On Tuesday night’s Free Talk Live, a caller tried to make the case for the “Bank of Oregon” a la the “Bank of North Dakota”.
I thought the hosts didn’t understand the point he was making. (Yes, he made it very badly. As you would expect to a non-politician non-public speaker. Not that I’m any better. But, I think he was on to something.)
So I wrote up some stalking points and called in.
(As a long time AMPlifier and long time listener since back when the boys were in Flori-Duh fighting the good fight, I knew that they were going to be a tough “sell”. In retrospect, I should have prepped some more.)
Here are my points:
# – # – #
Why the Bank of North Dakota is important to secession and liberty:
(1) It’s a depository for all state tax collections and fees; The state itself and all state agencies do their banking with BND. Wrests control from politicians and their cronies on Wall Street.
(2) It plows the funds (I should have said “capital”!) back into the state in the form of infrastructure, farm, business, and student loans. Consistent with sound fiscal and banking practices.
(3) It acts as a bankers’ bank or a wholesale bank. So the BND provide services to banks, whether it’s check clearing, liquidity, or bond accounting safekeeping. It can subsitute for the Federal Reserve System.
(4) It provides a dividend back to the state. In the case of BND that 60M$ or 50% of their annual profit. That’s profit that everywhere else goes to crony capitalism.
(5) It deprives the current Federal politicians and bureaucrats of the ability to inflate the currency. A state bank could introduce a hard currency or allow free market competition in currency.
This could be a stepping stone to “killing” the FED. It is a way to “shrink” the problem. Replacing the FED with 50 State Banks is a good step on the road to liberty.
# – # – #
Here’s the link to my “performance”; starts at the 1:18 mark and completes at the 1:32 mark.
I must have done well because I got a huge chink of air time. At about the 45 mark of the second hour and held over as the first bock on the third hour.
So the hosts must have found me “interesting”.
As expected Ian, who is a raving Anarcho-Capitalist, immeidately went for the jugular, that he is against ANYTHING that the government does. (Me 2, but how does one change the status quo. It took 100 years to get into this mess; it’ll take a 100 to get out. The water erodes everything by the passage of time.) Ian, a more a pragmatic libertarian, was ore open to being convinced. Initially, the third host (Stephanie?) didn’t have anything to say; she joined in later on as she got the concept.
I never got the feeling that they were “convinced”, but they did understand that it was not the absurd idea that came across by that prior caller. Two out of three seemed to like the conversation. So it wasn’t a bad experience. Next time I do it, I’ll be better prepared.
Any way listen to me as a “talk show caller” and give me your opinion.
# – # – # – # – # 2012-Nov-22 @ 10:43