5 ms·

> Which allows banks to remain an uncompetitive yet inherently necessary market. But how is that better than having enough competition between banks that anyone

by ttt0 6y ago

> Which allows banks to remain an uncompetitive yet inherently necessary market. But how is that better than having enough competition between banks that anyone can find one willing to provide service? Just because the market is regulated doesn't mean there is no competition. It's better because the banks can't gang up on you like tech companies do. At least in the EU.

AnthonyMouse 6y ago
But regulation is being proposed as an alternative to competition. It can't do that. You need competition whether or not you have regulation. Look at what a dumpster fire every regulated private monopoly is. "Success" is a stagnant inefficient bureaucracy that ossifies everything it touches. Failure is the F-35 wasting a number of public dollars with twelve zeroes after it.
- ttt0 6y ago
  As a solution to this particular problem, not banking overall. And we're not talking about central banks, but normal banks. The competition is still there. Tell me, why shops are not allowed to discriminate on the basis of race? Why not just have competition deal with that?
  - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
    > As a solution to this particular problem, not banking overall. Competition would work as a solution to this particular problem and overall. > And we're not talking about central banks, but normal banks. The competition is still there. Banks have notoriously high switching costs and barriers to entry. What competition would look like is a regulatory environment that enabled switching banks to be as easy as switching wireless providers after number portability. > Tell me, why shops are not allowed to discriminate on the basis of race? Why not just have competition deal with that? Originally, because white customers would refuse to patronize shops that served black customers, effectively acting as a monopsony (lack of competition) and the law was needed to restore competition. Today, mostly for historical reasons. Do you honestly think that a black person right now would have trouble finding a restaurant to eat in even if there was no law forcing all restaurants to serve them?
    - ttt0 6y ago
      > Do you honestly think that a black person right now would have trouble finding a restaurant to eat in even if there was no law forcing all restaurants to serve them? No. My point is that it's not as big of a deal as you make it out to be. Competition didn't suddenly disappear because of that. In the EU we already have the laws we're talking about, requiring banks to provide you a basic bank account. The competition between banks didn't disappear here either. Also banking is not exactly a free market one way or another.

by ttt0 6y ago

AnthonyMouse 6y ago

But regulation is being proposed as an alternative to competition. It can't do that. You need competition whether or not you have regulation. Look at what a dumpster fire every regulated private monopoly is. "Success" is a stagnant inefficient bureaucracy that ossifies everything it touches. Failure is the F-35 wasting a number of public dollars with twelve zeroes after it.

ttt0 6y ago
As a solution to this particular problem, not banking overall. And we're not talking about central banks, but normal banks. The competition is still there. Tell me, why shops are not allowed to discriminate on the basis of race? Why not just have competition deal with that?
- AnthonyMouse 6y ago
  > As a solution to this particular problem, not banking overall. Competition would work as a solution to this particular problem and overall. > And we're not talking about central banks, but normal banks. The competition is still there. Banks have notoriously high switching costs and barriers to entry. What competition would look like is a regulatory environment that enabled switching banks to be as easy as switching wireless providers after number portability. > Tell me, why shops are not allowed to discriminate on the basis of race? Why not just have competition deal with that? Originally, because white customers would refuse to patronize shops that served black customers, effectively acting as a monopsony (lack of competition) and the law was needed to restore competition. Today, mostly for historical reasons. Do you honestly think that a black person right now would have trouble finding a restaurant to eat in even if there was no law forcing all restaurants to serve them?
  - ttt0 6y ago
    > Do you honestly think that a black person right now would have trouble finding a restaurant to eat in even if there was no law forcing all restaurants to serve them? No. My point is that it's not as big of a deal as you make it out to be. Competition didn't suddenly disappear because of that. In the EU we already have the laws we're talking about, requiring banks to provide you a basic bank account. The competition between banks didn't disappear here either. Also banking is not exactly a free market one way or another.