If five of the world’s largest banks are required to pay $6 billion in fines, why not use the money for makerspace development? The big banks were caught manipulating the $5.3 trillion-a-day foreign exchange market. The next question is how should the money be used given the fact that some the accusations were money laundering.
A lot of very serious people are starting to look at the drag domestic financial systems have become on industrialized economies. Others are saying too many economic resources are being consumed by individual components of the financial sector instead of going into the funding of pro-growth opportunities.
There are at least two solutions that benefit the American people and by extension makerspace development. The first is direct investment in makerspace development. This would take money from fines and apply them to funding the acquisition of tools and other resources.
The second is to increase funding to the Federal Government’s micro-loan programs. These funds could be used by the residents in lesser industrialized communities. Makerspace Development by definition promises to empower a larger creative class. Without micro-loans, the benefits of makerspace development will be uneven.
A third option would be to require the big banks to support peer-to-peer lending programs. Peer-to-peer lending provides borrowers with money based on economic need and reputation for repayment. Peer-to-peer lending can eventually lead to micro-loans as the borrower’s credit worthiness improves.
You could say that the peer-to-peer lending option is the re-framing option. For the purposes of this discussion, re-framing shifts the internal structure of a timeworn solution so that it works for the 21st century. Governments saved the big banks so that the banks could save small businesses. That plan didn’t work so the solution needs to be re-framed.