AOC and Rashida Tlaib propose creating public banks

[lpetrich]

Vox on Twitter: "EXCLUSIVE: @RashidaTlaib and @AOC are proposing a new bill that would foster the creation of public banks across the country — with the aim of encouraging investments in public resources such as affordable housing and renewable energy projects. https://t.co/NAPtj2McwA" / Twitter
noting
AOC and Rashida Tlaib’s Public Banking Act, explained - Vox - "Rashida Tlaib and AOC are rolling out a plan to help create public banks across the country."

A public option, but for banking. That’s what Reps. Rashida Tlaib and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez are proposing in a new bill unveiled on Friday.

The Public Banking Act, first shared with Vox, wouldn’t create those options by itself, but would foster the creation of public banks across the country by providing them a pathway to getting started, establishing an infrastructure for liquidity and credit facilities for them via the Federal Reserve, and setting up federal guidelines for them to be regulated. Essentially, it would make it easier for public banks to exist, and it would give some of them grant money to get started.

While it sounds a little wonky, the basic idea is to make it possible for state and local governments, local businesses, and people to do business with public banks, which theoretically would be more motivated to do public good and invest in their communities than private institutions, which are out for profit. One public bank exists in North Dakota, and there is a growing movement to create more of them across the country. California recently passed a law allowing cities and counties to create and sponsor public banks.

“Economic stability is really, truly tied in with access to this type of banking,” Tlaib said in an interview with Vox. “It’s to try to create stable neighborhoods and communities.”

Tlaib, Ocasio-Cortez Introduce Legislation Enabling Creation of Public Banks | Representative Rashida Tlaib - "Landmark legislation provides financial lifeline for states, municipalities, and unbanked and underbanked residents"

oday, Congresswomen Rashida Tlaib (MI-13) and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (NY-14) introduced the historic Public Banking Act, which allows for the creation of state and locally administered public banks by establishing the Public Bank Grant program administered by the Secretary of the Treasury and the Federal Reserve Board which would provide grants for the formation, chartering and capitalization of public banks. It also codifies that public banks may be members of the Federal Reserve. Public banks can offer lower debt costs to city and state governments, fund public infrastructure projects, and encourage entrepreneurship by providing loans to small businesses at lower interest rates and with lower fees. The legislation also creates a pathway for state-chartered banks to gain federal recognition and recognizes a framework for public banks to interact with Fed Accounts, postal banking, and Digital Dollar platforms. As such, the passage of The Public Banking Act would provide a much-needed financial lifeline to states and municipalities, as well as unbanked and underbanked residents, that have been left in dire straits by the COVID-19 pandemic.

H.R.8721 - 116th Congress (2019-2020): To provide for the Federal charter of certain public banks, and for other purposes. | Congress.gov | Library of Congress - introduced by RT herself.

Its 9 cosponsors: AOC, Ayanna Pressley, Pramila Jayapal, Ilhan Omar, Al Green, Bennie Thompson, Earl Blumenauer, Barbara Lee, Janice Schakowsky

It was introduced close to the Congressional reset at the end of this year, so it's not likely to get very far. But it and some 400 other bills may be reintroduced next year, when there is much more chance of any of them passing.

 

[lpetrich]

More from AOC and Rashida Tlaib’s Public Banking Act, explained - Vox

“Public banks are uniquely able to address the economic inequality and structural racism exacerbated by the banking industry’s discriminatory policies and predatory practices,” Ocasio-Cortez said in a statement. She said that she also believes public banks could facilitate the use of public resources to construct “a myriad of public goods,” including affordable housing and local renewable energy projects. “Public banks empower states and municipalities to establish new channels of public investment to help solve systemic crises.”

Other countries have various forms of public banking in operation and have different regulatory schemes set up for them than commercial banks do, said Rohan Grey, a law professor at Willamette University. But, he said, this proposal is particularly comprehensive and supportive.

It may be hard to pass such a bill, even if the Democrats win a national trifecta. But it may be good for getting other reforms through, by making them seem "moderate".

It won't be creating a federal public bank, but it will instead encourage the creation of state and local banks. There are a variety of services that such banks could offer.

At least at the outset, some banks could serve as depository institutions for state and local governments, meaning those governments would put their money in the local public bank, not JPMorgan. Or they might partner with community banks or other institutions to help boost lending capacity and offer lower debt costs to the businesses and cities they lend to. They could also facilitate easier access to funds for state and local governments from the federal government or Federal Reserve.

...
They could engage in retail banking as well. The legislation creates a framework for public banks to interact with postal banking, where the Postal Service serves as a bank, or FedAccounts, where everyone gets an account with the Federal Reserve through which they could receive direct payments from the government, for example, during an economic crisis.

 

[lpetrich]

California just legalized public banking, setting the stage for more affordable housing | California | The Guardian - 2019 Oct 3 - "Supporters say the change allows for funding infrastructure demands or providing loans to public agencies at low rates"

Public Bank Los Angeles on Twitter: "WE MADE HISTORY. Thank you Governor @GavinNewsom for signing #AB857. Public banking is officially law in California!!!

Activists working together from across the state took on the most powerful industry on the planet- and won. #PeopleOverProfit #MainStreetNotWallStreet https://t.co/0f4ltkAn5O" / Twitter

Back then,
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: "Wow. Congratulations to the California grassroots for this enormous victory. Kudos to @GavinNewsom for signing this.

Public banking is next level! #PeopleOverProfit" / Twitter

A year later, she has followed up.

 

[Harry Bosch]

More from AOC and Rashida Tlaib’s Public Banking Act, explained - Vox

“Public banks are uniquely able to address the economic inequality and structural racism exacerbated by the banking industry’s discriminatory policies and predatory practices,” Ocasio-Cortez said in a statement. She said that she also believes public banks could facilitate the use of public resources to construct “a myriad of public goods,” including affordable housing and local renewable energy projects. “Public banks empower states and municipalities to establish new channels of public investment to help solve systemic crises.”

Other countries have various forms of public banking in operation and have different regulatory schemes set up for them than commercial banks do, said Rohan Grey, a law professor at Willamette University. But, he said, this proposal is particularly comprehensive and supportive.

It may be hard to pass such a bill, even if the Democrats win a national trifecta. But it may be good for getting other reforms through, by making them seem "moderate".

It won't be creating a federal public bank, but it will instead encourage the creation of state and local banks. There are a variety of services that such banks could offer.

At least at the outset, some banks could serve as depository institutions for state and local governments, meaning those governments would put their money in the local public bank, not JPMorgan. Or they might partner with community banks or other institutions to help boost lending capacity and offer lower debt costs to the businesses and cities they lend to. They could also facilitate easier access to funds for state and local governments from the federal government or Federal Reserve.

...
They could engage in retail banking as well. The legislation creates a framework for public banks to interact with postal banking, where the Postal Service serves as a bank, or FedAccounts, where everyone gets an account with the Federal Reserve through which they could receive direct payments from the government, for example, during an economic crisis.

I'm not seeing much advantage here in public banks. Loans are very low cost today. You can get a commercial loan for about 4% today for a building loan. 3.50% or so for a commercial LOC. If you wanted lower rates for public projects, we already have that (Industrial bonds, CDBG, and etc.) You could just expand the CDBG program or make public "worth" type of projects eligible for municipal financing. Then that lowers the rate to around 2%. Are you trying to get a rate lower than 2%? Could a public bank lead to less bias? Maybe. But there are public banks now (SBA, various state programs, USDA, and many other programs); has there been a study that these programs are less biased than a bank? I doubt it.

I've both worked for a local state economic development "bank" and was a commercial banker. And then I've always owned three separate companies. I just closed on a bank loan/SBA 504. So, I've had lots of experience dealing with commercial banks, local community banks, and various government banks. Dealing with government banks is miserable. They take twice as long. Having said that, their interest rate is very good (2.34%). Way under commercial bank rates. Thank you tax payers. Again, I'm not seeing the benefit of expanding these programs more.

 

[lpetrich]

Why Public Banks Are Suddenly Popular | The New Republic - 2018 Aug 10 - "There's only one in America—in North Dakota. But a growing movement is pushing for them across America, from L.A. to D.C."

L.A.’s referendum, which would not itself create a public bank, has attracted the support of left-wing figures like New York congressional candidate Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and filmmaker Michael Moore, in addition to advocates for legalized cannabis. And the idea is gaining traction to other blue cities and states. New Jersey’s Democratic governor, Phil Murphy, campaigned on the creation of a public bank. City officials in Washington, D.C., held a public meeting last month to discuss the possibility. The movement has also spread to New York City and Oakland.

A public bank is what it sounds like: a financial institution owned by the government, funded with taxpayer money, and directly accountable to elected officials and civil servants. For this reason, supporters believe they offer a transparent alternative to private banks like Bank of America, which was fined $42 million this year for lying to customers about its management of stock trades, or Wells Fargo, fined $185 million for opening fraudulent accounts for customers without their consent.

...
“It’s a way to keep our money here as opposed to holding it in these large Wall Street banks that we pay egregious interest and financial fees to,” Kayvan Khalatbari, a mayoral candidate in Denver, told Westword. “This is not a new idea, these exist all over the world. Germany is fueled by public banks, and look, they have the best economy in Europe.”

That referendum failed, with only 42% of the vote. L.A. Voters Reject Measure to Create Public Bank | KTLA

 

[lpetrich]

Rashida Tlaib tweets:

Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib on Twitter: "Big banks have been, are, and will continue to depend on the public dollar. ..." / Twitter

Big banks have been, are, and will continue to depend on the public dollar. It's time for an option that works for the people and not solely privatized profits. That's why I partnered with @RepAOC to introduce the #PublicBanking Act. #FairBanking4All

The #PublicBanking Act would provide a much-needed financial lifeline to states and municipalities, as well as unbanked and underbanked residents, left in dire straits by the #COVID19 pandemic, especially communities of color like #13thDistrictStrong.

The #PublicBanking Act has the support of nine of our House colleagues and 29 organizations that have been on the frontlines of the fight for #FairBanking4All. Here's just one example of #WhyPublicBanks are needed to address economic and racial inequality in our banking system:

noting
States like Illinois, Arizona, Michigan Oregon as well as cities brace for economic reckoning from coronavirus - The Washington Post - "Many, already cash-strapped, are now in dire straits, facing plunging tax revenue and spiking costs."

and with a graphic with text

Private banks leave nonprofitable areas, often creating banking deserts in low-income and rural communities.

1 in 4 U.S. Households don't have access to basic banking.

This leads to a reliance on predatory lending alternatives, costing these households an additional $173 billion/year.

We need accessible banking to address long-standing inequality in our banking system.

 

[Bomb#20]

"A public bank is what it sounds like: a financial institution owned by the government, funded with taxpayer money, and directly accountable to elected officials and civil servants. For this reason, supporters believe they offer a transparent alternative to private banks like Bank of America..."

We already have a transparent alternative to private banks like Bank of America.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_union

So what's the point of a financial institution owned by the government, funded with taxpayer money, and directly accountable to elected officials and civil servants, other than to finance economically inefficient wealth-destroying projects that are in the personal interests of lobbyists and officials instead of in the public interest?

 

[Harry Bosch]

"A public bank is what it sounds like: a financial institution owned by the government, funded with taxpayer money, and directly accountable to elected officials and civil servants. For this reason, supporters believe they offer a transparent alternative to private banks like Bank of America..."

We already have a transparent alternative to private banks like Bank of America.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_union

So what's the point of a financial institution owned by the government, funded with taxpayer money, and directly accountable to elected officials and civil servants, other than to finance economically inefficient wealth-destroying projects that are in the personal interests of lobbyists and officials instead of in the public interest?

Perhaps to transfer bank risk from shareholders to tax payers?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

So banks are common in the inner city?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

"A public bank is what it sounds like: a financial institution owned by the government, funded with taxpayer money, and directly accountable to elected officials and civil servants. For this reason, supporters believe they offer a transparent alternative to private banks like Bank of America..."

We already have a transparent alternative to private banks like Bank of America.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_union

So what's the point of a financial institution owned by the government, funded with taxpayer money, and directly accountable to elected officials and civil servants, other than to finance economically inefficient wealth-destroying projects that are in the personal interests of lobbyists and officials instead of in the public interest?

So they can fuck with the underwriting standards in the name of social justice, then use government money to bail out the problems that result.

 

[Jarhyn]

More from AOC and Rashida Tlaib’s Public Banking Act, explained - Vox

It may be hard to pass such a bill, even if the Democrats win a national trifecta. But it may be good for getting other reforms through, by making them seem "moderate".

It won't be creating a federal public bank, but it will instead encourage the creation of state and local banks. There are a variety of services that such banks could offer.

I'm not seeing much advantage here in public banks. Loans are very low cost today. You can get a commercial loan for about 4% today for a building loan. 3.50% or so for a commercial LOC. If you wanted lower rates for public projects, we already have that (Industrial bonds, CDBG, and etc.) You could just expand the CDBG program or make public "worth" type of projects eligible for municipal financing. Then that lowers the rate to around 2%. Are you trying to get a rate lower than 2%? Could a public bank lead to less bias? Maybe. But there are public banks now (SBA, various state programs, USDA, and many other programs); has there been a study that these programs are less biased than a bank? I doubt it.

I've both worked for a local state economic development "bank" and was a commercial banker. And then I've always owned three separate companies. I just closed on a bank loan/SBA 504. So, I've had lots of experience dealing with commercial banks, local community banks, and various government banks. Dealing with government banks is miserable. They take twice as long. Having said that, their interest rate is very good (2.34%). Way under commercial bank rates. Thank you tax payers. Again, I'm not seeing the benefit of expanding these programs more.

Public banking offers a few very attractive and beneficial elements.

First, public banking means absolute insurance on deposits.

Second, it means the leverage of newer fiscal technologies. It means that the state can finally mandate updated payment systems.

Third, it means that banking deserts go away.

Fourth, it means that having a bank account is a right. The equal protection clause means that everyone is equally entitled to a bank account if the state offers bank accounts.

Fifth, it means that the public is finally capable of engineering loans and interest that actually make sense based on needs rather than "risk", the latter being a concept that is really justification for charging more of those with the ability to pay less.

Public banking is also not anything remotely like "government banks" as they exist today, so fuck off with that noise

 

[ZiprHead]

More from AOC and Rashida Tlaib’s Public Banking Act, explained - Vox

It may be hard to pass such a bill, even if the Democrats win a national trifecta. But it may be good for getting other reforms through, by making them seem "moderate".

It won't be creating a federal public bank, but it will instead encourage the creation of state and local banks. There are a variety of services that such banks could offer.

I'm not seeing much advantage here in public banks. Loans are very low cost today. You can get a commercial loan for about 4% today for a building loan. 3.50% or so for a commercial LOC. If you wanted lower rates for public projects, we already have that (Industrial bonds, CDBG, and etc.) You could just expand the CDBG program or make public "worth" type of projects eligible for municipal financing. Then that lowers the rate to around 2%. Are you trying to get a rate lower than 2%? Could a public bank lead to less bias? Maybe. But there are public banks now (SBA, various state programs, USDA, and many other programs); has there been a study that these programs are less biased than a bank? I doubt it.

I've both worked for a local state economic development "bank" and was a commercial banker. And then I've always owned three separate companies. I just closed on a bank loan/SBA 504. So, I've had lots of experience dealing with commercial banks, local community banks, and various government banks. Dealing with government banks is miserable. They take twice as long. Having said that, their interest rate is very good (2.34%). Way under commercial bank rates. Thank you tax payers. Again, I'm not seeing the benefit of expanding these programs more.

Public banking offers a few very attractive and beneficial elements.

First, public banking means absolute insurance on deposits.

Second, it means the leverage of newer fiscal technologies. It means that the state can finally mandate updated payment systems.

Third, it means that banking deserts go away.

Fourth, it means that having a bank account is a right. The equal protection clause means that everyone is equally entitled to a bank account if the state offers bank accounts.

Fifth, it means that the public is finally capable of engineering loans and interest that actually make sense based on needs rather than "risk", the latter being a concept that is really justification for charging more of those with the ability to pay less.

Public banking is also not anything remotely like "government banks" as they exist today, so fuck off with that noise

Cheaper check cashing and alternative to high interest payday lenders.

 

[Jarhyn]

Public banking offers a few very attractive and beneficial elements.

First, public banking means absolute insurance on deposits.

Second, it means the leverage of newer fiscal technologies. It means that the state can finally mandate updated payment systems.

Third, it means that banking deserts go away.

Fourth, it means that having a bank account is a right. The equal protection clause means that everyone is equally entitled to a bank account if the state offers bank accounts.

Fifth, it means that the public is finally capable of engineering loans and interest that actually make sense based on needs rather than "risk", the latter being a concept that is really justification for charging more of those with the ability to pay less.

Public banking is also not anything remotely like "government banks" as they exist today, so fuck off with that noise

Cheaper check cashing and alternative to high interest payday lenders.

Almost forgot that one. Many americans have run afoul of banks that give people just enough rope, via badly designed systems, to hang themselves through overdraft fees. Take an overdraft and fail to realize it? Enjoy a ballooning bill for every week (or sometimes day) you cannot pay the overdraft plus fee.

Of course, this doesn't have to be an issue, neither part, for anyone. It is an issue because banks make money by providing access to money so they create many small traps for people without the leverage to object and slowly (or quickly, in some cases) bleed them dry.

 

[Harry Bosch]

More from AOC and Rashida Tlaib’s Public Banking Act, explained - Vox

It may be hard to pass such a bill, even if the Democrats win a national trifecta. But it may be good for getting other reforms through, by making them seem "moderate".

It won't be creating a federal public bank, but it will instead encourage the creation of state and local banks. There are a variety of services that such banks could offer.

I'm not seeing much advantage here in public banks. Loans are very low cost today. You can get a commercial loan for about 4% today for a building loan. 3.50% or so for a commercial LOC. If you wanted lower rates for public projects, we already have that (Industrial bonds, CDBG, and etc.) You could just expand the CDBG program or make public "worth" type of projects eligible for municipal financing. Then that lowers the rate to around 2%. Are you trying to get a rate lower than 2%? Could a public bank lead to less bias? Maybe. But there are public banks now (SBA, various state programs, USDA, and many other programs); has there been a study that these programs are less biased than a bank? I doubt it.

I've both worked for a local state economic development "bank" and was a commercial banker. And then I've always owned three separate companies. I just closed on a bank loan/SBA 504. So, I've had lots of experience dealing with commercial banks, local community banks, and various government banks. Dealing with government banks is miserable. They take twice as long. Having said that, their interest rate is very good (2.34%). Way under commercial bank rates. Thank you tax payers. Again, I'm not seeing the benefit of expanding these programs more.

Public banking offers a few very attractive and beneficial elements.

First, public banking means absolute insurance on deposits.

Second, it means the leverage of newer fiscal technologies. It means that the state can finally mandate updated payment systems.

Third, it means that banking deserts go away.

Fourth, it means that having a bank account is a right. The equal protection clause means that everyone is equally entitled to a bank account if the state offers bank accounts.

Fifth, it means that the public is finally capable of engineering loans and interest that actually make sense based on needs rather than "risk", the latter being a concept that is really justification for charging more of those with the ability to pay less.

Public banking is also not anything remotely like "government banks" as they exist today, so fuck off with that noise

What is a bank desert?

 

[Harry Bosch]

Public banking offers a few very attractive and beneficial elements.

First, public banking means absolute insurance on deposits.

Second, it means the leverage of newer fiscal technologies. It means that the state can finally mandate updated payment systems.

Third, it means that banking deserts go away.

Fourth, it means that having a bank account is a right. The equal protection clause means that everyone is equally entitled to a bank account if the state offers bank accounts.

Fifth, it means that the public is finally capable of engineering loans and interest that actually make sense based on needs rather than "risk", the latter being a concept that is really justification for charging more of those with the ability to pay less.

Public banking is also not anything remotely like "government banks" as they exist today, so fuck off with that noise

Cheaper check cashing and alternative to high interest payday lenders.

Okay. Now this is a gap that banks don't serve well. It's just not cost effective for them to give low cost accounts to people with poor credit history. Same with high risk collateral loans or payday loans. But again, there will be a tax payer cost to this program. Not that I'm against this. But there will be a cost.

 

[Jarhyn]

Public banking offers a few very attractive and beneficial elements.

First, public banking means absolute insurance on deposits.

Second, it means the leverage of newer fiscal technologies. It means that the state can finally mandate updated payment systems.

Third, it means that banking deserts go away.

Fourth, it means that having a bank account is a right. The equal protection clause means that everyone is equally entitled to a bank account if the state offers bank accounts.

Fifth, it means that the public is finally capable of engineering loans and interest that actually make sense based on needs rather than "risk", the latter being a concept that is really justification for charging more of those with the ability to pay less.

Public banking is also not anything remotely like "government banks" as they exist today, so fuck off with that noise

What is a bank desert?

A banking desert is a large geographical area without banks, or with only a single bank to service the area. Oftentimes this is accompanied by the presence of a particularly predatory offering (USBank; Wells Fargo), which either doesn't offer services to a large segment of the community, offers them only at a premium, or has practices which make it explicitly predatory (such as compounding overdraft fees).

Have you never lived somewhere where the nearest place you can cash a check is a payday loan store, roughly half or two thirds as far as the nearest bank (who won't even open an account for you)?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Public banking offers a few very attractive and beneficial elements.

First, public banking means absolute insurance on deposits.

Second, it means the leverage of newer fiscal technologies. It means that the state can finally mandate updated payment systems.

Third, it means that banking deserts go away.

Fourth, it means that having a bank account is a right. The equal protection clause means that everyone is equally entitled to a bank account if the state offers bank accounts.

Fifth, it means that the public is finally capable of engineering loans and interest that actually make sense based on needs rather than "risk", the latter being a concept that is really justification for charging more of those with the ability to pay less.

Public banking is also not anything remotely like "government banks" as they exist today, so fuck off with that noise

What is a bank desert?

A place without banks, like the inner-city, which restricts access to even save money, forget trying to gain access to liquidity.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Public banking offers a few very attractive and beneficial elements.

First, public banking means absolute insurance on deposits.

Second, it means the leverage of newer fiscal technologies. It means that the state can finally mandate updated payment systems.

Third, it means that banking deserts go away.

Fourth, it means that having a bank account is a right. The equal protection clause means that everyone is equally entitled to a bank account if the state offers bank accounts.

Fifth, it means that the public is finally capable of engineering loans and interest that actually make sense based on needs rather than "risk", the latter being a concept that is really justification for charging more of those with the ability to pay less.

Public banking is also not anything remotely like "government banks" as they exist today, so fuck off with that noise

#1 is a non-issue, few people have enough in a bank for the current insurance limits to matter.

The rest are going to cause the banks to need huge government subsidies. This is a hidden welfare program and as such I consider automatically bad. (I am not opposed to welfare per se, but I am categorically opposed to hidden welfare programs. One agency, decide how much money to give them and how to allocate it. That's it.)

 

[Jarhyn]

Public banking offers a few very attractive and beneficial elements.

First, public banking means absolute insurance on deposits.

Second, it means the leverage of newer fiscal technologies. It means that the state can finally mandate updated payment systems.

Third, it means that banking deserts go away.

Fourth, it means that having a bank account is a right. The equal protection clause means that everyone is equally entitled to a bank account if the state offers bank accounts.

Fifth, it means that the public is finally capable of engineering loans and interest that actually make sense based on needs rather than "risk", the latter being a concept that is really justification for charging more of those with the ability to pay less.

Public banking is also not anything remotely like "government banks" as they exist today, so fuck off with that noise

#1 is a non-issue, few people have enough in a bank for the current insurance limits to matter.

The rest are going to cause the banks to need huge government subsidies. This is a hidden welfare program and as such I consider automatically bad. (I am not opposed to welfare per se, but I am categorically opposed to hidden welfare programs. One agency, decide how much money to give them and how to allocate it. That's it.)

I'd say if banks will fail without subsidy because the public banking is that good that private banks lose customers, FUCK THEM. Let them crash, and burn, and die.

The banks are like broadband in the US: built on obsolete technologies, and hold a geographic monopoly that cannot be challenged effectively. Their customer service is diesigned to be inaccessible (closed any time you aren't stuck at work anyway).

The minute public banking is available, I will be heading that way. Anyone with half a mind would. And then "investment banking" (leveraging money using other people's money and paying them pennies on the dollar) goes the way it should have a while ago.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Public banking offers a few very attractive and beneficial elements.

First, public banking means absolute insurance on deposits.

Second, it means the leverage of newer fiscal technologies. It means that the state can finally mandate updated payment systems.

Third, it means that banking deserts go away.

Fourth, it means that having a bank account is a right. The equal protection clause means that everyone is equally entitled to a bank account if the state offers bank accounts.

Fifth, it means that the public is finally capable of engineering loans and interest that actually make sense based on needs rather than "risk", the latter being a concept that is really justification for charging more of those with the ability to pay less.

Public banking is also not anything remotely like "government banks" as they exist today, so fuck off with that noise

#1 is a non-issue, few people have enough in a bank for the current insurance limits to matter.

The rest are going to cause the banks to need huge government subsidies. This is a hidden welfare program and as such I consider automatically bad. (I am not opposed to welfare per se, but I am categorically opposed to hidden welfare programs. One agency, decide how much money to give them and how to allocate it. That's it.)

Wait... is your argument, "fuck the poor inner city people"?