Disrupt cancer if you can. Don’t disrupt functioning system that is not broken.
No one is disrupting banks – at least not the big ones
111–120 of 452 posts
Re: No one is disrupting banks – at least not the big ones
#112Earlier quoted context omitted.
No. Fiat is backed by tax base. US has more assets than debt. Additionally US is the largest economy in the world, how much would the right to tax it be worth? A lot. It's not at all just perception and influence as you claim.
So hyperinflation only happens when the tax base disappears? Perception and influence is clearly part of the picture.
It’s one of the core attributes. Zimbabwe wasn’t going to be raising a trillion dollars of revenue.
Re: No one is disrupting banks – at least not the big ones
#113No one is disrupting banks because the mega banks have the sole power of creating credit out of thin air, and no upstart fintech company has this power. To gain this power requires the creation of a bank, which as you can imagine, is probably the most gate-kept activity on earth. Andreesen talked about this in his Rogan appearance. The banks and gov brought the hammer down on crypto because it was a legitimate threat…
Crypto fans and gold bugs miss a very important point - if their favourite currency were to get big, banks would hold it as an asset, and issue loans in exactly the same way as any other currency.
Do you want interest and the conviniance and security of a real bank? Give it to a bank to look after. There are maybe some risks, but there's also risks with a bitcoin wallet or physical bullion (theft, losing it).
Do you want money now, and can pay it back later? The bank will loan it.
Are the banks in trouble? The government can regulate, and even rescue them. A run can happen, but as long as the government and banks say the money is there, who cares about conversion to a bitcoin or bullion?
Re: No one is disrupting banks – at least not the big ones
#114They might not be disrupting them, but they are definitely causing competition in the market place again.
My main bank account is with Halifax, everyday spend is with Starling. Then Monzo for anything risky.
Before Starling/Monzo the Halifax app was _crap_. Barely got any updates and was very basic.
Now? The Halifax app is on par with the newer banks, and sometimes even release new features before (e.g. scan cheque in to deposit).
Re: No one is disrupting banks – at least not the big ones
#115Earlier quoted context omitted.
> mega banks have the sole power of creating credit out of thin air Amazing that more people don't know this. Most people will insist until their face is red that bank credit is a "loan" with equal debits and credits on both sides of the balance sheet. Wrong. The borrower's bank account goes up. And the bank's balance sheet goes up (the loan is an asset). Viola, new money.
Take the next step. What happens when the borrower spends the money and the place they spend it banks with different bank? What's amazing is that more people don't think this through. They just take the "thin air" story and that's it.
Alice gets a 400k mortgage at bank A, so she gets 400k in credit at her (new?) account at the bank. Alice then pays to Bob for the house by transfering the 400k to Bob's account at bank B. No real money or gold is moved. Alice owes bank A 400k with money slave interest rate (e.g. 7%), bank A owes bank B 400k + interbank interest rate (e.g. 4%), and bank B owes Bob 400k (but they phrase it as "he has credit").
Both Alice and Bob's salaries are just credit at banks in the same system. If they sell their cars they get money from the same system. There's no way out.
The banking system's accounting trick to create money was proven by prof Richard Werner.
The limits on cash transactions are growing. To pay for something like a car you'd need a bag of papers as higher denominations to match inflation would never be printed. Cops can seize cash without much of an excuse. Customs can seize cash over 10k without much of an excuse.
A small bank can only go down if other banks don't trust them. Like SBV a couple of years ago. But their assets are taken by a bigger bank. Lehman Brothers was a rare exception and it looks like Goldman wanted them to go down for some petty reason. But the AIGs will always be bailed out.
More small banks going belly up and more bailouts are coming. The world is reducing exposure to dollar. Central banks are selling US treasuries and buying gold. The US dollar's empire is crashing down and the Western banking cartel is getting desperate. They'll try to drag the world into war or some other old trick.
Re: No one is disrupting banks – at least not the big ones
#116No one is disrupting banks because the mega banks have the sole power of creating credit out of thin air, and no upstart fintech company has this power. To gain this power requires the creation of a bank, which as you can imagine, is probably the most gate-kept activity on earth. Andreesen talked about this in his Rogan appearance. The banks and gov brought the hammer down on crypto because it was a legitimate threat…
Crypto has never posed a credible threat to any aspect of the establishment, and it never will. Need proof? You don't have to go through an arduous screening process to acquire and deploy compute. The finance industry saw a pool of dumb money forming and predictably decided they'd like a slice of the action.
Re: No one is disrupting banks – at least not the big ones
#117The products being pointed out in this article as an attempt to disrupt banks seem to be basically the same product for a different price. Like, a high-yield savings account is just a savings account with a better price, right? How do you disrupt an industry by selling the same products? The advantage of startups is that they're more nimble, can pivot to fit the market better, and can adapt to customer requests faste…
This is a very US centric article, a lot of the disruptions listed are incumbent 'big bank' products in other jurisdictions. I feel the lack of adaptability is likely a result of US market conditions/regulations rather than lack of innovation.
The US crash of 2008 exposed the nature of their banking system leverage ratios, and worker 401k vulnerability to dubious ETFs.
The incoming market volatility will likely have winners and losers... but historically it was mostly losers (>6.4 million families and counting.) =3
Re: No one is disrupting banks – at least not the big ones
#118The sad truth is most people don't have enough money in savings for 4% vs 0.5% to make a material difference. The B2B stuff is tougher to "disrupt", due to contractual agreements, regulatory overhead, etc. Also not as sexy.
Re: No one is disrupting banks – at least not the big ones
#119Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It’s purely about perception of value All money has always been about perception, whether we used paper, shiny rocks, or sea shells as money, it’s always been about perception. Is it real or counterfeit, do you trust the person you’re transacting with, are enough people you know using it, and will people with weapons show up to protect your money if someone else tries to steal it? The “people with weapons” part tur…
No. Fiat is backed by tax base. US has more assets than debt. Additionally US is the largest economy in the world, how much would the right to tax it be worth? A lot. It's not at all just perception and influence as you claim.
US economy has been second largest for over 10 years now [1].
[1] https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/gdp-maddison-project-data...
Re: No one is disrupting banks – at least not the big ones
#120Earlier quoted context omitted.
Zelle has a limit on the amount I can transfer, especially for new contacts. And it is precisely new contacts where I need to make a big payment, latest example being the contractor to remodeled my kitchen and didn't want credit card payment for some reason.
> didn't want credit card payment for some reason. i'm guessing 3.5%+ is the some reason
Tradesmen who are allergic to credit cards are always avoiding tax, period.
The proper response is to ask for the cash price.