Response to: Are Banks Special?

1) The risk for the macroeconomy if the banks fail to exist with other businesses is that the economy will decrease because of the decrease in the money circulation. There will be less money going around from business to business becuase the banks are not funding them or getting money from them. My step-brother works at Citi Bank in the marketing department and he drives around from car dealership to dealership promoting Citi to fund their business. If this is forbidden from happening, then businesses will lose money causing the economy to fall and banks won't be able to make the money that they usually receive. This will cause the economy to be shaken up and rattled causing it to fall.

2) If banks can contribute to in other ways for businesses, what will happen is the opposite of if banks were limited on their funding of busniesses. This will cuase the economy to rise as more money will circulate and banks will be able to fund businesses. Businesses will get more money in return as banks have the freedom to control the funding ans ending up controlling the businesses. Businesses might not like this to happen but when the banks control the money, then the businesses don't really have a choice on that matter. This will cause the economy to rise but in the long run, there will be a conflict between banks and businesses on the money situation because when the banks control funding, they will want to control the entire business. The businesses won't like that causing a clash between the two.

3) Overall banks should not control the lines of businesses because of the money issue. Businesses should be able to control their own money and if the banks want to control business's money, it will get out of control. When banks fund a business, they want to control the business as a whole. This is unfair for the business as their freedom is in jeopardy and they need to control their own profits, spending, savings, investment, and money as a whole.