3 ms·

If you ever read The Wealth of Nations, it has a long history of the value of silver(commonly used for money at the time), and the effect new mines had on the v

by qdog 14y ago

If you ever read The Wealth of Nations, it has a long history of the value of silver(commonly used for money at the time), and the effect new mines had on the value (overnight 1/3 value loss not unheard of). There is essentially nothing in the world guaranteed to hold or increase in value that we use or have ever used as money. If you are lucky enough to have money over the limit, at least in the US, you can open accounts at different banks to try and have more insurance. For the native Cypriot running a legit business, yes, it's unfortunate, but that's what has led to a central banking system. If you look back a hundred years, bank runs were much more common, but people still had to use banks. I don't offer financial advice, but it certainly would seem that maintaining bank accounts above the insured limit in any of the countries you listed is very high risk at the moment.

cinquemb 14y ago
>I don't offer financial advice, but it certainly would seem that maintaining bank accounts above the insured limit in any of the countries you listed is very high risk at the moment. I'd agree, but i'd like to add that one would have to be fooling themselves if this high risk is anything but contained to the PIIGS or the EU. ex: Some british pension accounts were hit: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/cyprus/9944544/British-pensioners-fear-for-savings-as-Cyprus-proposes-capital-controls.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/cyprus/9944... I guess in any case, having any bank account over "insurance" limits in any country isn't sound (as we've seen that even those limits can be changed [usually changed or able to be removed at any time like what the FDIC announced in December]). But then again, people don't usually act in a logical manner (which I guess in a weird sense they shouldn't since any currency is ultimately built upon trust or belief which is not directly connected to logic). I guess it's just better to stick to the basics (food,water,shelter) and let the bankers worry about when their fellow citizens or russian oligarchs will come for their heads which according to history, eventually happens :P
- qdog 14y ago
  It would probably be beyond my abilities and knowledge to really write about the banking system fully. I would note, even the US has a long list of banks on the endangered list: http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2013/03/unofficial-problem-bank-list-declines_30.html http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2013/03/unofficial-problem... Some big banks in the US seem immune at the moment, but the recent revelations about Chase losing billions while trying not to reveal it to regulators is just par for the course. I personally trust the US government to back my small deposits far more than any bank. It's not because the US government is so good, it's because the banks are so bad. To me, it appears that without IMF prodding and EU intervention, Cypress would eventually have had a banking collapse that would have wiped out 100% of all depositors. The general operation of banks when losing money seems to increase leverage to try and make up for the losses, instead of acknowledging losses.

by qdog 14y ago

cinquemb 14y ago

>I don't offer financial advice, but it certainly would seem that maintaining bank accounts above the insured limit in any of the countries you listed is very high risk at the moment. I'd agree, but i'd like to add that one would have to be fooling themselves if this high risk is anything but contained to the PIIGS or the EU. ex: Some british pension accounts were hit: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/cyprus/9944544/British-pensioners-fear-for-savings-as-Cyprus-proposes-capital-controls.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/cyprus/9944... I guess in any case, having any bank account over "insurance" limits in any country isn't sound (as we've seen that even those limits can be changed [usually changed or able to be removed at any time like what the FDIC announced in December]). But then again, people don't usually act in a logical manner (which I guess in a weird sense they shouldn't since any currency is ultimately built upon trust or belief which is not directly connected to logic). I guess it's just better to stick to the basics (food,water,shelter) and let the bankers worry about when their fellow citizens or russian oligarchs will come for their heads which according to history, eventually happens :P

qdog 14y ago
It would probably be beyond my abilities and knowledge to really write about the banking system fully. I would note, even the US has a long list of banks on the endangered list: http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2013/03/unofficial-problem-bank-list-declines_30.html http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2013/03/unofficial-problem... Some big banks in the US seem immune at the moment, but the recent revelations about Chase losing billions while trying not to reveal it to regulators is just par for the course. I personally trust the US government to back my small deposits far more than any bank. It's not because the US government is so good, it's because the banks are so bad. To me, it appears that without IMF prodding and EU intervention, Cypress would eventually have had a banking collapse that would have wiped out 100% of all depositors. The general operation of banks when losing money seems to increase leverage to try and make up for the losses, instead of acknowledging losses.