201–210 of 259 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The buck stops at the government, as we are seeing with changing laws... Not to mention the majority party in the US House is threatening default.
The party in the House always threatens to not raise the debt ceiling if the POTUS is of a different party. It has been like this for decades.
As they say, the deficit hawk is a seasonal bird.
The Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act of 1999 repealed the Glass–Steagall Act of 1933:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm–Leach–Bliley_Act
The Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act of 2018 repealed part of the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act passed in 2010:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_Growth,_Regulatory_Re...
Articles that only look at the numbers miss the elephant in the room, which is that policy controls economics. That's why academics generally don't subscribe to ideas like deregulation, at least they didn't before the Reagan administration began chipping away at public funding for universities to rein in the rabble of hippies opposed to war/monopoly/neoliberalism:
https://theintercept.com/2022/08/25/student-loans-debt-reaga...
At nearly every turn for 40+ years, our elected officials have made unpragmatic decisions. They push revisionist history and constrain debates to 2 ends of an approved axis of narratives so that people who think outside the box are demonized as fringe. Which is very not meta, and for me one of the great disappointments of the modern era, especially in how it's bamboozled the minds of so many thought leaders in tech.
Is that political? These policies affect our money and work and the trajectories of our lives. Are we supposed to just not seek working solutions anymore because they don't please the status quo? Every win for concentrated wealth is another pressure convincing people to vote against their own self-interest. Which creates the negative feedback loop we're trapped in, where every loss is compounded by further loss, enabling polarizing candidates who sell their vote to the highest bidder to consistently win at the highest levels of government.
From what I understand, when someone takes out a loan, a bank doesn't lend out depositors' money. Instead money is "created" by the bank (on behalf of the fed), and the bank needs to pay the fed interest. The bank also needs to pay the loan back by an agreed uppn time (which destroys the money). Why can we not have a similar system for deposits? A bank takes a deposit, the fed "destroys" the money, but pays interest…
> From what I understand, when someone takes out a loan, a bank doesn't lend out depositors' money. Instead money is "created" by the bank Nah it’s simpler. You put a dollar in the bank. The bank loans 80 cents to Bob. Bob puts 50 cents of that 80 cents in the bank. The bank loans out some of that. Even without going beyond Bob, the same dollar is now in the bank twice. That’s what people mean by money being created.
Certificates of Deposit are supposed to be the thing that "helps" a bank balance the "short duration" deposits with "long duration" loans - but when interest rates are so low the CDs are not worth bothering with.
I wonder if we'll see a maximum interest rate on "cash accounts" or something in the near future to try to balance it.
When fed started raising interest rates to curb inflation, the prevalent wisdom was that the average consumer has too much money because of low rates and is spending way too much. The thought was raising rates would curb their spending and bring prices down slowly. However, it turns out the average consumer is very principled with money and is handling it very well. The rich/corporations like banks, VCs, companies fe…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> From what I understand, when someone takes out a loan, a bank doesn't lend out depositors' money. Instead money is "created" by the bank Nah it’s simpler. You put a dollar in the bank. The bank loans 80 cents to Bob. Bob puts 50 cents of that 80 cents in the bank. The bank loans out some of that. Even without going beyond Bob, the same dollar is now in the bank twice. That’s what people mean by money being created.
And this cannot be "controlled" for because money is fungible, and if you do try to "prevent" it Bob just puts his 80 cents in another bank which does the same thing, and it all loops around. Certificates of Deposit are supposed to be the thing that "helps" a bank balance the "short duration" deposits with "long duration" loans - but when interest rates are so low the CDs are not worth bothering with. I wonder if we'…
It's just out of fashion for central banks to control it. (For several reasons that exist, but I'm not sure are good ones.)
When fed started raising interest rates to curb inflation, the prevalent wisdom was that the average consumer has too much money because of low rates and is spending way too much. The thought was raising rates would curb their spending and bring prices down slowly. However, it turns out the average consumer is very principled with money and is handling it very well. The rich/corporations like banks, VCs, companies fe…
I'm sure it was all the low rates, and not at all due to printing 40% of the money supply in two years and mailing people checks.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And this cannot be "controlled" for because money is fungible, and if you do try to "prevent" it Bob just puts his 80 cents in another bank which does the same thing, and it all loops around. Certificates of Deposit are supposed to be the thing that "helps" a bank balance the "short duration" deposits with "long duration" loans - but when interest rates are so low the CDs are not worth bothering with. I wonder if we'…
It can absolutely be controlled. That's what reserve requirements do. It's just out of fashion for central banks to control it. (For several reasons that exist, but I'm not sure are good ones.)
When fed started raising interest rates to curb inflation, the prevalent wisdom was that the average consumer has too much money because of low rates and is spending way too much. The thought was raising rates would curb their spending and bring prices down slowly. However, it turns out the average consumer is very principled with money and is handling it very well. The rich/corporations like banks, VCs, companies fe…
> the prevalent wisdom was that the average consumer has too much money because of low rates I'm sure it was all the low rates, and not at all due to printing 40% of the money supply in two years and mailing people checks.
> printing 40% of the money supply in two years
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In addition to the fee they are leveraging your deposits - and European banks are no less risky for the depositor than the US ones (just look at the 2008 era). Having a 'true bank' that does not leverage your money and has no investment risk would probably be useful to a certain segment of people but the assets would still have counterparty risk and everything else so in the end a very niche market since the best way…
Since 2008 EU banks have gotten more stringent requirements per regulations compared to the US, the degree of additional risk is hard to know for sure without a large scale collapse.