|
|
|
|
|
by noisenotsignal
1201 days ago
|
|
I guess your system works, but I hope you’d agree it’s quite the hassle! It also seems you’d be ok with paying fees for pure money storage, though hopefully you can see why the average person would hate such a setup. I think from your POV that banks are horrible, thinking that even depositors should lose their money is in fact a defensible argument. So I concede that your view is one I can respect despite disagreeing. But in my view, banks are a useful fiction because of the utility they provide (specifically easy storage of and convenient access to money). Even if a person can buy property to reduce bank risk (again, a super inconvenient workaround!), I’m not sure I want _businesses_ to be doing so, especially in light of the likely resulting impact on property values. I acknowledge a system relying on banks indeed has risks, but to me that’s a stronger argument for better regulations and protections to mitigate the risks than it is an argument to dissolve the system and lose its benefits. |
|
Real property solves that problem best. The criminal can't take you to the government office with a gun to your head and force you to sign over the property to him. Property is also what capitalism is all about: actually owning stuff. Engaging in it keeps the fabled "you'll own nothing" dystopia at bay.