3 ms·
Before digital payments or online banking, it was common for an average Joe to keep much of what would otherwise go into a checking account in physical cash. In
by opportune 3y ago
Before digital payments or online banking, it was common for an average Joe to keep much of what would otherwise go into a checking account in physical cash. In modern amounts maybe $5k at the high end or $500-2k on average. It didn’t seem to prevent the system from functioning; I certainly can’t seem to draw a direct conclusion between shifting to a cashless economy and the living standards of an average personal directly improving as a result of lower cost of capital, unless they had assets that would benefit from easy/low-rate credit access like a house.
If the Fed keeps trying to fix failed banks through indirect money printing (covering uninsured deposits by overpaying for treasuries/MBS) they could lose control of inflation and be unable to further raise rates. That seems like a worse outcome for the average person than a slightly higher cost of capital from banks having to compete with narrow banking. And the Fed should hope for narrow banking at that point because it would be the easiest to manage compared to the other options like physical cash, crypto, and other currencies.
- thedufer 3y agoYeah, the amounts they're worried about are a few orders of magnitude larger than that. I don't think that's a compelling counter-example. > If the Fed keeps trying to fix failed banks through indirect money printing (covering uninsured deposits by overpaying for treasuries/MBS) Is this happening? The uninsured deposits are being covered by the FDIC insurance fund, which is funded by the banks. None of it is coming from the fed.