SFBG Radio: Why California needs a state bank

|
(104)

Today we talk about why California should follow North Dakota and create a state bank -- and why San Francisco needs a public bank, too. Listen after the jump.

BankOfCalifornia by endorsements2011

Comments

Interesting, I have been posting about this recently.
Here's another subject you might want to address.
Downtown Transit Assessment District.

Posted by Pat Monk.RN. on Sep. 27, 2011 @ 4:12 pm

To think that there's a viable alternative to the neo-liberal corporate agenda...and it's been right there in front of our nose all this time~

"A well-run public bank can aid state and local governments in getting through cash crunches without massive layoffs, privatizing public assets, or cutting back public services."

http://shareable.net/blog/reviving-main-street-a-call-for-public-banks

How did North Dakotans get so smart?

Posted by Lisa on Sep. 28, 2011 @ 5:31 pm

But because it would be the people's bank and not the banker's bank, on principle, they'd oppose it.

Posted by guest on Sep. 27, 2011 @ 5:55 pm

Public entities are typically more expensive. California is outsourcing much of it's prison construction and management because private businesses can build and run prisons quicker and more cheaply.

The City makes a hash of running things like street repairs and Muni. Why give them more distractions?

I'd prefer the City to run less things and run them better. Rather than getting distracted and diluted by trying to run a whole range of businesses like banking and power.

Keep it simple, Stupid.

Posted by PaulT on Sep. 28, 2011 @ 6:34 am

". California is outsourcing much of it's prison construction and management because private businesses can build and run prisons quicker and more cheaply".

Debunked in 15 seconds:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/19/us/19prisons.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

The problem with being a brown-nosing Republican is that anyone with Google that isn't brainwashed knocks you down immediately.

Really pathetic today, even by your standards.

Posted by guest on Sep. 28, 2011 @ 8:27 am

Corrections Corporation of America have so much business building new prisons? Because they are more expensive and slower? You think?

Posted by Guest on Sep. 28, 2011 @ 8:46 am
Posted by Eric Brooks on Sep. 28, 2011 @ 8:53 am

not just your usual "oh, the rich have all the power" class warface rhetoric.

Are you seriously suggesting the prisons are outsources even though they are provably worse and more expensive?

Private companies can build prisons in half the time and at half the cost.

Posted by PaulT on Sep. 28, 2011 @ 9:16 am

Yep. That's what I'm saying.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Sep. 28, 2011 @ 9:28 am
Posted by PaulT on Sep. 28, 2011 @ 9:42 am

Nope. Private prisons are overpriced hellholes.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Sep. 28, 2011 @ 9:55 am

But there's no need to make them expensive hellholes.

Posted by PaulT on Sep. 28, 2011 @ 10:03 am

No, it isn't the point of prisons to be hellholes. And the private ones -are- more expensive.

Anyone who doubts this should look up and listen to speeches by Angela Davis on the Prison Industrial Complex.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Sep. 28, 2011 @ 10:23 am

So what you're saying is that Democratic politicians are stupid for spending more than they need to on prisons? Is that it?

Posted by PaulT on Sep. 28, 2011 @ 10:37 am

Nope. That is not what I am saying.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Sep. 28, 2011 @ 10:57 am

So I recommend you complain to them, not me.

Posted by PaulT on Sep. 28, 2011 @ 11:14 am

Where did that come from? There's -plenty- of humor here. ;) You're really funny when you get your ass kicked in a debate and point wildly out at a subject that has almost nothing to do with what we are talking about.

And I prefer to focus on those manipulating those politicians, like the people you work for.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Sep. 28, 2011 @ 11:36 am

private prisons if they believe, as you claim, that they are more expensive?

Are you suggesting even left-wing pols are hoodwinked?

Posted by PaulT on Sep. 28, 2011 @ 11:47 am

Because

corporations

are

manipulating them

with campaign donations

and

lobbying.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Sep. 28, 2011 @ 12:05 pm

How could I not know that, given that it's your canned response to everything?

Posted by PaulT on Sep. 28, 2011 @ 12:20 pm

Please explain to me where in the sparse sentence above, just where in it, I make the claim that prison privatization is a 'vast right-wing conspiracy'.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Sep. 28, 2011 @ 12:40 pm

Just making sure that everyone knows that everything you just wrote in that comment, is completely false. Your claims are diametrically opposite to the truth.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Sep. 28, 2011 @ 8:52 am

You have to back up your claims with arguments. Where are they?

Posted by PaulT on Sep. 28, 2011 @ 9:10 am

Private costs run from 1-2K a year more per inmate and they can pick and choose who they take in.

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2010/08/22/20100822arizona-privat...

Republicans--dumber than a barrel of dishwater.

Posted by guest on Sep. 28, 2011 @ 9:17 am

doesn't that make redmocratic politicians even dumber for believing that?

But of course, you're wrong. States choose private prisons for the only reason that matters - they work out cheaper.

Posted by PaulT on Sep. 28, 2011 @ 9:38 am

Nope. Wrong.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Sep. 28, 2011 @ 9:47 am

Yepper. Right.

Isn't this fun?

Posted by PaulT on Sep. 28, 2011 @ 10:04 am

Fun? Not really. But pieces of crap like you need to be put in their place.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Sep. 28, 2011 @ 10:25 am

And always get bad-tempered, insulting and abusive?

Can you explain?

Posted by PaulT on Sep. 28, 2011 @ 10:38 am

The vast majority of comics, comedy writers, comedic actors, satirists--lefties. One can count the number of "famous right wing funny men" up rather quickly.

Maybe the lefties you're referring to are tired of unsupported and completely wrong assertions never backed up by facts and thrown out there by smug, stupid types. When the lefties react the way anyone whose time has been wasted, naturally they get pissed off.

Please explain again, via statistically-backed analysis, where private prisons are cheaper and not "well, the states wouldn't use them if they were more expensive".

Because, humorless types that we are, we need a good laugh.

Posted by Perkins on Sep. 28, 2011 @ 10:51 am

quickly resort to insults and personal attacks, rather than attempt to refute the reasoning of another, then that shows a lack of intelligence and integrity, as well as a lack of wit.

If you think private prisons are more expensive, then you should talk to your Democratic politicians who evidently disagree with you.

Posted by PaulT on Sep. 28, 2011 @ 10:59 am
No

Perhaps you should cite some actual evidence as was done in two posts already.

I think private prisons are more expensive--BECAUSE THEY ARE.

Until you provide hard facts disputing the AZ Central and NYT pieces, I will continue to think that way.

And on what day did Jan Brewer become a Democrat? Or John Kasich or Rick Scott?

Jesus, you right wing trolls are pathetic.

Posted by Perkins on Sep. 28, 2011 @ 11:14 am

Hmm

"In three years, a private-prison construction and management company, the Corrections Corporation of America, has seen the value of its contracts with the state soar from nearly $23 million in 2006 to about $700 million three months ago. Even in a state accustomed to high-dollar contracts, the 31-fold increase over three years is dramatic."

Guess you're wrong - Dem's do it too.

Posted by PaulT on Sep. 28, 2011 @ 11:52 am

from 2006 to 2009, the governor of the state was a ????

Posted by Perkins on Sep. 28, 2011 @ 12:02 pm

so that's your neat theory shot to hell.

Posted by PaulT on Sep. 28, 2011 @ 12:18 pm

Interesting. People use factual arguments to prove you wrong, and your response is to them is to suddenly point at Democrats and blame them, in a lame attempt to distract attention away from how full of shit you are.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Sep. 28, 2011 @ 12:11 pm
Posted by PaulT on Sep. 28, 2011 @ 12:19 pm

Except that I never made the claim that 'it' was a 'vast Republican plot'.

One cup was not enough Pauly, you need have more coffee so you can follow along here ...

Posted by Eric Brooks on Sep. 28, 2011 @ 12:37 pm

If you showed actual reasoning it might be necessary to refute. As it is, since you have proven time and again that your reasoning is ludicrous (such as in your recent post on war funding) one need now only scoff and say 'wrong' and leave it at that.

Why waste time on someone who doesn't even grasp the basic structure of a logical argument?

I've got better things to do.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Sep. 28, 2011 @ 11:32 am

You're here 24/7 espousing your extreme left-wing dogma.

Yet when faced with any proper argument, you curl into a ball and squeal like a wet cat.

Posted by PaulT on Sep. 28, 2011 @ 11:46 am

You seem to be the one squealing, eh?...

PaulTea, squealing like a wet cat.

(same video as before)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ju3h7yk4Hcg

Posted by Eric Brooks on Sep. 28, 2011 @ 12:02 pm

It's funny, but back in 2010, I succinctly remember when you spoke 'around' Laura Wells (she spoke while you were 'on hold' but didn't chime in anything positive about her) on Democracy Now! when she spoke about, amongst other things, state banks. You systematically avoid the Green Party like it's 'Project Censored'; but at least this time, give credit where it's due!!

Rich Stone
SFGP County Council

Posted by richard stone on Sep. 27, 2011 @ 8:24 pm

I'll co-sign that. And why hasn't the BG covered Terry Baum, for that matter? Look, I love this paper but I always cringe when it comes to their endorsements. And this policy of snubbing Green Party candidates is unacceptable, especially when so many BG readers are Greens. Perhaps we should start our own Project Censored for the SFBG.

Posted by Lisa on Sep. 28, 2011 @ 4:30 pm

Always more expensive than public. This nagging little thing called a "profit margin", how does that work?

For that matter, so is gasoline--Venezuela owns its own oil company and a gallon of gas is 1/18th of what it is in SF.

Damn, I thought Socialism made everything more expensive, at least that's what the American news media says.

Posted by Perkins on Sep. 28, 2011 @ 10:43 am

Marxism won't get you far in America, Perky.

Posted by PaulT on Sep. 28, 2011 @ 10:56 am

Gallon of gasoline, Caracas VZ--0.12

Gallon of gas, San Francisco, CA-- 3.99

That's what we call "numbers". They're backed up by "looking it up", not "wishful thinking from a Republican Party suck-up.

In the free-market USA, gasoline is at its cheapest (Oklahoma) 25 times higher than it is in the hated Chavez' VZ.

Now, how is that possible?

Posted by Perkins on Sep. 28, 2011 @ 11:20 am

DAMN those bolshevikian bolivarians and their using that little thing called -reality- to spoil Paul Tea's day!

Bloody commies!

Here's a video of Paul before he's had his cuppa:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ju3h7yk4Hcg

Posted by Eric Brooks on Sep. 28, 2011 @ 11:44 am

capitalist America are much cheaper than in socialist nations. Anyone can cherry pick examples to make their point.

But I notice you choose to live here, not Cuba or Venezuala. So I'll take more notice of what you do over what you say.

Posted by PaulT on Sep. 28, 2011 @ 11:44 am

Also a fundamentally false statement. Health care for a key example.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Sep. 28, 2011 @ 12:07 pm