On July 27, 2012, the National Association of Letter Carriers adopted a resolution at their national convention in Minneapolis to investigate the establishment of a postal banking system. The resolution noted that expanding postal services and developing new sources of revenue are important components of any effort to save the public post office and preserve living-wage jobs; that many countries have a long and successful history of postal banking, including Germany, France, Italy, Japan and the United States itself; and that postal banks could serve the nine million people who don't have a bank account and the 21 million who use usurious check cashers, giving low-income people access to a safe banking system. "A USPS [United States Postal Service] bank would offer a 'public option' for banking," concluded the resolution, "providing basic checking and savings - and no complex financial wheeling and dealing."Truthout
Saving the Post Office: Letter Carriers Consider Bringing Back Banking Services
Ellen Brown | Chairman of the Public Banking Institute
13 comments:
A bit off topic, just wondering if anyone happens to know where I can find any papers by minsky(or anyone else) that describe why Minsky thought that J.G jobs must meet the skills of the unemployed rather than simply providing jobs which the unemployed must simply fill. I recall reading this somewhere, but I can't find where!
Thanks.
Too many low income people would benefit from this. The bankers, Dimon especially, will whine and howl if a government agency threatens their oligopoly. I'd bet their lobbyists are already on capital hill to make sure this never happens.
Their 'if it fits it ships' idea and their more recent 'every door direct' have been pretty popular.... I think this would be too.
I guess the banks would just have to pay more interest directly to the Fed if they were denied the deposit balances.... rsp
They live on a different planet. I mean literally, Dimon literally has a base on the moon with rockets pointed at earth.
I met someone in a pub the other day who literally believes that the world is controlled by evil aliens.
Minsky got it from Tom Paine & Napoleon?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guaranteed_minimum_income
Interesting article, I imagine it'd require an Act of Congress to get done (maybe the USPS board of directors has authority to do this unilaterally, I don't know).
Since the USPS is a federally owned corporation, its debts are backed by the US's full faith and credit. That's why the the old Postal Savings System didn't have to join the FDIC, it was already backed by Tsy. The difference is the FDIC only guarantees a set sum (currently $250k) per account, Postal accounts had an unlimited guarantee.
So besides the poor and "unbanked", a Postal bank could also clean up among the rich and, err, already banked as a 100% insured alternative to money market funds.
The neoliberal argument against government operations like the USPS is contradictory — on one hand, that govt ops are uncompetitive, and on the other, that if govt agencies are allowed to compete with private companies they will have an unfair competitive advantage. Which is it?
Wouldn't a not-for-profit nationalized depository sintitution, like the USPS, for all intents and purposes remove the need for the FDIC and reinstate Glass-Steagall?
Everyone can choose what do do with their money. If you just want it to be "safe" then it is in a governmenot not-for-profit depository institution. And in these institution, you'll receive no or very little interest.
If you want to "risk" your savings (invest it), then you can deposit it in a commercial enterprise. These commercial enterprises will pay a higher rates of return, but if they go under… just like most investment opportunities, you lose your money.
And if commercial banks want to offer protection.. here's a novel idea… they can purchase insurance.
Sounds free-market-ish.
@ JK
Wouldn't a not-for-profit nationalized depository sintitution, like the USPS, for all intents and purposes remove the need for the FDIC and reinstate Glass-Steagall?
Everyone can choose what do do with their money. If you just want it to be "safe" then it is in a governmenot not-for-profit depository institution. And in these institution, you'll receive no or very little interest.
If you want to "risk" your savings (invest it), then you can deposit it in a commercial enterprise. These commercial enterprises will pay a higher rates of return, but if they go under… just like most investment opportunities, you lose your money.
And if commercial banks want to offer protection.. here's a novel idea… they can purchase insurance.
Sounds free-market-ish.
This is essentially my proposal. Govt-sponsored retail banking and private commercial banking with no govt guarantees. I would also have govt loan on residential RE.
Let's see, if all mortgages were originated and held by the USPS, the $10T in outstanding mortages would be generating (at 5%, 30 yrs) over $600 billion a year in interest and principal payments, which means the govt needs to tax that much less to maintain the same fiscal stance.
I'd wager that our first Postmaster General, Benjamin Franklin, would approve.
"Franklin advanced the notion that if paper money were put into circulation through a land bank -- that is, lent on mortgage security -- that the mortgages would secure the value of the paper money, preventing it from depreciating..."
http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/users/brock/webdoc6.html#backing%20theory
Check out Kiwibank in NZ for a great example of this. It is a very popular and competitive bank, owned by NZ Post.
www.kiwibank.co.nz
As to an act of Congress, there is no reason that a state or municipal gov't could not set up their own retail bank and contract out the retail operations to the post office. At my local post office there are windows for US Federal Credit Union in the main lobby. This is the credit union of US gov't workers. So the employees already have their own bank, in a way.
Post a Comment