How can anyone deny that mathematical economics works when it in fact does?
How can anyone deny that money is a resource when it in fact is?
How can anyone deny that fractional reserve banking generates this resource when it in fact does?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional-reserve_banking "Modern central banking allows multiple banks to practice fractional reserve banking with inter-bank business transactions without risking bankruptcy. The process of fractional-reserve banking has a cumulative effect of money creation by banks, essentially expanding the money supply of the economy."
But what about public - as in government - ownership of banks?
Copy-paste-Google the paper (with quotation marks) with its with 5 citations
"Is Government Ownership of Banks Really Harmful to Growth?"
by economists Svetlana Andrianova, Panicos Demetriades, and Anja Shortland.
They show that if anything, government ownership of banking is associated with higher growth.
The reason FINANCIAL SOCIALISM WORKS so well is because private banks are not and never will be interested in PROMOTING THE GENERAL WELFARE by expanding the money supply in growth-promoting ways via aggressive lending to business, lending to business to expand, and to entrepreneurs and innovators to start new businesses.
Not only that, government ownership of banking also creates vast new sources of revenue and wealth for government, making it so that government can fund all it wants without having to raise taxes so much.
Financial socialism is not evil as conservatives would have us believe - it was even practiced by the US government early in its history, via government-created private banks that gave the US government access to its profits so as to fund government via significant other sources than taxes:
"The Bank was created to handle the financial needs and requirements of the central government of the newly formed United States, which had previously been thirteen individual states with their own banks, currencies, financial institutions, and policies.
Officially proposed by Alexander Hamilton, Secretary of the Treasury, to the first session of the First Congress in 1790, the concept for the Bank had both its support and origin in and among Northern merchants and more than a few New England state governments. It was, however, eyed with great suspicion by the representatives of the Southern States, whose chief industry, agriculture, did not require centrally concentrated banks, and whose feelings of states' rights and suspicion of Northern motives ran strong.
The bank's charter expired in 1811 under President James Madison. The bill to recharter failed in the House of Representatives by one vote, 65 to 64, on January 24, 1811. It failed in the Senate when Vice President George Clinton broke a tie vote that February 20. In 1816, however, Madison revived it in the form of the Second Bank of the United States because of rising debts from the War of 1812 and ineffective state banks."
"The Second Bank was chartered by many of the same congressmen who in 1811 had refused to renew the charter of the original Bank of the United States. The predominant reason that the Second Bank of the United States was chartered was that in the War of 1812, the U.S. experienced severe inflation and had difficulty in financing military operations. Subsequently, the credit and borrowing status of the United States were at their lowest levels since its founding.
The bank had a unique relationship with the federal government that gave it access to substantial profits. Its role as the depository of the federal government's revenues made it a political target of banks chartered by the individual states which either objected to, or envied, the B.U.S.'s relationship with the central government. Partisan politics came heavily into play in the debate over the renewal of the charter."
The state of North Dakota in the US has practiced the socialism of government ownership of banking since 1915 - the state owned Bank of North Dakota:
"The State of North Dakota does not have any funding issues at all. In fact they are dealing with the largest surplus ever."
For roughly 30 years, roughly from 1980 to 2010, China has been expanding its money supply year after year VASTLY more than the US, and essentially ALL of that newly created money and capital has turned into real economic growth and essentially none of all that EXTRA printed money has turned into inflation.
Because of this FINANCIAL SOCIALISM practiced by China and North Dakota, CHINA IS THE ONLY MAJOR COUNTRY IN THE WORLD AND NORTH DAKOTA IS THE ONLY STATE IN THE US that thrived and grew like crazy during the worldwide great recession.
Learn online about how this form of socialism - financial socialism or public banking - works, and works better than having the creation of money be entirely in private hands:
"Government ownership of banking" should be the lesson learned from the Great Recession.
Isn't it ironic that the central government of China that supposedly lost the Cold War is, via a capitalist/socialist hybrid based on the socialism of government ownership of essentially all banking (central banking and commercial banking) is creating and obtaining vast amounts of money and wealth via ownership of central and commercial banking and then turning around and combining it with tax revenue to finance whatever it wants domestic and foreign, including loans to not only developing countries but also to the supposedly richest country on the planet, the US? Isn't it ironic that the central government of China that supposedly lost the Cold War is via the way just outlined becoming - if it hasn't already become - the richest entity on the planet? And isn't it doubly ironic that if present trends continue, this communist central government that supposedly lost the Cold War will become ever richer in comparison to all other entities?
Maybe people in the West who think public banking is oh so bad need to rethink things.
Isn't it obvious that all these central government public or sovereign debt problems in the West - Europe, North America, and the democratic Western Pacific - exist because of the absence of public ownership of central, commercial, and investment banking?
Recalling the "we will bury you" remark attributed to Khrushchev, the former Soviets didn't bury the West, but if the West doesn't learn from the Chinese regarding public ownership of essentially all banking and if present trends continue, then the Chinese just might.
> Robert Hansen Posted: Mar 8, 2011 8:31 PM > > >These are the questions you should be devoting your > time > >and energy to. It is the answers to these things > that > >will make or break your profession. Our economic > status > >has significantly changed. I think you actually > >recognize this, albeit you are going through a > natural > >state of denial (like many others). When you emerge > from > >that state, you really need to address not how much > we > >spend, but how we spend. I firmly believe that will > be > >critical to your livelyhood and quality of life. > > Robert, > > Paul is not in denial. He really believes in > in economic pixy dust. He recognizes no limits, > "Resources can be generated" (I could not find the > citation) and > "Money does grow on trees" > http://mathforum.org/kb/thread.jspa?forumID=206&thread > ID=2239282&messageID=7391801#7391801 > by which he means that fractional reserve banking is > indistinguishable from magic. > > > Haim > We're buying shrimp, guys.