It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

U.S. States Consider Starting Their Own Banks

page: 4
18
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 29 2011 @ 12:18 AM
link   
reply to post by TheImmaculateD1
 





Every market crisis dating to 1933 has been caused by private control over our coin and to keep on allowing private interest over our coin further errodes freedom, democracy and has us time and time again answering to outsiders.


I have read your posts and Hawkiye's and I get the feeling you are pretty much talking about the same thing, but using different words.

First I think we all agree the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 sucks. It took control of the money supply and placed it into the hands of the Banking cartel. This is the "money monopoly" Again we all agree the hold of that monopoly has to be broken.

The simplest way is for the States to set up banks and we "starve" the monopoly by moving to the state bank. Nothing else changes. We still have fractional reserve banking with all its inherent evils.

An alternate is "FREE BANKING" something that was recently discussed in the British Parliament

...Given the confusion inherent in conflating the services of deposit or safekeeping of money, on the one hand, and lending of money, on the other, why not simply make it clear to the bank customer what his options are? Why not give people a choice: do you want to own your money and have it deposited and safeguarded, or do you want to give up ownership of it and permit the bank to lend it on your behalf, in order to earn interest?

Carswell and Baker’s proposed Bill does just that. As Carswell explains:


Under my Bill, when opening a new bank account, you’d still be free to tick the box that says “it’s fine to lend on my money”. … To be clear, this Bill does not stop banks from treating your deposit as a loan. You just have to make clear that you give them permission to do so. There would, in effect, be two types of bank account; one where it was made clear that you owned the money (and probably paid for banking services in fees), and one where the bank was free to lend on your money like they owned it.


In other words, banks would have to make customers aware of whether it will (a) safekeep the funds to be deposited; or (b) loan out these funds on behalf of the customer (who is choosing to be a lender). It would align the law to mirror what people actually think happens: that they deposit money and it is theirs. It also seeks to allow savers to save in a term deposit which the bankers can then with the saver knowingly and indeed willingly lend out this money to borrowers. This relationship will then be that of a depositor lending to the bank and the bank being the creditor to the lender. (See also the somewhat similar Safety Deposit Current Accounts Bill, introduced in 2008 by the Earl of Caithness.)

The Bill was stimulated by Baxendale, as the result of his setting up the Cobden Centre and talking to Carswell and Baker about this issues, and generally making the mainstream audience more aware of the issue through postings on the Cobden Centre site and other activities. The basic ideas behind Baxendale’s efforts here and the proposed Bill are influenced by the work of the Austrian economist Huerta de Soto, primarily his book Money, Bank Credit and Economic Cycles, which sets out the relevant legal distinctions, drawing on Roman legal principles, and the proposals for reform set out in Chapter 9.

Baxendale also approached me for assistance in drafting the initial Bill, based on my Austrian and libertarian background as well as my mixed civil law/common law/Roman law legal background.... blog.mises.org...


A hybrid system is discussed here: blog.mises.org...

The last system is the Austrian System where there is NO fractional Reserve "lending" This means no one can inflate the money supply by "creating debt" the only addition to the money supply would be through mining of gold and silver if those metals are the basis of the system.

If you are suggesting a THIRD system that is neither the Austrian System or the Keynesian system how about telling us.

The article mentions"economists of the three great traditions —Keynesian, Monetarist and Austrian." I am not familiar with Monetarist, but then I am a chemist not an economist.




posted on Mar, 29 2011 @ 03:23 AM
link   
reply to post by crimvelvet
 





I have read your posts and Hawkiye's and I get the feeling you are pretty much talking about the same thing, but using different words.


Not sure how you could read my posts and his and say we are saying the same thing. The only thing we agree on is the The federal reserve, however he doesn't even know we agree on that cause he doesn't read the responses I have given. This mental midget wants control of the money to be in the hands of the federal government ( the same ones who gave control to the banksters in the first place) he just wants the monopoly to revert back to the Feds and thinks that will solve everything. The rest of his argument is incoherent. The guy doesn't read my posts and then accuses me of all sorts of BS I obviously never said or do not support. He's a joke.




The last system is the Austrian System where there is NO fractional Reserve "lending" This means no one can inflate the money supply by "creating debt" the only addition to the money supply would be through mining of gold and silver if those metals are the basis of the system.

If you are suggesting a THIRD system that is neither the Austrian System or the Keynesian system how about telling us.


Fractional reserve is fraud and is unlawful, but legal. The so called free banking thing won't work either because banks using fractional reserve don't lend on depositors money as everyone believes, in fact it is illegal for them to risk thier assets period . The free banking thing is just a scam to reinforce the illusion of the people. The banks create money out of thin air on the spot based on promissory notes they receive for loans. They never actually loan any money period, the notes fund the transactions and they dupe the borrower into thinking they got a loan they need to pay back. then they sell or trade the notes as securities and make millions on a single note. So the money never existed and now the borrower has to find even more non existent money to pay back that which never existed in the first place. This is the main way they create so called money. This is the driving force of the economy called credit expansion and is why it is crashing. FRN's are just the petty cash of the system and thus we have the false scarcity imposed on usl.

The only way to ensure this never happens again is to not allow banks or governments to ever have control or a monopoly on a monetary system. If you want real choice it must be left up to the individual what he chooses to use as currency and it is no one else's business not governments or anyone else's...
edit on 29-3-2011 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 29 2011 @ 08:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by hawkiye
reply to post by crimvelvet
 





I have read your posts and Hawkiye's and I get the feeling you are pretty much talking about the same thing, but using different words.


Not sure how you could read my posts and his and say we are saying the same thing. The only thing we agree on is the The federal reserve, however he doesn't even know we agree on that cause he doesn't read the responses I have given. This mental midget wants control of the money to be in the hands of the federal government ( the same ones who gave control to the banksters in the first place) he just wants the monopoly to revert back to the Feds and thinks that will solve everything. The rest of his argument is incoherent. The guy doesn't read my posts and then accuses me of all sorts of BS I obviously never said or do not support. He's a joke.




The last system is the Austrian System where there is NO fractional Reserve "lending" This means no one can inflate the money supply by "creating debt" the only addition to the money supply would be through mining of gold and silver if those metals are the basis of the system.

If you are suggesting a THIRD system that is neither the Austrian System or the Keynesian system how about telling us.


Fractional reserve is fraud and is unlawful, but legal. The so called free banking thing won't work either because banks using fractional reserve don't lend on depositors money as everyone believes, in fact it is illegal for them to risk thier assets period . The free banking thing is just a scam to reinforce the illusion of the people. The banks create money out of thin air on the spot based on promissory notes they receive for loans. They never actually loan any money period, the notes fund the transactions and they dupe the borrower into thinking they got a loan they need to pay back. then they sell or trade the notes as securities and make millions on a single note. So the money never existed and now the borrower has to find even more non existent money to pay back that which never existed in the first place. This is the main way they create so called money. This is the driving force of the economy called credit expansion and is why it is crashing. FRN's are just the petty cash of the system and thus we have the false scarcity imposed on usl.

The only way to ensure this never happens again is to not allow banks or governments to ever have control or a monopoly on a monetary system. If you want real choice it must be left up to the individual what he chooses to use as currency and it is no one else's business not governments or anyone else's...
edit on 29-3-2011 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)


How can something be fraudlent yet legal? It's either one way or the other.

The US Federal Govt was conned into signing this legislation and is now waking up to the con. The stock market crash of 1907 was engineered by this group to threaten and leverage The US into passing the law 6 yrs later.

Credit expansion is courtesy of predatory lenders who are only looking out for themselves and not their customer.
edit on 29-3-2011 by TheImmaculateD1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 29 2011 @ 03:24 PM
link   
reply to post by TheImmaculateD1
 





How can something be fraudlent yet legal? It's either one way or the other.


Because legal is a statutory term to legalize that which is unlawful. Fraud is unlawful however there are many statutes legalizing fraud such as fractional reserve banking. And Congress was not conned they supported it. I know a big deal is made about the federal reserve act being passed when most of the congress was gone for Christmas so they sneaked it though. However that is just more BS excuses. If congress was so against it they could have repealed it and they haven't in almost a hundred years. They are in bed with the banksters and are on the gravy train of slush fund money. Like the billions that disappeared and is still unaccounted for. You can bet that part of that went into congress peoples pockets. The idea that congress is waking up to some con they haven't figured out in a hundred years is pure fantasy.
edit on 29-3-2011 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 29 2011 @ 03:50 PM
link   
This thread is a year old why drag it up again? For it's birthday next week?



posted on Mar, 29 2011 @ 09:45 PM
link   
reply to post by TheImmaculateD1
 





How can something be fraudlent yet legal? It's either one way or the other.


It is fraud when they are not following the laws. It was found to be FRAUD in a court of law. Banks are supposed to use a 10% reserve they do not.


First National Bank of Montgomery vs. Daly (1969)

...Drexler hadn't given much credence to the theory of the defense, until Mr. Morgan, the bank's president, took the stand. To everyone's surprise, Morgan admitted that the bank routinely created money "out of thin air" for its loans, and that this was standard banking practice. "It sounds like fraud to me," intoned Presiding Justice Martin Mahoney amid nods from the jurors. In his court memorandum, Justice Mahoney stated:

Plaintiff admitted that it, in combination with the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, . . . did create the entire $14,000.00 in money and credit upon its own books by bookkeeping entry. That this was the consideration used to support the Note dated May 8, 1964 and the Mortgage of the same date. The money and credit first came into existence when they created it. Mr. Morgan admitted that no United States Law or Statute existed which gave him the right to do this. A lawful consideration must exist and be tendered to support the Note.
www.webofdebt.com...



posted on Mar, 29 2011 @ 09:57 PM
link   
reply to post by hawkiye
 





The idea that congress is waking up to some con they haven't figured out in a hundred years is pure fantasy.


THAT is for sure! Just read Congressman Wright Patman's A PRIMER ON MONEY: by US House Committee on Banking from the sixties or better yet one of Congressman Mcfadden's flaming Speeches... before he was shot at twice and poisoned. Justice Mahoney of the above post was also poisoned shortly after defying the Bankers.

Remember the kidnapping of the Lindbergh baby??? Well this is the grandfather:

...in 1917 Lindbergh brought articles of impeachment against members of the Federal Reserve Board including Paul Warburg and William Proctor Gould Harding. Lindbergh charged that the Federal Reserve Board members were involved "...in a conspiracy to violate the Constitution and laws of the United States... en.wikipedia.org...




Part of a McFadden speech:

On May 23, 1933, Congressman, Louis T. McFadden, brought formal charges against the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve Bank system, The Comptroller of the Currency and the Secretary of United States Treasury for numerous criminal acts, including but not limited to, CONSPIRACY, FRAUD, UNLAWFUL CONVERSION, AND TREASON. The petition for Articles of Impeachment was thereafter referred to the Judiciary Committee and has YET TO BE ACTED ON.



"Mr. Chairman, we have in this Country one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever known. I refer to the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve Banks, hereinafter called the Fed. The Fed has cheated the Government of these United States and the people of the United States out of enough money to pay the Nation's debt. The depredations and iniquities of the Fed has cost enough money to pay the National debt several times over.

"This evil institution has impoverished and ruined the people of these United States, has bankrupted itself, and has practically bankrupted our Government. It has done this through the defects of the law under which it operates, through the maladministration of that law by the Fed and through the corrupt practices of the moneyed vultures who control it.

"Some people who think that the Federal Reserve Banks United States Government institutions. They are private monopolies which prey upon the people of these United States for the benefit of themselves and their foreign customers; foreign and domestic speculators and swindlers; and rich and predatory money lender. In that dark crew of financial pirates there are those who would cut a man's throat to get a dollar out of his pocket; there are those who send money into states to buy votes to control our legislatures; there are those who maintain International propaganda for the purpose of deceiving us into granting of new concessions which will permit them to cover up their past misdeeds and set again in motion their gigantic train of crime.

"These twelve private credit monopolies were deceitfully and disloyally foisted upon this Country by the bankers who came here from Europe and repaid us our hospitality by undermining our American institutions. Those bankers took money out of this Country to finance Japan in a war against Russia. They created a reign of terror in Russia with our money in order to help that war along. They instigated the separate peace between Germany and Russia, and thus drove a wedge between the allies in World War. They financed Trotsky's passage from New York to Russia so that he might assist in the destruction of the Russian Empire. They fomented and instigated the Russian Revolution, and placed a large fund of American dollars at Trotsky's disposal in one of their branch banks in Sweden so that through him Russian homes might be thoroughly broken up and Russian children flung far and wide from their natural protectors. They have since begun breaking up of American homes and the dispersal of American children. "Mr. Chairman, there should be no partisanship in matters concerning banking and currency affairs in this Country, and I do not speak with any...... home.hiwaay.net...



posted on Mar, 30 2011 @ 07:07 AM
link   
reply to post by ..5..
 


You have a short attention span?

The subject matter is obsolete?

One should start a new thread because an old one is boring?

What's your point?



posted on Mar, 30 2011 @ 10:17 AM
link   
Having a 'State Owned Bank' is not what saved North Dakota from reccession.

They enacted a very shrewd economic development plan in 2000. The fruits of their labour are now showing.

This is HELPED by having a state owned bank, but far from caused by having a state owned bank.

There is a very big difference.



posted on Mar, 30 2011 @ 10:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by hawkiye
reply to post by TheImmaculateD1
 





How can something be fraudlent yet legal? It's either one way or the other.


Because legal is a statutory term to legalize that which is unlawful. Fraud is unlawful however there are many statutes legalizing fraud such as fractional reserve banking. And Congress was not conned they supported it. I know a big deal is made about the federal reserve act being passed when most of the congress was gone for Christmas so they sneaked it though. However that is just more BS excuses. If congress was so against it they could have repealed it and they haven't in almost a hundred years. They are in bed with the banksters and are on the gravy train of slush fund money. Like the billions that disappeared and is still unaccounted for. You can bet that part of that went into congress peoples pockets. The idea that congress is waking up to some con they haven't figured out in a hundred years is pure fantasy.
edit on 29-3-2011 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)


Every single time the Congress has tried to move on legislation they got threatened with economical hell. It was never voted on by the full Congress because they know that the people would be made aware of the con. That is the sole reason why there was never a full vote and will not ever be a full vote to fully authourize it as it is illegal.

Only recently has the Congress decided that enough is enough and finally grew a pair and told them to shove their veiled threats. Remember the recent financial reform bill? The mysterious "1,000 pt Flash Crash of Apr 09" was when the House was voting on it's version (ignored the threat and passed it anyhow), and the now infamous Times Square Car Bomb courtesy of Faisal Shahzad and The Rothschilds when the Senate voted and passed it's version.

The con is too known, the reimplementation of the circuit breakers in July 2009 made it so that they could not destroy the nation. Circuit breakers were implemented in or about Jan 1988 to prevent another 1987 which expired originally in July 2007 that was extended to Aug 2008 that with that particular protection in place and the economical crash of 2008 started about 2 1/2 - 3 weeks later when they knew the restriction was off.

Since it is a well known fact that The Congress cannot read every bill before it fully before a vote takes place the Congress inadvertently without even being aware that they themselves were doing it circumvented them fully by forcing private interests out of our monetary policy and structure once and for all and further reiterated that the extension or permanentization of the charter would not occur and would expire as scheduled.

Their end is near, Our rise is imminenet.
edit on 30-3-2011 by TheImmaculateD1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 30 2011 @ 10:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by ..5..
This thread is a year old why drag it up again? For it's birthday next week?


With the imminency of end of The Federal Reserve it is necessary for the resurrection of this thread because North Dakota is currently the testbed for a national model that will replace the current system.



posted on Mar, 30 2011 @ 02:31 PM
link   
reply to post by TheImmaculateD1
 


You are in dreamland my friend. If congress actually grew a pair they would simply repeal the act today. They could not even pass the real audit the fed bill despite having nearly 300 co-sponsors of it. It is all just a dog and pony show to keep people duped into thinking they are actually doing something when in reality is just business as usual. Any sweeping change or so called replacement of the system will not be what you imagine. It will be the same whore with a new dress and different color lipstick! It is their MO and they are on the banksters payroll, they will not cut off thier meal ticket.

Unfortunately change will come only when enough people are feeling enough pain and we are very close. When that happens the crooks on capital hill will probably need to go into hiding.


edit on 30-3-2011 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 30 2011 @ 03:09 PM
link   
reply to post by peck420
 





Having a 'State Owned Bank' is not what saved North Dakota from reccession.

They enacted a very shrewd economic development plan in 2000. The fruits of their labour are now showing.



OH GOODY more information!


Can you possibly post a link to that plan or give us an Idea of what it was????

At this point ANY "government " who is doing the right thing needs to broad cast it loud and clear.

Thanks in advance



posted on Mar, 30 2011 @ 03:24 PM
link   
reply to post by hawkiye
 





You are in dreamland my friend. If congress actually grew a pair they would simply repeal the act today. They could not even pass the real audit the fed bill despite having nearly 300 co-sponsors of it. It is all just a dog and pony show to keep people duped into thinking they are actually doing something when in reality is just business as usual....


Unfortunately I think you are correct. Every time a Congress Critter "grew a pair" he either backed down or someone ended up dead.



In 1913, Congressman Charles Lindbergh a Republican, said: "When the President signs this bill; the invisible government by the Monetary Power will be legalized…The day of reckoning is only a few years removed." Source www.newswithviews.com...

On February 12, 1917, Rep Charles Lindbergh (R) brought articles of impeachment against five members of the Federal Reserve Board.

On December 13, 1932 Congress McFadden (R) brought an Impeachment motion against Herbert Hoover Source www.scribd.com...

NOTE: Hoover is the Republican president who had Major George S. Patton attack the ten thousand US WWI veterans, called the BONUS ARMY, with tear gas, tanks, and a troop of saber-wielding cavalrymen. SOURCE www.thebonusarmy.com...

On January 6, 1932 Congressman Patman, a Democrat, brought an Impeachment motion against Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon Source www.scribd.com...

On May 23, 1933, Congressman McFadden, brought charges against the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve Bank system, The Controller of the Currency and the Secretary of United States Treasury for numerous criminal acts, including but not limited to, CONSPIRACY, FRAUD, UNLAWFUL CONVERSION, AND TREASON. Source www.conspiracyarchive.com...

On March 7, 1985, Rep. Henry Gonzalez, a Democrat, introduced an Impeachment resolution. against the Federal Reserve on three separate occasions.

I am counting two republicans and two democrats FOR the USA and AGAINST the Banksters.

REPUBLICANS:
McFadden was killed and Lindbergh had his grandbaby kidnapped.

DEMOCRATS:
Gonzales was an 18-term Democratic Congressman. Rep. Wright Patman who died at the ripe old age of 82, served from 1929–1976. He supported FDR's New Deal and introduced a bill (defeated) mandating immediate payment of the bonus to World War I veterans.



Know of any others besides Ron & Rand Paul???



posted on Mar, 30 2011 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by hawkiye
reply to post by TheImmaculateD1
 


You are in dreamland my friend. If congress actually grew a pair they would simply repeal the act today. They could not even pass the real audit the fed bill despite having nearly 300 co-sponsors of it. It is all just a dog and pony show to keep people duped into thinking they are actually doing something when in reality is just business as usual. Any sweeping change or so called replacement of the system will not be what you imagine. It will be the same whore with a new dress and different color lipstick! It is their MO and they are on the banksters payroll, they will not cut off thier meal ticket.

Unfortunately change will come only when enough people are feeling enough pain and we are very close. When that happens the crooks on capital hill will probably need to go into hiding.


edit on 30-3-2011 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)


This is why the charter is expiring, because after it does the cloak is off. Why are not optomistic and filled with hope.

Why do you think the market's been near stagnant as of late? They are trying to use this time to employ their massive power grab and are failing horribly.

Those that do nothing about this nor care about this are apart of the problem and do trust when tshtf that every person for them will be targeted.

If it was up to you we'd be rioting and already have martial law. It has always been a mindgame, the most committed will always win. We are continuing to win. We must win, we will win. Everything we do from now on out must be carefully staged and played because if we screw up we are done



posted on Mar, 30 2011 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by crimvelvet
reply to post by hawkiye
 





You are in dreamland my friend. If congress actually grew a pair they would simply repeal the act today. They could not even pass the real audit the fed bill despite having nearly 300 co-sponsors of it. It is all just a dog and pony show to keep people duped into thinking they are actually doing something when in reality is just business as usual....


Unfortunately I think you are correct. Every time a Congress Critter "grew a pair" he either backed down or someone ended up dead.



In 1913, Congressman Charles Lindbergh a Republican, said: "When the President signs this bill; the invisible government by the Monetary Power will be legalized…The day of reckoning is only a few years removed." Source www.newswithviews.com...

On February 12, 1917, Rep Charles Lindbergh (R) brought articles of impeachment against five members of the Federal Reserve Board.

On December 13, 1932 Congress McFadden (R) brought an Impeachment motion against Herbert Hoover Source www.scribd.com...

NOTE: Hoover is the Republican president who had Major George S. Patton attack the ten thousand US WWI veterans, called the BONUS ARMY, with tear gas, tanks, and a troop of saber-wielding cavalrymen. SOURCE www.thebonusarmy.com...

On January 6, 1932 Congressman Patman, a Democrat, brought an Impeachment motion against Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon Source www.scribd.com...

On May 23, 1933, Congressman McFadden, brought charges against the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve Bank system, The Controller of the Currency and the Secretary of United States Treasury for numerous criminal acts, including but not limited to, CONSPIRACY, FRAUD, UNLAWFUL CONVERSION, AND TREASON. Source www.conspiracyarchive.com...

On March 7, 1985, Rep. Henry Gonzalez, a Democrat, introduced an Impeachment resolution. against the Federal Reserve on three separate occasions.

I am counting two republicans and two democrats FOR the USA and AGAINST the Banksters.

REPUBLICANS:
McFadden was killed and Lindbergh had his grandbaby kidnapped.

DEMOCRATS:
Gonzales was an 18-term Democratic Congressman. Rep. Wright Patman who died at the ripe old age of 82, served from 1929–1976. He supported FDR's New Deal and introduced a bill (defeated) mandating immediate payment of the bonus to World War I veterans.



Know of any others besides Ron & Rand Paul???


WE got dealt a financial calamity each and everytime as a response, nowadays they tried that and got caught. They tried to stage a terror attack for crying out loud and that went pretty well unoticed.

We held out from engaging in WWII to leverage these fools to erase 30 yrs of debts for which it worked, nowadays similiar tactics are being employed.



posted on Mar, 30 2011 @ 03:54 PM
link   
reply to post by crimvelvet
 



Our No. 1 focus has been and continues to be economic development. When we came into office at the end of 2000, we started right then with a very aggressive economic development plan. We not only did a strategic plan where we brought people into the process from around the state, including higher education, the economic development community, obviously the private sector--we did a very comprehensive plan with goals and benchmarks.

We targeted five industries for growth, industries where we have natural advantages in North Dakota: value-added agriculture, advanced manufacturing, technology-based businesses, energy and tourism. We worked very hard to grow all those businesses, and that's what's happening. We've had consistent growth and strong growth not only in more jobs, but better-paying jobs, growing wages, growing per-capita income. We've been very aggressive in growing our exports.


Source


Edit to add:

I have found little to no bi-partisan fighting in North Dakota (on record anyways). Could this be a bigger cause of success than a state owned bank?
edit on 30-3-2011 by peck420 because: (no reason given)


Edit to add #2:

Here is the publicised North Dakota Economic Development Plan 2002.
edit on 30-3-2011 by peck420 because: (no reason given)


Edit to add #3:
Here is the publicised North Dakota Economic Plan 2010-2020
edit on 30-3-2011 by peck420 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 30 2011 @ 04:49 PM
link   
reply to post by peck420
 


Thanks for satisfying my curiosity bump. I have not had a chance to read the report yet.

From what I can tell ND is doing what a government is SUPPOSED to do.

As you said the state owned bank is only a small part of it.

This reminds me of all the "flavor of the month" management magic bullets I was forever seeing at work. Someone would see a success and figure out all the buildings were painted blue so a consulting Guru would sell the newest magic bullet - paint your buildings blue.


No one ever bothered to see that it was HARD WORK that caused the success.



posted on Apr, 9 2011 @ 04:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by peck420
reply to post by crimvelvet
 



Our No. 1 focus has been and continues to be economic development. When we came into office at the end of 2000, we started right then with a very aggressive economic development plan. We not only did a strategic plan where we brought people into the process from around the state, including higher education, the economic development community, obviously the private sector--we did a very comprehensive plan with goals and benchmarks.

We targeted five industries for growth, industries where we have natural advantages in North Dakota: value-added agriculture, advanced manufacturing, technology-based businesses, energy and tourism. We worked very hard to grow all those businesses, and that's what's happening. We've had consistent growth and strong growth not only in more jobs, but better-paying jobs, growing wages, growing per-capita income. We've been very aggressive in growing our exports.


Source


Edit to add:

I have found little to no bi-partisan fighting in North Dakota (on record anyways). Could this be a bigger cause of success than a state owned bank?
edit on 30-3-2011 by peck420 because: (no reason given)


Edit to add #2:

Here is the publicised North Dakota Economic Development Plan 2002.
edit on 30-3-2011 by peck420 because: (no reason given)


Edit to add #3:
Here is the publicised North Dakota Economic Plan 2010-2020
edit on 30-3-2011 by peck420 because: (no reason given)


The State ownership over it's bank prohibits and severely restricts lobbyists loyal to every sector of the economy from interjecting their will as there is no one to pay off because anyone that gets caught gets canned,.

As I stated previously, The North Dakota plan is the model that will eventually replace the current Federal Reserve.



posted on Apr, 9 2011 @ 04:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by crimvelvet
reply to post by peck420
 


Thanks for satisfying my curiosity bump. I have not had a chance to read the report yet.

From what I can tell ND is doing what a government is SUPPOSED to do.

As you said the state owned bank is only a small part of it.

This reminds me of all the "flavor of the month" management magic bullets I was forever seeing at work. Someone would see a success and figure out all the buildings were painted blue so a consulting Guru would sell the newest magic bullet - paint your buildings blue.


No one ever bothered to see that it was HARD WORK that caused the success.


Hard work and a lack of a lobbying block deadset on pushing the agenda of outside interests are taken out of the equation clearing up alot of room. When you've got say, 50 lobbying groups working for the same entity that muddies the water and weighs the dockett down so much that the final bill is usually becomes a second rate watered down version of itself. Remove this bloc and watch how faster things get done.
edit on 9-4-2011 by TheImmaculateD1 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join