Comments on: Maybe ‘banksters’ are the exception, not the rule http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2009/04/08/maybe-banksters-are-the-exception-not-the-rule/ Think. It ain't illegal yet... Fri, 10 Feb 2012 04:40:56 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: jeff watson http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2009/04/08/maybe-banksters-are-the-exception-not-the-rule/comment-page-1/#comment-65062 jeff watson Wed, 08 Apr 2009 23:19:56 +0000 http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/?p=8511#comment-65062 Back in the old days before branch banking, every little burg had a bank. In 1929-31, there were many thousands of bank failures. Banks failed for a variety of reasons, but the main reason banks failed was that since they were local, they were dependent at a very local level on both depositors and borrowers. If the wheat crop was bad, the farmers couldn't repay the loans and the bank went bust. Contrast Canada, which had a depression as bad as we did. They had no bank failures during the depression as Canada only had 8 banks in 1929-31, they were all over the country, and their risk was spread out. The Canadian banks felt the pain, their profits were very low, but they survived, and prosper to this day. Jeff Back in the old days before branch banking, every little burg had a bank. In 1929-31, there were many thousands of bank failures. Banks failed for a variety of reasons, but the main reason banks failed was that since they were local, they were dependent at a very local level on both depositors and borrowers. If the wheat crop was bad, the farmers couldn’t repay the loans and the bank went bust. Contrast Canada, which had a depression as bad as we did. They had no bank failures during the depression as Canada only had 8 banks in 1929-31, they were all over the country, and their risk was spread out. The Canadian banks felt the pain, their profits were very low, but they survived, and prosper to this day.

Jeff

]]>