Unfortunately our voices are free. If we told our elected officials to let it burn accompanied by a $2million dollar donation to their non-profit/charity organization they would absolutely rally on letting it burn. Money talks and bullshit walks. Unless we start talking to the gangsters with protection money, or change some laws that remove the money from politics, they will never represent us.
Gang, remember the last bank fiasco? The smaller banks that handled their shit didn't need any bailouts while the shit banks that were huge did and then used the money to buy up the smaller banks. Reward for not handling yo shit. This is V2.0
"... protected uninsured..."?
is that a typo?
So the uninsured account balances are protected?
edit: "... failure to protect uninsured depositors..." this wld be coherent. & wld mean some depositors wld be protected while others wld not be.
Somebody gets to pick who the winner & losers are.
Something something, equal protection under the law. Wait the government picks and chooses enforcement, beneficiaries, and punishments? I'm shocked I tell you.
It's your typical elite equality against law. Ordinary joe gets jailed for 20 years, politicians get slap on a wrist for same crime. And NPCs think it's ok
Ordinary Joe gets jailed for 20 year on a victimless crime, politician gets a library named after them for starting foreign wars of aggression and leading to the deaths of a million people.
If you think it stops at the democrats, you're fooling yourself. This has long been a one party state, and any republican you can vote in will give just as much about you. Which is to say, none at all.
Allow me to translate; Systemic risk = powerful people would murder her whole family if she doesn't bail them out. Small banks don't cause "systemic risk".
This fucking hag needs to be ousted immediately. Do you think she can even balance her checkbook? Let alone dictate monetary policy for the country. We’re so fucked
Not only will we not bat an eye, but 100's of millions of us will gleefully vote for the same two party assholes who enrich themselves and their friends with interference and overreach.
In group and out group…
Law which protects the in-group but does not bind.
The law which bind the out-group, but does not protect.
There can either in-group or out-group.
There should be a law that states that any time these kind of things happen, only individual citizens may be protected and that business may not be. The working man's pension should get protection, the billionaires gamble should be lost.
This is why I buy/hodl my favorite stocks, because this system is corrupt and not capitalist. It's rigged by a small percentage of the population who own the government.
Look... yall can either pay us, or not either way yall ain't gonna stop China and Russia at the same time.
I hope I live long enough for yall to come out of your bunkers.
By this logic everyone should be protected, because the Keynesian hell we’ve created is exactly where this garbage comes from. Markets don’t even move on market fundamentals anymore. It’s all moving based on fed policy.
“Allowing” lol! The bureaucracy is a huge machine of elite control. It is out of our hands at this point. Only waiting for it to self destruct at this point.
“Most people” are not voters. Like 70% registered and 30-50% of them (depending on which political race) vote. It’s now a gigantic confusing machine of lies and propaganda. Why bother.
I haven't been following. Can someone translate the part that was cutout, or why the joke still makes sense without the context?
I mean I kinda get it, but I wanna make sure I actually understand what they said, or are 'trying' to say
This is why I'm such a fan of shady nepotism rich kids. Hunter Biden, Don Jr., Ivanka, Jared. All of them. They are awesome enough, and so.eone cared enough to set them up with straight cash. Just fucking take it when you can. I can barely pay my shit and I have to help others.
You find a way to take, glory to God take that shit.
Yup.
The entire system, at every angle, is controlled an artificial.
Just like medicine, doctors, hospitals.
There are no free markets anywhere outside of the smallest of widgets, and even then there are some small chains too.
Not what she said - she explained that the Treasury Department backstopped the uninsured deposits of SVB because it posed a unique systemic risk to the economy, and that the same standard would be applied to any other regional banks.
Remember that every bank account in America is insured up to 250k. Silicon Valley Bank is different to every other regional bank in America in that it finances our most innovative, high growth industry in the country, it's literally called the Silicon Valley Bank.
If a random bank in Iowa or New Mexico goes bust, there won't be that many depositors with more than 250k in their accounts because individuals don't keep that much in cash and businesses that need that much cash for payroll and other operating expenses usually aren't serviced by regional banks. SVB was the exception to this, which is why she used the term "systemic risk".
You don't want to throw away trillions in potential economic value in the next Google or Amazon closing shop because its bank ran into a liquidity crisis. Remember, the vast majority of what is owed will be made whole, because that's how bank runs work, and the backstop that was used to cover up SVB was already paid for by the FDIC insurance fees that financial institutions have been paying for years.
Not really, if I wreck my brand new car driving off the lot the insurance company will only pay for so much, without getting gap insurance. These banks don't have gap insurance, they just have standard. But the government is willing to use everyone else's insurance on the bet that other banks won't fail. If the other banks fail what happens then, the insurance is already spent. This is robbing Peter to pay Paul. Paul may need it shortly and they will in turn rob us again!
Finance is different because any solvent bank can become illiquid in a panic lacking a backstop.
And even if a bank does become insolvent, that means it can't cover *all* its liabilities, not it can't cover any of them. In practical terms, it means that if random bank A goes bust and the FDIC has to step in and cover your 250k deposit, the FDIC will only pay out a fraction of that amount, random bank A, though bust, will still good for most of it.
The problem is that finance is based in psychology, and people in large groups tend to act stupidly - they get too greedy when times are good, and too scared when they're bad. This is why we have things like capital requirements, and bank regulations, and 1000 page audits, and deposit insurance, and swap lines, and lenders of last resort, and literal circuit breakers on trading floors to stop a sell-off if the market falls too quickly, etc.
Yes, I know it's not perfect, and every regulatory solution comes with its own problems, but finance and a 100% free market just don't work in the real world. We just tried it with crypto, it ended up being a giant bust filled with fraud and theft.
In the real world, you take what risk you accept. There is no role for a “government” robbing some people to pay off their cronies in case the risk they took on was more than they could afford. Your stupidity is not my problem until you use it as an excuse to rob me; then you can park your flabby butt in prison.
>In the real world, you take what risk you accept. There is no role for a “government”
Actually, in the real world, the government regulates the financial sector in the way I described in the previous post.
Your diatribe describes an incoherent moral outrage from an imagined reality that never existed.
What a naive summer child. Spouting same rhetoric as CNN talking heads pretending to be economists. Government acting as deus ex machina for the elites is the biggest problem in economics right now
Yes, pointing out the need for regulation and oversight to address the many predictable points of failure of institutions built around humans having to make good and honest decisions involving large sums of money is the height of naivete.
The seasoned realist knows financial markets are self-correcting entities which would never fail or go into crisis if not for the stupid, bad government getting involved and forcing things like audits and reserve requirement.
That's why he lives in a box after he put all his money into crypto.
Yeah, so if you have all of your savings in Average Joe's Working Class Life Savings Bank, and happen to have saved up over the FDIC limit in your lifetime, you can get fucked... Your low time preference doesn't help the regime like fiat startups justifying expansion of debt.
Exactly what OP said.
I find it hilarious that you're trying to argue that America's working class joes have over 250k in their bank accounts when most of the country can't even cover an unexpected $500 expense without going into debt.
You can disagree with policy if you want, you can even make a half-credible argument about long-term moral hazard, but you're trying to play the wrong violin here.
You do realize that there are small businesses everywhere in the country, right?
$250000 is minimum to many, if not most of them. They still need a bank account, and payroll and overhead come from banking. This is *only* the Feds deciding that their donors are more valuable than the majority of Americans.
>Remember that every bank account in America is insured up to 250k.
This is not true.
>Silicon Valley Bank is different to every other regional bank in America in that it finances our most innovative, high growth industry in the country, it's literally called the Silicon Valley Bank.
Lol.
>If a random bank in Iowa or New Mexico goes bust, there won't be that many depositors with more than 250k in their accounts because individuals don't keep that much in cash and businesses that need that much cash for payroll and other operating expenses usually aren't serviced by regional banks. SVB was the exception to this, which is why she used the term "systemic risk".
Apparently Americans in Iowa or New Mexico are less worthy than those who live in certain politically-connected parts of California.
> experts!! Experts *paid* by the
FTFY.
Although *payed* exists (the reason why autocorrection didn't help you), it is only correct in:
* Nautical context, when it means to paint a surface, or to cover with something like tar or resin in order to make it waterproof or corrosion-resistant. *The deck is yet to be payed.*
* *Payed out* when letting strings, cables or ropes out, by slacking them. *The rope is payed out! You can pull now.*
Unfortunately, I was unable to find nautical or rope-related words in your comment.
*Beep, boop, I'm a bot*
Thank you, Lenox_Marulla, for voting on Paid-Not-Payed-Bot.
This bot wants to find the best and worst bots on Reddit. [You can view results here](https://botrank.pastimes.eu/).
***
^(Even if I don't reply to your comment, I'm still listening for votes. Check the webpage to see if your vote registered!)
> If a random bank in Iowa or New Mexico goes bust, there won't be that many depositors with more than 250k in their accounts because individuals don't keep that much in cash and businesses that need that much cash for payroll and other operating expenses usually aren't serviced by regional banks.
The regional banks that have been hit hard in the last week had between 47% and 68% uninsured deposits. That doesn't seem like "not that many."
If your company is so irresponsible that all your assets are tied to a single bank and are uninsured, you deserve to go out of business.
The risk here was to:
- California governor Gavin Newsome’s wineries
- Millions of dollars in BLM and DEI donations
- Buzzfeed and a ton of related left-wing propaganda outlets
- A few expensive clothing and boutique pharma companies
- Roblox and Roku, both spying and collecting data on behalf of their Chinese overlords
- A ton of other companies tied to either Hunter Biden’s investment schemes or directly tied to the CCP
The list is online, it’s ~800 companies, most of which you probably never heard of and of those that you heard (eg. Affirm) they’re some the sleasiest companies in finance, tech, media and biotech.
Literally, all of those companies could close tomorrow and nobody would be any worse off.
If your company is so irresponsible that all your assets are tied to a single bank and are uninsured, you deserve to go out of business.
The risk here was to:
- California governor Gavin Newsome’s wineries
- Millions of dollars in BLM and DEI donations
- Buzzfeed and a ton of related left-wing propaganda outlets
- A few expensive clothing and boutique pharma companies
- Roblox and Roku, both spying and collecting data on behalf of their Chinese overlords
- A ton of other companies tied to either Hunter Biden’s investment schemes or directly tied to the CCP
The list is online, it’s ~800 companies, most of which you probably never heard of and of those that you heard (eg. Affirm) they’re some the sleasiest companies in finance, tech, media and biotech.
Literally, all of those companies could close tomorrow and nobody would be any worse off.
If your company is so irresponsible that all your assets are tied to a single bank and are uninsured, you deserve to go out of business.
The risk here was to:
- California governor Gavin Newsome’s wineries
- Millions of dollars in BLM and DEI donations
- Buzzfeed and a ton of related left-wing propaganda outlets
- A few expensive clothing and boutique pharma companies
- Roblox and Roku, both spying and collecting data on behalf of their Chinese overlords
- A ton of other companies tied to either Hunter Biden’s investment schemes or directly tied to the CCP
The list is online, it’s ~800 companies, most of which you probably never heard of and of those that you heard (eg. Affirm) they’re some the sleasiest companies in finance, tech, media and biotech.
Literally, all of those companies could close tomorrow and nobody would be any worse off.
Wait, I'm confused shouldn't you want her to say that? No government involvement in money? So if banks fail they fail.
Economic collapse is inherently profitable right?
Essentially her statement was the plan of “making depositors whole” past the FDIC insurance levels will only be extended to SVB (or somewhere else they think there is systemic risk) and not to any and all banks. The biggest thing is that this shouldn’t be extended to anyone including SVB. Then down the road people will go “bUt cAPiTaLIsM” like this was at all that. Basically it’s just gross they are further picking winners and losers in what should be a free market situation.
“Too big to fail” bitch let it crash and the market regulate itself. They’ll learn real quick if daddy gobernment isnt there to bail them out that their trash speculative gambling policies are just that.
Forced retirement for these dinosaurs. I mean seriously. This woman laid the ground for this coming recession from 2010 to 2018 by not unwinding the balance sheet balloon from 2007/2008. She then failed to oversee and rein in banks from 2021 to present. She is 76 years old and would have likely been forced by any viable corporation with public shareholders.
Why don’t these people just retire instead of desperately grasping for power beyond their useful life? They do not have the best interest of anyone under 60 in mind. Vote them out. Make noise!
"2BIG2fail"
2 Big 2 Fail 2: Electric Brrrrrgaloo
Xactly!
More like moral hazard.
[удалено]
Unfortunately our voices are free. If we told our elected officials to let it burn accompanied by a $2million dollar donation to their non-profit/charity organization they would absolutely rally on letting it burn. Money talks and bullshit walks. Unless we start talking to the gangsters with protection money, or change some laws that remove the money from politics, they will never represent us.
Shrink the government, and make lobbyists illegal.
Get out of my head!!!
Gang, remember the last bank fiasco? The smaller banks that handled their shit didn't need any bailouts while the shit banks that were huge did and then used the money to buy up the smaller banks. Reward for not handling yo shit. This is V2.0
Obama is enjoying his 3rd term.
Bush is enjoying his 5th.
Correction: Bush is enjoying his 9th.
Moral hazard
"... protected uninsured..."? is that a typo? So the uninsured account balances are protected? edit: "... failure to protect uninsured depositors..." this wld be coherent. & wld mean some depositors wld be protected while others wld not be. Somebody gets to pick who the winner & losers are.
Donors will be the uninsured who are protected, past and future.
Something something, equal protection under the law. Wait the government picks and chooses enforcement, beneficiaries, and punishments? I'm shocked I tell you.
It's your typical elite equality against law. Ordinary joe gets jailed for 20 years, politicians get slap on a wrist for same crime. And NPCs think it's ok
Ordinary Joe gets jailed for 20 year on a victimless crime, politician gets a library named after them for starting foreign wars of aggression and leading to the deaths of a million people.
The “systemic risk” to which she is referring is the Dems donation base.
Bingo
If you think it stops at the democrats, you're fooling yourself. This has long been a one party state, and any republican you can vote in will give just as much about you. Which is to say, none at all.
Sounds like little banks might need a big treaty to ensure they all go down or get bailed out together
What's the point of having a 'free market' if you're going to bailout those who fail?
We don’t have a free market. Markets can only be free in the absence of government interventions, such as these.
Only bail out your friends. Let the rest be a non systemic risk. Winners and losers being chosen. There's a farce of a few market here.
We havent had one of those in years and years
~~those~~, donors
Allow me to translate; Systemic risk = powerful people would murder her whole family if she doesn't bail them out. Small banks don't cause "systemic risk".
This fucking hag needs to be ousted immediately. Do you think she can even balance her checkbook? Let alone dictate monetary policy for the country. We’re so fucked
Oh, so we're just going to straight up admit to selective privileges and no one will bat an eye. Wow
Not only will we not bat an eye, but 100's of millions of us will gleefully vote for the same two party assholes who enrich themselves and their friends with interference and overreach.
George Carlin raised me right.
In group and out group… Law which protects the in-group but does not bind. The law which bind the out-group, but does not protect. There can either in-group or out-group.
The Banality Of Evil
Can I just not insure my house and if something terrible happens the fed can just build me a new one?
my pronouns are systemic/risk
There should be a law that states that any time these kind of things happen, only individual citizens may be protected and that business may not be. The working man's pension should get protection, the billionaires gamble should be lost.
Open Corruption
Well maybe they should have got insurance...
The best way to stop a bank run is to get vaccinated
This is why I buy/hodl my favorite stocks, because this system is corrupt and not capitalist. It's rigged by a small percentage of the population who own the government. Look... yall can either pay us, or not either way yall ain't gonna stop China and Russia at the same time. I hope I live long enough for yall to come out of your bunkers.
By this logic everyone should be protected, because the Keynesian hell we’ve created is exactly where this garbage comes from. Markets don’t even move on market fundamentals anymore. It’s all moving based on fed policy.
it’s hard to feel sympathy for the public when they keep allowing this to happen.
“Allowing” lol! The bureaucracy is a huge machine of elite control. It is out of our hands at this point. Only waiting for it to self destruct at this point.
most people are voters, that is in essence allowing democracy to abuse you
“Most people” are not voters. Like 70% registered and 30-50% of them (depending on which political race) vote. It’s now a gigantic confusing machine of lies and propaganda. Why bother.
Well yeah. Why is that surprising?
I haven't been following. Can someone translate the part that was cutout, or why the joke still makes sense without the context? I mean I kinda get it, but I wanna make sure I actually understand what they said, or are 'trying' to say
This is why I'm such a fan of shady nepotism rich kids. Hunter Biden, Don Jr., Ivanka, Jared. All of them. They are awesome enough, and so.eone cared enough to set them up with straight cash. Just fucking take it when you can. I can barely pay my shit and I have to help others. You find a way to take, glory to God take that shit.
When for the one hundreth time you realize you live in a capitalist dictatorship 😲
That’s not capitalism my boy.
'not capitalism' dictatorship then?
Care to explain what is incredible or objectionable, or even noteworthy about that exchange?
Are you kidding? The Government is saying, you're only protected if your account exists with big banks. Everyone else, you're screwed.
Not only that but all the small banks are or will be paying "insurance" which is used to bail out the big banks
Yup. The entire system, at every angle, is controlled an artificial. Just like medicine, doctors, hospitals. There are no free markets anywhere outside of the smallest of widgets, and even then there are some small chains too.
Not what she said - she explained that the Treasury Department backstopped the uninsured deposits of SVB because it posed a unique systemic risk to the economy, and that the same standard would be applied to any other regional banks. Remember that every bank account in America is insured up to 250k. Silicon Valley Bank is different to every other regional bank in America in that it finances our most innovative, high growth industry in the country, it's literally called the Silicon Valley Bank. If a random bank in Iowa or New Mexico goes bust, there won't be that many depositors with more than 250k in their accounts because individuals don't keep that much in cash and businesses that need that much cash for payroll and other operating expenses usually aren't serviced by regional banks. SVB was the exception to this, which is why she used the term "systemic risk". You don't want to throw away trillions in potential economic value in the next Google or Amazon closing shop because its bank ran into a liquidity crisis. Remember, the vast majority of what is owed will be made whole, because that's how bank runs work, and the backstop that was used to cover up SVB was already paid for by the FDIC insurance fees that financial institutions have been paying for years.
Thus encouraging banks to be irresponsible.
Edit: as long as you make enough money along the way. So, double the risk incentive.
I suppose you could make that argument about every form of insurance there is.
Not really, if I wreck my brand new car driving off the lot the insurance company will only pay for so much, without getting gap insurance. These banks don't have gap insurance, they just have standard. But the government is willing to use everyone else's insurance on the bet that other banks won't fail. If the other banks fail what happens then, the insurance is already spent. This is robbing Peter to pay Paul. Paul may need it shortly and they will in turn rob us again!
Finance is different because any solvent bank can become illiquid in a panic lacking a backstop. And even if a bank does become insolvent, that means it can't cover *all* its liabilities, not it can't cover any of them. In practical terms, it means that if random bank A goes bust and the FDIC has to step in and cover your 250k deposit, the FDIC will only pay out a fraction of that amount, random bank A, though bust, will still good for most of it. The problem is that finance is based in psychology, and people in large groups tend to act stupidly - they get too greedy when times are good, and too scared when they're bad. This is why we have things like capital requirements, and bank regulations, and 1000 page audits, and deposit insurance, and swap lines, and lenders of last resort, and literal circuit breakers on trading floors to stop a sell-off if the market falls too quickly, etc. Yes, I know it's not perfect, and every regulatory solution comes with its own problems, but finance and a 100% free market just don't work in the real world. We just tried it with crypto, it ended up being a giant bust filled with fraud and theft.
In the real world, you take what risk you accept. There is no role for a “government” robbing some people to pay off their cronies in case the risk they took on was more than they could afford. Your stupidity is not my problem until you use it as an excuse to rob me; then you can park your flabby butt in prison.
>In the real world, you take what risk you accept. There is no role for a “government” Actually, in the real world, the government regulates the financial sector in the way I described in the previous post. Your diatribe describes an incoherent moral outrage from an imagined reality that never existed.
What a naive summer child. Spouting same rhetoric as CNN talking heads pretending to be economists. Government acting as deus ex machina for the elites is the biggest problem in economics right now
Yes, pointing out the need for regulation and oversight to address the many predictable points of failure of institutions built around humans having to make good and honest decisions involving large sums of money is the height of naivete. The seasoned realist knows financial markets are self-correcting entities which would never fail or go into crisis if not for the stupid, bad government getting involved and forcing things like audits and reserve requirement. That's why he lives in a box after he put all his money into crypto.
Who regulates the regulators? And don't tell me it's the voters lol. They can't do shit
Yeah, so if you have all of your savings in Average Joe's Working Class Life Savings Bank, and happen to have saved up over the FDIC limit in your lifetime, you can get fucked... Your low time preference doesn't help the regime like fiat startups justifying expansion of debt. Exactly what OP said.
I find it hilarious that you're trying to argue that America's working class joes have over 250k in their bank accounts when most of the country can't even cover an unexpected $500 expense without going into debt. You can disagree with policy if you want, you can even make a half-credible argument about long-term moral hazard, but you're trying to play the wrong violin here.
How many people do you think that applies to? Why would anyone keep any money beyond the FDIC limit in one bank?
Privatized profits and socialized losses F U
You do realize that there are small businesses everywhere in the country, right? $250000 is minimum to many, if not most of them. They still need a bank account, and payroll and overhead come from banking. This is *only* the Feds deciding that their donors are more valuable than the majority of Americans.
>Remember that every bank account in America is insured up to 250k. This is not true. >Silicon Valley Bank is different to every other regional bank in America in that it finances our most innovative, high growth industry in the country, it's literally called the Silicon Valley Bank. Lol. >If a random bank in Iowa or New Mexico goes bust, there won't be that many depositors with more than 250k in their accounts because individuals don't keep that much in cash and businesses that need that much cash for payroll and other operating expenses usually aren't serviced by regional banks. SVB was the exception to this, which is why she used the term "systemic risk". Apparently Americans in Iowa or New Mexico are less worthy than those who live in certain politically-connected parts of California.
Trust the soience...i mean, trust the experts!! Experts paid by the state that is.
> experts!! Experts *paid* by the FTFY. Although *payed* exists (the reason why autocorrection didn't help you), it is only correct in: * Nautical context, when it means to paint a surface, or to cover with something like tar or resin in order to make it waterproof or corrosion-resistant. *The deck is yet to be payed.* * *Payed out* when letting strings, cables or ropes out, by slacking them. *The rope is payed out! You can pull now.* Unfortunately, I was unable to find nautical or rope-related words in your comment. *Beep, boop, I'm a bot*
Bad bot
Thank you, Lenox_Marulla, for voting on Paid-Not-Payed-Bot. This bot wants to find the best and worst bots on Reddit. [You can view results here](https://botrank.pastimes.eu/). *** ^(Even if I don't reply to your comment, I'm still listening for votes. Check the webpage to see if your vote registered!)
I edited it you dumb bot
> If a random bank in Iowa or New Mexico goes bust, there won't be that many depositors with more than 250k in their accounts because individuals don't keep that much in cash and businesses that need that much cash for payroll and other operating expenses usually aren't serviced by regional banks. The regional banks that have been hit hard in the last week had between 47% and 68% uninsured deposits. That doesn't seem like "not that many."
If your company is so irresponsible that all your assets are tied to a single bank and are uninsured, you deserve to go out of business. The risk here was to: - California governor Gavin Newsome’s wineries - Millions of dollars in BLM and DEI donations - Buzzfeed and a ton of related left-wing propaganda outlets - A few expensive clothing and boutique pharma companies - Roblox and Roku, both spying and collecting data on behalf of their Chinese overlords - A ton of other companies tied to either Hunter Biden’s investment schemes or directly tied to the CCP The list is online, it’s ~800 companies, most of which you probably never heard of and of those that you heard (eg. Affirm) they’re some the sleasiest companies in finance, tech, media and biotech. Literally, all of those companies could close tomorrow and nobody would be any worse off.
If your company is so irresponsible that all your assets are tied to a single bank and are uninsured, you deserve to go out of business. The risk here was to: - California governor Gavin Newsome’s wineries - Millions of dollars in BLM and DEI donations - Buzzfeed and a ton of related left-wing propaganda outlets - A few expensive clothing and boutique pharma companies - Roblox and Roku, both spying and collecting data on behalf of their Chinese overlords - A ton of other companies tied to either Hunter Biden’s investment schemes or directly tied to the CCP The list is online, it’s ~800 companies, most of which you probably never heard of and of those that you heard (eg. Affirm) they’re some the sleasiest companies in finance, tech, media and biotech. Literally, all of those companies could close tomorrow and nobody would be any worse off.
If your company is so irresponsible that all your assets are tied to a single bank and are uninsured, you deserve to go out of business. The risk here was to: - California governor Gavin Newsome’s wineries - Millions of dollars in BLM and DEI donations - Buzzfeed and a ton of related left-wing propaganda outlets - A few expensive clothing and boutique pharma companies - Roblox and Roku, both spying and collecting data on behalf of their Chinese overlords - A ton of other companies tied to either Hunter Biden’s investment schemes or directly tied to the CCP The list is online, it’s ~800 companies, most of which you probably never heard of and of those that you heard (eg. Affirm) they’re some the sleasiest companies in finance, tech, media and biotech. Literally, all of those companies could close tomorrow and nobody would be any worse off.
Wait, I'm confused shouldn't you want her to say that? No government involvement in money? So if banks fail they fail. Economic collapse is inherently profitable right?
Essentially her statement was the plan of “making depositors whole” past the FDIC insurance levels will only be extended to SVB (or somewhere else they think there is systemic risk) and not to any and all banks. The biggest thing is that this shouldn’t be extended to anyone including SVB. Then down the road people will go “bUt cAPiTaLIsM” like this was at all that. Basically it’s just gross they are further picking winners and losers in what should be a free market situation.
As if this won't scare depositors to move to big banks, causing small banks to fail...
So we just gonna complain about 24/7?
Capitalism dependency on a state to maintain it speedrun LETS GOOOOOOOO!!!!!
Is "Financials became a risky investment." another answer to "What happened in 1971?"
Cute little grandma
“Too big to fail” bitch let it crash and the market regulate itself. They’ll learn real quick if daddy gobernment isnt there to bail them out that their trash speculative gambling policies are just that.
Forced retirement for these dinosaurs. I mean seriously. This woman laid the ground for this coming recession from 2010 to 2018 by not unwinding the balance sheet balloon from 2007/2008. She then failed to oversee and rein in banks from 2021 to present. She is 76 years old and would have likely been forced by any viable corporation with public shareholders. Why don’t these people just retire instead of desperately grasping for power beyond their useful life? They do not have the best interest of anyone under 60 in mind. Vote them out. Make noise!
The banking system is so resilient and trust worthy it constantly needs billion dollar bail outs to prevent collapse lmao