Conversation
Notices
-
Embed this notice
@shortstories Not going to lie, I have no idea what than means for me.
-
Embed this notice
The question doesn't make any sense anyways.
Fractional reserve is what allows lending from deposits in the first place. If banks had to keep 100% of the reserves, they basically couldn't lend.
-
Embed this notice
@Humpleupagus @Monsignor_DickFace @shortstories I will grant that some systems are more prone to corruption than others but I think this is a case where the issue isn't the system but the people running it. IOW, changing out the system but keeping the same people would result in the same outcome.
-
Embed this notice
Agreed. I'm not against banking / fractional reserves per se. I think there's a lot of regulations that could be altered though to better account for true value of assets and risk. I think depositors should have greater recourse against bank operators too. The corporate shield should be weakened.
-
Embed this notice
@Humpleupagus @EvilSandmich @shortstories @Monsignor_DickFace they charge 30% for a credit card, they should be paying customers at least 10% for their savings and checking accts.
-
Embed this notice
@Koropokkur @Humpleupagus @shortstories @Monsignor_DickFace It's hard to picture it now but 50-ish years ago banks were treated (and acted) like utilities. For example, crap like "credit cards" were unknown because letting the backbone of one's financial system act like a bunch of low-watt loan sharks was considered a bad idea.
-
Embed this notice
Imagine if deposits were treaded more like convertible equity. You get dividends as long as you leave deposits, but can also convert it to bank debt and withdrawal.