4 ms·

I think depositors who are happy with low interest should be able to use accounts directly from the treasury to work with US bonds.. I don't want to bail out co

I think depositors who are happy with low interest should be able to use accounts directly from the treasury to work with US bonds.. I don't want to bail out companies that try to eek out small profits in the middle and help them drive the average consumers interest to well bellow the bond rates.

hartator 4y ago
I mean you can buy directly bonds already aren’t you?
- roundandround 4y ago
  The Treasury is selling bonds for the US' interests and should provide adequate accounts to manage your funds within the context of US savings bonds and transfers. People who put a million in bonds through an opaque account at an intermediary are then still at their own risk. Why subsidize and encourage middlemen? It's like building the scam opportunity for privatized social security insurance management, as if honesty will be the most profitable choice in managing that.. It's inappropriate for the government to design systems that reward scamming in the middle.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - hartator 4y ago
    Yes, it seems reasonable. I thought a brokerage was doing just the UI basically, but the actual bond is actually in your name?
    - roundandround 4y ago
      I think bonds themselves when bought through a normal broker's normal account are usually true investments in your name that can't be "pledged and re-pledged".. I generally accept the argument that people are having trouble running the gauntlet to true government backed low risk investment and that is basically by design (well inherent capitalist evolution).. Anyone who fails to get there or gets talked out of that position by an army of telemarketers in turn fuels those telemarketers getting more people to take inherently worse risk/benefit options that pay for sign ups.
      - hartator 4y ago
        I think there is also a convenience factor to be able to buy all bonds on the same platform. It will be annoying if it wasn’t the case.
        roundandround 4y ago
        Sure most people who use brokers are actually interested in wider arrays of risk and we can't really find anyway to lower the corrupt advisor incentive as that tends to go straight into a complexity trade off. I don't think there's still good reasons to use banks for savings now that anyone could buy whatever assets they like with a very similar broker account.. I think anyone accepting lower than government bond rates is basically in a corrupt financial advisor situation where the government is providing everything and someone other than the saver is siphoning money out in the good years. Industries once formed tend to lobby to prevent things that would remove their negative role. I.e. the ability to independently buy savings bonds has not really been kept up with the baseline utility of any other financial account. Normally banks had much more of a role in lending, etc, which is a bit more complicated than letting them leach between people and well defined bonds so I wouldn't say they can't have a function only that I would like them removed from this one.

hartator 4y ago

I mean you can buy directly bonds already aren’t you?

roundandround 4y ago
The Treasury is selling bonds for the US' interests and should provide adequate accounts to manage your funds within the context of US savings bonds and transfers. People who put a million in bonds through an opaque account at an intermediary are then still at their own risk. Why subsidize and encourage middlemen? It's like building the scam opportunity for privatized social security insurance management, as if honesty will be the most profitable choice in managing that.. It's inappropriate for the government to design systems that reward scamming in the middle.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- hartator 4y ago
  Yes, it seems reasonable. I thought a brokerage was doing just the UI basically, but the actual bond is actually in your name?
  - roundandround 4y ago
    I think bonds themselves when bought through a normal broker's normal account are usually true investments in your name that can't be "pledged and re-pledged".. I generally accept the argument that people are having trouble running the gauntlet to true government backed low risk investment and that is basically by design (well inherent capitalist evolution).. Anyone who fails to get there or gets talked out of that position by an army of telemarketers in turn fuels those telemarketers getting more people to take inherently worse risk/benefit options that pay for sign ups.
    - hartator 4y ago
      I think there is also a convenience factor to be able to buy all bonds on the same platform. It will be annoying if it wasn’t the case.
      - roundandround 4y ago
        Sure most people who use brokers are actually interested in wider arrays of risk and we can't really find anyway to lower the corrupt advisor incentive as that tends to go straight into a complexity trade off. I don't think there's still good reasons to use banks for savings now that anyone could buy whatever assets they like with a very similar broker account.. I think anyone accepting lower than government bond rates is basically in a corrupt financial advisor situation where the government is providing everything and someone other than the saver is siphoning money out in the good years. Industries once formed tend to lobby to prevent things that would remove their negative role. I.e. the ability to independently buy savings bonds has not really been kept up with the baseline utility of any other financial account. Normally banks had much more of a role in lending, etc, which is a bit more complicated than letting them leach between people and well defined bonds so I wouldn't say they can't have a function only that I would like them removed from this one.