Marshal's Bank

As the debate continues over socialism and capitalism and as I have started to get more vocal and have had some feedback about my thoughts I thought I would start by saying we don’t even really live in a fully capitalist country right now.

I remember during the last election watching the Stossel show, with one of my heroes John Stossel, who had a few of the fringe candidates on one evening. One of them was the Socialist candidate, whatever his name was. He came right out and said we are a socialist country now.

It was hard to really disagree. The government has its tentacles into everything we do and now as just the 16^th most economically free country in the world there is increasing evidence of that.

My underlying point with most everything I mention here and anywhere else I mention politics is that this increasing level of socialism is the problem and not capitalism. What we need is an infusion of true free-market capitalism to fix the problems in this country.

Now, it would be sophistry to suggest that 100% of any idea is 100% bad. There is, for example, The Tennessee Valley Authority which was offered as a shining example of “Democratic Socialism.”

Here is a description of the TVA.
The Tennessee Valley Authority (T.V.A.) is a federally owned corporation in the United States created by congressional charter in May 1933 to provide navigation, flood control, electricity generation, fertilizer manufacturing, and economic development in the Tennessee Valley, a region particularly affected by the Great Depression. The enterprise was a result of the efforts of Senator George W. Norris of Nebraska. TVA was envisioned not only as a provider, but also as a regional economic development agency that would use federal experts and electricity to rapidly modernize the region's economy and society.

F.D.R., America’s first real socialist President, claimed that private utilities had "selfish purposes" and said, "Never shall the federal government part with its sovereignty or with its control of its power resources while I'm president of the United States."

So, the government bought many of the private power entities in that region, and then PASSED REGULATIONS THAT WERE MEANT TO PREVENT COMPETITION WITH THE TVA.

First, this was NOT “Democratic” Socialism. That would imply that people voted for this. While it is certain that there were people who DID want the government to run all of this there were certainly many people who didn’t and there were court challenges.

One of the hypocrisies of Socialism is that they don’t want any business to get too big, or become a monopoly. But for some reason they are totally happy with the government getting too big and becoming a monopoly.

Now, the TVA, as far as I can find is not an entity which is hated by the people in that region. They provide power and decent service as far as I can find.

But does that mean it’s the best way to deal with everything it does?

One of the fears at the time of this take over was that private enterprises would conspire to keep rates high, for one example.

Has that been a problem in the past? Sure. I think we can agree that someplace in the middle can be found and we can agree that that one company shouldn’t be able to own everything so they can charge whatever they want.

Oh, wait…but…the…um…democratic socialists still want the government to do all of that and…um…decide which companies should be allowed to do this.

And therein lies the inherent problem with this democratic socialist stuff. Ultimately the complaint is that they have is what they despise and then is what they provide as an alternative.

I think the proof that the government knows the TVA is not the best alternative for people in the region is that they made laws preventing competition. If the government truly wanted the best for those people why would they not allow a company to come in and provide better service at better rates?

In my state I have ONE choice for a power company. In the last 10 years my monthly bill has shot up 400%. I NEED COMPETITION TO LOWER MY PRICES.

Chew on that and chew long and slow on it and keep your mind wide open as you chew.

Because as you are chewing you are getting hungry and suppose that in your town there was only one place to eat. 

Say your town had 5000 people in it and the eatery had a good amount of seat at 250.

What would you think would be the potential problems with that?

I will list them as questions anyway...

How long would you have to wait to eat? 

Would there still be food when you got there?

How much would the food cost? Let's recall a basic law of supply and demand. If supply is low and demand is high, prices are high. If supply is high and demand is low then prices are low.

Would the service be good? Why would anyone care about service there? They know that its the only place where anyone can go so why do little things like work hard to keep it clean? People would have NO CHOICE so they HAD to go there. Who cares if there were mice running around, or there was a lot of bugs in the food?

I could continue with questions but that's enough for now.

Suppose I am allowed to open up a place to eat across the street. I am an entrepreneur, let's say, and would like to employ the concept of Capitalism and capitalize on an opportunity I see to help people in that line who are hungry, provide a place for them where they don't have to spend so much money and don't have to eat bugs for dinner. I can help them and make some money doing so in the meantime.

I build my place and on day one I pass out flyers to the people in line that say something like, "Come across the street to eat. Your food will only cost $80 instead of $100. The place will be clean, there won't be any bugs in your soup, and the people serving you will smile and treat you nicely."

My place will fill in about 30 seconds.

Now the original place has a decision to make. Either continue doing what they are doing to see if they can continue to keep the place filled or do something to keep their customers from going across the street. 

We know what they will do if they want to stay in business. 

Now when my place is filled and the old place begins to compete both sides will continue to do whatever it takes to keep their customers. 

If a third place is allowed to build a place and compete things get even better for the eaters. 

We do see this all over the place, don't we? We certainly like all of the choices we have in eateries, right?

Why then, would ANYONE, ANYWHERE, suggest that there only be ONE place to get their power, their utilities (remember the break up of AT&T?) and THEIR HEALTH INSURANCE?

I would bet that 95% of people who would read this would think, "Duh, of COURSE, there has to be more than one place to eat." But half of them are still voting for people who think its a great idea to only have ONE place to buy health insurance or get electricity.

Here in Delaware we used to only have one choice for Cable TV. Now we have two. People go back and forth to these companies as they do battle for our dollars. We really need a few more because two are just not enough. They both basically suck when it comes to prices. They are a LITTLE better service-wise (I know some who read this will vehemently disagree with that) but truly need real competition here.

I once tried to buy health insurance online and found a company in Pennsylvania with a plan I wanted which cost HALF of the exact same plan here in Delaware. I WASN'T ALLOWED TO BUY IT....HERE IN AMERICA. 

If EVERY insurance company, which was solvent, was allowed to compete in EVERY state, our health insurance would be cheaper, the service would be better, we would have better coverage and MORE people would be covered. 

"Oh," you say, "but the insurance companies just rip you off." Well, I am sure that some do. But if you only have 1 or 2 or 3 choices, and one rips you off then you have even less choices. If there are 1500 choices and one rips you off, they are out of business and believe me that NO BUSINESS that is doing business properly wants to go out of business. I GUARANTEE that if the 1500 insurance companies were allowed to compete for your dollars everyone would find out REAL quick which are the honest and solid companies and which weren't. 

How does it come to the point where we only have a few choices of health insurance and utility companies? Because government is involved in making sure that only a chosen few get to have that business. That is because both those businesses and the government collude to make sure it works that way.

Call that crony capitalism or fascism, or what have you, if you are a socialism lover. I don't even know for sure. But its not Capitalism, that is for sure. Capitalism has NEVER been the problem. THIEVES are problems. We can create laws to stop thieves but should NEVER create them to stop Capitalists. 

Every time the government gets involved to stop "evil big businesses" they stomp on every small business out there. The big businesses can afford the new regulations penned to keep businesses from "screwing" the little guy, but only the little guy and business gets screwed. 

Don't think that's true? Don't think the government and the businesses they choose to succeed (which is exactly what they are doing...RIGHT GE?) What do you think of banks?

If you are a home owner or need to borrow money and have a loan or a credit card you probably really hate banks, right?

I would like to start a bank. No...really. I would like to start a bank. It's an actual goal

Why? Because if you borrow 200,000 for 30 years at today's rate of 5.25% you are going to pay 197,000 in interest. That 197,000 in interest is not 5.25%, now, is it? It's almost 100% over the life of the loan.

I would like to start a bank and charge 15% interest...period...for a house. A borrower at my bank would only pay a total of 30,000 in interest. They will pay it off more quickly and have more of their hard-earned money to pump into the economy and not into the bank.

Great idea, right? Of course it is. But if you want to open a bank guess who you have to deal with?

THE GOVERNMENT. You know, that non-Socialist, evil Capitalist government we have now, right?

Take a little peek into what it takes to open up a bank in AMERICA.

http://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/banking_12779.htm Trust me...press a few of the links in there and find out.

Let me just put this out there...

Allow me to open a bank. Just allow me to do it without all of this hassle. I will do exactly what I just said I would do...loan money at that basic rate. You can watch me every day. The money will not get stolen...because, after all, its a crime to steal.

More people will own homes in this country than ever before. More people will be able to take vacations, probably work a little less, invest in other businesses, etc., etc. 

But it will never happen unless I am allowed to compete on a level playing field. If you think those bank regulations provide an open playing field you are stupid. Yes, you are. 

Socialists want MORE government. That is their bottom line. They believe that the government will run everything better. Listen to Hillary Clinton and Barnie Sanders speak about banks. They want to regulate them MORE, not less. That means, by default, that they DO NOT WANT ME TO BE ABLE TO OPEN A BANK because I can't meet the current regulations, let alone any additional regulations.

We MUST have a free-market, capitalist system in this country and it is my not-so-humble opinion that its VERY obvious that Bernie Stalin and Hillary Clinton won't allow it. Frankly, I'm not even sure if there is anyone on the other side who would allow it either...certainly not anyone considered to be part of the "establishment."

LESS government, not MORE government. ONLY.

Done.