4 ms·

It is clearly a problem, although, I am afraid, you've been forced to have a bank account in most western countries for a while now. Removing cash is part of th

It is clearly a problem, although, I am afraid, you've been forced to have a bank account in most western countries for a while now. Removing cash is part of that process but it's not the beginning. That boat a sail a while ago. What we need is more competition in the banking sectors. And I am not talking about more private for-profits banks. We need: 1. Public own banks. A bank as a public service. Indeed, governments will have more control on it but if you are a citizen of another country, this becomes less of a problem. You could be depositing your money into the Public Bank of Canada for example. A bank as a public service might have nefarious interests too but at least they would be different from a private for-profit bank. 2. We need private non profit banks. Banks run as an NGO. And on this, we could help by providing open source banking software. Rigorously tested and hardened.

tonyedgecombe 5y ago
>Public own bank. We had those in the UK, they were called building societies. They were mostly regional and offered savings accounts and mortgages. Unfortunately nearly all of them demutualised in the nineties, there is only one major one left now[1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationwide_Building_Society https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationwide_Building_Society
notch656a 5y ago
>you've been forced to have a bank account in most western countries for a while now. You have, many haven't. There's plenty of people who pay their rent in cash and work in a business that pays them in cash (strippers, some farm laborers, etc). Surviving in the US with cash only would take away a lot of options for many people but at the same time, it's completely possible. IMO we need more ways to bypass banks, including the central bank, not more of them.
- jonplackett 5y ago
  I’m always surprised at the supermarket how many people are waiting much longer to use the only automated checkout that accepts cash. There’s still a lot of people who don’t have a card, or can’t use a card for some reason.
kqr 5y ago
3. Most of all, we need banks owned by their customers, i.e. banks in whose interest it is not to build huge bureaucracies to skim off maximum rent from transactions, but just enough to keep the business running.
- notch656a 5y ago
  Exactly. I'd like to take this to its logical extreme, and have me be 100% owner of my own bank. I will hold notes printed by the treasury and open something in my pocket to withdraw from my account when it is time to pay.
  - kqr 5y ago
    The risk of being the sole owner of your bank is fairly obvious, though. I'd want multiple owners for central limit theorem reasons. How would you work around extreme variability in demands if you are the sole owner? Also, how would you earn interest on your money if not by lending it out to others, who would then also be customers of your bank and hence owners? It sounds to me like what you describe is either (a) not really a bank in the sense that we mean when we talk about banks, or (b) not a logical extension of collective ownership but rather that you want a traditional capitalist bank except where you are the owner instead of someone else.
    - notch656a 5y ago
      >(b) not a logical extension of collective ownership but rather that you want a traditional capitalist bank except where you are the owner instead of someone else. Collectivism taken to the most localized extreme is individualism. This is a collective of one. >(a) not really a bank in the sense that we mean when we talk about banks, or You can ask these questions about any bank; the mere fact this bank is owned by the sole depositor doesn't change what a bank is. >I'd want multiple owners for central limit theorem reasons. How would you work around extreme variability in demands if you are the sole owner? The sole depositor is also the sole owner. It's a collective ownership of depositing customers, not those who owe the bank money. But in the end I'm just exemplifying what the logic extreme of your suggestion ends in, which actually happens to be a system I approve of. You keep treasury notes in your wallet, lend them if you like, and pull them out whenever you'd like to 'withdraw' them from your demand account. There's no fancy rubber stamp or business license to back it up, but it meets the definition of a bank (which is roughly an institution that accepts demand deposits and possibly loans them out).
Symbiote 5y ago
Britain has the Co-operative Bank, which isn't a cooperative company (one owned by its members), but was owned by a cooperative company. The USA has many credit unions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Co-operative_Bank https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Co-operative_Bank

tonyedgecombe 5y ago

>Public own bank. We had those in the UK, they were called building societies. They were mostly regional and offered savings accounts and mortgages. Unfortunately nearly all of them demutualised in the nineties, there is only one major one left now[1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationwide_Building_Society https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationwide_Building_Society

notch656a 5y ago

>you've been forced to have a bank account in most western countries for a while now. You have, many haven't. There's plenty of people who pay their rent in cash and work in a business that pays them in cash (strippers, some farm laborers, etc). Surviving in the US with cash only would take away a lot of options for many people but at the same time, it's completely possible. IMO we need more ways to bypass banks, including the central bank, not more of them.

jonplackett 5y ago
I’m always surprised at the supermarket how many people are waiting much longer to use the only automated checkout that accepts cash. There’s still a lot of people who don’t have a card, or can’t use a card for some reason.

kqr 5y ago

3. Most of all, we need banks owned by their customers, i.e. banks in whose interest it is not to build huge bureaucracies to skim off maximum rent from transactions, but just enough to keep the business running.

notch656a 5y ago
Exactly. I'd like to take this to its logical extreme, and have me be 100% owner of my own bank. I will hold notes printed by the treasury and open something in my pocket to withdraw from my account when it is time to pay.
- kqr 5y ago
  The risk of being the sole owner of your bank is fairly obvious, though. I'd want multiple owners for central limit theorem reasons. How would you work around extreme variability in demands if you are the sole owner? Also, how would you earn interest on your money if not by lending it out to others, who would then also be customers of your bank and hence owners? It sounds to me like what you describe is either (a) not really a bank in the sense that we mean when we talk about banks, or (b) not a logical extension of collective ownership but rather that you want a traditional capitalist bank except where you are the owner instead of someone else.
  - notch656a 5y ago
    >(b) not a logical extension of collective ownership but rather that you want a traditional capitalist bank except where you are the owner instead of someone else. Collectivism taken to the most localized extreme is individualism. This is a collective of one. >(a) not really a bank in the sense that we mean when we talk about banks, or You can ask these questions about any bank; the mere fact this bank is owned by the sole depositor doesn't change what a bank is. >I'd want multiple owners for central limit theorem reasons. How would you work around extreme variability in demands if you are the sole owner? The sole depositor is also the sole owner. It's a collective ownership of depositing customers, not those who owe the bank money. But in the end I'm just exemplifying what the logic extreme of your suggestion ends in, which actually happens to be a system I approve of. You keep treasury notes in your wallet, lend them if you like, and pull them out whenever you'd like to 'withdraw' them from your demand account. There's no fancy rubber stamp or business license to back it up, but it meets the definition of a bank (which is roughly an institution that accepts demand deposits and possibly loans them out).

Symbiote 5y ago

Britain has the Co-operative Bank, which isn't a cooperative company (one owned by its members), but was owned by a cooperative company. The USA has many credit unions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Co-operative_Bank https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Co-operative_Bank