Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

Dev.SN ♥ developers

posted by Dopefish on Monday February 24 2014, @11:00AM   Printer-friendly
from the money-in-the-mattress dept.

mrbluze writes:

"An interesting blog post by Charles Hugh Smith on Why Banks Are Doomed: Technology and Risk.:

The funny thing about technology is that those threatened by fundamental improvements in technology attempt to harness it to save their industry from extinction. For example, overpriced colleges now charge thousands of dollars for nearly costless massively open online courses (MOOCs) because they retain a monopoly on accreditation (diplomas). Once students are accredited directly--an advancement enabled by technology--colleges' monopoly disappears and so does their raison d'etre.

The same is true of banks. Now that accounting and risk assessment are automated, and borrowers and owners of capital can exchange funds in transparent digital marketplaces, there is no need for banks. But according to banks, only they have the expertise to create riskless debt.

...

One last happy thought: technology cannot be put back in the bottle. The financial/banking sector wants to use technology to increase its middleman skim, but the technology that is already out of the bottle will dismantle the sector as a function of what technology enables: faster, better, cheaper, with greater transparency, fairness and the proper distribution of risk.

There may well be a place for credit unions and community banks in the spectrum of exchanges, but these localized, decentralized enterprises would be unable to amass dangerous concentrations of risk and political influence in a truly transparent and decentralized system of exchanges.

It's still early days, but can new electronic currencies such as Bitcoin become mainstream without the assent of governments?"

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by istartedi on Monday February 24 2014, @01:23PM

    by istartedi (123) on Monday February 24 2014, @01:23PM (#5972)

    Some of your rebuttals to the radical Libertarian ideology
    are good; but your last paragraph takes it a bit too far. Some
    wealthy people actually benefit quite nicely from hyperinflation,
    especially if they help orchestrate it. Those who see it coming
    are well positioned to do things such as buy a motel for a few
    gold coins, while most ordinary people suffer. Bill Gate's fortune
    wouldn't be worth a loaf of bread under hyperinflation. The last
    time I looked into this whole bloody issue, IIRC holders of equity
    during the Weimar period lost only half their wealth. One is tempted
    to think that stocks would retain their full value just as gold does.
    The 50% haircut is due to the fact that businesses must manage the
    monetary stress. It cuts into the bottom line, and may even cause
    some of them to fail. Larger firms like Microsoft wouldn't fail
    outright; but would have several bad quarters as they struggled to
    manage the hyperinflation and engaged in unproductive activities such
    as making sure that Excel accommodated humongous dollar values.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Interesting=2, Total=2
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   3