I don’t support abolishing the Federal reserve, like some delusional lunatics do. The dollar should be managed by the Federal reserve and the Federal reserve should be run by capable, trustworthy, ethical experts in monetary systems and economics.
That being said, some reforms are likely necessary, so that our central bank has all of the tools and authority it needs to appropriately manage our nation’s fiat currency.
Sorry, wasn’t trying to imply you did support that, but that is definitely a concern with the people who are trying to dismantle the entire federal government. There is a good chance that if Trump is allowed to fire Powell, the ultimate goal will be to replace it with some sort of deregulated banking system.
If the federal reserve is successfully abolished and all banks essentially just become fully deregulated private businesses, your only option would be to trust a private business to hold your money for you or bury it all in a mayonnaise jar.
In just seems like if there were some kind of economic crisis, the safer bet would have to be a bank independently backed by its own standard/reserve instead of expecting a bailout.
I actually wouldn’t even necessarily be opposed to that in a normal world if there were enforceable laws and federal regulations that prevented billionaires from creating state protected monopolies instead of encouraging them. However, Thiel and Trump both see elimination of any competition as a smart business model, not corruption.
They might just assume people will eventually be forced to use their banking systems because they might end up being the only option. I’m just trying to understand the rationale (if there is one) for why Trump and Thiel would both try to open competing cryptobanks.
Obviously neither is trustworthy, they’ve both bankrupted multiple business deals in the past, but without the reserve, I feel like the most rational way to make one more competitive than the other would be to leverage some other resource they hold a monopoly on to make their bank the safer option, at least by comparison to one without any similar leverage.
I don’t support abolishing the Federal reserve, like some delusional lunatics do. The dollar should be managed by the Federal reserve and the Federal reserve should be run by capable, trustworthy, ethical experts in monetary systems and economics.
That being said, some reforms are likely necessary, so that our central bank has all of the tools and authority it needs to appropriately manage our nation’s fiat currency.
Sorry, wasn’t trying to imply you did support that, but that is definitely a concern with the people who are trying to dismantle the entire federal government. There is a good chance that if Trump is allowed to fire Powell, the ultimate goal will be to replace it with some sort of deregulated banking system.
If the federal reserve is successfully abolished and all banks essentially just become fully deregulated private businesses, your only option would be to trust a private business to hold your money for you or bury it all in a mayonnaise jar.
In just seems like if there were some kind of economic crisis, the safer bet would have to be a bank independently backed by its own standard/reserve instead of expecting a bailout.
I actually wouldn’t even necessarily be opposed to that in a normal world if there were enforceable laws and federal regulations that prevented billionaires from creating state protected monopolies instead of encouraging them. However, Thiel and Trump both see elimination of any competition as a smart business model, not corruption.
They might just assume people will eventually be forced to use their banking systems because they might end up being the only option. I’m just trying to understand the rationale (if there is one) for why Trump and Thiel would both try to open competing cryptobanks.
Obviously neither is trustworthy, they’ve both bankrupted multiple business deals in the past, but without the reserve, I feel like the most rational way to make one more competitive than the other would be to leverage some other resource they hold a monopoly on to make their bank the safer option, at least by comparison to one without any similar leverage.