7
0

The blatant lie at the core of banking: "You can get your money back any time." The truth: You can't.


               
2023 Mar 13, 1:51pm   8,490 views  66 comments

by Patrick   follow (59)  

US banking, and probably most of world banking, is based on the blatant lie that you can get your money back any time. But you can't.

Banks lend out almost all of your money to earn interest, duh. Those loans are not for 30 minutes. They often for 30 years.

The bank can't get all depositors' money back instantly. It's impossible. And yet banks promise to do the impossible, knowing full well that they cannot.

When you deposit money in a bank, you are making an unsecured loan to the bank. The bank does not put up any collateral that you can keep, unlike the situation when you borrow money from the bank.

The FDIC exists to reassure people that they can get at least the first $250K back (eventually, not instantly) even if the bank defaults. But even the FDIC has less than 2% of bank assets. If there is a run on more than 2% of FDIC insured deposits, the FDIC itself will fail. They are also lying.

Why the lies? Because the more money the bank can lend out, the more interest it gets. Profit.

The toxxine mandates proved beyond any doubt that the CDC/FDA/NIH are all run by the pharma mafia in the sole interest of that mafia, without regard to public health.

Why would we think banking is any different?

The answer is to openly and clearly mark all deposits as UNSECURED LOANS TO BANKS so that everyone is reminded of this all the time.

https://patrick.net/post/1303173/2017-02-19-patrick-s-platform


« First        Comments 58 - 66 of 66        Search these comments

58   AD   2023 Mar 15, 10:48pm  

komputodo says

yeah and hire some affirmative action folk to run it too...See how long before all the money is gone.



59   Misc   2023 Mar 16, 9:36pm  

Hey, looks like the Bank Runs might be back on.

Our Treasury Secretary says not all deposits over $250k will get covered. Only those held at Systemically important banks.

That'll install confidence in our banking system.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/treasury-secretary-yellen-says-not-all-uninsured-deposits-will-be-protected-in-future-bank-failures/ar-AA18IgoZ?ocid=hpmsn&cvid=f9b0751802fc422bbf34bb37ded6521d&ei=60
60   HeadSet   2023 Mar 17, 11:26am  

Misc says

Our Treasury Secretary says not all deposits over $250k will get covered. Only those held at Systemically important banks.

Systemically important" = Major Dem Donors.
61   Ceffer   2023 Mar 17, 11:35am  

Of course. The 'crisis' will be used to preferentially restore the Dem political bribers and divest the perceived enemies of the foreign occupied foreign city state of Washington DC, City of London, Switzerland etc.
62   Patrick   2023 Mar 17, 2:52pm  

https://www.unqualified-reservations.org/2008/09/maturity-transformation-considered/


You may know maturity transformation as “fractional-reserve banking,” which is one common case of the practice. A financial institution practices MT whenever it “borrows short and lends long,” i.e., promises to deliver money in the short term based on the fact that it is owed money in the long term. For example, in a classic fractional-reserve bank which takes checking deposits and uses them to fund mortgages, the bank’s promises have a term of zero (your money is available whenever you want it), and its mortgages are repaid across, say, 30 years.
63   Patrick   2023 Mar 17, 3:01pm  

https://graymirror.substack.com/p/the-golden-age-of-informal-securities


In a free-market financial system, interest rates would be set by supply and demand. In this hypothetical system, which has existed in the past but does not exist anywhere today, every borrower has an equal and opposite lender. If you want to borrow money for 30 years, find someone who wants to lend money for 30 years.

This design is stable because, borrowing genuine and exogenous cataclysms (asteroid strike, pandemic, etc), neither the demand for, nor the supply of, loanable funds, has any reason to change rapidly. Anything that cannot change rapidly is stable. Duh.

That would be capitalism. This is not how our financial system works. Our financial system is powered by continuously increasing systemic debt which is never repaid:





Paywall, but way down the page so you can read most of it for free.
65   SunnyvaleCA   2023 Mar 17, 3:59pm  

Mish Shedlock is proposing a system where people could agree to not get interest payments, but otherwise their banking would be free (no fees) and safe (money not gambled with by the bank): https://mishtalk.com/economics/the-perfect-solution-to-the-banking-crisis-is-to-make-a-truly-safe-bank
66   Patrick   2023 Mar 17, 5:20pm  

Mish used to comment on patrick.net: https://patrick.net/user/mish


Specifically, we need a bank that puts 100% of its assets in overnight treasuries and makes zero loans. The bank would not need any loan officers or many operational personnel for obvious reasons. There would be no need for FDIC guarantees because there would be zero risk of a run and zero risk of losses. We can still keep the FDIC term in place, but realistically it would not be needed. In essence, we would create a 100% reserve bank.

Such a bank might pay one percentage point less than the Fed 's overnight rate for safekeeping. If the overnight rate fell below 1 percent, the bank would charge a fee for safekeeping. The bank could also do term deposits at a slight discount to corresponding treasury yields. Depositors would be required to hold assets to term.

To prevent runs on existing banks right, we would let every bank participate in this offering. Customers would have a chance to place their deposits into safekeeping accounts at existing banks.

Bank Lending

To make loans, I propose banks would have to attract investment money instead of lending money into existence. They would do so by offering higher than market interest rates on term deposits, but those deposits would not be guaranteed.

As an added benefit, this setup would end fractional reserve lending. We would have a full reserve system, unfortunately one that is not backed by gold, but it would be a huge step in the right direction.

The immediate economic reaction would likely be contractionary, but that seems to be what the Fed wants now anyway to rein in inflation.


I would agree to that, but the banks won't like it because it limits their profits. They don't care about risk because they know that taxpayers are on the hook for their losses.

« First        Comments 58 - 66 of 66        Search these comments

Please register to comment:

api   best comments   contact   latest images   memes   one year ago   users   suggestions   gaiste