State Bank

[Michael McMahon]

A state bank would be the ultimate unification of both socialism and capitalism. A state bank would be able to give out loans to commercial enterprises that would help to diversify the job market for poor people. A state bank could limit loans to commercial enterprises rather than personal income loans in order to reduce the threat of loan defaults from poor people. Yet a state loan to private entrepreneur merely has to break even in order to provide a more lively economy for poor people. Communism rebelled not only against low wages but also the repetitive nature of certain working class jobs.

Just imagine how much happier and more interested a barman would be working as railway operator in a refunded railway line even if the wages were the same:
"The West Clare Railway (WCR) originally operated in County Clare, Ireland, between 1887 and 1961... Starting in the mid-1990s, efforts were made by a preservation society to recreate part of the original route." Wiki

A post office is state owned but incapable of lending the large amounts of capital needed to start a business:
"With an An Post Money personal loan you can borrow between €5,000 and €75,000 and set your repayment period up to 7 years."

The Republic of Ireland didn't want to take responsibility for job creation by owning its own bank and instead financed existing private banks indirectly. This is where socialism can be contradictory by supporting private markets over state-owned businesses. The idea that the working class cannot be trusted with wealth redistribution forgets that very few of the working class ever receive income bonuses directly from the government. Unless unemployed people constitute at least 40% of the population then it's very unlikely that they'd rob the rich year after year. The major benefit the working class receives from government are public services from state like education and healthcare rather than wealth redistribution. A nation with a capitalist mixed economy that promotes solidarity with high taxes isn't fully honest in helping the spirituality of poor people if there's no real way for poor people without collateral to become entrepreneurs.
"Since recession hit in mid-2008 and the government stepped in to save the banking system on 30 September of that year through a blanket guarantee covering customer deposits and banks’ own borrowings to a total of €440 billion, the severity of Ireland’s crisis has grown continuously worse... While the guarantee avoided the collapse of any Irish bank, neither did it resolve the banking crisis. Indeed, it has been described as a ‘malignant colossus over the entire scene’ which ‘served to prop up the banks but it aligned the fortunes of the State with their fate’."
https://www.realinstitutoelcano.org...tate-analysing-irelands-financial-crisis-ari/

 

[KingLeo]

There is actually one state owned bank in the US.
The Bank of North Dakota.
Established in 1919 largely as a means for state farmers and ranchers to have easier access to bank loans.

 

[Super Chief]

Bad idea. Banks need to be profitable to remain sound. Non profit savings and loans are possible, but they cannot be governed by politicians, otherwise they end up falling into the trap of attempting be equitable in lending policies based on other than qualified lending. And then even worse this notion that penalties and fees should never apply.

All that happens with these insititutions are that they are not solvent on their own, and end up requiring more and more cash infusions in order to stay open from the taxpayers. Do we really want banks to be as poorly operated as the department of motor vehicles?

 

[Mycroft]

A state bank would be the ultimate unification of both socialism and capitalism. A state bank would be able to give out loans to commercial enterprises that would help to diversify the job market for poor people. A state bank could limit loans to commercial enterprises rather than personal income loans in order to reduce the threat of loan defaults from poor people. Yet a state loan to private entrepreneur merely has to break even in order to provide a more lively economy for poor people. Communism rebelled not only against low wages but also the repetitive nature of certain working class jobs.

Just imagine how much happier and more interested a barman would be working as railway operator in a refunded railway line even if the wages were the same:
"The West Clare Railway (WCR) originally operated in County Clare, Ireland, between 1887 and 1961... Starting in the mid-1990s, efforts were made by a preservation society to recreate part of the original route." Wiki

A post office is state owned but incapable of lending the large amounts of capital needed to start a business:
"With an An Post Money personal loan you can borrow between €5,000 and €75,000 and set your repayment period up to 7 years."

The Republic of Ireland didn't want to take responsibility for job creation by owning its own bank and instead financed existing private banks indirectly. This is where socialism can be contradictory by supporting private markets over state-owned businesses. The idea that the working class cannot be trusted with wealth redistribution forgets that very few of the working class ever receive income bonuses directly from the government. Unless unemployed people constitute at least 40% of the population then it's very unlikely that they'd rob the rich year after year. The major benefit the working class receives from government are public services from state like education and healthcare rather than wealth redistribution. A nation with a capitalist mixed economy that promotes solidarity with high taxes isn't fully honest in helping the spirituality of poor people if there's no real way for poor people without collateral to become entrepreneurs.
"Since recession hit in mid-2008 and the government stepped in to save the banking system on 30 September of that year through a blanket guarantee covering customer deposits and banks’ own borrowings to a total of €440 billion, the severity of Ireland’s crisis has grown continuously worse... While the guarantee avoided the collapse of any Irish bank, neither did it resolve the banking crisis. Indeed, it has been described as a ‘malignant colossus over the entire scene’ which ‘served to prop up the banks but it aligned the fortunes of the State with their fate’."
https://www.realinstitutoelcano.org...tate-analysing-irelands-financial-crisis-ari/

No.

The notion of lending money only to commercial enterprises that claim to "help to diversify the job market for poor people" stinks of control over the economy for political purposes. Especially if commercial banks are forbidden and the only source of commercial loans is that state bank.

There is only one fundamental purpose of commercial enterprises: To make money. If a bank thinks a commercial enterprise will make money, that bank will lend money.

I don't want governments to finance existing private banks, either. Government money ALWAYS has strings attached.

 

[reflechissez]

Bad idea. Banks need to be profitable to remain sound. Non profit savings and loans are possible, but they cannot be governed by politicians, otherwise they end up falling into the trap of attempting be equitable in lending policies based on other than qualified lending. And then even worse this notion that penalties and fees should never apply.

All that happens with these insititutions are that they are not solvent on their own, and end up requiring more and more cash infusions in order to stay open from the taxpayers. Do we really want banks to be as poorly operated as the department of motor vehicles?

That makes no sense.

 

[Michael McMahon]

The notion of lending money only to commercial enterprises that claim to "help to diversify the job market for poor people" stinks of control over the economy for political purposes. Especially if commercial banks are forbidden and the only source of commercial loans is that state bank.

The public service is often derided as inefficient even though it's not written in the laws of physics that it must be so. A loud drill sergeant in each public business could be seen as a lesser evil to prevent the threat of idle communism(!):

Full Metal Jacket - Gunnery Sergeant Hartman

There could be loose analogies made between construction work and office work when it comes to piece-rate pay for public employees such as punctuality bonuses:
"Popularly referred to as piece work, piece-rate pay is an employment system where the employers pay their employees per item of work completed, rather than per hour or at a fixed yearly salary. Employers base the rate and the pay on the amount of work done, whereby employee earnings are directly proportional to their output in terms of products and services."
https://www.indeed.com/career-advice/pay-salary/piece-rate

 

[Michael McMahon]

The notion of lending money only to commercial enterprises that claim to "help to diversify the job market for poor people" stinks of control over the economy for political purposes. Especially if commercial banks are forbidden and the only source of commercial loans is that state bank.

The credit union is a co-operative bank that supports the idealism of fair pay for employees and working class entrepreneurship. Yet the Irish government doesn't subsidise the credit union to the extent that the post office is subsidised. Indeed the credit union isn't a charity but nationalising and expanding credit unions would still have been more egalitarian than bailing out private banks in 2007.

"In summary credit unions are different because: They are not-for-profit democratic financial cooperatives owned by all of their members. Every member over 16 has a vote at their local credit union AGM." creditunion ie

 

[Michael McMahon]

Do we really want banks to be as poorly operated as the department of motor vehicles?

The middle class often protests against high tax by voting in a different political party. However seldom do middle and upper class people protest against high taxes through street protests. Voters are all adults who are well able to stand up for themselves. Few rich people in the west have rioted the streets in the same way that Venezuelans protested against their socialist regime. Perhaps if middle class people aren't on edge then it's a sign they could afford to pay more tax!

"In July, ahead of parliamentary elections scheduled for December 2020, the Supreme Court ordered the takeover of three leading political opposition parties by Maduro government supporters, and appointed government supporters to head the National Electoral Council (CNE). Maduro supporters won two-thirds of seats to the National Assembly in elections held on December 6, which were boycotted by the majority of opposition parties and in which less than one third of registered voters participated."
https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2021/country-chapters/venezuela

 

[Michael McMahon]

Having low taxes on working class people seems fair at first sight. Yet socialism relies on solidarity among poor people. If poor people aren't taxed directly then there's a risk that they'd lose interest in the state. After all America's working class are multi-racial and are more capitalist then any other country. Yet mono-ethnic European states forget that poor people could also ignore other poor people when everyone is struggling. There are different strands of wealth in the working class where some have a lot more discretionary income than others. Mono-ethnicity might not be enough to withstand the amorality of capitalism. It's true that even without direct taxes poor people still have to pay indirect taxes through a high-cost of living and by receiving less wages than their work is worth. Yet if poor people were charged more taxes then poor people might actually be more motivated to insist on a fairer distribution of resources in a nation. Taxes have a symbolic meaning of solidarity which many socialists have forgotten when it comes to taxing the working class.

Effective Tax Rates after Budget 2022 and Why Ireland remains a low tax country | Social Justice Ireland

Central to a thorough understanding of income taxation in Ireland are effective tax rates. These rates are calculated by comparing the total amount of…

www.socialjustice.ie

 

[Peter]

The UK ended up pretty much buying a couple of banks during the financial crisis.

• Royal Bank of Scotland Group 73% owned by government
• Lloyds Banking group 43% owned by government

The government did used to own much more of both but has slowly been selling shares to try and get back some of the rather large sums they paid.

 

[Michael McMahon]

Maybe one reason communism failed is that the ideology didn't take seriously that many rich people might actually have been gravitating to other forms of evil were it not for the hedonistic relief of wealth. For example if communism were tried in a former aristocratic and colonial country like England then it's clear they'd still maintain a partial work ethic out of national pride even without monetary incentives. However maybe the ambition of a poor person to be middle class in the future meant that their ambitiousness and adrenaline could remain within a legal pursuit. By contrast if wealth were not a possibility for certain poor people were communism enforced then maybe their desires would be replaced by explicitly violent status symbols like gang-membership rather than monetary status symbols. As such many middle class people who aren't particularly possessive about their wealth might have abandoned their ethical system altogether were it not for the symbolically evil indulgence of capitalism. For example in spite of the communist genocides against rich people were perpetrated by upper working class or lower middle class people rather than those in relative and absolute poverty. We forget that communism didn't take over Africa in spite of the continent being the poorest on Earth. As such maybe some of the communist regimes in Asia might have been inspired more by entitlement rather than poverty.

 

[Michael McMahon]

If a state wanted to heavily promote individualism then the health system could be privatised with welfare being distributed through a voucher system much like a school voucher idea. Health vouchers would actually be more egalitarian than mandatory insurance as health vouchers would cover everyone. The main difference between a voucher system and a public system is that under a voucher system the hospital administration might be more efficient with the medical staff remaining constant. A further advantage of a voucher system is to relieve the state of culpability for medical malpractice compensation claims. That way private patients would be able to competitively hire other doctors for second opinions if the voucher funding was adequate. Technically anyone can already switch between public schools and public hospitals. Although the transfer time and waiting lists might be delayed by administrative inefficiencies or staff shortages from a lack of monetary incentives for public staff. The private health sector would demand the government remain on time for funding health appointments where the government might even have to engage in borrowing international finance. After all borrowing for the health system is always more urgent than road construction funding. Perhaps there might be a temptation for the government to ignore specialist requirements for general hospitals.

"Obamacare is a landmark U.S. federal statute enacted by the 111th United States Congress and signed into law by President Barack Obama on March 23, 2010. Together with the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 amendment, it represents the U.S. healthcare system's most significant regulatory overhaul and expansion of coverage since the enactment of Medicare and Medicaid in 1965." wiki

 

[Michael McMahon]

"You’re entitled to an annual tax-free gift allowance of €3,000. This is also known as your annual exemption. With your annual gift allowance, you can give away assets or money up to a total of €3,000 without them being added to the value of your estate. Once you’ve exceeded this allowance, the gifts you give may be subject to inheritance tax in the event of your death."
https://www.raisin.ie/taxes/gift-tax/

A problem with double taxation is enforceability when many gifts are informal. For example the accumulative nature of a weekly financial allowance to a relative compared to a lump sum payment might be invisible to the taxman. Moreover business perks like office room quality can make a big difference to an employee's welfare if they remain in the company for years. Yet perks aren't always noticeable to the taxman. As such double taxation isn't only a moral dilemma for right-wingers but also a complacency risk for left-wingers. That is to say the initial tax on income and goods is most important to get right when double taxation cannot always atone for the unregulated nature of capitalism.

 

[OrphanSlug]

Ironically, the only way to have a true State Bank is to merge banking operations with state fiscal matters (which is exactly what Bank of North Dakota does) which basically makes the entire concept and holding the tax payer liable for its performance.

It is not a blend of socialism and capitalism, it is the the socialization of profit and loss no matter which occurs.

Loan and investment performance goes down, the state fiscal budget has to step in. State fiscal condition adds too much debt, the State Bank's profits are shuffled over to the State General Ledger account.

Either way capitalism does not enter the picture. And if it all goes to shit, the whole thing becomes a problem for that very federal government advocates claim would not happen.

 

[Common Sense 1]

Terrible idea!
If the state does not like you or your political leaning, or speech....... Flip the money switch off!

 

[Michael McMahon]

Terrible idea!
If the state does not like you or your political leaning, or speech....... Flip the money switch off!

Right wingers make a moral argument that harder workers are more deserving. In other words some people promote capitalism in an ethical rather than pragmatic way. Yet what if a state in general isn't ethical? Hence any hard work would be helping people who mostly aren't ethical. Yet there isn't a moral reason why harder workers should be paid more if they're on the wrong side. For example a Russian entrepreneur is worse than a lazier Russian for having helped a state involved in a war of aggression against Ukraine. A hard worker deserves more money if they're on the ethical side. Victims of crime are more vulnerable than both poor and rich people. As such any country not being fair in the court system but wanting monetary aid for poor or rich people cannot make a very ethical argument for doing so.

 

[Michael McMahon]

It is not a blend of socialism and capitalism, it is the the socialization of profit and loss no matter which occurs.

It's a common theme for people to hate bankers based on historical stereotypes and to nonetheless appreciate entrepreneurs. Yet this contradictory when a bank can make as much of an innovative risk as the entrepreneurs who are loaned money to create a new business. Technically a bank doesn't need any collateral if the business pitch is a sound idea. A state bank could work in liaison with town planners to help entrepreneurs who were turned down by private banks.

 

[Fearandloathing]

A state bank would be the ultimate unification of both socialism and capitalism. A state bank would be able to give out loans to commercial enterprises that would help to diversify the job market for poor people. A state bank could limit loans to commercial enterprises rather than personal income loans in order to reduce the threat of loan defaults from poor people. Yet a state loan to private entrepreneur merely has to break even in order to provide a more lively economy for poor people. Communism rebelled not only against low wages but also the repetitive nature of certain working class jobs.

Just imagine how much happier and more interested a barman would be working as railway operator in a refunded railway line even if the wages were the same:
"The West Clare Railway (WCR) originally operated in County Clare, Ireland, between 1887 and 1961... Starting in the mid-1990s, efforts were made by a preservation society to recreate part of the original route." Wiki

A post office is state owned but incapable of lending the large amounts of capital needed to start a business:
"With an An Post Money personal loan you can borrow between €5,000 and €75,000 and set your repayment period up to 7 years."

The Republic of Ireland didn't want to take responsibility for job creation by owning its own bank and instead financed existing private banks indirectly. This is where socialism can be contradictory by supporting private markets over state-owned businesses. The idea that the working class cannot be trusted with wealth redistribution forgets that very few of the working class ever receive income bonuses directly from the government. Unless unemployed people constitute at least 40% of the population then it's very unlikely that they'd rob the rich year after year. The major benefit the working class receives from government are public services from state like education and healthcare rather than wealth redistribution. A nation with a capitalist mixed economy that promotes solidarity with high taxes isn't fully honest in helping the spirituality of poor people if there's no real way for poor people without collateral to become entrepreneurs.
"Since recession hit in mid-2008 and the government stepped in to save the banking system on 30 September of that year through a blanket guarantee covering customer deposits and banks’ own borrowings to a total of €440 billion, the severity of Ireland’s crisis has grown continuously worse... While the guarantee avoided the collapse of any Irish bank, neither did it resolve the banking crisis. Indeed, it has been described as a ‘malignant colossus over the entire scene’ which ‘served to prop up the banks but it aligned the fortunes of the State with their fate’."
https://www.realinstitutoelcano.org...tate-analysing-irelands-financial-crisis-ari/

"A state bank would be the ultimate....idiocy of man.

Yeah, OK, let's give complete and total control of the economy to one or three guys!


Oh, yeah, that';s gonna work, because there is no greed, there is no corruption there are no pastors shedding tears for cash and there is no one named Donald Trump.

There is a tooth fairy but he's pissed off about being called "woke".

Now, go back to sleep, it was all just a bad dream....

 

[Michael McMahon]

Loan and investment performance goes down, the state fiscal budget has to step in. State fiscal condition adds too much debt, the State Bank's profits are shuffled over to the State General Ledger account.

A state with social welfare is already burdened with unemployed people who are metaphorically bankrupt in their careers. Hence it makes sense for a mixed economy to entertain semi-viable business proposals through a state bank so that the new business can employ formerly unemployed people. That is to say the state can take more of a risk than a private bank to sustain low profit companies and time consuming construction projects.

 

[Michael McMahon]

"A state bank would be the ultimate....idiocy of man.

Yeah, OK, let's give complete and total control of the economy to one or three guys!


Oh, yeah, that';s gonna work, because there is no greed, there is no corruption there are no pastors shedding tears for cash and there is no one named Donald Trump.

There is a tooth fairy but he's pissed off about being called "woke".

Now, go back to sleep, it was all just a bad dream....

Low corporation tax is often seen as an incentive to boost the economy. Yet low corporation taxes mostly benefit companies already in operation. During a recession a state needs new companies where a state bank might be handier than low corporation tax. The barriers to entry are often greater than the maintenance fees. Moreover an already profitable company can get loans for expansion from private banks easier than a prospective company.

 

[Socraticaｼ]

A state with social welfare is already burdened with unemployed people who are metaphorically bankrupt in their careers. Hence it makes sense for a mixed economy to entertain semi-viable business proposals through a state bank so that the new business can employ formerly unemployed people. That is to say the state can take more of a risk than a private bank to sustain low profit companies and time consuming construction projects.

It's usually not a good idea to help unemployed persons establish a new business...

 

[Michael McMahon]

It's usually not a good idea to help unemployed persons establish a new business...

Break-even businesses not only employ people but can also inspire poor people to set up profitable businssses through a culture of innovation. The harsh reality is that humility can be deceiving when a religious society tolerates extremely wealthy individuals. A lot of people might not form a materialistic mindset when they suspect society would be against them. A welfare state might delude poor people into complacency when they're nowhere near as helped as rich people. A ferrari car is an envious status symbol where lots of poor people would be antagonistic to such a sight. After all a rich car is more arbitrary than a rich mansion for shelter. Yet for egalitarian socialists the only advantage of conspicuous status symbols like ferraris is to expose societal indifference to more entrenched class differences like private education. After all a ferrari that drives by you could be worth a thousand times a working class member's lifetime earnings whereas plush holidays abroad are more concealable.

 

[Michael McMahon]

Some students in public education might be deterred from being very academic due to nerdy stereotypes. Yet the harsh reality is that no matter how arrogant someone is at education they're nowhere nearly as bad as rich people. Hence certain features of working class culture could be counterproductive when rich people are segregated into private schools. This is often why public policies rely on coercion when poor people aren't always supportive of other poor people.

 

[Ishm]

If you build a state owned company with a political rather than profit agenda, to compete in a privatized industry sector, and in doing so distort that sector, the state owned company has to be prepared to replace all the private competing companies that may withdraw from the sector in that state.

 

[Michael McMahon]

If you build a state owned company with a political rather than profit agenda, to compete in a privatized industry sector, and in doing so distort that sector, the state owned company has to be prepared to replace all the private competing companies that may withdraw from the sector in that state.

If socialism cannot beat capitalism then socialists must go undercover and infiltrate capitalism!