Yes.
I didn’t say they necessarily had to cover their demand deposits.
I'm sure they appreciate your approval.
If they wanted to be sound, they would.
I guess if profitability wasn't an issue. Maybe you should start a non-profit bank? You could advertise with a picture of a big pile of cash in the vault.
But they’re in it to make money,
The bastards!
It doesn’t change the underlying fact, though.
It's a silly idea.
“Did you read what I just posted?”
“Yes.”
Then why did you reask the same question I just answered? How many times do I have to answer that I don’t think a law demanding banks keep 100% reserves is necessary?
“The bastards!”
Your sarcasm is wasted on me. I never implied that they’re wrong for doing it. Everyone knows what’s up. Everyone knows they can’t cover themselves in the event of a run. I really fail to see what’s controversial about my comments.
“It’s a silly idea.”
What is, that banks are unsound? Do you deny that they can’t cover their demand deposits? Do you deny that bank runs deny a fraction of the depositors their money? Really, this is not controversial stuff.