Talk:Narrow banking
Add topicLatest comment: 6 months ago by Beeps beeps in topic Possible AI-generated writing?
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 21 February 2010. The result of the discussion was keep. |
Full-reserve banking
[edit]As far as I know, narrow banking is a term used to describe full-reserve banking. A merge (or redirect) should be considered, unless I'm wrong. --Childhood's End (talk) 22:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- I redirected the article to full-reserve banking. Litterature appears to use "narrow banking" for this system from time to time. --Childhood's End (talk) 02:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with this view. I don't see the need for two separate pages especially given the brevity of this one. Any objections to merge the two pages? Stanjourdan (talk) 21:33, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
- I'm late to the party, but a "narrow bank"s main difference is that narrow banks only park money with the central bank or government treasury (thus the term 'narrow') using fiduciary media. Full-reserve banks match the term length of deposits with loans, but may loan out to more than just the government or central bank, OR full-reserve banks may bank in terms of other assets than fiduciary media (the most common example being full-reserve banking in gold). The Narrow Bank of New York, and recent Custodia Bank court case show the difference between the two. I would favor not only 'unmerging' this, but furthermore removing the note that the Chicago Plan (in the Chicago Plan page) was similar to narrow banking. Fephisto (talk) 12:17, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
- I agree with this view. I don't see the need for two separate pages especially given the brevity of this one. Any objections to merge the two pages? Stanjourdan (talk) 21:33, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Possible AI-generated writing?
[edit]I've added Template:AI-generated due to WP:AISIGNS such as rule of three, vague attributions of opinion, and overuse of boldface. The sentences with bold subjects are awkwardly-phrased like "United States regulatory stance became clear in 2019 when the Federal Reserve denied the TNB USA Inc. application to create a narrow bank" Beeps beeps (talk) 11:50, 8 January 2026 (UTC)