collective. What matters is whether or not the people running it have the interests of the entire society in their goals, business plans & policy.

    Government is just a word for a group that organizes & gets agreements & makes sure those agreements are kept. If you don't want "government" at all then what happens when someone does something to you that you don't like? You can go try to live by yourself somewhere but that is a very limited solution.

    Your idea that Government is for violence & corruption is a sweeping generality. There are cases where that is true & cases where that is not true. I see your response as pretty knee-jerk without a lot of observation & thinking happening.

  26. #25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by matt0611 View Post
    Why just bankers? They're the only ones who are greedy? Replace bankers with anything else to see how absurd that statement is....

    "A Public grocery stores gives a person an option to take grocery control away from greedy grocerists."

    "A Public car manufacturer gives a person an option to take transportation control away from greedy automakers."

    "A Public cell phone maker gives a person an option to take mobile device control away from greedy cell phone makers."

    etc

    There's no reason a government should be involved in banking, all of our current problems are brought about by the government interfering with the market.

    Everything government touches is screwed up in this country: healthcare, education, housing financial system.

    Is there any refrigerator crisis? cell phone crisis? candy bar crisis? pencil crisis? computer crisis? Nope.


    Government is the source of our problems, not our savior.
    More government control will just make it even worse in the long run.
    Failure often occurs b/c people just don't look. Germany & North Dakota have prosperity in a time where that is scare. You are not looking at the result. Your answer is nearly a complete knee-jerk.

    There is absolutely nothing absurd about that statement. As I said it depends upon who is running the group so ultimately the title does NOT matter. What matters is the result. You are so caught up in the words you can't see the forest for the trees.

    Everything the government touches? I would say NOT everything (but close). And I would qualify that with the FEDERAL government. And you have to look at the hidden hand here in order to understand why NOTHING apparently works. That's that problem. But don't do an A=A=A=A on ALL the government. If you can't differentiate & analyze the problem correctly then you become a part of the problem.

    There are other governments & organizational bodies that are solving problems & helping people.

    And as long as we are trying to survive there will be a organizational body SOMEWHERE. People will be still put in charge of running things on some level somewhere no matter what you think that will be the case unless you are so individuated that you think anarchy is the solution.

    I am posting about SOLUTIONS that are working. Apparently you are not even reading the post & being completely reactionary. So why bother posting if you won't even read & discuss the facts.

  27. #26

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Acala View Post
    It comes down to freedom to choose and the use of force. Greed plus the use of force (government) = slavery. Greed without the use of force = good service.
    If you have a solution that works, people will be interested in that solution.

    I don't know what YOUR definition of the word GREED is but the one I know is ALL FOR ME & NONE FOR YOU.

    Greed & force to me is FASCISM. That's the mafia. That's the IRS.

    Greed without force is just a person who hasn't figured out how to use force yet.

    The analysis of the problem comes down to the fact that currently we have an individual or a small group of individuals who think that their survival is the only thing that matters & that it is completely ok to impede the survival of others.

    If you have a group that is honestly offering a service where that "service offering group" (usually a business) survives well & its service aids & benefits the survival of their customers, then people won't care what the company is called per se & will flock to it.

    If you have a system where the majority of the businesses are run a particular way & then you offer a new way of doing business, the free market will dictate whether the new model is what is needed & wanted.

    Public banks are succeeding b/c they are #1 not mandatory and/or a monopoly (as in socialism), #2 their ability to help statistically is better than the private banks in the that market place & #3 have administrators that are being rewarded for helping people not trying to sell them "financial opportunities" that they themselves would never buy.
    Last edited by kr1963; 10-25-2011 at 04:02 AM.

  28. #27

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jclay2 View Post
    Here is why I fear a "state bank", maybe this is just paranoia? Here is my scenario: California borrows 10 billion from the capital markets. California then deposits this money with the "State Bank of California". The bank then buys newly issued California bonds. The state of California then takes the newly borrowed money and deposits it back into the state of California. The ending effect is to create out of thin air 10x the initial amount borrowed. I am sure there are tons of laws on the books currently against this, but why else would completely bankrupt states be looking to start a bank?
    That is a LEGIT fear but LOOK at the Bank of North Dakota . They are not doing things to rip people off & they have a State Budget surplus & low unemployment. And that was the case before the oil so while oil contributes it is not the cause. Look at other oil rich states & their POLICIES have them in the red.

    Another example of a money that worked was Colonial Script . This was debt free money NOT backed by gold or silver. It was solely backed by CONFIDENCE. The colonies experienced a great prosperity then. In Response the world's most powerful independent bank (the Bank of England) used its influence on the British parliament to press for the passing of the Currency Act of 1764. This act made it illegal for the colonies to print their own money, and forced them to pay all future taxes to Britain in silver or gold.

    Here is what Benjamin Franklin said after that.
    "In one year, the conditions were so reversed that the era of prosperity ended, and a depression set in, to such an extent that the streets of the Colonies were filled with unemployed. The colonies would gladly have borne the little tax on tea and other matters had it not been that England took away from the colonies their money, which created unemployment and dissatisfaction. The inability of the colonists to get power to issue their own money permanently out of the hands of George III and the international bankers was the PRIME reason for the Revolutionary War."
    So it all comes down to WHO is the guiding force behind any organization & what are it's policies & what are the results? The American people have so long in the dark about the actual functionality of Fractional banking that this awakening is again a NEW American Revolution. We are discovering the "the British" finally did indeed win the war & took back the colonies. But really the enemy all along has been the International Bankers & their Fractional Banking model.

    Throw them out & replace them either with new administrators, a new financial model or both. In any event if the "revolution" does not provide a subsequent success with a new model or personnel another revolution ill happen until we do find a common prosperity.

    So the real solution is

    1) Get the monetary system out of the hands of people who are basically criminals;
    2) Develop a monetary policy that will guarantee prosperity;
    3) Get the personnel to administer it.

    I have posted threads about North Dakota & Germany Public banks in which those 3 criteria are apparently occurring & creating the desired result & product. San Francisco is forming one. If they follow the ND & German models they will succeed. If they don't I think their chances decrease.

  29. #28

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kr1963 View Post
    Failure often occurs b/c people just don't look. Germany & North Dakota have prosperity in a time where that is scare. You are not looking at the result. Your answer is nearly a complete knee-jerk.

    There is absolutely nothing absurd about that statement. As I said it depends upon who is running the group so ultimately the title does NOT matter. What matters is the result. You are so caught up in the words you can't see the forest for the trees.

    Everything the government touches? I would say NOT everything (but close). And I would qualify that with the FEDERAL government. And you have to look at the hidden hand here in order to understand why NOTHING apparently works. That's that problem. But don't do an A=A=A=A on ALL the government. If you can't differentiate & analyze the problem correctly then you become a part of the problem.

    There are other governments & organizational bodies that are solving problems & helping people.

    And as long as we are trying to survive there will be a organizational body SOMEWHERE. People will be still put in charge of running things on some level somewhere no matter what you think that will be the case unless you are so individuated that you think anarchy is the solution.

    I am posting about SOLUTIONS that are working. Apparently you are not even reading the post & being completely reactionary. So why bother posting if you won't even read & discuss the facts.

    There's nothing "knee-jerk" about it. Its an absurd statement.

    "Ohhh bankers are sooo greedy, we need government to come in and offer solutions"

    I'm sorry, but that mentality statement is absurd as I've already showed by using analogous statements for other sectors of the economy.

    You're just trying to cover up a government problem (interference in the financial sector) with more government.
    I'm telling you that's the opposite way to go. I really don't care if some governments are doing it ok, it doesn't matter, government needs to get out of this area.

  30. #29

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Acala View Post
    We want government out of banking and out of the money supply. Government is a tool of violence and corruption. It has no business being involved in banking.
    Yes, well good luck with that. In the meantime, I'd say this is better than using the federal reserve banks.
    Quote Originally Posted by Edward Snowden;
    So its, I would say; illustrative that the president would choose to say, "someone should face the music" when he knows the music is a show trial.

  31. #30

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kr1963 View Post
    Failure often occurs b/c people just don't look. Germany & North Dakota have prosperity in a time where that is scare. You are not looking at the result. Your answer is nearly a complete knee-jerk.

    There is absolutely nothing absurd about that statement. As I said it depends upon who is running the group so ultimately the title does NOT matter. What matters is the result. You are so caught up in the words you can't see the forest for the trees.

    Everything the government touches? I would say NOT everything (but close). And I would qualify that with the FEDERAL government. And you have to look at the hidden hand here in order to understand why NOTHING apparently works. That's that problem. But don't do an A=A=A=A on ALL the government. If you can't differentiate & analyze the problem correctly then you become a part of the problem.

    There are other governments & organizational bodies that are solving problems & helping people.

    And as long as we are trying to survive there will be a organizational body SOMEWHERE. People will be still put in charge of running things on some level somewhere no matter what you think that will be the case unless you are so individuated that you think anarchy is the solution.

    I am posting about SOLUTIONS that are working. Apparently you are not even reading the post & being completely reactionary. So why bother posting if you won't even read & discuss the facts.
    You seem to believe that a small group of intellectuals are necessary in order to control society. I disagree. I prefer freedom from their chains. Government bodies are not good problem solvers. Certainly, their control over money has been an unmitigated disaster. The best thing all of us can do for each other is free ourselves from the chains of the tyrannical control over our money.

    Ron Paul has introduced legislation to accomplish that exact task. When passed into law, any of us can use whatever bank we want to use, and whatever money we want to use in transactions. Then those of us who want to live free, can live free, and those who want to be controlled, can choose to be controlled by Ivy League intellectuals if they want ... whatever floats their boat.

    Statement Introducing the Free Competition in Currency Act
    In conclusion, Madame Speaker, allowing for competing currencies will allow market participants to choose a currency that suits their needs, rather than the needs of the government. The prospect of American citizens turning away from the dollar towards alternate currencies will provide the necessary impetus to the US government to regain control of the dollar and halt its downward spiral. Restoring soundness to the dollar will remove the government's ability and incentive to inflate the currency, and keep us from launching unconstitutional wars that burden our economy to excess. With a sound currency, everyone is better off, not just those who control the monetary system. I urge my colleagues to consider the redevelopment of a system of competing currencies and cosponsor the Free Competition in Currency Act.
    "Everyone who believes in freedom must work diligently for sound money, fully redeemable. Nothing else is compatible with the humanitarian goals of peace and prosperity." -- Ron Paul

    Brother Jonathan

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast





« Previous Thread | Next Thread »


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •