Currently, there's at least one city in bankruptcy and many more close to or in different levels of financial crisis. Public banking could make a huge difference, could rescue many at risk governments and bring some back from the near dead. Or let's look at it another way. The massive costs private banks interest cost, plus the lost revenue that could be made from assets they hold (pensions, emergency funds, etc.) local governments are playing a key role in putting the governments in the financial hole.
So, let's connect some dots.
Tea partiers and Public Banking
Apparently, tea partiers don't like Big Banks. And they like to support small, local systems. So public banking, which could put a big dent into the power of big banks, holds some attraction for them. Occupy Wall Street people also like Public banking-- an interesting combination.
Privatization and Shock Doctrine:
Privatization is one of the key factors in the Shock Doctrine. Before the American Revolution, the colonists had public banks. The revolution was partly fought over the right to have such banks and to have currency that was American currency. The British abolished colonial banks and colonial currency. That was one of the reasons the revolution began. The thing is, after the revolution was over the Bank of England, controlled by the Rothschild empire, had done its dirty work and banking in the US was privatized-- a very early case of the shock doctrine at work.
Single Payer and Privatization
We have a health care system that has become privatized-- public, non-profit hospitals corporatized doctors practices acquired, local insurers absorbed into bigger operations. Every year you pay more for less and less.
Then there's the privatized prison system. In PA, we had a pair of judges who were paid to sentence innocent teens to a privatized prison. We have broken justice system that makes felons out of kids who smoke pot or who use other drugs-- and then takes away their right to vote-- very handy since most of them vote against republicans.
Single Payer and Public Banking
There are some exciting connections and commonalities between the movement towards single payer and public banking. Both are challenges to multi trillion dollar industries. Another commonality is finding people to advocate for the change. I've come to the habit of asking, when change is sought, "Qui Bono? Who benefits?" If you can answer that question you can find the low-hanging fruit to recruit to help in the change efforts.
There are a lot of people who are aware of single payer and who support it-- a lot less who are aware of promise of public banking let alone activists working on making it happen. But it is very possible that Public Banking could succeed before single payer does. That's because it can be implemented on a much smaller scale. And Mark Armstrong, Executive Director of the Public Banking Institute, told me that the clearest beneficiaries of Public banking are community banks. He also says that community banks are being royally screwed by the new Dodd Frank Bank legislation going into effect-- to the benefit of big banks.
One major similarity between the two is they both help local governments. Single payer healthcare drops the costs for governments dramatically. Public Banking lowers costs AND raises funds, while supporting local community banks.
Class War and The War Between Top Down Powers and the Bottom up revolution. In a recent op-ed, Paul Krugman said, "America's top-down class warriors lost big in the last election"." I"m not the only one talking about top down war against the rest of us. . That top down war has gone through changes. That's a good thing. Multinational corporations and international bankers are among the most powerful top-down players, starting with the Rothchilds-- a banking dynasty that took power over 300 years ago-- and is still holding on to it.
Public banking has the potential to play a massive role in financially powering the bottom-up revolution, empowering de-centralization and the move from hirearchy to horizontalism.