from Hacker News

Pubs replaced banks in Ireland for several months in 1970 (2016)

by moat on 10/1/23, 2:25 PM with 94 comments

  • by wodenokoto on 10/1/23, 3:38 PM

    The article really wants to imply that because this worked, we shouldn't be afraid of "too big to fail", but it doesn't dare say that and kinda of ends up sitting between two chairs.

    "I'm not saying that banks crashing isn't bad, but it wasn't a problem for Ireland to have banks disappear"

    but the thing is, according to the article, trust in banks never disappeared, neither did the banks. People kept writing cheques against their bank accounts. There was a clear expectation that banks would open with all money intact and cheques would be processed.

    That is a very different scenario from a bank failing.

  • by rsynnott on 10/1/23, 5:00 PM

    As an Irish person, I would not _particularly_ recommend Ireland in 1970 as a model to aspire to.

    And even given that, the banks did not actually fail, they just weren’t operating, and the expectation was that they would start back up again at some point. When Ireland actually faced the banks failing, in 2008, we bailed them out and nationalised most of them, at a cost of almost 10,000 euro per capita.

  • by throw0101a on 10/1/23, 3:25 PM

  • by _cs2017_ on 10/1/23, 5:20 PM

    Flagging this article for being too stupid to warrant reading. In 1970, nobody was afraid their savings disappeared; when a bank fails, people would lose their savings unless the government insures or rescues the bank.

    Given the extremely low quality of this article, and given that the author is a finance editor rather than some freelance contributor to Business Insider, I very much hope that HN readers would stop upvoting submissions from Business Insider in the future.

  • by repelsteeltje on 10/1/23, 2:40 PM

    > [...] almost the entire banking system of Ireland went on strike after an industrial dispute in 1970. The strike lasted nearly six months, yet the economy escaped unscathed.

    Getting people to strike isn't trivial, but this is the first time I learn about bankers striking.

  • by barrkel on 10/1/23, 3:58 PM

    Back in the 90s in Ireland, my mother would occasionally cash a cheque at the pub - if it's not crossed payee a/c only, the bearer can generally cash it themselves.

    Going further back, pubs were the local shops for general dry goods, particularly in rural communities. I recall some dusty window displays in some pubs even in the 1980s, when I was a kid.

  • by terminous on 10/1/23, 3:15 PM

    > "I deal only with my regulars … I refuse strangers."

    > ‘They are mostly strangers to us, and we just have to play it by ear in deciding whether to accept a cheque’, said an official.”

    Sounds like a recipe for discrimination and inequality, which isn't mentioned in either article.

  • by NikolaNovak on 10/1/23, 3:39 PM

    The link is extremely light on detail so in skeptical

    1. What was the extent of the strike? Did salaries still get deposited? Did inter company transfer go through? Did exchanges stay open? Did lines of credit for businesses small and large stay open?

    2. The whole "we knew who had money and we didn't deal with strangers" makes me suspect there's a whole other side of this particular story.

  • by neilwilson on 10/1/23, 2:57 PM

  • by AlbertCory on 10/1/23, 4:39 PM

    > They had an informed view of whether the liquid resources of would-be payers were stout or ailing!

    Some world-class puns there.

  • by version_five on 10/1/23, 3:17 PM

    Lots of decisions in the last 50 years have made "the system" more fragile. This makes me realize that outsourcing trust is another one. This would never happen now because businesses have no connection to their customers, either a payment provider or credit bureau does the vouching which becomes meaningless when things don't operate as usual and human judgement is needed

  • by Kalanos on 10/1/23, 3:24 PM

    i don't get it, but it sounds like narrowly skirting by disaster