Talk:Bank

From Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Income from loans/Creating money...[edit]

where is the information about banks basically 'creating' money when someone gets a loan? instead of having the actual reserves in the vault, the banks make you sign your car etc. as collateral, then CREATE the debt/loan using only the promise that you will pay it back... Its an IOU scam that every sucker in the world is part of!... Also what about the, I think, INCREDIBLY important fact that those who control the international banks control the way society develops, as THEY have the power to not supply loans to any sector, industry they don't want... Is there anything in wikipedia about economic debt, and how if everyone paid off their loans and never took out another one, there would be NO MORE MONEY...? Just Curious

16:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

If this is indeed factual information, go ahead and add a paragraph or two - just be sure to cite your sources. Of course you never will because it is not accurate at all. Either you don't have a tinkle of knowledge as to how fractional banking works, or you are woefully uninformed. 206.169.172.212 23:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only Trading banks and Finance houses create the money they loan. Savings banks and Building societies loan their deposits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.93.134.10 (talk) 13:45, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why would a bank need money in the vault to have an outstanding loan with someone?
It's important to remember that hundreds of banks are competing for both your deposits, investments AND the interest or other revenue that comes with making a debt or equity investment in you (or your business). Like in any other market, this market action competes the return on invested capital down to the 'opportunity cost of capital' (or the risk-adjusted return that someone would get investing a dollar of capital anywhere else in the economy). I'm quite sure, in fact, that returns are MUCH lower in the financial sector right now, because of the 2007-2008 financial crisis.
Just like above, if an area of the economy was being under-served by the financial sector, the profit motive would draw somebody else in to provide the funds.
If no one took out any debt, nor held any money in bank accounts, there would still be money. It would be exactly equal to M0 - or the actual number of bank notes that the central bank had printed so far. NByz (talk) 20:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Paul Grignon's 47-minute animated presentation of Money as Debt tells in very simple and effective graphic terms what money is and how it is being created. Caution: Do not go to Google Video and search for "Money as Debt", and most certainly do not watch it for free, because this would violate ZILLIONS of copyright laws. Also, put The Creature from Jekyll Island by G. Edward Griffin on your summer reading list. N0 D1C4 00:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This whole "create money" thing isn't true at all and should be taken out of the article and replaced with something more factual about how fracional banking works. Its the most rediculous thing I've ever heard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.15.7.70 (talk) 21:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that it's not true, it's just (as your comment about fractional banking suggests that you understand) it's being characterized in a pretty inaccurate way. It's certainly not a scam; it's one of the most important ways that the economy grows, and in countries like china (that have a fixed currency peg), the only way that the central bank can influence the economy.
I've been monitoring this article for a couple weeks now, but unfortunately haven't had any time to start helping to fix it up. Feel free to adjust things to your (cited!) understanding, and I'll be more than happy to help edit as well.NByz (talk) 16:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, actually that section is pretty sensationalist. The title "modern banking practices" is not quite applicable. I have removed it, and I suggest that we discuss the best replacement. Personally, I have always learned about this concept as "Multiple Deposit Expansion", but I see that that simply forwards to "fractional-reserve banking." I suggest that we put together a very concise section that offers a basic definition and links to the article on fractional reserve banking.NByz (talk) 16:10, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

from "God Wants You to be Rich" you meaning every person[edit]

Can this be added: Paul Zane Pilzer says today, approximately 2 million people work in commercial and savings banks throughout the United States... the real benefits they provide... could be just as well performed by two hundred thousand people or less. Most of these 2 million employees work for institutional dinosaurs that would, and should, have become extinct in the 1970s, were it not for the continued government subsidies that their employers receive at our expense.Stars4change (talk) 07:41, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Banks don't receive "subsidies" from the government. Pilzer's knowledge of the industry is dated and irrelevant if he worked for a bank in the 70s - it's a completely different animal nowadays. And just because someone is an "officer" or a "VP" of a bank doesn't necessary mean that they are special. I'm sure Citibank has thousands of VPs and Officers. It just means you get a salary and a car, if you're lucky. Logical fact (talk) 20:31, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reserves[edit]

The article needs to explain or reference reserves and Fractional Reserve lending. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.229.241 (talk) 22:57, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

State of the article[edit]

I think this article is in sad shape. I have subscribed to it and will start to get to know it a little better before helping out. dose anyone been watching this article long enough to have a plan? Anyone know about the tags, specifically, neutrality? NByz (talk) 06:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Poster from 7-7 at 21:35 here (in archives about the modern banking section). I guess in a way it's (re: banks creating 9x the money they have on deposit) not totally semantically incorrect, but to me it pretty clearly suggests something very wrong. For what it's worth, the article on fractional reserve banking seems to actually be fairly well laid out, so it could be used as a source, or just a link. As to my creditials, I do strategic level finance for a multi-billion dollar bank and I can vouch for the fact that we do actually have one dollar in deposits (or other debt, if we need) for each dollar in loans we make and other assets we own. I think I have a wikipedia account, but I never can remember the info... I guess I should search my email for that. If you wonder want a bank finance guy is doing wandering around Wikipedia, I have a curious mind, and this is the easiest place to scratch the random itch. I can probably devote a little energy to the project if there seems to be a direction to go with it, but not just now. Quarter ends are very hectic.--76.186.189.207 (talk) 02:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hear ya. I suggest you just subscribe to it via RSS - that way we can keep an eye on changes and tweak them up. This article deserves better. Also - as I'm sure you know - that multiple deposit expansion idea isn't that a bank would have more loans than deposits necessarily. It is that when a bank gives a loan to a customer, that customer is going to do one of two things with it:
1) Deposit it at a financial institution (it becomes loanable again)
2) Spend it, in which case some other person will deposit it at another financial institution (it becomes loanable again)
So in that way, although the actual down-and-dirty money supply (M0) hasn't increased, the effective money supply has, because their are now more claims to money in the system. People who first hear about it in something like one of those videos they mention above tend to assume it's the bank cheating or taking advantage of people.NByz (talk) 16:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bank Origins[edit]

The word originated in Italy during the Renaissance. Then, Christians were forbidden by Church law from lending money to one another, but they devised a clever work-around: they enlisted the local Jews who were not bound by Church doctrine. Transactions took place, generally, on park benches during the daytime, when the Jews were permitted to leave the ghettos and venture into the parks. This bench-lending culture provides the name for bank, from the Italian for bench, "banco." The translation holds true for French (banc), Spanish (banco), Portuguese (banco), and German and Dutch "bank."

This account was recently aired on the BBC's programme "The City Uncovered," which described the history and intended function of banks and the financial sector. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xtrmecars (talk • contribs) 17:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit strange that no one has mentioned a russian (slavic?) word "banka" which stands for "container". - edgeArchitect —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.179.65.201 (talk) 23:58, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

General intro book for curious, intelligent reader?[edit]

Wikipedia articles whet our appetite for more in-depth information.

Recommend a good book for the general reader who wants to know something about how the banks of the world got going, and how they've developed? Maybe even how they interact?

Some people, in this age of widespread conspiracy thinking, believe all or most of the world's banks are connected, and maybe even coordinated. Coordinated in a way that yields profit and power to a small number of people. I doubt this, but have no informational grounds for my doubt. Other than it sounds ignorant.

So where do we begin to learn the basic facts about nations and their banks and bankers?Tanemon (talk) 21:41, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Bank Wars[edit]

Banks

Who runs the capitalist system? Banks and financiers are at the top of the pyramid. What do banks do? They use your deposits whether checking or savings, to invest in profitable enterprises to support corporations, to make money on interest on loans and, if international banks, to buy and sell the currencies of nations for profit (in the same manner persons buy corporate stocks) with the added purpose of supporting or endangering nations by buying to raise the currency value or selling to lower it. This gives international banks extraordinary power over all the nations of the world. Arbitrage is the name for this action with which banks make fortunes overnight. Banks have an extraordinary bookkeeping system in which money loaned is figured as money earned plus a system of expanding cash into credits as much as 36 times. An extraordinarily profitable business.

Today's banking is a worldwide system of syndicated banking called Eurobanking, the currency: "Eurodollars." Eurobanks use the currency of all nations and are absolutely independent of any nation in the world. All large "U.S." banks are actually Eurobanks, separate entitles like nations, not affiliated with the United States -Citicorp, Bank of America among them.

Every nation in the world, large or small, owes money to these banks. so the banks control their politics and economies. When a nation lends money to another nation, it merely co-signs the loan. The money actually comes from these banks, and the money lent often goes not to the borrower nation but to the bank to pay the borrower nation's debt to the bank. The needy nation doesn't see a kopek or dime of it. Why did the U.S. lend money to Mexico? To pay money Mexico owed to the banks. Why did we, earlier, lend money to the former Soviet Union states? Because the banks demanded that we do so. Why did the Soviet Union fail? Because the banks set up new rules for international trade with which no socialist nation could cope, and the resulting debt (later paid by the U.S. and other nations of the Group of Seven nations, on the command of the banks) forced the end of the USSR. Why is the world losing its forests? To pay debts nations owe to the banks.

Why do the banks have so much control over nations? Because they control the world's money, and, by "arbitrage" gambling, they can destroy the value of any nation's currency almost overnight, thus destroying the economy of that nation. Therefore when the banks say "Jump," the nations say, "How high?" If not, it's the Big Whammo, a national depression which will hit every business and every person in that nation.

Lgc2008 (talk) 02:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is nearly complete false. - Banks don't control politics - politics influence comercial banks instead and current economic crisis is good example of that. Housing bubble was created by FED easy credit polices and FED is quasi-state organization - de facto central bank. (If someone really belives that FED is private, he should educate himself). - Investing in profitable enterprises is actually good. This is also only true statement in whole paragraph. - There are nations without external debt. Usually oil-producing countries. - If loan is used to pay other loan then needy nation sees a kopek of dime of it. Trillions of kopeks and dimes indeed, and makes good use of that (pays former loan). - Soviet Union and other socialist economies failed because collectivism systems are oppresive and inefficient.

Congratulations Lgc2008! I bet you had no idea of the financial system before the crisis of 2008. Go and spread your bullshit somewhere else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.85.210.228 (talk) 16:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lgc2008 is totally right! Just read something not from major news you uneducated creature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.110.5.158 (talk) 14:00, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Traditional banking activities[edit]

I found I kept hanging up and re-reading the last sentence. Of course it doesn't really matter if you end a sentence with a preposition - provided the object is clear! However I think the problem is actually due to a sinful unnecessary "and". This isn't surprising since the whole para is just one sentence.

My feeling is it would help if you had a period after "...substitute for bank loans" and delete the "and" which follows. Then it would read

...non-bank lenders provide... a substitute for bank loans. Money market funds, cash management trusts and other non-bank financial institutions in many cases provide an adequate substitute to banks for lending savings to.

I'm still not thrilled with the prepositional ending. Maybe it should just be deleted? But that's still not comfortable to me; I thought of "...provide an adequate alternative vehicle." but I'm not comfortable with that either (thinking of the "teen-age African student"). Time for someone else to lend a hand! 81.152.125.65 (talk) 05:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

error[edit]

{{editsemiprotected}}

The entry states that all FDIC-insured banks in the US are regulated by the FDIC. That is not correct. The FDIC is the deposit insurer for commercial banks, but there are four bank regulators in the US, depending on the type of bank charter (license). The OCC (Comptroller of the Currency) regulates all National banks. The OTS (Office of Thrift Supervision) regulates Federal Savings Banks and Savings and Loan institutions. The FDIC regulates state-chartered banks, and each state maintains regulators that share in the responsibility of regulating state-chartered banks. In addition, many banks are owned by bank holding companies, and bank holding companies are regulated by the Federal Reserve. Further, credit unions are not considered commercial banks, and they are regulated by the NCUA (National Credit Union Association), and their deposits are guaranteed by a separate insurance fund for credit unions only.

Do you mind giving us a citation? Thanks. Leujohn (talk) 10:44, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not done for now:pending citation.--Aervanath talks like a mover, but not a shaker 20:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

bank examinations[edit]

{{editsemiprotected}}

Banks are examined periodically by their primary regulators. Large banks are under constant supervision by examiners who reside in the banks (resident examiners). Smaller banks undergo periodic examinations that occur each six to eighteen months, depending on the size of the bank and the bank's risk profile.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Namruts (talk • contribs)

Thanks for your willingness to expand the article a bit; however, it would be nice if you provide a citation for this assertion too. See the policy of verifiability. –Capricorn42 (talk) 06:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It also sounds like the facts you state don't really represent a worldwide view; as the regulatory environment for banks differs from country to country. If you could clarify where you're talking about that would also help. ~ mazca t|c 19:22, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not done for now: A citation would help establish consensus.--Aervanath talks like a mover, but not a shaker 20:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further reading[edit]

The following comment, made about The Mystery of Banking by Murray Rothbard, has been moved here from the article's further reading section. —Error -128 (talk) 02:16, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this book purports in Chapter XI on bank credit expansion that the deposit-lending-deposit chain somehow "increases the money supply and causes expansion" (paraphrasing) yet the net result in the example is no different than if money simply exchanges hands by purchase of goods & services. Thus this authority is questioned. The role of money in circulation is to circulate. It's sum of exchanges does not increase this amount. By this example banks are not in fact 'printing money' in any way but acting repeatedly as the middleman to transactions. The author also ignores the fact that each deposit-loan sequence must be paid back to the bank, essentially eliminating the banks role, less its own service fees and spread. Xgenei (talk) 02:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Passage requiring verification[edit]

The following passage has been moved here pending verification. Can anyone please provide evidence of a reliable source to which the material may be attributed? Thanks. —Error -128 (talk) 08:03, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

... as far back as Hannibals conquest of Rome It is written in Ancient literature that African bankers were part of Hannibals expedition to review the progress of the Conquest. As part of their baggage the expiditionary bankers carried bodyguards exempt from fighting whose sole purpose was to guard their personal money trains. Ledgers were used and money lenders were often in competition with each other upon expeditions to provide services. The Ledgers often proved to be the most accurate written journals of expeditions, unbias to the Conqueror or Conquered and were often sealed as official Notary journals. 98.169.61.152 (talk) 21:48, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On another note, we might also use Matthew 25:27. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Factual accuracy is disputed[edit]

Their primary activity is not lending money. Also, I find this article hard to read.--Chuck Marean 20:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's news to me. Why don't you tell us what their primary activity is, then? II | (t - c) 21:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Safeguarding depositors’ money. Chuck Marean 22:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Chuck, placing a {{disputed}} tag on this article is ridiculous. A banks primary activity is lending money, as its primary income is interest payments from its customers. Banks accept deposits to fund those loans. --ZimZalaBim talk 00:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quote[edit]

Perhaps include this (slightly modified) quote

Bankers are fellows who lends you their umbrella when the sun is shining, but want them back the minute it begins to rain. -Mark Twain

[1]

References

  1. ^ Mark Twain Banker quote

Subjective Statement[edit]

The article states that "the banking industry is a highly regulated industry." Is that not a matter of opinion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.31.104.141 (talk) 04:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are thousands of pages of regulations for banks. This site is just the FDIC's rules: http://www.fdic.gov/regulations/laws/rules/index.html Logical fact (talk) 20:21, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bank within a bank[edit]

Perhaps there should be a distinct entry which would deal with the concept of bank within a bank, a concept which was involved in several recent banking affairs involving illegal bank transactions. [1][2][3] ADM (talk) 08:46, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

missing information[edit]

The article does not say how banks were forbidden not long ago as they were a menace to those times system... this article is not very neutral, is it? 87.221.5.191 (talk) 01:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

principles of banking[edit]

what r the pprincipals on which the bank functuons????????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.197.50.138 (talk) 02:46, 14 February 2010 (UTC) interest rate is allow according to requirement Italic text — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.46.183.128 (talk) 16:48, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The end of money[edit]

Many people have predicted the end of money via computers, & so the end of debt-slavery: http://www.realitysandwich.com/end_money ...Mention that? Stars4change (talk) 19:35, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Misuse of sources[edit]

A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of Jagged 85 (talk · contribs). Jagged 85 is one of the main contributors to Wikipedia (over 67,000 edits, he's ranked 198 in the number of edits), and practically all of his edits have to do with Islamic science, technology, economy and philosophy. This editor has persistently misused sources here over several years. This editor's contributions are always well provided with citations, but examination of these sources often reveals either a blatant misrepresentation of those sources or a selective interpretation, going beyond any reasonable interpretation of the authors' intent. I searched the page history, and found one edit by Jagged 85 in March 2010. Tobby72 (talk) 17:03, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's an old and archived RfC. The point is still valid though, and his contribs need to be doublechecked. Tobby72 (talk) 21:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Woeful ?[edit]

This article is horrendous! It mixes up Retail, Business, and other types of banking, is full of unsourced statements and badly structure. I recommend a total restart. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmarsden (talk • contribs) 00:29, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism[edit]

This article should be locked. --Aleksd (talk) 10:46, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The vandalism was not done in this article, but Template:Personal finance and has now been reverted. No page protection necessary. --Saddhiyama (talk) 11:07, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think you haven't seen the history of the article. --Aleksd (talk) 23:27, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have. The level of vandalism at the moment on this article is below average and nothing that can't be handled with standard procedure reversion. --Saddhiyama (talk) 23:36, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MAIC "Mergers and Acquisitions International Clearinghouse"[edit]

Please remove all references to fictitious organization MAIC ("Mergers and Acquisitions International Clearinghouse") by IP USER http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/111.68.49.186 from Wikipedia this is a made up organization probably for the purpose of scamming. Its silly to read an article about banks and see it mentioned as an equivalent to GAAP. 74.246.221.201 (talk) 05:00, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

uglesh[edit]

uglesh takhar — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.254.219.209 (talk) 13:04, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dealing with a troll[edit]

I am concurrently adding a published verifiable reference for the fact that the United States banking industry is heavily regulated, even though this can be easily verified within three minutes on Google (as I just did). The editor challenging that fact is either a troll deliberately picking fights in bad faith, or a young child. Any educated intellectual is well aware of the ridiculously complicated regulatory system governing banks in the United States. If our anonymous troll continues to make trouble, I recommend that any available admin start blocking his/her edits. --Coolcaesar (talk) 20:26, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Origin[edit]

"Another possible origin of the word is from the Sanskrit words (ब्यय) 'byaya' (expense) and 'onka' (calculation) = byaya-onka. This word still survives in Bangla, which is one of Sanskrit's child languages. ব্যায় + অঙ্ক = ব্যাঙ্ক . Such expense calculations were the biggest part of mathematical treatises written by Indian mathematicians as early as 500 B.C." --Is this verified? I have never seen this etymology given (or proposed) for bank. Leasnam (talk) 19:57, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is a very wild statement. If we discussed every word starting with "B" in any language that has anything to do with money as a "possible" etymon we would get the most absurd list. I have deleted the passage. Such bold claims shouldn't occur here without at least a hit of substantiation. Berndf (talk) 04:02, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of fractional reserve banking[edit]

This is how fractional reserve banking is currently defined in the article on banking in wikipedia

Most nations have institutionalised a system known as fractional reserve banking, in which banks hold only a small reserve of the funds deposited and lend out the rest for profit.'

This definition of 'fractional reserve banking is incorrect. The correct definition is as follows: A banking system in which only a fraction of bank deposits are backed by actual cash-on-hand and are available for withdrawal.[1]

Can someone please fix this?

Not sure I agree. This dictionary definition for example, reads: "the practice in which banks keep only a small amount of their customers' money and lend the rest to other customers," which closely matches what the definition used in this article and at Fractional reserve banking. Any other views? Euryalus (talk) 02:33, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Looking it up in a dictionary (or textbook for that matter) is not at all guaranteed to find the correct answer. See here for details. I prefer the "A banking system in which only a fraction of bank deposits are backed by actual cash-on-hand and are available for withdrawal" to the dictionary definition. Reissgo (talk) 19:43, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/fractionalreservebanking.asp

Darius the Great and the formal banking system[edit]

Can someone include a few words in regards to 1.) the Sanskrit/?Old Persian loanword cash and its meaning in the Persian sense as a form of currency - the Daric the first face-coins 2.) Darius and establishment of formal the Banking System 3.) Darius and the Credit and Checking Unions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mojobadshah (talk • contribs) 23:01, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tying down accounts.[edit]

I noticed you don´t have here a standard but none licit bank protocole called, tying down an account.

The practice forces an7or multiple accounts to be tied down to leverage the loan:cash on hand ratio. All tied down accounts are still used by the/a bank itself for their own investment purposes, no matter if the individual can access the account or not.

One of the policies of certain nations at War, is to tie down accounts of any and all, on the presumption off, purely to leverage their own paper accounting.

Anyone here with more practice in that particular that could add a paragraph? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.37.128.210 (talk) 23:52, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bank. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:42, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of a bank[edit]

@Reissgo and SPECIFICO: regarding the definition of a bank, as far as I can tell most reliable sources simply define a bank as an institution which takes deposits and makes loans. For example:

  • A Dictionary of Finance and Banking: "A commercial institution that takes deposits and makes loans."
  • An IMF publication: "Although banks do many things, their primary role is to take in funds—called deposits—from those with money, pool them, and lend them to those who need funds."

Reissgo, it sounds like you know of reliable sources which say differently?—Neil P. Quinn (talk) 12:42, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hyman Minsky wrote "Banking is not money lending; to lend, a money lender must have money. The fundamental banking activity is accepting, that is, guaranteeing that some party is creditworthy. A bank, by accepting a debt instrument, agrees to make specified payments if the debtor will not or cannot"
Professor Victoria Chick, Emeritus Professor of Economics, University College London: “Banks do not lend money. It may feel like it when you get a ‘loan’, but that’s not what they are doing. They don’t have a pot of money which they are passing on. What they are doing is accepting your IOU… they simply write up your account”.
But the ultimate arbiter of what can be called a bank are the financial authorities that will chase after you if you try and call yourself a bank without actually being one. The rules about what constitutes a bank include a requirement that the business must be a "credit institution". A "credit institution" is defined as "an undertaking whose business is to receive deposits or other repayable funds from the public and to grant credits for its own account".
By the way, none of this will make the slightest bit of sense to anyone that does not first have a good grasp of the nature of fractional reserve banking.
Reissgo (talk) 13:34, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
PS, some quirk of wikipedia has led to two links appearing at the bottom of this section - these are not mine. Reissgo (talk) 13:38, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DamnatioMemoirae's extensive Jun 2020 addition[edit]

DamnatioMemoirae recently added hundreds of lines of text to this article as their first edit. While the content is sourced, there are numerous issues and the content should stay removed. Significant portions of the added content are copied from https://wiki.mises.org/. There is undue weight to sources with a POV agenda including lewrockwell.com and mises.org, low quality sources including numerous youtube links, and unencyclopedic WP:ESSAY language such as '“So what?”, noble Lords might ask.'.Dialectric (talk) 15:51, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:59, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Additional[edit]

Citation are being verified as of today their are all one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.128.176.116 (talk) 08:47, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Bank (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 17:33, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"The Bardi and Peruzzi families dominated banking in 14th-century Florence, establishing branches in many other parts of Europe."[edit]

This gives the impression that any Banking families dominated the market in Florence To my knowledge this is not supported at all it was a highly competitive market no one dominated it some were more successful than other but no monopolies I am attaching a graph from Quantitative Studies of the Renaissance Florentine Economy and Society which shows the competitive ness of the market of both textile as well as banking industry in Florence a score below 1500 implies competitiveness the banking industry did not crack 500 https://imgur.com/a/WPtt4uM. The source used to make this claim is almost 100 years old The Medici Bank and the World of Florentine Capitalismfrom 1987 by Richard Goldwaite goes into depth to demonstrate how there was no monopolizes. I made this A post cause I am not an expert on the subject I just have been conduting research and came across this and wanted to bring this up Medievallifter (talk) 22:26, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bank&oldid=1218799005"