eru
But let's assume you understood the BoE right. My questions still stand:
> Do tell me, please: why do banks care about getting deposits? And why did Silicon Valley Bank get into trouble, when depositors left?
(And before you answer something about regulation: the regulators had willingly blessed SVB's damaged balance sheet for quite a while, and they only collapsed when depositors decided to leave.)
German courts official doesn't work under precedent either. But in practice it often behaves like it does. Eg very prominently discussed in the media for judgements around renting of residential property.
In the other direction, in a common law system it's up to the judge to decide what precedent, if any, applies. You can always find some peculiarity of the case that justifies deviation, or you can ignore some peculiarity to justify following a precedent you do like.
On a tangent:
Funnily the Algerian law they quote would not actually apply to bitcoin (but I doubt Algerian judges would see it that way):
> Art. 117. — The purchase, sale, use, and holding of so-called virtual currency is prohibited. Virtual currency is that used by internet users via the web.
Bitcoins have their own protocol independent of the world wide web.
> It is characterized by the absence of physical support such as coins, notes, payments by cheque or credit card.
People have made physical bitcoin coins, and there's plenty of payment cards etc floating around that you can use with bitcoins.
Compare with eg the Brazilian Plano Real which was sort of a virtual currency for quite a while, but I doubt the Algerian law was meant to outlaw that one.
I can run an exact copy of the bitcoin code in a fork with a new genesis block, and no one would give me even an apple for all my eru-coins.
Do tell me, please: why do banks care about getting deposits? And why did Silicon Valley Bank get into trouble, when depositors left?
Customers stop monitoring their bank, when deposits are insured.
However I broadly agree otherwise.
Poland and the other new members in the East, probably?
Actually, not. They had a few left-over from when Germany had a functioning state, but the Nazis were overall fairly incompetent at actually running the country.
> but I didn't realise it was so strong on corruption.
That's literally a core part of the brand, isn't it?
People who essentially want government guarantees for their money should just buy government bonds.
One that you freshly mined seems fairly pristine.
However, BIS and Basel III (and the previous Basels) are just what's currently in force for most of the world. I suspect most people would be better served by more of an historical overview. But it also depends on what one is interested in.
Deposits at a regular bank aren't backed by fiat. The bank promises to pay you back in fiat, but they don't keep dollar bills in a vault. The promise is backed with all the bank's assets. Ideally, they have a think equity cushion, so that even if the assets take a hit, the promises don't.
Sorry, what do you mean?
Basically, the historical origins of different bank regulations are quite complicated and also differ from place to place, and they were often put in place by (political) coalitions of people who already had not one single motivation but a whole spectrum of them.
And then in addition to historical reasons, you also need to ask why things are still in place. Inertia is one answer, but it's not the only one.
No, it's not. At least not historically.
It applies equally well to a fiduciary coin with a promise that 1 gcoin = 1g of gold or whatever.
For an LLM, you can ask for a prove that the number is correct. For a textbook, good luck!
Please prove me wrong.