- ‹ previous
- 1517 of 8902
- next ›
How the Nation’s Only State-Owned Bank Became the Envy of Wall Street
The Bank of North Dakota is the only state-owned bank in America—what Republicans might call an idiosyncratic bastion of socialism. It also earned a record profit last year even as its private-sector corollaries lost billions. To be sure, it owes some of its unusual success to North Dakota’s well-insulated economy, which is heavy on agricultural staples and light on housing speculation. But that hasn’t stopped out-of-state politicos from beating a path to chilly Bismarck in search of advice. Could opening state-owned banks across America get us out of the financial crisis? It certainly might help, says Ellen Brown, author of the book, Web of Debt, who writes that the Bank of North Dakota, with its $4 billion under management, has avoided the credit freeze by “creating its own credit, leading the nation in establishing state economic sovereignty.” Mother Jones spoke with the Bank of North Dakota’s president, Eric Hardmeyer.
Mother Jones: How was the bank formed?
Eric Hardmeyer: It was created 90 years ago, in 1919, as a populist movement swept the northern plains. Basically it was a very angry movement by a large group of the agrarian sector that was upset by decisions that were being made in the eastern markets, the money markets maybe in Minneapolis, New York, deciding who got credit and how to market their goods. So it swept the northern plains. In North Dakota the movement was called the Nonpartisan League, and they actually took control of the legislature and created what was called an industrial program, which created both the Bank of North Dakota as a financing arm and a state-owned mill and elevator to market and buy the grain from the farmer. And we’re both in existence today doing exactly what we were created for 90 years ago. Only we’ve morphed a little bit and found other niches and ways to promote the state of North Dakota.
MJ: What makes your bank unique today?
EH: Our funding model, our deposit model is really what is unique as the engine that drives that bank. And that is we are the depository for all state tax collections and fees. And so we have a captive deposit base, we pay a competitive rate to the state treasurer. And I would bet that that would be one of the most difficult things to wrestle away from the private sector—those opportunities to bid on public funds. But that’s only one portion of it. We take those funds and then, really what separates us is that we plow those deposits back into the state of North Dakota in the form of loans. We invest back into the state in economic development type of activities. We grow our state through that mechanism.
MJ: Clearly other banks also invest their deposits. Is the difference that you are investing a larger portion of that money into the state’s own economy?
EH: Yeah, absolutely. But we have specifically designed programs to spur certain elements of the economy. Whether it’s agriculture or economic development programs that are deemed necessary in the state or energy, which now seems to be a huge play in the state. And education—we do a lot of student loan financing. So that’s our model. We have a specific mission that was given to us when we were created 90 years ago and it guides us throughout our history.
MJ: Are there areas that you invest in that other banks avoid?
EH: We made the first federally-insured student loan in the country back in 1967. So that’s been a big part of what we do. It’s become almost a mission-critical thing. I don’t know if you have been following the student loan industry lately, but it’s been very, very interesting as many have decided to leave. We will not though.
MJ: So you are able to invest in certain areas because they provide a public good.
EH: Yeah, or a direction, whether it’s energy or primary sector type of businesses. We have specific loan programs that are designed at very low interest rates to encourage activity along certain lines. Here’s another thing: We’re gearing up for a significant flood in one of the communities here in North Dakota called Fargo. We’ve experienced one of those in another community about 12 years ago which prior to Katrina was the largest single evacuation of any community in the United States. And so the Bank of North Dakota, once the flood had receded and there were business needs, we developed a disaster loan program to assist businesses. So we can move quite quickly to aid with different types of scenarios. Whether it’s encouraging different economies to grow or dealing with a disaster.
MJ: What do private banks think of you?
EH: The interesting thing about the bank is we understand that we walk a fine line between competing and partnering with the private sector. We were designed and set up to partner with them and not compete with them. So most of the lending that we do is participatory in nature. It’s originated by a local bank and we come in and participate in the loan and use some of our programs to share risk, buy down the interest rate. We even provide guarantees similar to SBA to encourage certain activity for entrepreneurial startups. Aside from that, we also act as a bankers’ bank or a wholesale bank. So we provide services to banks, whether it’s check clearing, liquidity, or bond accounting safekeeping. There’s probably 20 other bankers' banks across the country. So we act in that capacity as kind of a little mini-fed actually. And so we service 104 banks and provide liquidity to them and clear their checks and also we buy loans from them when they have a need to overline, whether it’s beyond their legal lending limit or they just want to share risk, we’ll do that. We’re a secondary market for residential loans, so we have a portfolio of $500 to $600 million of residential loans that we buy.
MJ: So what’s the advantage of a publicly owned “bankers’ bank” instead of a privately owned one?
EH: Our model is we use our deposit base to help [other banks] with funding their loans, even providing fed funds lines with our excess liquidity—we buy and sell fed funds and act as a clearinghouse for check clearing activity. That would be the benefit or different model. We’re a depository bank and can bring that to bear.
MJ: If other states had a bank like yours, do you think they would have been more insulated from the credit crisis?
EH: It all gets down the management and management philosophy. We’re a fairly conservative lot up here in the upper Midwest and we didn’t do any subprime lending and we have the ability to get into the derivatives markets and put on swaps and callers and caps and credit default swaps and just chose not to do it, really chose a Warren Buffett mentality—if we don’t understand it, we’re not going to jump into it. And so we’ve avoided all those pitfalls. That’s not to say that we’re completely immune to everything, certainly we’ve bought some mortgage-backed securities and we’re working through some of those issues, but nothing that would cause us to be concerned.
MJ: Would states with your model have any new tools to get out of the credit crisis?
EH: Let me put it to you another way and tell you another thing that we do. We also provide a dividend back to the state. Probably this year we’ll make somewhere north of $60 million, and we will turn over about half of our profits back to the state general fund. And so over the last 10, 12 years, we’ve turned back a third of a billion dollars just to the general fund to offset taxes or to aid in funding public sector types of needs.
MJ: Not bad for a state with a population of 600,000.
EH: Right. And here’s another thing: Back in 2001, 2002, when we went through the dot com bust, all the states suffered some sort of budget shortfall, including the state of North Dakota. At that time our budget shortfall was fairly insignificant--$40 some million. And so it was quite easy to overcome that. The governor just simply said alright, we’re going to turn back 1 percent of all general fund agencies, and the Bank of North Dakota, you will declare another dividend to make up the balance. And so we did that. Our capital was in a fine position to go ahead and do that. So in some cases we’ve acted as a rainy day fund.
MJ: And now the current downturn seems to have bypassed you.
EH: The State of North Dakota does not have any funding issues at all. We in fact are dealing with the largest surplus we’ve ever had. So our concern is how do we spend it wisely and make sure we save it for the future.
MJ: It’s not a bad problem to have.
EH: Yeah. We’re a little bit of an island here, and so we look around and we say boy that is unbelievable to see what is going on in the rest of the country and here we are completely countercyclical.
MJ: Are other states interested in your model?
EH: In my stint here as president, which as been about 9 years now, I’ve had a lot of inquiries from other states about how this works, could it work for them. And my predecessor, who is now the governor of the state of North Dakota, has in fact testified at a couple of other state legislatures in terms of setting up the same model. Up until a year or two ago I would have bet that it would never happen.
MJ: It’s funny, because North Dakota is traditionally a red state and yet you have these institutions—some people might say they’re socialist.
EH: Yeah, I’ve had that thrown at me many times.
MJ: But is seems like they are very popular in the state.
EH: Yeah, and of course the socialism theme has become in vogue lately, been thrown about a bit.
MJ: Aside from political opposition from bank interests, do you think it could be viable for other states to implement your model?
EH: So much of what is going on right now is a knee-jerk reaction to some things that have happened, where regulations and accounting practices weren’t where they should be. So my advice is everybody take a deep breath and we’re going to get through this and we are going to exit this as a stronger industry than when we went into it, with controls in places that are absolutely necessary, with banks understanding the risks they are taking. For all states to look at North Dakota’s model and say this would be the panacea to all those things, I don’t see that happening.
MJ: It’s clearly not the only solution, but I’m curious whether it could be part of it.
EH: Possibly. It just depends on what they want to do with it. We’re using this to spur economic growth for our state, to provide niches where others aren’t comfortable, whether it’s in-state financing of residential loans or making student loans. Every state has their own particular needs. We’ve carved out a pretty good niche here and I think are well-respected by our peers in the banking industry. They look at us as partners and not competitors. That would be the key if you were to do this in any other state is to replicate that part of our model. That’s where you really open yourself up for criticism, is state-owned businesses competing with the private sector.
MJ: Could a bank like yours be set up without sucking deposits out of private banks in the short term?
EH: I imagine you could do some sort of bond issue where you would use that as your funding source.
MJ: After seeing the credit crisis unfold, has it changed your opinion of what you do?
EH: It just reinforced what we do, and that is you stick to what you understand, you do it well, you know your customers. We’ve never been a bank that tries to hit home runs. That’s not what we’re all about. We have a specific mission which is more important. Most corporations and banks, their top priority is to maximize shareholder return. And that is a nice byproduct for us because we do have a nice return—an NROA [return on net operating assets] of 2, a ROE [return on equity] of 25, 26 percent. But really where we take the most satisfaction is making sure we meet the needs of the state and finance those types of things that make our state go forward.






























color coding would making
tagged as:- solution
color coding would making the back and forth questions easier to follow.
I bet it's no coincidence...
...that Byron Dorgan, the North Dakota Democrat, is one of the Senate's most voluble critics of speculative investment practices in national banking, being one of only 8 U.S. Senators to vote against Phil Gramm's rape of the financial regulatory structure in 1999. Nice to see that agrarian populism is still surviving on the Great Plains.
This is not the nations only state owned bank
The Merchants Bank in Vermont is also state owned (and doing very well).
http://www.vermontbiz.com/vermont-banks-still-earning-it
Vermont "state-owned" bank
tagged as:- solution
Although it may be state owned, there is no evidence in this article that it is owned by the state of Vermont. There also no evidence that it is operating in the public interest, i.e. interest free loans to Vermont students and for the deployment of public infrastructure. This is not the same sort of operation as the State Bank of North Dakota -- at least from the information in this article.
Au contraire, it is the nation's only state-owned bank
Merchants Bank in Vermont is not state-owned. It is incorporated in Delaware and traded under ticker symbol MBVT on the NASAQ stock exchange. See here:
http://www.snl.com/irweblinkx/corporateprofile.aspx?iid=100353
Josh - brilliant post, but
Josh - brilliant post, but no one mentions oil? North Dakota is flush with money from oil companies setting up drilling. That can't be overlooked as a major reason this bank does well!
great post
tagged as:- solution
- result
well the regression taught alot to this field
Tyrell, the state itself
Tyrell, the state itself doesn't make a lot of money from oil explorations & drilling.
Bank of North Dakota
How ironic to have the republicans in charge of ND's bank. They fought hard to prevent the creation of the bank from the outset; now, in spite of years of opposition they have begrudgingly accepted it's existence. When the R's have a chance to brag about it, they are more than willing.
Re oil revenue, when crude prices reached their peak, the state deposited about $30 monthly into the BND. But oil revenue has always been if come.
It's Obvious!
The banks in North Dakota and Vermont are local banks that did not spread themselves out too thin by trying to go national or global, nor do they care to indulge in unnecessary risk-taking. They are simply more concerned with being state banks serving local needs, rather than large financial conglomerates. No rocket science or voodoo economics, just good old-fashioned common sense. We could use more of that!
Fantastic!
Well we can only hope that this gets out and other states (and counties? or big cities? or circumscribed rural areas? try it.
State-owned bank the envy. Really?
tagged as:- result
As amusing that his column is, it shows that one -- only one -- state-owned bank is fairing well. But I'll digress.
While society is feeding at the trough of ever-increasing regulation, at taxpayers expenses, I ask this: why is it that so many regulated financial institutions -- BofA, Citi, AIG, State Street, J.P. Morgan, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, Wachovia, Golden State, Countrywide, IndyMac, WaMu, on and on -- have had so much trouble, but fewer hedge funds, in terms of impact, have experienced such ruin? I wonder, for a moment, if it's the regulations -- the game rules -- that are flawed and everyone plays by them, sometimes with a missed call by the ref, or it's truly ALL, 100%, Wall Street, as our papers lead us to believe.
Example, AIG is wholly regulated. And when you hear that AIG's Fiancial Products Group, the black hole of this whole crisis, was unregulated, it is factually untrue. It was regulated by the OTS, both the Greenwich, CT and London, UK offices. Yet our policy-makers and the press will lead us to believe that it was unregulated.
Meanwhile, SAC Capital, the biggest hedge fund not regulated, seems to be fairing well.
I wonder.
Keep pressing,
Chris Monoki
Hedge funds have not failed?
What makes you say that hedge funds have not failed? Guess what: They are so non-transparent, secretive, and non-regulated, that there is almost no way of knowing when they fail.
Hedge funds have not failed?
What makes you say that hedge funds have not failed? Guess what: They are so non-transparent, secretive, and non-regulated, that there is almost no way of knowing when they fail. And they do fail quite frequently! Hedge funds make tons of money for their managers, but don't have a very good rate of return for their regular investors, contrary to their reputation (which gets a halo because fund managers get so fabulously rich).
They HAVE failed
Chris, when you say hedge funds haven't failed, I think you're forgetting Long-Term Capital Management , which required a big bailout lest it take down the financial system. Oh yeah, and Bernie Madoff was running a hedge fund. He was a con man, but like someone else pointed out, these things are so opaque no one can know.
Regarding the banks, just like in the 1920's and the S&L crisis, these crises always follow deregulation. It was the removal of regulations, not the regulations, that caused the problem.
http://www.ravensblog.net
Re: State-owned bank the envy. Really?
Puerto Rico's Government Development Bank is 'state' owned, and doing well. It acts even more like a Federal Reserve branch than does the BoND, but will also make commercial loans.
As for the regulators, they're turning a blind eye to fraud, either because they are part of the scam, as in the case of Madoff, or the firms are so well connected that they're untouchable, like AIG or the rating agencies which rated BBB or lower paper as A or better.
there have been others
Some historical perspective here; earlier in our nation's history, there were other state owned banks. By the mid 1970s, there were just two. The other one was the Farmers Bank of the State of Delaware, and it would not be called the envy of anyone. Seeing the distress sale of that bank, I wondered at the time what would happen to the one remaining. Maybe it learned some lessons from the failures of every one of the others.
Livable salaries.
What's the average salary for top executives at this bank, compared with those having problems?
Great to hear a bank believes in helping small businesses with low interest rates. Maybe private banks will get the message and realize we're the back bone of our country's innovation and growth... Most small business owners are living relatively meager lives while reinvesting in what they believe in (rather than collecting bonuses to purchase more lavish homes and fine art). Compare us also to public servants ordering new vehicles and other supplies to guarantee the budgets remain intact year to year, with little imagination of how the funds could be spread to other needed services...
What alternatives to large careless banks do we have in California now? What to do if we wish to protest B. of A.'s recent policy statement not to hand out million dollar bonuses, yet increase upper level salaries from 400 to 700 grand? How much extra incentive does one need to live a decent life in the midst of a crumbling economy where monthly increases in jobless is the norm?
Though the war games are reported not to take a sizable portion of our tax dollars...even 5% is a drain when we're slowing at a faster pace than this, needing to invest in more productive directions. Is control of foreign oil resources necessarily in our best interest when it's got to soon take a back seat to more sustainable resources? Why not depend more on oil from N. Dakota rather than the Middle East?...while developing large scale wind power from the mid west. ND reinvests profits at home rather than Dubai or other directions influenced by large CitiBank shareholders who don't live here.
Might work for North Dakota,
Might work for North Dakota, but let us not forget the troubles facing numerous state owned banks abroad such as the German Landesbanks.
Windscreen
I recently came across your blog and have been reading along. I thought I would leave my first comment. I don't know what to say except that I have enjoyed reading. Nice blog. I will keep visiting this blog very often.
Joannah
http://windscreensite.com
Here in Spain we have some
Here in Spain we have some regional-owned banks that have failed. In fact they are in much worst situation than private banks.
Anyone who is interested, ie
tagged as:- solution
Anyone who is interested, ie anyone with an American Social Security number can deposit in this bank. If one wants to show support, change your accounts, even a simple savings or checking account, to the Bank of N.Dakota. Private banks will take note, and fearing loss, will change.
It seems a simple win-win solution.
feel vindicated
i have come up with you website when i was looking for information on the state owned banks in developed countries .here in ethiopia there are 4 state owned banks which together make up more than 90 % of the banking industry over all business. i was so fascinated to learn that there is only one state owned bank in america. and i feel vindicated that this bank has done well in this era. in fact my point is that whenever consulatants fromthe world bank visit our bank ,the commercila bnk of ethiopia,i always become frustrtade that they don't squraelyunderstand the operation of a stae bank and it objectves etc.thus they often advise us to open up and introduce sophistcated loan and bankin system .from now on, the north of dakota state bank will really be an example out of which i will make to defend the state bank ownership.
World Bank
The World Bank and the IMF are creations of the US government and the Wall Street crooks so you shouldn't be surprised that they only wish the destruction of your state-owned banks. Just kick these scumbags out of your country and you will prosper. Follow their orders and your state-owned banks are doomed.
McCain's comment seems
tagged as:- solution
- result
McCain's comment seems ambiguous, with other war crimes being lumped together with waterboarding. I've read about an instance in which a Japanese soldier was sentenced to 15 years of hard labor for waterboarding, but I've yet to see a case of a Japanese soldier being executed for it.
Is the title of this article accurate?
tiffany jewelry
tiffany and co
"Private" Banks
With a state owned bank where is the incentive to protect against loss? That is, how do they gage the risk to whom they gives loans? If they take losses don't the tax payers eat them via direct taxation or inflation of the money supply?
I also tale issue with the term "private banks", because the banks we have now are not really able to compete freely due to the Fed's control of the money supply. This article proposes a socialist solution that might be better than our fascist system due to the oversight, but I still think a true free market of banks would be the best scenario, given the incentive to protect against loss and not socialize them when mistakes are made.
I agree there is more oversight here than in the Fed system, but there's still the matter of efficiency and progress.
The risks may be lower due to the lack of incentive for profit, but I tend to think we need some banks in a free market system that would go out on a limb to take higher risk. That's a necessary element to true innovation.
State owned bank
We have a state (province) owned bank in Alberta (pop 3.5 mil) Alberta Treasury Branch.
money
tagged as:- solution
Is it already arcane and dangerous information that for 13 years no school has described how money is created? Is it true that TV has never mentioned the subject? Is it true that Pres. Wilson publicly regretted having signed the Federa Reserve Act in 1913, and felt that he had put control of the country into the hands of a "few men"? It looks like it's high time to take stock and see how important for the creation of money to once again be a prerogative of the National Government. And charging interest would be once again a Capital Sin called USURY. The great ND example mentions only the issuance of "dividends", right? How much more appropriate at the national level, where fiat currency is authorized. Is it true that only five percent of our total credit is made by printing currency, and the rest is done by private corporations (banks, including international entities) for unregulated interest, and obviously inadequately regulated risk (source of "toxic assets", one of Buffetts concerns)?
Doesn't anyone but me see how the concentration of media control over the past decades has led us into totalitarian dimensions? Is it true that the Europeans have found us "faschistic" for decades? Al Gore and Bill Moyers courageously spoke out for a secure national forum, in which we can discuss, among other issues, the decentralisation of our communication firms. Didn't we remain silent until they were silenced? Has too much TV watching passivated us INSTEAD of making us,for instance, peaceful?
Let's practice control on our own personal bad habits and earn the personal title of Job Creator instead of worshipping the first best person with cash who can tell us what to do. It seems that just about any job worth doing is not paying anything, and that starts with parenting, then with democratic participation, and with constructive criticism of the economic status quo. There's a long history of good examples, including DeLorean here and Gandhi, and we need more of their spirit and need to encourage steps in the right direction. The Kingdom is among us!
The truth about the FED
November 1, 1999
What is the Federal Reserve Bank (FED) and why do we have it?
The FED is a central bank. Central banks are supposed to implement a country's fiscal policies. They monitor commercial banks to ensure that they maintain sufficient assets, like cash, so as to remain solvent and stable. Central banks also do business, such as currency exchanges and gold transactions, with other central banks.
In theory, a central bank should be good for a country, and they might be if it wasn't for the fact that they are not owned or controlled by the government of the country they are serving. Private central banks, including our FED, operate not in the interest of the public good but for profit.
There have been three central banks in our nation's history. The first two, while deceptive and fraudulent, pale in comparison to the scope and size of the fraud being perpetrated by our current FED. What they all have in common is an insidious practice known as "fractional banking."
Fractional banking or fractional lending is the ability to create money from nothing, lend it to the government or someone else and charge interest to boot. The practice evolved before banks existed. Goldsmiths rented out space in their vaults to individuals and merchants for storage of their gold or silver. The goldsmiths gave these "depositors" a certificate that showed the amount of gold stored. These certificates were then used to conduct business.
In time the goldsmiths noticed that the gold in their vaults was rarely withdrawn. Small amounts would move in and out but the large majority never moved. Sensing a profit opportunity, the goldsmiths issued double receipts for the gold, in effect creating money (certificates) from nothing and then lending those certificates (creating debt) to depositors and charging them interest as well.
Since the certificates represented more gold than actually existed, the certificates were "fractionally" backed by gold. Eventually some of these vault operations were transformed into banks and the practice of fractional banking continued.
Keep that fractional banking concept in mind as we examine our first central bank, the First Bank of the United States (BUS). It was created, after bitter dissent in the Congress, in 1791 and chartered for 20 years. A scam not unlike the current FED, the BUS used its control of the currency to defraud the public and establish a legal form of usury.
This bank practiced fractional lending at a 10:1 rate, ten dollars of loans for each dollar they had on deposit. This misuse and abuse of their public charter continued for the entire 20 years of their existence. Public outrage over these abuses was such that the charter was not renewed and the bank ceased to exist in 1811.
The war of 1812 left the country in economic chaos, seen by bankers as another opportunity for easy profits. They influenced Congress to charter the second central bank, the Second Bank of the United States (SBUS), in 1816.
The SBUS was more expansive than the BUS. The SBUS sold franchises and literally doubled the number of banks in a short period of time. The country began to boom and move westward, which required money. Using fractional lending at the 10:1 rate, the central bank and their franchisees created the debt/money for the expansion.
Things boomed for a while, then the banks decided to shut off the debt/money, citing the need to control inflation. This action on the part of the SBUS caused bankruptcies and foreclosures. The banks then took control of the assets that were used as security against the loans.
Closely examine how the SBUS engineered this cycle of prosperity and depression. The central bank caused inflation by creating debt/money for loans and credit and making these funds readily available. The economy boomed. Then they used the inflation which they created as an excuse to shut off the loans/credit/money.
The resulting shortage of cash caused the economy to falter or slow dramatically and large numbers of business and personal bankruptcies resulted. The central bank then seized the assets used as security for the loans. The wealth created by the borrowers during the boom was then transferred to the central bank during the bust. And you always wondered how the big guys ended up with all the marbles.
Now, who do you think is responsible for all of the ups and downs in our economy over the last 85 years? Think about the depression of the late '20s and all through the '30s. The FED could have pumped lots of debt/money into the market to stimulate the economy and get the country back on track, but did they? No; in fact, they restricted the money supply quite severely. We all know the results that occurred from that action, don't we?
Why would the FED do this? During that period asset values and stocks were at rock bottom prices. Who do you think was buying everything at 10 cents on the dollar? I believe that it is referred to as consolidating the wealth. How many times have they already done this in the last 85 years?
Do you think they will do it again?
Just as an aside at this point, look at today's economy. Things are booming. Why? Because the FED has been very liberal with its debt/credit/money. The market is hyper inflated. Who creates inflation? The FED. How does the FED deal with inflation? They restrict the debt/credit/money. What happens when they do that? The market collapses.
Several months back, after certain central banks said they would be selling large quantities of gold, the price of gold fell to a 25-year low of about $260 per ounce. The central banks then bought gold.
After buying at the bottom, a group of 15 central banks announced that they would be restricting the amount of gold released into the market for the next five years. The price of gold went up $75.00 per ounce in just a few days. How many hundreds of billions of dollars did the central banks make with those two press releases?
Gold is generally considered to be a hedge against more severe economic conditions. Do you think that the private banking families that own the FED are buying or selling equities at this time? (Remember: buy low, sell high.) How much more money do you think these FED owners will make when they restrict the money supply at the top of this current cycle?
Alan Greenspan has said publicly on several occasions that he thinks the market is overvalued, or words to that effect. Just a hint that he will raise interest rates (restrict the money supply), and equity markets have a negative reaction. Governments and politicians do not rule central banks, central banks rule governments and politicians.
President Andrew Jackson won the presidency in 1828 with the promise to end the national debt and eliminate the SBUS. During his second term President Jackson withdrew all government funds from the bank and on January 8, 1835, paid off the national debt. He is the only president in history to have this distinction. The charter of the SBUS expired in 1836.
Without a central bank to manipulate the supply of money, the United States experienced unprecedented growth for 60 or 70 years, and the resulting wealth was too much for bankers to endure. They had to get back into the game. So, in 1910 Senator Nelson Aldrich, then Chairman of the National Monetary Commission, in collusion with representatives of the European central banks, devised a plan to pressure and deceive Congress into enacting legislation that would covertly establish a private central bank.
This bank would assume control over the American economy by controlling the issuance of its money. After a huge public relations campaign, engineered by the foreign central banks, the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 was slipped through Congress during the Christmas recess, with many members of the Congress absent. President Woodrow Wilson, pressured by his political and financial backers, signed it on December 23, 1913.
The act created the Federal Reserve System, a name carefully selected and designed to deceive. "Federal" would lead one to believe that this is a government organization. "Reserve" would lead one to believe that the currency is being backed by gold and silver. "System" was used in lieu of the word "bank" so that one would not conclude that a new central bank had been created.
In reality, the act created a private, for profit, central banking corporation owned by a cartel of private banks. Who owns the FED? The Rothschilds of London and Berlin; Lazard Brothers of Paris; Israel Moses Seif of Italy; Kuhn, Loeb and Warburg of Germany; and the Lehman Brothers, Goldman, Sachs and the Rockefeller families of New York.
Did you know that the FED is the only for-profit corporation in America that is exempt from both federal and state taxes? The FED takes in about one trillion dollars per year tax free! The banking families listed above get all that money.
Almost everyone thinks that the money they pay in taxes goes to the US Treasury to pay for the expenses of the government. Do you want to know where your tax dollars really go? If you look at the back of any check made payable to the IRS you will see that it has been endorsed as "Pay Any F.R.B. Branch or Gen. Depository for Credit U.S. Treas. This is in Payment of U.S. Oblig." Yes, that's right, every dime you pay in income taxes is given to those private banking families, commonly known as the FED, tax free.
Like many of you, I had some difficulty with the concept of creating money from nothing. You may have heard the term "monetizing the debt," which is kind of the same thing. As an example, if the US Government wants to borrow $1 million — the government does borrow every dollar it spends — they go to the FED to borrow the money. The FED calls the Treasury and says print 10,000 Federal Reserve Notes (FRN) in units of one hundred dollars.
The Treasury charges the FED 2.3 cents for each note, for a total of $230 for the 10,000 FRNs. The FED then lends the $1 million to the government at face value plus interest.
To add insult to injury, the government has to create a bond for $1 million as security for the loan. And the rich get richer. The above was just an example, because in reality the FED does not even print the money; it's just a computer entry in their accounting system.
To put this on a more personal level, let's use another example.
Today's banks are members of the Federal Reserve Banking System. This membership makes it legal for them to create money from nothing and lend it to you. Today's banks, like the goldsmiths of old, realize that only a small fraction of the money deposited in their banks is ever actually withdrawn in the form of cash. Only about 4 percent of all the money that exists is in the form of currency. The rest of it is simply a computer entry.
Let's say you're approved to borrow $10,000 to do some home improvements. You know that the bank didn't actually take $10,000 from its pile of cash and put it into your pile? They simply went to their computer and input an entry of $10,000 into your account. They created, from thin air, a debt which you have to secure with an asset and repay with interest. The bank is allowed to create and lend as much debt as they want as long as they do not exceed the 10:1 ratio imposed by the FED.
It sort of puts a new slant on how you view your friendly bank, doesn't it? How about those loan committees that scrutinize you with a microscope before approving the loan they created from thin air. What a hoot! They make it complex for a reason. They don't want you to understand what they are doing. People fear what they do not understand. You are easier to delude and control when you are ignorant and afraid.
Now to put the frosting on this cake. When was the income tax created? If you guessed 1913, the same year that the FED was created, you get a gold star. Coincidence? What are the odds? If you are going to use the FED to create debt, who is going to repay that debt? The income tax was created to complete the illusion that real money had been lent and therefore real money had to be repaid. And you thought Houdini was good.
So, what can be done? My father taught me that you should always stand up for what is right, even if you have to stand up alone. If "We the People" don't take some action now, there may come a time when "We the People" are no more. You should write a letter or send an email to each of your elected representatives. Many of our elected representatives do not understand the FED. Once informed they will not be able to plead ignorance and remain silent.
Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution specifically says that Congress is the only body that can "coin money and regulate the value thereof." The US Constitution has never been amended to allow anyone other than Congress to coin and regulate currency.
Ask your representative, in light of that information, how it is possible for the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, and the Federal Reserve Bank that it created, to be constitutional. Ask them why this private banking cartel is allowed to reap trillions of dollars in profits without paying taxes. Insist on an answer.
Thomas Jefferson said,
"If the America people ever allow private banks to control the issuance of their currencies, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all their prosperity until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered."
Jefferson saw it coming 150 years ago. The question is, "Can you now see what is in store for us if we allow the FED to continue controlling our country?"
I see this is headed towards
I see this is headed towards Monetary Reform-For Background information, read Ellen Brown's "Web of Debt", and she has a website same name, Stephen Zarlenga's book "The Lost Science of Money" American Monetary Institute's website monetary.org; online videos "money as debt" 1 and 2; "the money masters"; Zeitgeist addendum video ; Financial meltdown William K Black on Bill Moyers, The Warning on Frontline.
The Bank of North Dakota
In a history class I took decades ago, the professor noted that the socialists traveling from Minnesota into North Dakota to organize farmers into the Nonpartisan League called themselves Republicans to avoid being rejected by a possible fear of "Bolsheviks." They were so successful that the farmers developed cooperatives and other programs that have ever since helped them and North Dakota's economy maintain a state of well being.
I'm going to send a copy of this article to one of our candidates for governor -- one who is creative and much concerned with ensuring that public policy serves the common good. (Unlike our current Mr. Pawlenty.)
State owned bank keystone of
tagged as:- solution
State owned bank keystone of Khavari's platform in run for Governor of FL. 2% 15-year mortgages. 5% CD rates. Fractional reserve banking for the people of FL. Wish we had him running here in NJ instead of our ex-Goldmann chairman.
http://www.khavariforgovernor.com/index.html
Of course ND's monetary system is working well
tagged as:- solution
Of course ND's monetary system is working well- the state bank has public interest provisions in its charter- the Fed and Wall Street are akin to a cancerous parasite gorging itself on the lifeblood of society- for a century they've created and profited from boom and bust cycles. A tiny minority class of powerful and extremely corrupt people sit on interlocking directorates of the finance-insurance-national security-industrial corporate complex- they also own and control most of the MSM and the Republocrat Party, and they limit the range of 'mainstream' debate to topics and solutions that suit their 'interests'. They exist in their own private gated community/country club/board room world, and few people break into it- in most cases the wealth/ownership/opportunities and tricks of the trade are passed onto their kids or trusted servants. The global economic meltdown which these people are directly responsible for has been good for one thing- it's getting people to take a look at what's really been going on- MJ would never have published this otherwise.
Prosecute Wall Street- confiscate their wealth and imprison them for life. Nationalize the Fed.
Looking to the future
tagged as:- solution
Possibly Rockefeller outsmarted himself by creating the Fed. Before the Fed, private banks issued their own currency and were responsible for guaranteeing its value. What the Fed effectively does, is to transfer responsibility for maintaining the value of the currency to the taxpayer, while retaining the profits from managing it. By all rights, whomever guarantees the currency is its rightful owner and it is lent to everyone else. So unless we go back to a system of banks issuing their own currency, then we should consider a fully public banking system.
The problem in developing an successful monetary system is that while bankers are inclined to over-extend credit to increase profits, politicians are inclined to inflate the money supply to pay for public works. So banking would have to be a separate branch of government, similar to the judiciary.
Political power started as private initiative and eventually grew into monarchy. Monarchists railed against mob rule, but we eventually learned how to make politics a public trust by allocating power where it was most responsive. Why not do the same with the banking system? A public banking system would not be one huge behemoth, but consist of institutions incorporated at every level of governance, so individuals could bank with the ones which funded the services they are most likely to use. These local banks would then be shareholders in state banks, which would then oversee a national bank that would issue currency.
One factor that is overlooked is that capital is subject to the law of supply and demand, with the lender as supply and the borrower as demand. Since supply is potentially infinite, it is the amount of prudent borrowing which determines how much wealth can be saved. The ultimate purpose of everything from sub-prime loans to government borrowing to derivatives is to increase the demand for capital and thus the supply of notational wealth which we all like to have in abundance.
We think of money as an asset in its own right, but it's not. Money is a medium of exchange. We do possess the money we hold, in the same way we possess the section of road we are driving on. You own your car, house, business, etc, but not the roads connecting them. Money is a similar medium. It is a drawing right on community productivity for which we exchange our surplus resources. Believing money is property encourages people to hoard it and that is corrosive to monetary systems. If it is withdrawn from circulation, more most be issued until the value is perceived to decline, then the hoarded money is dumped and the system collapses. Otherwise investing it means loaning it to someone else and we are seeing how that works, when we have a religion of endless wealth and the financial gurus invent perpetual motion machines to grow it.
Consider how it would change public perception of monetary wealth, if we were to come to the realization that the monetary system really is a form of public commons? The practice of hoarding excessive amounts would lack logical justification, so savings would be taxed progressively. This is not to discourage individual effort, but a necessary recognition of the effect of excess savings on a functioning monetary system. If people understood monetary value constituted public property, than they would be far more reluctant to drain value out of their social networks and environment to put in a bank in the first place. We all like having roads, but there is little inclination to pave more than we need. In this situation, the same would apply to monetizing our lives. Other avenues of trust and reciprocation would have the space to develop, which would strengthen communities and their relationship to the environment, as well as provide the foundation for a sound and stable economy.
A related problem is the system of public financing, where enormous bills, stuffed with enough goodies to gain sufficient support, are rammed through the system. That's not budgeting. The process of budgeting is to prioritize needs and desires, then decide where to draw the line between what can be afforded and what cannot. In the US, some years ago, there was a discussion about the "line item veto," where the president could delete any item he wished from spending bills. Obviously this would remove all power of the purse from the legislature and likely be unconstitutional. In the spirit of actual budgeting, a possible solution would be to break these bills down to their constituent lines and then have every legislator assign a percentage value to each line and then re-assemble them in order of preference. The president would then draw the line at what would be funded. This would divide responsibility, allowing the legislature to prioritize, while giving the president final authority over total spending. Since making the cut would be graded on a curve, there would be much less incentive to trade favors and the percentage system would allow legislators to fine tune their granting of favors to other legislators and lobbyists. Since local spending by the national government would be reduced, a local public banking system which recycled wealth back into local infrastructure would fill the hole.
This might seem far-fetched at the moment, but given the extent to which every resource is being sacrificed to maintain the status quo, it is going to be a very clean slate when the final bubble pops.
North Dakota
North Dakota is about the whitest state in the USA. Furthermore, it is Northern European: Germans and Norwegians 75% or so. No Italians, Sicilians, Irish or Jews to speak of. Evangelical Christians, most of them. Hard working, homogeneous. Community-minded and not particularly greedy for status, money or power.
A socialist culture will work for them because they ARE hardworking, and they loathe living off welfare.
they also have some of the smartest kids around, well-behaved, low bastardy rate (as you would expect) and get just about the highest grades in the nation per dollar spent.
Why in heaven'sname, knowing all this, would you ever expect the same socialist results from Florida (say) or California? Or even New York?
Let's not be silly, shall we? You will find the mutual support, encouragement, self-sacrifice and love in the German and Norwegian "Lake Wobegon"culture. You will not find it in New York, LA, Detroit, Miami, St. Louis, Chicago or any of your other swarming, diverse, greedy American cesspits.
So go set up your State Bank. Be my guest. And ten years from now when State Bank President Madeoff has robbed you blind, because he swore you were smarter than the rest and you were one of his "special friends" don't be surprised.
ugg bailey button boots
The days is gradually cold,I want to buy some wram boots,that I know
UGG Classic boots,
UGG cardy boots,
UGG Bailey Button boots,
Classic tall boots
Button ugg boots,
UGG Classic short boots,
UGG Bailey Button,
UGG Nightfall boots are good warm boots,but I just need one,can you help me?