• Neuromancer
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Customers wouldn’t be without money. It’s insured.

    Instead we used tax payer money to prop them up and didn’t solve the problem.

    You have to let things fail.

    • Staple_Diet@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s insured.

      In most western countries the Govt only guarantees up to a certain amount per depositor (in US it is $250k).

      The ballad of Silicon Valley Bank is a good example of why the Govts needed to bail out their banks during GFC. Without the govt backing those banks there would have seen huge runs, and in no time at all the imaginary money banks operate on would have disappeared, meaning companies can’t pay workers, people can’t buy groceries etc.

      Note, I am not defending the heinous behaviour of finance execs leading up to, during and post GFC - for them I’d bring back the guillotine. But rather explaining that bailouts are needed sometimes to ensure the economy keeps ‘flowing’. Post GFC has seen a lot of countries bring in tighter regulations for banks with regards to how much cash on hand they must have, how much in investments/bonds and how much exposure to loans they are allowed. Unfortunately I’m not sure if US took the opportunity to propose and enforce new regulations as many other nations did.

      • Neuromancer
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        We did. We put in many worthless regulations that really didn’t solve the problem.

        I’m a connective republican. Socially more liberal but fiscally conservative.

        The executives of the banks that needed bailouts should have been jailed as they took risk they shouldn’t have taken. All the banks do it because there are no consequences when they fail. Zero.

        They need to punished for mishandling assets so poorly.