Sections
Home » New Economy » The Growing Movement for Publicly Owned Banks

The Growing Movement for Publicly Owned Banks

We the people have given away our sovereign money-creating power to private, for-profit lending institutions, which have used it to siphon wealth from the productive economy. Some states are moving to take that power back.
by

“Hundreds of job-creating projects are still on hold because Michigan businesses and entrepreneurs cannot get bank financing. We can break the credit crunch and beat Wall Street at their own game by keeping our money right here in Michigan and investing it to retool our economy and create jobs.”

                        —Lansing Mayor Virg Bernero in The Detroit News March 9, 2010

NYSE

Traders on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange. Publicly owned banks are an increasingly popular idea for combating the Wall Street credit freeze and making money available for struggling states.

Photo courtesy of the BBC World Service

Michigan, which has an unemployment rate of 14 percent, has been particularly hard hit by the economic downturn. Virg Bernero, mayor of Lansing, the state’s capital, and a leading Democratic candidate for governor, proposes to relieve the state’s economic ills by opening a state-owned bank. He says the bank could protect consumers by making low-interest loans to those most in need, including students and small businesses; it could also help community banks by buying mortgages off their books and working with them to fund development projects.

Bernero joins a growing list of candidates proposing this sensible solution to their states’ fiscal ills. Local economies have collapsed because of the Wall Street credit freeze. To reinvigorate local business, Main Street needs a heavy infusion of credit, and publicly-owned banks could fill that need.

In a recent article for YES! Magazine, I tracked candidates in five states running on a state bank platform and one state (Massachusetts) with a bill pending. Just one month later, there are now three more bills on the rolls—in Washington State, Illinois and Michigan—and two more candidates joining the list of proponents (joining Bernero is Gaelan Brown of Vermont). That brings the total to seven candidates in as many states (Florida, Oregon, Illinois, California, Washington State, Vermont, and Idaho) campaigning for state-owned banks, including three Democrats, two Greens, one Republican, and one Independent.

The Independent, Vermont’s Gaelan Brown, says on his website, “Washington, D.C. has lost all moral authority over Vermont.” He adds, "Vermont should explore creating a State-owned bank that would work with private VT-based banks, to insulate VT from Wall Street corruption, and to increase investment capital for VT businesses, modeled after the very successful state-owned Bank of North Dakota."

We need a “public option” in banking to set standards and keep private banks honest.

The Bank of North Dakota, currently the nation’s only state-owned bank, is the model (with variations) for all the other proposals on the table. The Bank of North Dakota acts as a “bankers’ bank,” partnering with other banks in “participation loans," which allow them to compete with larger banks. In a participation loan, the community bank originates the loan and takes responsibility for it, while the participating bank contributes funds and shares in the risk and profits. The Bank of North Dakota also makes low-interest loans to students, farmers and businesses; underwrites municipal bonds; and provides liquidity for more than 100 banks around the state.

Three New Bills Pending for Publicly Owned Banks

Proposals for publicly owned banks in other states have now progressed beyond the campaign talk of political hopefuls to be drafted into several bills.

The Michigan Development Bank

The Michigan bill has gotten the most press. Introduced into the legislature earlier this month, it mirrors Bernero’s state bank idea. According to a press release issued by Michigan Senate Democrats on March 9, the bill’s aim is to “keep Michigan’s money in Michigan” by putting tax dollars into a proposed “Michigan Development Bank." The bank would function like a traditional bank, but would focus on economic development rather than profit. The press release quoted Senator Gretchen Whitmer (D-East Lansing):

Investing in the state’s economy is the greatest way to create jobs, and this proposal will provide small businesses and entrepreneurs the funding they need to invest and grow. Our economy has stagnated due in part to stale thinking in Lansing, and this is just the type of innovative idea we need to create real economic change, using our own money to rebuild the state.

Senate Democratic Leader Mike Prusi (D-Ishpeming) stated:

Michigan’s economy has been suffering, and working families in the state have had difficulty keeping up with credit card bills, college tuition prices and mortgage payments. Establishing the Michigan Development Bank will keep our hard-earned dollars right here in the state to invest in small business, create good-paying jobs to get people back to work, and help protect the middle class.

Also quoted was Senator Hansen Clarke (D-Detroit):

With the current state of our economy, every dollar counts, yet we’re depositing our money in other people’s pockets by investing in big corporate banks without seeing much lending in return. It’s time for the Mitten State to lend itself a helping hand and establish a bank that is willing to invest in our small businesses and offer the financial support necessary to see job growth.

For start-up capital, the Senate Democrats suggested that Michigan could sell voter-approved bonds. With an initial capitalization of $150 million, they estimated the bank could lend up to $1 billion to small businesses, students and farmers, and offer low-interest credit cards to consumers. For deposits, the bank could follow the model of the Bank of North Dakota and use state revenues. So says Gene Taliercio, a Republican candidate for the state Senate, who has also put his weight behind the Michigan Development Bank. In a video clip on the website of the local Oakland Press, he says, “We’re talking about restructuring the whole tax system, in the sense that the way it's set up is that all taxes are going to go into this central bank ... Every dollar that the state of Michigan makes goes into this bank.”

The State Bank of Washington

A similar bill, HB 3162, was introduced to the Washington State Legislature on February 1. The bill has generated so much interest that Steve Kirby, chair of the Financial Institutions and Insurance Committee, has scheduled a special work session on it. According to John Nichols in The Nation, the State Bank of Washington was formally proposed by House finance committee vice chair Bob Hasegawa, a Seattle Democrat. Nichols quotes Hasegawa:

Imagine financing student aid, infrastructure, industry and community development. Imagine providing access to capital for small businesses, or otherwise leveraging our resources instead of having to do it with tax incentives. Imagine keeping our resources local instead of exporting them as profits, never to be seen again—that’s what this bank could do.

Leveraging, rather than taxing, is how private banks have been creating “credit” for centuries. States could do the same thing, cutting the middlemen out of the equation, saving significant sums in interest and fees and generating revenue for the state.

A nonpartisan analysis of the Washington bill prepared for the state legislature noted that the bank would be the depository for all state funds and the funds of state institutions, and that these deposits would be guaranteed by the state. The bank would be run by a board of 11 members and would be chaired by the State Treasurer. It would have the same rules and privileges as a private bank chartered in the state. Since current law prohibits the state from lending credit and investing in private firms, voters would have to approve the state Constitution to get the bank off the ground.

The Community Bank of Illinois

A third bill, introduced by Illinois Representative Mary Flowers, is on its way through the legislative process in Illinois. According to the Illinois General Assembly website, the Community Bank of Illinois Act would establish a state bank with the express purpose of boosting agriculture, commerce, and industry. State funds and money held by penal, educational, and industrial institutions owned by the state would be deposited in the bank and would serve as reserves for making loans. The bank could also serve as a clearinghouse for other banks, including handling domestic and foreign exchange; and it could buy property under eminent domain. All deposits would be guaranteed with the assets of the state. The Bank would be managed and controlled by the Department of Financial and Professional Regulation, with input from an advisory board representing private banking and public interests.

An amendment to the initial bill would enable the Community Bank of Illinois to make loans directly to the state’s General Revenue Fund, helping the state cope with its current budget challenges.

A Massachusetts-owned Bank

On March 12, the Associated Press reported that a jobs bill sponsored by Massachusetts Senate President Therese Murray also includes a call to study a Massachusetts-owned bank. She told a business group that a state-owned bank has worked in North Dakota, helping to insulate that state from the worst of the recession while also keeping its foreclosure rate down; similarly, a state-owned bank could spur job creation and free up lending to Massachusetts businesses.

Grandfather of the Concept: The Bank of North Dakota

All of these proposals take their inspiration from the Bank of North Dakota, which was founded in 1919 to resolve a credit crisis like that facing other states today. Last year, North Dakota had the largest budget surplus it had ever had. It was the only state that was actually adding jobs when others were losing them. In March 2009, when 46 of 50 states were in fiscal crisis, the Council of State Governments noted that North Dakota was in the enviable position of discussing tax cuts and looking for ways to spend its surplus.

With the deepening crisis, according to National Public Radio, by January 2010 only two states could still meet their budgets—North Dakota and Montana. On February 8, however, the Montana paper the Missoulian reported that the Montana State Legislature’s chief revenue forecaster foresees a budget deficit by mid-2011, leaving North Dakota the only state still boasting a surplus.

North Dakota’s riches have been attributed to oil, but many states with oil are floundering. The sole truly distinguishing feature of North Dakota seems to be that it has managed to avoid the Wall Street credit freeze by owning and operating its own bank. According to the North Dakota Department of Commerce, the BND turned a profit in 2009 of $58.1 million; this money goes into the state’s General Fund. North Dakota’s economy is ten times smaller than Michigan’s, suggesting that Michigan could generate $500 million per year in this way; Washington State and Illinois present similarly inviting possibilities.

That defuses the objection raised in a March 15 editorial in The Detroit News, arguing that Michigan can ill afford the $150 million capital investment to start a bank. If operated like the BND, the Michigan Development Bank could soon be a net generator of state revenues. There are other possibilities, besides a bond issue, for providing the capital to start a bank, but that subject will be reserved for another article.

The BND’s 90-year track record of prudent and profitable lending defuses another objection to state-owned banks: that a public agency cannot be trusted to act responsibly in managing public funds. The Detroit News' editorial concluded that Michigan should “leave banking to the bankers,” but it is precisely because the bankers have destroyed the economy with their reckless lending practices that the public needs to step in. We need a “public option” in banking to set standards and keep private banks honest.

How Banks Make MoneyHow Banks Make Money
Creating money out of thin air, a YES! Magazine infographic.

The True Potential of Publicly-owned Banks

North Dakota broke new ground nearly a century ago, but the true potential of publicly owned banks remains to be explored. Nearly all of our money today is created by banks when they extend loans. (See the Chicago Federal Reserve’s “Modern Money Mechanics," which begins, “The actual process of money creation takes place primarily in banks.”) We the people have given away our sovereign money-creating power to private, for-profit lending institutions, which have used it to siphon wealth from the productive economy. If we were to take that power back, we could generate the credit we need to underwrite a whole cornucopia of projects that we don’t even consider because we think we lack the “money.” We have the labor and we have the materials; we just lack the “liquidity” necessary to put them together to create products and services.

Money today is just a ticket, a receipt for work performed and goods delivered. We can fund the work we need done by creating our own credit. The real promise of publicly-owned banks is not that they can bail out subprime borrowers but that they can jumpstart the economy by creating real wealth. They can provide the liquidity to put labor and materials together, allowing the economy to build and grow. Our private, profit-driven banking sector has been bleeding wealth from the rest of the economy. Public-interest banks can transfuse the economy with the credit it needs to flourish and be productive once again.


Ellen Brown

Ellen Brown wrote this article for YES! Magazine, a national, nonprofit media organization that fuses powerful ideas with practical actions. Ellen developed her research skills as an attorney practicing civil litigation in Los Angeles. In Web of Debt, her latest of eleven books, she turns those skills to an analysis of the Federal Reserve and “the money trust.” Her websites are webofdebt.com, ellenbrown.com, and public-banking.com.

Interested?
Small Banks, Radical Vision :: Local banks can change the world, one investment at a time.

 

YES! Magazine encourages you to make free use of this article by taking these easy steps. Brown, E. (2010, March 17). The Growing Movement for Publicly Owned Banks. Retrieved September 09, 2010, from Web site: http://www.yesmagazine.org/new-economy/the-growing-movement-for-publicly-owned-banks. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License Creative Commons License

Donate to YES! magazine


Reader Comments

Global monetary reform

Posted by Tom Dennen at Mar 17, 2010 11:53 PM
I'm passing this along to as many relevant South African monetary (and agricultural) reformists as possible.

More and more people are supporting you, Ellen, keep it up!

Global monetary reform

Posted by marathon training schedule at Jul 21, 2010 06:01 PM
the reality is that technology and mediated realities are creating changes in us. They are no longer causing "natural" selection per say. but human mediated selection....but this isnt new.

USURY

Posted by Steven at Mar 18, 2010 02:18 AM
I'm for government banks as long as they don't charge interest.

USURY KILLS.

$100,000 house for $83.33/mo.
(100yr loan, 0% interest, title collateral)

http://www.perfecteconomy.com

"WE?"

Posted by Dusty at Mar 18, 2010 12:14 PM
Not to put too fine a point on the matter, but stating "we" does not add value to a remark, particularly when it isn't true.

As a political science scholar and watcher I have to confess having never been consulted by congress on legislation. In spite of my constant monitoring, I am usually late to the party that knows what gov't has done in the dark of night, out of sight and ignored by the corporate media.

The one thing that I do know is that the government is secretive, routinely violates the law and cares so little about the general population that it is willing to force us to buy insurance from otherwise criminal corporations between me and my doctor - if I ever get to see one, that is. I wasn't even notified that Bush going to bail out Wall Street to the tune of a $850 billion bail out package.

The "we" people the article blamed for this sleazy policy are not those who toil.

Missed greatest feature: 9x the credits

Posted by KingofthePaupers at Mar 19, 2010 08:21 PM
Jct: Too bad Ellen Brown was deterred from mentioning the greatest feature of the state running banks because it's tricky to understand, the fact that with a $1 billion deposit base, they can create through the multiplier effect and reserve ratio like banks do another $9 billion in new low-interest credits to borrowers that end up being deposited into the other $9 billion in new deposits. Sadly, they're trying to sell it without touting the banking system's greatest asset, credit multiplication too! Imagine, with $1 billion, financing $9 more billion in loans for new paychecks and new deposits. Imagine forgetting to mention the greatest thing about fractional reserve banking that the banks were always secretly keeping to themselves. Maybe if we take over the banks, we'll be too stupid to use it too! Anyway, let the state run the bank and watch the abundance and prosperity arise.

Leveraging reserves

Posted by Brooke at Mar 22, 2010 11:36 AM
Ellen Brown gets into those details in some of her other articles on the subject, including "Reviving the Local Economy with Publicly Owned Banks."

http://www.yesmagazine.org/[…]y-with-publicly-owned-banks

Careful now

Posted by Vincent Boadu at Mar 20, 2010 05:22 AM
We have to be careful we have our stories right. The culprits are really the investment banks and not the deposit taking banks, like my hometown bank. But the reason why the investment banks were able to play the game they still play is that we have all (or the majority of us) bought into the idea that we can make more money investing in stuff that we don't believe in or care about -- currency, stocks, derivatives, commodities, etc.

If we really want to change the game, we need to build a strong alliance to invest in production again. We have to be comfortable with smaller returns on our investments watching things being built or services being offered with our money, and supporting those local entrepreneurs. We have t give up buying low and selling high!

If we take control of commercial banks but continue this insanity of speculative wealth creation, we will make no difference in the eventual outcome because we will continue to fuel the beast on the Street who has been feasting on our fears and unrealistic desires to be rich and famous -- or at least just rich.

re: Careful Now

Posted by Steven at Mar 30, 2010 02:18 AM
Not deposit taking banks? The main difference here is that ordinarily outfits like BofA, Wells, Citi and Chase are charged higher rates by the Fed. Not like 39.95% on my credit cards, but a hair over zero interest.

They still can loan a minimum of 10-1 ratio on deposits (ever had your money directed to CDs? No reserve on those or many other types of accounts.) Most of our money was conjured was from such entities.

Let's end the FED first, then work out how to solve things once the bleeding stops...there are many more acceptable ideas than having your wealth stolen by sociopaths. Wake up and smell the Coup of 1913.

BOYCOTT BANK OF AMERICA

For no other reason than the audacity to call themselves "OF" America rather than a Bank "IN" America. Not good enough to start? Consider BofA will pay zero income tax for 2009. You'll find more reasons, I'm sure.

FOCUS ON FINANCIAL FREEDOM

Let us, everyone, target BofA via absolute boycott. We can't touch the FED, but BofA is fair game. Withdraw your funds. Refinance elsewhere. Use other ATMs. Ignore BofA and let them simply rot into oblivion. FOCUS.

Be sure to make your reason public knowledge: We are killing this corporation because the Federal Reserve System is killing our babies. Who knows which corporation will be next? One after another will fall until the FED is ended and the people decide how to best use money.

Really, the demand is less important than the reason. Kill BofA for fun if that is good enough for you. Just focus like laser light, people. Peacefully KILL their cash cows until the Creeple submit. One by one...

USURY KILLS

I'm no Christian (or Muslim, or for that matter, Jew) but the holy books of the three major religions fundamentally agree that usury kills.

We know we've been had and we aren't going to take this any more.

FUTURE

My two cents votes for a perfect economy. I don't want to replace one usurer with another, even if it is the state. End private banks controlling sovereign funds -- how can a country control its future if private interests control its money? Can you make long range plans while inflation exists? Have we learned nothing from this financial coup?

Visit www.perfecteconomy.com and if you don't like the idea, coherently explain why. PhD's in economics could not. It's sensible, but not "the way things are." For me, the concept was easy to grasp but difficult to truly comprehend. Be prepared to think.

May your DNA be fruitful despite usurious enemies,
olrailbird
 
 

Banks - Don't make me laugh

Posted by NWOwatch at Mar 20, 2010 09:46 AM
Sorry people... cling to your programmed money, government, economy and ownership illusions all you want, but it's ALL going bye bye for good. It's all a scam, it was always a scam and the scam is going to stop for ever... whatever you do. The harder you cling, the harder you fall. It's ALL a spell. You are all entranced, and now, so narrowmindedly entrenched, few can see the wood for the trees. In the meantime, waste all the time and energy you want. Banks... haha... suckers still.

The Growing Movement for Publicly Owned Banks

Posted by Tommy Gregory at Mar 20, 2010 02:17 PM
Publicly Owned Banks are not the answers because a publicly owned bank would work just like any bank: it would create credit when it found a credit worthy borrower. Now, the number of credit worthy borrowers is falling as more jobs disappear and home values continue to fall. Furthermore, legions of currently "credit worthy" Americans are deferring taking on new debt until they are sure the economy has turned around.

This means that any bank (including publicly owned banks) will find it difficult to lend money in large amounts. If only a few people take out loans, there won't be much new credit injected into the economy. Therefore, the total money supply will decline further.

Credible estimates show it would take more than 2.2 Trillion (!) dollars and five years to repair our failing infrastructure. The total reserves in publicly owned banks would not become nearly large enough to support the new level of credit/debt needed to generate that much new liquidity for the economy, ‘unless’ the public banks swallowed the private banks in their entirety. It takes only elementary arithmetic to ascertain the truth of these hard facts. Readers should examine this proposal warily. Some authors do, in fact, want to eliminate private banking.

Of course, if the publicly owned banks swallowed the entire private banking system in the United States, they could generate massive amounts of credit on the scale of trillions of dollars, PROVIDED millions of Americans rose up in mass to take out new loans. But in my opinion, it would be most unwise to deliver the entire private banking system into the hands of local, state, or other publicly owned banks. Nor do I think many are anxious to take on new debt. What do you think?

But the greatest objection to the suggestion that publicly owned banks could solve the economic problem is a moral/religious one. Publicly owned banks would bring credit/debt and usury into the very heart of government. Historically, usury has been condemned in no uncertain terms by Judaism, Christianity, and the Muslim religion. Usury is an abomination and unsuited for legitimate governments. Christianity took the warning seriously for more than 1,500 years.

Readers interested in the relationship of usury to our modern problems should read the transcript of Bill Moyers’ interview of William Greider on public television on July 18, 2008.

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07182008/transcript2.html



re: argh it ain't gonna work

Posted by Steven at Mar 30, 2010 04:15 AM
I can't tell if you're arguing for or against people overthrowing the usurers and regaining control of their own finances. I'm confused.

In America, freedom was outlawed by the Coup of 1913. After that came the "mop up" culminating in the Patriot Act of 2001. It's over, Dude. There is no legal recourse to tyranny in the USA.

Everything we do is regulated, taxed, legislated, restricted, limited, circumscribed or subjected to implied consent. Our rights have been short circuited and our responsibilities unfairly amplified. If banks are too big to fail, then We The People are too small to succeed.

I do not advocate violence, but some peaceful means of revolution is now required. A list of grievances against the Federal Government today would dwarf the list outlined against mad King George in the Declaration of Independence.

"...all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed." DofI, 4 July 1776

So that's it for me. I've reached the end of my rope and I would sooner hang than suffer any longer. But I am no combatant, much less an enemy. I stand for the Constitution of the United States against its usurpers.

STEP ONE: Do something. Kill Bank of America via legal boycott. Refinance, withdraw and ignore. Once that usurious institution is gone, choose another and kill it as well. One by one kill their cash cows.

If we be "consumers," let us consume.

  

re: argh it ain't gonna work

Posted by Tommy Gregory at Mar 30, 2010 06:35 PM
I'm sorry I didn't make myself clear.

I wish to eliminate usury from our society and restore monetary and political power to the people. In my opinion, the largest banks are nothing more than criminal enterprises. The large banks have recently stolen literally trillions from us and have transferred even larger amounts of their debt onto the American public.

But allowing State governments to participate in these Ponzi-like usury schemes will not return power to ordinary Americans. Some of the practical reasons I hold this opinion are enumerated in my post, but the principle reason I object to Ms. Brown's solution is based moral/religious convictions.

You will find the following paper constructive:

  http://www.monetary.org/moneyscenefive.html


Get David Korten's latest book FREE with your new 1-year subscription to YES!

Personal tools