Centralized banking isn't a new idea. In fact the idea was considered briefly by those communist firebrands more popularly known as the "US Founding Fathers." The idea was quite unpopular because they already had some experience with the influence that could be wielded by a singular powerful national bank. The bank they had misgivings about was the infamous communist institution known as the "Bank of England."
With much effort including the compromise that moved the US Capital from Pennsylvania to a more southern location to collect support from the Southern States, Marxist radical Alexander Hamilton helped to establish the "First Bank of the United States" a national bank which lasted from 1791 to 1811. This horrible Maoist instituition utterly destroyed the United States leaving nothing in it's wake except for... A completely intact nation which now couldn't effectively pay for the war of 1812 because congress decided not to renew the charter on it's mostly functional bank.
Not the same thing. Back then, they still had private banks. She wants to give the FED TOTAL CONTROL AND AUTHORITY OVER EVERYTHING. No more banks but the FED. One day Saule might look into your bank account and decide, "Hey Zorq looks like he has too much money. That's not fair." and then your money is gone. You now are angry and there's nothing you can do about it. Marxism.
Not the same thing as ... What? Please Point to the thing that this isn't the same as.
Is it the paranoid delusion you have in your head? I think it is the paranoid delusion you have in your head.
This strikes me as an insanity regardless.
There are a lot of people who think postal banking is the way forward. The issue is, of course, that the banks are doing a cockup of the financial sector.
Is it any surprise that when people make a business of operating other people's money, they take almost all the extra money? I mean fuck, that was the whole point.
When someone else leverages my money, I should be entitled to more than half of the profits of them holding it. That doesn't make the bank rich? I don't give a shit.
Postal banking is capable of this. Conventional banking is not. Just the fact that postal banking offers all investment back to the held accounts means that conventional banking could not compete.
I suppose that's a reason to fight it if you take all your financial advice from bankers.
Personally, I take my financial advice from the original source: game theory.
Of course, there will be plenty of banker's who suddenly are very interested in working with the post office for setting up postal banking, and all of them should be shot when they try, for the same reason as the oil company folks sure seem interested in jobs at the EPA and similarly need a one ounce serving.