Comments by "DynamicWorlds" (@dynamicworlds1) on "The History of Paper Money - Lies - Extra History" video.

1-nationalize the banks so that lending practices can be whatever is good for the economy without regard for profitability. 2-money enters the economy through government spending (ideally on services, research, and infrastructure) 3-control inflation and create demand (and therefore value) for the currency via taxes Basically, the government gives people money to do certain types of work, and that money has value because the government demands it as the only acceptable payment for taxes and fees from citizens. Those who aren't employed by the government will then need to produce goods and services of their own to earn that money. The government has full control of the money supply, stops worrying about the budget (beyond what effect it has on inflation), and never borrows money at interest so is never in debt (at least to any domestic entities). (the whole notion that the government gives the power to create money to banks and then borrows from those banks at interest is beyond insane)
3
Domo N Car That's just based on how you set up the systems and incentives. I don't doubt that you could easily design a system that would be worse of a disaster than that, but that doesn't mean a well designed system is doomed to the same fate. Just as simple examples, setting up good pay incentives to encourage good employee performance and closing the loopholes that allow them to write off the losses could fix a lot of the problems you mentioned. Giving people lifetime job security with no influence of their job performance factoring into things like pay (or even keeping the job) is the problem, not who owns the bank.
1
Domo N Car While much of that is true, without good governance, private banks will be just as much of a problem (just in different ways) if not worse since they'll just end up bribing the politicians, and then you have a system where the top power isn't one you get a vote in. Sure there's a tendency in human nature for corruption, but the systems we design are what dictate how prevalent that is and how easy it is to remove. Currently in the US we have nearly unregulated legalized bribery, 1st past the post voting, and massive gerrymandering, but that doesn't mean governments less susceptible to corruption can't (or haven't) been designed). Since we'd need to overturn the political status-quo and change things on that end substantially so that the government actually works for the people (even if only for a few decades) to have a hope of doing something like nationalizing the banks, I was just skipping the "bad governance + nationalized banks" concept as an impossibility.
1
Domo N Car I don't know enough about Indian economic policy or corruption issues to say much about specifics (other than being hopeful about your country's fight against corruption), but US history has pretty clearly shown a couple things: 1-economically liberal banking policy nearly always results in a boom, followed by a crash later 2-market forces are woefully insufficient to fight against corruption in banks as they grow and age Remember, we've crashed the world economy at least twice in <100 years, so while going back to something that didn't work is a bad idea, copying US policy from either recently or pre-great depression is doomed to failure as well (even if the initial results look promising). That said, though I doubt they could work under the same rules, a mix of nationalized and private banks could probably work if you got rid of fractional reserve lending (if the government is controlling the money supply anyway, you don't really need it anyway).
1
Domo N Car Yah, I imagine we're a great instructional aid as, succeed or fail, we tend to do it pretty spectacularly. If we could at least learn from our OWN history we might not keep repeating the same mistakes endlessly, but that's another topic altogether (though I hope you get a more objective picture of our history over there than we get taught in schools over here).
1