This post was written by practical_yuzu in 31/10/18
The 2008 Finacial Crysis was paritaly caused by the banks giving morages out to investors. There are also other reasonings of the crysis that connect with banks.
So should we trust banks with our money?
I belive that we should as it's their job to manage money of ordenery people of corse banks crashes can happen but most of the time banks are reliable to do thier job despite this incident and many others, banks help people encomicly by providing mony in one big amount while the one reciving the large amount has to slowly pay back the mony plus a little extra. Banks are to be trusted becuse if they can't be trusted that would put all banks out of buissness so banks would want to stay as reliable as possible also them being untrusted means little customers witch means little investors witch means little mony and banks being a buissness want to mange them self in a direction of most money possible.
But it could be argued that banks can't be trusted due to them wanting as most money possible meaning banks will make risky action with investors and customers for extra revenue this being the cause of the crysis in the first place risk taking with large amout on people that could be impacted.The impact was huge, the crysis cost is now estimated at about $2.6 trillion, according to a January Congressional Budget Office report. Something to this size happening agian would be devastateing to many people as unepoyment rates whent largely up and still haven't full went. Before the crysis hit the UK had uneployment rates of 0.5% when it did hit that went up to 5.7% and that effect still hasn't fully clean its self as the currant rate is 4.0% according to https://www.theguardian.com/business/2008/oct/15/unemploymentdata-recession and https://ycharts.com/indicators/uk_unemployment_rate .Meaning that if bank fails once it shall impact us even after a decade which can happen with the risks banks can do.
What do you think? Pleas write your opinion in the comments.