EDIT: This whole comment is pretty pointless in context. I didn’t read the the thread closely enough. It’s the sort of argument at cross-purposes that makes us all hate internet comments. I’ve left the text in place so readers can see what other people were responding to, but, y’know, I think it’s pretty dumb.

This verges on pedantry in this context. Banks are required to have a certain amount of capital in reserve to make loans (the reserve requirements and capital adequacy ratios set by central banks). Deposits from consumers give the banks the reserve capital they need to make those loans.

Without a way to use the deposits to make money the banks would just as soon not have your money.

> Banks are required to have a certain amount of capital in reserve to make loans

Not if these loans are secured then they can make as much money as they want from thin air.

> Deposits from consumers give the banks the reserve capital they need to make those loans.

No. At least in the US, they just need to secure the loan with an asset that can be held from the dealers. Most of the time, if you got your mortgage from a bank, they'll just liquidate for real cash.

> Without a way to use the deposits to make money the banks would just as soon not have your money.

Which is why, in this new system, banks have become hostile to customers. Banks are no longer in the business of helping customers but trading money market funds.

>(the reserve requirements and capital adequacy ratios set by central banks).

Those are 0% or effectively zero in most developed nations.