I enjoyed the article up to a point, but then completly lost the plot. You focus your critic on banks and completly ignore the role of central bank in this dynamic. If running a bank is so lucrative you would expect the number of banks to grow (look at shitcoins amd their proliferation, obviously they are earning money from the scam). However, the number of banks shrinks in most developed countries. This is a trend even in countries with historically strong private banking sector, like Germany. When Bundesbank was operational, and properly managed by the state, this was not the case. Now that ECB is running the show things are different and in not so distant future there will be only ECB as a source of credit money.
Replies (3)
Also, from the perspective of a bussiness owner taking credit is always better then taking investments, if you believe that your bussiness will be succesful. It is really hard to grasp this beliefe that all the problems will be solved once credit disappears.
Thanks for the thoughtful reply — I really appreciate you engaging! Just to clarify though, I do aim a substantial amount of critique at central banks throughout the piece. I explicitly point out that they control the issuance of base money, trigger bailouts through QE, and ultimately enable the entire debt-based model to persist. In fact, the whole article builds toward a system where central banks can’t step in to socialise losses — because that’s the root of the moral hazard. /P
Ok but isn't then a logical conclusion that one should eliminate central banks, and not banks or the mechanisms by witch credit money is created. There is obviously useful purpose in such scheme, to allow people to start a bussiness when there is no one to give them money for it. E.g. there is one bakery in the city i want to open another one, obviously there is a need for more bakaries, I take credit, once i return it i do not have to share profits with investors. And everybody is happy because the price of bread goes down.
