In Los Angeles voters had the
opportunity to vote for and against the
creation of a public bank. That's right, a
bank owned and operated by the
government, in this case the city
government of Los Angeles, that would
compete with private banks and offer
services that private banks often don't
offer or under different circumstances.
The measure was not passed but 43% of
the voters were in favor. The people who
pushed it, who want a public bank, didn't
really have enough time.
It needs more education. And this is,
however, a very good beginning. I want to
also mention that the head of the Los
Angeles City Council, Herb Wesson,
supported this effort and that's an
important support to get. What's at stake
here is important also for everyone to
understand. The United States already has
public banks. The most famous is in North
Dakota which has had a public bank, owned
and operated by the state of North
Dakota, for over a hundred years. It has
been attacked by private banks who fear
the competition, but both Republican and
Democratic governors and legislatures in
North Dakota have beaten back every single effort to get rid of
the public bank. That's how popular it is.
It takes the money that is paid in taxes,
and fishing licenses, and motor vehicle
fees, and instead of giving it to a
private bank (typically one of the giant
banks in the United States) it goes
instead into the state bank. In other
words, state money is going to be used by
the state bank which then makes loans
available on good conditions to state
businesses and state residents. It's a
public service. And that's what I'd like
to mention about this important issue. A
public bank holds the private banks to a
standard. The private banks now have to
do as
well as that public bank, or nearly so,
otherwise their condition of existence
is removed.
Why have private banks if they cannot or
will not do for the public what the
public bank does? It's a good way to hold
them to account. It's a good way to
measure how well they're doing, number
one. Number two, public banks don't have
to make a profit. If they do, whatever
their profit is goes back into the state
governments income because it's part of
the state, and that means the state
government doesn't have to raise taxes
as much as it otherwise would. That's
made the Bank of North Dakota quite
popular. And if it doesn't make profits
it's because it can offer loans on the
basis of lower costs then a private bank
would charge, which is good for all the
borrowers who are the majority, not the
lenders, who are the minority. Get the
picture? And finally, a public bank can
make loans for what society needs even
if it isn't so profitable. A private bank,
for example, will fund luxury housing
because it's very profitable. A public
bank might instead support public
housing, low cost housing, rent low
housing. You get the picture? Because we
need it in society and therefore the
public bank does what we all need rather
than what the private bank does, which is
driven by the profit of the investors
and the shareholders etc.. Very important
that Los Angeles put it on the ballot.
Very important that 43% of the people
supported it first time out. Keep at it.
And this kind of thing will happen not
only in Los Angeles but in the other
cities that are copying it, and that are
learning from what's going on.
