Why Is Socialism Doing So Darn Well in Deep-Red North Dakota?

Originally posted by Dustofenese
...If a State Owned bank is Socialism, then what would that make the Federal Reserve?

Price Fixing, Centrally Planning an economy, Market Manipulation...Sounds like Socialism to me.

Except that the beneficiaries are banks and not people.

You, average Joe, cannot get a loan from the Federal Reserve the way that a person can get a loan from the Bank of North Dakota.

A very large bank, known as a Fed Primary Dealer, can get a loan from the Federal Reserve, and then as a for-profit entity, mark it up significantly and loan money to you and pocket the difference as profit.

North Dakota is small. Can you imagine the wailing from JP Morgan Chase if the Fed started to do what the Bank of North Dakota does, but nationally?

Am I the only one who can notice this so so obvious revolution thats being engaged heavily by the media and entertainment industry.

Whether there are negative stories on the news or not, there seems to be an air of positive change that feels good.

reply to post by mbkennel

I'm a little fuzzy on how people see a Credit Union as a socialist idea?! It's a bank but rather than ownership by ultra wealthy bankers, it's literally owned by the account holders. My first account as a teenager was in a Credit Union. It was amazing to get a $1,000 loan on a signature (cosigned) at 16 years old. Quite a learning experience.

However, the purpose is still to make money. I got small checks from that a few times too, as an account holder and stakeholder to the Credit Union. It's greatest benefit was loans for home improvement to business development. Low interest and far friendlier than a convention bank. Yet, there again, home improvement of private property and loans to private business to generate more private profit.

So, I'm honest in asking your reasoning. You could see a whole different angle to this that I'm just not considering for a way to look at it. Wouldn't be the first time...?

reply to post by Wrabbit2000

Nice bunny avatar. Reminds me of me.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
I'm a little fuzzy on how people see a Credit Union as a socialist idea?! It's a bank but rather than ownership by ultra wealthy bankers, it's literally owned by the account holders.

It's not merely a cooperative bank if this is what you're talking about. The Bank of North Dakota is a State owned and tax payer funded bank. If North Dakota was an independent nation, it would be by all definitions a nationalized bank.. in fact.. considering that North Dakota does get much of it's funding from the Federal government technically it is a nationalized bank:

As the only state-owned bank in the nation we act as a funding resource in partnership with other financial institutions, economic development groups and guaranty agencies. We have four established business areas: Student Loans, Lending Services, Treasury Services and Banking Services. BND’s support services and dedicated employees provide you with the best customer service.

banknd.nd.gov...

The state earns roughly 0.25 percent less interest than state agencies would get from a commercial institution. The bank also pays no state or federal taxes and has no deposit insurance; North Dakota taxpayers are on the hook for any losses.

www.huffingtonpost.com...

The Bank of Dakota is not a private organization of private account holders, it's a State bank created by the North Dakota government, funded by tax payer money. Not sure why this is all fuzzy to you, it's rather easy to understand.

reply to post by Southern Guardian

Credit unions themselves were a socialist idea. This one is state-wide and state owned.

^^^ That was the quote I was replying to. Specifically, the first portion. The reply to me, which I was replying on, had a total of two lines typed in it. That was the second one. :shk:

It isn't fuzzy, it's context. Someone was saying *CREDIT UNIONS* were a socialist idea. They didn't say the central North Dakota Bank in that context, and so I was replying to what was said and the statement, not what I might have tried to assume or think they meant by inference that wasn't there.

Why this thread has become a bash fest on semantics, precise definitions and exact usage of terms and context is a little baffling as well as frustrating. It's why I usually don't try and debate this issue. It's *ALL* or nothing, *MY* way or no way entirely too much here.

I've seen a couple on the thread who are as interested in common ground and not provoking each other in the process for real discussion on this as I am. Ideologues are entirely too common for these debates though and that kills it with a bad taste and hard feelings faster than a Mod going postal.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


I think we're having a great discussion here, it's not semantics. Conservatives attempt to label anything they don't like as socialism, yet when good examples are given of socialist programs, such as medicare, or State and tax payer funded programs banks, we're arguing semantics supposedly. In the end this Bank was created in part by the State, funded by tax payer money, it is a conservatives definition of socialist.

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
Social programs are of course part of Socialism --
...

They are NOT such thing... For example Social Security wasn't originally formed to be used for the programs of redistribution that has been used by the left and which has bankrupted it... Originally it was formed as a form of pension, and even to this day people are paid according to how long they worked and how much money they made... This is NOT how socialism works... under socialism supposedly everything is distributed EQUALLY...

You people don't even know how socialism works yet want to claim everything is socialism...

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
...
It's not the dirty word we were brought up to think it was.

Really?... Tell that to the over 130-140 + MILLION people who have been murdered under the auspices of SOCIALISM in the last 90 years or so...

Tell that to the MILLIONS more who have been imprisoned in gulags, concentration camps, indoctrination camps etc because they would not swallow the political lies of socialism and would not give up INDIVIDUAL FREEDOMS "for the good of all"...

reply to post by Southern Guardian


I think the big difference here is that I see members of elected Government and very specific individuals at that, who are the source of pushing true, hardcore socialism in the United States. I DO NOT see "liberals" as a whole group and nearly 50% of the nation, cheering for such a thing.

On the other hand, you're generalizing conservatives as if we all have membership to the same club and get briefings on a daily basis for what we should think or say. That broad brush to paint 10's of millions of Americans is what is downright offensive when it's quite clearly in a very negative context.

Conservative is a state of mind and world view, just as Liberal is. I know plenty of liberals up at the college that I get along quite well with. A couple are instructors from over my time there. Political debates can be very interesting with people who are as good or better at citing foundation for their positions by memory and off the cuff. That gets downright fun ...and all in good faith and nothing negative about it.

They aren't Socialists and they absolutely *DO* know the definition of it. One was my instructor IN Political Science last Spring. (And an energetic democrat for that matter)

Generalizing is one thing avoided though. It's just not honest.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000

I think the big difference here is that I see members of elected Government and very specific individuals at that, who are the source of pushing true, hardcore socialism in the United States.

So socialism is fine with you, so long as it's not "hardcore socialism"? And what by definition is hardcore socialism? It almost sounds to be as though you're talking about communism in describing hardcore socialism? is this what you're trying to say? Who is trying to push hardcore socialism or communism again?

Originally posted by Trolloks

Here is how I see the 3 main political ideologies;

1: Capitalism - Benifit for the individual
2: Socialism - Benifit for the society
3: Communism - Benifit for the state

Socialism and Communism tend to get mixed up together oftern, but that is mainly due to the USSR and the cold war when the word Socialism was thrown around all too often, that people started to think that socialism can only exist/move onto communism.
...

I find it ironic how to this day, and after every try at the total implementation of socialism which has failed still there are people who claim "socialism benefits society, and everyone in it"...

That is just a claim, and is nowhere close to the truth.

"For the good of all" and in the name of "redistribution" every INDIVIDUAL RIGHT/FREEDOM is lost under socialism which is why socialist systems become communist and become dictatorial systems...

No matter how many times you people keep claiming it, "socialism" doesn't help anyone... It takes every individual freedom people can have, INCLUDING the right to private property...

You can't have millions of people be part of the government, and "own everything" when one of the main premises of socialism is that there is NO PRIVATE/INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY...

The STATE ALWAYS gets control of everything because despite the LIES that "everyone will be in charge of the government" in fact you can't have millions of people be in charge...

Heck, every leftwinger group, and program has LEADERS, including UNIONS, yet to this day leftwingers continue trying to lie claiming "the people will be in charge"...

When the state OWNS and CONTROLS every form of infrastructure, and there are no check and balances , as there are none under socialism because the state has every form of power, the people can't own and control ANYTHING...

BTW, whomever claimed that "the founding fathers of the Republic of the United States were socialist and wanted to implement socialism" doesn't know what in the world he/she is talking about...

The founding fathers CHEERISHED INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS, and among them the RIGHT TO PRIVATE PROPERTY, yet under socialism in order to "redistribute everything equally" THERE CAN BE NO PRIVATE PROPERTY...

Not to mention that individual freedoms and rights are given away under socialism "for the good of all" which goes completely against what the founding fathers CLEARLY said they wanted for EVERY AMERICAN/INDIVIDUAL...

This is the same sort of illogical fallacy as the one made constantly by those leftwingers who keep claiming that "Jesus was socialist"... Even Jesus CLEARLY stated that EVERY PERSON MATTERS, not to mention that he stated he didn't come to change any politics or even religion.

Jesus gave a choice to people, this is part of something called FREE WILL, yet to this day socialists and every leftwinger loves to claim Jesus, the founding fathers of the U.S., and everything good in this world is socialism because they themselves don't even know what socialism really is...

reply to post by Southern Guardian

Please stop mischaracterizing what I am saying and deliberately skipping right past what I've so clearly said on this very thread.

I have said, again, I think we need to look hard at what works in Socialist systems, what works in our traditional Capitalist system and see where the two might just have something to benefit from each other. Either one, taken alone, has led to disaster and all inside the last century for very recent examples to see the outcome.

I've tried to see this another way but it's getting impossible to avoid the fact, Capitalism as it's been practiced here for many years now at least, has failed. We have people like Buffet, Bloomberg and Soros worth more than a good % of nations in this world produce for an annual Gross Domestic Product. (It's Wiki...but all 4 GDP index's link back to the original sources for the base data) There is absolutely something broken when personal wealth goes beyond that of whole nations. By the United Nations index, Bloomberg himself would rank #92 out of 195 nations, if his personal net worth were taken as a GDP figure.

So, I'm wide open to looking at what works amid a system which is fast crashing. I'm just nothing close to an ideologue, willing to accept OR reject ideas based on the system they come from. The WHOLE system, taken together though? That's where I don't much see any of it working anymore.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


I'm not mischaracterizing anything. It's pretty clear to everybody the Bank of Dakota, being that it is a State owned bank, and given that it is funded by tax payer money, that it is, by definition of many people on this forum, socialist. You're response? That we should only be concerned with "hardcore socialism", although I'm unsure what could be more socialist than a Stated owned and tax payer funded bank? And we're not talking about a Reserve bank here.

So, I'm wide open to looking at what works amid a system which is fast crashing. I'm just nothing close to an ideologue,

Ok, then explain to us what type of socialism doesn't "work", considering that you don't seem to mind State owned banks. Remember, you stated that people are legitimately concerned about the "hardcore socialism" being pushed in this country, so what is this? What bills or programs are examples of "hardcore socialism" as you put it?

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
...
I have said, again, I think we need to look hard at what works in Socialist systems, what works in our traditional Capitalist system and see where the two might just have something to benefit from each other. Either one, taken alone, has led to disaster and all inside the last century for very recent examples to see the outcome.
...

You can't have both socialism and capitalism, or a free society together.

Again, under socialism individual rights and freedoms are given away "for the good of all".

Under socialism and communism people CANNOT own ANY private property because everything has to be "redistributed equally".

Under socialism, and despite the claims of the contrary, the STATE ALWAYS controls and owns everything, and there are no checks and balances needed to have a FREE SOCIETY...

Socialism/communism are completely contradictory to a free society, and seek to banish individual rights and freedoms "for the good of all".

reply to post by ElectricUniverse

(sigh) This is the brick wall our national discussion hits. It's not all or nothing. Communism and Capitalism ARE Mutually exclusive.....until they aren't. Ask the Chinese about that one. They're as communist today as the day Mao set forth with his little Red Book and decided a cultural revolution was needed (and 10's of millions killed in the process of getting it, of course). Yet, they are free market today in ways Mao is probably spinning in his grave over.

Now, we aren't communist, we are, by definition, Capitalist. That system, as the Communist system before it, is failing. Quickly. We're in debt that is now self sustaining in growth at an exponential rate. It can't be stopped even if we WANTED to right now. Balance the budget? So? Compound interest doesn't care...it just slows down a bit.

So we have a system that we WON'T have much longer. It literally cannot sustain itself in this condition.

Just as China found ways to survive by mixing the systems to the hard Communist side of the ledger because they honestly discovered parts of the Western system that works as theirs was starting to fail, there may well be aspects of Socialism we can use.

Are the Northern European nations evil? Are they monsters to their people? Their systems will never work here, taken as a whole.....but there sure may be aspects of them the US wants to look at. That's my point on it. Open minds solve problems. Closed minds perpetuate them.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


When the main premises of a system/systems such as socialism/communism is that there shall be no private property, and when individual rights have to be given away over "the good of the whole" you can't have a free society where individual rights and even minority rights are respected.

The united States is not completely socialist, but it has been getting there since at least 1913 when democrats implemented the Federal Reserve, a central bank, and the IRS with it's "progressive taxes" INCLUDING on private property.

In reality in the United States NO ONE owns anything because we must pay taxes on property even after we have paid completely for that property, and if you don't pay those taxes the state/bank will take away what is supposed to be your property.

In China to this day to be able to have a business you must be part of the communist party and must ask permission to open a business. Not everyone is given the ability to own a business in China, and in the end even the state has stakes over your business.

The Chinese state is USING capitalism so that their socialist/communist system stays afloat, but they are not capitalists.

BTW, in case you didn't know all communists are socialists, although not all socialists are communist. But socialism leads eventually to communism.

Socialism is but a stage to transform a capitalist society into the final goal of communism.

reply to post by ElectricUniverse

The Chinese state is USING capitalism so that their socialist/communist system stays afloat, but they are not capitalists.

I hear ya on your points. I really have to take this one out as a single one though. In one sentence, you have summed up the long and short of the whole idea. They are 'using' capitalist elements to buttress their communist system and morph it into some cross between the two that works. Without that, as you and I both seem to agree, they weren't likely to survive. They were heading where Russia went in 1989.

The problem now is, we're the ones heading to that 1989 collapse point. Now, it's our turn to stop and say 'Hey.. This ain't working... now what?' We can do that from the ashes of a ruined system with nothing left to work with ...or we can ask that in advance of a total general collapse. Math makes the outcome without change pretty clear, however it came about.

So, as your sentence started? Perhaps if it read this way..

The American state is USING socialism so that their capitalist system stays afloat, but they are not socialists.

It would read a little close to the world we find ourselves with right now. Books will someday be written about HOW this all happened and how we came to stare into the abyss ...the problem now isn't blame or being right. I think it's about being correct and honestly looking at the way other systems work to borrow PIECES ...PIECES...of how they function before we flat have nothing functional to reform anymore.

Russia chose that latter option ..and it's taken them over 20 years to recover. Many would suggest they still haven't fully recovered from their collapse. (I think they've recovered fine at this point and playing possum for what instability still appears). Now, they too are ending up with a system more Socialist than Market ..but a mix of both. We need to remain more market than anything ..but exclusive? Well... I'll sure be there to help dig out of the rubble anyway.

Banks are perhaps the most regulated industry on the planet. They are all quasi-government agencies in some form or fashion.

But, let's look at true "entrepreneurial banking" - unfettered, unregulated. Just a decade ago, in metro-Atlanta, it was quite easy for a few wealthy folks to start a small community bank. Applying for a charter was pretty straightforward, and regulations were minimal. As a result, during the building boom a few years before the recession hit, small community banks popped up everywhere in and around metro-Atlanta.

Unregulated, under capitalized, most of these banks went bust once the sub-prime crisis hit. Dozens upon dozens of these small community banks went under.

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
...
The problem now is, we're the ones heading to that 1989 collapse point. Now, it's our turn to stop and say 'Hey.. This ain't working... now what?' We can do that from the ashes of a ruined system with nothing left to work with ...or we can ask that in advance of a total general collapse. Math makes the outcome without change pretty clear, however it came about.
...

We are in this economic crisis because it was created by a socialist system that is the central bank of the Federal Reserve, as well as the IRS with all it's progressive taxes.

How do you reconcile, and put together two system that are the complete opposite?

How do you reconcile the right to private property with the abolition of private property?

How do you reconcile the right to individual freedoms and minority rights with the right of the mayority is what only really matters?

There is no way, and btw, about what happened to Russia in 1989, there have been high ranking former communist officers who in the 60s and for decades said this was part of a plan to make the western world believe socialism/communism was dead, and they would use the credit from western nations to prop up Russia, and eventually to form a new socialist Russia, and a socialist Europe and turn the world against the United States.