|
Bank
Jun 17, 2014 18:28:23 GMT -5
Post by terrus on Jun 17, 2014 18:28:23 GMT -5
Going to be putting together a bank proposal here in the next few days. Reality is that we need a national financial system. But as a Republican, I dislike the idea of a single monolithic body. I'd like to create something more akin to the Federal Reserve, something that's independent from the gov, and that's much more centered in the states. Will be posting more here later.
|
|
|
Bank
Jun 17, 2014 19:05:25 GMT -5
Post by brandt on Jun 17, 2014 19:05:25 GMT -5
Going to be putting together a bank proposal here in the next few days. Reality is that we need a national financial system. But as a Republican, I dislike the idea of a single monolithic body. I'd like to create something more akin to the Federal Reserve, something that's independent from the gov, and that's much more centered in the states. Will be posting more here later. I dislike the federal reserve, why not have a state bank system. Every state has the autonomy to have their own bank without an overarching Federal Reserve to manage them. Let every state do as they please within the bounds of reason.
|
|
|
Bank
Jun 17, 2014 19:28:23 GMT -5
Post by terrus on Jun 17, 2014 19:28:23 GMT -5
That's the system in place now. It won't spark a lot of economic growth.
|
|
|
Bank
Jun 17, 2014 20:22:39 GMT -5
Post by brandt on Jun 17, 2014 20:22:39 GMT -5
That's the system in place now. It won't spark a lot of economic growth. I don't see it as hampering growth if anything allowing states total autonomy in this regard allows them to make adjustments where they see fit and thus boister a sense of financial competition
|
|
|
Bank
Jun 17, 2014 21:10:26 GMT -5
Post by terrus on Jun 17, 2014 21:10:26 GMT -5
I didn't say it'd hamper growth, it just won't create any new growth. It won't spark any additional economic growth because it'll just be each state promoting its own goods with its own limited resources. The need for a joint financial system comes from the need to leverage all of the states' resources, together. On their own, the state banks just aren't doing enough.
|
|
|
Bank
Jun 17, 2014 21:37:49 GMT -5
Post by brandt on Jun 17, 2014 21:37:49 GMT -5
I oppose an overarching federal bank system, that is my position
|
|
|
Bank
Jun 17, 2014 22:23:56 GMT -5
Post by jonathan on Jun 17, 2014 22:23:56 GMT -5
I agree with Terrus on this one. Devolved banking power will make for a more stable system.
|
|
|
Bank
Jun 18, 2014 8:55:55 GMT -5
Post by surratt on Jun 18, 2014 8:55:55 GMT -5
I agree with Terrus on this one. Devolved banking power will make for a more stable system. I agree. Many people point to Andrew Jackson as opposing a Banking System. The truth is he opposed the other party being in control of the banking system. He never opposed a Bank himself, controlled by Democratic-Republicans(of which we are). This Bank that you mention Terrus, do you have any specifics yet? I still am cautious of a National Bank, however I do think it's time we consolidate the States debts.
|
|
|
Bank
Jun 18, 2014 9:42:29 GMT -5
Post by terrus on Jun 18, 2014 9:42:29 GMT -5
Bank of the United States has a chair, and four board members, each of whom possesses one vote. The President appoints the chair with the advice and consent of the senate. Each board member is the president, or a designate of the president, of a regional bank.
There are four regional banks. The Bank of the South (Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina), the Bank of Washington (VA, MD, DE), the Bank of the North (PA, NJ, NY), and the Bank of New England (MA, CT, RI, VT, NH). Each regional bank's board is elected by its stockholders (though each board is initially comprised of one representative appointed by each state in the region).
Each regional bank would sell stock to raise revenue (and also accept deposits), which will help reduce the influence of Northern Federalists over the bank. The national bank would have the authority to assume that revenue for national purposes, or to issue directives to the regional banks on the use of that revenue. But each regional bank would retain at least 33% of its revenues for intraregional projects, unless its board explicitly decided otherwise.
The national bank would superintend currency operations, keeping all the gold, etc., but each regional bank would issue its own actual bills (giving some flair), though the bills would all be worth an amount (and issued in an amount) determined by the national bank.
|
|
|
Bank
Jun 18, 2014 9:54:10 GMT -5
Post by surratt on Jun 18, 2014 9:54:10 GMT -5
That sounds reasonable. Would we still encourage smaller private banks? If so how would we protect them from being swallowed up by these four new regional banks?
|
|
|
Bank
Jun 18, 2014 11:51:41 GMT -5
Post by terrus on Jun 18, 2014 11:51:41 GMT -5
Assuming this goes similarly to history, the regional banks (and national bank) will mostly focus on big-ticket items, not small stuff. So small private banks should still be fine.
We can put in a provision encouraging the regional banks to coordinate with private banks to provide branch services. That ought to help private banks out a bit. I'd want to put credit unions there, too.
|
|
|
Bank
Jun 18, 2014 12:07:52 GMT -5
Post by surratt on Jun 18, 2014 12:07:52 GMT -5
Assuming this goes similarly to history, the regional banks (and national bank) will mostly focus on big-ticket items, not small stuff. So small private banks should still be fine. We can put in a provision encouraging the regional banks to coordinate with private banks to provide branch services. That ought to help private banks out a bit. I'd want to put credit unions there, too.That sounds like a great idea. I'm 100% on board. As far as Brandt and other members being opposed to a National Bank, I see no reason for us to make a big fuss out of it. Historically Republicans where anti national bank. I suggest we leave our qualms on the House Debating Floor.
|
|
|
Bank
Jun 18, 2014 14:16:10 GMT -5
Post by bubba on Jun 18, 2014 14:16:10 GMT -5
Now I ain't a big fan of no national banks, I come from French Louisiana and its simple you take your damn money and you slap it under your mattress and you guard it with your sword and your musket. No need for banks at all in my opinion, I'm gonna oppose this thing. Abolish the banks, let people hold onto their own money I mean whats the evil in not having banks? It harms nothing.
|
|
kome
Member
Posts: 22
|
Bank
Jun 18, 2014 15:32:03 GMT -5
Post by kome on Jun 18, 2014 15:32:03 GMT -5
The federal government is an accountant, and for it to say that the states need to use it is an unjust monopoly on enterprise. The states have a right not to participate.
|
|
|
Bank
Jun 18, 2014 15:36:39 GMT -5
Post by bubba on Jun 18, 2014 15:36:39 GMT -5
The federal government is an accountant, and for it to say that the states need to use it is an unjust monopoly on enterprise. The states have a right not to participate. I agree wit ya, but I think we need to take it a step farther and ban the banks, just tell people to keep track of their own money or stuff it under their mattress like I do. it is the best policy for avoiding the problems of inflation, etc
|
|
|
Bank
Jun 18, 2014 15:42:42 GMT -5
Post by terrus on Jun 18, 2014 15:42:42 GMT -5
Banks do not just store money, banks also offer loans to those that need money to found businesses. Eliminating that source of capital for entrepreneurs would severely restrain economic growth.
The accountant line sounds great, but is nonsense in fact. The federal government is not becoming the states' accountant by chartering an independent bank that has no authority over the states' finances.
|
|
|
Bank
Jun 18, 2014 15:44:51 GMT -5
Post by bubba on Jun 18, 2014 15:44:51 GMT -5
Banks do not just store money, banks also offer loans to those that need money to found businesses. Eliminating that source of capital for entrepreneurs would severely restrain economic growth. The accountant line sounds great, but is nonsense in fact. The federal government is not becoming the states' accountant by chartering an independent bank that has no authority over the states' finances. let private individuals control capital through private transactions, there is no need for an overarching bank financial system to provide for the people. If anything this constrains growth by req uiring a very regimented system rather than just allowing private individuals to provide loans, capital, etc. Leave it to the private sector and we get a larger margin of growth and influx of foreign capital than we would if we had banks.
Thus a reduction and eventual elimination of banking and a return of the private banker who uses his own capital rather than a collective capital of an institution creates a more robust and strong economy using the principles of both macro and micro economics simultaneously.
|
|
|
Bank
Jun 18, 2014 16:41:58 GMT -5
Post by terrus on Jun 18, 2014 16:41:58 GMT -5
Private individuals alone do not possess enough capital to allow entrepreneurs to undertake significant new ventures. This is exactly the issue the nation is facing presently -- there is not enough credit to support growth.
|
|
|
Bank
Jun 18, 2014 16:45:19 GMT -5
Post by bubba on Jun 18, 2014 16:45:19 GMT -5
Private individuals alone do not possess enough capital to allow entrepreneurs to undertake significant new ventures. This is exactly the issue the nation is facing presently -- there is not enough credit to support growth. That is why it is important to ensure that the private sector is growing through industry, if private individuals spend their money in their own businesses and promote their own businesses without relying upon banks they are able to adjust spending and investment more readily. Banking only provides a crutch by which business can fail by providing too many individuals all grouped around one specific entity. It simply is not practical or responsible. I oppose banking entirely
|
|
|
Bank
Jun 18, 2014 16:57:05 GMT -5
Post by terrus on Jun 18, 2014 16:57:05 GMT -5
There is no way to ensure that the private sector grows -- especially through industry, which requires a ton of capital -- unless there is capital available in the market. Private individuals alone simply do not possess enough capital to give businesses what they need for industrial expansion. That is what is impractical -- the pooling of resources is essential to allow businesses to get the money needed to do anything.
|
|