Decentralisation of Currency Bill [Failed]

[afleitch]

Pandering to the Dirty South, eh afleitch.

No. Anyone who knows me know that I live under a system like this in Scotland I also believe strongly in the decentralisation of banking. It has nothing to do with the Southeast and is infact something I believe in (though I know is difficult to sell)

I'll take the oportunity to lay out my position;

First of all, this system would not replace the power of the Treasury to print money. Secondly it would not replace the power of the Treasury to control the flow of money. Thirdly it does not give banks a 'license to print money' that they do not have and flooding the market therefore increasing inflation.

What it does do is decentralise the production of banknotes; it allows notes to be printed to the value of each banks reserve rather than to the national reserve. Banks are given this authority in exchange for a monthly Treasury certification that their reserves are sound and that the amount of money in circulation does not exceed reserve. Therefore it makes banking itself more transparent as the money flow is reduced if the banks reserves fall and vice versa. It also allows for a closer and more routine public inspection of the genuine value of the commerical bank.

[afleitch]

I don't see much of a problem with this really.

Except for the whole "completely changing our banking system on a whim for no apparent reason" thing.

It's not. It has very little effect on the banking system; dollars are still dollars. It means banks can print them but only if their reserves are sound as certified by the Treasury. It actually helps the Treasury keep tags on the banks to ensure they are not overreaching themselves.

[afleitch]

I don't see much of a problem with this really.

Except for the whole "completely changing our banking system on a whim for no apparent reason" thing.

It's not. It has very little effect on the banking system; dollars are still dollars. It means banks can print them but only if their reserves are sound as certified by the Treasury. It actually helps the Treasury keep tags on the banks to ensure they are not overreaching themselves.

I still don't like this idea.

It promotes sound banking. It also promotes a better relationship between merging banks so that banks who are taking over other banks know exactly what they are getting into (and are not in danger of going under as a result) Banks cannot be seen to hide debt from the Treasury.

Also if a big national bank said 'sorry, we're not going to be part of this' it would make people openly wonder 'why? what have they got to hide...'

[afleitch]

At least explain what the need for this is. What problems do we have, and how does this solve it? This seems like an unnecessary change.

Marokai, I just explained that it helps regulate banking. Banks are obliged to have their reserves certified by the Treasury each month. They cannot hide their ture value of assets (except with overly creative and probably illegal accounting ) from the government and, as this is public data; from the public and from the market.

[afleitch]

Aye.

It's a banking regulation bill at heart prompting openness at the heart of Atlasian banking in times when both consumers and banks have been burned.

It does of course serve another purpose; I shall of course remember the objections to this bill on the premise that we shouldn't 'experiment at this time' if a more far reaching banking regulation bill, or call to introduce a central bank is introduced in the Senate