12 ms·

Remember, fractional reserve banking started when the Rothschildren decided it was OK to tell their depositors their deposits were in the safe, when the bank h

Remember, fractional reserve banking started when the Rothschildren decided it was OK to tell their depositors their deposits were in the safe, when the bank had actually given it to other people. Our banking system is founded on a lie. I suggest a valid alternative is the truth. If someone gives you their money and it's your job to store it safely you should to that. For 100% of that money. Not 10% of it.

rlucas 7y ago
There's a banking product for that, it's called a safe deposit box.
- yeahitslikethat 7y ago
  No. Those are for jewels and other goods that can't be represented with a number typed into a computer.
Nasrudith 7y ago
That is both historically untrue and stinks of anti-Semitic slander passed as fact - following the age old tradition of blaming the Jews for mismanagement by nobles and royals because that wouldn't get you executed. The Rothschildren were certainly /not/ the first being established in the 18th century. Given that the more reputable central Swedish bank used it in the 15th century - let alone the shadier practices of other banknote institutions that predated them. As for the 100% retention idea it is like complaining that a car isn't a faster horse. There may be some fringe cases when the horse is better but most of the time the primary use was going fast across paved roads. To be a good steward involves investment - just any asset sitting stored is a waste of value and will not even preserve it against inflation. It is the red queen's race.
- yeahitslikethat 7y ago
  OK i restate. Replace, in my original post, "Rothschildren" with "goldsmithers." I didn't even know they were Jews and that whole bit is ad hominem at best. But my point remains. My money is not the bank's asset. Neither is the stuff I put in a storage unit at public storage. Imagine if they were loaning out your stuff while you were away. If I choose to invest my money that's my right. It's not your right to choose how I invest my money. Going faster isn't a reason why it should be OK to steal people's money when you're saying you're keeping it safe. Lies like this brought down the entire world economy. Wars were started. Lives were lost. But you suggest it's better except when it's not? I don't agree.

rlucas 7y ago

There's a banking product for that, it's called a safe deposit box.

yeahitslikethat 7y ago
No. Those are for jewels and other goods that can't be represented with a number typed into a computer.

Nasrudith 7y ago

That is both historically untrue and stinks of anti-Semitic slander passed as fact - following the age old tradition of blaming the Jews for mismanagement by nobles and royals because that wouldn't get you executed. The Rothschildren were certainly /not/ the first being established in the 18th century. Given that the more reputable central Swedish bank used it in the 15th century - let alone the shadier practices of other banknote institutions that predated them. As for the 100% retention idea it is like complaining that a car isn't a faster horse. There may be some fringe cases when the horse is better but most of the time the primary use was going fast across paved roads. To be a good steward involves investment - just any asset sitting stored is a waste of value and will not even preserve it against inflation. It is the red queen's race.

yeahitslikethat 7y ago
OK i restate. Replace, in my original post, "Rothschildren" with "goldsmithers." I didn't even know they were Jews and that whole bit is ad hominem at best. But my point remains. My money is not the bank's asset. Neither is the stuff I put in a storage unit at public storage. Imagine if they were loaning out your stuff while you were away. If I choose to invest my money that's my right. It's not your right to choose how I invest my money. Going faster isn't a reason why it should be OK to steal people's money when you're saying you're keeping it safe. Lies like this brought down the entire world economy. Wars were started. Lives were lost. But you suggest it's better except when it's not? I don't agree.