• About
  • Archive
  • Privacy & Policy
  • Contact
Dana Blankenhorn
  • Home
  • About Dana
  • Posts
  • Contact Dana
  • Archive
  • A-clue.com
No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • About Dana
  • Posts
  • Contact Dana
  • Archive
  • A-clue.com
No Result
View All Result
Dana Blankenhorn
No Result
View All Result
Home business models

The Third Bank of the United States

by Dana Blankenhorn
February 4, 2009
in business models, business strategy, Crisis of 2008, economics, economy, history, investment, politics, regulation, Scandal
2
0
SHARES
32
VIEWS
Share on FacebookShare on Twitter

Firstbank of the united states
In all the talk over bank bailouts an
obvious and very American solution is being ignored.

A Bank of the United States. 

The original Bank was proposed in 1791
by Alexander (10-spot) Hamilton.
It fulfilled many roles the Federal Reserve now fills. A second
bank, chartered in 1816, was closed by Andrew Jackson to much
political rejoicing

– and the country promptly fell into a deep Depression.

The purpose of the Third Bank of the
United States would be to re-start the banking system. We could
capitalize it with the current TARP funds and then start making
loans. All kinds of loans, the kinds of credit facilities good
businesses need to keep operating, to make payroll, buy inventory,
all that. And the bank would charge a market rate – maybe just .01%
less to bring business in the door.

To make clear that this bank stands mid-way between government control and Wall Street greed, I suggest we put it where the first two banks were — Philadelphia.

Once the new bank was operating you
could let the existing banks fail. Instead of buying their worst
assets you could buy their best, and add these to the bank,
increasing its value. Later, as normal business began returning, you
could spin out these assets at a substantial profit.

As with the other U.S. Banks, the new
bank would exist for a limited period of time, 20 years, to allow for
an orderly and profitable liquidation. It would not hold tax receipts
– the Federal Reserve would continue to manage the system as a
whole – and the new bank would be regulated by the Fed as well.

Andrew jackson
As a U.S. Government entity the new
bank could be exceedingly transparent, so citizens could learn how
banking works. It could keep a lid on salaries and still get the best
people, because the best bankers are actually unemployed right now.
(It's the sharpies, shysters, and crooks who are still running the
private businesses.)

As existing big banks go bust the new
bank could take on their assets – the loans – at whatever price
the bank chooses to pay for them. Insured deposits would remain in
the private banking system, so there would be no takeover of that
system by the government.

Politically you could not call the new
bank “socialist.” The U.S. Bank closed before the term was even
coined. The U.S. Bank would do a much better job protecting the TARP
money than any bail-out could – it would practically be a
guaranteed money-spinner.

Now tell me why I'm crazy.

Tags: bank bail-outbankingbanking systemFederal ReservePresident ObamaTARPU.S. Bank
Previous Post

War Against Oil Still Being Fought

Next Post

News Industry Threatens Suicide, Blogger Offers Rope

Dana Blankenhorn

Dana Blankenhorn

Dana Blankenhorn began his career as a financial journalist in 1978, began covering technology in 1982, and the Internet in 1985. He started one of the first Internet daily newsletters, the Interactive Age Daily, in 1994. He recently retired from InvestorPlace and lives in Atlanta, GA, preparing for his next great adventure. He's a graduate of Rice University (1977) and Northwestern's Medill School of Journalism (MSJ 1978). He's a native of Massapequa, NY.

Next Post

News Industry Threatens Suicide, Blogger Offers Rope

Comments 2

  1. Gene Inskeep says:
    15 years ago

    The Third Bank of the United States should not be a member of the Federal Reserve. The Fed is politically independent, the people aren’t considered responsible stewards of the economy. Rather, the bank charter should be so narrow in scope of activity that excutive opportunity for corruption is not likely. Start with home loans of median size/cost.

    Reply
  2. Gene Inskeep says:
    15 years ago

    The Third Bank of the United States should not be a member of the Federal Reserve. The Fed is politically independent, the people aren’t considered responsible stewards of the economy. Rather, the bank charter should be so narrow in scope of activity that excutive opportunity for corruption is not likely. Start with home loans of median size/cost.

    Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Recent Post

The Coming Labor War

The Insanity of Wealth

May 7, 2025
Tachtig Jaar Van Vrede en Vrijheid

Tachtig Jaar Van Vrede en Vrijheid

May 5, 2025
Make America Dutch Again

Make America Dutch Again

April 30, 2025
Bikes and Trains

Opa Fiets is Depressed

April 29, 2025
Subscribe to our mailing list to receives daily updates direct to your inbox!


Archives

Categories

Select Category

    Recent Comments

    • Dana Blankenhorn on The Death of Video
    • danablank on The Problem of the Moment (Is Not the Problem of the Moment)
    • cipit88 on The Problem of the Moment (Is Not the Problem of the Moment)
    • danablank on What I Learned on my European Vacation
    • danablank on Boomer Roomers

    I'm Dana Blankenhorn. I have covered the Internet as a reporter since 1983. I've been a professional business reporter since 1978, and a writer all my life.

    • Italian Trulli

    Browse by Category

    Select Category

      Newsletter


      Powered by FeedBlitz
      • About
      • Archive
      • Privacy & Policy
      • Contact

      © 2023 Dana Blankenhorn - All Rights Reserved

      No Result
      View All Result
      • Home
      • About Dana
      • Posts
      • Contact Dana
      • Archive
      • A-clue.com

      © 2023 Dana Blankenhorn - All Rights Reserved