5 ms·

That sounds like something that should definitely happen -- my worry is regulatory capture. I have very little confidence in the ability of politicians and rela

That sounds like something that should definitely happen -- my worry is regulatory capture. I have very little confidence in the ability of politicians and related agencies to predict and defend against the machinations of private industry who would try to eke out a corner of the government-mandated gravy train for themselves for all time. Would FedAccounts be essentially FedWire extended for regular people? It seems like governments don't really share information otherwise we could just lift the tech from Sweden (Swish). It would be an absolute sea change, but I want I want to starve is the finance beast as a whole -- the hedge funds that front-run and sometimes directly exploit pension funds, etc. I personally think that one of the biggest things someone could do to unwind the current financial system's largess is just ply a bunch of money/expertise/tech at improving credit unions. I maintain an account at a credit union and I absolutely love it, the people that worked there actually seemed happy, plugged in to the local economy and society. It is bonkers to me that anyone still banks at the large institutions (the ones famous for overdraft "protection") with local credit unions being as good as they are (and often very competitive on rates). If the large institutions don't get all the deposit flow, then they can't offer the huge leverage to the firms, HNW individuals, etc -- credit unions aren't going to be out there offering 15x+ leverage to Archegos Capital. Since what I've written is essentially a wishlist/vapor-policy, let's reinstate Glass-Steagall while we're at it.

ryandrake 5y ago
> It is bonkers to me that anyone still banks at the large institutions (the ones famous for overdraft "protection") with local credit unions being as good as they are (and often very competitive on rates). And whenever you ask someone why the hell they use UltraMegaBankOfAbuse, they always cite some far fetched scenario that makes Credit Unions slightly less convenient. “Well, if I ever found myself in the deserts of Morocco, and needed to use an ATM to pay my electric bill, there wouldn’t be a Credit Union branch there, so checkmate! I obviously need to bank with Chase!” It’s like they are looking for any excuse to abuse themselves.
- swearwolf 5y ago
  I used to bank with a local credit union, and now bank with one of the largest banks in the United States. The credit union was nice enough, but they signed up with that mobile banking provider that many credit unions seem to use, and the usability went down the drain. I tried to find a local credit union that was not using that platform, but couldn’t. The large bank’s app is great. Also one time the credit union let someone sign my account up to pay for their car loan, because the clerk who set up the automatic payments accidentally typed in my account number, which was one off from the car loan holder’s. To their credit, the credit union was quick to resolve the issue, but it left a bad taste in my mouth that it was so easy for them to make that mistake and nothing on the back end to catch it.
  - throwawayboise 5y ago
    I'm with a credit union. I'd never trust my phone with access to my bank account, but I use their web site. Does fine. I can check my balances, pay bills. What else do you need?
  - harikb 5y ago
    i have a similar experience - CUs sometimes outsource too much. In mine, they outsource Statements, Transfer/Bill pay, etc to different vendors/companies. It all works seamlessly with some fancy single-sign-on...except when it doesn't. I don't know who all have my financial details.
  - markvdb 5y ago
    > the clerk who set up the automatic payments accidentally typed in my account number, which was one off from the car loan holder’s. Were you just extremely unlucky, or doesn't your bank account number have a proper checksum builtin to prevent this?
    - michaelt 5y ago
      Credit card numbers, bank account numbers and suchlike often only dedicate a single decimal digit to the checksum which severely limits their ability to detect errors. And if numbers are getting keyed in tens of thousands of times per day across a large business, and mistakes happen hundreds of times a week, a checksum that catches 95% of errors will still let tens of errors go undetected every week.
Svip 5y ago
> Would FedAccounts be essentially FedWire extended for regular people? My general impression with this movement, is not that it is a way of easing transfers, but rather a nationalisation of bank accounts. The subject crops up frequently in Denmark, where citizens are required to have a bank account, that the government knows about. But only private banks offer bank accounts.[0] So it raises the question; why does the national bank not offer bank accounts? Then public interest, rather than private, could set rates for fees, costs and interests on these bank accounts. It also follows that in this scenario, it might be worth considering whether private banks should even be able to create money the way they are permitted to now, and only let the national bank 'print' money (both physical and digital). [0] It should be noted that the law requires private banks to offer these account at no cost to citizens (though just one per citizen).
- hardwaresofton 5y ago
  > My general impression with this movement, is not that it is a way of easing transfers, but rather a nationalisation of bank accounts. Well that’s terrifying in general, but the Denmark case you’ve laid out sounds just about perfect. Denmark has found a way to use it’s capitalism — a “public private partnership“ with a captive audience, but properly regulated so they can’t absolutely fleece customers. I think it’s fine that private banks create money because in the reverse it kind of distributes power — feels like a good artificial restraint (artificial only in that the government could theoretically just undo it) on the government.

ryandrake 5y ago

> It is bonkers to me that anyone still banks at the large institutions (the ones famous for overdraft "protection") with local credit unions being as good as they are (and often very competitive on rates). And whenever you ask someone why the hell they use UltraMegaBankOfAbuse, they always cite some far fetched scenario that makes Credit Unions slightly less convenient. “Well, if I ever found myself in the deserts of Morocco, and needed to use an ATM to pay my electric bill, there wouldn’t be a Credit Union branch there, so checkmate! I obviously need to bank with Chase!” It’s like they are looking for any excuse to abuse themselves.

swearwolf 5y ago
I used to bank with a local credit union, and now bank with one of the largest banks in the United States. The credit union was nice enough, but they signed up with that mobile banking provider that many credit unions seem to use, and the usability went down the drain. I tried to find a local credit union that was not using that platform, but couldn’t. The large bank’s app is great. Also one time the credit union let someone sign my account up to pay for their car loan, because the clerk who set up the automatic payments accidentally typed in my account number, which was one off from the car loan holder’s. To their credit, the credit union was quick to resolve the issue, but it left a bad taste in my mouth that it was so easy for them to make that mistake and nothing on the back end to catch it.
- throwawayboise 5y ago
  I'm with a credit union. I'd never trust my phone with access to my bank account, but I use their web site. Does fine. I can check my balances, pay bills. What else do you need?
- harikb 5y ago
  i have a similar experience - CUs sometimes outsource too much. In mine, they outsource Statements, Transfer/Bill pay, etc to different vendors/companies. It all works seamlessly with some fancy single-sign-on...except when it doesn't. I don't know who all have my financial details.
- markvdb 5y ago
  > the clerk who set up the automatic payments accidentally typed in my account number, which was one off from the car loan holder’s. Were you just extremely unlucky, or doesn't your bank account number have a proper checksum builtin to prevent this?
  - michaelt 5y ago
    Credit card numbers, bank account numbers and suchlike often only dedicate a single decimal digit to the checksum which severely limits their ability to detect errors. And if numbers are getting keyed in tens of thousands of times per day across a large business, and mistakes happen hundreds of times a week, a checksum that catches 95% of errors will still let tens of errors go undetected every week.

Svip 5y ago

> Would FedAccounts be essentially FedWire extended for regular people? My general impression with this movement, is not that it is a way of easing transfers, but rather a nationalisation of bank accounts. The subject crops up frequently in Denmark, where citizens are required to have a bank account, that the government knows about. But only private banks offer bank accounts.[0] So it raises the question; why does the national bank not offer bank accounts? Then public interest, rather than private, could set rates for fees, costs and interests on these bank accounts. It also follows that in this scenario, it might be worth considering whether private banks should even be able to create money the way they are permitted to now, and only let the national bank 'print' money (both physical and digital). [0] It should be noted that the law requires private banks to offer these account at no cost to citizens (though just one per citizen).

hardwaresofton 5y ago
> My general impression with this movement, is not that it is a way of easing transfers, but rather a nationalisation of bank accounts. Well that’s terrifying in general, but the Denmark case you’ve laid out sounds just about perfect. Denmark has found a way to use it’s capitalism — a “public private partnership“ with a captive audience, but properly regulated so they can’t absolutely fleece customers. I think it’s fine that private banks create money because in the reverse it kind of distributes power — feels like a good artificial restraint (artificial only in that the government could theoretically just undo it) on the government.