On consumer debt… I agree that no consumer debt is far worse than the crappy system of Dracula debt that we have. But the system is pretty crappy. Better pay would help, but public banking would not. Let me explain.
Small businesses may not have adequate access to credit, and public banking might help. But consumers have PLENTY of access to credit. The better credits do great out of this system. (Let me sing my 2.875% mortgage loan!) The poor credits get screwed. Their creditors don't care if they get paid or not. The credit card people will run their sweatbox unless bankruptcy intervenes. The car guys will make their nut out of the down payment, and it is pure gravy afterwards, until they repo the car and start the carousel again. The mortgagors credit bid, spiff the place up, and flip it.
You could argue that a public bank would give better terms. And it might. But can they market these terms as effectively as Crazy Shylock? And if public banks specialize in poor credits, they will often be the heavy. Even the most sensitively-written and -administered loans to weak credits will often go sour. I'm sure that the editorial page of the WSJ will have great fun with these all-too-common events.
Me? I'm a mossback. I'll go for usury limits, which will discourage all lending to bad credits. (If you care enough about the worthy bad credits, maybe let eleemosynary or public banks specialize in this market, and lend over these limits?) This won't stop Kneecap Loans from doing its illegal thing. But Kneecap Loans won't be able to advertise on Tiktok, or however lenders market themselves these days.
Also read "Wall Street" years ago and only rediscovered my copy when packing up for cross-country move--but I think I'll let you do the reread and comment--thanks!
Two things:
Yay to reviving US postal banking! When I've brought this up to folks, it typically gets a "you're mad as a hatter" look, and explanation that many (most?) problems with USPS are the results of utterly unnecessary, often calculated, decisions (see, e..g., fn. 8 in your linked-to 2020 CEPR report) doesn't help very much.
Boo to Stoller's "Big"! Overlong book with some interesting information, but overall terrible because it utterly misunderstands US Populism., its ostensible reason for being. Despite its long list of references, it nowhere cites/mentions Goodwyn's work (let alone the work that has followed him), the sine qua non for understanding US Populism. I even contacted the historian who wrote the 2000 book about Stoller's hero Wright Patman (which he cites and relies on), to find out if she had mentioned/referenced Goodwyn. She had, of course--how could she not, being a responsible person/scholar? So: a shockingly irresponsible book that, when I am at my most rational, I think copies of should be rounded up and pulped, with its author subject to public ostracization and boycott until/unless he acknowledges and repents for the error of his ways. If only "self-criticism" hadn't been a slogan of now (and rightly) discredited political views and analysis . . . .
Thanks for your note. I bought "Big" (used) and put it down pretty quickly. Too much polemic. I cited Stoller since he seems to be the most active advocate in this realm.
On consumer debt… I agree that no consumer debt is far worse than the crappy system of Dracula debt that we have. But the system is pretty crappy. Better pay would help, but public banking would not. Let me explain.
Small businesses may not have adequate access to credit, and public banking might help. But consumers have PLENTY of access to credit. The better credits do great out of this system. (Let me sing my 2.875% mortgage loan!) The poor credits get screwed. Their creditors don't care if they get paid or not. The credit card people will run their sweatbox unless bankruptcy intervenes. The car guys will make their nut out of the down payment, and it is pure gravy afterwards, until they repo the car and start the carousel again. The mortgagors credit bid, spiff the place up, and flip it.
You could argue that a public bank would give better terms. And it might. But can they market these terms as effectively as Crazy Shylock? And if public banks specialize in poor credits, they will often be the heavy. Even the most sensitively-written and -administered loans to weak credits will often go sour. I'm sure that the editorial page of the WSJ will have great fun with these all-too-common events.
Me? I'm a mossback. I'll go for usury limits, which will discourage all lending to bad credits. (If you care enough about the worthy bad credits, maybe let eleemosynary or public banks specialize in this market, and lend over these limits?) This won't stop Kneecap Loans from doing its illegal thing. But Kneecap Loans won't be able to advertise on Tiktok, or however lenders market themselves these days.
Also read "Wall Street" years ago and only rediscovered my copy when packing up for cross-country move--but I think I'll let you do the reread and comment--thanks!
Two things:
Yay to reviving US postal banking! When I've brought this up to folks, it typically gets a "you're mad as a hatter" look, and explanation that many (most?) problems with USPS are the results of utterly unnecessary, often calculated, decisions (see, e..g., fn. 8 in your linked-to 2020 CEPR report) doesn't help very much.
Boo to Stoller's "Big"! Overlong book with some interesting information, but overall terrible because it utterly misunderstands US Populism., its ostensible reason for being. Despite its long list of references, it nowhere cites/mentions Goodwyn's work (let alone the work that has followed him), the sine qua non for understanding US Populism. I even contacted the historian who wrote the 2000 book about Stoller's hero Wright Patman (which he cites and relies on), to find out if she had mentioned/referenced Goodwyn. She had, of course--how could she not, being a responsible person/scholar? So: a shockingly irresponsible book that, when I am at my most rational, I think copies of should be rounded up and pulped, with its author subject to public ostracization and boycott until/unless he acknowledges and repents for the error of his ways. If only "self-criticism" hadn't been a slogan of now (and rightly) discredited political views and analysis . . . .
Keep up the good work!
Rob Chametzky
Thanks for your note. I bought "Big" (used) and put it down pretty quickly. Too much polemic. I cited Stoller since he seems to be the most active advocate in this realm.
Dougwood hen is pure asscap
No deep macro undetstanding
His expose worthy of
A 00s progressive on standard oil
Of course the capital clouds arent funding progress or expansion of
Market production
Yes the answer is public option
Not take over of the wall street arks
competition from GSEs
Health edication housing
Now industry itself
Btw let uncle do the borrowing
To maintain job max
Not consumer loans
Households are vest served by cash payments
production of infra structure
Great
Building crucial industrial GSEs
Not about jobs but about kboq how and price control thru pub form options
And
full automation green factories