[wat0n]

Can you quote the relevant text please. I can not see something of the sort in the link or on the other links I clicked(or the PDF's) in the page.

Absolutely

The FDIC receives no Congressional appropriations - it is funded by premiums that banks and savings associations pay for deposit insurance coverage. The FDIC insures trillions of dollars of deposits in U.S. banks and thrifts - deposits in virtually every bank and savings association in the country.

Those premiums are obviously passed on to users.

[XogGyux]

Dude, you blamed depositors for causing the sack of the banks employees, yet here you are dancing around the fact that you are trying to vilify depositors. You are proactively seeking to vilify them.

So you claim to know my intentions and what I mean better than I do? I can understand if there is some miscommunication and/or misunderstanding but once I specifically explained it to you, continuing to disparage nonsense as you clearly are. Then you claim rants. The irony.

No, they do not have a lawful option to do business without a business bank account.

You can get arrested for carrying too much cash on you.

People are not legally allowed to carry bags of cash anymore.

So let me get this straight, we are talking about a bank in the US that failed with a sprinkle on the side of European banks just for good measure. You bring a red herring to the discussion and then when you are called out on it, you puth forth as your evidence a rule for India? A country that is not particularly well known for its streamlined and/or sensical regulatory, financial systems. I am surprised you didn't go with North Korea, Russia or Cuba on this. This is desperate, even for you.

Banks demand home insurance by law for when you get a mortgage and some of them demand mortgage insurance and life insurance on top. If they want to insure their property they should do it on their dime.

Fact is you were wrong that you do not require insurance to get a mortgage, you do require which is also on your dime.

Again, you lied.
You claimed:

All mortgages must have insurance by law.

This is insurance on the mortgage. That is called PMI which literally means private mortgage insurance. I told you multiple times that this was incorrect. Then you tried to sneak out of your argument by saying that it is the property that needs to be insured. This is no longer mortgage insurance (which is what you initially said) here, you are saying that the PROPERTY, not the MORTGAGE is what it is insured. But hey, guess what, you are ALSO incorrect because there is no law that stipulates you must have property insurance, whether there is a mortgage or not. It is the lender that stipulates this. This is no law.
Here is an INSURANCE company telling you that home insurance is not required by law:

https://www.farmers.com/learn/insurance-questions/is-home-insurance-required/

You’re not required by law to have home insurance, but banks do require it as a condition of your mortgage.

Here is another source:
https://www.bankrate.com/insurance/home ... -required/

Homeowners insurance is not required by state or federal law. This is different from auto insurance, where most states have minimum requirements for how much coverage you need before you can hit the road. However, if you have a mortgage, your lender will most likely require you to carry homeowners insurance to protect the financial interest it has in your home.

So let's recap. First you claim that mortgage insurance is required. This is blatantly false as I proved in a prior post. Then you changed your claim, that homeowner insurance is required by law, which again, it is also false.

Banks demand home insurance by law for when you get a mortgage and some of them demand mortgage insurance and life insurance on top. If they want to insure their property they should do it on their dime.

Fact is you were wrong that you do not require insurance to get a mortgage, you do require which is also on your dime.

Or, if you want to buy something and don't have the money to buy it yourself, you should have reasonable assurance that the asset is protected. Unlike the mafia, the banks cannot go after you and knee cap you when you don't pay off.

Councils are liable for potholes and hazards they failed to ameliorate. Hospitals for their staff conduct and so on and forth, the only people not liable for their failure to oversee banks properly are the Central Banks because they have people like you apologising for them for free.

Councils and cities are liable for potholes because they are directly the responsible party for their functioning and maintenance. That is why banks are liable for your deposits because they are the party directly responsible for their functioning and maintenance. The FED or FDIC is not the party directly responsible for the availability of the funds at your local wells fargo. The FDA regulates, and authorizes drugs. However, if your blood pressure medication is contaminated, the manufacturer of the drug and not the FDA is responsible and thus liable. The suit is against the companies, not the FDA.
Again, your claim that the FDIC or FED should hold liability above and beyond the 250k that they received payment to insure is unsubstantiated.
https://www.drugwatch.com/valsartan/lawsuits/

Once again, you think this conversation is about you.

On bailout, here is the definition:

Image

I also have a screenshot of my own. And if you were less concerned about ranting and fuming you would have realized when I told you 3 times already. I am in no way forced to use your more restrictive definition just because you want to limit language based on your perception that "bailout" is a vilifying term.

Their bank and central bank has failed them, they have not failed their business.

The central bank does not regulate banks. The FDIC does.

Having access to your own funds is and should be a right not a privilege.

Read the agreement that you sign when opening an account. If you don't like it, don't sign it.

Evidently, your logic is totally contradictory.

No, it is not. And listen, for someone that cannot read a simple definition when quoted, for someone that changes from mortgage insurance to homeowners an life insurance (? I still have no clue how you inserted life insurance into the discussion, I am perplexed), for somebody repeatedly trying to harrass and complaint about some non-existing negative "villifying" connotation to the word "bailout"... really you shouldn't be lecturing on logic or on ranting.

[Robert Urbanek]

I suspect some on the far right are hoping for more runs on banks in the hope it will reinflate their cryptocurrency holdings as people look for an alternative place to put their money.

[noemon]

So you claim to know my intentions and what I mean better than I do? I can understand if there is some miscommunication and/or misunderstanding but once I specifically explained it to you, continuing to disparage nonsense as you clearly are. Then you claim rants. The irony.

I do not claim to know anything more than your written word. Get a grip, please.

You blamed depositors for SVB's employees losing their jobs because they withdrew their money. You also blamed depositors for not withdrawing their money.

Somehow you believe that this is not contradictory and that you are not blaming depositors at all even when you are doing it explicitly.

I am not misunderstanding you. You are not choosing your words and argument well.

Look here you are blaming depositors for the collapse of the bank for withdrawing their money:

Do you even realize that SVB failed specifically because of a bank run? by definition the depositors understood the risk, in fact they understood it so well that THEY caused the collapse. Have you considered the scenario from a different point view? What happens to the bank employee that just lost his/her job because a bunch of people decided to simultaneously and expeditiously withdraw their money from the bank and thus causing a bank collapse? Who is protecting this employee (and I am not talking about senior management or shareholders here).

I understand that you do not know which button to push, blame the depositors for doing due diligence and withdrawing their money or blame them for not doing due diligence and keeping their money in.

So let me get this straight, we are talking about a bank in the US that failed with a sprinkle on the side of European banks just for good measure. You bring a red herring to the discussion and then when you are called out on it, you puth forth as your evidence a rule for India? A country that is not particularly well known for its streamlined and/or sensical regulatory, financial systems. I am surprised you didn't go with North Korea, Russia or Cuba on this. This is desperate, even for you.

This is just a google result that came up, there are plenty more out there.

https://versustexas.com/blog/seizure-of ... %20offense.

This is the link I was looking at but probably copied another from my phone.

But a lot more out there: https://www.quora.com/Cash-How-much-USD ... given-time

And besides, you must live under a rock not to know that international transactions cannot be facilitated in cash and that walking around inside your own country with bags of cash is more likely than not to lead to your arrest and categorization as a drug dealer, smuggler, fraudster or money-launderer. Once again, you must be totally ignorant of reality to claim that businesses can legally make hundreds or thousands of transactions worth millions or even billions per day, week or month without using a bank. So no that option is not available to them.

Again, you lied.

As demonstrated it is not a lie that businesses are unable to legally make hundreds or thousands of transactions worth millions or even billions per day, week or month without using a bank.

Have the basic decency, to not break the rules against the admin, so that you can victimise yourself.

It's pathetic.

You claimed:

This is insurance on the mortgage. That is called PMI which literally means private mortgage insurance. I told you multiple times that this was incorrect. Then you tried to sneak out of your argument by saying that it is the property that needs to be insured. This is no longer mortgage insurance (which is what you initially said) here, you are saying that the PROPERTY, not the MORTGAGE is what it is insured. But hey, guess what, you are ALSO incorrect because there is no law that stipulates you must have property insurance, whether there is a mortgage or not. It is the lender that stipulates this. This is no law.
Here is an INSURANCE company telling you that home insurance is not required by law: So let's recap. First you claim that mortgage insurance is required. This is blatantly false as I proved in a prior post. Then you changed your claim, that homeowner insurance is required by law, which again, it is also false.

Yes, let's recap:

Here is an actual quote of what you claimed and the very correct response that you received.

Why all depositors must be guaranteed? That is like saying all houses must have insurance.

All houses MUST have insurance(a variety of them actually but home insurance legally so) indeed to be able get mortgages. You made a wrong claim and I corrected you. Sorry. You tried to make an analogy to justify your apologies and even than failed, even if it succedeed it is still not contigent to the central banks liability's for deposits regardless. So your strawman is wrong regardless.

Bankers are forcing all mortgage applicants to take out home insurance for the entire current and future value of the property to insure what the banks consider their own property which they do not even pay for but make you pay on their behalf but no one is forcing bankers to take out insurance for the entire value of the depositor's money they are using to make money and interest on and according to you no one should force the central bank to insure this money despite being the one setting these rules allowing the bankers and itself to profiteer on other people's money and despite the fact that it can always print money to replace money lost without having an effect on inflation. Next, you'll claim that bankers are entitled to first-night rights and free blowjobs.

Councils and cities are liable for potholes because they are directly the responsible party for their functioning and maintenance. That is why banks are liable for your deposits because they are the party directly responsible for their functioning and maintenance. The FED or FDIC is not the party directly responsible for the availability of the funds at your local wells fargo. The FDA regulates, and authorizes drugs. However, if your blood pressure medication is contaminated, the manufacturer of the drug and not the FDA is responsible and thus liable. The suit is against the companies, not the FDA.
Again, your claim that the FDIC or FED should hold liability above and beyond the 250k that they received payment to insure is unsubstantiated.
https://www.drugwatch.com/valsartan/lawsuits/

The FDA is not making interest for every pennie deposited and loaned in its system like the central bank/fed is making interest on your deposits. Nor is the FDA responsible to create this regulation that it is the prime beneficiary of your deposis, the one using your deposits to make interest on but not the one liable for those deposits it is profiteering rom, like the FED is.

Another failed analogy.

I also have a screenshot of my own. And if you were less concerned about ranting and fuming you would have realized when I told you 3 times already. I am in no way forced to use your more restrictive definition just because you want to limit language based on your perception that "bailout" is a vilifying term.

Your semantics are useless and merely an add-on. The argument has been laid out very clearly. See previous paragraph.

Please stop whining about being misunderstood. It is not the case.

Absolutely

Those premiums are obviously passed on to users.

So it is not the users paying the premiums for the deposit guarantee but the banks and financial institutions as I said.
They are passed in which form and under which contract between a bank and a depositor?

@Robert Urbanek Cryptos do not get inflated when banks fail, but quite the opposite.

Rightwingers are defending Trump's and the Republican's deregulation when he raised the threshold of a higher degree of FED oversight from 50 billion to 250 billion and recategorized systemic banks based on the value of their deposits so that those with less than 250 billion can get away with murder while the FED can wash its hands of them.

[XogGyux]

Here is an actual quote of what you claimed and the very correct response that you received.



All mortgaged houses MUST have insurance indeed to be able get mortgages.

Please... Read.
I said, "all houses must have insurance."

Why all depositors must be guaranteed? That is like saying all houses must have insurance.

I don't say all houses must have mortgages, I didn't say all houses with mortgages must have homeowners insurance. If I meant that, I would have said that. And if I didn't mean what I actually said, as simple inquire for clarification is far more helpful than a rant about what you misunderstood that I said. I own my house straight up, I don't carry insurance, just FYI. Spend more time reading what I say and/or asking for clarification and less time accusing me of ranting and perhaps this debate would go a lot smoother.

You made a wrong claim and I corrected you.

No. I made a correct analogy (not a claim) and you misunderstood and strawman me.

Sorry

Apology accepted. Now lets move on.

The FDA is not making interest for every pennie deposited and loaned in its system like the central bank/fed is making interest on your deposits.

I don't see the relevance of that statement. Care to elaborate?

Nor is the FDA responsible to create this regulation that it is the prime beneficiary of your deposis, the one using your deposits but not the one liable for those deposits, like the FED is.

Ok you are not understanding this. Let me rephrase. The FDA regulating the food and drug industries is analogous to the FDIC regulating the banking sector. Do you agree with this statement?
When a drug or food company, fucks up by putting poison in our shit... we sue said company and try to get a ruling and/or settlement in our favor. We go after the company, nor the FDA. If the company goes bankrupt before they can pay up a settlement (or ruling) we are out of luck. We don't sue the FDA to give us money for Bayer's or Johnson and Johnson's fuck up. The companies are liable.
Similarly, the FDIC (which is analogous to the FDA), regulates the banking sector. When a bank fucks up, we go after the banks assets and not the FDIC, we sue wells fargo, chase or first republic bank, we don't go after the FDIC. They are not liable. Much less the FED, I am unsure why you even keep bringing them.

Your semantics are useless and merely an add-on. The argument has been laid out very clearly. See previous paragraph.

Please stop whinying aboput being misunderstood. Choose your words more carefully.

No. This is not a me problem. I clearly explained what I meant and when I detected that you were on a different planet I even provided quotes of definitions many posts ago and you deliberately continued to misconstrue my meaning.

You blamed depositors for SVB's employees losing their jobs because they withdrew their money. You also blamed depositors for not withdrawing their money.

It is not about blame. It is about responsability.
If you cross the street without looking both ways, you are being irresponsible, even if the person hitting was supposed to stop because you had the right of way. You can be on the right and still be irresponsible. If you leave your car door open you didn't technically do anything wrong, but you were irresponsible. If you are covered in gold chains and wearing a gold rolex in the gheto, alone, in the middle of the night, you are not breaking any laws but you are being irresponsible. If you keep hundreds of millions of dollars in a single bank and have no backup or insurance scheme placed on your money, you are technically doing something legal and allowable by the law, but you are being irresponsible.
Also, there is a cause-and-effect event here. The bank run triggered the collapse. It is factually correct to say that those that withdrew the money are responsible for the collapse. They might not be the only responsible part, nor am I saying they did anything illegal or wrong. It is a cause and effect. You withdraw a bunch of money, the bank fails. You withdraw 2 legs from a chair, it will fall over.
This is not about blaming people, not customers, not bankers, not feds, not legislators. This is about debating policy and politics. Blaming is the precursor of scapegoating and the tool of the populist.

[noemon]

Please... Read.
I said, "all houses must have insurance."
I don't say all houses must have mortgages, I didn't say all houses with mortgages must have homeowners insurance. If I meant that, I would have said that. And if I didn't mean what I actually said, as simple inquire for clarification is far more helpful than a rant about what you misunderstood that I said. I own my house straight up, I don't carry insurance, just FYI. Spend more time reading what I say and/or asking for clarification and less time accusing me of ranting and perhaps this debate would go a lot smoother.
No. I made a correct analogy (not a claim) and you misunderstood and strawman me.
Apology accepted. Now lets move on.

Your analogy is a failure as demonstrated in black and white:

All houses MUST have insurance(a variety of them actually but home insurance legally so) indeed to be able get mortgages. You made a wrong claim and I corrected you. Sorry. You tried to make an analogy to justify your apologies and even than failed, even if it succedeed it is still not contigent to the central banks liability's for deposits regardless. So your strawman is wrong regardless.

Bankers are forcing all mortgage applicants to take out home insurance for the entire current and future value of the property to insure what the banks consider their own property which they do not even pay for but make you pay on their behalf but no one is forcing bankers to take out insurance for the entire value of the depositor's money they are using to make money and interest on and according to you no one should force the central bank to insure this money despite being the one setting these rules allowing the bankers and itself to profiteer on other people's money and despite the fact that it can always print money to replace money lost without having an effect on inflation. Next, you'll claim that bankers are entitled to first-night rights and free blowjobs.

I don't see the relevance of that statement. Care to elaborate? Ok you are not understanding this. Let me rephrase. The FDA regulating the food and drug industries is analogous to the FDIC regulating the banking sector. Do you agree with this statement?
When a drug or food company, fucks up by putting poison in our shit... we sue said company and try to get a ruling and/or settlement in our favor. We go after the company, nor the FDA. If the company goes bankrupt before they can pay up a settlement (or ruling) we are out of luck. We don't sue the FDA to give us money for Bayer's or Johnson and Johnson's fuck up. The companies are liable.
Similarly, the FDIC (which is analogous to the FDA), regulates the banking sector. When a bank fucks up, we go after the banks assets and not the FDIC, we sue wells fargo, chase or first republic bank, we don't go after the FDIC. They are not liable. Much less the FED, I am unsure why you even keep bringing them.

You do not see the relevance that the FED unlike the FDA is profiteering from the deposits it is enabling banks to take away from depositors while charging them money for and refusing to guarantee at the same time? Your analogy is a fail. The central bank can take away your deposits, make money on it and then refuse to cover you for making money on the money it has literally taken away from you.

You do not see the liability of the FED of being responsible for the depositor's money it is actually profiteering from?

Kewl. No liability there for the central bank, just for the depositor who has no other option and who is liable if he keeps the money in the bank(his choice you claim when it is actually not for a business) and liable if he removes it and causes a bank run which again not his choice to remove either as no other option exists since his money is not legally guaranteed.

Great.

No. This is not a me problem. I clearly explained what I meant and when I detected that you were on a different planet I even provided quotes of definitions many posts ago and you deliberately continued to misconstrue my meaning.
It is not about blame. It is about responsability.
If you cross the street without looking both ways, you are being irresponsible, even if the person hitting was supposed to stop because you had the right of way. You can be on the right and still be irresponsible. If you leave your car door open you didn't technically do anything wrong, but you were irresponsible. If you are covered in gold chains and wearing a gold rolex in the gheto, alone, in the middle of the night, you are not breaking any laws but you are being irresponsible. If you keep hundreds of millions of dollars in a single bank and have no backup or insurance scheme placed on your money, you are technically doing something legal and allowable by the law, but you are being irresponsible.
Also, there is a cause-and-effect event here. The bank run triggered the collapse. It is factually correct to say that those that withdrew the money are responsible for the collapse. They might not be the only responsible part, nor am I saying they did anything illegal or wrong. It is a cause and effect. You withdraw a bunch of money, the bank fails. You withdraw 2 legs from a chair, it will fall over.
This is not about blaming people, not customers, not bankers, not feds, not legislators. This is about debating policy and politics. Blaming is the precursor of scapegoating and the tool of the populist.

Right, so according to you the depositors are wrong for withdrawing their money thus causing the bank run(and therefore the blame-worthy culprits) and they are also wrong for not withdrawing their money, failing to see the signs of the bank's failure and thus justifiably losing their uninsured money.

Okay.

[XogGyux]

Here is the pertinent quote that specifically says that they were not in the wrong.

They might not be the only responsible part, nor am I saying they did anything illegal or wrong.

Are we even speaking the same language? I quote a freaking dictionary to you and put worth in sentences that apparently seem to magically have a completely different meaning to you.
We are not debating policy anymore, I have grown bored. I am done with this shit. Cheers.

[noemon]

Here is the pertinent quote that specifically says that they were not in the wrong.

Are we even speaking the same language? I quote a freaking dictionary to you and put worth in sentences that apparently seem to magically have a completely different meaning to you.
We are not debating policy anymore, I have grown bored. I am done with this shit. Cheers.

You have contradicted yourself several times as demonstrated and quoted. It's not my fault either.

Make up your mind on who to blame, depositors for keeping them in and thus failing to see the signs as you already did, depositors seeing the signs and taking their money out thus causing a bank run as you also explicitly did. Except of course for the central bank legally enabling itself to profiteer from depositors' money while assuming no liability for it.

[wat0n]

So it is not the users paying the premiums for the deposit guarantee but the banks and financial institutions as I said.
They are passed in which form and under which contract between a bank and a depositor?

I'd say they are probably passed as general admin fees or something vague like that. It's basically a tax incidence thing.

[noemon]

I'd say they are probably passed as general admin fees or something vague like that. It's basically a tax incidence thing.

Don't you think that depositors and people more generally deserve transparency on this matter?

Transparency on the fees they pay to insure their deposits as well as transparency on the total available fund at any given time?

[wat0n]

Don't you think that depositors and people more generally deserve transparency on this matter?

Transparency on the fees they pay to insure their deposits as well as transparency on the total available fund at any given time?

I agree, I don't think it's a bad thing if we are made aware of how much the premium is.

And if we are also clear why the insurance is necessary, of course.

[Rancid]

I'd say they are probably passed as general admin fees or something vague like that. It's basically a tax incidence thing.

My understanding is the way it's passed on isn't through fees. It's by giving interest rates that are far lower than prime. Actually, far lower than the federal funds rate (set by the Fed). This provides the the cover for them to play with interest rates given to retail banking customers. Basically there is no transparency. They can just amalgamate things like "market rates" and "economic conditions". This is the kind of system libertarians like.

After this, we can expect interest rates given to customers to drop. However, recall we are also in an inflationary environment where those same interest rates are going up. GIven that, my unprofessional guess is, we will not see interest rates given to banking customers go down. It might just slow down inflation of rates though.

[wat0n]

My understanding is the way it's passed on isn't through fees. It's by giving interest rates that are far lower than prime. Actually, far lower than the federal funds rate (set by the Fed). This provides the the cover for them to play with interest rates given to retail banking customers. Basically there is no transparency. They can just amalgamate things like "market rates" and "economic conditions". This is the kind of system libertarians like.

After this, we can expect interest rates given to customers to drop. However, recall we are also in an inflationary environment where those same interest rates are going up. GIven that, my unprofessional guess is, we will not see interest rates given to banking customers go down. It might just slow down inflation of rates though.

It's another way of doing the same i.e. the costumer pays.

[Rancid]

It's another way of doing the same i.e. the costumer pays.

The customer always pays. If this is as bad as some claim (it's not), then this should help control the inflation problem.

[wat0n]

It always depends. In this case, though, it makes sense for fees/premiums to go up if the insured amount is increased.

Whether the cost falls mostly on banks or costumers is secondary and, in any event, the latter benefit at least as much as the former do.

[XogGyux]

I am now more convinced that this is most certainly a bailout. I don’t know if it was necessary or not (I certainly don’t have all the information to make that assessment) and while I would not second guess it, I am skeptical of all of these “good intentions” put forth by the government on the matter.

It's not a bailout and you should not be using this term because it justifies infowars type of ignorance.

This is not info war propaganda.
Here are various journalists, commentators, experts and amateur youtubers on this topic:

Krystal and Saagar are not Infowars parrots. They call it Bailout.

Jon Stewart is certainly not an Infowars kind of guy, in fact he is a pretty liberal, left leaning and I’d say trustworthy individual (as much as anyone can possibly be in the media really). And one of his guest is Sheila Bair who is a former chair of the FDIC.
This clip from Jon Stewart is particularly informative I must say. They mention many of the things I have said in here priorly, I wish I had seen this clip earlier to share it earlier. Ms. Sheila Bair even addresses the 250k limit and that presumably the government wants it as such to make sure people are paying attention and not be complacent. They mention that every bank has advertisement about the limits of FDIC insurance, so it shouldn’t come as a surprise and they also mention that means of insurance for those that want it also exist.
Mr Warren Gunnels sends this tweet:

He is the Staff Director for Senator Bernie Sanders, Chairman of the Health, Education, Labor & Pensions Committee. I hardly think that this guy is a Infowars frequenter.
Then there is Mr. William Isaac (I already shared this video) that basically calls it as it is:

Here is a segment of “The Hill”

Also calls it a bailout AND criticizes the actions by the government.
Here is a youtuber with 1.7m followers that normaly talks about issues of economics:

He calls it a Bailout.
Here is another none, also about 1.5 followers. He calls it a bailout.

Here is a segment of “Breaking Points” podcast: They call it a bailout and also discuss some of the dirty laundry that went behind our backs.

Here is another guy with 1M subscribers:

And another clip + Interview from The Hill Rising.

The fed was raising interest and they have been on the record saying that they want to lower wages and employment because it is keeping inflation high. Here comes an event, in part caused by the FED, that will achieve just that and all of the sudden the government comes in and puts a break on the whole situation. Why? Because rich and powerful people with connections happened to be collateral damage on the whole operation. There is a clear double standard here. Jon Stewart puts it the best… the government drags its feet to bail out people with medical debt, mortgages underwater, student loans, low salaries. However, within ours of a bank that carries billions of venture capital and highly speculative, risky investments start to show distress… all of the sudden they swoop in and rescue them.

Another interesting thing. They claim that there is no systemic problem with our banks but then use a rule that claims a systemic risk exception to bail out the depositors. Isen't that an oxymoron? I understand what they are trying to do, to calm people not to panic... but am I the only one bothered by this contradiction.

You have contradicted yourself several times as demonstrated and quoted.

No I have not.

Make up your mind on who to blame, depositors for keeping them in and thus failing to see the signs as you already did, depositors seeing the signs and taking their money out thus causing a bank run as you also explicitly did. Except of course for the central bank legally enabling itself to profiteer from depositors' money while assuming no liability for it.

I am not interested in a blaming game, but if you must know… everyone. The bank (CEO, management and shareholders) for running a shit ship. The regulators for allowing this shit ship to occur. The legislators for knee-capping the regulators. The people fleeing with their deposits because they caused a bank run. And finally, everyone that started whining about possibly losing a portion of their precious money after completely ignoring common sense and/or basic risk management. So nobody is free of blame here.

[noemon]

You are now repeating my arguments back to me.

The FED has a liability towards all depositors as I keep saying, not only the lucky ones of SVB.

It should not be up to the Central Banker to decide which deposits to cover. It should cover them all, as I keep arguing to your dismay.

The state should also provide free health-care, not "bailouts" to people with health problems.

As for youtubers, twitterati and other outraged individuals calling it an SVB bailout, we know that is not the case because SVB has not been bailed out.

No I have not.

Okay.

The people fleeing with their deposits because they caused a bank run. And finally, everyone that started whining about possibly losing a portion of their precious money after completely ignoring common sense and/or basic risk management.

This is contradictory. People fled because they had the common sense to risk-manage their money. Those that did you blame for causing a bank run and those that did not you blame for not managing their risk.

The bank (CEO, management and shareholders) for running a shit ship. The regulators for allowing this shit ship to occur. The legislators for knee-capping the regulators.

The liability lies entirely with the bank, the regulatory authorities and the Government who not only raised the thresholds for systemic bank stress tests under Trump and the Republicans but mainly it allows the Regulators to make money off people's deposits and then wash their hands when that whole scheme(of using people's deposits to make interest on) goes bad.

What incentive is there for the regulators who enable the pyramid scheme for their own benefit and the benefits of their users(banks and financial institutions), to properly oversee that scheme when they are not liable for its failure?

Why should the depositors be liable for the losses of their own money, when it is not them making the risk decisions with their own deposits but third parties?

Why would deposits that are not paid interest be allowed to enter the pyramid scheme? Only when the bank pays interest does it get a right to use that money in a savings accounts as per a particular contract for a prescribed time duration.

These are some good questions to ask and talk about.

[Rancid]

@XogGyux there is a bit more nuance to the "government is a hypocrite" because it doesn't bail out students but turns around and does bail out banks for example. The first part is to stop looking at the US government as a monolithic decision making machine. This is an over simplification people do, especially those in the mainstream and social medias. Even experts in the field of economics will fall prey to this over simplification. This is where the cherry picking in order to push their specific personal/political points comes from. The personal points comes from just getting attention, air time, views, books sales, speakerships, etc. etc. I'm not saying those videos are wrong, but just keep all of that in mind when using these type of people as evidence.

Clearly, there is division in the government (and population) that needs to be factored in here. There is a large segment of elected officials, including the executive branch that would also like to do student debt forgiveness as well. Except, not enough people are on board with this (moron MAGAs in particular). Are those people that fail to push through forgiveness of student debt but at the same time able to save this bank hypocrites? I'd say, it's not a simple yes/no answer.

In this SVB situation, we see what I'm getting at playing out. Take the side that supports student debt forgiveness. They are also willing to bailout depositors on the condition that bank executives and shareholders are punished in some way (I agree with this 100% BTW). Now take the side that is against student loan forgiveness. They are complaining about bailouts, but are not actually taking any steps to stop it. Why? This is because they actually support this action. They will not say they support it because it goes against the (lie based) politicking they have engaged in the last 10-ish years or so. There is another trick that both sides used to be able to do something like this, I'll get to that further below. Overall, both sides support this because thousands of Americans not receiving paychecks is a bad thing for elections. However, some parts of the government (i.e. elected officials) are hypocrites and some are not if we measure it against the different stances on student debt.

Here's a trick politicians use to be able to say they are against something, but then support it through action or inaction (in the SVB case it's support through inaction). Politicians like to give power to entities like the Fed, or the FCC, or the SEC, etc. so that they gain plausible deniability against the electorate. This allows them to secretly agree with whatever these agencies decide to do, but public claim they disagree (for votes). In this case, I'd say democrats are consistent if you compare with the student debt position as in, they want help people, and banks. Republicans are the hypocrites by secretly supporting the SVB action, but publicly claiming it's terrible (to fool their moron voters). Both sides will engage in their usual political finger pointing of course.


It would be nice to see a student debt bailout though. I've been calling for this for years, and I had zero debt out of college. If the banks of 2008 can be bailed out, so can people. That said, I'm also find with helping depositors as long as we try to fuck over the bank execs and shareholders. I think what I'm saying is it's a necessary evil to help the depositors beyond 250k because this affects people.

Last, unfortunately, politics creates a situation where if you just view the government as a monolithic entity, you will make sweeping claims like "hypocrite" or whatever, but we always need to look at it a bit deeper. I think most media figures fall here, and most people are conditioned to view it this way, which is wrong IMO.

[XogGyux]

You are now repeating my arguments back to me.

I am not repeating your arguments. I am quoting your statements.

The FED has a liability towards all depositors as I keep saying, not only the lucky ones of SVB.

FED does not have liability. The FDIC has liability up to the insured 250k that they insure. Above and beyond that they are not on the hook as I already explained.

The state should also provide free health-care, not "bailouts" to people with health problems.

You misunderstood the whole point.

As for youtubers, twitterati and other outraged individuals calling it an SVB bailout, we know that is not the case because SVB has not been bailed out.

You keep making the strawman. Not the point, I already explained this.

This is contradictory. People fled because they had the common sense to risk-manage their money. Those that did you blame for causing a bank run and those that did not you blame for not managing their risk.

This is the classic self-fulfilling prophecy effect. The people believing the bank was going to crash caused the crash. It is not contradictory at all.

The liability lies entirely with the bank, the regulatory authorities and the Government who not only raised the thresholds for systemic bank stress tests under Trump and the Republicans but mainly it allows the Regulators to make money off people's deposits and then wash their hands when that whole scheme(of using people's deposits to make interest on) goes bad.

I already addressed this on my prior post.

Why should the depositors be liable for the losses of their own money, when it is not them making the risk decisions with their own deposits but third parties?

If you have a baby, and you let the baby stay with the nanny and you come 4 hours later and your baby has a broken arm... who is liable? The nanny or the police?
The nanny is the bank, it was keeping your baby safe (the money).
If the baby dies instead or loses the arm.... nobody is making the parents "whole". Like it or not, the parents decided to trust the nanny... it is their duty to research the nannys credentials and abilities.
In the US banks are private entities not a branch of the government. The government is not responsible for your money stored in the bank. Now, you can make a solid argument that it should... but as of today and as of the day SVB collapsed, that is not the case.

Why would deposits that are not paid interest be allowed to enter the pyramid scheme?

Banks are not pyramid schemes.

@XogGyux there is a bit more nuance to the "government is a hypocrite" because it doesn't bail out students but turns around and does bail out banks for example.

No, this is not what I meant. Let me explain. There have been 500+ failures of banks within the last 20 years alone. Far more in the record. Think about that.... that is about 25 failures per year, about 2 failures per month. This is not a rare, unexpected event. How come this particular bank needed special services arranged for it? It was so urgent that it couldn't wait to be solved via the regular means that most all previous failures go through (typically another bank buys the failing bank and honors all deposits and people don't actually lose their money). Would it have been catastrophic if the FDIC had to liquidate the bank and pay 80cents on the dollar so people lost maybe 20% of their deposits? This bank held money for venture capitalists and big companies, do you think that these entities don't really have other accounts on other banks that they can use temporarily to fulfill their payroll requirements if need so while this issue is properly settled? Or that they couldn't access credit to fulfill their obligations with the cash in the bank as collateral?
Maybe this was a completely honest action by the government to try to prevent more bank runs and that was the only motivation. If that is the truth, and the only truth, then I am in no position to second guess that as I have previously said... But it seems there is far more to the story and being skeptical and demanding for accountability is not the same thing as asshattery and parroting infowar propaganda.

Clearly, there is division in the government (and population) that needs to be factored in here. There is a large segment of elected officials, including the executive branch that would also like to do student debt forgiveness as well. Except, not enough people are on board with this (moron MAGAs in particular). Are those people that fail to push through forgiveness of student debt but at the same time able to save this bank hypocrites? I'd say, it's not a simple yes/no answer.

Forget that for an instance. Bernie in 2018 gave a speech in congress and warned that this was going to happen. He doesn't have magical powers, but what he has is the hindsight of having lived through the 2008 crash and some common sense. Nonetheless, congress passed the bill that removed restrictions on banks such as SVB for increased accountability/safety precisely to prevent this.
This is a vicious cycle, we cannot keep making shit laws and keep trying to plug the holes of the ship with some duct tape. We might need some pain so that people realize that we cannot keep having this problem all the time. This was never going to be a catastrophe. Some wealthy depositors would have lost a small percentage of their vast fortunes, consider it a 1 time tax payment on the millions and billions that they don't pay. The issue here is the special treatment for these people.

Overall, both sides support this because thousands of Americans not receiving paychecks is a bad thing for elections.

That is how they justified it. Let me ask you this. Did anyone release an itemized statement showing how many companies and what percentage of capital ultimately destined to payroll was actually in the bank? I know what they said, anyone actually verified this information? Is it too much to ask that you show that the money that you are receiving as a bailout is actually going to be used to pay the salary of employees?

Here's a trick politicians use to be able to say they are against something, but then support it through action or inaction (in the SVB case it's support through inaction). Politicians like to give power to entities like the Fed, or the FCC, or the SEC, etc. so that they gain plausible deniability against the electorate. This allows them to secretly agree with whatever these agencies decide to do, but public claim they disagree (for votes). In this case, I'd say democrats are consistent if you compare with the student debt position as in, they want help people, and banks. Republicans are the hypocrites by secretly supporting the SVB action, but publicly claiming it's terrible (to fool their moron voters). Both sides will engage in their usual political finger pointing of course.

Exactly. But this is unfair though. What happens to Mary? Despite her working 40+ hours she is considered "part time" or "contractor" and does not get health insurance, her wages are low enough that paying a $500/month premium is simply not possible. She gets a pneumonia and spends 2 days in the hospital and gets billed $20k which makes her even more broke. Why is the venture capitalist be more worthy of our bailout than Mary? Worse, there is a posibility that the venture capitalist is being made whole, in part, with tax contributions from mary and/or bank fee contributions from her.
So except for posibility that this could have triggered a panic massive nation-wide bank run and/or economic collapse similar to 2008... I am not losing any sleep about the posibility of someone with over 250k in the bank losing 20cents/dollar in the very unlikely event of a bank failure (and most of the time they don't even lose anything because another bank assumes liabilities when they inevitable buys the failed bank). So as far as I am concerned, if there is any fake ourage, it is the fake outrage of the people that are not questioning our government to the fire on this. I voted for Biden and generally I'll support a democrat over a republican any day of the day.... but precisely because they get my support I expect more from them than simply getting a call from a distressed billionaire asking for favors and bailouts.

I think what I'm saying is it's a necessary evil to help the depositors beyond 250k because this affects people.

Probably it is. Especially if there was any possibility, small as it would be, of having a contagion effect. But that is the ONLY reason. Apart from that one and specific reason, there should not be any reason.

Last, unfortunately, politics creates a situation where if you just view the government as a monolithic entity, you will make sweeping claims like "hypocrite" or whatever, but we always need to look at it a bit deeper. I think most media figures fall here, and most people are conditioned to view it this way, which is wrong IMO.

I don't think this is a monolithic issue or that whatever criticism is assuming a monolithic goverment. Most of the commentators and/or experts that I have seen a report on this issue clearly explain that there is nuance to it. On the other hand, the government gets away with murder when they can justify something because the situation is a bit nuanced. That is what bothers me, the possibility that the real motivation for the officials to act to have been brought forth by self-interest of helping their pals rather than for a genuine concern for a spread of fear and insecurity or for the paychecks of workers. Motivations matter.

[noemon]

I am not repeating your arguments. I am quoting your statements.

Your videos are repeating my arguments Their argument is against the regulations, not against the depositors. At least from a cursory glance.

FED does not have liability. The FDIC has liability up to the insured 250k that they insure. Above and beyond that they are not on the hook as I already explained.

That is absolutely false as I have explained over several pages in 2 separate threads. The FED is liable because it is the FED that profiteers from people's deposits. Creating separate organizations is merely for distraction.

You misunderstood the whole point.

I understood very well, but you clearly didn't. You tried to call me a hypocrite but it didn't work.

And your argument about hypocrisy attacks the government & regulators not the depositors As is mine. Hence the above also.

You keep making the strawman. Not the point, I already explained this.

All your spam videos contain the title SVB bailout, for the outrage. As I explained, it is totally false because SVB has not been bailed out.

This is the classic self-fulfilling prophecy effect. The people believing the bank was going to crash caused the crash. It is not contradictory at all.

What is contradictory is you blaming the depositors who had the mind to risk manage their money and remove them from SVB and also blame those depositors who did not do that as well. For you, depositors are always at fault regardless what they do. So according to you depositors can never get anything right. You still blame them though because other risked their money without paying them interest for it and hence without any justification to use their money in the first place.

I already addressed this on my prior post.

No, you have not. Just repeating the statement that FDIC is liable and not the FED, it means nothing at all.

If you have a baby, and you let the baby stay with the nanny and you come 4 hours later and your baby has a broken arm... who is liable? The nanny or the police?
The nanny is the bank, it was keeping your baby safe (the money).
If the baby dies instead or loses the arm.... nobody is making the parents "whole". Like it or not, the parents decided to trust the nanny... it is their duty to research the nannys credentials and abilities.
In the US banks are private entities not a branch of the government. The government is not responsible for your money stored in the bank. Now, you can make a solid argument that it should... but as of today and as of the day SVB collapsed, that is not the case.

Can you stop making nonsense analogies please. All your analogies have been shown to be false. As for this new one, the nanny is both the bank and the FED. It is the FED that enables the bank to take your deposits out and it is the FED that charges interest the bank for your money. The police is not taking a cut from the nanny to look after your baby, nor is the police creating a rule that it must take a cut from the nanny, if it were it would also be liable.

It is not really difficult.

Banks are not pyramid schemes.

The banking system is a ponzi scheme with the FED at the top of the pyramid, where 90-100% of all deposits can legally be removed from the owners and charged interest on by the FED and the banks without providing any return to the depositors.

This entire system was created on the basis that you sign a contract with the bank for a specific interest to be paid to you during a particular amount of time. During that time your money is locked, you cannot remove it and it may also be lost if the bank fails.

This exchange is fair in some ways and transparent. Savings accounts with such terms may not be guaranteed. But checking/current accounts with no such terms MUST be totally guaranteed by the FED and not "insured" by a separate institution up to a certain point.