When you go to the checkout, after collecting all the groceries, the money (and the amount of money) transfered serves as a green light. You are then allowed to leave the store legally with the groceries. If it is not enough money it's the red light. If its "I left my wallet at home" it's a yellow light. The difference is that the yellow light can become green again without turning back to red. Traffic lights guide the logistics of traffic. Money guides the logistics of goods transfer. With money, we are using traffic signals without even noticing it. I need money to feed my family is like saying "I need some green lights to beg others to fulfill the needs of my family". When you pay for insurance, you are giving the green lights to a collective from which you may take more green lights than you gave when the conditions listed by the insurance itself have been satisfied. The real economy consists of goods which are being transferred, not the traffic signals used. The "green lights" a "go" for an economy (and all the economic transactions which make it up). An economic depression is a sign of "not enough green lights". To give to the poor more than you want to, someway they got to have the green lights you can get from them. Because money is the usual kind of "green light", such transactions are usually prevented. Why should banks require people to give them back more green lights they borrowed? Couldn't they just make it equal and pay off their own by receiving green lights (or just making them up?). Nope. Green lights are like the spark plug in an combustion chamber. The operate not in isolation. Some people rather save money than give to the poor - is that good thing? It is not. Such people have more green lights than they need at the present. They may save it for the future, but wouldn't it be better if the transfer of money in the banking system is reversed? Of course, and then it would have to be required by law to particpate in a bank to recieve benefits from banks in general. NOTE: Rich people who save a lot are usually financing the project of other rich people (such as bankers who lend money in hopes of returning a profit). Please, if applicable, tell me why am I naive and why that the idea I proposed will not work anywhere in the universe..... Summary of this idea: People who have more money than they need at the present can build up savings. People who have less money than they need at the present can build up debt. Young people who have more money than they need at the present can build up savings. Old people who have less money than they need at the present can build up debt. Rich people who have more money than they need at the present can build up savings. Poor people who have less money than they need at the present can build up debt. This is injustice at work. The core reason why it takes so much effort and wasted energy just to redistribute wealth to a reasonable level (such as a 5 to 1 ratio), is because the engines of most banking systems are running the reverse of manner that would redistribute wealth. Instead, to receive benefits from some insurance companies, people should be required (by law) to put a minimum of money in the bank (like a reserve requirement). If they do not, (keeping it hoarded at home instead), they will not recieve benefits from them. How would banks run? It would be by utilizing some of the assets that banks recieve, but instead of it getting from people who have less money than they need, they should get it from people who have more money than they need. The people who have more money than they need save at least at the minimum so that they can get benefits. Today's banking system is a regressive system and is in direct opposition to progressive tax reform. People who join banks which accord with my proposed idea in mind should recieve tax credits equal to their money lost through these "banks which give to people who have less money than they need". At least until the whole system matures.