As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

The [Economy] is finding affordable housing for Tesla stonks

1353638404148

Posts

  • CauldCauld Registered User regular
    Immigration must have been reduced by both Trump being a massive racist and also Covid-19 making people not want to travel.

    I assume that decreased immigration is the reason for all the restaurants suddenly gasping for immigration because the people who died in Covid were mostly past retirement age.

    I'm not sure how much of an effect it had, but COVID also closed consulates and stopped visa processing. So, I would think legal immigration was reduced because of all that and also travel bans, etc. I also wonder how big the effect was for foreign students who graduated in 2020 and would have stayed in the US, but were in their home countries and just stayed there after graduating instead.

    CelestialBadgerGnome-InterruptusmonikerButtersschusszagdrobMartini_PhilosophershrykeShadowfireOrcaL Ron Howardemp123
  • PhyphorPhyphor Building Planet Busters Tasting FruitRegistered User regular
    Oghulk wrote: »
    That could provide unwelcome competition for banks by giving depositors another safe place to put their money. A person or a business could keep their digital dollars in a virtual “wallet” and then transfer them directly to someone else without needing to use a bank account. Even if the wallet were operated by a bank, the firm wouldn’t be able to lend out the cash. But unlike other crypto assets like Bitcoin or Ether, it would be directly backed and controlled by the central bank, allowing the monetary authorities to use it, like any other form of the dollar, in its policies to guide interest rates.

    Important to not understate just how big of a change the bolded would be to the economy.

    Nah, there's no need to lend out any specific physical dollars. Everything can continue to work as before with those funds being able to count as "deposits" for the purposes of loan issuance

    There's not even any real need for reserve requirements in the first place. Canada doesn't have any and our banks are even stabler thanks to capital requirements and leverage limits. If a bank doesn't have the cash and wants to make a loan the central bank will provide it

  • MonwynMonwyn Apathy's a tragedy, and boredom is a crime. A little bit of everything, all of the time.Registered User regular
    Phyphor wrote: »
    Oghulk wrote: »
    That could provide unwelcome competition for banks by giving depositors another safe place to put their money. A person or a business could keep their digital dollars in a virtual “wallet” and then transfer them directly to someone else without needing to use a bank account. Even if the wallet were operated by a bank, the firm wouldn’t be able to lend out the cash. But unlike other crypto assets like Bitcoin or Ether, it would be directly backed and controlled by the central bank, allowing the monetary authorities to use it, like any other form of the dollar, in its policies to guide interest rates.

    Important to not understate just how big of a change the bolded would be to the economy.

    Nah, there's no need to lend out any specific physical dollars. Everything can continue to work as before with those funds being able to count as "deposits" for the purposes of loan issuance

    There's not even any real need for reserve requirements in the first place. Canada doesn't have any and our banks are even stabler thanks to capital requirements and leverage limits. If a bank doesn't have the cash and wants to make a loan the central bank will provide it

    The point is that those wallets would not count as deposits.

    Honestly getting rid of fractional-reserve banking would probably immediately cause the US economy to messily explode like one of the more gruesome finishers in Doom, I can't imagine it actually happens

    uH3IcEi.png
    Martini_PhilosopherelectricitylikesmeFencingsaxDoodmannOrcaLord_Asmodeus
  • Martini_PhilosopherMartini_Philosopher Registered User regular
    Monwyn wrote: »
    Phyphor wrote: »
    Oghulk wrote: »
    That could provide unwelcome competition for banks by giving depositors another safe place to put their money. A person or a business could keep their digital dollars in a virtual “wallet” and then transfer them directly to someone else without needing to use a bank account. Even if the wallet were operated by a bank, the firm wouldn’t be able to lend out the cash. But unlike other crypto assets like Bitcoin or Ether, it would be directly backed and controlled by the central bank, allowing the monetary authorities to use it, like any other form of the dollar, in its policies to guide interest rates.

    Important to not understate just how big of a change the bolded would be to the economy.

    Nah, there's no need to lend out any specific physical dollars. Everything can continue to work as before with those funds being able to count as "deposits" for the purposes of loan issuance

    There's not even any real need for reserve requirements in the first place. Canada doesn't have any and our banks are even stabler thanks to capital requirements and leverage limits. If a bank doesn't have the cash and wants to make a loan the central bank will provide it

    The point is that those wallets would not count as deposits.

    Honestly getting rid of fractional-reserve banking would probably immediately cause the US economy to messily explode like one of the more gruesome finishers in Doom, I can't imagine it actually happens

    Anyone who suggests this without additional controls and does so unironically does not have one iota of a clue as to how and why fractional reserve banking came into existence in the first place.

    All opinions are my own and in no way reflect that of my employer.
    zagdrobschussOghulkelectricitylikesmeFencingsaxDoodmannLord_AsmodeusBlackDragon480
  • PhyphorPhyphor Building Planet Busters Tasting FruitRegistered User regular
    edited June 15
    Tons of places have no (or effectively no) reserve requirement. Canada, the UK, New Zealand, Australia, Sweden and Hong Kong have none, the Eurozone is at 1%. There are different (and more effective) ways of regulating banks

    Phyphor on
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    Eliminating reserve requirements while making far stricter leverage and capitalization obligations could probably work. The problem is that I can only see Republicans eliminating reserve requirements, and they wouldn't impose those. Hell they'd probably weaken whatever we have at the same time and make usury a requirement.

    Gnome-InterruptusDoodmannOrcaCalica
  • StarZapperStarZapper Vermont, Bizzaro world.Registered User regular
    Oghulk wrote: »
    That could provide unwelcome competition for banks by giving depositors another safe place to put their money. A person or a business could keep their digital dollars in a virtual “wallet” and then transfer them directly to someone else without needing to use a bank account. Even if the wallet were operated by a bank, the firm wouldn’t be able to lend out the cash. But unlike other crypto assets like Bitcoin or Ether, it would be directly backed and controlled by the central bank, allowing the monetary authorities to use it, like any other form of the dollar, in its policies to guide interest rates.

    Important to not understate just how big of a change the bolded would be to the economy.

    Yeah and I’m not saying don’t do it, but this basically sets us back to like early 20th century in terms of private debt

    Which might be good! Probably! For most people….but would be just a gigantic fucking change

    I think it would take a lot of convincing for reducing liquidity of banks and increasing interest rates on lending would be a good thing for the average over leveraged American worker.

    I'm actually of the uncommon opinion that increasing interest rates would be good for the average American, as long as it was gradual. Higher interest rates are better for savings and retirements, and I'd argue you're better off buying property with high interest rates (prices will be more moderated, but you can refinance if they ever drop. As opposed to sky high mortgages that can never be refinanced.)

  • HefflingHeffling No Pic EverRegistered User regular
    moniker wrote: »
    Eliminating reserve requirements while making far stricter leverage and capitalization obligations could probably work. The problem is that I can only see Republicans eliminating reserve requirements, and they wouldn't impose those. Hell they'd probably weaken whatever we have at the same time and make usury a requirement.

    Lehman Brothers didn't fail because they had no cash reserves. They failed because they were overleveraged on underwater loans (and the Government elected to let them fail as a warning that has been ignored).

    If a movement doesn't have someone that can sit down opposite those in a position of power and strike a deal, how can that movement achieve success?
    monikerMartini_PhilosopherMillFencingsaxDoodmannLord_AsmodeusBlackDragon480KarozMatev
  • Captain InertiaCaptain Inertia Registered User regular
    Well the good news is leverage and capital go together like peas and carrots- raising capital requirements functionally lowers the cap on leverage

    US banks are completely different today than 14 years ago, and also far less numerous…

  • OghulkOghulk Registered User regular
    Monwyn wrote: »
    Phyphor wrote: »
    Oghulk wrote: »
    That could provide unwelcome competition for banks by giving depositors another safe place to put their money. A person or a business could keep their digital dollars in a virtual “wallet” and then transfer them directly to someone else without needing to use a bank account. Even if the wallet were operated by a bank, the firm wouldn’t be able to lend out the cash. But unlike other crypto assets like Bitcoin or Ether, it would be directly backed and controlled by the central bank, allowing the monetary authorities to use it, like any other form of the dollar, in its policies to guide interest rates.

    Important to not understate just how big of a change the bolded would be to the economy.

    Nah, there's no need to lend out any specific physical dollars. Everything can continue to work as before with those funds being able to count as "deposits" for the purposes of loan issuance

    There's not even any real need for reserve requirements in the first place. Canada doesn't have any and our banks are even stabler thanks to capital requirements and leverage limits. If a bank doesn't have the cash and wants to make a loan the central bank will provide it

    The point is that those wallets would not count as deposits.

    Honestly getting rid of fractional-reserve banking would probably immediately cause the US economy to messily explode like one of the more gruesome finishers in Doom, I can't imagine it actually happens

    Anyone who suggests this without additional controls and does so unironically does not have one iota of a clue as to how and why fractional reserve banking came into existence in the first place.

    One would think the Federal Reserve would think this through, but it does present an interesting problem with cryptocurrency.

  • MonwynMonwyn Apathy's a tragedy, and boredom is a crime. A little bit of everything, all of the time.Registered User regular
    Oghulk wrote: »
    Monwyn wrote: »
    Phyphor wrote: »
    Oghulk wrote: »
    That could provide unwelcome competition for banks by giving depositors another safe place to put their money. A person or a business could keep their digital dollars in a virtual “wallet” and then transfer them directly to someone else without needing to use a bank account. Even if the wallet were operated by a bank, the firm wouldn’t be able to lend out the cash. But unlike other crypto assets like Bitcoin or Ether, it would be directly backed and controlled by the central bank, allowing the monetary authorities to use it, like any other form of the dollar, in its policies to guide interest rates.

    Important to not understate just how big of a change the bolded would be to the economy.

    Nah, there's no need to lend out any specific physical dollars. Everything can continue to work as before with those funds being able to count as "deposits" for the purposes of loan issuance

    There's not even any real need for reserve requirements in the first place. Canada doesn't have any and our banks are even stabler thanks to capital requirements and leverage limits. If a bank doesn't have the cash and wants to make a loan the central bank will provide it

    The point is that those wallets would not count as deposits.

    Honestly getting rid of fractional-reserve banking would probably immediately cause the US economy to messily explode like one of the more gruesome finishers in Doom, I can't imagine it actually happens

    Anyone who suggests this without additional controls and does so unironically does not have one iota of a clue as to how and why fractional reserve banking came into existence in the first place.

    One would think the Federal Reserve would think this through, but it does present an interesting problem with cryptocurrency.

    I can easily, easily see the Fed thinking "well sure this will be like cash but people will still have a checking account" when no, actually, if I can use this to pay bills and buy pizza or whatever I will absolutely stop having a checking account in favor of a debit card connected to my Fed-issued digital wallet. And so will a shitload of other people who just don't want to deal with bank bullshit.

    uH3IcEi.png
    lunchbox12682GiantGeek2020Matev
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    Monwyn wrote: »
    Oghulk wrote: »
    Monwyn wrote: »
    Phyphor wrote: »
    Oghulk wrote: »
    That could provide unwelcome competition for banks by giving depositors another safe place to put their money. A person or a business could keep their digital dollars in a virtual “wallet” and then transfer them directly to someone else without needing to use a bank account. Even if the wallet were operated by a bank, the firm wouldn’t be able to lend out the cash. But unlike other crypto assets like Bitcoin or Ether, it would be directly backed and controlled by the central bank, allowing the monetary authorities to use it, like any other form of the dollar, in its policies to guide interest rates.

    Important to not understate just how big of a change the bolded would be to the economy.

    Nah, there's no need to lend out any specific physical dollars. Everything can continue to work as before with those funds being able to count as "deposits" for the purposes of loan issuance

    There's not even any real need for reserve requirements in the first place. Canada doesn't have any and our banks are even stabler thanks to capital requirements and leverage limits. If a bank doesn't have the cash and wants to make a loan the central bank will provide it

    The point is that those wallets would not count as deposits.

    Honestly getting rid of fractional-reserve banking would probably immediately cause the US economy to messily explode like one of the more gruesome finishers in Doom, I can't imagine it actually happens

    Anyone who suggests this without additional controls and does so unironically does not have one iota of a clue as to how and why fractional reserve banking came into existence in the first place.

    One would think the Federal Reserve would think this through, but it does present an interesting problem with cryptocurrency.

    I can easily, easily see the Fed thinking "well sure this will be like cash but people will still have a checking account" when no, actually, if I can use this to pay bills and buy pizza or whatever I will absolutely stop having a checking account in favor of a debit card connected to my Fed-issued digital wallet. And so will a shitload of other people who just don't want to deal with bank bullshit.

    Our Credit Union has 0.25% on our checking account. Which is half what it used to be before we went back to the zero lower bound. I would definitely want to have some walking around money in the Federal Reserve/ Postal Banking account, especially if that's made easy to just send cash to friends, but I wouldn't close my checking just for shits and giggles. He'll, they'd probably raise it to be more competitive if they had to compete with USPS.

    ButtersMartini_Philosopher
  • Gnome-InterruptusGnome-Interruptus Registered User regular
    moniker wrote: »
    Monwyn wrote: »
    Oghulk wrote: »
    Monwyn wrote: »
    Phyphor wrote: »
    Oghulk wrote: »
    That could provide unwelcome competition for banks by giving depositors another safe place to put their money. A person or a business could keep their digital dollars in a virtual “wallet” and then transfer them directly to someone else without needing to use a bank account. Even if the wallet were operated by a bank, the firm wouldn’t be able to lend out the cash. But unlike other crypto assets like Bitcoin or Ether, it would be directly backed and controlled by the central bank, allowing the monetary authorities to use it, like any other form of the dollar, in its policies to guide interest rates.

    Important to not understate just how big of a change the bolded would be to the economy.

    Nah, there's no need to lend out any specific physical dollars. Everything can continue to work as before with those funds being able to count as "deposits" for the purposes of loan issuance

    There's not even any real need for reserve requirements in the first place. Canada doesn't have any and our banks are even stabler thanks to capital requirements and leverage limits. If a bank doesn't have the cash and wants to make a loan the central bank will provide it

    The point is that those wallets would not count as deposits.

    Honestly getting rid of fractional-reserve banking would probably immediately cause the US economy to messily explode like one of the more gruesome finishers in Doom, I can't imagine it actually happens

    Anyone who suggests this without additional controls and does so unironically does not have one iota of a clue as to how and why fractional reserve banking came into existence in the first place.

    One would think the Federal Reserve would think this through, but it does present an interesting problem with cryptocurrency.

    I can easily, easily see the Fed thinking "well sure this will be like cash but people will still have a checking account" when no, actually, if I can use this to pay bills and buy pizza or whatever I will absolutely stop having a checking account in favor of a debit card connected to my Fed-issued digital wallet. And so will a shitload of other people who just don't want to deal with bank bullshit.

    Our Credit Union has 0.25% on our checking account. Which is half what it used to be before we went back to the zero lower bound. I would definitely want to have some walking around money in the Federal Reserve/ Postal Banking account, especially if that's made easy to just send cash to friends, but I wouldn't close my checking just for shits and giggles. He'll, they'd probably raise it to be more competitive if they had to compete with USPS.

    Chequing accounts should generally be competitive on fees and accessibility, with savings accounts competing on interest rates.

    steam_sig.png
    MWO: Adamski
  • tinwhiskerstinwhiskers Registered User regular
    moniker wrote: »
    Monwyn wrote: »
    Oghulk wrote: »
    Monwyn wrote: »
    Phyphor wrote: »
    Oghulk wrote: »
    That could provide unwelcome competition for banks by giving depositors another safe place to put their money. A person or a business could keep their digital dollars in a virtual “wallet” and then transfer them directly to someone else without needing to use a bank account. Even if the wallet were operated by a bank, the firm wouldn’t be able to lend out the cash. But unlike other crypto assets like Bitcoin or Ether, it would be directly backed and controlled by the central bank, allowing the monetary authorities to use it, like any other form of the dollar, in its policies to guide interest rates.

    Important to not understate just how big of a change the bolded would be to the economy.

    Nah, there's no need to lend out any specific physical dollars. Everything can continue to work as before with those funds being able to count as "deposits" for the purposes of loan issuance

    There's not even any real need for reserve requirements in the first place. Canada doesn't have any and our banks are even stabler thanks to capital requirements and leverage limits. If a bank doesn't have the cash and wants to make a loan the central bank will provide it

    The point is that those wallets would not count as deposits.

    Honestly getting rid of fractional-reserve banking would probably immediately cause the US economy to messily explode like one of the more gruesome finishers in Doom, I can't imagine it actually happens

    Anyone who suggests this without additional controls and does so unironically does not have one iota of a clue as to how and why fractional reserve banking came into existence in the first place.

    One would think the Federal Reserve would think this through, but it does present an interesting problem with cryptocurrency.

    I can easily, easily see the Fed thinking "well sure this will be like cash but people will still have a checking account" when no, actually, if I can use this to pay bills and buy pizza or whatever I will absolutely stop having a checking account in favor of a debit card connected to my Fed-issued digital wallet. And so will a shitload of other people who just don't want to deal with bank bullshit.

    Our Credit Union has 0.25% on our checking account. Which is half what it used to be before we went back to the zero lower bound. I would definitely want to have some walking around money in the Federal Reserve/ Postal Banking account, especially if that's made easy to just send cash to friends, but I wouldn't close my checking just for shits and giggles. He'll, they'd probably raise it to be more competitive if they had to compete with USPS.

    Chequing accounts should generally be competitive on fees and accessibility, with savings accounts competing on interest rates.

    The idea of them as separate accounts is kinda obsolete at this point.

    Most people are only a couple clicks on an app from moving it from one to the other, and most the transaction are instant charges not paper.

    6ylyzxlir2dz.png
    DoodmannIncenjucarOrcaCommander ZoomkimeJragghenLucedesStarZapperFencingsaxmonikerButtersQuidCauldMartini_PhilosopherTrajan45HefflingStabbity StyleMatevNobeardMortal SkyboogedybooEinzel
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    moniker wrote: »
    Monwyn wrote: »
    Oghulk wrote: »
    Monwyn wrote: »
    Phyphor wrote: »
    Oghulk wrote: »
    That could provide unwelcome competition for banks by giving depositors another safe place to put their money. A person or a business could keep their digital dollars in a virtual “wallet” and then transfer them directly to someone else without needing to use a bank account. Even if the wallet were operated by a bank, the firm wouldn’t be able to lend out the cash. But unlike other crypto assets like Bitcoin or Ether, it would be directly backed and controlled by the central bank, allowing the monetary authorities to use it, like any other form of the dollar, in its policies to guide interest rates.

    Important to not understate just how big of a change the bolded would be to the economy.

    Nah, there's no need to lend out any specific physical dollars. Everything can continue to work as before with those funds being able to count as "deposits" for the purposes of loan issuance

    There's not even any real need for reserve requirements in the first place. Canada doesn't have any and our banks are even stabler thanks to capital requirements and leverage limits. If a bank doesn't have the cash and wants to make a loan the central bank will provide it

    The point is that those wallets would not count as deposits.

    Honestly getting rid of fractional-reserve banking would probably immediately cause the US economy to messily explode like one of the more gruesome finishers in Doom, I can't imagine it actually happens

    Anyone who suggests this without additional controls and does so unironically does not have one iota of a clue as to how and why fractional reserve banking came into existence in the first place.

    One would think the Federal Reserve would think this through, but it does present an interesting problem with cryptocurrency.

    I can easily, easily see the Fed thinking "well sure this will be like cash but people will still have a checking account" when no, actually, if I can use this to pay bills and buy pizza or whatever I will absolutely stop having a checking account in favor of a debit card connected to my Fed-issued digital wallet. And so will a shitload of other people who just don't want to deal with bank bullshit.

    Our Credit Union has 0.25% on our checking account. Which is half what it used to be before we went back to the zero lower bound. I would definitely want to have some walking around money in the Federal Reserve/ Postal Banking account, especially if that's made easy to just send cash to friends, but I wouldn't close my checking just for shits and giggles. He'll, they'd probably raise it to be more competitive if they had to compete with USPS.

    Chequing accounts should generally be competitive on fees and accessibility, with savings accounts competing on interest rates.

    The idea of them as separate accounts is kinda obsolete at this point.

    Most people are only a couple clicks on an app from moving it from one to the other, and most the transaction are instant charges not paper.

    Yeah, the only real reason we have checking in the first place is the limit on the number of withdrawals from savings without a fee.

    BrainleechMartini_PhilosopherthatassemblyguyMunkus Beaver
  • BrainleechBrainleech 機知に富んだコメントはここにあります Registered User regular
    moniker wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Monwyn wrote: »
    Oghulk wrote: »
    Monwyn wrote: »
    Phyphor wrote: »
    Oghulk wrote: »
    That could provide unwelcome competition for banks by giving depositors another safe place to put their money. A person or a business could keep their digital dollars in a virtual “wallet” and then transfer them directly to someone else without needing to use a bank account. Even if the wallet were operated by a bank, the firm wouldn’t be able to lend out the cash. But unlike other crypto assets like Bitcoin or Ether, it would be directly backed and controlled by the central bank, allowing the monetary authorities to use it, like any other form of the dollar, in its policies to guide interest rates.

    Important to not understate just how big of a change the bolded would be to the economy.

    Nah, there's no need to lend out any specific physical dollars. Everything can continue to work as before with those funds being able to count as "deposits" for the purposes of loan issuance

    There's not even any real need for reserve requirements in the first place. Canada doesn't have any and our banks are even stabler thanks to capital requirements and leverage limits. If a bank doesn't have the cash and wants to make a loan the central bank will provide it

    The point is that those wallets would not count as deposits.

    Honestly getting rid of fractional-reserve banking would probably immediately cause the US economy to messily explode like one of the more gruesome finishers in Doom, I can't imagine it actually happens

    Anyone who suggests this without additional controls and does so unironically does not have one iota of a clue as to how and why fractional reserve banking came into existence in the first place.

    One would think the Federal Reserve would think this through, but it does present an interesting problem with cryptocurrency.

    I can easily, easily see the Fed thinking "well sure this will be like cash but people will still have a checking account" when no, actually, if I can use this to pay bills and buy pizza or whatever I will absolutely stop having a checking account in favor of a debit card connected to my Fed-issued digital wallet. And so will a shitload of other people who just don't want to deal with bank bullshit.

    Our Credit Union has 0.25% on our checking account. Which is half what it used to be before we went back to the zero lower bound. I would definitely want to have some walking around money in the Federal Reserve/ Postal Banking account, especially if that's made easy to just send cash to friends, but I wouldn't close my checking just for shits and giggles. He'll, they'd probably raise it to be more competitive if they had to compete with USPS.

    Chequing accounts should generally be competitive on fees and accessibility, with savings accounts competing on interest rates.

    The idea of them as separate accounts is kinda obsolete at this point.

    Most people are only a couple clicks on an app from moving it from one to the other, and most the transaction are instant charges not paper.

    Yeah, the only real reason we have checking in the first place is the limit on the number of withdrawals from savings without a fee.

    There are a few places {like the city} that only accept cash or checks without the fee to use a card and they don't have the stuff to do virtual wallet stuff
    Also there are people who still use checks because they feel safer than setting up the accounts to pay bills

  • Gnome-InterruptusGnome-Interruptus Registered User regular
    moniker wrote: »
    Monwyn wrote: »
    Oghulk wrote: »
    Monwyn wrote: »
    Phyphor wrote: »
    Oghulk wrote: »
    That could provide unwelcome competition for banks by giving depositors another safe place to put their money. A person or a business could keep their digital dollars in a virtual “wallet” and then transfer them directly to someone else without needing to use a bank account. Even if the wallet were operated by a bank, the firm wouldn’t be able to lend out the cash. But unlike other crypto assets like Bitcoin or Ether, it would be directly backed and controlled by the central bank, allowing the monetary authorities to use it, like any other form of the dollar, in its policies to guide interest rates.

    Important to not understate just how big of a change the bolded would be to the economy.

    Nah, there's no need to lend out any specific physical dollars. Everything can continue to work as before with those funds being able to count as "deposits" for the purposes of loan issuance

    There's not even any real need for reserve requirements in the first place. Canada doesn't have any and our banks are even stabler thanks to capital requirements and leverage limits. If a bank doesn't have the cash and wants to make a loan the central bank will provide it

    The point is that those wallets would not count as deposits.

    Honestly getting rid of fractional-reserve banking would probably immediately cause the US economy to messily explode like one of the more gruesome finishers in Doom, I can't imagine it actually happens

    Anyone who suggests this without additional controls and does so unironically does not have one iota of a clue as to how and why fractional reserve banking came into existence in the first place.

    One would think the Federal Reserve would think this through, but it does present an interesting problem with cryptocurrency.

    I can easily, easily see the Fed thinking "well sure this will be like cash but people will still have a checking account" when no, actually, if I can use this to pay bills and buy pizza or whatever I will absolutely stop having a checking account in favor of a debit card connected to my Fed-issued digital wallet. And so will a shitload of other people who just don't want to deal with bank bullshit.

    Our Credit Union has 0.25% on our checking account. Which is half what it used to be before we went back to the zero lower bound. I would definitely want to have some walking around money in the Federal Reserve/ Postal Banking account, especially if that's made easy to just send cash to friends, but I wouldn't close my checking just for shits and giggles. He'll, they'd probably raise it to be more competitive if they had to compete with USPS.

    Chequing accounts should generally be competitive on fees and accessibility, with savings accounts competing on interest rates.

    The idea of them as separate accounts is kinda obsolete at this point.

    Most people are only a couple clicks on an app from moving it from one to the other, and most the transaction are instant charges not paper.

    I mean, ideal money management has all/most deposits going to the savings account, with a monthly withdrawal to the chequing account to cover the monthly expenses & spending. So you can use all the transactions of the chequing with the interest on the savings.

    Different accounts will have different features, perks, and service costs. So talking about interest rate in a chequing account is like talking about transaction fees on a savings account.

    steam_sig.png
    MWO: Adamski
    Lucedes
  • Captain InertiaCaptain Inertia Registered User regular
    moniker wrote: »
    Monwyn wrote: »
    Oghulk wrote: »
    Monwyn wrote: »
    Phyphor wrote: »
    Oghulk wrote: »
    That could provide unwelcome competition for banks by giving depositors another safe place to put their money. A person or a business could keep their digital dollars in a virtual “wallet” and then transfer them directly to someone else without needing to use a bank account. Even if the wallet were operated by a bank, the firm wouldn’t be able to lend out the cash. But unlike other crypto assets like Bitcoin or Ether, it would be directly backed and controlled by the central bank, allowing the monetary authorities to use it, like any other form of the dollar, in its policies to guide interest rates.

    Important to not understate just how big of a change the bolded would be to the economy.

    Nah, there's no need to lend out any specific physical dollars. Everything can continue to work as before with those funds being able to count as "deposits" for the purposes of loan issuance

    There's not even any real need for reserve requirements in the first place. Canada doesn't have any and our banks are even stabler thanks to capital requirements and leverage limits. If a bank doesn't have the cash and wants to make a loan the central bank will provide it

    The point is that those wallets would not count as deposits.

    Honestly getting rid of fractional-reserve banking would probably immediately cause the US economy to messily explode like one of the more gruesome finishers in Doom, I can't imagine it actually happens

    Anyone who suggests this without additional controls and does so unironically does not have one iota of a clue as to how and why fractional reserve banking came into existence in the first place.

    One would think the Federal Reserve would think this through, but it does present an interesting problem with cryptocurrency.

    I can easily, easily see the Fed thinking "well sure this will be like cash but people will still have a checking account" when no, actually, if I can use this to pay bills and buy pizza or whatever I will absolutely stop having a checking account in favor of a debit card connected to my Fed-issued digital wallet. And so will a shitload of other people who just don't want to deal with bank bullshit.

    Our Credit Union has 0.25% on our checking account. Which is half what it used to be before we went back to the zero lower bound. I would definitely want to have some walking around money in the Federal Reserve/ Postal Banking account, especially if that's made easy to just send cash to friends, but I wouldn't close my checking just for shits and giggles. He'll, they'd probably raise it to be more competitive if they had to compete with USPS.

    Chequing accounts should generally be competitive on fees and accessibility, with savings accounts competing on interest rates.

    The idea of them as separate accounts is kinda obsolete at this point.

    Most people are only a couple clicks on an app from moving it from one to the other, and most the transaction are instant charges not paper.

    I mean, ideal money management has all/most deposits going to the savings account, with a monthly withdrawal to the chequing account to cover the monthly expenses & spending. So you can use all the transactions of the chequing with the interest on the savings.

    Different accounts will have different features, perks, and service costs. So talking about interest rate in a chequing account is like talking about transaction fees on a savings account.

    Rich people get that, it’s called a sweep account.

  • CauldCauld Registered User regular
    moniker wrote: »
    Monwyn wrote: »
    Oghulk wrote: »
    Monwyn wrote: »
    Phyphor wrote: »
    Oghulk wrote: »
    That could provide unwelcome competition for banks by giving depositors another safe place to put their money. A person or a business could keep their digital dollars in a virtual “wallet” and then transfer them directly to someone else without needing to use a bank account. Even if the wallet were operated by a bank, the firm wouldn’t be able to lend out the cash. But unlike other crypto assets like Bitcoin or Ether, it would be directly backed and controlled by the central bank, allowing the monetary authorities to use it, like any other form of the dollar, in its policies to guide interest rates.

    Important to not understate just how big of a change the bolded would be to the economy.

    Nah, there's no need to lend out any specific physical dollars. Everything can continue to work as before with those funds being able to count as "deposits" for the purposes of loan issuance

    There's not even any real need for reserve requirements in the first place. Canada doesn't have any and our banks are even stabler thanks to capital requirements and leverage limits. If a bank doesn't have the cash and wants to make a loan the central bank will provide it

    The point is that those wallets would not count as deposits.

    Honestly getting rid of fractional-reserve banking would probably immediately cause the US economy to messily explode like one of the more gruesome finishers in Doom, I can't imagine it actually happens

    Anyone who suggests this without additional controls and does so unironically does not have one iota of a clue as to how and why fractional reserve banking came into existence in the first place.

    One would think the Federal Reserve would think this through, but it does present an interesting problem with cryptocurrency.

    I can easily, easily see the Fed thinking "well sure this will be like cash but people will still have a checking account" when no, actually, if I can use this to pay bills and buy pizza or whatever I will absolutely stop having a checking account in favor of a debit card connected to my Fed-issued digital wallet. And so will a shitload of other people who just don't want to deal with bank bullshit.

    Our Credit Union has 0.25% on our checking account. Which is half what it used to be before we went back to the zero lower bound. I would definitely want to have some walking around money in the Federal Reserve/ Postal Banking account, especially if that's made easy to just send cash to friends, but I wouldn't close my checking just for shits and giggles. He'll, they'd probably raise it to be more competitive if they had to compete with USPS.

    Chequing accounts should generally be competitive on fees and accessibility, with savings accounts competing on interest rates.

    The idea of them as separate accounts is kinda obsolete at this point.

    Most people are only a couple clicks on an app from moving it from one to the other, and most the transaction are instant charges not paper.

    I mean, ideal money management has all/most deposits going to the savings account, with a monthly withdrawal to the chequing account to cover the monthly expenses & spending. So you can use all the transactions of the chequing with the interest on the savings.

    Different accounts will have different features, perks, and service costs. So talking about interest rate in a chequing account is like talking about transaction fees on a savings account.

    Rich people get that, it’s called a sweep account.

    My credit union had that 15-20 years ago when I still used checks somewhat often. They may still have it. But, it was common at the time for savings accounts to automatically transfer to checking accts when needed.

  • Trajan45Trajan45 Registered User regular
    Oghulk wrote: »
    Monwyn wrote: »
    Phyphor wrote: »
    Oghulk wrote: »
    That could provide unwelcome competition for banks by giving depositors another safe place to put their money. A person or a business could keep their digital dollars in a virtual “wallet” and then transfer them directly to someone else without needing to use a bank account. Even if the wallet were operated by a bank, the firm wouldn’t be able to lend out the cash. But unlike other crypto assets like Bitcoin or Ether, it would be directly backed and controlled by the central bank, allowing the monetary authorities to use it, like any other form of the dollar, in its policies to guide interest rates.

    Important to not understate just how big of a change the bolded would be to the economy.

    Nah, there's no need to lend out any specific physical dollars. Everything can continue to work as before with those funds being able to count as "deposits" for the purposes of loan issuance

    There's not even any real need for reserve requirements in the first place. Canada doesn't have any and our banks are even stabler thanks to capital requirements and leverage limits. If a bank doesn't have the cash and wants to make a loan the central bank will provide it

    The point is that those wallets would not count as deposits.

    Honestly getting rid of fractional-reserve banking would probably immediately cause the US economy to messily explode like one of the more gruesome finishers in Doom, I can't imagine it actually happens

    Anyone who suggests this without additional controls and does so unironically does not have one iota of a clue as to how and why fractional reserve banking came into existence in the first place.

    One would think the Federal Reserve would think this through, but it does present an interesting problem with cryptocurrency.

    They did mention they are working with a think tank from MIT on this. So I would hope some really smart people are looking at all the different scenarios.

    Origin ID\ Steam ID: Warder45
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    moniker wrote: »
    Monwyn wrote: »
    Oghulk wrote: »
    Monwyn wrote: »
    Phyphor wrote: »
    Oghulk wrote: »
    That could provide unwelcome competition for banks by giving depositors another safe place to put their money. A person or a business could keep their digital dollars in a virtual “wallet” and then transfer them directly to someone else without needing to use a bank account. Even if the wallet were operated by a bank, the firm wouldn’t be able to lend out the cash. But unlike other crypto assets like Bitcoin or Ether, it would be directly backed and controlled by the central bank, allowing the monetary authorities to use it, like any other form of the dollar, in its policies to guide interest rates.

    Important to not understate just how big of a change the bolded would be to the economy.

    Nah, there's no need to lend out any specific physical dollars. Everything can continue to work as before with those funds being able to count as "deposits" for the purposes of loan issuance

    There's not even any real need for reserve requirements in the first place. Canada doesn't have any and our banks are even stabler thanks to capital requirements and leverage limits. If a bank doesn't have the cash and wants to make a loan the central bank will provide it

    The point is that those wallets would not count as deposits.

    Honestly getting rid of fractional-reserve banking would probably immediately cause the US economy to messily explode like one of the more gruesome finishers in Doom, I can't imagine it actually happens

    Anyone who suggests this without additional controls and does so unironically does not have one iota of a clue as to how and why fractional reserve banking came into existence in the first place.

    One would think the Federal Reserve would think this through, but it does present an interesting problem with cryptocurrency.

    I can easily, easily see the Fed thinking "well sure this will be like cash but people will still have a checking account" when no, actually, if I can use this to pay bills and buy pizza or whatever I will absolutely stop having a checking account in favor of a debit card connected to my Fed-issued digital wallet. And so will a shitload of other people who just don't want to deal with bank bullshit.

    Our Credit Union has 0.25% on our checking account. Which is half what it used to be before we went back to the zero lower bound. I would definitely want to have some walking around money in the Federal Reserve/ Postal Banking account, especially if that's made easy to just send cash to friends, but I wouldn't close my checking just for shits and giggles. He'll, they'd probably raise it to be more competitive if they had to compete with USPS.

    Chequing accounts should generally be competitive on fees and accessibility, with savings accounts competing on interest rates.

    The idea of them as separate accounts is kinda obsolete at this point.

    Most people are only a couple clicks on an app from moving it from one to the other, and most the transaction are instant charges not paper.

    I mean, ideal money management has all/most deposits going to the savings account, with a monthly withdrawal to the chequing account to cover the monthly expenses & spending. So you can use all the transactions of the chequing with the interest on the savings.

    Different accounts will have different features, perks, and service costs. So talking about interest rate in a chequing account is like talking about transaction fees on a savings account.

    Except the interest rate in my checking account is higher than the savings account interest rate at Chase, BofA, and Wells Fargo. And it's in comparison to what was proposed which would be 0.00% by its very nature. I don't think a Fed/ USPS cash account would eliminate checking, at least not at my credit union. It's not a lot of money earning 0.25% on ~a month's expenses of mortgage, HOA, and everything I purchase, but it's free money and no less convenient.

    EinzelCalica
  • HamHamJHamHamJ Registered User regular
    I have had a checking account with no fees a
    my entire life and I find it kind of weird that anything else exists.

    While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
    CauldAimmonikerHefflingStarZapperAntinumericIncenjucarMartini_PhilosopherBullheadGiantGeek2020DarklyreTcheldorTynnanOghulkMunkus BeaverGorkMatevZonugalLoserForHireXNobeardTrajan45ShadowfireboogedybooEinzel
  • QuidQuid I don't... what... hnnng Registered User regular
    Aside from accounts made for savings goals, I don't get why they don't just combine checking and savings accounts at this point and just have minimum requirements to get a certain interest rate. Whenever I go over my checking account balance, extra money is pulled from my savings account to cover the difference, making them functionally the same account.

  • ButtersButters A glass of some milks Registered User regular
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    I have had a checking account with no fees a
    my entire life and I find it kind of weird that anything else exists.

    Poor people don't get access to those and that's why predatory check-cashing and payday loan services get to exist.

    PSN: idontworkhere582 | CFN: idontworkhere | Steam: lordbutters
    BlackDragon480SmrtnikCommander ZoomDark_SideDee KaeTicaldfjamNobeardBrainleechLucedes
  • enc0reenc0re Registered User regular
    Quid wrote: »
    Aside from accounts made for savings goals, I don't get why they don't just combine checking and savings accounts at this point and just have minimum requirements to get a certain interest rate. Whenever I go over my checking account balance, extra money is pulled from my savings account to cover the difference, making them functionally the same account.

    That’s called a rewards checking account. My credit union pays 3% APY if I make a certain combinations of transactions every month.

    It used to be that savings and money market account were limited to 6 withdrawals per month. So banks would offer a higher % on money that was less hot.

    I sure would love to consolidate all my money assets into one check-writing, bill-paying money market account. But for the moment, rewards checking accounts are too profitable to give up.

  • QuidQuid I don't... what... hnnng Registered User regular
    enc0re wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Aside from accounts made for savings goals, I don't get why they don't just combine checking and savings accounts at this point and just have minimum requirements to get a certain interest rate. Whenever I go over my checking account balance, extra money is pulled from my savings account to cover the difference, making them functionally the same account.

    That’s called a rewards checking account. My credit union pays 3% APY if I make a certain combinations of transactions every month.

    It used to be that savings and money market account were limited to 6 withdrawals per month. So banks would offer a higher % on money that was less hot.

    I sure would love to consolidate all my money assets into one check-writing, bill-paying money market account. But for the moment, rewards checking accounts are too profitable to give up.

    Mine's still deffo a money market account. Didn't know about the 6 withdrawal/transfer limit but I've never come close to that many either.

  • AiouaAioua Ora Occidens Ora OptimaRegistered User regular
    part of the reason for the 6 transfer "limit" is that savings and checkings accts have different reserve requirements

    so it stops a desperate bank from claiming all their accts are savings accts in order to keep a lower reserve

    life's a game that you're bound to lose / like using a hammer to pound in screws
    fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
    that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
    bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
    Captain InertiaGnome-InterruptusmonikerMartini_Philosopher
  • AntinumericAntinumeric Registered User regular
    Anything that incentivises US banks to get up to standards set by the rest of the world would be good. Last time I was in the US it was like stepping back in time 30 years.

    In this moment, I am euphoric. Not because of any phony god’s blessing. But because, I am enlightened by my intelligence.
    thatassemblyguyQuidBullheadMartini_PhilosopherSmrtnikGnome-Interruptus
  • TomantaTomanta Registered User regular
    Anything that incentivises US banks to get up to standards set by the rest of the world would be good. Last time I was in the US it was like stepping back in time 30 years.

    Considering how much bank tech is still rooted in the 70s (in design, if not actual machines) you kinda were.

    There is a reason that COBOL programmers make $$$.

    monikerBlackDragon480Martini_PhilosopherthatassemblyguySleepHefflingCommander ZoomMatevHappylilElfLord_AsmodeusShadowhopeMortal SkyBullheadShadowfireboogedyboo
  • Martini_PhilosopherMartini_Philosopher Registered User regular
    Tomanta wrote: »
    Anything that incentivises US banks to get up to standards set by the rest of the world would be good. Last time I was in the US it was like stepping back in time 30 years.

    Considering how much bank tech is still rooted in the 70s (in design, if not actual machines) you kinda were.

    There is a reason that COBOL programmers make $$$.

    Not as true as it used to be. Much of the backend support has transitioned to being based on Java and what hasn't or can't is looking at EoL in the near term. While there is still support from vendors like IBM for it, COBOL is actively being replaced in the financial landscape.

    All opinions are my own and in no way reflect that of my employer.
    monikerCaptain InertiathatassemblyguyschussSleep
  • L Ron HowardL Ron Howard Registered User regular
    Tomanta wrote: »
    Anything that incentivises US banks to get up to standards set by the rest of the world would be good. Last time I was in the US it was like stepping back in time 30 years.

    Considering how much bank tech is still rooted in the 70s (in design, if not actual machines) you kinda were.

    There is a reason that COBOL programmers make $$$.

    Not as true as it used to be. Much of the backend support has transitioned to being based on Java and what hasn't or can't is looking at EoL in the near term. While there is still support from vendors like IBM for it, COBOL is actively being replaced in the financial landscape.

    My experience is that it's taking a long time to modernize everything, because you have 40+ years of development in Cobol to catch up on, that is often still occurring while the new platform is being developed.

    Calica
  • Captain InertiaCaptain Inertia Registered User regular
    Yeah fintechs have taken a very big (and to the banks, alarming) chunk out of their funding base (customer deposits) and the few banks that will still exist in the not-too-distant future are putting more money into tech development than even some of the biggest tech companies. Chase pays $10 billion a year for digital banking developers, for example.

    thatassemblyguy
  • AntinumericAntinumeric Registered User regular
    Tomanta wrote: »
    Anything that incentivises US banks to get up to standards set by the rest of the world would be good. Last time I was in the US it was like stepping back in time 30 years.

    Considering how much bank tech is still rooted in the 70s (in design, if not actual machines) you kinda were.

    There is a reason that COBOL programmers make $$$.

    I worked for a UK bank at the time, the backend systems were still extremely backward even over here. It feels more like the us just got stuck in a local maxima

    In this moment, I am euphoric. Not because of any phony god’s blessing. But because, I am enlightened by my intelligence.
    shryke
  • notyanotya Registered User regular
    Quid wrote: »
    Aside from accounts made for savings goals, I don't get why they don't just combine checking and savings accounts at this point and just have minimum requirements to get a certain interest rate. Whenever I go over my checking account balance, extra money is pulled from my savings account to cover the difference, making them functionally the same account.

    Well here's one reason. Whenever I want to get paid by someone, or pay someone, I need to give them my account number and routing number. With these two numbers they can put money in or take money out of my account at their leisure. For some reason. So I have a checking account with less money in it in case someone decides to use the magic numbers to drain my account.

    TuminShadowhopekimeDarklyreAimStarZapperLucedesCalica
  • QuidQuid I don't... what... hnnng Registered User regular
    notya wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Aside from accounts made for savings goals, I don't get why they don't just combine checking and savings accounts at this point and just have minimum requirements to get a certain interest rate. Whenever I go over my checking account balance, extra money is pulled from my savings account to cover the difference, making them functionally the same account.

    Well here's one reason. Whenever I want to get paid by someone, or pay someone, I need to give them my account number and routing number. With these two numbers they can put money in or take money out of my account at their leisure. For some reason. So I have a checking account with less money in it in case someone decides to use the magic numbers to drain my account.

    Why are you giving everyone your account number?

    AntinumericBullhead
  • CelestialBadgerCelestialBadger Registered User regular
    Quid wrote: »
    notya wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Aside from accounts made for savings goals, I don't get why they don't just combine checking and savings accounts at this point and just have minimum requirements to get a certain interest rate. Whenever I go over my checking account balance, extra money is pulled from my savings account to cover the difference, making them functionally the same account.

    Well here's one reason. Whenever I want to get paid by someone, or pay someone, I need to give them my account number and routing number. With these two numbers they can put money in or take money out of my account at their leisure. For some reason. So I have a checking account with less money in it in case someone decides to use the magic numbers to drain my account.

    Why are you giving everyone your account number?

    Probably running a small business. The banking system is antediluvian.

  • CelestialBadgerCelestialBadger Registered User regular
    Is Java a great choice for a financial language? Say what you want about COBOL it was specifically designed to be good for financial transactions.

    Gnome-Interruptus
  • tinwhiskerstinwhiskers Registered User regular
    Your account number is also on every physical check you send out. That's why HR would ask for a voided check to set up direct deposit.

    6ylyzxlir2dz.png
    monikerPhoenix-DPolaritieMunkus BeaverMartini_PhilosopherCauldLord_AsmodeuskimePeccavishrykeNobeardAimKayne Red RobeGnome-InterruptusNobodybrynhrtmnOrcaMatevSmrtniktyrannusShadowfireTynnanSkeithHefflingboogedybooEinzelCalicaemp123
  • PolaritiePolaritie Sleepy Registered User regular
    Is Java a great choice for a financial language? Say what you want about COBOL it was specifically designed to be good for financial transactions.

    Java has a big advantage of people actually learning it - there's orders of magnitude more people with experience to build and maintain systems in it.

    As to specific requirements for financial stuff... no idea.

    Steam: Polaritie
    3DS: 0473-8507-2652
    Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
    PSN: AbEntropy
    Stabbity StyleMartini_Philosopherzagdrob
  • CelestialBadgerCelestialBadger Registered User regular
    Once you know one language you know them all. You could create a finance-centric language that's very easy to learn if you wanted. Then you could build security into the language to make it financially idiot-proof, which would help with all that hacking we've been having recently.

    There are too many languages around with the use case of "programmers think it's cool" and too few practical languages.

    IncenjucarTuminMosatithatassemblyguyshrykeButtersAntinumericBullheadMatevIlpalaboogedyboo
Sign In or Register to comment.