A fully nationalised banking system

[Kid_Eternity]

Because government purely exist to take your money and spend it, not make money back from it. I would not trust a government-run bank to be run properly or effectively. Govts role as far as poss should be regulatory, not ownership.

Can't see them doing a worse job than the current crop of cunts who've fucked everything up...

 

[Kid_Eternity]

The purpose of State governments is to raise taxes and spend them G, everything else you mention there is governance - all those things could be carried out in a variety of different ways by non-State groups.

I don't trust the government to spend taxes on the things I want them spent on (not forgetting the coercive nature of tax collection itself), so why on earth would I trust a government run bank to manage my money?

You keep talking about trust, as if you have no power to influence how your government runs.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

You keep talking about trust, as if you have no power to influence how your government runs.

Unfortunately, unless we're swing voters in key marginals (in which case we're automatically middle-class) we don't have any influence on the election results.

 

[bluestreak]

I'm sticking with the idea I proposed on another thread today. Nationalise A bank. Maybe the government should keep one of the banks it has just bought. Run it according to socialist principles. Steady or not growth, guaranteed savings, risk free. Other banks can operate within the capitalist system, and when capitalism has one of it's regular fallings over, you lose your money. But those who saved with the National bank don't lose their money - OK, there's no significant return either, but no bail outs.

 

[two sheds]

I'm sticking with the idea I proposed on another thread today. Nationalise A bank. Maybe the government should keep one of the banks it has just bought. Run it according to socialist principles. Steady or not growth, guaranteed savings, risk free. Other banks can operate within the capitalist system, and when capitalism has one of it's regular fallings over, you lose your money. But those who saved with the National bank don't lose their money - OK, there's no significant return either, but no bail outs.

Like the Post Office?

 

[Jonti]

Or the mutuals.

Oh, wait, the members were bought off, and the mutuals over handed to management. By Labour.

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

doesn't in a captialist world a national bank mena almost certainly at some point down the line if it's maintained that they will introduce legislation to recover the losses of the national bank...

Debtors prisions anyone?

 

[Fedayn]

Because government purely exist to take your money and spend it, not make money back from it.

But asurely that then depoends on what you believe a government should do. What a government does won't have a dictionary definition because what you or I or others think a government should do is surely based on our own political viewpoint?! Upto and including whether you or anyone else believes in/politicially defends and supports the idea of a central government aswell.

I would not trust a government-run bank to be run properly or effectively. Govts role as far as poss should be regulatory, not ownership.

So who do you trust to run a bank then? The same privateers who run them now?

 

[david dissadent]

Hats of the the building societies of Britain.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2008/oct/11/banks1

This is what prudent finance looks like.