5 ms·

If this happens, banks have officially lost all their legitimacy and all banks should have their priviledges revoked. There is absolutely no reason banks shoul

If this happens, banks have officially lost all their legitimacy and all banks should have their priviledges revoked. There is absolutely no reason banks should be given the priviledge of being the only way to deposit money, while playing with those customers money and simultaneously having zero risk on that money. These banks are getting 10 to 1 leverage, from me, captive customer. Break their monopoly. I want an account at the Fed, and I want zero banks to be able to take leverage with my money, unless and until these banks give me a worthwhile interest rates on deposits. Let them actually compete. Right now it's not a competition, there are too big to fail banks which actually hold deposits, and there are small banks which can fail arbitrarily and cannot possibly compete because they actually assume the risk themselves. I want zero risk CBDC. At the Fed. With the Fed's current interest rates as they give to real banks. All their privileges should be gone. They can stay as investment institutions and if you trust them as that you're free to put your money there. They get all the priviledge with no responsibility. If they cover for them, this should be the end of banking. Nothing less. Digital coin with zero risk and connection to all standard paying systems. Same interest as banks. Demote banks to investment institutions and make their special priviledges obsolete. No bank except the Fed will be too big to fail then, when no one's forcing you to bank anywhere.

junofan 4y ago
It’s ridiculous how much bank fuckery we’re forced to put up with. I’m not splitting deposits across 50 banks while middlemen make money.
fach 4y ago
If the Fed provides a backstop for uninsured deposits, all banks have lost their legitimacy? They are not bailing out shareholders.
- machina_ex_deus 4y ago
  They are officially announcing to all listening banks that customers deposits are theirs to gamble with as they please. Why do banks get to play with those deposits, as if they were just free leverage from unwilling captive participants? How can small banks compete against big banks that can allow themselves to act this way? They can't. If you're big you get to risk it all. If you're small nobody will come to you as they know they won't be insured by a spooked Fed stopping "contagion". There's no legitimate reason to keep banks priviledge as a government supported oligopoly of investment institutions allowed to play with other people's money. If you admit the government is actually backstopping those deposits, there is absolutely zero reasons why banks get to gamble it in the first place. They are getting to eat the cake and have it too. This has to stop. If I gambled away all your money you'd never give me more again. If the bank gambled away all your money and the government came and made you whole, you'd look to become a banker too so you get to gamble away money that isn't yours.
  - fach 4y ago
    > If I gambled away all your money you'd never give me more again Apart from the arguing about the definition of gambling here applied to the SVB situation, no one is going to be able to give SVB another dime after this. They no longer exist. This is the exact opposite of risk free.
    - machina_ex_deus 4y ago
      Really? https://www.svbsecurities.com/team/joseph-gentile/ https://www.svbsecurities.com/team/joseph-gentile/ Joseph Gentile would like a word with you. I'm sure this guy had absolutely no experience with having MBS blow up in his face as interest rates rise. It's sad you're actually satisfied with a fictitious corporate entity "dying" when these people have perfected the art of making hostage situations with other people's money. It's all continuing because they get to successfully trade the hostages for a bailout each time. This guy is a professional Madoff, the only difference between them is that this guy is abusing bank's priviledge to get the government to backstop his ponzies.
      - fach 4y ago
        Again, what bailout? It seems like unless people are brought up on federal charges, you would be unsatisfied with the result.
grogers 4y ago
You want a quasi-government agency to have unlimited tracking and control over your transactions? Banks may suck but a CBDC is straight up scary. It's bad enough we have to put up with the capriciousness of the Fed's monetary policy, the less power they have the better.
- machina_ex_deus 4y ago
  I want an equal seat at the table so that the other players will stop exploiting me. Until and unless you get an equal seat at the table, you can't hope to get the banks to behave. I might actually still put my money in a bank after they are forced to be aligned with my incentives. You might not be aware, but anti-money-laundering means that whatever it is that's scaring you about CBDC has already been going on for years at the banks. They also get to sell your data because all of them do it. With CBDC I get to put in my bank what I don't want with the government and vice versa. They are using you as leverage because you have zero leverage on them. There are bank runs and the JP morgan stock is going up, because people have literally nowhere to flee to.
- flandish 4y ago
  Government control of something, while a risk that may result in “vogon-like” systems, is still better than for profit shareholder driven corporations. People have been known to overthrow their own governments because of fuckery. Corporations have been known to lobby gov and hire thugs to keep upset labor and customer pools held down.
- xboxnolifes 4y ago
  Government already has quasi-unlimited tracking and control over your transactions through banks. $10,000 deposits are reported. Suspicious activity on anything over $5,000 is reported. These are small sums of money from the perspective of a government. They're easily small enough that any individual who tries to step out of the lower class easily gets under the eyes of government.
goldforever 4y ago
[dead]

junofan 4y ago

It’s ridiculous how much bank fuckery we’re forced to put up with. I’m not splitting deposits across 50 banks while middlemen make money.

fach 4y ago

If the Fed provides a backstop for uninsured deposits, all banks have lost their legitimacy? They are not bailing out shareholders.

machina_ex_deus 4y ago
They are officially announcing to all listening banks that customers deposits are theirs to gamble with as they please. Why do banks get to play with those deposits, as if they were just free leverage from unwilling captive participants? How can small banks compete against big banks that can allow themselves to act this way? They can't. If you're big you get to risk it all. If you're small nobody will come to you as they know they won't be insured by a spooked Fed stopping "contagion". There's no legitimate reason to keep banks priviledge as a government supported oligopoly of investment institutions allowed to play with other people's money. If you admit the government is actually backstopping those deposits, there is absolutely zero reasons why banks get to gamble it in the first place. They are getting to eat the cake and have it too. This has to stop. If I gambled away all your money you'd never give me more again. If the bank gambled away all your money and the government came and made you whole, you'd look to become a banker too so you get to gamble away money that isn't yours.
- fach 4y ago
  > If I gambled away all your money you'd never give me more again Apart from the arguing about the definition of gambling here applied to the SVB situation, no one is going to be able to give SVB another dime after this. They no longer exist. This is the exact opposite of risk free.
  - machina_ex_deus 4y ago
    Really? https://www.svbsecurities.com/team/joseph-gentile/ https://www.svbsecurities.com/team/joseph-gentile/ Joseph Gentile would like a word with you. I'm sure this guy had absolutely no experience with having MBS blow up in his face as interest rates rise. It's sad you're actually satisfied with a fictitious corporate entity "dying" when these people have perfected the art of making hostage situations with other people's money. It's all continuing because they get to successfully trade the hostages for a bailout each time. This guy is a professional Madoff, the only difference between them is that this guy is abusing bank's priviledge to get the government to backstop his ponzies.
    - fach 4y ago
      Again, what bailout? It seems like unless people are brought up on federal charges, you would be unsatisfied with the result.

grogers 4y ago

You want a quasi-government agency to have unlimited tracking and control over your transactions? Banks may suck but a CBDC is straight up scary. It's bad enough we have to put up with the capriciousness of the Fed's monetary policy, the less power they have the better.

machina_ex_deus 4y ago
I want an equal seat at the table so that the other players will stop exploiting me. Until and unless you get an equal seat at the table, you can't hope to get the banks to behave. I might actually still put my money in a bank after they are forced to be aligned with my incentives. You might not be aware, but anti-money-laundering means that whatever it is that's scaring you about CBDC has already been going on for years at the banks. They also get to sell your data because all of them do it. With CBDC I get to put in my bank what I don't want with the government and vice versa. They are using you as leverage because you have zero leverage on them. There are bank runs and the JP morgan stock is going up, because people have literally nowhere to flee to.
flandish 4y ago
Government control of something, while a risk that may result in “vogon-like” systems, is still better than for profit shareholder driven corporations. People have been known to overthrow their own governments because of fuckery. Corporations have been known to lobby gov and hire thugs to keep upset labor and customer pools held down.
xboxnolifes 4y ago
Government already has quasi-unlimited tracking and control over your transactions through banks. $10,000 deposits are reported. Suspicious activity on anything over $5,000 is reported. These are small sums of money from the perspective of a government. They're easily small enough that any individual who tries to step out of the lower class easily gets under the eyes of government.

goldforever 4y ago

[dead]