Dirty South September Initiatives Thread

[Associate Justice PiT]

End to Fractional Reserve Banking Act
All banks operating in the Dirty South shall be required to have 100% reserves for all demand deposits

Oh. My. God.

I'm no banking expert, but I believe most banks have historically kept only between 10 to 20 percent reserves. This drags banking back to literally PRE-19th century standards.I'll consider introducing legislation in the Mideast to prepare for the refugees from DS when your banking system literally collapses overnight dragging down the entire region economy with it.

     I would also like to point out that regulating the activities of banks in such a fashion is really not a libertarian thing to do at all. I don't know why SPC would propose an initiative like that.

[Associate Justice PiT]

End to Fractional Reserve Banking Act
All banks operating in the Dirty South shall be required to have 100% reserves for all demand deposits

Oh. My. God.

I'm no banking expert, but I believe most banks have historically kept only between 10 to 20 percent reserves. This drags banking back to literally PRE-19th century standards.I'll consider introducing legislation in the Mideast to prepare for the refugees from DS when your banking system literally collapses overnight dragging down the entire region economy with it.

     I would also like to point out that regulating the activities of banks in such a fashion is really not a libertarian thing to do at all. I don't know why SPC would propose an initiative like that.

Protecting people from fraud is a libertarian thing to do. This would only affect demand despoits; time deposits could have any amount of money in reserve as the bank chooses

     Protecting people from fraud is plenty libertarian, though I am not sure about doing it in this way. Perhaps it would be better to give banks the option to apply for an official "100% demand deposit reserve guaranteed" status, which they could then advertise to prospective customers.

[Associate Justice PiT]

End to Fractional Reserve Banking Act
All banks operating in the Dirty South shall be required to have 100% reserves for all demand deposits

Oh. My. God.

I'm no banking expert, but I believe most banks have historically kept only between 10 to 20 percent reserves. This drags banking back to literally PRE-19th century standards.I'll consider introducing legislation in the Mideast to prepare for the refugees from DS when your banking system literally collapses overnight dragging down the entire region economy with it.

     I would also like to point out that regulating the activities of banks in such a fashion is really not a libertarian thing to do at all. I don't know why SPC would propose an initiative like that.

Protecting people from fraud is a libertarian thing to do. This would only affect demand despoits; time deposits could have any amount of money in reserve as the bank chooses

     Protecting people from fraud is plenty libertarian, though I am not sure about doing it in this way. Perhaps it would be better to give banks the option to apply for an official "100% demand deposit reserve guaranteed" status, which they could then advertise to prospective customers.

I'm missing the distinction between this proposal and SPC's, PiT. Can you elaborate?

     Well, I am suggesting giving banks the opportunity to be certified as keeping 100% of demand deposits onhand (which they could then advertise to customers) instead of requiring that they do so.

[Associate Justice PiT]

End to Fractional Reserve Banking Act
All banks operating in the Dirty South shall be required to have 100% reserves for all demand deposits

Oh. My. God.

I'm no banking expert, but I believe most banks have historically kept only between 10 to 20 percent reserves. This drags banking back to literally PRE-19th century standards.I'll consider introducing legislation in the Mideast to prepare for the refugees from DS when your banking system literally collapses overnight dragging down the entire region economy with it.

     I would also like to point out that regulating the activities of banks in such a fashion is really not a libertarian thing to do at all. I don't know why SPC would propose an initiative like that.

Protecting people from fraud is a libertarian thing to do. This would only affect demand despoits; time deposits could have any amount of money in reserve as the bank chooses

     Protecting people from fraud is plenty libertarian, though I am not sure about doing it in this way. Perhaps it would be better to give banks the option to apply for an official "100% demand deposit reserve guaranteed" status, which they could then advertise to prospective customers.

I'm missing the distinction between this proposal and SPC's, PiT. Can you elaborate?

     Well, I am suggesting giving banks the opportunity to be certified as keeping 100% of demand deposits onhand (which they could then advertise to customers) instead of requiring that they do so.

Well, as reserve limits merely state the minimum reserves a bank must have on hand, banks are already free to carry 100% reserves. The fact that none do so should tell us about the lack of wisdom in doing so. The type of people who would demand 100% reserves rather than trust the FDIC to protect their accounts are the type of fringe folks who fundamentally mistrust banks anyway and would be more likely to just stuff their money under the mattress or convert it all to Krugerrands. And that's such a tiny sliver of the population they clearly aren't worth courting if it means reducing the amount of loans your bank can issue and earn interest on by a factor of 4 or 5.

     Indeed they are free to do so. My idea would just allow them to get some sort of official recognition if they choose to do so, so that customers afraid of losing their money in a bank run or something can know that they can put it there without any of that risk.