|
|
|
|
|
by loup-vaillant
1152 days ago
|
|
> And the way you think lending should work is indistinguishable from the way it already works. With one crucial difference: right now the main criterion is whether the bank will get reimbursed or not. Whether it will make money off of the credit. And credits are so important to our lives right now that I don’t believe such an important decision should be left to that kind of invisible hand. I mean, it’s as important, perhaps more important, than the state’s budget. This suggests, if not a democratic oversight, at the very least a clear set of democratically chosen rules over what kind of loans should be given. |
|
I'd flip that around: whether it will lose money off the credit, not whether it will make money. Based on my time in credit risk this is more accurate to how banks actually think about loans. The upside for each individual loan is much smaller than the downside, so the threat of loss dominates the discussion.
Once you flip it around like that it becomes much less attractive to think of forcing banks to make loans that they expect to lose money on.
> if not a democratic oversight, at the very least a clear set of democratically chosen rules over what kind of loans should be given.
Which, again, we already have. There are many rules and regulations about what information banks may and may not take into account when deciding which loans to approve, and what interest rate to charge. Rules put in place and enforced by the democratically elected government.