Pages:
Author

Topic: Should we pay for banks and their risk taking? - page 2. (Read 155 times)

newbie
Activity: 10
Merit: 12
September 22, 2021, 04:00:39 AM
#1
I just saw this Danish CEO give this interview and he has some really interesting points, so I have translated them to English for you: 

What do banks actually do with our money ? 

If we have USD 100 in the bank, there is no USD 100 with our name on it, they do not exist 1 to 1 like, for example, cash does. When you put the same USD 100 in the bank, they take USD 10 and put them in the central bank and they spend USD 90 on lending to others who need a loan. The people then pay interest on their loans and the bank makes some money on their bank operations.

If a financial crisis was about to hit us and everyone wanted to withdraw their money out of an ATM, then there would be bank runs and crisis. Our money is not ours if we keep them in banks, if it's not a full-reserve bank.


For example, a couple of years ago, a crisis happened in my country, and everyone ran to the ATMs to get cash. Banks were so close to bankruptcy in a matter of  couple of hours.

Every ten years, there is a big banking crisis, and after it is solved by regulators and it harms a lot of people, we still continue to pay for banks and their risk-taking with our money. Where we keep our own money and where we can borrow some money when needed doesn't have to be the same place necessarily.

I think crypto or a full-reserve digital banking system would be a revolutionary solution for this, and the popularity of crypto comes from the distrust in the system as a whole.
What do you think about this? Is this traditional banking system necessary for order, or would we all be better off with a decentralised digital system?
Pages:
Jump to: