5 ms·

We should each have our own account number that is ours. This could be registered with the state, when born. It would contain a pointer to a private bank accoun

We should each have our own account number that is ours. This could be registered with the state, when born. It would contain a pointer to a private bank account. Banks would have to implement a one day transfer to flip the pointer.

teeray 6y ago
And while we’re at it, we can strip the account number of its powers as a payment / deposit authorization. It supremely sucks that once someone has it and your routing number, it can never be rescinded without changing account numbers (i.e. closing and reopening the account, re-establishing direct debits / deposits, etc.)
salawat 6y ago
Who is maintaining the ledger exactly? On what terms? Who has access to that account? What controls are they entitled to place on it? Is it maintained by the government? If yes, then you have a whole new set of problems. Now you have all your funds in one basket. (Remember, you've implemented the indirection mechanism, so it doesn't matter which bank you do business with, it's this weird government one all the time). Politically, I don't see it happening. Or if it does, it"'ll completely change the color of the financial sector most likely, as most regular people stick with this weird government account, but anyone more financially entrenched (or who have trust issues, and do not desire to let the G-man sit on their financial transaction history) flee to more "discrete" financial institutions. Fintech is one of those that rarely makes anything fundamentally "better"; just more expensive with more opportunities for fee extraction, and the capability to exploit those economies of scale like nobodies business. Maybe it is the way to go for a government maintained version. Might make the IRS's job that much easier. Maybe they can get away from only going after the small fry and actually concentrating on nailing down more complicated forms of tax evasion.
- amiga_500 6y ago
  Sorry I'm not American so I'm not obsessed with the idea that the state cannot maintain something. Your banking sector sucks compared to Europe.
  - salawat 6y ago
    That's absolutely fair, and I admit, I wouldn't be fundamentally opposed to it. The little magic 8-ball in my mind I use to gauge the plausibility of a particular political direction of development simply sees far too many endemic issues with American institutional philosophy to see something like this gain traction. Mind, I've worked in that space. It's a ridiculously profitable industry for those that operate in the space (usually with customer hostile profit generating models, and demographic engineering to ensure you're hitting the most vulnerable folks for revenue extraction; part of the reason I ended up getting out and refuse to look back). As it turns out, the profitability per employee person in the company can be extremely high, which means there is a lot of lobbying potential to keep a cohesive National government maintained/specified banking infrastructure from coming into existence. I'm not just trying to take cheap shots or be dismissive of the idea. It's just experience tells me this is well within "everyone stops being a dick" territory in terms of probability of realization through organic development short of some higher being deciding I need a lesson in being more humble today. There is some synergy or likelihood of an indirect development in that direction with the whole Stimulus boondoggle going on in Washington, but the resulting implementation will almost guaranteed be challenged as soon as any hint of the present crisis having resolved comes around. Private industry in the U.S. as a rule will raise hell to destroy a public alternative as unfair competition on free market principles, notwithstanding the self-referential inconsistency the private actors demonstrate at the first chance they get. This is why there are only really 3 public trust quasi-Corps I'm aware of. Post-Office (Constitutionally guaranteed), Freddie Mac, and Fannie Mae. Okay, technically the Federal Reserve, but to be frank, their track record is so spotty, it feels more like the most elaborate financial shell game ever perpetrated than an institution to consider seriously effective. It hurts frankly. I hate that the sector is as big as it is because we can't just all agree that maybe this thing is pervasive enough to warrant folding into the basic Public Trust toolkit. That's just the reality on this side of the pond though. We measure the trustworthiness of Government as a repository for broad sweeping social power based on the least virtuous operator in living memory. Unfortunately, we just haven't had a long enough run where people could be trusted not to abuse anything more functional than what we have. Quite the opposite. Gives me a headache just dwelling on it most days.
    - 6y ago
- patmorgan23 6y ago
  The ACH system is run by the Fed(read us gov) already

teeray 6y ago

And while we’re at it, we can strip the account number of its powers as a payment / deposit authorization. It supremely sucks that once someone has it and your routing number, it can never be rescinded without changing account numbers (i.e. closing and reopening the account, re-establishing direct debits / deposits, etc.)

salawat 6y ago

Who is maintaining the ledger exactly? On what terms? Who has access to that account? What controls are they entitled to place on it? Is it maintained by the government? If yes, then you have a whole new set of problems. Now you have all your funds in one basket. (Remember, you've implemented the indirection mechanism, so it doesn't matter which bank you do business with, it's this weird government one all the time). Politically, I don't see it happening. Or if it does, it"'ll completely change the color of the financial sector most likely, as most regular people stick with this weird government account, but anyone more financially entrenched (or who have trust issues, and do not desire to let the G-man sit on their financial transaction history) flee to more "discrete" financial institutions. Fintech is one of those that rarely makes anything fundamentally "better"; just more expensive with more opportunities for fee extraction, and the capability to exploit those economies of scale like nobodies business. Maybe it is the way to go for a government maintained version. Might make the IRS's job that much easier. Maybe they can get away from only going after the small fry and actually concentrating on nailing down more complicated forms of tax evasion.

amiga_500 6y ago
Sorry I'm not American so I'm not obsessed with the idea that the state cannot maintain something. Your banking sector sucks compared to Europe.
- salawat 6y ago
  That's absolutely fair, and I admit, I wouldn't be fundamentally opposed to it. The little magic 8-ball in my mind I use to gauge the plausibility of a particular political direction of development simply sees far too many endemic issues with American institutional philosophy to see something like this gain traction. Mind, I've worked in that space. It's a ridiculously profitable industry for those that operate in the space (usually with customer hostile profit generating models, and demographic engineering to ensure you're hitting the most vulnerable folks for revenue extraction; part of the reason I ended up getting out and refuse to look back). As it turns out, the profitability per employee person in the company can be extremely high, which means there is a lot of lobbying potential to keep a cohesive National government maintained/specified banking infrastructure from coming into existence. I'm not just trying to take cheap shots or be dismissive of the idea. It's just experience tells me this is well within "everyone stops being a dick" territory in terms of probability of realization through organic development short of some higher being deciding I need a lesson in being more humble today. There is some synergy or likelihood of an indirect development in that direction with the whole Stimulus boondoggle going on in Washington, but the resulting implementation will almost guaranteed be challenged as soon as any hint of the present crisis having resolved comes around. Private industry in the U.S. as a rule will raise hell to destroy a public alternative as unfair competition on free market principles, notwithstanding the self-referential inconsistency the private actors demonstrate at the first chance they get. This is why there are only really 3 public trust quasi-Corps I'm aware of. Post-Office (Constitutionally guaranteed), Freddie Mac, and Fannie Mae. Okay, technically the Federal Reserve, but to be frank, their track record is so spotty, it feels more like the most elaborate financial shell game ever perpetrated than an institution to consider seriously effective. It hurts frankly. I hate that the sector is as big as it is because we can't just all agree that maybe this thing is pervasive enough to warrant folding into the basic Public Trust toolkit. That's just the reality on this side of the pond though. We measure the trustworthiness of Government as a repository for broad sweeping social power based on the least virtuous operator in living memory. Unfortunately, we just haven't had a long enough run where people could be trusted not to abuse anything more functional than what we have. Quite the opposite. Gives me a headache just dwelling on it most days.
  - 6y ago
patmorgan23 6y ago
The ACH system is run by the Fed(read us gov) already