[banannaise]

Just because it sounds silly on its face doesn't make it not true. The basic premise is solid: many of the most successful corporations today make a large portion of their profit from convincing customers to park funds in their accounts, and investing that money in financial instruments.

Everyone's got millions of unsecured creditors at zero interest. What could possibly be problematic about that?

[javier123454321]

Yeah, the truth is we live on a Casino Chip Society https://brettscott.substack.com/p/casino-chip-cashless-socie.... And it is true that companies love this status quo.

[j-bos]

Cool article, thanks for sharing :)

[teddyh]

Discussed on HN 8 months ago: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33801973>

[konschubert]

The question is: What is their value add? What is their moat?

People call Mc Donald’s a real estate fund and feel smart about it, but their moat is in fast food, no matter how they realise their earnings.

[banannaise]

> What is their moat?

That's only a useful question if you're an entrepreneur trying to answer the question of "How do I get in on this game?" The question currently being asked is closer to "Is it a problem for society that so many players are in on this game?"

If every big business is just a moat and/or backdoor for banking, that might be indicative of a problem.

[yodelshady]

Sure but the problem might be internal find-the-lady accounting.

In fact it probably is. Much like internet advertising has to be. You can't have an entire economy based around free services funded by advertising for other free services, you can't have returns generated solely by investing in companies that invest in other investors. Unless massive numbers of private sector backers have been defrauded, the lady is somewhere. Though maybe not somewhere that taxman looks.

I might buy slighter fewer Starbucks, or Fords, or flights if they were no loyalty programs, but I'd be spending zero money on StarBank/FordBank/DeltaBank without the product to go with it.

[chii]

> might be indicative of a problem.

why is it a problem, if it means that these funds are _more_ efficiently allocated?

For example, buying a starbucks gift card is money being invested by starbucks (elsewhere) and generates a profit. Had the customer not purchased such a card, would the cash have been invested in a similarly efficient manner? Or would it be in the proverbial cash-under-the-bed and not generating any returns?