3 ms·
I was just asked for an example. I'm in EU and I guarantee you that those less wealthy were hurt more during the whole crisis. They couldn't get money out of th
by comboy 9y ago
I was just asked for an example. I'm in EU and I guarantee you that those less wealthy were hurt more during the whole crisis. They couldn't get money out of their accounts. Some couldn't buy food. There were accounts that got the haircut with money for their salaries and so on. The top 0.1% likely knew what was coming and got their money out in time.
But the whole thing is not really all that relevant to the original point - that money in your bank account is controlled by the bank, not you. Many different people may decide that you should not have access to it after all. Currently you can have your account frozen because you had something to do with Bitcoin. Maybe next time the reason will be that you supported EFF. Sounds ridiculous, right? Well the present is ridiculous when you look at it from some years ago.
And to be clear, there are many cases where the fact that it is the bank that controls that money is a good thing. Especially when the governments, central bank and banks excel at what they're doing.
- krrrh 9y agoThese are good points, and I think it's important to consider the worst case scenarios, because history does prove that the unexpected can happen in politics. I only challenged the point, because even a 30% haircut seems better to me than the inherent volatility, price manipulation by shady exchanges, difficulty and risk of storing safely, lack of recuse in case of theft and key loss seem like bigger threats for most people than those from banks and governments (especially in the west) when considering a long term store of value.