71–80 of 193 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> see if competition takes care of the "problem". We have seen: for industries with big capital requirements or heavy regulatory frameworks (enacted for everyone's safety), it just doesn't .
Which industries with big capital requirements don't have competitors?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your assumption, that if without these extra taxes, more banks would be created and the industry would become less concentrated, seems untrue. The banking industry seems to be becoming hugely concentrated in every Western country, regardless of windfall taxes.
Thanks to excessive regulation
Windfall taxes and bailouts aren't the policies that create a healthy banking sector. Instead they should worry about crafting better regulations and having competition for where people's savings go.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unfortunately the old American disease of not ensuring competition and instead passing regulation ensuring monopolies stay in power means the "problem" is not actual solved, and is in fact made worse.
> The US is home to over 4,700 FDIC-insured banks. It’s not far off from the EU, which has 5,171, but stop and consider that the EU consists of 27 countries. The UK currently has 365 banks, and Canada has 83
Canada on the other hand had branch banking, meaning a few insitution each covering the whole country. So Canada had very far fewer banks historically.
During the Great Depression many 1000$ of banks failed in the US and none in Canada.
This is an old European disease. Corporate profits are often seen as an adverse result; of consumers being taken advantage of unfairly. Taxing excess profits beyond what are already high tax rates is popular amongst voters (e.g. see poll results in the UK, 2022). However, this lowers the appeal for new entrants to enter these markets to compete for these excess profits through better and more efficient products and s…
You could think this is good as it supports people but I think it's kind of sad thousands of people get up and go to work every day with no impact on anything,just waste away at a desk. This doesn't even mention the economic waste
I dislike banks as much as anyone else. But does it bother anyone else to see rules changed around? Wouldn't it be a better approach to tell people/corporations how they're gonna be taxed?
They're not changing the rules of the game on Jane Public's family here. They're sur-taxing banks' already exorbitant profits. Oh no, the bankers bonuses will be 20% instead of 30%!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which industries with big capital requirements don't have competitors?
Anything with a natural monopoly. Utilities (water, electric, telephony/cable/data services) or where having two of something makes no sense given physical limitations (Transportation sector, etc.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I would much rather see regulation forcing banks to raise interest rate on deposits Regulation that increases competition would be even better. It seems like that would be the underlying problem.
What kind of competition would you like to see in the banking sector? All banks look exactly the same from this vantage point...
The root problem isn't the banks, per se, rather the problem is the underlying system that modern banks are incentivized by.
Remove usury (loans at a profit) and base the national currency on something (anything is better than nothing, but the Socialists in Germany used production, and before the 1970s the US used gold) and I think you'd see that banks as a business would radically change.
This is an old European disease. Corporate profits are often seen as an adverse result; of consumers being taken advantage of unfairly. Taxing excess profits beyond what are already high tax rates is popular amongst voters (e.g. see poll results in the UK, 2022). However, this lowers the appeal for new entrants to enter these markets to compete for these excess profits through better and more efficient products and s…