• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Bank Run

PhDeac said:
What’s your point? You listed two ways to make money. I said banks should stick to one of them as part of an economy built around paying people for providing goods and services to people.
Click to expand...

As if lending money to XYZ person or business is inherntly less risky than investing in a 10 year T-bill yielding 2%? Get real.
 
06deacon said:
His point 1 and 2 are not two ways, they’re the 1 way you listed in your prior post.

Unless you’re referring to a different post of his.
Click to expand...

His point 2 is two ways, thus the “or.”

Yes investments are technically a loan but not typically loaning to an individual or entity based on some specific merits.

I know this is not a Wake thing to say but I don’t think banks should be out to “make money” as a goal. It should be a safe outcome of the reasonable practice of taking money and lending it to other people to buy a car, buy a home, start a business, etc.
 
PhDeac said:
His point 2 is two ways, thus the “or.”

Yes investments are technically a loan but not typically loaning to an individual or entity based on some specific merits.

I know this is not a Wake thing to say but I don’t think banks should be out to “make money” as a goal. It should be a safe outcome of the reasonable practice of taking money and lending it to other people to buy a car, buy a home, start a business, etc.
Click to expand...

It not only isn't a "Wake" thing to say (whatever that means), it's dumb. Loaning money for your Mom to buy a car is inherently more risky than taking that money and putting in a government backed bond. It's the reason your Mom pays a higher rate to buy her car than the bank gets putting it in a treasury bond. Never has someone conflated so many issues in such a short amount of time.
 
DeacMan said:
It not only isn't a "Wake" thing to say (whatever that means), it's dumb. Loaning money for your Mom to buy a car is inherently more risky than taking that money and putting in a government backed bond. It's the reason your Mom pays a higher rate to buy her car than the bank gets putting it in a treasury bond. Never has someone conflated so many issues in such a short amount of time.
Click to expand...

For real. You’re conflating “risk” with profit motive.

What service are banks providing by lending money to the government? None. It’s just a way to make money. I think banks should make money as an outcome of providing service to customers. Are you claiming banks would go out of business unless they can invest in t bonds or stocks or whatever instead of loans? Probably not. They’d just be less wealthy.

I’m making a general statement about how our economy is about making money not about money as a way to pay for goods and services of value. Feel free to disagree but don’t act like that’s now how societies functioned for centuries even before actual money until fairly recently.
 
PhDeac said:
For real. You’re conflating “risk” with profit motive.

What service are banks providing by lending money to the government? None. It’s just a way to make money. I think banks should make money as an outcome of providing service to customers. Are you claiming banks would go out of business unless they can invest in t bonds or stocks or whatever instead of loans? Probably not. They’d just be less wealthy.

I’m making a general statement about how our economy is about making money not about money as a way to pay for goods and services of value. Feel free to disagree but don’t act like that’s now how societies functioned for centuries even before actual money until fairly recently.
Click to expand...
If banks couldn't invest in T-bills, how would the federal government be able to pay its bills? Serious question - my gut says there isn't anywhere near a big enough market outside of banks to keep up with the US's borrowing needs.
 
In this thread a bunch of people that work for banks defend banks while trying to hide from the fact banks really don’t provide anything to society but moving money around to make more money for rich people.
 
JuiceCrewAllStar said:
i feel like i pay out the ass on fees too

which is part of loaning out money, but not money they're making on the spread between their borrow rate and interest rate
Click to expand...

Banks make a lot of money on fees. $15B a year on just overdraft.
 
Louis Gossett Jr said:
In this thread a bunch of people that work for banks defend banks while trying to hide from the fact banks really don’t provide anything to society but moving money around to make more money for rich people.
Click to expand...

If you’re referring to me I only started out on this thread trying to help explain wtf was happening with this bank run. I don’t even know what the argument has morphed into now or why that morph had to even happen lol but wherever we are apparently I have been placed on the EVIL side.
 
06deacon said:
If you’re referring to me I only started out on this thread trying to help explain wtf was happening with this bank run. I don’t even know what the argument has morphed into now or why that morph had to even happen lol but wherever we are apparently I have been placed on the EVIL side.
Click to expand...

People should be cramming gold bouillon into their box springs until they have $1 million of it and then pull it out it and carry a sidearm and go buy a house.
 
“The regulations can’t protect a bank from a few dozen rich people closing their accounts” isn’t the own you seem to think it is.
 
PhDeac said:
For real. You’re conflating “risk” with profit motive.

What service are banks providing by lending money to the government? None. It’s just a way to make money. I think banks should make money as an outcome of providing service to customers. Are you claiming banks would go out of business unless they can invest in t bonds or stocks or whatever instead of loans? Probably not. They’d just be less wealthy.

I’m making a general statement about how our economy is about making money not about money as a way to pay for goods and services of value. Feel free to disagree but don’t act like that’s now how societies functioned for centuries even before actual money until fairly recently.
Click to expand...
Banks have existed for over 500 years in "modern" form. But hey let's all roll back to pre-medieval times bc that's when things were swell. Quite a "general statement".

And spare the question about whether the government needs banks. We have all the evidence we need on that point. We've been running deficits for decades. We're 30T in debt. That wasn't all bought by Mom and Pops.
 
Last edited:
The problem is the government covering bank’s asses while they do stupid shit over and over again because if not then society collapses or something. So do dumb shit, make a ton of money, eventually dumb shit catches up to you, collapse, get saved by government, rinse and repeat till the end of time.

If the government is going to back stop everything and cover everyone’s ass then just let the government be the bank.
 
Louis Gossett Jr said:
The problem is the government covering bank’s asses while they do stupid shit over and over again because if not then society collapses or something. So do dumb shit, make a ton of money, eventually dumb shit catches up to you, collapse, get saved by government, rinse and repeat till the end of time.

If the government is going to back stop everything and cover everyone’s ass then just let the government be the bank.
Click to expand...

This was not a situation where the government covered the banks ass. They saved depositors only. This bank is dirt now.
 
DeacMan said:
The regulations in place obviously don't work well enough is the point.
Click to expand...
Are you in favor of further and more stringent regulations? I see a lot of media pointing fingers at Trump for signing the rollback of Dodd Frank in 2018 into law, but it got bipartisan congressional support. Feels like we react to crises like this with reactionary regs, then roll them back when things are humming again. Surely there’s a better way.
 
So who lost from this bank collapse? The execs got out before the collapse. Clients got their money back. So middle management and staff?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top