4 ms·

If you want taxpayer-funded protection of your savings, that comes in return for your money being used to fund economic activity that generates those taxes. Th

by growse 3y ago

If you want taxpayer-funded protection of your savings, that comes in return for your money being used to fund economic activity that generates those taxes. Thems the breaks. Take it up with your government if you don't like it.

dheera 3y ago
> If you want taxpayer-funded protection of your savings, that comes in return for your money being used to fund economic activity that generates those taxes. Sure, if you give me the interest rate, sure. But if the feds are giving me 5.5%, you, as a private bank, better well give me 6.25% so that it's >5.5% after state taxes. If you give me ANY LESS than 6.25% you have no right to lend out my money.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > If you give me ANY LESS than 6.25% you have no right to lend out my money. Where do you want this free return to come from? While also funding all the things people using a checking account properly (i.e. not to generate a return) want from it, e.g. transaction capabilities? Again, you can literally get this by buying Treasuries. But you don't want that--you also want the other things. For free. I, too, want free things. But it's obviously not a serious suggestion.
  - dheera 3y ago
    > Where do you want this free return to come from? I dunno, the Treasury gives me the 5.5% which is the same as a private bank giving me 6.25% and getting robbed by the state of California which leaves me with 5.5%. Banks want my money? They need to beat that bar. I dunno, lend it out to someone at 10% to buy a car and then give me 6.25%. Be creative. But I'm not taking Chase Bank's laughable 0.01% or even WealthFront's stupid 4.8%. It's not 6.25%, they didn't beat the bar, plain and simple. If you're only giving me 1% you might as well give me 0% and I forbid you to lend out my money.
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      > Banks want my money? They need to beat that bar. Do you have a bank account? > If you're only giving me 1% you might as well give me 0% and I forbid you to lend out my money Then do this! You're railing against a scarecrow.
- growse 3y ago
  So you want to make banking dramatically more expensive for everyone? All that'd do is make credit hilariously more expensive for everyone, which will push up the price of everything. I'm not sure that's a good idea.
  - dheera 3y ago
    I don't think so. If people buy things only with money they actually have, prices will be forced to come down. Prices are high because the whole damn country has a habit of buying things they can't afford. It's not actually normal to do that in a lot of the world.
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      > not actually normal to do that in a lot of the world. The U.S. is number 15 in the world by household debt to GDP [1]. The winners in your low household debt basket are Pakistan, Algeria, Ukraine, Tajikistan and Bangladesh. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_household_debt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_household...

by growse 3y ago

dheera 3y ago

> If you want taxpayer-funded protection of your savings, that comes in return for your money being used to fund economic activity that generates those taxes. Sure, if you give me the interest rate, sure. But if the feds are giving me 5.5%, you, as a private bank, better well give me 6.25% so that it's >5.5% after state taxes. If you give me ANY LESS than 6.25% you have no right to lend out my money.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> If you give me ANY LESS than 6.25% you have no right to lend out my money. Where do you want this free return to come from? While also funding all the things people using a checking account properly (i.e. not to generate a return) want from it, e.g. transaction capabilities? Again, you can literally get this by buying Treasuries. But you don't want that--you also want the other things. For free. I, too, want free things. But it's obviously not a serious suggestion.
- dheera 3y ago
  > Where do you want this free return to come from? I dunno, the Treasury gives me the 5.5% which is the same as a private bank giving me 6.25% and getting robbed by the state of California which leaves me with 5.5%. Banks want my money? They need to beat that bar. I dunno, lend it out to someone at 10% to buy a car and then give me 6.25%. Be creative. But I'm not taking Chase Bank's laughable 0.01% or even WealthFront's stupid 4.8%. It's not 6.25%, they didn't beat the bar, plain and simple. If you're only giving me 1% you might as well give me 0% and I forbid you to lend out my money.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > Banks want my money? They need to beat that bar. Do you have a bank account? > If you're only giving me 1% you might as well give me 0% and I forbid you to lend out my money Then do this! You're railing against a scarecrow.
growse 3y ago
So you want to make banking dramatically more expensive for everyone? All that'd do is make credit hilariously more expensive for everyone, which will push up the price of everything. I'm not sure that's a good idea.
- dheera 3y ago
  I don't think so. If people buy things only with money they actually have, prices will be forced to come down. Prices are high because the whole damn country has a habit of buying things they can't afford. It's not actually normal to do that in a lot of the world.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > not actually normal to do that in a lot of the world. The U.S. is number 15 in the world by household debt to GDP [1]. The winners in your low household debt basket are Pakistan, Algeria, Ukraine, Tajikistan and Bangladesh. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_household_debt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_household...