4 ms·
Yes, but you were saying that the impediment was a legal one. I'm asking if that's really true, given that a(n approved) bank can just elect not to provide some
by SilasX 7y ago
Yes, but you were saying that the impediment was a legal one. I'm asking if that's really true, given that a(n approved) bank can just elect not to provide some services. Surely that can't be illegal.
- toomuchtodo 7y agoI’m speaking about starting a new bank, and obtaining a bank license to do so.
- SilasX 7y agoYou were speaking about the general possibility of running narrow banking. Whether it is a new bank or existing bank doesn't matter to that point, so you can't dismiss the possibility of an existing bank doing it and thereby claim it's impossible because a new bank couldn't get a license on that premise. "Narrow banking is impossible." 'What if you did it this way?' "I'm not talking about that, I'm talking about the impossible ways."
- toomuchtodo 7y agoI apologize if my citation and my explanation were not clear enough to convey the concept in my original comment ("Federal Reserve will not issue banking licenses to allow new banking entrants to operate as narrow banks").
- SilasX 7y agoThat point was plenty clear, and I was not disputing it, so no need for an apology. The more relevant point here is whether narrow banking is legal at all, and I was trying to bring the discussion over to that point. If your point was merely to cite some non-blocking barrier to narrow banking, than I don't really see why you brought it up. If you want to apologize, apologize for being technically correct at the expense of providing insight.