Hello heard the show and called with a comment when Mr. Ross was speaking with Brian on the Program.

The banking "model" he mentioned and compared to the credit union depository institution, is known as the mutual savings bank or mutual savings & loan. The FDIC perhaps may still award a state mutual savings bank charter, which exists, had existed and these still may be permitted to exist in 13 states in the US in which this charter was originated.

The OTS however was the regulator over the S&Ls and although at one point there were these chartered at the state level by the banking department in that state or commonwealth, the federally chartered savings loans and federal savings banks and its former regulator, the Office of Thrift Supervision has been rolled into the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, ie the "OCC".

Thrifts and savings banks or if under mutual ownership, then also known as mutuals, are in effect said to be owned by their depositors. These are not publicly traded enterprises and do not have to satisfy the interests of remote 'owners' such as shareholders of publicly traded company.

Typically too these took deposits, made residential mortgage loans, engaged in community banking and made some but not a great deal of commercial loans. Actually the rules were, from 65% to 70% of a thrift's balance sheet had to be lending and/or owning residential mortgages.

These often were conservatively run organizations. Some of the very largest were never really nationwide except at the end, WAMU, but did have reach across many states and covering regions. These perhaps will exist going forward and there may be larger nationwide banks that may want to partner, however this is banking model under some pressure and the remaining thrifts will be on the 'block' so to speak in the shrinking of the economy in order for the US to meet compliance with the German dominated G20 Agreements. Even the GSEs (ie, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) are getting chipped in the death by a thousand cuts because the bigFinancials are coveting the turf of that annuity quality (and those associated cash flows) about the GSEs and their place as the secondary mortgage players. The thrifts similarly are perceived in this annuity character quality (in which homeowners are paying monthly mortgage principle and interest on their loans, and keeping them in a 'performing' status and thus providing operating cash flow to the thrift or bank from which they borrowed for their home mortgage); and their balance sheets were generally clean if they made performing mortgages and attempted to keep their credit quality good with few non conforming mortgages that were so wild and would go non performing.

Banking in the US even that which the founders would have respected has been a well worn groove.

Respectfully,
Andrea Psoras
New York, NY

Carolita is on the right in her diagnosis of the Tea Party's "success." But I can assure her, if Occupy Wall Street were to similarly receive funding, by "megarich liberals," we would see anything but "real action."

The Tea Party was indeed "successful," but only because it was funded by Koch, and co-opted by entrenched Washington interests. The "success" which resulted was success in advancing the interests of those parties. But talk to the people who started the movement, most of whom have left it by now, and they'll tell you how their movement was taken over by outside forces and perverted. The Tea Party didn't influence Washington—Washington influenced the Tea Party.

But even this sort of faux success isn't a viable option for Occupy Wall Street. Even less so than the original Tea Party, OWS has no allies in Washington, because OWS seeks a radical removal of corporate influence over our lives and every nook and cranny of our political system. Democrats, and some Republicans, have begun to offer the Occupy movement carrots on a stick. So far, we have not taken the bait, but I worry it is only a matter of time before the temptation of "some change, now" overwhelms the desire for meaningful change. So long as we retain our demand for a real, fundamental change in our political system, it is fruitless to engage with the powers that be: Republicans, Democrats, and their corporate masters.

jgarbuz
It's 50/50 right. I know u don't want to seem crazier.

Rather than a new type of bank, I'd like an old-fashioned type of bank to come back.

In Japan, the largest financial institution is the "Postal Savings Bank". Post offices are also savings banks.

If we brought back a federal postal savings bank, like we used to have, we could help the unbanked, the poor, and individuals (not corporate persons). We would also give postal desk clerks very useful work to do. We would be able to keep post offices open, notably in very poor neighborhoods throughout the country where having a local post office stabilizes the community.

The postal savings bank would cash individual's paychecks at NO CHARGE and would receive direct deposits for individuals from federal government transfer payments of all sorts -- pensions and SSI and and so on. Everyone who cashes their paychecks at the P.O. branch would be entitled to a FREE debit card. Funds could be added to the debit card when paychecks are cashed, or from the postal savings account maintained at that P.O. branch. All the financial services that could be delivered to individuals at P.O. branches could be done so at minimal expense. A typical working poor person, without a checking account, who earns less than $15,000 a year would easily save over $300 a year -- a very significant amount for someone who lives paycheck to paycheck.

On starting a new national bank-100 years ago, the United States Post Office Department (forerunner of the USPS) operated small neighborhood banks that allowed people who had no confidence in banks to make deposits and withdrawals. An Act of Congress on 25 June 1910 established a Postal Savings System in post offices effective 1 January 1911. Many Americans had money stuffed in their mattresses, and European immigrants were used to banking at post offices in their native countries
The program began slowly, but grew after 1929 as confidence in banks ebbed. At its peak in 1947, $3.5 billion was on deposit. Annual interest on deposits was 2%.
Then the big banks stepped in and offered the same protection (FDIC) that the
post office banks had, and US Savings Bonds yielded much higher interest rates. The program stopped accepting new depositors in 1966, and was eventually closed out completely in 1985.
That program could be reestablished and expanded today to compete with big banks.

F***Dge you Mr. Lehrer. There is, and never will be any victory in Iraq and Afghanistan, or the US for that matter. Liberals like you and your guest are part of the problem; that covers up your own failures.

To Andy from Manhattan

Muslim banks operated successfully for centuries? Is that why the Arab and Muslim worlds were in utter poverty and ruins before the West found oil after WWI? Since WWI,when oil began to be discovered in quantities in Iraq, Iran, and Arabia, the Arab Muslim population increased 15 fold! Before oil, Arabs in Saudi Arabia were living in ragged tents and eating locusts!
It was western discovery and addiction to oil that saved the Muslim world from starvation and crushing poverty. ANd without western banks, those oil companies would not have had the financing to drill a single hole.

It's encouraging to see some pro-Life messaging in here after some bad times, including the Tippet 'ex-Faith' program giving the movement the very, very short end of the stick on her program 1 year ago. However, saying that, the two comments herein are a bit incomprehensible. Work on reaching your audience boys, and neither Ed or jgar are about to get abortions soon.

The idea is a little magical, that leaderless social networks can know what to do to change a world. I've found these groups very spirited and sincere, but oddly disinterested in talking to people who actually study the mechanisms of how complex change occurs in economic systems and in nature.

I can assure you it's not by wishful thinking. It's by accumulative development that is responsive to the other self-organizing systems in which it is immersed. So, I do see "there's a will" to do it, but without that learning process taking place on a quite large scale, there is no way.

The OWS folks should have learned from the Tea Party and they should have had a huge voter registration drive. Standing in a park with signs only annoys the mayor and local police. You want to affect real change you have to vote and show the politicians that they will be held accountable. The lack of interest in voting among the OWS folks is ridiculous. They say they feel that their voles won't change anything as if standing on the sidewalk with a sign was a better solution.

Brian, can we not redo the whole war again. Bush and co. will never be charged with anything, it is a pipe dream. You love to beat the dead horse. Maybe we can go back to the attack on the Maine, another staged event.

Awesome idea to start a new kind of bank. I want to sign up when Carne does it- Brian can you keep us posted on his progress please?

muslim banks have been operating successfully on a non-profit basis for centuries. hopefully the Occupy camp are looking in that direction for inspiration.

To Ed

Except in genuine rape cases, women have full control over their bodies, and can cross their legs if they have to. Again, a man blames MEN for women getting pregnant! Such nonsense can only be attributed to the success of over 40 years of feminist brainwashing of their fatherless sons.

I'm both pro-life and pro-contraception for those who are serious about unwanted pregnancies. But when are women going to be asked to do their share in preventing both abortions AND unwanted pregnancies? Women have to take responsibilty for their actions too, ya know.

Isnt a revolution starting at a point and going around to the sameeee point...

On the subject of revolution, I listened to someone on this show yesterday going on about how the Occupy Movement ought to take a clue from the Tea Partiers, who have all supposedly got it together and "done it right" by getting into the government, and etc. Well, they didn't do this without help: the one thing the Tea Party "did right" was get funded enormously by the Koch brothers, et al. Therein lies the difference between the two movements. Money.

The Occupy Movement is not about to be funded by the Koch brothers, are they? So, maybe if some mega-rich liberals step up and fund them and start manipulating them towards their own goals we'll see some "real" action.

One example of this kind of revolution is the pro-life movement. The annual march is this Monday, 500,000+ people will march ... the media won't even mention it. But laws are starting to change. (What we have to change is men's behavior primarily.)

Please comment on the pro-life movement as an example of this kind of revolution.