RE: More Proof Centralized Entities Cannot Be Trusted
You are viewing a single comment's thread:
While turning to true account ownership and whatnot is a proper direction, there is also an alternative, and I think in case problems like the one you showed become more widespread, that alternative will be taken. That alternative is to deny the banks the right to choose their customers. They will be forced by law to provide at least basic services to any willing individual or company (they would still be able to harass selected customers by abusing AML laws). In case of constitutional problems of such regulation, a slightly different approach might be taken. The banks might be given a choice: either act like a public institution and be obliged to not discriminate customers for any reason, or be a private company and have to have 100% coverage for all the deposits and loans made, in cash or reserves.
That sounded overly optimistic. There is probably 9 to 1 chance the banks will continue to do as they please. Out of remaining 1 there is 9 to 1 change that some politicians might smell the opportunity to win some points by "doing something", maybe even by taking such drastic measure as described above. Out of remaining 1, 9 to 1 is that banks will reflect on their actions and scale down the abuse. Again out of remaining 1, 9 to 1 is that decentralized solutions will be somewhat viable alternative for desperate customers rejected by banks. And finally the remaining 1 is that those solutions will become mature enough to be a real competition to banking sector. But that tiny chance is still worth pursuing and building for. 👍
Banks are not public like utilities. Even if there are laws passed, which wont happen since the banks run governments, it will be something they ignore.
Bankers never go to jail.
They might not be on paper, but in reality they are. Banks are heavily regulated. You can't just open a bank like you would open a shop that sells shoes. That limits supply. On the other hand there are laws (at least in EU) that force businesses to use banks for payments above certain amount (that artificially increases demand). Also since for businesses and individuals the only form of money other than what is in banks is the cash, and that is in short supply compared to all the money in existence, you could say that money don't exist outside of banks. Being declined service by the banks is therefore akin of being denied the right to even own money or do business. Such a thing can easily become heated political issue, especially if banks start to collude. F.e. decline service based on carbon footprint or other ESG-like score.
As far as I remember couple of years ago there was something along the lines:
How did that end? As far as I know the banks were actually slapped by government for doing that.
Regulation only serves to insulate the banks against competition. As you said, you cant just open one up.
As for regulation, if they ignore it, is it really in effect. US banks have paid over $500 billion in fines since the Great Financial Crisis, meaning that is just a cost of doing business.
Since bankers never face criminal charges, they do what they want.