Submitted by webmaster on Sun, 01/03/2020 - 14:03
From the article: "Most people today know more about their iPod than the soundness of their bank’s balance sheet because they think the magical FDIC is guaranteeing their deposit. This has led to people only caring about the interest paid on their savings or money market accounts and not on the actual bank. Well the FDIC doesn’t really have any money, it just has our money that is taken via taxation."
For a while now, as the Shire Silver projects have progressed, I've been tempted to add traditional banking services to the list of services we will provide. Of course, in today's reality, with government intruding all over the place and inserting its tendrils where they can do the most harm, providing bank-like services is fraught with peril. That is one of the main reasons why I don't believe Shire Silver (or this author) will get into acting like a bank any time soon. Also, getting banking right is hard, and we don't really need that challenge right now.
But this article on Survival Blog got me thinking. Do we really need a "bank"? If so, who would I like to see operate one?
read more »
Submitted by webmaster on Thu, 12/31/2009 - 17:33
Over on the Huffington Post, Arianna Huffington and Rob Johnson propose a practical step to reduce the harm caused by the banking bailouts while sending a powerful signal to the Washington establishment. read more »
Submitted by webmaster on Thu, 12/17/2009 - 12:47
In some interesting news today, Britain is joining the exodus from checks. Slated to stop in 2018, the system whereby you transfer money between bank accounts by putting some ink on some paper is a study in trust. read more »
Submitted by webmaster on Fri, 01/23/2009 - 10:11
A recent article in the UK got a decent start:
In Russell Hoban's novel Riddley Walker, the descendants of nuclear holocaust survivors seek amid the rubble the key to recovering their lost civilisation. They end up believing that the answer is to re-invent the atom bomb. I was reminded of this when I read the government's new plans to save us from the credit crunch. It intends - at gobsmacking public expense - to persuade the banks to start lending again, at levels similar to those of 2007. Isn't this what caused the problem in the first place? Are insane levels of lending really the solution to a crisis caused by insane levels of lending?
Yes, I know that without money there's no business, and without business there are no jobs. I also know that most of the money in circulation is issued, through fractional reserve banking, in the form of debt. This means that you can't solve one problem (a lack of money) without causing another (a mountain of debt). There must be a better way than this.
Submitted by webmaster on Mon, 12/22/2008 - 18:54
There has been a lot of news about the state of the economy lately, and a lot more of what is considered analysis. I've been ignoring quite a lot of it, but this recent work was recommended by a friend, so I gave it a look.
The Crash Course by Chris Martenson is a longish set of videos, thankfully broken down into a couple dozen 10-20 minute blocks. It attempts to educate the viewer on the basics of the economy, the current situation, and the probable future.
read more »
Search by distance or business type on a map.
