3 ms·

> 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.

by 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.

valenterry 4y ago
> Can you name any nation which regular bank failures which isn't a hellhole? That's a bit unfair, because there is no country (yet) where there is a system similar to what I proposed. If there were, then maybe it would be pretty normal and putting money on the bank that yields interest will just be seen and regulated as investing into stocks nowadays. > 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. To me it feels like you are trying to push away a responsibility that is impossible to push away. (sorry for me bad English) What I mean is, once someone gives money to the bank and the bank _uses_ it instead of storing it (e.g. for a loan/credit) then there _is_ a risk that the money will be lost. So if you want banks to be failsafe in the sense that it is legally guaranteed that you can never lose your money (currently that's not the case right) then banks should be fully government controlled or at least so tightly regulated that they are very very different from a regular business. I mean, banks are already highly regulated, but not nearly enough in my opinion. If the bank can't lose/go bankcrup, then it also shouldn't win, so no profit or highly regulated profit. EDIT: I forgot to say that if the state is essentially insurance for the bank, it should charge for that service just like a normal insurance company would. > Why? All evidence suggests the contrary: (...) None of the points contradicts what I said. But look: even in a communal society YOU pick your friends, no one else. And if there are two kinds of foods, one tasty, cheap and unhealthy und one so-so, kinda expensive but healthy, would YOU trust the advertisements which one to pick? Even with a doctor: sure, it's great to have competent doctors. But it's a fact that there are better and worse doctors. So if health is important to you, YOU have to pick the right doctor. If you rely on someone else to do so, you are essentially putting your life in their hands. While anyone can decide to do that, I just don't think that it's a good idea. The problem with your nice example life is that once things go southwards (and eventually they always do) then you can't deal with it. I prefer a slightly less optimal system that has less potential to go really bad, even if average quality of life is a bit lower.
- zie 4y ago
  > That's a bit unfair, because there is no country (yet) where there is a system similar to what I proposed. If there were, then maybe it would be pretty normal and putting money on the bank that yields interest will just be seen and regulated as investing into stocks nowadays. You can do this in the USA, look up the ETF ICSH for instance :)

by blagie 4y ago

valenterry 4y ago

> Can you name any nation which regular bank failures which isn't a hellhole? That's a bit unfair, because there is no country (yet) where there is a system similar to what I proposed. If there were, then maybe it would be pretty normal and putting money on the bank that yields interest will just be seen and regulated as investing into stocks nowadays. > 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. To me it feels like you are trying to push away a responsibility that is impossible to push away. (sorry for me bad English) What I mean is, once someone gives money to the bank and the bank _uses_ it instead of storing it (e.g. for a loan/credit) then there _is_ a risk that the money will be lost. So if you want banks to be failsafe in the sense that it is legally guaranteed that you can never lose your money (currently that's not the case right) then banks should be fully government controlled or at least so tightly regulated that they are very very different from a regular business. I mean, banks are already highly regulated, but not nearly enough in my opinion. If the bank can't lose/go bankcrup, then it also shouldn't win, so no profit or highly regulated profit. EDIT: I forgot to say that if the state is essentially insurance for the bank, it should charge for that service just like a normal insurance company would. > Why? All evidence suggests the contrary: (...) None of the points contradicts what I said. But look: even in a communal society YOU pick your friends, no one else. And if there are two kinds of foods, one tasty, cheap and unhealthy und one so-so, kinda expensive but healthy, would YOU trust the advertisements which one to pick? Even with a doctor: sure, it's great to have competent doctors. But it's a fact that there are better and worse doctors. So if health is important to you, YOU have to pick the right doctor. If you rely on someone else to do so, you are essentially putting your life in their hands. While anyone can decide to do that, I just don't think that it's a good idea. The problem with your nice example life is that once things go southwards (and eventually they always do) then you can't deal with it. I prefer a slightly less optimal system that has less potential to go really bad, even if average quality of life is a bit lower.

zie 4y ago
> That's a bit unfair, because there is no country (yet) where there is a system similar to what I proposed. If there were, then maybe it would be pretty normal and putting money on the bank that yields interest will just be seen and regulated as investing into stocks nowadays. You can do this in the USA, look up the ETF ICSH for instance :)