4 ms·

Sorry I'm not American so I'm not obsessed with the idea that the state cannot maintain something. Your banking sector sucks compared to Europe.

salawat 6y ago
That's absolutely fair, and I admit, I wouldn't be fundamentally opposed to it. The little magic 8-ball in my mind I use to gauge the plausibility of a particular political direction of development simply sees far too many endemic issues with American institutional philosophy to see something like this gain traction. Mind, I've worked in that space. It's a ridiculously profitable industry for those that operate in the space (usually with customer hostile profit generating models, and demographic engineering to ensure you're hitting the most vulnerable folks for revenue extraction; part of the reason I ended up getting out and refuse to look back). As it turns out, the profitability per employee person in the company can be extremely high, which means there is a lot of lobbying potential to keep a cohesive National government maintained/specified banking infrastructure from coming into existence. I'm not just trying to take cheap shots or be dismissive of the idea. It's just experience tells me this is well within "everyone stops being a dick" territory in terms of probability of realization through organic development short of some higher being deciding I need a lesson in being more humble today. There is some synergy or likelihood of an indirect development in that direction with the whole Stimulus boondoggle going on in Washington, but the resulting implementation will almost guaranteed be challenged as soon as any hint of the present crisis having resolved comes around. Private industry in the U.S. as a rule will raise hell to destroy a public alternative as unfair competition on free market principles, notwithstanding the self-referential inconsistency the private actors demonstrate at the first chance they get. This is why there are only really 3 public trust quasi-Corps I'm aware of. Post-Office (Constitutionally guaranteed), Freddie Mac, and Fannie Mae. Okay, technically the Federal Reserve, but to be frank, their track record is so spotty, it feels more like the most elaborate financial shell game ever perpetrated than an institution to consider seriously effective. It hurts frankly. I hate that the sector is as big as it is because we can't just all agree that maybe this thing is pervasive enough to warrant folding into the basic Public Trust toolkit. That's just the reality on this side of the pond though. We measure the trustworthiness of Government as a repository for broad sweeping social power based on the least virtuous operator in living memory. Unfortunately, we just haven't had a long enough run where people could be trusted not to abuse anything more functional than what we have. Quite the opposite. Gives me a headache just dwelling on it most days.
- PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
  You've been told you can't trust the government for almost 40 years now. What evidence do you actually have that the government is any less "trustworthy" than large corporations? Or more wasteful? Or less efficient? There are endless stories of government boondoggles ... precisley because the government is public. Dig a little deeper and all the same stories of organizational dysfunction exist in corporations large and small - even in some co-ops, sad to say. Don't just buy into the relentless right-wing propaganda that government is broken/inefficient/useless/corrupt. Seek out actual evidence. Recognize that all human organizations have issues and that once (say, the 1960s) we used to believe (and devote significant resources to the idea) that we could improve them. Government is no exception to that, any more than Verizon or REI.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
sukilot 6y ago
But we avoided the Holocaust so far, so we've got that going for us.
- amiga_500 6y ago
  Huge congratulations on that, it's good to set standards. Perhaps you might consider making them a bit higher?

salawat 6y ago

That's absolutely fair, and I admit, I wouldn't be fundamentally opposed to it. The little magic 8-ball in my mind I use to gauge the plausibility of a particular political direction of development simply sees far too many endemic issues with American institutional philosophy to see something like this gain traction. Mind, I've worked in that space. It's a ridiculously profitable industry for those that operate in the space (usually with customer hostile profit generating models, and demographic engineering to ensure you're hitting the most vulnerable folks for revenue extraction; part of the reason I ended up getting out and refuse to look back). As it turns out, the profitability per employee person in the company can be extremely high, which means there is a lot of lobbying potential to keep a cohesive National government maintained/specified banking infrastructure from coming into existence. I'm not just trying to take cheap shots or be dismissive of the idea. It's just experience tells me this is well within "everyone stops being a dick" territory in terms of probability of realization through organic development short of some higher being deciding I need a lesson in being more humble today. There is some synergy or likelihood of an indirect development in that direction with the whole Stimulus boondoggle going on in Washington, but the resulting implementation will almost guaranteed be challenged as soon as any hint of the present crisis having resolved comes around. Private industry in the U.S. as a rule will raise hell to destroy a public alternative as unfair competition on free market principles, notwithstanding the self-referential inconsistency the private actors demonstrate at the first chance they get. This is why there are only really 3 public trust quasi-Corps I'm aware of. Post-Office (Constitutionally guaranteed), Freddie Mac, and Fannie Mae. Okay, technically the Federal Reserve, but to be frank, their track record is so spotty, it feels more like the most elaborate financial shell game ever perpetrated than an institution to consider seriously effective. It hurts frankly. I hate that the sector is as big as it is because we can't just all agree that maybe this thing is pervasive enough to warrant folding into the basic Public Trust toolkit. That's just the reality on this side of the pond though. We measure the trustworthiness of Government as a repository for broad sweeping social power based on the least virtuous operator in living memory. Unfortunately, we just haven't had a long enough run where people could be trusted not to abuse anything more functional than what we have. Quite the opposite. Gives me a headache just dwelling on it most days.

PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
You've been told you can't trust the government for almost 40 years now. What evidence do you actually have that the government is any less "trustworthy" than large corporations? Or more wasteful? Or less efficient? There are endless stories of government boondoggles ... precisley because the government is public. Dig a little deeper and all the same stories of organizational dysfunction exist in corporations large and small - even in some co-ops, sad to say. Don't just buy into the relentless right-wing propaganda that government is broken/inefficient/useless/corrupt. Seek out actual evidence. Recognize that all human organizations have issues and that once (say, the 1960s) we used to believe (and devote significant resources to the idea) that we could improve them. Government is no exception to that, any more than Verizon or REI.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

sukilot 6y ago

But we avoided the Holocaust so far, so we've got that going for us.

amiga_500 6y ago
Huge congratulations on that, it's good to set standards. Perhaps you might consider making them a bit higher?