One of my points was that your claim of 54T of revenue ignored the cost of capital and the expenses that applied to that revenue. You misrepresented the amount of profit that could theoreticaly be captured by nationalization. It is much less than 54T.
You answered my question about whehter you would follow the Constitutional law on takings; whehter you would pay for the private banks that you would 'sieze.' You said you would not nationalise them but instead you pass laws that would intentionally ruin them and cause their private equitey to drop to zero. You may have a legal issue there, but I suppose it could be massage with less candor.
In terms of your utopian expectation of incentivising gov't workers; I would expect that the Gov't Bank would probably have a Gov't. Union and I don't think for a minute that your incentive expectationw will be met any better than they have been at the U.S. Post Office or any state's Motor Vehicle Agency.
'Moral hazard' would not be the issue...political corruption, crony capitalism would be the problem...just look at how the Jacksonians handled the State/National banking issues. If you go back to Colonial times, 18th century, pre-revolution the history of State Banking and political corruption is clear. It was the failure of colonial state banking that drove private banking to develop in America in the first place.
In terms of the nature of the assets financed, I don't share your utopian confidence that a group of Government know betters will be able to choose what should be invested in. It was never worked in the past, so I don't see why it would now.
It is one thing to create a limited State owned bank in North Dakota, with very few retail or commercial bank services, that operates primarily as a secondary market for private banks in a small state with a relatively simple econonmy and a population of only 700,000 residents, but it is quite another to operated a nationalized banking system that effectively meet the capital needs of the World's largest, most global economy.
You answered my question about whehter you would follow the Constitutional law on takings; whehter you would pay for the private banks that you would 'sieze.' You said you would not nationalise them but instead you pass laws that would intentionally ruin them and cause their private equitey to drop to zero. You may have a legal issue there, but I suppose it could be massage with less candor.
In terms of your utopian expectation of incentivising gov't workers; I would expect that the Gov't Bank would probably have a Gov't. Union and I don't think for a minute that your incentive expectationw will be met any better than they have been at the U.S. Post Office or any state's Motor Vehicle Agency.
'Moral hazard' would not be the issue...political corruption, crony capitalism would be the problem...just look at how the Jacksonians handled the State/National banking issues. If you go back to Colonial times, 18th century, pre-revolution the history of State Banking and political corruption is clear. It was the failure of colonial state banking that drove private banking to develop in America in the first place.
In terms of the nature of the assets financed, I don't share your utopian confidence that a group of Government know betters will be able to choose what should be invested in. It was never worked in the past, so I don't see why it would now.
It is one thing to create a limited State owned bank in North Dakota, with very few retail or commercial bank services, that operates primarily as a secondary market for private banks in a small state with a relatively simple econonmy and a population of only 700,000 residents, but it is quite another to operated a nationalized banking system that effectively meet the capital needs of the World's largest, most global economy.
