3 ms·

This is dumb. That's not an insult -- I'm not calling you dumb, but just your argument. 1) Banks are FDIC-insured, so unless the federal government goes under,

by blagie 4y ago

This is dumb. That's not an insult -- I'm not calling you dumb, but just your argument. 1) Banks are FDIC-insured, so unless the federal government goes under, my money can't be lost. If the US disappears, so does the dollar. 2) If people lose part of their money due to a policy like the one you propose, they won't "learn." You're asking ordinary people to be aware of things which are accessible to a fraction of a percent of the population. They'll assume banks are safe, and lose trust in "the system" if they're not. 3) Even so, I have no way of knowing what's going on at my bank. For all I know, the executives might be crooks embezzling money for the Italian mafia. We have organizations like the FBI, SEC, etc. since individuals can't investigate these things. I'd like to focus on my family and my job. That's why we've specialized. The current approach for banking is better than free market. Personally, I think banking would best be nationalized, a la China. It's not an industry where efficient free markets do very well. That's true for health care and parts of real estate too. (And yes, there are other industries I would privatize much more, like education. This shouldn't be an ideological socialist versus free market argument, so much as looking at the extent to which free market assumptions apply to a given industry)

valenterry 4y ago
> This is dumb. That's not an insult -- I'm not calling you dumb, but just your argument. No worries, I'm here to discuss and learn things, so happy about your reply! > 1) Banks are FDIC-insured, so unless the federal government goes under, my money can't be lost. If the US disappears, so does the dollar. Yes, but there is still the chance of a "haircut" or similar. At this scale, rules can be bend. But my response was a bit more independent of the country, so maybe it doesn't apply well to the US, point taken. > 2) If people lose part of their money due to a policy like the one you propose, they won't "learn." You're asking ordinary people to be aware of things which are accessible to a fraction of a percent of the population. They'll assume banks are safe, and lose trust in "the system" if they're not. Maybe for the first time. But if you think about it, maybe the system is how it is _because_ people trust in it (too) much. There are a couple of options. For instance, the state can give a guarantee for only a limited amount of money (think $20k or something like that) per person and/or institute. Second, it might very well be that banks will come up with two different kinds of accounts: 1) an account where the money is not safe and can be used by the bank for investments - but you get interest. 2) an account where the money is safe, but you don't get interest but have to pay a fee for the bank's services. The money then stays your property and the bank just keeps it for you, so even if it goes bankcrupt, no one can take the money since it's still yours. I don't think that would be a bad idea. > 3) Even so, I have no way of knowing what's going on at my bank. For all I know, the executives might be crooks embezzling money for the Italian mafia. We have organizations like the FBI, SEC, etc. since individuals can't investigate these things. I'd like to focus on my family and my job. That's why we've specialized. I believe that for your health, your relationships (friends, familiy, ...) and your finances, you cannot delegate that, you must keep control yourselve. You can get people to help you, but in the end both control and responsibility are yours. That's what I think works best.
- blagie 4y ago
  > No worries, I'm here to discuss and learn things, so happy about your reply! Thank you! I enjoy discussions with folks like you. > Maybe for the first time. If we're having regular bank failures, we're going to enter "failed state" status. Can you name any nation which regular bank failures which isn't a hellhole? People don't learn from once-in-a-lifetime events. It's also not what I want people to learn. Systems like this ought to work well enough in a well-governed country that ordinary individuals don't need to think about it. The US has problems, but not at the level of people worrying if their bank accounts will disappear tomorrow. I also want sufficiently functioning police departments that people don't need to worry about how to defend themselves. There are things which ought to work. Retirement savings ought to be one of those. > For instance, the state can give a guarantee for only a limited amount of money (think $20k or something like that) per person and/or institute. The current limit is $250k. This seems reasonable, and potentially low. I'd set it at $1M, and include accounts like 401k and IRA accounts, so your retirement investment savings can't disappear in a poof for reasons outside of your control. If I bought stocks, I can (and should) expect their value to change, but I should be able to count on Fidelity safely making sure those are still my stocks. > Second, it might very well be that banks will come up with two different kinds of accounts. It might well be. 0.1% of the population will chose wisely. Like medicine, this is something you want to just work. > I believe that for your health, your relationships (friends, familiy, ...) and your finances, you cannot delegate that, you must keep control yourselve. You can get people to help you, but in the end both control and responsibility are yours. That's what I think works best. Why? All evidence suggests the contrary: - People seem happiest in communal societies, where they don't pick their friends or family. We evolved in tribes. - I'd love to live in a structure where I get healthy food and plenty of exercise as a "default." Staying healthy with companies marketing high-sugar foods, and obsolete parts of my brain pushing me to be lazy, is a constant uphill battle. I'd stop short of a mandate, but if everyone is healthy, we're all better off. - Finance is a black hole for most people. People ought to be able to trust that if they work hard, they'll be able to afford basic food, shelter, and medicine (including in retirement). It feels like a trap to make people manage this. If my life consisted of: - Wake up for morning exercises. There are plenty of communal spaces for exercise. Volunteers run free dance, martial arts, yoga, etc. classes. My taxes fund the space. - Work hard on open source, which benefits everyone, for some number of hours - Spend time with my family - Not worry about much of anything else, and count on systems working I'd be pretty happy. We haven't figured out how to do that, but utopian ideals don't have everyone needing to investigate their local hospitals for corruption, banks for fraud, and mastering medicine and finance. As a nerd, I enjoy learning about those, but it shouldn't be mandatory.

by blagie 4y ago

valenterry 4y ago

> This is dumb. That's not an insult -- I'm not calling you dumb, but just your argument. No worries, I'm here to discuss and learn things, so happy about your reply! > 1) Banks are FDIC-insured, so unless the federal government goes under, my money can't be lost. If the US disappears, so does the dollar. Yes, but there is still the chance of a "haircut" or similar. At this scale, rules can be bend. But my response was a bit more independent of the country, so maybe it doesn't apply well to the US, point taken. > 2) If people lose part of their money due to a policy like the one you propose, they won't "learn." You're asking ordinary people to be aware of things which are accessible to a fraction of a percent of the population. They'll assume banks are safe, and lose trust in "the system" if they're not. Maybe for the first time. But if you think about it, maybe the system is how it is _because_ people trust in it (too) much. There are a couple of options. For instance, the state can give a guarantee for only a limited amount of money (think $20k or something like that) per person and/or institute. Second, it might very well be that banks will come up with two different kinds of accounts: 1) an account where the money is not safe and can be used by the bank for investments - but you get interest. 2) an account where the money is safe, but you don't get interest but have to pay a fee for the bank's services. The money then stays your property and the bank just keeps it for you, so even if it goes bankcrupt, no one can take the money since it's still yours. I don't think that would be a bad idea. > 3) Even so, I have no way of knowing what's going on at my bank. For all I know, the executives might be crooks embezzling money for the Italian mafia. We have organizations like the FBI, SEC, etc. since individuals can't investigate these things. I'd like to focus on my family and my job. That's why we've specialized. I believe that for your health, your relationships (friends, familiy, ...) and your finances, you cannot delegate that, you must keep control yourselve. You can get people to help you, but in the end both control and responsibility are yours. That's what I think works best.

blagie 4y ago
> No worries, I'm here to discuss and learn things, so happy about your reply! Thank you! I enjoy discussions with folks like you. > Maybe for the first time. If we're having regular bank failures, we're going to enter "failed state" status. Can you name any nation which regular bank failures which isn't a hellhole? People don't learn from once-in-a-lifetime events. It's also not what I want people to learn. Systems like this ought to work well enough in a well-governed country that ordinary individuals don't need to think about it. The US has problems, but not at the level of people worrying if their bank accounts will disappear tomorrow. I also want sufficiently functioning police departments that people don't need to worry about how to defend themselves. There are things which ought to work. Retirement savings ought to be one of those. > For instance, the state can give a guarantee for only a limited amount of money (think $20k or something like that) per person and/or institute. The current limit is $250k. This seems reasonable, and potentially low. I'd set it at $1M, and include accounts like 401k and IRA accounts, so your retirement investment savings can't disappear in a poof for reasons outside of your control. If I bought stocks, I can (and should) expect their value to change, but I should be able to count on Fidelity safely making sure those are still my stocks. > Second, it might very well be that banks will come up with two different kinds of accounts. It might well be. 0.1% of the population will chose wisely. Like medicine, this is something you want to just work. > I believe that for your health, your relationships (friends, familiy, ...) and your finances, you cannot delegate that, you must keep control yourselve. You can get people to help you, but in the end both control and responsibility are yours. That's what I think works best. Why? All evidence suggests the contrary: - People seem happiest in communal societies, where they don't pick their friends or family. We evolved in tribes. - I'd love to live in a structure where I get healthy food and plenty of exercise as a "default." Staying healthy with companies marketing high-sugar foods, and obsolete parts of my brain pushing me to be lazy, is a constant uphill battle. I'd stop short of a mandate, but if everyone is healthy, we're all better off. - Finance is a black hole for most people. People ought to be able to trust that if they work hard, they'll be able to afford basic food, shelter, and medicine (including in retirement). It feels like a trap to make people manage this. If my life consisted of: - Wake up for morning exercises. There are plenty of communal spaces for exercise. Volunteers run free dance, martial arts, yoga, etc. classes. My taxes fund the space. - Work hard on open source, which benefits everyone, for some number of hours - Spend time with my family - Not worry about much of anything else, and count on systems working I'd be pretty happy. We haven't figured out how to do that, but utopian ideals don't have everyone needing to investigate their local hospitals for corruption, banks for fraud, and mastering medicine and finance. As a nerd, I enjoy learning about those, but it shouldn't be mandatory.