Pirocco said:Since todays situation already is stocks/bonds/deposits, what's the difference, other than banks misleading people with deposit intentions?
I agree, that is one of the major problems of today. Banks make out that your money is safe and don't give any indication of the risk that you are taking on by lending them money.
Government compounds that by backing them up with taxpayer money, making it seem like Fractional banking is a relatively risk free activity. Bank runs are a thing of the past.
But in reality the risk is still there, it is just hidden. Pushing interest rates down to prevent liquidation of bad loans makes the situation even worse in the long run.
And because of the way the system is setup, bankers as a whole behave like they are some kind of privileged class. They should be allowed to take profits when the market is going well, and then throw the losses onto the rest of society when the worm turns.
The combination of banking and government is toxic. Pretending that Fractional Banking is risk-free is a fools paradise.
Which is why I think, if the bankers were cut adrift and left to fend for themselves in the market, fractional banking would be much more restricted by necessity, due to the risks, and as a result, ongoing persistent inflation would not exist because credit expansion would be restricted by market forces. ie, go too far and the bank gets a run and goes bankrupt.