[Doingmything123]

I'm not sure I follow your argument. Don't most savers put their money in banks who then have to redeploy it to make a profit? In fact, isn't it more useful to have banks utilize this capital instead of a crowds of ordinary people moving small sums? Banks aggregating wealth to be redeployed seems more efficient.

[AnthonyMouse]

The Fed just cut the banks' reserve requirements to zero, which means they don't require any deposits in order to make loans anymore. They have no use for your money. That's why you may have to pay them to hold it for you.

[Doingmything123]

My understanding of the reserve requirements were that they set how much of the total amount deposited the banks had to hold on to at any given time. Setting the requirement to zero means that banks can deploy all of the capital they have in loans. If anything, shouldn't this be the other way around? They want more deposits because they can use the full amount instead of say 90%(holding on to a 10% reserve) or whatever the number was and make more money while paying savers the same amount. Or are you relating this to interest rates going to zero which seems like a better point for why banks wouldn't need deposits? Though the amount of interest savers get from banks is close to zero anyways right? So it still seems to me that banks want as many people deposited with them as possible since they can now use all of the money given to them.