|
|
|
|
|
|
by midev
1688 days ago
|
|
|
> They failed, by definition That's not what "by definition" means... This article is nonsense, and typical of intellectually dishonest right-wingers. They always claim that it was actually regulation the whole time that caused the problems! Wow! Yet we can look at the regulations the author cites, and what were ultimately the reasons for the end of wildcat banks, and see those were obviously not the cause. Regardless, the lessons learned are still applicable today. Whether wildcat banks were common or not doesn't change that most cryptocurrencies mirror the failed wildcat banks of the past. |
|
|
https://www.britannica.com/topic/wildcat-bank
>>wildcat bank, unsound bank chartered under state law during the period of uncontrolled state banking (1816–63) in the United States. Such banks distributed nearly worthless currency backed by questionable security (e.g., mortgages, bonds) and were located in inaccessible areas to discourage note redemption.
As for your criticism: no, the author meticulously details the ways in which regulatory restrictions led to most of the bank failures associated with wildcat banks, and contrasts it with the experience of 19th century British North America, i.e. Canada, and Scotland, which lacked those same restrictions.