- Joined
- Jan 25, 2010
- Messages
- 30,731
- Reaction score
- 15,050
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
No, I don't want a safe deposit box. I want a checking account that contractually prohibits the bank from lending out my money. It would 100% eliminate the possibility that I as a depositor would be left holding the bag if the bank's investments go sour. I would then not need Glass-Steagall or the FDIC to protect me.
The Glass-Steagall is trying to solve the problem the wrong way. Regulating whether banks may invest only in morgtages or whether they may invest in exotic financial instruments is closing the barn door after the horse is out. The root of the problem is that the bank is loaning out money that depositors consider as their assets. The same dollar cannot be simultaneously owned by two different people. That is the root of the problem.
And if the response is that depositors would rather have their interest, well then they are not depositors, they are either lenders or investors, and as such I see no reason why the government has any obligation to backstop any lender's or investor's risk.
That checking account would cost you a fortune in fees. I am sure that some financial institution somewhere would offer you what you want.
In a fractional reserve banking system the same dollar can be owed to many different people, which is what the US has currently and every modern economy is based on. To switch over to a non fractional banking system would see a massive contraction in the economy as loans stop being made to reduce the money supply
Of course most depositors who are seeking interest bearing savings and checking accounts are investors, otherwise they would stuff their money under the bed for safe keeping. As for why the government backstops lenders and investors risk, it does so for the stability of the economic and societal system. Some view that as being rather important and as such created the FDIC among other regulations