Omarova spoke at the Law and Political Economy (LPE) Project's "Law & Political Economy: Democracy Beyond Neoliberalism" conference in March.
Omarova discussed one of her papers, "The People's Ledger How to Democratize Money and Finance the Economy," which would help "redesign" the financial system and make the economy "more equitable for everyone."
She said it would change the "private-public power balance" and democratize finance to a more systemic level.
During her explanation of her paper, she said that the Federal Reserve, the nation's central bank, can only use "indirect levers" to "induce private banks to increase their lending."
Her paper calls for eliminating all banks and transferring all bank deposits to "FedAccounts" at the Federal Reserve.
During her conference speech, she said, "There will be no more private bank accounts, and all of the deposit accounts will be held directly at the Fed":
Omarova said her proposal would give the Fed more "proactive" monetary policy tools, such as "helicopter money." She also pondered how the Federal Reserve could "take money" from Americans during an inflationary environment.
A former senior government official told Breitbart News that if the Senate were to confirm Omarova, she would have the "most powerful, least accountable" position over America's banking system.
When talking about FedAccounts, the former senior government official said, "The Democratic Party over the last couple of administrations, they want the government to essentially take over a lot of financial functions from banks."
Omarova's radical views led to 21 state financial officers calling for Biden to withdraw Omarova's nomination for the U.S. comptroller:
The LPE serves as a platform to discuss:
Republicans have already moved to oppose Omarova's nomination.the role of law and legal discourse in the creation and maintenance of capitalism and in mediating tensions between capitalist order and democratic self-rule. Scholars in our network work to understand the relationship between market supremacy and racial, gender, and economic injustice; to articulate the relationship between capitalism and devaluation of social and ecological reproduction; and to explore the distinctive ways that law gives shape to and legitimates neoliberal capitalism, ranging from dynamics of financialization to the relation between the carceral state and capitalism. We also seek to offer concrete legal reforms designed to move beyond neoliberalism and toward a genuinely responsive, egalitarian democracy, with critical attention to the need for power and movement-building as part of any such transformation. [Emphasis added]
Sen. Steve Daines (R-MT) said Omarova's support of Communist ideals" disqualifies her for the position.
"Republicans will overwhelmingly oppose this self-described radical," Sen. Pat Toomey (R-PA) told Axios.
Reader Comments
That's called slavery.
1) it is true she wants banking to be public governmental only and gets rid of private banking. She also does speak about taking money from people when there is inflation.
2) She has no notion of history, banking. She thinks her ideas are new, but there is nothing new in publiic central banking, helicopter money. She also doesn't realize that what the Fed is currently doing is what she wants to do, but she aims to do in an official way.
3) She is arrogant as she thinks she can control inflation by central economy planning, and that her version of Keynesian economics is better than anyone else.
4) all her ideas are communist, and wants to get rid of free market economy.
What they could do to spice things up for everyone, is have televised events where denigrated, humiliated and desperate people must fight each other for bonuses, or food. Like in the movies.
I can't wait to tell everyone: I told you so. I'll finally have the last laugh.
If I could just take one tiny bite. And better again, have it delivered by fate rather than my own manifestation, it would be validating and so satisfying all at once. Or so I imagine.
I'm also still waiting for an ELI5 on this, which I hope will come from some place like Breaking Points.
"The greatest acts of valour are the ones that go unnoticed"
Don't get me wrong though, I think banks are the worst scourge of the earth, and are the sole culprit of the current crisis, and much more.
The more subtle victory, and perhaps the more important one, is keeping the water muddy so that people like you continue to believe that people like me are the real problem. If people can't even identity a problem and furthermore actually identify with the problem, they are paralyzed and totally helpless to resist it or anything else.
It's fine, my political evangelism ended years ago when I moved to Russia, and that was still is not far enough away.
Or are you talking about her? How is she a communist? Because some half-wit republican politician said so?
I'm getting confused.
And you're right, I shouldn't base that view on someone I don't know calling her a communist. But having no private bank accounts seems kind of like something a communist would want.
I don't think she is advocating getting rid of private bank accounts; she is advocating centralizing private banking under one private institution. They could call this "public" banking, but it would be an inversion - a bait and switch. This would be the polar opposite of public banking. I mean that literally, not figuratively. This is not even nationalist-type central banking, which is what Russia still has more or less after the USSR, it is monopolization on steroids. This would be more like a raid on the small to medium sized private banks and to some extent on the too-big-to-fail mega banks by the Bank of International Settlements (BIS). Of course the mega banks would only be relieved of their obligations to regular depositors, which seems to be what they want to do anyway since some have already dropped citizen banking entirely, and more and more only seem to be interested in institutional level debt & speculation now.
Of course for outward appearances it could be made to appear that she advocates public banking, but only to people who don't understand the fundamental differences between communist and capitalist economics and who take what they read at face value which, these days, seems to be just about everybody.
For the bank issue, you are absolutely correct. I think the goal of having individual accounts in the fed is to have more control over people, and penalise individuals who don't follow their rules ( eg: credit score like in China). Ultimately this will lead to the one world currency. Whether or not the fed becomes public is a moot point, as private ( like the fed) or national Central banks all have the same master: BIS.
And how's that going for you now that your side has won?
As I said, I lean more towards anarchy because I agree with you that the state must be abolished. Even the best intentioned socialism is is doomed either to destruction or corruption because it cannot co-exist with the predatory system the west has imposed on the world.
The west only had "freedom" for its people insofar as it had foreign lands to plunder and a lack of power to dominate the domestic population. It was always a lie, western people were always on borrowed time. I will never for a moment believe that there is any other path to real liberty than the overgrown, least trodden one on the left. Having said that, I also have 0 hope/expectation that such an inversion of the world order would happen. I have made my peace with my conclusion that the essential nature of the world is evil and humankind is irredeemable.
Absolutely, it is about depriving people of all autonomy and any alternative for the future. However, I don't think it is about creating dependence exactly, they clearly already have that. Western people are almost childlike in their dependence on the state as it is, going so far as to allow it to shape the contours of their reality. But of course as they tighten their fist, some people will start to resist, so I think this is ultimately about preventing any insurrection when the culling starts in earnest.
Are Westerners doomed? Probably. People in general have been made very obedient towards authority and not made to question them. Done by upbringing, education, political and media brainwashing, or just a general not caring at all.
Because of this fact, those parables never made sense.
They really are so slight of hand.