SVB BAILOUT - WHAT A SURPRISE

17 Mar 2023 14:01 #1 by ramage
Slo Joe's minions have authorized bailing out all depositors at SVB even though their accounts vastly exceed the $250,000.00 limit of FDIC Insurance.
Janet Yellen, Sec of Treasury when asked if depositors in a bank in Oklahoma should fail, would be equally covered, she replied, NO. The Administration will determine if there is a systemic risk in the failure of such a bank.
We no longer have a government of law rather a government of men who will decide the winners and losers.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

17 Mar 2023 14:56 #2 by homeagain
I watched in REAL TIME...Bush let Lehman Bros. and ING flame out.....2008,they say we learned alot from that F.U. and this is different,with guardrails in place. Do U believe that?

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

17 Mar 2023 15:57 #3 by homeagain
www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2023/03..._news_alert_revere&l


Wall Street banks will put $30 billion into beleaguered First Republic.....and tax payer is off the hook...REALLY?......banking fees already payed,future fees re accessed?

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

18 Mar 2023 01:56 #4 by FredHayek

ramage wrote: Slo Joe's minions have authorized bailing out all depositors at SVB even though their accounts vastly exceed the $250,000.00 limit of FDIC Insurance.
Janet Yellen, Sec of Treasury when asked if depositors in a bank in Oklahoma should fail, would be equally covered, she replied, NO. The Administration will determine if there is a systemic risk in the failure of such a bank.
We no longer have a government of law rather a government of men who will decide the winners and losers.


$250,000 was only sufficient for decades ago. Suppose you have 1,000 employees, are you supposed to split up payroll among one hundred banks so your employees don't have their payroll checks bounce? Or do you go back to cash as a way of doing business and load up an amored car on payroll day?

Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

18 Mar 2023 09:24 #5 by ramage
The point of my comment is not what the amount of insurance should be on deposits. Rather that the administration will pick which banks it decides should have their deposits fully insured and which will not be the beneficiaries.
Instead of the example of an employers with 1000 employees, think of a Fred who has $500,000 on deposit at the Bank of the West. Should that bank fail, Fred will only be insured to half that amount if the administration decries that the $250,000 limit will be adhered to.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

18 Mar 2023 12:41 #6 by FredHayek
Maybe it is time to look at too big to fail? Colorado used to have rules against branch banking because the early settlers knew banks had too much power. Time to split up the big banks into regional banks to disperse risk? And power. Like the Feds did to Ma Bell and Standard Oil. Citibank would have to split up into ten regional banks, etc.

Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Time to create page: 0.145 seconds
Powered by Kunena Forum
sponsors
© My Mountain Town (new)
Google+