I agree; but if we're bank-bashing I'd like it to be comprehensive:
What with all the attention they have to put into cooperating with the authoritarians they also aren't particularly good at their theoretical purpose, which is pooling people's money and investing it productively. We're watching an ongoing capital crisis in the West where we've been out-invested by nominal communists; it is absurd. The banking system has sticky fingers all over that mess. Then they get political protection through financial crisises where they should be taken out by bankruptcy but the powers that be prioritise having reliable people in what is effectively law enforcement rather then putting good capital managers in charge.
So, y'know. Upside is the banks do a great job of shutting down sex workers and political activism. 10/10 mark for reporting what everyone is doing to law enforcement. Downside is that turns out to be a big distraction from all the wealth creation banking can enable.
Banks are doing a relatively bad job of capital management, but they're also doing less and less of it.
Investment funds of all sorts manage the world's money. Your retail bank might originate mortgages, but it almost certainly sells them on.
The Fed doesn't want to see an overnight switch to narrow banking, where banks sell you checking accounts and money transmission services and never make decisions about investing the deposits. It has declined to approve banks that would do that. But it seems OK with presiding over a managed decline of banking into that state.
Retail banks actually don’t ‘pool people’s money and invest it’, and for good reason. Investment banks are different from regular retail banks for a reason (which is that that creates way too much risk to deposits for everyday banking).
The main business of banking is actually leveraging the capital of their owners (shareholders) to lend. Deposits are not the main game, and are there for two reasons - firstly that lending produces deposits, so banks may as well be able to hold deposits just for that reason, but also because deposit inflows create the liquidity banks need to lever up their capital. This is the real reason why banks pay interest on deposits - to encourage people to transfer money in and not transfer as much out. Actually just having the deposits sitting there doesn’t do much for the bank, so the bank more wants you to transfer money in to increase your balance and not just hold it.
We might be talking past each other, but this part:
> Retail banks actually don’t ‘pool people’s money and invest it’
However, the phrase "invest it" makes it sounds like they are gambling the money on speculative investments! There are very strict rules about what securities (classes and ratings) are allowed as investments.
The Glass-Steagall Act, enacted in 1933, was partially repealed in 1999 by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA). Specifically, the GLBA repealed sections 20 and 32 of the Glass-Steagall Act, which had prohibited affiliations and interlocks between commercial and investment banks. This allowed financial institutions to engage in both commercial and investment banking activities, which was seen as a step towards universal banking.
>Retail banks actually don’t ‘pool people’s money and invest it’,
>deposit inflows create the liquidity banks need to lever up their capital
Aren't these basically the same thing? There's complicated capital structure around how much tier 1 capital banks have to hold, and what deposits have to be backed by, but at the end of the day banks are taking money from depositors and investors, and using it to buy assets. More importantly if you deposit a dollar, that's not sitting around in a vault somewhere, it's used to buy treasuries or whatever. Most people would characterize that as "pool people’s money and invest it".
It seems like a reasonable objection, AFAIK the argument would boil down equivalently to money being a unit of measurement therefore the language is wrong - it is a bit like saying "pool people's meters" - meters are a unit of measurement as opposed to a thing. Can't pool meters, can pool meters of cloth. Especially since we don't hold the amount of wealth measured by a unit of currency steady it doesn't make sense to talk about "pooling money".
In this case though I said banking system, not retail banking system and I think the fairest reading given the ambiguity is just to treat it as "pool people's wealth" and shift to talking about the real economy.
Fiat money is a token of exchange backed up by the need for everyone in an economy to pay taxes using those tokens.
The idea it’s a measurement is appealing but incomplete, you can’t exchange abstract gallons or other measurements in the abstract only in terms of a measurement of something.
> you can’t exchange abstract gallons or other measurements in the abstract only in terms of a measurement of something.
I have an implement for doing exactly that on my desk - a cup. The people who made the cup don't know what I'm going to be filling it with but they have a very good idea of what volume it'll take up. I could go to the pub with friends and ask for a glass of something but I don't mind what. The point of a unit of measurement is it enables abstract handling of quantities. Otherwise we may as well have a unique system of measurement per thing.
And if you want a monetary example, there is barter. I can exchange $50 of work directly for $50 of food, abstracting out the money. That wouldn't be possible if the token itself were the important thing, because it isn't present anywhere in the example.
> Fiat money is a token of exchange backed up by the need for everyone in an economy to pay taxes using those tokens.
Obviously there is more than one type of money if you feel a need to add a prefix to explain what type of money you are discussing. The other types aren't backed up by a need for everyone to pay taxes, money can exist independently of a taxation system. Then it is called non-fiat money. You're focusing on the non-monetary aspects of the system, which is cool and all but missing the forest for the trees.
> I could go to the pub with friends and ask for a glass of something but ai don’t mind what
You’d very much mind you got a cup of bull sperm or diarrhea. That request is actually excluding the vast majority of possible liquids.
> if you feel the need to add a prefix
There’s only two types of money, fiat and barter.
If I’m exchanging a promissory note that I can exchange for 1 barrel of wheat or 1lb of gold or whatever that’s barter through an abstraction. If you’re using stamped gold coins people are just bartering precious metals of a known purity thus the need to weigh the coins not just count them.
> You’d very much mind you got a cup of bull sperm or diarrhea.
Dear me. That got a good 5 minutes of chuckling out of me if you are aiming for humour. In the alternative I'm probably too far away to offer you a hug, but if you're having a bad day it might be a better bet to try going for a walk or some meditation rather than posting on HN.
> If I’m exchanging a promissory note that I can exchange for 1 barrel of wheat or 1lb of gold or whatever that’s barter through an abstraction.
The interesting implication of that is if you turn up at a foreign airport, change currency and buy a doughnut you couldn't be sure whether you're bartering or not until you've done some detailed analysis of the local legal system.
Either which way, if you want to call it barter through abstraction I can't stop you but we have a word for that - money. The reason most people use money is to abstract the bartering away whether they are in a fiat system or otherwise.
> We're watching an ongoing capital crisis in the West where we've been out-invested by nominal communists
If I still had a fortune file, this would go in it!
If the entire picture was so dark nobody would have used banks for anything, all across history. The banks were created by those having the means to open banks, not by charities, so it should be obvious that they will serve primarily their masters. You could make a similar argument for crypto: it does help some people to send money to the back of Africa, but is mostly enabling scams. My point is, the more there's money involved the darker the picture. If only we cared enough to make it better, but it's all boiling the frog.
> We're watching an ongoing capital crisis in the West where we've been out-invested by nominal communists; it is absurd.
I personally would lay far more of the blame at the feet of the slow-but-steady disassembly of a proper tax code which has rendered our Government all but unable to function from a fiscal perspective since the Reagan years. I'm curious if you would feel the banks are more responsible, and if so, how?
Everything I've read on the subject over the years pretty squarely lays it at the austerity movements that have utterly crippled most western countries but none more thoroughly than the United States, where the notion seemingly of spending any public money on anything no matter how needed that isn't Defense spending is Communist, alongside of course the general (and consequential of that) transfer of wealth from the working class to the extremely wealthy who dodge more taxes than ever before, perhaps in all of history of the practice of collecting taxes.
> I personally would lay far more of the blame at the feet of the slow-but-steady disassembly of a proper tax code which has rendered our Government all but unable to function from a fiscal perspective since the Reagan years.
Federal Receipts as a Percent of GDP:
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYFRGDA188S
There is not any kind of material long-term discontinuity initiated in the Reagan years. It has been approximately flat since the end of WWII, which implies a growth in real government revenue per capita consistent with the growth in real GDP per capita.
This chart is only federal receipts, not state; the total of the two in the US is ~30%. Countries that have taxpayer-funded healthcare systems have a higher total on paper because the cost of the healthcare system is then in the accounting as government revenue rather than private insurance premiums, not because they're doing significantly more non-healthcare government spending. In reality the US government spends more on non-healthcare government expenditures than most other countries because it runs such large deficits.
> Everything I've read on the subject over the years pretty squarely lays it at the austerity movements that have utterly crippled most western countries but none more thoroughly than the United States, where the notion seemingly of spending any public money on anything no matter how needed that isn't Defense spending is Communist
What's really going on here is that the government is already extracting approximately the amount of money from the economy that maximizes medium-term government revenue given the trade off between revenue extraction and GDP growth.
But the government is thoroughly captured by lobbyists, so every dollar the government spends on something that actually benefits the population is a dollar that isn't going to a well-connected government contractor or a union that wants a wasteful boondoggle and can shift enough votes for a representative in a vulnerable district that the party will sell out the general public to secure that seat, or to vote buying from retirees that has now reached the point that US Government spending on retirement benefits consumes more than half of all federal receipts and goes disproportionately to affluent retirees.
Which makes it hard to pass useful programs because you have to fight the incumbents for the money.
> alongside of course the general (and consequential of that) transfer of wealth from the working class to the extremely wealthy who dodge more taxes than ever before, perhaps in all of history of the practice of collecting taxes.
This is also a mischaracterization of the change that happened during the Reagan years.
If you look at nominal tax rates, on paper they went down under Reagan, but then you look at federal receipts and in 1979 they were 17.6% of GDP whereas in 1989 they were... 17.6% of GDP. As opposed to today, where over the last five years it has been in the range of 16% to 18.8%. Or the 1960s and 70s where it was in the range of, well, ~16% to ~18% of GDP. It really hasn't materially changed at all.
What changed under Reagan is that prior to that, tax avoidance was much easier. People were deducting everything. When they lowered the nominal tax rates, they also closed so many loopholes that the effect of the rate reduction on government revenue was zero. Which is to say, the amount of tax dodging is much lower now than it was historically.
It's the whole system. The whole system is rotten to the core. All the individual rotting bits are symptoms of the fact the whole system is rotting.
Dictatorships (which is what communism always amounts to in the real world) are always good at big visible projects. they fail because things not on the dictators 'radar' don't get anyones attention as there is no reward for small projects that keep the world running until the dictator notices the lack. If the dictator doesn't notice the lack you have to be really good at marketing yourself if you do them otherwise you will be 'purged' for wasted effort when you do them.
Usually its just the corrupt dictators uncles 2nd nephew rerouting all the funds so basic maintenance cant be done. New projects are always "planned", there are enormous models, cgi movies of cities on endless loops and thats it. Oh at 6:00 clock the septic truck arrives.
It is a myth that dictatorships are good at big projects. Just consider the history of atomic bomb. If not the access to the spied US blueprints Soviet Union would be much delayed with own version. Then it took China about 10 years before they could test the atomic bomb even after receiving initially a significant help from Soviet Union.
Or consider sending a man to the Moon. Soviet Union eventually abandoned own efforts and was able to create a rocket with similar capabilities as Saturn V only in 1986.
Or consider that the best semiconductor production process comes from a Taiwanese company followed by South Corea and US. China is still not able to catch up despite all the efforts.
Or consider high speed trains. It was Japan and Europe that developed comprehensive network first, not China. And Soviet Union and later Russia never came close to implementing anything like that.
I never said that non-dictators cannot do big projects. I said that dictators tend to do them as well as anyone else. Big projects don't always go well for anyone, you can find plenty of big projects that fail in the US. Dictators can lose interest just as much as anyone else.
The point is dictators fail most often by ignoring things they consider small and not letting someone else take care of it.
There are counter examples, too.
The space race first astronaut (cosmonaut) was Yuri Gagarin, and Laika. Stating the space race was lost by Soviet Union is myopic at best. The Soviet Union defaulted due to being unable to compete, the costly Afghan War, and the inefficient system. But nowadays, how relevant are NASA and BMW ?
The liquidators of Chernobyl [1], to name another example. Another feat is winning the Great War. Shenzhen is also one of a kind. Where is the West's Shenzhen? China's equivalent of F-35 (J-10) shot down two Dassault Rafale a couple of days ago.
Far fetched in West? We got corruption, too. We got Boeing, and Trump.
As for train system, Russia's main transportation is via train and it is robust, but slow. That happens when your country is such a vast amount of land, without solid (direct) sea connections.
But in general, it is a myth, albeit a different one. It is part of the myth (façade) of the strongmen.
Chernobyl was a direct consequence of a dictatorship in the first place. A reactor with positive reactivity would never be designed unless ordered from top. And handling the consequences in the first hours Soviet style made things inherently worse.
As for other counter examples I do not claim that democracy is inherently better. Rather that for big projects at least it is not worse than a dictatorship.
Have you considered that (a) communism != dictatorship, while there have been many capitalist dictatorships, often U.S. sponsored and (b) succeeding in big projects is a lot easier when you're rich, which surviving ww2 unscathed and exploiting the world will make you?
It is a one direction relation: communism requires a dictatorship, but dictators often are not communist.
Every fascist regime is capitalist. Think about it. Fascism is capitalism in crisis.
Capitalism is a straw man invented by communists to mean whatever they want to tear down.
Fascism is not capitalism - fascists don't even think in economic terms except how it helps them.
I'm a classical liberal. Something like capitalism derives from liberalism, but it is derived from freedom of the individual, and not a value in itself.
Capitalism specifically means: an economy oriented around private ownership of the means of production. There is a world of implication from that simple statement.
Fascism is what happens when workers get too "uppity" and the upper classes decide it's better to let a strong man reign in the lower class via a combination of spectacular appeals, mythology, militarism, crackdowns, and external expansion. Working conditions in Nazi germany were terrible because they destroyed labor unions. Fascism to a great extent is operationalized anti-communism.
Communists like myself also value the freedom of the individual, but we value the freedom of all individuals and want to make it real, not a thing you just say and then shit on a homeless person or abuse an employee.
Freedom of the individual is not compatible with communism. You can value some freedoms but all right to property is lost - something I value. (I don't allow freedom to murder - but I still value freedom more than communism can)
fascism is not an ecconomic system, and very much can be communist - though of course none of who we think of as fascist were communists.
" fail because things not on the dictators 'radar' don't get anyone's attention"
Funny, because in the US right now, if something isn't on this one particular person's radar, then its is ignored. So by this reasoning, the US is a dictatorship right now.