Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

brooklynite

(94,585 posts)
Wed Nov 7, 2018, 05:55 PM Nov 2018

Los Angeles Voters Reject First Public Bank Bid for U.S. City

Source: Los Angeles Times

Los Angeles voters rejected a ballot measure that would have allowed the city to establish a public bank, which would have been a first for a U.S. metropolis.

About 58 percent of voters cast ballots against the charter amendment that would have started the process, with 78 percent of precincts reporting, according to the Associated Press.

Proponents said the city should manage its own deposits to benefit its residents instead of letting big banks profit from them. They had hoped the bid, supported by the city’s mayor and council president, would also give momentum to those around the country. The only public bank in the 50 states is Bank of North Dakota, established in 1919.

But questions of how it would work and cost, which have dogged attempts in Massachusetts and elsewhere, weighed on the effort.

Read more: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-11-07/los-angeles-voters-reject-first-public-bank-bid-for-u-s-city

7 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Los Angeles Voters Reject First Public Bank Bid for U.S. City (Original Post) brooklynite Nov 2018 OP
This message was self-deleted by its author iluvtennis Nov 2018 #1
No! That's bad. A public bank would have helped a ton of people. Tiggeroshii Nov 2018 #2
I guess I read it wrong. Sorry. Thought it would be a BOFA or Chase or WF iluvtennis Nov 2018 #4
Another case of what's best being defeated by stupidity & fear ("how it would work & cost") stuffmatters Nov 2018 #3
So ridiculous Tiggeroshii Nov 2018 #5
It works fine - See First and Second Banks of the United States. marylandblue Nov 2018 #6
I like the idea of a state owned bank GitRDun Nov 2018 #7

Response to brooklynite (Original post)

 

Tiggeroshii

(11,088 posts)
2. No! That's bad. A public bank would have helped a ton of people.
Wed Nov 7, 2018, 06:07 PM
Nov 2018

Not have to be beholdent to the greedy corporate numbskulls like the fascist bofa or hellsfargo.

stuffmatters

(2,574 posts)
3. Another case of what's best being defeated by stupidity & fear ("how it would work & cost")
Wed Nov 7, 2018, 06:15 PM
Nov 2018

It would bring substantial financial independence and stability to Los Angeles and profits (instead of to Wall Street).& North Dakota figured out decades & decades ago "how it would work.",,,there's no mystery.

GitRDun

(1,846 posts)
7. I like the idea of a state owned bank
Wed Nov 7, 2018, 08:20 PM
Nov 2018

Here's an article that explains the benefits:

[link:http://www.governing.com/columns/public-finance/col-case-state-owned-bank-north-dakota.html|

Look at North Dakota. Its bank accepts deposits from ordinary folks and, when the state collects tax revenue, instead of depositing it in big banks that might have another agenda, it goes into BND, which is more likely to take that tax revenue and other deposits and lend it within the state. It's one of the reasons North Dakota has the lowest unemployment rate in the country. Yes, the state also has an oil and gas boom, but so do Montana and Wyoming and they have high unemployment.


Voters need to be educated as to the benefits of having a state run bank, infrastructure banks.

They are great new sources of financing infrastructure, local small businesses, etc.
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Los Angeles Voters Reject...