> First, it has been amply demonstrated that (1) the rules aren't as tight as should be and (2) the "punishment" for failure is not strong enough, or should I s

> First, it has been amply demonstrated that (1) the rules aren't as tight as should be and (2) the "punishment" for failure is not strong enough, or should I say, it is non-existent. This means that banks can and will make too risky investments, collect the profits when they succeed, and get bailed out – with no personal or corporate responsibility of any kind – when they fail. The problem in 2008 was subprime loans that should never have been allowed, it wasn’t that banks could create enough money. Inflation after Covid was caused by central banks, not private ones, and it was done on purpose to avoid a recession. I don’t think these things are inevitable consequences of private banks creating money. > Second, this creates a class privilege: while banks can create money at will (and profit from it) as long as they stay within the confines of the regulations, ordinary families and individuals have no such power. Banks are given that privilege in exchange for being regulated to hell. They get a kind of monopoly over these profits in exchange for doing things like being forced to bank everyone, including unprofitable customers. Without this incentive, who would do the banks’ job?